home

Sunday Open Thread

One of our readers asked for an open thread to discuss the Sunday morning talk shows. Here it is. Open to all other topics, as well.

< More Obama Endorsements | Iraq To US: Leave >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I wake up (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 08:52:06 AM EST
    and find out that Obama raised $150M last month. I've not been impressed yet, but that was huge.

    McCain can't compete with that. He just can't.

    At Some Point... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 09:24:59 AM EST
    ...many people on this website and others will have to finally admit that Obama has (possibly) run the greatest presidential campaign in history.

    Parent
    Campaign versus Candidate (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Fabian on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 09:33:40 AM EST
    On that, I'll give it to Obama.

    I doubt Obama will ever rate as the best candidate though and the campaign was far from flawless.  

    Parent

    Most like you are right (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 09:45:13 AM EST
    But we can hope he is the best.

    Parent
    His campaign's level (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by lilburro on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 09:48:34 AM EST
    of cross-country grassroots organization gives me a reassuring sense that we can pull this off even if the polls tighten further.  I have been really, really impressed by them in my improbable location in North Carolina.  There are a lot of really great things about his campaign.  

    But it's kind of a double-edged sword - his campaign now is in part so good because his campaign then was not good enough to knock Hillary out earlier in the Democratic primary.  All in all I think the long primary was a very good thing for Obama.

    Parent

    North Dakota, West Virginia, Georgia... (none / 0) (#17)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 10:23:24 AM EST
    This morning, Obama's Campaign Manager said that they're pouring volunteers and resources into ND, WV, and GA, and that they expect to win all three.

    North Freaking Dakota?
    West "Appalachia" Virginia?
    Georgia (Bob Barr?)?

    This is unbelieveable....

    Parent

    Win Virginia, Florida, and Colorado (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 10:34:45 AM EST
    then we can start talking about the icing.

    Honestly, I think the campaign is not too smart to be saying those things. They're raising expectations.

    Parent

    Still expecting 369... (none / 0) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 10:42:48 AM EST
    which makes it a 200 electoral vote margin of victory. It can be achieved with Fl, NC, OH, WV, and MO. Throw in North Dakota or Georgia or the 2nd District of Nebraska, and it goes over a 200 electoral vote margin which would be damn near perfect.

    Parent
    Maybe PoMo MoJo... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by marian evans on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:10:02 AM EST
    might be the card to call here, but then Postmodernism has a lot to answer for.

    Is Sen Obama the first "celebrity" candidate? A style-not-substance figure? A self-created narrative in factionalized memoirs? The James Frey of contemporary politics?

    In a PoMo world, do the wonk concepts of "facts" and "policies" mean anything at all? There are voters out there who think Sarah Palin is Sen Obama's running mate...who are incapable of specifying any other distinguishing idea of Sen Obama than the single word mantras of "hope" or "change".

    America is ill-served by its media, who serve up a diet of half-baked commentary by second-rate thinkers with delusions of significance...a McDonald's not-so-happy meal that keeps the electorate information-starved but ladles out the calorie-overloaded prejudices and baseless opinions that keeps the whole nasty mess of US politics bubbling nicely.

    So America, do you want fries with that?

    Parent

    Sorry...finger-slippage... (none / 0) (#36)
    by marian evans on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:22:35 AM EST
    "that keep the whole nasty mess of US politics bubbling nicely."

    Parent
    To me, JFK was the first (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:43:37 PM EST
    "celebrity" candidate.

    Parent
    Baudrillard called... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Melchizedek on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 03:02:41 PM EST
    he wants his pseudo-insightful rhetoric back, marian. Sorry, but we've had a stuttering, know-nothing President for the last eight years, and now it's the friggin Univ. of Chicago law professor who's all style?  You're kidding, right? Watch Obama's interview with Fareed Zakaria on foreign policy, or read Cass Sunstein's column about his intellectual approach, or even listen to the three debates. Obama's whole approach since the primaries has been to show policy chops rather than high-flown oratory. His implicit point has been that calm argument will trump erratic stuntery.  And James Fallows nails it:

    I remember how often, how vehemently, and with what certainty Obama's detractors during the Democratic primaries said that he could not, possibly, in any way, in any real world, withstand the onslaught of GOP negative campaigning once it geared up against him. That he's been seriously underestimated twice -- by the Hillary Clinton camp, and now by McCain -- doesn't prove his potential in office but is interesting.


    Parent

    Where's the segue to JFK? (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 03:37:05 PM EST
    Ted Sorensen (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 04:15:32 PM EST
    who helped write the letters to Khrushchev in October 1962, and who was in the room when the Executive Committee was meeting to discuss the Soviet missiles, says Obama reminds him of JFK....

    Parent
    Interesting, although the question (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 04:31:03 PM EST
    was celebrity as campaign, not tenure in office.

    Parent
    Yes, we're talking campaign... (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by marian evans on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 08:08:42 PM EST
    not character. It's how perceptions have been manipulated throughout the campaign that is at issue - and this has been a campaign in which, apart from the concept of "not-being-Bush" (a mainstay of both candidates!), the Obama campaign has directed itself in both the primaries and the GE towards developing a momentum based not on policy but on personality.

    So many comments on blogs over the period of the campaign refer to the writer's trust, even faith, that Sen Obama knows what he is doing, he is so smart etc, he'll know what to do...without the writer referring to actual policies or previous legislative decisions to back that up.

    To some extent, personality always enters into politics...but it should remain a minor key. In our political system, political parties have allowed a measure of accountability in politics - providing guidelines and sanctions which set policy limits and are control individual ambition.

    But this is the first post-party election...both candidates have largely set themselves adrift from parties to which they have only nominal allegiance. There will be some who think that is a positive development...I don't agree. I think it potentially dangerous (in respect of either candidate).

    Democracy must be rooted in institutions in order to flourish. We know what the Democrats stand for, there are traditions and a history to bank on...can you say the same of Sen Obama, and his career of absentee or even flip-flop voting, on key issues?

    Sen Obama "looks presidential" as so many people have commented, but is that enough? Keeping cool, and speaking in measured cadences, does not a policy platform make...


    Parent

    Did you watch the debates? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by TChris on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 08:15:02 PM EST
    Or listen to the candidates' speeches?  On issue after issue, there are clear policy differences between the candidates.  The annoying myth that Obama is all about style and lacks substance depends on willful ignorance of the specific policy proposals that Obama has advanced.

    And as to knowing what Democrats as an institution stand for ... I'm glad you know.  I got a little lost during the last decade when Democrats in Congress didn't seem to stand for much.

    Parent

    yeah, I watched the deabtes... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by marian evans on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 08:43:46 PM EST
    read the commentary, I've looked at the websites, and haven't been impressed with either candidate.

    Policy has been the poor orphan child of this campaign - only the actual meltdown of the US economy has forced some measure of substantial discussion on what has been an exchange of airy nothings on one side, and empty platitudes on the other.

    As for the Dems in general, you reform a party precisely by demanding that they fulfill the expectations in the charter given to them by the rank and file - if you reward manipulation and politicking then that is what you'll get.

    Parent

    Another (1.00 / 1) (#99)
    by MKS on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 09:50:52 PM EST
    PUMA post....This shows that complacency is not good.   I made some calls over the weekend.  This post motivates me to do more.....

    Parent
    Whoa... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by marian evans on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:05:42 PM EST
    you are far off the mark! I have no vested interest in US partisan politics - so I'm unmoved by the PUMA epithet. Means naught to me. I don't speak from that perspective.

    (A) I'm not American - my interest in your election is as that genuinely rare beast (at this point), a friend to the US; &
    (B) my politics is well to the left of the Dems (the innate conservatism of US politics makes my own mainstream left position downright radical in your context - e.g. :socialized" medicine, social welfare safety net etc).

    No, I'm speaking as one concerned by the dangers to your political institutions that I see in this election process. I belong to the "Reason First" party - doesn't that make this friend's opinion worth listening to?

    Parent

    Baudrillard died in March 2007 (none / 0) (#103)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:20:20 PM EST
     

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#107)
    by marian evans on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:51:39 PM EST
    history really has ended for him, though perhaps not quite as he proposed...

    Put me in Wallace Stevens camp..."Not ideas about the thing but the thing itself".

    Hey, how many semioticians does it take to change a lightbulb? None - they couldn't agree on the definition of "lightbulb", so they sit in the dark.


    Parent

    Well said... (none / 0) (#109)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:46:16 PM EST
    How Would You Measure ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by santarita on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 10:45:13 AM EST
    the greatest campaign?

    And other than political strategists and political campaign afficionados, to whom would it be important that it was the greatest campaign?

    Obama and his team have run a good campaign and I hope a successful campaign.  If he wins, I won't be looking at the campaign that he ran, I'll be looking at what he and his team do for the country.

    Parent

    My far-right brother-in-law (none / 0) (#63)
    by CCinNC on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 04:03:35 PM EST
    thinks Joe the Plumber won the election for McCain.  Seriously.  I think Colin Powell's endorsement, no matter what some of us think may think of it, wiped Joe off the news cycle -- and out of the election -- forever.

    Parent
    NBC (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 08:56:48 AM EST
    now reporting that Colin Powell "will" endorse Obama on Meet The Press this morning. Whether your personal view of Powell is positive or negative, it won't hurt and will be splashed as a headline everywhere if true

    Powell's endorsement (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by wasabi on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 09:14:35 AM EST
    Powell gave a very reasoned endorsement of Obama on MTP.  Quite eloquent.  Hope it helps.

    ya (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by connecticut yankee on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 09:16:12 AM EST
    The endorsement was nice.

    But throwing McCain's campaign under a bus was priceless.

    A Possible Mastercard Commercial... (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 09:33:14 AM EST
    1. Colin Powell endorsing Obama - $10
    2. Sarah Palin being too stupid to realize she was being mocked on SNL last night - $25
    3. Obama raising $150M last month - $50

    Colin Powell chucking the McCain campaign under the bus, running over them, backing up and running over them again - PRICELESS!!


    Parent
    Rep. Bachmann is a loser and should lose in MN (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by barryluda on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 09:25:31 AM EST
    When I read the transcript of what she said on Hardball -- about wanting the media to probe congress for "anti-America" views -- it made me sick.

    Unfortunately, Bachmann's been leading against her opponent, El Tinklenberg, by a wide margin in the polls.  But now it looks like the race may be tightening.  So I made a donation to help.  You can do it too by clicking Contribute on his (somewhat cheesy) website.

    ya (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by connecticut yankee on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 09:45:47 AM EST
    I threw a few buck in on saturday. The guy went from 3k to $250,000 on actblue.com in two days.  Overall he's pulled $500,000 in the same timeframe.

    The DCCC has jumped in now as well. He's got a shot.

    Parent

    He raised something like $400k (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by scribe on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:00:39 AM EST
    in the first 24 hours after Bachmann opened her Bush-kisser and let forth with her diatribe.

    Amazing, when you think that it happened about 3 PM ET on a Friday, and both her message propagated and the counter-message to give to her Dem opponent (whose name escapes me right now) also propagated and thousands of small donors opened their wallets all in that time.

    Lady really struck a nerve and, I think, she's gonna pay for that one.

    Parent

    Anyone notice that (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by scribe on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 09:29:15 AM EST
    since the Philadelphia Flyers gave their endorsement to Palin and let her drop the puck at their home opener, they've gone totally winless.

    Karma's a beeyotch, no?

    The bit about the Muslim soldier (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 09:47:00 AM EST
    Brought tears to my eyes.

    Mine too. (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by scribe on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 10:54:53 AM EST
    ya (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by connecticut yankee on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:21:13 AM EST
    Several parts of Powell's bit moved me.  I know it had power for that reason alone.

    Parent
    Politics aside (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 12:43:54 PM EST
    Powell has a trustfull voice.  It is soothing.  Powell fits the wise old black man (you could probably put native American here to) stereotype, that gives TRUE knowledge and wisdom, so that a young White guy can save them.   We are all susceptible to it.

    Parent
    In V for Vendetta (none / 0) (#59)
    by Fabian on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 03:11:20 PM EST
    the graphic novel version had the Voice of Fate, a radio announcer whose job was to project calm, reason, gravitas.  V's first attack removed that reassuring presence.

    In the movie, they took that comforting, paternalistic presence and turned it into a Limbaugh styled propagandist.  I really hated that because the point of the Voice of Fate showed the way that fascism can be portrayed as kindly and concerned instead of cruel and callous.

    Parent

    Is the graphic novel worth reading (none / 0) (#78)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 06:33:45 PM EST
    The movie wasn't that good

    Parent
    Gosh YES! (none / 0) (#80)
    by Fabian on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 07:00:31 PM EST
    The real problem with moving the novel to the screen is that (in the graphic novel) Evey's transformation is meant to mirror the transformation that the society goes through.  Since the movie's narrative centers on a few people instead of the whole of England, a lot is lost and a significant portion of the narrative is changed.

    There's a great set of scenes set in a night club.  In one, a man comes up to the head of the Finger (law enforcement).  He pleads with him to keep his mother from being sent to an old age home.  Old age homes aren't assisted living facilities, they are where people cease living.  That's the government's solution to the infirm and elderly.  

    In the graphic novel, there's the public face of fascism which is all about keeping England safe and strong in a time of great uncertainty.  Then there's the darker reality of how the government does that.

    Parent

    Colin Powell endorsement (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by allpeopleunite on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 09:47:27 AM EST
    Strange to me that Democrats are celebrating this endorsement. That an essential figure in the first Bush administration would support Obama should raise some questions, no?

    You're not expecting intellectual consistency, (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 10:23:50 AM EST
    are you? Don't you understand?

    Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson - those brave people who spoke truth to power under great risk - are persona non grata because they supported Clinton intead of Obama during the primary. Whereas Colin Powell - that craven liar who assisted in enabling the war that so many are supposedly disgusted with - is now a hero to the cause.

    See the pattern?

    Parent

    Powell (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by dws3665 on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 10:58:03 AM EST
    I too don't understand the Cult of Powell. I am not sure I will go all the way to calling him a craven liar, but he subjugated his judgment to his loyalty to a dumbass at a time with the country could ill afford it. And yet still he is treated with some kind of rockstar status. Based on what? That he now regrets his bravura performance broadcasting untruths at the UN? Please. Bully for him.

    Perhaps the fact that his level of (non-)independence passes for dissent in this administration gives him that, but isn't that just a revolting commentary?

    Why do our media have such jock-sniffer attitudes toward people in uniform?

    Parent

    Powell Redeemed (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by daring grace on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 01:12:29 PM EST
    I was disgusted with Colin Powell's performance in the run up to the Iraq invasion and I wouldn't say his performance on Meet The Press today necessarily redeems him from that in my eyes.

    In fact, I almost didn't watch the program, because, to me, who cares? But I'm glad I did watch because what Powell did on Meet The Press was much more than a simple endorsement of Obama's candidacy. He spoke (I think) for the Silent Class of Republicans and perhaps others like Independents who trend Repub sometimes who are angry and disillusioned with the dogmatic, corrupt and creepy thing the party has evolved into. And he did it with rationality, simplicity and grace.

    I think there are plenty of voters who really endorse where he is coming from and I'm hoping, combined with a potential Democratic ascendancy at the federal level we may, over time, see a declining of the right wing's influence. I'm not holding my breath, mind you, but I think what Powell spoke to was very powerful and there are few people but him who could make it work.

    Parent

    Just win, baby. (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by scribe on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 10:56:21 AM EST
    Just win.

    Because if we lose, all is lost.

    Parent

    Yes. Powell shouldn't be allowed anywhere near (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by bridget on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 08:04:52 PM EST
    any admin ever again, GOP or Dem.

    But what do we hear from Obama in response?

    He is "beyond humbled."

    Unbelievable.

    Well ... not really. Totally expcted. Totally.

    Parent

    Briget (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 08:06:41 PM EST
    Commenters who oppose Obama and the Democrats are limited to four comments a day here expressing that. All your comments seem to be snipes at him. Stop or you will be banned.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, I do agree I wrote criticial comments (none / 0) (#93)
    by bridget on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 08:09:14 PM EST
    but sniping is not my cup of tea

    So I am banned NOW?

    Parent

    P.S. I am not the first one who has said that (none / 0) (#94)
    by bridget on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 08:13:18 PM EST
    Powell should never again be part of any administration (see digby)

    and Obama did say that he was "beyond humbled" and more so ...

    I expected that. So I posted accordingly.

    Just to make clear.

    Parent

    Not really. He's not seen as a Bushie. (none / 0) (#62)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 03:56:15 PM EST
    Um... Okay.... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 10:44:33 AM EST
    You brought up Plame/Wilson, not me.

    I merely pointed out the fallacy of your statement.  

    I'd love to see one cite which points out that the Wilsons are persona non-grata in regards to Obama.

    I doubt you will be able to supply one.

    Like most Hillary supporters, I'm surmising that Plame/Wilson will vote the issues and support Obama.

    What I brought up (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:07:15 AM EST
    was the intellectual dishonesty of many democrats - being anti-war and then throwing Wilson/Plame under the bus before, while now celebrating the endorsement of one of the biggest war enablers there out there.

    As for the Wilsons being persona non grata, if you didn't notice that during the primaries, then I guess you didn't visit any of the Obama blogs at all. It was all over them.

    I didn't question who anyone would be voting for at all - that is your strawman. I assume that the Wilsons, like most smart and rational people, will be voting for Obama. So I guess you don't know what 'fallacy' means. Bye.

    Parent

    Sure... Go with that if it works for you.... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:27:24 AM EST
    As for intellectual honesty:

    1. Hillary Clinton voted for the resolution to give GWB the authorization to go to war.

    2. That didn't keep you from supporting herduring the primaries, despite your anti-war position.

    3. Obama was against the war, and stated so publicly from the beginning.

    4. That didn't keep you from opposing him, during the primaries, despite your anti-war position.

    Nuff' said.

    Bye.

    Parent

    Unbelievable (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:39:07 AM EST
    Um, I voted for Obama in the primaries. You don't know what you're talking about. It is possible to support a candidate for political purposes, and not be blind to reality, you know. At least that's what BTD used to say.

    Here, let's just cut to the chase so you can feel better:

    • It is perfectly intellectually consistent and honest to be an anti-war democrat, smear the Wilsons who spoke out against the war, pillory Clinton for the AUMF, laud Biden despite his AUMF vote, and cheerlead Powell who enabled the war. No consistency problems here at all. Perfectly understandable. Or, if you prefer, none of this happened at all. That probably works for you too.

    • The Obama blogs never smeared the Wilsons for supporting Clinton at all. That's all just my imagination, despite the fact that it's all there for any honest person to see.

    • People who despised Powell before for his enabling are not now actually praising him for his Obama endorsement, displaying utter hypocrisy.

    There. Feel better? Good. Bye now.

    Parent
    Unnecessary. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by TChris on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:28:27 AM EST
    Is it really necessary to keep resentments about the primaries burning?  

    Parent
    Necessary (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 02:35:00 PM EST
    if you can look past the primaries, the people, to the point that Dr. Molly is making -- the principles.  That is, for those for whom principles matter.

    Parent
    Anger is not a principle (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by TChris on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 08:06:35 PM EST
    Hypocrisy is not a principle, either (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 10:16:19 PM EST
    and that's what Dr. Molly was calling out -- and show me where she was not reasonable in doing so.  As the original commenter said in this thread, it is strange that Democrats are celebrating support from an essential figure in the first Bush administration, one whom Dems once excoriated for his role in taking the country into the Iraq War.  

    It's like an endorsement from Cheney or Condie Rice.  If they were applauded for endorsing a Dem candidate, wouldn't it be cause for concern that Democrats might be hypocritical -- and, thereby, abandoning principles -- for the sake of winning at any cost?    

    Of course, if hypocrisy made them angry -- which, again, does not seem evident in the comments --  that would not negate that it was hypocrisy.  

    It seems more evident that pointing out the hypocrisy has made others here angry. . . .

    Parent

    Powell is not Cheney. (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by TChris on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:47:30 PM EST
    I don't have to agree with all of Powell's actions over the years to appreciate his ability to state a clear case for selecting Obama over McCain despite his party affiliation.  It is not hypocrisy to disagree with some of another person's decisions without developing an unrelenting hostility toward him.

    Parent
    It is interesting Obama is "humbled" (2.00 / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 10:28:16 PM EST
    by Powell's endorsement but felt constrained to distance himself from John Lewis's comments about the McCain/Palin campaign's attendees.

    Parent
    Oculus (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:30:53 PM EST
    I'm really getting tired of your Obama bashing. Stop or limit yourself to four comments a day.

    Parent
    In a word: (1.00 / 0) (#81)
    by prittfumes on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 07:05:48 PM EST
    EXACTLY!

    Parent
    He's likeable, but (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:22:00 AM EST
    you might want to look at why and how he made his first, fast rise through the ranks decades ago, his role in the whitewash of the My Lai incident (see, for example, Norm Solomon on Powell and My Lai).

    It foreshadowed what Powell would and would not do about Iraq.  When even I had read articles in well-known media about how bad the intelligence was, after the British investigated it, I could not believe that Powell had not read similar reports.

    Compare Powell to Wes Clark in terms of how each defines how to be a "good soldier" -- the connotative, military-insider meaning and the denotative meaning.

    I'm sure he's a very nice man. n/t (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Fabian on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:26:31 AM EST


    Curiosity- whatever happened (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by kenosharick on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:37:32 AM EST
    to the far-right 527s like the swiftboaters? I am glad they are keeping their lying mouths shut, but am surprised (media handwringing aside) at the relative civility of this campaign. There have been a couple of tough shots, but nothing like I had expected. Anyone who actually thinks this has been "the most negative campaign ever" or something similar have no historic perspective.

    The flip of swift boating (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Fabian on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 03:01:04 PM EST
    is the blind hero worship that the Bush campaign encouraged.  Without a hero to rally around, swift boating isn't going to be nearly as effective.  We might groan at Commander Codpiece and his TANG service, but the Bush loyalists saw their very own Top Gun.

    I think the biggest problem the McCain campaign faces are the stress fractures in the GOP.  I can't wait to see the full extent of the Bush Legacy.  I forget how many GOP incumbents declined to run for re-election this year, but it is significant.

    The Obama campaign may think this election is about Obama, but in reality it is about the Bush Legacy.  Only a lucky few will benefit from the past eight years and it appears Obama is one of them.

    Parent

    November surprise? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Lora on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 02:27:25 PM EST
    November surprise: Sorry, you can't vote.  Your ID doesn't match our database!

    From WaPo via Brad Friedman:

    When the six members of the [Wisconsin] state elections board --- all retired judges --- ran their registrations through the system, four were incorrectly rejected because of mismatches.


    Nonsense. WaPo missed the point (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 02:40:04 PM EST
    of the story, which is that the judges on the state elections board therefore issued instructions to all pollworkers in the state that resolve the problem.  

    That and the instructions were front-paged a few days ago in the main newspaper in the state, but WaPo only pulled out the squib that served its purpose and missed the real story, the part -- most of the story -- that would provide perspective and actually serve the reader.

    Parent

    Phew! (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Lora on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 02:54:19 PM EST
    You had me worried for a minute there.  Boy, am I relieved that the problem will be fixed for election day, aren't you?

    In all of Wisconsin and all the other states too, no doubt.

    Nope, nothing to worry about, in Wisconsin or anywhere else.  No Problem when it comes to voting, nosirree!

    Silly me.

    Parent

    Why in the world would what (none / 0) (#75)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 04:48:38 PM EST
    was in the story apply to anywhere but Wisconsin?  You do understand that a state elections board only rules on its state rules -- as the framers decided a few centuries ago?  I think they were wrong, and that we need national voting registration rules and more, but it's not up to me.  Or Brad or you.

    Parent
    Cream City (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by Lora on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 03:33:56 PM EST
    You got a link?  I just searched NewsBank for Wisconsin newspapers using "registration" and I didn't find anything relating to the story I quoted.

    Parent
    Well, with your 'tude (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 04:40:25 PM EST
    in the silly comment above, since you don't want to believe anything but WaPo -- of course, there will be problems, but not the ones that WaPo suggests -- I ordinarily wouldn't bother.  But since you did do a search, and since that paper's search function sucks, I found this.  It's not the story that was in the paper, but its blogs are more searchable, and it's the start of the story that saw print.

    Parent
    This one's the better URL (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 04:46:52 PM EST
    to what you seek.  The previous URL above takes you to the search; it's the third story there -- below just a couple of the stories that only begin to suggest the actual and serious problems we will have at polls here.  But WaPo and Brad don't want to know.

    Parent
    Thanks, and check your reg (none / 0) (#77)
    by Lora on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 06:18:17 PM EST
    I appreciate the links and I read the article.  I'm glad the election board is on top of it.

    Of course what happens in Wisconsin applies only to Wisconsin.  However, mismatches to voter registration data isn't just an issue in Wisconsin.  It is happening in other states as well, which is what I meant in my "silly" comment.

    There is a lawsuit in progress.  From the article you linked (emphasis mine):

    State Democratic Party Chairman Joe Wineke said that was a setback for the lawsuit filed by Republican Attorney General J.B. VanHollen, who is trying to force the board to check discrepancies in voter ID records beginning on Jan. 1, 2006.

    I will be interested in the outcome of that lawsuit.

    Will these "discrepancies" be entirely ignored on election day?

    Cream, I do not just want to hear what WaPo and Brad Blog say.  I want to hear about what's going on.  What's going on is a lawsuit that may affect the voters of the state of Wisconsin, and database "discrepancies" that could adversely affect voters in several states.  Reassurances are fine and well, if they are for real.  I hope so.  We won't have long to wait to find out.

    In the meantime, it would be a grand idea for everyone to check the status of his or her voter registration, no?

    Parent

    Checked mine online (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 08:06:45 PM EST
    and check archives for posts from TChris and many comments from me on the suit in Wisconsin.  See also jsonline.com and/or madison.com for lots of coverage, especially when the judge's rulings come down on Thursday.  But the suit is less worrisome now that the election board came out with its instructions this week.

    There still may be plenty of messes at the polls in Milwaukee, though, with the inundation of problematic voter registrations -- as even those flagged as suspect still have to all be checked, verification cards have to be mailed, and more.  For the mess it meant last time, see my comments re polling lists late to the precincts, city workers from other offices and police helping out so left short-staffed, etc.  The overtime costs hit the city hard, too.  The problems and costs this time, with the expected turnout, will be worse.  We're still waiting to hear whether we even have enough new polling places, pollworkers, etc.  (I tend to doubt it, due to city budget.)

    Parent

    Brad Blog, Brad Blog, Brad Blog!!!!!!! (none / 0) (#53)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 02:42:56 PM EST
    heh.

    Parent
    She/he who laughs last... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Lora on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 02:55:08 PM EST
    Rush Limbaugh (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 02:48:57 PM EST
    Yes he is. (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 04:04:36 PM EST
    A few "what ifs."  What if Obama was Democratic Presidential candidate and African American and Powell was Republican and Caucasian?  What if Obama was Democratic candidate and Caucasian and Powell was Republican and African American.  Would Powell have publicly endorsed Obama today?  

    Parent
    What if the only reason anyone's asking (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 04:06:23 PM EST
    is because they're both black?

    Parent
    Is the question off limits, even though (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 04:08:34 PM EST
    those of us (not me) who dissect the polls accept that a higher-than normal percentage of African Americans will turn out to vote for Obama this cycle?  

    Parent
    Did you even listen to what Powell said? (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 04:19:40 PM EST
    Anyone who can justify his vote for Obama based on his concern for the direction of the Supreme Court is not voting based on race.

    So no, the question isn't off limits, it's just stupid.

    Parent

    No, I didn't listen to what Powell (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 04:32:22 PM EST
    sd.  And I don't appreciate your slings and arrows.

    Parent
    I can assure you (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 04:34:35 PM EST
    that if I didn't consider the available evidence on why he endorsed, I would not be speculating in an incendiary way, as Rush and you did.

    Parent
    Although I have read what Powell (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 04:39:42 PM EST
    sd. today.

    Parent
    NYT Magazine (none / 0) (#16)
    by lilburro on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 10:15:51 AM EST
    has an interesting article about Obama's quest to overcome bittergate, campaign in new places for Democrats and expand the electoral map.  I think it's interesting especially as we begin to wonder what kind of mandate Obama will have as President.  The article makes it seem like Obama is focused on bridging cultural and values gaps between red and blue staters once elected.  

    "I guess the point I'm making," he went on, "is that there is an entire industry now, an entire apparatus, designed to perpetuate this cultural schism, and it's powerful. People want to know that you're fighting for them, that you get them. And I actually think I do. But you know, if people are just seeing me in sound bites, they're not going to discover that. That's why I say that some of that may have to happen after the election, when they get to know you."

    I am not sure what that portends; it sounds a bit like triangulation to me.  Which of course is much better than what McCain is offering; but still, I don't see how Obama wants to achieve his broader cultural goals.  I suppose his position on guns is currently pretty center-right.  It'll be lovely if that's the only bone he needs to throw.

    In this economy, it would be far better (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 10:26:38 AM EST
    to focus first and foremost on bridging the economic class divisions in this country.  

    That can cause a cultural merging to follow -- if we really want to return to melting pot theory, and if that's a president's or government's job, anyway.  It is so to the extent of what an FDR or LBJ saw that they could do -- but both by focusing on poverty first.  (And FDR's New Deal made some bad mistakes along the way in terms of taking guns and hunting away from those in subsistence economies, such as Native Americans arrested and jailed for trying to feed their families without paying for new permits.)    

    Let the people have their guns, for those guns that are for hunting to put food on the table, but focus on putting the bread and butter there, too.  

    Parent

    With John Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by lilburro on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 10:46:13 AM EST
    away went the discussion of poverty.  It isn't a word I've heard much in the GE.  Sadly we are definitely not going to band together about that.  

    This election is all about homeowners now.  His administration will also hopefully be about struggling homeowners in its early days.  

    Actually, I hardly even know what to expect from an Obama administration, because for 8 years every day I've had no involvement and little clue as to what horrible thing the Bush administration would bring down upon us.  

    Parent

    "Cultural schisms", or the culture wars (none / 0) (#97)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 08:43:07 PM EST
    are the means by which the GOP has kept the focus off the more pernicious, and substantive, issue of class divisions.

    Getting over our disagreements about gays, guns and god, won't "put food on your family" (nod to GW Bush there).

    Parent

    It sounds to me like (none / 0) (#33)
    by scribe on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:10:08 AM EST
    a shot across the bow at Fox and the outlets for the RWNM.

    Murdoch got it for a couple weeks after Obama met him at the Waldorf - he knocked off the "Terrorist fist bump" crap.  And then he went back to his old, wingnut ways.

    These outlets operate "in the public interest" - I suppose deciding that perpetuating and feeding hatred is "not in the public interest" is easy enough.  The media surely bent over for Bush when he wanted war everywhere and all the time.  The suits went so far as to put a list of banned songs in front of radio DJs ("Imagine" being one of them) so as not to detract from Bushie's propaganda offensive. What possibly could have made them do that?

    In reality, I suppose that about 100 people are in control of the content of most of the MSM and each of them has enough (a) dirt in their background and current activity and (b) pecuniary interest in maintaining their operations on an even keel, that a little governmental pressure applied in the right spots will bring them into line.

    Parent

    Opened Doors (none / 0) (#39)
    by James David on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:27:35 AM EST
    It seems to me that the McCain campaign has opened the door to legitimate questions regarding his past by stooping to illegitimate attacks on Obama, e.g. the insinuations regarding William Ayers.... 'palling around with terrorists',  according to Palin. And now the Machiavellian McCain machine will begin the inevitable `Obama=socialism' propaganda.

    There are many legitimate concerns regarding McCain's true character; among the myriad 'red flags':

    --McCain earned the moniker  'Songbird'  for trading military information to the North Vietnamese in return for preferential treatment.

    --McCain dumped his first wife after a devastating accident left her disfigured.

    --McCain was deeply entangled in the Charles Keating scandal.

    Why is McCain given a free pass on these and so many other  legitimate  reflections on his character while he and Palin follow Karl Rove into the realm of politics of personal destruction based on distortions and outright fabrications?

    This link alone provokes a multitude of legitimate questions for those who are intellectually honest:

    http://www.truthout.org/article/mccain-and-pow-cover-up

    I realize McCain's service to our country provides a degree of insulation to these nagging questions, but the nature and the abundance of doubts regarding his true character combined with his willingness to promulgate lies and distortions regarding Obama should considerably lower the threshold of his 'patriotic' shield.

    This election is not over by a long shot. And you can be sure the McCain campaign, in desperation, has a bulging arsenal of additional illegitimate charges and insinuations for Obama. The least that should be done is to provide information that exposes some of the truths about McCain's 'dark side' that have been considered off limits for so long.

    Just my opinion............we desperately need change in Washington. We should not risk four more years of disastrous leadership by ignoring some legitimate questions regarding Obama's opponent.

    James David


    snarky but good (none / 0) (#41)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:28:53 AM EST
    ongoing series of censored books paired with recipes, to post a recipe dealing with some of Sarah's favorite subjects--book banning, teenage tumult, the rule of the mob--written by our own amazing contributing writer, La Saucier Alaskan (pictured, in one of her many incarnations...).

    This one's for Jeralyn: (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 02:28:30 PM EST
    see Huff Post for Streisand's dissing of Palin.

    Jeeze. If McCain's lost Streisand. . . (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 02:35:51 PM EST
    he's lost America!

    Parent
    Nope, only the part of America (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 08:08:19 PM EST
    that already was lost because of McClurkin. :-)

    Parent
    Heh! (none / 0) (#108)
    by marian evans on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:06:48 AM EST
    ....but "On a clear day" you can see various geo-political points of interest from Barbara's house!

    Parent
    I like this HuffPo article (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 11:34:46 PM EST
    thanking Sarah Palin for being single handedly responsible for huge donations to Obama last month.

    Parent
    Mark crispin Miller (none / 0) (#76)
    by themomcat on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 06:03:48 PM EST
    is the guest on Bill Moyers' Journal tonight. WNET @ 7 PM in NYC.


    Link (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Lora on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 06:47:51 PM EST
    McCain Ad by the RNC (none / 0) (#82)
    by CoralGables on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 07:16:30 PM EST
    One of those "positive" ones playing all weekend in South Florida

    HERE

    Go Sox! (none / 0) (#83)
    by CST on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 07:35:55 PM EST
    Lester is awesome.  And one of the few players on the Sox that just about everyone can root for.

    Odd Ball Election News (none / 0) (#84)
    by CoralGables on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 07:44:57 PM EST

    Dolphins managing partner Wayne Huizenga will finalize his sale of the team to co-owner Stephen Ross by the end of the year, Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports.... Per Mortensen, that date will be December 30. The reason? Huizenga wants to set the date of the sale before the end of 2008 because he believes Barack Obama will be elected president and will implement tax policies that are less favorable to billionaires who sell their businesses.



    Perhaps this explains sale of half the (none / 0) (#85)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 07:55:12 PM EST
    Padres team now?  

    Parent