Saturday Afternoon Open Thread

I am going to be off line for the rest of the day. Some parting shots. Atrios writes:

Tom Friedman was much an Iraq war critic as I have been a Barack Obama critic . . .

This is true and was true of the entire Left blogs for the past year. They should not all be surprised now when they discover Obama actually agrees with me, not them, on issues like free trade, Clintonomics, the war on terror, etc. Obama was never with them. They chose to ignore that for the past year. I must admit I find their discomfiture funny as all hell. Relatedly, Kevin Drum writes:

To a large (though not complete) extent, the blogosphere doesn't really oppose the MSM anymore, it is the MSM and vice versa. This was probably inevitable, but it's still kind of a shame. Surely this means that there's now a market for yet another new medium, this time dedicated to criticizing the blogosphere?

I am trying to find out Kevin. Gators travel to Nashville tonight to face Vandy in their drive for the SEC and college football national chanpionships. Go Gators!

This is an Open Thread.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< The Filibuster And The Supreme Court | Rep. Artur Davis Says No Cabinet Position for Him >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Still trying to instill some sense (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Fabian on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:36:01 PM EST
    over at DK now that the election is over.  Now that most of the hysterical shrieking over Prop 8 has died down, I'm trying to get people to realize that those measures are the work of well organized, well funded groups who are picking off states one by one.  It's an effort to get them to stop pointing fingers and start thinking about what to do next time.

    The success rates of the ant-gay ballot measures and other legislation is sobering.  California was just one of a number of states targeted.

    This is reason #1 (none / 0) (#12)
    by kenosharick on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:01:00 PM EST
    for my belief that this is a center-RIGHT nation. If we were moving left as so many have posited this would not be winning everywhere- nor would guns and capital punishment be so popular.

    Obama and the "progressives" (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by kempis on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:15:19 PM EST
    BTD on the Left blogs:

    They should not all be surprised now when they discover Obama actually agrees with me, not them, on issues like free trade, Clintonomics, the war on terror, etc. Obama was never with them. They chose to ignore that for the past year. I must admit I find their discomfiture funny as all hell.

    Me, too. :)

    I was thinking earlier today about how comforted I am to see Obama finally beginning to define himself as a pragmatist, one who relies on some of the same smart folks that Bill Clinton relied on and that Hillary would have.

    I still would have preferred Hillary Clinton, but it looks like Obama is the closest to Hillary we could get. ;)

    It's going to be interesting, though, to see how many "principled progressives" turn on Obama for being too Clintonesque. So far, not many. I'm betting that if President-Elect Hillary Clinton had appeared with that same transitional economic team, and Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff (hoo boy!) there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth on DK and elsewhere about the damned DLCers taking over--as predicted!



    We'll see who has principles (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Fabian on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:27:52 PM EST
    and who are boot licking toadies.

    Some will howl and some will grovel.


    Do you read Daily Kos? (none / 0) (#31)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 07:22:50 PM EST
    Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff (hoo boy!) there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth on DK and elsewhere about the damned DLCers taking over

    There's plenty of this wailing going on over there.  Hard to tell the percentage, but a large minority if not half.  No one yet saying "Obama is a sell-out" but things like "that really worries me" or "I don't understand this appointment" or "Obviously he's just doing this to appease the Jews, he needs to get them out of the way".

    If it's Summers for Treasury, watch out.


    I agree with you on that part (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by progressiveinvolvement on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:02:44 PM EST
    Unfortunately, I'd say it is extremely unlikely that the DNC will address the many selection process issues that were, to say the least, un-democratic and un-Democratic.

    excellent points... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Salo on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:42:18 PM EST
    ...I was undermining McCain's only hope for months btw.  namely the thesis that Obama was a socialist, or for that matter a social democrat. Dammit New York Times, "Obama the Centrist" that one is mine!

    So on all things Prop 8 (none / 0) (#3)
    by lilburro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:49:13 PM EST
    here is an editorial that I find sort of out there.  

    Does someone who is homeless or suffering from HIV but has no healthcare, or newly out of prison and unemployed, really benefit from the right to marry someone of the same sex?

    Uh, yeah?

    Abstaining on that part of the ballot... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Salo on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:58:54 PM EST
    ...would have been a bit better, methinks. Instead of a whopping level of actual opposition and the subsequent two faced rationalizations.  Still, it's broadly irrelevant result if Obama makes a proper bid for equality in health care services.

    Sadly it's not like Obama appears to be going for the gold of a single payer or UHC system as an alternative--for part time workers or the unemployed (gay or straight) to benefit just  a tiny bit.


    Yup. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Fabian on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:38:35 PM EST
    You'll see that over and over and over.  

    Try mentioning MLKJr and gay civil rights around blacks and you'll get much the same reaction.  Blacks often perceive white gays as well off instead of persecuted.  So they think "Problems?  We have real problems!  They just think they have problems.".

    Plus they see gay marriage as imposing tolerance and acceptance of gays on the black community - by whites.  

    And Black Liberation Theology?  It doesn't help.  


    Well (none / 0) (#8)
    by lilburro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:46:24 PM EST
    I mean the writer is a lesbian.  Bread and butter issues are important, but not to the exclusion of equality.  Plus gay marriage has a very real, bread and butter impact on people in terms of benefits and such.

    I noticed she was a lesbian. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Fabian on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:17:08 PM EST
    But she obviously identified much more strongly with the black community.

    This is what tribalism is about.  It's also called identity politics.  It's about what group people identify most strongly with.  It can be used to predict how they'll act and how they'll vote.  Notice how she talks about religion.  

    When it comes to social issues, look to the churches to see how people will vote.  


    Yes... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Thanin on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:09:47 PM EST
    because all blacks are like this...

    no. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Fabian on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 04:00:50 AM EST
    But her whole letter is about who she is and what she identifies with.

    I doubt she's the only one who thinks that way.  And there are churches teaching BLT and saying "Don't let the man keep us down!".  And "the man" is presumed to be white.

    The main reaction I'm seeing from blacks isn't "We aren't like that at all!".  It's "Don't blame us!".  There's a big difference between the two.

    Most of the time, people won't lie to you.  They'll redirect the conversation.  They'll use distraction.  They'll simply avoid the topic.  Generally, people are honest.  So I listen to what people say and what they avoid saying.  

    The same with Obama.  The Pro Prop 8 ads used Obama's own words.  "Out of context!" people cry.  Maybe, but I doubt Obama lied when he said he believed marriage was between one man and one woman.  And where were the Obama sound bites for No On 8?  

    Totally fascinating to watch.


    Why not attack the Catholic and Mormon Church (1.00 / 2) (#54)
    by sher on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 08:02:22 AM EST
    as well?

    ALL the churches (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Fabian on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 08:45:01 AM EST
    who are not gay friendly can be reasonably considered gay hostile.  Certainly the organizers who push anti gay legislation consider most christian churches to be their allies.  

    I find that to be very depressing.  I used to view churches to be a net asset to their communities, but can that view be accurate if they are willing to assist in passing these measures?

    I'm beginning to understand why some prefer private charities to minister to the needy rather than the government.  If they get to determine who the needy/deserving are, then they aren't obligated to minister those others.  I'm hearing echoes of O'Reilly's rants against the "Godless Secularists" in my head.


    Is Obama really less progressive on gay marriage? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 07:31:00 AM EST
    Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman."

    The above is a quote from HRC.

    Please also check the following [link ]


    Gawd, not HRC! (none / 0) (#55)
    by Fabian on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 08:32:51 AM EST
    National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is considered one of the best national organizations for LGBT issues.

    HRC?  From reports, a waste of time and money.  


    Actually... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Thanin on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 10:42:34 AM EST
    I think there were commercials that had him saying he was against prop 8.  Obviously they didnt get enough air play.

    And yes he could have been shouting his opposition but people were worried about Nov 4.  So weve lost this battle, for now, and despite it angering some people around here to say, this will be fixed.  We, as we have been for a long, long time on many social injustices, play the long game.  

    To be frank, there will be less people alive in 2010 that will vote for measures like prop 8.  Even fewer in 2012, but the opposite is true for those who vote against.  Things are changing and will change for the better.  Now would I rather that all happen now, this very moment?  Of course, but its just being realistic to say that that isnt going to happen, unfortunately, but it will.


    Yup (none / 0) (#11)
    by starsandstripes on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:26:07 PM EST
    they would if the person with HIV's same-sex partner has health care that he can't access because he doesn't have the right to marry him.

    It's extremely myopic to look at same-sex marriage as not as important as the other "bread and butter" issues out there.


    extinct feline (none / 0) (#9)
    by mpBBagain on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:04:13 PM EST
    The PUMAs are really upset right now.  They are even going after Hillary.  I predicted they would turn on her too.  Pumas are banning other Pumas and attacking each other now.

    Its fun to watch.

    I'm still feline. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Fabian on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:22:13 PM EST
    And with the fall out of Prop 8, I'm wondering if the Party will take any action on the gay marriage issue.

    Cracked me up when someone was talking about "unity" with regards to Prop 8 at dkos.  I reminded them that all that "unity" was specifically for Obama.


    Sounds lovely . . . . not. (none / 0) (#10)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:22:41 PM EST
    Glad you're getting your kicks though. What's interesting about the "Pumas" is that they don't walk in lock step. I always thought that (not walking in lock step) was a good thing. More likely to speak up, hold politicians feet to the fire etc. I see it as preferable to rolling over and excusing "bad" behavior and/or living in another reality about a politician/his agenda. Blind faith has it's down falls . . .

    Well... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Thanin on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:12:55 PM EST
    if you cant even have a coalition then you'll never get anywhere politically.

    Well, it also depends on whether (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:29:14 PM EST
    the coalition is understood by those making comments about it  ;)

    For many it wasn't so much about Hillary/Palin, it was about the primaries and the process. Throw the sexism in there and you have the basics. It's about choosing the best candidate in a democratic process. How people chose to act, is different. For some it was No Top Of Ticket, for others it was McCain, for others, 3rd party etc. It was about not rewarding the Dems and their actions by just going ahead and endorsing the process by voting with them. Some may have felt betrayed by Hillary (news to me, lol!~), but that's personal and on them, not the PUMAs. Look at the Democrats. There's disagreement in the party, but the basics of the party are still (kinda) there. Big tent that it is.

    I find the sort of random out of left field comments that pop up about PUMAs amusing. Says more about the commentors than the PUMAs in my eyes  ;)


    Yeah I can understand that... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Thanin on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:57:04 PM EST
    though someone should tell the "PUMAs" that went on the networks calling it a unified movement.  That definitely helps with the misperceptions.

    They are unified on some issues (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 07:05:30 PM EST
    again, that doesn't mean they can't have other voices within the unified. Look at the Dems and the Repubs.

    From the get go, there were many that could never vote Repub, but that doesn't mean they didn't have issues in common, like the primaries and the Dem party. It's really not that hard.

    I will say, the commenter that started this does seem to have a certain attraction to the PUMAs  ;)


    i like PUMAS (none / 0) (#35)
    by mpBBagain on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 07:55:57 PM EST
    i like PUMAS..  they do entertain me  with some of the nonsense they say...

    i do respect how they feel... but i just dont get the hate.  Hate never fixes or solves anything... it just breeds more hate.

    i dont like how they say any obama supported is a OBOT...  but call them a HILLBOT and they ready to attack lol.....  well now they PALINBOTS... they hate Hill now


    well the PUMAs are funny at times (none / 0) (#33)
    by mpBBagain on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 07:51:54 PM EST
    I read the Puma site here and there...and the Hate for OBAMA is so crazy... they will say anything to add to the hate...some of it makes me laugh because i dont understand how people can think like that.  

    I dont support McCain or his agenda... but i dont hate the man.


    You obviously enjoy the PUMAs (none / 0) (#36)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 07:56:09 PM EST
    I just don't understand your need to keep bringing it up here . . .

    Why not just interact with them on their sites that you are reading? Almost feels like gossip  ;)


    u think? (none / 0) (#37)
    by mpBBagain on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 07:57:28 PM EST
    u think i could create and account at PUMA  and express my opinions..

    i would insta-banned.... thats a 100% bash obama site... come one now.


    I was horrified that they (none / 0) (#21)
    by WS on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:12:31 PM EST
    turned on Hillary and now praising Palin.  They've become a paranoid bunch filled with ODS.  

    Thats pathetic. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Thanin on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:13:20 PM EST
    Palin over Hillary (none / 0) (#32)
    by mpBBagain on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 07:47:59 PM EST
    I like to read the PUMA site from time to time...an alot of it is REALLY twisted.

    But because Hillary supported OBAMA..and OBAMA won... Hillary is public enemy number 1

    and Palin is the who they fight for now.

    its kidna odd really.


    And they (none / 0) (#40)
    by WS on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 08:55:36 PM EST
    have the 'Democrats for Principle Before Party' sign up.  How is Sarah Palin representing liberal principles?  And their dream of Sarah Palin reforming the Republican Party?  She's the female version of Bush right to down to the division and the fearmongering.  

    Palin's even got the hypocrisy angle down pat when she reversed her calls for Stevens to resign and is happy for him to stay if he wins re-election.  I guess Palin is palling around with corrupt felons now.    


    How are they going after Hillary? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:47:42 PM EST
    And who is going after Hillary?

    Could they be trolls/obots? ;) (none / 0) (#26)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:55:13 PM EST
    no they are LEGIT pumas (none / 0) (#34)
    by mpBBagain on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 07:53:05 PM EST
    Some of the CORE PUMAS are ANTI-HILLARY now

    They hate OBAMA soooooooooo bad... that now they hate Hillary for supporting him.


    OOOOOOOH! {wrings hands in distress} (none / 0) (#38)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 07:57:54 PM EST
    Hate, eh?! lol!~

    Drama much?


    It was at the Confluence (none / 0) (#27)
    by WS on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:56:14 PM EST
    and saying how Hillary had a ruined career and how disappointed they were that she was supporting Obama.  

    Wondering ---- (none / 0) (#13)
    by kenosharick on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:03:38 PM EST
    if the new Obama administration is considering appointing moderate repubs (like from Maine) to cabinet posts, thereby freeing the Dem governor to appoint a Dem. Maybe we can get to 60 that way.

    Sarah Palin sank the PUMAs (none / 0) (#16)
    by progressiveinvolvement on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:45:11 PM EST
    They were sunk anyway, but I know several Clintonites who switched to Obama when McCain picked Palin.

    You must be kidding. (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:00:11 PM EST
    I know none...and know of none.  And no, I don't live in a cave.

    This PUMA is about the party...not the candidates...only about the process the party misused to get its way and ignore (what was that word again?  Oh, yeah...) democracy.

    Most PUMAS are not engaging in wars on their computers...we're too busy doing the right thing, unlike the Democratic Party.

    Never mind...


    well (none / 0) (#39)
    by mpBBagain on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 08:03:31 PM EST
    well why dont they turn the site from bashing  to like  supporting things the will improve america

    like pressing their leaders on jobs and clean fuel  and infrastucture and Free Trade.... things like that.

    instead of focusing on trying to prove Obama forged his birth certificate.


    Which site are we talking about? (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 09:16:17 PM EST
    Of course, I can't explain other people's behavior (!) but I don't recall any PUMAS worrying about petty, useless nonsense like birth certificates.

    All the PUMAS I know are issue people and don't waste time on crap.


    I agree (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Steve M on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:10:34 PM EST
    Obviously, every individual is different, but I personally know several who voted for Obama precisely for this reason.  Basically it seems that both Obama and Palin offended them as feminists, but they regarded Palin as worse.

    Change is on its way (none / 0) (#30)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 07:07:35 PM EST
    The washington Post outlines some [changes ] in the offing.

    This will be great but (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 09:21:07 PM EST
    the basic change needed is to get rid of the voter-suppression of caucuses for delegate selection.  And that will not happen in my lifetime.

    These complaints are getting stale (none / 0) (#43)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 09:42:29 PM EST
    I like HRC but the complaints of some of her supporters are getting stale (while always remaining illogical). Obama won the primaries fairly and squarely. The Democrats nominated a stellar candidate from a field of competitive candidates including a great one, HRC. He delivered by winning the elections as many of his supporters expected. Governor Dean's 50 state strategy has paid dividends for the Democrats despite getting mocked endlessly at TL.

    The complaints are stale but valid (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 09:48:11 PM EST
    If you think caucuses are democratic, you have a very funny understanding of the term.

    Tough. Do you understand (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 10:13:36 PM EST
    the difference between concern for a process and concern for its results?  They are two entirely different things.  It's not about Hillary for me.

    FYI...I've been attending, running and fighting the caucus 'system' in my state since before my first vote...and 55 years of this nonsense is more than enough for me.  I won't be attending another one.  Not even for HRC...not that I'd live to see that candidate try again.

    And FYI...Obama did not win 'the primaries.'  He won the caucuses...all but one...and the results were glaringly different in states like mine that had both...but ignored their primary in favor of the caucus results.  

    You may remember that neither candidate had the votes to be nominated after the contests were over.  Then we got some more party shenanigans and no honest roll call vote at the convention.  Now that may be fine with you as someone who is candidate oriented and like the result.  But for someone who is process oriented as well as outcome oriented...this is not the Democratic Party I broke my neck for year after blinkin' year.

    Any chance you can understand that?  If not, some years in the future, YOU may not like the outcome so well, as I almost never have.  THEN...you'll get it I bet.


    Sorry, you have got it backwards (none / 0) (#48)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:34:44 PM EST
    I am process oriented, not candidate oriented but believe that processes should be defined before commencement of a primary season and that rules cannot be changed after the voting process begins to favor a particular candidate. HRC's campaign was hugely in favor of superdelegates tipping the nomination in her favor when they thought that she had an advantage among superdelegates. After the majority of superdelegates started coming out in favor of Obama, her supporters decided that involvement of superdelegates translated to a "stolen" nomination.
    I had not heard of complaints about caucuses till Obama started winning them, and many who are stridently opposed to them (I do not know about you, specifically) now, did not complain in 1992 when BC won the nomination.
    Obama won the nomination fairly and squarely, based on the rules that were decided before the primary season started (and may I say that HRC supporters like Ickes were also responsible for the rules). If the party had decided that only primaries would decide the nomination and got rid of the caucuses, Obama and each candidate would have campaigned differently and adopted different strategies (eg: he would not have abandoned campaigning in California when there was clear movement in his favor to accomodate a trip to Idaho and other states, his ground troops would have been stationed mostly in states with huge delegate returns). We do not know what the outcome would have been in that case. It is a bit presumptive to imagine that only HRC could have won if the rules were different and spelled out in advance.

    Well, if you believe rules can't be changed (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 12:24:20 AM EST
    once the games begin, Obama had no problem going with seating delegates and having them all (including Hillary supporters) not represent their people, but him at the convention. Seems to me, they forgot to pass out the rules to the voters and Hillary (and other candidate) supporters. Prior to this election, I don't recall such a widespread reporting of voter intimidation at caucuses. Nor do I recall Democrats not counting 2 states worth of votes . . .  until later.

    Sorry, but the convention was a d@mn sham. First ballot should have at least represented the votes. Otherwise, why should we bother?


    Ummm...no. (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by oldpro on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 02:16:55 AM EST
    I'm not the one who has it backwards.

    Yes.  The processes and the rules (da roolz) should be clear before the contest starts.  They were changed but not by Hillary supporters!  They were changed after the fact to benefit the desired outcome...after all the caucues and primaries had been held and neither candidate had the votes to win.  If you don't see that then you are short a few facts and do not know what happened...or why...and you could not be more wrong about the superdelegates but that is a separate issue.

    Believe whatever you wish but it doesn't change the facts.  What happened, happened.


    How do you have a 50 state race (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 10:23:30 PM EST
    in the primaries when only 48 counted?

    Sorry for the "stale complaint". Hope it doesn't come back ta bite ya.


    I disagree - I was a witness to fraud being (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by suzieg on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 02:47:33 AM EST
    committed in my TX caucus. How can you explain that more voters were at the night caucuses than voted earlier in the day? Orders were given not to confront or question any of Obama's supporters/AA identification. That's not winning fair and square!

    Time Tebow is my Herow! (none / 0) (#47)
    by Amiss on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:20:20 PM EST