home

Sunday Talk Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 07:59:38 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I believe the key theme today on the Sunday Talk shows will be that, stop me if you have heard this, despite the fact that a "Socialist" won the election, and despite the fact that the "Socialist" party will hold massive majorities in the House and the Senate, America is a Center Right nation. Smell the contempt for democracy from America's Media elites.

This is an Open Thread.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Public Defenders in 7 States Fight Overburdened Caseloads | It Was Republican Policies, Stupid >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Talk Open Thread | 62 comments (62 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    What does everyone think about... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by ajain on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 08:51:24 AM EST
    Kennedy squashing (once again) Clinton's dreams. He denied her a subcommittee on Health care.
    I actually think it was quite a leap of faith for her to think that he would give it to her. This is an issue close to Kennedy's heart, and he doesn't like her. But I do think, on the merits, that she deserves it. She has created political momentum for health-care reform and she went all out helping Obama win.

    Here's the thing (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 08:58:19 AM EST
    Ted Kennedy's health really prevents him from being the point man on this.

    If he does not hand the de facto reins to Clinton, Max Baucus will be running the debate in the Congress.

    Parent

    teds ego (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Salo on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 11:07:38 AM EST
    is one of the historical stumbling blocks to uhc (see the nixon era) also see Moynihan under egomanic Irish-american

    Parent
    I don't believe Akers commentary (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by wurman on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 01:07:49 PM EST
    Sen. Clinton knows the inside workings of the senate.  This line of "sleuthing" doesn't pass the smell test.

    There's some backstory or separate thread in this because HRC knows very well how the committee system works, what seniority means, & how to effectively "jockey" for position in the various committee structures.  There're 6 senators senior to her on the committee.  Health issues & legislation are handled by the committee as a whole; there is no subcommittee with those tasks.

    She is on the Children & Families (with 3 senators senior to her) as well as Employment & Workplace Safety (with 3 senior to her) subcommittees. There isn't even the faintest "hope" that Sen. Clinton could get a new subcommittee of her own.  And she knows that.

    There may be something a-foot, but it ain't this line of development.

    Sen. Clinton chairs the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.  She knows her place within the world's most exclusive club.

    Parent

    Yes, something fishy (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 02:54:24 PM EST
    about reports that Hillary Clinton insisted to Ted Kennedy that she be put in charge of a new subcommittee.  She's neither that rude to have imposed on Kennedy when his health is not the best nor that politically inept that she would insist on something like this now.  I think the story is being floated to make her look bad and to damage her chances of playing a leadership role on healthcare or opposing Pelosi's statement that healthcare is on the back burner for now.

    Parent
    What amazies me about pelosi (none / 0) (#45)
    by Salo on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 03:20:16 PM EST
    is that she's a blend of all the bad symbolic stuff SF liberal seat etc and she's also a de facto center right policy leader.  yet she's always going to be castigated as a loony left representative no matter what she does.

    Are there any people willing to push hard for policy but are also from more working class and mundane constituencies?

    Parent

    Does anyone think (none / 0) (#49)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 05:10:02 PM EST
    she would have taken this stand without coordinating with the Pres-elect?

    Parent
    I think this is quite plausible (none / 0) (#48)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 04:18:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Very plausible (none / 0) (#54)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 11:10:18 PM EST
    as just one more thing about the Dems to p*ss me off.  A week without a stupid Dem trick would leave such a void in the calendar.

    Who cares about health care?  Not these Dems.  It's so much more important to care for carmakers and banks. . . .

    Parent

    The rest of us around here have come to accept (none / 0) (#56)
    by Don in Seattle on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 07:59:19 AM EST
    perpetual p*ssed-off-ness as your natural state.

    Face it, CC: somewhere along the line the cream turned, and you graduated from gadfly to curmudgeon.

    Parent

    In turn, I have come to accept (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 10:02:03 AM EST
    that most of those left here are about what is to be expected, Donny, bless your heart.  Luckily, I'm on the other board of those who used to be here, where the discourse is so much more at the level of BTD -- the reason to still come here.  Bye now.

    Parent
    Am I 'Donny' to you now? I suppose that was meant (none / 0) (#62)
    by Don in Seattle on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 04:49:14 PM EST
    to be patronizing (or is it matronizing?), but I'm more amused than offended.

    That was a nifty combination of a mild insult, an obviously counterfactual nyah-nyah ("I'm so not even on this board anymore"), and a boldly naked suck-up to BTD for the enlightened level of his discourse.

    Clearly, there remains much you can teach us all. Don't be a stranger.

    Parent

    To be fair. . . (none / 0) (#6)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 08:54:18 AM EST
    this would have been a new subcommittee significantly overlapping the full committee authority.

    On this issue I don't think we need to mix it up.  I suspect it will work itself out over the next months.

    That said, a lot of people really do seem to have their knives out for Clinton.

    Parent

    How can Kennedy do the job? (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 08:58:40 AM EST
    He is not well.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by ajain on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 09:02:41 AM EST
    I don't think Kennedy has reconciled himself with the idea that he will no longer be able be a powerful senator.

    So I don't begrudge him trying to add another chapter to his legacy, but I think he may not be seeing clearly on this. Plus I don't think he wants to give it to Hillary Clinton. He may have given more thought to it if it was someone he liked/respected more. That's just my gut.

    Parent

    I'm trying suggest, gently. . . (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 09:09:42 AM EST
    that he may no longer be a factor in the health care debate in a few more months.

    The article linked does make it clear that Clinton would have to leapfrog over eight more senior members and two other Presidential candidates to get control of that committee.

    I wish they'd let Clinton have this now.  But it really does seem that "they" have it in for her.

    Parent

    Kennedy probably (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by WS on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 09:44:11 AM EST
    doesn't want to share the stage with Clinton on a health care bill likely to come up in the spring.  The people quoted kept concentrating on seniority and that other Presidential candidates were ahead of her but they never came close to the nomination like Hillary did.  Maybe jealousy plays a part too.    

    She'll still make her voice heard though.  

    Parent

    I have no idea why seniority would (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 11:27:16 AM EST
    be the preference in this issue anyway. Should it not go to the person with the most knowledge and experience in the area?  HRC wins that hands down. I do think it is about Ted Kennedy and what he sees as HIS legacy. It is not about us; it is not about the uninsured.  It is about Ted. So sorry to see this for so many reasons.  

    If all the votes were counted, HRC would have won the popular vote.  If the RULZ Comm. actually followed the RULZ, HRC would have been the nominee.  

    Don't get me wrong, I am glad a DEM won, but this election will never be joyous for me.  So far the names presented for consideration for cabinet positions are those from the wealthiest families in this country, and are people wihtout any proven track record for those positions. I really don't like that.  

    Parent

    There is a PR point (none / 0) (#44)
    by Salo on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 03:16:42 PM EST
    They do not want the GOp to be able to call it hillarycare.

    which is understandable in a way...they do not want the dumb ass media jabbering about Obama being like Clinton in the first two years--thus setting Obama up for a Gingrich 2.0 rebellion in 2010.

    Parent

    YOu do recognize that as nonsense, don't you (none / 0) (#47)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 04:15:17 PM EST


    Parent
    The Repubs (none / 0) (#51)
    by WS on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 06:31:05 PM EST
    can also call it the Kennedy socialized medicine extravaganza.  The Republicans will demonize anything and we shouldn't be afraid of it.  

    Parent
    Someone without an ego... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Salo on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 03:24:46 PM EST
    ... that is as large as the titanic and someone who has a record of demonstrable support for uhc with the added bonus of admiring single payer systems (preferably having done so in writing in an oped).

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#11)
    by ajain on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 08:59:50 AM EST


    Parent
    Aren't we into change and new directions? (none / 0) (#26)
    by hairspray on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 11:33:05 AM EST
    Oh I guess if its HRC is still the same old same old.

    Parent
    Now she is the uppity woman!!! (none / 0) (#25)
    by hairspray on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 11:31:14 AM EST


    Parent
    But Biden said (none / 0) (#32)
    by lilburro on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 12:26:21 PM EST
    Hillary would be there to present the new healthcare legislation to sign!

    Well, he really did say that, in Scranton.  People are going to notice if Hillary has no role in this.  

    So while every Congressman and his mother starts writing their own pieces of legislation maybe Hillary should be bidding for a non-senatorial role?

    Parent

    Biden also said (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 11:11:55 PM EST
    we're going to be attacked because of the inexperience on his ballot.

    Hoping that he's two for two for truthiness?

    Parent

    Not hoping (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 01:02:40 PM EST
    But I don't assume he's wrong either.  I mean, they did it to Clinton, they did it to Bush, why wouldn't they do it to Obama or McCain?  (see, I am also of the opinion that they would definitely have done the same to McCain).  That doesn't make me feel better about it, but I don't deny that particular "truthiness" of Biden.  Although that certainly isn't to say he's always right.  But he will tell you what he thinks.

    Here's to hoping it is more like Clinton's "test" than Bush's

    Parent

    Now that we have a mandate for socialism... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by docdonn on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 12:50:20 PM EST
    Now that we have a mandate for socialism...can i have one of McCains houses?

    Aren't most of them condos? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 06:21:27 PM EST
    Even socialists have to draw the line somewhere.

    Parent
    He can't occupy them all... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 01:31:13 PM EST
    at the same time, help yourself and squat in one.

    Why wait on the redistributors?

    Parent

    Have those 32 Absentee ballots (none / 0) (#1)
    by WS on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 08:11:01 AM EST
    in MN that Coleman sued to stop from being counted already been tallied?  I believe the Coleman's suit was dismissed and I'm assuming these votes are mostly for Franken if Coleman didn't want them counted but I don't know if they've already been counted.  

    After Gore in Florida in 2000. . . (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 08:52:25 AM EST
    I really don't believe any candidate actually knows what he or she is doing when trying to influence a recount.

    Parent
    That's what lawyers are for. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Fabian on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 08:59:38 AM EST
    By the time we had gotten to the DNC Rules Committee meeting, I was amazed at the variance in primary and election laws.

    I am also heartened by the scrutiny the actual polling practices received this year.  We are making progress in some areas.

    Parent

    It is really good that the disenfranchisement (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by hairspray on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 11:23:05 AM EST
    in the general election was minimal.  It was probably due to the huge margins and the dispirited GOP.  I would like to see the primary  caucuses eliminated. That is a real source of disenfranchisement.

    Parent
    Caucuses (none / 0) (#31)
    by WS on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 12:17:08 PM EST
    are fine if the contest isn't even close and the outcome is already known.  But there should be a trigger that when it is close, the primary becomes the one that counts not the caucus.  There were a lot of states that had both caucuses and primaries but the caucuses were the ones that counted.  

    Parent
    Caucuses and Primaries (none / 0) (#39)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 01:07:58 PM EST
    In some states that had caucuses as well as primaries, Obama campaign volunteers were telling people only to show up for the caucus (to avoid any confusion regarding dates) because the primary results would not count (as decided by the rules committee). Eg: I remember visiting the Obama campaign website before the Washington state caucus (held on Feb 9), volunteers were being told at that time to inform people that the Feb 19 primaries had no relevance as far as the nomination process was concerned.
    I think the Obama campaign told people to show up for both, only in Texas.

    Parent
    The Democratic Party history of (none / 0) (#53)
    by hairspray on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 06:40:20 PM EST
    using caucuses was always about disenfranchisement. One story I read told of the pols finding a location and ONLY spreading by word of mouth the time of the meeting. The lights were turned off until all of those INVITED arrived, then they all quickly filed in, horse traded their votes and quickly left having selected the one they wanted. Some of the details have changed slightly over the years, but restricting the time to a few hours (in Nebraska it was on a snowy night) still smacks of disenfranchisement. As for what the volunteers told others is, frankly hearsay.

    Parent
    In this case the Obama campaign's information (none / 0) (#57)
    by Don in Seattle on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 08:28:16 AM EST
    was solid, and 100% accurate.

    The Washington State primary results really did NOT count (as previously decided by the rules committee).  Our Feb 19 primary WAS in fact irrelevant wrt the delegate selection process.

    The Obama campaign did tell people to show up for both in Texas, because in Texas both processes WERE used.

    The Obama campaign certainly didn't invent the caucus system, or the rest of the byzantine nomination process. In these cases, they stand accused only of learning what the rules were, and publicizing them.

    Parent

    The Democratic history of (none / 0) (#52)
    by hairspray on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 06:36:58 PM EST
    using caucuses was always about disenfranchisement. One story I read told of the pols finding a location and ONLY spreading by word of mouth the time of the meeting. The lights were turned off until all of those INVITED arrived, then they all quickly filed in, horse traded their votes and quickly left having selected the one they wanted. Some of the details have changed slightly, but restricting the time to a few hours (in Nebraska it was on a snowy night) still smacks of disenfranchisement.

    Parent
    Well, we would never (none / 0) (#37)
    by mg7505 on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 12:59:14 PM EST
    know if there was disenfranchisement unless it were aggressively sought out (like in MN). It would be hilarious if the Republicans did commit fraud and still lost so badly.

    Parent
    god, i love the smell (none / 0) (#2)
    by cpinva on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 08:32:59 AM EST
    of fear in the morning, it smells like............victory!

    that's what you smell BTD, not contempt.

    Smell the contempt for democracy from America's Media elites.

    contempt requires some deeper level of intellectual analysis, than most in the media are capable of. what you actually see is fear, fear that maybe they've become superfluous.

    rich and dowd (and their "liberal media" cohorts), as they've done to every major dem for nearly two decades, pandered nonsense about obama. the difference this time is that it didn't stick.

    it's past time that dowd especially was put in a home for lunatic columnists, she's clearly bonkers.

    Rich? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 08:38:59 AM EST
    He was an utter Obama sycophant.

    what are you talking about?

    Parent

    er (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Salo on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 11:04:09 AM EST
    the names you have rattled off are obama biggest backers

    Parent
    And now they're asking ... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 12:01:39 PM EST
    for their pound of flesh.

    Parent
    Finally (none / 0) (#7)
    by Roschelle on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 08:54:58 AM EST
    Bill Ayers finally speaks

    I noticed. . . (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 09:44:25 AM EST
    he took the time to lecture Clinton on the tactics her campaign.

    If there's anyone in the country who's forfeited the moral right to criticize someone else's choice of tactics, it's Bill Ayres.

    Parent

    women in American politics (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Salo on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 11:11:11 AM EST
    have received an absolute drubbing this year ayers comments crystalize that feature of rough two years

    Parent
    Yeah, women and gays got absolutley (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by tigercourse on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 11:37:35 AM EST
    screwed over this year. Not only did we find out (though we kind of knew this in the case of gays) that you didn't have to bother fighting for their interests, but we learned that when you brought up their interests you were just a whiner/racist. Bad year.

    Parent
    Maybe he just thinks ... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 12:03:12 PM EST
    that she "didn't do enough."

    ;)

    Parent

    About what I expected. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Fabian on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 09:07:30 AM EST
    Still unapologetic about the bombings.  [shrug]

    Just wanted to know if he changed his mind on that.  It's a sore spot for me.  

    Parent

    Ayers (none / 0) (#18)
    by WS on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 09:45:41 AM EST
    knows he's a liability right?

    Parent
    Via The Left Coaster (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 09:23:28 AM EST
    Dreaming of a blue Texas future.

    I've felt for a couple of years now that Texas represents a really good next stop on the demographic express. The idea that we can California it is really attractive. Problem is--and you can see this in last night's result. The white people there vote like they're from Oklahoma and Louisiana.

    When you have 63% of the voting population 73% against you, it's hard to take control. Still, a good future project.

    as a person from texas, (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by sancho on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 10:13:23 AM EST
    some of whose relatives are also from oklahoma, i can tell you that many in west texas (beyond the 98th meridian) view oklahoma as upper texas (and likewise texas as lower oklahoma). so, yeah, that's an obdurate voting block. and of course the other side of the 98th meridian, east texas, is basically louisiana (another state that went furhter to bush). in other words, texas combines the worst of oklahoma with the worst of the south. yee-haw. of course a lot of texas is wonderful too--but they dont have the majority.

    kennedy helped ruin carter. he went after hillary. and let's not speak of mary jo. alan simpson (that old wyoming states righter) used to call ted his go-to guy in the senate. best senator to talk to, said the arch-republican, if you want to get things done. maybe bush thought that when he called on ted for his nochild left behind ed bill.

    and ted helped bring us kerry in '04.

    ted's record is far from perfect.

    Parent

    Hey, Eastwood's made ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 11:59:44 AM EST
    a movie about McCain's retirement.

    Trailer.

    Check the what happens at the 1:17 mark.

    ;)

    It looks like an interesting movie! (none / 0) (#34)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 12:35:06 PM EST
    McCain?? I don't think so though.

    Parent
    I was just a joke ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 12:46:42 PM EST
    because of what he says at the 1:17 mark.

    Parent
    Steve Clemons has a very strongly (none / 0) (#33)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 12:31:59 PM EST
    worded post on Lieberman
    No Mo Jo.
    Saying that he should be stripped of all committee duties. This is pretty strong stuff from Steve.
    Those of you who read TWN must have noticed how good his scoops on Obama's appointments have been, btw.

    No. Cindy will "grant" you a franchise (none / 0) (#40)
    by wurman on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 01:20:41 PM EST
    to distribute beer in Littlefield AZ.  This will be "noblesse oblige" rather than socialism.

    This grant may not be passed on to your heirs & neither title nor peerage goes with it.

    AZ is a right to work state, so you have an unrestricted right to work.

    Something wrong with me (none / 0) (#41)
    by Manuel on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 01:41:56 PM EST
    I agree with this Daily Howler

    Just because Obama won (for the right reasons) doesn't mean we all of a suddent have better blogs, a better press, a better society.

    Poker Player (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 02:54:21 PM EST
    Evidentially Obama has a "hidden" talent. He is an excellent poker player.

    Expertise at poker used to be an unwritten job requirement for all would-be U.S. presidents. Proficient White House poker-players have ranged from Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt and Warren Harding to FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson and Nixon.

    link via war & piece

    Like Walter Matthau said.... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 01:38:04 PM EST
    about poker....

    "Poker exemplifies the worst aspects of capitalism that have made our country so great."


    Parent
    Sunday Talk Open Thread | 62 comments (62 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment