Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat

Many of you are chomping at the bit to write about subjects not covered in the posts. Here is your chance. Keep your comments in other posts on topic please. This is an Open Thread.

And Go Gators! Beat the Bulldogs!

< PA, OH, MI and FL | SNL's Obama Love Debate Skit >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Go Vols! BTD, we did it! Number one for the (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:31:12 AM EST
    first time ever. Yah! It will probably only last until Tuesday night because we play at Vandy.

    Now my two passions collide. Vandy game and debate are on at the same time.

    heh (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:29:07 PM EST
    Uh. I'm on your side, but let's wait until the chickens are hatched.

    Here's another "glitch" for you (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Lora on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:48:44 AM EST
    Another messed-up vote count in NJ's primary:

    Mercer Co New Jersey election officials have found that 5% of their Sequoia Advantage Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting machines reported the incorrect post election data. Vote totals were properly reported (as well as anyone can tell from a DRE) but party totals were incorrect on 30 of the county's 600 machines. This is the same problem reported by five other counties in the state all with regards to results of the "Super Tuesday" primary. Though the vote totals may have been correct every machine attributed one Democratic vote as being a Republican vote.

    Do you really want these machines to count your precious vote?

    No. Question (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    Canada uses paper ballots and gets it done well.  How can they do it and we can't?

    Bon voyage (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by hvs on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:52:35 AM EST
    Well, friends, I write to offer a little perspective as I bid adieu to this blog. I started reading TalkLeft in the heady days of Fitzgerald and came to rely on it for smart legal analysis. What a great resource. The TalkLeft folks should be proud of those days.

    I was a lurker then. I started posting only recently. My motivation was to seek reaction from HRC supporters to the Clinton's strategy in January. I was interested in a reasoned defense of the race strategy. I noted and recorded the instances of Bill and surrogates saying things that were not outright offensive but meant to cast Barack as only a candidate for black folks. I was not calling names at TalkLeft readers; I was trying to hear a reasoned reaction for an extended academic piece I'm working on. I never got a reaction, but was called a hypocrite (on the false assumption that I was not bothered by the sexism thrown HRC's way, I guess). I didn't take that bait, but carried on civil, I hope (feel free to check all of my contributions).

    I stayed, keeping my head low to avoid being called names. Trying to make civil contributions, stating my principles but respecting others for theirs. I hope that I set an example of the model BHO supporter here.

    Now I'm leaving for two reasons, and while most will be happy to see a BHO supporter go, I know that there are others who've made similar observations to these...

    The philosophy guiding the m.o. of the blog now is difficult to operate under. It is an admittedly pro-Hillary blog. I suppose that's the right of those who actually own and operate it. But in practice, pro-Hillary commenters can be as belligerent as they like, pro-BHO comments need to be very carefully worded to avoid deletion and threats of banning. I've never come close to earning such threats, but I've seen it happen many times. It just smacks of Republicanism; it's very uncomfortable for the justice-minded leftist. I'd like to think our side sets a higher standard for openness to different opinions.

    I want to avoid name-calling, but I want to characterize the behavior of one of the moderators to explain my departure and, more importantly, because I think other people are feeling what I'm feeling and maybe someday this could change...and the blog could be an exemplar of Democratic principles. This moderator mainly seems to bully people with whom the moderator doesn't agree. The moderator does not live by standard of tone and respect that the moderator demands of others. Again, one feels like one's wandered onto a Republican blog.

    Well, again, my point is not to offend, but is a sincere statement of disappointment and concern over something once highly valued.

    With regret,

    This is a ridiculous and false comment (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:03:37 PM EST
    And indeed, it is of a piece with the problems you are having.

    I delete comments from supporters of both candidates.

    But only people like you, almost all Obama supporters, complain about the deletions.

    I can only speak for me, but your comment is a perfect illustration of the utter irrationality of SOME Obama supporters.

    IF you do not LOOOVE him as they do, then you are a terrible person. And they wonder why the Cult meme is taking hold.


    I agree with Big Tent BUT (none / 0) (#56)
    by dem08 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:56:49 PM EST
    dear Big Tent

    I know that you say you are neutral, but it is clear that you favor Hillary and question Obama.

    Indeed, there are only two blogs where Hillary supporters can go and know that they are welcome: here and Taylor Marsh.

    Sometimes I wish you were not so polite to Obama and his supporters.

    This election is shaping up like 1980 and 1968 and the Democratic Party will realign after it into those who favor The Clinton success years and those people who want "change".

    I think we will see mass defections if Obama gets the nomination. I also suspect that you are like so many of us and therefore your actual choice for president is clear and unequivocal.


    And this part REALLY bothers me (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:08:12 PM EST
    I started posting only recently. My motivation was to seek reaction from HRC supporters to the Clinton's strategy in January. I was interested in a reasoned defense of the race strategy. I noted and recorded the instances of Bill and surrogates saying things that were not outright offensive but meant to cast Barack as only a candidate for black folks. . . . I never got a reaction, but was called a hypocrite (on the false assumption that I was not bothered by the sexism thrown HRC's way, I guess).

    If you had an ounce of fairness in you, which you clearly do not, you would have noted that THIS blog, and THIS moderator, the one you decide to attack as parting shot, severely criticized each and every instance of a Clinton surrogate invoking race.

    But worse than that, now you state we were some sort of experiment for some type of academic paper you say you were writing. Do you not see how offensive that is? Of course not.

    My gawd, this hypocritical sanctimony is too much to take.

    Good riddance as far as I am concerned. Jeralyn speaks for herself.


    Also, as far as your paper goes (none / 0) (#55)
    by lilburro on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:52:36 PM EST
    it looks like it's going to have some problems.  When you posted looking for feedback you made a lot of assertions that haven't been proven, for instance, describing the Clinton campaign as having "a meeting - literally, a meeting," in your words, to embark on a racist strategy in South Carolina.  You posed this as true.  I asked you what evidence you had that this ever occurred.  You responded humorously with "a series of phone calls maybe?"  Your starting point is an UNPROVEN AND UGLY assertion about the Clinton campaign.  I think the Clinton campaign does deserve criticism for remarks along the way, but no-one is ever going to understand those remarks and whether there was a coordinated strategy if you start off your paper with something you have no evidence ever happened.  How are you going to find "a reasoned defense" for something you haven't proven to us exists, that is, a coordinated race strategy?  And you did get a reaction.  Sorry it didn't matter to you.

    And for the record (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:28:07 PM EST
    Here is the "awful" exchange we had that has led you to smear me:

    OH (none / 0) (#33)
    by hvs on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:07:59 AM EST

    I just did a little homework and found that here in OH districts are apportioned delegates based on Democratic turnout in 2004 and 2006. The most populous district, mine, the 11th, receives eight delegates and the smallest districts get four. Shoot. That reduces the power of an urban/high-population thrashing by Obama and boosts the effectiveness of rural/low-population districts. Of course, it's dangerous to make assumptions about which demographics vote for whom, since Obama's been raiding formerly secure HRC demographics.

    I think Virginia will go BHO in Nov.

    I want Edwards for Veep or Cleland for Veep/(and Czar of taking care of Iraq war vets) or Gregoire.

        Well (none / 0) (#38)
        by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at
    11:10:07 AM EST

    That's nice but this post is more about Novemebr than MArch 4.

    "That's nice" (none / 0) (#43)
            by hvs on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:12:30 AM EST

    Thanks, I'm glad you liked it.

    I think you missed my point (none / 0) (#45)
                by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:14:28 AM EST

    Keep your comment ON topic.

    I guess deleting off topic comments is the only message some of you will understand.

    Because VP selection has nothing to do with Nov. (none / 0) (#50)
                    by hvs on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:18:21 AM EST

    You did not write very much on VP selection (none / 0) (#52)
                        by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:24:01 AM EST

    You wrote about delegate counts in Ohio.

    Look, I am not going to argue with you any further on this point.

    Either you understand it or you do not.

    I will delete off topic comments.

    What an ogre I was to you. This certainly justifies your smears and melodrama. Sheesh.


    BTD (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:33:52 PM EST
    those of us who know you know where you stand.  I am sorry this personal attack has been leveled as this particular trounces off with his toys and goes home, but please know that the majority of us trust and respect your opinion.

    Begging your pardon, but (none / 0) (#40)
    by Lora on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:07:28 PM EST
    Which is why it would be nice if Obama could demonstrate an ability to win a big contested state like Ohio or Pennsylvania in the primaries.[bold mine]

    BTD, how is a reply post addressing the Ohio primary off topic, given the part of your post I quoted above?

    Maybe you were more interested in November, but since you added a sentence about Obama doing well in the primaries in Ohio or PA, I would think the topic is fair game.

    I don't understand why you came down hard on hvs, unless hvs ticked you off with a little sarcasm about how you must have liked his/her post.  To me that sounds mild and not worthy of threatened deletion, unless you were reacting to previous exchanges.

    Just my opinion.


    Winning Ohio (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:16:51 PM EST
    in a meaningful way in November requires a POPULAR VOTE win, not some byzantine delegate formula.

    Electoral votes are awarded statewide, not by Congressional district.

    I hope that clear this up for you.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#48)
    by Lora on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:22:44 PM EST
    I believe that also would have been a great reply at the time.

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:02:42 PM EST
    I accept that.

    I found it obvious.

    But in any event, the reaction to what I wrote was outrageous imo.


    Don't complain about this blog. It is very fair (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:40:37 PM EST
    Amazing how you can leave this blog for the reason that it is not Obama enough for you. I can not even make comments at DK anymore unless it is BIPM and we are talking about pooties. Yesterday, before I read BTD's diary, I made a comment on Dk about DKos community supporting Harold Ford at one time and hating him now. Kagro responded to me like I was daring to bring up the fact that sometimes DKos could be wrong and it was all about winning.

    He asked me "Who are you and what did you do to support Ford? And what did I write about Harold Ford when he ran for Senate?I guess if you take those pieces of information and put them together, then we'll know if he was "our guy" or not."

    I was truly insulted. I had stayed out of all the candidate arguing and because I dare to question the DKOS complete loyalty, I was treated like I was a troll. It took me hours before I went back to answer that I had joined DKos in Nov 2004 and I was a loyal Democrat who gave money to Ford because he needed support for getting that Senate seat and I was encouraged on that site.

    So please, don't knock this site because you can not control it. There is the other site where you are welcomed with open arms and they will always agree with your comment.This site is fair and balanced and I don't get slapped for pointing out a point.


    BTD wrote about the racist issues. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:56:21 AM EST
    How will you complete your academic piece then? (none / 0) (#41)
    by vj on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:08:13 PM EST
    Or is it already done?

    Ironically enough (none / 0) (#70)
    by Coldblue on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:26:58 PM EST
    I just logged on to post a complimentary comment to Jeralyn and Co. for the way they have maintained a civil discussion during a tempestuous primary season.

    And here I came across your comment.

    Good luck finding a more sensible blog.


    I wrote a bit about this on the SNL thread (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:31:54 PM EST
    but I find it extremely hilarious that NOW, people are really upset about the "sexist connotations" of the word b*tch.  NOW people are standing up to misogyny.  NOW people are outraged.

    And by now, I mean now that someone like Tina Fey owns it and uses it to make the case that Clinton is the better candidate.

    Shuster, Matthews, Kos, HuffPo, MoDo et al, being sexist...not so bad.  Tina Fey using the b-word...NATIONAL TRAGEDY.  It is being likened to using the n-word and lynching.  

    The very definition of irony.

    My opinion on Unity (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:31:49 PM EST
    anyone remember what happened in 2000 when 3 Fl Representatives went to the Senate to ask for an inquiry into the Fl votes.   Something that would have stopped the certification of the Fl electoral votes until finished.  Not one senator stood on their side and backed them in requesting an inquiry why?

    "Leter Deutsch of Fort Lauderdale, Alcee Hastings of Miramar and Corrine Brown of Jacksonville -- had challenged the electoral certification by seeking a congressional inquiry.

    Their challenge was based in part on concerns that many voters, especially blacks in Florida, had been excluded from the polls or that their votes had not been counted. The challenge faltered when no member of the Senate joined the objection.

    Current law requires a member from each chamber of Congress to insist on an inquiry, before it goes forward.

    Former Vice President Al Gore, who had conceded the presidential election, presided over the verification of the Electoral College vote. Resigned to defeat, Gore and Senate Democrats had decided the nation needed to unite."

    Well the Uniting of the nation has given us 8 years of Bush and his administration, the Iraq war, the largest Deficit ever and countless other hardship.  All this in the name of unity.

    Did anyone see HRC on CNN? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by NJDem on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:51:26 PM EST
    She was quite funny (IMO) mocking BO for his unity shtick, saying that he thinks the 'sky will open up, the light will come shining through, a celestial choir will start singing'...

    This type of stuff appeals to me b/c I think it's realistic--he doesn't have magical powers to make the Repubs and special interest disappear.  I have hope, but I keep the gun powder dry (so to speak).

    In any event, she's making it clear that that was no concession speech last Thursday.

    And as for why she's being more aggressive now and not earlier--I think she was left with no choice as she knew the MSM will say she was being negative (like after the NH debate).  Now she has nothing left to loose, and the she's probably given up on getting any fair treatment from the MSM.  

    Wonder if CNN will try to be more fair considering  SNL's skit last night?


    There's an adage (none / 0) (#62)
    by mg7505 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:11:17 PM EST
    about candidates peaking too early, and a well-known media tendency to create a story where there isn't one. Put the two together and you have: Hillary peaks really early, then media realizes they need a story so they stoke the Obama fires and launch him upwards. Things aren't allowed to stand still -- Hillary can't stay on top against Obama, and the misogyny and liberal servitude to 90s right-wing attacks haven't done anything to help. The great great irony would be if Obama peaked too early for the GE. We're already starting to see some of the Obama fascination being (rightly) dismissed as morbid and cultish. Frankly, its unlikely he will recapture it. What embarrasses me the most is how much money Democrats have thrown at each other instead of at Republicans. The RNC war chest is still bigger than the DNC's, despite all the enthusiasm on the left. And given McCain's knack for coming back from the dead, a Republican victory this fall is entirely likely. How sad and frustrating!

    I like the Gator Basketball team (none / 0) (#2)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:31:14 AM EST
    I am a Donovan fan

    But above all I am a Bulldog fan!

    So that is one time I hope they lose.

    Why I think we should have a contested (none / 0) (#3)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:34:23 AM EST
    Democratic convention.  

    Because I think it is about time the issues get discussed in a convention and the way the primaries and caucuses are run can be addressed in the convention.

    I think that's right. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:36:45 AM EST
    The whole primary process needs to be reformed and simplified.  Without a contested convention, I don't see how that will be addressed.  They'll just sweep it under the rug and continue on as always.

    six months (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Nasarius on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:48:58 AM EST
    That's how long we have until the convention. Meanwhile, the Republicans have their nominee. Do we really want to continue the infighting for that long? Yes, the DNC needs some major reform, but we have time, and our current priority should be winning this year's election.

    If Obama wins Texas on March 4, he should get together with Clinton the next day, then hold a joint press conference or any kind of appearance where she concedes and he announces Hillary as his running mate. That would be a powerful statement of party unity.

    Two questions (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:00:53 PM EST
    If Hillary wins in OH and TX should Obama bow Out?

    Do you really think that a bad primary process is not in part to blame for the low turn out in the GE of some important Democratic demographics?


    When Obama is behind (none / 0) (#12)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:07:56 PM EST
    it's ain't over.  When Hillary is behind, she needs to bow out for the sake of the party.

    We'll see what happens in TX and OH.  Folks who are now saying the popular vote matters may be doing some back pedaling shortly after.


    If Hillary wins in OH and TX (none / 0) (#32)
    by fuzzyone on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:53:21 PM EST
    she will probably still be behind in delegates so the situations are not comparable.

    she was ahead after Super Tuesday (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:03:32 PM EST
    and everyone said, "there are more states to go!"  Clinton wins the popular vote in Nevada and Obama claims he "won" because of delegates.  Clinton gets more delegates in Alabama and Obama "wins" because he got the popular vote.  Do you see how this works?

    It will be tremendously hard to make an argument against Clinton getting the nom if she leads in the popular vote and wins in all the most populous states.  Neither one of them can get enough delegates to break the threshold and "win" based on the polls we have seen.

    And I know Obama folks don't like to talk about this, but if Clinton is leading in popular vote and Obama has a slim delegate lead that would be cancelled out by seating MI and FL, then Clinton should get the nom.

    Do you really want Obama to win because of a sporadically enforced "technicality?"  Wins the battle but not the war.


    That doesn't change the (none / 0) (#44)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:09:25 PM EST
    fact that if Hillary loses Texas or Ohio she is done.  If she wins both she will STILL be behind in both delegates and popular vote, unless she wins big in both states.

    Your argument would have merit if they were tied right now.  They aren't.


    Riots (none / 0) (#69)
    by Foxx on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:14:36 PM EST
    The potential for riots if Clinton gets the nomination are going to be a big influence on the party and the superdelegates.

    Have you done the same math to see (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:09:09 PM EST
    that the situations are comparable, in that Obama can't clinch the nomination, either -- unless he gets something on the order of more than two-thirds of the votes?

    And even then, his delegate count to date is "soft" as so many come from caucus states which now, as in Nevada yesterday, are starting over again and are many months from deciding actual delegate counts.

    That is one reason why the New York Times' delegate count puts Obama only five delegates ahead of Clinton.  Caution is wise; we have a lot of time.


    The point is (none / 0) (#58)
    by fuzzyone on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:01:32 PM EST
    If Hillary wins at best they are tied, so no reason for Obama to withdraw.  If Obama wins she is done.

    No, see the math again (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:16:23 PM EST
    By the count of the NY Times, it being more cautious  than most msm, and with the "soft"-ness of caucus votes almost all in one candidate's corner -- they are essentially tied now.

    So if Hillary wins more, how could they "still be tied"?  How in the world do you do that math?

    More important, neither ought to withdraw, as neither will clinch it yet.  To suggest withdrawing is to be against letting the people vote.  How in the world do you do that anti-democratic line?


    I don't know Cream City but (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:19:29 PM EST
    I sometimes think his logic is as fuzzy as his Nick Name

    The only time Dems won the White House (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:14:30 PM EST
    in more than 30 years now, the only time in more than 75 years now that we picked a nominee who held the White House for two terms . . . we did not do so until June.  

    You probably know who that was.  Why the rush?


    I'm nervous (none / 0) (#19)
    by Nasarius on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:24:45 PM EST
    Because McCain is the best candidate they've fielded since Reagan. I'm not going to predict disaster if this lasts until Pennsylvania, but if the GE only starts after the convention, we don't have nearly enough time to tear down McCain's image that is practically worshiped by so much of the media.

    Bingo (none / 0) (#50)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:43:20 PM EST
    I think this precisely why we're already seeing e-mail from Dean about McCain.  He knows the true start of the general campaign is very ill-defined this time around, so he's trying ti kick-start the process.

    Well, the brilliant minds (none / 0) (#51)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:45:18 PM EST
    at the DNC need to figure out how to campaign against McCain while finishing out the primary.  If they can't do that, maybe they don't deserve the presidency anyway.

    Nader (none / 0) (#11)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:05:39 PM EST
    just announced.

    What a dumba*s.

    Still a dumba*s after all these years (none / 0) (#16)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:18:02 PM EST
    maybe that's where hvs is going? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:19:53 PM EST
    To work on the Nader campaign?

    seems appropriate :-) (none / 0) (#29)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:49:08 PM EST
    How sad (none / 0) (#52)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:48:05 PM EST
    He should stick to consumer activism, where there's still a serious need for champions, and stay out of politics where he's devolved into self parody.

    A McCain/Condi ticket? (none / 0) (#14)
    by IndyCatherine on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:11:51 PM EST
    I'm putting this on the open thread, because I've been thinking what McCain could do in a choice of running mate to stop the Obama train if Obama is the nominee. What if McCain were to select Condi Rice as his running mate? What would AA women voters do with that one, especially given the fact that the VP position becomes more important given McCain's age (and the statistical odds that McCain might not make it through 1 or 2 terms in office)?  I'm not on one side of this issue or the other; just bringing this up to invite some discussion about how this would impact the race. :-)

    I've heard this question before (none / 0) (#17)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:19:26 PM EST
    and I think it would be a formidable ticket.  A lot of folks are saying that the VP choice on the McCain tickets matters a whole lot because of his age and past cancer scares.  I think Condi on the ticket would be a smart choice for him because she is extremely popular (more so than Bush) with a lot of repubs.

    As for your question about Condi splitting the aa vote...based on my own personal experience, aa women tend to support aa men more than they support aa women.  Same for aa men.  If it's a ticket against Obama, then it won't change a thing in the aa community.

    Again, just my opinion. (And brings up the whole Anita Hill thing for me again.  Ugh.)


    I don't know about Condi (none / 0) (#34)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:58:48 PM EST
    First of all, I don't think the AA vote would split off. Condi is a Republican. Also, as a Sec of State she has made very little impact compared to her predecessors. I think she could be associated too much with Bush and maybe not excite the GOP that much. But then again, that might be a good fit for McCain. It would be fun trying to guess who McCain would take and do a pre-comparison.  

    she has also (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    held all of ZERO elected positions in her career.  

    An AA male attorney told me that (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    if Rice ran for Pres. she would get every AA vote.  Of course he sd. that b/4 Obama announced his candidacy.  

    She's (none / 0) (#20)
    by muffie on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:27:14 PM EST
    said in fairly strongly worded statements that she's not considering it, although this doesn't completely rule it out.

    Personally, I think it'd be a terrible move for McCain.  The last thing the Repubs need is to be more closely tied to Bush.


    Rush et al were saying she's (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:32:09 PM EST
    not ready yet, should run for state office in CA first.

    I think Condi ruled that out yesterday. She (none / 0) (#22)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:29:10 PM EST
    said no politics are in her future.

    didn't Obama say a while back that (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:32:31 PM EST
    he wasn't going to run for president?

    On Obama claim McCain has lobbyist advisors (none / 0) (#28)
    by thereyougo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:48:26 PM EST
    on the Straight talk express and why Hillary doesn't say much on this. Which she should IMO.

    part of the problem is that the old boy's club in the Senate is stiffled with go along to get along attitude. Clinton says Sen. McCain is a friend""coleague so she won't slam him.Obama OTH, I suspect is parsing his support from big money in creative ways that wont spell outright how he is being funded. I'm too cynical to think caps and mugs'sales or $5 donations from the 'little people are getting him '(O)30 mil monthly donations. He's tapping somebody with big pockets, perhaps Oprah? She certainly has a few million to spare. And afterall, Obama is like the rest, a politician.

    I am not being honest if I didn't say I like that he said it about McCain though but he is not squaky clean is for the reason I mentined.

    Lest we forget (none / 0) (#31)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:51:47 PM EST
    Obama's campaign honcho in NH was a lobbyist.  None of these politicians have clean hands.  Claiming to be pure is hypocrisy, but that's not new.

    No matter how many millions (none / 0) (#35)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    Oprah has she still can only contribute $2500 dollars to the Obama campaign.  So unless you are suggesting something illegal is going on, that 30 million is indeed from mug and cap sales and an extremely effective online fundraising machine.

    links? proof? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:08:16 PM EST
    The power of Oprah is not her individual check, but her fundraising abilities.  Let's not forget that Obama's first full stadium crowd came when Oprah was by his side.

    Anyway, let's be serious here.  You don't get close to 50mm by selling $5 mugs to stadium crowds.  It's a nice chunk of change, but even if everyone in a crowd of 20,000 bought a $5 item, that would be around 100K.  Don't pretend that big donors aren't bundling for Obama.  It's simply not correct.


    Links to what? (none / 0) (#46)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:16:36 PM EST
    You need a link to prove there is a Federal limit on campaign contribution?

    I don't think that mugs and shirts are the sole source of income.  But empty claims that Obama is being funded by rich people, without any evidence, have no merit.  


    Obama is supported by the GOP (none / 0) (#74)
    by john5750 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:09:06 PM EST
    Republican Party always wanted Obama to be the nominee; flushed his coffers with cash; saw him as easier Democrat to defeat.

    Republican Party activists have been organized by the GOP to throw their weight behind Barack Obama, the Democratic rival of frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

    Early in Obama's campaign, top Republican fundraisers flushed his coffers with cash, something the deep pockets hadn't done for any candidate in their own party.



    Go Dawgs... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kinglet on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:49:56 PM EST
    Question about the site, please:  How is the clock on this thing set? And is there any way I can customize it to my time zone? The time I see on comments is in EST and looks as if it's an hour off.

    and (none / 0) (#36)
    by NJDem on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:59:58 PM EST
    isn't a biggie from SC (former gov or senator?) a federal lobbyist now and a co-chair of BO's national campaign?  I wonder why HRC never brings this up.

    She did defend herself against Edwards saying that he/they allow(s) family/spouses of lobbyists to donate, so it's not a full-proof system.  

    My brother went to U of Florida (none / 0) (#45)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:11:37 PM EST
    My brother's college. I use to love it when the family would drive up there for a weekend visit. The SAE lion was always covered in paint. The school had a Northern look compared to South Florida & hills. We would hear about Albert the Gator and food fights in the cafeteria. We drove up to his frat house one time and sure enough there was a ladder going to a window. My brother always says there was a whole lot  of truth to the movie Animal House. This was the 60's.  I was always proud that he was a U of Fla alumni.

    should Hillary address Obam's electibilty? (none / 0) (#53)
    by dem08 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:51:11 PM EST
    as a reader of Talk Left and Taylor Marsh, I think it is clear that Obama will lose a huge proportion of Democrats in November.

    In the next debate should Hillary say something like;

    "Taylor Marsh, a loyal democrat has raised the issue of scandals and flip-flops that the MSM has not looked into that will hurt Senator Obama in the Fall if he is the candidate.

    "And I have been told that many people are upset with the way women are treated in this country as shown in the hostile coverage my campaign has drawn.

    "I am ready to serve on Day One and have been endorsed by the NY Times and Akron Bugle. People know I am a leader. Get serious: Senator Obama might be ready to run for president in 2016, but this is 2008."

    She might show polling information that show that Obama's support comes from Republicans and independents who are trying to secure McCain's win.

    Is it too much to ask Obama to endorse Hillary and resign?

    Since he is winning (none / 0) (#60)
    by fuzzyone on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:03:04 PM EST
    I think it probably is too much to ask.

    I should add (none / 0) (#57)
    by NJDem on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:58:39 PM EST
    that I didn't intend to support mocking BO as a candidate, but rather his approach--which was discussed the night of the debate.  It's his approach that I think is naive and too compromise oriented.  

    Personally, I like a fighter, but that's just me.

    How can she be ready on day one (none / 0) (#61)
    by fuzzyone on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:10:02 PM EST
    when she has not even been ready to run a campaign.  There have been plenty of articles on this but Frank Rich makes the point again.  (I don't entirely agree with him, I think he is wrong that it is impossible for her to get the nomination, just not very likely).

    Given how badly she has run her primary campaign I am baffled as to why people think she is more electable than Obama.  The polls says she is not.  Her ability to campaign says she is not.  The fact that she energizes the republican base says she is not.  I think in the end either one of them wins, but the idea that she has some edge because she has already been a republican punching bag is just silly.  That experience led to the loss of congress, impeachment, failure of the Clinton healthcare plan, etc.  She never faced a serious challenge in NY (I was there at the time, Lazio was a joke and everyone knew it.)  There are plenty of old scandals that the Rs will pull out and who knows what kind of new ones will pop up.  Bill has been collecting money from all kinds of people.

    One last point.  Obama has gotten where he is based on some remarkable political skills.  Hillary does not have those skill and I don't think it is sexist to say that if her husband had not been President she would not be in the Senate, much less in running to be President.

    We don't need someone (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by mg7505 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:21:52 PM EST
    with "remarkable political skills." Take a step back and realize that those "political skills" only served to advance his own stature, and didn't lead to any substantive advances for the American people. Then look at Hillary's creation of SCHIP, which gives state-sponsored health insurance to seven million Americans. She got that done during a Republican-controlled Congress, after being sent through the Right-wing inferno.

    Please try to realize that you DO need to face your enemies in order to build up some strength against them. It's true in every walk of life, and it's no different in politics. I'm not sure why people don't buy the argument that you have to go up against the full force of the Republican hate machine in order to understand it and beat it. If you think they'll be nice to Senator Obama, think again. He is not immune to criticism, and we all know that the media in this country is more than willing to listen to them, just as they did in 2000 and 2004.

    What strikes me as "silly" is Senator Obama's calls for unity, which are exactly the opposite of what we need. The Republicans didn't advance their worldview by pandering to Democrats, and we can't expect them to advance ours without raising all manner of trouble. I don't care if Obama has all the charisma in the world because it won't convince Republicans to sponsor any version of Universal healthcare, pulling out of Iraq, etc.

    It's sad that Hillary's campaign hasn't been better run, but what saddens me even more is that people are giving credit to Frank Rich (and on TL, of all places!). Running a country is different from running a campaign, otherwise Karl Rove would be the most qualified person to become President. We don't need selfish Math, we need solutions. I'm weighing someone who has gotten healthcare for 7 million people despite huge political obstacles against someone who rocketed himself to the top despite big personal/social obstacles. They're both commendable achievements, but it's offensive to value a leader's personal ambition over the good they do for this country.


    Right on, with one slight modification (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:34:00 PM EST
    Hillary ALSO had the personal/social  obstacles (being a woman, being a Clinton).

    Eloquence! (none / 0) (#67)
    by mg7505 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:27:13 PM EST
    Hillary discusses superdelegates at the Black State of the Union.

    Bill Maher and HBO's Real Time smearing Obama (none / 0) (#68)
    by Aaron on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:56:26 PM EST
    The other night I was shocked and disappointed to see the ugly spectacle of that shameless pander Representative Jack Kingston (R) on Bill Maher's Real Time as he pushed unsubstantiated Republican propaganda and misinformation gleaned directly from hoax e-mails.  

    Republican Congressman Embraces Obama Hoax Email

    [Overtime, and pretty quickly now, it'll make sense to keep a list of stuff like this. On Friday night's Bill Maher show, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) claimed that Barack Obama refuses to say the pledge of allegiance to the American flag. This along with other bogus claims about Obama come from the hoax emails circulating on the internet.]

    I like Bill Maher but he apparently has some kind of issue with Barack Obama, a few weeks ago he compared African-Americans who support Obama to those who supported O.J. Simpson, which got him plenty of boos, and he seems to be more than a little sympathetic to the Clinton campaign. In this last episode he gave the right wingers almost a free hand to go after Obama distorting his positions and record, and there was no one on the panel to rebut these assertions.

    It's interesting how much better the show is now that the writers have returned, the first few episodes where Bill tried to wing it were well below the standards that Real Time usually sets.  Without his writers Maher seemed lost at times, you better believe writers matter folks.

    Maher has a well-known history of dating black women, so I'm surprised that Bill doesn't have a better take on the African-American perspective and greater sensitivity to the issues that concern the Black community in this country.  Whether or not Bill Maher harbors some unresolved issues concerning Black folks can only be speculated upon, but it seems obvious that he doesn't fully grasp the nonracial post partisan approach that the Obama campaign is attempting to pursue in an effort to create unity in America.  Has Bill Maher been manipulated by the right-wing in this instance, or are we seeing some deeper manifestations of racial animus held by Mr. Maher surfacing subtly and not so subtly on his HBO show?

    Last season on Real Time one of Maher's guests, NPR's Michel Martin, openly hinted at some of his apparent conflicting attitudes concerning race and perhaps even some underlying misogynistic tendencies that Bill may be harboring, and after watching the start of this recent season it seems Michelle may have been on target.

    Fixed link (none / 0) (#76)
    by Aaron on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:35:40 PM EST
    Well, that worked well, didn't it? (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:33:50 PM EST
    Many of you are chomping at the bit to write about subjects not covered in the posts. Here is your chance. Keep your comments in other posts on topic please. This is an Open Thread.

    Sarcasm alert.

    Viva Obama Viva!!! (none / 0) (#73)
    by Aaron on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:44:41 PM EST
    Vote for the one who is ready (none / 0) (#75)
    by john5750 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:13:48 PM EST
    HILLARY 2008

    Get your girls and boys vaccinated against HPV (none / 0) (#77)
    by Aaron on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:17:14 AM EST
    Vaccinating Boys for Girls' Sake?

    [Gardasil protects against four types of H.P.V. Two have been found in 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. The other two types account for 90 percent of genital warts, which affect both men and women. Immunization gives protection for five years.

    Sometime this year, Merck will submit data to the F.D.A. seeking approval to give Gardasil to boys. In Australia, Mexico and countries in the European Union, the vaccine is approved for boys.

    "We have a very clear benefit that we offer to men," said Dr. Richard M. Haupt, Merck's executive director of clinical research, referring to the warts, "even if they don't feel they need to have an altruistic reason to get the vaccine."]

    [H.P.V. is the most common sexually transmitted infection. There are estimates of six million new infections in the United States each year. Yet, of more than 100 types of H.P.V., only a handful may result in disease. Most people who are infected have no symptoms and can transmit it unknowingly.

    At least a half-million Americans each year develop genital warts, which can reoccur. But is Gardasil's protection against warts enough for parents of sons?

    "It's not life-threatening, but it's very stressful," said Susan L. Rosenthal, a specialist in adolescent psychology at Galveston and an adviser to Merck. "Genital warts are a really yucky disease and they make you feel bad about an important, sensitive body part. Psychologically, it's not an insignificant infection."]