home

Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:01:41 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

An Open Thread to continue ongoing debates or commence new ones. Go Gators! Beat the Bulldogs!

NOTE - This thread is at 215. Now closed. New thread above.

< Is Obama Building The Democratic Party? | Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Open Thread | 211 comments (211 topical)
    CNN is skewering Obama (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:04:45 PM EST
    for not holding a single hearing of his foreign affairs subcommittee.  Lou Dobbs is having a cow about it.  :-)
    Well, this is what they are going to do when he's (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by derridog on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:27:46 PM EST
    in the GE. David Brooks had an editorial reproduced in our paper today talking about how John McCain has fought the special interests over and over again in the last twenty some odd years, noting all the Senate committee work and positions he's taken and held.

    Obama's not holding a single meeting of his own committee is going to look pathetic in comparison.

    Parent

    Lou Dobbs (none / 0) (#137)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:37:26 PM EST
    That's where I go for my information.

    Parent
    Good for Dobbs. (none / 0) (#166)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:00:24 PM EST


    Parent
    building the Dem party (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:15:24 PM EST
    I went looking for the source of the quote that BTD used re: building the Dem party.

    I thought the two paragraphs that followed the excerpt that BTD used were also relevant:

    we have also been conducting multiple caucus training sessions around tarrant county over the past week, and these will continue through next weekend.  i have yet to attend a training event where less than 250 people showed up.  if just half of that 250 showed up to one County Executive Committee meeting, we could literally have a majority voting block and take back our county party. this was one goal of howard dean's campaign and it is being fully realised with the obama campaign.

    our outgoing county chair showed up at our first training session - 400 attendees showed up on two day's notice - and was floored.  although he's on team hillary, he could not help but be amazed at what we were doing. i know because i asked him.  i told him i knew he was team hillary, but asked what he thought of our event.  to paraphrase, he said (and told me i could quote him on this) that he and Garry Mauro (one of Clinton's top Texans) go way back and he couldn't exactly walk away from that history, but he could see which campaign was stirring people.  that was two weeks ago when we were in our infancy stages.

    Somebody in the prior thread noted that you build party activists from the ground up.

    First, you get them excited about a candidate
    Then you get them to show up
    Then you get them to volunteer to work
    Then you get them to work on broader things

    This is a ground up thing.  Will the gazillion folks who are volunteering now end up working for the Dem party as a party?

    I don't know -- nobody knows -- but what we have here certainly seems like a good start.

    All this talk (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by dwightkschrute on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:51:27 PM EST
    by BTD and other posters about Obama not standing up for "Democratic Party" principles is bizarre.

    Funny how back in New Hampshire Hillary Clinton and her campaign went after him for being too liberal...

    Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with "left-wing" intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination.

    Along the same lines, ABC reported that Clinton aides gave the network various examples, of Obama's controversial stands. The aides cited Obama's past assertion that he would support ending mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes, pointing to a 2004 statement at an NAACP-sponsored debate: "Mandatory minimums take too much discretion away from judges."

    a Clinton media advisor said voters would soon see "some very sharp" ads from the senator's campaign, which may include criticizing Obama for being liberal on gun control.

    Fact is, Obama has been and always will be a solid Democrat. He stands up for Democratic issues, he's consistently helped other Democrats get elected, and his voting record is extremely liberal. Yes, he has cross-over appeal which has Independents and some Republicans intrigued. But that does not equate to "ruining the party" or being "disastrous for Democrats". It equates to bringing more people into the great Democratic Party. And hopefully more people voting line down ballot Democratic because they want that change.

    Parent

    I think both things are true (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:00:49 PM EST
    You're right that Obama has a very good liberal record imho. But it is also true that he has pandered quite a bit in this campaign in order to court republican and independent voters (vouchers, religion, and much more), and that does raise some concern for his future behavior.

    Parent
    get them excited about a candidate? (none / 0) (#17)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:22:03 PM EST
    look, i'm no political scientist, but as a dem i do NOT think it should start as a candidate-centric effort.  in fact, i think that's one of the very real dangers posed by obama's unity schtick.  the underlying party values are a lot more important to me than any particular candidate espousing them.  otherwise i wouldn't be a dem; i'd be unregistered or an independent.

    Parent
    but you're already a Dem (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:28:12 PM EST
    what about newbies who aren't necessarily affiliated?

    A rather large cohort of folks who were excited about Reagan and his message ended up getting involved in all sorts of political stuff, and they stayed their a long time.  (A lot of them show up 20 years later in the Dept of Justice!)

    You have to get something exciting enough to get somebody off the couch to do something.  Sometimes it's a single issue, sometimes it's an idea, sometimes it's a candidate.  You take whatever works to get them off the couch and involved.

    Come to think of it, that's how I started getting involved.  Opposition to the Vietnam war engaged me, then it was working for McGovern, and etc.

    Again, you take whatever works to get them off the couch and involved.

    Parent

    But in My opinion McGovern was a (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:43:33 PM EST
    different circumstance.  People who were attracted to his campaign were those who were basically attracted to Democratic Ideals to start with remember his career was not that of a legislative neophyte but one that was build in the inside party building mechanisms of the Democratic Party.

    Parent
    Jonah Goldberg's mom (none / 0) (#160)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:57:06 PM EST
    Lucianne Goldberg, was part of a team of spies and dirty tricksters run by Nixon's CREEP (Committee to Re-Elect the President). Goldberg used the cover of NANA (North American News Association), which was a CIA cover.

    Plenty of dirty tricks during that campaign too. People need to know who's work they're doing.

    Parent

    what happens when they find out (none / 0) (#45)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:42:41 PM EST
    that the party they have "joined" doesn't actually stand for the issues they believe in?  

    They turn into very well-trained republicans.

    Parent

    I'm sorry. Tell me again how exactly (none / 0) (#197)
    by halstoon on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:19:51 PM EST
    Obama is a Republican? The people who believe in his campaign believe in leaving Iraq, making gov't transparent, instituting widespread public service, rolling back Bush tax cuts, making healthcare available and affordable, etc.

    Which of those is GOP points-of-view?? I'm confused.

    Parent

    not being a pol sci either, but.... (none / 0) (#110)
    by Oje on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:59:40 PM EST
    I would have to say that the relative youth of these voters is a good thing for the Democratic party, despite the potential loss of some older voters. And, parents seem genuinely moved by their children's support for Obama.

    FDR's campaign was much more partisan in 1936 than in 1932, I believe, so Obama has the opportunity to follow the same trajectory. Obama could really lead these new Democrats. A "green" and "fair trade" economic policy might really produce a new Democratic coalition that builds on the coalition of the Democratic party's past.

    I am still concerned about the economic philosophy of Obama's closest economic and health care advisers (Krugman I think is the source of this info). So, although I am still very committed to Clinton, I no longer see Obama as quite the threat of "personality over party" that I once did. Party leaders will certainly have a say on the direction of the party, particularly his endorsers (I think of Ted Kennedy's opposition to Jimmy Carter's rightward movement in the late 1970s).

    Parent

    I share your concern on his advisors (none / 0) (#114)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:05:35 PM EST
    But Ted's move agaisn't Carter gave us Reagan and in my opinion that was a Disaster.  Hope there is something in the youth coming to the rescue part but my experience has been and historically it has been that as we get older we generally get more conservative.  I am not trying to be a glass half empty kind of guy but the last 7 years have made a wee bit pessimistic.

    Parent
    Do you also recall (none / 0) (#118)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:11:03 PM EST
    Ted Kennedy's splintering of the democratic party by running his primary challenge into the ground against Carter. The only thing that silly candidacy did was help Reagan get elected.  By the way, that clusterf*%k is one of the unspoken sources of those Reagan Democrats.

    Kennedy has done as much, or more, damage to the presidential wing of the party as any living democrat.

    Parent

    That is true... (none / 0) (#202)
    by Oje on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:26:47 PM EST
    I am just suggesting that there are enough entrenched Democratic politicians who would resist a rightward or nontraditional transformation of the Democratic party (hopefully not to the point of spawning opposition candidates).

    Parent
    No way should she accept if offered....No need to (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:29:40 PM EST
    be tainted with what I think will be a disaster, because even if he won, his administration would be a mess IMO....and if he loses, he can forget any democrat ever forgetting that....

    I'm of the same opinion. (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:42:42 PM EST
    I do not want Hillary to be part of his ticket because she'd do the work and he'd get the credit. I've noticed since the Hollywood debate how he answers most questions like this

    "I agree with Hillary. Hope, change, America."

    "Hillary is right on this one. Hope, change, America."

    "Hillary and I are not much different. Hope, Change, America."

    Last night the answer to the Russia question was a perfect example of how all he has to do is say he agrees with Hillary and then drop in hope and change and America. It is like watching the captain of the football team dating the nerdy girl just because he needs someone to do his homework.

    If I was part of the Hillary campaign or someone better with video editing software I'd splice in all the times he dittoed Hillary in the past three debates and make them into a commercial that ended with "Agree with Barack. Voted Hillary on Tues."

    Parent

    So true -- I love this idea (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:52:34 PM EST
    as I've spotted his riding along, too. I can see the video you suggest, clip after clip of "I agree with Hillary" from him . . . and then the voiceover: "If you agree with her, too -- vote Hillary."

    Parent
    If this idea doesn't dawn on the HRC (none / 0) (#111)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:00:32 PM EST
    campaign maybe the Republicans can use it in the GE. They can just change the tag line to something like "Say "no" to another Clinton in the White House. Vote McCain." ;-)

    It would be all kinds of ironic.

    Parent

    "I agree with Hillary campaign" video (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by plf1953 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:02:41 PM EST
    Someone - anyone - who knows how and who needs to get this idea to the Clinton campaign and fast!

    Go Hillary!!

    Parent

    I was actually trying to think of a play on (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:13:11 PM EST
    this scene from Chicago, though the idea of Obama sitting on Clinton's lap made me kind of queasy...

    (haha, and a Certain Woman Reporter reminds me a tad too much of MoDo...)

    LINK

    Parent

    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by tek on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:05:50 PM EST
    Never thought of that.  Of course, it's hard to imagine Hillary would accept the VP slot with Obama, because she BELONGS at the top of the ticket.  I could almost vote for him if she's on the ticket, though.  And I still maintain, he'll be a puppet president.  With the current puppet, the VP is really running the country.

    I do think, though, that the same people in the Dem party who are shutting Hillary out from the presidential nomination would never agree to put her on as VP.  They want to destroy her.

    We just got back from hearing Robert Kennedy, Jr. speak about ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING that's wrong with this country under the heading of environmentalism.  He was totally phenomenal.  I want him for the Dem candidate in 2012, even if he is from a dynasty.

    Parent

    Which is why he will need her (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:30:44 PM EST
    in the Executive Office Building.

    Parent
    CNN (Dobbs) for the first (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by talkingpoint on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:36:09 PM EST
    time criticized Obama. Am I dreaming? Someone please wake me up. Maybe it won't last, maybe they will start being pro obama again tomorrow. The lastest Texas poll have hillary ahead by Three. I still don't trust the polls, but its at least refreshing.

    Now Dobbs is going after the press (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:58:43 PM EST
    for giving Obama a free pass while attacking Clinton.  And more on how inexcusable it is not to hold hearings on NATO and Afghanistan.  That seems to have surprised him and he's not happy about it.  Wants to know why it wasn't reported and he had to find out about it from a debate.

    Obama may have crossed some threshold?


    Parent

    He should have relinquished (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:08:11 PM EST
    the very important committee chair if he wasn't actually going to do the work.

    That would have been the honorable and responsible thing to do....

    Parent

    Teresa-- (none / 0) (#77)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:15:30 PM EST
    are you talking about Dobbs or Obama?

    Parent
    Definitely Obama (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:28:46 PM EST
    Obama should have resigned the committee chairmanship if he didn't feel he had time due to the presidential campaign.

    Why did he feel it was his right to keep that very important chair and not actually do the work involved to keep it.

    In fact, it's not too late.  I don't think the general election will give him MORE time to hold meetings.

    He needs to resign the chairmanship so someone can actually get some work done.

    Parent

    Um, shouldn't Dobbs keep up with this kind (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by derridog on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:22:36 PM EST
    of thing?  I just wrote a letter to the editor to our local paper and had to provide endless sources to the editor to "prove" that Obama plagiarized because he wanted to take that word out as he didn't believe me. It took me only five minutes to google sources dating back to last August, when Elizabeth Edwards charged him with copying John's words and policies, to the Deval Patrick stuff, to the copying Clinton's economic program stuff and so on.

    Why is it that the press has no idea what is going on in the world? No wonder the country is in such bad shape.


    Parent

    does Dobbs not consider himself (none / 0) (#66)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:01:39 PM EST
    "the press"?

    And, good point, Ralph: he should take himself for task since apparently, he has not investigated this, either.

    Parent

    Each member of the press (none / 0) (#69)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:05:45 PM EST
    Has their own "rule".

    The Matthews rules
    The Olbermann rules
    The Dobbs rules.

    The rule is that all other press members do biased things except me.

    Parent

    Kinda funny huh :-) (none / 0) (#95)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:38:38 PM EST
    apparently he doesn't consider himself part of the political press.  he did say that if he'd known it, he would have talked about it before.  i thought it was funny when he got mad that it wasn't reported before.  he should read posts here  :-)


    Parent
    Unbelievable (none / 0) (#179)
    by tek on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:07:14 PM EST
    Dobbs usually praises Republicans, no matter what.

    Parent
    He's the presumptive nominee (none / 0) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:38:17 PM EST
    so the right wingers are increasing the attacks.

    Parent
    Does this mean we'll (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:40:00 PM EST
    have to see that silly photo of Obama in ethnic dress throughout the campaign?  

    Parent
    Unless Obama does (none / 0) (#104)
    by badger on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:50:46 PM EST
    a photo-op in a tank, like Dukakis. Otherwise I imagine that photo will be the one they use.

    Parent
    Hit him pretty hard (none / 0) (#43)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:41:32 PM EST
    I think some of the media darling may be wearing off.  The graphic is Obama's picture overlaid with "Radical Ties".

    Now the Obama hack Roland Martin is on the defend.


    Parent

    So why then . . . (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Foxx on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:40:09 PM EST
    So I notice Obama supporters are talking a good deal less about what a new kind of politician he is, how ethical and high-minded, etc. They are talking a lot more about what a tough, any means necessary campaign he is running. Conniving and underhanded tactics have become a virtue.

    Problem is, then there is no reason to vote for him, since he has nothing new to offer. (And many liabilities.)

    Too true. Obama the (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by mg7505 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:18:14 PM EST
    high-minded politician (there's an oxymoron!) hasn't passed a single piece of ethically-grounded, people-centered, or remotely groundbreaking legislation in 11+ years in political office. Makes me wonder what he was doing all that time... writing bestsellers? Running for President? His whole career seems to resemble the past year, in which our country's vital interests in NATO/Afghanistan were secondary to his personal ambitions. I wish the Clinton campaign would call him on his hypocrisy and inaction so that we don't end up nominating him; it will be a huge issue in the GE, which will drastically hurt the amount of mojo he can lay claim to against McCain.

    Parent
    Yes he has. (none / 0) (#140)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:40:21 PM EST
    That he hasn't is an old meme that's been discredited already.

    Let me start with two examples:

    • the ethics bill requiring, among other things, that all earmarks get into a publically accessible database
    • in Illinois, requiring all interrogations of capital defendants be videotaped.  There was a lot of dissent, but it eventually passed unanimously, and Illinois was the first state in the US to do so.

    As far as helping the world become a safer place, you can start with the Obama-Lugar non-proliferation legislation, which is, actually, pretty darn important.

    Parent
    You have been told (none / 0) (#163)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:59:35 PM EST
    that Obama-Lugar was a re-up in funding from Nunn-Lugar, though I am sure there are many other ways Obama has made the world a safer place.


    Parent
    I don't think that's correct (none / 0) (#169)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:02:06 PM EST
    Nunn-Lugar was restricted to nuclear weapons.  Obama-Lugar expanded it to non-nuclear weapons (e.g., shoulder fired anti-aircraft missles, which are what terrorists, etc., are trying to get their hands on).

    Parent
    Nunn-Lugar included (none / 0) (#214)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:36:07 PM EST
    nuclear weapons and any fissile material.  If you want to buy Katusha rockets they are readily available.  Are we buying all the rockets from China now?  Please be realistic.


    Parent
    Don't (none / 0) (#183)
    by tek on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:09:59 PM EST
    ya know he was designing the Department of Integrity in Politics-- the one HIllary voted against according to BO last night!LOL

    Parent
    Ah, yes, tek (none / 0) (#191)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:14:20 PM EST
    He did amazing work at D.I.P.  He was D.I.P.

    Parent
    Here's another example (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:29:40 PM EST
    of Mr. Conciliatory Obama...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2pXElHV6FA

    That performance by Obama (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by mg7505 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:10:30 PM EST
    reminded me of all the reasons I don't like most male politicians -- the ego, the yelling, the overly dramatic punchlines, the constant need to infuse mojo into every discussion of issues... I'm not supporting Hillary just because she's a woman, but Obama's attempts at being (what he considers) a man don't appeal to me. As a man, I hope I never turn out like that.

    Parent
    talk about performance (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:16:24 PM EST
    this is an interesting clip to me.  It's almost like a Viagra commercial (though the "before" comes "after")  I mean, is this the same guy?  Playing to those stadium crowds has certainly boosted his confidence.

    LINK

    Parent

    Not to give too much (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by mg7505 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:23:33 PM EST
    credence to posts on YouTube, but I've heard many an Obama supporter claim:

    if he wins the presidency he'll be able to go a lot further in the way of correcting the problem than he could as a junior senator on the committee

    Now I get it -- Senator Obama is not doing his job because we just haven't made him President! Naturally, when someone doesn't deserve the job they have, it's because they deserve their boss' job! Maybe we should elect Larry Craig; by the Obama Rules, he must really deserve to be President.

    Parent

    awesome!! (none / 0) (#145)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:45:49 PM EST
    So for weeks folks here have been complaining that Obama is too conciliatory, or that he isn't partisan enough, or this or that.

    Then, when somebody posts a video that shows that he does indeed know how to fight back -- now we hear complaints that he's yelling, or putting in too much mojo.

    An awesome display.

    Parent

    this breaks my heart to watch.... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:30:34 PM EST
    Rep. Lewis on changing his endorsement...

    Clearly (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:40:18 PM EST
    a very tough choice for him.

    I can understand his reasoning on why this is tougher than Selma.  Selma took courage.  This is a choice where he probably feels he is betraying people he cares about either way.

    Parent

    A nutshell (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:52:53 PM EST
    Of what's happening to the party.


    Parent
    Saying that it's harder than Selma (none / 0) (#170)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:02:34 PM EST
    doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for Obama.

    Parent
    Partisanship within the Democratic Party (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Prabhata on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:34:32 PM EST
    I will never see Markos, Josh (TPM), and others, as the intelligent political analysts I thought they were. Their credibility is very diminished, and I will not visit their websites looking for insights because now I see how flawed their viewpoints are.  Maybe that's what this campaign was all about, a shakeout of the blogs.

    exposure (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:49:30 PM EST
    I think some of the things that will come out of this campaign season are very very ugly. The irrationality of many of the leftie bloggers, as you say, has been exposed. So has the willingness of progressives to abandon progressive principles in order to get their favored candidate nominated - I've never seen so many apologists for sexist dialogue for one example.

    Parent
    Don't you read the Republican/right-wing blogs? (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:29:35 PM EST
    I read as widely as I can manage -- including the blogs and newspaper articles and books of those whose political (or social or economic or whatever) positions I think are terribly wrong.

    I do this for two reasons: first, I might be wrong.  If so, I'd prefer to know sooner rather than later.  And if my viewpoint can't withstand a self-critique based on what I read...then maybe my viewpoint needs some serious rethinking.

    Second, I consider some of them to adversaries: their positions are diametrically opposed to mine, with little if any hope of compromise.  In that case, I keep in mind the words of General George S. Patton as he metaphorically addressed Erwin Rommel (believing he'd just beaten him in battle in North Africa): "You magnificent bastard...I read your book!"

    The point being that if your adversary is willing to do you the generous favor of providing useful intelligence at their own expense, it's often a good idea to take advantage of it.  (As an aside, I often find it quite interesting how many people I've met who express the sentiment that bin Laden is the top enemy of the US...but refuse to read his book in order to gain some clue how to beat him and his organization, as if doing so would somehow contaminate them.)

    Parent

    you know (none / 0) (#96)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:39:02 PM EST
    that raises an interesting point.  IF O gets the nom and Clinton goes back to the senate, she is still a democrat.  How is O going to "unite" Clinton with the likes of Kos and TPM?  Let alone HuffPo.

    Let's see some magic!

    Parent

    Well the other issue (none / 0) (#98)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:42:26 PM EST
    is truly, will Hillary want to be united?  After he labeled her a racist, trashed Bill's presidency, etc.?

    How can you go back to nicey-nicey after that?

    Parent

    They will blame Hillary (none / 0) (#99)
    by Coldblue on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:42:27 PM EST
    for not quitting after Iowa if Obama loses the general election.

    Parent
    hand waving and (none / 0) (#101)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:45:45 PM EST
    chanting "yes we can" a few times will do it i'm sure.  looks like republicans don't need Hillary to raise money, obama works fine for them.

    Here's an Obama joke from the Republican Governors's Assoc fundraiser, via NoQuarter ...

    "What a great crowd! At least, that's what Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick told me to say.," said Missouri governor Matt Blunt.

    The money flowed too: "The Republican Governors Association said it set a new record with last night's fundraising dinner at the National Building Museum: $10.6 million collected from 1,400 people."


    Parent

    Yes, (none / 0) (#196)
    by tek on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:19:03 PM EST
    I've often thought about that recently and wondered if I didn't get mislead on some issues by those blogs.

    Parent
    Lou Dobbs is having a cow (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:07:10 PM EST
    I hope it ends up on YouTube.
    he certainly has the pelvis for it.
    Comments like this (none / 0) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:11:53 PM EST
    are the reason why I'm here.

    ROTF! etc.

    Parent

    Capt Howdy (none / 0) (#75)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:11:44 PM EST
    *****************
    Congratulations! You are the winner!

    I've seen some clever comments before at Talk Left.

    But you, you made me Laugh Out Loud for the first time.

    The joke is such a good visual.

    Parent

    There was somethin in 2007 about him being to (none / 0) (#3)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:08:55 PM EST
    busy to do it.

    It's worse than I thought, Dobbs (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:14:51 PM EST
    is actually making some points instead of just ranting.  After skewering Obama for being a lazy politician whose too busy campaigning to do his job, talks about how it's not easy for those troops fighting in Afghanistan at the same time.  Reporter agrees with him that it is not too much trouble to hold a hearing and it's inexcusable.

    Now they go to McCain attacking.  This campaign is going to be fun to watch after all.  So much for the media darling.


    Parent

    Dobbs only rants when you disagree with him (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by rdandrea on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:25:39 PM EST
    When you agree with him, he makes points.

    Parent
    Lou Dobbs making points? (none / 0) (#15)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:20:30 PM EST
    I'm sorry I missed it.

    Yep, as much as Obama thinks Hillary is lobbing real ammo at him, our soldiers have it much, much worse. Kudos to the potato head.

    And the other issue, if campaigning is too much work so a person can't do their day job, what's going to happen when said person becomes president, a MUCH bigger job than campaigning.

    Parent

    Obama's Abdication of Committee Role (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Athena on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:34:39 PM EST
    When Obama took charge of the European affairs subcommittee in early 2007, he didn't seize the opportunity to scrutinize the Bush administration. With his campaign in full swing, the busy senator did not lead a single policy hearing on any of the hot topics in the panel's jurisdiction: missile defense, counterterrorism and concern over the waning commitment of European countries to NATO.

    From the AP:
    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ghVNaeUuzZRxl6swHbvaCmZxvUZAD8V1T8K00

    Parent

    Yes it was different (none / 0) (#35)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:37:46 PM EST
    one of his points was essentially your last paragraph.  And it didn't sound good.

    Now he's going after Obama/Farrakhan/Wright.


    Parent

    Stellaaa, dear? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:09:20 PM EST
    Rezko opening arguments postponed to March 6.

    How conveeeeeenient. (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:12:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Ha. (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:11:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Rezko (none / 0) (#8)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:13:56 PM EST
    is why Hillary should stay in the race even if she doesn't win Texas.

    Anything can happen in these things.

    For instance, did we really think a Scooter Libby endictment would come out of the Plame trial?

    AAAAnything can happen.

    Parent

    I doubt (none / 0) (#14)
    by Nasarius on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:19:20 PM EST
    There's anything here besides Obama's stunningly poor judgment in being bestest buddies with a slumlord, which is already out there. We'll be constantly reminded of it in the GE, no doubt, but it won't torpedo his primary campaign.

    Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but Hillary dropping out after March 4 wouldn't preclude her nomination at the convention in August, if there is some unlikely disaster with Obama.

    Parent

    It would sure take away (none / 0) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:21:13 PM EST
    from her possibility of winning the election, though...

    Parent
    There (none / 0) (#201)
    by tek on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:26:23 PM EST
    is more to it.  He admits now that he took money from a British-Iraqi billionaire to build his mansion and he says it was a mistake.  So, if he's admitting that much, there's a lot more we don't know.

    Parent
    Bummer (none / 0) (#11)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:16:07 PM EST
    at least PA isn't over until April.


    Parent
    ugh. (none / 0) (#12)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:17:56 PM EST
    why am i not surprised?

    Parent
    Does the trial still start (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:43:50 PM EST
    March 7, i.e. pre-trial motions, jury selection?

    Parent
    from No Quarter (none / 0) (#50)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:45:31 PM EST
    The federal prosecutors' opening statements won't take place until March 6.


    Parent
    That makes sense, if the trial (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:55:05 PM EST
    is calendared to start March 4.  Seems like jury slection in Chicago might take quite awhile, as many of the potential jurors may have pre-formed opinions, have seen media coverage of Rezko, Rezko/Obama, etc.  

    Parent
    I also recall (but check me) (none / 0) (#58)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:56:11 PM EST
    that the judge pretty much handled all the pre-trial motions in one fell swoop at the beginning of this week.

    Parent
    You are keeping much better (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:01:36 PM EST
    track of the details than I am at this point.  The pre-trial procedural aspects don't really grab my attention.

    Parent
    don't be too impressed (none / 0) (#68)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:03:31 PM EST
    apparently, I am not good at keeping them straight!

    Parent
    It's tough work. (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:05:57 PM EST


    Parent
    Postponed? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:55:43 PM EST
    The last court order issued yesterday only changed the time the trial starts, not the date. It moved it up to 3/3 at 8:45 am.

    They have to pick a jury before they start opening arguments. In routine federal trials, that takes a half day or a whole day. In complex or high profile ones, it takes longer -- with the publicity surrounding this trial, I would expect jury selection to take at least 2 days.

    Question to ask: Will the Judge let the lawyers question the prospective jurors or do it herself? It's her call in federal court.

    So I think that's normal timing, not a postponement.

    Parent

    yep, you are right (none / 0) (#61)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:58:04 PM EST
    I used a legal term as a layman term; apologies.  The trial is not technically postponed in any sense.  Sorry for the confusion.  No Quarter does say that the opening statements are scheduled for the 6th, so I'm not totally crazy.

    Parent
    Ah, ah, ah. (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:02:59 PM EST
    Opening statements, no argument (wink).  Jeralyn, any comments on the trial judge and/or defense counsel?

    Parent
    hey (none / 0) (#83)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:22:39 PM EST
    at least I corrected the statement thing the second time!

    Parent
    When (none / 0) (#146)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:47:58 PM EST
    When did Hillary postpone the release of her tax returns to?

    Parent
    to the same day (none / 0) (#171)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:02:38 PM EST
    Obama postponed releasing his billable hours when his firm was working for Rezko.

    Parent
    Vice President Clinton (none / 0) (#13)
    by Chimster on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:18:08 PM EST
    I'm not sure I like the sound of that, but I still believe it would be in the best interest of the "democratic party" to have that situation occur if Obama gets the nomination. I'm trying to figure out who would get a VP nod (other than Clinton) if he were the nominee? Would it be someone more left-leaning? A Lieberman? A different female? Who would live in the shadow of Obama the best?

    Dick Cheney seems to (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:22:28 PM EST
    "live in the shadow" when it suits him, but not otherwise.  Perhaps if Obama is the Dem. nominee, the person tapped for VP will have more of a substantive role than attending "all those funerals" as Richardson sd.

    Parent
    "A different female" (!) (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:23:46 PM EST
    Please, don't go there. We've been there with almost exactly that phrasing. Women are not interchangeable. Maybe the missing blond ones are for the media, but not for many of us who support Clinton as the best candidate, not because she is a woman. (Tip: "female" is best used as an adjective these days.)

    Parent
    Oops. I stepped in it. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Chimster on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:30:56 PM EST
    Although I'm sure I'll dig myself deeper. I mean to say that Obama's campaign might want to have a female Vice President for exactly the reason you don't like. To appeal to the female voters and voters who wanted to see a female in the White House (as I do), My wife got me a "Hot for Hillary" t-shirt. Is that wrong of me? Yes I like 95% of Hillary's positions, but I also like her because she is female. I should have not used the word "another". My bad.

    Parent
    I think Obama would have an (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:35:08 PM EST
    extremely difficult time finding a female other than HRC for the VP slot on his ticket if the idea is to bring out the female voters.  Of course he can find a competent female running mate, but, that won't necessarily get out the female vote.  Sibelius, Napolitano, Gregoire.

    Parent
    Yes, take Gregoire! (none / 0) (#34)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:37:21 PM EST
    I'd love to move someone in who won't put regressive $7 tolls on one of our major Seattle area thoroughfares!

    Parent
    Take my Governor, please. (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:38:37 PM EST


    Parent
    $7?? Wow. That is crazy!! n/t. (none / 0) (#130)
    by halstoon on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:30:34 PM EST


    Parent
    It's only being proposed (none / 0) (#162)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:59:05 PM EST
    by Gregoire, et al.

    $7/day for a round trip to pay for a bridge in disarray on a major route.  It's regressive...would cost about $1750/yr if you're a commuter.  This is fine for an exec who probably tips the shoeshine boy that much.

    However, a single person on a modest income could really use that money to buy something else, I'm sure.

    Oh, and they're talking about tolling the alternate routes too, so you can't get around it.

    Parent

    Well, I hope it doesn't pass. That is excessive. (none / 0) (#217)
    by halstoon on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:39:40 PM EST
    I live in the South, and I know things are cheaper down here, but my word, is the minimum wage there $12 an hour? $7 a day is absolutely regressive. Maybe they'll find a compromise, like some subsidies or 86ing the toll on alternate routes.

    Good luck with that.

    Parent

    Women get the consolation (none / 0) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:35:37 PM EST
    prizes every day.  I don't think this would appeal to the ones who feel insensed by it.  It would appeal to the ones who didn't much care one way or another.

    Parent
    Okay. Heck, you married well (none / 0) (#91)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:33:38 PM EST
    And I love the t-shirt. Don't think I could get my spouse to wear it!

    Parent
    Okay, so let's just say your candidate (none / 0) (#93)
    by derridog on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:35:47 PM EST
    was Edwards and Hillary got the nomination.   Maybe she could just  get a "different male" for VP to attract the Edwards voters.  Would that work for you?

    Parent
    i wouldn't take accept if i were her. (none / 0) (#20)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:24:03 PM EST
    he's screwed her over throughout this campaign, and past behavior is the most reliable predictor of future behavior.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:29:49 PM EST
    And the job is symbolic so there's very little for her to do.

    She needs to take over the senate leadership. Or move to a foreign country where it really is possible for a woman to be president.

    Parent

    That statement about it (none / 0) (#135)
    by halstoon on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:36:00 PM EST
    "really is possible" doesn't look very good. Do you honestly think she's losing only b/c she's female?

    Isn't that just as bad as saying all her female voters are only voting based on sex?

    Parent

    Sexism and the Clinton candidacy (none / 0) (#168)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:01:46 PM EST
    has been a major topic of discussion at TalkLeft.  Go back and read archives if you want background.

    But yes, IMHO sexism plays a major role in her loss.

    Parent

    Uhm... (none / 0) (#174)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:04:26 PM EST
    she hasn't lost!

    Parent
    No, I've read the sexism stories, but (none / 0) (#189)
    by halstoon on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:12:44 PM EST
    to imply that she can't win b/c she is a woman is giving to much credit to the sexists and taking away from Obama's effectiveness and some of Clinton's failures.

    Parent
    I think she will graciously (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:29:49 PM EST
    accept if offered, keeping her misgivings to herself, and publicly working very hard for their joint candidacy.  

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#27)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:33:48 PM EST
    It's a dead-end job.  She'll be almost 70 in 2016.

    Senate leader, senate leader!

    Parent

    Because she is (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:36:04 PM EST
    interested in the Dem. party winning the Pres. this Nov.

    Parent
    Over any future personal ambition? (none / 0) (#46)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:43:25 PM EST
    Like being senate leader?  That would be the ultimate unselfish act, considering she'd be too old to run in 2016,.  Don't count on it.

    Me, I don't want a fighter like her in a symbolic position.

    Parent

    That's still younger than McCain (none / 0) (#33)
    by Chimster on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:36:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Yep, but she'll have the double-whammy (none / 0) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:37:49 PM EST
    She's a woman and she'll be old.

    Parent
    "Older, " please. (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:40:50 PM EST


    Parent
    I should have put "old" (none / 0) (#52)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:47:29 PM EST
    in quotes....my point was that the perception is she'll be "old".

    But yes "older".  She's actually younger than I am in "real years".  I'm 45 and don't feel I could do what she does every day of the week (esp with what feels like the whole world against you).

    The woman amazes me.

    Parent

    I know what you mean. (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:56:40 PM EST
    Tears?  You want to see tears?  Sleep deprivation big time.

    Parent
    You are (none / 0) (#42)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:41:13 PM EST
    assuming that Sen Obama is elected, then holds the White House for 2 terms.

    What happens if he loses GE... then it is too easy to blame the VP choice.

    Parent

    three words (none / 0) (#49)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:44:01 PM EST
    Man
    Sized
    Safes

    Parent
    Clinton Would Be a Fool To Accept A Vp Spot IMO (none / 0) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:42:34 PM EST
    If Obama loses the GE, then his loss would be Clinton's fault no matter how the loss came about. If he became president and some nut job took a shot at him, people in both parties would claim that Hillary was somehow behind it because she wanted to  be president.

    Parent
    The only far-fetched part of that.. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Chimster on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:47:36 PM EST
    is that Obama would somehow lose the GE. When Clinton supporters and Obama supporters unite Democrats (and it will happen no matter who the nominee is) they will be an unstoppable force. If its an Obama/Clinton ticket, even the media won't be able to stop the landslide. The Republicans fear this ticket. Always have.

    Parent
    "The Republicans fear (none / 0) (#141)
    by mg7505 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:41:01 PM EST
    this ticket"? Surely you can't be serious. Obama will motivate their radical-racist constituency, Clinton will ignite their Hillary-Haters, and the Media will be on their side for SURE. Obama's going to be in a bind for VP noms; he can't nominate a woman without p*ing off Hillary's supporters, and nominating a white man would be the last nail in the Edwards coffin (the first of which Kerry gleefully hammered in).

    The discussion of Obama's VP highlights that he simply isn't the kind of candidate to have a running mate; it just doesn't seem right. And that hints at what's wrong with this candidacy -- it's about an individual, not a team working together on solutions. Did someone say unity?

    Parent

    You know, with over 1 million (none / 0) (#177)
    by halstoon on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:06:43 PM EST
    people contributing to his campaign, and with his grassroots support dwarfing Hillary's and everybody else's, it would seem that you could recognize the enormous success this campaign has had in bringing unprecedented numbers of Americans on board. Those people are all races, sexes, classes, and even political affiliations.

    Your problem is that you don't see us; you only see Barack. Well, he sees us, and that is why this campaign will put him in the White House.

    As for VP, he'll pick someone who complements him, perhaps even an Edwards, though I personally hope not. You are right, though, that the race will not be about his VP; it will continue to be about the movement.

    Parent

    You may be right...but consider as well: (none / 0) (#188)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:12:30 PM EST
    1. The racists, the bigots, the misogynists, etc. weren't going to vote for Senator Obama or Senator Clinton anyway.  They're beyond the reach of rational persuasion.  So there's no net loss there because there's nothing to lose.

    2. The media appears to be slowly catching on  to McCain.  We shall see.  I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that they'll take his side.

    3. Instead of thinking about how a combined ticket would energize the opposition: think about how it would energize us.  There is a massive groundswell of support (yet another report from Texas tonight characterizes early turnout as "unbelievable" and wonders if they can possibly handle what's going to hit them on election day).     Having both on the ticket would not only stop the pointless bickering, but would be -- far more importantly -- good for the country.  (Yes, I think we need them both -- and John Edwards and others as well.  We need all the help we can get.)

    The freight train has already left the station and is picking up speed.  A combined ticket would would push the throttle wide open.  If anybody should be worried about that, it's the Republican nominee.

    Parent
    Sen Obama's campaign (none / 0) (#64)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:00:54 PM EST
    is all about IMAGE. He has set ways that are allowed even by supporters....

    I knew there was something special to this campaign back in November prior to the Jefferson Jackson Day dinner in Des Moines.  My wife and I were in the parade that followed the Obamas up to the front door of Vets Auditorium.  Before the parade began, we pushed to the front of the crowd with our twin baby boys on our shoulders.  Someone from the side of the crowd handed us two handmade signs to carry in the parade, and we were all set to march with these signs until a campaign staffer grabbed it from us and gave us a campaign issued sign instead.  This was complete message control at its finest.

    Under this type of tight contol .... there is no way that he will even consider Hillary for VP. I really believe that the VP will have to be some one that will accept his rules for the "Image".

    Parent

    Did you see the piece at Huff Post (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:18:28 PM EST
    today about the Obama campaign's choice of fonts?

    Parent
    It is NOT (none / 0) (#86)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:28:43 PM EST
    just the font. It is his whole marketing.

    There is alot of praise going around that he can MANAGE the fonts, signs, etc.

    It worries me when a person cannot use a home made sign in a primary. His "Image" is more important. And they are serious about this.

    Link

    His "O' is compared to the Nike logo. So he is marketing himself.

    Is it managing or control? When I read this I though about MO and the interview.

    Parent

    the same guy (none / 0) (#94)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:37:34 PM EST
    who morphed the face of Bin Laden into Howard Dean's way back when is now working on Obama's campaign. (Robert Gibbs--communication director)

    Gibbs knows how to control the product.

    Parent

    Why (none / 0) (#155)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:53:09 PM EST
    do these supporters just do what they are told?

    If some one took my sign away because it was home made... I would question WHY?

    If his image is so important... then what happens if he gets elected? Will his image be more import than the issues?

    Parent

    I just wanted to point this out to you. (none / 0) (#167)
    by halstoon on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:01:31 PM EST
    From the link you provided:

    What about Hillary?
    She's been morphing her Web site* specifically to look like his all the time, so that seems obvious.

    He has been so effective that she is forced to copy him. Now, either she's more concerned about image, or he's just revealing a new way. Whichever it is, and whoever you support, I think it's fair to say that Obama has changed the way campaigns will be run for a long time.

    Parent

    i confess you are right (none / 0) (#187)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:11:49 PM EST
    obama's campaign strategy and team have been far superior and much more organized. i say that as a clinton supporter. her team has played abysmally.

    Parent
    I was never enthusiastic about Hillary (none / 0) (#215)
    by halstoon on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:36:34 PM EST
    being president, but last year I definitely anticipated voting for her b/c people like Huckabee, McCain and Romney are just...well, they are not in my ideological gap.

    I have to admit, as surprising as Obama has been in his effectiveness, it has been somewhat even more surprising to see the Clinton team operating so abysmally, to use your word.

    Do you think maybe her team just got caught totally off guard at how impressive the Obama campaign was and were caught in the headlights, so to speak, or do you believe all the media stories about the dissention in her ranks, ie, too many chiefs, etc.? Something else?

    Parent

    I don't think (none / 0) (#178)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:06:44 PM EST
    I really don't think that H. Clinton offers much to an Obama ticket. If a considerable amount of Dems are so angry at Obama that they won't vote for him, he loses. If Dems come out and vote then he should win all the Dem states. If anything Clinton would suppress Dem votes in purple states. She's carrying a lot of negatives among the general population. I suspect Obama will look for someone to pull in independents and conservatives. That's usually been the Democratic strategy.

    Parent
    Have anyone realized that (none / 0) (#51)
    by talkingpoint on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:46:07 PM EST
     since that photo of him in muslim clothing surfaced he have been sliding in Texas.Look at all the polls since 02/26. Now Farakhan endorsed him and Hillary at to demand that he reject the endorsement and after a he stumbled several times he said he rejects it. Obama scares thedaylights out of me. he really scares me.

    I'm a little skeptical (none / 0) (#54)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:49:10 PM EST
    Daily polls fluctuate.  We'll need a long-term tracking poll and even then, there are so many different variables it'll be hard to point it to one particular thing.  You have every right to your feelings, but I'm not sure that the causal relationship you are trying to draw is accurate.

    Parent
    Skepticism is warranted (none / 0) (#57)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:56:05 PM EST
    but I'm sure there are lots of bubbas who are fully capable of freaking over a picture.  :-)

    Parent
    Creating Doubt (none / 0) (#59)
    by Chimster on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:56:36 PM EST
    Perception is 95% reality. It doesn't matter what is true as much as what people think is true. The more you talk about his casual relationships and the more you show him wearing garb that folks equate with him negatively, the more doubt is created. Take Mr. Kerry and the swiftboaters for example. What the media decides to run with is how they can affect political outcomes. This is only the beginning for dear Mr. Obama.

    Parent
    y'all are probably right (none / 0) (#63)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:59:32 PM EST
    but I want to think that people are smarter than this.  Sometimes my cynicism takes some time off and this sort of thing happens.

    Parent
    You would like to think so (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:11:20 PM EST
    but they're not.  

    My aunt, even after I repeatedly told her that Obama wasn't a Muslim (I'm a Clintonite, BTW), still believed that he was one because of some...Muslim guy who came to speak at some function or something and told them that Obama is Muslim.  She told me that West Texans are scared of Obama, that even if he says he's not  Muslim now, he's still got the Islam in his past and the whole "Barack Hussein Obama" thing just doesn't ring right to them.  This is in West Texas, BTW.

    Parent

    people smarter than this? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Chimster on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:08:30 PM EST
    Look who was voted into office for the past 8 years. I have no faith in the general public. Thankfully, I think we'll have enough of the younger smarter voters to offset Republicans this year.

    Parent
    And since Obama is all about perception (none / 0) (#176)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:05:59 PM EST
    he's doubly vulnerable. How many people are voting for Obama because of some policy, rather than personality? Not many. Skewer his image and those voters will skitter away like mice.

    Parent
    A dirty trick (none / 0) (#180)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:07:54 PM EST
    Typical right-wing dirty trick.

    Parent
    Here's an idea (none / 0) (#73)
    by tnthorpe on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:09:22 PM EST
    Obama nominates Wesley Clark for VP. Clinton takes over the Senate from the mind-bogglingly ineffective and non-combative Reid.

    Will it be Obama's or Clinton's healthcare proposal that gets to the floor? If mandates are part of the bill, would a Pres. Obama veto it? Unlikely I think.

    If Obama talks unity and Clinton practices the sort of Senateering necessary to get the difficult votes passed, is the country, let alone the Dem Party, any the worse off?

    Real political work takes more than the quadrennial 5 minutes in a polling booth and either of the candidates will need to be pressured constantly not to move to the right because it's convenient, but to do the right thing whether it's fully expedient or not.

    so... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:14:27 PM EST
    Clinton does all the work and Obama takes all the credit?

    Parent
    On Reasonableness (none / 0) (#108)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:53:47 PM EST
    ******************
    Kathy,

    Earlier this evening, you were posting comments to: "Is Obama Building The Democratic Party", weren't you?

    It got so acrimonious with, what I call, the "usual suspects" (not you) being so intractable toward BTD.

    It is fantastic to have BTD and Jeralyn so actively involved in the blogging dialogue. I just wish they could get the intractable types to step aside and open up more space for other people who aren't "unwilling to admit that the sky is blue"  (to paraphrase one of your comments). It could allow for a more generative debate.

    Is that foreseeable, or do-able, or desirable?

    Parent

    Oh please, (none / 0) (#109)
    by tnthorpe on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:55:51 PM EST
    The point is that an Obama candidacy isn't the end of Clinton's political effectiveness, necessarily.

    Further, it's not as if Clinton is running such a stellar campaign. She's bungled her campaign, blowing huge leads and refusing to embrace a fully 50 state strategy. As I recall she didn't do so well with healthcare in '93-2 either. And while I admire her tenacity, I see her as the sort of republican-lite that destroyed the Dem party from within.

    But the larger point, which you ignore, is that neither of these candidates can be counted on to do the right thing on health care, Iraq, trade, etc. Voting for a candidate is only the most superficial sort of political engagement.

    What's with the Clinton entitlement anyway? It's not like she deserves the nomination anymore than Obama does, or Edwards might have.

    Parent

    Again, missing the point (none / 0) (#127)
    by tnthorpe on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:25:56 PM EST
    Neither candidate is "the answer" and both will need to be pushed to do the right thing. Got it?

    As for Clinton's mistakes, being republican-lite isn't a mistake. Making the party safe for the Jane Harmons and Joe Donnellys of the world isn't a mistake. It's hollowing the out the party with DLC centrism that makes Obama's unity strategy looks positively edgy.

    I look back at the Clinton years with the deepest loathing, when I consider his destruction of the social safety net and lopsidedly pro-corporate trade policies. His don't ask don't tell bs and the Defense of Marriage travesty. I can't say another Clinton excites me in the least.

    OF course, this isn't part of the Clinton experience you seem to tout is it?

    Parent

    It's been well documented (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:42:30 PM EST
    That Obama's and Clinton's voting records are virtually the same.

    If she's republican-lite, then so is Obama.

    Smearing Clinton like that makes me hate your candidate.  Deeply.

    Just stop.  You are dividing the party.


    Parent

    Face it (none / 0) (#153)
    by tnthorpe on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:52:18 PM EST
    Clinton is a flawed candidate. Recognizing that isn't divisive, neither is recognizing the many failures of her husband's admin.

    Fact is, Clinton's  presidency made the party safe for the Blue Dogs, deprived progressives of any real home in the Dem party, and moved the political life of the country well to the right.

    That's not success in my book.

    Parent

    great (none / 0) (#164)
    by tnthorpe on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:59:41 PM EST
    you love Clinton, no criticism allowed.

    Whatever.

    Parent

    no (none / 0) (#182)
    by tnthorpe on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:09:32 PM EST
    you simply neglect to read what I very clearly wrote for reasons I couldn't care less about.

    I'm through with this foolish attempt to communicate with you.

    Parent

    That is all (none / 0) (#192)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:16:11 PM EST
    Untrue.

    Even Michael Moore will admit Clinton blazed the trail on Univeral Healthcare, moved that issue forward.

    Your talking point is worn out sirota-ism.  I swear, I understand the Obama campaign has to do some tearing down to win the nomination, but if the end result is dismantling the entire legacy, fine.  Have at it.

    You'll lose more supporters than you gain.

    Besides.  Can't you think for yourself.  I've heard your lines millions of times by the same people over and over again.


    Parent

    Clinton (none / 0) (#199)
    by tnthorpe on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:23:47 PM EST
    failed on healthcare. Period.
    Spin it how you like.

    Her husband's presidency was a colossal failure.
    Spin it how you like.

    All I see from you is spin and whining about splitting the party. I"m so glad I'm not a Democrat because as comments like yours so ably demonstrate, there's not much there there.

    Parent

    You're like (none / 0) (#206)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:28:19 PM EST
    A republican trying to convince another republican that Reagan was a colossal failure cause he didn't actually succeed make abortions illegal.

    Do you know what Clinton's job approval rating was at the end of his administration?

    Better than JFK's.

    Better than Reagans.

    Better than FDRs.

    You can have an opinion.  I can point out that your opinion is a minority opinion and most of that minority is republicans.

    If you people really take over the party, i'm out.

    Easy.  

    Parent

    you can point out (none / 0) (#213)
    by tnthorpe on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:34:37 PM EST
    whatever you like, you're still wrong.

    You may think the Defense of Marriage travesty is trivial, but it's appalling. You may think shoving folk off of state support was trivial, but it was the Dem embrace of the worst sort of republican bs. You may think lopsided pro-corporate trade agreements were the bee's knees, but come the rust belt sometime.

    Folk like you are the reason I left the Democratic party, because you don't even know what you stand for anymore.

    Parent

    And then folks like you (none / 0) (#221)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:42:29 PM EST
    Will be the reason I leave the Democratic Party.


    Parent
    if smearing Clinton (none / 0) (#157)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:55:48 PM EST
    makes you hate Obama . . . does that have any implications regarding the smearing Obama?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#185)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:11:10 PM EST
    When Obama is smeared by Clinton supporters, Obama supporters also threaten to leave the party.

    I don't see Obama called names here on this blog.

    If you have a case to make that she's too conservative, fine.  Then people can rebut.

    If all you're doing is calling Clinton names, then others have the right to say it's wrong.

    Parent

    republican lite (none / 0) (#209)
    by tnthorpe on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:31:04 PM EST
    refers to a failure of the Dems to mount serious opposition to Republican policies and political strategies.

    Everyone on the planet but you apparently knows this.

    Rep lite

    rep lite

    rep lite

    Parent

    oh gimme a break (none / 0) (#159)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:56:42 PM EST
    Obama is smeared several hundred times a day in this blog by an army of commenters. I guess they don't share your worry about dividing the party.

    Parent
    You Need a lesson (1.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:20:32 PM EST
    This is criticism:  Clinton is too conservative for me and here's why, etc. etc.

    This is namecalling:  Clinton is republican-lite.

    Now.  Have you comprehended that, yet, good!

    Obama is criticized.  If anyone calls him names, I missed it.  Please let us know where you think people have been calling him names.

    Parent

    Okay, here's one (none / 0) (#207)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:28:37 PM EST
    #195 on this page: "Saint Barack". That's really unnecessary.

    (Which is why I try to be careful to refer to Senator Clinton and Senator Obama -- out of respect not just for them but for other participants here.   You will note that I refer to McCain without the honorific -- he lost my respect the day he lost his courage, betrayed his oath of office, failed to uphold and defend the Constitution, and voted for torture.)

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#212)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:33:09 PM EST
    Saint Barack.

    There might be a real menacing pejorative intent behind that too.

    Guess what.  If Saint Barack is off limits.   Then so is republican-lite.

    And guess what.  You know who was called republican-lite two or three years ago when he was making excuses for levin voting to confirm roberts????!!!!.  Obama.  I thought it sucked then too.

    Ok?

    Parent

    Re: OK (none / 0) (#219)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:40:01 PM EST
    I don't believe I've used either term -- in fact, I've tried very hard not to use any terms in reference to either Senator because I consider them both fine people. (Flawed, to be sure, but then again: so am I.)   So I don't think you need to caution me, unless I've slipped up -- in which case I'll ask that you point out the error so that I can correct it, and if appropriate, apologize for it.

    It really does strike me as ironic that the Democratic party is fortunate enough to find itself in 2008 with two candidates capable of not only winning the general election, but capable of running the country -- and huge amounts of energy are being expended (on both sides) tearing them down.  We are turning an embarrassment of riches into a schoolyard squabble.

    Parent

    You don't have a point. (1.00 / 1) (#133)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:35:45 PM EST
    instead you spout 'the nation' style crap.  i presume you're a proud nader voter.  consider the loathing returned in spades.


    Parent
    wow (none / 0) (#139)
    by tnthorpe on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:40:01 PM EST
    you sure told me-------nothing

    I note you don't deny Clinton's failures, you just spout vitriol.

    As for your idiotic presumption, I'd vote for either Obama or Clinton as there's not much diff. between them and either would be preferable to McCain. She's better on health care while I prefer his position on the war.

    Again, neither candidate is "the answer." Why is that so hard for you Clinton advocates to understand.


    Parent

    good grief (none / 0) (#151)
    by tnthorpe on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:49:42 PM EST
    the word is IRONY

    You say Clinton has experience. The sort she showed in her Kyl/Lieberman vote?

    Not that any of you've been paying attention, but I don't think Obama is the knight on the magic horse come to save us. I think he's a shrewd politician whose campaign has been more effective than Clinton's. I don't even think he's particularly progressive, since, like Clinton, he's campaigning on expanding military spending.

    Parent

    get this (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by tnthorpe on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:08:09 PM EST
    a criticism of Clinton isn't an embrace of Obama. Pointing out that Obama is flawed isn't a way to hide Clinton's equally serious errors in judgment. Obvious, no?

    Neither candidate is "the answer." Neither candidate is the anti-Christ.

    Parent

    what exactly do you think (none / 0) (#138)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:38:18 PM EST
    that she learned from the '93 experience?

    Parent
    Are you trying to say (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by mg7505 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:48:23 PM EST
    that people don't learn from their experiences? Maybe she learned something about the Right-wing firestorm and how to handle it. Maybe she learned how exactly you go about designing a healthcare plan for 300 MILLION people; it's not as easy as designing the rhetoric for a plan in a campaign, which Mr. Obama thinks is an achievement. Maybe, just maybe, she learned from her experience, which people sometimes do.

    One thing is not a maybe: she helped break the silence on Universal Healthcare. She helped to turn liberal from a swear word to a title that self-appointed hotshots like Obama give entire speeches to try and apply to themselves. We have Hillary to thank for her brave leadership on this issue, and I only wish that her critics like Obama had more EXPERIENCE with it. Universal Healthcare (or some Obama perversion of it) WILL happen now thanks to Hillary.

    What did she learn from '93? Maybe nothing. But America learned a heck of a lot, and thank goodness for that.

    Parent

    the only thing I was trying to say (none / 0) (#156)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:53:53 PM EST
    is what I said.

    I simply asked what it is exactly that she learned. We hear alot about how she learned from that experience, but not exactly what it is she learned.

    There certainly was no implication that Hillary in particular, nor people in general, dont learn from their mistakes. I think that is the only way to learn anything. But sometimes people actually fail to learn anything, and sometimes they learn the wrong thing. What is wrong with asking what she exactly did learn? Are we supposed to simply assume that she learned the right lessons?

    Parent

    I suspect (none / 0) (#186)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:11:14 PM EST
    I suspect that whoever is President or in the Senate will not have his or her plan automatically passed into law. Quite honestly, until there's a real single-payer plan with the health insurance companies cut out America won't have real reform.

    All the more reason for Dems to vote in as many Dems as possible.

    Parent

    Durbin will take over the Senate. (none / 0) (#204)
    by tek on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:27:40 PM EST


    Parent
    If McCain wins the GE (none / 0) (#79)
    by Coldblue on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:18:57 PM EST
    this year, who would you want to run as the Democratic candidate in 2012?

    Feingold. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:20:04 PM EST


    Parent
    For his ideology (none / 0) (#90)
    by Coldblue on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:32:05 PM EST
    or because he could win? I'm curious because he was my first choice way back when in this contest.

    Parent
    ironic, eh? (none / 0) (#161)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:57:22 PM EST
    Feingold endorsed Obama today.

    (And, umm, Feinstein endorsed HRC today.)

    Between Feingold and Feinstein, who's more progressive and who's more with core values of the Dem party?

    Parent

    Feinstein (none / 0) (#190)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:13:59 PM EST
    Feinstein voted for telecom immunity.

    She's been terrible. I voted for Jello Biafra when he ran against her for mayor of SF.

    Thank god we've got a real Dem in Boxer.

    Parent

    Link on Feingold? Not in the paper (none / 0) (#193)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:17:42 PM EST
    here in Wisconsin, not on google news when I search.

    Parent
    sorry, not an official endorsement (none / 0) (#216)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:38:19 PM EST
    Atrios here listed him.

    But because you asked I looked for more sources, and I see in the Wash Post it said of Feingold: "he has said he personally voted for Obama and will support him as a super delegate"

    So, my apologies.  If that's not a real-enough endorsement, than subsitute "Dodd" for Feingold

    Parent

    Chelsea Clinton (none / 0) (#80)
    by Chimster on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:19:53 PM EST


    Parent
    United Church of Christ (none / 0) (#102)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:47:17 PM EST
    is being investigated by the IRS.

    Under federal law, churches are barred from becoming directly or indirectly involved in campaigns of political candidates.

    He gave a speech discussing his Health Care Plan at the Nation Convention for the Church.

    An IRS spokesperson declined to comment. But a UCC spokesman, the Rev. J. Bennett Guess, said the investigation is "disturbing news."

    "We went to great lengths to make sure no laws were broken," he said.

    Link

    I wonder if Evangelicals would have the same problem? Will this play out in the GE? No polical speeches from the pulpit.

    Grassly is leading the super church (none / 0) (#115)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:07:24 PM EST
    investigations (valid, I think) regarding extravagant expenditures and tax exempt status.  I dunno, I said it on the other thread--this IRS investigation into Obama's church leadership (it's not his actual church, but the organization) makes me a tad uncomfortable.  Politicians tap dance over that line all the time.  I'm fairly certain Clinton has given what could be construed as "political speeches" as well.  Most politicians have.

    This smacks of some kind of string pulling by the repubs to yet again use government agents to do their dirty work.  We know that there is no line they won't cross just as we know that Bush has given many, many political speeches from pulpits (I am still furious that his first speech to the nation after 9-11 was from a church.)

    Hopefully, Obama will untie them soon to stop this.


    Parent

    That sounds like a valid investigation (none / 0) (#123)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:18:02 PM EST
    to me.  I'm sure the whole church tax exempt status thing is rife with abuse.  If a church owns a manufacturing plant, like the catholic church did in Louisiana, there's no reason that should be tax exempt.


    Parent
    I'm sure (none / 0) (#194)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:17:50 PM EST
    that this Justice Department would never improperly go after a Democrat.

    Parent
    Since this is an Open thread (none / 0) (#120)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:15:06 PM EST
    Maybe some other people will find this interesting.  I mean this will certainly give us a good background on what uniting races, religions and different sexes and sexual preferences are all about.  It is a part of our History I hope we can all be proud of.

    Now it makes sense. (none / 0) (#122)
    by halstoon on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:17:47 PM EST
    You're a Gator; no wonder you're wrong so much of the time!!

    ;^)

    Go Vols!

    I once went to UF to make a Presentation (none / 0) (#126)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:25:16 PM EST
    On AIDS wearing My Georgia Jacket

    Parent
    Now that took nerve. :) (none / 0) (#134)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:35:53 PM EST


    Parent
    Worse part was they invited me back (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:49:37 PM EST
    again and again but I didn't wear the jacket after the first time

    Parent
    uh haltsoon...Knoxville here. Go Vols... (none / 0) (#132)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:35:08 PM EST
    I knew we would lose last night. Too much excitement with two tough road games back to back. We really need to whip up on KY Sunday.

    Parent
    Saw this on Politico (none / 0) (#128)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:27:41 PM EST
    Clinton "enabled"

    Obama just called Hillary an enabler, in the context of her vote to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq even though, as she now claims, she had qualms about the president's judgment.

    Well, words matter and I'm sure he knows how loaded the term is.

    Source.

    Ooops (none / 0) (#131)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:31:30 PM EST
    He's making it more and more difficult for me to support him in the general election.

    Not everybody thinks like or agrees with bloggers.


    Parent

    Sort of like (none / 0) (#203)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:26:56 PM EST
    when "denunciation" and "reprehensible" aren't enough. Or when "rejecting" isn't enough. Then we can kiss women's reproduction rights goodbye. We can kiss the Supreme Court goodbye. Sounds like a plan, Edgar.

    Parent
    And he will get a PASS again!!!! (none / 0) (#195)
    by kenosharick on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:18:29 PM EST
    I predict "saint barack"s free ride in the press will continue until he wraps up the nomination(he will probably win Texas by 15 and Ohio by 5+) after which they will turn like a pack of hungry dogs.

    Parent
    I believe he will lose a significant amount of the (none / 0) (#143)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:42:52 PM EST
    democratic party with his anti liberal views, etc....

    More like slimy personal attack alert (none / 0) (#148)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:48:24 PM EST
    Do you get it? This is a personal attack, not a policy attack. Obama supporters keep accusing the Clintons of being nasty, and yet there has not been one case of a PERSONAL comment about Michelle or Obama. But both husband and wife have made derogatory personal comments about Bill and Hillary.

    Can you see how Orwellian/Rovian this really is?

    ah.... (none / 0) (#149)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:49:17 PM EST
    no.

    Parent
    Wow thanks (none / 0) (#154)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:52:53 PM EST
    That was very enlightening. That kind of in depth and honest discussion is why I love coming here.

    Parent
    ok Marvin (none / 0) (#173)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:03:38 PM EST
    I'll expand a bit.

    I use the word "enable" lots of times. Probably thousands of times in my life. Its a handy word. One of the myriad number of contexts in which it is used is the case of woman whose words and behavior facilitate certain unseemly behaviors of their husbands. I know that I have used the word in that context probably 0.01% of the time that I have used the word. I have used the word in many political contexts, as do millions of people.

    To take this totally unremarkable, and highly accurate usage by Obama, and claim that it is some dog-whistle reference to Bill and his behaviors, strikes me as beyond absurd. It seems that some people spend much of their waking hours torturing thier minds to find some reason to let loose some hating on this guy, and this is one of the products of that.

    Is that better?

    Parent

    Yes, thanks (seriously) (none / 0) (#210)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:31:06 PM EST
    I don't use enable on a daily basis. When I use it I mean it in the more accepted terminology, which is someone who is complicit in allowing someone to do something to harm themselves (and the enabler).

    First I don't agree it is "highly accurate." No matter what you think of her vote it is not enabling. This administration has done what they wanted, sometimes outside of the law, and didn't need anyone helping them. So its not fair to begin with.

    Secondly I think you have a blind spot because you support Sen Obama. I think he does use words well, and this word is well chosen.

    I don't think you would be so kind to Sen Clinton in her choice of words.

    Parent

    I know that some of you here (none / 0) (#205)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:28:19 PM EST
    think Taylor Marsh is the anti-christ (I think she's great!), but she snagged an interesting clip from MSNBC.  It's Wilentz on Tucker explaining his article on the race card and it's pretty interesting-especially the point he makes about the JJ comment.  He offers a really solid explanation that I think BTD should hear (and of course comment on)

    Also, at the end, Tucker tries to "nail" him on being in the Clinton's pocket (why else would he paint Obama in an unflattering light) and Wilentz points out that he barely knows the couple.  Tucker's sort of "well, if you say so!" tone of voice is hilarious.

    LINK

    LA Times/Bloomberg national poll (none / 0) (#218)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:39:44 PM EST
    interesting bit from the internals.  Yep, Obama's going to blow him right away.  No problem, Yes he can???

    "McCain runs ahead of Obama on every issue except health care. The Arizona senator has a 13-point advantage on Iraq and a 37- point lead on terrorism."

    This thread is closed (none / 0) (#220)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:41:36 PM EST
    New thread above.

    Yes, and a warning to Tano/Halstoon (none / 0) (#222)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:59:56 PM EST
    You seem to be the same person. Pick one name and stick to it. Readers are entitled to know your views are coming from a single individual.

    Open Thread | 211 comments (211 topical)