home

No Excuses, No Spin Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:20:56 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

What I really like about this Super Tuesday in the Democratic race is that the time for spinning and the time for excuses is over. We have two solid, talented, well funded and well known candidates. The voters know them. They have had time to consider their choices. Throw out New York and Illinois if you like, but no one has any excuses in any other state. If your opponent wins, he won. If you win, you won. I do not want to even hear about moral victories now. Winning means winning.

This also holds for tonight's Super Bowl. I do not want to hear about distractions, injuries or spying. When the Giants shock the world tonight, I do not want to hear New England whine about the pressure, the Media or Tom Brady's ankle or hangnail. Winning means winning.

This is an Open Thread.

< A Leap Of Faith | Tsunami Tuesday: Polls and Delegates >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    No Excuses, No Spin Open Thread | 205 comments (205 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Are you ready for some Giants football? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:23:12 PM EST
    Go Giants!!

    Signing off now (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:26:46 PM EST
    Enjoy the game or the movie, whichever you end up watching.

    [ Parent ]
    Delegates are awarded proportionaly (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by ding7777 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:24:08 PM EST
    so they will both win

    giants over pats? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Turkana on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:41:25 PM EST
    are you sure this wasn't supposed to be posted under your previous headline?

    bah!

    Why did Obama endorse the Pats? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:50:55 PM EST
    Because Hillary already had the Giants?  Will this hurt Obama?  

    [ Parent ]
    haven't you been reading the blogs? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Turkana on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 05:17:50 PM EST
    obama already has the race won...

    [ Parent ]
    I know, I know. And now he's got (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 05:28:00 PM EST
    Maria Shriver.

    [ Parent ]
    for all of you this is (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:56:29 PM EST
    an excellent article about Hillary and sexism

    Wow. Haven't read much from Robin Morgan (none / 0) (#18)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:18:57 PM EST
    lately.  Thanks for the link; I must read her more -- one of the too-often-unsung greats of those "excesses of the '60s and '70s."

    [ Parent ]
    nice link (none / 0) (#19)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:32:06 PM EST
    thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    Robin Morgan (none / 0) (#53)
    by vdeputy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:09:11 PM EST
    Thanks for the link - what a terrific piece of writing!

    [ Parent ]
    Great Article - Thank You n/t (none / 0) (#201)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:25:04 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Post this link everywhere possible (none / 0) (#211)
    by lily15 on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:07:49 AM EST
    It needs as much exposure as possible.  It is excellent.  Thank you so much...now let's get to work linking it on other blogs...as often as possible  everybody..needs to do it...every vote counts.

    [ Parent ]
    Ahh Waited all day (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:04:51 PM EST
    Saw this on Moyers,  Katy Couric asked the candidates what book they would take to the White House other than the Bible.  These were the answers:  

    BILL MOYERS: Welcome to THE JOURNAL. Earlier this week on the CBS Evening News Katie Couric asked the presidential candidates what one book (other than the bible) they would take to the white house with them if they win. Here are their answers:

    SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith because we may be entering some pretty shaky economic times.

    SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Doris Kearns Goodwin's book TEAM OF RIVALS. It was a biography of Lincoln, and he was confident enough to be willing to have these dissenting voices.

    MIKE HUCKABEE: There's a great book by Francis Schaeffer that had a real influence on me, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? And it talks about the dignity and worth of each individual.

    SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: I would certainly bring a--my copy of the Constitution because there apparently was not a copy in the Bush White House the best I can determine. So I would bring THE FEDERALIST PAPERS.

    MITT ROMNEY: JOHN ADAMS by David McCullough. A truly great leader who made a difference for America, and his example is one I'd want to follow.

    For me, case closed.  She is taking the play book on what America is, the Constitution, so that she does not forget.  Go Hillary.  

    The Federalist Papers (2.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ramo on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:38:08 PM EST
    They're interesting as far as looking at the original motivations for specific aspects of the Constitution, but are far from a progressive guide to governance.  'Specially the essays written by Alexander Hamilton.

    But I think those books are quite revelatory.  McCain subscribes to somewhat dated economic theory, Obama has the consensus shtick, Huckabee is a fundie, Clinton wants to game the system, and Romney combines high Toryism with the desperate desire to look like a President.

    [ Parent ]

    Game the system? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Virginian on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:48:29 PM EST
    Please explain the rational behind that backhand?

    [ Parent ]
    rationale (none / 0) (#23)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:51:57 PM EST
    Clinton can't do anything without certain folks saying she is the devil.

    If the woman climbed a tree to save a cat, they'd say she was just trying to make herself look taller than everyone else around her.

    [ Parent ]

    This victimhood song is getting old. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ramo on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:12:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    let me tell you what is getting old! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:25:44 PM EST
    that is snide putdowns of democratic candidates without any support or commentary. many of us have differences and concerns about the different candidates and put them out there. but you simply try a repub talking point about hillary's gaming the systems. please!

    [ Parent ]
    Yawn. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ramo on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:31:47 PM EST
    I explained myself in the comment right below.  If you want to take issue with my explanation, go right ahead.  

    But this victim-hood shit is simply pathetic.  

    Hell, I was being complementary to her in relation to the other candidates, including Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    i have never seen hillary play victim. (none / 0) (#38)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:41:56 PM EST
    though she had a right to in some cases i could mention but won't. your comment about her gaming the system is not supported. so please refrain.

    [ Parent ]
    Context! (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ramo on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:50:09 PM EST
    The context of this is that Hillary sees the Federalist Papers as a guide for governance.  The system that I was clearly referring to is the one explained in these documents - the original Constitution.  Being able to effectively game it is not a bad thing!  That's what LBJ did, and that's why Civil Rights through Southern filibusters.  That's what FDR did to get the New Deal passed.  That's what Lincoln did, and what every other great President did.

    I don't know why Clintonistas are giving me grief for having to audacity to give Clinton a compliment!

    And you're turning Clinton into a victim.  I was criticizing you, not her.

    [ Parent ]

    You know what's old? (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by echinopsia on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 07:55:43 PM EST
    Replying to all defenses of Senator Clinton with accusations of "claiming victimhood." That's what's old.

    Is she criticized unfairly? Yes, she is.

    Is it often sexist and misogynist? Yes, it is.

    Is she held to an impossible double standard? Absolutely.

    Is it claiming victimhood to point this out?

    NO IT IS NOT.

    Because despite all of the above, she's winning. And I suspect that's what's really bothering you.

    [ Parent ]

    What's bothering me... (none / 0) (#143)
    by Ramo on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:59:23 PM EST
    ... is that when I compliment Clinton, people here are insinuating that I'm smearing her.  That you're conflating my complement with other peoples' sexism.  Total bullshit.  You're definitely not helping out your candidate here.  I suggest that you try something else.

    [ Parent ]
    just stop it (none / 0) (#145)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:05:25 PM EST
    you are the one pushing the point.  

    [ Parent ]
    Excuse me. (none / 0) (#157)
    by Ramo on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:26:02 PM EST
    Someone drastically misinterprets what I say (I still don't see how you go from saying that a candidate is being effective in working the system to deep-seated Hillary hatred and/or misogyny), I defend myself, and I'm pushing the point?  Funny how that works.

    [ Parent ]
    I suggest (none / 0) (#148)
    by echinopsia on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:10:22 PM EST
    that if you want to be seen as complimenting Senator Clinton, you do it in a way you don't have to defend and explain for 20 posts.

    It's not hard.

    [ Parent ]

    I suggest... (none / 0) (#154)
    by Ramo on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:22:50 PM EST
    ... that you don't throw around words like sexism and misogyny so casually.

    Saying that the premise of Clinton's campaign is that her experience allows her to most effectively game the system is not at all offensive to her.

    As for the 20 posts, you might have a point were I not saying the same things over and over again.

    [ Parent ]

    Obviously (none / 0) (#156)
    by echinopsia on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:24:46 PM EST
    it's because you aren't being very convincing.

    [ Parent ]
    Funny... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ramo on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:37:18 PM EST
    ...that there's no rebuttal on the merits.  Despite how many Clinton supporters arguing against me?

    [ Parent ]
    What merits? (none / 0) (#169)
    by echinopsia on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:13:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Backhand? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ramo on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:12:12 PM EST
    That's her entire rationale for her candidacy.  Her theory of change is that she can wheel and deal with Congress, in an LBJ like matter, to get all the nice things that we want.

    Yes, I condensed it a bit snidely, but I did the same thing for all the candidates, including the one I'm voting for.

    [ Parent ]

    It was a backhanded compliment (none / 0) (#79)
    by Virginian on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 05:26:50 PM EST
    even you admit it...I just want to know what proves that she will "game it" that implies stretching the confines of the rules to bring about ends that were not originally intended to be within the construct...that is what Bush has done to a large degree (and broken the rules too)...I am not sure thats what you meant, thats why I want clarity.

    [ Parent ]
    Who ever said that the original intent was great? (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ramo on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 05:48:57 PM EST
    The people who wrote the Constitution didn't trust poor people, minorities, or women.  They did lots of fine things, but they weren't saints.  They created undemocratic structures that we've been fighting against for two centuries.  And the upper class have created more barriers since then.  The oil companies and the drug companies and the insurance companies will throw tons of money at us.  There's a filibuster that can thwart all but the most popular legislation.

    I should note that gaming a system is not about breaking the rules.  It's about playing to win.  And as long as we have this system, it makes perfect sense to play it to win.

    It's funny that I have to explain Clinton's theory of change to a bunch of Clinton supporters.

    [ Parent ]

    You're changing the subject (none / 0) (#92)
    by Virginian on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:02:55 PM EST
    I'll just take that to mean

    1. you don't actually have an answer for my question

    2. you'd rather argue than answer a legitimate question regarding your statement...


    [ Parent ]
    I don't see a question asked that I didn't answer. (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ramo on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:26:11 PM EST
    To summarize:

    1.  Gaming the system is not the same thing as breaking the rules.
    2.  The system sucks, and therefore absent a change it should be gamed towards good aims.  
    3.  Bush has, you know, broken the rules.  Many times.  He has also gamed towards crappy aims.

    Care to ask a specific question?

    These accusations from y'all are really lame.  This time it's intellectual dishonesty?  Really classy...

    [ Parent ]

    As for gaming the system, (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ramo on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 07:03:54 PM EST
    look at who Clinton compared herself to.  LBJ.  Read Master of the Senate.  That's what I mean.

    [ Parent ]
    And honestly... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ramo on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:18:14 PM EST
    ... I think I mocked Obama worse than Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    with all due respect it isn't necessary to (none / 0) (#39)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:43:14 PM EST
    mock anyone. why would you want to do that? why not discuss them as candidates and their proposals?

    [ Parent ]
    Levity. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ramo on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:51:36 PM EST
    I found the exercise mildly amusing.  And again, I was poking fun at my candidate much more than yours.  Chill out.

    [ Parent ]
    my candidate was edwards and (none / 0) (#44)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:55:21 PM EST
    is now clinton. i don't know who your candidate is. i am glad you defined what you meant about gaming the system.

    however you define it, which by the way is not how i would, it will be necessary to have strong leadership along the lines of fdr or lbk because left to their own devices the present dem leadership is dim to say the least.

    [ Parent ]

    There was a clear context. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ramo on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:00:21 PM EST
    Not only was there a clear context that anyone should have been able to pick up, the entire blogosphere had a huge discussion on theory of change very recently.  I'm appropriating language that has been used before in a similar way (see Atrios' pithy summary on theories of change).

    So please do not insinuate that I was trying to smear Clinton, because that's absolutely not true.

    [ Parent ]

    "gaming the system" does have (none / 0) (#52)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:07:48 PM EST
    a certain sniff to it. i wasn't the only one who had concers regarding that. as i said, i am glad you defined what you meant.

    [ Parent ]
    Irrational concerns. (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ramo on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:00:57 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    ramo, enough already! (none / 0) (#210)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:15:20 AM EST
    your responses are shall we say a little over the top. be sweet now!

    [ Parent ]
    Did Obama really read this book? This is review (none / 0) (#127)
    by ding7777 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:03:01 PM EST
    is at a high-schooler's level...

    SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Doris Kearns Goodwin's book TEAM OF RIVALS. It was a biography of Lincoln, and he was confident enough to be willing to have these dissenting voices


    [ Parent ]
    maybe (none / 0) (#128)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:04:54 PM EST
    if he gets the nom, someone will pass him a copy of the Happy Goat.

    [ Parent ]
    Happy Goat? Is W still reading My Pet Goat? (none / 0) (#133)
    by ding7777 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:20:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Goodwin, of course, gained notoriety (none / 0) (#146)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:08:23 PM EST
    as a plagiarist, sadly.  Odd that Obama would commend a liar -- but perhaps revealing.

    [ Parent ]
    she was the one (none / 0) (#172)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:20:01 PM EST
    that was supposed to be covering the kerry side of one of the '04 debates and all she wanted to talk about was the red sox.  total dis of kerry i think it was on msnbc.  

    [ Parent ]
    The Patriots have an unfair advantage. . . (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:10:49 PM EST
    due to the PATRIOT Act, they're entitled to engage in warrantless spying on the opposing team (and probably dissenting members of their own team).

    Good one Larry! (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:14:40 PM EST
    Go Giants...Go Puppies. I just turned the Puppy Bowl on Animal Planet for my two little dogs and they're going nuts. This is so funny.

    [ Parent ]
    Why don't the Obamacrats (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jen on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:19:17 PM EST
    see what's happening here?

    Frank (Ugh) Luntz on Maher show last night

    A little about Luntz in case you don't know him (lucky you)

    ---------------------

       

    Luntz earned his stripes by helping set the stage for the Republican Revolution of 1994 by co-authoring Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America." Over the past dozen years, he helped keep the national debate over global warming in a holding pattern by counseling GOP candidates "to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue."

        Bill Moyers revealed on "Now" that Luntz's early advice to the Bush administration on any Iraq war messaging included this: "No speech about homeland security or Iraq should begin without a reference to 9/11."

        Frank is the supreme reality reframer who took the estate tax and turned it into the "death tax," turned school vouchers into "opportunity scholarships," and turned drilling for oil in a wildlife preserve into "responsible energy exploration."

        Samantha Bee of the Comedy Channel's "The Daily Show" once noted that Luntz had "made a brilliant career of spraying perfume on dog turds."

    ----------------

    So tonight, Luntz was beside himself, salivating over Barack Obama. The next JFK... Yet another neoconical republican who was nearly dancing in his chair with giddiness telling us that Barack is it... The next president.

    Every day there's a new one... Almost like some memo went out. Some new talking point...

    Forgive my cynicism.... but I've earned it. I am one of those icky older people still using up space and oxygen who really should be dismissed and cast away to make room for the new. For the Change.

    These are the same dudes who have been lying to us all for the longest time now, about everything. Working against everything we hold dear. And now they have leaped on to our side? It makes one cynical. And I have this memory of those other 90's- the ones that didn't suck. And I have not yet seen the hateful, evil, racist Bill or Hillary Clinton, the ones I keep hearing about. So when I see an entire gang of right wing talkers- lining up one right after the other- to extoll euphoric about a democratic candidate for president... Well, more flags than there are at the UN spring up in my brain with little alarm bells attached to them. My BS radar kicks into gear and I have a really hard time, no - I have an impossible time- buying that all these rightists are suddenly truly itching to see a Barack Obama presidency.

    Wonder who it will be tomorrow? Has Kristol jumped on the love train yet? This is getting eerie.
    ____

    And here is the YouTube of Luntz on Maher tonight. Remember-- this is the Republican's Language Framer Deluxe. The clip is kind of long, but here are some of the more relevant snips from it: (between 02:45 and 05:00)

    LUNTZ:
    Barack Obama has engaged independents-- (to the crowd)
    How many of you want Obama as the next president?

    (Audience: predictable woooos and hooooos)

    LUNTZ:
    This guy really is the real deal-- I feel like he's channeling Bobby Kennedy.

    LUNTZ:
    I think the public is post-partisan, they've had enough of republicans and democrats.... they want someone to do the nation's business - to not be focused on lobbyists and special interest groups- {...} --- to say to Washington...Go to Hell!

    (Audience: predictable rousing clap clap claps, Luntz then instinctively dives in for the kill)

    LUNTZ:
    And Obama has done that on the democrat side!

    LUNTZ:
    If it's Obama / McCain ...it's almost like Dwight Eisenhower vs John Kennedy.

    (and then he drops the real gem:)

    LUNTZ
    Hillary Clinton can be defeated by Republicans.
    If Barack Obama gets the nomination... I dont know how to beat him.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vk2UhFWCXY

    h/t ms in la @ CCN

    if i were obama the last person i'd want (none / 0) (#33)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:27:56 PM EST
    in my corner is luntz.

    [ Parent ]
    That's the thing (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jen on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:40:40 PM EST
    We're being set up by the same gang that has been tearing down liberals, progressives and the Democratic Party for 30 years. WHY are so many falling for it NOW? It's crazy-making!! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!

    [ Parent ]
    luntz will turn on obama so fast (none / 0) (#40)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:46:29 PM EST
    you can't say scat fast enough. the attempt will be subtle, but there it is. the "will" of the people don't you know.

    [ Parent ]
    honestly (none / 0) (#47)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:02:26 PM EST
    he'll have these obama people turning on him in droves and they'll never know what him them.  

    [ Parent ]
    that may be true, but i don't think that (none / 0) (#51)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:05:42 PM EST
    luntz much cares. the thing is repubs don't care what we think.

    [ Parent ]
    And after Luntz (none / 0) (#49)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:03:57 PM EST
    my second fav...the charmer who got all the face time on FOX by endorsing Hillary against McCain...typing her infamous self to Hillary in the Dem/public eye and driving them to ... umm...gee....Obama?  Just a guess, of course..

    [ Parent ]
    Here is HRC responding to (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:40:16 PM EST
    a question about that questionable offer:

    HRC ON COULTER

    [ Parent ]

    Obamacans (none / 0) (#142)
    by echinopsia on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:57:53 PM EST
    Is the proper term.


    Barack + GOP = `Obamacans'

    [ Parent ]

    Talking Points Memo Evidence Against Hillary NOT (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by nycvoter on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:37:29 PM EST
    has anyone seen Josh Marshall's latest evidence without evidence against Hillary?  He has a blurb -LA Times find evidence of push polling by Clinton against Obama (not exact quote) and links to an LA times article which is one person's story of a push poll call received and about how smooth the caller was and that's it!!!! that's what they call evidence. He's a joke.

    he now has an update (none / 0) (#115)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 07:21:54 PM EST
    saying the story is bogus and he shouldn't have been so quick to run with it.  so i will give him credit for that.  

    [ Parent ]
    C'mon (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 07:39:08 PM EST
    We knew it and we are not "journalists"

    [ Parent ]
    Credit For (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:10:50 PM EST
    Him being quick to run with it?

    [ Parent ]
    But between his his original and updated (none / 0) (#129)
    by ding7777 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:06:56 PM EST
    posts, DKos probably had 15 "recommended" Hillary Hate diaries

    [ Parent ]
    JFK comparisons (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:11:53 PM EST
    Another wonderful tidbit from Moyers.

    KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON

    Well, and that's part of the problem with the analogy back to John Kennedy from Edward Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy. Because the Presidency was tragically cut short before John Kennedy had been able to get enacted most of his legislative agenda. And as a result, you don't have many specific accomplishments that you can turn to. And you have Bay of Pigs, an admitted mistake. And you have a campaign that was predicated in 1960 on a missile gap that didn't exist...
    It is because on both sides, they move back and they select the pieces that they want you to remember. And they feature those pieces. And to some extent, people who haven't lived through those times, and a large part of the electorate hasn't lived through those times, are now being invited to see a part of the past without seeing in its full historical context. At a certain point, we're substantially misrepresenting the historical whole.

    transcript

    Since this is an open thread, I (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:17:25 PM EST
    wanted to share this with you.  I asked a friend, who is an anybody but Hillary dem, if he was following the articles about Rezko/Obama relationahip.  He sd., just HRC's crack during the debate.  Then he immed. brought up the article about Bill Clinton, the donation to his library, and the visit to a "Stan" with the uranium guy.  

    [ Parent ]
    Maddening... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:37:21 PM EST
    You will love this.  You know the great community organizer attribute?(  He touts he Saul Alinsky roots.  Well, guess what, Hillary wrote her senior thesis at Wellsely on Alinsky and she interviewed him. He was so taken by her that he offered her a job.  But what floats around in the blog world?  
    That she was a goldwarter girl in high school and a corporate lawyer.  I have no idea when the Children's Defense fund and the Legal Services Administration, compared to the Law Firm Obama worked for, are higher marks?  (who offered Obama a job cause he was so taken by him: Rezko)...ha..ha

    [ Parent ]
    I would welcome more information (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:43:31 PM EST
    about that law firm experience, which Obama characterizes as a civil rights law firm.  How does the firm's representing Rezko's interest fit into that description?  I also read somewhere, with no attribution, that a Rezko business partner worked in the law firm as a lawyer at some point.  

    [ Parent ]
    law firm (none / 0) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:50:37 PM EST
    It's not all civil rights they also advise developers and others who develop affordable housing .  Don't know the percentage of work.  But one of the partners left to go work for Rezko.  

    law firm

    [ Parent ]

    Link doesn't link. (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 05:04:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Take two on link... (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:58:26 PM EST
    the firm

    [ Parent ]
    Here's a piece on law firms, his (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 05:30:35 PM EST
    and hers:

    McClatchey

    [ Parent ]

    I would welcome (none / 0) (#85)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 05:42:00 PM EST
    testimonials from folks he helped during those years.  I would welcome testimonials from tenants in slumlord buildings run by Rezko in Obama's district.  I would welcome someone scrutinizing this fellow before we put the whole of the democratic party behind him.

    [ Parent ]
    Now this link is interesting (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:33:53 PM EST
    ABC news is reporting this:

    "If Clinton is the nominee, 15 percent of Democrats say they'd rather vote for McCain; if Obama's the nominee, 20 percent say they'd go to McCain. A key factor is the extent to which those intraparty tempers cool after the Democratic race is decided."

    that would defeat Obama big time....

    Here is the link....

    Obama is still talking about how some (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:46:15 PM EST
    of his supporters might not vote for HRC but all of hers would vote for him.  

    [ Parent ]
    he's a fool (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:27:52 PM EST
    if he thinks hillary won't go all the way to the convention and fight him for the nomination. but he won't even be close so it won't matter.  this will all be over on tuesday.  

    [ Parent ]
    from your mouth to God's ears...:-) (none / 0) (#183)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:02:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not All (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:56:15 PM EST
    Some here have said that they would never vote for Obama if he gets the nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    You can add me to the list (none / 0) (#101)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:35:41 PM EST
    of non-Obama voters.  Obama doesn't instill my confidence at all, and I won't have a Democratic version of Bush in the White House destroying Democrats for years to come.

    I'd just as soon have McCain in there so he can further wallow in the Iraq War.

    The Supreme Court?  I'm 44, have no kids and won't.  My relatives vote Republican.  It's their problem.

    [ Parent ]

    it IS an interesting link (none / 0) (#185)
    by Satya1 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:15:21 PM EST
    I wish it also examined independents.

    [ Parent ]
    CAN YOU BELIEVE (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 05:55:31 PM EST
    that a commentator gets away with saying this, in this day and age.....Geeeezzzzzzz....

    "Look the only people for Hillary Clinton are the Democratic establishment and white women... it would be crazy for the Democratic party to follow the establishment that's led them to defeat year after year... White Women are a problem - but, you know... we all live with that..." - Bill Kristol, Fox "News" Sunday

    yeah white women are such a problem....that makes me so mad!!!!!

    LINK

    I think what Kristol (none / 0) (#96)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:23:41 PM EST
    meant was that women are a problem for HIM.

    [ Parent ]
    What's in a name? (none / 0) (#131)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:12:42 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    All of you (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:14:35 PM EST
    Obama supporters should ask yourselves, why is the MSM (corporately owned of course), plus most of the republican commentators all pulling for Obama....because he is the easiest to defeat!!!! AS you can plainly see Hillary is very popular with mainstream democrats...she would be awesome in the GE and would prevail big time...As mentioned in another thread, 15% of Obama's supporters would not vote for her BUT 20% OF HILLARYS WON'T VOTE FOR HIM.....thats a huge problem!!!!

    ahtyrio (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:24:48 PM EST
    you are wrong--Obama said that Hillary's supporters would vote for him.  I heard him say it so it must be true.

    [ Parent ]
    Better read the article again (none / 0) (#188)
    by Satya1 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:34:26 PM EST
    As mentioned in another thread, 15% of Obama's supporters would not vote for her BUT 20% OF HILLARYS WON'T VOTE FOR HIM.....thats a huge problem!!!!

    No, the ABC article said:  If Clinton is the nominee, 15 percent of DEMOCRATS say they'd rather vote for McCain; if Obama's the nominee, 20 percent say they'd go to McCain.  

    If you read the top of the article you would have caught this:

    Among the general public overall, it's a 49-46 percent McCain-Clinton race and a 46-49 percent McCain-Obama race

    The article does not even remotely support your claim, "she would be awesome in the GE and would prevail big time".

    [ Parent ]

    so the wording is democrats (none / 0) (#190)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:44:07 PM EST
    instead of supporters...OK...It is still a bigger percentage would not vote for Obama no matter how you spin it...and I believe that Florida voters prove that Hillary is more than able to have a landslide victory in November...

    [ Parent ]
    Yes a bigger percentage of democrats (none / 0) (#195)
    by Satya1 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:59:24 PM EST
    would not vote for Sen. Obama.  But a bigger percentage of total voters would not vote for Sen. Clinton.  The independents and any crossover Repubs more than make up for it as the numbers at the top of the article show Sen. Obama "winning" against McCain by 3 and Sen. Clinton "losing".

    [ Parent ]
    but what (none / 0) (#197)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:12:21 AM EST
    about the "be a dem for a day" voters that will vote for their republican candidate  now that Obama is nominated.....Now that they helped nominate Obama who is perceived to be the weakest candidate? I submit that noone really knows how many of those there are...until it is too late of course....anyway, this is all guesswork until November....may the best candidate win...:-)...remember that one of the precincts he won in nevada was historically republican...

    [ Parent ]
    if I chose to not vote (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:24:49 PM EST
    in the general election, if Obama wins, it won't be because of Obama himself...It will be because I have never in my 63 yrs on earth, seen such blatent media manipulation and I just refuse to play into their hands...It disgusts me and it is a sham to our form of government....

    I Won't Back Down (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Aaron on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 07:14:04 PM EST
    Well I won't back down, no I won't back down
    You could stand me up at the gates of hell
    But I won't back down

    Gonna stand my ground, won't be turned around
    And I'll keep this world from draggin' me down
    Gonna stand my ground and I won't back down

    [Chorus:]
    Hey baby, there ain't no easy way out
    Hey I will stand my ground
    And I won't back down

    Well I know what's right, I got just one life
    In a world that keeps on pushin' me around
    But I'll stand my ground and I won't back down

    Hey baby there ain't no easy way out
    Hey I will stand my ground
    And I won't back down
    No, I won't back down

    (Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers)

    Obama 08

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#137)
    by echinopsia on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:45:14 PM EST
    Obama has a long record of backing down.

    I know Tom Petty. And Barack Obama is no Tom Petty.

    [ Parent ]

    when Obama (none / 0) (#140)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:56:08 PM EST
    had a chance to help these people that were losing their jobs he did nothing...Gee he really cares about Americans....Baloney!!!! He is all flash and no subtance in my book!!!

    LINK

    [ Parent ]

    Tom Petty (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Coldblue on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 07:18:00 PM EST
    was hot. Best halftime in a long time!

    "American Girl" -- a Clinton song :-) (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 07:41:20 PM EST
    Often played at her rallies, played it today -- if I heard it correctly from a room away?  Go Tom Petty!

    [ Parent ]
    My observation as a classical music (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 07:35:07 PM EST
    fan is that classical musicians age better than rock stars. although Petty looks good.  But that guy with all that stringy black hair.  

    [ Parent ]
    Another endorsement for Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 07:42:14 PM EST
    from a truly great woman.  This will be BIG in Oklahama -- and nationwide in Native nations.

    Oklahoma City, OK -Wilma Mankiller, the first woman Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation and the first female in modern history to lead a major Native American tribe, announced her endorsement of Hillary Clinton today. Chief Mankiller will serve as a National Campaign Co-Chair for the Clinton campaign.

    "I am honored and humbled to have the support of a deeply respected woman who knows what it takes to lead a nation," Clinton said. "Chief Wilma Mankiller has worked for change her whole life and is an inspiration to so many of us who have followed in her footsteps."

    I wish the endorser had a (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 07:43:45 PM EST
    different last name.  This could be fodder for a day or so.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh please. (none / 0) (#139)
    by echinopsia on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:52:45 PM EST
    You think it WASN'T fodder when she was the first woman chief of the Cherokee nation?

    Mock her name and look like a different kind of racist.

    [ Parent ]

    I was only making an observation. (none / 0) (#171)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:19:58 PM EST
    Sorry.

    [ Parent ]
    The thing is (none / 0) (#184)
    by echinopsia on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:05:30 PM EST
    that because she is a woman and an Indian, there probably will be mockery of her name in the MSM. And no one will call them bigots for it.

    [ Parent ]
    I actually have heard her speak -- and heard (none / 0) (#149)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:13:10 PM EST
    her marvelously humorous stories about explaining her name to non-Natives. . . .  She is a wonder.

    Btw, her name denotes that she is of the "warrior" clan of the Cherokee -- it's simply a literal translation, by English speakers, of the term.

    [ Parent ]

    Touchdown Giants!!! (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by byteb on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 08:57:28 PM EST
    35 seconds left.
    Sweet.

    Giants shock the world!!! (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by robrecht on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:08:35 PM EST


    Giants win! (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by byteb on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:31:09 PM EST
    From a wild card to Superbowl Champions.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm waiting (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Coldblue on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:18:23 PM EST
    for the Obama-Giants analogy.
    not sure (none / 0) (#151)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:20:47 PM EST
    I think Obama was for the Patriots wasnt he?? Not sure but I think Sen. Clinton as for Giants?

    [ Parent ]
    McCain bet on the Patriots ... and lost! (none / 0) (#155)
    by robrecht on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:23:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    OK who was for who please (none / 0) (#159)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:29:23 PM EST
    enlighten me :-)

    [ Parent ]
    McCain bet Giuliani on the Jay Leno show ... (none / 0) (#174)
    by robrecht on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:23:19 PM EST
    ... the other night and McCain gave him the full point spread.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama endorsed the Patriots prior (none / 0) (#186)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:25:50 PM EST
    to today's game.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm waiting (none / 0) (#152)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:21:57 PM EST
    for the Hillary with a sling-shot analogy

    [ Parent ]
    It's all over DKos... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:22:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That was expected n/t (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Coldblue on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:29:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    NO WAY! (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:31:47 PM EST
    I want excuses and spinning, I have to wait till March to vote.  There better not a be a winner. Hillies, Obamaniacs, get your spin ready.  I wanna see these two b**ches come to Texas and tap dance for my vote!

    No presidential candidate has ever come to Texas and fought for my vote.  

    Extradition is the only thing (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 07:13:27 PM EST
    that would drag me to Texas again.  Once was enough.  Jesus.  You people drill for oil in your PARKS fer Crissakes.

    [ Parent ]
    actually (none / 0) (#164)
    by Jgarza on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:03:51 PM EST
    I live in Austin, we have one of the largest park systems of any city.  Large green belts, spring fed pools, low pollution, Texas does not only consist of Houston and Dallas

    [ Parent ]
    Glad to hear it... (none / 0) (#168)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:12:49 PM EST
    I'm a parks person!!

    You'd better not be fibbing because if I ever get to Austin (again - Zezus...you can see all the way to Oklahoma from that tower!) and you're not telling the truth I'll hunt you down like a dog!

    And THEN...I'll call your mom.

    [ Parent ]

    Ausitn is quite nice (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:29:17 PM EST
    I live there as well and it's a nice city.  Quality of life doesn't suck yet and, if we're lucky, we can keep it that way.

    Traffic is worse than it used to be but it still beats Dallas.


    [ Parent ]

    Must be Lady Bird's legacy... (none / 0) (#202)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:36:10 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Here is an interesting analysis (