home

Monday Morning Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:44:50 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Time for an open thread, you take the reins and pick the topics. There's war news, economy news, crime and justice news, politics, take your pick.

< No New Trial for Troy Davis in Georgia | Wright's Church Comes to His Defense >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Morning Open Thread | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Geraldine Ferraro paraphrases Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by K Lynne on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:49:45 AM EST
    I guess it just irks me that Obama has come down so hard on Geraldine Ferraro when he himself said basically the same thing in the past.

    From a 2005 interview (admittedly, not in reference to his current campaign):

    Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race. If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?

    From the LA Times (link) which references Obama's Senate website

    There you go... another leaf in his crown of (none / 0) (#47)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:57:59 AM EST
    CREDIBILITY!!!

    Parent
    And she was paraphrasing Obama (none / 0) (#51)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:04:24 PM EST
    too when she said virtually the same thing about Jesse Jackson!  Though I think there is something wrong with that timeline.

    Parent
    I'm not sure I get your point... (none / 0) (#58)
    by K Lynne on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:49:37 PM EST
    Is it that Ferraro truly is a racist because she said something similar about Jesse Jackson BEFORE Obama made a statement regarding his own success??

    My point was simply that this is another illustration of the Obama rules.  It is OK for Obama to make a statement about the effect of his race on his political fortunes, but unforgiveable when a white woman says basically the same thing.

    And FWIW, I did not mean to state that Ferraro purposely paraphrased Obama (which she may have done).  I simply wanted to highlight what to me seems to be a serious double standard.


    Parent

    I've mentioned before... (none / 0) (#75)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:01:03 PM EST
    ...that Matt Dowd made a similar comment on Bill Maher's show a few weeks ago.

    "It's actually - it's actually easier for an African American to get elected in this country than a woman, president...

    Granted Matt Dowd does not have an official position with any campaign (unlike Ferraro who was so integral to Clinton's /sarcasm)... but he is an adviser to Gov. Schwarzenegger and he did say he prefers Obama:

    Although Dowd has yet to endorse a candidate, he said the only one he liked was Obama. "I think we should design campaigns that appeal, not to 51% of the people, but bring the country together as a whole," Dowd said. - London Times, 5.6.07

    Parent

    Well Ferraro was on the record as saying (none / 0) (#130)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 10:16:26 AM EST
    that a Woman would find it easier to get elected President than a Black man.  Of course this was before her candidate fell behind.

    Parent
    Obama planning speech... (none / 0) (#104)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:33:33 PM EST
    Obama plans major race speech tomorrow

    Barack Obama will give a major speech on "the larger issue of race in this campaign," he told reporters in Monaca, PA just now.

    "I am going to be talking about not just Reverend Wright, but the larger issue of race in this campaign," he said.

    I have a bad feeling about this one.  The guy is just way too confident that he can talk his way out of anything.

    Parent

    I dont think its going to work (none / 0) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:52:17 PM EST
    this time.
    also I expect someone will, by then, have found an actual instance of his being around for one of the whacko rants.
    and there will be a whole new round of "what he really meant".

    Parent
    Oh, it'll work for his pals (none / 0) (#113)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:06:03 PM EST
    at MSNBC - which one will be the first to call it Obama's JFK moment?  How much of a thrill will this give Chris Matthews?

    I'm not sure a speech will do much, other than give him some free air time, and I just think there is little that neutralizes the power of all those Wright clips.

    No, Obama might just be feeling a frisson or two of fear, might be seeing the first of some stress fractures in the foundation.  The problem is that he can't un-ring the bell, or put the toothpaste back in the tube - as much play as the Wright videos have gotten, they will not just go away with a speech - no matter how brilliant.

    On top of that, he has a hard time, in my opinion, taking the moral high ground on race in the campaign - given the way it has been used by him and by his surrogates.


    Parent

    He has... (none / 0) (#114)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:12:07 PM EST
    ...already said far too much.  Right now he's flailing since his PR tour on Friday didn't sufficiently quell the controversy.

    But you're absolutely right.  All he can accomplish is to put race at the forefront of the campaign dialogue which was exactly what he previously said was inappropriate

    It's been flippity flop all the way.  Obama says he doesn't want to talk about race.  Now he wants to talk about race...

    Parent

    Yup .... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:22:03 PM EST
    this is one case where his much heralded "gift of gab" will fail him.

    Those who can put the Wright stuff behind them, already have.  And those who can't, never will.

    He just digs a deeper hole for himself by talking about it.

    He should just shut up about it, and move on.

    Parent

    What's a moderate to do? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by K Lynne on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:09:16 PM EST
    Please hold the rotten tomatoes for now...

    I've admitted before to being a moderate - a slightly right-leaning moderate, at that.  I'm hanging out here because I feel like I've finally found a 'lefty' site that refrains from name-calling (for the most part) and general nastiness.

    I'm relatively new to the whole topic of politics, and am trying to understand the 'liberal' point of view - but to be perfectly honest, it is VERY hard to find left-leaning sites where one can have discussions on philosophy without things getting nasty very quickly.  The MSM really does a horrible job of presenting pros and cons of issues - or contrasting the relative views of left vs. right.

    I have no problems finding right-leaning sites which state fairly clearly the conservative viewpoint (Townhall comes to mind) - but so far have not had any luck finding similar liberal sites.   I certainly don't agree with them all of the time, but the points are typically made somewhat respectfully.  I once went to DKOS and was very quickly turned off by the profanity; similarly at Dem Underground.  

    Since I don't think it is proper to start a discussion on this site about exactly why reforming Soc Sec is such a bad thing(one subject which truly has me puzzled, FWIW) I'm hoping someone here can point me to a good book or site.  A 'Liberalism 101', if you will ;-).

    Thanks - and thanks in advance for holding back on the rotten fruit...

    Getting liberals to consensus... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:43:29 PM EST
    ...is like herding cats.  It's just inherent in the nature of liberal thought to reject dogma.

    I think - rather unfortunately - both liberals and conservatives have been defined by caricatures and nobody is much interested in the more nuanced points of view.  I find Paul Krugman to be a very resources and just finished "The Great Unraveling" which is a compilation of his columns.  He's focused on economics but has a good handle on social policy as well.

    Parent

    cats (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:46:46 PM EST
    There once were two cats of Kilkenny
    Each thought there was one cat too many
    So they fought and they fit, and they scratched and they bit
    Till excepting their nails and the tips of their tails
    Instead of two cats there weren't any

    Parent
    Question (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:43:48 PM EST
    What do you see as the purpose of Social Security?  

    Parent
    I presume this is directed at me? (none / 0) (#78)
    by K Lynne on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:14:27 PM EST
    I see SS as a 'safety net' - a way to make sure that people have at least something to survive on in their retirement years.

    I once suggested to a very liberal friend that perhaps some sort of 'means test' should be applied to Soc Security as an alternative to raising tax rates (or perhaps in conjunction with raising tax rates).  She looked at me as though I had grown a second head.  She completely refused to acknowledge that there will need to be SOME changes made by the time I retire (I'm 40).

    I consider myself very fortunate to be what is commonly considered to be 'upper middle' class.  I would very likely be affected by any 'means test'.  I tuck away money for retirement in a 401K, and may even have a company provided pension of sorts (a defined-contribution plan).  I would much prefer that SS contributions go to those who NEED them.  If that allows the government to cut the contributions from everyone else, all the better.  It makes no sense to me whatsoever to give SS benefits to someone who has a million+ $$ in retirement savings (as a recently-retired co-worker does).

    Honestly, I was flabbergasted at this friend's response.  Her common refrain for just about everything is "tax the rich" ;-).  

    Parent

    I actually lean the other way... (none / 0) (#83)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:34:11 PM EST
    ...as personally I think Social Security is a fairly half-ass approach to what should be a comprehensive program to care for the population which has invested in America but which is now past working age.

    I've been all over the world, and the American obsession with funding retirements is unique.  Yet while we're so obsessed with it, we don't make any progress.  People can't afford to participate in 401K plans since they're already squeezed.  The personal savings of Americans is dismal at best.

    Really what we need is a reasonable standard of living provided for seniors which includes housing, healthcare and basic needs.  The quality of life in America pales in comparison to most other developed nations because of our rat race to hoard as much as possible to avoid starving in our old age.

    Parent

    This is a DRASTIC oversimplification... (none / 0) (#90)
    by K Lynne on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:55:22 PM EST
    but since you state that people can't afford to participate in 401K plans -

    I don't disagree at all with you about the reasonable standard of living.  But what if we were to take that 14?% total (employee / employer) SS contribution - require EVERYONE to sock away 10% of their income into something safe, and take the other 4% (or make it a higher %-age, only for those over a certain income level?) and use it to supplement the retirment income of those who NEED it?  

    Now, I haven't crunched any numbers there and have no idea what they'd need to be like in order to make that work.  But I honestly don't understand why something like this gets screams from the left side of the aisle.

    But that's why I'm here - to try to understand this kind of stuff.

    Parent

    You're basically... (none / 0) (#94)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:14:39 PM EST
    ...advocating for private accounts.  My general response is that it's not clear how individuals can inherently secure better returns on their investment than the government.

    At the core, the argument is whether or not you should have true ownership of your retirement funds or whether you should be subject to a government distribution.

    The problem with private accounts is one of program viability.  Current obligations are being funded by current contributions.  What happens when all of a sudden your SS contributions are funneling into your own account instead of the SS trust?

    The argument from the left is that this is a backdoor way of killing Social Security altogther since it ends up making it impossible to meet current obligations.

    Parent

    I fully acknowledge the issue (none / 0) (#100)
    by K Lynne on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:27:28 PM EST
    of program viability, and the issues that would be caused by funneling current contributions out of the system.  Any change would have to be very slowly phased in.

    I guess I'm looking at this from the point of view of 'if we could start completely from scratch, what would avoid the problems we have today'.

    Parent

    I recall... (none / 0) (#102)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:29:46 PM EST
    ...Bush had a proposal at one time which was a phased privatization.  It's been so long that I don't recall the details, but Social Security math is notoriously fuzzy and the assumptions he used were questionable.

    That's the big reason why you'll never get any precise discussion of SS... variables such as lifespan and rate of return are best guesses at best.

    Parent

    I have no philosophical objection to private accts (none / 0) (#117)
    by K Lynne on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:50:24 PM EST
    However, I completely agree that there are numerous issues that would need to be addressed including, but not limited to:

     - phase in issues.  How to continue paying benefits to those currently in the system, nearing retirement, etc.

     - GUARANTEE of returns.  I would absolutely want some kind of GUARANTEED return on investment.

     - GUARANTEE that funds will last for life (requirement that a lifetime annuity be purchased, for example).

     - GUARANTEE some minimum annuity-type income, with cost-of-living adjustments, regardless of how much was put in.  For example, if a person has $x in his account which translates to a $y monthly annuity, if that monthly annuity is less than say the current SS payment equivalent I would expect additional government payments to reach some minimum level.

    The devil, of course, is in the details.


    Parent

    K Lynne (none / 0) (#120)
    by Mary Mary on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:30:41 PM EST
    You do know, don't you, that you're not paying in to your own SS "account," right? Having read your posts on this subject, I get the impression that you might think so. What you pay now goes to pay the benefits of the people who are now collecting it. When you retire, the people who are working at that time will be paying your benefits. Any diversion of funds from SS to private accounts would take away cash from people who need it now.

    Your proposal seems to me to require massive amounts of bookkeeping and management to do something that replicates what the private sector does. I don't really see the need for that.

    Plus, if you had the government making investment decisions they would basically control the markets as they would be the largest single investor on the planet.

    The government doesn't prevent anyone from investing money for retirement and actually encourages it, as you know from your own experiences with a 401k.

    So there are my philosophical objections to private accounts.

    Last, I don't have a problem with means testing, but I have read that they set SS up like that because universality was a huge selling point.

    Anyway, my two cents. :-)

    Parent

    Oh, I absolutely understand (none / 0) (#126)
    by K Lynne on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:08:40 PM EST
    that there is no such thing as a private account.  And the 'trust fund' doesn't really exist, either.  In order to allocate the trillions of dollars in the 'trust fund' to Social Security, the government will basically have to divert $$ from existing programs or drastically raise taxes.  

    I obviously am not a policy wonk, and have neither the time nor the inclination to thoroughly explore the ins and outs of the various proposals.  More than anything, I was very surprised when several more liberal friends of mine refused to discuss options other than raising the caps on 'the rich'.  Cutting benefits for those same 'rich' people appeared to be out of the question - but it seemed the reaction was more on the order of "I've paid in for all these years, D%$# it, and I'm gonna get my share".  Of course, these were all people who had fairly significant investment resources of their own.

    I guess I would really like to see an official acknowledgement that, as a 40-year old, I really shouldn't count on anything close to the monthly stipend that is 'estimated' in those annual SS updates I get every year.   I know this, and most of my friends my age recognize this, but I'm sure there are many who do not.

    Parent

    x (none / 0) (#138)
    by Mary Mary on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:27:54 AM EST
    Well, the thread is dead but you bring up very interesting points.

    To say that you wouldn't get what was promised to you is to say that the U.S. government will default on its bonds. I can't envision any event which would have a more devastating impact on the global economy than that. So I really don't think it will happen. I am sure that you will get exactly what was promised. How the gov't will pay for it, who knows, but I am sure it will be done. It's Medicare that we really have to worry about, anyway. (Full of doom and gloom today, I am)

    "I've paid in for all these years, D%$# it, and I'm gonna get my share".

    Yeah, that's why universality is such a selling point.

    I am certainly in favor of progressive taxation, but yeah, I sometimes have little patience for those whose answer to problems is always to tax the rich. If there were simple answers to these problems, we'd already be implementing them, IMO.

    Parent

    401(k) (none / 0) (#108)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:47:33 PM EST
    Many employers do not offer 401(k).  and frankly right now, many pensions and private retirement accounts are teetering on collapse.

    Parent
    "Means test" vs "tax the rich" (none / 0) (#84)
    by cymro on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:36:24 PM EST
    How would your suggestion of a "means test" be implemented in practice?

    Isn't it simpler, and much less expensive, to have just one system of measuring people's ability to pay -- the tax system -- rather than two?

    The challenge is to make that system work better, and eliminate the rules that let people with money escape taxation, or pay at much lower rates that the vast majority of the population.

    Parent

    I'm not talking about 'ability to pay' - (none / 0) (#116)
    by K Lynne on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:33:27 PM EST
    My issue is more that Soc. Security also subsidizes the 'rich'.  When I talk about a means test, I am referring to phasing out SS payments to those with incomes (assets?) above a certain level.   My thinking is that if we stop paying SS to those who HAVE the 401Ks, pensions and hefty personal savings, maybe we wouldn't HAVE to levy SS taxes on those earning poverty-level wages.

    I don't understand why it makes sense that a college student or a single mother struggling to make ends meet should be paying SS taxes that ultimately subsidize someone like my recently-retired friend who has a summer home in the mountains and buys new cars every couple of years.

    Parent

    How will this change (none / 0) (#87)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:42:11 PM EST
    result in "reform".   What in the core nature of SS are you trying to reform?  Why the word reform?  Is it delinquent?  Is it behaving badly?  

    Parent
    I'm looking at the projections (none / 0) (#92)
    by K Lynne on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:59:21 PM EST
    That state that benefits will need to be cut 30%? in 15? years across the board if tax rates remain the same.  I don't have those numbers handy.  It just appears that the consensus is that SOMETHING will need to change in order to continue to provide benefits at the current level.  

    I know several people who are trying to survive on SS alone, and a 30% cut for them would be devastating.

    Parent

    Medicare vs. Social Security (none / 0) (#107)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:43:25 PM EST
    Check the source of the projections and if they include Medicare. Are you forgetting the Trust Fund?  The one that was created and then ended up being used for the deficits?  The issue is how will the General Fund, pay back the Social Security Trust Fund.  The baby boomers have been paying for their bubble thank you very much.  So, reform is quite a complicated issue cause it covers up so many critical issues.    

    Second:

    The Social Security system is primarily a pay-as-you-go system, meaning that payments to current retirees come from current payments into the system. In the early 1980s, however, expenditures were expected to exceed the revenues in the immediate future. In addition to fixing the short-term problem with tax increases, the Commission headed by Alan Greenspan took the projections which indicated that the eventual retirement of the numerous members of the post-World War II baby boom would cause expenses to exceed revenues. Accordingly, the Social Security tax was increased in 1983 so that it would be greater than necessary to pay for current expenditures, thus accumulating a reserve that could be drawn upon when necessary. The surplus is accounted for in the Social Security Trust Fund. As of the end of calendar year 2006, the accumulated surplus stood at just over $2 trillion. [1] Projections are that current receipts will continue to exceed expenditures until 2017 (according to Charles Blahous, Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy). Thereafter, there will be a shortfall that will be made up by withdrawals from the Trust Fund, although the Trust Fund will continue to show net growth until 2025 because of the interest generated by its bonds. [2] The Trust Fund will gradually be drawn upon to cover the difference between tax receipts and benefit payments. It will be completely depleted by 2042 (according to the Social Security Administration) or 2052 (according to the Congressional Budget Office). However, if the US economy performs better than the economic assumptions and projections used by the SSA and CBO, the trust funds may remain solvent indefinitely.

    Trust Fund

    Parent
    Liberal = Collective Good (none / 0) (#70)
    by Fabian on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:45:19 PM EST
    That's as concise as I can make it.

    That's the goal of liberals - how we implement the greatest good for the greatest number of people is the subject of many debates.

    Parent

    With a healthy dose.... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:21:32 PM EST
    of individual liberty protected from tyranny with inalienable rights.

    Parent
    Liberalism in Wikipedia (none / 0) (#80)
    by cymro on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:24:08 PM EST
    LINK

    This may be a broader and more historical discussion than you were looking for. But it does provide a context for the typical interpretation of the term Liberal in the US:

    American liberals endorse regulation for business, a limited social welfare state, and support broad racial, ethnic, sexual and religious tolerance, and thus more readily embrace Pluralism, and affirmative action.


    Parent
    It ain't straight politics..... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:17:38 PM EST
    K Lynne...but what originally turned me on to liberal thinking was Kurt Vonnegut novels.  "God Bless You Mr. Rosewater" is a good one.

    As an anti-state lefty, I look at SS as just another tax I probably will never see again as an early 30's person.  I like the concept of us all chipping in so old people aren't eating catfood in a worse-case scenario situation. Not just old people...anybody, for that matter.  I'd be totally open to a needs-based type of thing. One problem is giving everybody back what they paid in already...the man done stole it, and you can't tell 60 year olds "sorry, you're f*cked".  We could pay it back if we seriously cut spending by ceasing foreign occupations and closing the bases in 100-odd countries...but now I'm dreaming:)

    Damned if I know what to do...this is but a slice of a larger economic disaster neither party seems willing to address seriously...they offer varied band-aids.  

    Hope you stick around, stay away from the non-issue oriented election posts:)

    Parent

    Actually at one time we had spirited debates about (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:24:50 PM EST
    Social Security reform, Medicare, etc.

    That has all gone under the horses in favor of election talk almost 24-7.

    Parent

    The good old days.... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:50:28 PM EST
    I hope Peaches, Big Tex, Cliff, Fred Dawes, and the countless other fine folks we used to debate who have moved on are well.

    But we never drew a crowd like the BTD election stuff does...200 comments a post guaranteed.  Damned if I get it:)

    Parent

    A grand day for a swearing in! Gov Paterson! (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jawbone on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:43:44 PM EST
    For the first time in weeks I'm feeling so incredibly good about one of our Democratic pols. David Paterson just radiates good vibes, flowing out of NY state into my area of NJ. Whoohoooo!

    The guy is unabashedly liberal. The religious people he chose to give the invocations were gloriously liberal. It was wonderful.

    A local NYC CBS reporter said it was the most upbeat swearing in she'd ever seen, that the people in the hall were "exuberating," that the energy was more like a pep rally.

    So, on a beautiful day in the NYC metro area, it's so good to feel soooooo goooood about one of our Dems. May his good energy and attitude flow throughout the Democratic Party.  Hillary was there and got a huge cheer when intro'd--twice.

    Paterson said the first priority of any politician should be to make lives better for the people. He spoke about important things do do--as well as the need to work together. But it wasn't some transcendent, unfocused approach: it was here's what is really important and we must work together--for the people.

    Good vibes, good speech, good jokes, good anecdotes. Since he's legally blind, he gives his speeches from memory and from the seat of the pants! But well done, so well done.

    Thank you, Eliot Spitzer, for having the good judgement to select a very good lt. gov.

    Now time to go out into the sunshine and do some exuberating!

    Just curious (1.00 / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:26:50 PM EST
    I understand he is being sued for firing a white photographer... and his defense is that since he was legally bind he couldn't tell that the guy was white.

    Are you still on Cloud Nine??

    Parent

    Incorrect (none / 0) (#131)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:31:27 PM EST
    He is being sued for firing a photograper because he was white. Unlikely, given what I know about Patterson's colorblindness. And Patterson's quip is not his defense, it was a joke. His defense is:

    "Since [Maioriello's] loyalty to me was, in my mind, in question since he had been Sen. Connor's photographer, I perceived a need to have someone in that position whose loyalty to me was not in question," Paterson said, according to court documents.

    For anyone to assume that tenure of a job is a given, in State politics is nuts. Usually most staff are fired and new staff rehired.

    The case is a waste of time, imo,  but good luck. The photographer's time would be better served by looking for work.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:19:12 PM EST
    He seems fantastic. And things also still look good for the Dems to gain control of the NYS senate, despite Spitzer's gaffe. It seems that most Americans are truly sick of the GOP.

    Parent
    Obama Media Darling Status = Electability? (none / 0) (#89)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:48:24 PM EST
    Looking ahead to the General Election, some people, including Big Tent Democrat, believe Obama's past and present "media darling" status is an argument in favor of his electability. The assumption being that he will continue to be a "media darling" after he becomes the nominee.

    However, looking back at the media's brutal treatment of other Democratic Presidential Candidates, like Gore and Kerry, it seems inevitable that Obama will be subject to the same thrashing. (Hillary will be thrashed too, but she takes a licking and keeps on ticking.)

    Does anybody see any specific reason to believe the media will continue to go easy on Obama in the General Election?

    Parent

    He's not electable any more -- (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:04:17 PM EST
    I think, now that the media finally had its work done for it about Obama's church.  (I went to the site months ago and, even without seeing videos, figured it would be a problem at some point.  The media easily could have done so, too.)

    Watch super-delegates who also are elected officials have to start defending their support of him, depending upon their own constituencies and states.

    For that matter, even "pledged" delegations can vote to change their support even on the first ballot, if concerns about electability have come up in the interim since their states voted or caucused.  

    So who will see Obama as electable?  We will see.

    Parent

    Short on cash (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by arcticandyb on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:50:21 PM EST
    Hey I forgot to bring enough cash with me to buy lunch.. should I give the Fed a call to see if they can lend me a couple mil to cover it?  Oh that's right I don't run a Wall Street financial corporate in need of billion dollar welware handouts.

    Interesting don't you think, that no one scammed with high interest rate mortgages can get a lone, but the very people that profited from the pain of home owners can borrow billions at 1/3rd of the interest rate people with the best credit can ask for.

    That's the best post I have read today... (none / 0) (#73)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:54:57 PM EST
    Fed... will you buy me a lunch.. you always buy the big guys their lunch!!

    Parent
    I just wish I could spell (none / 0) (#77)
    by arcticandyb on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:10:59 PM EST
    Ok.. welfare and loan.. yes I can occasionally remember how to spell.  But seriously it irks me when I see friends paying their mortgages with 10.5% "teaser" rates, and the very companies that profited hugely from their extortionate mortgages get all the sympathy and help - because otherwise it'll be bad for the economy.

    BS.  It'll be bad for the 1% of Americans that earn billions from the stock market, and of course as usual retirees will be stiffed.

    But they're being stiffed anyway with garbage interest rates on their savings, ludicrously high prescription costs and a health care system out of control.

    So no, as usual if you own a huge corporate and blew your money by gambling on housing and giving mortgages to the homeless - you deserve to be helped.

    But "bailing out" the true victims of this scandal with fixed rate loans (in other words no bail out at all, they just pay a reasonable interest rate) is scorned upon.

    And the truly funny thing about all this.  The companies like the one bought today for $2/share are going to the wall because they refuse to make payments affordable.  People with negative equity are suddenly realising that making their payments means $100 off the principle and $2000 in the pockets of wall street ceos every month.  They're suddenly realising that foreclosure has less of a damaging effect on credit ratings than bankruptcy - meaning you could qualify for a proper mortgage about 2 years after you walked from your home and sent the keys to the bank.

    Parent

    Your knowledge of economics (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:29:48 PM EST
    appears to need some assistance.

    First, no one forced people to take a loan they couldn't afford.

    Secondly, stupidity is no defense.

    Thirdly, I would also hang the bankers.

    Parent

    People... (none / 0) (#127)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:35:10 PM EST
    ...get scammed out of money every day and nobody put a gun to their head to get it out of them.  I don't really advocate saying they're stupid so, tough luck.

    Nobody took a loan they couldn't afford given the set of circumstances laid out by the lender.  But little did these applicants realize that if the economic winds didn't blow in their favor they'd enjoy a hefty increase in their rates and payments.

    Mortgage banker churns out the loans, collects nice underwriting fee, bundles it up and sells it to hedge fund, and lets someone else clean up the mess.  Great system.  I have a hard time laying the lion's share of the blame with home buyers.

    Parent

    FL Revote (none / 0) (#1)
    by Step Beyond on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:48:49 AM EST
    As I wait for the official announcement today I did see this:

    U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., backed away from the mail-in idea when he found out it would not include verification of voter signatures by elections supervisors.

    Since it seemed to me that Nelson was the one pushing hardest for this, it doesn't look look good.

    Anyone heard about Edwards? (none / 0) (#2)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:49:53 AM EST
    Remember John Edwards... I heard over the weekend that he may put in for Senator Clinton.. Anyone has any details?

    Where did you hear it? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:51:52 AM EST
    Credible news source?  Anonymous blogger?

    Parent
    no reason for Edwards to back either right now (none / 0) (#5)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:55:35 AM EST
    since things are about even and it's all up in the air with FL. He's probably fine staying neutral at this juncture (to use an HW phrase). I think he should remain neutral and be part of the few uncommitted leaders of the party to try to help resolve things at the convention.

    Parent
    CNN had that quoting Mark Halperin (none / 0) (#8)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:57:27 AM EST
    John Edward would endorse most probably Senator Clinton before PA or NC ..


    Parent
    If it happens it would be ironic (none / 0) (#14)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:59:57 AM EST
    especially given that most of his delegates in Iowa just bolted to Obama.

    Parent
    possibly ironic but not surprising (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:06:05 AM EST
    at least not to me.
    based on things he said over and over in the campaign I never saw how he could possibly endorse Obama.
    he was my candidate. I hope he does this. he should have done it already.


    Parent
    btw (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:06:56 AM EST
    I have been hearing rumors he would do this for weeks.

    Parent
    Same for me (none / 0) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:09:42 AM EST
    I still remember Edwards face in the debate when Obama said he did not vote for the cap on the credit card interest rate, he thought the cap was too high, so he voted for no cap.  Edwards like me, was just dumbfounded.  

    Parent
    That supports the argument that delegates are not (none / 0) (#17)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:09:11 AM EST
    hard bound to their candidates or their will!

    Parent
    It won't be surprising (none / 0) (#33)
    by felizarte on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:34:07 AM EST
    Like many people, the initial assumption was,  Hillary is the establishment candidate.  I think, that not being a candidate any longer, he has had the opportunity to observe the two candidates and their campaign and probably came to the conclusion that Hillary is in fact NOT THE ESTABLISHMENT candidate; quite the opposite.

    Parent
    I heard it too (none / 0) (#27)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:21:37 AM EST
    but I can't remember whether it was on Lated Edition, or This Week in Politics on CNN.

    Parent
    I really can't see it (none / 0) (#11)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:58:53 AM EST
    If he endorses I think it will be Obama,  but on balance I don't think he will endorse.

    It's too late,  his endorsement might have meant something earlier in the race,  but most of his supporters have already picked a side one way or the other and I cannot see his endorsement changing the dynamic.

    Parent

    Impact (none / 0) (#23)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:13:50 AM EST
    I agree, that the passage of time has diluted the impact but, I think it might have more impact if he comes out for Clinton.  If he supports her given his dislike for her, it makes a statement about her and Obama.  I would expect an endorsement for Obama.  The fact that there hasn't been one, was telling for me.

    Parent
    fierce urgency of now... (none / 0) (#4)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:52:22 AM EST
    Obama keeps using this and similar phrases in his speeches of late as a reason to back him. What the heck does that mean?

    He is quoting MLK. (none / 0) (#6)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:57:02 AM EST


    Parent
    Vote for me before Rezko hits! (none / 0) (#9)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:58:23 AM EST
    haha!  Seriously, I said this in the other thread which looks to be closing: seems to me the current government has a habit of prosecuting dems by flipping folks looking at serious jail time.  I am pretty sure Rezko was meant to take down the governor of IL, but if Obama gets the nom, what makes folks think they won't go after him instead?  And I will now state the standard disclaimer that Obama has not been accused of anything illegal, but that sure as heck didn't seem to matter in AL.  

    Parent
    If all these things are true (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:16:41 PM EST
    republicans have these magical smear powers, what wil prevent thme form doing such things to the Clintons?

    Parent
    Because they already have (none / 0) (#82)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:34:00 PM EST
    90's? Remember the 'Teflon President'? The Clintons have learned the GOP rulebook, even if they haven't learned the Obama one.

    Parent
    I'd say... (none / 0) (#85)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:37:07 PM EST
    ...the fact that the Clintons are collectively 4 for 4 in winning elections to national office is a pretty good indicator of their resiliency...

    In fact, think of all the pols who have been forever discarded due to a single, minor scandal.  Lesser candidates than the Clintons would've been put out to pasture long ago.

    Parent

    He's just stealing another speech (none / 0) (#40)
    by OxyCon on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:40:38 AM EST
    Remember, Obama really likes his "words, just words". Especially if someone else thought them up.

    Parent
    Economy woes (none / 0) (#7)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:57:05 AM EST
    Obama or Clinton? Anyone?

    Or does it matter? We may not have an economy to save come Jan 20.

    Hopefully it means Democrat (none / 0) (#13)
    by CST on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:59:45 AM EST
    I think either one of them will kill John McCain on this issue.  It will probably help Clinton in the primary though.

    Parent
    How annoying (none / 0) (#21)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:12:07 AM EST
    This should be the issue.....the Dems talking about how the Republican economic policies brought us here.  

    Parent
    ya (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:15:55 AM EST
    Bear Sterns was sold for 'how much'?!?!?
    isnt their building worth more than that?

    Parent
    Yup. (none / 0) (#26)
    by sweetthings on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:18:32 AM EST
    Which goes to show how bad the situation is. Granted, Bear had a lot of nice assets, so $2 a share seems ridiculously low, but on the flip side, whoever buys them is going to take a massive first-year loss and have to assume full responsibility of their mortgage portfolio when the Fed insurance runs out.

    Big big risk. Big big reward.

    Parent

    Don't worry (none / 0) (#28)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:23:33 AM EST
    President Bush this morning assured world leaders that the U.S. is "on top of the situation."

    So get on out there and go shopping!

    Parent

    And so, "mah fellow Amuricans... (none / 0) (#74)
    by dutchfox on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:57:11 PM EST
    ... get on out there and go shopping with your 'economic stimulus' tax rebate." (!!) sighing

    Parent
    If Hillary and Edwards were the candidates, (none / 0) (#53)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:11:16 PM EST
    you can bet your worthless last dollar that the economy would be a major topic.
    One of the reasons I am especially bitter about Obama's campaign is that his Barney-like nonsense has robbed the voters of a chance to hear a REAL debate on the issues.
    I'll be upfront that I was less than thrilled with Edwards through much of the campaign, but BOY did he have an impact on the terms of policy!
    What has Obama done? Nothing but made us re-define all kinds of four letter words---both good and bad.

    Parent
    Meet the Press (none / 0) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:58:52 AM EST
    Just watched the Meet the Press segment from yesterday and this was an excellent expose of the Obama new politics spin.  Bill Bradley  while throwing dirt at Hillary  talked about the New Politics vs. the Old Politics.  Watch as Nita Lowey shows Bradley what the new politics should be like. He kept throwing stuff at Hillary and Nita kept trying to bring it back to the issues, made him look rather ridiculous.  It's truly remarkable to watch how she just makes mince meat out of him while he droned about the new politics.
    Link to video
    Link correction (none / 0) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:59:45 AM EST
    link

    Parent
    Hillary-hatred... (none / 0) (#64)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:36:20 PM EST
    ...is a mind-rotting debilitation.  

    Parent
    As is..... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:28:07 PM EST
    Hillary-love.

    And Obama-hatred.

    And Obama-love.

    I don't hate 'em, and certainly don't love 'em...I see them for what they are.  Establishment candidates for the establishment.

    Gimme Nader, gimme Kubby, gimme Ventura...just don't give me the same ol' sh*t in a different wrapper.

    Parent

    And some... (none / 0) (#86)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:39:03 PM EST
    ...are just so obsessed with something "different" that they'll embrace the first snake oil salesman to roll through town.  I don't see Nader or Ventura as being the solution to all of our problems.  Just a stab at a different approach.  It speaks more to a general frustration with the political process than it does the prowess of said candidate.

    Parent
    Absolutely.... (none / 0) (#95)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:14:53 PM EST
    I am totally obsessed on breaking the two-party duopoly that has corrupted our republic...nail on the head there my friend:)

    I'd vote for a chimp (not GDub, an actual primate) over the 3 Stooges.  Anybody who will throw a wrench in the machine.  I disagree with Nader on a lot of things, same with Ventura, and Kubby to a lesser extent....but they've all got a wrench to throw in the works....Clinton, Obama, and McCain only have WD-40 in their toolboxes.

    Parent

    FYI (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:17:20 PM EST
    it has now been firmly established in another thread that Obama has NEVER been about "not being a regular politician".
    never said, never suggested it, never thought it.
    just thought I would point that out cause it was a surprise to me.
    could have sworn it was a central meme of his campaign but there you go.

    Parent
    New slogan for the "O" (none / 0) (#98)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:23:41 PM EST
    ...he is... what we say he is...

    Parent
    change (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:28:00 PM EST
    we can be vague about!

    Parent
    What happened there? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:31:54 PM EST
    I made a comment in that thread, went back to work, and when I returned, Obama's campaign had become about something completely different. It's hard to keep up.

    Parent
    I despise Bradley (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:09:11 AM EST
    I think all this hostility is just left over from the 2000 primary.
    it was great to watch him slime Hillary and whine about the politics of personal destruction in the same breath.

    Parent
    Did he not notice (none / 0) (#20)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:10:34 AM EST
    the absurdity of what he was doing.  Nita was awesome.  

    Parent
    Thats funn (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:19:15 PM EST
    i thought she was terrible, she evne got a post about how terrible she was on Huffingtonpost.

    Parent
    Anyone who supports Hillary gets (none / 0) (#63)
    by tek on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:33:29 PM EST
    a bad post on HuffPo.

    Parent
    Screaming with laughter (none / 0) (#66)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:39:55 PM EST
    Thanks, with the economic news today I needed some laughs.  Huffington Post.....!!!!! Honestly!!!

    Parent
    I also despise Bradley (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:12:49 AM EST


    Parent
    oops (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:16:33 AM EST
    I meant the 1992 primary I guess

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#30)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:28:10 AM EST
    it was the 2000 primary. He ran against Gore.  

    Parent
    Bradley was also making the "case" (none / 0) (#29)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:24:59 AM EST
    that having violated the DNC rules, the FLA state party has irrevocably disenfranchised FLA Democratic voters, and there shouldn't be a re-vote.  Lowey challenged him on that, but not with a sufficient amount of outrage, IMO.

    Of course, Potatohead just sat there.

    Parent

    Even if it was true (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:44:48 AM EST
    And it's not, it's still a dangerous mis-reading of human nature in this situation.

    Floridian constituents are never going to wake up one day and say "Wow.  Dean was right to punish us and Wasserman-Schultz was wrong to fight for something we all kind of agreed with at first anyway."


    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#54)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:20:32 PM EST
    Not to mention that the DNC rules don't call for permanent disenfranchisement.  They call for not counting the delegate allocations resulting from a too-early primary.  They say nothing about prohibiting alternative methods of delegate selection.  

    If the DNC thinks that the "complete disenfranchisement forever" argument isn't going to piss off FLA voters in the GE, they are smoking something. I've heard Obama supporters say "well, it doesn't matter, because Obama can win without FLA."  Really.  Given how close the last two elections have been, does Obama really want to write off a state as big as FLA? I can't believe that -- and yet he seems to be resisting a FLA re-vote.  

    Parent

    How Long Have Cuban Americans Held A (none / 0) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:43:46 PM EST
    grudge against the Democratic Party? 47 years. Does anyone really think that all of the FL voters will forgive and forget in 2012 or 2016?

    Also, what about down ticket candidates in 08? Is the party willing to write them off too. People who stay home because they are ticked won't be voting for them either.

    Parent

    If Hillary wants to (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:29:14 AM EST
    go nuclear in PA, she can start running ads in the Philly market pointing out that Axelrod, Obama's media consultant, worked for the reviled former mayor John Street.

    Happy St. Patricks Day TL'ers.... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:31:39 AM EST
    you are all Irish today, raise your glass tonight accordingly, preferably Guiness or Irish Whiskey:)

    How about a Shamrock Shake? (none / 0) (#34)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:34:38 AM EST
    I haven't been able to find a McD's that has them anymore, but rumors are they still exist!

    Parent
    Shamrock Shake's are fine.... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:49:15 AM EST
    just add a little Bailey's:)

    Parent
    sounds like something (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:19:42 PM EST
    an Irish junkie might have

    Parent
    What a terrible thing to do to Bailey's (none / 0) (#91)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:58:11 PM EST
    I'm having mine neat tonight.

    I would have my Jameson's neat -- never, EVER on the rocks; ask for it in Ireland and get kicked out of the pub -- but I have to get work done tonight. :-)

    Parent

    Bailey's neat.... (none / 0) (#96)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:16:56 PM EST
    just like my moms likes it...you're in good company:)

    Parent
    I had one last week (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:36:32 AM EST
    from the McD at Union Station in Washington DC. It was foamy and icky. (Maybe that's just the was McD shakes are these days?)

    Parent
    McD's shakes always were icky (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:42:34 AM EST
    Note that they do not advertise them as "milkshakes".  That's for a very good reason - little if any milk involved.

    Parent
    Even so (none / 0) (#36)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:37:49 AM EST
    I'd give Bea Arthur's left n*t to have one; they seem to have disappeared in the Bay Area. :-(

    Parent
    Just make a mint shake (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:39:40 AM EST
    with too much air.

    If you use decent ice cream, yours will be far better than McDs's (which I don't even think is made with real ice cream).

    Parent

    Why do you hate me? :D (none / 0) (#46)
    by Step Beyond on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:56:35 AM EST
    Now I'm going to thinking about those shakes all day.

    Parent
    I'm eating/drinking Mexican tonight! (none / 0) (#48)
    by liminal on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:00:44 PM EST
    But last night we had a true Irish feast: it started off with cheese and crackers - Dubliner for those scared of a good, stinky bleu and Cashel bleu for the more strong of heart.  

    For dinner, we had homemade corned beef, with cabbage cooked in the brine (my favorite!), roasted potatoes and homemade Irish soda bread (which is easy and delicious).  

    For dessert, we had green ice cream (a stretch, I know!).  Alas, we had neither Guiness (which is Not The Same from a bottle) nor Irish whiskey, but the wine was "green" - as apparently for those of us on the east coast, French wines are more climate-friendly than California wines.  

    Here's a pic of WB Yeats' grave in County Sligo that I took this summer.  

    Parent

    Edward's Delegates (none / 0) (#37)
    by OxyCon on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:38:31 AM EST
    If Edwards were to endorse Clinton, couldn't he recommend that his delegates do the same?
    If so, wouldn't this election then be officially over?

    he had a number of delegates (none / 0) (#42)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:44:01 AM EST
    but b/c he came in under (just under) 15% in a lot of the states he was competing in, he got few if any delegates from those states.  So, whatever number of delegates he had are not going to be enough to sway the result by themselves.

    Parent
    Yes, 20 Edwards delegates going (none / 0) (#49)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:01:21 PM EST
    to Clinton would finish the race!!!  Even assuming that they had to follow his endorsement,  which they don't.

    Parent
    oh goody...(blogwhoring alert) (none / 0) (#39)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:40:22 AM EST
    Its an open thread, so I can mention Part 2 of my study on patterns of misogyny and sexism revealed in the recent SUSA 50 state poll.  This concentrates on regional differences, and includes lists of the most and least sexist states.

    Hillary Clinton in the House! (none / 0) (#50)
    by Iphie on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:02:12 PM EST
    The New York State House that is. David Paterson is about to be sworn in as governor. Kind of excited here. I feel really good about this.

    Big Cheers (none / 0) (#52)
    by Iphie on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:06:05 PM EST
    When Hillary's name was called by Shelly Silver (he was mentioning all of the state-wide elected officials present). Someone in the peanut gallery then shouted out something about Obama -- I couldn't make out what it was, but the booing at the comment was almost as loud as the cheering for Hillary.

    Parent
    Obama stopping Michigan revote (none / 0) (#55)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:26:15 PM EST


    Oops... (none / 0) (#56)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:28:43 PM EST

    The Link

    USA Today/Gallup poll: Clinton Leads the Pack !!! (none / 0) (#57)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:46:07 PM EST
    Clinton beats McCain outside the margin of error: 51-46

    Obama McCain Tie within Margin of error: 49-47

    Too (none / 0) (#65)
    by tek on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:36:41 PM EST
    bad the Party's determimed to push her out.

    Parent
    No, not the party (none / 0) (#76)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:06:34 PM EST
    Just some rabid segments of the party. If it was the deal would be done.

    Parent
    Well, you're not being fair (none / 0) (#105)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:40:09 PM EST
    At least Kos acknowledged that Hillary "isn't the most horrible person in the world." (I wish I were making that up, but I'm not.)

    A big thank you before the thread closes (none / 0) (#106)
    by K Lynne on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:40:37 PM EST
    I'll continue to respond to the Soc Security subthread, but before everyone moves on to the more topical threads I wanted to say thank you to everyone who is indulging me here.

    There have been previous situations where I have been accused of not caring whether seniors have to eat dog food to survive, and been called horrible names for simply asking similar questions to those I've posed here.  So far, at least, I haven't been called a single name ;-).  

    So thank you again.  And apologies for hijacking your site!  

    Cream City, upstream re Obama Electability? (none / 0) (#111)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:58:02 PM EST
    I'm in agreement on all accounts, i.e. regarding Obama and the MSM's reluctance to duly vet him.  

    Question: The media was, is, and will continue to be, in the tank promoting the whims and wishes of the GOP. So, if Obama is the preferred candidate of the media does it stand to reason that he must be the preferred opponent of the GOP?

    Has that question gotten any traction anywhere?

    Parent

    It's an open thread (none / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:38:27 PM EST
    so you've broken no rules.

    The issue with SoSec is that it will go bankrupt because of demographics. More old people being paid than those paying.

    The Left won't admit that.

    The current plan takes taxable dollars from you, holds them for X years and then gives it back to you as taxable dollars unless you are on welfare.

    You do the math. If Wall Street did that the fund managers would be in jail.

    The trick is to figure out a way to let people earn a reasonable, yet protected, ROI. Bush's plan he introduced in '05 did that.

    Parent

    Iraqi Soldiers: Republican War (none / 0) (#112)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:01:55 PM EST
    Check this out over at Crook's and Liars, CNN interview with Iraqi soldiers:  Republican War
    "Just to be perfectly clear here, I did ask them are you following any of the republican candidates?...Do you want to talk about John McCain? Within that whole group, not one wanted a republican in the US presidential seat. They were all for a democrat. They were all for that type of change because they said they were living a republican war."

    He...he...2 out of the 3 asked they would pick Hillary.  

    Could we have some proof?? (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:32:09 PM EST
    Frankly, I don't believe such nonsense.

    Pass the kool aid.

    Parent

    Watch the video (none / 0) (#128)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:48:40 PM EST
    and smile...

    Parent
    He already knows (none / 0) (#135)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 04:31:57 PM EST
    its another trick on the part of the ultra liberal MSM.

    Parent
    McCain/Lieberman? (none / 0) (#133)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:52:14 PM EST
    So much for Mr. Experience. After all those years he still hasn't a clue about the middle east.

    Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."

    Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

    think progress

    Yup (none / 0) (#134)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 02:00:28 PM EST
    Friday, Lieberman said he will attend the Republican National Convention this summer, "if Senator McCain thinks it will be helpful to be there in some capacity." [...]

    "I am not going to attend the Democratic Convention for obvious reasons," Lieberman said.

    think progress

    Parent

    Monday Morning Open Thread | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment