home

Thursday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:51:10 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'll be at work the rest of the afternoon. Here's an open thread where you can pick the topics and discuss.

Please be civil.

BTD - Comments closed.

< Michigan Legislature Adjourns Without Passing Revote | McCain Aide Suspended For Pushing Obama/Wright Video >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Thursday Open Thread | 131 comments (131 topical)
    Pictures (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:04:35 PM EST
    Has anyone noticed the "A" list blogs, or whatever they are called these days, whenever they have a picture of Hillary, it's usually horrid.  They purposefully pick pictures that make her look macabre.  I notice the trend first at Huff Post.  But now TPM et. al they do it all the time as a matter of course.  It would be great for some academic to do a forensic analysis of those images.  

    I can't believe y'all (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:16:25 PM EST
    can force yourself to go to those blogs anymore.  I cringe when I remember the HuffPo transformation from somewhat partisan to partisan to outright hateful and anti-woman to the thorny-loined demon seed of Satan it remains today.

    It reminds me of a friend of mine in high school who joined a cult.  (Yeah, she did-crazy story short: she nutted up big time, shaved her head and started talking about how the pyramids were built by aliens [actually, I believed that last part].)

    [ Parent ]

    It's like when you drive by (none / 0) (#221)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:04:20 PM EST
    an accident and you tell yourself I will not look.  Then you look and you hate yourself.  I don't do it every day, but I feel sort of soiled after I do it.  Huff Po yesterday when I did it had the " HIllary was in the White House when.....".  Disgusting.  

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not forcing myself to do anything (none / 0) (#251)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:37:54 PM EST
    I don't want to do anymore ;)  Painful long primary....pass the pina colada!

    [ Parent ]
    Don't go to Drudge (none / 0) (#8)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:06:57 PM EST
    they use the worst.  I find it very childish everywhere.

    [ Parent ]
    Who goes to Drudge? (none / 0) (#255)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:40:18 PM EST
    I went there once, to check out that John Edwards luv child business because I read about it at Kos and they said Drudge was "breaking" the story.  I believe in keeping my enemy closer but those that need therapy I can't deal with that closely.

    [ Parent ]
    Drudge is where.... (5.00 / 1) (#261)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:43:35 PM EST
    I usually first hear about the unmanned drone experiments of US law enforcement.

    He does find good police state story links for knuckleheaded Alex Jones fans like me.

    [ Parent ]

    Not just the blogs (none / 0) (#147)
    by splashy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:18:13 PM EST
    I saw several on the Google news page, from news websites.

    It's a regular thing.

    [ Parent ]

    Silly person, not all of us believe in aliens. nt (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:24:17 PM EST


    Cough Kucinich Cough (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:54:41 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    SUSA polls more states (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:25:20 PM EST
    Obama isn't as damaged as I'd feared, but this is going to be a struggle.


    2:25 PM (58 minutes ago)
    Poll #13602 taken in Massachusetts for WBZ-TV (Boston)
    Q: If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?
    A: McCain 42% Clinton 55% Undecided 3%
    Q: What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?
    A: McCain 47% Obama 47% Undecided 6%

    2:25 PM (58 minutes ago)
    Poll #13603 taken in Minnesota for All SurveyUSA clients in Minnesota
    Q: If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?
    A: McCain 46% Clinton 49% Undecided 5%
    Q: What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?
    A: McCain 47% Obama 46% Undecided 7%

    2:25 PM (58 minutes ago)
    Poll #13597 taken in Alabama for WKRG-TV (Mobile-Pensacola)
    Q: If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?
    A: McCain 56% Clinton 38% Undecided 6%
    Q: What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?
    A: McCain 62% Obama 35% Undecided 4%

    2:25 PM (58 minutes ago)
    Poll #13598 taken in California for All SurveyUSA clients in California
    Q: If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?
    A: McCain 38% Clinton 56% Undecided 6%
    Q: What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?
    A: McCain 40% Obama 54% Undecided 6%

    2:25 PM (58 minutes ago)
    Poll #13599 taken in Iowa for KAAL-TV (Rochester-Mason City-Austin)
    Q: If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?
    A: McCain 48% Clinton 44% Undecided 9%
    Q: What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?
    A: McCain 44% Obama 50% Undecided 5%

    2:25 PM (58 minutes ago)
    Poll #13600 taken in Kansas for KCTV-TV (Kansas City), KWCH-TV (Wichita)
    Q: If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?
    A: McCain 55% Clinton 36% Undecided 9%
    Q: What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?
    A: McCain 51% Obama 39% Undecided 10%

    2:25 PM (58 minutes ago)
    Poll #13606 taken in New York for All SurveyUSA clients in New York
    Q: If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?
    A: McCain 41% Clinton 54% Undecided 5%
    Q: What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?
    A: McCain 44% Obama 52% Undecided 4%

    2:25 PM (58 minutes ago)
    Poll #13608 taken in Oregon for KATU-TV (Portland)
    Q: If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?
    A: McCain 44% Clinton 50% Undecided 6%
    Q: What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?
    A: McCain 41% Obama 50% Undecided 9%

    2:25 PM (58 minutes ago)
    Poll #13609 taken in Virginia for WDBJ-TV (Roanoke), WJLA-TV (Washington DC)
    Q: If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?
    A: McCain 47% Clinton 47% Undecided 6%
    Q: What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?
    A: McCain 47% Obama 48% Undecided 5%

    2:25 PM (58 minutes ago)
    Poll #13610 taken in State of Washington for KATU-TV (Portland), KING-TV (Seattle)
    Q: If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?
    A: McCain 45% Clinton 50% Undecided 5%
    Q: What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?
    A: McCain 41% Obama 52% Undecided 7%

    2:25 PM (58 minutes ago)
    Poll #13611 taken in Wisconsin for All SurveyUSA clients in Wisconsin
    Q: If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?
    A: McCain 45% Clinton 46% Undecided 9%
    Q: What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?
    A: McCain 44% Obama 48% Undecided 9%

    2:25 PM (58 minutes ago)
    Poll #13605 taken in New Mexico for KOB-TV (Albuquerque)
    Q: If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?
    A: McCain 45% Clinton 51% Undecided 4%
    Q: What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?
    A: McCain 45% Obama 51% Undecided 4%
    But, I thought Obama was going to (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:36:52 PM EST
    win Alabama and Kansas! That's what I read in other places.

    [ Parent ]
    Lately the way you've phrased (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:28:24 PM EST
    some of your comments ("feared") makes me think you may now be supporting Obama.  Any truth to my speculation?

    [ Parent ]
    If he's the nominee, I want him to win (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:34:20 PM EST
    my fear is that he becomes the nominee and then loses like McGovern.

    [ Parent ]
    That's Why Super Delagates (none / 0) (#71)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:38:45 PM EST
    Need to act independently, and not follow that "will of the voters" nonsense.

    [ Parent ]
    the will of the voters may end up with Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:53:33 PM EST
    Even without Michigan and Florida, the numbers are looking good for Hillary in the upcoming states.  Even left unresolved, the superdelegates can take into account the 1.8 million that voted in Florida and went overwhelmingly for Clinton.  Just because delegates don't get seated, it won't mean that those people who went to the polls suddenly vanish like it never happened.

    Their will was expressed.

    [ Parent ]

    I Agree (none / 0) (#139)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:07:22 PM EST
    That's why I'm not so concerned about seating the delagates; it doens't really change the dynamic.  The one concern I have is for the GE, will the voters be discouraged?

    [ Parent ]
    Winning fair and square.... (none / 0) (#150)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:19:45 PM EST
    is too risky.  Better to rig it somehow.

    I mean we can't let the proles pick a leader, they might lead for the proles.

    [ Parent ]

    Are you nuts.... (3.00 / 3) (#98)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:50:22 PM EST
    why not form a bi-partisan council of 100 or so "super americans" and have them pick the president every 4 years?

    I don't think some people would be happy unless we appointed Hillary Grand Chancellor of the American Empire with a lifetime term.

    [ Parent ]

    The super delegates exist (none / 0) (#148)
    by alsace on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:18:40 PM EST
    for the purpose of preventing another 1972 (when I and one or two other Americans voted for McGovern.)  If they  cannot or will not independently exercise their presumably "honed" political judgment, better that they simply be stripped of their votes.  

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think he will lose by McGovern (none / 0) (#74)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:39:50 PM EST
    numbers. Not even by Dukakis numbers. But he will probably do worse then Kerry.

    [ Parent ]
    well, he will not win a General Election (none / 0) (#97)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:49:58 PM EST
    the "math" is not there for him.  (now I get to say it)

    [ Parent ]
    If we factor in all of the current polls, (none / 0) (#51)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:30:11 PM EST
    including SurveyUSA and Rass, Obama loses the general election by a good 100 points. I'd say that's pretty bad.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow, check out Wisconsin -- where (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:32:01 PM EST
    Clinton's campaign took its big setback, but where some of us kept saying we saw a massive Republican crossover to Obama.

    Now Clinton beats McCain -- by a point, but that's more than twice as much of a margin as Kerry had in this closest state last time.

    So does Obama, but by only 2 more points.  Those who continue to deny the massive Republican crossover than have to admit that this is the effect, in one of the most churchgoing states, of Obama's minister.

    Or both.  

    [ Parent ]

    The undecideds (none / 0) (#59)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:34:11 PM EST
    are what gave me pause.  Much higher for one candidate than the other.  If we can trust exit polling (big if) then we know that late deciders trend Clinton.

    Just another piece of the puzzle.

    [ Parent ]

    so many ways to get deleted (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:28:49 PM EST


    Jack Murtha on CNN (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:20:50 PM EST
    Murtha: She knows the pressure, you can't be partisan, she has the tenacity to get this war over with.  Making sure our troops are ready in any eventuality.

    Wolf...What does Obama lack?  Murtha: Experience.  They learn from mistakes.  She can't do all of the things she wants to do.  She is practical.  War is crippling the economy...

    Wolf... here's McCain on Clinton.. suspend disbelief, surge is working.  Murtha: oil prod same, elec lower, 50% unem, can't convince allies to stay, we got to come up with more money, Clinton can get allies involved.

    Wolf: Violence down. Murtha: No progress on reconciliation.  Told General about the burden on the Amer public.  The impact on the troops.  War has to end, told the General it is crippling the Amer co.

    Wolf:  Earmarks.  Murtha:  I disagree with everyone.  Every President will ave earmarks for their plans.

    Tough guy that Murtha.  Good piece.

    Deep Question (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by bob h on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:03:29 PM EST
    If Democratic turnout is off the charts, and the candidates are about 50-50, how can one attribute the increased enthusiasm to Obama alone (as the Obama campaign does)?

    Because statistically (none / 0) (#224)
    by RLMcCauley on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:05:24 PM EST
    Clinton is getting more of the traditional democratic vote. Not the new or cross over voters.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, She Is Neither (3.66 / 3) (#54)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:31:19 PM EST
    Since she NEVER said she was against NAFTA.  That's a lie that has been spread by the media, and is now accepted as "fact."  I watched the debates very carefully, and what she said was that she has been CRITICAL, not the same thing.  Acknowledging there are problems when something that needs to be repaired isn't saying that it's worthless.  She made a point of stating that she would not cancel NAFTA, if key provisions that were harmful could be renegotiated.

    So please get the story right.

    Yeah she's against (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:47:21 PM EST
     the (unspecified) bad parts (translation: pandering to wage earners who feel jobs are lost and wages suppressed) and in favor of the (unspecified)good parts (translation:pandering to the corporate interests who like that) and promising nothing beyond a reevalution and some (unspecified) tweaking (which she would presumably intimidate the other signatory nations into accepting whether they like it or not, assuming our Senate was on board, of course.

      The bottom line is she actively sought to persuade people to support it as it is before and now she says she's against some (never clearly articulated) parts of it now.  

      A lot of straining is required to find a defense of that.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, Thanks For All The Translations (none / 0) (#124)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:00:54 PM EST
    or should I say speculations and hyperbole.  The bottom line is that all the reports of Hillary being against NAFTA are lies, becuse she never said that.  I prefer to consider what she says than some imaginary mind-reading.  Her statements have been consistant, despite all the BS written about them.  So, unless you can find direct quotes that are not, imaginary ones don't cut the mustard.

    [ Parent ]
    so she favors NAFTA now? (none / 0) (#146)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:17:17 PM EST
     but what about all the people who just told us she didn't favor it then?

      Y'all need to sit down and get your story straight. You're certainly not helping yourselves or her blundering around hitting each other with sticks.

    [ Parent ]

    What People Did She Tell That She Didn't Favor (none / 0) (#161)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:25:51 PM EST
    it?  What were her words?  When did she say anything other than she would renegotiate key provisions of the agreement?  If you know of something she said, actually said, and not the misquotes, lies and distortions that has been eminating from the media, please share them with us.

    [ Parent ]
    Evidedently, David Gergen for one (none / 0) (#170)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:29:52 PM EST
      but in any event in terms of substance your "translation"  differs from my "translation" to which you took offense originally in what respect?

    [ Parent ]
    What Did She Say to Gergen? (none / 0) (#178)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:34:20 PM EST
    The difference is I'm discussing what Hillary has said about NAFTA, and your making stuff up.

    [ Parent ]
    You'll have to ask Gergen or her (none / 0) (#199)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:47:19 PM EST
     because I wasn't there. I just know some of what they have said in public I assume you can google just as well as anyone if you are really interested in what he claims her thoughts were then and done with stepping on the toes of all the other Clinton supporters who have told us she was and remains unsupportive of NAFTA.

     I'm not suggesting I actually believe it. It's hard to know what to believe when Hillary's own supporters flatly contradict each other in the same thread, but it does seem to support the theory she might have said different things to different people at different times or at least things so calculated to be inscrutable that two people with opposing views might both believe she agrees with them.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, Sound Like Another Balony Story (none / 0) (#214)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:59:16 PM EST
    with more specualtion and deviod of any facts, evidence or proof.  The confusion you repeatedly cite proves nothing more than the fact that the media has routinely lied about what Clinton actually stated about NAFTA.  That was my first comment, and it stands unchallenged.

    [ Parent ]
    So you settle for that conclusion (none / 0) (#226)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:06:22 PM EST
    rather than, as suggested, seek out the facts, evidence or proof?

    [ Parent ]
    I've Sought Out The Facts (none / 0) (#232)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:10:41 PM EST
    If you have something to prove, then let's see it.  If you're making a accusation, it's not up to me to prove it for you.  

    [ Parent ]
    It's not that complicated (none / 0) (#171)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:29:57 PM EST
    She has misgivings about NAFTA and thinks it needs to be improved.  When it was debated in Congress, she did not support passage.  That doesn't mean she has to be 100% against anything, it means that .... she had misgivings and thought it should be improved.

    [ Parent ]
    It's An Old Republican Tactic (none / 0) (#184)
    by flashman on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:39:22 PM EST
    To pretend someone's stance is "binary" rather than nuanced.  It's just another way to create controversy where none exists.  In trying to "simplify" issues to binary choices, one can distort, cause confusion, insinuate false hypocrisy, and so forth.  Don't fall for it.  Keep the facts real and straight.  Know the tactics of your enemy, and blunt them at ever turn.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton and NAFTA (1.00 / 3) (#1)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:53:43 PM EST
    Now that Senator Clinton's White House papers reveal that she was for NAFTA before she was against it in Ohio, and that her claim of always being against it was false, can anybody offer an explanation for this that doesn't cast her in an abysmal light?
    [tagline censored]
    How do they prove it? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:54:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And who would care? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:07:28 PM EST
    Most people are beyond the NAFTA thing (but let's get the facts straight: it was proven that Obama lied about the meeting, and that Clinton had no contact with the Canadians.)

    Clinton supported her husband rather than publicly tearing him down for supporting NAFTA.  Even Bernstein admits that HRC did not support NAFTA.  She was just quiet in public--you know, the way Obama was silent about his conscience re: the war when he spoke for Kerry.

    Besides, the only salacious bit any of the "reporters" seems concerned with is that HRC was in the WH the days WJF was with Lewinsky.  

    Yep--11,000 pages and that's all they care about is the sexual component.  We are nothing if not the children of our Puritanical forefathers.

    [ Parent ]

    They don't (none / 0) (#6)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:04:38 PM EST
    I believe what the poster is trying to say is that because she gave pro NAFTA speeches as first lady that she was for it. The position of the campaign is that she was not for it, but obviously took the administration position in public as is expected.

    [ Parent ]
    Read this (none / 0) (#82)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:44:44 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/2oxtbd
    [tagline censored]
    [ Parent ]
    you must know (none / 0) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:47:34 PM EST
    the only thing producing more rapid glazing than Dreary Kos is HuffPo.

    [ Parent ]
    Shoot the messenger (none / 0) (#111)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:55:12 PM EST

    [tagline censored]
    [ Parent ]
    are there other (none / 0) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:57:24 PM EST
    more painful options?
    waterboarding?

    [ Parent ]
    The most painful of all (none / 0) (#131)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:04:27 PM EST
    would probably be to read what Sirota actually wrote. :)
    [tagline censored]
    [ Parent ]
    No, it only shows (none / 0) (#7)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:06:44 PM EST
     how open-minded and rationally analytical she is because both positions were based solely on the objective data before her at the time and have nothing to do with political considerations. You can feel free to copy that for use on any issue that might arise because it's always the correct answer when Hillary is the subject.

    [ Parent ]
    Guilt by association.... who is doing that? (none / 0) (#14)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:11:56 PM EST
    Politico's Bensmith:

    Hmm. The Clinton campaign's response to the Nafta is the video of David Gergen, above, saying Clinton had personal reservations -- she was "extremely unenthusiastic"  -- on Nafta.

    This seems a pretty tough case to make: if Clinton attended pro-Nafta meetings, why do her personal reservations matter?

    I just don't get this guy...

    [ Parent ]

    fortunately (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:23:22 PM EST
    the only thing about the press cares about is that Hillary was there on "Monica day"

    to bad.

    [ Parent ]

    Varying reports (none / 0) (#61)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:34:46 PM EST
    People also heard them arguing behind closed doors that she was opposed.  If it was heard through closed doors, I would imagine it was not complete support.

    [ Parent ]
    She was a member of the administration (none / 0) (#94)
    by Foxx on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:47:56 PM EST
    It has always been known that she publicly supported NAFTA, since that was administration policy. Several insiders, e.g., Gergen, have stated that she argued strongly against the policy before it was adopted.

    [ Parent ]
    So if she simply (none / 0) (#104)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:52:38 PM EST
    chose not to speak out of principled disagreement she would have been fired as his wife?

    [ Parent ]
    How many First Ladies have you seen . . . (none / 0) (#213)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:59:11 PM EST
    throwing their President husbands under the bus publicly on policy?

    [ Parent ]
    Posted this.... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:57:35 PM EST
    on the last open thread, major tyranny outbreak out in Ohio recently.

    Link

    "Our detectives were the lead agency," Woodard said. At about 1:30 p.m. Saturday, March 1, officers from the Tactical Crime Suppression Unit (Germantown, Kettering, Centerville, Moraine, Miamisburg, Oakwood, Springboro and West Carrollton), Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigations, Clark County Sheriff's Office, Perry, Clay and German Twp. Police Departments, and the Ohio Attorney Generals Office "simultaneously conducted five search warrants,"

    Wow...that's a lot of mercenaries...sounds serious don't it?

    A variety of illegal gambling paraphernalia was confiscated from the clubs, including gaming tables, cards and chips, Woodard said. He said the operations appeared to involve mostly high stakes card games. About 75 patrons, "young, old, male, female," were interviewed at the West Carrollton club and about a half dozen patrons at the Medway club, he said.

    Oh, it's just a measly poker game.  WTF?

    The state (none / 0) (#4)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:04:00 PM EST
    doesn't want private entities stepping on its turf and siphonng gamblers' money away from state sanctioned gaming. They can't make enough money just by running games with the odds stacked overwhelmingly against the players; they need a monopoly too.

      At least in the old days law enforcement could claim they were protecting people from the gambling operators out to fleece them. Now, it's really just enforcing the monopoly of its bosses.

    Lanny Davis on Clinton/McCain ticket (none / 0) (#13)
    by AdrianLesher on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:10:54 PM EST
    Clinton surrogate Lanny Davis providing more proof that Clinton is the triangulation candidate:

    There are any number of provocative possibilities for a bipartisan ticket in 2008. Imagine the buzz if Republican John McCain and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton committed to making the other vice president in the event that either won the election. Pick any combination of other names in the current field of potential candidates: Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Chuck Hagel; Democrat Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Republican Mitt Romney; Democrat John Edwards and Republican Michael Bloomberg; Democrat Bill Richardson and Republican Rudolph W. Giuliani. Any of these bipartisan pairings, in any permutation, would create a stir -- and a dynamite ticket. (Okay, strike one possible combination -- there's no way we'll see a Clinton-Giuliani ticket, or vice versa; not only does the Constitution forbid it, as they're both from the same state, but their personal chemistry would preclude it, too.)

    I guess since Obama won't agree to be her vice-president while he's ahead in delegates, this is the way she'll go.

    Dateline? (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:14:54 PM EST
    January 14, 2007?  Did you miss that part of the article?

    [ Parent ]
    erm (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Nasarius on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:21:09 PM EST
    "Surrogate?" Does he actually have any kind of campaign position?

    There are more than enough stupid supporters to go around. Alas, many get published in major newspapers.

    [ Parent ]

    oh yeah (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:24:47 PM EST
    Davis should just shut up.
    he should have shut up years ago.

    [ Parent ]
    TCR TOR (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:31:23 PM EST
    If Clinton or a surrogate of Clinton's speaks favorably of a republican or makes any bipartisan gesture whatsoever that is called TRIANGULATION.

    If Obama or an Obama surrogate speaks favorably of a republican or makes any bipartisan gesture whatsoever that is called STATESMANSHIP, and TRANSFORMATIONAL POLITICS.

    Word.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama may not be in a position to offer VP (none / 0) (#21)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:16:44 PM EST
    if current trends continue.

    [ Parent ]
    Sometimes you give the party line (none / 0) (#15)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:12:20 PM EST
    Just as Sen. Obama did when he said before the 2004 election that he didn't know how he would have voted on AUMF. He said he did that so as not to undermine Kerry's candidacy. This is something politicians do. Do they lie? Well, um, yeah.

    Loyalty is fine (none / 0) (#18)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:15:13 PM EST
    in terms of not speaking out against your "patron, " but, the proper thing is to say nothing not to lie.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:17:46 PM EST
    But I live in the real world, where I have to choose among several different politicians who are running for the Presidency. If never lying was a prerequisite for holding public office, there would be no on one the ballot.

    [ Parent ]
    Why does Huffington Post always have Pro-Obama (none / 0) (#26)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:18:46 PM EST
    HEADLINES!!!!!!

    because they are pro-Obama (none / 0) (#110)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:54:48 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    For the same reason (none / 0) (#237)
    by BethanyAnne on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:17:18 PM EST
    that this site has a pro-Clinton bias.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh no, you want us to see Michelle (none / 0) (#29)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:20:13 PM EST
    publicly taking stands against those of the White House?  From what we've seen, she well might do so.  And that would be a good thing because. . . ?

    (Btw, are you at all aware of how often ER disagreed with FDR -- but still got out there and worked for the New Deal, the war effort, etc.?)

    Well, people are supporting their candidate (none / 0) (#37)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:23:22 PM EST
    I don't fault anyone for it. It's a hard fought battle, bound to produce some leaps of logic. We can't all be Spock. :-)

    Obama on Larry King for an Hour (none / 0) (#58)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:33:46 PM EST
    Few days back they covered his speech live.. for an hour .. then he went to media for 15  min interviews  on most of the cable shows..
    Yesterday he was with Anderson Cooper for an hour.. Today he will be with Larry for an Hour.. man.. this guys is getting too many a free rides ........ free time on national TV..

    Larry King hardball (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:38:06 PM EST
    Senator, how did you get so awsum?

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, but in his defense (none / 0) (#125)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:01:18 PM EST
     he is like that with pretty much all guests. That's why he gets big name guests. It's certainly not for a chance to show their dexterity at handling hard hitting interviews.

      He might get tough with Hitler but he'd give him a chance to diplay his "human side" too.

    [ Parent ]

    CNN is in the tank for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:44:48 PM EST
    and has been all along.  Jack loves to ask questions that get all the Hillary-haters all riled up and read their answers on the air.  It's the home of Donna Brazile.  What does one expect of them.

    They have Cooper traveling with him.  They are covering everything he does to get him going.  They cover that the McCain guy got canned for distributing the 'Is Obama Wright' youtube video while the other stations cover the new ULB video.

    [ Parent ]

    I suppose Ferrarro was right (none / 0) (#112)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:55:58 PM EST
    Or it's just the demographic of cable news in general.

    All the Clinton supporters are at work or looking for a job while Cafferty is snearing into the camera to the delight of Conservatives and Obama supporters.


    [ Parent ]

    Well, he might not be as likeable as he (none / 0) (#66)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:36:28 PM EST
    thinks he is. I'm not sure all the exposure will help him.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (none / 0) (#120)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:59:00 PM EST
    I can't think of even one example where his speaking off the cuff has helped him. I'll watch it though - shold be more interesting than the usual blather.  Larry is a bit of a loose cannon.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I really don't expect much in the way of (none / 0) (#126)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:01:26 PM EST
    substance from Larry King.  Probably the deepest he'll go is to ask about the church wedding and Michelle's pretty white dress.  He'll totally ignore everything else.  

    [ Parent ]
    he has been digging the whole since Tuesday (none / 0) (#80)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:43:36 PM EST
    sometimes when someone is on "tilt" they should just fold for a while and not play.  Obama may be better off taking a brief vacation.  He already gave his speech... I guess it wasn't enough.

    He will be appearing on "The View" on March 28th.

    [ Parent ]

    The View? Is that snark? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:45:46 PM EST
    I'd rather be interviewed by...
    by....
    ...aliens?

    [ Parent ]
    Right. Is there any evidence the speech (none / 0) (#89)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:46:56 PM EST
    helped him? If not, he just appears desperate by continuing to talk so much.

    [ Parent ]
    it could have stopped a further slide (none / 0) (#101)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:51:55 PM EST
    but the fundamental problems remain.  Once the Wright videos are seen, they cannot be un-seen.

    20 years in a church like that cannot be renounced.

    [ Parent ]

    What happened to Obama's plans to (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:47:48 PM EST
    vvisit Europe, Iraq, and Afghanistan?

    [ Parent ]
    someday... (none / 0) (#100)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:51:04 PM EST
    when he's President--it might be a good idea.  We'll see.  Don't forget Latin America. He has never been there.  Not once.

    [ Parent ]
    He's been to TJ. Doesn't that count? (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:52:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I don't think he wants to "go" there (none / 0) (#121)
    by diplomatic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:59:48 PM EST
    TJ trip stories can only lead to trouble.

    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#81)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:44:24 PM EST
    I call her doing her job, that is towing the administration line.

    Barbara Walters (on The View) is the godmother of (none / 0) (#129)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:02:16 PM EST
    one of Adrianna Huffingtons children...Thus will be pro Obama interview for sure....

    Whoopie likes Hillary. (none / 0) (#132)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:04:57 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And the blond chick is a republican. Not sure (none / 0) (#133)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:05:33 PM EST
    about Joy.

    [ Parent ]
    Joy is 4 Hillary (none / 0) (#149)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:19:32 PM EST
    but they are all pretty moderate and not "anti" Obama, so don't look for any blood.

    [ Parent ]
    OK - Open Thread Stuff (none / 0) (#155)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:21:53 PM EST
    So my local news last night on NBC introduces the Clinton White House Schedule docs story in a rather unseemly way.

    "Want to find out what Hillary was doing while Bill was having his Fling?  Find out after the break."

    I switched the channel.

    My in depth analysis of the speech.  In case you weren't sick of it yet.

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/19/174817/269

    And this link is for Eliot.

    http://www.compleatsteve.com/essays/apology.htm

    And I know it's not funny what's happening to Eliot.  

    Finally I can ask: What does the link button do? (none / 0) (#162)
    by jawbone on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:25:58 PM EST
    How is it used? of work?

    I've been highlighting URL's and clicking on the link  button and assumed it made the link safe and not boundary busting.

    I was warned yesterday to not use URL's at all.

    (I tried to follow the directions below the comment box, but it didn't work. Will try on some old threads.)

    But, what does the link button do and how?

    Thnx much.

    Link (none / 0) (#175)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:33:49 PM EST
    You should highlight the word you want to hyperlink.  A box will come up and that's where you put the URL.  So if you wanted to link to CNN, you would highlight the word "CNN" (or whatever) and hit the link button.  Then in the box, you'd add www.cnn.com.  Preview to make sure it works and that should do it.

    Good luck!

    [ Parent ]

    link (none / 0) (#182)
    by Teresa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:37:33 PM EST
    At the end of your url, type whatever you want between the >and the<. That will be your link.

    There's another way to do it but that's the way someone here taught me.

    [ Parent ]

    You're not the first one to ask, (none / 0) (#208)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:53:34 PM EST
    Hope this helps:

    To link, with apologies if it's too basic:

    -highlight the URL of the web-page that you want to link to.

    -copy the URL ("edit" then "copy").

    -come back to TL and write something in your "Comment:" box.

    -highlight the word(s) in that comment that you want to be the link.

    -click the "URL" button above the "Comment:" box, it's the button that has an icon that looks like links of a chain. That brings up a link box, and your cursor is automatically in it.

    -hold down the "Ctrl" button on your computer's keyboard and then type "v". That copies the url into the link box.

    -click "OK."

    -click the "Preview" button below the "Comments:" box.

    -if the preview looks good - ie., the word(s) you selected to be the link are a different color from the rest of the text - click the "Post" button below the "Comments:" box.

    [ Parent ]

    I was just about to have you paiged.... (none / 0) (#211)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:58:25 PM EST
    "Will the Secretary of Linkage please report to the open thread....Secretary of Linkage, open thread."

    [ Parent ]
    I live to serve. (none / 0) (#229)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:09:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Has anyone (none / 0) (#187)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:41:40 PM EST
    read the MSM article that claims 100,000 Republicans have registered as Democrats to vote for Obama in PA?  It's starting to look like having a fair, legal election is this country is not possible.  Why do we have a system that is so corruptible?

    What's the problem.... (none / 0) (#209)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:57:09 PM EST
    are they not citizens or something?

    If you wanna play a Machevellian game with your vote that's your business.  I think it's shady personally, but they are well within their rights to go to the polls.

    Last month the "republican infiltrators" were voting for Hillary, this month Obama...it probably all evens out.

    [ Parent ]

    Not fair? (none / 0) (#228)
    by RLMcCauley on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:06:38 PM EST
    Well as long as they're not doing it because El Rushbo told them to. That's what happened in Tejas apparently.

    [ Parent ]
    And in Wisconsin, they were told Obama (none / 0) (#233)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:11:11 PM EST
    was the target -- told by the largest paper in the state, the local conservative radio talk squawkers, the local conservative bloggers, etc.  I can only hope that they all cancel each other out. . . .

    [ Parent ]
    Rev. Wright is (none / 0) (#188)
    by RLMcCauley on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:42:20 PM EST
    a fellow American, a former soldier, and part of an oppressed group in America. He, and all African-Americans who are similarly angry at America, deserve at least the same level of consideration and thought that Osama has gotten by liberals and progressives.

    You mean we should consider him (none / 0) (#198)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:46:11 PM EST
    a terrorist responsible for thousands of deaths?

    I don't really think that would be fair.

    Sure they both love to give speeches, but I think the similarity ends there.

    [ Parent ]

    Well that dismissive sentiment, directed towards (none / 0) (#218)
    by RLMcCauley on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:02:32 PM EST
    Wright and African-Americans who think like him isn't really the position the Democrats should be taking as it's the most loyal group of voters. Though since McCain and Huckabee have shown more understanding than Democrats that might not be true forever. Perhaps that was simply snark.

    [ Parent ]
    It was snark. (none / 0) (#249)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:34:11 PM EST
    I have no idea what a war hungry foreign terrorist has to do with an American man who has founded a very successful church.

    They both say things that I do not agree with, but I could probably say that about the majority of humanity.

    [ Parent ]

    Deserves got nothin' to do with it. (none / 0) (#212)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:58:31 PM EST
    If you want people to spend time speculating on your motives, blow something up.

    I didn't know who Rev. Wright was until a week ago. I barely know anything about the man now. Bin Laden and his gang have been blowing things up for almost a decade. Are you honestly suggesting that anyone who has spent more time analyzing Bin Laden than Wright has a problem?

    If your point is just that we shouldn't dismiss Rev. Wright as a kook out of hand, then I agree with you. I'm learning as fast as I can. But these things take time...particularly if you don't want your entire education to come by way of the true believers.

    [ Parent ]

    My point is that Democrats took the time (none / 0) (#222)
    by RLMcCauley on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:04:32 PM EST
    to figure out Bin Laden's motivations quickly after 9/11. Did those same Democrats take the time to quickly figure out Wright's? Not that any Democrat shouldn't have understood anyway as we're supposed to be the party that understands oppression.

    [ Parent ]
    But (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:10:40 PM EST
    Even if you understand someone's motives, that doesn't mean you have to agree or sanction how they act on those motives.  So I'm confused as to how this is relevant?  I mean, I have a pretty good idea of why Osama doesn't like America, but I'm not going to sanction his actions AT ALL.  

    And I understand why Rev. Wright is angry, but I'm not gonna agree with his rhetoric.  

    [ Parent ]

    No you don't have to agree (none / 0) (#246)
    by RLMcCauley on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:30:22 PM EST
    but if you didn't even take the time then that's a problem for you.

    Though I don't see how any Democrat would disagree with the issue of imperialism, blowback, and White dominated oppression. That's pretty apparent.

    The other stuff was of a different character though understandable anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    The point really isn't Wright's motives. (none / 0) (#259)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:41:39 PM EST
    It's Obama's.

    Wright isn't running.
    Obama is.

    Obama is like:  I love him, warts and all!  I love McClurkin, warts and all!  I love my gran, warts and all!  Hillary?  Don't ask.

    [ Parent ]

    ...that would contradict... (none / 0) (#192)
    by smott on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:43:30 PM EST
    ....everything Repubs have purportedly been doing up til now which is to vote for HRC.

    They (none / 0) (#204)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:49:58 PM EST
    say they want to prolong the Democratic nominee c