Late Night: Everybody Knows

Leonard Cohen ( I actually prefer Don Henley's version but I couldn't find a video for it.)

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded

Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes


Everybody knows that the boat is leaking

Everybody knows that the captain lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just died

And everybody knows that it's now or never

Everybody knows that it's me or you

Everybody knows

This is an overnight open thread.
< Friday Evening Open Thread | Reporting Facts, Not Opinions >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    There's a vacuum in leadership (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:07:28 AM EST
    and his name is Howard Dean.  He should come in and figure a way to stop this whole mess. I cannot believe I was ever a Deaniac.  He is actually okay with disenfranchising the 4th and 6th largest states in the USA when it comes to the primary process.  And Barack is willing to tow that line.

    Politics is a knife fight.  The Clintons are okay with mortal combat.  They always come out on top.  Barack is going to go all the way into the summer because he has the media and the Establishment (you know, the one who he rails against:  Kennedy, Kerry, Conyers) behind him 100%.

    After reading about him attacking Hillary's character and the 'typical' remark, well, if he thinks he has to wait for the fall for a full-throttled thrashing, i.e., going negative, I believe he just have awakened the sleeping giant known as President Bill Clinton.  Barack just attacked his wife.  Now, it's Bill's turn to go after Barack.  No need to go after Mrs. Obama.  She does well enough by herself doing damage to their campaign.

    Yes bill is echoing (1.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Jgarza on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:09:35 AM EST
    republicans talking points, Hillary supporters mus be really proud.

    Ohh and the Obama campaign called him out:

    "It sounds more like McCarthy," McPeak said. "I grew up, I was going to college when Joe McCarthy was accusing good Americans of being traitors, so I've had enough of it."

    McPeak brought you Dubya in 2000 (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:56:33 AM EST
    Have you even checked out who some of these Obama advisers are -- like this guy, who brought you
    Dubya?  In 1996, McPeak served as Oregon state chairman for the Bob Dole for President campaign.
    In the presidential election of 2000, McPeak endorsed George W. Bush and served as co-chairman
    of Oregon Veterans for Bush.  And now he is working for Obama.  What does that tell us?

    And it's easy to check for context, so often so lacking in flacking your intrusive politics of personal destruction:

    "Fact Check: What Bill Clinton Said In Charlotte

    "Some are suggesting that the remark by President Clinton was intended as a personal attack. . . .
    Actually, as is indicated by the quote itself, Clinton was talking about the need to talk about issues, rather than falsely questioning any candidate's patriotism.

    "He was lamenting that these kind of distractions 'always seems to intrude' on political campaigns. This is consistent with his criticism dating back 16 years of the "politics of personal destruction.'"


    Yeah, like when he said... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by magisterludi on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:07:43 AM EST
    the GOP has been the "party of ideas" and Reagan was a "transformational" president. And then he slung mud all over the last dem presidency,,, oh wait! That wasn't Bill Clinton. It was Barack, the chimerical "Unity" salesman.

    Sometimes I wonder if Obama is (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:47:29 AM EST
    a Democrat.

    Praising Reagan as "transformational" might have been smart if Obama was running as the next transformational GOP leader.  


    BO - Democrat? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Boo Radly on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:09:44 AM EST
    I have had strong reservations regarding his affiliation to the Democratic Party for a while. It seems like, now that he has had to do more than a pretty speech, he has been enabled for so long by so many, he really thinks he is "the one".Now that he is off script - he says one thing and then reverses it - it is scary that our so called "leaders" are letting this implode the Democratic Party. I have no confidence in some of our present top Dems - it is bizarre how they are skewering everything the party used to stand for.

    Here's the quote (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by tree on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:12:27 AM EST
    I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country and people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics

    Yup, right up there with McCarthy. Not. I really think the Obama campaign has its collective mind so trapped in the gutter they can barely see the curb.

     This is just another case of the Obama campaign overindulging in theatrics to try to play the victim and smear the Clintons. Its like the garb photo, which they falsely blamed on anonymous Clinton staffers. "Oh no, they put out a scary photo. They are so mean and evil." Only it was just a photo of Obama in native garb on a trip to Africa. But the Obama campaign, in order to smear Clinton, had to act like THEY thought a legitimate photo of Obama would create fear. It makes you wonder why he put on the garb in the first place if he thought the photo was going to frighten people so much.

     And then the idiotic amateur blog "analysis" that "deduced" from a video copy of a video copy that the Clinton campaign had slightly darkened Obama's skin tone in an ad.  Apparently the Obama supporting blogs believe that any darkening of Obama's face must make him a scarier black man. Or actually convince people he is black(oooh, so-ooo scary) because no one knew that before the Clinton ad came out.

    And now, a comment by Bill criticizing the lamentable state of what passes for political discourse and analysis today, is reinterpreted by the Obama campaign as a vicious attack on Obama's patriotism. Again, the Obama campaign is so invested in gotcha politics that they couldn't see Bill's point. No, they are so in love with smearing on anything BUT the issues, that they couldn't even recognize that Bill was expressing a desire for an election based solely on issue differences.    


    LOL Obama supporters play the McCarthy card... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:53:54 AM EST
    ....next thing you know you guys will be comparing the Clintons to Hitler, all the while saying that they are destroying the Democratic party. The irony.

    Wouldn't it be great if we had blah, blah (none / 0) (#59)
    by ding7777 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:57:37 AM EST
    instead of all this other stuff

    Bill is a communist now? (none / 0) (#72)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:44:14 AM EST
    McCarthy used terrorism and I would think GW would be more representative of using that tactic than Bill.

    Another Great Song (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:45:57 AM EST
    txchicano, in the same vein as Obama railing against the people who have endorsed him, one must certainly conclude that those who voted for the Iraq AUMF for the same reasons Clinton did are now every bit as "untrustworthy" as Clinton is.

    It must be difficult for Kerry to sit there and think about the guy he's cheering for, this guy who surely must believe that Kerry himself was and untrustworthy and totally crappy candidate.

    Or is John Kerry a hypocrite too?

    Did John Kerry ever apologize for voting for war?

    What is going on? (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Foxx on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:52:36 AM EST
    What are people's thoughts on why the democratic "leadership" is so biased for Obama?

    Do they really not see all the things that will make him so vulnerable in the GE?

    They've worked with him, they've worked with Clinton. Can they really not know she would be way the better president?

    It seems to me a group madness, a mass delusion, leading the country and the party straight off the cliff.

    What the h*** is going on?

    I'm starting to think that... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:56:31 AM EST
    ...they want to lose the presidency. They don't want to be held accountable for fixing this mess. They want things to go on as they are....they can control congress but they can defer responsibility and blame to the Republican in the White House. And also right now they are in love with the idea of this "historic candidacy" while totally overlooking the fact that Hillary's candidacy is historic too.

    Maria Garcia (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by sancho on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:43:33 AM EST
    what you say makes sense to me. I had been thinking of it in terms of Pelosi not wanting to be made accountable by Hillary who, I think, would try to push things through. She has a lifetime commitment to democratic principles and she has put up with an awful lot (including making bargains I am sure she did not like). I am sure she wants to get a dem congress to push through some dramatic legislation--reverse the damage of the Bush years. Hillary would be testing Reid and Pelosi--demanding leadership from them.

    Pelosi is not dumb. She knows Barack will almost certainly lose to McCain. And the "historic candidacy" (as opposed to a "historic presidency") gives her and the other collaboraters cover.

    Very depressing. A travesty.

    ps. I take it all back if Obama is elected President and pushes for democratic legislation.  


    Easy to influence (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:58:22 AM EST
    I am thinking that they know that Hillary will lead with or without them and they can try to influence her, but not necessarily call the shots.

    But with Obama, who is willing to compromise and defer to the other's agenda, they will be more in charge in the decision process.


    Hum (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jgarza on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:11:42 AM EST
    well if you are referring to Howard Dean I remember Carvell calling fr his head after we won 2006 mid terms.

    Other then that, I don't know that the bias you speak of is.


    Methinx its a power struggle (none / 0) (#34)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:12:38 AM EST
     power struggle within the Party heirarchy. Possibly both personal and political.

    Maybe a strong disagreement on specific policies for the Party? Hillary refused to kneel and kiss the Ring of the DLC on a policy she didn't agree with? Maybe the Clintons pissed Dean and his friends off? Forgot to include them on their Xmas card list?

    But sides are being drawn, possibly for a long time now, but the primaries have brought it to the surface if you can see the signs.  

    It will eventually come down to who has the numbers amongst the remaining super-dels.

    I suspect they will probably wait and let it play out with the candidates each doing their thing, until at least after PA, and probably until early June.

    All the remaining states are enthusiastic, given in that this one year they might actually be meaningful, good Party-building. One of the only pluses I can see of letting it play through undecided until the end.

    But I can't see them leaving it hanging over the summer until the Convention.

    There may a floor-fight, an internal political faction power struggle, but behind closed doors out of the public eye, amongst super-dels at some point before the Convention.

    A Decision will be made, one or other side will win, and then some spin will be given to the troops to justify whatever gets decided.  

    Not much us plebs can do except wait, continue to support our candidate in the remaining primaries, maybe do some stumping with our local super-dels who have yet to declare, or with some of the retired ones.  And for this Clinton-supporter, try to find some 'cheer-up' support on sites like this one, when the MSM narrative becomes way too depressing.

    And for wishful thinking on some distractions - now that Obama has chosen his running mate, I wish McCain would too, just so we could talk about the Repubs possible strategies for once :)


    Regulation of financial markets? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Munibond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:29:49 AM EST
    Maybe I'm being parochial, but an overhaul of regulation of banking and securities practices is likely coming, and this is one industry that has bet some money on the Democratic party.  Which candidate is most likely to reinstitute meaningful regulation?  Obama's U. of Chicago ties make me think that Clinton is less likely to be influenced by free market ideaology.

    Austan Goolsbee and David Cutler (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by magisterludi on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:11:14 AM EST
    are the reasons I cannot support Obama in any meaningful way. They are cut from Milton Friedman cloth. Those GOP dog whistles aren't empty rhetoric in the BHO economic camp. Unfortunately, I don't think many of his supporters are even aware of what free-marketeers these guys are.

     Hillary has already talked of re-regulation. I think she would be more likely to deliver because of public pressure on her. BHO supporters, I'm afraid, would just "follow their leader", as he is the wise and knowing "One".


    What about Kerry, Kennedy etc? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Munibond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:36:04 AM EST
    If the basis for the party split relates to issues, what side of financial regulation would they be on?

    Regulation is a core value of Hillary--- (none / 0) (#80)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:05:27 PM EST
    she's been very clear about it.
    I agree 100% that regulation is one of the most important functions of the government.
    Obama, with his rhetoric of moving beyond thinking of "big government" solutions, is not to be trusted.

    Yes, regulation (none / 0) (#83)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:30:42 PM EST
    Regulation is a big fear of Wall St.

    Being a health economist in one of those "other OECD countries", I first twigged to the underlying difference between Obama and Clinton in reading their health plans. They keep spinning how similar they are, but they aren't.

    Obama's in relation to the HMO industry, uses words like "encourage" the industry to play nice with clients, and "voluntary compliance" with standards etc. Like he did with watering down the Exelon nuclear affair. No wonder he has the MSM promoting him.

    Also a conflict between the two roles played by  our President - The Head of State role, is the symbolic ceremonial figurehead role, with moral and cultural symbolic power. The 'Camelot' years of Kennedy being turned into a cottage industry, for example. But in other countries the H-o-S can be inherited royalty or appointed/elected with fixed terms, but they don't carry much political or governance power. Like Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Ghandi, British, Danish or Dutch royal family etc they can be much loved by their people, and when they speak they are listened to, and often on moral issues with stirring oratory on national occasions.

    But, most other countries separate the H-o-S, from the Head of Government role, which pushes the buttons, makes decisions, and is primarily an organisational management job.  Our Constitution, rightly or wrongly, put both roles into one office-holder.

    Obama supporters generally are selling the "image" of the Head-of-State role, eg on the angst of the national psyche of racism etc - and at the same time trivialising as secondary, the Head-of-Government role. Hence, the generic government policy issues of the economy, foreign policy etc is all but dismissed.

    I remember now that Obama has previously said he would "delegate" all that boring government stuff, and thats when I started checking up on him with the question - hmm.. just who will you be delegating it to? Who will be running the country while you are off "healing" the national psyche with great speeches?


    Hm.. you should write a diary about this (none / 0) (#87)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:10:00 PM EST
    subject for Larry Johnson's blog Noquarterusa.net

    Starving For Charisma (none / 0) (#86)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:52:02 AM EST
    I think Democrats have been so starving for a candidate with real charisma for so long that they have ignored everything else.  This was obvious by the way some were pushing the 'Obama for President' idea right after the 2004 convention.  They don't care about electing the person who actually knows the most about the issues, who can run the country the best, or even adheres closest to Democratic party principles.  It's all about the image.

    It's not over yet. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:09:43 AM EST
    Anything can still happen.

    Does she have to run the table (none / 0) (#57)
    by Lil on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:42:29 AM EST
    at this point. I just read that her campaign is broke again.

    once that hit the (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:15:19 AM EST
    news... supporters started donating. I've donated again.

    I think she's bringing in the money she needs (none / 0) (#60)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:02:00 AM EST
    I thought she's been expanding her donor base?  Do you think she's run out of support?  

    not true (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:43:14 AM EST
    She just has more debt than Obama. She has enough to last through PA at least and continues to raise $ on the internet at a good pace.

    Thanks Jeralyn (none / 0) (#82)
    by Lil on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:56:15 PM EST
    for easing my mind about that, but in your opinion, does she need to run the table?

    And today's letter writers in the NYT (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:23:47 AM EST
    are not too happy about the disenfranchisement of voters in MI and FL.

    Wow (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by nellre on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:19:06 AM EST
    A friendly neighborhood!
    Post anything positive about HRC at Kos or Huffpo and you are a monster. (exaggeration) Strangest thing I've ever seen.
    Guess Rove hypnotized them all.
    There are people who support Obama for good reason. But there are far more who are just needing a miracle, and they think he can deliver because he's such an inspiring orator.
    When HRC points out that talk is not equal to deed, she gets hammered.
    Hands off Obama. No, can't challenge him! She should just quit... she's destroying the party. She'll cause us to lose in November etc. etc. etc.

    Gave her campaign $100 today. First time I've ever contributed to anybody's campaign.

    No -- the reasonable ones who do (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:59:27 AM EST
    some research, some analysis, and more than just forwarding what we get in our own emailboxes, anyway, are most welcome here, Nellre.  Btw, your first post here, elsewhere, sure started a lively thread.

    Post something (1.00 / 0) (#35)
    by Jgarza on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:14:06 AM EST
    positive about Obama here and see what happens here.  Heck disagree with a Clinton supporter and get deleted. There used to be a lot of Obama supporters here.  They have all been run off.

    There's always Daily Kos (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:43:29 AM EST
    If you want to gush about Obama or rail against Hillary, the welcome mat is out at Daily Kos.

    Or if you want to drum up conspiracy theories involving passport files.....
    (To be fair, clammyc wrote a diary denouncing that.   )


    I do not (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:20:40 AM EST
    beleive it is the "positive post about Obama" that gets people riled up. It is more they WAY those posts are presented... like good Obama... bad Clinton.

    There are a couple of really good Obama supoorters who post here. They actually use logical structure for their arguments and make good counter points. I enjoy the exchanges with them.


    Not true (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:02:31 PM EST
    Many positive comments from Obama supporters can be found here. It's the ones that are filled with insults, attacks and name-calling that are deleted. Our comment rules are readily available. If Obama supporters would abide by them, fewer of their comments would be deleted. Instead, too may want to come and do a drive-by -- which lowers the level of discourse for everyone. You know this better than most, so please, no more false accusations.

    I have to stop (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:44:41 AM EST
    I get more angry every day.

    I look at Obama's speech yet again and I now see this:

    A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened.

    And then I hear Obama supporters criticize Bill for welfare reform, for trying to change those policies, and while doing so America saw 7 million people in poverty no longer in poverty.

    The entire Obama movement -- and you know, in some ways at some point I have to admit that Obama isn't responsible for the movement that supports him -- just really pisses me off.

    It marries profundity with hypocrisy.  I wonder what child they will nurture to maturity.

    I just get more disgusted every day.

    The Marriage ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:12:27 AM EST
    of profundity and hypocrisy.

    Been to that ceremony once to often.  Same old, same old.

    And they never have an open bar at the reception!


    He didn't have to work in (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:01:27 AM EST
    his grandmother or Ferrora, either, or his personal mythology again.  

    Obama could not write a haiku for the life of him.

    haiku (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:04:45 AM EST
    lol!~ thanks for my last laugh before my cat nap!  :)

    Oh Man, That Hilarious! (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:30:29 AM EST
    That's a blog all by itself.


    I would like to uh
    Talk about things I think are
    Important to me


    I HAVE A BLOG!!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:34:40 AM EST
    This should be fun! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by magisterludi on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:56:40 AM EST
    Love it! nt (none / 0) (#49)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:04:08 AM EST
    And you have a comment haiku! (none / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:00:15 PM EST
    And I think my idea has created a . . . monster? :-)

    Bookmarked your blog, hoping for more there soon.


    haiku (none / 0) (#84)
    by sleepingdogs on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:02:18 PM EST
    I am not good at haiku but really want to support the effort.  I posted a few of my own (under a different screen name.)  Come on, I see many clever writers comment here at talk left.  Will you please step up to the Obama Haiku challenge?  Thanks for getting this started Edgar08.

    methinks the obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by cpinva on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:58:15 AM EST
    protest a wee bit too much here. they come in, make ludicrous statements totally unsupported by facts, get a new one ripped and then whine about how "nasty" we all are. hardly. compared to the whiz bangs at kos and huffpo (whoever told that woman she had something worth saying in public?), this is damn civilized. i realize being challenged on a factual basis is tough, get over it.

    on a sort of related (but not) note, i have a question: is andrew sullivan really as self-inflated and uselessly bloviating a sack of dog pooh as he seems, or does he just play that role in public?

    i ask because i just read his "mea culpa" on iraq in atlantic.com. if he's what passes for intellectual conservatism these days, the progressive agenda should have nothing to worry about.

    his piece was essentially "how was i wrong on iraq?". the short answer: every way humanly possible. sadly, he graces us with several pargraphs, highlighting in excruciating detail just how much of an idiot he truly is.

    at some point, any reasonable person wants to reach through the pages, grab mr. sullivan by the throat, do the world a huge favor and beat him to a bloody pulp. it won't bring any of our folks (or iraquis, for that matter) back from the dead, but it'll sure feel good.

    go, read and be appalled by the "thought" process that helped get us into the quagmire that is iraq.

    wasn't Yglesias (none / 0) (#45)
    by magisterludi on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:13:13 AM EST
    pro-invasion initially? What about Marshall? Kos? John Cole?

     I don't know if there's a pattern here or not.


    Leonard Cohen answered his door in a cape. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Dancing Bear on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:24:13 AM EST
    I set up his home office when I lived in LA. He had a great staff and he really is every bit of what he portrays. Those are some real words. His comapny is "Stranger Music" and it seems to fit, but in a good way.

    I love genuine people. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:51:49 AM EST
    Cohen always struck me as someone who was very real.

    I'm still a bit stunned about how many times his songs have been covered.  Sure I think his songs are great, but I'm just some peon.  There's a huge range of people, singers, song writers who recorded his songs.


    Great song.... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:46:22 AM EST
    but, nothing is lost yet...right?  

    O God, (none / 0) (#2)
    by jpete on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:53:29 AM EST
    I so wish everyone knew who could lead our all efforts to end this.

    Jeralyn, when you can (none / 0) (#3)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:56:52 AM EST
    I'd still like your thoughts on Soliah, Willie Green, etc.  Why did it take four years to free him?

    I'll try to write them up tomorrow (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:07:30 AM EST

    Of course. A long day for you (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:54:55 AM EST
    ending with Leonard Cohen is a sign.  And this song?

    As the psalm says -- nightfall, well . . . but with the dawn rejoicing.  Two people are out of prison tonight who should not have been there, and maybe a little girl will get to see a guy still there.  

    Thus:  When you can.


    Freddie Pitts and Wilbert Lee (none / 0) (#64)
    by Coral Gables on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:37:26 AM EST

    These two were my introduction to a flawed justice system. They were also the impetus for my anti-capital punishment stand that hasn't wavered in 30 years. I never would have made a good Republican having taken that track.


    "First We Take Manhattan" (none / 0) (#6)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:52:26 AM EST
    Jennifer Warnes, Leonard Cohen and Stevie Ray Vaughn


    Closing Time (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:08:48 AM EST
    and Democracy are my two favorites, along with this one.

    Yes, and I love the last verse (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:17:27 AM EST
    I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean
    I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
    And I'm neither left or right
    I'm just staying home tonight,
    getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
    But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags
    that Time cannot decay,
    I'm junk but I'm still holding up
    this little wild bouquet:
    Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

    Came out in 1992 (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:57:12 AM EST
    The timing could not have been more perfect.

    Here is (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:41:01 AM EST
    Democracy sung by Don Henley at the Clinton-Gore MTV Inaugural Ball in Jan. 1993 -- you have to turn your volume up to really hear it though. I put it up on You Tube a few years ago.  Maybe since I have the vhs tape out, I'll redo it tonight with the volume up and make it a Late Night.

    That's the first time I've heard that version (none / 0) (#79)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:03:38 PM EST
    and it is great. Big fat groove all the way through. The choir added to the power of it too.

    More Nagourney; this (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:15:19 AM EST
    time on Richardson endorsement:


    I didn't realize Richardson deemed Clinton's campaign to be negative and Obama's only positive.

    This line was interesting: (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:37:59 AM EST
    Mr. Clinton had told his wife's campaign that he had received several assurances from Mr. Richardson that he would not endorse Mr. Obama.

    Turns out we've got the same old Politics as Usual.

    I was disappointed in Carville's response though. Rather hyperbolic and not very helpful to Hillary.


    Dammit (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:52:40 AM EST
    Richardson sums up the entire Barack Obama movement.

    Something special about this guy, I can't figure it out.


    You're supposed to know what's special about the candidate you're endorsing.


    Same reaction for me, and words (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:11:58 AM EST
    that came to mind came from decades ago -- pure highpschool stuff like "what a dork" and "can't you come up with a line that doesn't sound like it came from a song?"  But then I realized that so much of one candidate's campaign lately does seem so high-school, somehow -- stupid tricks to distract the other side running for student council, cozying up to the student newspaper geek to get a story when you know they won't give the geek the time of day the day after it's over, etc.  

    And all the time, you're the quiet kid no one even sees in the hallways, so you can see what's really going on around you -- but so-called grown-ups, teachers and guidance counselors, all are as stuck on the one kid running for student council as the other kids.  So you just give up and count the days 'til you can get out . . . but save it all for a vicious novel you'll write someday.  

    Practically Lact, you bet there will be books about this campaign.  There will be a good work of history on the order of The Making of the President 1960, but it will be constrained by being history.  So watch for the work of vicious fiction that will tell the truths we can't see now.  They will be unpretty truths.  And me, I can hardly wait for the fictional character of a Southwestern state governor who got all gushy one day, the day that turned out to be the peak of his career, and all went downhill from there. . . .


    I can't wait (none / 0) (#55)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:15:04 AM EST
    until school books are printed and young kids are made to learn the names of all the presidents, including Hillary Clinton (#44)

    Election (none / 0) (#69)
    by kayla on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:10:40 AM EST
    My sister and I were talking the other day about how much this primary season is like the movie Election with Reese Witherspoon and Matthew Broderick.  It's about a high school election where a wonkish, overachiever (Hillary) runs for school president, thinking that she would would be the inevitable winner, but later finding out that a more popular and dimwitted (Barack) candidate decides to run.

    Her ethics teacher (The Democratic Leadership) can't stand her and doesn't think she deserves it, because of her less than pure high school career, (she was sleeping with one of her teachers) so he does whatever he can to derail her campaign, and push for the guy who was more fun to be around.

    There are some differences between the movie and this real life election (the main one being that Barack is certainly not dimwitted) but it's funny how much of the plot is similar.


    another thing that bothered me was the (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:35:49 AM EST
    "hope" he saw in peoples' eyes when he was there today.

    He should check out a Hillary rally sometime  ;)

    But yeah, he really didn't have much to add now did he?


    love leonard, great song choice (none / 0) (#17)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:47:14 AM EST
    Ah, he's one of my favorites. We'll feel quite different after she wins big in PA and WV. And the bottom line is either MI and FL gets seated reasonably well, or it really won't matter because Obama can't win without it happening. Lovely twist of irony there.

    The peep murder scene (none / 0) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:28:23 AM EST
    from earlier today?

    I hear that HILLARY did it.

    I've also heard that she blends puppies into her evening martini...heard that from an anonymous "senior" staffer.

    Nope, no blending puppies :) (none / 0) (#27)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:51:17 AM EST
    the puppies blend into her lap while she sips martinis if anything.

    sorry, puppy and kitten sensitive here. plus, methinks she's a puppy snuggler  ;)


    I think she's a kitty snuggler.. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:06:41 AM EST
    ...bill is the puppy cuddler.

    Obama's New Low: Call Bill Clinton Joe McCarthey (none / 0) (#50)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:05:46 AM EST

    The Obama campaign projects their own delusional paranoia on every word that comes out of Hillary or Bill's mouth. Every syllable has some sort of double meaning. And, of course, the media plays right along.

    Obama has trashed Bill Clinton. He's unfairly called him a racist, said that both he and Hillary are dishonest, both he and Hillary "will do ANYTHING to win," and now are comparing him to JOE MCCARTHEY!!!

    It's time for Obama to drop out!

    Hard to believe (none / 0) (#67)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:18:01 AM EST
    that one will work....however, I'm sure the stream of idiots at MSNBC will buy and carry it!

    McPeak was just at the Medford Town Hall with (none / 0) (#77)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:29:45 PM EST
    Obama. Stood on stage next to Obama and talked about it again. Left out McCarthey this time, but still . . .

    {sigh} and I'm supposed to vote for this guy? He's doing his damnedest to stop me, that's for sure.


    A note on the MI, Fl votes (none / 0) (#58)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:51:30 AM EST
    Including military ballots from both states will not be counted. This is the link

    I didn't pick it for politics (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:56:51 AM EST
    I was thinking more of the many Hispanic defendants I spent the afternoon in court with. When we have multi-defendant drug cases like this, the courtroom isn't big enough to have the clients sit next to their lawyers so the clients, all detained without bond sit chained together in the jury box. At the end of the four hour hearing yesterday, the Judge apologized to them for not even being able to have a glass of water during it, and told the lawyers we could bring a cup with water from the counsel table to our clients.

    In crack cases, there are often 20 or more defendants. Virtually all are black. The lawyers (federal court in Denver) are predominantly white. It's a surreal feeling to see such a racial divide in a place (a courtroom) where justice is supposed to be delivered.

    Typically, the cases have few actual drug seizures. They are mostly built on wiretaps, surveillance, cooperating defendants, expert drug cops analyzing code to where a mention of breakfast is one kilo, lunch is two and dinner is three, etc. They add up all the supposed distributions over a few years for all 20 and come up with figures like 150 kilos of crack -- meaning they are all looking at 30 years to life and so many are kids in their 20's. Really a broken system. And a sad one.

    forgot to add (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:08:00 PM EST
    Before anyone wonders how these poor defendants can afford lawyers, the answer is most can't in these kind of huge wiretap cases -- lawyers are then appointed by the Court under the Criminal Justice Act.

    Great thread.. lots of good comments in here. (none / 0) (#78)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:03:06 PM EST

    By a remarkable coincidence. . . (none / 0) (#85)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:44:16 PM EST
    I scrolled down to this post while listening to Jeff Buckley's version of Hallelujah on jango.com.