home

Does Anyone Care About The Rules?! Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat

You are entering a world of pain. An apt metaphor for the current primary fight. This is an Open Thread.

BTW, Jeralyn is on MSNBC now, talking about the Limbaugh/Dem for A Day stuff.

< Self Interest | NY Governor Used Cocaine, Doesn't Apologize >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Go Jeralyn! We Love You!!! (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:44:12 PM EST


    I'm sure glad! (none / 0) (#138)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:58:11 PM EST
    somebody is talking about "Dems for a day"!
    Thank you Jeralyn!
    Is there a transcript?


    [ Parent ]
    MSNBC transcripts (none / 0) (#140)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:00:08 PM EST
    are available from their web site...the next afternoon

    [ Parent ]
    I just found the video with Jeralyn's segment (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by andrys on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:54:39 AM EST
    Jeralyn's segment is here.

    [ Parent ]
    thank you! (none / 0) (#154)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:17:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    msnbc also shows Dan's segments (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by andrys on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:25:49 AM EST
    There's usually video of the segments on Abrams' show.  MSNBC does a great job with these for all their shows.  If only they'd repeat those shows at night in the West Coast where all we see are prison documentaries which are like a sort of hell in this life, repeated without end.

    Now they start repeats at 11pm with the increasingly puffed-up Keith Olberman (I can hardly tell him from O'Reilly anymore in demeanor), midnight with Hardball, 1am Dan Abram's "Verdict"

      Side note: I find the 'Verdict' idea as main focus as going toward more simplistic b&w thinking, so I'm a bit sad about that.  It can be fun as a side focus but as something for the whole show, it has seemed more superficial.  

      I'm enjoying Dick Gregory's show but must tape it as it is not repeated here at night.  What a waste.

    [ Parent ]

    ugh. Bowling. I once drank too much and (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Teresa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:46:14 PM EST
    let the ball go before the thing that holds the pins up had moved. Then I picked up a ball that was too heavy and fell face first down the lane. I never have liked bowling since then.

    Why did no one warn us that Jeralyn would be on? I'm watching my fifth straight day of basketball and missed it.

    I don't think I can quote a single line (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:47:33 PM EST
    from that youtube.

    I need to watch TBL again.

    I cannot believe (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:52:11 PM EST
    I watched a segment on NBC Nightly news tonight that had Tweety and Brian Williams discussing Hillary's campaign and treating that story at Politico over the weekend as if it were fact and quoting it ad nauseum.

    My problem is (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by sara seattle on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:01:08 PM EST
    why are Obama and his supporters so hell bent on Hillary stepping down?

    Have they really looked at how they come across?? They are saying - the only way our guy can win is by Hillary stepping down!!

    Is that a sign of a winner?
    Is that showing confidence in their ability to win on their owwn?? -
    Do they really think that McCain will step down too??

    So if Obama can win - then let him show it by winning in PA - if not - politely - zip it.

    [ Parent ]

    i think they do think (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by sancho on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:05:05 PM EST
    that they can make mccain step down. going back to his first elected office that's how the "obama roolz" seem to work.

    [ Parent ]
    Must be because it worked (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by sara seattle on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:19:55 PM EST
    with Illinois politics -

    where Obama's mentor Lewis got other legislators to back off so amendments etc all of a sudden ended up with Obama's name on them

    His so-called flury of legislation - the work was actually proposed by others

    [ Parent ]

    Danger Kitty has been trying... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kredwyn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:29:39 PM EST
    that training thing with me to get up earlier and earlier to feed her and let her out on the porch.

    Thus far, I've rebelled. But her pattern gets a bit more determined the longer I refuse to move.
    "Wit has truth in it; wisecracking is simply calisthenics with words." Dorothy Parker
    [ Parent ]

    it is called behaviour modification (none / 0) (#122)
    by sara seattle on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:43:37 PM EST
    your behaviour is what is getting modified

    [ Parent ]
    lol!~ that's exactly what it is. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:54:19 PM EST
    Time to turn the tables on the kitty. I never give in to my cats in the AM. from the day I bring them home, the last activity in the morning before I leave is to feed them. And since I keep my own sched, that gives me even more flexibility. I had a friend that would get up at 5:30 on the weekends because that's when she fed the cats during the week. That doesn't work for me  ;)


    [ Parent ]
    Unless the house was on fire (none / 0) (#158)
    by sara seattle on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:19:42 PM EST
    no way - ever - would I get up at 5:30am on the week-end.

    [ Parent ]
    I was shocked she did. (none / 0) (#163)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:33:18 PM EST
    and she did it for about 10 yrs.

    not an option here, unless it's a sick kitty or bottle feeding. but day to day, my cats can suck it up until I'm ready to feed them  ;)

    [ Parent ]

    They are trying this on as it is the only..... (none / 0) (#186)
    by ACitizen on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:44:58 AM EST

    .......the only way they win. Pyric victory though it would be keep in mind that Tweety & Co. haven't even worked their way down to Rezko and the quicksand The Magic Man is mired in is far, far, far deeper than the pipsqueak Resko.

    I predict PumpkinHaid's hear really does explode in profusion of blood and bile, no brains there you see, when he has to introduce:

    Nadhmi Auchi who ranks 279 on The World's Billionaires 2007 up from a lousy 382nd last year.

    To the American people. Whoeeeeeeeeeeee! Pizza Parlors, Oil for Food, Assassination....

    That vast sucking sound? The Magic Man leaving the scene. Dude will be hard pressed to get elected dog-catcher in the 11th.

    I really don't think those Rezko tenants are gonna turn out. Just like the Texas Oborg failed to do.....

    Anywho....I recommend you all get busy studying up on what pizza parlors, POTUS and 'Oil for Food' all have to do with the amazing, disappearing, 'Magic Man'.

    'Change...' anyone?

    Hah...snort...heh....snort....no more iced tea at the keyboard for me...

    [ Parent ]

    exactly what part of the politico story (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by cy street on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:11:45 PM EST
    do you disagree with?  what path to the nomination does the house of clinton believe there is?

    the two references you mention are but two of many.  nancy pelosi is not on the panel at msnbc.  by her measure, delegate swapping, back door strategies are not going to get it done.

    i know.  she is one of them.

    not really.

    by the rules set up by your dnc, this race is finished.  there are states to go and i hope each is contested respectfully.  but this is holland after the fall of berlin.

    a skirmish here, a skirmish there,
    the campaign is done,
    let the culture war begin again.

    [ Parent ]

    Hope (none / 0) (#156)
    by nellre on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:19:08 PM EST
    Are you actually a supporter of the candidate for hope without understanding what the word means?

    [ Parent ]
    Middle Name (none / 0) (#185)
    by faithandhope97 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:39:17 AM EST
    Wow! I may have to change to a different one.
    I have been using this one since 1997.  Faith is my sister's name.  I am proud to say that I am a "Clinton For President" supporter.

    [ Parent ]
    Then don't worry about it (none / 0) (#160)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:21:44 PM EST
    start thinking about the general election.  Tell your candidate to do the same.

    [ Parent ]
    How about the rule that says (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Lora on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:54:14 PM EST
    We are entitled to vote for our government leaders, and those votes will be counted as we intended.

    Doesn't anyone care about that rule?

    Unfortunately, That Rule Does Not Seem To Be (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:01:47 PM EST
    real important to the Boys in the Blogs and the Media.

    It is a personal favorite of mine though.

    [ Parent ]

    nah... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:15:11 PM EST
    DNC and Obama have already disenfranchised FL and MI, why not a few more states?

    Could it be that they're afraid to lose some the last remaining big state?

    The momentum is gone - in terms of the voters so they are resorting to their one true friend this whole election...the main stream media because the main stream media wants HRC out.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm glad SOMEBODY does (none / 0) (#206)
    by Lora on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:14:53 AM EST
    As for the rest, when the election results are official, you get what you pay for, I'm afraid.  I say it's time to get what we fight for, because without the fight, the neocons laugh while we berate ourselves for not reaching the American people, etc etc etc.  What a farce.

    Once again, I ask you all:P  When you go to vote, be it primary or general election, ask yourselves how you can be SURE that your vote will be counted as you intend.  If your answer is in some form of "I guess I just have to trust the experts, 'cause I just dunno" then you will never know if you are being robbed of your vote.

    Given the dirty tactics of BOTH political parties, do you really think some honorable urge NOT to steal an election if they can get away with it will come to the fore?

    Dream on.

    [ Parent ]

    The Rules are getting fuzzier by the minute (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by countme on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:10:44 PM EST
    The rules have been redefined so many times by campaign surrogate, DNC members, the campaigns, and pundits that it getting confusing for us lowly plebs. Who has the definitive rules on choosing the dem nominee? Or is it a free for all?

    Some of the rules ... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:21:00 PM EST
    Voters can vote for whoever they like, unless ...

    They're not qualified to vote in the primary ...

    Or they live in a caucus state and their first, second, even third choice of candidate isn't allowed to count.

    Or they live in Texas and have to vote twice.

    Pledged delegates are supposed to vote for their candidate ...

    But they're not required to.

    Super delegates can vote for whoever they like ...

    But everyone will tell them they aren't supporting the will of the people if they don't vote a particular way.

    ---------

    Historians still aren't sure if a "thumbs up" meant a gladiator should be saved or killed in ancient Roman gladiatorial combat.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for clearing that up for me. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by countme on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:40:26 PM EST
    I feel so much better now that democracy will prevail.

    [ Parent ]
    My impression is that (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by zyx on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:43:26 PM EST
    Illinois residents can vote in Iowa.  Especially if they are students, but that isn't really required.

    Who knew?  Not moi, until recently.  WTF?

    [ Parent ]

    Since my parents were born in Illinois (none / 0) (#141)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:00:09 PM EST
    was I eligible for the IA Caucus?!  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    You forgot about WA ;) (none / 0) (#139)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:58:24 PM EST
    Hold a Caucus one day and then a Primary 2 weeks later that also has vote by mail. Make the Primary a beauty contest and count the Caucus because that's got the lower number of participants.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course ... (none / 0) (#171)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:43:40 PM EST
    I said "some of the rules." I could have gone on for days.

    But I should have included that one because it is so ridiculous.

    [ Parent ]

    I had to clue a WA friend in. (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:18:19 AM EST
    Apparently the perception some had was that the primary was a beauty contest, but you had to be a delegate to caucus. She went and got the rules and spread the word. Her and her hubby  did both. I find it interesting they had such a high primary vote even though it 'didn't matter'. At least the TX primary did to an extent.

    [ Parent ]
    Rules? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by judyo on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:19:05 PM EST
    Playing by the rules, or the law is so pre-Bush.
    Get with the "pogram"

    I have to say (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:20:34 PM EST
    I am utterly sick of hearing how the Democrats are going to lose in November.

    If the Democrats lose in November they should be disbanded as a party and a new party should be formed.  A party that isn't determined to shoot itself in the groin rather than succeed.

    Short of finding pictures of McCain with an Al Qaeda prostitute, what else exactly do the Democrats needs to convince themselves that they have all the advantage?  Economy is in the toilet, war is unpopular and going nowhere, Bush has record low approval ratings while McCain is in full liplock with the guy,  the world is begging for a Democrat to resurrect some sort of sane foreign policy.  WHAT MORE DO WE NEED?

    The only way that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama don't win in November is if emocrats turn their back on the party because they are pouting about their candidate losing.  I say this with the full understanding that there is a reasonable chance of Hillary being the nominee.  I may not be enamored of her but I will be voting for her NO MATTER WHAT!

    Country over politics, people!  Whatever virtues John McCain may have once had, have been coopted by his willingness to kowtow to the extreme Right that believes that the best solution to the Middle East is killing more Muslims, that the problem with Vietnam was that we didn't kill ENOUGH Vietnamese, and that turning our enemies into glass is preferable to ever accepting even the slightest setback in our foreign policy objectives.

    John McCain is NOT preferable to Barack Obama.  John McCain is NOT preferable to Hillary Clinton.  Not in any way.  His LIBERAL positions are well to the right of both candidates.  His pandering positions are downright frightening.  He will hand off economic policy to guys that will make us wish for the days of Jude Wanniski.  

    I understand that politics are a passionate business.  But don't lose sight of the bigger picture.  Your rights and the human rights of people around the world depend on that.

    This ends my open thread rant.

    Hear hear (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:27:31 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Amen to that indeed (none / 0) (#128)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:48:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama smeared "typical" white folks (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:36:01 PM EST
    as racists.

    Do I want a President Obama telling me that I'm a racist because I think it was LBJ and not JFK,  whose work and experience led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act?

    I have survived Republican Presidents, but Obama would be the 1st Democratic President to "agitate" a racial war to get elected.

    [ Parent ]

    Do whatever you want (none / 0) (#34)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:48:23 PM EST
    it's very easy to be offended by B.S. crap during campaigns if you want to be offended.  

    I have absolutely no idea how you were involved in that discussion.  

    The fact that you think that Barack Obama is the one that is making this campaign about race suggests that you are completely blinded by your biases.  

    Was Barack Obama the one that could talk of nothing else other than race during South Carolina?  How bout Mississippi?  How bout Reverend Wright?  Was it Barack Obama that was sending out mailers to Jewish voters suggesting that he opposed Israel and that he secretly was a Muslim?  

    Agitate a race.  Unbelievable.  The fact that you choose to respond to my comment by bringing up race speaks more to your personal views than what Barack Obama has said or done.

    [ Parent ]

    And you ignore the racial "agitations" (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:20:28 PM EST
    When JJJ (co-chair of Obama's campaign) mentioned that he didn't see Hillary cry for the Katrina victims, what was that?

    When Obama SC Press Secrectary was peddling 4 pages of alleged racial comments by the Clintons, what was that?

    When Obama said Hillary was dissing MLK, what was that?

    There's more, but what's the point? You'll just ignore them, too.

    fwiw, Obama was in a position to quote - transend race - unquote but instead he agitated  inflammatory racial dialogs just like Rev Wright does in his sermons

    [ Parent ]

    Right (1.00 / 1) (#95)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:24:39 PM EST
    you want to hold Obama accountable for everything that is said by ever person who is associated with his campaign.  You do the same for Clinton?  Somehow I doubt it.  

    When Obama said that Hillary was dismissing MLK's contribution he was giving an opinion.  The fact that you think that is equal to a charge of racism speaks to your own hypersensitivity.

    And of course I daresay you have no problem with the incessant charges of sexism being levied at Obama.  Yeah, I didn't think so.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama knows what he's doing (none / 0) (#121)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:41:33 PM EST
    his opinion of Hillary's LBJ comment is reflected nonstop on DK as "Clintons are racists."

    What charges of Obama's sexism?
    I'm aware of Obama's "claws" and "emotional" remarks about Hillary.


    [ Parent ]

    Here's how I put it somewhere else (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:47:53 PM EST
    You'll have to bear with me here:

    There's a Door and behind that door is Obama, his supporters and me supporting Obama.

    On that door is a sign.  That sign says "The Clintons are racist."

    I will not walk through that door.

    There's another door.

    Behind that Door is Obama and me supporting Obama.

    There's a sign on that door.

    The sign reads:  "The Clintons are Liars."

    I will not walk through THAT door, either.

    If Obama would like to situate himself behind a different door, then we go from there.

    And I'll add, as far as these considerations are set down by myself for the sake of setting SOME boundaries, I don't care if she loses.  I would like her to win.  But her losing alone won't keep me from supporting Obama.

    This wouldn't be sour grapes cause Clinton lost.

    That would simply be one person deciding that if the Obama movement becomes the official and dominant movement of the Democratic Party and that movement INCLUDES telling Republicans that hating Clinton is OK by us (Democrats), then I'm done.

    Simple.

    So it'll be hard choices time soon for Obama.

    Hard choices time for his supporters as well.

    What's the movement gonna be all about?

    [ Parent ]

    Well given the fact (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:54:23 PM EST
    that you have already stated that you hate Barack Obama, I'm guessing that there isn't much to be done for you.  You've chosen petulance over party AND country.  

    If I were to pick and choose "supporters" of Clinton as an excuse to oppose Clinton it would be very easy. I could waltz over to No Quarter and get my outrage on.  I could rationalize my anger by pointing to a bunch of Internet crazies that are willing to say anything because there are no repercussions for crossing the line.  

    But I see no reason to tar Hillary Clinton for the actions of nebulous supporters.  Instead I judge Hillary by Hillary and Obama by Obama.  I don't take surrogate comments and use them as a cudgel to beat Hillary up with.  Her surrogates aren't running for President, she is.

    OK.  Back to listening to some Colbie Caillat.  What a great voice she has.  

    [ Parent ]

    Some of us feel a bit bamboozled, now that (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:30:46 PM EST
    we know how thin Obama's resume actually is.

    [ Parent ]
    My conditions (none / 0) (#71)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:06:16 PM EST
    Are reasonable.

    I do hate Obama.  That is unreasonable.  But Obama can change.

    I hope he can change before he wins cause if he changes after he wins, then it's going to ring a little false.

    But even then, if he can change the trajectory of the movement, I'm on board.

    So far, as it's been explained to me... by Obama supporters.... the independents that Obama wants to attract are ready to say they were wrong about Bush, but they're not ready to say they were wrong about Clinton.

    I don't really care if you call me petulant or whatever else you want to call me.

    [ Parent ]

    I think Edgar's point is ... (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:02:00 AM EST
    that Obama still has some work to do to get his vote.  I think that's true for a lot of Americans.

    And that's Obama job as a candidate for public office.

    He doesn't have a right to anyone's vote.

    [ Parent ]

    Trying to come around... (1.00 / 1) (#93)
    by smb on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:21:09 PM EST
    As an Obama supporter I think that there is something behind the reality the many Obama supports would have a hard time supporting Clinton in a general. I think for me it is the fact that even though both candidates have slung mud at each other, Clinton has thrown some things out there that put her desire to win over party and country. Specifically the pushing of the idea that Obama is not a patriotic American. This to me is the atomic bomb of politics, and completely unwarranted in a primary campaign. The only way you bring this is if you don't care what happens if you lose, and it pretty much precludes Clinton from playing any part in an Obama general campaign.

    Additionally the Wright "controversy" is only an issue that can be used in the primary, the Reps have the same issue on their side with Dobson/Robertsons post 9/11 comments and McCains disavowing them and then accepting them back with open arms (publicly).

    Unless this is some sort of Clintonian hazing ritual its pretty hard to see the good that can come for our party and country from her attacks. The hazing though in some ways helps as it puts issues behind him that the press will not want to bring out of the archives when the Reps go at it.

    Someone please convince me that what I am feeling is not an honest assesment, point something out that Obama has said that is destructive to the party/country, that wasn't in response to something Clinton threw at him?

    [ Parent ]

    She didn't push that (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:25:18 PM EST
    So I didn't read past that part.

    [ Parent ]
    Yup. (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:54:39 PM EST
    That's where it lost me too.

    Tell you what guys, reread Edgar08's "doors" post upthread.

    Now understand, if you want Clinton supporters to support your guy, you and he have to convince us by not trashing and lying about the Clintons. That is the baseline, the very minimum we will accept. No trashing or lying about the Clintons, or I am not going to listen to anything else you say.

    If Obama cannot win, and if you cannot talk about this campaign, without trashing and lying about the Clintons, then as far as I an concerned, he has not earned my vote and you are not worth paying attention to.

    [ Parent ]

    Subtlety (none / 0) (#146)
    by smb on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:08:30 PM EST
    What Bill Clinton said the other day was a subtle but very effective tactic to enforce the meme that Obama is not partriotic. Watch for yourself, and tell me you don't read anything into it. It is obvious who he is besmirching when he talks about two people who love their country... and then says instead of "all this other stuff", clearly referring to the current to do about the Wright stuff and thus Obama. I do give him credit for the delivery, its clearly designed to accomplish its task of suggesting Obama does not love America while at the same time not out and out saying it. Straight out of the Rovian handbook.

    For those of you who don't seem so utterly shocked by this suggestion, can someone explain how this kind of thing can be tolerated in our party.

    Watch the video here.


    [ Parent ]

    Pure BS from the Obama camp - again (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:13:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I watched it. You're wrong. (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:34:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What do meaning you take from what he said? (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by smb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:31:31 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What ??!?!?! (none / 0) (#137)
    by smb on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:56:58 PM EST
    Bill stood up in front of a crowd on Camera and out and out said that Hillary and McCain love their country and purposefully contrasted that to Obama. That is what it is... Secondly, do you have any evidence to prove that its not her that is pushing it? From watching the pundits in the last weeks, the ones who keep flogging the issue seem to be supporters (aka operatives) of Clinton.

    Is say operatives because they are, and this is true for all candidates...

    On your comment title, are you arguing on purely technical details. She didn't push it, but Bill did? Even then I don't see the difference.

    [ Parent ]

    The patriotism comment (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:04:14 PM EST
    is a lie and has been debunked earlier.  Spreading lies does Obama no good.


    [ Parent ]
    Bill didn't mention Obama at all (none / 0) (#190)
    by tree on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:03:24 AM EST
    and people who were there didn't take his comment, which made no mention of Obama, to mean what you seem to WANT it to mean.

    See here

    [ Parent ]

    If you think Wright (none / 0) (#147)
    by standingup on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:09:10 PM EST
    is an issue that will only be used in the primary, I suggest you read the latest from Christopher Hitchens on Slate.  This is just a preview of what will be used in the general against Obama.  Even Joe Klein on Anderson Cooper's 360 admitted the Wright controversy has done damage but it will take the upcoming primaries to find out how much.

    The Republicans will brush right over the Dobsons/Robertsons/Hagees/Parsleys because none of them are a the spiritual mentor or family minister of John McCain.  They won't be letting any of the religious right hold them back on capitalizing on Wright.  

    [ Parent ]

    Obama said (none / 0) (#148)
    by nellre on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:11:03 PM EST
    typical white woman
    I found that racist and sexist and I forgave him.

    Remember, it's McCain we are trying to defeat, not each other.


    [ Parent ]

    No, he said "typical white person" (none / 0) (#172)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:44:04 PM EST
    I don't know why this keeps being misquoted.

    Obama was stereotyping white men, too.  All whites.

    [ Parent ]

    What puzzles me about that .... (none / 0) (#179)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:12:08 AM EST
    statement is that he doesn't even sound like he knows what he said.  I've heard it a number of times.

    And it's odd that a man who's thought so deeply about racial identity (he wrote a book about his own personal journey through it), and who's campaign has read racism into the comments of others, would not even notice immediately that he'd misspoke.

    I'm willing to cut him some slack on the comment.  Candidates talk a lot, and are bound to say stupid things.  But it seems a much more racially charged "gaffe," than Bill Clinton stating a fact about who won some previous elections.


    [ Parent ]

    He wrote it himself. (none / 0) (#194)
    by Fabian on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:55:51 AM EST
    (was the title of a dk post)

    Obama wrote the speech himself.  It was on paper, not an off the cuff remark.  Then, later on, in interviews he used the exact same phrasing as before.

    My conclusions:
    Obama has a tin ear for potentially derogatory stereotypes.
    Whoever looked over the speech has the same.
    Obama had the chance to change or drop the wording and didn't.

    It was deliberate, for whatever reasons.

    [ Parent ]

    Well... feelings are not going to quiesce (none / 0) (#14)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:32:56 PM EST
    as long as the campaign continues.
    "McCarthyite"? Please.
    Anyway, McCain's strength with Democrats is not due to the Clinton-Obama primary fight; rather, it's due to years of careful work by McCain.
    I don't know any Republican who is as well-liked among Democrats as McCain. I think he is MUCH more popular among them than Reagan ever was.


    [ Parent ]
    The McCarthyite comment (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:56:01 PM EST
    was over the top and unnecessary.  So was the Judas comment, particularly given the timing.

    The McCain love affair for Democrats will end the moment the Democrats pick a candidate.  

    [ Parent ]

    There is a HUGE difference (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:02:36 PM EST
    between a clown like Carville calling anybody anything and a general acting as an official Obama surrogate comparing a former U.S. President to Joe McCarthey.

    [ Parent ]
    Well...did he not say it (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:03:54 PM EST
    standing next to Obama, or was it some other outrage

    [ Parent ]
    LOL (none / 0) (#72)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:06:32 PM EST
    Ohhhhh, an OFFICIAL Obama surrogate.  Do they get jackets or just cards?  What is the certification process to be an O.B.S?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, official. Obama was right there, just (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:31:55 PM EST
    as he was when Chris Rock made some "white woman" dig at Hillary and Obama smiled.

    [ Parent ]
    Well... (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:35:19 PM EST
    ...for starters, General McPeak is Obama's campaign co-chair. He clearly was a campaign surrogate selected by the campaign to respond to Clinton's "attack." Carville, on the other hand, is joke that is on cable news incessantly commenting and cracking "jokes" on everything under the sun.


    [ Parent ]
    Obama handed him the mic. (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:14:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    But that is just the thing (none / 0) (#70)
    by sara seattle on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:05:51 PM EST
    why don't either Hillary or Obama start going after mcCain NOW.

    Neither is winning any points by going after the other - so go after McCain big time - destroy him while he is just coasting along.

    No reason to wait - get it over with now that he has no more money - and actually 4 million dlrs in the hole.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton's already doing that (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by tree on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:18:45 AM EST
    Clinton Takes Jab At McCain on Economy, Policies at Blue Bell, Pennsylvania event, praises McCain and their work in Senate together, but adds "As he himself has said, he doesn't know much about the economy."

    Also stressed that Democrats must unite once there's a nominee, saying "none of the things I talk about will happen if Sen. McCain is elected."

    LINK

    Anyone who was really paying attention to what Bill Clinton said the other day, instead of conjuring up some idiotic smear on Obama's patriotism in their head, would have realized that he was doing the same thing: going after McCain on issues.

    Now maybe Obama's doing the same thing, I don't know, but I do know his campaign is consistently trashing Clinton's character, which isn't going to help him  win him back Clinton's base, if he should win the nomination.

    [ Parent ]

    We're just getting out of winter... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:37:54 PM EST
    ...we still have spring... all summer... and then the election in the late fall. As elections go, this has been pretty mild. It will be resolved by June 1, which give whoever the nominee is plenty of time.

    [ Parent ]
    We're just getting out of winter... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:38:00 PM EST
    ...we still have spring... all summer... and then the election in the late fall. As elections go, this has been pretty mild. It will be resolved by June 1, which give whoever the nominee is plenty of time.

    [ Parent ]
    I heard your the first time .. =) (none / 0) (#129)
    by sara seattle on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:49:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    if the DNC and kerry and kennedy and daschle (none / 0) (#75)
    by sancho on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:07:24 PM EST
    and pelosi nominate obama, i can only assume they want to lose the presidency in november.

    [ Parent ]
    The states went to Clinton (none / 0) (#91)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:20:19 PM EST
    Kerry.. Clinton.... Mass... Clinton... CA.... Clinton.  We'll wait and see what happens with Daschle's state.

    [ Parent ]
    Country over politcs and party (none / 0) (#132)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:54:13 PM EST
    That is why some of us will not be voting for Obama.  In my opinion, he rates number 3 of the candidates still in the race.


    [ Parent ]
    according to survery USA in Mass. (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by athyrio on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:23:06 PM EST
    Obama just pulled even with McCain....he has lost a ton up there. Hillary is way ahead.

    Only the rules that favor Obama (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by kenosharick on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:54:44 PM EST
    are valid, I guess. Markos/americablog, ect. are getting hysterical about how "Hillary must drop out" There are many pimary races that have gone past March- are they afraid the Obama campaign will crumble under continued scrutiny? BTW- screaming "racist" at every bit of criticism may have helped win a primary, but it will not fly in the general.

    Funny thing is, (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by NJDem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:17:20 PM EST
    yeah, she "mis-spoke" about her experiences visiting a war zone.  It's her fault for either embellishing or remembering incorrectly.  

    But I find it amazing that Bo has never visited Europe. I mean, her experiences in Bosnia are still more than BO's.

    Having said that, she was still wrong, I can admit that.  

    Me too -- (none / 0) (#104)
    by sara seattle on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:28:12 PM EST
    but honestly if you have travelled a lot - there are cities and countries that melt into each other.

    You remember something from one country -- but it actually happened in another country.

    It would be my guess however that maybe some of these people that are in a total snit -

    never travelled further than down their own street

    [ Parent ]

    She remembers it was dangerous (none / 0) (#142)
    by nellre on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:03:45 PM EST
    She remembers that there was a potential for sniper fire.
    I forgive her.
    The Obama trolls think they this proves she's a liar.
    But Obama claimed ignorance of Wright's sermons.
    That's really unlikely isn't it? Does that prove he's a liar?

    No.

    The Obama followers are really working against him. They are just plain nasty to Clinton supporters... which is close to half of the voters. These trolls need to stay off his side if you ask me.


    [ Parent ]

    Unfortunately the media (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:18:19 PM EST
    is also an Obama troll.  The news was slobbering all over the story tonight.

    It took them weeks to cover Wright.  After Faux covered it and covered it, begrudgingly they covered it so they wouldn't look like they were hiding it.

    But the Bosnia thing?  Slobbering, drooling, pant, pant, gotta cover this story, now, today, this minute.

    It was pure, putrid, ghastly sickness.  The visceral hatred of the Clintons by the media also fuels my "present" vote in the general election.  Cause, yeah, I know Hillary is the better of the 3 candidates, but with the hatred, she isn't going to win.  No way in h*ll.  But I won't vote for Obama. Among all the other reasons I've given today, I won't reward the hate of the bloggers and the media.

    [ Parent ]

    I make up my own mind (none / 0) (#153)
    by standingup on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:15:58 PM EST
    on which way I vote.  But there are very few pro-Obama commenters here that could even come close to giving me pause to think about voting for Obama.  I don't follow the logic in attempting to create more division between the two camps but it seems to be a hobby or sport for some.

    [ Parent ]
    They should comapre travel itineraries (none / 0) (#157)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:19:16 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/2ycf2f

    nice recap of some of hers here.

    [ Parent ]

    change of pace... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:25:32 PM EST
    Troop levels to remain high through 2008 - Think Progress

    Today, Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker presented plans to President Bush recommending that troop levels in Iraq "remain nearly the same through 2008 as at any time during five years of war." The New York Times reports that it "now appears likely that any decision on major reductions in American troops from Iraq will be left to the next president."

    Face it...HRC isn't quitting
    Barama can't win it outright

    The war keeps going on and on and you KNOW McCain isn't going to end it.

    Today was the last day to register in Penna (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:40:11 PM EST
    A Yahoo News Headline
    PA Democrats pass four million mark in voter registration
    which is a record of registered Democrats. They got 121,000 new voters and 161,000 new Democrats.And there was a 1% decline of Republicans. The thing is, all the Republicans that I know who changed did so to vote for Hillary. And in the GE too. Amazing how involved the state has become. My neighbor even got the site address to get her daughter in the Czech Republic her absentee ballot for Hillary. I really hope she does well here. And I saw my first BHO ad. Now we have a month of those. Thank goodness for cable.

    Thank you ! (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by faithandhope97 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:47:49 PM EST
    I have been lurking here for a few weeks now, this is my first entry.
    First of all I would like to say thank you to Jeralyn, Big Tent Democrat and the many others on this site that have been so respectful of the differences of opinions. I have learned so much about the election process, good and bad.  One only has to come to this site to get an unbiased and very informative lesson.  
    I like many others, am saddened at the way this election has turned so ugly! But what saddens me the most is that many of these young men and women, who are first time voters, are going to be very, very disappointed in the outcome and leave this election with an extremely harsh view of the election process. What a shame!
    Thank you again for this great site!

    Welcome... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:54:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Memo to all Dems (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:04:50 PM EST
    Enough with the forced apologies, denouncing , renouncing and faux outrage.  They all wanted to be in politics, so they can take it.  Stop wasting your and our emotional energies on the psychodrama.
    This denouncing and renouncing game is simply not serious. It is a media-staged theater, produced not in response to genuine concerns - no one thinks that Obama is unpatriotic or that Clinton is a racist or that McCain is a right-wing bigot - but in response to the needs of a news cycle. First you do the outrage (did you see what X said?), then you put the question to the candidate (do you hereby denounce and renounce?), then you have a debate on the answer (Did he go far enough? Has she shut her husband up?), and then you do endless polls that quickly become the basis of a new round.

    Stanley Fish

     

    Obama trolls (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by nellre on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:24:41 PM EST
    Obama trolls parrot the right wing talking points about HRC.
    We HRC supporters won't do that will we?

    We're trying to defeat McSame aren't we?

    Context (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by NJDem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:38:13 PM EST
    BC was talking to a group of veterans--bringing up love of country is par for course.  Actually, when is it ever not appropriate when running campaigning for president.

    BO's camp reaction reminds me of the insecurity of someone who walks into a room when people are laughing and assumes they're laughing about him.

    The McCarthy reference was extremely over the top and disrespectful--the man was PRESIDENT for 8 years!  And why did McPeak have to read it off a piece of paper anyway?

       

    James Carville... (none / 0) (#12)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:24:34 PM EST
    I said something about Richardson in a colorful way.. and I am glad I said it.. it was my personal view and I stick with it.

    I don't know how you can say that you won the popular vote when you don't count the FL/MI.

    .. this guy is on something!!!


    and I'm not apologizing! (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:46:33 PM EST
    or resigning!

    [ Parent ]
    Carville for Pres. He (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:44:23 PM EST
    calls 'em like he sees 'em and is endlessly interesting.

    [ Parent ]
    He was amazing (none / 0) (#166)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:35:24 PM EST
    on 30 Rock.

    [ Parent ]
    "Sniper Fire" Lie Story Gaining Traction (none / 0) (#15)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:33:06 PM EST
    I'll post this quickly and then run out with my head down to avoid sniper fire:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4

    On CNN (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:48:36 PM EST
    now, mispoke...  per CNN they both do it....

    [ Parent ]
    Why isn't there equal hullabalu over (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:51:22 PM EST
    Obama's street urchin claims?

    2/27/1990 Philadelphia Inquirer article it has the opening paragraph:
    Barack Obama, former street urchin and the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, drapes his long, lean body over a squeaky swivel chair and puts his feet on top of his cluttered desk.
    Then it goes on to say:

    He thinks it all goes back to the years when he was a nomad of the streets and his friends were a pack of urchins living in Jakarta, Indonesia.

    And later:

    But the lessons he had learned on the streets of Jakarta kept haunting him.
    "I knew I wanted to work in an urban situation, to help people recognize that they could achieve things, change things."

    Am I missing something -- I don't remember ever hearing this before. It was my understanding that his step father was a wealthy oil company executive and that they had lived a large home, had servants, ect.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Obama better hope and pray (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by sara seattle on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:53:11 PM EST
    that when he said he was not at church any of the times that the Rev Wright had his "special" sermons - that he remembers it right - and not that uh-oh he was there that one time

    because Obama followers  -- then this is going to be karma big time.

    [ Parent ]

    I am hoping on that one---big time! (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:54:44 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Real nice, MarkL (none / 0) (#81)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:12:30 PM EST
    ...hoping that a Democrat who will almost certainly still be the nominee lied as the only way to win... shame shame.

    I don't "hope" that Clinton lies.  I don't hope that McCain lies.  If they do, they deserve to be discussed and criticized.  But that's not how I hope my guy - or my party - wins.

    [ Parent ]

    Almost certainly the nominee? I do not think so (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:18:38 PM EST
    I believe that after losses in upcoming primaries, his nomination will be very much in doubt.
    But I don't want Obama as the nominee because he is unqualified. That is the bottom line.
    If he's caught in a significant lie, that would be the best way for him to go.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah that would be like (none / 0) (#54)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:57:49 PM EST
    saying that you were in a hot war zone when in fact you were on a puff PR tour.  Oh wait.

    [ Parent ]
    And which "misstatement" would be more (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:04:19 PM EST
    significant?
    If Obama lied about Wright, he is finished. Kaput.
    Gary Hart didn't go away as fast as Obama will if he's lying (which of course he is---the only question is whether he'll be caught).

    [ Parent ]
    I think Obama is kaput (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:27:09 PM EST
    in any case.  Wright will be a part of the cause.  

    [ Parent ]
    I agree 100%... (none / 0) (#78)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:10:30 PM EST
    ...if it comes out that Obama was at one of those sermons and he lied about it, he is done. By now he's had a chance to search his memory.

    But again, you're talking about a potential lie.  I'm talking about a demonstrable one.  Again, landing in a hot war zone and then remembering the details as well as Clinton did, and those details turning out to be demonstrably false, well, what else can we call it?

    [ Parent ]

    No, you're talking about a demonstrably (none / 0) (#86)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:16:43 PM EST
    inaccurate statement, which is not the same thing at ALL.
    Where is the intent? You cannot infer it. It's a trivial issue.. no reason to lie.
    You apparently don't remember the business with Gore and Texas and Fema. I do. This is exactly the same. I won't stand for more smearing of that sort.


    [ Parent ]
    It most certainly is not... (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:24:31 PM EST