home

Friday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:00:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

There's no need to go off topic in other posts. Here's a thread where you can pick the topics.

Please stay civil, and all other comment rules apply.

Update: Comments now closed.

< Univ. of Chicago Clarifies Obama's Professor Status | TPM Comes Clean: Accepts Its Partisan Obama Site Status >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Friday Open Thread | 247 comments (247 topical)
    From Gene Lyons, this from Mark Halperin says it (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:14:46 PM EST
    all about how the MCM operates.

    In Time, Mark Halperin provides a list of "Painful Things Hillary Clinton Knows--Or Should Know." No. 7: "The Rev. Wright story notwithstanding, the media still wants Obama to be the nominee--and that has an impact every day." We've come full circle. So confident have the Beltway media courtiers grown in their social and political status that what once was furiously denied is now boasted about. Politicians may come and go, but Chris Matthews, Howard Fineman, Tim Russert and Maureen Dowd preside over a permanent House of Lords.

    The Presidential Election Question is whether the MCM will turn on Obama if he gets the nomination and then fluffs McCain....

    When the media chooses candidates (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:16:04 PM EST
    How do they usually turn out once that candidate has to shift gears and actually start running things?

    [ Parent ]
    The MCM*ers' choice in the past two presidential (none / 0) (#13)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:22:12 PM EST
    elections didn't turn out all that well. BushBoy has brought our nation low.

    But MCMers still think they have the right to select our nominees and our president.

    What a mess.

    *MCM--Mainstream Corporate Media; MCMers--members of the MCM.

    [ Parent ]

    Regarding the MCMers... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by sapienthetero on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:49:37 PM EST
    I wonder if they really care who wins at all.  They seem to start feeding on whomever is ahead.  Their real goal is most likely to keep the race going as long as possible in order to keep people watching their dreck.

    It's a shame that it seems to work.  Sure would be nice to see Americans wake up one day and realize they don't need the media, religious power-mongers or the liberal orthodoxy to tell them what to think.

    [ Parent ]

    I assume the corporate paymasters care--and thus (none / 0) (#63)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:51:41 PM EST
    the MCMers do indeed care, in one way or another.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, he should know. I saw him on three (none / 0) (#8)
    by Teresa on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:17:49 PM EST
    different shows in one night with his pro-Obama (or anti-Clinton) views.

    [ Parent ]
    No need for Gore or party elders to step in (none / 0) (#201)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:42:08 PM EST
    The MSM is quite capable of continuing to manipulate the horse race for Obama.


    [ Parent ]
    Let's say Obama is the nominee (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by zyx on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:18:57 PM EST
    and then loses in November.  He loses because of FL, MI, OH, PA, MO...and possibly because of Reverend Wright.

    Are things going to change in the Democratic Party, next time around?  How is the change gonna happen?

    Are you kidding (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:20:52 PM EST
    If that happens it's Clinton's fault.

    They're already categorizing and cross tabbing their excuses.


    [ Parent ]

    Edgar speaks truth! (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by kmblue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:41:42 PM EST
    Yup, they will blame Obama's loss on Clinton, forever and ever, amen.

    [ Parent ]
    If (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by tek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:33:05 PM EST
    Obama is the nominee and loses in Nov. or if Obama is the candidate and wins and has an incompetent administration, it's the end of the Democratic Party.  Who could trust them again after they forced this poser on us and he isn't up to the task?  Especially after the debacle of Kerry.

    [ Parent ]
    I Obama won (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by zyx on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:42:43 PM EST
    (which I think unlikely) and then governed as cautiously as he campaigns, I can't see the country going anywhere or doing anything.  It would be very strange.

    [ Parent ]
    but the country can't stand still (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:45:18 PM EST
    Rising oil prices, global warming, problems with financial markets---these issues won't stay still.


    [ Parent ]
    How did Obama do on the view today? (none / 0) (#16)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:25:23 PM EST
    I saw a few positive reviews. I'm guessing he got a bunch of pink softballs.

    [ Parent ]
    I'd be shocked if he didn't do well (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:16:48 PM EST
    He is charismatic and well-spoken. Nobody argues about that. Those who do not support him for President simply feel that you need more than charisma to be a good President.

    [ Parent ]
    According to Huff Post headline, (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:28:17 PM EST
    Barbara Walters sd. Obama is sexy.  And here I was hoping for so much more.

    [ Parent ]
    But did he cry? (none / 0) (#24)
    by badger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:29:58 PM EST
    Walters always likes it when she can make her interviewees cry.


    [ Parent ]
    Someone said the same thing about Bush (none / 0) (#142)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:42:01 PM EST
    Oh yeah, it was Tweetie...said he looked he-manish in the flight suit.

    [ Parent ]
    I heard that Sherri Shepard said (none / 0) (#28)
    by stillife on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:31:51 PM EST
    she's now supporting Obama rather than Clinton.

    But then, she's the one who thinks the earth is flat.

    [ Parent ]

    And that Jesus predated (none / 0) (#42)
    by Moopsy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:38:31 PM EST
    the Greeks and Romans.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh yeah! (none / 0) (#52)
    by stillife on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:43:52 PM EST
    How could I forget that one?

    Awesome endorsement for Sen. Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    After McGovern (none / 0) (#20)
    by badger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:28:31 PM EST
    Democrats lost 3 of the next 4 elections, and probably would have lost all 4 if Nixon hadn't been impeached.

    On the other hand, the GOP lost 5 straight after electing Hoover, so there's that to consider too (for either party).

    [ Parent ]

    On the economy, Obama bashed Bill (5.00 / 8) (#34)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:34:07 PM EST
    Clinton again, Obama saying the '90s sucked.  I don't think that most Dem voters agree.  And if we do head into Hoover territory again, it seems that any Dem candidate ought to simply be saying the proverbial "were you better off eight years ago?"

    Obama keeps not doing the right thing for the general election.  It's going to be about the economy, the economy, and did we mention the economy?

    [ Parent ]

    Bill didn't cause (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Moopsy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:40:04 PM EST
    low oil prices and a tech bubble.  The economy of the 90s is not attributable to Bill Clinton.  He did do a good job trimming the deficit but it took Bush only a year or two to ruin that.

    [ Parent ]
    There is this belief that if the issue is the (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by tigercourse on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:40:19 PM EST
    economy, dems will automatically win, partly because McCain is weak on the economy. Well... how is Obama strong on economic issues? What can he point to that says "I know how to fix this"? McCain was chair of the Commerce Comittee. What has Obama done that comes close to that?

    [ Parent ]
    The only reason Obama edges (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:44:02 PM EST
    McCain on economy issues is because the last Dem President was excellent on those issues.

    Party Branding.

    Obama benefits.

    [ Parent ]

    It's too bad he's run away from that brand. (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by tigercourse on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:51:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I don't want to bust any margins (none / 0) (#72)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:56:36 PM EST
    On the site.

    At the bottom of this thread I'm posting some goals for President Obama.


    [ Parent ]

    Don't think so... (none / 0) (#73)
    by sapienthetero on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:56:59 PM EST
    The only people who think Clinton & Obama have a grip on the economy are Clinton's "poorer and less educated" supporters we keep hearing about in the polls.  They actually buy her story about taking money from the evil people who earn it and giving it to them.  Even most Dems realize that this is just demagoguery.  Without independent voters, neither Clinton nor Obama have a prayer in November.  And since most independents are neither poor nor less educated, they realize that Clinton & Obama are proposing to pick their pockets to buy votes.  Believe me, it's not going to sell well in November.

    How do you think we got two terms of the current moron?

    [ Parent ]

    LOL, is this snark.... (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:05:27 PM EST
    ...or just the poster child for how to insult Clinton supporters.

    [ Parent ]
    Was I just called a moron? (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:10:08 PM EST
    I have this thing I do..... every time some one refers to Clinton supporters as low knowledge, I go have a beer.  If I was just called an actual moron, I think I could justify two beers.

    [ Parent ]
    beers? (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:39:22 PM EST
    brats, pretzels, pork rinds...the whole enchilada.  

    [ Parent ]
    That's a huge reason why (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by stillife on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:48:55 PM EST
    I will probably not vote for Obama in the GE, if he's the nom.  Clinton's Presidency was the only good one in my adult lifetime.  Obama's dissing of Clinton's accomplishments and fawning over Reagan (who was a nightmare IMO) does not sit well with me and makes me distrust him on all kinds of issues, from the economy to health care to judicial appointments.

    [ Parent ]
    When (none / 0) (#115)
    by mattt on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:24:51 PM EST
    did Obama fawn over Reagan?  He called him an important figure who changed the course of American politics.  That's neither easy to deny, nor an endorsement.

    [ Parent ]
    It sure as heck (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by stillife on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:39:08 PM EST
    sounded like an endorsement to me, when he talked about Reagan changing the trajectory of the country and being a welcome change from the "excesses of the 60's and 70's".

    Obama prefers Reagan over Clinton

    [ Parent ]

    How well did Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#141)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:41:58 PM EST
    increase the Dems down ticket???

    [ Parent ]
    Pretty well actually (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:48:44 PM EST
    Democrats picked up seats in 4 out of the five elections held while Clinton was president - '92, '96, '98 and '00.  Granted '94* was bad, but there were a lot of reasons for this - some of which were even congressional democrats' fault! (I know they like to blame the Clintons for every thing, but they had their own failures like the House banking scandal and some issues with congressional mailings).

    If it hadn't been for 9/11, I fully believe we would have had the majority after '02.

    (BTW - it's amazing we didn't lose seats in '98 as that's historically a terrible year for the WH's party, but we didn't.  We can probably thank the excesses of the GOP for that one.)

    *Interesting note - after '06 the Democrats have a bigger house majority than the Republicans EVER had during the 10 years they were in power.  Yet Nancy Pelosi is still ineffective.  What's up with that?

    [ Parent ]

    That's when we got Boxer! (none / 0) (#220)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:45:50 PM EST
    and Feinstein in '92, among many victories -- but that was the first time ever that both senators in a state were women.

    And Boxer is worth at least ten Dem men in the Senate.  I'll spare you my list of which ten.  Well, actually, today that list of useless men in the Senate is growing. . . .

    [ Parent ]

    Him bashing Bill and 90s economy (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:50:49 PM EST
    Confirms my intentions in November.

    But if he becomes president and does the same or even better, no complaints I'll give him the same credit I give Bill.

    I'm not holding my breath.


    [ Parent ]

    I've said it before, I'll say it again (5.00 / 8) (#74)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:57:38 PM EST
    you can't unite the Democrats by trashing the Clintons.

    [ Parent ]
    Probably the biggest difference between (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by athyrio on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:01:53 PM EST
    Bill Clinton and Obama is the history books will record that Bill Clinton WON both of his national elections...Obama winning is highly doubtful...

    [ Parent ]
    I feel the same way.... (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:59:49 PM EST
    ...If Obama goes on to become a great president and "heals" the nation, I won't be beating myself up over not having voted for him. I'm exercising my right at this moment to not have much faith in his ability to be "the one." I will have to base my decisions on what I believe right now. That's the way I've always operated and I'm still alive to tell the tale.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't leave out (none / 0) (#203)
    by Arcadianwind on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:46:15 PM EST
    the other states he cannot win, Tennessee, and WV!

    After Dukakis, Mondale, and Kerry, why should they change the formula?

    Are things going to change in the Democratic Party, next time around?  How is the change gonna happen?

    It will change only when the power is taken away from the corporatists of the party.

    [ Parent ]

    even as the 2 sides stand now, we'll be united (none / 0) (#244)
    by thereyougo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:01:22 PM EST
    to defeat GWB, and his policies unless they steal another election,which I don't think will happen.

    [ Parent ]
    Senator Leahy (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by PennProgressive on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:24:14 PM EST
    It is  disappointing that Senator Leahy (didn't he endorse Obama?) is calling for HRC to drop out now--perhaps even before PA. This is  according to an AP report. It is interesting because it comes after the recent statements made by Gore and Dean that voters should decide.

    I'll donate money (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:26:01 PM EST
    To anyone who runs against Leahy in a Dem primary.

    Probably wasting my money, but it makes a statement no matter how small.


    [ Parent ]

    I'll (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by tek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:33:40 PM EST
    contribute to that cause.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll run... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:38:33 PM EST
    Do you want my Paypal account ot would you rather send cash?

    [ Parent ]
    Leahy's retraction was not really one (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:49:24 PM EST
    and was graceless.  Don't these Dem pols get that when they diss Clinton, they are dissing voters?  HALF of the voters they will need in fall?

    It's another example of them expecting us to just be sheeple and do what we're told.  They guess wrong.

    And I am taking names.  And I won't forget.

    [ Parent ]

    I just emailed Leahy (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by vicsan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:42:43 PM EST
    an hour ago and informed him how sick I am of him and his elitist DC hit men/women. They all need to just mind their own business and let Hillary run her campaign.

    I am so finished with this party if Mr. Hope wins this because MI and FL voters are disenfranchised. I cannot believe the Democratic Party is doing this.:(

    [ Parent ]

    Me too (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Lena on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:00:08 PM EST
    The sexism, the incompetence of the DNC, the incompetence in Congress, the favoritism, the party biggies pushing a candidate on us that we don't want..

    After identifying myself as a Democrat since before I could even vote, I've decided to quit the party.

    The question remains when it'll make the biggest splash: after Florida is disenfranchised? after a critical mass of party "elders" (snort) endorse Obama? Once the Dems capitulate once again in Congress on another civil rights/constitutional issue?

    The possibilities are endless.

    [ Parent ]

    I Just Wrote... (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by AmyinSC on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:19:55 PM EST
    Dean in response to a DNC fundraising letter and gave him a piece of my mind abt the sexism, the bias, the disenfranchisement of voters...Oh, and my answer to him was, "NO, and not just No, but H**L no!"

    And along the lines of the press, I read an AP piece today on the economic plans of Obama and Clinton.  I was spitting mad when they opened with OBAMA and HIS $30 million stimulus package - the one he just STOLE from Clinton!!!!  I cannot BELIEVE what passes for journalism these days, and how they are barely even TRYING to act like they are unbiased...

    [ Parent ]

    Are you familiar with both candidates (none / 0) (#130)
    by independent voter on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:35:21 PM EST
    proposed stimulus packages? I read them that the only thing they really have in common is the price tag. I can't believe that would create such consternation.

    [ Parent ]
    The "Consternation" (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by AmyinSC on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:42:47 PM EST
    Is that Obama has not come up with ONE original idea of his own, it seems.  His stimulus package came a week after Clinton's and he didn't even bother to change any of the words!  

    The "consternation" is that he CONTINUES to get credit for work he did not do.  Frankly, I have a real problem with that. It has been his MO all along from legislation of others on which he slapped his name in IL to this campaign.  That is not the kind of person I want for my president - I want the one who actually DID the work.

    [ Parent ]

    Me too! N/T (none / 0) (#114)
    by Commander Vimes on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:22:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    FL & MI (none / 0) (#119)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:29:21 PM EST
    The FL & MI leadership caused their states to be excluded?  HRC and BHO (and Ickes) said those votes wouldn't count?

    So, now Humpty Dumpty is broken.  I don't think there's a solution that is fair to both BHO and HRC (I can run through specifics if you want.)  So does that mean we should come up with a pro-HRC plan that changes the Ickes approved rules?  Why not a cacus?  What about feasibility, which has been a problem for revotes in FL?

    Does anyone, doubt that Humpty Dumpty was broken by the FL & MI state leadership (with an assist from the DNC/Ickes, which needed to enforce the rules to avoid states going nuts with the schedule.)

    [ Parent ]

    Fair to the candidates isn't an issue (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by badger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:40:18 PM EST
    Fair to the voters is the issue, and it makes no difference who you believe did what when.

    You can't be a little bit disenfranchised.

    [ Parent ]

    That's the problem (none / 0) (#181)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:10:14 PM EST
    You and I agree 100%

    The problem is that nothing will turn back time to make this fair for the voters.

    E.g. the recent MI solution had to leave out people who voted in the Repub election.  It is perfectly reasonable to assume that BHO supporters were in that election because they new the Dem election didn't count for anything, not to mention he wasn't on the ballot.  And, they may have had a second choice on the Repub side (this would be most appealing to BHO's I and R support), or they may have been traditional D voters who were following the Kos advice by voting strategically.  So, the new HRC plan would have disenfranchised these voters.

    As I said, Humpty Dumpty is broken, nothing puts it back together.  FL & MI leadership are to blame, with help from the DNC/Ickes which needed to do something to enforce the rules and avoid scheduling chaos.

    [ Parent ]

    I doubt we agree even 10% (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by badger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:11:45 PM EST
    For starters, if the DNC sanctions were illegitimate (and I believe removing franchise as a punisment is illegitimate) then the original state-sanctioned and  state-run primaries were legitimate, regardless if candidates freely chose to remove their names from the ballot. It's a compromise to even talk about a revote, but I'd accept that.

    As to your second paragraph, one of the fundamental principles of fair elections is "one person, one vote". You advocate "one person, two votes". "Disenfranchised" does not mean "I wasted my first vote so I get to vote again".

    "Franchised" means able to vote for whom you freely choose to vote for and to have that vote count in the outcome (and the GOP votes Obama voters cast counted - for the GOP). Unless you have some evidence that Obama voters were coerced into choosing the GOP ballot, you have no argument with respect to disenfranchisement.

    Third, while you like to blame "DNC/Ickes", in fact the entire DNC - Obama supporters and all - is responsible for the initial illegitimate decision. Obama became an accessory to that when he and his supporters blocked the MI revote in the legislature, and via his continued refusal to accept or advocate any solution that does not advantage him, including advocating vote stealing ("50/50").

    If you agree with all of that, then we agree 100%.

    Otherwise, not.


    [ Parent ]

    60% (none / 0) (#239)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:26:58 PM EST
    Your opinion that the political parties don't control their primaries is not mainstream.  I take the traditional view on that, so we don't agree.

    You are also advocating one person two votes, so we agree.

    You don't think that it is disenfranchisement to have people tricked into voting actions because they are told an election doesn't count, even though after the fact the election will be made to count and they can't participate, we disagree on that one.

    We both agree that the DNC has people who support BHO and HRC.

    We both agree vote stealing is bad.

    [ Parent ]

    Again, no (none / 0) (#246)
    by badger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:17:25 PM EST
    I don't care if political parties want to choose their nominee by having people throw baseballs at milk bottles like some midway game. But if they do, then everybody in every state gets the same number of bottles to throw at and the same number of tosses, and the same opportunity to have their toss recorded..

    The principle is equal protection - it's in the 14th amendment. It isn't hard to understand. It used to be something liberal Democrats in the 50s and 60s stood for (conservative Southern segregationist Democrats didn't, so please don't put me in that category with you, as I find it offensive).

    Whether milk bottles (or primaries, or caucuses) is the best method is a different discussion, but whatever the method is, it has to ensure equal access to every Democratic voter.

    Someone who votes in a Republican primary is, by definition, a Republican, and not a Democrat, for that election cycle. I only advocate a second vote if the first one isn't counted - so change the principle to "one person, one vote that counts". The people who voted GOP had their votes count.

    They weren't "tricked" - they chose to vote GOP. There is no checkbox on the ballot for "I voted GOP because ...". They chose to become Republicans. Too bad. If they thought their Dem vote wouldn't count, they should have stayed home, and they'd still be eligible for the revote.


    [ Parent ]

    Humpty Dumpty (none / 0) (#248)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:47:30 PM EST
    You probably realize that your argument is political maneuvering as much as it is a defense of moral principle.  

    Everybody (including HRC) knew that the FL & MI primaries would not count.  To pretend that this knowledge didn't affect what people did is silly.  It's a problem to retroactively say, "we were fibbing when we said FL & MI didn't count, now we have a new plan, some of you who trusted us the first time are screwed."

    Humpty Dumpty is all busted up.

    And FL & MI leadership are to blame, if it makes people feel better to blame someone.


    [ Parent ]

    first (none / 0) (#190)
    by Commander Vimes on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:22:22 PM EST
    the rebugs determined the FL primary (case closed).  Second the Dems in MI were A-0's, but does that mean the voters get sacked even though it was NOT their fault?  The DNC should punish the parties responsible, not the voters!

    [ Parent ]
    100% (none / 0) (#205)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:49:08 PM EST
    I agree.

    The problem is that once the politicians (R or D) broke Humpty Dumpty it was impossible for the voters to not be screwed.

    As I noted in another response, the damage is done, it's not at all the fault of HRC or BHO.  But, that doesn't mean that a pro-HRC remedy should be accepted as the solution.  I outlined in another response why the recent MI plan was setup to help HRC.  In FL nobody was able to develop a feasible solution, it's not fair to blame BHO for that, although I understand that HRC would want to try and score political points, things are looking bleak.

    [ Parent ]

    Why are real votes pro-anybody? (none / 0) (#210)
    by Commander Vimes on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:01:28 PM EST
    Really, why is a revote or whatever pro-HRC?  Isn't it pro-democracy?  As stated before, Obama took his name off to please Iowa.  His problem, not hers.

    [ Parent ]
    see other comment (none / 0) (#227)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:59:14 PM EST
    Read my other answer about the MI revote where I go into details.

    [ Parent ]
    Leahy realizes his folly .. Backs Off !! (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by TalkRight on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:58:18 PM EST
    In new statement, the Vermont Senator backs off his earlier call for Clinton to drop out of the race.

    He knew he had crossed the line..

    [ Parent ]

    What I got out of that (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:03:04 PM EST
    is he is another one that will blame Clinton if Obama loses in November.  She has a right but no reason.  The powers that be have made their decision.

    [ Parent ]
    She has a right, (5.00 / 7) (#96)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:16:08 PM EST
    but not a very good reason?  That's kind of a churlish retraction, don't you think?

    I am really just sick of these people who keep saying that she should drop out because she can't get enough delegates to secure the nomination, when the truth is that he can't, either.

    By this reasoning, we should just dispense with competetive sports altogether - we can just award championship status to one team in every sport on the basis that no one else would have a chance to defeat them.  We could just tell our kids, when they strive for goals that seem a little too big for them, "oh, don't bother - you probably can't get there."

    Leahy used to be someone I had a fair amount of respect for, but in this last year, he has shown me again and again that when the chips are down, we cannot count on him; sadly, he is by no means the only one who falls into this category.

    But then, I guess Leahy knows something about giving up when the going gets tough - we saw him do it with Alberto Gonzales, with Michael Mukasey, and on issue after issue that were worth fighting for.

    Let Obama fight for the nomination - I can see he has more delegates, and I can see he has more popular vote, but it's March, there are 10 contests to go, and he doesn't just get to claim victory at the end of the 3rd quarter because he's ahead.

    Argh - this is all just making my head hurt!

    [ Parent ]

    That's not exactly a retraction (none / 0) (#85)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:04:50 PM EST
    Just clarifing that she has the choice to stay or go, which I think everybody understands.

    [ Parent ]
    ya.. let the person who is running make his/her (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by TalkRight on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:16:40 PM EST
    own decision when to step down.. so what was his earlier point?

    [ Parent ]
    That she should drop out (none / 0) (#127)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:34:21 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well well well (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by tek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:29:34 PM EST
    Patrick Leahy has just come out and said Clinton should withdraw and support Obama.  Leahy said there's no way Clinton can win.  I just want to slap these people when they start that stuff.  Of course, he's endorsed Obama.  I think the career politicians should stay out of the primaries and let the PEOPLE decide.  Who exactly do these people think they are that they should force their choice on all the people.  

    I also think Obama cannot win, so I don't know why the Party is pushing so hard for him.

    So much for Leahy.  I'll never look favorably on him again.

    Sigh. Spent time at the orange again. (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:36:03 PM EST
    It's the usual, a couple good posts, the usual handfuls of people who still practice critical thinking and retain objectivity...and the rest.

    I really appreciate this place.  I really don't miss profanity and knee jerk ad hom attacks, let alone the casual use of words like "extremists" and "pathological liar" plus all the tired old memes.

    I looked and looked for the Gore bit there - nothing at all.  

    It's like wading around in a cesspit... (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:30:39 PM EST
    ...looking for diamonds. The diamonds might be there, but by the time you find one you are going to be completely covered in excrement.

    [ Parent ]
    I pop in now and then (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by spit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:32:44 PM EST
    almost never find anything worth my time anymore.

    [ Parent ]
    KOS knows people drive by all the (none / 0) (#245)
    by thereyougo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:06:16 PM EST
    time, but I 'll be honest, I enjoy some of the front pagers. I give him that and what used to pass for objectivity is not there any longer.

    Oh well the end of an era.

    [ Parent ]

    Did Obama lie on The View? (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Chisoxy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:40:50 PM EST
    He said that Wright apologized for his statements. Did I sleep through a news cycle, because I mustve missed it. If Wright did anything close to that Obama wouldve mentioned it long before now, and Rev Wright wouldnt still be in hiding.

    i don't remember an apology either (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by irene adler on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:17:50 PM EST
    it's hard to imagine Obama would say that if it wasn't true because it would be just plain dumb to invite the scrutiny and then the proof it never happened.

    if it turns out there never was an apology the Wright story keeps on going and going. time will tell i guess.

    [ Parent ]

    I *think* he said he had spoken to him (none / 0) (#147)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:43:34 PM EST
    since all this started, and apparently that's where Wright made the right noises so Obama could say what he said.

    [ Parent ]
    If he said it to obama then (none / 0) (#173)
    by hookfan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:04:20 PM EST
    Wright can apologize publicly-- if Obama is now using it, and is honest, then there is no good reason not too.

    [ Parent ]
    Is this an apology? (none / 0) (#194)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:34:53 PM EST
    "Obama has spoken to Wright since this controversy erupted in the campaign: "I think he's saddened by what's happened, and I told him I feel badly that he has been characterized just in this one way, and people haven't seen this broader aspect of him.''"

    There's a video at the link with a different part also that I guess is the apology?

    http://tinyurl.com/3dqkfz

    [ Parent ]

    ah, a private apology... (none / 0) (#177)
    by irene adler on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:08:21 PM EST
    where Obama could interpret / characterize it for everyone. that wouldn't cut it for me. still, i can see how it allows for enough parsing to keep people busy wrangling over what the definition of an 'apology' is.

    [ Parent ]
    Wright may have apologized to Obama (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:47:21 PM EST
    but I'm not aware Wright apologized publicly for all his nasty statements FROM THE PULPIT bashing the Clintons.
    but, but, but Obama says there will be "bruised feelings" but eventually Dems will all come together.

    [ Parent ]
    Not that I've heard. (none / 0) (#69)
    by flashman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:54:51 PM EST
    Sorry I can't give a better answer.  The question on my mind is this; I heard Obama stated that if the good reverend hadn't retired, that he ( obama ) would have left the church, because the reverend's remarks would have made it too uncomfortable to remain a member.  But what a minute!  Didn't Obama say that he never heard any of the incendiary comments before?  Is he trying to trickle the truth little by little as he did with Rezko?

    [ Parent ]
    "If he hadn't retired..." (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:03:22 PM EST
    I cannot adequately express my disdain for this comment. Obama stayed with this church for 20 years, through who knows how many offensive sermons. Now, when he is getting political heat over this, he says that he would have left if Wright hadn't retired. He had 20 years to leave. He could have left anytime. He chose to stay. He chose to remain silent and be led by a man who has let his hatred of the things some American's did distort his entire view of America. I hope that Obama's judgment in cabinet members and presidential advisor's is better than his judgment in personal advisor's.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama, like Bush, has an innate understanding (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:10:14 PM EST
    of human cognition. Research shows that the act of giving a reason is convincing to many people, in and of it itself, regardless of whether the reason makes sense. Declarative statements are very powerful.
    For example, in one study people tried to cut in line at a copy machine. One group of people tried to cut without saying anything. Naturally, they got indignant reactions. The second group tried to cut, giving as the reason, "I need to make some copies".
    They did much better.
    As long as Obama gives a reason, and is calm and authoritative, most people will be convinced.

    [ Parent ]
    Until just before the election... (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:41:48 PM EST
    That is when the 527's will release a movie about Wright and Obama and play it as a documentary on national television. That's what they did to Kerry. I saw the documentary about his "crimes" related to Vietman, how men were tortured because of what he said and did. I knew when I saw it that Kerry was going to lose. The men who put the video together were crooks, but the men who spoke believed every word they said. It's very easy to tar somebody with lies when you have a large group of people willing to believe those lies. Consider all of the negative attacks of the past few weeks as trial runs. Imagine them coming out in a video "documentary" just before the election. Then try to tell me that it won't matter, that Obama will simply be able to declare it all away.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't forget he appointed Wright (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:39:31 PM EST
    to his African American Religious Leadership Committee.

    ahem. but of course he didn't vet his appointment according to his interview. Hope he does better with future appointments . . .  ;)

    [ Parent ]

    But this committee was a lot like (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:52:52 PM EST
    the sub-committee Obama chairs in the Senate - he claims the African Religious Leadership Committee never had any meetings, never did any actual work.  Am I the only one who finds it both ironic and alarming?

    You know, Obama has talked about his relationship with Wright and with his church, in terms of it being important to have opportunities to get people to look at things differently.  What I would like to know is, what exactly did Obama do at Trinity other than attend services.  Did he do community outreach through his church, was he on any committees on education, did he meet with others to discuss these important issues of race and equality and religion?  Did he teach Sunday school?  I mean, what did the beacon of hope and change and unity actually do as a member of this church to bring people together, to help them see things from another perspective?

    "Barack Obama: Present - hopeful story to follow."

    [ Parent ]

    I'm sure Lugat and Hagel will turn out fine. (none / 0) (#93)
    by tigercourse on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:11:57 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Wright & Rez (none / 0) (#150)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:45:12 PM EST
    I'm not sure you're looking for an answer.  But, he said that he had never heard the incendiary YouTube clips.  It has been shown that he wasn't in church for any of those.  BHO has said that he has heard Wright make controversial statements, just not the incendiary YouTube clips.

    The Rezko thing has been a non-story for a month.  We've known that BHO didn't get a deal on his house.  The issue of shady campaign donors is not an issue that works to the benefit of HRC (I can elaborate if you would like.)

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aR8NLIoQEDc4


    [ Parent ]

    Not My Definition Of A Non-Story (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by flashman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:15:06 PM EST

    when BO vastly understates the amount of contributions from and the personal relationship with Rezko, and admitted to this only after coming out in his trial.  Likewise, BO first says he never heard any similar remarks, and then later said he has heard controversial remarks.  Now, he's telling us he would have left the church over Wright's remarks.  What exactly does he mean by that?  Is he telling us now that he has heard remarks that made him too "uncomfortable" to stay in the church?  Is there a roadmap from "none of the comments" to "some controversial comments" to now, "comments that make me uncomfortable?"  Is he trying to trickle out information as he did with Rezko, instead of just coming clean?

    I, quite frankly, have had my doubts about his story of not hearing any of the "types" on comments on the tapes.  It just stretches the imagination that he would attend over such a period and just happen to never be in attendance during one of these kinds of rants.


    [ Parent ]

    Wright retiring, so what? The current pastor (3.00 / 2) (#224)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:55:26 PM EST
    is the one who, on one of the infamous videos, ran up to pat Wright on the back for humping the pulpit and talking about Clinton "riding dirty."

    I think it probable that the congregation hired, again, someone like Wright, since they liked his shtick -- and why is Obama still a member of a church whose current pastor would approve such behavior by Wright?  About a sitting president?

    I suspect that more about the current pastor's sermons and record is being oppo'd by Republicans right now.  Stay tuned.  Literally.

    [ Parent ]

    LBJ (1.00 / 1) (#249)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:02:14 PM EST
    You know that he was invited to the Clinton White House.  And, he received a commendation for helping LBJ when he was a Marine.  The wingnuts haven't found much footage considering the guy's 30 years and thousands of sermons.  BHO didn't turn out a hate monger, so the idea of this church being a hate inculcating institution is not accurate.

    [ Parent ]
    Look at the record (1.00 / 1) (#251)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:10:58 PM EST
    The Rezko thing is silly.  Who cares if it took a while to get the total?  Plus a big part of the increase was due to looking at different campaigns.  HRC has millions of dollars from donors with criminal problems.

    He always said he didn't hear the YouTube clips in person.  You can check for yourself, he always talked about the clips, because that was what he was asked about.  Even his early denials of hearing the clips included him saying that the pastor was leaving so it wasn't meaningful for him (BHO) to leave the church.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama also said he never read (none / 0) (#159)
    by Manuel on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:51:46 PM EST
    any of the church bulletins.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm guilty of that (none / 0) (#191)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:30:42 PM EST
    I'm sure that I'm not the only person who doesn't study their church bulletin.

    And if the wingnut sites (I look there or myDD to find the most anti-BHO stuff) are at all correct, at BHO's church these come out weekly and they have between thirty and forty pages.  I'm certain that BHO wasn't spending too much time studying these, looking for the occasional nutty article, e.g. the one, taken from the LA Times, that is most under scrutiny now.

    [ Parent ]

    Blame if we lose (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:50:10 PM EST
    When doling out blame consider the following:  

    1.  The Dems have and had the upper hand in this election. The country was ready for change, not people change, change in policy and direction.   Substantive change.  Obama change is just changing the players but keeping the policies.  
    2.  Dem grass root issues should be and should have been the focus.
    3.  If Hillary and Edwards were the core candidates the issues would have been the focus.
    4.  Obama rushing his election and the Axelrod campaign, as I posted earlier experts at running, Astro Turf campaigns, fake grass roots campaigns--diverted from the issues.  Hillary and Edwards had some core policy differences that should have been directing our national agenda to be a Democractic.  Axelrod wanted a campaign that does not focus on policy or experience, he wanted this mess.  He said so much in the NY Times article.  Tired of posting the link.  

    5.  The Democratic leadership should have sucked it up and not try to push Obama on the Democratic party this early.  Let the Democratic agenda win, not someone who constantly slaps the Dems with some unity illusion.  Dem unity would have been if all the cheerleaders for Obama were talking about healthcare, the war and the economy.  

    6.  We could have won, with Hillary and or Edwards with Obama on the ticket.  Then, 8 more years.  Squandering of talents.  

    I blame Kennedy, Kerry the whole boy gang for squandering a 16 year possibility down to a possible, maybe 4 years against a virtual cadaver of an opponent.  

    When these boys got together, they could not unify the party, how are they going to unify the nation?  What a bunch of amateurs.  

    Oh, I blame Obama too. He has (5.00 / 8) (#67)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:54:19 PM EST
    robbed Democrats of the opportunity to have a substantive discussion of the issues.
    Instead, it's "me too, Hillary" and  a campaign where it seems if you are against Obama, you are against "hope". Ugh.
    Hillary vs. Edwards would have been a satisfying primary.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow. (none / 0) (#79)
    by mattt on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:59:48 PM EST
    Obama's policies present no change from Bush/McCain.

    And it'd all be the boys' fault.

    Wow.

    [ Parent ]

    What's stopping you? (none / 0) (#158)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:51:37 PM EST
    Why can't you and others talk about health care, the economy, and the war?

    How has BHO stifled anyone's ability to communicate?

    [ Parent ]

    Media band hogging (none / 0) (#179)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:09:22 PM EST
    Look, all the news cycles are dominated with gibberish.  Obama copied Hillary's centrist agenda, so the only thing he has to offer is him as the" agent of change".   He has no record he just has some policy statements that are only on the Web.  

     So, the discussion as about the differences of the two people.  The story of Obama vs. the history of Hillary.  That is why.  

    [ Parent ]

    Record (1.00 / 1) (#199)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:39:52 PM EST
    In IL BHO passed a lot of legislation including tax cuts, health care reform, health clinics, ethics reform, and a justice system reform where he started with no support, special interest opposition, and a promised veto from the governor.  In DC he passed the biggest ethics reform in 25 years, international arms control, and government accountability that requires spending to be posted online so citizens and journalists can review it.

    HRC has been on the sidelines avoiding conflict, and avoiding building her skills as a consensus builder when it counts--getting meaningful/challenging legislation passed.  Maybe you're impressed that she was pushing an unconstitutional flag burning ban.  I hate flag burning as much as anyone, but I love the constitution more, and I'm opposed to such blatant political posturing that it's silly.

    [ Parent ]

    What? (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:01:29 PM EST
    Your list of his accomplishments is wildly overblown at best.  See that link for more on this IL Sen "accomplishments".

    As for DC - please.  Biggest ethics reform in history?  I'm sure that's a shock to Harry Reid who actually sponsored the legislation (S. 1 if you want to look it up).  Or the 17 other Senate co-sponsors.  None of whom are named Barack Obama.  And international arms control?  I can only assume you mean the Lugar-Obama bill.  I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that former Foreign Relations Chair (and co-author of the seminal Nunn-Lugar bill), Dick Lugar, probably had more to do with that passing.

    [ Parent ]

    That's the point (none / 0) (#225)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:57:22 PM EST
    Your link didn't seem long on particulars.  I did note Jones claiming he's making a Senator.  Jones has also acknowledged that BHO approached him (Jones) and asked him to help make him (BHO) a Senator.  Everything about Jones tells me he likes to have his ego tended to, obviously BHO knew how to get his help.  That's the point, There are a lot of people with whom BHO has built alliances, that is why he gets things done.  If it was easy everyone would do it.

    A Wa Po editorial gave him credit for the ethics reform.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011901456.html

    Yes, BHO did build a strong relationship with Lugar.  THAT is the point.  BHO has a record of building coalitions to get things done.  That is good, not bad.

    [ Parent ]

    It's your first day here, clearly (none / 0) (#228)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:00:02 PM EST
    but among other fine points to be learned, you will have your comments deleted for going over the margins unless you embed your URL's.  See the site FAQ for how to do so.  (Many of us have had to learn this the hard way, having comments deleted.  You are putting work into yours, so do what it takes to make them last here.)

    [ Parent ]
    It's bad (none / 0) (#235)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:13:16 PM EST
    Which link?  The one that clearly states that Obama didn't pass a piece of legislation in the IL Senate until 1) the Democrats were in the majority and 2) Jones had given him other people's bills?  Or the link that showed Obama wasn't a cosponsor of the bill you said he passed.  (And don't even get me started on his "landmark" health care bill which boldly created a task force.)

    But you are right.  It is bad when his supporters try to give him credit for other people's work.  People such as myriad IL State Senators, Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, Dick Lugar and (uck) Tom Coburn.

    Reminds me of this episode....

    [ Parent ]

    Coburn? (