Friday Open Thread

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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?

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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).


    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?


    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?

    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.


    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
    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.


    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?


    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.

    Was I just called a moron? (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    beers? (5.00 / 0) (#198)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:39:22 PM EST
    brats, pretzels, pork rinds...the whole enchilada.  

    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.

    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.

    It sure as heck (5.00 / 1) (#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


    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???

    Pretty well actually (5.00 / 2) (#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?


    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. . . .


    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.


    I've said it before, I'll say it again (5.00 / 7) (#74)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:57:38 PM EST
    you can't unite the Democrats by trashing the Clintons.

    Probably the biggest difference between (5.00 / 2) (#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...

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


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

    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?

    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.


    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.:(


    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.


    I Just Wrote... (5.00 / 3) (#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...


    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.

    The "Consternation" (5.00 / 2) (#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.


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


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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!

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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..


    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.

    She has a right, (5.00 / 6) (#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!


    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.

    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?

    That she should drop out (none / 0) (#127)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:34:21 PM EST
    Well well well (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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?



    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.

    Wright may have apologized to Obama (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    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?

    "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.

    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.

    Until just before the election... (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    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 . . .  ;)


    But this committee was a lot like (5.00 / 1) (#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."


    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
    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.)



    Not My Definition Of A Non-Story (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    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.


    LBJ (1.00 / 0) (#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.

    Look at the record (1.00 / 0) (#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.


    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.

    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.


    Blame if we lose (5.00 / 2) (#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 / 7) (#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.

    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.



    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?


    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.  


    Record (1.00 / 0) (#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.


    What? (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    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.

    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.


    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.)

    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....


    Coburn? (none / 0) (#243)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:47:08 PM EST
    I'm disappointed.

    I stumble on to this site, and it's obvious a lot of the folks here are quite proud of their knowledge.  And, I can tell that y'all are well informed.  

    But, your hyperbolic statement about legislation and D control is silly.  Do you have any idea when the Dems took control in IL?

    The rest of you comment is bluster.  Your suggestion that politicians love to do the work and then give credit to BHO is apparently based on clairvoyance.  Could you share with me what makes you think Coburn would be in the tank for BHO?


    coburn (none / 0) (#252)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:13:48 PM EST
    Doesn't have to be in the tank for obama.  However, he is the lead sponsor of legislation that you gave sole credit to obama to.  As with the case of those others I listed.  Those politicians don't have to "love" to give him credit.  His campaign and supporters seem very happy just to take it.

    You don't believe that (none / 0) (#253)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:32:25 PM EST
    Why you think is unreasonable for BHO to take credit for his legislation is puzzling.

    Apparently McCain has given the gift credit to Feingold.  

    I don't think you truly feel that cosponsorship is meaningless.  You must realize that this is how you build bipartisan agreements, i.e. working both sides of the isle to create and pass influential legislation.

    That's a good thing.  

    Doesn't it bother you at all that the doer, change maker, in the solutions businesser, result getter (HRC) hasn't passed big meaningful legislation.


    Illinois (none / 0) (#202)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:42:50 PM EST
    he got  fed the legislation from the Dem majority leader.  He passed the ethics law?  Forgive me while I laugh.  

    You're forgiven (none / 0) (#218)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:44:02 PM EST
    Ethics in DC:

    The Washington Post wrote in an editorial that "...Mr. Reid, along with Sens. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), deserves credit for assembling and passing this package."

    Legislation in IL:

    BHO's accomplishments in IL required building relationships with many more people than just the D leader, who was in the minority most of the time.


    This is not your typical blog (none / 0) (#226)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:58:21 PM EST
    where you can count on others being unread.  Really, your list of claims for Obama is embarrassing and has been blown apart long before this.  Take care here.

    facts? (none / 0) (#229)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:00:29 PM EST
    Your light on particulars.

    We don't repeat a lot here (none / 0) (#238)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:23:49 PM EST
    owing to requests to restrict bandwidth.  But you can find a lot just by scrolling through older posts for topics, than going into them for relevant comments.  I did that for a couple of weeks here before commenting, as I found that even though I had been on other blogs, this one is up a levels in terms of hosts' and commenters' knowledge levels!

    And every day here, I learn something else here -- sometimes, of course, that I was wrong the day before because I trusted some other source. :-)


    ok (none / 0) (#241)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:34:41 PM EST
    I'll take your advice.

    Obviously I didn't fully get the nature of this blog.  I just stumbled in.  

    But, I'm not all that uninformed, I suspect I can contribute a bit, even if I learn a lot more.

    If I post questions about things in the older stuff do people still respond?  Chit chat without the chat gets boring.


    You will do great in the older (5.00 / 0) (#255)
    by Boo Radly on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:44:10 PM EST
    threads - you do not listen to anyone here and now so you can post calling people silly all you want and we can talk about real as opposed to what you have posted. Have fun.:O}

    You will do great in the older (none / 0) (#257)
    by Boo Radly on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:00:15 PM EST
    threads - you do not listen to anyone here and now so you can post calling people silly all you want and we can talk about real as opposed to what you have posted. Have fun.:O}

    Some Economic Goals for President Obama (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:59:43 PM EST
    Average economic growth of 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the previous years. The economy grew for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.[30]

    Creation of more than 22.5 million jobs--the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, were in the private sector.[31]

    Economic gains spurred an increase in family incomes for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).[32]

    Overall unemployment dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in January 2001. The unemployment rate was below 5 percent for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans fell from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics fell from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in 2000, also the lowest rate on record.[31]

    Inflation dropped to its lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, and fell from 4.7 percent during the previous administration.[33]

    The homeownership rate reached 67.7 percent near the end of the Clinton administration, the highest rate on record. In contrast, the homeownership rate fell from 65.6 percent in the first quarter of 1981 to 63.7 percent in the first quarter of 1993.[34]

    The poverty rate also declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent in 1999, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. This left 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993.[35]

    The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion--the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.[34]

    Clinton worked with the Republican-led Congress to enact welfare reform. As a result, welfare rolls dropped dramatically and were the lowest since 1969. Between January 1993 and September of 1999, the number of welfare recipients dropped by 7.5 million (a 53 percent decline) to 6.6 million. In comparison, between 1981-1992, the number of welfare recipients increased by 2.5 million (a 22 percent increase) to 13.6 million people.[36]

    As much as I like that... (none / 0) (#125)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:32:44 PM EST
    ...we are voting for Hillary Clinton, not a 3rd term for Bill Clinton. That said, I suspect that Hillary Clinton will do a better job choosing her advisor's than Obama has. It is likely that Bill Clinton would be one of them.

    its safe to say (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:48:05 PM EST
    Hillary was also one of bill's advisors

    Not so bad (none / 0) (#167)
    by 1jpb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:59:03 PM EST
    I like the BHO team, as TNR has shown, they seem to be serious about solutions.  As HRC might put it; more cattle, less hat.




    I cannot take any article seriously... (none / 0) (#192)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:33:59 PM EST
    ...when it uses the term "Obamanauts".

    Was so hoping for an open thread! (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jen on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:07:45 PM EST
    to post the link to this article in OpEd News!

    Barck Obama - The Wizard of Oz

    This information has GOT to get out there, before it's too late.

    This article is so badly written (none / 0) (#94)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:13:17 PM EST
    that there's a typo in the headline.  Reminds of the MST3K movie Attack of the the Eye Creatures.  You found it impressive enough to share?

    Yes. (none / 0) (#106)
    by jen on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:18:35 PM EST
    You can not ignore the facts. Well, you can, but if he's the nominee, do you think this information will remain secret?

    It's not a secret (none / 0) (#188)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:21:12 PM EST
    There is a whole site dedicated to this.

    The article (none / 0) (#111)
    by mattt on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:21:25 PM EST
    heavily but selectively cites Chicago Sun-Times reporting on Obama and Rezko in an effort to tar the candidate.  Yet those same reporters and the Sun-Times editorial board have pronounced themselves satisfied with Obama's explanations of those associations, and endorsed him.

    In other words, the article is mendacious junk.


    Junk it may be but it is an interesting example... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:30:56 PM EST
    ...of how Obama's Chicago connections can be "spun" by someone with an axe to grind. Possibly the same thing that happened to the Clintons? See how easily it can be done?

    "See how easily... (none / 0) (#209)
    by mattt on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:00:11 PM EST
    ...it can be done?"

    Even easier for the repugs to destroy a progressive candidate, when so-called progressive voices carry water for them.


    You guys are amazing! (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by jen on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:32:26 PM EST
    If you don't think the Repubs will be ripping in to this if O is the nominee, I guess there's not much else to talk about. We'll just hope they don't go there...

    Because, first, it gave us Bush (none / 0) (#230)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:01:18 PM EST
    -- but yeh, let's not vet our candidates to be ready for the Republicans again.

    Cite? (none / 0) (#165)
    by Trickster on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:58:04 PM EST
    Wasn't that the Tribune's ed board that did what you said?  I don't think the Sun-Times has said everything is peachy-keen about Rezko.  

    If they have, please correct me.


    Here (none / 0) (#215)
    by mattt on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:34:35 PM EST
    are columns in the Sun-Times where named reporters (not the editorial board) say "Obama comes clean" and "Obama clears the air."  This is the best I could find for you in the time available.



    Lynn Sweet did not explicilty acquit Obama in her column reporting the meeting at the Sun Times but titled it "Obama gets it out in the open" and called the meeting "extraordinary," the discussion "extensive."

    Here is a transcript of the actual meeting at the Sun-Times:


    Thanks (5.00 / 0) (#240)
    by Trickster on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:29:24 PM EST
    Although those reporters do indeed say good things about Obama's forthcomingness at the meeting, I think they fall short of giving him a clean bill of health on the transaction.

    Brown saying good things but no clean bill of health:

    Am I satisfied with all his answers, especially in relation to the house transaction about which I've been harping?

    Not entirely. But, barring some new facts or information from some other source that would contradict him, I don't know how much further we can push the issue.

    We now have a fairly extensive account from Obama of his relationship with Rezko, including the house purchase.

    To the extent there are still gaps in our understanding, those are mostly a product of not having heard directly from Rezko or from the family that sold them their properties, and I don't know that we ever will.

    On the central question: Did Obama do something improper in the purchase of the house?

    I see no proof he did, other than that he had no business at all getting involved with Rezko in any personal financial transaction.

    Obama has pretty much admitted as much. . . .

    A bigger issue to me has always been whether Rezko purchased the lot as a favor to Obama with reassurances that he would develop -- or not develop -- the property in accordance with the senator's wishes. A previous owner had wanted a multi-family development, which proved controversial in the neighborhood.

    While acknowledging that he welcomed Rezko's interest in the lot because he thought it would be easier to work with "somebody who I knew, a friend of mine" than with other possible owners, Obama said he always expected Rezko to build on the lot.

    I'd still like to know how Rezko jumped in front of another developer who Obama says already had an option to purchase the lot for the same price.

    Meetings don't win immunity

    Obama says he doesn't know the answer but believes there was a "negotiation" of some sort between that individual and Rezko, who knew each other from previous dealings.

    Because of the other potential buyer for the lot, Obama says he would have been able to buy the house even if Rezko wasn't involved. I'd rather hear that from somebody besides Obama. The sellers had conditioned the house sale on both properties closing at the same time.

    During the last year, Obama has used his cooperation with one news organization or another on the Rezko story to try to immunize himself from the inquiries of others. He should not be allowed to use his meeting with the Sun-Times -- and a similar get-together at the Tribune -- to wave off questions from others now about Rezko and the house.

    In other words, plenty of good questions remain.

    Marin is less blunt with her prose and less analytical with the facts, but I wouldn't call her piece a clean bill of health, either.

    Finally, the Sun-Times did endorse Obama--but that's got nothing to do with this story.  Editorial board here, journalists there.


    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#247)
    by mattt on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:38:39 PM EST
    I may have overstated at least some of the reporters' "satisfaction" with Obama's answers.  It's fair to say that questions still remain about the mess in general, though Brown says the remaining gaps are due mostly to not having Rezko's side of the story.  I don't think Sweet would have called the discussion "extensive" if she felt Obama were still hiding something big.

    I read a comment from Fusco somewhere that sounded more guarded (as a reporter should always be when dealing with pols), but his editor seemed more satisifed.  I don't know how Tim Novak or others feel about it...but I haven't read anything about their dissatisfaction, either.

    I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this as the Rezko trial unfolds.


    Is Washington Journal on C-Span? (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:34:16 PM EST

    Here's the link for watching, Roubini is in second half.

    Thank you! (none / 0) (#196)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:37:24 PM EST
    Nice take in nytimes (4.83 / 6) (#2)
    by TalkRight on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:09:42 PM EST
    Mr. McCain, we're told, is a straight-talking maverick. But on domestic policy, he offers neither straight talk nor originality; instead, he panders shamelessly to right-wing ideologues.

    Mrs. Clinton, we're assured by sources right and left, tortures puppies and eats babies. But her policy proposals continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive.

    Finally, Mr. Obama is widely portrayed, not least by himself, as a transformational figure who will usher in a new era. But his actual policy proposals, though liberal, tend to be cautious and relatively orthodox.

    This is from Krugman, (none / 0) (#11)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:20:14 PM EST
    Man, I Still Like Krugman. (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by flashman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:44:08 PM EST
    Does it matter? (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:13:46 PM EST
    For years, Krugman was a highly respected figure among progressives because of his willingness to buck the popular trend and speak his mind, backing up his views with facts. The fact that he doesn't worship Obama and hate Clinton like some other columnists should not change anything - he is an intelligent man who speaks his mind. It is a bit discouraging that so many New York Times writer's are unwilling to challenge Obama or to praise Clinton in any way.

    Hey, I trust Krugman above all columnists in the (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:04:58 PM EST
    NYTimes--I just wanted to get the link in the thread so people could read the whole op-ed.

    No criticism whatsoever of Krugman from me--he kept me sane during the 2000 campaign, when I had no access to blogs and there were only a few sources for objective reporting and worthwhile analysis.

    I didn't see a link so I posted one, being pretty sure it was Krugman.


    Obama takes the lead in Gallup (2.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:09:18 PM EST
    This was a blog entry for TL when Hillary took the lead in the same daily tracking poll last week.  Will it be ignored now?

    Boooooo! (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:14:15 PM EST
    Like every Pro-Obama posts a blog entry every time Clinton has a lead.

    Get over it.


    But McCain still beats either one (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:31:10 PM EST
    and the difference is statistically insignificant between Obama and Clinton on that more crucial count in the Gallup tracking polls.

    Jeralyn's said several times (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:38:14 PM EST
    This blog isn't claiming to be balanced; it is a partisan blog.

    And you know, the world is coming to an end because TalkLeft is overwhelming all the caterwauling going on at DailyKos, TPM, Huffpost, Americablog, etc etc.

    If you want balance, good luck. All we want is a place where the constant droning of HOPE and AUDACITY and all that other good stuff doesn't drown out a good candidate.


    I'll settle for avoiding the (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:51:58 PM EST
    "B-b-but HILLARY....!" screeching.

    Plus the over the top characterizations...of either candidate.

    Plus the over the top reactions to practically everything - EXCEPT the issues.

    Plus the over the top replies to any comment that dares to contravene the holy narratives.

    I keep looking for the snark tag at daily kos comments and then remember where I am and that these people are perfectly serious.


    Don't worry... (none / 0) (#57)
    by sapienthetero on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:47:14 PM EST
    all that HOPE and AUDACITY won't hurt a good candidate at all.  On the other hand, it seems to be pretty effective at tubing Clinton. :-)

    Seriously (3.00 / 2) (#3)
    by tek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:11:28 PM EST
    I don't even pay attention to the Gallup anymore.  They are declared Obama supporters.

    They're also great buds (none / 0) (#29)
    by vicsan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:32:55 PM EST
    with the Bush family. They support Mr. Hope?  So does James Zogby (John's bro). Funny how those polls lean Mr. Hope's way, eh?

    Ha Ha. Well it won't be ignored.... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:26:31 PM EST
    ...cause you posted it.

    Links (none / 0) (#30)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:32:56 PM EST
    Leahy tell Clinton to drop out (none / 0) (#40)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:37:16 PM EST
    and support Obama. Today.

    Says she can't win.

    Casey throws his support behind Obama. Reid says it'll be over soon.


    I bet Casey is about to become a blog hero. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by tigercourse on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:41:15 PM EST
    He already was a hero at the Orange (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:21:07 PM EST
    when Kos backed him as a candidate, despite Casey differing from the Dem party's platform on choice.  That was quite the contretemps at the Orange -- and the point at which I knew to not trust Kos at all as a Dem but to realize he really is just a Reagan Dem.

    Casey is anti-choice, so this only (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:53:11 PM EST
    increases my concern about Obama on that issue.

    We're told over and over to think about the Supreme Court, about Roe v. Wade, to vote for him if he's the Dem nominee.  But Casey agrees with McCain on this issue, it seems, and endorses Obama as well.

    This calls for Obama to clarify, for once, what the heck was in his mind when he initially was going to vote for Roberts and when Obama differed from the stance of significant women's organizations in what they wanted him to do on relevant votes in Illinois.

    In sum, this may look like a plus for Obama to you, but it may not be that with a lot of others whose votes he would need if he is the nominee.  More short-term gain but long-term problems.


    That red flag went up higher (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:53:10 PM EST
    on my flag pole also. He can clarify, but he really doesn't make me comfortable on gender issues

    Casey (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:28:28 PM EST
    He's probably still mad they wouldn't let his father speak at the 1992 convention (when he wanted to argue against the Democratic platform on abortion and hadn't yet endorsed Bill Clinton).  The Republicans have been chastising Democrats as intolerant of other views because of that little temper tantrum for years.

    In my view, endorsements are as much about what we don't see than what we do see.  Am I surprised all these committee chairmen support Obama?  Nope.  not because I think they think he'd be better, but because chairman have a vested interest in having a weak executive.  Gives them more power and leeway and some of these guys have been chairs (on and off) for decades.  Kennedy, in particular, is known for being very territorial about his issues.  Of course, he'd rather not have HRC, someone with strong views of her own about health care and education.

    In short, on endorsements, there's usually more there than meets the eye.  


    Yep, Casey's endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:41:02 PM EST
    throws a monkey wrench in that whole "but-but you have to vote for Obama because of abortion right".

    Casey is anti-abortion.  What does that say about Obama?


    I meant "anti-choice" (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:42:47 PM EST
    I'm not pro-abortion either, just pro-choice.

    Link for Halper quote is (none / 0) (#7)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:17:43 PM EST
    The media want Obama so (none / 0) (#234)
    by nellre on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:12:57 PM EST
    so HRC should quit.
    Obama can prevent revotes in MI and FL
    HRC should quit
    Pelosi wants Obama
    so HRC should quit
    She is not at an advantage with regard to the economy
    so HRC should quit
    Obama supporters will be alienated if she wins
    so HRC should quit
    She is having less fun than Obama
    so HRC should quit
    Having a black president is more change than having a woman president and besides, women are just shadows of their husbands
    so HRC should quit
    She can say what she needs to say????
    so HRC should quit



    Veepstakes (none / 0) (#9)
    by CST on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:17:58 PM EST
    What o people think of Bloomberg as V.P. (for either candidate) assuming a Unity ticket doesn't happen?

    I don't think McCain will choose him (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by badger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:24:41 PM EST
    but you never know.

    Ha ha (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CST on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:29:03 PM EST
    he might... although my bet is on Lieberman.

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Commander Vimes on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:58:36 PM EST
    I think Obama will choose Lie(be)rman as VP, they are more closely aligned (democrat/independent).  I'm from CT and was rather ticked off that Obama appeared to have supported Lieberman.

    His Iraq position (none / 0) (#21)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:28:55 PM EST
    would have to be reconciled.  Greatest asset imaginable if economy is truly going to the main issue.  If he contributes to campaign funding, more fundraising dollars could be diverted to DNC, helping downticket candidates all over the country.

    Bloomberg? Not good choice (none / 0) (#27)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:31:31 PM EST
    Wayne Barrett of The Village Voice and Glenn Greenwald think Bloomberg as VP would be definitely in the not good category.

    From turkana at The Left Coaster.


    The U of Chicago (none / 0) (#25)
    by mattt on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:31:06 PM EST
    Has already refuted one of Rove's lies.  In fact every point he made in the quote posted by jeralyn was false:

    Obama never credited the Selma march with his parents' getting together; he spoke of the civil rights movement as a whole which began in the 50s.  See snopes.com > politics > obama > Say what?  FWIW, the editorial that started the Selma/birthdate controversy also cited Al Gore's "claim" that he invented the internet.

    Obama does speak Bahasa, one of the primary languages of Indonesia which he learned while living there.  The Indonesian ambassador to the US has remarked on his competence.

    Obama did work on asbestos issues in public housing, and did not attempt to claim an exaggerted role.  See here for a documented refutation of this attack:

    If Hillary comes back, for sure I'll vote for her in November.  But if Obama takes the nomination and loses MI, FL, and the USA in November, I'm going to save some blame for the Clinton dead-enders who are poisoning the wells in those states right now with this revisionist nonsense about disenfranchisement.

    I for one am already expecting to be blamed... (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:33:27 PM EST
    ...so that is no threat whatsoever.

    Me too (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:35:09 PM EST
    The guy just proved what I said above.

    If you don't want to be blamed (none / 0) (#66)
    by mattt on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:53:14 PM EST
    stop damaging Dem chances in key states.

    Hillary said some dumb stuff too - to be fair I remember it coming out of Penn's mouth, not hers, but she's associated with it - about the flyover states not counting.

    And if you want to talk about undemocratic tactics....how does seating the MI and Fl delegations fairly count the millions of dems who stayed home on primary day, because they were told (by Clinton too!) that their votes wouldn't count?

    How much of Clinton's superdelegate lead is based on personal commitments made before voters even got a chance to see the other choices?  Democracy in action, folks! LOL

    How many of Obama's donors have attmepted to blackmail Pelosi and the DCC in order to keep open the possibility of a back room coup for their candidate?

    How much of her support in places like PA is based on the backing of a corrupt political machine?

    But Obama's the one guilty of undemocratic tactics?  Give me a break.

    I keep trying to sign off, but that Rove post has me really P-O'd.  And btw I just now saw the link at SadlyNo...I'm not here because they sent me.


    Read what I said..... (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:54:50 PM EST
    ...I don't care if you blame me. It's your right to blame whomever you please. I simply don't care. That is all.

    I'm with you. (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:04:59 PM EST
    I don't care either.

    In my experience, that is the hardest thing to convince people of - that you actually do not care.  I almost got into a flame war with someone who insisted that because I voted for Hillary that I was a "Hillary supporter" even though I told her that I liked neither candidate much at all and only marginally preferred Clinton.  I was still a "Hillary supporter" and she expected me to respond to every accusation she made against Hillary.

    No, I really didn't care about what she thought - about me, Hillary, anything.  However, her performance was yet another pixel in the composite portrait of An Obama Supporter.


    You don't care (none / 0) (#90)
    by mattt on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:08:19 PM EST
    if you get blamed?  or if you're partially responsible for a McCain presidency?

    I don't care about blame either, but when I think about a McCain foreign policy, McCain tax policy, McCain drug enforcement policy, McCain appointments to the SC....I'll be working for Obama or Clinton or Mike Gravel if he's the last one standing in November.


    If Obama is soooo inspiring (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:22:01 PM EST
    then he'll have no problems winning the GE at all.

    The money will roll in.  The volunteers will line up.  The media will swoon at his feet.  The Republicans will leap across party lines with smiles on their faces and their check books open.


    Obama will share the blame if we lose FL & MI (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Manuel on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:07:42 PM EST
    He could easily have supported revotes.

    If Clinton gets the nomination (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:55:36 PM EST
    and then loses the GE I'll blame Obama and his supporters cause they kept calling her untrustworthy.

    Clinton wants FL and MI to count.

    Obama does not.


    Not to worry (1.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:17:27 PM EST
    I've considered her untrustworthy since 1993.  Hadn't even heard of Obama then.

    FL and MI (none / 0) (#97)
    by mattt on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:16:35 PM EST
    should count.  And no children should be hungry, and no one should die ever again in a war to over old mens' money.

    FL and MI got screwed up by their state parties, with a healthy assist from local Republicans and to a lesser extent the DNC.  They deserve the blame.

    Progressives trying to hang the blame on Obama are conducting one of the most absurd exercises in nose cutting / face spiting I've seen in 30 years of voting.


    If you don't want to damage key states... (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:25:58 PM EST
    ...don't tell them that their votes don't matter. You can't fairly lay this on Clinton. Obama could easily have let those states vote. Everything was in place. He chose his own political interests over their ability to have their votes count. We could have revoted both Michigan and Florida and everybody's vote would have counted, fair and square. Obama should have been fighting for that alongside Clinton. If there is one thing that Democrats should agree on, it is that all votes should count.

    As for the rest...It's unfair and unkind to suggest that Clinton is only leading in PA because of a "corrupt" political machine or that Clinton controls the donor's who wrote a letter to Pelosi (which contained no blackmail whatsoever). She isn't all-powerful, and her donor's have minds of their own and do not live to do her bidding. If you want to slam Clinton with lies, then go back to some other site where such lies are welcome.


    Oh, give it a rest (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by kmblue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:47:07 PM EST
    and blame your candidate if he loses the GE.

    Any clarification on Obama's claim (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:35:59 PM EST
    in the Philly Inquirer and Boston Globe in 1990 that he had been a "street urchin" in Jakarta, when he actually had a wealthy stepfather and attended a private prep school?  That one is just so puzzling.

    It shouldn't be... (none / 0) (#49)
    by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:42:20 PM EST
    I've now addressed this issue on two occasions.  The Philly is not a direct quote.  It is a summarization taht is similar to but significantly different from a direct quote in the Boston Globe.  The most likely explanation is that the Philly article just got it wrong.  Obama was very clear in the Boston Globe which came out at the same time as the Philly article that he had friends who were urchins and that he was impacted by their experience of poverty.

    Please stop repeating this smear.


    You did not answer satisfactorily (3.66 / 3) (#70)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:55:35 PM EST
    so I'm asking someone else who appears to know more about Obama's background.  Please stop repeating your claims to have settled this.

    Hi Cream (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by eric on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:07:03 PM EST
    My wife was reading Obama's book recently and if I recall correctly, Obama writes about seeing street urchins and that he would give away his lunch money to them.  I think this may be the source of the story, which seems to have gotten a bit twisted.

    He does write about how priviledged he was in Indonesia.  He even got into a very exclusive school because of this Stepfather's family's influence.


    That's what I saw in his book, too (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:19:12 PM EST
    and that's why I wondered about the statements otherwise in the stories, which he did not then or since call to be corrected.  Perhaps someone in the media who did those stories or was there when they were done will clarify that the reporters erred?

    Tell me how I didn't answer... (none / 0) (#76)
    by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:58:31 PM EST
    You are breaking comment rules by routinely repeating substanceless attacks on Obama.  You have not shown adequately that it was ACTUALLY Obama who said he was a street urchin.  

    You seem to be set on intentionally misleading people on this issue.


    You have given your opinionfro (3.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:17:36 PM EST
    of What Obama Really Meant as the source for those articles.  I don't know you, or whether you're the reporter for such articles, or a friend of Obama's who was there when he gave the interviews, etc.  So I do not find your opinion conclusive.

    To be clear, here is the Boston Globe... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:27:32 PM EST
    "His parents met and married in Hawaii and divorced when Obama was 2. His father then returned to Kenya, and
    Obama was raised, at least initially, by his mother. "To a large extent I roamed around a lot as a kid," he said during an
    interview in a Harvard Square restaurant.
    From the ages of 6 to 10, he lived in Indonesia and attended an Indonesian-speaking school; he kept up his English
    studies, at his mother's insistence, by waking at 5 a.m. each day to take correspondence courses.
    He says many of his friends were "street urchins," and it was here, on the outskirts of Jakarta, that he says he
    became aware of the implications and realities of poverty, of "the gaps between the have's and have-nots." Although his
    family was comfortable financially"



    Quit with the plural... (none / 0) (#110)
    by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:21:12 PM EST
    the Globe article doesn't say he was an urchin.  You are presenting incorrect information.

    Selma (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by CHDmom on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:36:20 PM EST
    I guess this is another WORM then because he clearly said Selma.

    This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that the world as it has been it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Alabama.


    dead enders? (none / 0) (#132)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:38:35 PM EST
    So now Clinton supperts are the equivalent of Iraqi insurgents?  

    Get on the UNITY Train!


    oops (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:43:28 PM EST
    Clinton "supporters"

    No, (none / 0) (#216)
    by mattt on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:36:33 PM EST
    I was drawing a comparison to the die-hard Bushies.

    Well (none / 0) (#217)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:41:38 PM EST
    That seems a little laughable to me as the commonly cited origin is Rummy's comments.  But whatever.

    Who wants to play... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Saul Goode on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:34:12 PM EST
    name that party?

    Remember, that the fact that when a Democrat is involved in a scandal that party affiliation is rarely mentioned in the press is just a myth pushed by the right.

    Uh, huh...http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080328/ap_on_re_us/siegelman_release;_ylt=AtbfySLlmi1fKSL56wgnA8qs0NUE

    LOL (none / 0) (#104)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:18:29 PM EST
    you get lexis?

    Don't have Lexis-Nexis acces (none / 0) (#166)
    by Saul Goode on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:58:45 PM EST
    But I did a random quick check on a current scandal involving a Democrat. I clicked on the first hit...voila:


    But, gosh, NPR is usually so balanced, right?:)


    Not at all.. (none / 0) (#254)
    by Saul Goode on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:42:30 PM EST
    Check for yourself. CNN has yet to say which party Kilpatrick belongs in all reporting they have done on the matter.

    To deny there is a double standard is beyond silly.


    A interesting link (none / 0) (#36)
    by hopeyfix on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:34:39 PM EST
    I read this here on <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187358/">Slate</a> and couldn't help but wonder when it will come back to bite Obama. I still believe democrats should soldier on for better or for worse (in my perspective Obama, logically is the worse) but when I read things like this, I keep hoping something will stop his lead at some point sooner than later, because even Rove is being quoted again saying it will be easy for republicans to make soup of him... and at this point, I am even willing to forget his unity that carries on anti-gay pastors as long as the Supreme Court gets out of the hands of republicans. I just cannot believe he is electable, which makes this race quite scary for me now...

    Comic relief on voting and party leadership (none / 0) (#44)
    by anniethena on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:39:30 PM EST
    All the talk of revotes and party leadership reminded me of
    raising a little hell

    Very tangential of course - a multipartisan GOTV (2000)courtesy of a Canadian "fake news" staple, "This Hour Has 22 Minutes". Most readers will only recognize one or two faces but 4 out of 5 party leaders in Parliament and several well-known elected officials participate. I have no idea if Stephen Harper would allow this today.

    Note the brief image of the ballot box - federal and provincial elections are all run by Elections Canada by the same rules. Want an election in 30 days? No problem, the machinery is there and ready to swing into action.

    Is there any way to get the URL embed process (none / 0) (#92)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:10:19 PM EST
    onto one's computer?

    Using the link symbol above the comment box is so easy (now that I know how to do it), I'd love to have access to it for any comments which accept HTML tage.

    Is there any way to do that? Or is it blog site dependent.

    Waaaaaay better than typing the tags--with my tendency for typos....

    Did Clinton initiate the Rev. Wright Controversy? (none / 0) (#103)
    by stevenb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:18:20 PM EST
    I have been reading in the online media multiple examples of the journalist writing something like this: "Clinton's use of the Rev. Wright story" or "Clinton uses the Wright controversy to..."

    I had thought it common knowledge that ABC News broke that story, but in the weeks afterward, the Rev. Wright controversy is characterized as an attack from Camp Clinton.

    I just wanted to know if anyone has noticed this and /or can prove/disprove that Clinton had anything/nothing to do with the media reporting this story.


    I think they're using her response to Pittsburgh (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:12:37 PM EST
    editorial board, when, after a few direct questions, she said she would have left her church if her pastor spoke as Wright had done.

    That was considered "bringing up" the Wright controversy--even though it was a reply to a direct question after several more indirect questions. If she had demurred, she would have been dragging out the Wright controversy, of course.

    That's how it's done: Tweety goes after Mark Penn every which way from Sunday, talking about cocaine and Obama; Penn manages to not use the word cocaine in all his replies; then, cornered, he says the word cocaine, in a dismissive way iirc, and, thereafter, Tweety feels free to say that Penn put the cocaine story out there. Over and over and over.

    Pols may not correct pundits, of course; if they do, they are slagged for whining about their coverage.

    Somerby is so right--it is up to real reporters, left/prog/lib pundits to take the MCMers to task for their unfair reporting. But don't hold your breath.


    I think (none / 0) (#113)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:22:08 PM EST
    she would of waited until the week before the PA primary.  It actually happened at the best time possible for Obama...

    Heck (none / 0) (#131)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:36:19 PM EST
    If Clinton were behind it, it would have come out last November or between South Carolina and Super Tuesday.  Why wait until 4/5 of the states had voted?  Those who blame Clinton defy logic, frankly.

    I have seen zero evidence (none / 0) (#123)
    by spit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:31:40 PM EST
    (but a fair amount of assertion on the blogs).

    The foundation of the story has been around for a while, too. I'd heard complaints about Wright from rightwingers several times well before it broke into the larger press with the release of video.


    Some say ABC, some say Fox (none / 0) (#231)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:05:15 PM EST
    but both of those, and many other media, reported on this for days -- even a week or more -- before Clinton finally said something about it, only in reply to repeated media questions, and only about what she would do.  Not about what Obama did.

    As long as it's an open thread... (none / 0) (#122)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:31:29 PM EST
    Can someone explain to me why 'Snipergate' appears to have damaged Clinton every bit as much as Wright has damaged Obama? I honestly do not understand how that is possible.

    Not only has Obama regained his lead in the Gallup Daily tracking poll, but Hillary is actually polling lower than she ever has before. That's just one poll of course, but looking across the spectrum, it's clear that Hillary has been taking a pounding lately.

    Is this all this over one mis-statement? Really? I had expected Wright to inflict significant damage on Obama, since he still had that 'new guy shine.' It's easy to put ugly dents in brand new siding. But as one commentator on this site put it, Clinton has had entire books written for the purpose of trashing her. How is it that one silly comment can still affect her negatives this way? Are people really changing their minds on the basis of a single sentence?

    Because the media HATES Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:44:25 PM EST
    and loves Obama.  He is the media darling.

    And just remember

    "The Iraq War Was a Media Darling Too"


    As Hillary, do does Barack (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by stevenb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:49:10 PM EST
    What about Obama saying multiple times he never heard Rev. Wright say racist or anti-American comments?  Within five days Obama went from saying "no, no, no" to "maybe, maybe, maybe" to "of course I had, but I disagreed with it."

    That is about as close to the logic of "I smoked by didn't inhale" as you're gonna get.

    People really WANT Clinton to fail, that is the real issue.  It is a statistical fact that women have to work twice as hard as men to prove themselves in our society, and this lack of forgiveness on her gaffes shows how people enjoy watching her fall.


    C'mon... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:01:06 PM EST
    it's been played and said over and over.  

    you forgot the no, no, no, (none / 0) (#171)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:02:13 PM EST
    that came after the maybes  ;)

    Maybe they just asked different people today (none / 0) (#128)
    by CST on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:34:25 PM EST
    I really don't think polls are that accurate or that they are affected much by one issue.  Could be any number of other things, such as her response to the Wright issue, or just conversations with friends.

    I'll await responses too. Doesn't (none / 0) (#138)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:41:19 PM EST
    make sense except under BTD's "Obama is the Media Darling" meme.

    Sloppy journalism (none / 0) (#175)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:05:05 PM EST
    No follow through by the press or others.  The Obama overstatements get brushed aside.  The Bosnia story was a concerted effort by the Obama campaign to make it stick.  Remember three days before it got big we had a lovely troll here that kept chattering about this story?  Getting all puffy about the lie, the lie..the lie.  Axelrod is a brilliant viral creator.  He works the press and the Net.  It's that simple.  

    Which is why it so amazing Obama, (none / 0) (#143)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:42:45 PM EST
    who has made numeous contradictory statements regarding The Rev. Wright, seems to have maintained his position in the polls.  Great media for him.  

    Obama has made different statements (none / 0) (#208)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:59:51 PM EST
    at different times about what he heard and whether he confronted Wright at any point about Wright's statements.

    It was one silly comment (none / 0) (#157)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:51:18 PM EST
    it was repeated over and over again.  I also don't think it is the reason for the slide.  Many people percieve the tone of her campaign in way her supporters just can't seem to recognize.

    When the MCM harps on something, it begins (none / 0) (#183)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:15:26 PM EST
    to take hold in the public's consciousness--even if initially they reject the premise of the attack. The brain worm gets into people's thinking, and, later on, when the MCM says something else is like the Bosnia sniperfire thing, it tears down the pol's credibility.

    That's why it was important to have not just one or two "lies" or "exaggerataions" about Gore. More than just one "hypocrisy" from Edwards.

    The more people hear something, the more they give it credence.



    Wright's Letter to NYTimes (none / 0) (#129)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:35:00 PM EST
    Oh lordy, Wright goes on giving. HuffPo has just reprinted a copy of a NYTimes letter Wright wrote back on 3/11/07.

    Basically Wright was railing because a NYTimes profile of Obama talked too little about Wright's effusive assessment of Obama and mentioned the fact that Wright was not permitted to speak when Obama announced his candidacy.

    Perhaps Wright had a legitimate complaint, till he cast the author and the Times as egregious betrayers of all that is holy (including Barack).

    Sample from his letter to Jodi Kantor: "When I told you, using one of your own Jewish stories from the Hebrew Bible...Barack had in his grasp a uniqueness in terms of his spiritual development...you did not print that...Maybe it was my faith in the Jewish Holy Day of Roshashana...I was sadly mistaken. There is no repentance on the part of The New York Times... You should do well with that paper, Jodi".

    I imagine HuffPo reprinted the letter because, on the whole, it is an over-the-top praise poem to Obama, with heavy emphasis on his 'inherent' Christian nature.

    But, do they expect that Wright's digs at Kantor and all things "Jewish" will slide under the radar, as they evidently did when the letter originally appeared more than a year ago?

    The "Day of Atonement"? (none / 0) (#149)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:45:00 PM EST
    That quote from The Princess Bride immediately springs to mind when I read Wright's reference to it.  

    Wow this is a boring thread (none / 0) (#160)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:52:03 PM EST
    so here is something for the numbers geeks.  I'm not sure I understand it but it seems to be a really long way of saying that the ups and downs in the national polling that we get so excited about are largely illusory and that the polling is pretty much a tie and has been for a long time.

    And another reason for Clinton supporters to be pissed off: Hillary Deathwatch

    Contact editors/reporters and voice your opinion (none / 0) (#185)
    by stevenb on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:17:50 PM EST
    Written today, 3/28/08 to Slate Editors in defense of Senator Clinton (I suggest you do the same):

    Dear Reporters and Slate Editors,
    Your new web page/report "Hillary Deathwatch" is in poor taste and continues to prove that the news media are extremely biased against Senator Clinton.  This is not journalism.

    Why is this, a continuing fetish to destroy Clinton through subtle insinuations, by Slate and other news agencies?  What do you gain through cheap laughs presented as "news" or comical associations of one of the most influential politicians of our era?  While you enjoy looking to the demise of Senator Clinton, do realize that she represents nearly 50% of the Democratic party, and your participation in the vilification of her Dem. nominee campaign only serves to distance her supporters from Slate, as well as from the Democratic party.

    I can only assume, in your defense, that you are either a) not members of the Democratic party, b) interested in snarky journalism over real reporting, c) do not believe in actually writing investigative essays on issues and policies that will define either Clinton and Obama in the White House, whomever does make it to the general election.

    Essentially, the Hillary Deathwatch has completely removed giving Slate any credit in being a useful news agency, and I am going to do my best to convince other Clinton Democrats to boycott Slate.

    Or, you could remove the Hillary Deathwatch and apologize for the failed attempt to divide the Democratic party now and in the future.  Unfortunately, I think your ability to realize your actions and their repercussions unlikely.



    Good link from pollster.com (none / 0) (#232)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:10:19 PM EST
    and thanks for that -- the site has kept me far better informed about how to read the polls, and thus has done far more for my hypertension, than just about any site I've seen.  And it's a lot better lately, now that commenters have to register, as some of the crazies were making it hard to wade through their crap for a while to get to the good stuff from folks who know stats.

    Essentially, it has taught me to look very much long-term on polls, not to ups and downs day to day.  That's why the tracking polls can be useful -- but only if looked at long-term for trends.

    Today's tracking poll tells us that neither candidate has really pulled ahead, and both are still within the numbers they've had for a while.


    Theology/History (none / 0) (#168)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:00:00 PM EST
    What gives with Wright equating the Romans to the Italians and the whole "the Romans lynched Jesus" bit?  Now, I would not have him as my pastor cause the guy does not know history or theology.  

    Italians and Romans?  Cripes, the Israelites and Romans are not even allowed their own narrative.  

    The guy takes American racial, economic and political history and applies carte blanche to the Christ story.  Hence he makes Christ black, literally .   Again, part of the ethno centrism that poses as progressivism and left leaning politics, is making everything American centric.  

    The problem with religion is.... (none / 0) (#184)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:16:35 PM EST
    There's an endless thesis for you.  But yes, you should strive to at least be roughly historically accurate.  

    I think that's why we find the Flying Spaghetti Monster so attractive - if religion is at least partially fiction, why not create a totally fictional religion?


    Hillary endorsement coming up? (none / 0) (#169)
    by Dawn Davenport on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:00:10 PM EST
    I read (on a random forum) that Hillary has called a press conference today to announce a big endorsement.  Is that true, and if so, any ideas who it might be?

    A thread on DU said that Elizabeth Edwards has talked John into endorsing Hillary.

    Well, it would certainly help. (none / 0) (#178)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:08:48 PM EST
    Richardson stepped in with a lifeline for Obama when he was getting pounded, and it really reversed the momentum.

    Edwards has the potential to do much the same thing.


    Doesn't Eliz Edwards (none / 0) (#200)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:41:02 PM EST
    dislike Clinton? I thought she did.

    Edwards to endorse Clinton?? (none / 0) (#172)
    by kenosharick on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:03:46 PM EST
    Anyone else hear this? It was reported as a maybe in the Chicago Sun-Times. In Sneed's column.

    I see Bob Casey is the (none / 0) (#186)
    by alsace on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:19:20 PM EST
    Endorser-of-the-Day.  That endorsement, with Richardson's and a fiver, ought to get Obama a nice Caffe' Latte.

    And Rendell is a racist now (none / 0) (#233)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:12:52 PM EST
    per a CNN story that something the Pennsylvania governor said has been denounced blah blah blah.

    He came fighting right back and did well -- and showed me, as I thought, that this playing of the race card really lacks credibility now and needs to stop.  Too late for Bill and Ferraro, but Obama's unwillingness to call out Wright for racism means that other claims of racism meet skepticism now.

    Not that it's stopping fools from still trying to pull that card out of the deck, over and over.


    I don't watch CNN (none / 0) (#250)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:10:27 PM EST
    any more.  What happened with Rendell?  Is that his old statement that the US may not be ready to elect an AA yet?

    Obama is running away from the "L" word. (none / 0) (#197)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:38:32 PM EST
    lol!~ yes, on CNN they are talking about the Obama campaign trying to get away from his "Liberal Rating".

    Obama says his supporters are tired of the race!!! (none / 0) (#204)
    by TalkRight on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:47:45 PM EST
    I think there are some people who felt like, God, when will this be over

    of course I don't see anyone Clinton supporter saying that so he must be talking about his supporters!!

    Also says compares Primary to a movie that suddenly turned boring and long..

    Primary 'A Good Movie That Lasted About A Half An Hour Too Long'

    That's how I've felt about some of his (none / 0) (#236)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:14:28 PM EST
    debate answers.  As I've said before, Obama could not write a haiku for the life of him.  (So someone here started an Obama haiku site, and I forgot to bookmark it.  Help!  Was it Edgar?)

    GBCW (none / 0) (#206)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:52:42 PM EST
    Well many of you will likely be happy to know that I have decided that it is time to move on from this blog.  

    The partisan rancor here has become too strident here.  It has become little different from TaylorMarsh, DK, or the other places that have picked sides and encourage inner-party partisanship  as a means to promot their preferred candidate.

    When Karl Rove talking points are posted here without criticisms and accepted as general fact on a Liberal blog, it seems to me that the blog is no longer a Liberal blog but a partisan advocacy blog.

    See you on the other side. (none / 0) (#207)
    by sweetthings on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:55:35 PM EST
    Remember, silly season is temporary. We'll all be on the same side again eventually.

    One thought (none / 0) (#212)
    by BethanyAnne on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:07:38 PM EST
    This may end up being deleted; the comment list is getting pretty long.  But I have a thought for those of you that no longer read .... whatever the list of things you no longer read is.  Kos, TPM, CNN, whatevah.

    Does the constant shrinking of available pools of "good" information cause you to question your take on things?  At all?  I don't mean this to be mean, but when more and more of the world that you have formerly respected just works your last nerve ... at some point I'd think that it's time to question one's take on events.

    Just my $.02

    Well, if you take a good look (none / 0) (#219)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:45:26 PM EST
    it's not so much more and more of the world, it's the sheer nasty and bullying nature of the discourse. Mob mentality comes to mind. Most people aren't keen on getting beat up on by the SAME mob of people daily. Does that mean the Mob is right? Uh, not in my world.

    The Iraq War (none / 0) (#221)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:47:01 PM EST
    was a media darling, and pushed by Josh Marshall.  Does that mean it was the right thing to do?

    More (none / 0) (#223)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:49:59 PM EST
    #1:  Even with the nastiness of the bloggers and the media, the race is a virtual tie.  What does that tell you?

    #2: Just because "everyone does it" does that mean it's the right thing to do?  A paraphrased quote comes to mind:  "I was only following orders".  Also would we have had a "Boston Tea Party, if everyone followed, just because everyone else followed, who followed, who followed, etc.


    straw men (none / 0) (#242)
    by BethanyAnne on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:41:04 PM EST
    at their finest.  For the record, I wasn't actually defending the Holocaust as your  "I was just following orders" seems to imply.

    If I considered those blogs credible (none / 0) (#237)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:20:25 PM EST
    I'd question my take on events, entirely.  I gave those and others a try, some for a long time, but when they clearly contradict truths that are supported by incontrovertible evidence -- clearly biased misquotes, for example, or misstatements in areas in which I have considerable knowledge -- I learned to discount such sources.

    Fortunately, I have found many more blogs since, many of them far more credible -- at least so far.  All are always, with me, proving themselves again daily.  You can find others, too; there never is a need to restrict your information sources now.

    As for media, such as CNN, I've long been cynical about what I see and read, because I was in the media.  Your mileage may vary; your call.  But for a real eye-opener, read international media, as we now can do online.  In that area, again, I now have more info sources than ever I did before.


    comments now closed (none / 0) (#256)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:44:48 PM EST
    thanks for your thoughts.