Late Night: You Ain't Going Nowhere

For all those calling for Hillary to drop out of the race, here's an all-female version of "You Ain't Going Nowhere" performed by Shawn Colvin, Mary Chapin Carpenter & Rosanne Cash at Bob Dylan's 30th Anniversary concert, with an introduction by Johnny Cash.

If you prefer the Byrd's version (and I confess I do) here's Roger McGuinn (with actor Steve Martin on banjo)

And yes, it's another open thread. For starters, I highly recommend Clinton campaign Internet Director Peter Daou's Pundits v. Reality.

< Feingold: Obama Fans Should "Cool It" | Who Wouldn't You Represent? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Obamarama Way Out-of-bounds (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by pluege on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:13:34 PM EST
    That Obama and his supporters would invest so much in wooing republicans while at the same time working so hard to alienate the good democrats supporting Hillary Clinton tells you pretty much all you need to know about Obama and his supporters.

    Are these Democrats (none / 0) (#4)
    by marcellus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:18:01 PM EST
    who are being alienated, Casey Democrats?

    nope...not all... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kredwyn on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:34:14 AM EST
    I know a few Dems in PA who aren't Casey dems...and aren't happy with what they're seeing.

    What is up with the Bloomberg talk? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:34:17 PM EST
    Has everyone lost their minds?

    I have no clue, but one of his (none / 0) (#14)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:46:30 PM EST
    criteria is that a candidate must talk specific on issues, not the general pander talk, before he would endorse. From what the news reports said, he didn't hit specifics in his Economy speech, right?

    Bloomberg has some good people working/appointed for/by him.

    I'm not sure he's a VP type of guy. It would be nice to have some economic understanding if Obama gets in though. Bloomberg would also help his unity message, does have some homeland security experience/understanding, could bring in a demographic, is good on green issues. But Obama would still be lacking the FP experience against McCain.


    But isn't he a Repub? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:52:43 PM EST
    Was a Republican (none / 0) (#20)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:01:05 AM EST
    but he had buyers remorse as the brand wore thin.

    Curiously though, if he had the governorship of NY in mind, that was probably a really bad idea unless he figured Rudy was after the job and perhaps he switches to Democrat to run against Rudy in 3 years.

    Bloomberg is not the story however.


    I think Spitzer screwed up any plans (none / 0) (#24)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:11:18 AM EST
    from what I understood the in the air options were, Bloomberg was going to run for Gov against him (so they say). Cumo or Paterson was supposed to run for Hil's spot if she got in (so they say). Cumo could have also challenged for Gov if Spitzer went for DC(so they say). And there may be another name or 2 that I shoulda included.

    lol!~ Honestly though, I wouldn't have objected to a Gov run by him. One thing I like about him is he runs on his own money and owes no one. Not everyone likes his management style, but he certainly thinks of it as more of a job for the city than someone who's owing favors right and left.


    Who is the story? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:45:20 AM EST
    No. Dem until running for Mayor (none / 0) (#22)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:03:47 AM EST
    switched parties to run for mayor. Now he's an Indie.

    Ah, NYC, gotta love it! lol!~


    Obamawahhhhhhma (none / 0) (#70)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:21:40 AM EST
    Actor Steve Martin? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by ChrisO on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:26:35 PM EST
    Sorry, but as a comic myself, he'll always be comedian Steve Martin to me. Thanks for this. It reminded me of how I wore out the grooves on Sweetheart of the Rodeo. That's right, I said "wore out the grooves," you young whippersnappers.

    Ahhhhhhhh! Grooves! (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:37:50 PM EST
    I more than wore out a few  ;)

    and what's really great, I did NOT feel old saying that. Too many good times :)


    Wish I was a young anything! (none / 0) (#9)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:29:32 PM EST
    some solace... (none / 0) (#35)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:28:23 AM EST
    McSame in a speech in California this week was telling a story about how his dad was notified that we were attacked at Pearl Harbor earlier that day and had to mobilize and he didn't see his dad for several years.

    McSame was 5 at the time

    Does that put things in perspective?

    How many voters are going to identify with this guy who remembers the day Pearl Harbor was attacked?


    Hillary supporters here: Click that link (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:50:53 PM EST
    from Jeralyn above. It will make you feel better. Be sure to read the comments.

    Thanks for pointing that out (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:02:10 AM EST
    read it this morning (or when ever I got up, lol!~)

    What's interesting with her continuing, is that people are expecting her to bloody up Obama. Methinks she just needs to stay in while he continues his 'old politics' against her. The MSM is now admitting both camps are doing it, but it seems to be falling more towards Obama, especially with them also keeping the Wright issue in play. I don't think I've heard Bosnia all day. And she hasn't said anything that could be called 'kitchen sink' for what, a couple weeks? And now the MSM is pointing out all the "quit" speak is coming from hhis supporters.

    Gotta love "hope" and "unity", eh? It might just be the ticket. For Hillary.


    Hope we still get our ponies! (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:10:39 AM EST
    I don't think she's done much to him at all. Very restrained. His side counts the stuff they imagined against her-like that not patriotic bs. Basically, anything she does that is not outright campaigning for him is an attack!
    I was heartened to see Bill Maher and Tavis Smiley shouting down guests that were saying she can't win and get out. It was awesome!

    Was Maher tonight? (none / 0) (#27)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:18:22 AM EST
    If so, can't wait for a youtube, if not, but earlier, got a youtube link?!

    She really hasn't done much to him at all and raised a challenge or 2 on their differences campaigning (EEP!). I think it's 'funny' she's vowing to fight and he's whining about the length of the primary . . . OY.


    I think she just has to wait him out (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by thereyougo on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:32:19 AM EST
    campaign, talk with folks, I mean real ones.
    Not online 20-30-YOs.

    those are the ones driving the blogs, Kos 30 something, MyDD 20s, etc.

    one thing about Obama, he's careful never to appear with the Al Sharptons or Jesse Jackson and any controversial figure. Only Oprah early on, but she's the exception.


    In 2000 the media did everything they (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by hairspray on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:24:46 AM EST
    could to diminish Al Gore and ignore any close scrutiny of GWB.  Today it is Hillary the media is trying to discard while fawning over Obama.  Does this sound like deja vu all over again?

    Hope you get to see it. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:43:16 AM EST
    It was a good show. Usual O love at the beginning. He tried the Bosnia stuff but it didn't really take off. Robin Wright from WAPO was there to talk about Iraq but she started saying O has the momentum and she has to drop out. They mocked her. And Tavis was all let everyone vote. Dan Savage apparently has no use for her but he was mocked also.

    Do you understand why some (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by hairspray on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:29:02 AM EST
    people are so hateful to her? I do not understand what the Clintons did that was so bad. Mistakes a few here and there, but all of this vitriol?  No wars, major clamities (other than M of course) or budget and foreign affairs disasters.  What?

    I predicted that Bob Casey would become (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by tigercourse on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:56:05 PM EST
    a left wing blog hero after he came out for Obama. And I was right. Check out Dailykos. At least one person called for an Obama/Casey ticket.

    They are making a mockery of what they always claimed they stood for.

    It's too scary over there for me. (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:59:33 PM EST
    Not surprising they would throw pro-choice under the bus. Don't think O cares about women or their issues. I don't know much about Casey otherwise.

    some of us don't go there anymore. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by thereyougo on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:34:03 AM EST
    please tell us about it.

    You're kidding... (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by kredwyn on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:37:06 AM EST
    I remember being so unhappy with the Casey bid over what I saw as real netroots candidates.

    Did Casey even have a netroots base?


    Kos pushed Casey and Webb (none / 0) (#97)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:13:53 AM EST
    like they were modern day JFK's.  That isn't shocking.  

    Definitely the Byrds (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by white n az on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:58:27 PM EST
    I don't care how many letters they sent,
    The morning came, and the morning went,
    So pick you your money, and pack up your tent,
    You ain't going nowhere.

    great stuff...of course the the current version goes...she ain't going nowhere.

    It's sort of laughable that they're all so eager to game the system so that people's votes don't count, so their candidate doesn't get beaten in more significant states, so that they can skirt the issues surrounding the seating of delegates from MI and FL, so that they can get past the fact that we don't have a nominee until the delegates actually call in their totals at the convention.

    I think that the Obama supporters are being extremely myopic thinking that this notion of time and unity will trump all of the people that they are pissing off along the way.

    How can Obama be unity when (3.66 / 3) (#26)
    by pluege on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:15:00 AM EST
    he's alienated half the democrats?

    Obama "unity" appears to mean 'my way or the highway' if you're a Democrat; anything you want if you're a republican. This is stupidity beyond words.


    don't lay it all off on Obama (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:23:55 AM EST
    he's had plenty of help from over the top campaign staff, bloggers, media...

    To paraphrase the master...Barack is likable enough.


    Unity just "happens". Doesn't it? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:11:51 AM EST
    Like love at first sight? <sn> (none / 0) (#30)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:22:45 AM EST
    For the Byrds (none / 0) (#135)
    by Peter G on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:35:52 AM EST
    This is not the Byrds, I think.  It's McGuinn et al.  singing with the Rock Bottom Remainders, the group that Dave Barry, Stephen King and Amy Tan formed for fun. A terrific recording of a wonderful version of a great song, though.  Even so, my favorite may be the self-parody version Dylan recorded for Greatest Hits - Volume II:  
    "Buy me some rings
    And a gun that sings
    A flute that toots
    And a bee that stings
    A sky that cries
    And a bird that flies
    A fish that walks
    And a dog that talks!"

    a REAL figure for hope and change (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by heg on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:21:52 AM EST
    Did anyone catch Bill Moyers's interview tonight with Cory Booker on the (brilliant as usual) "Bill Moyers's Journal"?  That mayor of Newark, NJ is a true example of a transformative Black political figure bringing unity, hope, and change to his community:

    He has gotten down in the trenches to fight for the city of Newark and transform it from the hopelessly stagnant, mob-corrupted metropolis it's been for so long. He said himself that you can't just mouth platitudes about unity, transcending race, and change--he advocated and gave specific examples of grassroots organizing that confronted the problems head on. I also liked how he didn't just focus on individuals' responsibility, but also emphasized that the government must overhaul policy with progressive reforms and programs that have been proven to be far more effective in reducing crime and poverty, such as alternative drug programs instead of imprisonment.

    I just have to say that I was far more inspired by Cory Booker and his specific vision for transforming government and society than Obama's nebulous platform and platitudes.

    Cory Booker is great... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by proseandpromise on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:34:08 AM EST
    Street fight is a good documentary on Cory.  Incidentally though, he is backing the candidate you think is an imposter for hope.  

    Look, I get that some of you all are angry that your candidate has taken some hits, but this is a contest and your candidate has hit hard too.  I don't get why its OK to complain about Obama and his supporters but not the other way around.

    Let's talk character and issues and pick the best of two good candidates, yeah?


    Is he really? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by miriam on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:13:22 AM EST
    Booker is supporting Obama?  I wouldn't have guessed it, considering some of his comments on Moyer tonight. He said quite dismissively that he had no intention of being a "transcendant" figure, because he was an American.  And he laughingly referred to "all the talking" as being useless---instead of "talking" it should be "doing."  I had the distinct sense he was dissing Obama.  Maybe he's been hit by a stroke of good sense?    

    He welcomed him to NJ before 2/5 (none / 0) (#72)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:24:55 AM EST
    iirc, but don't know if it was an official endorsement. But hey, if it was, maybe he's become 'aware'

    I do see stuff on Booker because we are in a news cross over area. I get that he's very hands on. My take on Booker is positive, but I've nver had any reason to look deeper.


    I think he may be... (none / 0) (#137)
    by proseandpromise on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:12:50 PM EST
    distancing himself.  If you watch Street FIght he actually sounds almost exactly like Obama.  He probably wants to stay out of Obama's shadow.

    BO complaining to voters that the (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:23:40 AM EST
    nomination is taking too long?  Why not just say:  I really wish you didn't have the chance to vote.    

    I'm also surprised his Bataan remark hasn't made more traction.  

    everytime people say Obama ran a better (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by thereyougo on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:37:53 AM EST
    campaign than hillary and its why he should be pres. but if it was that great, why hasn't he put her away and better yet, why hasn't he got the magic 2025?

    Makes him appear long on wind and less on delivery.


    She's a strong competitor (none / 0) (#52)
    by proseandpromise on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:44:45 AM EST
    and he was a drastic underdog.  She had the machinery and the name rec.  He is now the front-runner with a lead in every major metric.  That is impressive.  

    So it's not a 3rd quarter blowout.  I think it speaks to Hillary's toughness, not Obama's weakness. He, by any standard, has done an incredible job.


    MSM (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by alexei on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:50:40 AM EST
    Look at Joe Scarborough vid again - Hillary Clinton is trashed all the time and Obama got rave reviews.  Even now, total double standard.

    You are losing the game... (none / 0) (#141)
    by proseandpromise on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:20:42 PM EST
    so you blame the refs.  I just heard a republican commentator on the radio today complaining about how Hillary gets a pass.  Everyone thinks the media is cheating THEIR person.  I'm so sick of the media meme (from all sides - there is a lot of Obama supporter whining at DKos) that I could puke.

    Obama's Bataan remark is insensitive (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by felizarte on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:26:35 AM EST
    and shows his ignorance of the history of the place.  He can go through a thousand nominating process and will still not come close to the suffering Bataan represents to millions of Filipinos!

    What arrogance!

    This may not have traction (yet) in the MSM, but it will get traction in the greater Filipino community when this gets around.


    pattern - Bataan remark and Senator D-Punjab (none / 0) (#142)
    by noholib on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:29:28 PM EST
    Am I the only one who detects a pattern in these remarks of Senator Obama: making light of the Bataan death march and calling Senator Clinton the Senator D-Punjab?  Does anyone know the context or meaning of his D-Punjab remark?  Could he possibly have been saying or implying: America is the land of opportunity - but beware, let's not have too many people from South Asia?  I certainly hope not.  But I do detect a pattern of flippant (supposedly cool?) and callous remarks, not grounded in historical understanding or sensitivity to ethnic groups.

    Bataan? He's not going to compare the campaign to (none / 0) (#34)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:25:40 AM EST
    the Middle Passage?

    Oh, no you di'n't! (none / 0) (#42)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:34:39 AM EST
    this is a raciist remark (none / 0) (#82)
    by dem08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:53:50 AM EST

    There was nothing funny about slavery and there is nothing funny about Obama being black. I hope they leave this comment so people can see how low some sink in defending their candidate.

    In The Middle Passage, enslaved people were packed in like victims to Concentration Camps, Many died and were thrown overboard from being crowded into the filthy hole.

    What a disgusting "joke".

    And to the person who seconded your joke with "oh no you didn't"....shame.


    There is also nothing funny (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by kiosan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:51:03 AM EST
    about the Bataan Death March.  Thousands of American and Filipino POWs lost their lives during this episode in history - many of them were raped and tortured before being dispatched.  Bataan merits no more casual reference than any other atrocity.

    To compare a prolonged primary to such a crime smacks of either supreme arrogance, or lack of historical reference, or possibly some combination thereof.  It was no more "amusing" than the reference to the Middle Passage.  A reference which, if I'm not mistaken, was to meant to illustrate the offense in more familiar terms.


    i think his point was (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:22:14 AM EST
    that Obama has taken every opportunity to decry racial division while simultaneously injecting race into the campaign at every turn.  Bataan was an atrocity against mostly non-black and Pacific Islanders while the Middle Passage would allow for the injection of race once again.

    Crass maybe but understandable if I'm reading Mark L right.  And no more crass than Obama's original statement concerning Bataan, which I think is your point.


    More or Less, Yes (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by kiosan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:25:54 AM EST
    I was remarking on the idea that joking about the deaths of Pacific Islanders was somehow acceptable, while pointing out that the original joke was crass by putting in more readily apparent context somehow was not only not acceptable, but racist.  I find the original comparison far more racist than the follow up pointing out the hypocrisy.

    But I suppose I must resign myself to the idea that, while all pigs are equal, some are more equal than others.


    Death March (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:49:39 AM EST
    That was equal opportunity death and torture distributed by the enemy.  A former neighbor is preparing to go to some sort of reunion of survivors, I was told yesterday.  O. 'mispoke,' trivializing history; having lived in Hawaii, he should have known better.

    I agree with the sentiment here (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by kayla on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:59:06 AM EST
    I get that he was trying to illustrate how insensitive Obama's remark was, but to do so with an equally offensive remark is defeating the purpose.

    Although - "there is nothing funny about Obama being black"  is a strange thing to say, given that there's nothing sad about Obama being (half) black.

    And - "I hope they leave this comment so people can see how low some sink in defending their candidate."

    Is also silly.  You might as well say "I really hope the media picks up on Obama's insensitive Bataan comment.  So that people can know how low he'll sink in defending his own candidacy."


    no it is not silly (none / 0) (#134)
    by dem08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:31:47 AM EST
    Mark L could not have made his witty "Middle Passage" remark about a white candidate. Nor could Joan in VA have added her hilarious "Oh, no you di'n't!" about a white candidate.

    So why are the remarks funny? Because Obama is black. And nothing is more hilarious than slavery. I suppose Hillary should add a Middle Passage remark to her speeches and then add, "Oh, lighten up people!"

    I happen to think that any remark that uses events that were terrible, like The Bataan Death March are not funny and trivialize suffering. If I had Nexus, I would probably turn up thousands of careless Bataan Death March/Hiroshima, etc. references.

    However, "Oh, no you di'n't!" and Mark L's remnark that drew that remark strike me as casual racism. Blame Obama all you want. The remarks speak for themselves. Leave them and let people decide whether the remarks were Obama's just punishment for injecting race into our politics.

    Even Condeleeza Rice of all people just suggested that slavery was a smear on our history. Should we all "lighten up"?


    You're missing the point, which is that Obama (none / 0) (#146)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:40:38 PM EST
    is too "lightened up" already.
    Anyone who can speak so casually of the Bataan March--especially when there are still survivors---is someone I could equally expect to casually use the "original sin" of slavery as a chit to bargain with---which he does, in my opinion.
    Obama is the cheapest, lowest common denominator of   a pol I have seen since.. Romney.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#148)
    by kayla on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:07:49 PM EST
    Get pissed at MarkL all you want, but how did Condi Rice, Hillary Clinton and your commentary on race in politics get into this?  This is just a political blog, my goodness.  I swear Obama's speech has made everyone the talky expert.

    Hillary didn't compare anything to the middle passage or the Bataan Death March.  Barack Obama did.  It's silly to get angry at the prospect that Hillary might one day say something insensitive, when she hasn't.  Obama has.  I'm sure you understand that what Obama said was offensive, you just want to impose outrage somewhere imaginary instead of at him.  That's fine, if a little weird...


    My husband grew up in Hawai'i (none / 0) (#149)
    by kiosan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:08:26 PM EST
    I relayed the Bataan Death March remark to him, and he was appalled.

    The point, sir, is not that we should all "lighten up," so much as as we should all be prepared to take equal offense at ethnic slurs.  If the Bataan analogy was of no trouble then, giving equal consideration to other, non-black minorities, the Middle Passage could equally cause no great offense.

    If the Middle Passage reference was offensive, as it should have been, then the Bataan remark should have carried equal outrage with a colorblind and/or post-racially sensitive "progressive" aware of the historical context.  

    If not, then they were equally innocuous, and neither deserving of our condemnation.


    kayla and kiosan (none / 0) (#150)
    by dem08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:40:25 PM EST
    I condemn Obama's use of The Bataan Death March analogy. It trivializes an historical horror. I also condemn the original post in this thread by Mark L and the follow up by Joan A

    Middle Passage? MarkL

    Oh, no you di'n't! Joan in VA

    Those remarks are racist. Their humor depends on seeing Obama as black.

    Obama according to some Talk Left Posters brings this on himself.
    MarkL asserts and insults. Again, read his words. They back up his assertion with the phrase "in my opinion":

    Senator Obama, Mark L says, with no attribution, "is someone I could equally expect to casually use the 'original sin' of slavery as a chit to bargain with---which he does, in my opinion. Obama is the cheapest, lowest common denominator of   a pol I have seen since.. Romney."

    MarkL "could equally expect" Obama to claim slavery was bad, which it was. Hence I cited Secratary Condeleeza Rice because she noted that slavery was a mark on our history as a nation.

    Obama has NEVER used "casually" or "un-casually" the "original sin" of slavery. No citation, nothing for Mark L. Just his assertion that these things were facts "In my opinion."

    And Slaverty is a stain on our past as is racism, the treatment of Indians, and other stories.

    Some of you here passionately speal out against sexism. These remarks by Mark L and Jane in VA were racist from my reading, and nobody has said otherwise, they have just said, "Obama is worse."

    Obama is not an excuse for making racists comments and jokes.


    I Will Grant You (none / 0) (#151)
    by kiosan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:57:28 PM EST
    Obama's racial insensitivity alone is no just cause for racist remarks.  I do, however, maintain that Senator Obama's, within a few short weeks of a "major speech" on race relations, using an essentially ethnic war-crime as the basis of a fund-raising bon mot categorically belies setting himself up as The Post-Racial Progressive best positioned to heal our national wounds - given that the man demonstrably does not recognize wounds that are not African in origin.

    Was MarkL's "Middle Passage" reference offensive?  Yes, it was.  I imagine it was designed to be - since many would not otherwise have recognized how deeply offensive it was to make a joke of Bataan, particularly for the peculiarly Clintonian purposes of raising money.  

    An eye should not have to require an eye - in a perfect world, grace would have some standing - but sometimes the deaf notice little else.


    kiosan, we agree (none / 0) (#152)
    by dem08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:07:00 PM EST
    I hope we all learn to consider what events mean to people.

    And to be clear: Obama was wrong and I hope his campaign people collar him and tell him so. One out of every ten American soldiers perished & the suffering was WORSE for Filipino's and others.

    No suffering is a joke. I repeat, I condemn Obama's use of this analogy.


    I was actually coming back (none / 0) (#153)
    by kiosan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:18:41 PM EST
    to smack myself for my own circular reasoning, above.  I admit that the idea that any one ethnic group, regardless of any differentiating factor of color or creed, is worth inherently less than any other group offends me on the deepest level and causes me to bring emotions into the debate that I would otherwise eschew.

    I acknowledge and appreciate your condemnation of the Bataan analogy.  I suppose I simply wish it hadn't been necessary.  Few would think to make a joke out of the Holocaust, yet that is what this particular spur has become - in essentials if not in particulars.


    When... (none / 0) (#43)
    by proseandpromise on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:35:28 AM EST
    did Obama say this?  Is making unsubstantiated claims about a candidate a violation of the commenting rules?

    Yes indeed Barack said it. (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:58:40 AM EST
     Even HuffPo had it. But if this guy thinks just campaigning is a "death march," maybe he'd better re-think about actually being Prez.

    Obama Compares Election To Bataan Death March

    The Huffington Post   |   March 27, 2008 04:56 PM

    "For those of you who are just weary of the primary, and feeling kind of ground down or that it's like a Bataan death march, I just want everybody to know that the future is bright," Sen. Barack Obama told a group of fundraisers in New York on Thursday, according to a pool report.

    At a $1,000-a-plate fundraiser Thursday afternoon at the Credit Suisse ....



    Weak! (1.00 / 1) (#69)
    by tsteels2 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:19:06 AM EST
    Read the whole thing.  It's all tongue-and-cheek.  What's with the micro-parsing of candidates words?  Has 8 years of George Bush Jr. dumbed everyone down?



    Irony, thy name is Obama supporter... (5.00 / 6) (#76)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:32:00 AM EST
    What's with the micro-parsing of candidates words?

    Dunno, what's with the MLK/LBJ remark is racist, the Bill Clinton remark is McCarthy-like, the Ferraro remark is racist (when dozens of other people including Obam have said the same thing), etc, etc.?

    Live by the microparse, die by the microparse, I say.


    No, the weak died on that march (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:39:22 AM EST
    as did most of the strong too.  As a matter of history, Bataan was about as horrific as the Nazi death camps, if not as extensive.  

    But hey, if that description is just excusable political exaggeration, well, let's just treat it like that other candidate's exaggeration on Bosnia, eh? The Bataan comment can get a few day's run in the papers before the MSM picks up some other pol's exaggeration again.


    He never says... (none / 0) (#138)
    by proseandpromise on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:15:51 PM EST
    it's going on too long.  He is saying, "if this is how you feel, chin up."  This is why I ask for quotes.  People here often misrepresent the facts.

    Who would make up Bataan? And, no, (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:13:37 AM EST
    you don't have to have a link for everything you say. That would stifle discussion.

    The quote in that article... (none / 0) (#139)
    by proseandpromise on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:17:16 PM EST
    is misrepresented in the initial comment I responded to.  That is why I want quotes or references.  People in an echo-chamber get away with repeating meme's and if you want to engage, you have to know where they are coming from.

    Obama said this in a fundraiser (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:48:15 AM EST
    "For those of you who are just weary of the primary, and feeling kind of ground down or that it's like a Bataan death march, I just want everybody to know that the future is bright."

    Can find it in Halperin's The Page


    a citizen (none / 0) (#136)
    by dem08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:55:14 PM EST
    is typical of Hillary's eloquent, fair-minded, supporters. No wonder everyone loves her.

    Very snappy (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:25:20 AM EST
    - snappy, and to the point, a 'reality check' on pundits indeed!

    Anyway, my contribution:

    Dont Need Another Hero

    If we're going for the hero theme... (none / 0) (#55)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:49:48 AM EST
    a bit more recent and appealing to younger generation and definitely a great song...

    Enrique Iglesias - Hero - bonus...Jennifer Love Hewitt and by the way...she can wear a bikini any time she wants as far as I'm concerned.


    There's only ONE hero, imo ;) (none / 0) (#58)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:55:03 AM EST
    Yeah Bowie is great (none / 0) (#60)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:01:08 AM EST
    But this isn't one of his best whereas the Enrique link definitely WAS his best, and trumped all other 'Hero' themed songs that I am aware of including Mariah Carey's.

    Curiously enough, Mariah has apparently tied the Beatles in #1 albums...no easy feat but was going to happen sooner or later.


    yeah, that was a quick search one ;) (none / 0) (#64)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:12:47 AM EST
    I think the best version was when I saw him during a thunder and lighting storm. they got word they had to cut it a bit short (we already had some GREAT lighting effects that accented the songs perfectly) and he ended with it. Damn, it was rockin'. If I was on my other computer, I have a couple of great shots from that night. wild.

    Enrique is def good in that one. I had forgotten that one. There's just something about him. Always enjoy :)

    I find Mariah's fame interesting. She has a great voice, and sorta does the up and down thing, but seems to prevail.


    Wilkes Freed On Appeal (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:29:02 AM EST
    He was sentenced a month ago but given no special preference. It is just that the 9th circuit judges are 9 times as fast as the judges on the 11th circuit. Must be the weather or something...


    <groan> and Gov Siegleman had to (none / 0) (#47)
    by thereyougo on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:40:09 AM EST
    be carried of in shackles immediately!

    jeez, Garagos might be worth his fee.


    oops he got a PD for the appeal. (none / 0) (#62)
    by thereyougo on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:04:59 AM EST
    guess garagos cleaned him out!

    He kept telling the judge awhile back he neeeded more time and the judge finally told him he spread himself so thin. Garagos was chasing the kids who were mauled by the tiger  at the close of the case.

    in other times, I'd email TPM about this but no mas!


    Joe Scarborough Hearts Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by nell on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:39:30 AM EST
    Now I KNOW Joe Scarborough is a Republican who went after Bill Clinton in the worst way and cannot possibly love Hillary's policies, but he professed his love for the tough Clinton women! Given how much the media hates her, this clip really warmed my heart....

    I think I heard him say on the show awhile back that his mother (a hardcore Republican also) voted for her...sometimes mama does know best!

    SEE, she really is a uniter!!!


    I think her perserverance despite the unfair (none / 0) (#61)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:02:57 AM EST
    pile-on has gained her begrudging respect in unlikely places. Most folks have a sense of fairness and eventually it will cause them to speak up. She also gained some voters that way.

    HRC Media Position Potentially Better than BHO (none / 0) (#112)
    by pluege on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:17:38 AM EST
    this is exactly right. Its why I view HRC's media position as potentially positive, i.e., they can not smear her any lower and she may actually improve given her toughness and that reality is on her side - that she is none of the things they've been smearing and promoting hate of her for the past 15 years.

    Obama on the other hand is virgin smear material for the wingnut media. At best he can stay where he's at, but most likely will be continually smeared relentlessly downward from where he's at now.


    Obama's U of C Status Clarified? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:43:29 AM EST
    There is an internal inconsistency in the U of C statement regarding Obama's faculty status during his time teaching at the School of Law.

    The statement specifies: "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors...distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status."

    Hence Senior Lecturers are designated by that particular title, but are still included on the faculty list under the general heading of "Professors". On the other hand, Lecturers are not similarly regarded as professors and they are listed separately under the general heading of "Lecturers in Law".

    Obama, was indeed a Senior Lecturer from 1996-2004 and he would rightfully come under the heading of "Professor" for that period.

    However, Obama was a Lecturer from 1992-96, which would mean that he was neither "regarded as a professor" nor named within the faculty list of "Professors" during that time.

    Why then, does the U of C statement refer to Obama as a professor for the full duration of his teaching: "From 1992 until..2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School".

    This is only true insofar as the term professor is being used in an entirely unofficial capacity. Students may refer to all teaching personnel as professor. But clearly U of C administrators know better; they have parsed the distinction and massaged the language so that it doesn't contradict Mr. Obama's account of his time at U of C.

    It's a fine point, big enough to drive a truck through. DirectDemocracy goes at it head-on at this link: Who wrote the UofC memo and why did they use a small p. Resume padding may not be a crime, but I've seen people get fired for less.

    Just a point... (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by kredwyn on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:52:34 AM EST
    As an adjunct at a local community college (I have a PhD), I am referred to as "professor" or "Doctor."

    Were I to be on a tenure track at some place like GW, I would start out as an Assistant Professor and work my way up through the ranks. I'd get tenure just as I gained the title of Associate Professor.

    When I taught at a research I university as a full time Instructor, I was not on a tenure track...but was still referred to as "professor" though the more correct moniker would be "Doctor."

    I've noticed that some disciplines have a lot of adjunct professors and the p/t status thing isn't a stigma.

    The pain in the arse part about it is the lack of benefits, salary, and job security.


    kredwyn, follow-up re. title/rank (none / 0) (#77)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:32:28 AM EST
    Yes, the whole title/ranking protocol is one of those straight-forward things that gets more complicated in the process of explaining it. (Which doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.)

    A lot depends on the context wherein one is referred to as "professor"? As I've previously said, many students call everybody professor. The question is whether one is referred to as such in the job description, or the letter of offer, or the contract, or the faculty list at one's institution. That's when it's official.


    Heh. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:53:59 AM EST
    I surfed the U of C law school website, found the table of faculty titles, etc., and . . . well, there are much more momentous issues facing our fair land at this time.  But yeh, that U of C statement to the media was carefully parsed -- yet still messy and a  rush job, it would seem.  It's probably causing some fun among regular faculty on campus, with newly minted titles being affixed to memos and mailboxes and soon to make it into faculty meeting minutes for posterity, not that anyone else ever reads them.:-)

    not a substantive issue (none / 0) (#54)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:45:39 AM EST
    Same as the story on Tuzla...doesn't matter...let's talk about things that matter.

    EVERYONE pads their resume - I thought it was required by some unwritten rule.


    Note to white n az, (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:13:24 AM EST
    If you're ever looking for a job on the faculty of an institution of higher learning, I would suggest that you not pad your resume.

    I've been an applicant for teaching positions and I've subsequently served on search committees reviewing the applications of others. Believe me, resume padders get BUSTED and they don't get the job. Not always, but often enough.

    Plus, word gets around and it does long term damage to your professional reputation. Meaning that, down the road, people tend to not believe you even when you're telling the truth. Sorry.


    Wasn't it an odd statement (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:47:14 AM EST
    in many ways from the U of C law school?  For just one point, considering that it came from some lawyers, there was the statement that Obama was offered a tenure-track position several times.

    Whoops, that's not how to abide by federal law in hiring; U of C must be lacking in labor lawyers on its faculty.  Any regular position (not a finite term position like Obama's) has to be advertised to ensure that it is open to all, for starters, and other legalities have to be upheld in every step of the hiring process.  

    I wondered if that might have red-flagged U of C with the feds for closer scrutiny of its hiring.  Ouch.  (I've seen what happens when the DoJ comes down on a campus, and it can tie up regular hires for years to come.)


    Professor Obama (none / 0) (#115)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:54:34 AM EST
    The letter says that our hero was offered a 'tenure-track position,' so by definition he was not offered a full professorship.  Somebody get out the time machine: We know by the record that BO does not like to climb the ladder the hard way, so an assistant professorship would not have been attractive.  Just think--if the university had made an offer of full professorship, we might have been spared this march (and who recalls the march results: years of privation and agony?).  How long, O Lord?

    what has he published in his (none / 0) (#145)
    by english teacher on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:16:30 PM EST
    area?  did he write important articles on constitutional law?  did he publish a peer reviewed book on the subject? what high profile or important cases has he argued that would waive the scholarship requirements to which all other candidates would be held?  this is bogus.  apparently u of c wanted to just give a job to a guy who hadn't even begun the work that would be required of any other applicant.  what a crock.

    yeah but this is politics (none / 0) (#74)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:27:21 AM EST
    and we expect them to lie.

    We expect them to tell us that they are going to solve all our problems.

    We expect them to tell us - no new taxes (ignore my lips)

    I remember hearing a 'compassionate conservative' telling us that he won't engage in nation building and here we are 7 1/4 years later and nation building has cost $ 500,000,000+, 4,000 US military and he's wavering between 28-33% favorable.

    In honor of the theme...Fleetwood Mac


    President is a JOB in politics (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:52:16 AM EST
    To white n az, "this is politics" as you say. But let's not forget, we are talking about a JOB in politics; the most important job in the world.

    People with extensive job experience don't need to pad their resumes. I've seen average academics, ten years into their careers, who have resumes that are 15-20 pages long.

    After awhile, highly qualified people get to a point where they actually take things out of their resumes (sometimes LOTS of things), for the sake of brevity and the cost of postage.


    Have you seen those c.v. lines like (none / 0) (#85)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:57:45 AM EST
    "Selected Publications" -- and even then, the list goes on for pages and pages?!  Then you turn the page to "Selected Awards" and see another list that is abbreviated but still a mile long. . . .

    I suspect those are the scholars who don't spend time on blogs, since we can't footnote here.  With that thought, I'm signing off to go get some "real" writing done.:-)


    Obama was NOT a professor (none / 0) (#120)
    by Josey on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:10:42 AM EST
    Lynn Sweet - Chicago SunTimes -

    >>>The University of Chicago did Obama no favor by saying he was a law professor when he wasn't. This parsing is not necessary.


    Peter Daou's (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:51:47 AM EST
    very sharp!! Excellent.

    Should read what Rendell said to Larry King about
    Obama's phone call to him.

    Was that a threat? It's outrageous...

    This (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by nell on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:17:19 AM EST
    PISSED me off. THIS CONTEST IS NOT OVER BARACK OBAMA, and the second he tries to make it over, the second he counts her out like this, is when voters will rush to bring her back....

    Stuff like this is what makes it tough to back him in the general. He is so arrogant, "You know I am going to be the nominee." Not if I have anything to do with it.


    Ouch! That was an exchange loaded (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:24:29 AM EST
    with innuendos. Just what did BO mean by nothing better happen in PA that would stop "us" from winning in Nov?

    Like (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by nell on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:25:47 AM EST
    you better not help her beat me? What? Better not make the margin too big? I don't know...I have no idea, but I do not like the "tone" of this at all...

    It REALLY rubs me the wrong way...what arrogance

    Props to Rendell for talking about it...


    Thanks Andy... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:30:50 AM EST
    I might have missed that report as it probably won't show up too many places before its quickly buried. Now I see the jigsaw puzzle of Obama's character a little more filled out.

    I'm pissed too, and I'm not impressed with the very strong pro-life Bob Casey either, his wikipedia entry has listed that he has always been a strong supporter of reversing Roe vs Wade, and voted for Roberts.

    Hmmm....I never liked Teddy Kennedy either, talking about "polarising" figures with high negatives <grin>, playing on 'name recognition' etc. And I find it interesting that the younger Kennedy's, like Bobby Jnr, support Hillary.


    I think he indeed wanted to (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:59:27 AM EST
    vote for Roberts but that at the end his Pete Rouse his shief of staff convinced him that it was politically better for his "future"  to vote against Roberts b/c otherwise his vote would be brought up in the race. Take a look at this story from the WasPo:
    The Outsider's Insider
    about this.

    correction (none / 0) (#94)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:00:11 AM EST
    "chief of staff"

    casey is a DINO (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:07:27 AM EST
    if Casey could have beaten Santorum in a primary he would be the (R) Junior Senator from Penn and not the (D).

    But that is what the neo-progs want--electability over core belief in the Democrat platform.


    oh and that is why the Dem majority (none / 0) (#96)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:11:58 AM EST
    is meaningless.  The dipsh*s that keep the Dem majority from mattering are the dipsh*S that were electable.  Casey, Webb, Salazar, McCaskill.  Same in the house.  But Kos and cronies can solace themselves with the fact that D's got elected regardless of the fact that the D's they are helping to elect are more conservative than the D's they diss (Liebermann).

    Funny because (none / 0) (#126)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:41:35 AM EST
    Obama chose Lieberman as his (official) mentor when he arrived in the Senate
    (the new Senators must choose a mentor). Go figure...

    Obama and Farrakhan... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:08:28 AM EST
    Does anyone have a direct quote of Obama denouncing Farrakhan? I've been looking through his past comments on Farrakhan today and I've found that he always chooses his words very carefully and says that he denounces / rejects Farrakhan's anti-sematic comments, (similar to the way he dealt with Wright) but I can't find a case where he has just generally denounced Farrakhan. I know it seemed like he was saying that he rejected Farrakhan in the last debate, but if you listen closely to it, he said he rejected his comments and not his support.  I think this important because Farrakhan has done alot of horribly racist things well beyond his anti-sematic statements and the organization he heads, Nation of Islam, is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    Who gets "invited to join" a job? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:15:11 AM EST
    To Cream City upstream, yeah the U of C statement was something else. It appears that tortured, legalistic reasoning often demands simplistic but convoluted prose.

    Like you, I find this statement from U of C both revealing and confusing: "Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined." (emphasis added). To me, that is pure gild on the lily.

    In my experience, institutions of higher learning don't just "invite" their teaching personnel to "join" the faculty, in any capacity. An administrative official doesn't single-handedly appoint somebody, especially to a "tenure-track position". There is typically some form of application process, i.e. one might be invited to apply to join the faculty, whereupon one's application comes into the hands of a search committee, inclusive of several faculty members.

    I know of exceptions; such as a so-called "Target of Opportunity"; an affirmative-action related instance, whereby administrative officials have specific funds, and the authority, to more-or-less appoint a particularly gifted individual without undergoing the typical, drawn-out, search committee hiring process.  

    *Irrespective of the application process, under certain extraordinary circumstances, an institution has the discretion to alter the terms of a tenure-track position. For instance, an individual who has several previous years of outstanding teaching, research, and service can be 'hired with tenure'.

    *Interesting, that U of C, evidently, didn't make that proposition to Obama.

    Ah, yes, there are those target hires (none / 0) (#121)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:20:09 AM EST
    -- but even then, we can short-circuit some of our circuitous departmental, college, campus, and system processes . . . but we still can't fully end-around the feds' requirements for a lot of vetting and paperwork in the hiring process to justify all that short-circuiting.

    Plus, I wonder whether Obama, with some of his statements, really would want to be an "affirmative action hire"?  Justifiable as such positions are to rectify problems created by campuses in the past, it can be problematic for superlative hires to have to be seen as such -- and perhaps especially for one who sees himself as part of a "post-racial" world.


    I think the "invited to joint" (none / 0) (#124)
    by kayla on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:29:07 AM EST
    When I first read the "invited to join" line I thought of this speech I saw Michelle making on the stomp on CSPAN a couple weeks ago.  She basically said that Barack is extremely qualified for great jobs and could have been a millionaire, but always rejected those opportunities to be a community organizer.

    That line seemed like it was feeding into that idea.  


    I want to add (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by kayla on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:38:48 AM EST
    That the idea that Obama is incredibly talented, but just doesn't want to show it by slowly climbing up the ladder and that he could have been a professor if he wasn't so darn humble and selfless, is in my opinion, bs and is certainly a way to minimize Hillary's accomplishments.

    (I don't mind that he calls himself a professor, by the way, especially if he has University backing.)


    Has it crossed anybody else's mind (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:39:55 AM EST
    The pressure being put on Clinton to suspend was not delivered after the last primary vote.

    It has been delivered after a certain story about Obama has threatened his campaign.

    Timing is funny there, I think, anyway.

    yes, larry king (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by english teacher on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:34:47 AM EST
    had a roundtable with stephanie miller and ed schultz calling for clinton to step aside.  and i'm thinking to myself, didn't clinton just win texas and ohio?  the clinton case was capably made by two congress critters whose names escape me. miller and schultz came off as sad little concern trolls.    

    I'm not sure there's an objective (none / 0) (#108)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:00:05 AM EST
    talking head left.

    If anyone does an analysis on whether the unruly discussion on lefty blogs has turned into uniform astroturfed talking points, please post a link here.

    I feel like that Tick quote:

    You're not going crazy! You're going sane in a crazy world!

    The last time I felt this way was 2002, the run up to the Iraq War.   Right down to the cries of "Treason!" and possibly "Giving aid and comfort to the enemy."(re: McCain).


    You've got it Edgar08 (none / 0) (#127)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:50:00 AM EST
    Ottawa Star, 3/28/08 (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by magisterludi on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:38:48 AM EST
    I'm too stupid to link right now.

    Anyway, the story is about Gene Sperling getting really grilled by border security when he arrived. Pretty tame stuff.

    At the end of the article, though, it quotes Sperling as telling the Canadians that Clinton is determined to open up NAFTA for reform and if that doesn't work, she's willing to SCRAP it. Pretty dingdang emphatic. I don't think I've heard her say that on the trail, but if Sperling is telling this openly to our northern neighbors it must not be empty rhetoric.

    Music to the ears of PA voters.

    Obama Promises Republican Foreign Policy??? (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by jginnane on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:10:18 AM EST
    By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer Fri Mar 28, 11:41 PM ET

    GREENSBURG, Pa. - Sen. Barack Obama said Friday he would return the country to the more "traditional" foreign policy efforts of past presidents, such as George H.W. Bush, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

    Amazing guy.  Way to go.  Obama just insulted every living Democratic President.  For what?  The Bay of Pigs, Grenada, Iran contra, and a half-ass job in Iraq?

    Could it be Obama is getting bored and has decided to throw the primary race?

    praise for Republicans - again! (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by noholib on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:21:32 AM EST
    I don't think he's trying to throw the election,
    but he sure is trying to throw former Democratic leaders under the bus ... He can't possibly let his supporters know that there was a two-term Democratic President and Administration in the 1990s that--despite its failings--actually accomplished a few good things for this country.  To state but three, (1) an administration that rebuilt FEMA so that it could actually respond to disasters; can you imagine a Clinto-led FEMA letting New Orleans be destroyed?; (2) an administration that balanced the federal budget; (3) an administration that worked with allies overseas, e.g. on Bosnia, and was respected around the world -- even more so than at home.  But in Senator Obama's history book, there was only one good Democratic President in the late 20th century-- JFK -- and his followers are happy to make the comparison.  Johnson, Carter, Clinton--they really aren't worth a mention, are they?

    That is a very interesting article. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:13:29 AM EST
    Obama Aligns Foreign Policy With GOP

    Further down it says:

    "The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan, and it is George Bush that's been naive and it's people like John McCain and, unfortunately, some Democrats that have facilitated him acting in these naive ways that have caused us so much damage in our reputation around the world," he said.

    So in case it wasn't clear before, "I am Barack Obama and I am running against my own party."  Chuck Hagel (yay) = Good, Hillary (yay) = Bad.  


    Ha ha...by which I mean... 'YEA' n/t (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:14:10 AM EST
    This is (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by Andy08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:59:08 AM EST
    unbelievable; I have never heard Obama publicly say anything good about Clinton's presidency, or Carter's... But he always has some admiring lines about Rep. presidencies (nothing wrong with it; but astonishing that it is only for the Reps.) Is he making the case to vote for McCain in the GE ?

    We are woting both for Heelahree (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Mary Mary on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:33:34 AM EST
    That's the new catchphrase in my house - what some guy with a heavy Eastern European accent told my husband last night when he was phone banking for the Clinton campaign here in PA.

    BTW, the responses were 3:1 voting for Clinton.

    Also. He noted the need for Spanish speakers - so those of you who do might consider making some calls for Hillary.

    Mary Chapin Carpenter (none / 0) (#1)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:10:45 PM EST
    is my go-to on many a hard night as well as a good one, so thanks for this one, Jeralyn.

    Have you ever heard her song "Heroes and Heroines"?  It's a wonderful lesson in women's history.  It's hard to find, but I recommend it . . . and thanks to your good thoughts here, I'm going to go play it now.

    What ever happened to Kathy??? she used (none / 0) (#3)
    by athyrio on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:16:59 PM EST
    to post on here alot and has been amoungst the missing lately...Anyone know where she is??

    I think I saw her on that Feingold thread. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:28:10 PM EST
    Same question.... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:19:13 AM EST
    I don't know....about Kathy (none / 0) (#5)
    by thereyougo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:23:34 PM EST
    just want to shout some girl encouragement to Hillary. Hang on!~ they didn't call Bill Clinton the comeback kid for nothin'

    it reminds me of the last primary when Obama folks blanketed Ohio with signs in one neighborhood. He won sign contest that night ! Same thing in blogosphere, there are more Obamas people online and if there was a contest, he'd win it.  But its not the real world. ;-)


    I remember all the breathless reporting (none / 0) (#7)
    by ChrisO on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:27:28 PM EST
    about his huge rallies in California, too.

    A good narrative from Newsweek... (none / 0) (#10)
    by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:31:49 PM EST
    They just had up a headline - On the economy, McCain is more of the same.  If that idea sinks in for people, it will be great for Hillary or Obama in Nov.

    Yes. We'll have the economy, Iraq, tax cuts (none / 0) (#13)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:41:43 PM EST
    for the rich and the whole Bush fiasco to use. Just hope we can get tv time.

    Love the videos! (none / 0) (#37)
    by jen on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:32:15 AM EST
    Nice way to end the week! Thank you, Jeralyn!

    Since it's an open thread, thought I'd share one of my current favs, Iris Dement, singing "Let The Mystery Be" -- just for the joy of it

    A great version exists with David Byrne and Natalie Merchant, but haven't found it on YouTube.

    Nice vids... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kredwyn on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:42:58 AM EST

    does anyone know (none / 0) (#51)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:43:29 AM EST
    Was that Chris Hillman playing bass?

    and wasn't that the sportscaster Steve ... sitting in the wing?

    i think it was (none / 0) (#75)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:30:30 AM EST
    with Dave Barry on rhythm guitar

    And G.E Smith on lead guitar (none / 0) (#89)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:33:19 AM EST
    playing the black and white Tele.

    I loved how they used to call him (none / 0) (#84)
    by thereyougo on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:55:12 AM EST
    Camelot. Ha!

    He got that from one of the JFK speech writers they hired. They did spend big.

    Maybe it was Oprah seed money that got him going.

    I didn't think After GWB we'd have another one so soon!

    Leahy Urges Democrats ... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:23:28 AM EST
    to lose in November.  

    Well ... that's how I heard his comments.

    many years ago, when i was (none / 0) (#106)
    by cpinva on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:32:23 AM EST
    but a young sprout accountant, i audited my very first bank. on the surface, this financial institution appeared rock solid, a billion in assets. on the surface.

    as it turned out, 95% of those assets consisted of loans receivable, not tangible assets (land, bldgs, cash, investments, etc.). as well, it turned out that a fair chunk of those loans receivable were "non-performing". that is, payments were not being received from the borrowers. if this status is maintained long enough, they are written off as worthless.

    put a whole new perspective on that wonderful looking balance sheet.

    this is the analogy i would draw to sen. obama's current position: looks great, less filling.

    his wins have been, for the most part, in states that most likely won't vote democrat in the fall. many of those wins are also in caucus states, not done in the GE. his popular vote margin is 80% or so from IL, his home state. he has failed to capture the hearts of the core democrats, relying on "dem's for a day" and newly minted voters.

    on the surface, he's a killer. when his wins are picked apart, for content, not so much.

    if you think about it, this is consistent with his entire campaign: not much there, supported by hollow victories.

    the real campaign (the GE) hasn't even started yet, he will be raped and pillaged by the republican/right-wingnut smear machine in a manner that will make sen. clinton look like sen. pattycake.

    Matt Taibbi (none / 0) (#109)
    by Mary Mary on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:45:00 AM EST
    makes me laugh. And cry.

    Swing states first? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:42:46 AM EST
    Can someone point me to a link with the data I need?

    With all this talk of electability and November, I'm thinking that for best electoral results that swing states should primary first.

    That led to the question:
    What would this season's primary results look like if you ordered the primaries by putting the states with the closest elections first - probably by taking the last four presidential elections - 2 D, 2 R and averaging the numbers.  Naturally, the most lopsided states would vote last.

    So where do I find the primary/caucus results for this round AND the vote totals for the last four presidential elections?  

    I am NOT a wonk.  If I am duplicating work that has already been done(surely someone has thought of this already!) please point me towards that as well.

    Hope this helps? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Radix on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:59:26 AM EST
    Link(s)? (none / 0) (#131)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:08:28 AM EST
    I did find some good links.  I'm decent with searches.  The missing data is state by state totals for 1992/6, 2000/4.

    battleground states - 2000 edition

    2000 - by state (but only 2000)

    Still looking for state by state totals of the popular vote for presidential elections.


    Didn't work (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Radix on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:00:08 AM EST

    Got that one (none / 0) (#132)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:10:52 AM EST
    The state by state data doesn't include the popular votes though.

    It's easy enough to find data for 2000 forward but before that is harder.


    Must vote Dem (none / 0) (#133)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:17:26 AM EST
    Here is some interesting information for anyone e=ven thinking about not supporting the Dem nominee...

    Let's talk..1940 to 2008 Link
    POTUS - Federal Outlays (FO) vs Revenues (REV)

    Franklin D Roosevelt 1933-1945 (Dem) More FO (due to war debt)
    Harry S Truman 1945-1953 (Dem) Close to Balanced
    Dwight D Eisenhower 1953-1961 (Rep) Close to Balanced
    John F Kennedy 1961-1963 (Dem) Close to Balanced
    Lyndon B Johnson 1963-1969 (Dem) Close to Balanced
    Richard M Nixon 1969-1974 (Rep) Close to Balanced
    Gerald R Ford 1974-1977 (Rep) Begins more FO than REV
    James E Carter 1977-1981 (Dem) Continues more FO than REV
    Ronald W Reagan 1981-1989 (Rep) Wide range in FO over REV
    George H W Bush 1989-1993 (Rep) Wide range in FO over REV
    William J Clinton 1993-2001(Dem) Wide range in Rev over FO
    George W Bush 2001-2009 (Rep) Wide range in FO over REV
    How would it be if ...
    John McCain  Wide range in FO over REV

    Dem.... ? Can we get back "Close to Balanced"?

    We have a better chance with a Dem!! GET out of Iraq.

    The link above will also let you know how much of our/your tax money is going for the Irag War.

    But... (none / 0) (#140)
    by proseandpromise on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:19:18 PM EST
    he isn't in debt, hasn't had people resign for incompetence, and most importantly, he is winning against the "inevitable" candidate.  He has made HUGE strides across the nation.  I don't dismiss Hillary.  Why do you dismiss Barack?

    Let me coutn the ways... (none / 0) (#143)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 03:51:35 PM EST
    He is a lightweight. His record is flimsy and thin. He takes credit for legislation he didn't work on and didn't even get passed. He made sure there was no paper trail for his years in the IL senate.

    He has run for the next higher office every two or three years for the past twelve. He's been so busy campaigning for president he can't do his job in the Senate. He's flighty - not a policy wonk or a workhorse.

    He gives nice speeches using recycled words. He even uses recycled campaign slogans. He copies other candidates' policies blatantly. He does not see the obvious - that UHC without mandates is imossible.

    "Hope and unity" is not a policy. It's fluff. He's the fluffy candidate, there's nothing solid there.  He can't even unite his own party. He's a blank slate upon which he lets people project what they want to see.

    He can't make a case for himself without trashing the only two-term Dem president since WWII. He praises Republicans and wants to have a Republican foreign policy. He wants to put Republicans on his cabinet.

    He's not trustworthy as a Democrat - he's never said the important thing is to have a Democrat in the WH. He implies that his followers will not vote for Clinton. He wants to win with Republican and Indie votes instead of the Democratic base.

    He says one thing and does another. He lets his surrogates do all his dirty work for him. He has extremely questionable judgment in choosing who associates with and who advises him. His only claim to superior judgment is an anti-war speech he gave at an anti-war rally six years ago.

    Want more?


    About 2/3 of that list... (none / 0) (#144)
    by proseandpromise on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:07:46 PM EST
    can be applied to Hillary.  But I don't want to argue with you.  If you can't respect Obama for the solid candidate he is, it just means the kitchen sink did it's job.  Right above me you see the politics of personal destruction at work.  Very nice.

    I had the same opinion of Obama (none / 0) (#155)
    by echinopsia on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:29:20 PM EST
    Long before the alleged "kitchen sink."

    And no, 2/3 of the above cannot be said about Hillary:

    She is not a lightweight. She has an actual record in the Senate as a hard worker.

    She doesn't run for a higher office every 2-3 years.

    She doesn't think UHC without mandates will work.

    He said himself he was a blank slate. With Hillary you know where she stands. Like it or not.

    Hillary does not trash the only two-term Dem president since WWII, nor does she always praise Republicans. She is running as a Dem and has greater Dem support.

    Hillary always says the important thing is to have a Dem in the WH.

    As for politics of personal destruction, all I've done is point out what his own words and his own record show about him. It's not personal - that would be calling him a liar who will do anything to get elected. That's what he says about Hillary - he points to "character" because he can't fault her experience and record.


    You have to already think... (none / 0) (#156)
    by proseandpromise on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:05:01 PM EST
    lowly of Sen. Obama to represent and interpret him in the way you did.  If you think lowly of Sen. Clinton than you could make the same conclusions about her.

    For instance, instead of talking about UHC we could talk about Iraq and make all kinds of accusations about that and Iran.  Instead of "running every two years" you could talk about her becoming senator in New York w/ presidency in mind.  None of these are fair arguments.  Most of yours weren't either.

    Mostly, those are the kinds of arguments that ring loudly in an echo chamber and only find a welcome home in already friendly ears.  

    I just don't think that that is positive at all.