home

Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:20:22 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The comments are getting really off-topic to our posts. We can only accommodate 200 or so comments per thread because of our fixed width (which I happen to like and am not changing) so in order for everyone to get a say on the topic of the post, off-topic comments are deleted. If you want to pick the topic, please do it in an open thread.

Like this one.

< Texas Dirty Tricks Update | Obama "Decries" Samantha Power's "Hillary is a Monster" Comment >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Open Thread | 182 comments (182 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Clinton's Campaigning for McCain (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by AdrianLesher on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:06:49 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton campaigning for Mccain:

    "I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

    "I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.

    Mark Penn is McCain chief advisor Charles Black's boss. Maybe this has something to do with this treasonous sabotage of the Democratic party.

    Please explain how Hillary claiming her (none / 0) (#34)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:13:22 PM EST
    commander-in-chief creds are as good as McCain's is somehow a "treasonous sabotage of the Democratic party"?  

    [ Parent ]
    I would call it treasonous (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:24:39 PM EST
    I do call it foolish.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:54:47 PM EST
    ...not treasonous, but I'd like to hear how it could possibly good for the party to build up the credentials of the Republicans.

    You want to contract your foriegn policy experience? Fine.  Just don't bring the opposition into it and hold them up as a role model.  Not. too. smart.

    [ Parent ]

    Olbermann's spin ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:34:57 PM EST
    tonight was essentially the same, adding that she's like Lieberman.

    Zzzzz ....

    KO should just put on an Obama button during the show.

    [ Parent ]

    Here's a hoot (none / 0) (#165)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:34:16 AM EST
    from James Wolcott's blog about the Nasty Boys Club over at MSNBC:

    MSNBC is indeed the home of thwarted hopes tonight as Clinton's Ohio victory ensures another leg of battle. Their Decision '08 headquarters is a brightly lit study in dyspepsia. Chris Matthews, sitting with his arms irritably crossed, and Keith Olbermann look like the gold and silver medal winners in a lemon-sucking contest, with the Newsweek's dependable Howard Fineman settling for the bronze. Only Tom Brokaw, his wry Olympian perspective still intact from his distinguished tenure in the anchor chair of NBC News, seems willing to let this contest unfold at its own pace and drama until the final shot lands in the cup. I agree with Tom Watson that a Democratic duel that goes all the way to the convention is a healthy devcelopment, not a death march.

    [ Parent ]

    That was bad (none / 0) (#64)
    by catfish on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:38:19 PM EST
    I mean, even though he praised Ronald Reagan and said all the good ideas for the last 15 years were from Republicans, it doesn't mean she should give it back to him.

    [ Parent ]
    Ummm (none / 0) (#126)
    by BethanyAnne on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:58:46 AM EST
    he said all the good ideas?

    That an exact quote?

    [ Parent ]

    Of course he didn't (none / 0) (#147)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:33:48 AM EST
    That's just the dishonest spin put on it by the Clinton campaign.  You can rely on the comments section here to have some posters copying and pasting Mark Penn's spin whole cloth.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, please! (none / 0) (#155)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:32:41 AM EST
    Obama was doing a CYA when he denied he meant "good" ideas

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not buying that. (none / 0) (#158)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:41:11 AM EST
    He was referencing that Reagan managed to sell his ideas and bring in working majorities so he could get them implemented.  

    It's all very well Hillary operating a 50% +1 strategy based on focussing on about 10 states,  but that is not going to help expand Democratic majorities in either house,  nor will it help get any of the Democratic agenda actually done.

    [ Parent ]

    Tell me where he is crediting Democratic ideas? (none / 0) (#173)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:20:14 AM EST
    The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last  10, 15 years...


    [ Parent ]
    He is crediting the fact that the Republicans (none / 0) (#175)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:47:00 AM EST
    managed to seize control of congress for most of that period and that they controlled the debate.

    The idea that he was a community organiser in Chicago and then a Democratic State Senator over that period and sitting there thinking,  "look at all those great ideas the Republicans are having" is daft.  

    He was admiring the political reality of how the Republicans managed to brand themselves and were successful electorally.

    [ Parent ]

    I will admit (none / 0) (#70)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:46:41 PM EST
    that I don't like the way Hillary phrased that, but I read it as a response to the constant drumbeat from the Obama campaign (what Obama supporters would refer to as "smears") that Hillary will lose to McCain in the GE. It was clearer the first time she said it, but her point is that Obama will be at a disadvantage to McCain when it comes to CIC questions. And looking at the number of generals who have endorsed Hillary, including former Joint Chiefs chairman Shelton, I think she has a point.

    And to reiterate a question I have asked before, does anyone have any examples where primary comments were used to any great extent in the GE? Candidates run against each other in every primary. Now Obama supporters want us to believe that Hillary not only shouldn't say anything bad about Obama, she should acutally drop out of the race so McCain won't be given any ammunition.

    Considering that he currently has a lead of one-half of one percent of elected delegates, Obama's demands that Hillary drop out sound like they come from someone who is used to having stuff handed to him. I apologize in advance if McCain uses my comments against Obama in the GE.

    [ Parent ]

    She could make the same point (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by fuzzyone on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:19:01 PM EST
    without kissing McCain.  She could say that she is the democratic candidate with the experience to be commander in chief without praising McCain.  McCain is the guy who wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years.  Saying that McCain is more fit to be Commander in Chief than Obama is like her endorsing him if she loses the primary.  She is basically saying I don't care if the democrats win if I don't.  Its disgusting.  I always leaned toward Obama but felt that I could easily support either one but this has really got me pissed.  No I'll still vote for her if she is the nominee, I'm not one of those I'll take my toys and go home idiot.

    [ Parent ]
    Agree (none / 0) (#156)
    by 0 politico on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:36:02 AM EST
    I have to agree with this.  If McCain is to be the other party's nominee, you have to adress some benchmark questions.  I would have liked the comments to be more derrogatory of McCain's abilities, but the general point is valid.  This will be a weakness for BO in the general election.  He won't be able to use his 2002 speech as a shield for very long in the GE campaign.  The sooner his campaign and supporters get over that, and start toughening up the candidate (if he is to be the party choice), the better for Dems in general.  And the flag officers who are supporting HC in this area should not be taken lightly.

    [ Parent ]
    Please (none / 0) (#130)
    by facta non verba on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:28:49 AM EST
    she is trying to tell you that now that McCain is the GOP standard bearer, she matches up against him on national security and on experience. Obama does not.

    Obama will talk to Hugo Chavez without preconditions. Chavez just mobilized his forces over a dispute that has nothing to do him. And Obama will talk to him. Please Obama has many qualifications but national security and foreign policy is not one of them.

    [ Parent ]

    God forbid the next President be more open to (none / 0) (#148)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:38:40 AM EST
    talking to foreign leaders who are not friendly to the US.  

    We all know how well that policy has worked out for the last 8 years,  it's a shame that Hillary is closer to McCain on this than to Obama and what I would imagine is the more Democratic party position.  Hillary's rhetoric on this is pure DLC/Lieberman type positioning and if you were being honest and were not a Hillary partisan I wouldn't be surprised if your own position was closer to Obamas.

    [ Parent ]

    Campaign finances... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Oje on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:10:16 PM EST
    At fec.gov, despite his massive haul in February, Obama only has $25MM on-hand. I am not sure this has been buried under the headlines, but Clinton has $29MM on hand.

    At some point, the press has to begin discussing Obama's burn rate. He essentially needs to outspend Clinton 3-1 or 4-1 to turnaround his campaign at this point (as he did in Wisconsin). Otherwise, Obama will lose the entire rust belt corridor (2-1 could not buy him Ohio or Texas).

    The candidate of hope and change looks like just another political candidate who needs to outspend his opponent in order to overcome a gap in policies, experience, and credibility. And, once again, the "new politics" looks an awful lot like the "old politics" of (Republican's) yesteryear.

    Those numbers are only through ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:21:08 PM EST
    the end of January.

    It says that at the bottom corner of the page.

    I guess we won't know the burn rate for February till the end of this month.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for the correction... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Oje on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:00:47 PM EST
    Some posters should probably rate this down.

    My interest in heading to the site (for the first time obviously) was due to Obama reportedly outspending Clinton. I will be interested to see the end of February numbers.

    [ Parent ]

    Also $20 million + of that CoH figure for Hillary (none / 0) (#149)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:40:40 AM EST
    is earmarked for the GE only.  i.e. She can't spend it unless she wins the primary.

    [ Parent ]
    well, whod'a thunk? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:21:13 PM EST
    Net receipts:

    Clinton: $138,048,904
    Obama: $140,576,909

    Net distribution:

    Clinton:$108,862,563
    Obama:$115,636,749   

    [ Parent ]

    Flawed analysis (none / 0) (#63)
    by muffie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:37:56 PM EST
    As as been pointed out above, those are the January numbers.

    Also, $21 million of Hillary's funds are earmarked only for the general, as opposed to $6 million of Obama's.  You also neglect Hillary's $7 million of debt, including her personal loan.  Even ignoring the debt (which can be paid off later), you wind up with $19 million to $8 million.  Including it, you get $19 million to $1 million, which is presumably what's allowed Obama to outspend her.

    On the hand, she's had a lot of success recently at raising money online -- presumably most of it for the primary.  She should have no problem raising enough cash to be competitive.  Obviously, Obama's money edge didn't help him enough to win OH or TX.

    [ Parent ]

    I heard (none / 0) (#132)
    by facta non verba on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:32:30 AM EST
    that Obama outspent Clinton two to one in Ohio and Texas. Any confirmation of this?

    [ Parent ]
    Oops, I assumed that was an update... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Oje on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:54:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    wow interesting news there. (none / 0) (#138)
    by thereyougo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:04:41 AM EST
    I have said it often. I don't believe the fundraising is ALL from the little guy.

    The manner its being spent, I don't doubt he's burning it like wildfire. Bussing people and providing lodging for his 'volunteers' can get costly, I imagine.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton went after high dollar donors aggressively (none / 0) (#160)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:18:24 AM EST
    early on and they were asking them to max out for both Primary AND General election contributions.  Hence in the early fundraising significant portions of her fundraising were useless for the primary campaign,  while 99% of Obama's was usable in the Primary.  Hence Hillary having $20million + in the bank that she cannot touch.  Even in the $35 million total for February I believe about $3million is General Election only,  whereas Obama's $55 million contains only $1 million in funds reserved for the GE.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:18:06 PM EST
    rolling on the floor laughing about DailyKos claiming that the Clinton campaign make Obama look blacker!  Isn't that what these people love about him--he's black?

    On SNL the actor who portrayed Obama was white and the Obamabots raised a stink over that.

    Too funny.

    When Obama doesn't have that (none / 0) (#42)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:24:19 PM EST
    radiant light from above shinning on him - he does look blacker

    [ Parent ]
    You're kidding me! (none / 0) (#133)
    by facta non verba on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:35:11 AM EST
    I don't read the DailyKos but surely they have better things to discuss.

    I do think that when all is said and done. The SNL skits, her appearance, her appearance on The Daily Show, will be seen as the turning point in the campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    They have certainly helped her with the media (none / 0) (#162)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:20:43 AM EST
    Whether they are looked back on as the turning point will really depend on whether she goes on to win the nomination.  I still don't see it.  Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that there are a number of other contests still to come other than Pennsylvania,  and Obama seems to be heavily favoured in many of those.

    Also,  the final certified delegate totals from California narrowed Clinton's lead there by 7 or 8 delegates in total,  wiping out any gains on March 4th.

    [ Parent ]

    kossacks are an interesting bunch. (none / 0) (#139)
    by thereyougo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:06:03 AM EST
    but their imaginations run amok sometimes.

    [ Parent ]
    for so long (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Miss Devore on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:20:41 AM EST
    I have listened to "lefty" blogs and when some commenter would occasionally chime in "you don't sound any different than Redstate!" that was a call to arms.

    but the fact that this "lefty" blog completely ignored Hillary's high praise of McCain today, tells  me that bias  is the new black.

    What I heard (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by BethanyAnne on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:08:58 AM EST
    I can look for links if necessary, was that the audience here seems to overwhelmingly think that it was no big deal.  Just politics, and someone honestly campaigning against their rival.

    [ Parent ]
    And if the shoe was on the other foot (none / 0) (#163)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:23:57 AM EST
    the threads would be ablaze with outrage at Obama being a closet republican and being disloyal to the Democratic party.

    Let's have a little intellectual honesty.


    [ Parent ]

    Comments on it in several threads (none / 0) (#121)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:26:13 AM EST
    today and, as I recall, yesterday as well. Be cool.

    [ Parent ]
    So (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by BethanyAnne on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:27:33 AM EST
    I don't really know how to say this without being rated as a troll.  Hmm.  I don't want to be mean, and I really don't want to be incendiary.  But it does look to me like y'all really really think that Obama is some sort of awful person.  Just truly vile.

    And I don't get it.

    I do like him.  I like what he has achieved legislatively and in his campaign.  I love that he is growing the left side of the aisle.  Bringing in folk who don't agree with me on all things.

    But I hear over and over again that the Left is a big circular firing squad, shooting each other for not being pure enough.  And I strongly feel that is going on here with folk calling him a Republican, or Republican lite.  And I do also see it on the orange site, too.  Running Hillary folk out of town. crosses eyes

    And I get too hot, myself.  I dislike hearing him called a hypocrite (or some variant thereof) for not being perfect.  I know he and his supporters fall short.  But many of us are trying to aim higher.  And he has passed up several opportunities to be nasty, and been a bigger person. But it feels like those are never noticed here.  Only any data that confirms that he's an awful Republican seems to filter through.

    And, I don't know if I can say this clearly, but I'm going to try.  I have heard many times a truly awful right wing type say to a fellow Leftie.  "You dislike <insert stereotype here>.  That makes you the same as us that you call <insert accurate synonym for bigot>."

    And so, when Obama or his surrogates starts bringing up things about Hillary, there is this weird feeling of deja vu.  "Ha, ha! SEE!! Obama is the same as any other politician! NEGATIVE!  Ha, ha!"

    And no, he isn't.  He is trying to be more negative now.  Yeps, that's what's going on.  And he's not doing it particularly well.  It's not his strength, and it's not his instinct.

    He is a politician, and he is trying to win.  Frankly, I don't think that this will work well for him. I do trust his judgement and his temperament.  But I keep hearing a cycle between "He isn't perfect, therefore he is awful" and "He's a hypocrite" in the comments.  And really, I just don't get it. I think he's inspiring, and he makes me feel good about America.  And I don't do that often during these dark days. And if we are going to grow the party, we need allies.  Folk that don't agree with us all the way, but that will help lots of the time.

    I don't know that I have a point, I guess.  I just wish that things would be a little calmer and more reasonable.  I wish that folk that I like would at least play nicer sometimes.

    Be well, I'm off to Azeroth for the remainder of the evening :-)
    Bethany

    Bill Bradley, who has endorsed (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:31:48 PM EST
    Obama, stated the donors to Bill Clinton's presidential library must be identified in conjunction with HRC's bid for Dem. nominee for President.  I don't agree.  Any comments?

    Bill Bradley (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:48:28 PM EST
    is as responsible for the last 7 years as Ralph Nader.  This is the guy who blamed Al Gore for the Willie Horton smear, and the press cheered him on all the way.  I can't stand him.

    [ Parent ]
    I voted for Gore (none / 0) (#5)
    by Coldblue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:38:31 PM EST
    ...and I have always been a Western Conference NBA fan.

    Other than that, Bradley is rather insignificant today.

    [ Parent ]

    One of my favorite political debates was ... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:46:52 PM EST
    Gore vs. Bradley at the Apollo Theater.

    No doubting who won that one.  Gore cleaned Bradley's clock.

    [ Parent ]

    you're right (none / 0) (#134)
    by facta non verba on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:46:50 AM EST
    I was for Bradley until that debate.

    [ Parent ]
    Torn on this (none / 0) (#16)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:58:28 PM EST
    Bill obviously is part of the Hillary package (as much as any president's spouse is) so in that sense there does need to be a degree of transparancy there...

    The other side of the coin is that Bill is a former president (we've never had a former president be a first spouse before), so there is some adjusting we'd have to make in that respect....

    I don't think we've found the appropriate level of balance yet...what is private and what is not...what is theirs and what is our...it will be a very tricky tight rope.

    [ Parent ]

    Presidential Libraries (none / 0) (#19)
    by dem08 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:00:56 PM EST
    I favor Full Disclosure. I am aware that  Bush pere and fils, will not disclose their contributers so I know this issue is a non-starter. However, eventually our Democracy and our Democratic Party will have to stop all this hidden financing.

    That is just me, and I hope it doesn't upset more rabid Democrats.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary (none / 0) (#30)
    by muffie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:09:11 PM EST
    has do-sponsored legislation requiring full disclosure in the future.  Also, I believe Bill Clinton has also promised to release the information about his library after the general.  I doubt this will satisfy Republican bloodlust, however.

    [ Parent ]
    bradley? oh yeah, that guy! (none / 0) (#101)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:27:48 PM EST
    he is so yesterday! i guess he wants some attention.

    [ Parent ]
    what does it have to do with anything? (none / 0) (#140)
    by thereyougo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:10:18 AM EST
    I'm not sold that she should HAVE to show anything until she's nominated officially.

    Just because Obama looks less than wealthy on paper?

    He bought a million dollar house 300Gs under asking price. Anytime a polician does that, I smell  creative financing with someone in this case its Rezko who is on trial for not paying his bills.

    [ Parent ]

    Smear. (none / 0) (#150)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:42:17 AM EST
    The vendor has already come out and said that Obama paid full market value for the house.

    [ Parent ]
    No, he did not pay full asking price (none / 0) (#161)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:19:26 AM EST
    for the house.

    And he bought the house in the name of a trust rather than his own name.  Why is that, I wonder?  They are saying to protect his privacy, but no one really cared who he was when he bought that house.

    The Obamas bought the mock Georgian mansion in a trust that concealed their identity behind the name Northern Trust No 10209. Bill Burton, Mr Obama's spokesman, told The Times that they did so for "a measure of privacy" and said they were the only beneficiaries of the trust.

    LINK

    [ Parent ]

    And the asking price on a house is always (none / 0) (#164)
    by JoeA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:28:49 AM EST
    the final word on it's market value of course!  Whoever heard of anyone negotiating down the asking price on anything!

    I better not get into politics as the fact that I went in with a lower offer when buying my house is evidence of my corruption!

    [ Parent ]

    Did the owner of your house (none / 0) (#170)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:54:26 AM EST
    subdivide the land into two parcels for you even though it was designated an Historical Site so you could skip the property tax for years to come?

    [ Parent ]
    a peek into clinton's inner circle (none / 0) (#2)
    by joei on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:32:04 PM EST
    interesting read although a bit long

    One of Clinton's favorite books is "Team of Rivals," Doris Kearns Goodwin's account of Abraham Lincoln's Cabinet, and she assembled her own team of advisers knowing their mutual enmity in the belief that good ideas come from vigorous discussion. But while many campaigns are beset by backbiting and power struggles, dozens of interviews indicate that the internal problems endured by the Clinton team have been especially corrosive.

    I read this link last night and marvelled (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:34:57 PM EST
    that, so far, I haven't seen anyone commenting on Clinton's apparent admiration for Kearns-Goodwin's book.  What, Clinton admires an author who is an alleged plagairist?  Xerox indeed.  

    [ Parent ]
    although (none / 0) (#6)
    by joei on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:41:07 PM EST
    everyone is going after mark penn, i felt like he knows a thing or two about numbers. there are too many moving parts in a campaign, its interesting

    [ Parent ]
    It's odd ... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:42:46 PM EST
    Obama mentioned liking that book.  But I can't find any references to Clinton liking it.

    I wonder if the author of that article got confused.

    [ Parent ]

    i love her response, too (none / 0) (#80)
    by kangeroo on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:56:24 PM EST
    "I would certainly bring my copy of the Constitution because there was apparently not a copy in the Bush White House to the best I can determine. So I would bring The Federalist Papers."

    [ Parent ]
    I learn more about Presidents from (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:55:38 PM EST
    listening to Kearns-Goodwin on TV than anyone else. She has a way of grabbing my attention and telling a story that I think is terrific.

    [ Parent ]
    Have you seen the new forward (none / 0) (#25)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:03:46 PM EST
    to Obama's memoir?

    [ Parent ]
    Doris (none / 0) (#45)
    by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:25:16 PM EST
    was cleared of those charges.  You have to be a professional historian to understand that nonsense.  Academic historians are pea-green over popular historians' financial success.  I had to remove references to a reputable historian in my dissertation because after the guy left academia, he wrote a book that was made into the movie "The North and the South"  My advisers said he was "too popular," i.e., made millions and they didn't.

    [ Parent ]
    John Jakes?? (none / 0) (#184)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:32:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    that is just plain silly! (none / 0) (#102)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:28:54 PM EST
    she likes a certain book! so what!

    [ Parent ]
    As a historian (none / 0) (#135)
    by facta non verba on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:52:06 AM EST
    I have to defend my good friend Doris Kearns Goodwin. We all have graduate assistants that help us with work. She unfortunately a really bad one and somehow during the peer review process, no of us caught the error in attribution. All of us had issues like this. I have taken to two GAs to the woodshed over stuff like this, it's all part of the process of how we train the next generation of historians.
     

    [ Parent ]
    I would suggest (none / 0) (#12)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:49:08 PM EST
    that that might be a better model for an administration than for a campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Does anybody read Mark Kleinman? (none / 0) (#13)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:51:10 PM EST
    He's an Obama supporter, but also an intellectual. His theory is that re-running MI as a caucus is the party's way of giving Sen. Clinton the hook.

    Does that sound right? I don't imagine that sits well here.

    Also, Lanny Davis is an admirable surrogate for Clinton on cable. Amiable, smart, and well-versed. I disagree with everything he says, but I think he represents Sen. Clinton well.

    That thought crossed my mind as (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:57:08 PM EST
    soon as I read MI might use caucus method for re-do.  Hope not, and I'm counting on the MI Gov. to stave off such a travesty.

    [ Parent ]
    Wonder how many women's votes (none / 0) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:59:05 PM EST
    they'll lose over that.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't (none / 0) (#49)
    by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:28:04 PM EST
    read Granholm's okay with it.

    Might as well move to Russia--same election process.

    [ Parent ]

    I believe Granholm supports Hillary so I hope she (none / 0) (#84)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:58:46 PM EST
    will...

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#22)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:02:52 PM EST
    Interesting thought.

    I am not sure how you meant your characterization-

    He's an Obama supporter, but also an intellectual

    That could start a flame war in some places!  

    [ Parent ]

    I toolk it to mean (4.00 / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:53:24 PM EST
    educated beyond his intelligence.

    (Hi Molly!)

    [ Parent ]

    Thought you were lost somewhere (none / 0) (#89)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:05:14 PM EST
    Miss me?

    [ Parent ]
    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:34:09 PM EST
    How could I not miss someone as sweet as you???

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (1.00 / 0) (#186)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:43:43 PM EST
    descriptions of the methods don't excite me, but to each their own.

    Started my own blog.

    [ Parent ]

    But I thought Obama had all the (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:30:31 PM EST
    high information college degreed voters?

    [ Parent ]
    No, just the smart ones! ;o) j/k n/t (none / 0) (#61)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:36:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, sorry. Didn't mean it like that. (none / 0) (#58)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:33:35 PM EST
    I'm an Obama supporter, too, so it wasn't meant as a slight.

    What I should have said is that his blog is not really about politics, eg, DK or Huffpost.

    I've started my share of firestorms here. I'm trying to be good.

    Thanks for looking out!

    ;o)

    [ Parent ]

    A this point (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:45:26 PM EST
    I am not taking any candidate partisan too seriously. Too much gets read into remarks. Someone said at TPM its time for the candidate partisans to quit the race. I think I agree.

    [ Parent ]
    This is such an emotional election (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:19:37 PM EST
    I don't see how that could happen. I've become very personally invested in Obama, and I know a lot of people here have done so in Clinton. I just try to be nice, like I said.

    [ Parent ]
    According to Clinton (none / 0) (#113)
    by jcsf on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:53:23 PM EST
    She "won't accept" a caucus.  

    Which is strange, because she'll get more from a caucus, then she gets right now - which is zero.  Especially if Florida is seated as is, seems a fair trade.

    Otherwise - let the rules stand as they are.

    [ Parent ]

    Good News for Hillary? (none / 0) (#18)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:59:27 PM EST
    [Puerto Rico will] change the voting process from 8 caucuses to a primary with voting places in all 1,800+ barrios in Puerto Rico's 78 municipalities. This is done in light of the hundreds of thousands of Democrats expected to turn out on June 1, a late date in which we would have originally expected a pro-forma vote with low turnout.

    Link

    Great news, I think. But still (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:01:32 PM EST
    waiting for the definitive post from BTD on primary season in PR.  

    [ Parent ]
    Great (none / 0) (#24)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:03:32 PM EST
    At least Puerto Rico isn't disenfranchising the votes.  Really good thing to do.  Maybe some of the states will learn from them.  :-)

    [ Parent ]
    TalkLeft is undoubtedly read (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:31:33 PM EST
    by all politicos in PR.

    [ Parent ]
    And late as it is, let's point out that PR (none / 0) (#46)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:26:22 PM EST
    appears, from a quick check, to have more delegates than any state after Pennsylvania.

    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#92)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:17:27 PM EST
    Um North Carolina

    [ Parent ]
    Ah, thanks -- (none / 0) (#106)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:36:00 PM EST
    will have to bookmark a better source.

    [ Parent ]
    She should crush him there. (none / 0) (#65)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:38:42 PM EST
    I wonder how Plouffe's memo had those delegates breaking down?

    He'll need to go down there and do some laying of hands! <snark>

    [ Parent ]

    For whatit's worth (none / 0) (#73)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:48:58 PM EST
    the governor of PR has endorsed Obama. I have no idea of his popularity or clout, however.

    [ Parent ]
    That's great news! (none / 0) (#91)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:17:00 PM EST
    His name is Anibal Acevedo-Vila. Unfortunately, he's under FBI investigation. But, apparently in Puerto Rico, that's a good thing?

    And this is scary. Apparently, Puerto Rico has a reputation for a unanimous delegation??

    If so, I hope the governor is the one making the call!!??!

    Couldn't find any polling data to share. Sorry.

    [ Parent ]

    Politico Muerto Andante (none / 0) (#151)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:17:56 AM EST
    Translate to Political Walking Cadaver.  The one who has the most political influence over Puertoricans who care about US politics, Pedro Rosello is apparently backing Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD has said that's not good news (none / 0) (#107)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:36:35 PM EST
    for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    And as far as I know to (none / 0) (#152)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:19:04 AM EST
    paraphrase Hillary, BTD is in PR

    [ Parent ]
    What (none / 0) (#94)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:18:09 PM EST
    Why would she crush him there? Seriously?

    [ Parent ]
    Just going on the fact that she's (none / 0) (#100)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:22:21 PM EST
    gotten a 2-1 edge in Latinos. Also, she represents NY, which has the largest mainland population of Puerto Ricans.

    Makes sense to me. Not you?

    [ Parent ]

    NY connection a good point -- (none / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:37:19 PM EST
    I had not thought of that. Duh.

    [ Parent ]
    didn't you ever see (none / 0) (#112)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:46:31 PM EST
    west side story?

    [ Parent ]
    When you're a Jet... ;o) n/t (none / 0) (#124)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:38:52 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, loved it, memorized it (none / 0) (#131)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:31:11 AM EST
    and was humming some tunes while I typed . . . duh.

    Or maybe you missed that duh.  Jeesh.

    [ Parent ]

    OMG. (none / 0) (#181)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    Did you see who wrote that prior comment? 'Cuz you just complimented Halstoon?

    ;o)

    Thanks!

    [ Parent ]

    btd has pointed out that hillary leads (none / 0) (#103)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:31:46 PM EST
    polls by big margins in pr.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't see any coverage here (none / 0) (#21)
    by Miss Devore on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:02:05 PM EST
    of the story that the clinton people winked to the canadians about NAFTA.

    You could always (none / 0) (#26)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:06:14 PM EST
    send us a link....

    [ Parent ]
    How's this? (none / 0) (#29)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:08:15 PM EST
    Team Clinton has categorically denied what "an unknown someone" claimed

    [ Parent ]
    and urged the Canadian government (none / 0) (#33)
    by Practically Lactating on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:10:20 PM EST
    to name anyone from her campaign involved, which no one has done.

    [ Parent ]
    I bet it was the same bastid (none / 0) (#35)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:13:28 PM EST
    who leaked the photo to Drudge that's been out for two years!

    Has anyone else noticed the uptick of Whitewater references?  This just tells me some of these new Obama folk aren't really dems.  It just seems so coordinated, though, and ties in with a certain rant that was being discussed here the other day, wherein a blogger threatened to unleash a torrent of top secret hurtful Clinton scandals on the children of the world.  I mean, I haven't heard Marc Rich or the McDougals bandied about in ages. (and for good reason)

    It kind of makes me feel good, because if this is all they can come up with, bring it on.

    [ Parent ]

    No need to talk about the '90s. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:36:46 AM EST
    It's the 21st century when the Clintons became part of the uber-wealthy. I know the money went to the CGI, but still...

    Then there's Hillary and Peter Paul.

    Oh, and she has her own terrorist problem.

    You know, criminals seem to like contributing to politicians, even Sen. Clinton.

    Dirty money and politics just go together, which is why Rezko and Pritzker won't play a role this season.

    And when you run on the good of the '90s, you do have to discuss the bad.

    If the Hsu fits.

    Loyalty can be good, but it keeps silly scandals alive.

    Of course, family matters.

    Campaign finance chairs and controversy go hand in hand.

    Friends can affect your judgment.

    Obama's not a Muslim, as far as she knows.

    When kitchen sinks start flying, everybody is likely to get soaked.  

    [ Parent ]

    Hold on (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by BethanyAnne on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:04:18 AM EST
    I thought it was only Obama who was bad.  Didn't you get the memo?  He's eeeevil.  A Republican!!

    cough

    [ Parent ]

    Delete this please. I don't want to go there. (none / 0) (#125)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:44:39 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Halstoon be Careful about mentioning (none / 0) (#153)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:22:45 AM EST
    Ubberfriends as a liability.  You know, People in Glass Houses.....

    [ Parent ]
    That comment should have already been (none / 0) (#166)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:34:35 AM EST
    deleted, but I do hope you noticed that I said everybody gets wet when sinks are thrown about.

    I did also try to address things only as they relate to similar claims being made about Obama already. So same goes for the other side, Florida Resident.

    That Kazak story seems like it should have gotten more attention than it did, though. I would expect the RNC to make issue of it, since President Clinton promoted a position contrary to the State Dept.'s.

    I also know that Obama is not where he is without those same kind of friends; that is why that stuff should be off the table in the campaign. We all understand that politics is corrupt.

    [ Parent ]

    As long as we agree. (none / 0) (#176)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:08:43 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    For once, we seem to, yes. ;o) n/t (none / 0) (#180)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:34:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Has that photo been around for 2 years. I didn't (none / 0) (#38)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:19:25 PM EST
    know that.  I did see that the NewYork Sun (or Post) had a different pic of Obama in the tribal dress-up though, which made me go hmmmm...

    [ Parent ]
    the 2 yr thing (none / 0) (#41)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:23:05 PM EST
    is from my memory--apparently, it was on some African news site, and then of course the rightwing idiots picked up on it, but I personally got it in an email about four months ago (I've got a cousin...), so it has been out there a while.

    [ Parent ]
    The photo was taken 2 years ago ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:32:29 PM EST
    by an AP reporter.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, Several AP photos (none / 0) (#50)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:28:17 PM EST
    on websites for years, on the front page of an NY tab for weeks before Drudge had to get it an alleged email. Btw, did Drudge ever explain what it meant by not receiving the email but "obtaining" it?

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed on the uptick and on the lameness (none / 0) (#48)
    by Practically Lactating on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:27:45 PM EST
    of their dirt. The Obama campaign is telling the press that they are ready to bring out the big guns, but they bring out this.  I am more confident in Clinton as a result.

    [ Parent ]
    According to a piece on (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:35:22 PM EST
    Huff Post, Obama was, shall we say, "testy" with the press when he was flying to Chicago from TX.  Saying, now that you've all reacted to Clinton's charges she isn't treated favorably by the media, how about we go back to normal, i.e., you all adore me.  (Loose paraphrase.)

    [ Parent ]
    when i see that, i think desperation. (none / 0) (#104)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:32:44 PM EST
    and sour grapes!

    [ Parent ]
    Wait...