Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat

Here is another wrongheaded post from Chris Bowers. He evaluates the unifying effects of the Vice Presidential choice on the effect it will have on supporters of the potential Presidential nominee. Earth to Chris, the people who will need assuaging will be the losing candidate's supporters, not the winning candidate's supporters.

I have to shake my head sometimes. This is an Open Thread. Play nice. J, Chris and I will be out of pocket until tonight.

NOTE - Comments closed.

< Dean: FL Delegates Will Be Seated | The Demographics Of The Dem Contest >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Pelosi or Feingold for Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:25:05 PM EST
    VP running mate?  Pelosi?  You've got to be kidding.  Feingold:  only if Iraq is as big an issue as it should be to the electorate.

    Well, if impeachment becomes an issue (none / 0) (#10)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:40:30 PM EST
    we have this!

    " . . . triple dog dare Republicans to try and impeach President Obama in that circumstance, what with their two worst nightmeres as second and third in line, respectively."


    Bizzare comment there re Feingold (none / 0) (#23)
    by rilkefan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:51:32 PM EST
    "Could he help overcome the animosity that has been an ugly undercurrent in parts of the Jewish community?"

    Obama might have some problems (none / 0) (#32)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:55:26 PM EST
    with Jewish support via his 20-yr embrace of Farrakan-worshipping pastor Wright.  

    So Feingold for his VP isn't entirely insane.  

    Certainly makes more political sense than Pelosi.  SF and CA we've got.  We'll need to work hard though for WI and Russ is popular there.

    Problem for him is that he's twice divorced and currently unmarried, or last I checked.


    But, I read prominent Jewish rabbis (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:59:38 PM EST
    wrote a letter stating Obama is o.k. on Israel issues.

    Well... on everything... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:04:32 PM EST
    ...except for being a member of a church that promotes, honors, and collaborates with a guy that repeatedly calls Jews and Whites satanic and leads an organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League define as a hate group.  Other than that, Jews love Obama: )

    Obama/Pelosi? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:54:26 PM EST
    That is a phenomenally bad ticket. I might not be able to pull the Dem level if that's the offering. She's been strongly supporting him though, so maybe she's gunning for it.

    Thanks for the laugh!! (none / 0) (#86)
    by honora on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:28:57 PM EST
    Be a really interesting VP debate, no? (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:37:53 PM EST
    Pelosi's off the table as far as I'm concerned (none / 0) (#173)
    by Ellie on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:17:54 PM EST
    Feingold we should save for 2012 on the off chance we find another recognizably democratic Democrat with whom to pair him.

    I am going to say neither. (none / 0) (#240)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:16:57 PM EST
    I would really like to see a governor or former governor in Veep position.  We really do need someone with executive experience on the ticket.  And it should be a governor from a region the democratic party is trying to build up support in.  Someone out west or South.  Maybe Richardson (though frankly he has some issues and probably best away from the cameras) or Sweitzer.

    BTD, please weigh in on the Yoo memo! (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:29:17 PM EST
    The original thread on the release of the torture memo is still running without any adult supervision. Today's comments are horrifying.

    Meanwhile here's the Vanity Fair story on the subject: The Green Light.

    "As the first anniversary of 9/11 approached, and a prized Guantánamo detainee wouldn't talk, the Bush administration's highest-ranking lawyers argued for extreme interrogation techniques, circumventing international law, the Geneva Conventions, and the army's own Field Manual. The attorneys would even fly to Guantánamo to ratchet up the pressure--then blame abuses on the military. Philippe Sands follows the torture trail, and holds out the possibility of war-crimes charges."

    Glenn Greenwalkd is my goto guy (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:50:01 PM EST
    for Constitutional Law.  His post is HERE.

    Certainly there are others who are well qualified to comment as well- anyone else have suggestions?


    I think it is not insignificant (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:33:05 PM EST
    that Elizabeth Edwards was on MSNBC this morning saying that, while they are not "endorsing" anyone, the most important issue in the election was health care and the only answer was universal health care and only Hillarys plan was universal.

    I'll admit that it is only (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by 1jpb on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:26:58 PM EST
    political convenience that inspires me to quote him because I don't think he's much of an expert on anything, but Michael Moore is on to something when he says that there is no best choice between the BO and HRC health plans.  He rightly notes that both plans leave the private companies soaking up income directly (gov payments) and indirectly (gov takes high cost, low profit patients) from the government's participation in health care.

    Until we talk about a big reform that actually adjusts the power of the private companies I believe that BO has a better plan because he doesn't have an unfunded, regressive, mandate fee as high as 10% for middle class families who live pay check to pay but aren't poor enough for the subsidies (btw, the BO and HRC subsidy plans are indistinguishable if you  read them side by side.)

    We know mandates don't work, look at MA.  Nearly half of the uninsured are still uninsured, and the system is out of money.  Many of the newly insured were simply put on existing federal programs, regardless of mandates.  Some people can't afford the least costly insurance so they pay the fee without getting insurance.  

    Look at CA; the mandate plan only got 1 out of 11 votes in the committee, but big insurance companies were in favor of that mandate plan.  Why was that?  For that matter, why did the insurance companies favor the SCHIP expansion that Bush vetoed?  I'm in favor of that expansion, but at least my eyes are open: I know that the legislation is setup to provide income to private companies at the same time it helps kids.

    Car insurance mandates don't work either.  The level of uninsured drivers is as high as 20% for states with mandated car insurance.

    Listen to HRC carefully: she hedges by saying mandates are a "goal."  She has talked about them as a strategic starting point, so they can easily be tossed aside when it becomes politically expedient.  

    People who can afford health insurance don't need a mandate "gun to the head" to make them buy it.  Most people who can afford health care have good jobs, so they get the insurance as a benefit.  People who can afford insurance but don't get it from their jobs already have a gun to the head.  If they have money and they have a health care emergency, they will spend a ton of money, or they'll go bankrupt.  The problem is not that we need a mandate "gun to the head," the problem is that costs are too high.  Costs must be dealt with before implementing a regressive mandate penalty.

    Our health care system is way too expensive, and mandates will make this worse.  Our health care costs are paid by two sources: 1) the government and 2) the private sector.  The level of our government spending alone (excluding the part paid by the private sector) is not much less than the level of total health care spending in some developed countries.  Our problem is the entrenched insurance companies who live off the government money.  Our problem is that politicians invent programs like mandates that sound good to the public at the same time they greatly increase income to the insurance companies.

    Until we get to a plan that confronts the powerful insurance companies, we need to avoid a regressive unfunded mandate that hurts middle income (but not poor enough for subsidies) families.  BO has the best plan.


    Michael Moore's comment (3.00 / 2) (#145)
    by badger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:02:59 PM EST
    is about the same as Obama's vote against capping credit card interest at 30% because he thought that was too high. If you want perfection, then yeah, neither Hillary's nor Obama's plan is perfect. You can say that and still admit Obama's imperfect plan is much worse than Hillary's imperfect plan.

    As to the rest, there's so much wrong it's hard to know where to begin, but one place is with the fundamental misunderstanding of who pays for health care costs. It isn't just the public and private sectors - if it were, the problem would be smaller.

    The problem fundamentally is that health care is increasingly paid for by private individuals and the number of people who can fund, say, a coronary bypass out of income and/or savings is vanishingly small.

    Just like on the MI/FL votes where people are concerned about the candidates, and don't care a whit about the voters, your post cares about punishing big insurance companies, and shows little interest in actually providing health care to indviduals and families who desperately need it - as long as the insurers suffer, it's all good.

    And please don't tell me again that we agree 100%.


    Michael, God Bless Him (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:25:23 PM EST
    was a bit naive on his health care story. One, the problem is worse, and two, the problem is not what he thinks it is.

    Yes, there is a great success story in Medicare, but Medicare claims have been administered by private companies, not the government, from the outset. There's a lot of crossover he didn't talk about.

    There is the whole concept of fee-for-service. Doctors only get paid if a service is provided, so the incentive is provide services. Doctors aren't evil, but there are documented instances of unnecessary levels of service being provided (the US used to have the highest number of cesarians in the world, for example, but prenatal care was at an all time low).

    There is a problem with cost-shifting, but here's the thing: some of that is reduce payments for medical services the public insists on, but aren't either medical or necessary. Not to over play the hand, but these do exist. Some of it is to protect profits, but necessarily for the insurance company. It protects drug companies, and the employers who pay the premium. And hospital corporations who are increasingly pressured to show a bottom line.

    And then there's the whole back end thing. Going to an ER because you don't have a doctor, either because you don't have insurance, or you just don't have a doctor.

    The insurance industry isn't a saintly institution by any means, but neither are they the complete demon in all this. The medical care inflation index has a lot more factors contributing than most people understand.

    The thing is though, the industry is used to making reforms when those are passed on a state level (the only current effective regulator) and enforced. They have to be told, and they have to receive consequences.

    But expanding the pool of insured persons will reduce the costs. It eliminates actuarial risk, a phenom in insurance when the people most at risk are the main ones who buy coverage because they know they need it, while the ones who will need it down the road don't buy until it's clear that they do.

    The issue isn't simple.


    Great response (none / 0) (#238)
    by 1jpb on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:13:12 PM EST
    I know you know this; but for clarification, Medicare  can be fee for service (original w or w/o sup) or HMO/PPO/PFFS.

    And, you are correct lots of health care providers rely on the fee for service Medicare payments to compensate for the deals they cut with the private insurance companies.  In my opinion this is an example of what I call private insurers indirectly increasing their income because of the government programs.

    I loved your comments about adjusting payments for particular services, as is practiced most notably in Japan.  If you're proposing an overhaul to match Japan, you've got my attention, but you need the underpinnings too, and fine tuning is needed.  Sort of related to managing what procedures are done; Duke has shown that sometimes (depending the treatment facility) care for some medical situations can cost half as much because of less expensive, fewer, and different procedures, but the patients have better results.

    To be sure large pools are good, but if something costs $11,500 (fam av 06) and you have no extra money, no amount of mandates will turn nothing into $11,500.  As I noted, BO and HRC have the same subsidy strategies, and they will leave out some so called middle class people.  Yes, BO mandates kids, fortunately the increased SCHIP, his new subsidies, and putting people into federal programs for which they have always been eligible takes care of most kids.  

    Again, your comments about price controls as done in Japan was brilliant.  Your acknowledgment that talking price controls, in any way, is problematic in the US is 110% brilliant.  When ever Krugman et. al. talk about other countries they neglect two not unrelated facts. 1) our private insurers live off the government programs in fundamentally different ways than do private companies in other countries, and 2) the other systems presented as models have strong price controls in one way or another, which is a (perhaps the) critical difference.


    So, a plan that give the insurance cos (none / 0) (#99)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:35:03 PM EST
    more profit is a good thing?

    'Cuz that's what Obama's plan is.

    15 years in the insurance industry here. If you want to make them comply, you have to do it in steps, and make them used to it.

    And PS: People don't buy insurance not because it's expensive. They don't buy insurance because they think it's not necessary. Sit by a medical underwriter for a day or so.....


    Many people don't think they need it (none / 0) (#179)
    by Manuel on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:21:56 PM EST
    I used to be one myself.  We used to complain while vacationing about how unfair it was that we couldn't just pocket the money our company paid for health insurance since we were healthy.

    If mandates are so bad why is it OK to mandate that employers provide health insurance?


    Yep. Anectodotal (none / 0) (#213)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:44:10 PM EST
    but the lawyers we covered used to scream about suing when they found out the hospital bill wasn't going to be covered.

    And I remember a baby with a heart valve problem. The medical underwriter was really upset about that one... I think we got an underwriter and a lawyer to make a special exception for that one. Based it on the potential bad PR....


    How about Eliz. Edwards as (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:45:28 PM EST
    Obama's VP.  

    stick stirring! (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:49:58 PM EST
    the current buzz from Obama (none / 0) (#59)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:16:57 PM EST
    is Gore. Every time he feels threatened, he starts another rumor about Gore, to associate himself with Gore.

    Gore and Edwards are being neutral, no matter how much either camp tries to drag them in, but I always think the rumors from the Obama camp are significant.

    As in, significantly, they're trying to start a rumor about something that isn't likely because they know neither camp will deny it.


    x (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:37:18 PM EST
    I don't think Jim Webb, Sherrod Brown, or Russ Feingold will be a running mate.  Jim Webb hasn't endorsed anybody yet, and if he was on the Obama bandwagon, he would have done it before Virginia voted and Brown would have done it before Ohio. Feingold didn't even really endorse him, although he said he voted for Obama.

    Besides, if Obama is the nominee, he can't pick another junior senator, especially if it looks like we could pick up a larger majority in the Senate. A governor is more likely, since they would actually have some experience, since Obama needs some "street cred" here.

    And frankly, since that poll was taken between Mar 24-27, I bet the number of HRC supporters who want him on the ticket with her has declined.  I think many of them would put him on for unity in the party, but I don't think many of them "want" him to be the VP.

    This is where I am. (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:53:21 PM EST
    And frankly, since that poll was taken between Mar 24-27, I bet the number of HRC supporters who want him on the ticket with her has declined.  I think many of them would put him on for unity in the party, but I don't think many of them "want" him to be the VP.

    This is where I am. I, too, was on record as wanting them to become as one.

    In fact, I actively DO NOT want Obama to be the VP now. I don't hate him or anything, but I don't think he is electable because of Wright, and I don't want HRC to have "God Damn America" hanging around her neck.

    Sorry to be so blunt. I just cannot deal with four years of McCain. I just cannot.


    What a depressing thought (none / 0) (#156)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:10:58 PM EST
    Democrats should kowtow to people who could never vote for someone who isn't white or male?

    We would lose Russ' seat in Wisconsin (none / 0) (#168)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:15:44 PM EST
    in the Senate, the way that spring elections went here yesterday.  Wisconsin is going red in many ways. For that reason alone (and there are many more, of course), this would be unwise.

    I'm not confident (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:38:28 PM EST
    Obama would choose a Dem for VP.

    Nor am I. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:49:07 PM EST
    I think it will be someone like NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a weird Dem-Repub-Indy blend.

    It's a horrifying thought to those who live in or near Manhattan. Bloomberg is corporate greed personified, and a massive plutocrat as well.


    I'm getting closer to rejecting any ticket (none / 0) (#16)
    by Mark Woods on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:47:53 PM EST
    without Clinton as 1/2 of it. I'm so tired of the MSM and Shrillosphere bullying Clinton, that Obama cannot count on my FL Democratic vote if Hillary isn't part of the ticket, bottom line.

    Not sure if I would vote for the Evil Side, but I could abstain, courteously.  I wouldn't discourage my liberal FL friends from voting, since we need to defeat the Republican-funded gay marriage ban amendment bill.


    OMG, I didn't realize FL had a (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:53:18 PM EST
    measure on the GE ballot against gay marriage.  Isn't that how Bush won in 2004?  Talk about getting out the vote.

    Anti Affirmative Action (none / 0) (#37)
    by nell on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:59:14 PM EST
    measures are also on a lot of ballots, though I am not sure if they are in red states or just swing states...bad news...

    I live in Florida (none / 0) (#117)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:47:58 PM EST
    Why do you assume this bill would drive Rep turnout and not Dem? In fact, most Indies I know would not support this bill.

    Ahem! (none / 0) (#92)
    by Suma on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:30:38 PM EST
    Good idea (none / 0) (#118)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:48:18 PM EST
    Let the MSM talk you out of voting for a Democratic President. I'm sure that they really didn't intend to discourage you there.

    Jeez (none / 0) (#28)
    by rilkefan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:53:41 PM EST
    Clearly he could only nominate Beelzebub.

    my post is based on Obama's rhetoric, (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:11:53 PM EST
    his non-universal health care plan, aligning his foreign policy with Reagan, Bush1, etc.

    as well as saying (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:14:23 PM EST
    he'd put Republicans Chuck Hagel, Dick Lugar and Arnold Schwarzenegger in his Cabinet.

    Kerry almost picked McCain as his VP in 2004, and now he's endorsing Obama.

    I'm not reassured.


    Schwarznegger would be a phemonally bad choice (none / 0) (#66)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:19:41 PM EST
    since he wouldn't be able to fulfill the ultimate job of the vice presidency, to replace the president should the president die.

    And of course (none / 0) (#72)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:21:44 PM EST
    Ah-nuld has already endorsed McCain.

    Don't worry about that pesky natural-born citizen requirement, however. President Schwarzenegger will just use a signing statement to nullify it.



    LOL. (none / 0) (#85)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:28:53 PM EST
    Would he still have to take Hungarian accent lessons so he doesn't lose it?

    Frankly, Schwarznegger's only selling point is his climate change stance. I gotta strong feeling that it's the Calif Dems who have been working him behind to make that happen who would put a kibosh on a veep spot.


    And indeed (none / 0) (#187)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:28:06 PM EST
    under the Constitution, you can't have a VP who is ineligible to serve as President.  So Ahnold is not an option for either party.

    x (none / 0) (#194)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:32:16 PM EST
    Not that I want Schwarzenegger anywhere near the cabinet, but he could serve - far down the line of succession.  Madeline Albright was 4th in line and she was a naturalized citizen. She was born in Czechoslovakia.

    Yes (none / 0) (#221)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:53:12 PM EST
    I suppose he could be Speakah of the House, even.  But not VP!

    On domestic policy (none / 0) (#151)
    by rilkefan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:07:24 PM EST
    he's just barely slightly to the right of Clinton, mostly on rhetoric.  On foreign policy he's slightly to her left.  You're as irrational as the CDS Obama supporters.

    Obama, not me, stated his foreign policy (none / 0) (#171)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:17:03 PM EST
    would be aligned with Reagan and Bush1!

    That is fractally wrong (none / 0) (#180)
    by rilkefan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:22:41 PM EST
    Clinton has attacked him from the right on foreign policy.  She's ok from my viewpoint on this stuff, but it's not debatable that he's (slightly) more liberal on every fp issue.  Iraq, talking to tyrannical foreign leaders, the I-P conflict, Cuba, loose nukes, etc. etc.

    what the frac? (none / 0) (#184)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:25:56 PM EST
    (yes, I am counting down the days to Friday's premier!)

    Lookit, the fract is that we have no idea where a president Obama would stand on these issues.  He's never really had his feet held to the fire (or at least been "present" for a scorching).  We have what he says he will do, but history has certainly told us that he is very good at making politically expedient choices.  


    Sure (none / 0) (#210)
    by rilkefan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:43:47 PM EST
    but the commenter I'm responding to is wildly reacting to a blatant misreading of false data.  Obama would likely be slightly constrained by his fp platform to be to Clinton's left in office; she might well be constrained to his right by her platform and the political need to look strong in a sexist culture.  Ok, who knows - but it's just nuts to say he's going to be a republican.

    Well, he should stop using them (none / 0) (#222)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:54:44 PM EST
    as FP talking points.

    This is where his 'lack of record' becomes an even bigger issue.


    I didn't say it - Obama did!! (none / 0) (#223)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:55:09 PM EST
    Obama aligns foreign policy with GOP
    By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer
    Fri Mar 28, 11:41 PM ET

    I see why you didn't quote from the article (none / 0) (#245)
    by rilkefan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:00:44 PM EST
    Obama praised HW's coalition-building skill and caution.  He praised JFK.  He says explicitly that behaving like a Republican on fp is bad.

    I don't like Obama's framing here, but your spin is blatantly misleading.


    It's Obama's frame - not mine (none / 0) (#257)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:27:44 PM EST
    BO: HRC's fp = failed R fp (none / 0) (#262)
    by rilkefan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:37:05 PM EST
    Why don't you cite this equally sourced AP article: "Hillary Clinton's foreign policy would be more of the same failed Republican approach, Barack Obama's campaign said on Thursday."

    Or quote Obama from the article you allude to:  "Since 9/11 the conventional wisdom has been that you've got to look tough on foreign policy by voting and acting like the Republicans, and I disagree with that."

    Because it would inform readers and annihilate your spin, which I'll henceforth ignore.


    oh please. (none / 0) (#241)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:18:37 PM EST
    Just because the media is drooling over the IDEA of a mixed ticket, don't think for a second that Obama is going to actually consider a republican.  There are PLENTY of very talented dems that he is not going to turn his back on just to generate a bit of gushing from the big talking heads.

    Portent of the future.... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:39:20 PM EST
    Dean states FL is being handled.... and on MSM today Obama is saying he has been talking to Gore throughout the campaign and is willing to offer a cabinet position or 'higher'.  Emphasis from the media, not me.  Could more wheeling and dealing be going on behind the scenes?

    Sebelius/Pelosi?  It would look desperate for Obama to put another woman on the ticket while refusing Clinton.

    Wheeling and dealing or . . . (none / 0) (#12)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:43:16 PM EST
    Pandering?  ;)

    He's still trying to find a way to get the Dems, methinks.

    I think his selection of a female VP could be a problem for him. He might do better with a man's man.


    He wouldn't have to "refuse" (none / 0) (#24)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:52:33 PM EST
    Clinton.  He could feel out the situation carefully ahead of time, and sensing HRC doesn't want it, he could "offer" it with the expection she would turn it down.  Then they would both go in front of the cameras where she would warmly thank him for his gracious offer, etc, and both would embrace and raise their arms together in unity.

    At that point he would be able to go Sibelius or similar or, if poor support for Obama among (older) women is not quite the concern in August that it is now, and I think it's a real problem for him, he could go with the usual white male selection.  

    As for Gore, I believe I recall him saying some months ago that he isn't interested in a cabinet or other admin position.  


    IMHO (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by nell on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:56:53 PM EST
    it would be a huge mistake to put someone like Sebelius on the ticket. Women would see it for what it was - pandering, and it would make at least this woman VERY angry after all of the sexist undertones of this campaign.

    And I really hope HRC will not take the VP slot. Nothing more insulting than seeing a woman with more experience training her inexperienced male boss. For those of us who have lived it, it is just infuriating. No way.


    I mentioned Sebelius (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:03:49 PM EST
    to my hubby as a possible VP choice, and he didn't even know who she was.

    I don't think she would add much to the ticket.

    A brilliant choice for Hillary's VP would be Wesley Clark. I'd like to see him debate Huckabee. LOL!


    Sibelius and most other VP (none / 0) (#50)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:10:23 PM EST
    picks usually start out with far less name rec than the #1 person, but they quickly make up ground.  But what I want is someone who'll take the battle to the Repubs on the stump and in the debate -- and not another nice guy VP nominee.  Dunno how Sibelius fits in here, nor Feingold.

    As for nice guy Gen Clark he's politically inexperienced.  I'd want him in my cabinet though in nat'l security areas or UN Amb.


    Yes! (none / 0) (#68)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:20:39 PM EST
    Irrelevant/Obscure '08

    Clark's major advantage (none / 0) (#75)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:23:34 PM EST
    would be that he's a general. That would make him the first general since Ike, I believe.

    That would neatly steal the "natl security" issue from the GOP.


    That is why she should pick him. (none / 0) (#83)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:27:52 PM EST
    "National Security" is the only winning issue for Repubs, and even there they're losing ground.

    HRC has a lot of generals backing her, but if she picked Clark as her VP - a phenomenally successful general who is charismatic, smart and popular - it would take a big chunk out of McCain's voters.


    I agree (none / 0) (#94)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:31:21 PM EST
    I don't know how likely, but I think it would be a good choice for the party overall.

    Don't know how "politically naive" he is either. Unlike most generals, he has a strong academic background in poli sci, and all upper generals play politics.


    HRC is already perceived strong (none / 0) (#97)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:34:53 PM EST
    on NS matters.  She also would have Arkansas in the bag, probably.

    Third, there's no substitute in the tremendously unforgiving media glare of a fall campaign for actual political experience.  Clark for these reasons isn't a great choice for Hillary.


    You could be right (none / 0) (#102)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:36:39 PM EST
    except he does come off well on tv.

    Secretary of Defense (none / 0) (#149)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:07:01 PM EST
    N/T under Clinton

    Sebelius (none / 0) (#60)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:16:58 PM EST
    gave the Dem response to the SOTU this year.  

    She may be a wonderful person - I don't know anything about her - but her speeches could put Ambien out of business.


    I concur with you ladies (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:07:25 PM EST
    though I am in Georgia, which runs red as red can be, so my blue vote hardly matters.  I would be especially incensed if O chose a "typical white woman."  Er, "person," I mean.  I cite exactly the same reason as nell: it would be insulting for Clinton to take the number two slot when she is clearly the more (if not only) qualified candidate.  I could see her doing it for the party, though, honestly, I would hate it.

    And Obama has isolated one of the most effective dem advocates of our time by calling Bill a racist.  Chickens coming home to roost indeed.

    (let me state emphatically, however, that I think she's going to pull this one out of the hat.  Out of the pocket?  To borrow Ben Franklin's words,  O is like fish--the longer he stays in, the more he smells.)


    Oh, Kathy, I can't be the only one who, (none / 0) (#100)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:35:30 PM EST
    when I read this part of your comment:
    To borrow Ben Franklin's words,  O is like fish--the longer he stays in, the more he smells.

    thought, how unfortunate that his initials are, um, well..."BO."

    unfortunate, indeed... (none / 0) (#110)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:42:48 PM EST
    Obama has never called Bill Clinton a racist (none / 0) (#130)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:53:21 PM EST
    that's what surrogates are for! (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:55:41 PM EST
    Typical white person, I'm sure.

    It doesn't surprise me that his wife said it Larry (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Ellie on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:43:38 PM EST
    This cynical, opportunistic ploy was my tipping point.

    I watched the footage again, to be fair, but on second viewing I fell right over.

    There's not even room for doubt about invention and intent. That's as ugly as ugly gets, even were  I granting this team spin / SOP points for not coming close to their own Kumbaya standard.  

    It deepened my support of HRC -- despite her "divisive" tendency to argue for her own bid rather than stroke someone else's -- because I'm genuinely sickened by how bad things will become with another Uniter who sends venomous surrogates to do his dirty work while he floats "above" it all on a wave sycophantic compliments.

    (No, he's not walking on water: it's special effects.)


    This seems ok (none / 0) (#216)
    by rilkefan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:48:07 PM EST
    M. OBAMA: No. No, but, politics is politics. And I think it's a competitive endeavor. And, you know, it's rough and tumble. I think that she has handled herself well in this respect -- I think that she and Barack, as he says all the time, were good friends and colleagues before this race, and they will be afterwards.

    I think, you know, the job that we all have as Democrats is to come out of this thing united and ready to toward a common purpose.

    KING: But there had to be days where you were a little ticked.

    M. OBAMA: Of course. That's my husband. I love him. I don't want anybody to say anything bad about him. But, you know, I would also, you know, be foolish to think you would enter a race where you wouldn't hear somebody being critical of your husband. So I try not to take it personally.


    The longer he stays in? (none / 0) (#138)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:56:42 PM EST
    Your sober, dispassionate analysis is not really backed up by public opinion. Perhaps you're committing the common fallacy of assuming that everybody else thinks the same way you do.

    Oh, public opinion! (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:02:45 PM EST
    Yes, I tend to change my mind when so-called public opinion doesn't jibe with how I feel.  It's so embarrassing to think for myself!  Thank you so much for your incredibly unbiased and intelligent link.  I will change my posting hereafter accordingly.

    Hah! Kathy's baaaaaaaack! (nt) (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:20:55 PM EST
    Maybe he smells worse to you (none / 0) (#147)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:05:20 PM EST
    But, in fact, America is liking him more and more, and already likes him more than Sens. McCain and Clinton.

    Yes, yes (none / 0) (#148)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:06:24 PM EST
    You've certainly told me!

    Except in OH, PA and FL. (none / 0) (#181)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:24:42 PM EST
    But never mind, we don't need those states to win the GE.



    It does depend on how negatively (none / 0) (#61)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:17:05 PM EST
    you would view an Obama picking a woman.  Normally that process is so purely political as it looks or should look to shore up the candidate's chief and most relevant political weakness.

    I see BHO as having some problems with older women, right now.  That's a fair-sized segment of his potential base he can't afford to take for granted.  After this tough and often sexist primary battle, it would be foolish not to consider how he could repair the damage with this key group.

    I call it being politically smart.  That's what I want in a candidate.  It also would finally recognize the majority voting group in our country, even though our first choice wouldn't be on the ticket.

    Imagine though what the reaction might be if nominee Obama ends up with another white male for his #2 -- a Webb or Schweitzer.  Would women feel a little left out at that point?


    His picking Sebelius (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:20:13 PM EST
    will not change my mind about him. He's lost the majority of women in this country, and we know it would just be pointless pandering.

    Please understand that.

    He'll go a long way toward getting women back with Clinton, but no one else will do.

    If he picks a Repub or Indy, he can kiss my vote buh-bye. (Unless the Indy is Bernie Sanders! Love you Bernie!)


    He'd be damned if he did and damned if he didn't (none / 0) (#112)
    by honora on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:43:19 PM EST
    If he picked a woman it would have to be someone that supported Clinton.  One of the women who came out loud and strong for Obama would just make Clinton supporters even more angry.  However, talk of Webb makes my skin crawl.  Doesn't he have a real bad history regarding women and the military?

    It wouldn't be an issue of (5.00 / 5) (#137)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:56:34 PM EST
    "left out". Pander will just piss off women more. He needs to pick a strong VP that can help him hold up against McCain. I don't think he can do that by picking another white woman as a way to make us feel included. Maybe if he hadn't 'allowed' the volume of sexism in the campaign and was a stronger supporter of women in general, but not now. We know him.

    nycstray, having gone through this long (none / 0) (#161)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:12:37 PM EST
    primary process with two historic candidates, if I were a woman (and no, I'm not) I might feel a bit left out and unrepresented if Obama went with (aka "pandering" to) your  typical white male for VP.

    But, hey, I only claim to speak for myself here, certainly not for my entire gender, and am only guessing at the reaction of women Dems in such scenarios.


    But many are behind Hillary because (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:29:01 PM EST
    they think she is the strongest candidate. They don't feel like Obama is up to the task/will be effective/can win/etc. A strong VP, even a white male  ;) is much more reassuring and will also help with the other demographics he is weak in. As long as the VP choice is more appealing to those demographics, aka knows how to relate to them. I'm fine with being left out as long as I know there's someone to catch him when he falls, and is a STRONG supporter of our gender, which I don't think he is  :)

    I really think he kinda screwed himself with his message, lol!~


    Here's my problem (none / 0) (#91)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:30:28 PM EST
    What woman - either in the senate or elsewhere in government - has he worked with a significant enough time that him picking her wouldn't just be about her gender?  I mean, if he had frequently partnered with Barbara Boxer (he hasn't, but I'm throwing out a name), I might be ok with him picking her because there's a relationship there, they share the same views, etc etc.

    But just picking a relatively anonymous women - especially as a "substitute" for the most well-known woman in politics - for no real reason.... it smacks of tokenism.  Not cool with that.


    Been there done that with the (none / 0) (#111)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:42:59 PM EST
    inexperienced male boss. 4 times. Why do I see her doing the work and him getting credit?

    Because that's what would happen... (none / 0) (#129)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:52:00 PM EST
    but OTOH, 16 years of a Democratic Presidency sounds pretty damn good to me.

    then again (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:54:46 PM EST
    four years of an ineffective, floundering dem pres would have far-reaching implications beyond a single term.

    I think the effects start at the (none / 0) (#139)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:58:28 PM EST
    next mid-terms.

    Speaking as an (older) woman (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:57:10 PM EST
    Sebelius is not a substitute for Clinton. It's not about having a woman on the ticket, it's about having this woman on the ticket.

    I think if he offers it to Clinton, she'll take it. And that puts him in a bind.


    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:21:20 PM EST
    Sebelius is not a substitute for Clinton. It's not about having a woman on the ticket, it's about having this woman on the ticket.

    Yup.  Women are not fungible.  Should Clinton pick a African American for her VP to smooth things over with Obama supporters?


    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:24:26 PM EST
    Why wouldn't she (none / 0) (#95)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:31:48 PM EST
    if it's obvious that that segment of our party would be upset about BHO not winning and might stay home otherwise?

    And she would have damn few AA options on the VP pick, to be sure.

    I believe party unity and winning in Nov easily outweigh concerns among a relative few on the left about "fungibility" or some politically incorrect notions to do with "pandering".  

    Can't please everyone, so you've just got to proceed the smartest way possible ...


    You're awfully worried about Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:40:06 PM EST
    but not about HRC supporters.

    There are a lot more of us than you think.

    And we have noted the campaign tactics of Obama and how dismissive he is of Hillary and her supporters. And how his supporters call Hillary's superdelegates (like Mayor Nutter of Philly) and threaten and excoriate them for their choice.

    And we are not pleased.

    Get it?

    HRC doesn't take Obama's supporters for granted. She ALREADY OFFERED him a joint ticket and he snubbed her. She has already stated, repeatedly, that the most important thing to her is a Dem Pres in 2009. Believe me, if she wins, she will do a lot to reach out to Obama supporters, and it won't be some empty gesture like nominating someone because of his or her skin color.


    I have thought for a while now (5.00 / 6) (#119)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:48:20 PM EST
    that O truly believes that once this goes his way (which I am not certain it will--Clinton still has a chance) that he will work his magic and woo back the women voters.

    This ignores the fact, of course, that older women tend to be very hard to woo.  Once you get past a certain age, charm takes on a different meaning.

    Cream (I think) posted this ages ago, but it's so true: I don't want a president like my ex-husband.

    "Obama is like the person you marry the first time round, when you're young and passionate and Hillary is like the one you marry the second time round, when you're older and smarter"

    It is arguably unfortunate for us that we are older.  It is certainly unfortunate for Obama that we are smarter.

    I will not be wooed.


    Not even for a kiss? (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:12:05 PM EST
    Brava! (none / 0) (#124)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:50:51 PM EST
    Well said.

    Funny, for me, (none / 0) (#131)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:53:57 PM EST
    as a male, Hillary is precisely not like who I would marry the second time round.

    Look, she offered him the VP spot when (none / 0) (#128)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:51:48 PM EST
    she was BEHIND in votes, delegates, and every other measure. You can not honestly believe that is not offensive. She deserved to be snubbed, in fact, she asked for it.

    Thin skin (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:56:11 PM EST
    Obama needs to toughen up if he is going to be "offended" everytime someone pulls a good political move.

    She was never behind in superdelegates (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:56:11 PM EST
    and still isn't. Whoops!

    And she never offered him VP. She offered him a joint ticket. She said it was up to the voters to choose who would be at the top of the ticket, although she then quickly threw in a plug for the fact that she had just won Ohio.


    She is behind in delegates, you (none / 0) (#217)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:48:36 PM EST
    will notice I did not designate "supers" though he is quickly catching up there. I believe you are one of the many crying about the "will of the people" though you throw up the super delegate lead as if it even matters. It doesn't, it will be gone within 1 month.

    You said ANY METRIC. (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:08:54 PM EST
    And I am not "crying" about "the will of the people." I do want all the votes to count, SINCE I'M A DEMOCRAT, but clearly, the will of the people is divided, or someone would have the nomination sewn up. NO ONE DOES.

    The superdelegates do matter, since they are the ones that will decide the nomination. And it's a looooooong time till the convention...and they CAN change their minds. Predict all you want, but you Obamans have been wrong about Hillary's demise from Day One. Remember how he won New Hampshire by 20%? LOL.

    I say, let's wait until June and see what happens. I don't understand why you're all so hysterical about that possibility.

    Oh that's right - you're afraid your candidate will lose. I'm willing to take that chance.


    Dunno where you got (none / 0) (#146)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:05:03 PM EST
    that conclusion, madamab.  As a firm long-standing HRC supporter, with numerous financial contributions over the past year to prove it, I too am concerned about Hillary supporters in the event she doesn't make it.

    I've also been plenty ticked off about the way she's been treated in the MSM and the blogosphere.  

    I want her to win, but if she falls short, I do NOT want her playing #2 and having what would look to me like a humiliating subordinate position to someone 14 yrs his junior and far less experienced on the substance.

    Which is why I've tried to suggest an alternative route (for me and our party) on matters to do with gender, should BHO be our nominee and this issue is still one that needs to be addressed.  


    Sorry if I misunderstood... (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:15:16 PM EST
    it's easy to do over the intertubes. ;-)

    I just don't agree that nominating a relatively unknown woman would solve the problem. Honestly, I don't know what would - maybe a progressive male who's good on womens' issues?


    I don't want her as VP, either. (none / 0) (#167)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:15:26 PM EST
    Senator is a much better position than the largely ceremonial VP spot.

    Good point. Couple thoughts. (none / 0) (#105)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:39:06 PM EST
    Which Dem vpotus choice will help the most against McCain and whoever his vpotus choice is?

    Also, if the Dem potus nom, and therefore their vpotus running mate, won't be decided until the Dem Convention, and since the Dem Conventions is a week before the Rep Convention and, therefore, presumably, a week before the Reps decide on their vpotus running mate, wouldn't that give the Reps some advantage in choosing their vpotus running mate?


    hmmm.... (none / 0) (#115)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:47:41 PM EST
    I don't know the answers to the first question because it will depend on the nom.  A governor would probably be a smart choice though, just to balance out the senate stuff (although Obama probably also needs someone with some foreign policy background).  And swing states are always good places to look for a veep.

    As to the GOP getting to pick second... that's the nature of the beast.  Party in power gets their convo last.  It could theoretically help them to know who the dem choice is, but by that point, I'm guessing they probably have their list winnowed down a lot and unless the dem choice is totally out of the blue, they know who we're looking at as well.

    And going second didn't help Al Gore make a good choice in 2000.  At all.


    And (none / 0) (#230)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:01:50 PM EST
    The R VP slot will probably be filled before the convention - I don't think it will be a surprise to us.

    But as I posted elsewhere, the GOP convention starts on Labor Day and will also be going up against the opening of football season - the Giants vs. the Redskins, so which do you think will have a bigger audience in the corridor between DC and NY?  : )


    Good point, (none / 0) (#236)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:09:17 PM EST
    9/4/8 will be all about the Giants for me.

    I've been the one posting (none / 0) (#45)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:06:04 PM EST
    about a non-HRC woman for VP here as a way to mostly smooth over some of the anti-Obama feelings among women out there -- and haven't exactly found a friendly reception for my proposal (so far).  Oh well.

    I doubt if Hillary would be so eager to take a Veep position, and have problems imagining that Obama would be that comfortable with it either on the stump or in office.  Plus with Hill you get Bill.  Just too many potential major conflicts and headaches for a Pres Obama.

    Though Barack would have to be careful about "offering" it -- and not repeat the mistake JFK made when he "offered" to LBJ expecting Lyndon to turn it down flat -- then had to try to get him the hell off the ticket, to no avail.  Which is why he'd need to carefully evaluate the actual situation beforehand.


    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:12:03 PM EST
    I think that unity pony won't hunt. :-)

    So you're the one who just doesn't get it (5.00 / 9) (#176)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:19:35 PM EST
    over and over.  Let us make this perfectly clear:  We are not interchangeable vaginas and ovaries.

    Nothing would insult Hillary supporters more than to be told to just vote for any woman.  We voted for her brains, not her vagina.  And there is NO other woman with her brains and background in the Dems right not.  Let them bide their time and build a base -- as Hillary has been doing by meeting with women around the country and the world for decades -- and as Obama ought to have done, too.


    Wrapping on my end of this spirited (none / 0) (#224)
    by brodie on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:56:01 PM EST
    chat, I have never suggested another woman Dem out there quite measures up to HRC's abilities and unique experience.  That isn't in dispute.  It's a matter of possibly needing to heal a wound in our party along gender lines in a few months time.  I've suggested one way, should that issue still be dicey, that avoids what I consider to be an unworkable situation with HRC as Veep.  

    But it's no more insulting to women, or shouldn't be, than, say, when Hillary (allegedly) told Bill as prez to only consider women for his AG pick.  Nor when he seemed to play the gender card in selecting Ruth Ginsberg for the Court, an otherwise unremarkable pick where a number of other non-women possible picks would have been more worthy.  Nor when he picked Madeleine Albright for UN Amb or State when Dick Holbrooke was easily more qualified.  Were you duly outraged by Bill's choices at those times?

    Sibelius or a few other similar might not be quite in Hillary's league, but one of them might also be the next best thing.  It certainly shouldn't be considered insulting to women to suggest one might be picked who could possibly make history ...  


    If (5.00 / 2) (#232)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:02:34 PM EST
    And that's a big IF, but if Obama and the DNC want to heal the gender divide, they should have some backbone and stand up against gender-based attacks no matter who is the target (and NOW before the primaries are over).  That would show that the views and respect of women actually matter to them.  

    Just like African Americans don't have to like the Republicans because of Clarence Thomas, I don't have to come back into the fold because they find someone with female parts to be the nominee.  They're going to actually have to address the root of the problem - they have tolerated unacceptable attacks on women in the name of political expedience.


    Sorry, ya still don't get it (5.00 / 1) (#246)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:02:26 PM EST
    It is much different to say to Bill, start with a pool of many qualified women and pick some for the Cabinet . . . vs. saying to us that we who have started with this woman ought to accept just any ovaries.

    The only other woman I would consider... (none / 0) (#251)
    by lansing quaker on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:16:01 PM EST
    The only Female Dem I would consider aside from HRC would be Jennifer Granholm of Michigan.  But she can't run.  C'est la vie!

    You're right on the money, though, CC.


    I would feel a lot more comfortable (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:12:21 PM EST
    voting for Obama if Clinton were the VP on his ticket.  She is supremely capable and knowledgeable.  She would accept if she concluded it would benfit of the Democratic Party.  

    I know she would... (none / 0) (#62)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:17:28 PM EST
    and if she's VP, the Wright thing may lose its sting.



    A certain amount of Obama support is (none / 0) (#174)
    by esmense on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:18:00 PM EST
    ... mostly anti-Hillary. So I'm not surprised that fewer of his supporters are willing to accept her on the ticket than the other way around.

    In my caucus precinct in Washington State, almost all the new voters were, surprising to me, not young people (as they had been in 2004 when our precinct went for Dean) but middle aged white men. In stating their reasons for supporting Obama, they almost entirely gave arguments against Clinton. It really made me wonder how interested they would be in the election once there was no Clinton on the ballot.

    I don't mean to suggest by the above that every or even close to a majority of Obama supporters are simply anti-Hillary voters. But I do think that there is a significant element who are more concerned with defeating Clinton than electing Obama -- and that is reflected to some degree in the higher number of his supporters who would not like to see a "unity" ticket -- with Obama reaching out to his opponent and her supporters with an offer of the VP slot.  


    Polls I've seen have it as the reverse -- (none / 0) (#247)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:03:31 PM EST
    that more Obamans are willing to vote for Clinton than there are Clinton backers willing to vote for Obama.

    I agree (none / 0) (#57)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:15:16 PM EST
    It will be interesting to see if he will ask Clinton.  I doubt it.  But I think it would help him a lot to solidfy the dems.  The options proposed at OpenLeft don't seem realistic to me. If he picks an Independent or a moderate Republican it will kill him with the base. At least, it would kill it for me.

    What's with all the "change and (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:19:35 PM EST
    bi-partisan cred" emphasis?  If we're talking about a VP choice for Obama, many of us who are Clinton supporters are already worried that Obama is poised to sell out core Democratic principles for a few popularity points, so I think it is important that his VP be someone with some Democratic backbone - admittedly, maybe a rare attribute.

    Pelosi, as far as I am concerned, no longer has any "cred," and what I have seen of her attempts at bi-partisanship have involved caving in on issues that many of us considered bedrock.  If she were to run with Obama, I would run, too - away.

    Webb, for all his anti-war cred, is another leans-right, used-to-be-a-Republican.  Make him SecDef, but keep him off the ticket, please.

    Sherrod Brown is still on my sh*t list for voting for the Military Commissions Act; no thanks.  And yes - that was a worse vote than Hillary's AUMF vote.  In my opinion.

    Kathleen Sibelius may be more dynamic than she appeared giving her response to the SOTU, but she left me cold.

    Would it be too much to ask for Obama to pick a real Democrat for the ticket if he is the nominee?  

    Just sayin'


    I trust nothing about Al Gore (none / 0) (#31)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:54:40 PM EST
    unless Gore himself says it.

    Obama supporters have been pushing for a Gore endorsement - to no avail.

    My POV is that I don't want Gore to endorse a candidate(both are (very) weak on Climate Change) - but rather that I'd love to see either or both candidates endorse Gore.  Real action on Climate Change might mean something to me.

    (BTW - VP Gore is as much a pipe dream as impeachment.)


    What a silly comment by Obama (none / 0) (#198)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:35:21 PM EST
    Why on earth would Gore accept a cabinet position? I think this is just chatter by Obama.

    It's The Media Bobble Heads, Again (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by flashman on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:44:04 PM EST
    I know this topic must be getting old by now, but I have yet another rant about the media to get off my chest.  Already, I can't watch NBC, CNN, can't read most of the blogs, and can't listen to AAR... all because of the extraordinary lack of integrity and evenness of the Democratic primaries.  I can now add one more outlet to my boycott list: Real Time With Bill Mares.

    The once thoughtful, independent Mares has devolved into just another Hillary-hating, Obama worshiping shrill in the mold of Olberman, Maddow, Huffington, etc.  In his most dishonest, two-faced manner, he lectures Larry King about how one should not "hate" Hillary Clinton; the turns right around and center his HBO show directly on the very hate his pretends to disavow.  Further, he now has a regular guest, who's only purpose seems to be to call Hillary a 'liar' and make any other insulting remark he can think of.  I don't remember the guy's name; I think he's from Rolling Stone, or something.  Whoever he was before, he is now nothing more than a hatchet man for every Hillary hater.  Last week, he along with the other guests and Mr. Mares himself, spent most of the show making excuses for that crazy Reverend Wright, repeating that he said "nothing wrong."  He went so far to say that because he himself has "Goddamned my own mother" that excuses the reverend's disgraceful statements.  There was other banter about how they actually think the government did invent aids to kill black people.

    Their message is this; everyone who hasn't gotten on board the Obama train is a racist.  Hillary is a liar ( nothing, of course about Obama's misstatements about his heritage )  Also this; "We're smart-You're dumb.  We'll do your thinking for you from now on."

    Sorry (none / 0) (#42)
    by flashman on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:02:41 PM EST
    I am writing about Bill Mahar, not Mares.  

    Well, No (none / 0) (#77)
    by Harley on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:24:35 PM EST
    Actually, you were 'writing' about Bill Maher.

    Harley - You got to the correction first (none / 0) (#157)
    by Elporton on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:11:14 PM EST
    And the Rolling Stone reporter on Maher's show is Dan Savage.

    Except he doesn't work for Rolling Stone. (none / 0) (#186)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:27:04 PM EST
    x (none / 0) (#201)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:36:09 PM EST
    Isn't that Matt Taibbi?  He's kind of a jerk too.

    Yes. I find him a guilty pleasure, though. (none / 0) (#243)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:50:38 PM EST
    His writing is good and he's not too one-sided. And his stuff against the Bush admin is great. ( I'm talking about in RS not on the show).

    I'm Sticking With "Mars" From Now On (none / 0) (#237)
    by flashman on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:11:26 PM EST
    It's easier to spell, and I think that's where he's coming from.

    Lou Dobbs (none / 0) (#74)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:23:07 PM EST
    of all people, is taking up the cause of anti-Hillary media bias.  Check out this recent post on No Quarter.  

    Lou is mad as h*** and he's not gonna take it anymore! Good on him.  I think this is the first time a major media figure has spoken out so forcefully about the unbalanced coverage and the rush to push Hillary out of the race.


    Just curious (none / 0) (#172)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:17:53 PM EST
    Do you normally agree with Lou Dobb's POV, or have you decided he's OK now because he has the same position as you on this one topic?

    I don't agree with him (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:38:33 PM EST
    on immigration.  He's more conservative than I am, but he's more of an old-style conservative than a rabid right-winger.  I respect him.  I've been watching his show occasionally for years.  I think it's more cohesive than TSR or 360, both of which pander too much to idiotic "breaking news".  Lou sets his own agenda.  Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I don't.

    I'm old enough to remember when all conservatives weren't bad guys.  My new lesson, learned during this election season, is that all "progressives" aren't good guys.  I can separate the person from the message.  Do you dispute that Dobbs spoke the truth on media bias?  It's been blatantly obvious to us Hillary supporters for months.


    No, I am not disputing the media bias point. (none / 0) (#211)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:43:54 PM EST
    I asked because I find Lou Dobbs so uncompromising and bigoted about immigration that I truly cannot hear anything else he says. I recognize this as a fault of mine, just wondered if you agree with him on most things.

    We Have Turned To Odd Sources (5.00 / 0) (#215)
    by flashman on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:47:43 PM EST
    for even coverage lately.  I sure don't watch Keith Bloberman anymore.

    I don't either (5.00 / 0) (#231)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:02:25 PM EST
    and I can't bring myself to watch Fox News or even CNN.

    I used to get my news from AAR but can't any more.

    I'm down to a very few sources here!!!


    I Feel Your Pain (none / 0) (#234)
    by flashman on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:07:15 PM EST
    I'll chime in here :) (none / 0) (#202)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:36:55 PM EST
    I like Lou because he sinks his teeth into things others won't touch. Like all those tainted imports. He was one of the only ones looking into back when it was "just pets" dying.

    I don't always agree with his take on things, but I sure as heck don't mind when he gets on the 'right' side of one of my 'issues'  ;)  He has a mixed audience and seems to have the ability to get a message out that others can't/won't. A 10 second blip on the news, is a 15minute report with a panel on Lou.


    Yes, Bill has gone a bit off the (none / 0) (#192)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:31:22 PM EST
    deep end. He did redeem himself at the end by shouting down Dan and Robin(WAPO) about that drop-out of the race bs.

    I forgot about that (5.00 / 0) (#214)
    by flashman on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:44:15 PM EST
    However, why does he stack the deck?  The week before he had Rep. Barney Frank, who spoke out against the other panel members who were trying to make every excuse for the disgraceful statements of Rev. Wright.  The very next week, he make sure the panel would be in perfect harmony.  

    Do you remember the opening monologue?  His distasteful jokes about Hillary were bombing big time.  He began to look like a deer in headlights, not quite understanding why the millionth version of the same jokes from a decade ago aren't funny anymore.  His closing joke was not only not funny, but distasteful and dismissive of Hillary's statements made earlier that week.  I'm sure he understands that if he lampoons a candidate enough, his audiance will start to think of her as a joke too.

    He has overstayed his welome.


    Plea/Observation to Obama supporters at large (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:47:45 PM EST
    I have been waiting for an open thread to post this. This is a general plea to Obama supporters on all forums (who happen to visit here too). I am a Hillary supporter and initially I really was of the opinion that although I prefer one candidate, both were good with me. Then something happened.

    As time went on I found myself resisting the idea of Sen Obama as the candidate more and more. Some of it was and is based on real issues, concerns and personal preference. But I found my opposition hardening more and more, to the point that I was considering what I would do if he was the nominee. I didn't like the feeling.

    Then I decided to take a break from reading posts on various sites from hardcore Obama supporters. This is NOT aimed at most posters here who argue their points, point out issues, etc. You know what kind of supporter I mean. Ones who constantly give party line, discount arguments, repeat the same thing over and over, and consider Sen Clinton the enemy. After a couple of weeks something wonderful has happened: I am liking Sen Obama a lot more.

    I don't find myself so hard set against him, and am generally much happier about the election. The point: I know you think you are doing your candidate favors with hard core "support." But reconsider your position. You may be doing more harm than good.

    Obviously this goes for hard core Clinton supporters, but I don't see that as much.

    Hope you see the intent of this post: not as flame, but a serious and honest observation.

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by nell on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:08:07 PM EST
    Maybe you are evidence that people who are now saying in the polls that they won't vote for the other Dem if the candidate of their choice is not elected will come around in November...but I have to say, my anger goes far beyond the Obama supporters online...my anger goes to the heart of the Obama campaign which has been based on calling Hillary a liar, a racist, and a person who has no character...

    The disgusting tactics used by the Obama campaign against Hillary, while calling HER the candidate who will do and say anything to win, not to mention saying that he will get her supporters, but not vice versa, have revealed to me a side of Obama that I DESPISE.

    HE, not just his supporters, have a lot of work to do if they want to earn my vote, and I am sure the same goes for other Hillary supporters who are sick and tired of hearing their candidate and themselves be called stupid, racist, uneducated, etc.


    Obama says Hillary supporters are stupid racists (1.00 / 1) (#162)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:12:55 PM EST
    Check it out in this YouTube video. He stepped in it, all right!

    Please try the link again (none / 0) (#219)
    by flashman on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:50:55 PM EST
    all I got was a stupid muppets video

    That is there too (none / 0) (#79)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:26:35 PM EST
    Really, that is part of the personal and other issues portion. I won't add to the list.

    But somehow, at least for me, it becomes more clear what is real and what is reaction when not listening to hard core supporters.


    I hear you from the other side of the fence (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by magster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:21:01 PM EST
    I've become virulently anti-Clinton since WI and the Commander in Chief comments, from a previous position of being totally fine with Clinton if Obama lost.

    My tonic to Clinton hatred, instead of disengaging, is to search for and read McCain and GOP posts. ThinkProgress has stayed out of the primary battle more or less, and focus on GOP and national issues.

    Anyway, I'm still voting for Clinton now if it comes down to that.

    And as an aside, I watched this Eyes on the Prize documentary focusing on Chicago's racial problems. I had no idea how horrid the racial situation was in Chicago, and adds context (but still does not excuse) to Wright's statements. (To see whole show, you have to go to the poster's page and click on all 8 subparts of this episode).


    Eyes on the Prize: sterling. (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:26:51 PM EST
    I asked this on another thread (none / 0) (#82)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:27:38 PM EST
    But it got hijacked. Do you find yourself really being hammered by a lot of virulent Clinton supporters? Honest question.

    A lone voice crying in the wilderness. (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:02:30 PM EST
    Yes, and if a tree falls... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:09:25 PM EST
    PPP PA Poll: Obama By 2 (none / 0) (#54)
    by barryluda on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:12:50 PM EST
    Thanks for the honest observation

    As an Obama supporter, but one who really enjoys this blog more than others, I did change (or thought I had changed" my approach after hearing some thoughtful comments here.  For example, I now am consistently supportive of both Clinton and Obama staying in the race until they decide it makes sense to drop out.  It now drives me nuts to hear otherwise.

    That's why I was surprised when a prior post of mine was taken down since perhaps it was thought of as pro-Obama.  I'm hopeful that it was instead just taken down since it wasn't on point (even though I thought it was on point since the talk was about whether or not to count FL and MI, and I thought a recent poll in PA might impact the discussion).  I didn't save what I had posted, but it was something like this:

    I gather there's something wrong with this poll that shows Obama up on Clinton by 2 in PA.  I imagine, if he wins PA, that this would change everything.  I still liked BTD's idea (as I recall) that Obama concede both FL and MI as they had voted and then let this thing play out.


    That poll does seem to be quite an outlier. (none / 0) (#141)
    by ChrisO on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:02:04 PM EST
    I think both sides spend too much time trumpeting the polls. With the whole Bosnia thing Hillary has just had one of the worst weeks of her campaign, so I wouldn't be surprised if Obama has seen an uptick. Then next week something else will change, and the polls will reflect it.

    Speaking of polls, wasn't I reading just yesterday that Obama had gone up 10 points over Hillary nationally in Rasmussen? I see today that it's one point. If I'm correct, a nine point swing in one day should give us an idea how reliable the polls are.


    PPP Poll (none / 0) (#190)
    by sar75 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:29:28 PM EST
    The PPP poll is clearly an outlier, but there has been a clear tightening in Pennsylvania.  Rasmussen has it at 5 and SurveyUSA at  12.  SurveyUSA has the best track record, but I'd still guess that it's probably just under 10 points now.  With Obama's new ad buy, it will probably shrink more. If Obama keeps it under 10, he can claim a victory of sorts. If he keeps it under 5, it might end it.  The only thing that keeps superdelegates on the fence, I think, is a +15 Clinton victory.

    I think Obama will concede Florida and Michigan, but only when he's got this wrapped up.  I think we need to be honest: Clinton would be playing this exactly the same way if the shoe were on the other foot. There's just no doubt about that.  So, while one can criticize Obama all one likes for his stance on MI/FL, only the most naive person would believe that Clinton would be any different.


    Even Kos mocks the PPP poll (none / 0) (#188)
    by jes on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:28:40 PM EST
    here. And says the SUSA poll at +9C seems much more likely.

    As to why you were deleted, if it was the EV advantage post, I saw BTD deleting at least 2 different references to it and saying that poll was not on topic.  Sometimes it is hard when open threads are few and far between but best to save until then unless you want to risk deletion.


    Thanks, the poll seemed way off to me too (5.00 / 1) (#259)
    by barryluda on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:30:43 PM EST
    And thanks for the tip on posting off topic.  I thought it was relevant, but I can see how it could have taken things way off.  I suppose the work that J and BTD (and whomever else does the pruning) do is one of the reasons I enjoy this blog so much.

    I suppose I should donate, once again, to help support this blog...I think that would push me over so I'm spending more here than for my candidate.  That can't be good.  :)


    You need your two minutes' hate (none / 0) (#88)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:29:05 PM EST
    How are you ever going to maintain the proper level of outrage if you don't remind yourself every day that some of Obama's supporters think it's funny to call Hillary the b-word? And Obama supporters, I'm looking at you too here. You'll never be able to be appropriately disgusted by the Clinton campaign if you don't seek out Hillary supporters who say they don't like Obama because he's black.

    So come on now, Hillary fans, you all go to DailyKos, read until you're overflowing with rage, and then go vent at TaylorMarsh about how Obama is a loser. And Obama fans, go scan the TaylorMarsh comments until you can't stand it any more, then unload on DailyKos about the Clintons' lack of integrity.

    How else are we supposed to stay motivated?


    I REALLY don't go on dkos and get all (none / 0) (#229)
    by gish720 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:00:08 PM EST
    enraged...it does bother me and I don't like that in the least. I don't want to feel all angry, believe me.  It's why I came to this blog, to avoid all that.

    Randi Rhodes: Hillary is a "f'ing whore" (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Pacific John on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:49:25 PM EST
    Here's more "unity" from Obama supporter and Air America radio personality Randi Rhodes.

    YouTube clip not safe for work or kids.

    And we thought Chris Matthews set the lowest bar.

    This kind of stuff makes me proud to associate with the majority of Democrats who have virtually no representation in the MSM, on "progressive" radio, or in the blogosphere.

    Is there nothing more vitriolic (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:51:18 PM EST
    than a woman tearing down another woman?

    No wonder Tina Fey is such a staunch Clinton supporter.  We are living the very embodiment of Mean Girls.


    More than that... (none / 0) (#144)
    by Pacific John on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:02:48 PM EST
    the "left" is becoming everything it claimed to despise.

    A few more examples like this, and people will start to listen to those of us who saw widespread caucus irregularities.

    Has anyone ever seen a Dem campaign inspire this kind of behavior prior to this?


    Maybe...just maybe (none / 0) (#193)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:31:57 PM EST
    Obama is uniting us.  Showing us that "our side" can be just as stupid as the other side, and maybe now we will all be united .  tra..la..la...

    Yes, the lovely Randi (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:59:23 PM EST
    also did a similar riff on Geraldine Ferraro.  Really classy.

    I never particularly liked Randi Rhodes, mainly because she is so in love with the sound of her own voice, talking over people and - I believe - being deliberately obtuse about the valid and credible points others attempt to offer.

    Her recent diatribes are appalling and not something I care to be associated with; it isn't people like Hillary that give liberals and progressives and Democrats a bad name, it is people like Rhodes.


    I can't believe what's happened to Randi. (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:07:18 PM EST
    She used to be a lot more coherent and reality-based. Now, I seriously wonder if she is taking drugs.

    I can't listen to AAR any more, since they have decided their only job is to elect Obama president and to hate on Hillary.

    Funny, they used to know they were there to represent the liberal point of view, and they used to save their vitriol for the Republicans.

    I loved them back then.


    The Al Gore thing (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by ChrisO on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:51:39 PM EST
    sounds like a bit of posturing by Obama. Gore may well end up endorsing Obama, but it's clear Obama's trying to imply a special relationship when he says he has been talking to Gore throughout the campaign. I'm sure a lot of people have been talking to Gore throughout the campaign.

    As for VP, I think Sibelius would be a bad choice because any woman other than Hillary would enrage Hillary's supporters and appear to be pandering, and because a VP should be able to at least deliver her own state. I just can't see Kansas turning blue this cycle. For the same reason I don't think McCain will pick Romney as his VP.

    I don't read Open Left, but I suspect Bowers is one of those who thinks the AUMF vote is the only issue in the whole campaign. The notion that the VP "has" to be someone who voted against the authorization is just silly. This is just based on my instinct, but considering the fact that the vast majority of the country initially supported the invasion, I don't think that vote is as much of a breaking point as Obama's supporters like to believe. Of course, he can spend the election telling the voters how much smarter he was than them in 2002, and see where it gets him.

    I think it's got to be a white male Governor. Mark Warner probably fits the bill, and it seems that Ohio Gov. Strickland would be a good choice, although I don't know much about him as a campaigner. I think the fact that he is a strong Hillary supporter would help Obama. The one drawback is that, although Ohio is a crucial state, having candidates from neighboring states might be a problem.

    Wesley Clark is a very good possibility. And to the commenter who said he wasn't politically experienced, he ran in 2004 and competed in several primaries, tying Edwards for third in new Hampshire and winning Oklahoma (for what it's worth). Having read his wikipedia entry, it looks like he made several gaffes on the campaign trail, however, and I don't think Obama needs any help in that department.

    Richardson is a non-starter, IMO. He wasn't even able to deliver the Hispanic vote to himself, and proved to be a lackluster campaigner.

    And speaking of Sibelius, was anyone else pissed off that she was selected to deliver the State of the Union rebuttal, when it was well known that she would be endorsing Obama the very next day? That's when I realized that there were a lot of forces in the party lined up against Hillary.

    All of these comments concern a VP for Obama. That doesn't mean I'm sure he'll be the nominee.

    As for Obama running as Clinton's VP, Chris Cizilla had a good point. "Two years ago he was a state senator, and now he's too good to be vice president?"

    Mark Warner is going to be (none / 0) (#218)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:49:10 PM EST
    my new Senator- giving VA 2 dem senators for the first time in I don't know how long-maybe ever. He would be more useful there but he does have presidential aspirations. There has been some talk about Gov. Tim Kaine. I like Clark alot, too.

    I believe both (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:13:29 PM EST
    Obama and Clinton should run on the same ticket... that way both the Obama camp and the Clinton camp would have to "hold their nose and vote".... equal opportunity don't ya know!

    Quite frankly, I see that as the only way to bring the party together... NO MATTER WHO IS ON THE TOP OF HTE TICKET.

    Even though I may not like that situation... I want a Dem in the WH. I'll take my chances with the Dem...

    Taxpayers in Illinois have paid $28.3 billion for the Iraq War thus far.

    What could we have doen with theses funds...
    11,818,644 People with Health Care OR
     37,624,577 Homes with Renewable Electricity OR
     582,156 Public Safety Officers OR
     493,443 Music and Arts Teachers OR
     2,863,061 Scholarships for University Students OR
     1,890 New Elementary Schools OR
     205,136 Affordable Housing Units OR
     19,498,002 Children with Health Care OR
     4,187,799 Head Start Places for Children OR
     434,855 Elementary School Teachers OR
     412,732 Port Container Inspectors


    OR... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:16:40 PM EST
    5 new slums for Rezko
    10 new no-bid hospital contracts
    250,000 new donations
    and a partridge in a money tree!

    OR (none / 0) (#205)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:39:56 PM EST
    35,000 to 53,000 War wounded
    with about 2,000 brain injuries treated


    4012 U.S. Soldiers Deaths

    Holding my nose to vote is such a small effort on my part compared to these sacrifices.


    I have absolutely no faith (none / 0) (#208)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:43:16 PM EST
    that Obama will have the political power or prowess to extricate us from this mess.

    My family members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan feel the same way.  They are terrified that Clinton will not get the nomination.


    That may be (none / 0) (#226)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:56:47 PM EST
    BUT if Hillary is NOT the nominee... then it will be up to Sen Obama to get us out...BECAUSE Sen McCain is sure NOT GOING TO GET US OUT THERE.

    I'll take my chances with a Dem before voting for a Repub.


    Out of pocket? (none / 0) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:31:32 PM EST
    Or out of office?

    Seems to be a NE locution ... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Demi Moaned on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:37:12 PM EST
    that means something like "remote from my habitual haunts." I never encountered the term with this meaning until I worked for a customer in NJ. (I'm born in Chicago, but have lived in San Francisco for the last 25+ years.)

    The rest of us use the term 'out of pocket' meaning "it's costing me money even though it's on behalf of someone else".


    southern too (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:42:22 PM EST
    According to the (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:50:21 PM EST
    Urban Dictionary:
    3. out of pocket

    Paid from personal funds. Somehow over the past half year or so, "out of pocket" has become a new business catchphrase meaning "unreachable, out of communication", which is incorrect.

    Always been "paid from personal funds" to me.

    No, up here I'm pretty sure. . . (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:49:57 PM EST
    out of pocket actually means out of pocket.

    Maybe he meant out of touch? (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:52:34 PM EST
    I tried to check the NCAA playoff (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:00:32 PM EST
    sched. but failed.  

    Mass v. Ohio. 7PM EST. (none / 0) (#116)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:47:54 PM EST
    Actually (none / 0) (#183)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:25:50 PM EST
    In my line of work we use the term to mean "unreachable" quite often, but we also use it for its traditional meaning.  Go figure.

    Same thing, per this link, but, perhaps (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:51:31 PM EST
    meant to be intentionally annoying:



    Now his usage makes sense. :-) (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:56:34 PM EST
    well (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:54:13 PM EST
    obviously I have heard both uses.
    but if someone says "I am going to be out of pocket"
    I know they are not talking about money.
    in other news,  people are talking about those Quinnipiac numbers.  from MyDD:

    In general, Clinton does better among all three groups of white Democrats against McCain than does Obama. The difference between Obama and Clinton is largest among conservative white Democrats. In fact, among this group, Obama manages to get only 50% of the vote to McCain's 35%, while Clinton wins by a much larger 68% to 25% margin.


    WY Gov for Obama (none / 0) (#9)
    by magster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:40:01 PM EST
    Clinton's superdelegate lead down from mid 90's to 31.

    Another superdel for Obama just announced (none / 0) (#134)
    by magster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:56:04 PM EST
    so that makes 2 for Obama today.

    Teflon Obama (none / 0) (#14)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:46:50 PM EST
    I saw this on MSNBC, that they were calling McCain Teflon, 'cause media is giving him a pass on his misquotes like on shia, sunni etc.. Their point being that nothing was sticking on to McCain (his mis-steps) in the eyes of Obama News Network.. I was wondering who is a bigger Teflon, McCain or Obama.. things that did not stick to Obama:

    1. 20 yrs Rezko relationship
    2. The profitable property deal with Rezko
    3. Falsely claiming Rezko's plight was not known when the deal was done.
    4. Falsely claimed that Rezko buying the adjacent strip was "just" coincidental.
    5. Falsely criticizing Clinton for not aggressive enough to end the War, where Power quoted exactly  same policy.
    6. Falsely claiming no one assured Canadian authorities about his Nafta rhetorics.
    7. Claiming to be a "New Kind of Politician" all the way while his campaing calling Hillary divisive, liar, racist, manipulative, secretive, dishonest, ....
    8. Failed to be called for the double standards on Don Imus/Rev Wright
    9. Failed to be held accountable for calling his white grandmother a racist and a typical white person.
    10. False claims of being unaware of Wright's general tone and rhetorics esp. about 9/11 etc
    11. Failing to expose the double standards for asking Hillary to quit and then saying no she can stay as long as she wants.
    12. Falsely trying to hide his gun positions, abortion positions etc.
    13. ....
    14. ...............

    Lies being spread via email by Obama campaign (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:51:21 PM EST

    Did anyone get this letter..
    Obama camp is floating this email with lies touting his credential -- exaggeration is an understatement.


    Heh. (none / 0) (#38)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:59:24 PM EST
    I received that email from my Obaman stepmother. I was pretty sure it was BS, since it made no sense whatsoever.

    Thanks! :-)


    Thanks for the heads up. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:15:35 PM EST
    I should look for the inevitable attack on FactCheck!

    Holy S**t (none / 0) (#84)
    by flashman on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:28:36 PM EST
    I saw these numbers being pimped all over KOS, but couldn't figure out where they were coming from.  Each time I tried to look up the record, I was finding a very different story.  This just confirms that KOS is full of crap, and will print anything that jacks up support for BHO, whether it's true or not.

    Oh, kos posted about the PA poll (none / 0) (#107)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:39:26 PM EST
    on the FP today.  I should bookmark that post for April 23rd.

    Not saying that I believe any poll is accurate, but statistical analysis is a little more than denouncing one set of numbers as bogus.  (Not to mention that it's silly to get bent out of shape over any single poll.)


    Bite him in the backside in the GE (none / 0) (#142)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:02:09 PM EST
    The conservative pundits are saying Obama 'may' have an issue with exaggeration.  'We' just don't know him well enough yet.  There has been some questioning of his 'story.'

    This exaggeration will be tied back to him simply for not disavowing, denouncing and rejecting it, because we know they are racking it all up to use against him.


    Obama: "Create" Cabinet Post for Gore (none / 0) (#36)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:58:41 PM EST
    That's right, create a new cabinet post for  Al Gore to deal with global warming. Besides, the insult of suggesting that a world leader like Gore would be interested in such a lowly post, the idea of creating a new cabinet position to just deal with global warming is kind of absurd-- its not as if any of the other cabinet positions couldn't take it on as their top priority.

    Also, isn't it amusing that Obama and his supporters can go and on and on about the evils of the Clinton administration and then wrap their arms around one of the Clinton administration's central figures?  

    I guess Obama's never heard... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:08:28 PM EST
    of Secretary of the Interior?

    Besides, Gore has pointedly said he will not endorse anyone. I believe him.


    Gore also has said (none / 0) (#55)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:14:07 PM EST
    that he isn't interested in a Cabinet position and that only the POTUS would interest him.

    What can Obama possibly offer him?  Endorse me and I'll find a way to convince SDs and Ds to vote for a Gore/Obama ticket?

    I just do not see it.


    It's why Clinton's answer about Tcom (none / 0) (#64)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:19:05 PM EST
    at YKos angered so many of our "friends".  

    "You'll have to ask Al about that one."  Talk about speaking truth to power and exposing an entire movement's <s>hypocrisy</s> situational ethics in one short sentence.  

    But yes.  Tcom bill was Gore's baby, as was much of NAFTA, but no matter.

    I don't begrudge him that, they were good policies that have been badly implemented by Republican counterparts.


    Obama on the evils of the Clinton administration (none / 0) (#69)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:21:01 PM EST
    I'm afraid I can't find a quote where he says that everyone associated with the Clinton administration is evil, can you point me to that? Thanks.

    You're Joking, Right? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:36:19 PM EST
    Well, yes I am (none / 0) (#109)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:42:44 PM EST
    Obama has several former Clinton cabinet members supporting him or as advisers. The closest thing I can think of to saying the Clinton administration was evil is that he argues occasionally that things could've been better during the 90s, but I don't know any progressives that don't believe this, and I don't see any reason why this would lead him to reject Clinton's vice-president.

    OK, didn't literally say "evil" (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:40:18 PM EST
    ...but he's repeatedly attacked the Clinton and his administration.  In general, he portrays them as not getting anything done, arguing with the GOP just to score political points,  and running the Democratic party into the ground, all the while completly ignoring the rightwing smear machine that he had to battle.

    As Bill Clinton said:

    "The explicit argument of the campaign against Hillary is that 'No one who was involved in the 1990s or this decade can possibly be an effective president because they had fights.  We're not going to have any of those anymore.' Well, if you believe that, I got some land I wanna sell you."

    With the exception of Brown, all of those (none / 0) (#73)
    by tigercourse on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:23:04 PM EST
    are horrible choices for VP.


    The last two have superb experience and insights, the top one is a GOPer who is reportedly livid at the destruction wrought by Team Bush on this nation.

    If Obama picked Hagel, he would tear this (none / 0) (#93)
    by tigercourse on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:31:13 PM EST
    party apart.

    He can't pick Hagen or Biden (none / 0) (#104)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:37:56 PM EST
    They both voted for the AUMF, and that's disqualifying in the eyes of Sen. Obama and many of his supporters.

    How about Graham (FL)?


    Graham of Florida? (none / 0) (#113)
    by DCDemocrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:43:57 PM EST
    Actually, how about a nap?

    Ick (none / 0) (#98)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:34:54 PM EST
    If he picks Hagel, I will not vote for him.  Hagel has a lifetime 85% support rating from the American Conservative Union.  He's anti-government and pro-life.  He didn't even match his Iraq votes with his rhetoric until last year.  He is no moderate and if Obama picks him because he talks a good game on the Sunday shows, I will hand in my democratic registration.

    Obama's not picking Hagel (none / 0) (#106)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:39:06 PM EST
    This is just a ridiculous fantasy from 'bipartisanship' fetishists like Joe Klein, who need a new daydream now that St. Bloomberg isn't running. Hagel only gets mentioned because he's the only important Republican who's against the war.

    Why, by picking Hagel Obama could alienate both Republicans and Democrats! It's a Broderian dream!


    Yes, it is a Broderian dream. (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:48:38 PM EST
    We will all meet in The Center, populated by Broder, Klein, Lieberman and Bloomberg! And unity ponies!

    Actually, now that I list the inhabitants, I'm not sure I wanna go...;-)


    VP debate: Sen. Biden, (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:51:25 PM EST
    you sd.:

    "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy ... I mean, that's a storybook, man."

    He doesn't think, though, that Obama can win the presidency because he is "a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate. ... I don't recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic."

    What is Black Liberation Theology? (none / 0) (#89)
    by countme on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:29:26 PM EST
    This seems to be an important topic that Obama himself said we should have an open and honest discussion. However we really arn't having this conversation. I think his religious beliefs are more important then his reverends comments. This may shed some light on to the foundation of his beliefs.

    BTD can you open this up in future posts. as long as we keep it cordial?

    BLT is easy enough to google up. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:34:23 PM EST
    I've not been impressed by what I've seen of it.  I was raised a social justice Catholic, so I consider my religious background to be pretty progressive.  Black churches tend to be conservative, not liberal.

    From Wikipedia (none / 0) (#123)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:50:32 PM EST

    The idea that blacks forced out of their homeland, Africa, is consistent with the Gospel.

    --every theological statement must be consistent with, and perpetuate, the goals of liberation. This theology maintains that African Americans must be liberated from multiple forms of bondage--social, political, economic and religious. This liberation involves empowerment and seeks the right of self-definition, self-affirmation and self-determination.

    So there was this Black theology symposium a few days ago, and they reported on it of course at FNC.  Of course they, Greta, and the field reporter, were trying to figure out if the folks at this symposium had been in any way conflicted about Wright's sermons.

    I didn't see much of that.  One guy said that if Wright's sermons were seen as shocking by the rest of U.S. then that meant that they were not getting their message out into the mainstream as well as they should.

    Really, with the exception of Obama's condemnation of the statements (which was for political purposes) the underlying gist is that those who felt insulted or offended by Wright's statements are wrong to feel that way.  And that Wright was right to say what he said.

    Back to the topic at hand.  Wright's statements could be viewed as consistent with the gospel.  Jesus did say Rome would be destroyed.  Essentially a God damn Rome if you will.


    Conversation... (none / 0) (#191)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:30:29 PM EST
    conversation is just for the speech.  You really are not supposed to have a conversation.  

    Thank you for your comments... (none / 0) (#249)
    by countme on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:06:06 PM EST
    They were enlightening. I took Fabian's suggestion and googled BLT.  I do not consider  all tenents exactly mainstream and found myself troubled by parts of it.  If Obama is the nominee I could see this matter raised in the GE, and it would not be explained away easily.  If Romney had a problem with being a Mormen, I think that it is realistic to foresee a problem in the GE concerning BLT.  If it is a problem how much does Obama base his morals on BLT.  Which tenents are ignored and which are adhered to.  I think this is what the problem may be if his religious beliefs are brought up and not so much a discussion on pure racism.

    Obama on Chris Matthews (none / 0) (#152)
    by gish720 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:07:49 PM EST
    Right now...I don't know this is almost more than I can take....Chris asked how many of the people in the audience are for Hillary and there was a big "Boooooo"  Oh my. This is going to be a real endurance test. I would hope that would not happen if an audience who showed up for Hillary was asked the same...no booing allowed.  Bad form in my opinion. This is not a football game for goodness sake.

    Yes, you're right (none / 0) (#155)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:10:03 PM EST
    Hillary supporters are much too classy to ever express a negative opinion of Obama.

    It started back during the SC debate (none / 0) (#158)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:11:26 PM EST
    with the hissing and booing.  So unseemly.  These people would never do the same with Bush, who has arguably destroyed large swatch of our country as well as our constitution.

    I will say it: it's because she is a woman.  You can boo a woman for being unseemly.  You would never do that to a man.


    George W. Bush was booed when he (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:16:30 PM EST
    tjrew the first pitch at opening day of the new Nationals baseball park.

    oculus! (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:19:16 PM EST
    I leave for a week and we get all these new goobers!  Where are your tattling powers?  Will you only use them for good and not evil?

    Obama wasn't booed when he bowled his 37, but apparently, some ten year old brat messed up his game, so it's not really O's fault.


    I tattled just yesterday, to great effect. (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:26:39 PM EST
    But, J has convinced me I don't really need to comment as much, and implored me to label <snark>, which pretty much takes all the fun out of it.  

    Poor you (none / 0) (#197)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:35:07 PM EST
    I just assume everything you say comes with a grain of snark.

    Did you get permission to leave? (none / 0) (#196)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:34:48 PM EST
    We were looking all over thinking that you got religion.  

    Permission ot... (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:39:50 PM EST
    and there wasn't an open thread and things were a bit strict at the time because of some new folks who have since been replaced with newer folks but who seem equally as...religious.  

    As for me, I was over in London educating our allies.  They seem to have forgotten that the US is the greatest country in the world.  Papers were so refreshing--every story does not start with the understanding that the sun shines out of O's a*s.

    Bloody good.


    Obama supporters wouldn't boo Bush? (none / 0) (#165)
    by rebrane on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:15:01 PM EST
    Because he's a man? Honestly, where are you getting this stuff from?

    Did you see the video of W (none / 0) (#199)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:35:47 PM EST
    throwing out the first pitch? He most certainly WAS booed, and imo not because he is a man, but because he is a destructive, lying, false Christian war monger who has wrecked America's economy and standing in the world.
    Everything does not have to be man vs. woman, this is exactly why feminists are losing ground with young women.

    Plus, it wasn't a very good pitch. Too high. (none / 0) (#227)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:58:07 PM EST
    It wasn't surprising (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:03:31 PM EST
    It wasn't surprising that Bush's pitch was high -- just as it was in 2005. People tend to have long memories when the ball is bounced to home plate, so Bush made time this week to hurl some practice pitches in his backyard -- the South Lawn of the White House.

    "I didn't want to bounce it, that's for certain," Bush later told ESPN announcers Jon Miller and Joe Morgan. "That's why I came in with high heat."

    I thought about this (none / 0) (#159)
    by ChrisO on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:12:04 PM EST
    when Hillary made her Xerox quip about Obama's plagiarisms, and people like Marshall said it backfired on her because the audience booed. I remember thinking "I'm sure the Obama half of the audience booed, because that's what they do."

    I thought the same thing (none / 0) (#164)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:14:51 PM EST
    and the pundits said it was a misstep, but then the next day it was being talked about all over the place.  She scored a good point with that one.

    It don't matter that some fool say he different (none / 0) (#153)
    by rockinrocknroll on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:08:18 PM EST
    "The past is always with us. Where we come from, what we go through, how we go through it; all this sh*t matters. Like at the end of the book, y'know, boats and tides and all. It's like you can change up, right, you can say you're somebody new, you can give yourself a whole new story. But, what came first is who you really are and what happened before is what really happened. It don't matter that some fool say he different 'cause the things that make you different is what you really do, what you really go through. Like, y'know, all those books in his library. He frontin' with all them books, but if you pull one down off the shelf, none of the pages have ever been opened. He got all them books, and he hasn't read nearly one of them. Gatsby, he was who he was, and he did what he did. And 'cause he wasn't willing to get real with the story, that sh*t caught up to him." - D'Angelo Barksdale

    That is, more and more, how I feel about Obama. Especially in light of yesterday's post about his views in 96.

    Incidentally (none / 0) (#154)
    by ChrisO on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:09:15 PM EST
    I heard a brief clip from McCain today on XM Radio's POTUS 08 channel (I'm addicted.) He said he's giving a lot of thought to his VP choice, and he knows there's a lot of interest in the subject because of his age. His advisors must freak when he says stuff like that.

    LOL! (none / 0) (#178)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:21:23 PM EST
    "My friends, I'm old and cranky. I'd better pick someone young to be my VP, because frankly, my friends, I'm not gonna last four years."



    Leslie Hagen & Monica Goodling (none / 0) (#195)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:34:23 PM EST
    NPR's All Things Considered breaks a story about Ms. Monica Goodling's dirty deed done dirt cheap.

    Another top notch employee loses her job because of a rumor....about her sex life.  JUST A RUMOR!

    G!D! the Bush Administration!

    You may quote me on that.  

    I hope someone asks the candidates about this sometime soon - especially McCain.

    BAN no2wonderboy BAN (none / 0) (#200)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:36:02 PM EST
    Sheesh...... I don't support Obama, but give me a break.  There is a poster who repeatedly crosses the line.

    no2wonderboy   has gone off the deep end again (mocking Obama's name, racial references, foul language references.)  

    If you don't mind, pop over to 'Poll: Hillary Outperforms Obama' and rate the post a 1.  I requested the person be banned, if you agree... a pile on might be appropriate in this instance.

    Obama agitated on the Campaign trail?! (none / 0) (#207)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:40:51 PM EST
    lead in for the up coming local 6PM news. They're going to tells us what bothered him. Any clues? They labeled it as "A Bad day for Obama"?

    I think (none / 0) (#212)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:44:05 PM EST
    it's about the guy who pushed him for a photo op and Obama got mad.  There's video up at some of the blogs, but I haven't watched it yet.

    A guy wanted (none / 0) (#220)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:51:18 PM EST
    a photo with Obama.  I bet this is what it was, Obama was agitated because the guy was getting in his face and secret service had to step in.

    Thanks you 2! :) n/t (none / 0) (#228)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:59:26 PM EST
    Presidential Vote Equation (none / 0) (#225)
    by PennProgressive on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:56:10 PM EST
    Since this is an open thread, I will  try this for whatever its worth and may be some may find it interesting.Ray Fair is an economist (actually a very well known macroeconomist and an econometrician) at Yale. He has a presidential vote equation where economic  growth, inflation and "good news" influence vote share of a party in a two party presidential race (he has a similar house election equation also). Factors such as campaigning and other things are taken into account to create the equation. His prediction is that in November the Republican vote share will be 47.13%, in other words the republicans will lose. You can adjust his default values. I used different growth and inflation values  and came up with republican vote share to be 46.54%. Good news! Isn't it? If you want to hhave some numerical fun go to his  home page or google "Fairmodel".

    New to site...What does (none / 0) (#244)
    by Aqua Blue on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:00:40 PM EST
    "Rate All"   mean?

    How are the 1,2,3,4,5's  used?


    Click on a no., 1-5, then click on (5.00 / 1) (#256)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:25:51 PM EST
    "rate all."  What is the purpose?  Not much.  We don't have the ability to "hide" a comment.  Just registers your opinion.  

    Five being the good end (5.00 / 1) (#260)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:31:16 PM EST
    and one, not so much, right?

    Yep. (5.00 / 1) (#261)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:32:50 PM EST
    Powers that be (none / 0) (#248)
    by rilkefan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:04:57 PM EST
    You deleted a strongly-worded but entirely fair response of mine to a troll (if a troll is someone presenting wildly misleading data without a link and refusing to address counterargument) above.  If it happens again I'm out of here.

    If it is the one (none / 0) (#250)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:15:45 PM EST
    I saw... they amy have thought it was racist... It took me several times reading it to figure out it was sarcasm.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#253)
    by rilkefan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:21:13 PM EST
    It was me calling out the "Obama aligned with GOP!!!" commenter.  I've been nowhere near race in this thread.

    Oh- Thank goodness (none / 0) (#258)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:28:34 PM EST
    I hate it when that happens.

    I didn't see that one ... so not idea why it was deleted.


    No (none / 0) (#254)
    by rilkefan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:24:12 PM EST
    he's a Freeper-favorite crank with no documentation to point to except his diary.  Who's been selling this claim for years with it getting the deserved zero traction.

    Wasn't this considered "poorly sourced" (none / 0) (#255)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:25:05 PM EST
    over at DK?

    Is this a joke? (none / 0) (#263)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:39:21 PM EST
    about the sourcing? (none / 0) (#264)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:43:59 PM EST
    no, I read an earlier thread about this over at DK and that was in one of the comments calling for the diary to be deleted.

    So, while I thought it was amusing, it's not really a joke post from me  ;)


    New Politics (none / 0) (#265)
    by Sunshine on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:01:51 PM EST
    Now we have blacks voting for blacks, white men voting for white men first then second choise would be a black man over white woman, then there's women that vote for women except those queen bees that think they have been accepted into the "good ol boys club" (they'll find out they haven't later) so I guess the white women should vote for the white women first and if there is not one available then they should vote for a black woman.. When we get this all perfected we won't even have to go vote, we can just take a cencus and know who gets the office....

    VP vs First Mate (none / 0) (#266)
    by piezo on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:13:30 PM EST
    For some time now, I have been of the opinion that in actuality the First Mate is MUCH more an important factor in presidential elections than is the choice for VP. Laura Bush was definitely a big asset to GW. I think those that voted for him thought he couldn't be all bad with a demure, well-educated librarian as his wife.

    If I am correct then how well would this bode for Obama?