Idol Open Thread?

Hard to believe the last open thread is already filled. There was lots of talk about what we're watching instead of MSNBC and cable news. American Idol seemed to be a favorite, it's on now.

BTD just signed off for the night -- until I'm done with dinner and can post some substantive stuff, here's a place to continue your discussions -- all topics welcome.

< Seating Delegates Not Enough, Their Votes Must Count | VA Imposes Moratorium on Executions, MO Considers One >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Am watching Top Chef... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:36:25 PM EST
    And so far, everything looks yummy.

    I was unimpressed by the raw salmon (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:43:36 PM EST
    served as a first course that the judges seemed to love.

    I think the show should come with some kind of home tasting kit. ;-)


    I liked the one for il postino (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:45:45 PM EST
    and A Christmas Story. That fizzy pear drink looked good too.

    Very yummy... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Saul Goode on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:55:55 PM EST
    ...especially Padma :)

    She seems nice... (none / 0) (#100)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:38:51 AM EST
    But I'm still trying to figure out what her foody creds are.

    Who cares?? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Saul Goode on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:37:27 AM EST
    Just kidding...sort of. I don't know if she has any formal training, but she has written a few cookbooks

    She used to have a show on the Food Network (none / 0) (#125)
    by kayla on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:44:31 AM EST
    about six or seven years ago.  I remember watching it and thinking that she didn't know what she was doing.  She hated using fresh onion and garlic because she didn't like the way it smelled and most of the time she couldn't get the oven on.

    I used to watch Top Chef, but it seems kind of boring now...


    Ex wife of Salman Rushdie (none / 0) (#129)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:20:37 AM EST
    I wish she had a Heidi Klum kind of line when she "aufs" the losers.  

    not silly if they constantly trash your favorite (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:38:34 PM EST
    candidate....Currently watching Criminal Minds...love that show.....

    I don't generally (none / 0) (#7)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:43:35 PM EST
    watch television shows based around law or medicine, with the exception of Night Court and Scrubs...

    or (none / 0) (#13)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:48:49 PM EST
    Barney Miller and MASH.

    You BET I'm boycotting. And my (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by BlueMerlin on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:43:10 PM EST
    first target was CNN.  Jack Cafferty calling Hillary's concern about MI "unseemly whining" was the last straw.  Now, I'd rather watch the test pattern than CNN.  But ... let me not erupt into flames.  Rather, my purpose is to point to a diary on mydd celebrating Lou Dobbs and his recent segment on the media bias against Hillary (apologies in advance if this has already been covered here):


    Dobbs proved that yes, there are still such things as objective reporting and courageous journalism.  He pretty much "had his way" with Bill Schneider, which was fun to watch.  Check it out!

    Jack Cafferty is an Idiot (none / 0) (#28)
    by IKE on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:21:27 PM EST
    Could someone please tell me what his job description or title is, all I see this idiot do is read four emails every day. Does he have his own show or does he just pops out read two emails, say something stupid then disappear.

    Cafferty title (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by sas on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:59:59 PM EST
    Head Gasbag.

    Dunno (none / 0) (#142)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:08:23 AM EST

    He may be a Fox News mole meant to drive away CNN viewership.

    Nope, that's it! Wish I had his job. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:26:26 PM EST
    I watched CNN for awhile (none / 0) (#40)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:41:27 PM EST
    just to try and figure out WTF his job was!! I started watching it earlier and earlier thinking he was hanging around after his show.

    His role seems like that of Ed McMahon ... (none / 0) (#93)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:06:01 AM EST
    ... on the Tonight Show -- a bumbling foil for the host of the show.

    In this segment, every time Lou Dobbs asked Cafferty a question he got the answer wrong. This created another opportunity for Dobbs to speak and to make the real point -- often the opposite of what Cafferty just said -- which Cafferty then promptly agreed with.

    Bizarre! Unless the exchanges were deliberately scripted to seem as if Lou Dobbs was "winning" a "debate" or an "argument" -- which seems more likely.

    This line of thought reminds me of the Monty Python Argument Sketch, which is actually a lot more fun to watch than Lou Dobb's contrived concern for Hillary.


    Cafferty... (none / 0) (#101)
    by lucky leftie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:46:30 AM EST

    What I find disconcerting (none / 0) (#44)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:47:11 PM EST
    is that it's literally the same 10 people on every show representing our two candidates.  I understand the purpose it serves in some sort of 'media courtroom' but why have we only been listening to A DOZEN PEOPLE over the past SIX MONTHS???  

    Why won't the media seek out more interesting and diverse supporters of the candidates?  It just strikes me that I see the faces of the candidates' media crews as often as I do the faces of the candidates.  


    I would have been more impressed (none / 0) (#98)
    by halstoon on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:37:19 AM EST
    had Dobbs provided specific examples. When you refuse to call out individuals and specific instances, you're just bi$#*in'. In fact, Schneider seemed to talk over his head, never really addressing the media thing. Dobbs sounded like Carville or Ickes, not objective.

    Just goes to show how differently people see things. Thanks for sharing.


    It was the continuation of a previous (none / 0) (#107)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:25:23 AM EST
    report. This has been going on since Sunday. There was what I think was the initial report (for me anyway) Sunday night and they had Howard Kurtz, Lenny and Zogby with Media Matters stats etc.

    What bugged me about Schneider in this report was his concept he was pushing about the loser saying they were cheated. He never presented that accurately and skimmed over the delegates being seated didn't mean the votes counted.


    You're right. Neither of them seemed to be (none / 0) (#162)
    by halstoon on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:23:32 PM EST
    doing anything other than reading off his own notecards, ignoring the other, as if they picked up 2 different pages of the script.

    It occured to me (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:53:08 PM EST
    Over the last 10 or so minutes, I wonder what it would be like for a Kossack who has never ventured away from Kos-land to do so finally and find that another perspective exists.

    Not only that, to find that others care about that perspective every bit as passionately, rationally, and irrationally as they do.

    They're not capable of seeing (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by BlueMerlin on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:14:49 PM EST
    things from a different point of view.  This ability develops in the human child around age 8.

    I'm sort of in that boat (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by DionysianLogic on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:09:20 AM EST
    I'm someone who recently was over at Kos (and still is, although I'm fairly new there too) who came over here specifically to get another point of view (yes, I will admit, one different from my own)  Anyways, just wanted to say there are people here trying to learn and expand their perspective.  Cheers.  

    They would sooooo not get it. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:06:31 PM EST
    They would probably just dump on us. Maybe start blathering about the ROOLZ.

    What would Kossacks do? (none / 0) (#41)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:42:45 PM EST
    They would initially express appreciation and respect for opposing points of view, and then about ten minutes later they would tell their adversaries that it was time to change their minds for the sake of the website.

    and then they'd snuggle (none / 0) (#42)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:44:25 PM EST
    the cat curled up next to them.

    Hey! (none / 0) (#112)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:04:31 AM EST
    Honestly, I used to cruise RedState and Free Republic to get another POV.  Sometimes I would find a substantive discussion that wasn't "Are Libruls/Dems/DHFs evil or just fools?" but generally it was over the top, single POV rhetoric.  Sometimes it was interesting like when someone at RedState had a grandteen get pregnant "Of course we'll help them, ...".    (Hmmm, why did they need to insist that they would put their money where their mouth is...?)  

    And of course, there's my True Believer pet right wing blogger who is smart, female and when she actually thinks for herself can be quite perceptive but mostly she just parrots the hard right line.  I can't stand to listen to True Believers in person, so I read her blog instead.  She's interesting for what she doesn't say as for what she does say.  Posts attacking Dems?  Lots.  Posts supporting Republicans as paragons of personal and governmental virtue?  Hunh.  A few - but not as many as you would think a Conservative would have.

    The few diaries that do talk about venturing outside of the echo chamber usually indulge in bashing other POVs.  I guess it's a change of pace - let's bash them over there instead of bashing them over here.  And kos has been writing stuff that would embarrass me - like smacking down an irrationally exuberant PA poll as bogus.  I know that statistical analysis is beyond me, but I do know that there's no way to tell if one lonely poll is an aberrant outlier or part of a trend without more data.

    But I've always been a skeptic and a cynic.  


    I love this thread by Riverdaughter (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:05:12 PM EST
    I find this comment..... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:50:18 PM EST
    'I do not doubt that every last Clinton activist in the party will work for the nominee.'

    Interesting to say the least.  Apparently, KO doesn't think he has gone too far.


    Let's see. He meets one at (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:22:53 PM EST
    the convention and the mention of DK shuts down the conversation and he's that confident? Wow, I want some of what he's had  ;)

    Breathtaking, isn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by BlueMerlin on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:25:43 PM EST
    Also at riverdaughter (none / 0) (#82)
    by badger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:42:19 PM EST
    This thread: Who We Are:A Roll Call is fascinating and you'll see some familiar names relating their backgrounds and why they support Clinton.

    All low information voters of course (I don't think I can even post there - I only have a BS in engineering).


    me either (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:27:45 AM EST
    BS Finance/Acct. sigh.   ha!

    feel (none / 0) (#123)
    by sas on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:18:48 AM EST
    free to visit and becoma regular there.  She's good..

    MS in math here....


    per comment in your link - (none / 0) (#126)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:45:49 AM EST
    Jane Fonda endorses Obama.

    As if the Moveon endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:29:42 AM EST
    wasn't damaging enough...

    Olbermann Strike? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Chimster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:17:07 PM EST
    Why doesn't someone send out a press release like the "Kos Writers Strike" for Olbermann's show? MSNBC won't care because it brings them publicity, but it makes advertisers nervous. And if enough people make noise about this, those advertisers start to slowly pull out.

    The purpose of a strike would be to show what strength Hillary supporters have and that KO should keep his Hillary trashing on Countdown only, not on election night coverage where voters tune in for news, not spin.

    I think the strike demand would be for Keith to apologize for shooting himself in the foot by turning away clinton supporters and for just being a pompous horse's patootie.

    Michael Barone: Clinton Would be Better in General (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:37:31 PM EST
    He analyzes all the states so far and boils it down to the diffence being between academics and Jacksonians and argues that Clinton's appeal to Jacksonians is necessary for a general election.

    Clinton's support from Jacksonians gives her, as I have argued, a chance to overtake Obama in the popular vote and an opportunity to argue to the superdelegates that she should be the Democratic nominee. They're a significant bloc of voters in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Kentucky (although I should note that this week's polls in Pennsylvania show her running behind my projections). The Democratic Party has seldom won a presidential election without their support: Jimmy Carter carried Jacksonian voters in 1976, and so did Bill Clinton in 1992 and, by a lesser margin, in 1996. If Al Gore had carried just West Virginia or Kentucky or Tennessee or Georgia or Arkansas--all states carried by Carter in 1976 and Clinton in 1992, all heavy with Jacksonians--he would have been elected president in 2000, and we wouldn't have spent 37 days arguing how to count the vote in Florida. This Democratic primary contest has become a bitter fight between blacks and Latinos, young and old, upscale and downscale--and academics and Jacksonians.

    interesting (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:48:44 PM EST
    I am white, 50, and an academic for clinton. I am in social work and identify more with the Jacksonians.  I will still vote for Obama but I think one thing to add to Barone's divisions is race. I totally get why AA's across all these divisions are voting for Barack. But I am still pissed at him for calling Clinton's Lyndon Johnson comments "unfortunate."  I did not see anything wrong or racist about it. I don't think she was "race-baiting."  For me, it started going downhill from there. To me, that was when the media really started piling on.  I put that on Obama's shoulders.  She has made some mistakes since then, sometimes not taking the high road.  But I don't think she started all the "race" stuff.

    Totally. She was talking about the (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by BlueMerlin on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:23:10 PM EST
    difference between inspiration (Obama/MLK) and policy wonkery (LBJ/herself), and saying you have to have both.  That was so clear.  Obama could've turned that into a golden moment, saying something like "She's right, and isn't it wonderful that the world has reached a point where both qualities can be embodied in one and the same person.  Like me?"   But his strategy to win required prying her African-American base away from her, so he had to go nasty.   What a shame.  

    Can anyone name two white people who've done more for racial equity and harmony in this country than the Clintons?    I may be wrong, so that is a real question, not just rhetorical.  


    Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:55:50 PM EST
    I would say Clinton is the biggest in this area since Johnson. Then Kennedy, Earl Warren, Truman, Lincoln, some of the leading abolitionists, and some of constituional framers that had an eye toward abolition.

    I know even, and even before that... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:03:16 PM EST
    ... the whole thing got started when Bill Clinton supposedly called Obama's candidacy a fairy tale, when he was clearly referring to the ridiculous narrative being dictated by Obama.

    that's right (none / 0) (#60)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:04:34 PM EST
    I forgot about that one...a fair comment I thought given that Obama didn't vote any differently than Clinton when he was in the Senate.

    don't forget (none / 0) (#134)
    by 1jpb on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:12:13 AM EST
    "roll of the dice" and "kid"

    I'd like to offer a different POV. (none / 0) (#102)
    by halstoon on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:49:53 AM EST
    This is just me and from my memory of the whole deal.

    Sen. Clinton made her LBJ comments in the context of people comparing Sen. Obama favorably to MLK in terms of oratorical and inspirational skill. Obama's buzz from his Iowa victory speech and other performances was that he lifted audiences etc. So anyway, people are real jazzed about Obama b/c he's so good on stage and they throw around MLK references, which was a great compliment to Obama.

    In response, Sen. Clinton comments that "it took a president" to get the VRA passed. That is true, but why did she have to say that? Was there a chance people had forgotten that MLK was not a president? Did she worry that the Constitutional process wasn't getting his fair glory? No. She was mad that Obama was being lifted up by his oratory and she wanted to put the focus on policy.

    It backfired, though. When she meant to diminish oratory as a qualification for being president, she instead diminished Dr. King by saying that his work would not have meant as much--would not have become law--if not for a president; a president who was a white man from Texas; a man whose heart was in the right place but whose blood had not been shed for the cause; a privileged American having to "certify" the status of the Black Man. That just struck black people as all kinds of wrong.

    It was not what Sen. Clinton meant, but then again Rev. Wright was also not calling for God to rain fire and brimstone and turn Americans into pillars of salt, either, but that is how people heard him.


    It took a wily, Washingtonian president (none / 0) (#110)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:53:48 AM EST
    LBJ in his day, and especially for the Civil Rights legislation, was known for his effective arm twisting.

      It was a more earth-bound type, similar to but just below the 'elegance' of JFK's index-cards of info that could be used against members of Congress.  JFK was never as effective, even  with his index cards, as LBJ, when it came to Congress.  But he was an inspiring figure too.

      A purer type (or one who presents himself that way even when he emerged from the thickets of Chicago's well-known impure political scene) would be less effective in persuasive techniques of a certain type when needing to get legislation done against the wishes or personal worries of Senators and Congressfolk.  

      On the other hand, when Obama ran for his first seat, he did somehow manage with his experienced Chicago help to get all opponents on the ballots thrown off for signatures some digging found were invalid, per his newer database listings.  And two stronger senatorial candidates he was to face later both had their romantic affairs and/or problems with wives suddenly public, so he may well be wily enough, actually.  In fact, he may have become used to be able to run without an opponent in the way, and thus the surrogates went crazy the last two weeks trying to get Clinton to quit.  That running, 'unobstructed,' has worked for him in the past.

      But, she was trying to say again that she had more experience in the ways of Washington and could get more done than Obama.


    What it took was the blood of blacks and whites (none / 0) (#160)
    by halstoon on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:16:46 PM EST
    alike, along with the words of Dr. King and those he led in the struggle for equality. What it took was for black people to refuse to continue playing the game the way America had told them they had to play it. What it took was white people recognizing that their ancestors and even their parents had created a system that was fundamentally flawed and unfair; one built on dehumanizing our brothers and sisters with black skin and whose forefathers had built this country alongside their white slave owners.

    In the end, what LBJ did was convince Washington that they had no choice but to do the right thing. Thanks to Dr. King and others, nothing less was going to suffice.


    Legislating hearts (none / 0) (#165)
    by andrys on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:16:27 PM EST
    Remember what they said in those days?  That one couldn't legislate what the heart felt?  That certain biases and contemptuous treatment of others would be forever there?

      It was good to see they were wrong, to a point.  Change, too often, comes slowly and painfully, for sure.


    They were right. (none / 0) (#166)
    by halstoon on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:52:08 PM EST
    The progress we've made on the racial front is wonderful. I wasn't born until '76, so I have no memories of segregation, but I am a Southerner, and I have witnessed the attitudes of my own family evolve over the years.

    Nationally, we have simply moved on to another group: gays. Now we legislate them into second-class citizenship and a big part of the country has no problem with it. We seem to need to be superior to some group in order to feel validated; that's really sad.

    Maybe we'll continue to evolve, but I do wish it was faster.


    That kind of change is never fast enough (none / 0) (#167)
    by andrys on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:03:02 AM EST
    But I was shocked, growing up in San Francisco, to read in Life Magazine in 1954 about the Desegregation Act or whatever it was called.  I couldn't get my mind around the schools being segregated in our nation's capital.

      And then one year later I found myself in one of those schools.  Life is like that.  :-)   Being in DC/Virginia/Maryland in those days was a real education.

      My first job after high school (and during summers) was at the Nat'l Bureau of Standards and Measures.  I remember walking into the restroom lounge at noon to find women sitting there eating their lunch and I asked why they didn't go to the cafeteria.  They just said this is where they ate.
    It was a form of left-over segregation.

      As Chinese-Americans, my brother and I were assigned to enter Virginia diners to find out whether or not their blatant "No Colored" signs applied to us.  I had friends in Mississippi who were "covered" by that sign.  

      Now I've lived long enough to see a lot of changes where being put to work/eat/school together was "forced."  And in the end, it worked, except that prejudices of course remain today.  While quieter, they still don't have nearly the force or effect they did 50+ years ago.

      As for how we evolve, I'm not super optimistic there.  With any of the animals on this earth, there is a natural wariness over the 'outsider' who shows up at your 'group' ... I found the same with religions of course... It's a learning process and many will not want to learn.  There's a protection people look for in being with 'same' or 'similar' -- and that includes, a bit, the progressive blog syndrome during this election season  :-)    

      You're right in that we hope to be better-than rather than lesser-than, so we'll designate another group lower.  I remember when our Baptist church's young people's group in Chinatown San Francisco got in a circle to pray for our friends who were Catholic.  I remember thinking "huh?"  And watching the circle so devoutly praying that their Catholic friends would learn to believe in the correct way so they wouldn't have to go to hell.

      And I saw that what was happening was that if others don't believe as we do, we may begin to wonder that maybe we're not right (how can that be?), nor The Way To Live, and it's threatening, so there's an unconscious WISH that the others will be threatened with hell.  I couldn't conceive of why they thought a God would do something to their friends that they themselves wouldn't.  And then I realized maybe they could.  For not thinking the same way...  Maybe I was being overdramatic, but all those things occurred to me.  Projecting onto a God what we want but won't accept in ourselves.

      We call it 'just being human.'  ;-)


    Thank you for sharing your story. (none / 0) (#168)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:11:31 PM EST
    Though, you didn't say whether you got to stay in the diner or not. Were you "Colored" in VA? I really hate that you and your friends and family had to go through that. I'm grateful to your generation for trying to put the prejudices of your parents out of the lives of your children. If we continue to do that, we can make progress. I have two toddlers, and I've chosen to not teach them that people are "black" or "white". They're just people. It's so nice to ride the train with them and see them not notice people's color. I know I won't be able to keep that up, but I can teach them that their skin tone is the only inherent difference between us.

    As for religion, Baptists are one of the more egregious offenders in the area of thinking that they alone have the true doctrine of Christ. When I was in high school, I took my homecoming date to a party at a friend's house who happened to be Mormon. When she found that out, she asked me to pray for their souls, and instead I took her home.


    'You've got to be taught to be afraid' (none / 0) (#169)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:40:54 AM EST
    "... of people whose eyes are oddly made..."  (Rodgers & Hammerstein oldie)

      We were told we could enter the diners, but it made us feel weird that some other people could not because of their skin color.  What a time.  These signs were at water fountains too! And that was considered okay !  This was in my lifetime, so I do understand Reverend Wright's anger as well as Obama's covered-anger.

      As for teaching children, one of my room-mates at UC Berkeley in the late 50s came from Los Angeles, and she told us that her parents had always taught her not to be prejudiced so she felt good about that.  After she graduated she sent an invitation to her wedding to a young medical intern or resident.  She was white (a red-head) and he was Chinese-American.  Her parents refused to go to the wedding.  They just didn't approve.

      Even my (white) ex-husband's parents talked to us to try to deter us from getting married because we would come up against opposition and they didn't want us hurt.  My Chinese father said he'd leave me.  :-)  My ex and I did have some discrimination problems, but as we know most of this has changed now.

      So, these things come very slowly, and sometimes the biases can be too deep to even be felt until something calls them up.


    I was raised to believe that mixed marriages (none / 0) (#170)
    by halstoon on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:00:54 AM EST
    were a bad idea, and I admit that if one of my boys chooses to date inter-racially I will have to get used to the idea. I won't disown him or refuse to show up at his wedding, but I will worry about the hassles he'll face, and the discrimination his future children might endure.

    I hate that I feel that way, but in that sense I can see how certain things are just bred into us. And even though I'm not a minority and didn't experience segregation, I completely sympathize with Rev. Wright and understand how liberation theology is attractive. For Obama, who grew up essentiallly white, I can see how he might assume that Rev. Wright was very representative of the black church. That's why it's not really surprising that he stayed in the church. This is a massive church that is very involved in the community. Wright has a national reputation, and it isn't one of bigotry. So, when people freak out about Obama attending the church, I tend to think they're maybe overreacting. It also helps that I'm willing to sit and listen to the whole sermon, not just the clipped portions.


    What's acceptable and not (none / 0) (#171)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:55:50 AM EST
    Well, parents will always watch out for their children and try to protect them from the rougher patches, I guess -- culture clashes etc., when applicable.

      Wright.  I understand his anger - I really do not like his manipulative manner of preaching the hatred portions.  He's a demagogue, and anyone who so cherishes his own ability to move a crowd to rage or happy applause when listening to words of destruction (avoiding empathy) would not be my "spiritual mentor"...   And I'd probably have left at some of those points we heard, no matter what had preceded it.  I'm glad Oprah decided to opt out of it.

      But best, as you say, to hear the whole thing before deciding that.

      More to the point -politically-, this will really be harmful in the GE.  As someone pointed out on Huff Post, the Repub swiftboaters need only to do a video showing a plane hitting the first Tower as we hear Wright's "God damn America!" and the same voice-over as a plane hits the 2nd tower -- and as the towers fall, the video shows Wright doing his manipulative slow turning around as he says "The Chickens have come home to roost" (and of course they can also quote the referenced Malcolm X saying this about JFK's death).

      It's true that this is all it would take on the mainstream channels in their prime-time ads (not cable news, which only we news-addicted types watch) when the GE voters that include Repubs and Independents who avoided the primaries (a large percentage do) are exposed to this.  

      GE polls will be different when both Obama and McCain and their running mates are being vetted.


    except (none / 0) (#124)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:05:46 AM EST
    She specifically mentioned jfk as well in the same remarks contrasting him with lbj.  To make it racial, the jfk reference had to go down the memory hole.  

    And it did.


    She brought JFK up in terms of effectiveness (none / 0) (#161)
    by halstoon on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:21:33 PM EST
    and commitment in Washington, as it pertained specifically to that issue. At other times she may have spoken about JFK in terms of Obama and inspiration or oratorical skill, but as it related to the VRA she mentioned JFK as the previous administration. Not nearly the same thing.

    So, no, the JFK thing did not go down the memory hole. Her argument that charisma does not make a great president is not racist, and in that respect JFK is brought up in terms of the amount of time he had spent in Congress after being a WWII hero. Nobody gets upset when she lifts JFK above Obama. They got upset when she put LBJ above MLK in terms of the VRA of '65.


    you know (none / 0) (#163)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:05:51 PM EST
    That's not in the comments I saw.    She gave credit to both and she repeatedly said that both were responsible (and she said jfk couldn't do it - which is totally relevant given that she was responding to obama comparing himself to jfk and mlk).

    But let's pretend you are right - contrary to everything she has done in her life and her record on civil rights up to that point, she consciously choose to degrade mkl.  I mean, that itself belies belief, but let's assume that is true.  Does that one comment really cross such a threshold that she is a racist?  Really?


    She did actually make the comment something (none / 0) (#164)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:13:59 PM EST
    to the effect of LBJ getting it done when "previous administrations" had been unable (JFK) or completely uninterested (everybody else basically).

    As to your second point, you are conflating two things that are not true. Saying that she made a comment that was ill-informed and unfortunate is not the same as saying she is racist, at least not where I am concerned. If you look up the NYT coverage, they actually note that Clinton was aware that her comments came out wrong and tried to backtrack later in the same day.

    Should something like that be taken as her being racist? No. I think with Sen. Clinton it is the same problem she has with the CiC issue and the Bosnia issue. The perception is that she will say or do whatever has to be done to win. When black people began to feel like that meant selling MLK out, combined with the emergence of a legitimate black candidate, their loyalties left Clinton and took up with Obama. Once they made the switch, they simply never went back, though I don't think the anger has carried over up to this point, at least not as it relates to MLK.

    That's just speaking for me.


    She had to say it because it's politics (none / 0) (#150)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:33:23 AM EST
    and a presidential campaign, so a candidate positions her/himself as what the country needs.  Obama positioned himself as an inspiring MLK (which, btw, I thought was ridiculous and reflected lack of respect for all that MLK did, on the ground and the front line and far beyond speeches, all much more than Obama has done).  

    She positioned herself as what else is needed to win, as inspiration and speeches aren't enough.

    That's all, and that's entirely fair and the correct thing to do when competing in a campaign.  I thought it incredibly unfair to call that racist.

    More important, I thought it quite wrong of Obama in terms of educating today's young people as to what they will need to do to truly turn hope into change.  If they continue to be taught that it just takes speeches, they will sit back and not get in the trenches as so many had to do to put the power of numbers behind MLK to put pressure on politicians.

    MLK did not march alone.  MLK did not suddenly find himself in D.C. giving speeches on the Mall.    It took years of effort to build a powerful coalition behind him.  Obama's coalition to get himself elected is not the same thing at all.  For what changes in civil rights, after the election, would he use that coalition?  It is still unclear.


    I respectfully disagree that Sen Obama is (none / 0) (#158)
    by halstoon on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:02:50 PM EST
    setting a bad example, and he certainly is not promoting some idea that speeches are all that matter in changing things. That is highly disrespectful, intellectually dishonest, and a sign of deeply flawed reasoning.

    Obama is on the campaign trail saying that if you want to change things, you have to get involved. You have to vote. You have to stand up for your beliefs. You have to be active. As for young people, he's out there saying "Turn off the games. Read a book. Exercise. Stop eating junk 24/7 and drinking only soda." He's out there showing young black people that if you want to work hard you can get to Harvard or the White House. He's setting an example for people as someone who chose to go work in South Chicago instead of the Supreme Court.

    You know that is not true, Cream. It is specifically Obama's call to speak truth to power that is about to defeat the most powerful political couple of the last century.

    I think you misspoke, or maybe got carried away. No way you can really believe that.

    As for questioning his civil rights policy, from what I've seen, he and Clinton are pretty close on those arenas.


    I didn't see Clintons (none / 0) (#145)
    by JoeA on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:14:37 AM EST
    comments as racist,  nor do I think Obama's reference to them as "unfortunate" is implying that either.

    I think Clinton phrased it clumsily and it came across as diminishing the contribution of MLK.  I that context I think her comments were unfortunate and I understand why some African Americans in particular,  were a bit sensitive about them.


    Thanks for the link. Fascinating! (none / 0) (#80)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:39:26 PM EST
    Here's a complementary analysis (none / 0) (#106)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:09:58 AM EST
    See No Really. Hillary Has A Decent Shot. by Sean Oxendine.

    This was linked in the first comment to Barone's article, and reaches similar conclusions about the demographic differences between Clinton and Obama voters.


    MSNBC - I am (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by sas on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:04:52 PM EST
    boycotting sort of....

    I am much happier, and of course I don't need those people.  And after many years, I realize I don't like them.  They are the Limbaughs of the left.

    How Obama Supporters View America (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Dan the Man on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:37:39 PM EST
    A Picture of their Map

    See any states missing?  See the redefinition of the word "popular vote" (which, incidentally, isn't even consistent)?

    Wow... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:08:57 AM EST
    ...that's pretty delusional. I like that they put Texas as winning the popular vote.

    Obama voters are SuperDuper good (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:11:25 AM EST
    and their votes can be counted twice.

    Hilarious... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:42:13 PM EST
    Nightline just had a piece on Obama making an ass of himself in Pennsylvania. First the bowling, then he goes to a Philly cheese steak shop and asks if they have goat cheese, then he goes to another shop and samples some meat that costs $100 a pound and the small sample he's tasting costs a dollar, then he goes to a bar and orders some European beer.

    windsurfing (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Arcadianwind on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:45:13 PM EST
    is next, then duck hunting.

    in a spiff new hunting outfit... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:37:45 AM EST
    Kerry woulda done better if he'd used his old togs...or rolled around in the dirt before starting out.

    He looked too shiny.


    Please god tell me he didn't (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:54:37 PM EST
    ask for goat cheese?????!!!!!

    Ok, it's not nearly that bad (none / 0) (#90)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:58:16 PM EST
    He went to DiBruno's and had specialty food.

    Looks like he's working toward shoring up his latte liberal base. He wants ALL of the delegates in my Congressional district.


    Not to mention (none / 0) (#136)
    by 1jpb on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:31:23 AM EST
    ham helps fight the Muslim lie.

    Anyone who's smart enough to know (none / 0) (#137)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:45:01 AM EST
    that Muslims don't eat pork is likely also going to be smart enough to know that Obama isn't a muslim.

    He could just as easily offend some Jews at the margins. (I think both are unlikely)


    Awwww! (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:09:51 AM EST
    Too bad he didn't come to OH and check out our many fine dairies and cheese producers.  We've got a very nice fresh goat cheese coming out of NE OH - rural area - the kind of place where he did very poorly.

    His advance team is letting him down.


    Geez (none / 0) (#86)
    by badger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:53:32 PM EST
    Goat cheese? That's worse than Kerry ordering Swiss in 2004. At least Obama didn't order it vegetarian.

    All he needs are Birkenstocks and Volvo to complete the stereotype.

    I like this:

    According to Pennsylvania Governor and former Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell, cooks outside Philadelphia can't produce an authentic Philly cheesesteak because, "first, they use good meat. You need the fattiest, stringiest meat to get a proper taste... The second mistake is, they use real cheese. Real cheese doesn't melt like Cheez Whiz... And third, when they fry their onions, they actually drain off the grease. You can't do that."

    goat cheese? (none / 0) (#97)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:36:04 AM EST
    on a cheese steak? Ew...just ew.

    Swiss I get...it kinda tastes better than the cheese whiz. But goat cheese?


    This creeps me out. (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by jen on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:46:18 PM EST
    A good friend just called, and was relating a conversation he had with an Obamacan friend of his.

    He said when he told the person he didn't have a horse in this race, she said Well, you haven't seen Obama have you? Then went on to try to explain -- but said it was hard to put into words -- what it's like. She said you can feel and see the love he has for everyone and everything, and the energy goes back and forth between him and the crowd. It was like nothing she's ever experienced in her life (she's no spring chicken) and really it's just beyond words. She said she can't understand how everyone can't see that he's the ONE who can change this country, and take us where we've always wanted this country to go...

    I am so curious what is it that he opens up in some people. When I hear him I hear a revivalist preacher. I see an arrogant, inexperienced, spoiled child. I am just baffled that he elicits these deep feelings of adoration and even worship in some people.

    And yeah, it creeps me out.

    David Koresh (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Arcadianwind on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:51:26 PM EST
    That kind of creepy, I know what you mean.

    If you want more (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:58:46 PM EST
    creepiness go to the obamamessiah.blogspot.com.

    many seeking a "father figure", perhaps? (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:49:57 AM EST
    Sad that so many Obama supporters don't even know his positions on the issues.

    I think of him as (none / 0) (#143)
    by 1jpb on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:11:16 AM EST
    The Simpsons, or some of the other animated sitcoms:  Popular with young people and folks who don't study lots of issues, and also popular with those who spend a lot of time on issues.

    I think HRC is strongest with those in the middle.  They may know she's a fighter, doer, changemaker, soulutionser, resultgetter, with 35 years of experience, and former First Lady.  Sure, it's fun for Hannity and others to ask BO supporters if  they can name BO's accomplishments, but I've heard a couple dozen HRC voter interviews (where the questions are more open, e.g. Why are they supporting HRC)  and the voters don't point to specific accomplishment, they refer to the slogans, or they talk about gender, or they talk about WJC.  

    My point is that it's unfair to focus on the BO supporters who aren't able to follow policy issues and other particulars, because that ignores all the highly informed BO supporters, e.g. Hamilton yesterday.

    My only point is that except for a


    Not my experience (none / 0) (#140)
    by nell on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:59:51 AM EST
    I saw him at a health policy event just after he declared he was running for president. I had heard his 2004 speech and was SO excited...and the event was a HUGE let down. I wasn't sure at the time whether it was just that I had such huge expectations that I felt let down, or that it was true, his talk just wasn't very inspiring...that was when my Obama bubble burst and I was able to see him for what he is after that - a mere mortal!

    In retrospect, I get it - he did not really know what he was talking about and making policy wonky stuff exciting is not really his thing. Other Senators, such as Brown, who spoke at that event were much, much better speakers...


    I saw him (none / 0) (#151)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:33:25 AM EST
    on Countdown.  I can't remember if it was prior to announcing for prez or afterward.  Anyway, I thought "I'd better watch him because I'll probably be voting for him".

    I went away very unimpressed.  "Flat and somewhat naive, he isn't going very far," I thought.

    My opinion hasn't changed, but times have changed, apparently.  It's amazing what a marketing plan inflated by media can do.


    From AP tonight re: PA (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jen on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:55:27 PM EST
    The Pennsylvania Department of State reports that more than 234,000 voters have either newly registered as Democrats or switched from other parties, and the state hasn't finished counting the new registrations.

    That's already near a quarter of a million!


    Also - a Real Clear Politics OpEd on Obama's swiftability quotient with this damning closing line:

    There are more questions than answers right now. But the questions are serious ones about character, judgment, and close personal associations. If the answers turn out to be damaging, this won't be a Swift Boat. This will be a whole fleet.


    h/t ms in la

    A new icon to imitate (none / 0) (#147)
    by anniethena on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:22:25 AM EST
    Helen of Troy.
    The face that launched a thousand swiftboats.

    AI talk, and Obama's halting style, off-the-cuff (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:31:39 AM EST
    Am not watching Idol this year but I sometimes keep up with some of the week's videos for each contestant at Rickey.Org.

    I'm just here in the latest open thread to follow up on something Jeralyn posted in the now-closed open thread earlier tonight.

    Jeralyn wrote:

    > . . . He's not a fluid speaker, too many um's and ah's
    > (without the teleprompter) and his words and ideas don't
    > move me. He's Mr. Generality and uses too many buzzwords.
    > Hope, change, optimism, yada yada.

    Yes, constant too, and my eyes roll each time.  His audience will just
    tell you that studies have shown that Obama non-supporters are of course
    the less-educated types and that will explain our lack of interest in
    Obama's intentionally-vague but very effective just-words with those
    who are swept away by them.  I last experienced this syndrome when pulled
    to Est seminars given by Werner Erhard.  Any joke he made elicited a loud
    round of machine-gun laughter.  Reactions seemed so programmed.

    Re the video in which he discusses his opponent's periodic feelings of
    inadequacy, I was fascinated by his exaggerated halting style as he
    fought within for the right words.  (Without a speech he tends to pause
    every two or three words.)

    I removed my transcription from view because it distracted,  but I kept it within my blog-entry source code commented-out so it wouldn't show.

    "I understand that, y'know, Senator Clinton, um, periodically, when she's feeling, uh, down, uh ... launches attacks and, uh, a..as a way o'... of ... trying to boost her, uh ... boost her appeal.  But I think, uh, these...these kinds of... gamesmanship, uh, is not what the American people are looking for.   What they're looking for is, uh, ways to ... actually help ... send their kids to  college or find a job or get health care."

    As you say, when he's speaking without a teleprompter, it's a bit
    jarring to hear all these sudden pauses.  Clinton, when she's discussing
    policy or real-world up- and downsides of any issue, is amazingly fluent.
    She just loves the details (and with policy that is the unglamorous but
    important side), whereas Obama seems most comfortable with the vague

    I've read a couple of transcripts also (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:04:18 AM EST
    and it really shows. He's gotten a bit better in the debates, but still too many words and no firm answers unless he's saying "What Hillary said. I agree"

    I could have written his Race Speech before he gave it. I outlined it somewhere and was pretty close. Many of his speeches are similar, and he works off of the same points.

    "I last experienced this syndrome when pulled
    to Est seminars given by Werner Erhard."

    O.M.G. I got pulled into one of those also. Guy I was living with fell hook line and sinker for it. Needless to say, I moved out. I got pulled into a similar type of 'secret' type of thing (for lack of better words!) here in NYC many years ago. Just as nuts, but had a more ethereal feel to it. But still the same schtick. Just cause I may look easy, doesn't mean I am  ;)


    Attractive leaders (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:20:52 AM EST

      What is sort of intriguing is that I can see why Obama and Erhard are attractive.  In trying to figure out why my few friends who are for Obama are SO fervently so, I get the feeling that the thing they have in common is that they really want something GOOD to happen and they are more optimistic than I am in that this GOOD will occur from the actions and promise of One person (especially a person who seems 'different' and pure to them) who will be able to accomplish all that they want.  He will help 'us' accomplish it for ourselves (this is very similar to Erhard's appeal).

      One added appeal is Obama's mixture of two races, and the symbolism of that blend in one person.

      Obama somehow makes them feel 'hopeful' but it seldom gets beyond that.  If asked to explain any downsides, they say they don't want to think about those, that they look at 'the whole' and that they 'weigh' the negative elements as less-important ... which makes sense...until I later find they didn't weigh the other items actually, not bothering to read the uncomfortable details.  One example is that they will tend to say (because of what he says in speeches) that ALL his money comes from "the people" !

      In watching the MSNBC bios of the candidates, it occurred to me that both the Democrats wanted very early in life to accomplish good things to make the world a better place, both very idealistic.  The only way to get things done is to get the power to do it, and so a necessity for a candidate is a Will to Power.  That's a given, though a woman obviously looking for power will be somewhat scorned by too many men who feel women should be just 'feminine' supportive types.

      Both Obama and Clinton face biases that are strong.
    I still feel that neither can win alone, and I do feel the only really-strong ticket will be Clinton/Obama, and with that duo and all the voters that they bring with such a ticket after the primaries (even if 25%, disgusted, drop out), they'll overwhelm McCain, whose support is pretty soft.


    MSNBC bios (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:02:05 AM EST
    I so wish those had been a bit longer. I think one of my fav moments of the Clinton one was when she confronted the guy that was running against Bill.

    Girl's got moxey.

    I think Obama has motivational speaker skills and knows the 'buzz'. He also reminds me of a preacher, Joel (I think) something. Has a large Christian church, but works in more of the inspirational and blended with self (motivational), as in you need to believe and be a part of it. To me, Motivational speakers are better at speaking and creating a business out of it as are the massive church pastors. I hear about their speaking, but never see the roll up the sleeves work by them. It's effective though.


    Motivators (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by andrys on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:38:53 AM EST
    I'd love the ticket to be the Wonk and the Motivator.

      They could really complement each other, and then Obama could take the ball and run with it for another 8 years after.


    More reason to fear an Obama (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:53:01 AM EST
    War in Pakistan a great idea, says Obama.

    He's STILL talking about taking the fight to Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

    Did you read the comments? (none / 0) (#138)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:57:35 AM EST
    Obama is good.  Clinton is bad.  and on and on it goes.

    How do superdelegates make their decision? (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:24:52 AM EST
    According to Obama's latest endorser, former Sen. Melcher from Montana - he supports Obama because he's been "against the war from the start."
    So if SD Obama endorsers are basing their decision on Obama's untruths in his stump speeches...

    John McCain... (1.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Rainsong on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:11:01 PM EST
    Ohh McCain you've done it again,
    trading jokes on Letterman:

    McCain on Letterman

    OY. I wish I hadn't looked (none / 0) (#118)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:50:48 AM EST
    Man, that cannot be our next president.

    Isn't Hillary supposed to be on (1.00 / 0) (#46)
    by jes on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:49:31 PM EST
    Letterman this evening? I just watched the intro and didn't hear her mentioned. Anyone know?

    Leno Thurs night if I heard right. n/t (none / 0) (#117)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:46:14 AM EST
    Your'e kidding, right? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Publicus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:33:16 PM EST
    Boycotting the news is something I would expect from faith-based Republicans.  

    I'm watching Obama TV and seeing the gap closing in Pennsylvania.

    Not boycotting the news... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:40:20 PM EST
    just frustrated by the way the campaign news seems to have gone from reporting what the campaigns are doing to seeming to be "part of" the campaign spin meistering.

    Plus, nip on over to realclearpolitics (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by BlueMerlin on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:32:52 PM EST
    and you'll see that for the first time in weeks -- or, ever -- Hillary's numbers against McCain are better than Obama's in every category (summarized in chart at top right).  Those are the electability numbers the SDs are going to be looking at.  

    Not to say I believe in polls, because I don't.  But then, I buy peeps at Easter time even though I don't believe in the bunny.  Because ... yum ... they taste so good!


    MSNBC is the news? Riiiight. (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:44:35 PM EST
    Daily Show (none / 0) (#3)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:36:58 PM EST
    Picking up after missing last thread... I think it's silly for people to be boycotting TV because they think a candidate is getting unfair treatment.  For example you would of missed lots of Obama bowling jokes on The Daily Show last night...

    litigatormom (none / 0) (#9)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:43:47 PM EST
    per our earlier, very important conversation...

    Don't cylons lie?  I mean, she could've been lying about needing a human to reproduce.  They've lied about other things before.

    Oh man (none / 0) (#27)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:19:50 PM EST
    I missed a cylon conversation earlier. Frak! :D

    Check out the other (none / 0) (#30)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:24:25 PM EST
    open thread.  I believe there was a discussion about having an open thread for Friday during the show???? or one of the sci fi shows.

    Yes. Friday. Sci Fi. Be there or be square. (none / 0) (#36)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:36:42 PM EST
    Yeah (none / 0) (#43)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:46:17 PM EST
    I'll be there during commercials and afterwards. Look forward to it.

    heh (none / 0) (#53)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:57:25 PM EST
    I have a small tv in my study....

    Do cylons have the sentience (none / 0) (#29)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:24:13 PM EST
    necessary for telling lies?

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:35:24 PM EST
    There have been plenty of lies from the cylons.

    But I don't think they are lying about their failure to reproduce without a human.


    Yes, they have sentience (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:38:16 PM EST
    They even have a religion.  They worship "the one true God," while the humans on BSG are polytheistic.



    Yes (none / 0) (#132)
    by geordie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:42:21 AM EST
    As I said a long time ago on a BSG thread at the Orange Palace, it makes sense that the Cylons are believers in a one true god, since they were, after all, intelligently designed.

    BSG really is about the smartest series on TV.  


    Well, yes, they do (none / 0) (#34)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:36:07 PM EST
    but this came from Sharon ("Athena") who is now Mrs. Agathon, and she's been pretty candid.

    Why Obama won't pick Hillary for VP (none / 0) (#12)
    by magster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:47:49 PM EST
    If she believes "he can't win", I wouldn't hire her if I was Obama.  Especially now that her statement is public, she'll be dogged with this question if she's his VP choice.

    Heck no, he's got Richardson (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by BlueMerlin on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:39:45 PM EST
    breathing down his neck for that post, and meanwhile he's making goo-goo eyes at Gore.  Kind of a love triangle there.  But why on earth would Gore want to be VP again?  Actually why would anyone want to be VP?

    Whatever became of Hubert?
    Has anyone heard a thing?
    Once he shone on his own,
    Now he sits home alone,
    And waits for the phone to ring.

    Once a fiery liberal spirit,
    Ah but now when he speaks he must clear it.
    Second fiddle's a hard part, I know,
    When they don't even give you a bow.

    "We must protest this treatment Hubert",
    Says each newspaper reader.
    As someone once remarked to Schubert,
    "Take us to your lieder"
    (sorry about that)

    Whatever became of you Hubert?
    We miss you so tell us please:
    Are you sad, are you cross?
    Are you gathering moss,
    While you wait for the boss to sneeze?

    Does Lyndon, recalling when he was VP,
    Say "I'll do unto you as they did unto me."
    Do you dream about staging a coup?
    Hubert what happened to you?

    -- Tom Lehrer, 1964


    Pithy. And nice line re Schubert (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:55:05 PM EST
    lieder, which I love.

    Yeah Lehrer was a genius with (none / 0) (#59)
    by BlueMerlin on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:04:17 PM EST
    lyrics.  Past tense doesn't mean he's no longer with us.  Pretty sure he's teaching math at UC Santa Cruz.  But not writing those delicious songs any more.  

    Richardson will not be Obama's VP IMHO (none / 0) (#146)
    by JoeA on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:15:44 AM EST
    He is a bit too gaffe prone in the same way that Biden is.

    OTOH,  there are no perfect choices so I may be wrong.


    Nope (none / 0) (#152)
    by nell on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:50:30 AM EST
    He will always be known as Judas...people might defend him in public, but the truth is, anyone will think twice before teaming up with him or offering him a high level position. They will think, "If he could do that to the Clintons, then he can do that to me too." I am sure Obama was thrilled to steal him away from the Clintons and to get Richardson to stab Bill in the back, but I am sure he is also smart enough to recognize that if Bill has so little loyalty, he is not someone Obama wants in his camp...

    Carville effectively stuck a label on Richardson that will stick as long as he is in politics. It certainly doesn't help that there are new reports out today about how it was actually Richardson, not Clinton as he alleged, that said Obama could not win the general (via thepage.time.com)


    I really don't see it. Carville just made (none / 0) (#153)
    by JoeA on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:26:38 AM EST
    himself,  and by extension the Clinton's look stupid with his "judas" outburst.

    And Obama won't pick her (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:56:42 PM EST
    Cause he thinks she's a liar.

    Why would she want that anyway? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:04:27 PM EST
    She's a Senator. VP is a crummy job.

    Not only is VP a crummy job (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by caseyOR on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:14:09 PM EST
    If Hillary ran as VP and the Obama/Clinton ticket won, she would have to resign her senate seat. So, what does she do in 4 or (if we are really lucky) 8 years? I can't see Obama giving her anything of substance to work on. His ego seems a bit too fragile for that. And even though at the end of 8 years Hillary would only be 68, sitting vice-presidents have won election to the White House exactly twice. The odds that Dems will have a 16 year run are slim to none.

    Don't get me wrong. I want Hillary to be president. But, if she is not the presidential nominee, I think she is much more valuable in the senate.

    And on the whole unite the party in November thing, I find it hard to believe that Obama, if he is the nominee, will give either of the Clintons a prominent role in the campaign. They would both outshine him. And I don't think he could ever admit he needs the very people his campaign has spent so much energy demonizing.


    I agree, and add (none / 0) (#74)
    by Arcadianwind on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:23:04 PM EST
    that I think she should not accept it if offered.

    His problems in the battleground states will not be rectified w/her on the ticket anyway.


    BTD's pushing it (none / 0) (#22)
    by magster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:06:39 PM EST
    and I was leaning that way.  Unity and all. Won't happen for sure now though.

    Can't win is (none / 0) (#24)
    by Arcadianwind on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:11:53 PM EST
    pretty simple... If you can't win OH, PA, Fl, WV, TN, and MI in Nov, you don't get to win.

    Her comments weren't intended to be... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:35:08 PM EST
    ...made public. It was a private conversation with Governor Richardson. I have to Governor Richardson has proven himself to be somewhat of a weasel during this whole thing. Want to endorse Obama? Fine, but you don't reassure your old boss FIVE times that your not doing that and then afterwards reveal the contents of a private conversation.

    Source? (none / 0) (#116)
    by Alec82 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:22:51 AM EST
    Do you have a source for this, apart from Bill Clinton?  Because Governor Richardson denied it.  

     And even if he did and changed his mind, I thought that Senator Clinton was OK with at least some superdelegates changing sides, or pledged delegates for that matter?


    Ha Ha, but your source for the Obama can't win (none / 0) (#139)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:58:40 AM EST
    ...is Richardson and I think he's a liar so do you have another source for that?

    I never said anything.. (none / 0) (#157)
    by Alec82 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:15:14 PM EST
    ...about what Governor Richardson attributed to Senator Clinton, who as far as I know has not denied it.  On the other hand, Governor Richardson denied making any promises to President Clinton.

     Your comment is pretty, well, inane.  President Clinton has lied to the public.  If it is his word against Richardson, well...someone was disbarred for their lies.  It wasn't Richardson.


    Oh yeah that lie.... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:12:55 PM EST
    ...I had almost forgotten how prudish some people are.

    Um (none / 0) (#141)
    by nell on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:06:32 AM EST
    hasn't this been Obama's entire argument? That she cannot win because she is "too polarizing" and has a "character gap"? His entire campaign has been built around the idea that she can't win, so he should be the nominee...

    His people have actually said this openly, not just behind closed doors...

    And then there is this via thepage.time.com:

    Richardson said Obama can't win.

    New Mexico Governor, in talks with both Clintons about his endorsement, is said to have been the one to argue that Obama did not have the experience necessary to beat McCain.

    A Clinton associate reacts: "Bill Richardson is clearly embarrassed that he broke his promise to them. He should come out and tell the truth and admit that he told both Clintons that Obama wasn't ready and can't win."

    New report comes in wake of ABC News report that Hillary Clinton told Richardson that Obama can't win.

    Still gurgling Richardson-Clinton back-and-forth also centers on dispute over whether New Mexican pledged to former POTUS that he would not endorse Obama.


    Hey gang, it's that time again.. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Saul Goode on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:51:31 PM EST
    Who wants to play Name That Party?

    It appears that the keyboard of whomever wrote this is missing the "D".

    John Yoo of the torture memo (none / 0) (#16)
    by regulararmyfool on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:54:56 PM EST
    This bird hangs out at the Boalt School of Law University of California Berkeley.

    Brendan over at brendancalling is trying to light a fire in his nest.

    Check this out and if you can get behind the action, please, pass it on.


    I am not boycotting (none / 0) (#35)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:36:08 PM EST
    I am just not interested in watching the News stations right now. Keeps me sane. I do check out Yahoo and CNN.com news. So I know what is going on without commercials and without commentary. I happen to like the old CNN Headline News when it was just news. Go figure.

    No one mentions the News Hour/PBS? (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Arcadianwind on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:56:42 PM EST
    It's more balanced than the mainline stuff. Much less hype, and more in depth, plus no commercials. They do have some talking heads on now and then, that I don't care to hear, But overall, good reporting.

    Bill Moyers Journal and Frontline are unequaled.  


    PBS runs BBC World News as well (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:12:15 PM EST
    love that show and the BBC News website. Really interesting to see our US issues from a fairly objective standpoint, plus they cover world news in much more depth than most of the MSM.

    Jeralyn, when you delete this would (none / 0) (#54)
    by jes on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:57:32 PM EST
    you also check out the user "Nix" who seems to be on a mini-rampage of troll rating?

    nix is erased (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:13:41 PM EST
    as are his/her comments and ratings

    Search question (none / 0) (#64)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:08:19 PM EST
    when I use the search I put in nix and only see three items.  Is this a new poster or am I doing something wrong.  I stick in other names and get multiple items.  I've seen several with just a few items these last couple of weeks.

    brand new user with 3 comments and (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jes on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:11:24 PM EST
    about 5 TRs. I never use search, I just put in /user/nix/comments
    after the talkleft url to review the comments or /user/nix and then click on ratings if I wonder if someone is being abusive.

    works with any username put in after /user


    Nix was a new (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:49:58 AM EST
    poster -- s/he said  s/he came over to make trouble, having been referred by a (not A-list)site that bashes TL for being pro-Hillary.

    Latest PA poll has Obama +2 (none / 0) (#68)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:12:04 PM EST
    Public Policy Polling's latest poll has Obama and Clinton in a statistical deadlock with Obama at 45% and Clinton at 43%.
    From what I found, PPP correctly predicted the winner in all the states it polled (Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin and New York.)

    3 weeks to go (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:15:23 PM EST
    we'll see if those numbers hold or are corrorborated by other polls. They say there are 5th in accuracy this campaign season, behind survey usa and others, it's on their web site.

    I think the Clinton by 5 numbers are (none / 0) (#148)
    by JoeA on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:22:50 AM EST
    probably a more accurate reflection of the race in PA at the moment.

    If Obama can keep it within 10 then as long as his campaign keep a lid on expectation setting,  then that will be viewed as beating expectations.

    If he loses by less than 5 then I think things will be pretty much done for Hillary.

    If Obama actually wins PA then it's over and I would be surprised if Hillary didn't concede/ or suspend her campaign.  That would still give her some scope to come back in if some kind of "Super Wright/Rezko" scandal broke that somehow rendered Obama radioactive and allowed her to make a genuine electability case to delegates at the convention.


    Still she's miles better than me.

    Let's see who America decides needs to go.

    Well, it was Rainielle. (none / 0) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:02:32 AM EST
    Man, she can sing. I think she's got a solid future ahead of her.

    AA gone (none / 0) (#104)
    by surrealone on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:58:03 AM EST

    First Asian American(AA) :) that has gone this far on AI. With some voice coach, she can have a career.

    Hillary is relaxed but tenacious: (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:08:56 AM EST
    Obama wraps up his "Every Man" bus tour (none / 0) (#109)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:49:37 AM EST
    so the dude rides on a bus for 6 days trying to show what a regular blue collar relatin' guy he is eating hot dogs and bowling . . . . and then this?


    we now have proof (none / 0) (#114)
    by white n az on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:39:07 AM EST
    that he isn't Muslim

    BSG AND Americal Idol! (none / 0) (#131)
    by geordie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:39:35 AM EST
    I missed the thread last night, so I'm belatedly posting this morning, as I have the Sci Fi channel's BSG marathon on - they're just starting the 3rd season, my favorite four episodes of BSG, outside the original miniseries.  I am SO here for a BSG thread Friday night - can't wait!!!

    Cylons are both sentient and feeling - and capable of individuation.  It's really kind of a Pinocchio situation - they all want to be "real boys".  Final cylon?  I think Admiral Cain was a good guess from last night - or it could be someone we've never seen before, perhaps the original creator of the human-cylons.  I don't want to be spoiled, but I'm dying to find out.

    So that's what I've been doing instead of watching KO - lots of DVD's, Food Channel, catching up on Lost previous seasons, etc.  Gosh, I could even get some work done.

    As for Kid Oakland's remark - ORLY?  You think all committed Clinton Democrats are going to get out and bust their butts for Obama?  Well, I suppose feelings may fade by the fall, a bit, and the prospect of a scary crazy old man as President may push me into actually voting for Obama - but work for him?  I seriously doubt it.

    You don't think Baltar? (none / 0) (#133)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:43:18 AM EST
    Also, I meant to say this last night: how fabulous was Razor?  I mean, to take a part of the series and make it just as character rich and just as riveting as the original takes true skill.  I was absolutely enthralled.

    Don't think so but... (none / 0) (#149)
    by geordie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:24:20 AM EST
    I really have no idea - I've just discounted Baltar as a possibility because he wanted it SO much.  But then, I had settled on Adama as the most likely possibility, until I saw that post about the podcast stuff from the producers.  Although, you can't trust those guys - they were very convincing on the podcast after Maelstrom that yes, Starbuck was REALLY dead, so clearly they're just as capable of lying as the Cylons.

    March fundraising totals. (none / 0) (#144)
    by JoeA on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:11:52 AM EST
    Clinton - in the region of $20 million.

    Obama - over $40 million.


    Good Republican... Bad Republican (none / 0) (#154)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:41:38 AM EST
    It is interesting how NBC suggests that Republicans supporting Obama are the good republicans.. and the ones supporting Clinton are the stupid, ugly republcians.. here's what Mark Murray has to say: while discussing the new registered voters in NC

    the big bold wildcard in the Carolina election -- they're difficult to poll and even harder to target, and their motivations are all over the map. From Republicans hoping to throw a monkey wrench in the Democratic primary at Limbaugh's urging (the bad, ugly one's voting for Clinton), to disenchanted partisans seeking a unity candidate (the good types voting for Obama)

    I am sure NBC will come up with something for the good and the bad democrats as well.

    Hillary in SF (none / 0) (#155)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:53:36 PM EST
    Just went to an SF breakfast for Hillary, fundraiser.  More later.  She was awesome.  Man that woman is articulate and passionate.