home

Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:35:41 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

There are other things going on in the world beyond a discussion about a pastor. For example, Atrios writes:

It appears the Atlantic has hired a pretentious commentless blogging git whose gullible advocacy led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. How he manages to live with himself is a mystery, and why The Atlantic thinks we should live with him is a deeper one.

Surprisingly, Atrios is not discussing Andrew Sullivan. With Obama love, all is forgiven.

This is an Open Thread.

< The [W]Right Church | Superdelegate Endorsements Today >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Open Thread | 211 comments (211 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Certainly he's referring to Sullivan. . . (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:41:16 AM EST
    he just may not know it.

    I am happy to no longer read him (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:45:02 AM EST
    Don't know why I started, frankly.

    Parent
    Atrios? (none / 0) (#10)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:52:55 AM EST
    You are going to boycot his blog because he hasn't attacked Andrew Sullivan to your satisfaction?  Beyond parody.

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:56:18 AM EST
    one of us is having trouble following the thread.

    Parent
    Heh, so presumably he means Sullivan then? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:04:54 AM EST
    Fair enough.  He has certainly espoused enough offensive views to justify not reading him  :-)

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:00:10 AM EST
    you are truly beyond parody.

    Parent
    Obama's has passed Clinton in very unfavorable (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:06:52 AM EST
    poll per rassmusen....His unfavorable ratings are up three points to 48%. ... Those figures include 33% with a Very Unfavorable opinion of Obama and 32% with a Very Unfavorable opinion of Clinton. Opinions about McCain are less firmly held.

    No surprise, and I'm thinking with more SDs still coming out for Obama today the Party has decided to throw the Race in Nov, I would be hard pressed to believe that professional politicians don't know the Obama drama has hit the pitiful tabloid stage.  Pelosi as Party head is something to think on she has not performed well IMO as Speaker for whatever reason her Turkey push was out of touch and alarming in context.

    This race gets thrown to O. (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:35:33 AM EST
    and I am out of the party.  HRC's pleas to vote dem won't persuade me if the democrats in charge are terminally stupid.  May be time for a third party, one with integrity--which is not what the dems have if they pander to one bloc.

    Parent
    Im right behind you (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:44:01 AM EST
    third party time
    time to destroy this party in order to save it.

    Parent
    We're are long past time... (none / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:46:18 AM EST
    for a new viable party.

    Welcome to the awakening...hopefully more follow in time.

    For me it's issue based as opposed to candidate based...Democrats support drug wars, high prison populations, foreign occupations, failed foreign policy...seriously, what good are they?  

    Including Hillary!

    Parent

    I have preached against third (none / 0) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:58:11 AM EST
    parties for years.  I have seen the light.
    4 may be too many but three would be a good thing.

    Parent
    I say.. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:06:03 PM EST
    the more the merrier...3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12.

    Choices are good.  A two party duopoly like we have now is a petri dish of corruption and cronyism.

    Parent

    CDS (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Oje on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:39:00 AM EST
    Wright's not crazy.  He supports Hillary.  It is well known that Wright knows the Clintons.

    You gotta be kidding. Obama supporters intend to smear Hillary by linking her to Wright? Are they willing say and do anything to win?

    Meanwhile all the criminals in (none / 0) (#168)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    their coats and their ties are free to drink martinis and watch the su8nrise..

    The usurpers in the Whitehouse and every knuckle dragging radio talk show host clap their hands with delight every time the discussion is diverted to the hither-to-unknown Rev Wright.

    Whats happening here is that the image consultants, pollsters, and focus group researchers, in the intersts of (very) short term advantage, are, once again, pandering to the prurient, sensational, and, (one would hope), unwittingly, allowing the Rethug Right, by proxy, frame the discussion.

    Meanwhile, such inconsequentialities as the country being pulled down a trillion dollar rabbit hole in the M.E, unprecedented food and gas prices, malnourished kids going to crumbling schools in warzone neighborhoods, forclosures etc etc All take second place to our preoccpation with scary, mililtant, boogiemen and who loves the flag more.

    Parent

    You mean.... (none / 0) (#178)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:21:16 PM EST
    the demon-seed reverend isn't responsible for gas and food prices, the housing crisis, the Iraq occupation, and my tummy ache?

    The news coulda fooled me....good stuff jondee:)

    Parent

    Hillary Video On Fox (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:40:34 AM EST
    Hillary rap video was played on Fox.  I'm taking, taking, back, back the White House.

    So here it is again, in case you missed it....

    Taking back the WH.

    Performance Art or Theater of the Absurd (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:02:49 PM EST
    Friday night after the Moyers interview the Obama blogs and the "intelligentsia" were creating elaborate morality plays of why Wright is right, why he is brilliant, why he is wonderful, why he speaks the truth, why not liking Wright you are a racist.  Sunday night with the NAACP speech, still the theater continued.  

    Monday after the Press Club there was a silence.  The playbook got all confused.  Wright sort of went off and did some really strange stuff.  But the apologists were silent.  The TV guys had to say something.  They had to condemn (remember the Reverends lesson on that word and G*d's role in condemnation and the letter a).

    Yesterday, he came to a podium, and they all fell to their knees cause he freed them to have an opinion of their own(, well, actually his, he just changed his and now it was ok to criticize).  So, now they are trying to make their printed and spoken words match logic and belief before Philadelphia, after Philadelphia, after Moyers, after NPC.  So, the twisting and gyrating has reached such a level.  

    Basically, confusing authenticity with the Obama campaign is hard work, cause you have to suspend your belief, your logic, your judgement and common sense.  Only he is allowed to apply any of those skills.  But once he gives you the ok, you are free to roam around the cabin once again and  drink of the liquid of truth: Kool Aid.  

    O'blogz: What your lying eyes didn't see THIS time (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Ellie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:59:29 PM EST
    ... part 32937498.

    It's just so weak.

    Bad enough the Alpha-Obots have descended to the "cunning" strategy of deploying astro-trolls that show up in a casual gaggle mushmouthing the same pro-Obama (anti-HRC) sqwawking points. Yep. I totally believe that those ideas magically occurred at the same time to 3-6 new TL accounts that day. (Really what's the point of pestering?)

    (I did enjoy the recent AhhhHAAHHHHHH! that Sen. Clinton's call for a non-moderated debate was JUST to get FREE airtime on the PUBLIC airwaves. I think 4-6 or so super geniuses were working that line here.)

    Why can't Obama straight up win this thing? He's focused way too much on working the refs and gaming the system -- Dems for a Day, that MI "uncommitted" boongoggle that blew up on him, every critic, skeptic or rival is a racist -- but precious little on convincing voters he'll need using straightforward reasoned persuasion.

    Parent

    3 cheers for Rev. Al... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:09:44 PM EST
    shut this city down my man, shut this city down.

    Any city that allows its mercenaries to gun down unarmed men doesn't deserve to run.  Shut 'er down.

    hear hear (none / 0) (#192)
    by CST on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:05:36 PM EST
    This hasn't gotten nearly enough play.  What a joke of a system.

    Parent
    I have always (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by DaytonDem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:52:46 PM EST
    liked Boehlert and he nails it here.

    Disgruntled pro-Hillary Obama supporter (2.00 / 1) (#58)
    by AF on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:25:32 AM EST
    I am an Obama supporter who has been reading and commenting on this blog because I have no tolerance for the Hillary hatred on a lot of pro-Obama blogs.

    In my opinion, the Obama hatred among the commenters (not bloggers) on this blog has now reached similar proportions.  And it is equally bad for the party.

    I have no standing to tell you all to stop but I thought you might be interested in how it is coming off to me.

    For the good of the party, we only (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:46:04 AM EST
    have to vote for him if he is the nominee. We don't have to like him or agree with him. I think most here are respectful in their criticisms but some do get carried away. There is a world of difference in the remarks here as opposed to the vile epithets that are thrown at HRC at the pro-BHO blogs. In the interests of unity, do spend some time attempting to reach agreement at those blogs that they need to dial it way back. Thanks.

    Parent
    Good suggestion (none / 0) (#83)
    by AF on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:54:32 AM EST
    It's an interesting psychological point though.

    When I want to be cured of Obamamania, I don't look for a moderate and reasonable Obama supporter.  I look for a strong and intelligent Hillary supporter like Jeralyn.  That's why I'm here.

    But I guess you're right, most people are more willing to listen to the message coming from someone who agrees with them.  I'll check out other blogs.  Any suggestions?

    Parent

    To me, the worst are Dailykos and (none / 0) (#93)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:06:38 AM EST
    Huffington Post. Though you seem so reasonable, I am reluctant to send you into the irrational chaos. I'm sure others here could give you their worst picks if you are game. I know there are really bad ones but I have avoided those altogether.

    Parent
    I'll give em a try (none / 0) (#100)
    by AF on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:21:43 AM EST
    I'm not afraid of irrational chaos, though I do dislike pissing in the wind.

    Parent
    AF, if you want a little adventure (none / 0) (#151)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:32:53 PM EST
    down the path of craziness, see Rev. Barbara Reynolds website.

    This was the woman who recommended Rev. Wright to the National press Club. Two years ago---eRiposte has more at the Left Coaster.

    Basically, she's getting blamed for Rev. Wright's performances this past week. Apparently, at Sen. Clinton's behest, she sought to destroy Sen. Obama through Rev. Wright by...I guess mind control. Maybe evil spells. Or the use of puppets or mime. I don't really know; it's hard to tell.

    Parent

    I am told that the very worst Obamblog (none / 0) (#216)
    by zyx on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:10:00 PM EST
    is AMERICAblog.  I little peek at it suggests that this might be the case.

    Some of us used to discuss politics at other sites and some months back were pretty shocked to find that our former blogfriends turned on us pretty harshly because we didn't love Obama and we said nice things about Clinton now and then.  I lost people I thought were friends--cyberfriends--of 3-5 years standing.  I was pretty amazed by it.  They really hate Clinton and they really hate her supporters.  I don't understand why.  I can see why they wouldn't like Bush--but Bill and Hillary Clinton?  I don't get it.  They sound like the Republicans of the nineties.  

    Parent

    I dont hate Obama. (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:49:41 AM EST
    I doubt many others do.  I know many hate Hillary.
    they make no bones about it.
    speaking only for me, my problem with Obama comes down to three words.
    he cant win.
    nominating him will be, in my opinion only, a disaster of mega tsunami proportions.
    I will say and do everything I can to stop it.

    Parent
    It's unfortunate that you feel that way (none / 0) (#90)
    by AF on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:02:45 AM EST
    All the objective evidence (polls, etc.) suggests that both Hillary and Obama can win.  They will need our support though.

    Parent
    Forget polls. Nothing in the history of American (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by sancho on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:34:17 AM EST
    presidential elections suggests that Obama can win unless some third party weirdness ocurs or McCain literally breaks down in some dramatic and unforseeable way. It appears to me that Pelosi, Dean et.al  either do not want to win or do not want to win with Hillary and thus is willing to lose.

    Parent
    I want a winner! (none / 0) (#114)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:43:19 AM EST
    I don't object to Obama. I would support Elmer Fudd at this point if it meant there would be a Democrat in the WH in 2009. But you seem to read polls differently than me. His wins in the red states will mean nothing in November. And OH PA MI and FL worry me with McCain running. I'm not sure Obama can get even 2 of those 4 and without them the Dem's are sunk.

    Parent
    I have no objection (none / 0) (#120)
    by AF on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:54:01 AM EST
    To your supporting Hillary because you think she's more likely to win.  There is definitely an argument there.

    My problem is with people who say that Obama can't win.  Yes, he can.

    Parent

    Remember in school when (none / 0) (#129)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:05:18 PM EST
    the discussion of possibility vs probability was discussed?  Anyone can win the question is how probable is it.  Is there a possibility of me becoming a national figure? Yes Probability? No

    So my question is who is more likely to win in a GE against the Republicans.  My opinion, Clinton.  Will I vote for Obama if he is the nominee? Probably.

    Parent

    "in my opinion only" (none / 0) (#163)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:52:54 PM EST
    something you seemed to have missed in my comment.

    Parent
    I didn't miss that (none / 0) (#175)
    by AF on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:19:28 PM EST
    I'm saying your opinion is unsupported by evidence and unhelpful to the Democrats -- in my opinion.

    Parent
    Lots of polls (none / 0) (#183)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:39:52 PM EST
    and demographic discussions on why it looks like Obama can't win.  Math (evidence: delegates) are used to decide Obama the defacto winner, but some don't like to consider that additional math: shifting trends in polls, demographic strength and weakness, turnout models, the 30% of Clinton supporters that won't vote for Obama, these factors are part of a 'math' discussion on why Obama can't win.  When people say he can't win, they look at all math, his lack of experience, his new baggage etc and conclude that Obama can't win.  It is opinion about mathetical evidence.

    Parent
    my opinion is that (none / 0) (#199)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:19:33 PM EST
    sticking you head in the sand about his electability
    problems is even less helpful.
    at least as far as winning the white house is concerned.
    people seem to think that if we dont talk about these things somehow the republicans wont ever think of them.
    >shrug<


    Parent
    You think the commenters on this blog (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:28:09 AM EST
    are the bigger problem do you?

    I happen to agree with you but I doubt you are going around preaching this at Obama blogs.

    It makes it hard to take from you here.  

    Parent

    As I said (none / 0) (#66)
    by AF on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:35:17 AM EST
    I don't comment on Obama blogs.  Can't tolerate them.  I certainly preach the same thing to my friends and family who are Obama supporters.

    I never said commenters on this blog are the bigger problem.  

    Anyway, I can see how this is hard to take from me.  Take it for what it's worth.

    Parent

    So (5.00 / 6) (#70)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:38:36 AM EST
    you could not say this on Obama-mad blogs but can say it on this blog, yet you see them as no different.  Uh huh.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:45:02 AM EST


    Parent
    Fair point (none / 0) (#78)
    by AF on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:48:13 AM EST
    I retract any implication that they are the same.

    The fact is that I only comment on this blog because it's the best comment section I've found.  I have not made a systematic study of other blogs.  I had thought that Jeralyn and BTD welcome Obama supporters who are willing to be respectful.

    Without making any comparative statements, I will reiterate that I do not like the hostility toward Obama among many (but not all) commenters on this blog.  


    Parent

    Scolding (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:56:36 AM EST
    There is this tendency to scold us "Hillary" supporters.  A sort of "you have become what you hate".  To me, this is like the Obama "they are all bad in Washington, I am different", line.   The Democrats and Republicans are all bad.  Well, I guess that makes him look good, but he has to work with these people and if he so much better than them, how will he work with them?  And yet, he is a politician just like the others.  

    Parent
    Sorry to scold (none / 0) (#92)
    by AF on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:05:05 AM EST
    If it's any consolation, I have internalized your criticisms of Obama supporters and make them to my friends.

    Parent
    In A Way, I Agree (none / 0) (#116)
    by flashman on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:46:12 AM EST
    and I'm a strong Hillary supporter, but I do like to look at things from all angles.  I find if I make a post that isn't gushing over Hillary, or in any other way not adhering to the pro Hillary/anti-Obama bias, I get some rather exhasperated blowback.  Still, I can't stand the 'other' blogs.  With all of that, this is still the most reasonable place to comment.  I mostly come here to vent about the uneven media coverage in the Democrat primary, not to slam Obama at every opportunity.

    Parent
    sometimes schadenfreude is just a cigar (none / 0) (#132)
    by ding7777 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:08:41 PM EST
    and not hatred

    Parent
    I will go one further (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:02:24 PM EST
    I see that if Obama performs a miracle and actually gets elected, and with all the problems we face that I don't think he has the experience or mettle to handle, I see him as a one-termer who actually destroys the Dems for at least 12-16 years.  Come 2012, I see a Republican sweep into office (maybe with a candidate named Jeb Bush at the top) in numbers that will leave the Dems with a very small minority.

    I think he is bad news.

    Parent

    And he is a blank slate (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:12:05 PM EST
    He tries his best to be on both sides of an issue, he doesn't stand for anything besides his own needs (e.g. Wright was fine until he hurt OBAMA DIRECTLY).

    I want a candidate who takes a stand, who I feel fights for at least some of my issues.  The wishy-washyness is a superior turnoff.

    And the messiah-like campaign is a huge turnoff.  I don't want the Democratic party to endorse someone who campaigns like that.  It's wierd, and attracts true fanatics.  

    Parent

    Me too (none / 0) (#176)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:19:39 PM EST
    If I were thinking purely strategically for the Dem party (something the DNC seems incapable of, so I don't know why I should bother) I would vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee to save the party the embarrassment of the Obama presidency. I think Obama will be ineffectual, at best, and leave things wide open for Jeb or someone worse in 2012.

    Since I love my country more than the Dem party however, I think an ineffectual Obama will be better than McCain, so I'll vote for Obama if he is the nominee. Obama would at least not be as extreme right in his Supreme Court picks. (Though I am sorry to say I think his picks will be more conservative than I would prefer)

    Wake up, superdelegates.

    Parent

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#85)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:56:18 AM EST
    He has been taking a lot of hits lately. And we need a democrat to win the white house.

    Parent
    He's no Democrat (none / 0) (#123)
    by dissenter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:54:52 AM EST
    And that is my issue. I can't think of a single good reason to vote for Obama. I don't trust him, I don't like him, he is unqualified, he bashes dems and he doesn't represent me. So why should I vote for him? I am not persuaded that he will be better than McCain. I won't vote for McCain but I am not sure it is wise to vote for a guy that is so clueless that he doesn't know his own pastor has been spewing hate speech for 20 years. His associates, advisers, etc have given me every reason to question what he would do in office.

    If he gets the nomination and I leave the party, it will be because the party left me.

    Parent

    I am biased (none / 0) (#99)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:21:32 AM EST
    but I don't see the "hatred."  

    I do see a steady criticism of Obama.  I see some snark replies.

    But nothing like what I used to see on the blog that should remain unnamed towards Hillary.

    Parent

    Ask most Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:15:52 PM EST
    supporters why she's their choice and they can usually give you three or four reasons. Heck I can and I'm one of those over-the-hill high school graduates that wasn't able to afford higher education. I can also give you two or three exact reasons why I don't like Obama and none of them has anything to do with Reverend Wright.

    Ask an Obama supporter why they support him and why they don't like Hillary and the response is, in my experience so am speaking only for me, a spewing of vitriol about Hillary, most of it untrue or twisted somehow and some demagogic rhetoric about Obama. And, yes we can type slogans.

    I don't do slogans. For anyone. And I don't fall in love with candidates. Doing so, again IMO, makes it impossible to think rationally.

    I don't use cutesy, childish nicknames for either candidate because I find them more demeaning to the user than the candidate and I will not be guilted, or lectured, or insulted into voting for anyone. Kinda like the lady I support except she still wants us to support the Democratic Party and I am wondering why we should.

    Parent

    My favorite point (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:29:01 PM EST
    with the "movement" about Obama is that this is my generation's anti-religious actions coming home to roost.

    His supporters were thirsty for just what you get from a good spiritual part in your life.

    But, but, but......I sputter.......don't go to a politician for this!

    Alas, our kids need real spirituality in their lives.

    I think this is truly a case of chickens coming home to roost.

    I really do.  They were entirely too vulnerable.

    And for that?

    My generation is responsible.

    Parent

    I agree and I'm just like you... (none / 0) (#167)
    by stefystef on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    I don't do slogans and I don't fall in love with politicians.
    The Obama followers are like people who love falling in love with someone.  They fall in love first and then find reasons for the love.

    Sometimes, the reasons don't bear out and then those who fall in love so quickly are left bitter and confused.  

    In addition to experience and knowledge, Hillary Clinton has proven that she has perseverance and she doesn't "shut down" or run away when left with challenges.  

    We need someone who won't have to apologizes for everyone and everything in their lives, we need a leader who can press forward and stay on message despite what's going on around them.

    Hillary has proven that.  That's why she's my candidate and I believe is the best person for the Presidency of the United States.

    Parent

    Am reminded of the thought... (none / 0) (#173)
    by rghojai on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:13:03 PM EST
    ...that Obama's treated the campaign like a date, Clinton's treated it like a job interview.

    Parent
    I think that Obama is only a democrat (none / 0) (#156)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:43:41 PM EST
    because of the two parties, this was the only parties that would have readily accepted his candidacy for president or even for the Senate.  That is why he has no great passion for upholding democratic party traditions and has no difficulty throwing the Clinton Adm under the bus, so to speak, if it suits him, something that I dislike about him.  He has carefully tended his resume and has not taken any strong stands based on principle, in the various capacities he has listed in his resume.  This is something that has been brought up and discussed in this forum. A case in point is the Wright issue; I don't have to rehash all the POV's that have been aired either.

    I am passionately for Hillary Clinton because of her record of getting things done; her intelligence and diligence in boning up on issues of national significance.  That is why I think, she can discuss any topic brought up by anyone, intelligently and in depth.  And I really think that if she were a man, she would have been a runaway favorite by now.

    My feeling right now is, if the democratic party leadership deliberately denies Hillary Clinton the nomination by not resolving the Florida and Michigan votes, just because it would benefit her, than I will do as Reagan said before, "I did not leave the democratic party; the democratic party left me."

    Parent

    I like Senator Obama, (none / 0) (#101)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:22:22 AM EST
    love Michelle for her fierceness and refusal to be put in a box, and think their little girls are adorable. But I dislike him as our nominee mostly because he doesn't talk like a Democrat, doesn't talk up Democratic principles and ideals, and constantly praises Republicans. We don't need a President who gets along well with the R's; we need a Democrat who fights them intelligently and gives only as much as absolutely necessary.

    I do find the racist slur against Senator Clinton and President Clinton pretty hard to forgive. They've made mistakes from white privilege and should be called out for them, but their whole lives absolutely blow apart the idea that they're racists or would use race-based tactics for political reasons. Senator Obama and his campaign have said very misogynistic things and used gender biased frames, but I don't call him a misogynist. Labelling is anti-progressive, IMO.

    Parent

    there has been talk about something coming down (1.00 / 2) (#174)
    by thereyougo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:16:09 PM EST
    next month of this campaign. No one said from what camp this would arise out of, but someone, John Ryskamp, at TPM commented thus ( he is referring to some campaign contributions that Obama camp is returning :
    The Obama stuff your report, is minor. He is about to be indicted for his role in furthering the Rezko/Auchi/General Mediterranean criminal enterprise. The charges will involve accepting contributions and sponsoring legislation in furtherance of this criminal enterprise. General Mediterranean involves itself in pay to play government contracts and "investments" which bilk lenders, investors and so on.
    *
    The house and land were a front for a scheme.

    The Riverside development was a front for a bilking scheme.

    Obama has been a part of this gang for years. The charges will be RICO-type, but not under RICO specifically. Stay tuned.

    Obama is about to get Spitzered and do the perp walk. He's just a hood

    Please, don't (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:48:54 PM EST
    How is this any different than the what the Obama supporters do?

    Parent
    Reminds me (none / 0) (#188)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:56:14 PM EST
    of a conspiracy theory I just saw over at MyDD, published by Raw Story, I think.  Yet another bogus source that I once paid some attention to.

    Anyway:
    Did you know that Hillary's silence on Wright is proof that she was involved in the Wright affair?

    LOL, if she'd come out and said anything she'd have either been accused of attacking or called a racist.

    Anyway, Reynold's Foil hats are definitely in season this spring.


    Parent

    Here's another (none / 0) (#193)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:07:29 PM EST
    did you know there is little media coverage of the Rezko issue because the Clinton's are involved and they shut down the media? blah, blah, blah.  gasp...  Tin foil hats all around.

    Parent
    Pardon me if I don't (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:58:25 PM EST
    believe you.  There aren't any criminal connections to Obama.  Would never vote for him, but as far as I'm concerned, all Obama needed to do was claim any financial benefit he might have received on the land deal on his disclosure forms.  Politicians screw this info up all the time.  It doesn't even matter if they didn't disclose on purpose.  It may go to the ethics committee, and the 'penalty' is to update their forms.  That's it.... update forms.  So excuse me if I don't get worked up over this stuff.  It's actually rather boring.

    Parent
    Riiiight, link? (none / 0) (#184)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:40:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Atrios is not discussing Andrew Sullivan (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:38:59 AM EST
    HA
    with that headline I was so sure . . .

    Given that the Atlantic hired Sullivan (none / 0) (#2)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:39:05 AM EST
    about a year ago I fail to see how he could have been referring to him?

    I did not say he was (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:42:53 AM EST
    In fact, I am pretty sure I wrote that he was NOT referring to Sullivan. I was wondering why he was not referring to Sullivan.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:43:36 AM EST
    I wrote "Surprisingly, Atrios is not discussing Andrew Sullivan."

    I thought so.

    Parent

    I have obviously phrased my comment (none / 0) (#8)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:51:08 AM EST
    carelessly.  My point was that Atrios is commenting on a new "hire" at the Atlantic in his typically acerbic fashion.  

    I'm just curious as to how you manage to pivot into a query as to why he isnt referring in the same terms to Andrew Sullivan, and that it must be because they are both in the tank for Obama.

    I'm not sure that everything can really be traced back to Obama love as you imply.

    Parent

    Of course you can't (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:55:19 AM EST


    Parent
    Actually Goldberg Was Not a New Hire (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dan the Man on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:24:11 AM EST
    He was hired by the Atlantic around July 2007.  Atrios didn't even know when Goldberg was hired.

    Parent
    Well his blog at the Atlantic is new (none / 0) (#65)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:35:10 AM EST
    which is what Atrios was referring to.

    It appears the Atlantic has hired a pretentious commentless blogging git


    Parent
    Sullivan became a darling of the liberals... (none / 0) (#7)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:49:53 AM EST
    Long before he discovered Obama. The man supported John Kerry, after all.

    He was way, WAY off on Iraq, though.

    darling (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:51:43 AM EST
    may be a bit strong.


    Parent
    He is justifiably regarded with some suspicion (none / 0) (#14)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:55:42 AM EST
    by liberal bloggers, however he has been pretty unremittingly critical of the conduct of the war, and the various depravities of the current administration.

    Obviously Sullivan has a severe case of CDS so I can imagine that in the current Primary Clinton supporters are hardly going to be regular readers of his blog.

    Parent

    Sully and the Bell Curve? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:59:19 AM EST
    I tell you that Obama love cures a lot of stuff.

    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#71)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:38:40 AM EST
    You're on fire today BTD!

    Obama love cures everything for Sullivan, as far as I'm concerned, including bell curves, AIDS conspiracy theories, MSM sexism, and lots more. I've never found him particularly rational, even when he's on the 'right side' of things. He often exhibits dogmatism and partisanship, which prevents him from writing clearly IMHO.

    Parent

    I dunno. (none / 0) (#26)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:01:17 AM EST
    I regularly saw Andrew trotted out as an example of a 'conservative who gets it' by liberal debaters on various forums. I suspect most conservatives have as well, which is why he is so ruthlessly mocked on the Corner and Redstate.

    Parent
    I mocked him and mock him regularly (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:02:21 AM EST
    He is a ridiculous person who embraces vile ideas.

    Bell Curve anyone?

    Parent

    If you check Atrios's archives (none / 0) (#39)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:06:57 AM EST
    I believe you will find many critiques of the Bell Curve, it's author Charles Murray, and no few swipes at Sullivan on this and other issues.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:08:48 AM EST
    I agree that Atrios was quite critical of Sully BEFORE.

    But since the Obama campaign launch, not so much.

    See if you can follow my point now.

    Parent

    Without some charting of (none / 0) (#48)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:16:36 AM EST
    his posts critical of Sullivan before and after the start of the primary campaign I don't see how it can be shown one way or the other that there is any causal link.

    Surely it's plausible that he doesn't need to post on a weekly basis attacking Sullivan for his publishing of the Bell Curve however many years ago . .  it was in the past.  

    Equally given that he supports getting out of Iraq, ending torture, and electing a Democrat (though admittedly that point is on a shakier peg if Hillary gets the nomination) I don't see what the point would be in him attacking Sullivan for his support of the war initially.  Effectively he has admitted he is wrong.

    Other journalists that enabled the war originally, and that are still stenographers for the administration inenabling a continued occupation of Iraq for an indeterminate future number of F.U.'s continue to get criticism.

    I don't understand why this is an issue?

    Parent

    Charting? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:22:43 AM EST
    Heh. You are a trip.

    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:09:04 AM EST
    I guess my true feelings sneaked out there.

    Parent
    Ah... (none / 0) (#43)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:09:33 AM EST
    But not all liberals are as enlightened as you are.

    Forced out by his conservative brethren for the unspeakable crime of saying Bush might have been wrong, and not entirely trusted by the left, because many of his ideals are incompatible with theirs, Andrew is currently a man without a home. Fortunately, his ego is large enough to provide him all the shelter he needs.

    Parent

    you want to know what really galls me? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:12:49 AM EST
    when someone like Tweety has him on as a "gay" voice.


    Parent
    If you feel firmly at home.... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:48:45 AM EST
    in the Democrat or Repuiblican party there is something very wrong with you.

    Parent
    I feel a geniune like for Andrew Sullivan (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:11:04 AM EST
    but if I read his stuff that goes into any sort of depth, it starts out warmish and kindish and then halfway through he starts coloring on the walls and I have to leave before I have to go to timeout with him through association ;)

    Parent
    Atrios frequently used to unload (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:00:17 AM EST
    both barrels on Sullivan.  From memory, and without any evidence to hand to back it up,  I believe that he became less of a target for criticism in the last couple of years as he became morejaded and cynical about the Bush administration etc.  I certainly don't think there was some kind of cut-off period during the current primary campaign where Atrios decided to stop giving Sullivan such a hard time because they both had their super secret Obama supporter decoder rings.

    Parent
    last couple of years (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:13:53 AM EST
    that may be A reason.  its not THE reason.

    Parent
    Uh no (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:54:51 AM EST


    Parent
    And he has apologized (none / 0) (#17)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:58:05 AM EST
    and he has even admitting to supporting the war in part as a knee-jerk against liberals who didn't. as in, if the dirty hippies are against it I must be for it.

    I give him a lot of credit for admitting to this personal failure.

    Parent

    Then stop (none / 0) (#13)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:55:33 AM EST
    feeding the addiction!  I wish I could find a way to make that noise that Scooby Doo makes when he is asked a question...HUHRHNN??

    Sullivan is Zero Tolerance on torture (none / 0) (#16)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:56:21 AM EST
    He keeps the torture issue front and center and never gives an inch on this very important issue.

    Yes, he likes Obama so I knowt that makes him evil here, but he is the best one of the most important issues: civil rights and human rights.

    He does? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:58:25 AM EST
    No kidding? Of course that makes it all good.

    Sort of like John McCain.

    Parent

    McCain is not really against torture (none / 0) (#79)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:49:27 AM EST
    he waffles a lot and has not spoken out the way Sullivan does, not at all.

    Parent
    If he was really against torture (none / 0) (#29)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:02:58 AM EST
    he'd be for impeachment.  Every presser, every speech the Dub gives is torture.  

    "the economy is actually in a recessionary environment"     - verbatim from NPR, re: the Federal Reserve, just now.

    Tell me that wasn't painful.

    Parent

    The market is LOVING it. (none / 0) (#52)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:20:46 AM EST
    Rate cuts, here we come!

    Parent
    blame blame blame is all we heard about GWB s (none / 0) (#95)
    by thereyougo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:08:23 AM EST
    solution to the economy, blame Congress

    Parent
    My insurance premium (none / 0) (#22)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:59:25 AM EST
    just went up by $192 this year (just rec'd the notice yesterday).

    I would love to know when food, gas, insurance (homeowners/auto/health) will EVER go down?!  I know that the corporatists are large and in charge.  

    I want the dialogue to get squarely focused on what's going on with us regular people.  Pocketbook issues..front and center...now, please!

    Ya hear that Obama or Clinton?  Any of you who might be reading this that work for either one, let he or she know.  Tired of the bulls**t that we have to endure.  

    Also, we can impress upon the media to LAY off non-issues.  If it takes a "Network" style to do it, I will be the first one screaming out of my window!

    The group (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:24:40 AM EST
    I thought about yesterday were Latinos.  They must be fuming about all this talk about how vital the AA vote is and how Obama must win or yadda.yadda.

    Like their dogmeat?

    Meanwhile, when the election is over, you can bet your booties they will be top attention-getters with immigration.

    They must just be furious.

    Parent

    May 1 marches (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:34:58 AM EST
    are coming across the country again, as annually, and Latinas/as may just get some media attention.  For a day, anyway.  I entirely agree with you; there are many groups with real grievances, and they are not being heard because of all the Obamadrama and agreement among his supporters, no matter the belated rejection of Wright.  Obama and his backers still act like they agree with all that Wright said -- including the Reverend's misogynistic messages in against Clinton and thus against all women, of any color.

    Parent
    The Feminists (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:52:06 AM EST
    have logic on their side.  Women are being dismissed as irrelevant.....yet again.

    but the Latinos have a real and pressing issue facing them, and that's Immigration Reform.

    This will directly affect their families.  I am from LA.  I know NOT ONE Latino family who does NOT have someone they love here illegally.  And I have friends who have been here in the US longer than my family has been here.  STILL, there are deep roots.

    And they can't even get a darn voice this year.

    Parent

    Sticker Shock (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:57:17 AM EST
    Went to store to buy box of Wheaties yesterday. $5.13 Unreal. I'm in Chicago area.Tell me again Mr. Bush about that economy!

    Parent
    Cereal... (none / 0) (#136)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:15:40 PM EST
    is stupid expensive...I gave up my Fruity Pebbles awhile ago.  Cheaper to make French Toast.  

    Parent
    Never. (none / 0) (#32)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:04:39 AM EST
    Our economy is strictly inflationary by design. It has to be.

    Inflation sucks, no doubt about it. But generally speaking, deflation is much, MUCH worse.

    Parent

    Just got my property assessment (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:42:00 AM EST
    and that inflationary thing is not working for property values, which are going down -- the main investment of many Americans.  How convenient that we have less house in which we can afford less food on the table.

    Try again.

    Parent

    Actually, that pretty much proves my point. (none / 0) (#81)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:50:08 AM EST
    People complained a little when house prices shot up...mostly people who didn't have houses or people on a fixed income dealing with rising tax bills...but on the whole, it was a fairly minor problem.

    Now that houses are deflating, it's a crisis. Our economy has to inflate, or it breaks.

    Parent

    Not how property taxation works (none / 0) (#88)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:58:56 AM EST
    which is not to be confused with property assessment.  And everyone pays property taxes; some just pay it in their rent.  Now if rental prices go down, that's different -- but that's not going to happen, with all the other factors for property owners.

    Parent
    Exactly. (none / 0) (#143)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:25:08 PM EST
    My house is worth less than it was a year ago but my property taxes are higher and so is my homeowners insurance. So I am paying more for something that is worth less. I know I didn't get any higher education but that just seems wrong to me somehow.

    Parent
    But it's all right... (none / 0) (#153)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:35:01 PM EST
    for your local govt. and your insurance company...and that's all that matters.

    You don't think they govern for you do ya?

    Charles Bukowski said the only difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is in a democracy you vote before you are told what to do, and in a dictatorship you don't waste your time voting.

    Parent

    Uh uhn! (none / 0) (#40)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:07:39 AM EST
    Prices can go down.  It just requires a drop in demand.
    .
    .
    .
    I'll leave it to you to figure out how and when demand drops for essentials.

    Parent
    Prices can go down in isolated areas. (none / 0) (#49)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:17:46 AM EST
    And do, all the time. But overall, the economy must inflate. Thus, the general 'cost of living' must always be going up. Otherwise the incentive to consume and invest is greatly diminished. Obviously, you don't want things to inflate too quickly, but you certainly don't want them to deflate.

    I think the Fed usually shoots for a 'sweet spot' of between .5% and 2% a year...though obviously they adjust that based on current conditions.

    Parent

    I Wish My Insurance Premium Had Only Gone Up (none / 0) (#164)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:56:00 PM EST
    by $192 for the year. My retirement premium went up $1,515 for the year. The company's former CEO  earned his multi-million dollar annual salary by making a lot of bad decisions that reduced revenues and depressed the stock price. He walked out the door with a multi-million dollar package and a lot of benefits. Meanwhile, to make up for his failures, the company substantially reduced the amount it would subsidize retiree health insurance.  

    Parent
    The Atlantic has many (none / 0) (#25)
    by ding7777 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:00:21 AM EST
    gullible pundits - Megan McArdle and Matt Yglesias are two of them; however Jeffrey Goldberg seems to be the target of Matt's current  post.

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:01:29 AM EST
    It was Duncan's post.

    And I know who the target was.

    No offense, but you folks need a cup of coffee today.

    You are not firing on all cylinders yet.

    Parent

    Hey, I got it this time (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:04:01 AM EST
    proudly preening and fully loaded with coffee

    Parent
    Grandma Vera (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:05:26 AM EST
    would be proud.

    Parent
    Well, I followed the links (none / 0) (#36)
    by ding7777 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:05:11 AM EST
    and Duncan linked to Matt who was dissing Goldberg for Iraq and Iran

    Parent
    Umpteen threads devoted to (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:04:16 AM EST
    Rev Wright and a thundering silence regarding the Senate hearings on the outrageous amount of blatant corruption, fraud and outright thievery in
    Iraq countenanced and enabled by your favorite "consensus builders".

    But, I suppose we should all reserve our opinions until Hilloary gives them to us.

    Anytime Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:06:10 AM EST
    wants to put impeachment "back on the table", I'll send her flowers.

    Parent
    Speaking of pigs flying.. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:20:28 AM EST
    this was on the news, and I was chuckling about it. Roger Water's pig went missing from a concert. It floated away in the night. And when it was found it had exploded, or imploded, and the pieces landed in a couple of yards. The pig had a "Vote Obama" sign on it's belly, and anti-war things on the rest of it. I just cracked up when I read that. Sorry, but it's such a perfect metaphor for what is happening with his campaign.

    Parent
    And get Dick Cheney as our president??? (none / 0) (#82)
    by CST on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:50:32 AM EST
    No Thank You

    Parent
    Hillary (none / 0) (#33)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:04:53 AM EST


    Parent
    I'm waiting for an opinion on (none / 0) (#62)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:30:11 AM EST
    this

    Parent
    This does not look good (none / 0) (#50)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:18:56 AM EST
    Link 1

    Link 2

    No big deal (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:35:54 AM EST
     Re: 1, Repubs want to run against Obama, and associating the "leading" Dem candidate with his gaffes also helps to paint all Dem candidates with those colors, IMO. They probably can't help themselves in their delight to do negative ads against everything that Obama's giving them.

    As for #2:

    "I don't see any reason at all to continue after June 3rd when we know who got the most [pledged] delegates, who got the most popular votes, who won the most states and so forth," said Mr Carter, 83.

    Ahem. Who got the most popular votes? We'll just have to let the voters decide, eh, Mr. President?  

    Parent

    Very telling that they're going after him now. (none / 0) (#72)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:39:22 AM EST
    I think at least some Republicans are betting that Hillary is going to pull off the nomination, so they're firing the big guns at Obama and Obama endorsers now and holding their fire against her until the general.

    Parent
    I see it the opposite (none / 0) (#104)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:30:00 AM EST
    TeresainPa gets annoyed when I do this, but I'm doing it anyway.... I think the Repubs believe that there is no way the Dems will not give Obama the nom (race, I linked to an article earlie) and they have just moved on to the GE.  Clinton's stories are old news, Obama is (crunchy) new and shiny.

    Parent
    Or look at it this way (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:43:09 AM EST
    There are two possibilities:

    1. He gets the nomination, start hurting him and the democrats now,

    2. He doesn't get the nomination, start hurting the democrats with him now. You can't do it later.

    Its pretty smart.

    Parent
    Interesting article, (none / 0) (#148)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:31:00 PM EST
    you could be right. I was basing on my opinion on the fact that the Republicans are nominating a man a large swathe of their base loathes, just because he's the most electable of their field this year. So I can see where they'd think we'd be crazy to nominate Obama, not because he's black but because he's a n00b who's getting bashed with rookie mistakes.

    I disagreed with the author here:

    "A significant segment of ordinary, middle-class Democrats, especially blue-collar workers and retirees, vote along racial and ethnic lines."

    I think blue-collar Dems and retirees vote for their own best economic and social interests, and Obama hasn't given them any reason to hope he'll help them. Blaming race for that is short-sighted and will cost us big in the GE. But maybe Dem party leaders are too afraid of being called racists themselves to see that.

    Parent

    I don't understand the logic in the (none / 0) (#89)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:59:41 AM EST
    Repubs attacking him now if they want to run against him? You are not the only one who's said that here.

    Parent
    you could say (none / 0) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:11:03 AM EST
    their attacks help the Obama as default nominee argument.

    Parent
    Im not sure its so bad (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:25:09 AM EST
    GOP buying ads against Obama, ok.

    and is anyone listening to Jimmy Carter.
    I dont think so.


    Parent

    How many American's read the Daily Telegraph? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Annie M on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:28:01 AM EST
    It's a UK paper....

    Parent
    Jimmy Carter (none / 0) (#68)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:36:06 AM EST
    has an understandable hatred for "going to the convention" with the nominee undecided, given that his 1980 re-election campaign got derailed by Ted Kennedy fighting him all the way through the second ballot. But Carter was about 1000 delegates ahead of Kennedy at convention time, not about 100. Plus the sitting president thing. My mom still blames Teddy for Carter not getting re-elected and giving us Reagan, and she'd been a Kennedy worshipper up until then.

    Parent
    you know what (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:40:30 AM EST
    if Obama wins Hillary, as senate leader, could very well become Teddy to his Jimmy.

    Parent
    She is a junior Senator.. (none / 0) (#97)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:13:51 AM EST
    she doesn't have the seniority to be the Senate leader. Unless they change the rules for her, which they won't.

    Parent
    Harry already offered (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:35:24 AM EST
    her the job actually.

    Parent
    Actually the position is selected (none / 0) (#111)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:39:12 AM EST
    by votes.  So unlikely as it is that a junior senator can be the senate majority/minority  leader this is not a matter of roolz.

    Parent
    Yes, but the usual procedure is to (none / 0) (#138)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:16:17 PM EST
    pick someone with seniority. Although, I would LOVE to see her as Dem leader. But would rather see her as President, especially since if she doesn't get the nom, she will be leader under McCain's administration. Or if un-inflated pigs ever do fly, under Obama's, which would be very interesting. The Senate leader coaching the President on how to do his job. Can't wait. Sigh.

    Parent
    Furthermore, Mr. Carter, (none / 0) (#74)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:40:53 AM EST
    Are you really so sure you can speak for your mother?
    His mother, whom he adored, would "be delighted I think at the prospect of a black man being elected president". In an aside that will give scant comfort to Mrs Clinton, he added: "And she would be pleased - I wouldn't say delighted - at the prospect of a woman being president."

    That quote's not going to give much comfort to female voters. Who just happen to make up the largest demographic block of voters.

    Parent

    Thanks you guys (and gals) (none / 0) (#131)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:07:49 PM EST
    I needed to be talked down!

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#61)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:28:50 AM EST
    Considering the post also contains a gentle poke at Big Media Matt (also an Iraq war supporter), I'm not sure Obama love is really at work here.  Nor do I sense that Atrios has any great love for Obama.

    Not seeing it frankly (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:30:26 AM EST
    Seems a shot at Goldberg and the Atlantic.

    I think it merited a reminder about Sully.

    I think my interpretation sound.

    Parent

    any great love for Obama. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:32:11 AM EST
    I agree.  but I may be cutting to much slack because he really is one of the blogger types I have admired.

    Parent
    He has been pretty tepid on both (none / 0) (#69)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:37:44 AM EST
    primary candidates and certainly hasn't shown himself to be a partisan for either Obama or Clinton.  I do believe he mentioned that he would vote for Obama in the PA primary though.

    Parent
    Gas Tax "Vacation" (none / 0) (#84)
    by CST on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:56:08 AM EST
    I really hope this pandering doesn't pay off... Frankly I don't think much will come of it.  What a terrible idea.

    Also, I wish all three candidates spent a little more time talking energy policy.  There are some really bad ideas out there that sound good.

    Pandering? (none / 0) (#87)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:58:10 AM EST
    Like changing the position on marijuana depending on the state he is in?  

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#91)
    by CST on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:02:54 AM EST
    I am not saying one side does it more than the other, but energy policy is a more important issue to me.  Obama has also pandered on this - I just wish it was brought up more now that the election is on a more "national" scene. I feel like the last time I heard about it was in Iowa and Nevada - Pander to corn and pander to nuclear waste.  Corn is one of those terrible ideas that sound good.

    Parent
    I agree with you about energy policy (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:27:22 AM EST
    but I think her pander here was just gamesmanship on McCain. "I'll see your gas tax cut and raise you how the pay for it."

    Parent
    More from Krugman (none / 0) (#147)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:30:27 PM EST
    Add: Just to be clear: I don't regard this as a major issue. It's a one-time thing, not a matter of principle, especially because everyone knows the gas-tax holiday isn't actually going to happen. Health care reform, on the other hand, could happen, and is very much a long-term issue -- so poisoning the well by in effect running against universality, as Obama has, is a much more serious breach.

    Krugman Blog

    Parent

    I guess I disagree (none / 0) (#150)
    by CST on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:32:51 PM EST
    I do consider it a matter of principal... But I agree it probably won't happen.

    Parent
    Hillary has proposed a multi-faceted (none / 0) (#169)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:04:21 PM EST
    approach to energy policy:  it includes among other things,
    bond issues to assist the carmakers in retooling to produce fuel efficient cars; solarizing homes, R&D tax credits for alternative energy sources, etc. that would be environmentally friendly;

    Bush/Cheney meanwhile, only wants more oil drilling, specifically in Alaska.  I believe this was their long-term strategy after all:  to get the country to the brink of frustration because of high energy prices so that the people will accede to their drilling for oil in Alaska and other environmentally sensitive areas.  This was their entire energy policy agenda from the start of their 8-year run.

    Parent

    Love the blunt you're with (none / 0) (#180)
    by Ellie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:32:11 PM EST
    Are we looking at the state he was in geographically or, um, metagalactically?

    Cause that might account for the difference.

    Parent

    We need a gas tax.... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:54:22 AM EST
    permanent vacation.  Like it or not, the way we live gasoline has become a staple, no less vital than milk or bread.

    Milk and bread are tax exempt at the retail level, it should be the same for gasoline.

    Need money for highway maintenance?  Abolish the DEA or pick another useless, destructive, overfunded govt. agency to abolish.

    Parent

    umm no (none / 0) (#134)
    by CST on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:11:05 PM EST
    I do not think you can compare food to oil.  There are substitutes for oil, they just aren't economically viable yet, because oil is cheaper than the other options.  There are no substitutes for food.

    Abolishing the DEA isn't gonna happen this summer along with a tax "vacation".

    Parent

    Until their is a viable sunstitute for gas.... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:23:03 PM EST
    it is no different than bread or milk in that people simply cannot live without it, with the way we live now.

    Now I'll be the first to say the way we live is not viable for the long run...but the way we live is the way we live, at least for today and the foreseeable future, and working people are hurting...some hurting big time.

    Time to throw the working stiffs a bone...the 6 hundo checks coming ain't gonna cut it.

    Parent

    When cars first came out no one used oil (none / 0) (#146)
    by CST on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:30:20 PM EST
    It's something we starting using because it was cheap and easy.  The technology is there for alternate options, the infrastructure is missing.  How do you pay for the infrastructure... oil windfall profits is a start, but I'll take what I can get.

    Also, we are not talking about winter oil to heat homes.  Anything that encourages people to drive more is not a good thing.

    The 600 dollars will go a lot further than any gas tax vacation.

    Parent

    We need to cut the cost of energy (none / 0) (#165)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:56:28 PM EST
    which is a direct cost, like labor of food production and other necessities.

    Parent
    Gas Tax (none / 0) (#126)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:00:02 PM EST
    It's still regressive, it sure is.

    I've taken the arguments on this particular issue as it stands at this point in time.  Pragmatically speaking, the idea might not help anyone.  Fine.

    No one has even come close to saying a gas tax isn't regressive.

    That's because it is.


    Parent

    Unless you live in the city (none / 0) (#140)
    by CST on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:21:40 PM EST
    Where broke people ride the train/bus and the rich take their gas-guzzling SUV's to work.  This will not make bus prices go down.  Although I admit it's another story for the rural poor.  And in the winter it's another story when you need oil to heat your house.  But we are talking a summer gas tax here.

    Parent
    It ain't all peaches and cream... (none / 0) (#144)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:28:17 PM EST
    in the 'burbs either.  Not all suburbs are rich gated communities filled with SUV's...some are working class with people driving used late 90's Honda Accords.  These people need to get to work so they can eat and pay their rent.

    Parent
    a lot of burbs (none / 0) (#149)
    by CST on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:31:28 PM EST
    Have public transit options...

    Parent
    Not mine... (none / 0) (#154)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:40:05 PM EST
    there are a couple bus lines that don't really go anywhere except the mall, and the Long Island Rail Road which is so expensive it still is sometimes cheaper to drive, even at 3.81 a gallon.

    Parent
    Not to mention that you still have to (none / 0) (#157)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:44:02 PM EST
    drive to the Train station and back home.

    Parent
    List a few and then compare to the (none / 0) (#155)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:42:49 PM EST
    totality of suburbs in the nation.

    Parent
    This is probably not my best argument (none / 0) (#170)
    by CST on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    And frankly I have little sympathy for people who choose this lifestyle and then complain about gas prices.

    The fact is, they may not be good options, but they are options none the less.  And I am not going to list every suburb on a commuter rail or bus line, I'd probably get kicked off the site if I tried to.

    Parent

    You don't have to (none / 0) (#177)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:20:19 PM EST
    Look not everyone who lives in Long Island works in NYC.  Not all suburbs even the ones around big cities have proper reliable train/bus transportations to those cities.  The Majority of people live in areas where the Public Transportation is either poor or non-existent.  Even when I lived in NY or LA unless I happened to also work in the city Public transportation was not an option.  So when I lived in LA but worked in another City I did not always have the ability to use Public Transportation even though I did use it for in the city transportation.  In these days were you work where you can moving is not necessarily an option.  It is not a lifestyle have you checked the rents in places like NYC, LA, SF etc.  a lot of people can not afford to live in the cities.  Don't even go to big cities places like Gainesville, Fl (where UF is) have a higher cost of living, rent, taxes than the smaller cities around it and there is no public transportation to these places.  Would you care to venture a guess how many times this happens in this country?

    Parent
    I bet it happens far too often (none / 0) (#179)
    by CST on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:28:24 PM EST
    And repealing the gas tax is no way to improve public transportation or the status quo of development patterns in any way.

    Parent
    Yes but absent other options (none / 0) (#182)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:35:23 PM EST
    I don't mind any kind of help to alleviate the cost of living in this country.  Mind you I don't use my car that often since a lot of my business is done over phone, fax, e-mail so I am not talking about myself.  But my neighbors do use their vehicles and not just for fun so It may pandering but a lot of people would be grateful for it.  After all no one seems to take the bull by the horns and start talking about Profit Control.

    Parent
    Add to that the fact that in most states (none / 0) (#152)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:33:34 PM EST
    Public transportation is a joke even in the majority of cities, and you have a problem is fuel conservation.

    Parent
    You know (none / 0) (#160)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:46:44 PM EST
    I used to live in a city myself.

    Check out this comment I made last night:

    link

    But more importantly the person who responded to it.

    Parent

    That may be true on an individual basis (none / 0) (#171)
    by CST on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:08:20 PM EST
    But statistics of transit users in major cities suggest otherwise.  I am not saying poor people don't drive.  I just don't think they drive as much in the city - so I wouldn't call it "regressive" in that regard.  Also, poor people also smoke more cigarettes but you don't see people complaining about that tax.  Also - Oil kills too.

    Parent
    Death by spreadsheet then (none / 0) (#181)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:32:44 PM EST
    Inner city numbers prove gas tax only impacts rich people and isolated cases are collateral damage.


    Parent
    no... (none / 0) (#186)
    by CST on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:43:24 PM EST
    I am saying it doesn't necessarily impact those people disproportionately, not that there are no impacts.

    Gas prices suck, I get that, I can't afford to drive.  I have had to choose between food and gas to get to work in the past and it wasn't pretty, I lost like 40 pounds.  I still don't think this is the solution.

    Parent

    Why complain about tobacco taxes? (none / 0) (#185)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:41:56 PM EST
    Just get your buddy in Virginia or the Carolinas to ship you a couple cartons...a tax is only a hardship if you can't dodge it:)

    Unfortunately that don't work with gas...if it did I'd find a friend in Venezuela asap.  Though I'm guessing it won't be long till we see black-market hijacked gas tankers making the rounds in a working class neighborhood near you, just like the U-Hauls filled with cartons of black market Marlboros at 40% off retail.  

    Besides...addictive as they are, when push comes to shove even a tobacco junkie like me can go without.  Switch to rolling tobacco or cheap cigars or quit.  No matter how you slice it people can't go without gas, if they did it means going without food and shelter as well in many cases.

    The planet doesn't need saving at the expense of the well being of working people...the earth will heal herself once we are gone, its us humans that are screwed.  Lets not single out the little guy for exclusive screwing...as I said once before gas could hit 10 bucks a gallon and Joe Blow Millionaire can still fill his Hummer, while Joe Blow Laborer goes bankrupt...or worse, hungry.

    Parent

    On gasoline prices (none / 0) (#109)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:36:09 AM EST
    It used to be that if I went anywhere over 100 miles I would just top off my tank before I left town even though ours in not the cheapest per gallon in the state.  For about a year now if I am going to Tampa or Miami etc. I find out where the gas is about 20 cents cheaper, calculate each fill up before I take off.  It has become a logistic ordeal just to go to my daughter's house down in Tampa.  Now we can blame the oil crisis, the weakening dollar, or the price/barrel of oil, but the fact is that Oil Companies are making record profits and that does not translate from oil price/gasoline price relative prices.  Someone is lying and it is IMO the Gov. and the Oil Companies with help from the press.

    Nobody is lying. (none / 0) (#190)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:59:45 PM EST
    It's very easy to make record profits when your business ships record volume.

    Parent
    Record profits mean record profits (none / 0) (#195)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:08:39 PM EST
    The amount of profits has far exceeded the increase in sales.

    Parent
    There's something terribly ... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:54:51 AM EST
    ecclesiastical about all this.  Blogger A attacks blogger B in the way he should attack blogger C.

    In short, blogger A is a moron.  This is news?  Insight?  Really ... really? Most bloggers are morons.  Hell, most people are morons.

    In other news, water is wet.

    Nitpicking (none / 0) (#139)
    by lyzurgyk on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:17:26 PM EST
    Atrios has done a nice job keeping his eye on the ball and staying out of the Obama/Clinton blood feud.
    Josh losin' it? (none / 0) (#142)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:24:52 PM EST
    Does that group doing voter-suppression calls in North Carolina have ties to the Clinton campaign?

    I didn't read it very carefully. Did I miss something? Clinton campaign behind voter suppression?

    If there are screams about (none / 0) (#159)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:45:22 PM EST
    such things, then why weren't there screams about it when Obama was doing it in Penn.

    Parent
    What about that Dems for a Day / uncommitted (none / 0) (#172)
    by Ellie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:11:21 PM EST
    ... business, intended at the outset to game the system and disenfranchise MI voters? And "win" all those red states that the scorekeepers used to pretend HRC should fold before that "insurmountable" lead?

    Was THAT okay?

    And is this another invoked fainting-couch comedy to create the factesque CW that this is all Clinton's fault (IACF) again?

    (Ohhhh, the Outrage!
    And the Outrage about the Outrage!)

    Parent

    Andrew Sullivan (none / 0) (#158)
    by s5 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:45:20 PM EST
    It's more than just "Obama love". Yes Sullivan supported the war, but he has since admitted he was wrong, and has gone on to become a fierce critic of the war and all the atrocities carried out in our names. This makes his position roughly identical to most of our elected Democrats, including our last nominee and one of our two leading candidates.

    Interesting Gallup poll (none / 0) (#161)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:49:43 PM EST
    Regarding, "top of mind" candidate perceptins:

    Link

    Let me get off my high Horse (none / 0) (#191)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:02:03 PM EST
    I believe that if we don't do something about the carbon based fuels we are doing irreparable damage to the environment.  Unfortunately this country was developed in the last century with cars and trucks in mind.  It's not just cars is our infrastructure that has made this problem so large.  Trucks are the way everything gets to the consumer and trucks use diesel oil.  We heat with oil and coal in too many places.  Our generation of electricity is mostly oil and coal based.  Nuclear power is not the solution since we have no proper or safe way of disposing of the waste product.  Alternative solutions exist but as a country we seem to lack the will to make the temporary sacrifices that would be necessary to build the proper infrastructure.  Having said that I think our capitalist based society will continue to be a barrier to any solution within the immediate future it is sort of the same kind of problem we have with proper national health care.

    Nothing generates will for new methods... (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:07:39 PM EST
    Like staggeringly high prices for the old ones. We've had no will for alternative energy because we've had no need...when gas is cheap, why build a railroad? When oil is $20 a barrel, why bother building windmills?

    Only when petroleum gets prohibitively expensive will we change anything. Which, for better or worse, may be sooner rather than later.

    Parent

    Oil has not been 20 dollars a barrel for (none / 0) (#196)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:13:08 PM EST
    a long time :-)

    The problem lies in that like in health care if you try to do anything different that may in any way affect big business you get all this propaganda about how we are trying to ...... put in whatever kind of propaganda fits.  Harriet and Louise ads are a perfect example of the kind of propaganda, lying, whatever you want to call it, you will get.

    Parent

    Well, there's always reluctance to change... (none / 0) (#200)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:20:10 PM EST
    Change is scary. Almost nobody likes it. Even people who claim they want it will almost always avoid it given the opportunity. And that manifests in people coming up with ridiculous reasons to avoid it at all costs.

    Fortunately, (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it) we're not going to have any choice when it comes to gas and oil. Prices are not going to go down any time soon. In fact, they're likely to go a whole lot higher. And yes, this is going to mean an immense amount of pain for a lot of people. That's unfortunate, but that pain is also the only thing that will ever inspire us to make the kind of sacrifice necessary to get off the oil drug.

    Parent

    I agree but the ones who will be getting (none / 0) (#203)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:26:30 PM EST
    the pain are not the ones who have the means to change the system.  That is why I made the prior comment that they are lying to us.  

    Parent
    We're all part of the system. (none / 0) (#205)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:36:05 PM EST
    And we'll all have to change in order to survive. Now, you're right in that the poorest people will suffer the worst of the pain, but there's probably no way to avoid that. Money has always been and will always be the ultimate cushion in life.

    I could easily do my job from home one or two days a week. We have the technology, and it would save a ton of time and gas. But my management would never go for it, because, hey, if I'm not at my desk I'm not working, right? Alone, I won't be able to change their minds about this.

    But if prices keep going up, there's going to come a point where I, and most of my coworkers, are going to have to go to management and say "Hey...we really can't afford to keep doing this. Are you open to change, or do we need new jobs?" That will be a very, very unpleasant conversation, and it's not going to happen until everyone involved as no other choice. And yet, when it finally does happen, a very good thing might well result.

    We'll get through this. It's just going to suck for a while.

    Parent

    Necessity may be the mother of invention (none / 0) (#197)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:14:53 PM EST
    but at the rate we are going the damage will be done by the time we are forced by prices to take action.

    Parent
    Actually.... (none / 0) (#198)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:17:41 PM EST
    I think true free market capitalism might be all that can save us, unfortunatley we don't have true free market capitalism, we have corporate socialism.  A govt. by, of, and for the oil companies.

    In a true free market, an innovative entrepenuer would come along with a cheaper way to move us and our goods around.  But in our corporate socialist system, the oil companies get so many breaks the innovative entrepenuer can't compete.  

    The game is rigged...

    Parent

    Agree to a point (none / 0) (#201)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:24:00 PM EST
    But true market capitalism IMO is sort of misnomer.  A free market system that allows competition but controls improper market practices (monopolies, market collusion, etc.) is in my opinion not capitalism.  Capitalism is amassment of capital at an extreme.  Just a thought.  It is sort of like calling our political system a democracy.

    Parent
    The game is indeed rigged. (none / 0) (#202)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:25:00 PM EST
    It always is. But there's still a market for the innovative entrepreneur. Heck, the oil companies themselves are busy looking for the next big thing...they're not entirely stupid, and they can read the handwriting on the wall as well as the next guy. Record profits today don't mean much if you run out of product to sell tomorrow.

    Unfortunately, nobody has found an energy source that is anywhere near as cheap and easy to use as oil. Oil is just orders of magnitude better than anything else out there for most applications. But the search is ongoing, and humans have a pretty good track record of coming through when it counts.

    Parent

    We have a good track record???????? (none / 0) (#204)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:29:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Absolutely. (none / 0) (#207)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:47:27 PM EST
    Humanity is a wiley beast. Scientists now think humanity almost web extinct just 70,000 years ago, and now there's 6 billion of us running around. Some of us figured out agriculture, which allowed us to outcompete the nomads. When animals were no longer cutting it as an energy source, we figured out how to use coal. When coal stopped being to deliver the margins we needed, we found oil. We're coming up on a bit of a squeeze now, but we're working the problem. Bet against us at your peril. ;)

    That said, we do occasionally hit the brick wall. The Mayans didn't make the cut. Neither did the people of Easter Island. But on the whole, our track record's pretty good.

    Let's hope it stays that way.

    Parent

    I don't know.... (none / 0) (#213)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:08:22 PM EST
    for the sake of all the other life forms on this planet, it might be better for Sweet Planet Earth to shake us off like the bad case of fleas that we are.

    Hat tip to George Carlin.

    Parent

    I agree with most of this, but this kills me (none / 0) (#206)
    by CST on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:41:08 PM EST
    "Unfortunately, nobody has found an energy source that is anywhere near as cheap and easy to use as oil."

    Switchgrass, sugarcane, used vegetable oil... I can go on.  One of the biggest misconceptions is that we don't "have the technology".  We do, it's the infrastructure that we don't have.

    Old cars used to run off of alchohol.

    Parent

    Switchgrass, sugarcane, and vegetable oil... (none / 0) (#208)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:55:43 PM EST
    Are all great, but none of them can produce energy at anywhere near the volume necessary to replace the energy we get from oil. If you gathered all the vegetable oil that all the restaurants in the US generate in a year and converted it all to gasoline...you'd end up with less than a day's worth of gas for the nation.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking these methods. All of them will be part of the solution. But none of them, or even all of them collectively, are the solution. We need way, way more energy than they give us...at least if we want to maintain anything close to our current lifestyle.

    Parent

    Bikes! (none / 0) (#212)
    by CST on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:06:48 PM EST
    There is a whole lot of switchgrass growing in the midwest.

    You're right it's not THE solution.  But we could be doing a whole lot more with the current technology we have.

    Parent

    Jeebus, sweetthings, (none / 0) (#214)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:16:13 PM EST
    where did you come from? A voice of sanity on TL after all these years.

    Parent
    New James Wolcott article (none / 0) (#209)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:56:35 PM EST
    I liked it.....

    The Campaign Toll
    When Democrats Go Post-al
    On the most egoistic plane, it seemed like a clash of entitlements, the messianics versus the menopausals. The Obama-ites exuded the confidence of those who feel that they embody the future and are the seed bearers of energies and new modalities too long smothered under the thick haunches of the tired, old, entrenched way of doing things. The Hillarions felt a different imperative knocking at the gate of history, the long-overdue prospect of the first woman taking the presidential oath of office. For them, Hillary's time had come, she had paid her dues, she had been thoroughly vetted, she had survived hairdos that would have sunk lesser mortals, and she didn't let a little thing like being loathed by nearly half of the country bum her out and clog her transmission.

    More great stuff......

    Hillary's candidacy promised to make things better; Obama's to make us better: outward improvement versus inward transformation. With Hillary, you would earn your merit badges; with Obama, your wings.

    Wolcott swipes Andrew Sullivan (none / 0) (#210)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:00:43 PM EST
    same article by Wolcott....

    Perhaps no vilifier of Hillary Clinton traipses across the footlights with a bigger satchel of calumnies than Andrew Sullivan, who diagnosed Mrs. Clinton as "the hollowest form of political life," a "sociopath." His solo act had and has a symptomatic significance. Published under the aegis of The Atlantic's stable of notable byliners, Sullivan's Daily Dish blog is must-reading among the media elite, those sheep.

    wolcott (none / 0) (#211)
    by CST on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:04:05 PM EST
    I think the thing to take away from this is that Democrats have been bashing Democrats so long they forgot to take on the real enemy and we have all been giving Republicans a free pass.

    Parent
    Here is an opinion (none / 0) (#215)
    by Leisa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:59:43 PM EST
    I am seeing more and more around the blogosphere.

     

    The last thing I'm gonna do is vote for someone who's asking for my support BECAUSE she's white. Which is essentially what the "electability" argument is.

    What do you think??

    Childers denies Obama connection (none / 0) (#217)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:11:27 PM EST
    Remember yesterday the commercial going after Childers for being connected to Obama and thus Wright for G-D America?

    Today, brought to you by cable news....

    Childers has a new local commercial out... they were linking me to politicians I don't know and have never met.

    "Smoking gun..." (none / 0) (#218)
    by jen on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:55:54 PM EST
    'Smoking gun' prompts Andy Martin to say Obama should withdraw as presidential candidate

    Andy Martin says 'retainer' by Robert Blackwell, Jr. was classic Illinois 'pay to play' and may have been criminal behavior.

    (NEW YORK)(April 27, 2008) The disclosure today in the Los Angeles Times that Barack Obama laundered money through a law firm to conceal the source of his income while an Illinois state senator is the 'smoking gun' that is going to doom his candidacy. LATimes

    Barack Obama should withdraw as a presidential candidate. Immediately. The latest evidence of his professional corruption is going to doom the Democratic Party.
    ...

    Read on at pr.inside

    Open Thread | 211 comments (211 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment