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 This!! 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 >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate 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 / 4) (#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 b