home

Friday Morning Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:55:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I've got jail visits today. There's lots of new posts up from last night, or you can use this thread to pick the topics. If you see our troll from yesterday, e-mail me so I can log on and delete her.

Oh, and keep it civil please.

Update: Comments now closed.

< How Will Obama Spend his $40 Million? | Legal Group Sues Over ICE Immigration Raids >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Friday Morning Open Thread | 235 comments (235 topical)
    OT? Puppy Mills on Oprah 4/4 (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:27:29 AM EST
    Not sure if this is ok for here and open thread, but one of my 'issues' as an AW person.

    "Oprah is asking animal lovers to unite. Find out why it's important to know where a puppy really comes from before you take it home.

    Tune In Friday!
    Lisa Ling exposes inhumane treatment of animals. Check back for what you can do to fight back."

    video promo here:
    http://tinyurl.com/ys3qbq

    Winfrey Dedicates Show to Her Late Dog

    2 days ago

    CHICAGO (AP) -- Oprah Winfrey plans to dedicate a show investigating abuses at puppy mills to her cocker spaniel, Sophie, who died last month from kidney failure.

    "Sophie gave me 13 years of unconditional love. She was a true love in my life," Winfrey says on the broadcast scheduled to air Friday. (Advance remarks from the show were released Tuesday by Harpo Productions.)

    The show features special correspondent Lisa Ling investigating puppy mills, which Ling calls "horrific" and "haunting."

    Winfrey says the show is "for anybody anywhere who loves a dog, has ever loved a dog, or just cares about their basic right to humane treatment."

    While Sophie was not a product of a puppy mill, and Winfrey's three current dogs were adopted from breeders, Winfrey says in the future she would look to adopt from an animal shelter.

    "I would never, ever adopt another pet now without going to a shelter to do it. I am a changed woman after seeing this show," she says.

    http://tinyurl.com/2aqq7o

    Yeah, it's Oprah, but at least it looks like she has some good footage that will make an impact and a large audience. Hopefully there will be some good education and room for more discussion.

    I didn't know you could be OT in (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by JoeA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:17:34 AM EST
    an open thread.  I'm sure you're ok!

    [ Parent ]
    "Yeah it's Oprah." (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Joelarama on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:52:18 AM EST
    No need to apologize.  She has her frustrating and annoying traits, but she's head and shoulders above others in her position.

    Sounds like a great show, and I'll Tivo it.  I love animals, especially dogs.

    [ Parent ]

    uck. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:36:43 AM EST
    Okay, I'm glad she got a clue.  But I saw her last year on a TV segment about training dogs after she got two-three dogs after seeing a friend's dogs and she thought they were sooooo cute!  (I think they were white blonde retrievers.)  

    Cute is nice, but I'll take smart, sensible, and sane first.  I've seen too many "purebreds" I would never ever want for a pet.  Poor temperament, poor health, poor breeding - poor things!

    I have a dog I adore, he's  a purebred alright, a pure bred mutt - 1/2 Akita, 1/2 Malamute/Great Pyrenees.  No puppy mill produced him.

    [ Parent ]

    once she got dirty with politics.. (none / 0) (#236)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:15:49 AM EST
    i never see her show again now.. she took me for granted just like Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    New PA Poll by Insider Advantage (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by JoeA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:47:34 AM EST
    from politicalwire

    IA Poll: Pennsylvania Now a Statistical Tie
    The latest InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion poll in Pennsylvania shows Sen. Hillary Clinton clinging to a 2-point lead over Sen. Barack Obama, 45% to 43% with 12% undecided.

    With a margin of error of +/- 3.7%, the race is a statistical tie.

    Said pollster Matt Towery: "This could be the beginning of the end of the Clinton campaign. The crosstabs show Obama trailing among white voters, but by only a 49%-40% margin. More importantly, Obama has a lead among African-American voters of 56%-29%, with the remainder undecided.
     

    If this poll is even close to correct,  and its showing the race within 2% with Obama only leading 56-29 amongst A/A,  then Hillary is in all sorts of trouble as Obama's A/A vote will end up closer to 85%.

    I feel the same excitement (none / 0) (#46)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:59:01 AM EST
    I did when the polls were showing a Kerry shoo-in!

    [ Parent ]
    Obamamentum!!! (none / 0) (#151)
    by JoeA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:49:51 AM EST
    The danger for Obama of course is that he closes, and even pulls ahead slightly in the polls and then underperforms.  i.e. He could lose by 5 which many would currentl view as a great result and possibly enough to virtually end the contest,  but due to changing expectations it could end up as a disappointment ,   see CA, NH, Texas, Ohio etc.

    [ Parent ]
    Morning Joe (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by kayla on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:20:44 AM EST
    So, I'm watching Morning Joe right now and they keep calling Hillary a liar and trying to change THE RULES because she's said "pledged" delegates aren't actually pledged.  They fail to mention that one of her pledged delegates switched to Obama a few weeks ago.  Jesus.  Just because Hillary says it, doesn't mean it's a lie.

    So send them an e-mail (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:27:44 AM EST
    If they are wrong, let them know they are wrong. Politely of course. Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe someday someone on MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:09:22 AM EST
    will talk about how Obama resisted re-votes in FLA and MI, even though "the ROOLz" permitted them.

    And maybe someday pigs will not only fly, they'll bomb bomb bomb Iran.

    [ Parent ]

    Litigatormom (none / 0) (#168)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:13:33 AM EST
    let's not forget how the major networks shilled so ardently for the war, only to turn with the tide once popular opinion was lost.

    They have very convenient memories about the roles they play.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, they do (none / 0) (#207)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:50:37 AM EST
    They also conveniently forget how many other free passes they've given to George Bush and the Republicans -- and how many they are giving to John McCain right now.

    Sigh.

    [ Parent ]

    I really think that Hillary (none / 0) (#44)
    by JoeA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:56:30 AM EST
    should not get into saying pledged delegates are not really pledged.

    They are called Pledged Delegates,  and are bound to , in all good conscience,  reflect the will of the voters that selected them.  That's my understanding,  and while the Democratic Party rules mean that they can vote for whoever they want,  they are still not the same as Super Delegates who can vote for whoever the hell they want based on electability, who's got the best haircut, popular vote etc etc.

    It was just stupid politically on Hillary's part to even bring up the idea that pledged delegates aren't pledged.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (none / 0) (#55)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:08:32 AM EST
    I know what she is saying, and it is right ont he facts, but she does not need to be saying it in public.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kayla on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:17:02 AM EST
    I don't understand why she keeps saying this.  Her political style is strange.  Sometimes I think she's too straightforward and people generally don't like that in their politicians.  Hillary's obviously in love with details and little rules that nobody wants to bother with.

    I emailed them.  But I don't think it's going to make much of a difference.  It doesn't bother me so much that MSNBC is entirely in love with Obama (besides Scarborough) but more that they are reporting his talking points and wallowing in misinformation.  This isn't the first time I've seen this from them.

    [ Parent ]

    The misinformation kills me too (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:08:51 AM EST
    If we can stay informed, can't we expect the same of those whose job it is to be informed?  The only conclusion is that they deliberatly stay misinformed so they can make a story last another news cycle or two, and bash the candidate they don't like. Willful ignorance is no better than falsification.

    Wish I could think of an example, but I stopped watching so long ago that I can't!

    [ Parent ]

    What did Mark Twain say...? (none / 0) (#170)
    by kayla on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:17:14 AM EST
    "Don't read the newspaper and you're uninformed
    Read the newspaper and you're misinformed."

    [ Parent ]
    Mark Twain quote, (none / 0) (#198)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:45:14 AM EST
    Here, here!

    [ Parent ]
    LOL Alert (none / 0) (#65)
    by Athena on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:26:56 AM EST
    This one is good for a laugh:

    Just saw a commercial for KO's program tonight on MSNBC:

    "How Hillary Can Win" is the title.

    LOL - Keith must be feeling the heat - could it be Rendell asking whether he's on the payroll for Obama?

    [ Parent ]

    That is funny, (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:45:29 AM EST
    because he'll probably say there is no way....

    [ Parent ]
    Saw that KO ad myself (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:45:35 AM EST
    and was thinking, "what the heck?" KO talking about how HRC can win? April Fool's day was earlier this week!

    Could be enough disgruntled emails might be making a difference, although I doubt it... I don't care for KO's stridency any more.

    [ Parent ]

    I feel sure (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:47:39 AM EST
    Tanya Hardings name will come up.
    any bets?

    [ Parent ]
    Hey, maybe it is his way (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:10:30 AM EST
    of announcing his retirement!!! Or MSNBC going off the air.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought Rachel Maddow was (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by JoeA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:35:44 AM EST
    standing in for KO tonight?

    [ Parent ]
    Rachel Maddow? (none / 0) (#220)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:03:19 AM EST
    One more reason not to watch MSNBC

    [ Parent ]
    The reason he is doing this (none / 0) (#129)
    by Lena on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:30:09 AM EST
    is so that he can show that, when it comes right down to it, in his opinion, (i.e. according to the "facts") there truly is not a snowball's chance in hell for her.

    I'm sure he'll show a tortured, cheatin'-ridden path for her to sew up the nomination, and he'll say something like, "so if HRC is willing to lie, steal, and kill, here's how she'll get the nomination."


    [ Parent ]

    How Hillary can win: (none / 0) (#206)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:50:23 AM EST
    Methinks, is KO's way of attracting audience he has alienated for his blatant bias; but then will spin it in a negative way by probably making the argument that she will not be able.

    [ Parent ]
    Morning Joe (none / 0) (#186)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:39:53 AM EST
    I agree with you on this; however, watching the program this morning, I was surprised that Scarborough actually made what sounded as a compliment about Hillary: that he admired her for her strength and toughness (the "ness" is mine). In the latter, he likened her to Dick Cheney,but I sensed some respect. Hum, one minute of accolades.


    [ Parent ]
    Well that does seem to be the current (none / 0) (#194)
    by JoeA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:43:53 AM EST
    line of attack that has been sent out to the conservative pundits by overlord Rove.  i.e. That as Obama is looking like the nominee, it's time to start praising Clinton and comparing Obama negatively with her.  Maybe I'm being cynical.  The impression I have had recently,  and this is primarily from blogs, and youtube + clips from Crooks and Liars,  is that Scarborough seems to have taken a hard turn to the right as the election has gotten closer.

    [ Parent ]
    I've been watching Morning Joe since it started (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by kayla on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:55:26 AM EST
    And Joe's always seemed impressed and very respectful toward Hillary.  Last summer he used to say that she was politically savvy and the only candidate that came off as presidential.  It has gotten more intense lately, but I really think it's because the Hillary hate has gotten more intense and he wants to be a foil.  The night she won TX and OH Tweety and KO started going on about how she's dividing the party and Joe inquires about why they're trying to sweep her out despite the fact that she just won two big states.  He compared their behavior to the way a disgusted homeowner would sweep out a nasty rat or a huge creepy bug.  He basically told them that they were being ridiculous.

    But it does worry me that only Republican talking heads are saying positive things about Hillary.  Wtf is going on?

    [ Parent ]

    See my previous post (none / 0) (#223)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:04:14 AM EST
    They'd the like the Democratic race to continue as long as possible, to take heat off McCain. Rush Limbaugh has even made it an explicit strategy.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, Scarbarough is a conservative, (none / 0) (#199)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:45:30 AM EST
    so it's not surprising he'd want the Democratic race to continue as long as possible. The longer Clinton and Obama supporters are using their resources to fight each other, the less time there is to turn those resources against McCain. Rush Limbaugh was overtly running a cynical campaign to encourage Republicans to vote for Hillary to continue the fight within the Democratic primaries as long as possible.

    [ Parent ]
    Rush's "Operation Chaos" (none / 0) (#230)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:11:59 AM EST
    program yesterday was encouraging more participation of the Republicans in the up coming primaries to do this. He credits himself with a degree of success due to how the Reps. & Indeps. have disingenuously voted for Obama.
    He did bring up an interesting point a couple of days ago about Obama's popular vote lead. He said that 300,000+ lead only comes from Chicago, IMPLYING, AS RUSH DOES that there was 'funny' business conducted here. Does anyone know anything about this? How could this be confirmed ? Verification of the votes could give an insight into wrongdoing (or not).

    [ Parent ]
    Well, it's generally wise to expect (none / 0) (#242)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:26:05 AM EST
    shenanigans in Chicago.  Based on its history  -- see, e.g., the Dem win in 1960 -- if Chicago ran a valid and reliable election, that would be news.

    It's called the "Chicago Way."  Google that and "Obama" to see some local media's discussion of this.  Btw, you'll see that they're proud of it.

    [ Parent ]

    The Aren't Pledged (none / 0) (#159)
    by flashman on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:01:16 AM EST
    I read recently where some of Edward's "pledged" delegates have announced that will vote for Obama.  This proves Hillary is correct, IMO.

    [ Parent ]
    They are "pledged" to reflect the will (none / 0) (#180)
    by JoeA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:31:34 AM EST
    of the voters that selected them.  Now you can argue the toss over whether the Edwards delegates should have stuck to him, despite the fact that he was not in the race,  but it is a huge jump from them moving to Obama or Hillary, and suggesting that Obama or Hillary delegates should disregard the will of the voters selecting them.

    I don't think the Iowa situation with Edwards delegates shows anything one way or the other.

    [ Parent ]

    I Suggested All Of That? (none / 0) (#228)
    by flashman on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:09:47 AM EST
    There is a tendency to read alot into people's statements.  Nowhere did I suggest that Obama's delegates switch to Hillary, not has Hillary herself suggested that.  But the circumstance that a delegate that was 'pleadged' to Edwards announces that (s)he will vote for Obama invalidates the whole process of electing delegates.  A pledge is a pledge, and I don't give a hoot for whom it was originally pledged.  

    I'll also point out that Hillary's statement on the matter was a sort of "shopping list" of various ways she can pick up delegates, the elected ones only being a single item.  Niether did she suggest that should change from Obama's to hers.

    [ Parent ]

    Huh? (none / 0) (#188)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:40:17 AM EST
    Edwards dropped out of the race. Of course his delegates can support other candidates. The question is whether delegates pledged to Obama could switch to supporting Clinton or vice versa.

    Now perhaps technically they can. But she was being asked why she was staying in the race when she was so far behind, and that's when she threw out that even the elected delegates could switch their vote. So she was at least suggesting that she might win the election because delegates that had been allocated to Obama in the primaries might switch their vote to her. Read here and see for yourself.

    One doesn't have to have a case of CDS to see that and wonder, what the heck was she thinking when she said that?!?

    [ Parent ]

    Disagree (none / 0) (#235)
    by flashman on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:15:49 AM EST
    Delegates should support who they were pledged to support.  No candidate should count votes they did not recieve, and when delegates vote for any other candidate than the one they were alloted, by the vote, then they are awarding that candidate votes that weren't earned.  The very fact that this is allowed invalidates the whole delegate process.

    [ Parent ]
    No, Edwards didn't drop out -- (none / 0) (#246)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:31:22 AM EST
    he suspended, since you're talking technically.  That means he retains his funds and his delegates to re-enter at any time . . . like at the convention.  Or, more likely, to negotiate with both.  

    So his delegates still are pledged to him, as much as are delegates to Obama or Clinton -- pledged to the voters, too.  In this case, Edwards delegates switching now are negating his negotiating power, and that could be for his platform that they claimed to support, such as universal health care.

    I.e., yes, pledged delegates are only pledged and can switch -- but by doing so, they are switching stands on issues, too.  That means that those Clinton delegates switching to Obama backed down from her stronger demands for change on some issues.  Their call, their conscience, but I'd sure like to talk to some of them about such issues and what the heck they're thinking.

    They're probably thinking only about "electability," of course -- winning at all costs.  I don't approve of people who abandon principles.  That is, if they had them.  Maybe they were voting on candidates' hair styles or something. . . .

    (Btw, I still think Clinton is more electable than Obama in the GE.)

    [ Parent ]

    Pledged delegates... (none / 0) (#232)
    by ConcordiaDem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:13:39 AM EST
    Obama is shameless... He won ND by 67-31 and felt the need to come to the ND state convention and try his best to steal Hillary's Delegates... But because of this us in northern minnesota get a well needed and long overdue chance to see the two candidates... at the same time!!! but delegates are up for grabs after primaries and this is not covered in the news near enough...

    [ Parent ]
    Oh Goody.... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:00:55 AM EST
    Tonight Keith looks at "What Hillary needs to do to win the nomination." I sure hope Hillary isn't boycotting Countdown like I am cause I'm sure she could learn a lot from KO. Let me venture a guess at what Keith might say she needs to do: "kneecap" Obama, throw the kitchen sink at Obama, unleash Bill, make Chelsea answer "the question." Any other ideas?

    Cry (none / 0) (#57)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:09:01 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    When did she do that? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Davidson on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:18:09 AM EST
    Honestly, when did she actually cry?  If you're thinking about that notorious NH episode (where she did not cry actually) the blame lies with the media who typically responded with the foolish snark that you just did.  The result was due to blowback from people who not only mocked someone based on a lie (at the very least, a gross distortion), but underscored it with a misogynistic tone.

    You do understand that neither candidate can win on pledged delegates alone?  That it'll be up to the supers and for Obama to win he'll most likely need to ensure MI and FL aren't taken into account?  Regardless, the fact he's done poorly in big GE states should lead you to ask, "What does Obama need to do to win the GE?"  Mind you, he's trailing McCain in NJ and tied with him in MA, of all places (SUSA polls).  In big GE states, like MO, FL, and OH he's trailing McCain badly.  Let's not even get into the whole 48-state strategy.

    [ Parent ]

    NIX MY PREVIOUS COMMENT: SLEEP DEPRIVED (none / 0) (#122)
    by Davidson on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:19:19 AM EST
    Apologies.

    [ Parent ]
    No worries (none / 0) (#163)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:04:24 AM EST
    I should have done a winky smiley face.  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    KO on HRC (none / 0) (#67)
    by Athena on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:29:47 AM EST
    Didn't see your comment - posted this above too.  Keith running scared?

    [ Parent ]
    If he's scared, it's probably more because of... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:36:13 AM EST
    ..the Randi Rhodes thing than anything else. Maybe there's video of him guffawing in the audience. LOL.

    [ Parent ]
    I wrote Air America (none / 0) (#165)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:08:22 AM EST
    and said that Randi Rhodes was an insult to good radio people like Thom Hartmann.  I like him, and realize that he leans a little to Obama but has said repeatedly that either candidate will be excellent for him.  He is given to a little fudging on Bill's record, but he does have Hillary supporters on and he cuts off Obama supporters who are rude or overzealous.

    [ Parent ]
    Mike Malloy was flipping out (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by shoephone on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:00:48 AM EST
    yesterday on his show. Ranting and raving and moaning and whining about how horribly Randi Rhodes has been treated by Air America. Then he went on a tear against Al Franken.

    I never could stand Malloy. Sounded like he was terrified he's going to get fired again. Wouldn't bother me a bit if he did.

    [ Parent ]

    I never understood the (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:09:22 AM EST
    tolerance of Mike Malloy by anyone that even pretends to be reasonable. He's a lunatic.

    Randi Rhodes is just a foul-mouthed embarassment to any candidate with a claim to class.

    [ Parent ]

    Yup. Two peas in a pod they are. (5.00 / 1) (#239)
    by shoephone on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:21:33 AM EST
    Malloy is a very bitter, angry guy. That's why I could never stand to listen to him.

    Franken was right. Malloy really IS bad for the liberal brand.

    [ Parent ]

    something else I realized yesterday (none / 0) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:42:26 AM EST
    the whole thing about NBC being in the tank for Obama is just setting the stage for them to turn on him in the general and do to him what they have been doing to Hillary.
    to show how balanced they are.

    [ Parent ]
    That will certainly be true for Matthews and (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by tigercourse on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:45:21 AM EST
    Russert but I think Olbermann will stay on Obama's team.

    But if you read some of the articles on the Daily Howler about how McCain is treated by the press, you know that we (and Obama) are in for a rough ride.

    [ Parent ]

    Aha, you called media correctly on that (none / 0) (#248)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:35:00 AM EST
    and I say that as one who has been on the inside.  This is exactly how they can and will play it -- "over the course of the campaign, studies show that we have allocated the same amount of time and favorable or unfavorable coverage to all candidates. . . ."

    [ Parent ]
    Is KO on tonight, or is it Rachel Maddow (none / 0) (#139)
    by JoeA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:36:49 AM EST
    standing in?

    [ Parent ]
    I dont know...just saw an ad on MSNBC.... (none / 0) (#150)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:48:32 AM EST
    ...and the ad shows Keith and says he will be discussing how Clinton can win.

    [ Parent ]
    Hmmm, (none / 0) (#174)
    by JoeA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:26:48 AM EST
    I've seen in several places today that Rachel Maddow is subbing in for KO tonight, including in more reliable places than below.

    e.g.

    [ Parent ]

    Joe all I can tell you is what I saw on MSNBC... (none / 0) (#182)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:33:09 AM EST
    ...this morning. You can go to their website and see what they say. Frankly I don't really care cause I don't intend to watch it.

    [ Parent ]
    Fair enough, not trying to pick a fight! (none / 0) (#191)
    by JoeA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:41:05 AM EST
    I don't get MSNBC anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    No problem... (none / 0) (#202)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:47:51 AM EST
    I'm only watching cable news today cause I'm taking a day off cause my daughter is visiting from California.

    [ Parent ]
    Rachael Madow standing in tonight (none / 0) (#146)
    by Faust on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:43:50 AM EST
    from what I've heard.

    [ Parent ]
    Fox Funnies (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:08:46 AM EST
    last night I caught the first few minutes of Greta.
    it was priceless.  she started with a big intro about how she was interviewing McCain and was going to ask him all the "important" questions.
    first question, why is there so much paperwork when you buy a house.  its such a drag.
    seriously.
    then McCain topped her by suggesting that the Bush administrations idea to get rid of the SEC would help.
    seriously.
    It got much more substantive (none / 0) (#212)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:52:14 AM EST
    later on.  She engaged him in a really intense and hard-hitting discussion about his family's pets.  Seriously.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary needs to stop playing nice- (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by kenosharick on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:09:28 AM EST
    contrary to media lies, this has been a very mild campaign.There is a campaign of misogynistic attacks against her from left and right. She needs to use his tendancy to "stretch the truth," the wright issue, and the inexperience issue. It will all be brought up by repubs in the Fall anyway.

    Ferrarro (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:15:07 AM EST
    was on FOX last night going after them pretty hard for "playing the race card" among other things.
    it was in response to the Air America twit.
    I really think that and some of the other Hillary bashing stuff that just keeps getting shriller is going to help Hillary get out the vote in the upcoming primaries.

    [ Parent ]
    Media blowback: likely not (none / 0) (#100)
    by Davidson on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:58:57 AM EST
    The false narrative that somehow Clinton is on a Quixotic path towards the nomination has firmly taken hold.  Just today the Times had this piece on how "Clinton's persistence helps Obama."  People who would typically support Clinton will likely ask, "What's the point?"

    The media has been harping on this like crazy since Clinton won TX and OH, but especially after it was clear there would be no revotes in MI and FL.

    And now that Obama is killing Clinton in donations by a margin of 2-1 it's looking worse for her.  I don't even know what to make of all these PA polls.  I don't trust them, but I can see how PA would go soft if they, too, believe it's pointless.

    [ Parent ]

    not media blowback (none / 0) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:11:34 AM EST
    voter blowback.
    I remain optimistic.  but thats my nature.

    [ Parent ]
    I saw that too. (none / 0) (#108)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:09:09 AM EST
    Hannity pointed out a Chicago Tribune article from '05 in which Obama states being an AA freshman Senator has brought him more attention  than would otherwise happen.  Basically the same thing Ferraro said.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, basically the same thing (none / 0) (#147)
    by JoeA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:43:56 AM EST
    Not.  

    [ Parent ]
    we report (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:58:10 AM EST
    you decide

    you tube

    [ Parent ]

    What? (none / 0) (#158)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:58:48 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Capt Howdy (none / 0) (#175)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:26:53 AM EST
    Thanks for supplying the YouTube link.  My "What?" reply was to JoeA.  You beat me by 38 secs.  :)

    [ Parent ]
    Why is Barack skipping this march? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:32:25 AM EST
    Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John McCain were scheduled to take part in the anniversary day events that were to include a "recommitment march" through Memphis and the laying of wreaths at the site of King's assassination. Sen. Barack Obama will be campaigning in Indiana.

    I would think that he would want to be there too.

    He also refused to give an interview (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:33:52 AM EST
    to Philadelphia Gay News (along with McCain). Hillary obliged.

    [ Parent ]
    I have an awful feeling (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:37:14 AM EST
    that if Obama wins his gay supporters are going to be among the first to be disillusioned.

    [ Parent ]
    gay supporters (none / 0) (#77)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:40:47 AM EST
    If he has any such, I have not found them.  Or are there some really naive gays out there--I heard right off that he did not favor gay marriage.

    [ Parent ]
    jog on over to Americablog (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:43:04 AM EST
    he has plenty

    [ Parent ]
    I think Obama's gay supporters (none / 0) (#205)
    by rose city on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:50:07 AM EST
    Pretty much fit the demographic of his straight supporters: young, male, etc.

    Hillary has a lot of gay and lesbian support (myself included). Please do not think that Americablog is representative of the gay community. I for one find that blog constantly filled with misogyny and distortions.

    [ Parent ]

    very much like Log Cabin Repubs (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:58:10 AM EST
    if you ask me--totally voting against their own interests.

    I remember way back when how HRC got so much heat for being the first first lady to march in a gay pride parade.  I remember her visiting gay men (not the "innocent" [gag, bleh] victims) with AIDS.  I remember her telling a gay staff member who had been outed by the right smear machine that she refused to accept his resignation.  Clinton summoned the HRC to the Hill to talk about how to defeat the anti-gay marriage amendment.  She rightfully believes that the best way to spread protections to gay couples is to make the federal government recognize domestic partnerships and gay rights-rather like was done to support civil rights and integrate schools and the military.

    I also remember Obama's uncomfortable laugh during the debate about being tested for HIV, and McClurkin, and that Obama would not be photographed with supporters of gay rights or gay fundraisers.

    As in just about everything, Obama talks the talk.  Clinton walks the walk.

    [ Parent ]

    Neither does Hillary. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by JoeA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:44:30 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama has a history (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:34:21 AM EST
    of campaigning instead of doing these events.  Or taking hard votes, for that matter.  Or convening oversight committees.

    Campaigning is very important to him, you see.

    (Also, I don't think he likes sharing the stage...)

    [ Parent ]

    And usually at these type of events (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:25:27 AM EST
    Jessie and Al show up. Maybe he is trying to distant himself as they have been pretty quiet lately which is a good sign really. That means everyone is staying on the up and up. I wonder how many they are expecting.

    [ Parent ]
    won't Farrakhan be there? (none / 0) (#192)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:41:41 AM EST
    Republicans are now saying Obama helped organize Farrakhan's Million Man March (in 1995?).

     

    [ Parent ]

    MLK, LBJ, HRC (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by Athena on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:03:22 AM EST
    Jesse Jackson just said on MSNBC that Dr. King endorsed Lyndon Johnson in 1964 because he needed an "ally" in the White House "to get the Voting Rights Act passed."

    Wasn't that exactly what Hillary said months ago - and was attacked for a racist comment in South Carolina?

    Amazing.

    [ Parent ]

    Facts (none / 0) (#231)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:13:11 AM EST
    are stupid things, apparently.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#243)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:26:08 AM EST
    He even campaigned for him is my understanding.  Several of us kept pointing this out at the time but the media was on it's latest Hillary-hate session.

    [ Parent ]
    He's going to address this with comments.... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:38:59 AM EST
    ...in a speech. That's how he rolls. Plus he wants the stage all to himself by appearing on the site where RFK announced King's assassination in Indiana. More better, apparently.

    [ Parent ]
    Symbolism is all. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:45:00 AM EST
    Wasn't Bobby white?

    Ah, well.  They are both men.  I guess that's what really matters.  (almost-but-not-quite-snark)

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, he'd rather commemorate the sites (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:52:35 AM EST
    of great speeches, rather than assassinations.  Can't say I blame him.

    When is his Gettysburg event?

    [ Parent ]

    Don't give him any ideas. LOL. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:55:19 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This reminds me... (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by magisterludi on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:55:06 AM EST
    I live in Memphis. When we moved here in 2000 we were shown a new loft condo downtown. As the realtor showed us through the space, he pointed out his biggest selling feature- looking out the living area's industrial-sized window was a perfect view of the Lorraine Motel and the wreath that hangs on the balcony where Martin Luther king was murdered.

    Talk about ambivalence. I felt guilty that I didn't feel I could face that dark reminder of our past every morning with my coffee. i confess I was relieved when it turned out the space did not suit our needs.

    [ Parent ]

    Electability concerns - US News and World Reports (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:00:59 AM EST
    A very detailed analysis in US News and World Reports thoroughly analyzes the results to date.

    This analysis breaks the population down into 'Academics' and 'Jacksonians' and I'll leave it to the article to further inform on the mechanics of this but it basically, the conclusion is...

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

    The prospects of Obama winning the general election are bleak judging from past results.

    I live in Arizona (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:17:33 AM EST
    so the prospects of either Hillary or Barack winning in my state are bleak at best. It will make little difference how I vote in the presidential election.

    Do I advocate voting for McCain over Obama?
    No way

    It is important to understand the argument that many are making about why Obama cannot win the general election (barring some monumental gaffe by McCain).

    The referenced article inspects this topic rather exhaustively and you would do well by reading it before you comment.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, it will make a difference (none / 0) (#179)
    by nellre on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:31:19 AM EST
    It will count in the popular vote. Gore won the popular vote in 2000.
    If these tight races continue to be the norm, the electoral college will go under the microscope.


    [ Parent ]
    I'm in Forida (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:41:55 AM EST
    If Obama cared about my vote he would show me some respect.

    But I will vote for him over McCain, no question about it.

    I also voted for Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, and Carter, for all the good it did.

    [ Parent ]

    My vote (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:52:33 AM EST
    will be one of support or one of protest.  I will not have a vote of acquiescence.  I'm livid over the charges of racism hurled on the Clintons and their supporters.  Had that not occurred (and mind you, IMO, had that not occurred, Obama's candidacy would have had a different outcome), I would vote straight Dem party as I always have.

    [ Parent ]
    NObama! (none / 0) (#134)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:34:25 AM EST
    It's Hillary or McSame.

    [ Parent ]
    great article - thanks (none / 0) (#225)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:09:10 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Donna Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Iphie on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:11:23 AM EST
    is apparently a little peeved at the email she's getting from Hillary supporters -- you see, according to her, the supporters that contact her do more damage to Clinton's campaign than they help.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Inside_Donna_Braziles_blackberry.html

    Has anyone else seen this?

    No comment from Brazile about the death threats and hate mail that Obama supporters send to those who support Clinton. I wonder if they're hurting their candidate? Donna doesn't say.

    I think these types of emails help (none / 0) (#149)
    by JoeA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:47:29 AM EST
    neither candidate.

    Having said that,  sending abusive emails to uncommitted superdelegates is probably going to be counterproductive in what is a race which is effectively going to be decided by those same superdelegates.  In that sense Brazile is perfectly correct in what she says.  

    And before anyone replies,  I know you will not view Brazile as the typical uncommitted superdelegate!

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (none / 0) (#161)
    by Iphie on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:03:42 AM EST
    that offensive or abusive email helps no one, but Politico didn't publish the email that elicited the response from Brazile, so we don't know what got her all riled up -- though I don't have a hard time believing that it was inappropriate. I find it interesting (though not surprising) that the one time she sees fit to comment on the subject, she makes no mention of threats and abuse that originate from Obama supporters.

    [ Parent ]
    She has probably not received (none / 0) (#164)
    by JoeA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:06:16 AM EST
    too many abusive e-mails from Obama supporters, for obvious reasons.  As such she may not feel qualified to comment.

    [ Parent ]
    Did Politico publish her responses? (none / 0) (#152)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:50:59 AM EST
    ...cause I think they have been doing more harm than good to the democratic party. Not to mention that it's just one more case of Donna coming down on the side of silencing people.

    [ Parent ]
    Never mind, went to the link and.... (none / 0) (#156)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:53:55 AM EST
    ...found the answer for myself. Maybe Donna should have just kept her yap shut and not paid attention to the emails.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama advisor says 60-80K troops in Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:02:06 AM EST
    after 2010.  Mission creep anyone?  And this does not include the private contractors which he won't commit to banning, unlike Clinton who wants to ban their use.

    link

    At least it's not about the horserace.  Is Obama saying one thing in his campaign but planning for something else?  Like Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam war?

    Feh, Ralph (none / 0) (#169)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:15:54 AM EST
    don't worry about it--Obama's folks have already made it clear that what he says when he's running for president isn't exactly how he'll act if he gets the job.  It's all about winning right now, not about consistency and careful planning.

    [ Parent ]
    So true, but the fundraising discussion (none / 0) (#177)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:28:15 AM EST
    bores me to tears.  For example, the $96 avg Obama contribution would be impressive if I didn't know that tons of $2 keychain purchases were used to get that number down.  It also makes for a much larger number of "contributors" which is good spin, but only spin.  Sigh ...


    [ Parent ]
    Mark Penn - Singlehandedly losing (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by JoeA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:38:05 AM EST
    the nomination for Hillary Clinton?

    He is the gift that keeps on giving for the Obama campaign.

    "Penn's got Trouble" @ Marc Ambinder

    Good morning, all! (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Universal on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:39:57 AM EST
    Hope everyone's having a great day. It's pretty rainy today here in northeast PA :(

    I have just written up an article about why I believe I was kicked off of MyDD, who made the decision and why he made it:

    http://www.villarrealsports.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=406#406

    I also cover in the lengthy piece why Bud White and John Wesley Hardin remain the only 3 people who are still banned (I think) after others have been reinstated. And finally, why I will not be asking MyDD for reinstatement to their site.

    I hope you like it. Have a great day.

    Paul F. Villarreal AKA Universal AKA RokSki

    Glad to hear linfar has (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:24:13 AM EST
    been reinstated. But when she and you and others were banned from MyDD I deleted them from my favorites list and don't intend to go back.

    This is not a free speech issue IMO, because it is their blog and they have a right to run it as they choose. But it is censorship and I'm not into that. Again, also their right. Just as it is my right not to like it and leave.

    Look for your posts elsewhere. And I think linfar has found a home away from home over at NQ where most of us think she's awesome. Gives her another option if she feels cramped.

    [ Parent ]

    Enjoyed your pieces (5.00 / 1) (#247)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:32:12 AM EST
    I was going to get an account, but once I read that they were banning people I deleted them from my favorites.  No more views from me.

    [ Parent ]
    Right (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:14:51 AM EST
    Like he's going to say "I'm against revotes."

    He doesn't understand international diplomacy, but he's not an idiot.

    Do you think (5.00 / 4) (#10)