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! 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 >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Friday Morning Open Thread | 234 comments (234 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
    very much like Log Cabin Repubs (5.00 / 0) (#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 / 0) (#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 / 1) (#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)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:37:09 AM EST
    Obama wanted a revote?

    Or are you just trying to refute the claim that he and his campaign blocked it from happening?

    I mean why don't you provide a quote where Obama says "I want a revote."

    If you can.


    Parent

    I asked a question or two (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:47:03 AM EST
    None of them were answered.

    Do you think Obama wanted a revote?

    Parent

    Yes I did (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:01:04 AM EST
    There's no quote of Obama saying "I don't want a revote."

    So I was wondering if you could provide a quote of him saying "I want a revote."

    I guess he voted present on that one too!

    Parent

    Obama isn't progressive (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:11:00 AM EST
    Take care.


    Parent
    Well just so's you know that (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:17:17 AM EST
    You seemed to think a site criticizing Obama is not progressive.

    I think it is.


    Parent

    Carville and Daschel (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by kayla on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:58:50 AM EST
    were on CNN arguing about this a couple of weeks ago.  Carville was saying that the Obama camp blocked the revote.  Daschel countered by saying, "because we wanted everyone to count!"  He went on a little further but I don't remember his exact wording and I don't want to misrepresent what was said.

    I remember reading posts on this site about how Obama didn't like the Michigan revote plan because those who have already voted in the Republican primary weren't allowed to vote again in the revote.  There was a plan to go through with this.  Both camps needed to be in agreement to get the revote done.  Obama didn't approve of the plan so it didn't go through.  Daschel admitted to this during this little argument with Carville on CNN.  You can try to find it on YouTube if you like.  I think that's the closest thing to a direct quote from the Obama campaign as you're going to get.

    Now, stop being annoying.

    Parent

    Indeed Obama is criticized roundly (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:28:10 AM EST
    on this site, but he is NOT smeared. Smearing would include calling him names in the way that dkos calls Hillary names.  Smearing would also include making up stories about him that have no basis in fact.  Obama sites have consistently called Hillary a corporate shill, failing to point out Obama's own behavior in those areas.  This site is simply not on a par with most Obama sites.  As for you hating this site.  Well leave then if it offends you so.  As for Obama blocking revotes, it is difficult to prove a negative, however, someone who spends hours collecting this detail will be able to tell you why the Michigan revote plan failed in due time.

    Parent
    Hell no (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:12:14 AM EST
    He didn't want revotes.

    So he blocked them.


    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 05:19:06 AM EST
    He didn't do what he wanted to do.

    Parent
    Instead of ranting all over this thread, (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Joelarama on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:56:48 AM EST
    why not talk directly to BTD when he shows up?  

    Parent
    Because the posters "job" is to.... (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:27:35 AM EST
    ...beat a dead horse and fill up a thread with silliness posing as "high ground."

    If an Obama supporter believes that Obama wants revotes then maybe he/she should support their candidate by emailing Dean and Donna Brazile and demanding them.

    Parent

    Just like Bush never said Iraq was an (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:47:04 AM EST
    "imminent threat". He never uttered those words, right?
    Understanding is a precious thing.

    Parent
    The candidates did NOT agree that (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:15:59 AM EST
    FLA and MI wouldn't count. They agreed not to campaign in FLA and MI.  They didn't -- except for those ads Obama ran in FLA, and the Obama surrogates who urged voters in MI to vote "uncommitted."

    The candidates had no power to "agree" that voters in two states would be disenfranchised.

    Parent

    It's been widely reported that the Obama campaign (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:13:37 AM EST
    resisted re-votes, rejecting mail-in primaries, and instead proposing 50-50% splits of the delegates -- which is essentially vote-stealing and voter nullification. I'm at work, otherwise I would find some of the sourcing. I'll look during my lunch hour, if you would grant this working stiff that grace.

    Parent
    If proof is defined as (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:24:49 AM EST
    Providing a quote where Obama said "I don't want revotes" then yes, ok, you're in the clear.

    Kudos and Thumbs Up!

    Parent

    Ok then (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:34:51 AM EST
    Ok.


    Parent
    Au Contraire monfraire (giberish I know) (none / 0) (#13)
    by DionysianLogic on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:48:41 AM EST
    I have been trying to find some evidence as well.  I found this post http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/confused-about-florida-blame.php
    That you might be interested in.  (warning, pro-obama link above).  Nothing definitive at all, but it was all I could really find.  And for the challenge of finding him saying Re-vote all good  
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxiQ2J0fV5M
    Don't you love video :).

    P.S. the subject line is refering to Wuhl's "Assume the Position" very very poorly.

                 -DionysianLogic

    Parent

    I'm sorry, but (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by magisterludi on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:06:39 AM EST
    your question is molded to fit your answer. It is also disingenuous and employs the kind of critical logic popular on elementary school playgrounds.

    One of my daughter's third grade science books had a caption box at the end of every chapter that urged the students to "extend your thinking!". You should try it.


    Parent

    This is what I found (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:49:50 AM EST
    I had the same question as you did. I haven't found a final definitive answer, but I'll tell you what I have found.

    The problem is that whether a candidate has blocked a revote in either state isn't a simple statement; it's open to interpretation. In order for a revote to happen both candidates have to agree to it. So if a candidate has ever said they'd object to some form of a revote, you could argue they "blocked" revotes. For example, Clinton said she would not accept caucuses. Is that "blocking" a revote? Well, people argue that caucuses are less democratic, so it depends if people thing Clinton's objections to them are reasonable or unreasonable. That's a complex question with arguments on either side, so people could go back and forth for a few hundred posts.

    So with all that said the argument that Obama "blocked" revotes in Florida seems to me to be pretty thin, to say the least. I did find an argument Big Tent made so I'll give you a link. I doubt you'll find it convincing, I'm just giving it to you it's because it's what I managed to find. Still, it sounds like the Florida legislature nearly unanimously agreed they didn't want to do revotes, and I haven't found statements from them that said Obama blocked them (and they certainly include Clinton supporters). I haven't found any neutral parties who've said that Obama is principally or uniquely responsible for blocking a revote, so I personally find the claim implausible. I won't try to convince anyone else beyond what I've written because that's all I know, that's the just the conclusion I've come to.

    There's more of a case for Obama blocking a revote in Michigan. Unlike Florida, it sounds like there were proposals for revotes that had some amount of support in the legislature,  and Obama's legal advisor raised objections to them. Marc Ambinder, who is as close to a neutral observer as I've been able to find in these matters, has said in his opinion Obama opposed them for reasons of politics, though there might be legitimate reasons too. Here is a link on the issue.

    Here I think people can reasonable differ. Were Obama's counsel's objections objections reasonable responses to factors that would make the scheme in question unworkable or calculated ploys to wait out the clock? We could all spend a few hundred or thousand posts going back and forth on that.  

    For me, the bottom line is that it's simply ridiculous that we were attempting to figure out how to do a second primary in March, especially since caucuses (which are simpler) are off the table. The time for planning such a thing was back in January at the latest, when there'd be some time to work out the mechanics, possible objections and so on. But no one was pushing for a revote back then. Googling, I can't find any evidence that Hillary was pushing for a revote in Michigan before March (if someone has something, I'd be interested). Indeed back in January, Brewer, the Michigan party chair, said of a second primary or caucus, the DNC had not asked them to run one, and added "If they did, we would refuse." So that's hardly Obama's fault.

    I believe you said in one of your posts that at an earlier point in time, Hillary had said only seating the delegates as is would be acceptable? I hadn't heard that, and I'd appreciate a citation if you have one.

    Parent

    Hmmmmm, ignore that very last paragraph (none / 0) (#99)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:57:58 AM EST
    as I can't find what I thought you said. It must have been someone else or I must have imagined it.

    Parent
    Link for Brewer's remark (none / 0) (#124)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:22:54 AM EST
    I forgot to include this link.

    Parent
    Can you post any evidence (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:19:00 AM EST
    that Obama has stopped beating his wife?

    Seriously. Obama himself would never had said that he would block any re-vote. What he HAS done, over and over, is invoke The ROOlz, and his campaign and his surrogates have mounted all sorts of excuses for why none of the proposals for a re-vote would work.

    Just like George W. Bush has never said, in public at least, "f*** the Constitution."  But he has done so.

    Parent

    Friend (none / 0) (#125)
    by Claw on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:24:29 AM EST
    You're probably going to get banned/limited pretty quickly.  I'm a wild eyed, Prius driving, Obama cultist myself, but you do need to watch the profanity, name calling ("shill"), and the aggressiveness in your posts.  The same standard isn't applied to Clinton supporters, but this is Jeralyn's site and she can regulate it as she sees fit.  
    Obama's role in the revote mess is always overstated here, but he did foot drag and run out the clock in MI.  


    Parent
    Obama blocked revotes in FL & MI (none / 0) (#172)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:23:03 AM EST
    BTD - http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/31/14552/3136

    Parent
    I was watching Borat earlier (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:34:15 AM EST
    And it was that scene where he happens across a megachurch rupuglican style.  The liberal audience (Me!) is balanced on a fulcrum between snickering and disgust at the swooning worshippers.  It's a pivotal moment in the Borat movie.

    I turned the channel and saw some more footage of Trinity and now Rev. Pfegler preaching to their worshippers.

    Yeah, sure. I'm sure they are like (none / 0) (#14)
    by JoeA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:49:29 AM EST
    totally equivalent.

    Parent
    I don't think they are (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:59:07 AM EST
    Really.

    The politics is different sure.


    Parent

    almost as priceless is (none / 0) (#35)
    by PastorAgnostic on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:20:42 AM EST
    the Meth-Gay former preacher interview. What the heck was his name? Mind bloc on pathetic creatures, apparently.

    Parent
    Pastor Ted Haggard (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:05:00 AM EST


    Parent
    Donnie McClurkin? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:41:45 AM EST
    Or are you thinking of someone else?

    McClurkin represents a good portion of conservative black churches when it comes to homosexuality.  

    That's the paradox of the black community.  They tend to vote for Democrats, but the average black church is conservative, not progressive.  

    Parent

    Yeah, from Haggerty? Something like that (none / 0) (#43)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:48:12 AM EST


    Parent
    My candidate's raving preacher (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:43:30 AM EST
    is right, and yours is wrong.

    I'd almost rather get into the 'prove Obama blocked revotes' fray above than have to make that argument.

    Parent

    heh nt (none / 0) (#90)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:50:54 AM EST


    Parent
    Truth be told (none / 0) (#245)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:30:12 AM EST
    It's not the preachers.

    It's the crowd.


    Parent

    You don't have to... (none / 0) (#252)
    by oldpro on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:05:11 PM EST
    ...they've both raving and they're both wrong.

    Parent
    it's the money, honey (none / 0) (#34)
    by PastorAgnostic on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:19:31 AM EST
    and please excuse the "honey" bit.

    if she is spending 1 mill a day (according to a local radio dude and dudette) and she only brought in 22 mill last month, AND she only had 3 mill in assets when you acknowledged her 9 Mill in debt, AND SHE STILL has 9 mill in debt, if not more . . . .

    regardless of where you stand on the issues, on the candidates, on Obama, or on anything remotely connected to this campaign, the writing is not just on the wall, it is blaring in one of those ugly LED ad machines, and is sweeping the skies in a goodyear blimp, while sign bearing biplanes fly slowly by, all saying the same thing - it is over.

    Really? (none / 0) (#97)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:55:38 AM EST
    Hasn't Obama had significantly more funds since Super Tuesday?  Significantly more!  Why hasn't he put her out.  Why is the only primary 1-2% differential with all his money?

    Parent
    Romney (none / 0) (#113)
    by Davidson on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:11:32 AM EST
    How did he fare?

    Listen, I, too, believe she's under unbelievable pressure from the media propaganda and the money is definitely tightening the screws, but you shouldn't be happy that money is playing such a determining factor (as you claim).  It's sick, really.

    If you want to get into discussions of the writing on the wall go look at the SUSA GE polls between Obama and McCain.  Take a look at MA and try not to be terrified of the repercussions, especially since the media hasn't even attacked Obama yet (Hell, they protected him during Wright).

    Parent

    just wondering... (none / 0) (#181)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:32:45 AM EST
    Have you seen any other diaries referencing the false narrative Obama wove throughout speeches of his father's connection to the Kennedys?
    WaPo debunked this li...uh -untruth with much available documentation.

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/30/13655/6958

    Hillary may not air ads about Obama lying about his own father to obtain a coveted endorsement - but the GOP certainly will.


    Parent

    Just reading about Cindy McCain's $$$$$$$$$ (none / 0) (#40)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:39:35 AM EST
    So she has the money. More than $100 mil. AnBusch distributor. They were pictured with Dale Jr in NC. Going for the Nascar voters. Wonder why he had to fly coach when he was out of money a few months back. Showing the common man maybe?

    So far it will be a slow newsday for Friday. I might actually get some work done at work. Although you guys up in the middle of the night sure were having your own private/not private conversation. Now we can get back to our usual programming. TGF

    Ha- (none / 0) (#54)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:06:16 AM EST
    We all need to get some work done, I think, and these new jerks are making it so much easier.  Though, it is a tad tempting to pop in every now and then to watch BTD slap them down like bad monkeys!

    Is the BSG blogging happening tonight?  I have to give it all my attention so I can't blog, but I'll certainly come back and read after the show (er, after the "next week, on BSG clips, I mean).

    Parent

    I read once that a supermajority (none / 0) (#47)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:59:31 AM EST
    of delegates is required to get the Democratic nomination. Apparently I'm wrong, but I just wanted to doublecheck. Is a simple majority sufficient?

    Depends on what "Super Majority" means (none / 0) (#130)
    by flashman on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:32:00 AM EST
    To win the nomination, a candidate needs to win over a certain threshold of delegates.  Presently, that threshold of delegates is 2024.  Since neither Hillary or Obama looks to win that number of pleadged delegates, then the SD's will make up the difference.  So, the first to win a combanation of 2024 SD's and pleadged delegates will be the nominee.  If that is your def'n of super majority, then you would be correct.

    The math changes if Fl. and MI. are counted, however.

    Parent

    Simple majority suffices n/t (none / 0) (#142)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:41:04 AM EST


    Parent
    Don't leave, PLEASE! (none / 0) (#48)
    by independent voter on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:59:45 AM EST
    I come here even though I support Obama, because, generally speaking there are many very smart people posting and commenting here. It has gotten much more hostile to Obama supporters over the past couple months, (I have to bite my tongue a lot so as not to get into spats!)But we NEED Obama supporters here to keep at least a little balance. I am sure many of the Clinton supporters would not acknowledge this, but it is true. And we have to try to come together when the nominee is decided. When I see completely irrational things in posts and comments, I just go outside and take a quick walk, and breathe some fresh air. If it's really bad, I close the webpage for the day, and try again the next day. It works pretty well!

    I want the Obama supporters to stay... (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:05:43 AM EST
    ...I've grown quite fond of many of them. Obama supporters that flourish here, though, have to be independent thinkers. Posting campaign talking points is never going to be received very well. Clinton supporters here don't get away with doing that either, even if there may be more of us.

    Parent
    The only problem I have with Obama supporters (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:11:35 AM EST
    are the ones who come onto TL and immediately start insulting Jeralyn and BTD, saying how downhill TL has gone, how it's just a shill blog, etc.  It just makes me want to ask them why the heck they are here if they have such a problem with the forum, though I try not to feed them because it is obvious that all they want is a fight.  And, I have to admit that some of the language just tickles me, because obviously they think they are waxing poetic.

    I am glad to see that some of the older O supporters are coming back, though, like marcellus, et al.

    Parent

    Even (none / 0) (#135)
    by Claw on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:35:00 AM EST
    If I did think that TL had just become a "shill" site for Clinton (I don't), I'd have to keep coming back for the legal entries.  They're absolutely the best around.  I think Obama supporters here get frustrated because they're often replied to with insults instead of argument, and I'm not talking about the Obama posters who make themselves worthy of insult.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:12:37 AM EST
    As a Clinton supporter, it's good for me to hear from Obama supporters.  I do tend to skip over the comments that are just back-and-forth arguments between two posters.  

    I like Taylor Marsh's site, but I never post there because it's 100% Hillary supporters and the discussion is not generally as intelligent.  

    The key is moderation - in both senses of the word!

    Parent

    Agree about Taylor Marsh... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:15:30 AM EST
    ..I like to read her posts but the comments section is a bit fan clubish. Still, I do appreciate their hard work on behalf of Hillary, I just tend to be a little less gushy about political candidates.

    Parent
    I really enjoy TM, too. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:16:35 AM EST
    She gets a lot of crap, but she admits when she is wrong, which is more than you can say for a lot of the bloggers out there.

    Parent
    Intelligent discussion (none / 0) (#103)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:01:52 AM EST
    requires thoughtful input from people on all sides of an issue. I enjoy hearing good arguments made by supporters of Sen. Obama and my arguments for Sen. Clinton are sharpened because of them.  People posting ridiculous statements for or against any of the candidates (including McCain) is not interesting to me.

    So I hope the thoughtful Obama supporters and the thoughtful Clinton supporters will all stay. And maybe we'll get a couple of thoughtful McCain supporters as well.

    Parent

    Clinton vs. Giuliani (none / 0) (#49)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:00:37 AM EST
    For the Governer of New York?

    Say it ain't so Joe.... (none / 0) (#211)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:52:14 AM EST
    talk about picking your poison!

    I wish Grandpa Al Lewis was still with us...now that's somebody worth voting for.

    Well...there's always the Marijuana Reform Party, I'm pretty sure they had a horse in the last race.  They've got my vote blind.

    Parent

    Interesting spin from TPM: (none / 0) (#51)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:02:13 AM EST
    ObamaTPM
    Wasn't BTD saying that Corzine was making a POSITIVE statement for Hillary when he said he would vote for the leader in the popular vote?
    Oh well.

    BTD cheers (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:27:35 AM EST
    any superdelegate that supports following the popular vote, no matter which candidate it helps.

    Parent
    Since that is Hillary's path to nomination (none / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:32:35 AM EST
    I'd say it's positive.

    Parent
    Popular vote was Hillary's Plan B (none / 0) (#87)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:48:57 AM EST
    but I'm not sure she will get there.  I think Plan C is superdelegates using their own judgement (with her helpful advice /snark) that Obama is not electable.  In that case, Corzine is not going along with her program.

    Parent
    I see it as neutral (none / 0) (#143)
    by JoeA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:41:41 AM EST
    as Corzine was already voting for Hillary anyway.  Now if you had some Obama Superdelegates saying that,  or it seeped into the mainstream consciousness then you could argue it was a positive for Hillary.

    As it is,  you have a delegate who had previously said he was voting for hillary regardless,  now saying he will vote for Hillary unless she wins the PV.

    With all that said, I think I'll change my earlier opinion,  it's a negative for Hillary.  If it becomes clear (due to a tight race in PA and a loss in NC for example), that she will not win the PV then I think a few more Hillary delegates coming out and saying something along those lines will just perpetuate the narrative that the race is over.


    Parent

    If the race is really tight in PA (none / 0) (#153)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:51:37 AM EST
    the overall race is over, in my opinion.

    Obama gets yet another chance to end this. He doesn't have a great track record on that, though. . .

    Parent

    He stated that he counts FA an MI with the total (none / 0) (#85)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:47:16 AM EST
    But I think that his statement makes him an uncommitted super, or rather a supporter whose vote is uncommitted.

    Parent
    All of the supers are uncommitted (none / 0) (#105)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:05:16 AM EST
    Any of them can change whenever they want. I'm glad he's said he will support the popular vote winner.

    Parent
    they are celebrating the statements (none / 0) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:09:21 AM EST
    by people like Corzine around left blogistan.
    I still believe they could regret that.


    Parent
    Only if Hillary win's a recognised PV total (none / 0) (#145)
    by JoeA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:42:53 AM EST
    If she comes up with a PV win through the usual Clinton Campaign math by including Michigan then there is no way any neutral superdelegates will be taking it seriously.

    Parent
    watching some of the Bobby Kennedy speech (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:39:40 AM EST
    in Indiana following Kings assassination made me realize there a no great leaders in politics anymore.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:33:41 AM EST
    There was no one like Bobby, and there hasn't been since.

    I was not quite 13 when Bobby was killed. Although I have clear memories of the JFK assassination (I was 8), and I remember the 1964 campaign (especially the daisy/mushroom cloud ad), Bobby's presidential campaign was the thing that jumpstarted my political consciousness. Perhaps because of his own suffering after his brother died, he had an empathy for people in pain, for people in trouble, for people trying not to let themselves be carried away by their anger at the injustices they faced, that I've never seen since. Obama can't touch him on that, IMO, as eloquent as he is.

    Everything seemed possible when Bobby won California, and then it was over. Yeah, I was just a kid, and maybe I am romanticizing Bobby.  But my parents worshipped him, even though at the time they still supported the Vietnam War, because of his championing of Latino rights.  

    Parent

    I just watched it too, (none / 0) (#89)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:50:21 AM EST
    but I disagree about not having great leaders anymore...

    LINK

    For anyone who wants to see it.

    Parent

    name one in Bobbys class (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:51:59 AM EST


    Parent
    I think you know (none / 0) (#95)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:55:07 AM EST
    Let's just agree about RFK and leave it at that.

    Parent
    You must be thinking of John (none / 0) (#102)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:01:12 AM EST
    Kerry

    Parent
    wasnt trying to be argumentative (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:07:13 AM EST
    I just dont see it.
    I really think he was a public servant in a way that his older brother or anyone else I can think of is/was not.
    thats why he had to die.  he was an honest to god man of the people.
    his death effected me a lot more than JFKs.  I was older of course but his death really closed the circle and killed all hope.
    they were dark days.

    Parent
    I was born in the middle of Watergate (none / 0) (#120)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:18:33 AM EST
    So I grew up in the age of politcal super-cynicism.  My first vote would have been for WJC but I was crushed by the Ricky Ray Rector incident.  I know some people don't see it but hope is making a comeback.

    Parent
    Energy is making a comeback (none / 0) (#127)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:27:26 AM EST
    and that is what counts the most.

    Parent
    Didn't mean to be short (none / 0) (#132)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:32:57 AM EST
    My boss walked in. Hate it when that happens.

    I think we have always had hope, but I love the energy Obama has brought to this campaign. That is what he needs to put him over the top in November.

    I've been supporting Hillary for a lot of reasons, but I like Obama a lot as well, and his positive energy is one area where I give him a huge edge.

    Parent

    I think the best thing (none / 0) (#138)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:36:39 AM EST
    about an Obama candidacy would be the fact that he will bring millions of new voters to the polls all over the country to vote for down ticket democrats in a way that would not happen if Hillary was the nominee.
    I dont personally think it will put him over but I think it could make for a tidal wave of democratic wins in the congress.


    Parent
    hope is indestructible (none / 0) (#128)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:28:22 AM EST
    I assume you are talking about Obama.
    if so it might surprise you to know I really "hope" you are right.  I dont believe it for a second but I hope I am wrong.
    I see him as an empty vessel into which people are pouring years of forgotten hopes.
    I hope and pray he lives up to it but I see nothing in his actions or record that suggests he will.
    I see an opportunistic politician.  not that Hillary is not but I know Hillary.  I know she shares a commitment to things most important to me.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 5) (#155)
    by kayla on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:53:25 AM EST
    I'm part of that miniscule percentage of young African Americans who just doesn't see what all the fuss is about with Obama. His speeches do nothing for me and I don't know of anything in his past that shows that he even knows what he's talking about.  Where's the struggle that is shoring up his own hope and propelling him forward?  He's mixed and has student loans?  That's his struggle?

    The best thing about our brave leaders of the past is that they thrust themselves into the middle of that heated climate and didn't care about the consequences.  They believed in what they were doing too much.  The I Have a Dream speech was dangerous.  He was standing in Washington, right in front of the White House with millions hanging on to his every word.  He didn't bring us hope.  He emboldened an entire generation to force the big shots to do the right thing.  It's incredible.  Who knew it could be done?  That speech and RFK's speech weren't made to get their asses out of hot water.  They were in pain and so was the nation.  And they were honest and didn't use us to help them climb up a ladder.  We were all hanging on that ladder and those leaders were at the base of it, steadying it so we could get to the top.  With Obama, it feels like the other way around.  He's climbing up the ladder and we're at the base steadying him, rallying for him, and voting him into office.  He's not giving me anything.  What's the goal of this New Hope movement?  I don't know how to contribute to it outside of pushing him into the White House.  How do I participate after he's there?

    He could make a great president.  But his political style annoys the hell out of me.  And why isn't it working on more people?  He's only got about half of Democratic voters so far.

    Blah.

    Parent

    What I meant by (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by kayla on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:04:08 AM EST
    King didn't bring us hope is that hope can't really be brought in a time of turmoil.  It's either there or it isn't.  The best leaders encourage us to take that hope and spin it into reality.  They encourage us to take our own seemingly empty and simple story and make it extraordinary by contributing, instead of telling their own story and expecting us to marvel at their Awesomeness.

    Parent
    I understand what you meant, Kayla. (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:11:19 AM EST
    I'm obviously older than you. As a young Puerto girl in Chicago, Martin Luther King was a hero to me, along with RFK. When I heard him speak I don't remember so much feeling hope as much as courage. The courage to stand up for myself and to believe that I deserved as much as anyone else.

    Parent
    Yes! (none / 0) (#244)
    by magisterludi on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:26:55 AM EST
    That's what always struck me about King-his courage. He had a warrior spirit and I mean that in the best of ways.

    Parent
    Kayla (none / 0) (#233)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:13:59 AM EST
    I think you just articulated the critical difference and why King and briefly RFK were genuine leaders and heroes.  "Hope" is such a dumb, passive word.  "Hope" is what the oppressor class uses to defang popular resentment.  Lots of lower income people in this country are opposed to having higher taxes on the rich because they've been led to "hope" they could be rich someday themselves.

    What King and RFK were doing, it always seemed to me, was engergizing people to act, not sit there passively and hope life would be better some day.

    With your views on this campaign, you must feel very lonely sometimes, Kayla.  My heart goes out to you.

    Parent

    one more thing before work (none / 0) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:14:21 AM EST
    I do not want a "unity" ticket.  if Obama is the nominee I hope Hillary stays in the senate.  leader would be best but the senate is where she can do the most good.
    I want her there to fight for the courts even if, possibly especially if, Obama wins.
    I want her to be Teddy Kennedy to his Jimmy Carter.

    Me too (none / 0) (#123)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:22:28 AM EST
    I want her there holding him to the progressive side.

    I wish someone would ask him if he would veto her plan for universal coverage, with mandates, if she gets it passed.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#137)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:35:58 AM EST
    Hillary as VP is a waste of her talents. Harry Reid needs to be replaced.  The only other person I can think of who would be a good candidate, besides her, is Chris Dodd.

    Parent
    The Peace Symbol is 50 Today (none / 0) (#131)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:32:03 AM EST


    Wow - I just turned 50 too (none / 0) (#141)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:38:16 AM EST
    There was some talking head on the radio or TV recenly lamenting the fact that there was no 'logo' or some such for the 60's.  I was screaming in my kitchen, as I often do these days, "What about the Peace Sign????"

    Parent
    Funny. Decades have logos? (none / 0) (#171)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:21:35 AM EST
    The 80's would be $$$ but can't think of any others besides the peace sign as you said. Anyone?

    Parent
    Wish I could remember (none / 0) (#189)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:40:21 AM EST
    the show or the context. Yeah, I'm old.  But it struck me funny too.  Everything has to be branded.

    Parent
    I didn't realize decades needed branding (none / 0) (#196)
    by spit on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:45:01 AM EST
    but I suppose, thinking about it, that they are effectively branded when they become "retro".

    This is the kind of stuff that makes me want to go be a hermit.

    Parent

    70s smiley face? (none / 0) (#201)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:47:09 AM EST


    Parent
    Which records are we talking about? (none / 0) (#140)
    by litigatormom on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:37:52 AM EST
    Tax records?

    Medical records. (none / 0) (#197)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:45:08 AM EST


    Parent
    So how many have XM Radio? (none / 0) (#166)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:08:23 AM EST
    And listen to it at work on your PC? I mention this because I have the 60's on right now to liven up a dreary outside Friday. Had Raggae on before. They have this station called Joint with music from Jamaica. Too funny. Heh.

    I have it too (none / 0) (#195)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:44:27 AM EST
    I don't listen at work that much though, just because I hate it when people come up behind me and I can't hear them.  I wish my desk faced the door.

    But when I do, I like scrolling through the music selections.  I always find something fun to play. I like Deep Tracks and the '70's station.

    Parent

    Mine faces the door (none / 0) (#238)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:20:50 AM EST
    I would prefer to set my office up differently but then someone would always be walking in and reading Talk Left over my shoulder.

    Parent
    National tie breaker (none / 0) (#173)
    by nellre on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:26:29 AM EST
    Let's have a national tie breaker
    It could be done via mail, email, phone or online.
    You'd need to supply confirmation of registration.
    Indies and Dems only.
    Is there a national voter registration database? Should have one of those.

    AP has an interesting article about (none / 0) (#178)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:30:00 AM EST
    Super-Ds, who select add-on Super-Ds.

    Article isn't currently linkable.  But, who knew?

    Here' the AP article: (none / 0) (#203)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:48:09 AM EST
    SUPER Ds SELECT ADD. SUPER Ds

    Parent
    Hillary yesterday in SF (none / 0) (#204)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:49:14 AM EST
    I saw her in a small fundraising breakfast.  What was amazing about her speech, she did not read anything, she did not utter one "uh", she was smooth and precise.  

    She focused on how the Dems are different from McCain and why we have to win.  She pointed out her advantage in the states we need to win for the GE.  One thing she mentioned which I have not heard is the whole notion that a SD vote is worth less for example than a caucus vote.  Basically she said, look, why should a caucus vote representing 150 people be more valuable than the vote of an elected representative who represents thousands.  Then she said a delegate is a delegate.  

    One moving thing happened.  A woman in the audience met her earlier and gave her something.  Her father a Congressional medal winner gave her her dad's Congressional medal, her dad had signed it with:  "Keep fighting for us HIllary".  

    What was truly sad to me when she brought up all the issues and her positions how much more progressive she is and how much her message is drowned by the drivel of the MSM and blogs.  

    Parent

    I am really upset about this Randi Rhodes thing. (5.00 / 0) (#217)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:59:00 AM EST
    And the whole Big Progressive Media phenomenon that decided to trash, smear and hate on the possible Democratic nominee for President.

    They were supposed to know that the enemy was Bush and his Party, not our own candidates! Okay, you can favor Obama if you want, but don't bash Hillary 24-7! Would it kill ya to recognize that she is not the Antichrist and that she'd make a much better President than John McCain?

    By the way, Randi actually made her offensive remarks at a Barack Obama event. Saw the post on NoQuarter.

    I'm stunned at her stupidity.

    Parent

    She really went off the edge (5.00 / 0) (#224)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:06:11 AM EST
    People lost common sense and manners after the standards of conduct have been lowered by the Rushes of the world etc.  The "progressive radio" is just using the tactics that work for ratings.  Highly offensive.  

    Parent
    I saw her in Atlanta (none / 0) (#210)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:52:11 AM EST
    and had the same feelings as you, Stellaaa.  It's just amazing to hear such an intelligent, passionate and articulate speaker who knows how to get us out of this mess.  Every woman who has been more qualified and more experienced, only to have some young gun waltz in and take the promotion and/or the credit, should be yelling in the streets.  I suppose it's some consolation that they are making their voices heard in the voting booths!

    Parent
    Therapy (none / 0) (#222)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:04:07 AM EST
    It was amazing how many of us kept talking before and after it was like somewhat therapeutic.  We were incredulous.  The lies and the attacks.  Then you hear some tv or radio moron reduce her entire life to that Bosnia thing or the lie that she allegedly said that Chelsea was jogging when 9/11 happened etc.  

    The other point she made which I truly find the most compelling for voting for her.  Look, the first term in 2 years you get midterm elections.  The president needs to get elected and up and running in 3-4 months.  Whatever you think, the Hillary has the advantage she will not how to staff and how to start with the legislation etc day one.  

    The Obama and McCain people will be in a dither. At this stage we need someone who knows how to do the basics so that the Dem agenda can get started right away.  

    Obama will be gloating and preening with the MSM at how proud they are at him being elected.  McCain will just plug in the same morons and nothing will change.  

    Parent

    It is a kind of therapy (5.00 / 2) (#237)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:16:02 AM EST
    like a brief reminder about what logic really is.

    It's sort of the way I felt when Bush was being relentlessly pushed by the media: why do you want the inexperienced, less intelligent person running the country?  What world are you living in where that is the viable alternative?

    You hear Clinton speak, you watch her at the debates, and all you can think is, "she's brilliant."

    I am not counting her out.  We still have a chance in this thing.

    Parent

    Thanks. An interesting report. (none / 0) (#214)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:55:53 AM EST


    Parent
    Listening right now to Obama.... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:36:28 AM EST
    ..guess I just don't have the Obama inspiration gene cause I'm not impressed even though some of his supporters are trying to prop him up with applause IMHO the lines don't deserve it.

    He is up there with Bush for me (none / 0) (#185)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:38:13 AM EST
    When he's on TV, it's an automatic mute.

    Parent
    Oh well I stand corrected and Kathy... (none / 0) (#193)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:43:07 AM EST
    ...no need for you to listen to the speech. The MSNBC commentator has already pronounced it compelling so that is that I guess.

    Parent
    Ah, yes, I love how the news (none / 0) (#200)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:46:00 AM EST
    tells us how to feel about things.  It worked wonders for starting this wonderful war we are in!

    (Can I say that my life has honestly gotten better since I stopped watching MSNBC and NBC "news," too?)

    Parent

    Mute!! (none / 0) (#209)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:51:32 AM EST
    I cannot stand Obama speak.  It really grates on me like Bush speak.  If people paid attention he says nothing.  But he always manages to slap down the liberals and poor people being dependent on welfare.  

    Parent
    Legal question: (none / 0) (#190)
    by Andy08 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:40:37 AM EST
    How are campaign contributions monitored? Is there
    any gov. agency that checks money comes in from
    US citizens? The internet forms ask for a name, and address a CC and an employer (if any/ could write unemployed).

    What prevents non-US citizens (in the US or abroad) from contributing money in small amounts ?

    Whose job is to follow up the info. and check for its  accuracy&legality in an internet contribution?

    Thanks.

    I don't like to say good things about McCain... (none / 0) (#208)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:51:19 AM EST
    ...so someone please feel free to set me straight. I think it took guts for him to deliver that speech just. Now he was being heckled and booed by the crowd, according to Soledad. But supposedly some people also shouted "We forgive you." An interesting moment.

    Please summarize. (none / 0) (#215)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:57:08 AM EST


    Parent
    It was very brief.... (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:01:25 AM EST
    He started out by saying the obligatory nice things about MLK, then went on to say basically that he was sorry for being wrong about MLK day and touched a bit about hearing about MLK's assassination when he was a POW. I wasn't so much impressed by anything he said as I was just by the image of his being there and apologizing directly for his MLK Day vote. It wasn't a friendly venue for conservative Republicans.

    Parent
    2 positive things about McSame (none / 0) (#229)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:11:11 AM EST
    1.  Maintaining reduced capital gains taxes.
    2.  Elimination of Alternative Minimun Tax.
    These may not be Dem party talking points, but if Hillary doesn't get the nod, these work for me.  

    Parent
    If the economy keeps heading south, (none / 0) (#240)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:23:24 AM EST
    people will be reporting capital losses, not gains, and with more people out of work, the AMT will not be as much of an issue, so...those specific issues are not going to be as important as overal economic policy - which I think McCain is not equipped to handle.  Why on earth we would want another Republicn in charge of the economy is lost on me.

    And then, there's war and reproductive rights, and McCain's already-announced desire to appoint SC Justices in the Roberts-Alito tradition.

    Not feelin' it, sorry.

    Parent

    Agree to all your points. (none / 0) (#249)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:37:21 AM EST
    But my vote for McSame would be a protest vote.  Maybe I'll get a dividend as well.  But let me be clear, no capital gains in this market....

    Parent
    McCain is what he is and (none / 0) (#227)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:09:35 AM EST
    what does he need forgiveness for?


    Parent
    I believe he was against (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:15:11 AM EST
    the establishment of MLK Day. He apologized for it.

    Parent
    hollow politics (none / 0) (#250)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:41:04 AM EST
    when that's of earth shaking importance, but i guess an apology couldn't hurt.

    Parent
    Comments Now Closed (none / 0) (#251)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:50:41 AM EST
    Thanks, we'll do another on later today.

    Friday Morning Open Thread | 234 comments (234 topical)