Tuesday Open Thread

I'm sure there's lots of news today, but I won't be around to write about it for several hours, so here's a place for you to fill us all in with what's going on and your thoughts.

As always, please keep it civil.

NOTE - Comments closed.

< Judge Weinstein: Juries Should Know If Mandatory Minimum Applies | SUSA PA Poll: Clinton By 18 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    SUSA: Clinton Up by 18 in Pennsylvania (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:46:40 AM EST
    Interesting and thanks for the link. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:48:58 AM EST
    Qpac showing it within 6 points (none / 0) (#6)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:52:35 AM EST
    I would want to see another poll or two confirming that SUSA movement, as all the polls in the last week apart from this seem to show dramatic tightening in the race in PA.

    Hilarious... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:55:02 AM EST
    Daily Kos has the SUSA national numbers in a story on the front page, but no mention of the PA poll. It's like the North Korean News Bureau.  

    It's natural to a degree. (none / 0) (#72)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:32:46 AM EST
    The Hillary supporting commenters on here were hardly shouting the Qpac numbers from the rooftops either.  In fact it was comments about Obama supporters plugging "faux" poll numbers.

    The front page at Kos has a pro Obama bent,  just as the front page here has a pro Clinton bent.  Mydd is probably split down the middle (at least for the front page posts).   If you want impartial coverage of the primary you should not be expecting it from either Dailykos or Talkleft.  


    what is Qpac's reliability history? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:46:06 AM EST
    Couldn't comment on the reliability of Qpac (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:51:03 AM EST
    though I understand they are a well respected outfit.  However their numbers are well in line with other recent polls,  whereas the new SUSA numbers are bucking the trend.  It may well be that the new SUSA numbers are picking up a new dynamic with voters breaking back to Clinton . . .  or it could be an outlier.  

    e.g. polls in the last week,

    ARG - all square
    Qpac -  Clinton by 6
    IA - Clinton  by 3
    Muhlenberg - Clinton by 10
    PPP - Obama by 2
    Rasmussen - Clinton by 5



    It might be an outlier, it might be (none / 0) (#36)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:14:44 AM EST
    catching a reversal in the trend.  It's too soon to say without another poll or two confirming the reversal in the trend.

    No, she shouldn't.. (none / 0) (#118)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:00:05 AM EST
    If Obama can't fight to the finish for the nomination, he has no business being in the GE. It's about being able to go the distance, and so far he hasn't had to do that in an election. He managed to get his opponents in the Dem primary for Senator disqualified, and his election opponents self-destructed. So, he needs to prove he can win a campaign fair and square, without people dropping out to give him the win. So far, he hasn't gone the distance in any election. Except the one he lost for Congress.

    do you know anything about (none / 0) (#122)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:01:26 AM EST
    states holding later primaries receiving 30% more delegates?
    Supposedly the May 6 primaries are in this category.

    I'm hope you are feeling clever today (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:32:21 AM EST
    Because this is the pdf of that rules. Pages 1 and 2 cover what you are looking for. Good luck!

    The short answer (if you don't feel like reading that) is it depends when your primary is this year and when it was in 2004 as to how many bonus delegates you receive.


    thank you! (none / 0) (#197)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:52:14 AM EST
    SUSA Internals of Pennsylvania Poll (none / 0) (#186)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:43:24 AM EST
    interesting internals on that poll. (none / 0) (#210)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:00:12 PM EST
    one thing i found almost fascinating: there are actually still "undecideds". at this point, what else could you possibly need to know about either candidate, to enable you to make a decision?

    perhaps, they might consider adding a dartboard to the voting booths, just in case. lol


    Watching the Petraeus hearing... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:47:32 AM EST
    Levin is pressing him hard, especially regarding actions of Iraqi leaders in Basra.

    Clinton is up now (none / 0) (#178)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:37:27 AM EST
    Asking about long-term stationing of forces agreement.  Asked if Iraqi parliament has to ratify - "yes".  Will administration put it before congress - "no plans to".  

    Now moving on to lack of progress by Iraqi government.


    I just have to say I'm diappointed with Daily Kos (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Universal on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:03:01 AM EST
    Not that it will come as a shock to anyone.

    I have only been by there once in the last few weeks for any amount of time, since the Hillary Bloggers' strike/boycott of the site.

    Anyways, I heard that people were cheering that Charlton Heston died, and with little dignity or restraint at the site.

    People, grow up. I know that DK has sunk to all-time nadirs as it has been overrun with Obama brownshirt imitators, but that's the kind of thing which gives all blogs and bloggers a bad name.

    Charlton Heston marched with Martin Luther King and voted for JFK before he became the 2nd Amendment Moses. Heston also had a long, debilitating bout with Alzheimer's before his death at 84.

    Look, I didn't like the guy either. But throwing parties when someone dies makes you look like the Miami refugee community holding parades when they heard that Castro caught a cold.

    Have some respect, please. If not for your fellow man, at least for yourselves.


    Here is a post I made over at my brother's site with two videos I shot after seeing Bill Clinton speak in PA about 2.5 weeks ago. The discussion is about Clinton vs Obama. It isn't anything revelatory, but some might enjoy it. I also discuss why I chose the blog name "Universal" (some of you know why) and how that relates to Hillary in the second video:


    Hope everyone's having an excellent day.


    I'm not going to say I spend lots of time (none / 0) (#30)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:11:10 AM EST
    on dailykos,  but I tend to read almost everything on the front page and skim the recommended diaries.  I haven't seen anything along the lines of what you describe about Charlton Heston, and having a browse just now I still don't see anything.  That doesn't mean there isn't something on there somewhere given that anyone can post a diary,  and that in such a large community there will always be some who take it a bit too seriously.  

    Do a search, read the comments. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Burned on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:29:04 AM EST
    The jokes aren't too original, but there are a ton of them.

    After New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, and (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by FLVoter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:06:38 AM EST
    Ohio and Texas polls, I stopped following polls.  When Sen. Clinton wins, its a rush to discuss how the polls could be so wrong. Since I was living in Florida in 2000, I do not even follow exit polls.  All I care about are the actual results, which in this race seem to vary from alot of the polls.  BTW, HBO is airing "Recount" next month addressing the 2000 Florida vote.  Since I lived it, should be interesting to see HBO's take on it.

    I'm looking forward to seeing that. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:21:13 AM EST
    Hope it doesn't upset me all over again. Guess 8 years is enough to come to grips with it.

    I know what you mean. I was one of those (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by FLVoter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:41:36 AM EST
    protestors outside of the Broward County Courthouse.  The only good thing that came out of that is that I met alot of good people and that incident kept me politically active.  Thanks to that incident the alot of democrats in my district (which are out numbered by the republicans) have been able to actively work to replace republicans.  I think our best win was ousting Rep. Clay Shaw and replacing him with Ron Klein.  Now if we can oust the Florida House Whip Ellyn Bogdanoff that would be great.

    SUSA has had the best polling this season overall (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:07:53 AM EST
    Still, who cares about polls? Let's wait for the vote before we declare winners and losers.

    since Obama has won the contest in the internet (none / 0) (#55)
    by thereyougo on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:24:47 AM EST
    his starry eyed supporters only WISH it was so in the REAL WORLD. BTW, what was the projection in Texas? Hillary won the popular vote but of course, he won the caucuses.

    Who can blame Obama's quixotic supporters when he floats ideas that a win for him would be to come in under 10%!  Only in his world is a win a loss. Oy !

    Hillary has been speaking each week about what she'll do on jobs, breast cancer, while Obama is so preoccupied with the numbers its all that we hear.

    Plus, I'm wondering if any of his 30 sec. ads have some kind of subliminal messages in them. Outrageous? not really.


    Obama is losing ground in the black community.. (none / 0) (#102)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:52:21 AM EST
    This is a copy of the comment that I made on another thread, relating how the black community in CHICAGO feels about Obama, or at least Michelle.

    I was having a conversation just now with my friend Margaret, and she told me about free screenings for black patients across the country, it's a concerted effort by the black community to enhance the health care in their communities. At the screenings in Chicago, Michelle Obama wanted to come and be there, it wasn't the hospital where she works. She just wanted to get the free publicity for caring about black health care. She was told not to come by the black organizers. Hillary had already made appearances at several screening sites and will go the one in Memphis when she gets there today. Hillary has already stated what funding she will try to get for this program. This is what the black community is looking for in a candidate, not flowery oratory and opportunism.

    So, Obama may be gaining in the blogs, but his support in the black community is starting to erode. They seem to have woken up and looked at him as a person, not a black man, and they don't like what they see, or hear. And it didn't go over well at all that he "dissed" Martin Luther King by not going to Memphis. Here in FL, Hillary is the preferred Dem candidate in the black community that I am in touch with. They know what she has done for them over the years, and what Obama hasn't.


    The longtime AA Illinois Legislators (none / 0) (#130)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:09:48 AM EST
    aren't too fond of him either. Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, D-Chicago, took legislation that many AA legislators had worked on FOR YEARS and gave it to Obama to present as "his own" legislation just so Mr. Hope could have a record of passing legislation when he ran for President. Emil Jones GROOMED Mr. Hope for his presidential run. Needless to say, many of those legislators whose bills were taken by Mr. Hope, aren't very fond of him. Bobby Rush had "issues" with him also....until Jesse Jackson changed his mind for him. Mr. Hope tried to take Bobby Rush's House seat in 2000, but LOST.

    And that was the only election where he ran (none / 0) (#228)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:32:10 PM EST
    without having his opponents eliminated in the primary by Obama's finding faults in their nominating petitions, or done in by revelations of misconduct. It's the only election where Obama has had to go to the wire, and he lost. No wonder his supporters keep telling Hillary to drop out, it's how Obama is used to winning..by default.

    he's not only gaining on the blogs, (none / 0) (#149)
    by thereyougo on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:23:13 AM EST
    they have had their inaugural day, crowned him,and passed around kool-aid.

    TPM held the bible while DK swore him in and the others cheered from the blaechers.



    thanx for sharing that (none / 0) (#173)
    by thereyougo on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:34:01 AM EST
    An Interesting History Lesson (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:59:56 AM EST
    You have to read the whole thing, start to finish, or it won't make sense. Please try

    The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet,
    8.5 inches.  That's an exceedingly odd number.

    Why was that gauge used?  Because that's the way they built them in
    England, and English expatriates built the US railroads.

    Why did the English build them like that?  Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.

    Why did 'they' use that gauge then?  Because the people who built the
    tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building
    wagons, which used that wheel spacing.

    Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing?  Well, if
    they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on
    some of the old, long distance roads in England*, because that's the
    spacing of the wheel ruts.

    So who built those old rutted roads?  Imperial Rome built the first long
    distance roads in** Europe (and England) for their legions.  The roads have been used ever since.

    And the ruts in the roads?  Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts,
    which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon
    wheels.  Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.  Therefore the United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot. Bureaucracies live forever.

    So the next time you are handed a Specification/Procedure/Process and wonder 'What horse's ass came up with it?' you may be exactly right. Imperial Roman army chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the rear ends of two warhorses.  (Two horses' asses.)  Now, the twist to the story:

    When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank.  These are solid rocket boosters, or SRB's.  The SRB's are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah.  The engineers who designed the SRB's would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRB's had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site.  The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains, and the SRB's had to fit through that tunnel.  The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.

    So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass.  And you thought being a horse's ass wasn't important?  Ancient horse's asses control almost everything...and-----*CURRENT Horses Asses are controlling everything else.

    i thought this sounded familiar................... (none / 0) (#226)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:15:38 PM EST
    go to www.snopes.com, this is lifted, almost in its entirety, from an article there on this very subject.

    however, it turns out to not be quite true. according to snopes, up until the end of the civil war, there were actually three different sized rail guages in use, mostly in the south.

    this failure to standardize contributed to the confederacy's loss, because it made logistics that much more difficult.

    interesting article. i wish i could put the link here, but this seems to be the only site i have a problem doing that with.


    Since here we are divided on who should be (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by FLVoter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:08:18 AM EST
    at the top of the ticket, why not focus on down ticket races?  Let's increase our seats.  I know in Florida the Dems are trying to pick up at least 5 new seats.  Of which are Vern Buchanan, Ric Keller, Dave Weldon, Tom Feeney and CW Bill Young. All held by these republicans. Each may be ousted and are vulnerable in their own way.  Further, we need to keep the seats gained last time by Tim Mahoney (remember Mr. Foley? This was his dem replacement) and Ron Klein.  They are both in republican districts.  For those of you who say that Florida not being counted is not important, here are at least 7 reasons why Florida matters.  Let's try to make sure that Dems do not stay home in Florida come November since the consequences extend to more than the Presidency.

    Tweety's College Tour and Hillary... (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:19:07 AM EST
    Has anyone heard if Hillary told Tweety to take a hike on his invitation to appear on his College Tour show? I heard him say that Mr. Hope and McCain were given 1 hour of the "limelight" and he wanted her to have that time in the limelight too! ROTFLMAO! SUUUUUUURE you do, Tweets.

    May I suggest that Hillary do a one hour interview on another network? Maybe even with Joe Scarborough who LOVES Hillary and her toughness.:)

    She should NEVER agree to do Tweety's show though. Go read Mathews' Monitor.com and you'll see why....or Media Matters has written great pieces about Tweety's misogynist comments about Hillary and many other women he's had on his show.

    Has anyone heard anything about Hillary and the College Tour show? Did she tell him where to go? :)

    I'd say do the Tweety College thing (none / 0) (#166)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:31:27 AM EST
    Because she'd handle it and handle him.

    And then he'd just spend the next two months being bitter about it.

    So I don't know.

    I do think yearlykos was ultimately a mistake.

    We're talking about people who can't deal with Clinton, period.


    Hillary was on Morning Joe... (none / 0) (#176)
    by Marco21 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:36:22 AM EST
    this AM, actually. i often sleep with the tele on and I woke up to their discussion. Sadly, it was so fricking early, I nodded off so i couldn't tell you how it went.

    I saw the interview. Here's a link: (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:56:27 AM EST

    The interview was great. Joe was a hoot and Hillary was AWESOME, as usual.:) Joe LOVES Hillary.


    SUSA vs. Ras/Quinnipiac (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by mike in dc on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:57:03 AM EST
    ...they have +18 for Clinton, while the other two have it +5 and +6, respectively.  Wondering if SUSA pushed leaners.  Should have about 4 more polls out by Thursday, so we can see if this one is an outlier or not.  The range of possible outcomes should be reflected in the last crop of polls before the primary.  

    Unfortunate (1.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Traven on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:22:08 AM EST
    Too bad.  I suppose more right-wingers on the Supreme Court and 100 years of occupation in Iraq don't bother you.  I dislike Clinton intensely but if push comes to shove, I will hold my nose very, very tightly and vote for her before I sit home and/or vote for McCain.  Unfortunately, a lot of the moderate Republicans and independents who will vote for Obama over the GOP won't make that same move -- the only person they hate more than McCain is Hillary.

    Yes it is unfortunate, but to many HIllary (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by FLVoter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:31:08 AM EST
    supporters this is a "reap what you sow" matter and not just to Sen. Obama but to the Democratic Party.  Regardless of who the Democratic Party chooses as its Presidential Candidate, do not underestimate Sen. McCain.  He still has a very favorable rating among republicans, independents and some democrats.  He is still seen as a "straight shooter."  Not all voters will focus on the Iraq War, and I personally believe that much of the damage in the Supreme Court has already been done by the appointments of Judges Roberts and Alito.  My plea is, if you cannot support the Presidential candidate, please vote for dems on the down ticket. Don't stay home.

    Certainly in the Senate (none / 0) (#231)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    Oh absolutely (none / 0) (#234)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:22:31 PM EST
    I would never stay home and will vote down ticket.

    There's other options.... (none / 0) (#167)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:32:11 AM EST
    granted they are uber-longshots, but you don't have to just accept tyranny and corruption and imperialism by voting for Obama/Clinton/McCain.

    Nader is running, Kubby is running....heck, write in a vote for Mickey Mouse.  

    It breaks my heart that my fellow Americans have all but accepted tyranny as the status quo, and are resigned to merely picking a brand of tyranny.  

    Not me babe, I'm voting none of the above.


    There have (none / 0) (#203)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:56:10 AM EST
    been several items on Obama's position on the Supreme Court.  His votes, comments and associates show him to be unreliable on this issue.  Do you really think Obama is going to end the war?  I don't.  Stating he would still have 80,000 troops in Iraq would indicate to me that something more than rebuilding schools will be going on.  Also, doesn't he want to bomb Pakistan?  someone else posted he wants 100,000 additional troops (I'm not looking it up for you, if you're that interested, use the search).  I wonder what he wants to do with those.

    Both Hillary and Obama have talked about (4.00 / 1) (#227)
    by RickTaylor on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:16:32 PM EST
    keeping residual troops in Iraq. There's not much difference in their proposals. Both candidates are emphasizing what we Democrats want to hear during the primaries, we're getting out of Iraq, and both of them are leaving in fine print that expresses we still have an interest in the region and will have some troops at least nearby.

    Hillary and the war (none / 0) (#212)
    by Traven on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:00:29 PM EST
    And you think Hillary is going to end the war?  Hillary who, in a most craven way, voted for the war to prove how "tough" she is?  She's always going to be proving how tough she is -- frankly, I think she's a lot more likely to nuke Iran than McCain!

    You're both correct.... (none / 0) (#223)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:06:46 PM EST
    Hillary and Obama both support the occupation wholeheartedly.  Part of the reason I can not vote for either of them in good conscience.

    I'm amazed any American who is against the occupation can vote for either of those con-people without a serious dose of self-delusion.


    Petreaus Testimony (none / 0) (#2)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:47:19 AM EST
    What are the bets that he is alot better prepared this time around . . . and that there won't be any further outbreaks of honesty either.  I think he is going to be much more "on message".

    Andrea Mitchell Should be Fired... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:52:20 AM EST
    For what she said last night. Not only was it absurd to be interviewing Dee Dee Myers on her absurd and sexist book, but this comment was the latest in a long line of sexist, anti-Hillary comments that she apparently feels she needs to say to be "one of the boys" at NBC.  

    Well you know (none / 0) (#44)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:19:10 AM EST
    her husband just endorsed McCain...

    That makes sense... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:41:04 AM EST
    ...Every time she is covering Hillary she looks like she is in the Raiders of the Lost Ark snake pit.

    She is really boring (none / 0) (#101)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:52:00 AM EST
    She talks in a flat monotone.  I think NBC has tried to give her her own show a couple of times but she can never pull it off because she is anti-charisma.  Nora O'Donnell is much better and more objective.

    MSNBC Russert et al are just bad at what they do (none / 0) (#232)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:08:13 PM EST
    not sure who seems less talented KO or AM.

    Firefox (none / 0) (#7)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:52:39 AM EST
    I'm a little slow, but I just noticed Firefox 3 beta 5 is out.

    Obama will use Penn issue (none / 0) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:54:12 AM EST
    They will say if she cannot run a campaign how will she run the country?  Audacity all over the place.  As if he is running his campaign.  

    Politico article

    In the days and weeks ahead, the Barack Obama campaign is going to pose a simple question to the undecided voters and undeclared superdelegates who will decide the Democratic nomination for president: If Hillary Clinton can't run a good primary campaign, how is she ever going to run a good campaign against the Republicans?

    And while she says she is ready from Day One to be president, she is at something like Day 430 into being a presidential candidate and her campaign seems to be going from bad to worse to train wreck.

    Nice (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:03:22 AM EST
    they fail to note the fact that she is still in this because she keeps winning.

    If we had a fair and balanced media ("If monkeys flew outta my butt") then they would point out that Obama isn't running that great of a campaign considering he's had chance after chance to end this thing and simply cannot close it.


    She keeps winning (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:14:50 AM EST
    in the states that we need for the ge.  I'm sorry, but O's "big wins" in Utah, Alaska, GA, MS, etc won't make a bit of difference come the ge.  Also, caucus wins are taken with a grain of salt for obvious reasons.

    If what we were counting was the number of states won, then he'd be winning, but there is a reason we don't do that--mainly because many of them don't matter in the ge.  And I say this as a long-time dem living in the heart of Georgia.  

    We need swing states like MI and FL.  You know, the big states that O can't win so chooses to disenfranchise instead.


    That's a stretch. (none / 0) (#57)
    by ctrenta on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:24:52 AM EST
    We need swing states like MI and FL.  You know, the big states that O can't win so chooses to disenfranchise instead.

    I'm not necessarily a fan of Obama either but do you really think he's out to disenfranchise voters? Sounds like that's what you're implying. I'm not for Obama one way or the other but what evidence can you provide that this is his intention? Just wondering.

    BTW, is this the same Kathy from Blue Hampshire? Wouldn't surprise me.


    I am not implying (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:32:45 AM EST
    I am stating in plain words the same thing that many others here at TL have stated: Obama is seeking to disenfranchise voters of both FL and MI.  No equivocation here whatsoever.  If you want to know the reasoning behind my position, then you should consult the archives of this site as they have been explored ad nauseum.

    And I have no idea what Blue Hampshire is, but I gather the implication is not flattering.  Could you explain yourself, please?  Are you comparing me to an idiot or a reactionary?  What is the nature of the insult?


    Obama supporters (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Manuel on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:13:44 AM EST
    Please engage the facts and leave out the sermons.

    It is fact, documented in this site, that Obama blocked the revote in MI.

    It is a fact that Clinton's position, no matter her motive, is most closely aligned with the interests of FL and MI voters to have their vote count.

    It is a fact that Obama is unlikely to achieve a clear victory (knockout) before the convention.

    It is a fact that pledged delegates are a poor meassure of popular will because a caucus is an undemocratic way to pick delegates.

    It is fact that both Obama and Clinton will need superdelegates to win.

    It is a fact that superdelegates can use their judgement in deciding whi to support.

    It is a fact that Obama's legitimacy as a candidate will depend on how FL and MI are handled unless he is able to achieve a clear victory.


    Wow, um. OK. (none / 0) (#79)
    by ctrenta on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:37:02 AM EST

    And I have no idea what Blue Hampshire is, but I gather the implication is not flattering.  Could you explain yourself, please?  Are you comparing me to an idiot or a reactionary?  What is the nature of the insult?

    I'll stay away from you then.


    Jeralyn said play nice.... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:15:26 AM EST
    ...when she gets back I think there will be lots more room on this open thread.

    Respectfully, willie... (none / 0) (#235)
    by lookoverthere on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:39:45 PM EST
    pledged delegates can change candidate preference. This applies to primaries as well as caucuses and it happens in the caucus rounds (just happened this past weekend in the 39th---I was there and I saw it). Thats is why whips are assigned to the delegation to keep your candidate's delegates in line.

    See Mr. Super for info. You'll have to go looking for his answer to this one, but it's worth poking around there. He's got a lot of interesting insights as he is an undeclared superdelegate posting anonymously.

    Whether the pledged delegates should switch is a different question. But strictly from my POV, the primary process is about selecting, not electing, the candidate who will win in the fall. Not everyone agrees with my POV and I'm fine with that.

    And I believe pledged delegates can switch after the first ballot at the convention. But I'd have to look that up for the exact rule.

    I'm just sayin'.


    His little states wins are wiped out (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by thereyougo on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:44:15 AM EST
    by Hillary's large statates wins and the reasoning is they will vote R in the GE, if history is correct. Everyone that wants to shout Hillary out are quiet the day after she comes in strong the next contest. Obama is flat now, his messages are repetitive and just lost the zip it once had.

    I still want to see him win 1 big state.
    His wins are frustrating because of
    Hillary's toughness


    We remember that Al Gore (none / 0) (#140)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:17:22 AM EST
    won the popular vote in 2000 and the Supreme Court gave the election to Bush. The number of states each candidate won is significant when you consider how close the election was.

    Election Map 2000

    Electoral votes needed to win: 270
    Bush votes: 271
    Gore votes: 267

    And with all the monkeyshines by the Republicans, Bush won the electoral vote by just 4.


    Sure, (none / 0) (#84)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:40:04 AM EST
    and the new Clinton arguments being made are that "once Puerto Rico votes Hillary will have won the popular vote".  
    Slightly contradictory arguments being made there if you will believe all the hand wringing about how unfair it is that Obama has done so well in Red states which won't vote Democratic in November,  given that Puerto Rico do not vote in the GE at all.  Maybe Blue state votes should count for 1.5,  Red States for 1,  and swing state votes for 2.  Of course in terms of the GE you would have to discount the votes from PR completely.  Anyone in the Clinton camp want to run some numbers and find out if that kind of PV calculation would have her coming out ahead?

    Yep knew it... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:15:34 AM EST
    New poster...welcome to TL.  What part of not closing the deal do you not understand?  Should his leads not be in the 20's right now?  No they are not.  So, hold on and let the people vote.  

    American Samoa is a lovely spot (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:32:33 AM EST
    but it and its ilk -- states that would not go Dem if you resurrected FDR, states with few electoral college votes -- do not matter.

    Tell us when the Constitution was amended to say that s/he with the most states wins.  


    You are of course completely correct (none / 0) (#89)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:42:53 AM EST
    Likewise,  I don't believe Puerto Rico get to vote in the actual presidential election.  How about we don't count their delegates or votes within any popular vote totals?

    In other words (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by badger on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:08:04 PM EST
    because the rules for the primary don't favor Obama, we need to change the rules. But when the rules disenfranchise voters in MI and FL (who do vote in the election), then we need to stick to the rules.

    I understand.


    Everything new (none / 0) (#45)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:19:12 AM EST
    is old again.

    No (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:21:32 AM EST
    He should have closed her out after Iowa - he didn't.

    He should have closed her out after Super Tuesday - he didn't.

    He should have closed her out after his big wins in caucus states - he didn't.

    He should have closed her out after Texas and Ohio - he didn't.

    He should have closed her out after Mississippi - he didn't.

    And now she's leading in 7 of the 10 states that have upcoming primaries.


    And with the help of (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Suma on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:28:52 AM EST
    media, money and some DNC Elders! HA!

    the corporate media is Obama's friend (none / 0) (#145)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:20:42 AM EST
    These are the same pundits that sold us Bush in 2000, the Iraq War - and now Obama.
    Obama supporters who've complained about the media's compliance for the past 8 years, don't see the disconnect.
    The media hasn't changed and always promotes their best interests - even creating a rockstar for president.

    She should have (none / 0) (#73)
    by magster on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:33:05 AM EST
    ...closed him out in Iowa.

    ...closed him out on Super Tuesday.

    ...closed him out by having anything better than a totally pathetic February.

    Going into this campaign, Clinton should have crushed, and that Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee is stunning.


    Only in some Bizarro world (none / 0) (#153)
    by Deadalus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:24:30 AM EST
    does the loser get to be the winner because the winner didn't win by enough!

    Does this (none / 0) (#192)
    by Lena on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:49:49 AM EST
    apply to Pennsylvania?

    Well.... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Traven on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:28:08 AM EST
    Well, Hillary can't close it, either.  Obama was supposed to be finished by Feb. 5, according to the Clinton machine.  The fact that he is still standing -- and winning -- is in itself telling.

    Let's put it this way: (none / 0) (#221)
    by kayla on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:05:43 PM EST
    If Clinton's campaign was in such a shambles and Obama's a shining example of political perfection, then Obama should have reached 2025 delegates by now.  Instead, neither he nor Clinton are going to reach that number based off of state wins and will have to rely on Super Delegates.  If her campaign was so horribly unsuccessful then she wouldn't be able to compete in the upcoming primaries.  But she's proven time and time again that she's a fine competitor.  Same with Obama.  Neither have closed the deal.  They have different game plans and it's up to them to use these next ten contests to make their cases to the SD's.  Either we're going to go with Hillary's successful big swing state strategy.  Or we're going to go with Obama's successful small caucus state strategy.  Both campaigns have failed to make much headway in the other's demographical support.  And whichever gets the nomination will have their work cut out for them in both gaining the support of the other candidates supporters and defeating the GOP attack machine.  Barack may be making more money and holding bigger rallies; Hillary may be great at appealing to working class voters in these big swing states, but neither has made a game changing victory.

    I hope Politico got that wrong (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:06:42 AM EST
    It doesn't seem to me to be a good strategy. Too easy to turn around to him. Quick example:

    If he can't manage to close the deal against a bad campaign what does that say about his campaign?


    Agree, seems like a bad strategy (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:11:50 AM EST
    But if he talks about her as a formidable opponent, it gives her campaign more strength right now. They're trying to kill her first, then they'll praise her. Same strategy as FL/MI: win the nomination first, try to clean up the mess afterwards. Don't know whether it will work or not.

    Well Obama made the case to donors (none / 0) (#47)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:20:10 AM EST
    and supporters that they should judge his ability to be president on how he runs his campaign.  

    e.g.  Quote from an interview with Marc Andreessen (ex ceo of Netscape)discussing a meeting he had with Obama in early 2007

    We asked him directly, how concerned should we be that you haven't had meaningful experience as an executive -- as a manager and leader of people?

    He said, watch how I run my campaign -- you'll see my leadership skills in action.

    Hillary had all the inbuilt advantages of incumbency, name recognition, establishment support etc.  How each campaign has been run and the contrasts in the relative success of their strategies DO reflect well on Obama and poorly on Clinton.  


    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:23:34 AM EST
    makes him seem kind of pathetic that he can't close the deal against such a crappily run campaign.  You've raised a very good point.

    You want to make the argument (none / 0) (#92)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:44:32 AM EST
    that Hillary has had a brilliantly run campaign with a wonderfully executed strategy then?

    Be my guest.


    I think the point here is (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:52:39 AM EST
    that strategically, it's not a good idea for Obama to stress how "bad" her campaign has been so far, since the race is, despite all Obama's wins in red caucus states, essentially a tie.

    This is the best he could do against a terrible campaign? is the spin that could come out of such an attack.


    I take your point (none / 0) (#119)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:00:33 AM EST
    however I don't think that it's spin that Hillary or her surrogates can really make effectively.  
    "We ran such a godawful campaign that you should have won it in February" is hardly an inspiring message to get people to vote for you.

    Politically you are probably correct that it's not a smart argument for Obama's camp to make in terms of the optics,  having said that I do think that such an argument holds water.  And just because Clinton has run a bad campaign,  doesn't automatically mean that Obama is a failure for not having wrapped this up already.  Nobody gave him a chance at the start of the campaign and he was running against a formidable candidate with deep support within the base of the party and the establishment.  Hence the fact that Clinton started out with endorsements from about 150 superdelegates before things even started.  He has done brilliantly to get to where he is just now and the fact that he hasn't formally sewn the race up yet doesn't reflect badly on him, IMHO.


    It's okay, we disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:11:14 AM EST
    I just don't see Obama as having run a brilliant campaign. He had to get rid of Samantha Power because she called Hillary a monster or because she leaked to the press that his commitment to getting out of Iraq was a "best-case scenario."

    I also see that the media has enabled his run to the point of utter ridiculousness, while manufacturing screw-up after screw-up in Hillary's campaign.

    Some may say that she shouldn't have ignored the little states and thought that Super Tuesday would clinch it for her. Well, as Atrios said, it almost worked, and probably would have if Edwards hadn't suddenly dropped out.

    All I'm saying is that people can disagree on the "brilliance" of either campaign, and since it's such a subjective measure, I'd rather base my assessment of a candidate on his/her record and experience.

    And I don't think the voters care at all about how good either candidate appears to be at marketing, frankly.


    the media has run a brilliant campaign (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:27:25 AM EST
    FOR Obama.
    If Hillary had LIED about her father in order to obtain a key endorsement - the numerous videos of her lying would be airing nonstop on teevee and web.
    But IOKIYBO!

    No The argument would be (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Manuel on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:59:27 AM EST
    that she has shown again and again that she can handle adversity and won't quit when things go against her.  All we have seen from Obama are calls for people to get out of his way when he is unable to clinch the deal.

    Manuel, If by handling adversity, (none / 0) (#126)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:05:06 AM EST
    you mean losing elections,  then Hillary has proven masterful and handling adversity.

    Since Solis Doyle was canned the Hillary campaign has been much lighter on it's feet and effective,  despite the best efforts of Mark Penn.  I just think it's too little too late and barring an upset in NC I can't see how she is going to win the nomination.   A 10 point win in PA will not be enough,  the recent SUSA numbers must be encouraging for her campaign,  as I think she realistically needs to post that kind of win and somehow leverage that into a tight win in NC.  Otherwise a 10 point win for Hillary in PA is offset by a probably 18-20 point Obama win in NC and the delegate spread comes out as a wash.  In the current dynamic with Clinton significantly behind that's the same as a win for Obama.


    It is more than just elections (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Manuel on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:30:48 AM EST
    Let's see

    Unfair media bias.
    Non neutral DNC leadership.
    Unwarranted calls to drop out of the race.
    Personal mistakes.
    A charismatic opponent with a solid base of support.

    Really, any other candidate would have been toast by now.  It is a testament to Hillary's toughness that she is still hanging in there.


    The most brilliant thing that Obama did in this... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:21:00 AM EST
    ...campaign was demonize anyone who dared criticize how he was running his campaign.

    What are you referring to? (none / 0) (#155)
    by Deadalus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:25:28 AM EST
    David Shuster by any chance?

    Yes, he and the media played the race card. (none / 0) (#177)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:36:53 AM EST
    Obama himself did it again on NBC news with Brian Williams. On the day of MLK's assassination, he used the occasion to say that we need leadership that understands race in this country. He also said that the young people have made remarkable progress in overcoming their racism, but it's the older generation that still needs to work on it.

    My husband's and my jaws just dropped.

    I wish I could find the video, but I'm not YouTube-gifted. It was between 6:30 and 7 PM last Friday on NBC Nightly News.


    What if we are of 'his' generation? (none / 0) (#188)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:45:45 AM EST
    Do we only understand it if we support him?

    Maybe here (none / 0) (#191)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:49:42 AM EST
    Not on YouTube that I saw but on their site here.

    You need to scroll down to the date and then click on the video you want.


    Thanks for the tip... (none / 0) (#220)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:05:33 PM EST
    I found it. The more subtle slap was at 5:33, but then he goes on to discuss how we all have unconscious biases against people that don't look like us.

    The kicker was this: "We need leadership that is not trying to exploit those biases..." and implied, as always, that only if you elect him can we all move forward in unity and solve the great issues like poverty, health care, etc.

    It was worse than I remembered. I just about fell off my couch.


    So, based on that (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:24:30 AM EST
    we will have speeches to keep us "joyful";only 8 questions will be asked and they will be too many;   he will blame staff for mistakes, he will accuse everyone of being a racist when he is criticized; the official Obama propaganda organs: Kos, TPM etc, will shut us all up if we have differences; he will tell us one thing and his policies will actually be something else; he will bomb Pakistan;  the mob will be called on to rallies to prove that he is popular.  



    To you perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:58:58 AM EST
    To you it reflects well on Obama and poorly on Clinton. This isn't about convincing you. It's about convincing undecided voters.

    People love an underdog. Which is why calling on Clinton to quit is never a winning strategy. It plays well to those who already want her to quit, but it doesn't play to those who aren't as personally invested in the race. It makes her an underdog who everyone is lining up against.

    To say that she has run a terrible campaign means that she should be easy to beat. Yet it seems as if every month I hear (I don't watch news so its just newsbreaks) how Obama has outraised her. And how some famous politician is now backing Obama. And yet, the race is still close. If he has the money and support AND she has run a terrible campaign why is the race so close?

    That is why its a terrible plan. It gives her a chance to paint herself as an underdog while reminding people that despite Obama's advantages he still hasn't won. And she could also bring up that Obama isn't used to actually running against an opponent so this may be new to him. Is that a meme he wants to have out there?

    You need to play to the preconceived notions people have, not against them. A halftime interview with a team that is barely winning, would never have the winners saying the losers obviously aren't playing well. Because it doesn't reflect well on them to only be barely beating them.


    I think it was the competing strategies (none / 0) (#98)
    by thereyougo on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:50:41 AM EST
    50 state vs. trad. run campaign or top down strategy.

    It only says there is value in both. Nothing more.

    If they merge it would be a huge force in the future.


    Watch his campaign?? So we should expect (none / 0) (#147)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:21:11 AM EST
    lies, exaggerations, lack of policy, lack of foresight, etc. in his presidency? No, thanks. Pretty speeches don't make policy. They are just hot air that looks pretty in print. So far, Obama has sold hopes, dreams and rhetoric without mentioning much of anything as to policies he plans to implement. Ask him about policies and he gets tongue-tied and says, "Uh,...uh..". Ask Hillary about policies and she gives chapter and verse. I want a President who knows what they want to do in office, not someone who makes it up as he goes along. And I want someone who WORKS, which Hillary does, and Obama does not.

    Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by nell on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:33:25 AM EST
    He gets away with everything because the media does not call him on it. His campaign has had SEVERAL moments that would have done a candidate who was treated normally by the media in, such as the plagirism incident (it did Biden in), such as Wright (yeah, he gave a pretty speech, but he changed his story multiple times and failed to take responsibility. if the media wasn't so busy kissing his butt, they would point that out...over and over...and over again), such as the Goolsbee flap, which he also lied about (it is HILLARIOUS that he is going after Penn, when his own adviser did a very similar thing in the name of the campaign and he was not fired or demoted)...

    Has he run a good campaign? Yes, his ground game is excellent and he should be commended for that. But his campaign has also had a lot of serious flaps that were minimized or ignored by the media that would have created far more serious problems for any other candidate. Will that continue in the general election if he is the nominee? I don't know. What I do know is that it scares me when a candidate is not held accountable because it reminds me too much of GWB...free reign is a problem for any candidate, whether Dem. or Republican...and Obama is showing a lot of hubris lately....


    Now, seriously (none / 0) (#184)
    by Traven on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:40:51 AM EST
    Talk about lies and exaggerations:

    --  Named after Sir Edmund Hillary six years before he climbed Mt. Everest
    --  Dodged sniper fire in Tuzla
    --  Brought about peace in N. Ireland
    --  Opposed NAFTA while holding meetings to gin up support for it
    --  35 years of "experience" -- but had nothing to do with Marc Rich pardon
    --  Claimed Obama was a closet Reaganite
    --  Didn't really vote for war, when voting for war.
    --  Ad inf.


    Media (none / 0) (#175)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:34:31 AM EST
    is part of the establishment.  I would say it is clearly on his side.

    It is just sad that his only claim to fame is he could raise more money, etc.  BTW I don't think he runs anything.  I think he's a puppet being run by Axelrove.


    Well, if that's the (none / 0) (#211)
    by leis on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:00:24 PM EST
    case shouldn't we be voting for Axelrod?

    Waldenpond-Sorry, this was in response (none / 0) (#219)
    by leis on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:05:29 PM EST
    to the poster that stated Obama said we should vote for him because of the campaign he's run. I don't know how it ended up down hers.

    If winning elections... (none / 0) (#233)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:08:07 PM EST
    Where directly related to how one governs, Bush Jr wouldve been the greatest President of all time, and the would be entering another year of rule.

    This argument is as ridiculous as him knowing the world better because he lived somewhere as a kid for 4 yrs.


    While outspending her 3 to 1 (none / 0) (#236)
    by RTwilight on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:49:24 AM EST
    or better in most states...to be in a virtual tie after throwing that much moola around...

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:15:36 AM EST
    I'm tired of it.  The media is trying to help Obama knock her out in Penn.  They have been doing the 'can't run a campaign' since super Tuesday.  Heck, his supporters write that on this site.  The media can keep saying she'll never win to try and get her voters to stay home.  I don't think that will happen.  They are excited.  The state's vote counts.  Clinton will be able to use this too... he can't knock me out and he is running on Clinton-hate and the most positive media ever seen (Bush).

    It's a small chance, but I hang in there hoping that we will get some meaningful legislation passed.


    Because naturally (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:16:25 AM EST
    We've seen in the recent past that running a good campaign is a very telling indicator of how good a president will be.  GWB ran a fantastic campaign and he's been a ... wait.  That can't be right.

    Again...who ran the campaign? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:17:36 AM EST

    Exactly. The average voter could care (none / 0) (#61)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:27:34 AM EST
    less about how they're running their campaigns. Only political junkies would accept that as any kind of leadership argument.

    Andrea Mitchell Already Got the Memo... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:09:56 AM EST
    Well Then (none / 0) (#66)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:29:11 AM EST
    I'll never vote for him in the GE.

    Everyone makes their own decision.


    repeated from a less (none / 0) (#11)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:01:40 AM EST
    appropriate thread:  

    Got an email today (from WVa, btw):McCain's story of the Vietnam prisoner who made American flags so his fellow prisoners could say the pledge.  Naturally it was followed by THE picture.  It ended:

    Barack Hussein Obama's photo (that's his real name)......the article said he REFUSED TO NOT ONLY PUT HIS HAND ON HIS HEART DURING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, BUT REFUSED TO SAY THE PLEDGE.....how can a man like this expect to be our next Commander-in-Chief

    (I'd think if the repugnants want BO to be their GE opponent, they'd help him win in WVa.  But I guess they figure they have ammunition to spare.)

    Pleeze (none / 0) (#78)
    by 1jane on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:36:13 AM EST
    All of the garbage you recited has been completely refuted. Check the facts. He's led the Senate in the Pledge, it's on video. There are numerous pictures of Obama with his hand over his heart.

    Yeah, (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Emma on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:54:53 AM EST
    He's led the Senate in the Pledge, it's on video. There are numerous pictures of Obama with his hand over his heart.

    Like that will matter.


    a-freakin-men (none / 0) (#171)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:33:11 AM EST
    Obama supporters continue to think the hair splitting that has gotten them this far will work in the general.
    can you tell most have never followed a general election before?

    I don't think that was the point. (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:23:52 AM EST
    The point was that here is something that has been debunked 6 ways from Sunday, and yet it is still making the rounds via e-mail.  And this will not be the only un-truth that makes the rounds.

    Perhaps now you have some appreciation of how it seems to matter little what the actual truth is as long as there are people who (1) aren't interested in the truth, and (2) are willing to use disinformation to persuade voters.

    Those two categories now, sadly, include the media and some formerly good bloggers.

    The media may be funbling around unable to find the "on" switch for their microphones, but when they do, you'll be hearing it from them, too.

    And this is exactly why those who support Obama should not get all giddy with excitement when the media and the blogs parade around with Hillary's head on a pike - because when your guy gets the same treatment, you'll have no moral high ground from which to complain about it.  


    You (none / 0) (#170)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:33:10 AM EST
    got it!  The point is not whether it is true,  The point is he is going to take a lot of flak (sniper fire, too).

    Rasmussen showing it 51-40 Nationally (none / 0) (#17)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:05:01 AM EST
    for Obama.

    Polls are Obama's friends, but not votes (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:07:53 AM EST
    So, why did he not want a Florida and Michigan revote

    Hmm, it's Hillary who is making the electability (none / 0) (#33)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:12:52 AM EST
    argument to superdelegates.  National polls will form part of that argument,  and if she is losing to Obama in them then it makes her chances of convincing Superdelegates to back her that much harder.

    So, I take it that last week (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:17:59 AM EST
    when the polls showed her way ahead, you were calling for Obama to drop out?

    Your reasoning begs logic.


    I'm sorry. (none / 0) (#63)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:28:05 AM EST
    I must have blacked out at the part where I said Hillary should be dropping out.  Maybe you can read it back to me and refresh my memory.

    It's not Obama who needs to change the momentum,  he is winning!  Obama is ahead in pledged delegates.  He is winning new Superdelegate endorsements over Hillary at a rate of about 5-1.  It is Hillary that needs to change the dynamic and do something to reverse things.  As things stand without a blowout win in PA and Hillary managing to squeak a win in NC,  Obama will win the nomination.

    Hence,  if Hillary was winning in national polls consistently over a extended period of time and outside the margin of error,  then she would have an argument to make to superdelegates of which that would make up a small but valid part.  As things stand,  Obama's argument to superdelegates is that he has more pledged delegates, more votes, is leading outside the margin of error nationally in polls ,and has been leading consistently (apart from a couple of days) for several weeks now.


    your reading comprehension-- (none / 0) (#83)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:39:37 AM EST
    or lack thereof--makes the contiunuation of this discussion insurmountable for me.

    To others: still think Kara can't be the last cylon?  I give you that it's a big red herring, and that the EW photo was stated to contain no cylons, but what a trick if she really is!  A double blind red herring on toast!


    Too obvious (none / 0) (#94)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:46:09 AM EST
    Either Admiral Adama or the President.

    I didn't understand (none / 0) (#196)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:51:42 AM EST
    all of the context.  Do you remember where the 8 minute summary clip was?  Somebody posted it to help BSG laggards get up to speed.

    BSG (none / 0) (#202)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:55:51 AM EST
    Its on the SciFi website. Look over at the left column for "What the frak is going on?"

    Ask and you shall receive (none / 0) (#194)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:49:56 AM EST
    1....If he loses by less than 5 then I think things will be pretty much done for Hillary.

    2....If Obama actually wins PA then it's over and I would be surprised if Hillary didn't concede/ or suspend her campaign.

    3....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.

    4.  You also brought in this quote...."This could be the beginning of the end of the Clinton campaign.

    It's done, over, the end, is only going to be interpreted as you think she should quit.  Just sayin'


    51-40 (none / 0) (#51)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:21:51 AM EST
    won't happen unless the Dem Party is united...

    Sen Obama will have to unite the Dems before he gets a chnace to unite the country.


    51-40 is a national poll of the (none / 0) (#68)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:30:15 AM EST
    Democratic primary electorate.  It's an opinion poll and has nothing to do with the GE.

    Whoever win's the primary will need to unite the dems,  regardless.


    It has everything (none / 0) (#96)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:46:56 AM EST
    to do with the Dem in the GE...the poll means nothing as of right now.

    That was my point. The primary is suppose to give us a good shot at the WH. Dem system is not very good at that and neither are all these primary polls... ie... Kerry, Gore.


    Real Clear Politics (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:08:29 AM EST
    No Really. Hillary Has a Decent Shot


    That article (none / 0) (#62)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:27:50 AM EST
    is almost incoherent.

    He talks about percentage victories in the remaining states but then comes up with Hillary somehow getting an 800K swing from the remaining states that seems just about impossible looking at the numbers.  How did he come up with that number?


    I just post 'um. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:49:00 AM EST
    I liked it though.
    clearly he has given it some thought.

    The Obama people have sent out the monkeys (none / 0) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:08:32 AM EST
    Push the faux poll data, war of nerves.  

    Yes but are we sure that they are Obama's (none / 0) (#229)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:32:35 PM EST
    they write, foam and rant like a wack a do from the RNC.

    Penn is in? Hillary makes (none / 0) (#26)
    by indy33 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:09:10 AM EST
    another false claim about Obamas war record. What is going on here? Jed report has a devastating article about Clinton fabricating her war opposition. Touring Iraq after she supposedly made her Iraq war opposition known, she toured Iraq with none other than John McCain and called the insurgency a failure and gave a rosy picture about the conditions in Iraq! 55 people were killed on the same day that Clinton said most of Iraq was functioning fine and that the rash of suicide bombers was proof the insurgency was FAILING. huh. Sounds familiar to me, like Bush saying the recent outbreaks of violence were proof things were going well. In this interview with Russert she is correct on a lot of things and its a shame that this has to be coupled with bogus statements about Obama and his record. If she would have acknowleged her mistake we wouldnt be talking about this and she wouldnt have to spin things her way. Being humble is an important part of being a leader. Something we havent had for 7 and a half years. When is BTD going to comment about Penn still being in Clintons campaign staff? This was a complete joke and an attempt at a deflection fron the fact that there is a huge conflict of interest here. Dont forget about Blackwater too.

    Obama keep lying to you (none / 0) (#34)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:12:56 AM EST
    He will not get out, he has two stories one for those who believe in fairy tales and the one he has for his real supporters.  So get a with the program.  

    Obama said he will keep troops there (none / 0) (#121)
    by thereyougo on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:00:43 AM EST
    for security purposes. He might move a few platoons, but, he can't totally withdraw without the country going into full scale war. Its the reality of the mess left by GWB. No intelligent minded person is going to do that.  

    Why do you keep talking about Penn? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:35:14 AM EST
    The release said he stepped down from the top job but was still with the campaign in a lesser capacity. He wasn't banished and BTD didn't say he was.

    I wonder if Miss Power (none / 0) (#95)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:46:21 AM EST
    Still talks to Obama?

    She certainly isn't still on his (none / 0) (#103)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:52:27 AM EST
    conference calls as Penn is.  

    Jeralyn and many others (none / 0) (#125)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:05:02 AM EST
    Are on those conference calls.

    Don't read too much into it.


    Jeralyn is on the Hillary (none / 0) (#127)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:08:15 AM EST
    calls as a journalist I would assume,  not as a member of the campaign or host?  My understanding is that Mark Penn is still on the conference calls in his role as the campaigns pollster.  Given the fact that he is almost universally loathed within the Clinton campaign it beggars belief that they haven't managed to sideline him completely.

    Well the good news is (none / 0) (#138)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:15:42 AM EST
    She doesn't have to pay him his salary anymore.

    And I do know she'd have to banish him to Siberia for Huffpo to be satisfied so, I, for one, don't read much into it.

    Like I said.  I do think Miss Power still advises Obama.  It's not something I worry about except when someone feigns outrage at Penn still advising Clinton.


    Hey, I'm not outraged and neither (none / 0) (#143)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:19:47 AM EST
    should the Obama campaign be.  If I was Obama I would be offering to pick up Penn's salary if she continues to keep him front and centre in her campaign and keeps taking his advice.

    Title of thread (none / 0) (#106)
    by indy33 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:52:55 AM EST
    Penn is OUT of Clinton campaign. Author:BTD  Many people posted saying this is window dressing and he still is very active in the campaign. BTD said several times that this was false and he was gone period. BTD attempted(like usual) to make those who beilive this feel stupid and wrong. I have personally been called this several times. Then, come to find out Penn is on a conference call with his company saying he still is in the campaign and saying the Columbia flap had played itself out and was no big deal. He was on the Clinton conference call and is prepping her for the debate on Sat. Even the horrible Karl Rove quit his corporate positions so there wouldnt be a conflict of interest yet Clinton hasnt had the foresight to ask Penn to do that. Good Leadership!

    Yes (none / 0) (#160)
    by Deadalus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:28:35 AM EST
    BTD lectured everyone about accountability re: the Healthcare story non-scandal but failed to report that he was, in fact, wrong when he claimed that Penn was really out.

    Penn is not out, and it's a shame.  But it's definitely disturbing that he's staying on and yet the campaign is attempting to misrepresent that.

    Oh for crying out loud (none / 0) (#206)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:57:02 AM EST
    We have turned so many corners in this war, all of us.  Believe me I know because I turned all of them myself!  If only Hillary had a crystal ball then maybe she wouldn't be such a witch in your book, just a gypsy.  At the start of this business after 9/11 this country was also no where near as partisan as it is now and Senators traveled to Iraq and back together from both parties!  We used to be united but Dubya managed to take a united nation and divide it in record time.  He'll go into the book of records for that one, nobody could have done it better.  As for this anti-Hillary B.S., I just called it what it is.

    Your need (none / 0) (#29)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:10:06 AM EST
    to use the link button(looks like a chain) when posting links. YOu'll get a script prompt... paste in the url. The at the >< (near the end)type in the words for the link


    that never works for me (none / 0) (#108)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:53:56 AM EST
    and it's soooo frustrating.
    And yes, I even graduated from middle school.

    Try This (none / 0) (#216)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:03:36 PM EST
    It may help you to make links.

    Just read: (none / 0) (#43)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:18:11 AM EST
    Retail gas prices will peak near $3.60 a gallon in June, but prices at such lofty levels will make many Americans think twice about hitting the road this summer, the Energy Department said Tuesday.

    This is going to hit me hard--not that I plan to drive on vacation, but I am now unable to combine errands like I used to.  A back injury lets me walk a certain amount only, and yesterday (2 dog walks non-negotiable because they are helping me recover, the library, the post office, and the grocery) was still affecting me when I woke up.  I lived thru gas rationing in WWII, and if that would discourage gas guzzling and reduce prices--Hooray!  (BTW, my car is a very small Scion and easy on gas, but living in a rural area, I gotta drive everywhere.)

    My sympathy (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:35:23 AM EST
    I live in a rural area, too, and everything but the general store is a 20 to 40-minute drive away.  I'm trying to avoid going up to town more than every 2 weeks at most, which means fanatical list-making and then doing a dozen town errands each trip-- totally exhausting.  Last week, I forgot to get a key food item and screwed all my meal plans.  Arrggh.

    One compensating factor, though, is we get better gas mileage on fast country roads with no stoplights than folks fighting their way through urban/suburban traffic at a crawl. (Not to mention a calmer driving experience and beautiful countryside along the way!)

    But gas prices are just killing the small farms here.  There's no such thing as a high-mileage chunk of farm machinery, and diesel is even more expensive than gasoline.


    Back to rationing: (none / 0) (#230)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:49:01 PM EST
    It occurs that there already is gas rationing--by pocketbook.  You can buy unlimited gas if you have the money.  WWII rationing was by demonstrated need.  Farmers were allowed more gas, of course.  My dad had a coupon good for more gas because he helped build Oak Ridge.

    Yes, you'd still have to pay the price.  With lower demand for gas, tho, this country might be a little less willing to pay exorbitant prices (dollars and lives)...maybe?  (Yes, I recall the blackmarket also--but all that surveillance might interfere!)


    No vacations (none / 0) (#49)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:21:15 AM EST
    bad for tourist states like FL.  Good thing their votes don't count.  they might be feeling a tad anxious about the economy right now.

    (and I'm glad you've got your pups to take you for a walk)


    People who want to come to FL (none / 0) (#183)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:40:03 AM EST
    for vacation should look into the Auto-train. Amtrak has a lovely service where you and your car get on the train and are delivered, fresh and ready, to Sanford, FL, which is right near Orlando. From there it isn't far to anywhere you want to go in FL. Great way to save gas and the wear and tear of driving all that way. You get on by 4 pm and are delivered to FL by 9 am the following day. I know they go from Lorton, VA, for overnight service and I think they also go from NYC which would probably be two days one night. But you should check the Amtrak site for more info. Taking trains and either taking the car with you, or renting a high mileage car when you get there is a good way to go on vacation without having gas prices impact you too much.

    Huh (none / 0) (#88)
    by spit on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:42:07 AM EST
    already well above $3.60 here. It's no fun, let me tell you -- I hardly drive for most things since I live in the downtown of a medium sized city, but I do camp and hike a lot, which used to be cheap activities but now cost a heck of a lot in gas just to get out places.

    We're like vehicular opposites. My car is a guzzling 4WD, but I fill the tank around once a month because I drive so little for most things.


    People used to laugh (none / 0) (#112)
    by eric on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:57:48 AM EST
    at me, 6'3" in my little Protege.  Now I'm laughing as I fuel up my little gas tank.

    Our family is digging hard to buy a new (none / 0) (#131)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:11:07 AM EST
    Toyota Yaris this week that gets 40MPG according to all the many reviews I have read....It is the highest mileage vehicle of any non hybrid and we cannot afford the high prices of a hybrid....We live 60 miles from town and shopping is an all day thing for us when we go....We try to do all of our errands in one trip...We pick up the car on Friday....

    Let us know how you like the car (none / 0) (#225)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:08:32 PM EST
    What did you have to pay for it, roughly?

    The catch-22 is if you're only doing shopping and errands once or twice a month, you need a good-sized vehicle to carry all that stuff!


    That's only if you are going by late model cars (none / 0) (#237)
    by RTwilight on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:23:47 AM EST
    My 92 geo prism gets 35-40 in the city, 45 highway...and it's a tough little bugger to boot...my little 2100 pound car got rear ended by a full size dodge ram van and the van's front end was smashed in while my bumper (full rubber rules) had not a scratch...so I named it Hillary ;)

    Joan Walsh takes on the sexist hordes (none / 0) (#46)
    by herb the verb on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:20:05 AM EST
    in the comments section to this article at Salon.

    "Thanks" Rush Limbaugh

    She has been fighting a valiant fight (none / 0) (#59)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:25:43 AM EST
    Joan Walsh is (none / 0) (#114)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:58:44 AM EST
    one of the smartest talking heads on television.  KO might get some viewers back if he had her on frequently. I don't think she has ever been on his show, but does pop up on Matthews and Gregory.  She is extremely objective, always points out the strengths of each candidate, and always answers questions with a straight answer, no spin.  

    Obama's foreign policy experience (none / 0) (#56)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:24:50 AM EST
    Anyone see this?

    Obama was at a fundraiser in California the other night and had this to say about his foreign policy experience compared to Clinton and McCain and that he doesn't need a VP with foreign policy experience:




    Last night at a fundraiser in San Francisco, Barack Obama took a question on what he's looking for in a running mate. "I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I'm not as expert on," he said, and then he was off and running. "I think a lot of people assume that might be some sort of military thing to make me look more Commander-in-Chief-like. Ironically, this is an area--foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."

    "It's ironic because this is supposedly the place where experience is most needed to be Commander-in-Chief. Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world. This I know. When Senator Clinton brags 'I've met leaders from eighty countries'--I know what those trips are like! I've been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There's a group of children who do native dance. You meet with the CIA station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of a plant that [with] the assistance of USAID has started something. And then--you go."

    "You do that in eighty countries--you don't know those eighty countries. So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa--knowing the leaders is not important--what I know is the people. . . ."

    "I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college--I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. . . ."

    "Nobody is entirely prepared for being Commander-in-Chief. The question is when the 3 AM phone call comes do you have somebody who has the judgment, the temperament to ask the right questions, to weigh the costs and benefits of military action, who insists on good intelligence, who is not going to be swayed by the short-term politics. By most criteria, I've passed those tests and my two opponents have not."

    That was really special. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:27:02 AM EST
    I lived in Ireland for a year (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:34:49 AM EST
    If Clinton had me on the reconciliation team because I knew what it was like to live there and drink pints with the working class, I'd have had him impeached.

    Obama is sideshow bob dressed up in armani.


    Gitmo (none / 0) (#213)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:00:52 PM EST
    I was born in Guantanamo Bay. The things I must know. :D

    I always chuckle when he (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:38:22 AM EST
    points to his street urchin time in Indonesia as foreign policy experience.

    Wonder how well he knows them? (none / 0) (#139)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:16:35 AM EST
    " . . . having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa"

    Does he visit often? Do they communicate a lot? What has he learned from them?


    I have impoverished family.... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:24:30 AM EST
    ...right here in the U S of A.

    Family (none / 0) (#189)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:47:48 AM EST
    Does he really want this brought up?  A supposed cousin who lives in Kenya and is the opposition leader there and they are having rampant violence?  His "cousin" who keeps bringing up Obama's name? His "cousin" who is accused of ethnic cleansing?



    Does he really want to go there?


    Maybe... (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:40:44 AM EST
    His trips to foreign countries as a member of the Senate have been so unsatisfactory because he doesn't know enough about the countries to plan a good trip.  Just a thought.  I'm guessing other members get more out of them

    do you want the pres to sound like this? (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by thereyougo on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:13:01 AM EST
    "I think a lot of people assume that might be some sort of military thing to make me look more Commander-in-Chief-like. Ironically, this is an area--foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident "

    sounds like GWB more and more.

    I say stuff like "probably most confident" - sounds like valley speak.

    who is he speaking to? college Kids on a lunch break?

    he's so arrogant he wants to sound like he's so with the Gen X - Y speak and thinks it going well in Peoria. He probably believes all those polls.


    This was my favorite part (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:39:31 AM EST
    "I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I'm not as expert on."

    a "bunch of stuff"??


    "bunch of stuff" (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:47:53 AM EST
    I don't want to spend the time and effort to learn about, I just want to delegate to those boring guys who do that kind of stuff.  

    Can you (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Lena on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:56:14 AM EST
    imagine if Clinton had said this?

    Just try to imagine it. She's standing at the podium, taking questions from the press, actually saying "a bunch of stuff."

    She would be laughed right out of the race, called incoherent, school-girlish, and unqualified.


    I know a "bunch of stuff" (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:57:11 AM EST
    that he prob has no clue about, does that mean I can get on his 'short list'?

    Saw that and see the audacity (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:39:13 AM EST
    as amazing.  Obama is better prepared than McCain in foreign relations?  Uh huh.  And about that Senate committee on foreign relations that you chair but never called a meeting for it. . . .

    Also see Tapper about Obama suddenly recalling that he visited Pakistan.  Truly a strange story, Senator, and please explain the memory loss for lo these many years -- as this could be used to counter the attacks on McCain's "brainwashing" as a POW.


    I cringed about the Pakistan comment (none / 0) (#90)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:43:48 AM EST
    because of course the rightwing will soon be saying he was in a training camp or something.

    Just one more glaring example of O's unpreparedness for the big leagues.

    And I think that Clinton could rightfully ask for O's passport records to be released in light of this new revelation so that we can see just how many trips Mr Cellophane took out of the country.


    "impoverished family" (none / 0) (#154)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:24:33 AM EST
    Uh, that is insulting.  They may not have  a mansion in Chicago, but they are not impoverished.  They seem to be educated and have social stature.  Another clueless ethnocentric slant on the world.  

    I just saw that over at Political Punch (none / 0) (#159)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:28:21 AM EST
    LOL! Mr. Hope lived in Indonesia when he was 6-10 years old! He went to Pakistan and visited with the family of a friend and that makes him more experienced than a First Lady who has met eighty leaders of eighty different countries???? ROTFLMAO! He-Has-Got-To-Be-Kidding-Me! It's amazing how he thinks that story would buttress his "foreign policy" experience! What a fool.

    I really hope (none / 0) (#193)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:49:53 AM EST
    there is video of this.

    Oh please.. by those standards I should be (none / 0) (#200)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:53:22 AM EST
    the next Secretary of State. My father was Foreign Service Officer and I was born and raised overseas while Dad was doing his job. I lived in countries for years, learned the language, the culture, and went to the local schools. And I visited lots of other countries when living in their neighbors. I have been to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tibet, Bhutan, Thailand, Cambodia, Japan. I went to school in India while Dad was stationed in Rangoon, Burma. I have been to Russia, France, England, Scotland, etc. I have lived in Germany, Ceylon(now Sri Lanka), Switzerland, Sweden, and Burma. So why am I not on the short list for Sec. State?? And someone should tell Obama that the people the President has to deal with are the government people, not the ones in small villages in the countryside. By his standards, any dedicated tourist is qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. He really needs to raise his standards. Much higher.

    Oregon's first poll, Obama up by 10 pts. (none / 0) (#67)
    by 1jane on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:29:43 AM EST

    I would hesitate to jump the gun (none / 0) (#77)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:36:02 AM EST
    and be premature,  but I suspect that barring some big surprises the nominee will be clear once PA and NC have voted.

    Hillary really needs to post a big win in PA, and keep NC very close if not win there to keep a realistic shot at the nomination.


    Obama says his experience is great in (none / 0) (#69)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:30:17 AM EST
    foreign policy....this is somewhat ridiculous and he says he doesnt need his VP to be strong in foreign policy as that is his greatest strength...

    Warning Huffington Post link....

    Obama foreign policy experience logic (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:28:39 AM EST
    This is the logic of his experience:  

    1.  Hillary as an adult wife of the US president had to attend official functions with diplomatic and foreign policy implications in 80 countries.  She was an adult, but only a woman.  

    2.  I, Obama, as a child, because I am male, lived in Indonesia from the age of 4-8 or so.  Since I am Obama, and a male, my experience qualifies me, to be able to solve the geopolitical issues.  

    Get it?  You women.  Back in the kitchen.  There is no way, she learned anything in those experiences that he did not excel in at the age of 4, cause he is a male.  

    How many times do I have to explain.  


    Hillary overseas (none / 0) (#195)
    by Traven on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:51:20 AM EST
    I was involved in the Clintons' last trip to Ireland.  This is what Hillary did on that trip:

    Day 1:

    (1) Went shopping.
    (2) Visited the national museum.
    (3) Went to lunch with the mucky-mucks.
    (4) Had dinner at the Ambassador's house.

    Day 2:

    (1) Listened to Bill give a speech in Limerick
    (2) Had lunch.  (Her party of 8 insisted on separate checks, so embarassing the Irish govt. rep that she felt obliged to pick up the check.  No one thanked her, including HRC.)
    (3) Went for a walk
    (4) Visited the cliffs of Moher
    (5) Got on AF1 and went home.

    Yeah, that's foreign policy experience.


    Are you daft? (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:03:52 PM EST
    That is what the president does as well.  It's called hospitality.  People are welcoming and they want to show you what they have.  The first lady represents the American people and they extend their hospitality.  The sessions are very formal and a very important part of building relationships with other nations.  

    Diplomacy is not only in the contrived meetings, it's at all the levels.  They are official ambassadors of America.  Now compare that to childhood experience.  


    Whatever you think that is (none / 0) (#209)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:58:31 AM EST
    It's still more than what Obama has.

    "I am Obama" (none / 0) (#198)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:52:15 AM EST
    Hear me roar!



    He probably is better at FP (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:39:11 AM EST
    Than economy.

    What I mean is, of course, his handling of the economy could be even worse.


    Gas prices rising (none / 0) (#100)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:51:37 AM EST
    If he happens to win, I could see the Republicans framing him as a Jimmy Carter with just a hint of Bush lite.  He could take the fall for the economy, the gas prices, and whatever disaster is coming next in Iraq.

    I have to ask myself, why are the MSNBC bobble heads pushing him again?


    The Republicans will be trying to (none / 0) (#111)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:55:01 AM EST
    frame whoever wins the Democratic nomination.

    I'm sure if Hillary win's the nomination we can look forward to play on her foreign policy experience referencing Northern Ireland and Tuzla in unflattering ways.

    Trying to find someone that the Republicans will not attack is not an effective way to pick a nominee.


    Partly true (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:14:36 AM EST
    And that partly is why I got so mad all last year when Obama (and others) said Clinton shouldn't be the nominee because she is to "divisive" and "will rile up the base."  Like the GOP attack machine can't do that to anyone in six months.  (or six minutes).

    However, there is a difference between being weary of GOP attacks and acknowledging that some candidates are simply more vulnerable because of their background.  That is why I would never support the nomination of, say, Kucinich, even if I agreed with him on every issue.

    I believe that Obama is more vulnerable because of his very real associations with contreversial figures and the fact that he has not been on the main stage long enough for people to have solid opinions of him.  While everyone pretty much knows what they think of Clinton.


    yes, they will (none / 0) (#144)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:20:08 AM EST
    but McCain has worked with Hillary and been on trips with her as a senator. They sit on the same committee...it would be far more interesting...

    His Z-big endorsement (none / 0) (#124)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:03:31 AM EST
    Is supporting evidence that it's not just a frame.

    Anglachel (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:52:45 AM EST
    agrees to disagree with BTD.


    Obama's role in the campaign meta story is to rescue the Democratic Party from the clutches of the evil Clintons.  . . .The trouble is, he can fulfill his role and still be a lovely punching bag for the media the second he secures the nomination. When the wimp is put next to the war hero, the MSM's leg thrills will be reserved for Big John.

    LOL! (none / 0) (#120)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:00:38 AM EST
    i thought he lived (none / 0) (#107)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:53:45 AM EST
    in indonesia as a young child, then moved to the US? not discounting the experience mind you, just wondering how much he even really remembers from that long ago?

    indy33, mind providing some source for your rambling dissertation? ty

    I'm not necessarily a fan of Obama either but do you really think he's out to disenfranchise voters?

    the short answer: yes, that's exactly what he's out to do, absent proof to the contrary.

    but here's the thing: should sen. obama be the eventual dem. nominee, he will lose in nov. not because clinton supporters won't vote for him, probably most will, as a vote against mccain.

    he'll lose because he isn't very good at it, and won't have a fawning media at his back. all of the skeletons in his closet will become perpetually rotating 527 ads, fair or not.

    as noted by others, the republican/right-wingnut smear machine could not care less what they are called, it will roll off them like water off a duck's back.

    to be blunt, sen. obama has neither the stones or experience to handle it. i've said it before, he'll be a lamb led to slaughter.

    should sen. obama be the dem. nominee, the democratic party will have managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of near certain victory.

    and that is the saddest part of all.

    Which one? (none / 0) (#141)
    by indy33 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:18:18 AM EST
    Sorry cpinva, I have lots of rambling dissertations so Im not sure which one you are talking about. ha ha Anyway if its the fact that BTD vehemently claimed that Mark Penn was out of Clintons campaign. Many people said hold on, he still is advising, and on the conference call, and prepping her for the debate. He is hardly gone at all. All of us that beilive that though are stupid I guess. If you are talking about the bogus claims by Clinton that she was against the war before Obama then I think those pretty much speak for themselves. Check Jed Report though if you need further proof of this joke. Picture of Clinton doing her best Joe Lieberman impersonation next to McCain as they say everything is rosy in Iraq. This is the kind of thing that will kill her in Nov. just like it did Kerry. Standing next to McCain saying the war is going great in 2005 then arguing against it in 2008 is perfect "flip-flop" fodder. Ask Kerry!

    btw (none / 0) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:54:38 AM EST
    I think Bob Barr may just be the miracle Obama needs to pull off a victory in November.

    assuming he IS the nominee and I assume nothing.

    run Bob run

    Barr (none / 0) (#123)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:02:29 AM EST
    Maybe Barr is doing it for Hillary, to absolve himself of the impeachment sins.  

    I knew there would be one (none / 0) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:09:23 AM EST
    one the right once it became clear it was McCain.  but I think Barr is a pretty good one.  he is a serious guy.  he has some appeal to aclu/libertarian types too.

    That he does.... (none / 0) (#187)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:44:06 AM EST
    Barr seems to believe in liberty.  Which is more than I can say for Clinton/Obama/McCain.

    I'd vote for heim over the three stooges in a heartbeat, no doubt.


    Kind of like Perot? (none / 0) (#162)
    by Deadalus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:29:35 AM EST
    Who ran in 92 and 96....let's remember Clinton won with only a plurality both times.

    yeah (none / 0) (#174)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:34:10 AM EST
    exactly like that as a matter of fact.

    We shall see. (none / 0) (#133)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:11:25 AM EST

    A new low (none / 0) (#150)
    by DaytonDem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:23:47 AM EST
    for the supposedly "straight news" section of the Post. If a student journalist had written this type of article covering the school class president race the editor would have called it snotty. The Post waves it into print.

    Are the Dems still relevant today? (none / 0) (#158)
    by bettym47 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:28:19 AM EST
    Here are my thoughts on this open blog.

    The question is really is the Democratic party still relevant in 2008? When it captured the majority of Congress again in 2004, it seemed like it was. Yet, it is controlled by radical party loyalists who are much to the left of mainstream America. This is most evident in what they've done since capturing the Congress, which is mostly nothing. They prefer partisan bickering to getting things done for the people of America. Obama, for as much as he speaks about change, in my mind, actually represents this old schooled, left wing, partisan Democratic party of Mondale and Carter. This is emphasized when one examines his record and discovers that he really has not crossed party lines to compromise on major issues.  His soaring words may mislead people, but his actions of partisan behavior speaks volumes. While many say Clinton is the 90's, she actually represents more of the middle of the road, where both Democrats and Republicans need to be to win the Presidency. Despite the missteps of Hillary's campaign, if the Democrats are going to be relevant in 2008 and beyond, and prevent another crushing defeat in November, it's actually Clinton's vision of America that is most relevant, and the vision that needs to prevail in the battle for the nomination. If the Democrats lose this election, they may not recover for generations to come. Please feel free to continue the conversation at my site at http://www.elections2008online.com. Thank you.

    I don't buy this argument. (none / 0) (#165)
    by Deadalus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:31:19 AM EST
    I believe America is far more progressive than your analysis posit.  For one, Americans overwhelmingly approve of single-payer healthcare and in general disapprove of our imperial warmongering policies.

    For Democrats to get elected, they must not be middle of the road--they must effectively fight the corporate-controlled media smear campaigns used to inflate non-issues.

    America cares about what works (none / 0) (#179)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:38:29 AM EST
    They only turned against the war cause it didn't work.

    They are also embracing single payer because the current system is also broken.

    Americans in the middle don't care about these things the same way partisan activists do.  They care about what works and what doesn't work.


    single-payer healthcare (none / 0) (#182)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:39:53 AM EST
    I dont believe this.

    and if some polls says it (none / 0) (#185)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:41:26 AM EST
    they do not understand what they are "overwhelmingly" approving of.
    they want health care they do not want single payer when they understand what that means.

    Elizabeth Edwards (none / 0) (#168)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:32:21 AM EST
    Per Think Progress
    Elizabeth Edwards will be joining the Center for American Progress as a senior fellow. "In her new role, Edwards, who has gained a considerable following in the liberal blogosphere thanks to her willingness to vocally oppose conservative politicos from Sen. John McCain to commentator Ann Coulter, will also be contributing to CAP's blog," ThinkProgress.

    Good for her.

    Fascinating article to make the blood (none / 0) (#181)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:39:42 AM EST

    link  via John Cole @ Balloon Juice

    Where is the ABA ... (none / 0) (#201)
    by CCinNC on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:54:55 AM EST
    ... when things like this happen?  

    I don't know what to make.... (none / 0) (#199)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:52:16 AM EST
    of the big jesus-freak compound raid down in Texas.

    Once the young girl complained of abuse, the authorities became obligated to investigate.  But taking 400 kids away from their families based on one allegation of abuse?  Sounds kinda nuts doesn't it?

    I wouldn't be surprised in the least to learn that alotta bad sh*t is going down in that compound, and to think of kids being mentally/physically/sexually abused on such a scale is downright sickening.  otoh, the state swooping in and breaking up 400 families gives me the creeps too.  

    I just don't know what to make of it besides it being a sad sad affair all around.

    Looks like McCain is going to be getting (none / 0) (#214)
    by RickTaylor on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:01:18 PM EST
    gentle treatment by the media. First they rushed to his defense over the one hundred years remark, then dismissed his confusion of Al Qaeda with Iran three times as a mistake anyone could make, now they refer to him admiringly as being no stranger to incoming fire as he handles a student "heckler".

    On another subject, sometimes I'll want to e-mail someone who made a post on this forum. Is there a way to do that? I tried clicking on the name.

    Clinton 56 Obama 38 Un Dec 2 Percent (none / 0) (#215)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:01:30 PM EST
    Summary from Survey USA poll

    The results are almost identical to a SurveyUSA poll released one month ago. Then, Clinton led by 19. Today, 18. In between, however, in a SurveyUSA tracking poll released last week, Obama had closed to within 12 points. What happened in the past 7 days? 1st: Some of the men who flirted with Obama at the end of March have returned to Clinton. Other men have moved to the sidelines. Last week, Obama led by 7 among men. Men were 46% of likely voters. Today, Clinton leads among men. Men are 42% of likely voters. 2nd: Obama lost ground among voters age 35 to 49. A week ago, he had caught Clinton in this age group. Today, he's down 18. By contrast, there is no movement among voters age 50+. Clinton's lead among voters 50+ is stable across all 3 tracking polls. 3rd: In Southeast PA, which includes Philadelphia and which makes up 42% of likely Democratic voters, Clinton had a good week, Obama a bad week. Clinton is above 50% for the first time and Obama is now down by 9 in a region he must win to carry the state. In Southwest PA, which includes Pittsburgh, Clinton polls at 60% for the first time, 25 points atop Obama. Only in West Central PA, which includes Johnstown, has there been consistent movement toward Obama. 4th: Among moderates, Obama lost key ground while Clinton gained ground. Clinton now leads by 24 points, 60% to 36%. Obama also lost ground among Liberals. And while Obama's support fell among Conservatives, so did Clinton's. 5th: Interviewing for SurveyUSA's 04/01/08 release, one week ago, occurred in the middle of Obama's 6-day bus tour through Pennsylvania, which began on 03/28/08. Obama may have benefited a week ago from the media spotlight. Summary: The complete absence of movement among whites and among women is striking. Among white voters, Clinton polled at 61% in all 3 tracking polls. Among women, Clinton was at 62% a month ago, 62% last week, and 61% today. These two unwavering core constituencies help make Clinton so formidable in the Keystone state.

    oops..did not mention all the official (none / 0) (#222)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:06:33 PM EST
    Obama right wing talking points, don't miss any.