home

Tuesday Night TV and Open Thread

How many Americans have finished dinner and turned on the TV? Millions. How many are watching the cable news coverage of today's Iraq hearings? How many are watching Dancing With Stars?

Since I got nothing from my perusal of the coverage of the three cable news networks other than McCain flubbed by mixing up Sunnis and Shiites, which he's done before and today corrected immediately, and Hillary and Obama asked a few questions, I'm watching Dancing With Stars (with Sheryl Crow) tonight.

For those of you following the real news, here's a place for you. Please do better than the cable news networks.

< Dueling PA Polls | Elizabeth Edwards Prefers Hillary's Health Care Plan to Obama's >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Florida (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:28:27 PM EST
    Apparently the DNC RBC hasn't scheduled a date to hear the Ausman challenge yet. But more interestingly (or upsetting depending on your point of view), co-chair Jim Roosevelt was asked if he had regrets knowing what he knows now and responded:

    "No second thoughts, no second-guessing. Obviously I think everybody in politics had a different set of assumptions at that time. But it's also true that if the rules aren't followed .... we'll have primaries and caucuses on Halloween next (cycle),'' responded Roosevelt, noting that he was taken aback recently to see Sen. Bill Nelson on TV talking about this issue and stressing that rules must be followed.

    Thank goodness we've saved Halloween!

    Clarify (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:31:22 PM EST
    I should have said

    Jim Roosevelt was asked if he had regrets about taking all the Florida delegates instead of half knowing what he knows now and responded

    [ Parent ]

    Seriously (none / 0) (#25)
    by badger on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:13:36 PM EST
    what would be so evil about primaries around Halloween (or the 4th of July for that matter) that we have to take away people's votes to prevent that?

    I don't think it would be a good thing, but I don't see it as the end of the world either. Take for example the silly argument du jour that Hillary staying in the race is preventing Obama (the presumptive nominee for some) from going after McCain.

    If we settled the nomination by January 1, the nominee would have lots more time to attack the GOP.

    I can understand arguments as to why the competition for the earliest primary isn't the best thing, but nothing that outweighs the right of people to vote. It strikes me the same as capital punishment for parking tickets.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:26:56 PM EST
    I agree. I tend to laugh a little when I hear that Clinton being in the race is why McCain is getting a free pass. I think Clinton being in the race has actually made it easier on Obama. If she's not there to attack they will turn towards Obama. And McCain will still get a free pass.

    Back on topic, Roosevelt ignored the fact that a different punishment isn't the same as no punishment as well. The rules certainly didn't demand a 100% delegate loss. But I suppose facts spoil the argument that is was RULES that made it necessary.

    But rejoice in the fact that Halloween will not be election day!! Because it was so at risk.

    [ Parent ]

    I think (none / 0) (#104)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:30:07 AM EST
    Assuming Obama becomes the nominee, her staying in is now hurting him a little in the GE because McCain's series of remarkable gaffes aren't really being covered.  The latest is McCain being introduced at a rally by a guy who says, "you can keep your Tiger Woods!"  A friend sent me a link to the video and it's really repulsive.  Whether or not you favor Obama, the idea that sucessful AA's are interchangeable is offensive.  
    Full disclosure: the video was from the KO show but was a video of the actual introduction, not of KO.  
    I don't think Hillary should get out because it's hurting Obama. It would be a betrayal of her supporters and also politically crazy.  I'm saying I don't think she's helping him anymore.

    [ Parent ]
    Already that time to think about Costumes... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Deadalus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:24:16 PM EST
    I'm guessing Katherine Harris isn't going to be "in" this year.

    [ Parent ]
    I could go as a giant sign (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:33:31 PM EST
    COUNT EVERY VOTE!
    EVERY VOTE COUNTS!*


    *offer void in Florida and Michigan


    [ Parent ]
    That Eleanor Roosevelt's grandson (none / 0) (#46)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:39:17 PM EST
    would act this way is just beyond belief, after her extraordinary work for human rights here and around the world.  As for FDR, he too understood that there are tough decisions in politics -- but I think his better angels, such as Eleanor, would have stopped him from such stupidity as this.

    So sad to see such a great legacy gone down.  As a friend of mine used to say, the family tree began to lack a few branches.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not watching (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:32:37 PM EST
    I'm detoxing from a weekend with my mom.  I love her, but she's an Obama supporter and while she was here, she had MSNBC on all day.  The only saving grace was Morning Joe today, when Joe Scarborough interviewed Hillary.

    I used to be a big cable news watcher.  I still moderate an Anderson Cooper group on LJ, but I rarely watch CNN anymore.  I check out the blogs, especially this one, Taylor Marsh and No Quarter.  If there's something worth watching, it'll be on Youtube.  

    My perception of the news has changed tremendously during this election season.  I have been sensitive to media bias for a long time, but I can't ever remember a time when conservatives (Lou Dobbs, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity) were more "fair and balanced" than so-called liberals. I'm not saying that I buy into their shtick, but b/c they don't have a dog in this fight, they seem to be more balanced in their coverage.  

    I'm looking forward to when my favorite show, Supernatural, comes back on the air in two weeks.  It'll be a welcome relief from my political obsessions.

    Did Joe or anyone on MSNBC "clarify" (none / 0) (#26)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:16:34 PM EST
    the Clinton-Brachtal (sp?) story? Apologize? Admit error?

    [ Parent ]
    Joe--whose so in love with Hill--- (none / 0) (#28)
    by Regency on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:20:00 PM EST
    made a remark about it when he interviewed her this morning. She basically said that she was glad everything was cleared up but the point had always been to make clear how messed up the system was, not to drag the poor woman's family into it.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks! And Hillary said what I'd hoped she (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:38:47 PM EST
    would say. Very gracious of her.

    But it doesn't let the MCM (mainstream corporate media) off the hook, along with the corrupted parts of left blogistan.

    Josh Marshall's little notice of this was highly irritating:

    04.07.08 -- 8:53PM
    Hillary partly vindicated on hospital story.
    --Josh Marshall

    Has Josh joined in defending the nitpicking part of the MCM? Nitpicking of Dem candidates worked so well in giving us the Bush Maladministration. How about "almost totally vindicated," Josh? "Essentially accurate," maybe? "Basically true"? (And, yes, I am very disappointed in Josh and find it harder to trust how he reports on other matters besides the Clinton campaign.)

    For now, the MCMers (members of the MCM) are not nitpicking their current fave Dem candidate. Just you wait, Obama backers, just you wait.... When they're out to diminish a candidate's viability, truth is not of the essence--driving up negatives and driving down enthusiasm is. The MCM is not our friend.

    For all those who like the MCM nitpickers nitpicking Hillary now, killing her with the death of a thousand pecks, what about when they decide to nitpick Obama? How're they gonna like them apples? or pecks?

    Kudos to BTD--saw him referenced all over today this MCM fiasco.

    [ Parent ]

    Did you see the McCain song (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:35:05 PM EST
    courtesy of MJS at Corrente?

    100 years of war in Iraq
    100 years of war
    You burn it down
    Down to the ground
    99 years of war in Iraq.

    (to the tune of 99 bottles of beer).

    Funny! and scary.

    Think Progress (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:39:43 PM EST
    Do any of you read this blog?  I have been reading it on and off for about three years now. I am SUPER impressed how they seem to be completely devoid of all things Obama AND Clinton. I don't see many "progessive" choke*gasp! blogs that have not taken a side.  TL is, I feel, the more balanced and rational.  I see other blogs criticize the comment moderation.  I support it.  Anyway, let me know if anyone else knows of blogs that are just not even getting into the HRC/BO drama.

    Elizabeth Edwards just joined (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:42:31 PM EST
    American Progress as a senior fellow in health care. Think Progress is their blog.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you (none / 0) (#20)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:45:03 PM EST
    Wow. I did not know that. I was quite pleased to see and hear that Mrs. Edwards supports Senator Clinton's healthcare plan (as I do).  Thanks Jeralyn for the information.  

    [ Parent ]
    I want her to debate McCain (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Deadalus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:22:56 PM EST
    over healthcare reform.  That'd be hot.

    [ Parent ]
    Digby (none / 0) (#76)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:45:54 AM EST
    and her co-blogger dday are a great resource this year, lots of solid information and analysis of McCain, Iraq, details about how the media is playing the primaries. Sometimes the comments get a little heated and spammed with supporter groups, but I find the front page very balanced and insightful.

    [ Parent ]
    WTF is going on at Politico? (none / 0) (#105)
    by flashman on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:33:05 AM EST
    I thought they were balanced, but lately they seem to have joined the Hillary bashing party.  There is a dreadful article on the front page about how she has mismanaged her campaign.  It's totally out of balance.

    MSNBC=Misogynic, Sexist Neanderthals Bashing Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    Republico, um, I mean Poitico balanced (none / 0) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:39:42 AM EST
    what a world
    what a world.

    [ Parent ]
    Since this is an Open Thread (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:57:20 PM EST
    I just want to say that I got an e-mail from Bill
    Richardson, begging for money to pay his campaign debt.  I'm on his mailing list b/c I gave him a small contribution back in Sept. or Oct.  If I were a nasty person, I'd tell him to ask Obama for the money.  But I'll just ignore him.

    Those 30 coins? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Deadalus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:22:18 PM EST
    Those 30 coins he got didn't go far enough, eh?

    /snark

    [ Parent ]

    Too Funny (none / 0) (#107)
    by STLDeb on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:36:15 AM EST
    Love it, that is too funny!  LOL

    [ Parent ]
    Melissa posted Hillary's visit to Ellen DeGeneris- (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:13:00 PM EST
    Actually fun--and Hillary talks about her support for gays and the breast cancer research proposal (with some darts at Tweety).

    http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/04/hillary-and-ellen.html

    Petraeus on Nightline in about 5min Eastern (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:31:14 PM EST
    special hour interview.

    NYTimes Expose on Matthews (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:35:23 PM EST
    Huffpost got an advance copy of the Sunday magazine that has a juicy piece on Matthews.  Among the tidbits, he admits he was forced to apologize for his Clinton comments and believes he was "factually" accurate.  Big surprise - he is an incredibly insecure human being!

    He is still clueless!

    forgot link (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:35:46 PM EST
    USA Today Busts Obama Myth... (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:52:37 PM EST
    ...that he was raised in poverty with lines like this one in his stump speech:
    I was born to a teenage mom and my father left when I was two. So my grandparents and my mother helped raise me and they didn't have a lot. They didn't have money...

    But it turns out that in addition to his step father being a wealthy oil executive and his grandfather being a wealthy furniture store owner, that his grandmother was a wealthy banking executive:

    Madelyn Dunham, Obama's grandmother, blazed a feminist trail in Hawaii banking circles in the late 1960s and early 1970s and rose to become one of the Bank of Hawaii's first female vice presidents.
    LINK

    This is clearly an another example of Obama's charactorization that he was raised by a teenage single mother in poverty is completly bogus.


    More evidence that his grandmother (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:19:51 PM EST
    was not a "typical white person."  After all, she gave her all to raise him -- but then, that is so typical of many women I know, white or otherwise.

    However, those I know usually get much more typical gratitude from their grandchildren for doing so.

    [ Parent ]

    My parents raised my niece (none / 0) (#67)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:58:39 PM EST
    for a good majority of her life. in the early years, they were there as back up and then they took her in full time. I think she was 7-8. I know what she would say if she were discussing who raised her. My sister gets no credit to this day and she would never disrespect my parents. They have a very special relationship.

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting read. (none / 0) (#77)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:49:34 AM EST
    His grandmother sounds like a force to be reckoned with. I hate to parse candidate's backgrounds too closely though, sometimes your memory gets adapted to the stories your family tells you.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree, but... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:00:25 AM EST
    ...Obama has made a concerted effort to give people the impression that he grew up poor and was raised by a single mother, defied all odds, and become a success. The reality is that nearly all of his childhood was that of a priveledged youth and in two parent household.  

    [ Parent ]
    The Greatest Silence (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:11:07 PM EST
    My son and daughter and I watched the documentary tonight on HBO, The Greatest Silence: Rape of the Congo, which "exposes the systematic rape and
    torture of thousands of women and girls happening in the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)" -- women being used as a weapon of war, filmed by a survivor of gang rape here in our nation's capital, Emmy Award-winning filmmaker Lisa F. Jackson.  She won the Sundance Festival's documentary award for this one.

    We know this happens in every war, but the extent of the attack now on women and girls of the Congo is horrible.  All ages, and your heart will break to see the four-year-old's face, to hear the eighty-year-old's cries.  The strong women of the Congo and surrounding countries who are trying to help need help to get medical care to these women and their families, abandoned now.  

    If it is on again, watch.  See more info at this site.
    Please read and act.  They are speaking, they have been given a voice now -- so now we have to hear.

    Three words: (none / 0) (#56)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:16:09 PM EST
    Doctors without Borders.  Justice in its pure form.  

    [ Parent ]
    I know, nne of my family members (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:52:11 PM EST
    has been overseas with Doctors Without Borders many times.  I get to say he shared a Nobel Prize.:-)

    But if you think that three words -- or many more of our DWBs than already there -- will be enough, just look at a map.  The country of the Congo is the size of Europe.  Imagine gang rape on a massive scale, in the hundreds of thousands, across every country and every corner of Europe.  Imagine that most of those women and girls need a year of several surgeries, as in addition to gang rapes, they were mutilated, and many have no rectums, no uteruses, barely bladders.

    Imagine that they need far more for sustenance, as they have been abandoned by their families -- and many, including young girls, now have new families of their own from the rapes . . . but lost all that they had, even the clothes on their backs, in the looting that went on with the gang rapes.

    There are no words.  Watch the documentary.

    [ Parent ]

    I know... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:03:31 AM EST
    It's just something we can do from this far away to help.  

    [ Parent ]
    Kinda makes the horrible.... (none / 0) (#96)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:46:30 AM EST
    sexism and misogyny as demonstrated by Chris Mathews and Keith Olberman seem tame, doesn't it?

    While some here cry for their daughters living in the big, bad, sexist USA...I'll save my tears for the women of the Congo.  Ya know...real victims.

    [ Parent ]

    The (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:11:41 AM EST
    existence of  horror does not negate nor excuse the injustice in our own country. How trite!

    [ Parent ]
    We have different definitions.... (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:43:05 AM EST
    of injustice I guess.

    [ Parent ]
    So short of mass gang rape (none / 0) (#118)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:55:15 AM EST
    of women in this country, we're doing fine, huh?

    You might benefit from instructions to my students on discussing issues of race, gender, ethnicity, etc., in their forthcoming papers.  The national discourse on these topics is not advanced by such comparatives as you attempt (and do so poorly).

    And foisting false claims on others that they are attempting victimhood is a real right-wing tactic on your part.  

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry Cream.... (none / 0) (#120)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:00:09 AM EST
    I refuse to take "instructions" before I discuss anything.  

    Screw sensitivity...give me truth.
    Like the truth you have alerted us too in the Congo.


    [ Parent ]

    What a Republican thing to say! (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:05:00 AM EST
    Reminds me of Republicans who look at lefty war protesters and say, "if they think America is bad, they should go to Cuba (or China or Russia or Saudi Arabia)!"

    Love it or leave it, eh?

    [ Parent ]

    hey...I take offense! (none / 0) (#119)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:57:20 AM EST
    Just kidding.

    I was just glad to see a real issue facing women in this world being brought up on talkleft.  Keep 'em coming.  Sexism and injustice against women is very real, see the Congo or Saudi Arabia or the American workplace, but what the assh*le on the tv, or some dolt on a blog, is saying ain't injustice, I'm sorry.  It's an opinion.

    Not "love it or leave it"...my message is more "don't be the boy who cried wolf".

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah (none / 0) (#122)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:15:38 AM EST
    Because there's no correlation between civil discourse and how someone is treated in society.  /snark

    [ Parent ]
    I can't imagine.... (none / 0) (#135)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:54:34 PM EST
    what the Congolese version of Tweety is saying on the tv over there...my lord it must be absolutely vile.

    Should we all hold hands and sing Kumbaya?  Yeah, it would be nice, but that ain't happenin.  I'm concerned with actions, not words.

    The KKK and NOW can say whatever they want, and if they can find a tv station to put them on the air god bless 'em...I don't have to watch.  

    [ Parent ]

    I saw this too (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:48:43 AM EST
    it was my choice instead of dancing with the stars.
    powerful stuff.


    [ Parent ]
    Sadly... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Oje on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:20:21 AM EST
    I think I am suffering from late stage disenfranchisement. The old network news programs in the 1990s targeted the over 45 crowd, in my opinion. I never found an anchor among that crew that appealed to me. The cable news initially attracted my interest, especially late night programs on CNN and, admittedly, Hardball. We were a Nielson household in early 2000, and I distinctly remember recording that I watched Tweety every day (what a sad sack I was).  By the end of 2000, I had tuned out the cable news entirely due to a visceral reaction to coverage of Al Gore and the recount. This was before I discovered Media Whores (R.I.P.) and Bob Somerby, when I only sensed that something was wrong. I still cannot tune into news programs or anchors when I know they have had time to prepare their scripts (with the exception of Olbermann's first three special comments). Like Somerby says, the news today is nothing more than a bad novel in which we get a god's eye view of the innermost emotional and factual "disinformation" that (Democratic) candidates harbor.

    So, I watched a movie... Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

    I Got Hooked On Tweety Too (none / 0) (#111)
    by flashman on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:52:42 AM EST
    It is completely understandable.  There are aspects of his shows that are very appealing, maybe even addictive.  He was just about the only news host that called Bush out on his lies about Iraq and WMD's.  That alone earned my respect for him as someone who had the courage to speak truth to power, and as someone who was genuinely concerned about the world we are living in. I loved his aggressive questioning tactics and the way he called others out "on the carpet" when they were peddling their snake oil.  I used to joke with my friends that, as they rush home to be with their wives or mistresses, I rushed home to be with my cable news.  

    But all his genuine concern was a mirage.  He is in the business only for himself, and his sole purpose is to forward his personal narrative.  He is a disgrace to the news industry because he represents the majority of newsmen who, rather then reporting, explaining and illumination, endeavors to create his own perceptions of the events of the day.  His panel is typically jello-spined journalists who absorb those perceptions and subsequently spread it through the media, like the manure it is.

    But I do understand how you would have been hooked on him.  I'm a recovering Matthews addict myself.


    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Oje on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:49:12 AM EST
    I just realized reading jawbone above that I have been reading TPM to track Clinton Derangement Syndrome on the blogs (having already axed dailykos and Pandagon). TPM has ceased to be a source of progressive news, and JMM is untrustworthy on other subjects henceforth - perhaps as he should have been after the Iraq invasion.

    Progressive are not informed about politics by reading the maladjustment of bloggers anymore than we are informed about politics by watching the maladjustment of talking heads. JMM is nothing more than a special interest of media criticism at this point. With that in mind, his journalist-blog is no different than Google News. So, GBCTPM, I am no longer a daily reader--I have a new home page for the latest news now.

    Get almost all (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:35:14 AM EST
    my news from TalkLeft, NoQuarter and a few other blogs. From them I get links that take me to other places for more information. If the links are for kos, TPM or Huffington, I pass.

    Friends and family are mostly Clinton supporters but one granddaughter is a rabid Obama supporter. We plan on having her deprogrammed after the elections and/or as soon as she calls the rest of us "racists" one more time.

    I believe in free speech but a vitriol spewing virago of a granddaughter in my living room is beyond what I find acceptable.

    And I was the one who said leave her alone when she dyed her hair purple, got multiple piercings, tried to find something nice to say about her latest tattoo and only stopped trying to give the girl some space when she dropped out of school.

    Now that she has become an Obamatron who spews insults at the rest of us I find it impossible to take her part. Quite frankly it is all I can do to keep from whacking her over the head with the nearest blunt object. (I take lots of deep breaths and have now finally told her not to come back until she can behave like a civilized human being.)  

     I had always thought she would find herself someday. Now I wonder if when she does, she will find herself worth finding.

    TV? What's that? ;-) (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:14:20 PM EST
    Seriously, I'm looking forward to Top Chef tomorrow night, and I might watch some cartoons before I go to sleep .

    But news doesn't come from the TV for me, especially not POLITICAL news.

    Top Chef (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:47:50 PM EST
    always makes me hungry.  

    [ Parent ]
    I'm reading fluffy fiction tonight (none / 0) (#2)
    by katiebird on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:17:23 PM EST
    Does that fit in this thread? I really like Jennifer Crusie.

    Sheryl Crow's great. (none / 0) (#3)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:20:01 PM EST
    I've been off cable for a week. But I'll be back on it tomorrow for Top Chef. I'm basically avoiding the 24/7 Politics of BS. Baseball and cooking shows work well spring through fall :) Much more relaxing!

    Local news has a new appeal for me aside from the weather and sport scores.  Just a brief political recap delivered in a neutral manner, lol!~

    Love baseball! Glad it's back! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:26:39 PM EST
    Salvation from news.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought I was glad it was back..... (none / 0) (#98)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:49:22 AM EST
    then my Mets went 0-3 vs. Atlanta and Philly and look like they've picked up from where they left off last year.

    Get it together fellas!


    [ Parent ]

    Saving white bean soup (none / 0) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:22:05 PM EST
    I am saving my bean soup by converting it to a faux cassoulet.  Let's see if it works.  TV, I watched the hearings today while spring cleaning my kitchen and commenting way too much.  

    No news programs for me (none / 0) (#5)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:23:59 PM EST
    I catch the news on the net. I watched the Biggest Loser while I ate popcorn. I use to stay up to John Stewart, but now I am reading and 75% done with that John Lescroart book Betrayal that is advertising on your site on the right side. I love his books.

    American Idol and Hell's Kitchen (none / 0) (#6)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:24:11 PM EST
    from the sublime to the ridiculous, I guess!

    This time of year, I'm deeply into tax work, so this - and a big glass of Shiraz - smoothes out the edges of a long day.

    The contrast is just stark - the shining promise of young singers against the anxiety of trying to succeed in the boot camp of Gordon Ramsey's kitchen.

    And I have a fun book - Conversations with the Fat Girl, by Liza Palmer.  It's the second book of hers I've read, and she's just so funny and real.

    Denny Crane? (none / 0) (#7)
    by magisterludi on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:26:14 PM EST
    Anyone? No Boston Legal?

    Hasn't started here yet (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:28:57 PM EST
    It's on after Dancing With Stars in my time zone.

    [ Parent ]
    DWTS (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:43:15 PM EST
    I got into the show the year the Cheetah Girl was on there (Samantha Ryan).  I was SO disappointed when she was voted off.  My Mom and I were so bummed out that we stopped watching DWTS right then and there.  She compared her getting voted off the reality show equivalent of Gore & Florida 2000.

    I stopped watching free tv when Buffy and Angel ended. Cable was disconnected after Sex and the City ended.

    Lotsa good books I need to catch up on out there!  Have fun watching DWTS!

    [ Parent ]

    It[s a good one. (none / 0) (#18)
    by magisterludi on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:44:12 PM EST
    As usual. Won't say more as you've not seen it.

    enjoy!

    [ Parent ]

    Love DWTS (none / 0) (#115)
    by STLDeb on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:07:38 AM EST
    I LOVE DWTS.  I got hooked on this show the first season.  Who would have thought a show about ballroom dancing would be such a HUGE hit.  

    [ Parent ]
    Yes! Boston Legal tonight (none / 0) (#19)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:44:18 PM EST
    and it's a really good one! - on the corporate media brainwashing us.


    [ Parent ]
    wow, what a closing argument (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:41:10 PM EST
    and indictment of the media. I watched it because of the comments here, I usually don't...James Spader's closing was really powerful.  Thanks for the recommendation.

    [ Parent ]
    Candace Bergen's (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:50:26 PM EST
    closing on the vietnam vets was also incredibly good. I may have to start watching this show.

    [ Parent ]
    Boston Legal (none / 0) (#85)
    by magisterludi on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:17:27 AM EST
    is the most under-rated  show on TV, IMO. The social commentary is biting and the humor irreverent and bawdy. Love it!

    [ Parent ]
    Re-introducing Power Plays: The World Energy Watch (none / 0) (#22)
    by SunnyLC on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:51:02 PM EST
    With the foreign news emphasis today, I'd like to take the opportunity to introduce my new version of Power Plays: The World Energy Watch at

    http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/

    POWER PLAYS: THE WORLD ENERGY WATCH FOR APRIL 9, 2008

    The World Energy Watch presents excerpts of analysis and recent news reports highlighting the activities of the players involved in the power struggle for the world's remaining energy resources and energy sustainability.

    1//A sobering look at our future oil situation from Energy and Oil by Byron King tops the news in this week's edition. Looks like both domestic and imported oil supplies will be drying up by 2025. Then what?

    The U.S. Oil Supply -- A Look At Our Future Oil Needs

    New discoveries and new wells just cannot keep up with depletion of older oil fields. By 2025, U.S. daily oil output will be a fraction of its current level (probably down to about 2-3 million barrels per day), even with an aggressive program of drilling offshore and in Alaska -- which is not happening, in any case. ... . Also by 2025, U.S. imports will almost certainly decline. The oil will not be available to buy and import from world markets. Not everyone agrees with this. In one fanciful projection from 2005, the U.S. DOE forecast that "Total U.S. gross petroleum imports are projected to increase in the reference case from 12.3 million barrels per day in 2003 to 20.2 million in 2025." Maybe in somebody's dreams, but my view is that this is one projection that will never come true. ... . Really, by 2025, the rest of the oil-producing world will simply lack the product to export. This will be due to reasons of depletion on a global scale, and fast-growing internal demand in oil-producing nations. Gasoline consumption in places as diverse as Russia, Iran, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia is just soaring, so there is less net oil available for export. ... . So what will happen in 2025? Will the U.S. pump its own oil? No, it's not there. Will the U.S. continue to import large volumes? No, it won't be available. The bottom line is that conventional oil sources for the U.S. -- domestic output and imports -- are simply drying up.

    Read more stories....China and Syria, Iraqi "potato seller" now making a lot of US money protecting oil pipelines and US troops.....

    Lambert blogged about the new James Hansen (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:22:42 PM EST
    study over at corrente.

    Based on studies of undersea core samples which give a history of Co2 levels, scientists have figured out we need to cut emissions much more drastically than any agreements have specified--that is if we wish to live in a world with a climate which resembles that which has made civilization possible.

    [ Parent ]

    Right, that's why i'm strongly pro-nuclear. (none / 0) (#38)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:31:24 PM EST
    Existing coal plants must be replaced with nuclear, where possible.

    [ Parent ]
    In fact, i am in favor of trying radical (none / 0) (#43)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:36:46 PM EST
    technological solutions, such as seeding the atmosphere over Greenland. I've forgotten the precise suggestion, but climate scientists say it's "too risky".
    hmmm

    [ Parent ]
    Too slow (none / 0) (#74)
    by splashy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:33:37 AM EST
    That money should be pumped into solar and wind, which comes online almost immediately, then is almost cost free from then on.

    Besides, those technologies create far more jobs, along with them being much safer to all.

    We have enough roof space to take care of a lot of energy needs.

    [ Parent ]

    Mark Penn (none / 0) (#27)
    by Deadalus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:18:57 PM EST
    Hey BTD,

    Still waiting on you to blog about how Penn wasn't actually fired from the campaign.  You said you would two days ago, but haven't yet.  


    Still waiting for you (none / 0) (#36)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:30:03 PM EST
    to admit Obama poaches delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    Cute... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Deadalus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:31:26 PM EST
    But I think any kindergardener will acknowledge there is a difference between delegates committed a candidate who is no longer in the race choosing a different candidate and a candidate repeatedly begging delegates PLEDGED to the front-runner to change their vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Since HIllary is in the race, I don't (none / 0) (#44)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:37:20 PM EST
    understand your comment.

    [ Parent ]
    I"m not aware (none / 0) (#48)
    by Deadalus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:44:24 PM EST
    of Clinton delegates switching Obama's team?  (pledged delegates.)  Has this happened?

    [ Parent ]
    So you support poaching pledged (none / 0) (#132)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:41:19 PM EST
    delegates, when this might be what puts  a candidate over the top?
    Revolting hypocrisy.

    [ Parent ]
    Good to see (none / 0) (#51)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:55:11 PM EST
    we didn't get anywhere in our previous discussion of this issue.  My larger point is that you're willing to call out BTD but you refuse to retract your own erroneous assertions on the delegate matter which are based on your interpretation of which hairs should be split.  I think you outdo me in cute, sir.  

    It's all about rules, except when it's not about rules, because it's about rules.  Here is the most explicit statement so far I've heard on the matter from the Clinton campaign:  From Newsweek:

    "Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to," she added. Although her campaign quickly denied it was waging any effort to "flip" Obama's pledged delegates, Clinton's remarks weren't academic. After the 1980 battle between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy, her chief strategist Harold Ickes noted, the party changed a rule that required pledged delegates to stick with their candidates no matter what. The current rule, adopted in 1982, states that pledged delegates "shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them." A "good conscience" reason for a delegate to switch, Ickes told NEWSWEEK, would be if one candidate--such as, say, Clinton--was deemed more "electable." If delegates believe she has a better chance in November than Obama, Ickes said, "you bet" that would be a reason to change their vote. (He added, however, that the campaign is "focused" on winning over uncommitted superdelegates "at this point.")

    And also in the previous thread, and my apologies if you did not see it, a video was presented displaying the delegate poaching that happened in Texas.  Of course the caucuses in Texas were widely described as ugly and not exactly law-abiding; or too "law-abiding."  

    Sorry, but delegates are absurd.  The good conscience thing is obviously up for debate or more likely, spin.  I truly hope it does not go into the dark places where it could go.  But at the moment I give the Clinton campaign credit for being soft in volume and stance on this issue.  I don't know why you are claiming they are pressing this issue when it really hasn't been taken up by anyone as far as I know.

    The delegates are so...mutuable.  It's in the rules for them to be so.  Tell me why some delegates are still committed to Edwards?  Because he didn't release them.  Again, Edwards = Kingmaker.  The early blog secret scoop.  The dropped story.

    I do hope we don't get to the point where we are all lying on our backs at the convention, gasping at the meaninglessness of all our metrics!  But I don't think it's right to say that Obama's ways of obtaining delegates are any more within the rules than Hillary's.  Hillary's (potential delegate grabs at the convention) are actually sanctioned in the rules.  Obama's are not because Edwards didn't release his delegates.  That's the thing about rules.  They're stupid.

    Have at it.  But this whole debate seems to be proof positive of the importance of the popular vote in selecting our candidate - the rules are little understood, and too unfamiliar to be widely acknowledged in the way we need them to be if we want delegates to be the only important thing.  A clear victory involves the popular vote.  I hope if Obama wins it Clinton gives up her Pres bid (and he takes her on as VP).  The popular vote seems fair.  And we can measure it in caucus states.

    [ Parent ]

    Ugh (none / 0) (#70)
    by Deadalus on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:05:07 AM EST
    I've not seen the video.

    My distinction was pointing to something entirely different.  Without jumping into this hair-splitting contest, I am upset that Senator Clinton has repeatedly pressed the issue of pledged delegates switching.  That is troubling.  Senator Obama has not, to my knowledge, done that.  Anecdotal evidence of delegates switching at conventions for whatever reason is not enough to dispel my discomfort with Senator Clinton's proclamations.

    These are two different issue I think anyone will agree and do not cancel one another out.

    Nor can either candidate be responsible for what the other's plethora of supporters do.


    [ Parent ]
    Same discussion (none / 0) (#71)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:17:15 AM EST
    as last time.  There was an article over on Politico regarding Obama.  He knows the game, he is going after her delegates and switching out some of his.  Some party loyalists got upset at being switched out in Alabama for those they felt would be more loyal to Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Switching his own delegates (none / 0) (#123)
    by Deadalus on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:23:19 AM EST
    is fine by any standards, I would think.  Wouldn't a good campaign make sure that their delegates are loyal?  And switch any that they doubted were?

    I'll have to hunt for the Politico article.  Thanks for the tip.

    [ Parent ]

    Kindergarteners Don't Understand (none / 0) (#112)
    by flashman on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:01:01 AM EST
    that a candidate should only get to count votes that were cast for that candidate.  I don't give a damn if the other candidate dropped out.  Counting votes not recieved is wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    If he's not on payroll (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:04:02 AM EST
    He's been fired.

    [ Parent ]
    Does that logically mean (none / 0) (#124)
    by Deadalus on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:24:05 AM EST
    that if he IS on payroll, he hasn't been fired?  It actually doesn't, so I don't see what your point it.  But he's still on payroll in anycase.

    [ Parent ]
    Pop populism (none / 0) (#29)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:20:46 PM EST
    The local news just reported on a Michelle Obama appearance in NC.  I actually found it to be a really good segment.  The local news tends less to punditry and thank goodness for that.  Michelle Obama was giving an Obama stump speech but it was the way that she framed her argument that struck me.  We are campaigning for the average American, she said.  She went back to her frequent point about striking a work-family balance.   She spoke about the need to harness the crowd's energy to achieve solutions, like getting universal healthcare and ending the war.  It ended with her saying we need that energy to combat the special interests and lobbyists [to get those solutions accomplished].

    Honestly, this obsession with identifying special interests as our enemies, while glorifying Republicans as workable partners who differ with us (though Obama is unable to say why; he seems unable to acknowledge the things that make Republicans NOT vote for him)  but would be willing to join to "get THINGS done" is the aspect of his campaign that most irritates me.  It's been shown that Obama has as many ties to corporate interests as anyone else - certainly enough to cast his anti-lobbyist stance in doubt.  And special interests as a term just begs to be misinterpreted and further watered down.  Obama refuses to identify our enemies and real obstacles.  This bothers me.  Attack special interests, flatter Republicans, negate due to good will the connection between the two...to me that's a pipe dream.  And Obama's insistence upon this matter (and yes I think it's okay to take his wife, delivering an Obama stump speech, as his spokesperson) in the real sense of the word disconcerts me.  The right wing noise machine exists not only in DC, but in our schools, our bars, our churches.  Obama's willingness to let their trespasses slide, and Bush's, for heaven's sake (see the no-one predicted 9/11 example) is what keeps me back from supporting him.  It might be CW to play nice, but in politics it rarely turns out that way.  Not to mention that just the nicest guys (Republicans) have a way of pulling out your teeth with a smile (instead of punching them...)


    Let us not forget (none / 0) (#35)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:29:07 PM EST
    that that is their [the conservative Repubs'] whole shtick..."love the sinner, hate the sin."  Well, the sins have traditionally been defined as homosexuality, taxes, social programs, equality, and any sacrifice on the part of those endowed with moderate wealth (or at least more than the other guy) to allow others to catch up.  Sorry, I actually like those things.  Repubs can claim to like Obama all they want...but I won't be surprised when people, though they wrestle so with their consciences, cast a ballot for McCain.  Here's looking at you Dems:  don't vote for McCain!

    [ Parent ]
    I Thought He Lost It (none / 0) (#113)
    by flashman on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:04:34 AM EST
    when he praised Ronald Reagan as the "transformative figure" of the 20th century, and when he said that the repubicans had all the ideas in the 1990's.  Man, which party is he in again?

    [ Parent ]
    Informal survey. (none / 0) (#52)
    by halstoon on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:00:03 PM EST
    I'm interested to know what you all think about the California court that essentially banned homeschooling in California.

    I'm bothered by it. I don't see how we can trumpet civil rights if I don't have the right to educate my child. I also don't know how we can promote privacy when we don't recognize parents' sovereignty over their kids.

    I'd like to know what y'all think.

    society vs. parents (none / 0) (#54)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:07:06 PM EST
    In some ways I think that modern society has an obligation to protect the child's rights.  The parent is not always right and the child is not a posession.  So, since the child cannot decide, should society not have a say in protecting the child's rights for education?  

    [ Parent ]
    Society's say.... (none / 0) (#116)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:13:07 AM EST
    ends at my front door, thank you very much.  

    We should be encouraging parents to be the primary educators of their children, instead of making it mandatory to outsource the education of your child to the state.  

    If this leads to poorly educated children so be it....nobody said liberty didn't have a high cost.  

    [ Parent ]

    Can the state's interest in the child receiving (none / 0) (#139)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:14:50 PM EST
    a proper education not be monitored? Instead of banning homeschooling, can we not simply establish a reporting system where the child's progress is reported and monitored?

     The homeschoolers I met in high school (after they had been taught at home for 8 years) were all high achievers who got much better grades than the average student. They certainly outperformed all the project kids whose parents had no idea about their education.

    In other words, a kid's presence in gov't school doesn't guarantee they learn anything.

    [ Parent ]

    See recent change in law in Wisconsin (none / 0) (#60)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:25:31 PM EST
    just a week or so ago, after a similar situation here regarding "virtual schools" for home-schooling.  It seemed surprising, as the laws in this state about mandatory schooling were fairly lax since a landmark case years ago on behalf of our many Amish.

    But in the recent case involving public funding of "virtual" home-schooling, the court could only uphold the law, outdated as it was based on geographical boundaries of districts that simply don't apply online.

    So it was for legislators to change it --  and they did, in record time for our gang that couldn't shoot out a budget straight this year, setting a new record (and that's saying something) here and nationwide for slowest legislature to do its d**n job.

    What still is lacking here is accountability for home-schooling parents, a problem when it is used as an excuse to take children out of schools in cases of abuse.  I think California is far better on that.    

    [ Parent ]

    Banned home schooling? (none / 0) (#61)
    by RalphB on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:29:00 PM EST
    I didn't know that.  While my own children went to public schools, a former business partner home schooled his children and they turned out great.  Of course, their mother was a qualified teacher and they kept to a good curriculum.

    It would seem to me that, with some regulation, home schooling should certainly be an option for parents.

    Of course, I'm not too fond of mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists or seat belt laws for adults.  While I realize there's a need for these laws, I just don't like the state protecting me from myself.  :-)


    [ Parent ]

    Here here. (none / 0) (#140)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:19:48 PM EST
    I have to admit, when I hear conservatives talk about the 'nanny state' I raise my glass. I just wish they actually opposed it.

    [ Parent ]
    Charter schools (none / 0) (#62)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:43:44 PM EST
    We have such an extensive array of charter schools it won't be an issue.  People will just need to know their options.  Your public school funds follow you.  I used a school that rented a couple of class rooms at another school.  They have a couple of teachers on staff.  Once a month, I would go in with my child's school work.  They select samples from all classes and submit it with an attendance schedule to the state.  They have a spanish teacher or you can use Rosetta Stone.  Music is taught as an extension class through local college or university.  There is a broad range of families that use this. Christian families like this school.  I used it because my child was bored and I used his public high school funds and concurrently enroll in him in college.  We have great systems in place.

    [ Parent ]
    You have a good situation, but you should (none / 0) (#141)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:21:09 PM EST
    still have the right to be your children's primary educator if you so choose.

    [ Parent ]
    Sounds like tyranny to me..... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:00:05 AM EST
    Parents have a natural right to raise their children as they see fit.  

    The only time I think the state should interfere is in the case of abuse.  Educating your own children is not abuse.

    [ Parent ]

    But, again, it can be an excuse (none / 0) (#121)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:01:03 AM EST
    for hiding abuse, pulling kids out of school and claiming it is for home-schooling as soon as a teacher reports (as required) reason for concern.  I'm in a state where it happens, because of no state oversight of home-schooling (but tax funding for it).  Same thing happened here with charter schools, vouchers, etc.  

    I'm all for options for parents and their progeny but with accountability, as our states still are held accountable under No Child Left Behind and many previous acts and laws regarding education.  We thus have to be able to assess how well it is being done, and how safely for students' sake.

    [ Parent ]

    The Bush Doctrine? (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:31:41 AM EST
    Don't tell me that you are for preemptive attacks. Must be something in the water.

    BTW- considering how much abuse has been discovered in institutions, I think any concern of yours about preventing abuse at home by prohibiting homeschooling would be mitigated.

    [ Parent ]

    No abuse is the goal, I would hope (none / 0) (#126)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:36:18 AM EST
    whether in schools or at home.  Don't you hope so?  

    And you consider the laws requiring teachers, doctors, etc., to report suspected child abuse to be "pre-emptive attacks"?  I would worry about what is in your water.

    Above all, as ever, do reread what I wrote, i.e., I am for all options including home-schooling -- but not at the cost of accountability for assessing how well students are doing academically or otherwise.  

    That is the situation in my state, although they get my tax funding.  I find that appalling.  You do not.  I therefore can only hope that you do not live in my state but in one where there is accountability, despite you.

    [ Parent ]

    Touchy? (none / 0) (#127)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:44:09 AM EST
    Doctors reporting abuse is not preemptive, it is responsive and defensive. Making homeschooling illegal because you want to discover abuse at home is preemptive.

    Bush bombed Iraq with the hope of finding WMD's. His goal was no WMD's.  Had he found some after bombing it still would have been a preemptive attack.

    BTW-I am not a fan of homeschooling as a rule but I agree w/kdog, as long as there is not a problem it is no ones business.

    [ Parent ]

    Jeez, stay on topic -- (none / 0) (#129)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:10:48 PM EST
    you ignore the point about teachers, too, when they see evidence of a potential problem in protecting a child, and that ought to be everybody's business.

    And now you're going off on WMDs.  Forget it, you don't get it.

    [ Parent ]

    So.... (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:37:41 PM EST
    A teacher sees bruises on a kid and reports it.  The parent pulls the kid out to home school them.
    Child services is gonna investigate regardless....I don't get your point.

    Is it the same tired kindergarten-justice argument?  Since some parents abuse kids who are home schooled, so we must prohibit home schooling, or regulate it to the point that you might as well just send your kid to public school?  

    G