Friday Afternoon Open Thread

I just got off a call with other bloggers and Senator Hillary Clinton. She was very impressive. I'll add some thoughts about it later.

Senator Clinton placed great emphasis on seating Michigan and Florida. You can let the DNC know how you feel by using this form created by the Clinton campaign.

This is an Open Thread.

Comments closed

< Electability | A Blogger Call With Hillary Clinton: It's the Map Not the Math >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • I was on that call. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:19:36 PM EST
    She didn't sound like she was quitting.

    No she did not (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:21:19 PM EST
    I liked the emphasis on Michigan and Florida.

    Me too. You did good. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by katiebird on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:22:18 PM EST
    You too (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:29:06 PM EST
    I still "cling" to hope (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:36:33 PM EST
    that is is not over.
    I have never been able to make myself believe we would do what it seems we are about to do.
    but then I had the same feeling in 04.

    You would not have loved my question (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:41:11 PM EST
    it talked more about the importance of Hillary's candidacy beyond her winning and losing.

    Well I LOVED your question (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by katiebird on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:44:59 PM EST
    (I'm still shaking though, so details are beyond me.)

    Oh and thank you (I really am shakey) (none / 0) (#83)
    by katiebird on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:45:34 PM EST
    You did a great job. Thanks. (none / 0) (#178)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:15:18 PM EST
    I can cling (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:45:24 PM EST
    and still be reality based.

    One Reason Why She's Not Going To Quit (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:46:40 PM EST
    before she's touched all the bases.  Her candidacy is bigger than her and she knows it.

    Just Realized (none / 0) (#136)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:21:04 PM EST
    I picked up the phrase about rounding all the bases from Avedon Carol.  

    Definitely agree. (none / 0) (#159)
    by Fabian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:11:03 PM EST
    She's not just Hillary Rodham Clinton, Former First Lady and sitting Senator.

    She's the
    for the
    Democratic Nominee for the President of the United States.

    What she does determines how seriously the next female candidate is treated.  If Clinton just folded up the tents and handed a hard fought nomination to Obama, then the next time people will be reluctant to back a woman candidate.

    Obama might be in it for himself but I think Clinton is in it for herself and all women.  What she does can move women forward or set them back.  That's an incredible burden to take on.

    Symbolism is important.


    How incredibly... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:10:52 PM EST
    ....presumptuous and arrogant:

    Obama might be in it for himself but I think Clinton is in it for herself and all women.  What she does can move women forward or set them back.  That's an incredible burden to take on.

     I'm....stunned.  Senator Barack Hussein Obama is not taking on an incredible buren????

     But he is just in it for himself.  She is the only altruist.  Please.  

     I suspect they're both in it for both themselves and for their belief that they can move this country in a better direction.  It is their supporters who seem to want to engage in a competition of milestones.


    If you say so. (none / 0) (#187)
    by Fabian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:00:12 PM EST
    Obama has yet to prove he's much of anything to me except an egotist and and opportunist.  Those aren't bad qualifications for a Generic Politician, but I really do look for a stronger resume in a Leader.

    And I swear the guy never looks past tomorrow at times.  How could he cling to a pastor who preaches a innately divisive BLT at the same time he's branding himself as the Great Uniter?  Crikey!  Get a clue and lose the Black Versus White preacher before you set out to Unite the 50, 48, 57, whatever states.

    I've been around long enough to see how people grow and mature (except for GWB) and Gore, Hillary, Bill and Jimmy Carter are on my list of solid people.  Obama is just a novelty act right now.  Unique, interesting, but the show business phrase "Leave them wanting more!" could be interpreted two ways.

    If I was going to vote for a black politician for President, I'd much prefer Conyers.  There's a man I can trust and rely on.  No hyperbole there, just hardcore principles and well aged pragmatism.

    But alas, the "democratic" process is not like ordering from a Chinese menu.  We get A choice, not OUR choice.  So I get to choose between a not ready for prime time, never done battle with the Right black man or a white woman who not only has been there and done that, but she's done in gubanatorial races, two Presidential races and two Senate races with the Right and national media breathing down her neck.

    I don't like surprises.  I don't gamble.  


    Sounds like a great question (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:47:21 PM EST
    I hope you plan to blog that, for sure.

    The absolute value of her candidacy is impossible to ignore. I've said before that I sincerely hope that parents of children old enough to understand what is going on should be encouraging them to pay close attention to Hillary, no matter who they support.


    Nah I liked it (none / 0) (#172)
    by daria g on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:01:23 PM EST
    Listening now.  Great point about not backing down to the media.  I wish more blogs on the left were as dedicated to pushing back against the noise machine as I thought they'd be (that rule seemed not to apply when it was about using any/all rightwing talking points to attack Hillary).

    Actually, given your preface, and (none / 0) (#176)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:11:57 PM EST
    acknowledgment that you, although not a Clinton "supporter" [causing me to wonder, how did you sneak into that conference call?], are impressed with her candidacy, emphasizing the salient issues facing the Democrats, and then asking how she sees party coming together, given the hard and fast factions at presentthe Clinton faction of the party.  Quite good.  It was clear from her response you two think the same; well, except for the bottom line maybe.  Good job.



    We have to.... (none / 0) (#70)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:42:24 PM EST
    if we give up now, the Republicans got the honor of choosing both presidential candidates and we are no longer a two party system.

    The media is Republican, and they have played such a huge role in keeping Hillary away from the win.  

    I'm baffled at why the DNC played the role they did, though I think their reasons for pushing Obama to the perceived winner slot are different than the Republicans.


    BINGO (none / 0) (#142)
    by befuddled on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:35:07 PM EST
    The Repubs have created Obama. And the ones who are going along, among the powers that be, are probably after Obama's mailing list, or some equally valuable by-product of the primary. This is why I think it's not really going to save the Democratic Party to vote for Obama if he's the nominee. I believe the evidence is in his own contradictions, and in his past with the Chicago politicians where he learned his trade.

    I'm Not Sure (none / 0) (#179)
    by CDN Ctzn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:15:57 PM EST
    I'm not sure we're a two party system now. To have a two party system requires one of the parties to be the loyal (to the electorate) opposition. At least that's the way it works in a Parlimentary system.

    the media is (none / 0) (#188)
    by Saxon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:00:21 PM EST

    wow, where did you get that?
    what next? obama is republican?


    Have you ever considered the possibility (none / 0) (#81)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:45:12 PM EST
    that the Dems actually LIKE losing the top spot?  

    After all, if you lose you can resume your time-honored role in the Greek chorus, shouting "Woe, woe, woe" as all the Republican nasties come down.  You can feel self-righteous as you point out that you predicted it all.  All without having to get your hands dirty or take responsibility for anything.

    Maybe that's why they hate the Clintons.  The Clintons like winning.  They really like winning.


    She said that she has no intention (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by katiebird on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:46:20 PM EST
    of letting the Democrats lose this fall.  None.

    Then (none / 0) (#108)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:53:19 PM EST
    she'll stand alone on this, as so many other things

    It is my fervent hope that, if Obama (none / 0) (#114)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:57:43 PM EST
    is the nominee, Clinton will be able to reach those who supported her but say they will either vote for McCain or not vote for anyone for President.  

    She'll reach some (none / 0) (#145)
    by samanthasmom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:39:04 PM EST
    but not all. The movement to deny Obama the presidency is growing, and she won't be able to stop it.  A small town radio talk show host in PA is getting calls from as far away as Utah and Wyoming this afternoon from women who are joining forces to vote against Obama should he win the nomination. Some will vote McCain, and some will only vote down ticket.  Writing Hillary in is problematic for some. The Obama folks have called in with the usual arguments and have been treated respectfully, but pretty much dismissed. Hillary supporters have been called "hysterical", "emotional", and "spiteful".

    Too bad, in my opinion. (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:40:51 PM EST
    But then I'm one of those old fogeys who worries about Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose.

    GOP... (none / 0) (#154)
    by Cal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:05:08 PM EST
    ...won't let Roe slip away from them.  What the heck would they have to campaign on in the future? Are you kidding?  I'm sure it's a fantastic fundraiser for them.  

    They'll certainly let Roe go... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:09:51 PM EST
    ...and they're using judges to do it.  Reversing Roe just returns the question to the states, so we'll have something like what we have with same-sex marriage and civil unions: a patchwork of laws, some more restrictive than others, and a couple of federal laws (i.e., the partial birth abortion ban).  

    that was spot on! (none / 0) (#189)
    by Saxon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:03:35 PM EST
    Someone tried the same tack on the Host (none / 0) (#157)
    by Rhouse on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:09:28 PM EST
    of the show and he shot it down.  While he's not voting Obama he never urged others not to vote and he was particularly emphatic about voting down ticket races.  If the Dems. voted in progressives into office they would help preserve gains and actually do more for democracy than letting their party bully them around.  Also as I said elsewhere, the tone of the voices of the callers told the story of the anger and disrespect felt by the callers.  The host, a 40 year voting democrat who voted for Jesse Jackson, told how p*ssed he was to be called a racist because he voted for Hillary.

    This statement here makes me shudder. (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by PainKillerJayne on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:34:01 PM EST
    The host, a 40 year voting democrat who voted for Jesse Jackson, told how p*ssed he was to be called a racist because he voted for Hillary.

    This is the exact reason I do not visit some of my old haunts anymore. It got to be too much.


    ditto (none / 0) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:12:24 PM EST
    the Obama people has never acted like the wanted my vote so they wont get it from me.
    but she might.

    Ain't that the truth.... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:17:58 PM EST
    ...much as I hate to admit it at the moment.

    I have often (none / 0) (#135)
    by magisterludi on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:18:50 PM EST
    wondered this myself. I mean, a dem president and Congress would mean they would have no excuses, especially with a projected larger majority in both Houses.

    Pretty heavy.


    Obama then McCain (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:23:02 PM EST
    Whoa, McCain really took a chunk out of Obama this afternoon with his speech. If that's a hint of how Obama will be vetted and exposed, I wouldn't want to be him. Obama will lose his ego PDQ.

    Even Susan Turnbill, VP DNC, was on FOX just before McCain gave his speech to the NRA, and she said that Bush's comments in Israel were directed at McCain, not either of the Democrats. She pointed to McCain's stand last year that they should meet with Hamas. Double bite.

    That was an interesting exchange.. (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by daria g on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:57:51 PM EST
    I haven't reviewed all the back and forth in great detail.. but Chris Matthews this evening seemed to think Obama was a brilliant amazing genius of all time and hit the triple play of looking presidential, tying Bush to McCain.. and.. I guess the third was making a tingle go up Matthews' arm or something.

    I thought it was completely different and didn't play well for Obama at all.. I thought he fell into a trap.. just like last summer.


    i agree (none / 0) (#191)
    by Saxon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:07:01 PM EST
    if Bush criticized a nameless entity and obama steps forward to be the victim/target, what does that tell you about obama. i thought bush had jimmy carter in mind ...

    I agree (none / 0) (#193)
    by daria g on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:19:09 PM EST
    Bush always does that.. put out there an absurd caricature of some unnamed opponent and see if some of them are going to step out and take the bait.  So Obama stepped up and said, that's me, and then had to get defensive about it?  I don't see how it helps him whatsoever - and other Democrats shouldn't have had to step in, I think.  Don't feed the [troll] Rove.

    CA SD Carole Migden wants to hear from voters! (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by xdemocrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:23:39 PM EST
    Finally! An SD who has the gall to ask constitutuents who they would like her to support!



    Thanks to her for this great opportunity to communicate directly, to have an SD reach out.  Not surprising though, since Migden is an indominitable and caring legislator who has her own outstanding long list of important legislative accomplishments on health care, the environment, and many others.  Show her your support too!

    Thank you. I did. (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by zfran on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:37:21 PM EST
    done! thanks (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by thereyougo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:47:48 PM EST
    Me, Too! (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by AmyinSC on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:58:04 PM EST
    Went there, did that..heh. nt (none / 0) (#194)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:23:57 PM EST
    I really enjoyed the earlier post on (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:24:23 PM EST
    electability. There was a lot of good stuff in the discussion.  Just wanted to thank everyone, I just finished reading through all the comments.

    This is (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:28:22 PM EST
    a fantastic blog is it not?

    Fifty loud cheers for Jeralyn and BTD! They are the greatest!

    Now only if more Obama supporters were like BTD.


    Now if only... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:30:44 PM EST
    ...more Clinton supporters were like BTD. ;-)

    They won't let me in the club (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:30:47 PM EST
    and to be fair, I have never been a proponent of Obam per se, I have thought him more electable and my views have changed on that since Wright.

    Ah. (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:35:25 PM EST
    I think the fact that they (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:40:39 PM EST
    "wont let you in the club" tells me all I need to know.

    If they were more like BTD (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Fabian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:35:51 PM EST
    I wouldn't be here!

    Like I commented in TINS' diary today - the overwhelming hyperpartisanship in the blogosphere made blogs like this one really stand out.

    When Good Blogs Go Bad
    - Next on FrontLine!


    Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by tedsim on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:28:39 PM EST
    Hillary rosen today on msnbc said hillary has no intentions to goto the convention and cause devisevness in te party.I hope she does that is the only way she can win.Mybe she is trying to get the press off her back and waiting for something to happen.I have a feeling she might win oregon because of bad press.

    Oh, lord. Hillary's supporters are so weak kneed (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:40:58 PM EST
    at times.  She had better take this to convention.

    Why, so we can spend even more time (2.00 / 1) (#88)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:47:17 PM EST
    argueing amongst ourselve instead of campaigning agains GOPer Pile McCain? I just don't see how that benefits us. I completely agree that the remaining contests should happen. I Also believe that some deal will be worked out regarding MI and FL after the final votes are in. At that point, the candidate with the most delegates should be declared the presumptive nominee so we can get to the real work of defeating McCain.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:01:38 PM EST
    Some people believe that choosing the strongest candidate is a critical step in beating McCain.

    We may disagree over who the strongest candidate is, of course, but it's not a minor administrative detail to be "gotten over with."


    are you suggesting (none / 0) (#183)
    by Josey on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:35:34 PM EST
    the penalty for FL & MI will be any different had the Rules committee met today??  or last month?
    The Committee seems to be running out the clock for Barack.

    I think rosen is right (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:31:42 PM EST
    but you would not know it from this call today.

    Two Things (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:43:55 PM EST
    1. While I'm about 90% sure Obama will be the nominee, he's not quite there yet.  If he were, the SDs would end this and Obama wouldn't have to plan a Mission Accomplished announcement on May 20th, nor would he have to bring out Edwards yesterday in by all accounts a hastily arranged announcement.  He'd wait because he could and it would be better for him in the GE.  He may be the prohibitive favorite, but he hasn't sealed the deal.

    2. There's two ways to go to the convention.  There's continuing to fight over the summer, which I don't think she'll do if the SDs break for Obama after the end of voting.  She'll be seen as divisive and she won't want that (I also think she really does believe beating McCain is paramount).  Then there's racking up delegates and waiting to see what the summer and the GOP do to Obama.  You can go to the convention without saying you're going to the convention.

    Speaking of candidates taking things to the convention, Anglachel has an interesting post comparing the Democratic race this year to the 1976 Republican race.  I don't necessarily agree with everything she says, but it fits in nicely with my belief that far from building a new movement, Obama is simply the new face of the old power structure and Clinton is the one truly putting together the coalition of the future.  Although there is something disconcerting about seeing Hillary Clinton cast as Ronald Reagan.

    declaring himself the "winner" (none / 0) (#184)
    by Josey on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:37:30 PM EST
    merely accentuates Obama's elitism and arrogance.

    its like the republican (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:42:55 PM EST
    argument for setting a date for withdrawal from Iraq.
    why tell them?

    The answer is (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:47:39 PM EST
    there are some superdelegates who believe, rightly or wrongly, that it will be bad for the party if this thing goes to the convention.

    If Hillary gets too strident about taking this thing to the convention, she risks having those superdelegates endorse Obama just to get the thing over with.  That's why she's made some efforts to suggest that this thing will get sorted out once the last vote is cast, to persuade everyone to wait until June.


    Nothing Is Set In Stone Until The Convention... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:58:13 PM EST
    In 1992 when Jerry Brown took his campaign to the convention only having 600 or so delegates, did the party fall apart?  I am guessing no; so we need to stop painting these doom and gloom scenarios, Hillary will be perceived as a b!tch, she's tearing the party apart b.s. and move forward.  If SD's are trying to take the easy way out, they need to be removed too, along with the DNC'ers who have helped create much of the mess we have seen.  SD's, keep your powder dry, DNC seat FL and MI in the appropriate fashion and get on about the business of choosing a nominee.

    she has the perfect excuse (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:49:39 PM EST
    until FL and MI are dealt with.

    You'll Like This...Richard Wolffe Was Asked (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:06:25 PM EST
    how obama can win over voters in FLA...his answer:  he has to go there and speak their language, sit down and eat tacos with them...WTF?
    The eating tacos advice should go over like a lead balloon with the HUGE Cuban and Puerto Rican groups there.  Of course, that probably means obama will order tacos.

    Yep, some super delegates like (none / 0) (#105)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:51:17 PM EST
    Ted Kennedy.

    Heh (none / 0) (#117)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:58:46 PM EST
    What? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:02:02 PM EST
    Don't you think that's already happening with SDs?  Look at the post-WVa show: "Our vote cancels yours."  Helluva message to the voters.

    Clinton won't win in OR (none / 0) (#60)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:36:51 PM EST
    Sorry, but that just isn't going to happen. According to RCP:
    Oregon 53.3 - 39.0 Obama +14.3

    KY on the other hand will go her way:
    Kentucky 30.0 - 58.7 Clinton +28.7


    I Don't Think She'll Win Oregon, Either (none / 0) (#137)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:22:08 PM EST
    And saying she might raises unrealistic expectations not just among supporters, but worse among the media.

    what bad press? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Lil on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:44:19 PM EST
    Check out the headline at The Page (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by americanincanada on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:30:00 PM EST
    barack Obama meet Karl Rove.

    Roves remarks about Obama were even more devastating than McCain's and were quickly followed by more bashing from Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell.

    the supers had better wake up before it's too late. Congressional dems cannot spend the next 4 years, or even 4 months, defending Obama if they want to get any actual work done.

    Karl Rove:

     "Let me tell you what's distracting -- it is distracting to say change when you have no experience of making real change. .... It is distracting to say that an American flag on a lapel is a substitute for patriotism ... then this week start showing up with an American flag on your lapel...."

    As always (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:32:41 PM EST
    attackmeister Rove knows just where to place the needle and slide it in.

    Are we done complaining about mean ol' Hillary yet?


    I remembered a narrative. (5.00 / 8) (#80)
    by Fabian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:45:11 PM EST
    It's a minor narrative, but it's a persistent one:

    It's great for a woman to compete against men, just so long as she doesn't make the men look bad.

    And I think you'll find that there are "feminists" who agree with this.  Women out there, doing their thing is all well and good, but they should never make men look bad.  If that means deferring to men or pulling their punches or not saying a single negative thing, ever - so be it.

    I think that kind of subtle misogyny is out there.  It's people saying that Hillary is almost as good as the men, but never, ever, admitting she could be better.  It's people always finding some reason that Hillary just couldn't do it, is doomed to failure.

    Keep an eye and ear out for it - I think you'll find it.


    Excellent comment. (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:49:03 PM EST
    Right on the money.

    the media (none / 0) (#186)
    by Josey on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:45:52 PM EST
    doesn't differentiate "attacks."
    iirc - Hillary attacks Obama on his record.
    otoh - Obama attacks her personally, her record, and distorts her positions.

    But the media pundits say Hillary has "stopped" attacking Obama because she "knows he's the nominee" blah blah blah...


    So...has Obama stopped (none / 0) (#190)
    by Fabian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:03:53 PM EST
    attacking Clinton because he's obviously got the nomination all sewn up and he can afford to be magnanimous?

    If the narrative is true, then this would be the obvious conclusion.

    Personally, I hope Obama keeps going after Bush and McCain.  Gives us a good look at what his performance in the GE will be.  (And because I'm just a little bit evil.)


    Rove (none / 0) (#173)
    by Nadai on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:03:54 PM EST
    is just about the only thing that might sway me to vote for Obama should he win the nomination.  I still loathe the Republicans more than Barack Obama, and Rove exemplifies the worst of Republicanism for me.

    Robert Mondavi passed away today. (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:32:08 PM EST
    A true legend, icon, and pioneer.


    I watched tons of PBS cooking shows (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:40:27 PM EST
    when I was a kid, and it seems like his company sponsored half of them. RIP.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:38:41 PM EST
    As much as anyone he made the American wine industry.

    Hillary has some new ads for the next (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by thereyougo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:32:10 PM EST
    contests despite being in debt of 20 mil. going for
    the working class vote


    Via Armbinder:

    "We know what he's going to say-- it's divisive, distractive, keeps us from coming together. After all, he says, we are the change we have been waiting for. What the heck does that mean?"

    "Does it mean we've been keeping ourselves waiting? Why was change late anyway? I don't get it. Let me tell you what's divisive. It is divisive to undermine the Second Amendment, to undermine to constitution of the United States."

    "It is divisive to say one thing and do another, to belittle the values of the people -- which is exactly what Obama was doing in San Francisco. Our answer is no we won't."

    Rove is good at this (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:34:38 PM EST
    you must admit.

    I have no problem admitting that (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by americanincanada on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:48:21 PM EST
    he is very good ad it. That's what I am afraid of. Why do you think he has been subtly pushing for Obama?

    He is good (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:48:28 PM EST
    but we really do make it easy for him.

    Didn't I always say that the flag pin was an own goal?


    The Flag Pin (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:55:03 PM EST
    is an example of how Obama takes an "issue" and makes it worse.  First he stands up for not wearing one, something I respected and I'm betting many other Americans did as well.  But then he totally caves in an effort to reach out to "working class" voters.  This is idiotic because many of these voters are already democrats and as Paul Krugman has pointed out are less likely to vote on God and guns than affluent suburban GOP voters.  It's also condescending.  Hey, I know you don't like me, but I put on a flag pin!  As if it's some sort of superman outfit that can make up for his failure to connect with these people by speaking to their needs.  And he loses all the points he got for standing up on this BS issue.  

    Just because an "issue" is stupid, doesn't mean you have to handle it stupidly.  


    Choose your battles (5.00 / 5) (#119)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:00:11 PM EST
    The proper response to the flag pin question was "oh, I got dressed in a hurry today, didn't mean anything by it."

    If you want to make some kind of hopelessly highbrow point about faux patriotism, the only people who will respond to it are the ones that are already certain to vote Democratic.

    There is no political ground to be gained by voluntarily engaging on symbolic issues of patriotism.  In my view, you can only lose.


    True (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:03:28 PM EST
    But having engaged in battle, it's even stupider, IMO, to then surrender.  It just makes you look weak.

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:06:50 PM EST
    This is the traditional Democratic way.  Make a statement that all good Democrats can be proud of, and then embarrass us all by spending months backing away from it.

    Also... (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by OrangeFur on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:33:24 PM EST
    Make a speech widely lapped up as the Greatest Speech Ever, lecturing the public about how if we had a more sophisticated and nuanced appreciation of race relations in this country, we would understand Jeremiah Wright better. Emphasize that you can no more disown him than your grandmother, or the entire black community.

    Then, a few weeks later, disown him completely even though he hasn't said anything new in that time.


    Well (none / 0) (#146)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:40:44 PM EST
    I might be imagining things, but I'm pretty sure Rev. Wright said a lot of new things in that time, including his controversial appearance before the National Press Club and the interview where he said Obama was just being a politician in his earlier denunciation.

    He said a lot of things... (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by OrangeFur on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:49:59 PM EST
    ... but as far as I could tell, he mostly reiterated the things he said before when asked if they had been misinterpreted. To me at least, he didn't say anything qualitatively different than all the things he had said before.

    The one new things, as you pointed out, was that he suggested Obama was being motivated by politics in distancing himself. Obama did say he was "particularly" angered by that. I wish he had been particularly angered when Wright tore into Clinton during his Christmas sermon.


    You Beat Me To It! (none / 0) (#151)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:55:32 PM EST

    From What I Can Tell from the Transcript (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:54:56 PM EST
    instead of the media portrayal of it, there's not a lot new.  I don't agree with everything he said, but it seemed like standard Wright stuff to me.  If anything, some of the more outrageous comments read much better in context (which isn't to say there aren't still some problematic things being said).  The only really new part was calling Obama a politician.    

    I'm not so sure (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:12:52 PM EST
    it was as stupid as it looked.  Maybe some folks were trying to suss out whether he was withholding his flag pin because it was more important to make points with folks like Ayers and Wright and the youth crowd.  I think it was an attempt to see who "owns" him.

    And we found out. Obama's ambition owns Obama, and he'll turn himself inside out like a glove for the nomination.

    The man is an invertebrate.


    One of the Best (5.00 / 6) (#104)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:50:29 PM EST
    And you can see how he's going to take the way Obama's campaign has run against Hillary and use it against Obama in the fall.  It's very smart.  The Democrats may be too stupid to notice how many people Obama has alienated this campaign, but you can bet the GOP know.

    Unlike the media or many Dems (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:52:19 PM EST
    the Republicans are sure as hell aware that Obama hasn't closed the deal, and why.

    Yup. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Fabian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:48:09 PM EST
    I'd probably put him on my team, just to keep him from working for the opposition.

    I've refrained from punching Obama's rhetoric full of holes, but the opposition will be happy to.


    if we are lucky (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:48:35 PM EST
    he may be busy defending himself.

    I just heard an awful commentary (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by liminal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:33:00 PM EST
    by whathisname on All Things Considered.  It was ridiculously condescending "advice" to HRC about how to "wind down her campaign with dignity."  She's actually been quite extraordinarily dignified in the face of a rather undignified and idiotic commentariat, and I think she knows a bit more about winning elections than whatshisname.  So there.


    A new name for us! (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by janarchy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:33:20 PM EST
    I was reluctantly listening to Ron Reagan on Air America on Wednesday and he and his co-host had a new name for the white working class voters who won't support Obama. Apparently now they're 'knuckleheads'. Who knew? Listening to the two of them made my blood boil.

    Also, the new meme from him (along with Tweety) is now "no one I know has ever said Hillary should drop out of the race! Hardly! We want it to go all the way to convention because we like the excitement!"

    Do they really think we're that stupid or that old that we can't remember one moment from the next? Or does their Kool-Aid also include a ret-con drug which changes their memories of things? (Me, I'm younger than Obama so I know I'm not 'old').

    Looks like Huckabee (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by cannondaddy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:35:30 PM EST
    just took his name off the VP shortlist.

    what did he do? (none / 0) (#166)
    by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:50:06 PM EST
    Jeez. (none / 0) (#168)
    by lilburro on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:51:45 PM EST
    During a speech before the National Rifle Association convention Friday afternoon in Louisville, Kentucky, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee -- who has endorsed presumptive GOP nominee John McCain -- joked that an unexpected offstage noise was Democrat Barack Obama looking to avoid a gunman.

    "That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he's getting ready to speak," said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. "Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor."


    Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.  I mean....WTF?

    Get a bunch of Republican leaders together, and they will not disappoint.  That's why I think McCain defending Hillary is rubbish.  

    Also, note in the article the use of young McCain.  Interesting.  Why are their campaign colors yellow and black though?


    New commenters 20 per day (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:00:48 PM EST
    Commenters here for less than one month are limited to 20 comments per day.

    You are at 23.

    For those who were listening to radio commentators (4.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Rhouse on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:38:03 PM EST
    I've been listening to the people who have called in about "Turning Down Obama" on the PA radio station near Scranton (WILK-FM).  It's not the words but the vocal tones of the callers which is revealing, the people are not happy and are set to either write-in Hillary, not vote for Pres,, or hold their nose and vote for McCain.  The host calls himself a radical Democrat for the last 40 years, and is railing at Howard Dean for not running the party.  It's been fierce and partisan and really not a good thing to hear if you think there is going to be party unity anytime soon.  Hell, even the concerned trolls who showed up near the end were basically told off by other callers, and if the party wants them back, from there voices I don't think they can.

    (Oh great now they're playing the Pennsylvania Polka)

    What do people think of Obama's (none / 0) (#1)
    by MarkL on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:16:06 PM EST
    remarks today?

    You mean... (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:20:57 PM EST
    where he reiterated that the US should engage in discussions with Iran...but backed off from his pledge to meet with Ahmadinejad?

    ASAYGT (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:44:15 PM EST
    "as soon as you get this"
    comments closed before I could post that in the other thread.

    lol (none / 0) (#87)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:47:01 PM EST



    hello Kredwyn (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by diplomatic on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:07:04 PM EST
    you are very good at decryption, you bohemian you.

    Like many of Obama's statements ... (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Robot Porter on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:27:52 PM EST
    it had a distinct lack of pith.

    Hmmm... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:29:27 PM EST
    You can never have enough pith.

    I Am Sure He More Than Made Up For It In (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:48:36 PM EST

    Not good (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:44:53 PM EST
    Same old same old Democratic whining about mean old Bush, unfair, blah, blah, blah.  Sounded like Kerry, exactly the response the Republicans both expect and count on from Democrats.  I think it may actually have been a bit of a test.  If so, Obama failed.

    Hillary and Biden both had, I thought, much better tougher smackdowns.


    I'm watching MSNBC (I know I know) (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by kayla on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:11:36 PM EST
    and they keep talking about how tough his response was.  I just thought it was a boring lecture.  I still can't get Bush's remarks, implying he was a terrorist appeaser, out of my head.  He didn't hit back very strongly, imo.

    Not that it matters.


    When you eat lots of arugula, you (none / 0) (#132)
    by MarkL on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:15:05 PM EST
    are able to give tough speeches at a moment's notice. Dukakis had the same gift.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:17:29 PM EST
    I am not even sure what remarks you are referring to.

    He responded to Bush's (none / 0) (#4)
    by MarkL on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:19:22 PM EST
    reference to appeasers:
    Have a pretzel with that?

    Oh no. (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:29:18 PM EST
    Obama said this:

    adding that McCain had a "naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up it's nuclear program and support for terrorism.

    No, Obama, McCain thinks we should bomb Iran into submission. He even sang a little ditty about it! He doesn't care about diplomacy at all. THAT's the problem!

    Do we need to write these responses for him?

    Or should we just elect the person who actually knows how to respond to ludicrous right-wing attacks?

    [head in hands]


    Isn't Obama half owning the label (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by MarkL on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:31:18 PM EST
    Bush gave? Bush did not name anyone, but Obama comes out to deny he is an appeaser. Isn't that somewhat like the unfortunate and perhaps apocryphal congressman who called a press conference to deny that he was the stupidest member of Congress?

    "I am not a crook" (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:33:40 PM EST
    Yeah, it's not swift.

    Titles like this would indicate (none / 0) (#64)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:39:02 PM EST
    Obama got called on jumping in and the Dems are overreactive whiners.  A two-fer.

    Rookie mistakes again: Obama owns appeasement

    The Left's Latest Hissy Fit


    Well, Obama's been freaking out (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:43:47 PM EST
    about this for two days.

    Fergodssake, what will happen when they start in on Ayers and Rezko 24-7?

    He will be playing defense the entire time.

    He's a deer in the headlights.


    Actually Republicans are champion whiners (none / 0) (#103)
    by MarkL on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:49:48 PM EST
    and it works quite well for them. Don't knock the practice.

    I guess that sets the fall (none / 0) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:57:05 PM EST
    for a "Whinefest".
    this election will be entertaining if nothing else.

    Still today (none / 0) (#100)
    by PainKillerJayne on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:48:59 PM EST
    I am shaking my head over this. It really makes Barack look like a whiner. This is just the start.

    CNN reported (none / 0) (#124)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:04:12 PM EST
    The president did not name Obama or any other Democrat, but White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party.

    This whole game of "I didn't say I was talking about YOU" is pretty juvenile, to tell you the truth.  It would be sad to let Bush get away with it.


    Toooo stoooopid. (none / 0) (#153)
    by wurman on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:00:43 PM EST
    When I first read the Bu$hInc appeasement comments, it seemed they had to be aimed at Pres. Carter, who is the only person of any consequence to meet with the terrible "terrists," and who also recommends talking to the leaders of Hamas.  Unless you choose to count Rice with Ghaddafi & some state dept. dude with Koreans & "everybody with 747" privileges with Mushareff.

    The caving in to Nazi's is circa 1936-39 & the senator quoted by George xliii was Wm. E. Borah, who died in 1940.  As with most references by the mis-be-spoken pretendizent, it is so far out of context & so silly that it doesn't make sense.

    To compare discussions with Middle East crazies to Hitler's Panzer Divisions is ludicrous.  And, that should have been the grounds for counter-attacking George Bush, who probably picked up his appeasement line of palaver from Krauthammer--who uses this moronic theme often in his columns.


    The coverage I saw made Obama (none / 0) (#7)
    by MarkL on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:20:40 PM EST
    look like the best thing since Iberica Jamon.

    he is a (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:21:52 PM EST
    Media Darling.

    I half paid attention (none / 0) (#3)
    by LoisInCo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:18:53 PM EST
    and want a refund.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#68)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:41:04 PM EST
    I will link to my comments at MyDD.

    DC Madam: (none / 0) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:20:21 PM EST

    "They will make it look like suicide"

    did KKKarl Rove put out a contract on the DV madam?


    Wexler on Abrams about Rove (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:33:10 PM EST
    Expectations being set? Unity Ticket? (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:22:42 PM EST

    I'm interested to hear.

    After N.C. I thought maybe she should (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:28:07 PM EST
    concede. Now I think she should keep going until someone has the 2210 number.  I am annoyed by people who keep saying Obama has a huge lead.  And I want the SDs to be held accountable, so let them all come out and declare after the voting ends.

    Not much about that (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:28:11 PM EST
    More from me on that actually.

    It's the map not the math. (none / 0) (#15)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:23:43 PM EST
    She leads in the pop vote and will in the end.

    Comes down to Puerto Rico (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:25:25 PM EST
    on the popular vote.

    Did she address the prospect of Obama declaring victory on Tuesday?


    Somebody asked about that. (none / 0) (#19)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:27:02 PM EST
    I'm not sure what she responded.

    She was gone by then (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:28:49 PM EST
    Last question.

    Please specify which blogs were (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:59:56 PM EST
    represented on this conference call.  For example, anyone from DK?  Digby?  etc.

    Here's what I heard: (none / 0) (#181)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:21:05 PM EST
    as to questioners who identified themselves re the blogs:

    Talk Left (Armando)
    Corrente (Katiebird and Lambert)
    Missed who the man was who talked about his son.
    Missed one woman's blog identification.


    Convenient technical glich, I think. (none / 0) (#182)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:21:57 PM EST
    not true (none / 0) (#27)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:29:09 PM EST
    according to realclearpolitics:

    Total Delegates 1893 - 1720 Obama + 173
    Super Delegates 294 - 274 Obama + 20
    Pledged Delegates 1599 - 1446 Obama + 153
    Popular Vote 49.3 - 47.5 Obama +1.8
    Popular Vote (w/FL) 48.4 - 47.6 Obama +0.8

    The only way you get Clinton ahead in the popular vote is by doing some pretty nifty yoga posing with the numbers. Yeah if you take out these four caucus states but leave these two in and look at the number while standing on your head and holding your breath, then Clinton leads the popular vote.


    Look at Jay Cost's (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:31:42 PM EST
    Spreadsheet. There are lots of way for Hillary to win the popular vote: essentially, she just has to win Puerto Rico with a reasonable margin.

    I include Florida in my count. It is unreasonable not to.


    That's not true. Where's MI? (none / 0) (#31)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:30:30 PM EST
    Why the hell haven't MI and FL been counted (none / 0) (#38)
    by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:31:53 PM EST
    and promised their seats then?

    According to Real Clear Politics (none / 0) (#32)
    by CST on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:30:30 PM EST
    The only way she leads the popular vote is by giving Obama 0 votes in Michigan, and not counting a whole bunch of caucus states.  If you count estimates of the caucus states and still give Obama 0 Michigan votes, he is ahead.

    If you want to count Michigan, fine, but don't argue then about NOT counting caucus states.

    As for the end, who knows... anything can happen, it's still close.


    He doesn't get any votes from MI. (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:32:00 PM EST
    He took his name off the ballot.  There were no certified votes for Obama in the state of Michigan.  She had a lousy caucus strategy.  He did something politically stupid and took his name off the ballot.  I see no reason to reward his mistakes.

    I know that (none / 0) (#51)
    by CST on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:34:04 PM EST
    I am saying, even with Obama getting 0 votes, he is ahead if you include caucus states.  It is close though.

    I agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:32:49 PM EST
    But even counting the caucus states and giving Obama the uncommitteds in MI, it is close now.

    still a lot of votes to count.


    He doesn't get the uncommiteds. (none / 0) (#52)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:34:36 PM EST
    That's a matter of delegates, not votes.

    Caucuses are not elections. (none / 0) (#42)
    by MarkL on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:32:14 PM EST
    Counting "votes" from caucuses is not legitimate.

    Right (none / 0) (#55)
    by CST on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:35:29 PM EST
    Tell that to everyone that voted in Iowa.

    Remember, only the delegate (none / 0) (#58)
    by MarkL on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:36:27 PM EST
    count matters---right?

    No... (none / 0) (#73)
    by CST on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:43:10 PM EST
    Look, I am not an "Obamaphant" or troll, or whatever.  I believe the popular vote should decide the election REGARDLESS who wins it.  I don't think we can count the popular vote without including ALL states (including Fl and MI).  

    So I am not sure what your point is here, other than to tell me what some bloggers/ fans have been saying.  I assure you I wasn't one of them.


    My point is that caucus votes are not (none / 0) (#89)
    by MarkL on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:47:21 PM EST
    equivalent to primary votes. It would truly be an insult to democracy to insist otherwise.

    This kind of bs needs to stop (none / 0) (#71)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:42:48 PM EST
    Like it or not some states determine their delegates based on caucuses. True this makes it problematic to get completely accurate population counts, but your arguement that they don't count at all goes completely agaisnt your MI arguement. People in caucus states turned out in droves to vote. To say those votes don't count is at least as rediculous as you say not counting MI is.

    No no no no no. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by MarkL on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:46:09 PM EST
    It's absurd to count caucus votes the way you do ballots in an election.
    There are no multiple ballots in ordinary elections, but in caucuses there are multiple votes and minimum requirements. Caucus votes cannot be counted for purposes of the popular vote---period.

    I think what most people are upset about (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by madamab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:47:35 PM EST
    is the overweighting of caucuses. (I hope I'm not being presumptuous here or overgeneralizing.)

    Caucuses should not be as important in choosing the nominee as primaries. Not nearly as many people turn out, and yet the delegates have the same power.


    True, the caucus system is not ideal. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:55:22 PM EST
    On that, I think we all agree.

    What bothers me is how people completely dismiss them. And like it or not, Clinton's popular vote lead is based on erasing several caucus states altogether. As far as I am concerned, you can't have it both ways. You can't argue that MI and FL MUST count and turn around and say but those pesky caucus states DON'T count. That is absurd and that is the basis for the Clinton popular vote count lead.


    True, in the delegate count they are overweighted (none / 0) (#106)
    by CST on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:52:05 PM EST
    But in the popular vote count, they aren't, it is 1 person = 1 vote.  So in a way, they are undercounted in the popular vote due to the low turnout of people in caucus states.  But to remove them completely from the popular vote is absurd.  It's like saying those people didn't actually turn out to vote.

    Caucus states aren't done yet (none / 0) (#161)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:25:48 PM EST
    and keep recaucusing into June.  So counting any caucus results -- delegates, participants (not voters; it is a legal term), etc. -- now is what's b.s.  

    Well... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:35:59 PM EST
    since he took his name off the ballot in MI, ostensibly none of the votes counted in MI would be his.

    Were there write in votes? Or are you assuming that the Undecided votes are specifically for him?


    MI (none / 0) (#127)
    by CST on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:09:14 PM EST
    I am assuming 0 votes for Obama in Michigan.  And he is STILL ahead by that count.  Which is an arguable way to count the Michigan votes, but I am not gonna argue it here, since it would just go into the "yuhuh", "nuhuh" cycle that doesn't get anywhere.

    It Is Not The Map Or The Math (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:34:00 PM EST
    It is validating and energizing the voters. Most of us will be OK with whoever wins the nomination, but no one will be OK if votes are not counted.

    Interesting view on Obama and Israel (none / 0) (#16)
    by fuzzyone on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:24:12 PM EST
    very different from the one that has been expressed here in the past:  South Jerusalem

    Well, if you have (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:48:00 PM EST
    decided Hillary is not in the race, I guess you do not have to consider her views.  Too bad--I think Jews in this country know she's still running, don't they?  The GE is not tomorrow.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#113)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:57:14 PM EST
    Not exactly truthful in saying that Hillary doesn't believe in talking to our enemies, but what can you do?

    The point that Israel, by and large, thought the Iraq war was stupid from the get-go cannot be made enough.

    The statement that John Hagee, already mired in controversy, expressed sympathy for Yitzhak Rabin's assassin is a new one for me.  That's really astounding.

    Very interesting stuff in that link.


    Gotta disagree with you on one point.. (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by tree on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:57:13 PM EST
    Israel, both its government, and its popular opinion, was firmly behind the Iraq war in the beginning. It was perhaps the only country outside of the US where the popular opinion was overwhelmingly for the US invasion, and the government admitted that it was responsible for some of the bad intelligence.

     Attitudes have changed a bit there because they now realize that the invasion strengthened Iran. But then, they were clueless to repercussions, which is pretty typical of the Israeli government. I suspect  the attempt to pretend that Israel was against the war from the beginning stems from two desires. One, not to be blamed for the catastrophe that Iraq has become, and two, the same kind of mentality that leads many US war hawks to pretend in hindsight, to themselves and others, that they really were against it, or at least against how it was executed.

    Sorry I don't have links at the ready, but I have some family and friends in Israel, and some friends in the Occupied Territories so I follow Israel and its politics pretty closely. If you want links I can search them out and get them to you later.  


    I would be very interested (none / 0) (#160)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:23:38 PM EST
    to see those links.

    This link suggests Israeli public opinion was split at best.

    My impression is that everyone other than the far right felt that it was a strategic blunder.


    Brooks talks to Obama/Lebanon (none / 0) (#62)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:37:45 PM EST
    First of all I had to truly laugh.  I am looking for the original Obama context.  Ok, the Republicans don't get the middle east, but I think Obama is not far behind in simply not getting it.  Lebanon has been in the grips of a war since the 70's and he just thinks he can tell them to step back.

    He called on "all those who have influence with Hezbollah" to "press them to stand down."

    Obama Admires Bush

    Then Brooks talks to Obama, who basically proclaims to admire the old Bush administration policies towards the middle east.

    In the early 1990s, the Democrats and the first Bush administration had a series of arguments -- about humanitarian interventions, whether to get involved in the former Yugoslavia, and so on. In his heart, Obama talks like the Democrats of that era, viewing foreign policy from the ground up. But in his head, he aligns himself with the realist dealmaking of the first Bush. Apparently, he's part Harry Hopkins and part James Baker.

    First of all,

    An Immature Diary (none / 0) (#109)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:54:10 PM EST
    Interesting Quick Poll Off Carole Migden's Site (none / 0) (#123)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:03:46 PM EST

    If you were a superdelegate, would you cast a vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention in August?

    A) Hillary Clinton
    B) Barack Obama
    C) I would follow the will of the voters
    D) I would vote for the nominee with the best chance of winning in November

    Hillary Clinton           48.38%
    Barack Obama              31.96%
    Will of the voters        12.48%
    Best chance of winning     7.18%

    Eye-opening look at the sexism in this (none / 0) (#130)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:12:27 PM EST
    campaign season at Reclusive Leftist today. A must!

    Bankrobber.... (none / 0) (#133)
    by kdog on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:15:59 PM EST
    Next in a long tradition of American bank robbers?

    I gotta admit I'm impressed...and rooting for the guy.



    - The Clash

    A majority (none / 0) (#138)
    by nycstray on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:22:52 PM EST
    email titled "A Majority" came out from the O camp today:


    Barack Obama is just 17 elected delegates away from a majority -- and you can help get him there.

    At the start of this race, there were 3253 elected delegates at stake in primaries and caucuses across the country. After winning 32 of 49 contests, Barack is within reach of an absolute majority.

    We believe that the winner of the majority of elected, pledged delegates should and will be the Democratic nominee.

    Important primaries are coming up this Tuesday in Oregon and Kentucky. With your help, Barack could win enough delegates to reach this crucial milestone on his way to securing the nomination.

    We need to do absolutely everything we can to help put Barack over the top.

    Right now, thousands of people in these states are thinking seriously about what they're looking for from our next president -- and one voice could sway their decision.

    I'm asking you to be that voice.

    Use our simple online calling tool to call potential supporters in Oregon and Kentucky and make sure they vote for Barack:

    rest of the email is just about how to phone bank.

    So, what is "an absolute majority."? I didn't see a number . . .

    They'll have a majority (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:25:07 PM EST
    if they intentionally exclude a minority that doesn't agree with them (FL and MI).

    Funny, that's how elections in the south used to work. . .


    an absolute majority is 50%+1 (none / 0) (#143)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:36:05 PM EST
    Actually, I think the absolute part is a bit of theater, but I believe they are saying talking about a simple majority of the pledged delegates.

    Based on this communication's comment "At the start of this race, there were 3253 elected delegates at stake in primaries and caucuses across the country" Obama would have a majority of pledged delegates when he reaches 1627. He is currently at 1599 according the RCP. Oregon and Kentucky will put him over 1627 and give him a majority or the pledged delegates.

    Of course, the Superdelegates still have their say.


    Thanks! n/t (none / 0) (#148)
    by nycstray on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:45:37 PM EST
    Thank you for the link to the form BTD. (none / 0) (#140)
    by AX10 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:29:45 PM EST
    I wish someone told me about this earlier.  I will send it to my parents and anyone else I know of.

    Erica Jung's post (none / 0) (#162)
    by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:31:24 PM EST
    Erica Jung's postexcellent reading

    It's lightweight. (none / 0) (#192)
    by Fabian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:17:12 PM EST
    But then again, I only feel safe criticizing Obama here.

    Call him thin skinned and easily provoked and then point out how the Right will use those to maximum benefit and you'll get flayed elsewhere.

    I've not hung out on rightie sites much, but I know that they don't hold back.  They'll try anything.  The minute they find something that works, they'll keep on doing it until election day.  You let them bait you once and they'll be back the next day with more.  They aren't all that creative, but they are effective.

    And Obama seems ill at ease when he has a tough audience.  He seems to actively avoid them.  He's amazing at rallying the troops, but what will he do when he faces indifferent audiences, demanding media and hostile Republicans?   He can't run away or it's all over.


    Rachel Maddow (none / 0) (#174)
    by cannondaddy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:05:43 PM EST
    is hosting Countdown, in case anyone likes her but not KO.

    McCain, at first, (none / 0) (#180)
    by michellemarie on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:16:51 PM EST
    sounded like Bush when talking about staying in Iraq. However, he sounded surprisingly genuine when talking about the repercussions of an early withdrawal from Iraq (genocide, etc) and how he wanted to avoid future, more debilitating wars. He was, imo, spot on. McCain and Clinton understand the Iraq situation way more than Obama.

    I live in Michigan (none / 0) (#185)
    by pie on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:41:04 PM EST
    and know she's the best candidate.

    I sent that email to the doofuses at the DNC: losing elections, other than Bill Clinton's successes, is too hard to take.

    The country needs a winner; her name is Hillary Clinton.