Late Night Open Thread

I've been away from the computer all day. The TL kid and I were car-shopping for him. After weeks of research online, we got to the dealership at noon. We left with his new Jeep at 7:00 pm. Buying your first new car with your own money is a big deal. We test drove a lot of them, then there's going back and forth over options and color ten times, then the financial (payment) decisions and bargaining. I'm exhausted, so I'm putting up an open thread.

  • Big Tent Democrat sent me an email saying he's suspended himself until Monday for violating the site rules.

“Barack is worth millions now,” Mr. Osnos said. “It’s almost all based on these two books, two books not based on a job of prodigious research or risking one’s life as a reporter in Iraq. He has written about himself. Being able to take your own life story and turn it into this incredibly lucrative franchise, it’s a stunning fact.”

What else did I miss today? This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Comments now closed. There's a new open thread up.

< Saturday Night Open Thread | Overnight and Early AM Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • And those books are mainly fiction (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:40:04 PM EST
    according to sources I've read.

    I think Obama has become as entralled with (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:02:45 PM EST
    the fantasy he created of himself as many of his fans are.

    Time Magazine had an article in April about his mother, with numerous quotes from his books.

    I cringe every time I hear him say "I was raised by a single mother". Not for much of it. Having raised two children completely by myself, I hate the way he acts like an expert and doesn't have the slightest grasp for how truly difficult it is.

    The Times article says that his mother's family lived "on a small island in Washington state" during her high school years, and frequented coffee shops in Seattle. It was in the 50's, and I don't recall coffee shops showing up until mid-late 60's here (Starbucks original store opened in 1971 or 72). Oh, and that small island was Mercer Island, one of the most affluent areas of the city.

    Truth is, he had a childhood that was charmed by comparison to most.

    A researcher named Kenneth E Lamb has done extensive checking on the accuracy of Obama's books.

    I was at Border's last week and noticed both of Obama's books must have been over-ordered. I expect they will be on the bargain table soon.


    "I was raised by a single mother" (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by nycstray on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:14:27 PM EST
    That drives me nuts. What was it, 3 or 4 yrs? And she may have been from Kansas, but that does not mean he's a mid-westerner or understands them. I don't care if his Grandparents did serve him pot roast and jello.

    Could the coffee shops have been more diner style? There are the old style ones. He prob doesn't know the difference /s  ;)


    All due respect... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Alec82 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:26:21 PM EST
    ...implying that he is not a midwesterner is slightly insulting to that great portion of the midwest centered around the Great Lakes, which includes Illinois.

     On the other hand, I agree with you about the single mother thing.  I don't pretend to know what his mother went through, but it is a dishonest representation.  She had a lot more support than most single mothers in this country, many of them railroaded by the awful politics of so-called "welfare reform," and I don't like it being exploited to win over African American primary voters.  I didn't get that impression when I read Dreams from my father.

     But the front-runners have really unique backgrounds, you have to admit.  


    He's not a mid-westerner by nature (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by nycstray on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:54:47 PM EST
    imo. I grew up with a couple of them known as my parents (born, raised and graduated from Illinois Uni's)  ;) His mid-west experience is fairly limited to South Side Chicago isn't it? I don't see how saying he's not a mid-westerner is an insult to all those who you claim it is.

    My niece had an absent father (don't remember when they actually finally divorced) My parents helped my sister until they finally had to take over care of her. As far as raising goes, Grammy and Gramps get all the credit. When I hear his story, it just doesn't sit right :( And I think that is part of his problem with relating to certain demographics, he doesn't really understand them. His background is interesting, but doesn't leave a lot of connecting points with the 'average American'.


    I'm a Midwesterner (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:23:38 AM EST
    born, raised, been here for more decades than I'll admit.  So I'm here to tell you that Obama was not any of those.

    Obama is what some Midwesterners in small towns where I lived a while would call a newcomer.  Only twenty years here?  Well, we'll see if he gets the hang of it here after another twenty years.  (Honest, that's literally what I'd hear at town meetings.  Yes, town meetings in a town hall with guys in overalls who had been there for eons.)

    But Obama is what most Midwesterners would call . . . a Chicagoan.  It's a whole different thing.  They have a sort of provincialism hard to explain.  But consider that Obama, as a Senator of the whole state, doesn't know that it borders Kentucky.

    That's a Chicagoan.  That's not a Midwesterner.


    I've been given Brooklyn props ;) (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by nycstray on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:59:23 AM EST
    I haven't been here 20yrs yet, but my background gave me a foot in the door (part Italian) along with teaching at the Senior Center. And also my landlord and his connections in da 'hood. Plus, I can pull off good Brooklyn speak and named one of my cats Vinny, lol!~  ;) I love the history of my 'hood (A Tree Grows in Brooklyn) and the fresh Mozzarella!

    I was going through Obama's senate site today looking at his press releases. He would take town hall tours through different parts of the state, but he doesn't seem to have picked up the 'heartbeat' of it, from what I see.


    Well he is a midwesterner by choice, certainly... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:07:29 AM EST
    ...I mean he definitely isn't from the midwest (Illinois) any more than Senator Clinton is from New York.  

     On the other hand, I would like to avoid the kind of negative politics that comes out of who is a "true" midwesterner.  I still consider myself one, even in California.  Born and raised in Michigan, definitely not Chicago style.  


    She may not be from NY . . . (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by nycstray on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:46:56 AM EST
    BUT her background makes her fit right in with NYS. She gets the people outside of NYC just fine and has won them over and worked hard for them.

    I'm a native Californian, but do fine in Brooklyn, lol!~ I was raised on Mid-Western Mindset in suburban CA with an itching for city living. I can transition between lifestyles pretty easily. My next move will be rural and along a river. I'll fit in just fine. Hillary seems to be able to do this also. That comes with your 'history'. There's a bio program on MSNBC on all 3 of the candidates and I think that's the one where they talk about what they (Clintons) moved into the Gov house with etc. Pretty funny.

    It's not about being a "true" something so much, but how well you 'feel' and relate and perhaps could even live a certain life. That's what our history brings us. His childhood is all 'Island' living to a degree (I have a friend that spent childhood years in Indonesia, so I know her stories from there also. similar to his). And also non-public schools. I think he just has a problem adapting/feeling/connecting with lifestyles that are unfamiliar to him. From what I know, his US experiences (outside of Hawaii) have all been city living and college etc. I'm sure he could talk to urban needs and relate quite well. Unfortunately, a wide patch of the country isn't urban. Michelle on the other hand does have a different feel about things and is someone who can relate on a certain level I don't see him doing. But again, it's still more urban. Has she gone out to speak on issues with the non-AA working class? Because there is a bridge there . . .


    There's an article on Michelle (none / 0) (#155)
    by zfran on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:50:50 AM EST
    floating around one of the other posts here that what we've been told about how she grew up wasn't exactly true. She wasn't all that poor. How many other untruths are going to be uncovered?

    Well, it worked very well for (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:22:00 PM EST
    Deval Patrick, who of course was raised by a single mother.  I've watched in wonder at the merging of their identities.  Obama now says his mother was on foodstamps(Deval's was on welfare), he fails to mention this was when she was a grad student and he was living with his grandparents in Hawaii going to prep school.

    And that his mother refused child support (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:24:50 PM EST
    from both her ex-husbands.

    lol...Hell obama Showed Up Before His Parents (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:38:23 PM EST
    even met, according to his book...lmao

    How many people (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by miriam on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:20:34 AM EST
    consider themselves so fascinating that they write two books about themselves before reaching the age of 45?  And then fictionalize their own autobiographies?  Astonishing!

    You know (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by janarchy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:32:05 AM EST
    I turned 45 this year and am sincerely sorry I didn't think of it first. I could be a millionaire too! Or run for President.

    Oh, wait, I'm a woman -- it's not my turn yet, is it?


    Maybe it's me, but (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by zfran on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:42:08 PM EST
    I copied this from the end of the Chicago Tribune article. Does this sound arrogant and demeaning to anyone else?

    "The fundraiser said many are unhappy about the idea of having to make room for members of Clinton's finance team, who had "picked the wrong candidate."

    "There are people who are thinking, 'Hey, my guy won. Now I have to share the trophy?' " the Obama fundraiser said.

    "That's something we have to overcome."

    No more arrogant and demeaning (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:43:55 PM EST
    then usual.

    So why aren't enough people (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by zfran on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:44:52 PM EST
    paying attention to his arrogance?

    because being so arrogant themselves (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:06:40 PM EST
    it is difficult for them to either recognize it and/or call him out on it.

    Some are too busy fainting! (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by zfran on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:08:28 PM EST
    Heh, so I guess they don't feel they (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by nycstray on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:58:35 PM EST
    need any of the Clinton team? Cool, I'll assume they don't need the Clinton votes either . . .

    Not just you (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by standingup on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:23:55 PM EST
    I was ready to comment about those same remarks after reading the Tribune's article.  Where do the voters fit into their equation?  One of the most disappointing revelations about this primary season has been the reinforcement of just how little a role the citizens have in our supposedly democratic process.  I think I grow more cynical each day.

    That struck me as well... (5.00 / 10) (#58)
    by ricosuave on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:27:52 PM EST
    The Clinton folks are pissed because they feel they have been mistreated.  The Obama folks are just pissy.  This is how they have been at all levels of the campaign.  The attitude of the precinct leader of the Obama contingent at our (Texas) county convention was basically "we don't need you guys in november, so screw you now."

    Personally, I will remember that in November if he is the nominee.


    How I read this (5.00 / 5) (#201)
    by dianem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:43:28 AM EST
    Clinton people: Obama's people need to stop insulting us if this is going to work.
    Obama's people: Screw them, we won.

    Not Surprising (1.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Spike on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:55:00 PM EST
    Considering the animosities that Clinton supporters on this site express toward the Obama campaign, it's not surprising that some in the Obama camp have similar feelings toward the Clinton campaign. But the healing process is about to begin and it's critical to Democratic success in November that we learn how to put those animosities behind us.

    I doubt it (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by dissenter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:56:43 PM EST
    That's funny.... (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:07:34 PM EST
    Obama people who are claiming "my guy won" aren't arrogant.

    Please, please, please link us to the article or analysis that shows Obama with 2210 delegates committed.


    I'll be very interested to see how (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by Anne on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:07:43 PM EST
    wounds heal when they are constantly being ripped open for another dose of salt.

    You Know There Is No Requirement That Anyone (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:08:08 PM EST
    like a politician or his supporters. If people only voted for politicians they liked, most people would just stay home. So as far as I'm concerned, all this healing rah rah rah is not only premature but unnecessary and counterproductive.

    My animosity toward Sen. Obama (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by zfran on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:16:59 PM EST
    has nothing to do with the fact that he happens to be a politician I don't care for, altho' he acts and speaks just like one (altho' he says he isn't). This has to do with attitudes, treatments, respect (or lack thereof)of voting blocs, arrogance, divisity (the candidate of bringing us together) misogeny, race bating, I could go on. Thinking we, who have been so misled, will return to the bosom of the dems in the GE will not miss us, oh, unless he loses, then it's our fault, but mostly Hillary's.

    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by felizarte on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:22:19 PM EST
    It just rubs me the wrong way and an incentive to be contrary. Although I confess it has been coming on ever so steadily.

    I have no animosity (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:08:14 PM EST
    for Obama any more.

    I (along with extended family and friends) will simply write in Hillary or leave it blank. Vote dem down ticket.


    Unless the Dem party gets their act together (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by nycstray on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:18:53 PM EST
    the only one so far getting my vote is Hillary. I'll look for deserving candidates, but I'm done with the party. I have my list of 'interests' I want to protect as a meter, but if they are in Obama Land, huge negative.

    Ditto! (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by gandy007 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:57:07 AM EST
    After 44 years of pulling the Democratic lever, in November I'm going to be solely a down ballot Yellow Dog Democrat.

    Glad to Hear It (none / 0) (#40)
    by Spike on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:15:16 PM EST
    At least you don't intend to vote for McCain.

    No Animosity. Only a personal solution for me (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by felizarte on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:11:12 PM EST
    Hillary all the way for me! And every time I read such comments as yours (though I credit you for the absence of some of the more insulting words are Obama supporters have used) somehow McCain does not look that objectionable to me anymore.  After all, McCain and Obama both admire Ronald Reagan.  McCain even credits Pres. Clinton with achievements while Obama totally ignores Bill Clinton.  The way I see it, at least McCain acts and speaks like a republican Maverick.  Obama speaks like a republican but calls himself a democrat.  On this score, I consider McCain more honest.  But I certainly will vote for democratic members of congress.

    McCain's Not Bad... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Spike on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:29:32 PM EST
    If you're so sick of Bush personally that you don't mind a continuation of his policies.

    Bush is bad. McCain is not Bush (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by felizarte on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:42:56 PM EST
    He won't be like Bush.  But I would rather have Hillary. The justices need to be confirmed by the Senate so that is at least a check. I will not make a decision until after the democratic convention.  So it is premature to talk about November.  I can only say that McCain is my second choice after Hillary.  

    Are You a Democrat? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Spike on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:52:08 PM EST
    I have trouble understanding how anyone who is actually a Democrat could seriously consider voting for McCain. I can understand leaving the top race blank or writing in Clinton. But McCain? Why would anyone who's really into Hillary Clinton vote for McCain?

    American! (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by felizarte on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:54:33 PM EST
    Democrat if Hillary is the nominee.  Independent if not Hillary.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#101)
    by Spike on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:00:38 AM EST
    I don't picture independents starting out as Clinton supporters.

    I can't speak for the poster (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by dissenter on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:02:15 AM EST
    But I'm guessing that is the Obama campaign's problem. They don't think.

    That would be Ron Paul (none / 0) (#154)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:49:19 AM EST
    He's the Independent that I've heard of for this election.

    You sure?


    Simple (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by dissenter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:58:26 PM EST
    I think BO is batsh$t crazy. I may not agree with McCain on policy but I don't think the entire country will fall apart in 4 years with him at the helm. Obama is unqualified on every level.

    As for a Democrat, when democrats act like democrats then come talk to me. At the end of the day though, I am an American first.


    I think there will be more write ins and blanks (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by nycstray on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:06:11 AM EST
    with more politically active folks. But when you get out into some of her demographics, McCain is not a bad option for them. They will be able to relate to him and he's not overly conservative. He has experience and a history they can look at. That means something. If we retain the Dem congress and hopefully strengthen it, things could be ok. Plus, if things continue to go to heck, he'll take the blame and we get another shot in 2012. The risk with Obama is (and it's a BIG one in my mind) his ability to get anything done. If he is a non-starter, we start losing seats in congress in 2010. Personally, I don't think he'll win the GE. He doesn't have the reach so far, imo.

    I aqree with you Spike (5.00 / 5) (#122)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:22:01 AM EST
    TalkLeft does not support voting for McCain -- both Big Tent Demorat and I have said many many times we will vote for the Democratic nominee.

    Hillary supporters need to remember that a vote for McCain is the last thing she'd want. She's a Democrat and the Democratic candidate is preferable to the Republican one -- from cabinet appointments to policy to federal judges.


    That's the wonderful thing about democracy (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by RalphB on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:33:18 AM EST
    a person's vote is their own and no one gets to tell them how to vote.  It's really an act of conscience.

    As is the opinion that the Democratic candidate is always better that the GOP version.  As an Independent, divided government has an allure.


    It's not just about Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:10:42 AM EST
    it's about legitimacy of a presidential primary.  How will the primary process change if it results in a win?  (answer:  it's won't.)

    However, this election has pointed out the flaws and maybe if the Dems don't win, they'll fix them.



    I won't vote McCain myself (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Nadai on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:23:33 AM EST
    but the (few) Hillary supporters I know who do plan to vote for McCain will be doing so because they're looking more for certainty than for any specific policy.  Obama's "blank slate" approach leaves them cold.  McCain seems more like a known quantity.

    There are a lot of conservative Dems.  I'm not one of them, but I can see how they might feel that McCain isn't so bad even when I disagree.


    Are you a democrat? (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by jackyt on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:59:30 AM EST
    I have trouble understanding how anyone who is actually a Democrat could seriously consider voting for Obama.

    I could understand why this would concern you (none / 0) (#97)
    by felizarte on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:59:13 PM EST
    It is the equivalent of two votes for McCain against Obama: +1for McCain and -1from Obama.  The others who said they would leave it blank were o.k. with you.  But those like me are certainly going to be a problem for Obama. And another thing:  there are eight of us in the family who think the same way--in California.

    And Colorado (none / 0) (#100)
    by dissenter on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:00:18 AM EST
    Here - 3 in the family.

    Two more in our family (none / 0) (#196)
    by Grace on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:21:25 AM EST
    Also in California.  

    To be honest, one voted for Obama in the primary thinking he was the "hot new thing" but has since changed his mind.  We would both vote Clinton if she was the Dem nominee.  

    One thing I like about McCain is that he is fiscally conservative.  He's not Hillary but he's okay for second choice.  (Hope he picks a decent moderate VP though.)


    One more in California (none / 0) (#207)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:11:25 AM EST

    Maybe two.  And two (possibly four, if I can convince them) in Texas, but I think they've always been McCain people.

    Because he does have the experience (none / 0) (#206)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:08:35 AM EST

    and knows how to make fun of himself.  His appearance on SNL tonight proved that.  Obama would never do that because he's lacking a sense of humor, except when he thinks it's "cute" to call all women in the media "sweetie".

    After Souter (none / 0) (#188)
    by Makarov on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:57:44 AM EST
    there is no way the Federalist Society won't at least vet (assuming they're not a member) every Republican nominee to the Supreme Court.  You won't see a Stevens, Souter, or even an O'Conner ever nominated again from a Republican President in our lifetime.

    Now, if the Repub party as a whole reinvents itself completely and dumps the religious wing, that could change.  Barring that, I just don't see it happening.

    I also don't see Harry Reid holding up a reasonably qualified, yet total right-wing zealot from a seat on the court.  Wish I could say otherwise.  Even if he does, choice #2 with identical ideology will be waiting in the wings.


    If McCain wins, the religious wing (none / 0) (#193)
    by RalphB on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:12:52 AM EST
    will be on their way out the door.  Once he finishes his panderfest for the election, I expect the maverick to reemerge.

    Does more than just ignore Bill, (5.00 / 6) (#166)
    by gandy007 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:01:08 AM EST
    he denigrates the many accomplishments of his presidency and lumps him in with the two Bushes.

    That by itself would probably be enough to make me not vote for him.


    To the extent that you are serious... (3.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Alec82 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:17:43 PM EST
    ...I guess it is kind of win-win.  The policy options (apart from judges) are probably pretty limited, and Senator McCain is quasi-liberal.  Certainly the people who will be energized in his administration and carrying out duties won't be Rovian, although they'll tank us in foreign policy and the economy.  

     I guess the Log Cabin Republicans were right to back him.  


    I can only speak about my own perceptions (5.00 / 7) (#78)
    by felizarte on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:38:05 PM EST
    McCain is an officer and a gentleman (most of the time) He was a prisoner of war and knows first hard the suffering that war inflicts on everyone, soldier or not.  Like Hillary, his candidacy was declared dead for several months but he stayed and fought back.  And he prevailed.  He has a sense of humor, self-deprecating most of the time (unlike Obama) If Obama is the democratic nominee, McCain will have a pretty good chance of winning the presidency.  Any president will have to face the realities as they are when he assumes office.  He has to end the war in Iraq or else resign himself to a one-term presidency.  Just as well because if Hillary is not the nominee, then I would like Hillary to run again and I will most certainly still support her.

     So you see, that is how much I resent the party for the way it has treated Hillary; for the sexism and racism; for the structure they have set up that allows it to be manipulated against reflecting the will of the members of the party.  And I do not appreciate the way that Bill Clinton has been treated and the fine administration and accomplishments he had.  


    I wish I could rate you higher (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:02:08 AM EST
    It is odd to see someone expess what I have been focusing on in this election cycle.

    I agree. Thank you.


    The healing process is about to begin? (5.00 / 11) (#111)
    by miriam on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:12:28 AM EST
    Who, other than you, says so?  Healing process--you wish.  Your comment vividly illustrates how little you know of anything outside the Obama bubble.  You very clearly do not understand how enraged women are by the treatment of Hillary Clinton--2 term senator, former first lady, and first serious female candidate for president.  I remind you of these because the insults leveled at Clinton by Obama, his supporters, and the media are, by extension, insults leveled at every woman who has had to work hard to achieve.

    My biggest single problem with Obama is his abject cowardice.  He refuses to debate because he has lost in the previous debates and fears he will lose again.  He fears a revote in Florida and Michigan, as proposed by Clinton and the states, because he fears he will lose again.  He is afraid to call Hillary a racist to her face--because he knows she will dress him down big time--but calls her and her husband racists behind her back.  He is afraid to personally contest WVA and Kentucky because he is afraid of voters and is afraid of losing.  

    We need a leader in the White House.  Not someone who will shrink from every unpleasant reality. I have been a Democrat for 47 years, but the Democratic party has become unrecognizable.  While I won't vote for McCain, I will not vote for Barack Obama. If the Democratic leadership loses this election it will be due to their own failure of leadership and their cowardice.  In that respect, they thoroughly deserve their "presumptive" nominee.  


    Agree with everything you stated (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:44:06 AM EST
    plus a few of mine.

    The Healing Process (none / 0) (#152)
    by Spike on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:46:59 AM EST
    My reference to the healing process was in response to a link Jeralyn posted about the two campaigns fusing their financial operations for the fall.

    I don't understand your specific issues with Obama. But I do understand the intensity of your feelings. I would feel the same way if Clinton were about to become the nominee.

    But, like you, I could never vote for McCain. And I hope that you will not give up on the Democratic Party. We can make great progress this year in the House, the Senate and in state houses across the country.


    Never said I won't vote for dem members (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:51:20 AM EST
    of congress.  My presidential choices remain firm.

    for the record (none / 0) (#157)
    by boredmpa on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:52:59 AM EST
    i'd say the first serious candidate from a major party was the 4 term rep and 2 term senator back in the 60s (if i recall).

    Hillary is just the strongest candidate (for various political reasons), and as a result of the era we're in and her strength she's seeing greater misogyny than any other female candidate (of any era--it far outtrumps the dole and 1872 press).


    His books making them (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by zfran on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:43:29 PM EST
    rich goes right back to the last thread in which Michelle Obama said that they wouldn't run for pres. again if he lost this time because in the end, they'd be rich anyway. Hmmmm. Pretty sad..the american way?

    ROFL (none / 0) (#88)
    by daryl herbert on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:49:39 PM EST
    I've heard her say that America only gets one chance to elect Barack (lucky us!), but I've never heard her give a reason.  Did she really say that it was all about money?

    ROFL Is right on! (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:15:41 AM EST
    Reminds me of "Last call to come forward and be saved!"

    "Last call . . . (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by nycstray on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:21:08 AM EST
    come forward and be served!" My brain went into college mode there, lol!

    According to Chuck Todd (5.00 / 5) (#123)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:22:10 AM EST
    a week or so ago on Hardball, he said that Michelle has said they will not be able to run again in 4 years because they will be too rich and won't be able to relate to the issues of the people any longer!!

    Really, truly...he said that.


    Wow! Double Wow! (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:47:29 AM EST
    Watch out Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Soros, Ted Turner and who else?

    Bill Clinton . . . . (none / 0) (#165)
    by nycstray on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:01:02 AM EST
    Bill Clinton? (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:56:11 AM EST
    He is not rich enough to belong in that group.

    LOL! "It's a Stunning fact" (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by goldberry on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:45:04 PM EST
    Not a stunning achievement.  No, merely a statement of what he did.  What a brilliant review.
    He must be smart to get through Harvard Law but what I think he's most adept at is shmoozing.  Who put him up to running?  Must have been another narcissist.

    HE was the narcissist (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by zfran on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:46:40 PM EST
    At Harvard, they came up with (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:06:12 PM EST
    an "Obamameter" which measures how well you schmooze the professors. Apparently, he raised it to a high art. Too bad he can't figure out how to do it with voters.

    That's funny (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:07:43 PM EST
    I'll have to ask my Harvard friend about that.

    IF (none / 0) (#71)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:32:49 PM EST
    there's a coronation.

    Yeah, National Review (none / 0) (#99)
    by andgarden on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:00:02 AM EST
    Funny, but not credible.

    A rather amusing article. (none / 0) (#73)
    by lilburro on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:34:14 PM EST
    The article can basically be summed up:

    "He asked me for comments!  He asked ME!  FOR COMMENTS!!!!"  

    The love just bewilders me.  I guess people don't want to view politics as ugly - thus creating monsters out of the Clintons, a saint of Obama, a harmless bungler or bad national dad out of Bush.  Whatever.


    I read the NY Times article (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by facta non verba on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:03:00 PM EST
    Now I am published author but I have never called anyone to ask them over and over again:

    "Have you read my book?"

    Egotistical is the word that comes to mind. How self-centered can one be?

    It is all about him, isn't it? I get the feeling GWB is going to look like a work-a-holic compared to Obama. Let's just let him his waffles, why don't we?

    I read it too.. (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:37:54 PM EST
    a fellowship so he could have an office to write his book? A few months in Bali to concentrate on it? Writing "Audacity of Hope" while allegedly serving the people of IL in the Senate? When did he have time to do the elected jobs he was using to get where he is now?? What is he going to run for, or write, in the White House?? Does he realize that the Presidency is a really full-time job?? That it is not something you can stop doing when you get bored or a better-paying job comes along? Where is the public service mentioned?? That is the business he claims to be in, right?? So when did he have time to do it?? Between chapters??

    I heard something on TV (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by Grace on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:59:01 AM EST
    about a new McCain commercial tonight.  In it, he says something about devoting himself to the job of the president full time and not running a non-stop political campaign once in office.  

    I felt it was kind of a stab at Obama and his years of running campaign after campaign, never bothering to really do the work once he wins an office.

    I've also wondered how much time Obama would devote to being President if elected.  Would an hour or two a day be too much?  Or would it cut into his other activities?    


    Apparently You Don't Have The Burning Need (none / 0) (#68)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:31:26 PM EST
    to be stroked constantly.  Could obama be any more full of himself?  Guessing....NO!

    Your son will love his Jeep. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Anne on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:04:58 PM EST
    My daughter has a Jeep Grand Cherokee and loves it.  She got hers used - a 2005, I think - but still under warranty, so she was able to extend it.

    But isn't car shopping exhausting?  My favorite part is how you can go from trying to be frugal and not get all the bells and whistles to finding yourself thinking things like, "oh, what's another $750.00."  That's when I know I am really tired!

    The trick is to figure out what you're (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:07:17 PM EST
    willing to pay and what you're willing to do without. Then check the lot, figure out a car you can live with near your price range, and make an offer, letting the dealership generously throw in the "extras" that happen to be built into every car they have in inventory.

    I'm still driving my '89 wrangler Jeep. (none / 0) (#39)
    by felizarte on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:15:16 PM EST
    I love it.

    Self-promotion is not a vice in my view (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:05:25 PM EST
    So far as I'm concerned, good for Obama.

    Hey andgarden (none / 0) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:17:59 PM EST
    BTD posted a new Rasmussen poll that had Obama 50%
    McCain 41% in New Mexico. Rasmussen poll on 4/8 had Obama 45% and McCain 42% but SUSA had a poll on 4/13 with Obama 44% and McCain 50%. Don't see any details for the new Ramussen poll. Have you ever looked at what accounts for the differences between these two pollsters' results?

    In my experience (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by andgarden on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:24:03 PM EST
    Ras tends to slightly favor Republicans and SUSA Dems. But that's entirely anecdotal, and they both tend to a) be ok, and b) make mistakes occasionally. As between two differing polls of the same vintage, I'd take SUSA.

    But self-delusion (none / 0) (#128)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:25:24 AM EST
    and making up the story to self-promote?

    Not a good thing in, um, my book.


    Good Article (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by dissenter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:19:10 PM EST
    You Broke It, You Own it Obama Style on Huff Post.

    Now the 9/11 Women are coming after him. You go Kristen!

    Loved Kristen's piece (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by RalphB on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:49:09 PM EST
    but the comments were pure vitriol.  Jeez HuffPo sucks.

    I Can't Believe I Clicked On HuffPo (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:59:01 PM EST
    The article was worth it even if I had to go to HuffPo to see it. I like the Title. I agree 100% and that will be my mantra after November if McCain is elected.

    Good Stuff -- Now Here's the Thing (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:05:35 AM EST
    There's these con-artists (that's what you should call them cause that's what they are) who have been selling a war.  Not a war for oil, but something less useful and even more toxic.  


    You know what these liars and con-artists have called this war.

    They have sold it to their followers as, are you ready for this:   THE WAR FOR THE SOUL OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

    They broke it.

    They own it.  End of story.


    How elegant her article (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by zfran on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:06:57 AM EST
    is. I read some of the comments below the article and I was sickened. I believe some who commented had no idea who she was or what she has accomplished or how her life had been re-shaped and re-defined. I think Huffpo should scan its postings more closely. There is discrimination, misongny and vitriolic filth going on.

    The interesting thing is that (5.00 / 4) (#176)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:32:32 AM EST
    my true heros have never left me in this election -- Kristen B and Paul Krugman to name 2.

    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:11:20 AM EST
    when you say: "There's really no point in persuading you, or rather attempting to."

    But you are wrong when you say, "I am glad that the Bush wing of the GOP . . . will be dead."  Because Obama is showing Bush-like tendencies in his arrogance, dictatorial tendencies, insensitivity, and divisiveness.

    I am glad you have "a higher opinion of his wife," and if you want to consider yourself as a young ill-informed voter, that is your prerogative, but I never intimated anything to that effect.

    And lastly, I am voting against Obama because of his stated positions and his behavior . . . and not yours.

    Afghanistan (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by dissenter on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:11:50 AM EST
    I fly back across the pond on Thursday. I've made a promise to blog a bit from Afghanistan. Is there anything you guys are particularly interested in or want to know about? I thought I would ask ahead of time.

    Stay safe! (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by miriam on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:28:20 AM EST
    And thank you for your commitment to America.  

    Dissenter (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:31:45 AM EST
    is terrific. S/he was gracious enough to invite me to a DNC party in Denver last night. I hope s/he takes me up on my invitation to be our Afghanistan correspondent and post about Afghanistan here.

    I am interested (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:14:19 AM EST
    in anything you want to tell us.  Even if you just want to say hi.  I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say we want to know how you're doing.

    Everything you want to say is important to us.


    The children? (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by nycstray on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:27:35 AM EST
    I know it's not political, but my sister knits with a group that sends sweaters and other warm items for the children there and it reminds me of the 'forgotten/not mentioned enough' aspects of war. I'd like to hear how things are for those trying to live their lives and raise children etc. And perhaps efforts that we can help with.

    Ok (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by dissenter on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:39:17 AM EST
    I will do that one first. I have a lot of little side projects. My main one is called operation Halima. She is the daughter of one of my drivers. Halima is developmentally disabled and my brother and I have been on a year long quest to get her medical help and in school.

    It is a loooong story but I shall begin it at soon as I get back to Kabul. Halima is a great place to start. Her story will help everyone understand the difficulties in Afghanistan for both parent and child and the few options that they have to improve their lives.


    Jeez. (none / 0) (#133)
    by lilburro on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:28:13 AM EST
    Good luck and thank you.  

    Please read the Sat. NYT (none / 0) (#142)
    by oculus on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:34:26 AM EST
    article on the huge prison the U.S. is bldg. in Afghanistan.  Reminds me of the huge U.S. embassy in Baghdad and the fact we will apparently be in both countries for many years to come.

    I saw it (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by dissenter on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:38:06 AM EST
    I know a bit about it. Prison conditions over there, actually the whole justice system, is a disaster.

    I will do a little investigating. I have interesting friends in interesting places lol. I will see what I can find out.

    Keep the ideas coming. In the next day or so I will set up a new mailbox where people can leave questions or thoughts on what they would like to know.

    And thanks for all your good wishes. They are appreciated.


    No time like the present (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by dissenter on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:55:51 AM EST

    You got me Jeralyn:) Keep up the good fight. And just so everyone knows, while I am very sour on Obama, Jeralyn will continue to be a huge advocate for the Democratic nominee no matter who it turns out to be.


    Thank you and God speed (none / 0) (#144)
    by RalphB on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:36:12 AM EST
    Be safe (none / 0) (#169)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:09:08 AM EST
    Blog often :)

    Speaking as a woman . . . (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by nycstray on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:16:09 AM EST
    Our choices for President don't generally rate super high on the pro-women front, imo. What the problem is with Obama, is he let this crap go on. And now he's gonna pander for our vote? Well, that is if he thinks he needs to. He may just think we'll fall in line . .  OOOPS!

    If he had been running against another man, they would just be paying us lip service as usual and we would look at the one who seemed to be the most sincere on womens issues and check their voting record etc. He is running against a woman who is being treated pretty poorly and he's standing by because it's in his interest at the moment. Big mistake, imo.

    He's actually showing disrespect to his single mother (who raised him . . .)  by his actions. Uses her for his benefit on one hand, and doesn't stand up for women on the other . . .

    His mother (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by dissenter on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:20:16 AM EST
    That is another thing that always bugged me. He talks about his great love and admiration for his mother. She gets terminal cancer and he calls her on the phone. I don't know about you but if my mom was dying of cancer I would be spending the last moments with her - especially if she was alone.

    Maybe I am being unfair but that has always bugged me. I'm like - and where were you?


    OMG (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Nadai on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:30:22 AM EST
    His mother was dying and he called her on the phone?  Were there no planes wherever he was?

    I guess he's better than Dr. Laura, but geez...


    This fact cuts me deeply too (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:34:38 AM EST
    I recall published accounts of John F. Kennedy Jr. and how he stayed with his mother Jackie Kennedy as she lay waiting to die.  And the irony is this man is supposed to inherit JFK's mantle?

    Rose, not Jackie. (1.00 / 1) (#177)
    by oculus on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:38:54 AM EST
    John-John (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:54:13 AM EST
    and Jackie Kennedy.

    Got it. (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by oculus on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:54:50 AM EST
    No, Jackie was JFK, Jr's mother (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:55:37 AM EST
    Rose lived many years beyond JFK's death.

    Okay... (3.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:34:14 AM EST
    ...I think that is fair.  And maybe that is where we should start defining our terms, because I remember thinking he was arrogant going into New Hampshire, and I didn't like the implication that Senator Clinton was crying to win over voters.  Still don't.  Still doesn't sit well with me. I was very happy that she won New Hampshire at the time.  It was South Carolina that turned me off.  Not so much the campaign itself, but President Clinton's remarks.  

     On the other hand, I also remember his very careful approach to female voters.  And I can't disregard that.  I also can't disregard her outreach to African-American voters (her speech on HIV was pretty impressive).  

     I guess I feel the same way I felt when I voted.  Like 'em both, not entirely happy with the way their campaigns were conducted, not ready to let their most fervent supporters dictate the outcome.  And, of course, I voted for Obama, so I have some stake in the outcome of his campaign (limited though it may be).  

     What pisses me off is that I really, really detested the way the media was targeting Senator Clinton early on (the laugh, the lines on her face, etc.).  On the other hand what Bill did after the SC primary turned me as well.    

     What I guess I know in the end is that there is no way in hell I am voting for McCain.  That will have to be enough.



    What did Bill Clinton do (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by zfran on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:38:20 AM EST
    after SC. He told the truth about Jesse Jackson. We never even heard from Jesse Jackson (or Rev. Sharpton for that matter) because they were banned from being around Obama. Obama was supposed to be running as a candidate of no color. Who brought up race first, who is still using race now. Bill Clinton, perhaps could have chosen his words better, but he told the truth.

    There you go again! (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:41:43 AM EST
    Exactly what did Bill Clinton do or say that was racist in S. C.?  By saying that Jesse Jackson won there two twice?  What is racist about that fact?  That he pointed out that Barack Obama was black?  Is that something that needs to be pointed out?  Was that some big secret?  I thought it was Michelle Obama who first complained that the AA "just do not get it yet," as her way of complaining about the standing support of the AA for Bill Clinton and by extension Hillary Clinton.  Stop perpetrating this myth about Bill Clinton making a racist remark.

    You see, you want me to take at face value that you were a Hillary Clinton supporter who shifted to Obama.  I'm sorry.  But I don't believe you.  Especially if your sole excuse for shifting your support is only imputing racism to Bill Clinton's remark about jesse Jackson winning S. Carolina twice.


    Way more complicated than that... (1.00 / 3) (#164)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:00:15 AM EST
    ...my friend:

    You see, you want me to take at face value that you were a Hillary Clinton supporter who shifted to Obama.  I'm sorry.  But I don't believe you.  Especially if your sole excuse for shifting your support is only imputing racism to Bill Clinton's remark about jesse Jackson winning S. Carolina twice.

     First, I don't need "excuses" to shift my support, any more than you do.  Second, I wasn't certain of who I should support.  It was a pretty tangled web leading up to Super Tuesday.  I guess I could complain about not being able to vote for Edwards, but that is irrelevant at this point.  

     President Clinton is way too intelligent to excuse his S.C. comment.  This was a candidate (Obama) who won Iowa and was a close second in New Hampshire (we don't like to mull over the actual vote totals in that primary on this site, but it was pretty damn close).  I don't know that the comment was racist per se, but it is irrelevant as a point because it had the same effect.  

     Finally, although it is not an "excuse," the reason for shifting my vote probably had less to do with President Clinton's ignoble behavior than it did with the Iraq war vote and other personal factors.  

     Arrogance gets you nowhere.  I know that you assume (without basis) that I have been a die-hard Obama fan for the duration, but that is simply not the case.  You have shown absolutely no respect to me or any other supporter of Senator Obama.  

     I freely admit that I have been hardened by what I encountered on this site and others that support Senator Clinton.  Not quite the same as being called a liar.  


    First of all, please don't call me friend (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:49:41 AM EST
    I am quite selective in whom I call friend.  I don't know you and you don't know me other than what we have addressed to one another in this forum.

    Secondly, I never said that anyone had to have an excuse to support anyone. It could be anything like preferring apples to oranges.  You're the one who said that you began as a Clinton supporter and shifted to Obama after Bill Clinton's remarks in So. Carolina.  Your interpretation of those remarks and mine are totally in opposition.  You did not cite any other reason.  I did not assume anything about where you stood with Obama.  I did not believe that you were a Clinton supporter at one time, at least not since the primaries, because if your opinion of Clinton was the Iraq vote, then it was before the primaries; it means your were opposed to Clinton even then before Barack entered the picture.

    You are accusing me of showing you "absolutely no respect"? Just because you could not persuade me not to make McCain my plan B candidate in November?  I never called you a liar.  I said I did not believe you  , , , based on your own post.  


    Get over yourself... (1.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:02:59 AM EST
    ..."my friend." I include the italics to make the irony more obvious, since your choice for the next President of the United States uses it more openly.

     "shifted to Obama after Bill Clinton's remarks in So. Carolina..."

     As I made clear, one of the reasons, yes.  Not the sole reason.  

    "...because if your opinion of Clinton was the Iraq vote, then it was before the primaries..."

     I've documented my feelings about the Iraq war vote since 2002.  Latecomers to the opposition do not get to be snide about it.  

    "...it means your were opposed to Clinton even then before Barack entered the picture..."

     No.  It was a nagging feeling, certainly.  I wouldn't have weighed Edwards seriously if I was that concerned about the Iraq war vote.  It was always a major concern for me, but it would not become decisive until later.  

     "...I never called you a liar.  I said I did not believe you ..."

     And that, I think, speaks for itself.  


    I'd tell McCain the same thing (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:38:54 AM EST
    if he called me that personally.  And He is not my choice to be president, only in case My reach choice is not nominated by her party.  I'm saying her party because it won't be mine if she does not get nominated.

    I do not keep track of whatever opinions you may have written before somewhere else.  I was responding to your post.  But let me ask you a direct question so that I don't misunderstand: Did you ever vote for Hillary Clinton in any of the primaries?  Did you ever write anything favorable to Clinton that may have caused others to support her?

    My Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker is still on my jeep.  But Edwards changed his tone in 2008.  Hillary I have admired from way back and how she kept her family together under the circumstances and because she is intelligent, works diligently and follows through her initiatives.  She has not abandoned any of the issues she espoused:  healthcare/minimum wage/low middle income taxes, education, support for the military, a reasoned approach to homeland security.  She knows how to get things done.

    So far, you have not said anything that would make me believe you.  Just like Obama has not said anything or done anything to make me believe that he would make a good president.


    correction: my real choice (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:40:28 AM EST
    is Hillary Clinton.

    You are exactly right (none / 0) (#204)
    by bridget on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:54:26 AM EST
    I'll bet that the first female president (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by RalphB on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:05:20 AM EST
    will be a Republican.  That was the conventional wisdom prior to Hillary's run.  I'm ashamed to say that it might be correct this time.

    my problem with media darling status (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by DandyTIger on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:36:49 AM EST
    One issue, a valid one, that BTD brings up as a reason to choose Obama is because he is the media darling. Which essentially means, the media chooses our president. They pick a favorite and make it nearly impossible for anyone else to win.

    So there are a couple of problems with that. One is that many members of the media are complete idiots. As in totally bat sh*t crazy. Look at KO suggesting someone Clinton. Chris Matthews with his tingling legs and getting weak at the knees at the sight and sound of Obama. And the rest of the baboons blathering on with their half witted, at best, opinions on things they know nothing about. Apologies to actual baboons at the comparison.

    Another problem is that the member of the press, TV especially, are so far removed from normal americans, that they don't have a clue about what's going on. They readily make fun of blue collar americans as did Obama and don't see a problem. They make fun of OH, then PA, and then WV voters. I'm waiting for one of them on a cable channel while talking about kids going hungry in appalachia  to suggest that they eat cake.

    And finally a big problem is that they're fickle. They can turn on a dime and decide to like someone else. Because in addition to not being the brightest bulbs in the pack, the networks they work for tend to be pretty simple minded businesses that care about ratings. So if tomorrow McCain is more interesting, they he's their favorite.

    So what do we do. We seem to have no journalism left.  And it's not just TV journalism  A number of newspapers have the same garbage as the cable circuses. Even the Columbia Journalism Review seems to be heading down this road from a few articles I've noticed there. The fact that the topic of media darling is openly discussed and not discounted says it all really. It's not even up for debate. Well, unless your a pretend journalist debating it amongst other pretend journalists, then of course you can only conclude how great you are.

    Without an independent press, where are we. I don't know what to do. Write letters I guess. Not watch or buy things that exhibit extreme bias. But they all do to some extent. Any thoughts?

    Wow You are Deaf Dumb and Blind (5.00 / 6) (#202)
    by dissenter on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:45:36 AM EST
    Apparently you have missed the hundreds of posts by BTD indicating HE SUPPORTS OBAMA and always has. Jeralyn has said repeatedly that she will support the eventual nominee no matter which one it is.

    Perhaps you have spent too much time at Kos and Huff Post. At Talk Left, everyone is allowed to have their own opinion. The right to vote according to conscience is an American right. Last time I looked free speech was a right as well.  This is a site for discussion, not forced DOGMA, HARASSMENT, or the brownshirt brigade.

    If you think this blog or any other one is responsible for Obama's crappy poll numbers or lack of support on one side of the Democratic Party than you need serious help.

    If Obama can't EARN support or respect from Clinton supporters than that really is YOUR problem, not ours, BTD or Jeralyn.

    They are actually on your side. Maybe you should try READING.

    And speaking for myself, I don't OWE my vote to anyone. And neither does anyone else.

    Ain't America Grand!

    Nobody EVER Lost an Eection (1.00 / 3) (#103)
    by tokin librul on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:02:33 AM EST
    By over-estimating the bone-deep resistance the average, Mid-Dul Murkin feels toward pulling the lever to make a black man THEIR preznint. No white person has not been a (howbeit unwitting, perhaps) beneficiary, and no black person has not felt the sting--duBois' 'double consciousness,' probably, at least--of racism.

    But more than half of us (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by miriam on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:26:21 AM EST
    have felt the continuing stabs of mysogynism.  Just stop accusing every Clinton supporter of racism.  And you might ask your candidate to do the same.  

    I have always wanted a Jeep... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:48:26 PM EST
    But alas...my first car was a 97 Sunfire--red. She just got out of the shop after a leak was discovered in the coolant system.

    Glad that the senator's doing better.

    Just picked up a copy of Murder in the Rue de Paradis. It's the 8th in a series...::sigh::

    I'll miss BTD's posts and comments. (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:49:39 PM EST
    Out at the zoo all day today; really hot but fun.  Now I'm ready to catch up w/Talk Left.

    So what's going on with BTD? (none / 0) (#69)
    by jpete on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:31:43 PM EST
    I've been a fan of his for years.  It's not vice versa, but I can live with that and just regret whatever problems he is having.

    He suspended himself (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by dissenter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:33:19 PM EST
    until Monday. See previous threads.

    One thing... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Alec82 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:56:57 PM EST
    ...I never had a chance to talk about was Robert Mondavi's passing.  There were some posts on it but I was distracted.  Yesterday I listened to an old NPR interview with him.  Fascinating man.  He really managed to transform norhtern California's economy.  

    Did anyone see SNL? (none / 0) (#22)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:07:30 PM EST
    McCain was supposed to be on. Is it worth watching?

    McCain was just on (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by zfran on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:09:40 PM EST
    and he was pretty funny and very good.

    hasn't started here yet but (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:10:41 PM EST
    I'll turn on and watch the intro when it does.

    The intro is not political (none / 0) (#37)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:14:17 PM EST
    After the opening bit, they do this spilt Obama and Clinton talking at the same time. And after the Office in Japan skit which if you watch the Office, was funny. Then it is McCain speaking. That is as far as we have gotten. So don't give up at the opening skit.

    the split was cute (none / 0) (#92)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:52:16 PM EST
    Fairly neutral.

    I thought that was creepy. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Joan in VA on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:26:31 AM EST
    And McCain does a bit in (none / 0) (#51)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:22:22 PM EST
    the weekend News too.

    Yeah, as I just wrote. It is more funny tonight. (none / 0) (#33)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:11:31 PM EST
    Steve Carell is on and he is doing pretty good. Usher is on now. Yeah, watch it. McCain was a little stiff delivering his lines like when people are doing Top Ten lists. But, it made me smile a few times.

    Just saw McCain. (none / 0) (#74)
    by jpete on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:34:32 PM EST
    I thought he didn't have the ability to do comedy.  Could do the twist in voice his "joke" about age required.  No real grasp of  irony.

    So, how did you like McCain's bit on SNL? (none / 0) (#29)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:08:50 PM EST
    The funniest was making fun of his age. I also thought the Japanese Office was cute as was the Obama/Clinton half and half. So far, at least entertaining this week.

    I thought he was pretty much himself (none / 0) (#34)
    by RalphB on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:12:01 PM EST
    Seems to be a quite charming and humorous guy to me.  The bit was pretty funny, especially the "oldness".

    As a tepid McCain supporter, he did OK.  If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, I'm gonna have to get over that tepid part.


    Do what I do (none / 0) (#35)
    by dissenter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:13:28 PM EST
    Just think about Question Time and you're there.

    I love the idea of Question Time (none / 0) (#41)
    by RalphB on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:15:41 PM EST
    with the right participants you could put it on pay-per-view.

    PAY PER VIEW?! (none / 0) (#43)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:17:21 PM EST
    Who would pocket the profit, and doesn't that limit access to only those who have high-end, expensive levels of cable TV?

    Heh (none / 0) (#59)
    by RalphB on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:28:10 PM EST
    It would but I'm not serious, though the money could be used against the deficit  :-)  Just meant it might be fascinating TV.

    Ahhh, so the (none / 0) (#66)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:31:13 PM EST
    Obama network. Catering to his base.

    McCain is very sincere. (none / 0) (#60)
    by AX10 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:28:34 PM EST

    Colorado Delegate Selection (none / 0) (#36)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:14:15 PM EST
    previous thread at the very bottom described some very unpleasant behavior from an element of the Obama supporters.

    Any local news coverage on it?

    Why don't these things make national news?! They aren't shy about it, they are happy to carry nasty signage, etc.

    I read that too (none / 0) (#81)
    by janarchy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:40:12 PM EST
    I would hope that that sort of thing is pushed into the public eye either on the local news, on YouTube or basically anywhere that can be noticed. Its' that sort of thing that has turned me off entirely to the Obama campaign -- it's like brownshirt-level antics and it should not be tolerated. People like McAuliffe and the Clinton delegates need to speak out about this. It's disgusting and terrifying.

    McCain is urging Democrats about (none / 0) (#52)
    by Rhouse on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:23:15 PM EST
    Not to rush their choice and to keep the excitement going by not even picking some one at the convention or putting John Edwards on the ballot with Clinton and Obama.  
    Weekend Update is worth it.

    Very funny! "Might even want to kick the (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Joan in VA on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:39:31 AM EST
    tires on John Edwards some more."

    he's being sarcastic (none / 0) (#132)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:28:08 AM EST
    he's not serious, he's mocking Democrats.

    his best line (none / 0) (#135)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:29:07 AM EST
    was when he said about John Edwards, "you might want to kick him around one more time."

    I didn't have a negative reaction to that (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:14:09 AM EST
    he thought he was being funny or clever, trying to downplay the seriouslness of the debate situaation.

    I was always torn between Edward and Hillary and after he dropped out, I decided to support Hillary.

    Edwards, in my view, would make an excellent President. I'd rather he not be and AG for Obama as (1) he has no interest in crime issues and (2) the bureacracy might get to him as a former self-employed ligigator.His views on crime are less prgressive than Hillary's or Obama. I still see great things fro him in an upper Administration capacity...he has great ideas and he's very smart.


    McCain on Weekend Update (none / 0) (#53)
    by Steve M on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:23:22 PM EST
    Truly hilarious.  I still won't vote for him, but that was right up there with the time he sang Barbra Streisand.

    Charmer vs. Arrogance (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:29:37 PM EST
    I don't recall Obama being charismatic, ever. If he wants to run against McCain, he's going to HAVE to up his game on relating to the people, showing something that resembles the "humble" beginnings he claims he had, and he really, really needs to find a way to give a very public apology to the Clinton's for the character assassination attempts.

    I have a better chance (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by dissenter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:31:18 PM EST
    of winning powerball tonight than Obama apologizing for anything.

    He has his moments (none / 0) (#80)
    by Steve M on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:39:20 PM EST
    The time when he said he would have to investigate Bill Clinton's dancing ability, that was pretty good.

    Sugar N Spice Blog (none / 0) (#90)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:51:18 PM EST
    Sugar or one of her commenters said that if dancing was the criteria, Obama wouldn't qualify. I thought that was funny.

    Had a bad experience once when buying a Jeep (none / 0) (#64)
    by jerry on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:30:17 PM EST
    It wasn't the Jeep, so much as the extremely over pushy and downright *ssho*e salesperson, who was trying to weasel out of "refundable deposit" and claimed I had already purchased the car and I should come and pick it up.

    But it all turned out okay in the end when I drove through their showroom with my Yamaha 750, got off, called the guy all sorts of names in front of lots of people, and demanded my money.

    I assume these days I would end up tased, arrested, tased again and seeking a defense attorney.

    Interesting that the NY Times... (none / 0) (#65)
    by citizen53 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:31:03 PM EST
    did not mention that the memoir was based on composite figures.

    Americans like fiction.  That's why we watch so much reality tv.

    Response to Kid Oakland.... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Teresa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:32:39 PM EST
    You compare Donna Brazile to BTD? Wow. And just so you know...she is not "undecided" as you say. When confronted two different times by Campbell Brown and Wolf (I think it was him) she said she has definitely decided but wasn't going public yet.

    And I love the way you diminish Clinton's wins by saying she wins where he doesn't campaign. At least you are admitting his strategy for WV and KY. "I only got slammed because I didn't campaign there." Well, why not? Because he'd lose his excuse for losing.

    Obama did not campaign in WV/KY.. (5.00 / 6) (#76)
    by AX10 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:37:49 PM EST
    because he knows that this will be a tough crowd to win over.

    Hillary goes to AA churches, she speaks with her opponents, she makes sincere attempts to win over those who do not support her.  She takes the boos with grace.

    McCain goes to the 9th Ward, he speaks at Al Sharpton's event, he speaks to the unemployed blue collars, and he makes sincere attempts to try to win over support.

    Obama goes in front of cheering crowds who go "gaga" and faint when they see him.  He won't speak to his opponents, he does not make any attempt to win over those who have questions about him.

    Which of these three are unqualified to be POTUS?
    Hint, it's not one and two.


    All true... (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by ricosuave on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:59:39 PM EST
    ...except the headline.  Obama spent tons of money on the air in WV.  Probably doing the same in Kentucky (if he can find it...he thinks it is next to Arkansas instead of bordering his own state, apparently).

    Undeclared (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:07:40 AM EST
    Donna Brazile always corrects the moderators who describe her as undecided with, "no, undeclared".

    stupidity (none / 0) (#87)
    by dissenter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:49:31 PM EST
    abounds. I skipped the comments section. I don't have the stomach for it any longer. But the young mother will hear me and Kristen loud and clear in Nov and will wake up in the morning going "WTF happened?"

    I Was On HuffPo Much Of The Time Feeling (none / 0) (#112)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:13:30 AM EST
    my blood pressure rise...someone on there mentioned TalkLeft and I have rarely gone back.  It is an exercise in futility commenting there.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#116)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:18:26 AM EST
    HuffPo has another pro-Clinton article at the moment. This sudden change must be reflective of the huge number of "hits" her site lost after the PA Debate and the great purge of Hillary supporters from her site.

    Arianna must have noticed our absence (none / 0) (#195)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:21:01 AM EST
    to think that I set my homepage at one time to HuffPost (for several months!)  Now I check into LT at least ten times a day.

    I've taught my sons to respect (none / 0) (#117)
    by zfran on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:19:15 AM EST
    all people. That underneath, we are all the same. To purposely insult, demean, and offer himself as the next messiah, is high-handed, off-putting, and quite insulting to my intelligence, my sense of fair play and to advertise himself as a candidate of change, since he's come onto the scene, I have seen only negative change. I still do not know his policies, where he stands even on the supreme court. He seems to "love the one he's with" and argues both sides of every issue. I choose not to have him be our president..I do not consider his a leader (but a follower). I am not racist, nor am I unintelligent. I am an American with a choice and my choice is not him. I think he's dangerous for me and my family. I understand, however, how you might not want to vote for Hillary. I respect your choice, please respect mine.

    I was referring to pssttcmere08's comments (none / 0) (#121)
    by zfran on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:21:43 AM EST
    I do believe (none / 0) (#127)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:25:17 AM EST
    pssttcmere08 was quoting a comment from HuffPo regarding the article. Looks like the quote marks were just forgotten.

    If that's the case, my sincere (none / 0) (#139)
    by zfran on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:32:18 AM EST
    apologies. I feelings on this election are so heartfelt and I do not want any of my comments to sound negative (some might be). So, I am truly sorry...Maybe it's time for bed!

    Thank you. Well said. (none / 0) (#129)
    by nycstray on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:25:55 AM EST
    The two-facedness of Barack Obama (none / 0) (#126)
    by lilburro on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:23:50 AM EST
    I was just reading some of Chris Bowers' posts on net neutrality Open Left Bowers.  I'm struck by the way the 'netroots' frames itself as a movement and a class.  As if they were a powerful union.  Yet Barack Obama seems like he could give two sh*ts about what they have to say on any subject.  He's been very upfront about that.  They praise him and his campaign proposes the public "be able to comment on the White House Web site for five days before legislation is signed." Open Left article 2 .  But he doesn't meet with the Daily Kos-ers that love him, he doesn't read them, he throws them under the bus in interviews.  And...they expect him once elected to come running or something?  And really, White House message boards are not something I forsee changing national policy.  

    Also, linking the netroots to unions is laughable.  When do THOSE two groups get together to talk?  I assume not at candidate rallies, since they support two different candidates.  I assume not at barbecues, since they are composed of largely different demographics.  I assume not at blogs, since I never hear their voices.

    Is someone in the household a union member?
    Yes (31%) 59% 41%
    Yes (34%) 55% 43%  

    This union/'creative class' blogger unity is new to me.  

    misslaura frequently (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by oculus on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:36:41 AM EST
    posts union-supporting diaries on DK.  

    Let's not lose sight of the ball (none / 0) (#174)
    by Lupin on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:23:27 AM EST
    I am posting this simultaneously here and on DKos (where I'm user id 800+ so not a newbie).

    I am extremely disappointed by the present behavior of many users of both TalkLeft and Dkos in what might be dubbed the Obama/Hillary competition.

    Last February, I posted a diary on Kos in which I variously drew some analogies between Obama and Jimmy Carter and Obama and Werner Ehrard. I cannot be accused of being an Obamaton; I'm simply impervious to the man's charm.

    I am equally unmoved by Hillary Clinton; I do not find her appealing or trustworthy -- she looks insincere even when she probably is sincere -- and her inability to admit being wrong on Iraq is a constant thorn.

    Initially, my candidate was Edwards though, policy-wise, I'd be closer to Kucinich. I find both Hillary's and Obama's platform bland, mostly unrealistic, if not downright deceitful.  Here is what I wrote on DKos in March:

    On energy, do we find anything in Obama's or Hillary's programs (I'm referring to what's written on their respective websites) that takes into account what our own Jerome à Paris or Kunstler say almost on a daily basis about peak oil and its likely consequences? No.

    On health care, do their programs reflect or go towards what our own nyceve advocates? No.

    On foreign policy, do their programs account for what Jerome à Paris and the good and smart folks at European Tribune write about? No.

    On the economy, do their programs acknowledge what Professor Roubini or Bondad have diagnosed or are predicting -- the impending cost of bailing out the US financial system? No.

    On FISA, does either Obama or Hillary have shown any leadership on the issue, à la , say, Dodd? No.

    Now, I do understand that, in order to be elected in America, even by liberals, one must deliver the kind of delusional pablum that will not get you torn apart by the media.

    In fact, Evans' defeat, Kucinich's relegation to "kookdom", and on the right side of the aisle, Ron Paul's inability to get traction, are ample proof that the truth is still an electoral poison pill.  

    So while I sound somewhat peevish above, I don't really mind that Obama and Hillary are -- let's be blunt about it -- LYING to us in order to get elected.  

    When our next Leader has to deal with $5 trillion in Iraq war costs, $3 trillion in bailout costs, with the US$ likely to lose its world currency reserve, "YES WE CAN!" and 3 a.m. phone calls are rosy fantasies best forgotten.

    The bottom line is, I respect both Obama and Hillary, who are both very intelligent people, and quite capable, I'm sure, to be our next President, and I feel comfortable voting for either one of them, even though I don't particularly like either of them, and their present platforms are mostly delusional fantasies.

    Not everybody loves Obama. Not everybody loves Hillary. BUT THAT'S OKAY! Because either will be a gazillion times better than Scrooge McCain.

    I wish the TalkLeft users would wake up to this reality.

    Dream on.. (none / 0) (#179)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:42:12 AM EST
    ...I've seen no indication from either cult of personality that they accept the other.  More like listening to sports partisans than political campaigns.

    Try Paying Attention (5.00 / 5) (#189)
    by cdalygo on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:58:09 AM EST
    There are significant differences between the candidates. Obama has put Social Security and Universal Health care at risk. His campaign and its supporters have engaged in race baiting and sexist attacks designed to wedge the party apart. Hillary has shown an ability to win key states that we need to carry in November while he piled up wins in red states (generally with caucuses) that we will not carry in fall.

    There are even larger problems with how this primary process has unfolded due to the DNC's lack of neutrality. It plans to disenfranchise key states like Michigan and Florida, thus diluting the votes of other states that went for Hillary. Apparently it will allow Obama to declare "victory" on Tuesday in Iowa without having won the requisite number of delegates. It's leadership (e.g. Donna Brazile) regularly attacks rank and file members in public emails.

    It may make you "feel better" to ignore these facts or to denigrate them as something akin to "sports fans." But that masks fundamental problems within the Party. Throwing up someone unable to win -- knowing full he can't -- against McCain is what will cost us the presidency in the fall. Not because the people repeatedly insulted and cast aside refused to "play ball" but because top decision makers failed their fiduciary duties by placing their personal interests and grudges above the Party's interests.  


    About BTD (none / 0) (#180)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:43:41 AM EST
    Personally I think BTD deliberately sparred with KidO just so he could have the weekend off. ;-).

    PERSONALLY, I think his "punishment" should be that he has to write diaries but he can't comment.  We can say anything we want and he can't answer us ;-).

    I'll miss his diaries for a day, even if sometimes I think he's living in a mirrored world from mine.

    And prior to the Clinton conference call, did anyone picture him with a Latino accent?  I did.  When he wrote today, I tried and pictured a person with an "American" accent talking...but when he started in on KidO, in my brain, he lapsed back into the hot-tempered Latino I'd always pictured ;-).  (Yeah, I know that's a stereotype.  My definite bad, but I suppose it comes from years of being considered a "hot tempered redhead".)

    This is a terrific (none / 0) (#183)
    by oculus on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:51:57 AM EST
    comment. Perhaps if we gab awhile he'll come out of the woodwork.

    Listening to his prologue on the conference call, it became obvious to me we all are missing the boat.  Hillary and BTD have the future firmly in mind but we aren't there yet.  


    Per Charles Blow, NYT, Obama (none / 0) (#181)
    by oculus on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:49:08 AM EST
    won't need Appalachia:  BLOW

    Want to get infuriated?  Here's a sure to do the job phrase:  Part of Clinton's win-while-losing argument, . . ."

    Comments closed (none / 0) (#203)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:54:08 AM EST
    And while I will vote for Obama if he's the nominee, unlike BTD, I do not think he should be the nominee.

    Love my 2007 Jeep Liberty (none / 0) (#210)
    by stefystef on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:12:12 AM EST
    But the gas mileage totally blows.  These gas prices are getting too much, so I hardly drive anymore.  It's talking about $70 to fill up and it keeps going up, up, up!

    But don't worry about that.  Enjoy your Jeep.  It is a lot of fun and a solid vehicle.  I totally love it.  I get it on the road and it rides like butter- so smooth.

    Now if we could only get gas back down to $1.25.