Late Night: Running on Empty

"Running into the sun but I'm running behind."
Jackson Browne, Running on Empty

Here's a late night open thread -- you pick the topics, I'll stay out of it.

< Here Comes the Gender Post-Mortem | Look Who's Trashing Hillary Now >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    DNC: Fractured Fairy Tales (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by GeekLove08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:44:48 AM EST

    DNC: Fractured Fairy Tales

    Please pass this along to everyone you know. When you do, please ask everyone to go directly to YouTube and recommend it, rate it as their favorite video, and leave a comment.

    In the other posting about the misogynism (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by splashy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:54:50 AM EST
    Seen in this primary, I wanted to say to someone that talked about how women don't necessarily side with other women as much as the AA's side with each other that one reason may be that women are more integrated with misogynists, while AA's can choose to mostly only live around other AAs if they want.

    Because of this, women find themselves often compromising and being forced, or allowing, misogyny to be around them to keep the family peace. The ideas are incorporated into their own mind set to avoid cognitive dissonance and to survive without getting totally depressed about it.

    Considering it's been centuries, no - thousands of years, that women have been dealing with this issue, it's no wonder they often side with sexists, and become sexist themselves.

    When, on a daily basis, in your own family, you are told this is how it is, it becomes a part of you.

    I don't think that a lot of men truly understand how often there is that little voice in the minds of women that whispers "be careful, you may become abused by this man." Just look at the news sometimes from the point of view of women, and you see a constant litany of violence done to women. It's easy to come to the conclusion that women are weak, and men are strong if you only go by that criteria.

    Of course, part of the misogyny has been to teach women to not fight back, and that they can't fight back. That's why some men are so aggressive with strong women. Must keep them cowed (the word cow is even used derogatorily). We have seen that quite a bit with this primary.

    I think another big problem is (none / 0) (#21)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:28:32 AM EST
    that a lot of women of a certain age don't know how to compete.  Usually, there was only one slot for the token woman, and they knew that if they said the wrong thing or fell out of favor, another woman would get their place.  Have y'all ever heard the story of why Madonna became so big?  Because the boys at the radio stations thought she was hotter than Cindy Lauper, and they could only play one woman, so they chose Madonna.

    Men grew up playing team sports and knew that you could get out your aggression on the field, then go have beers with the losers and everything was okay.  Women didn't have this outlet until Title IX shoved it down schools' throats.  Girls today compete in all different kinds of sports and they learn to play well with others.


    May I just say after (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by zfran on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:37:13 AM EST
    reading various posts on media sexism and the like, as for me, (and perhaps others), I voted for Sen. Clinton, not because she is a woman. I voted for Sen. Clinton because I believe she is most qualified. The outrage I feel at how her candidacy has been portrayed and treated outrages me and sickens me. Politics by its very name can and has been dirty, however, this year has been particularly vile. Instead of celebrating how far we've come, some must demean and push out. So, my vote this year will be for no one on the top of the ticket. That is my protest. Who knows what the future of this country will be with a McCain, or without a Hillary. Either way, Sen. Clinton will be blamed!!

    Imagine if Obama was a woman. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Fabian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:50:01 AM EST
    Any race you like, but female.

    Would he be where he is now?  Would anyone take a chance on a woman with that record?  Would "her" oratory be as compelling delivered in an alto?  Would she be considered a Leader without the physical manly presence?

    I think the answer is "No way, sister!".  Even if she racked up the fundraising that Obama did.  She'd probably be asked to drop out and fork it over "For the good of the party.".


    I wish I were more partisan. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Fabian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:44:40 AM EST
    More convinced that My Party is the greatest, better for everyone, gonna solve the world's problems Party.

    But I'm more convinced that the Democrats need a serious attitude adjustment and reality check.  Better Than Bush just isn't going to be enough for me.

    The Dems have had seven years to learn and grow and not only be better than Bush, but to be better than they are.  Instead I think they are "no better than they ought to be", a couple steps above the Republicans but in danger of backsliding at any moment.

    Perhaps a little tough love from the grass roots is in order.  Start a little activist group: The DNL - Doormats No Longer!

    Where Can I sign up (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by zfran on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:53:53 AM EST
    I'd also like to add one other thing to my post above...For those who might ask how I know Sen. Obama would not make a good pres., let me answer with this: He failed the interview. When a candidate only tells me why the other person isn't qualified instead of why he is, something is wrong. Also, I have not heard (if someone else has, please let me know)what sort of judges he might appoint to the supreme court. He seems to agree with whoever he is with at the time, inotherwords, taking all sides.

    Doormats No Longer! (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by A little night musing on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:43:49 AM EST
    The party I've been waiting for all my life!

    Sigh... I had such high hopes for this election cycle back at the beginning...


    Why bother with a protest group?? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:48:27 AM EST
    Start a new party with the same platform as the old Dem Party. The American Women's Party. The platform would be no more war to kill our children, an economy everyone can make a decent living in, equal rights for everybody, clean air and clean water, funding for education rather than testing, upkeep on the infrastructure, and support for farmers to grow food not fuel. The American farmer can feed the world, if we don't pay him not to grow food.

    I respect your opinion Daltine (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:30:29 AM EST
    You were a good spokesperson for Obama.  Not many people jump off a bandwagon when it looks like the candidate will win.

    I don't know how to link to it (none / 0) (#26)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:37:52 AM EST
    but Dalton did a great diary on senate hopefuls who have a good chance of turning red areas blue.  I've already looked up some of them and made donations (in between my phone banking!).  It's a good guide to use in order to funnel your resources into campaigns that matter.

    I am getting some good responses from folks I've called for Clinton.  Our girl has lots of support.  She's going all the way and I am going to be right there with her!


    What exactly (1.00 / 0) (#3)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:15:27 AM EST
    are the trends that you see that suggests that Obama will lose in November.

    The Republican Party is in shambles.  There are no safe seats for the Republicans this year.  The Republicans are getting killed in the special elections so far, in districts they never lose.

    The trends would suggest a massive Democratic victory in November.

    It's pretty obvious (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:54:46 AM EST
    he won't get the rural against McCain. Perhaps you missed the latest poll. And they are 23% of the country's voters.

    Add that to the number of women who won't vote for him (which doesn't include me, since I will vote for him if he is the nominee.)

    It's not clear he'll get the Hispanic vote and he is very unlikely to beat McCain in that demographic in Florida.

    In short, he's unlikely to win PA, Ohio and Florida. Pretty hard to win the presidency without at least one of those and preferably two.


    Jeralyn, I know this was not the intent (none / 0) (#17)
    by feet on earth on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:01:24 AM EST
    of you post, 'cause you'll support Barak if we becomes the nominee, but I could not help it and think:

    Yea, he is running on empty ... suit  


    not my intent (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:38:29 AM EST
    Hillary is the candidate "running into the sun" -- towards light and illumination -- yet she's behind.

    how do you know any of this? (none / 0) (#36)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:05:32 AM EST
    You guys are now just making assumptions based on nothing.  The vast majority of Hillary supporters will line up behind Obama.  Maybe the denizens or TL and TaylorMarsh won't but blogs commenters are hardly indicative of typical voters.  

    2 more SDs pledged to Obama this morning.   Obama will likely get about 50 delegates tomorrow night.  That will put within 70 delegates.   The end is near.


    And you are gaining converts how? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Marvin42 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:09:08 AM EST
    By statements like "the end is near."

    Try this one: enjoy watching your candidate flame and crash in Nov. And practice saying "senator McCain."

    Sad part is most Hillary supporters will be much more graceful when Sen Obama loses the GE.


    I'm not trying to gain converts (none / 0) (#39)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:24:16 AM EST
    You guys are upset at Obama for the actions of others.  Nothing I can do about that.

    The end is near.  You guys are having non-stop theories of how things are going to turn around for Hillary.  But they aren't.

    I have plenty of practice Senator McCain and I suspect I will have 4 more years of saying it.

    This is baseball.  If  your "team" loses you can't just be petulant about it and root for the other team.  There are far too many important issues that need to be dealt with.  And we have a chance to have a filibuster proof Senate AND a Democratic President.


    This is nothing like baseball (or any other sport) (none / 0) (#44)
    by Marvin42 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:21:55 AM EST
    It is MUCH much more serious. And what you don't get (and I think a lot of Obama supporters don't get) is that unlike baseball YOU NEED ALL OF THE PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE.

    But you know, whatever. Sen Obama, the DNC, and his supporters have actually gotten me to leave the party, so obviously you are right. In your mind it is like baseball.

    Good luck with the big game.


    you are morphing into a recruiter (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:40:59 AM EST
    and one who chatters. 20 comments a day for you.

    Whatever you say (none / 0) (#48)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:18:58 PM EST
    Gotta enforce that rule on Obama supporters.  

    A chatterer.  Right.  My 6 comments today and about 30 in a week are clearly a sign of a chatterer.


    End of primaries, or the (none / 0) (#38)
    by zfran on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:10:46 AM EST
    end of the dem party. The SD's are cowards. From what I see, some are just (sp) followers, when we are looking for leadership. People have said so many times, if you're not voting for Obama, what about the supreme court..can someone find something on what Obama's views are and picks will be on the supreme court nominees. I don't even know if he's pro-choice. In PA what might he have promised the Sen. Casey, a concervative dem senator to get his support? We just don't know after all this time?!

    Really? He's going to get 2210? (none / 0) (#42)
    by MarkL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:10:38 AM EST
    Don't you get it? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Left of center on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:01:38 AM EST
    Obama's entire candidacy is just Donna Brazile flexing her political muscle. They know Obama has no chance in the general election. In Al Gores 2000 campaign, Donna Brazile suggested that Gore distance himself from the Clintons because of Monica and all that other irrelevant crap. So instead of Brazile fessing up to making arguably  the most bonehead move in political campaign history, she seeks revenge against the Clintons. Like it's somehow their fault that she screwed up.

    Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Foxx on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:12:08 AM EST
    His entire candidacy is the huge amount of money he has managed to collect. And I for one do not believe it comes from small donors. It comes from Wall Street and oil and gas and all those people who buy Republicans and Democrats and don't care who is in power as long as they are not regulated. He would be much easier on them than Clinton will be.

    The trends suggest (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Fabian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:46:50 AM EST
    a very insecure electorate with a LOT on their minds, especially the economy.

    The less secure people feel, the less likely they are to take a chance on an unknown.

    The oh-so-obvious thing to do with Obama is to portray him as a young, inexperienced pol with a skimpy record who has not overcome a single major challenge in his career.  Untried, untested, unknown.

    This might not matter to any truly partisan Dem, but for lesser beings, security is more important than Change!  Remember, Bush managed to get a second term by appealing to people's insecurities.  It works.


    My bad (none / 0) (#31)
    by flyerhawk on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:41:33 AM EST
    My lyin eyes misread your comment.  My apologies.

    Video: Edwards schools Obama (none / 0) (#8)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 19, 2008 at 03:43:53 AM EST
    Take a look at this VIDEO of Edwards criticizing Obama on the subject of the poor, the middle class, organized labor, etc. It helps explain why voters in that demographic, who formerly supported Edwards, have shifted their support to Clinton rather than Obama.

    This video makes Edwards' recent, about-face endorsement of Obama appear all the more disingenuous and self-contradictory. Not to mention the explicit cynicism of making the endorsement at the height of the prime time news cycle the day after the folks of WV made it abundantly clear that Clinton is the candidate who best represents their interests.  

    WV is one of the three poorest states in the Union. How ironic that Mr. Edwards, the self-proclaimed Pope of Poverty, robbed the voters of WV of their BIG STORY when he made himself and Obama the major news story of the day. Likewise, the networks robbed the people of WV when they bumped their interviews with the WINNER (Clinton) in order to do live coverage of a LOSER endorsing a LOSER.

    If WV is any indication, it would appear that 'low-information voters' don't need Edwards or the MSM to tell them what's good for them. Now, on to Kentucky for another major clock-cleaning.

    Tom Hayden (none / 0) (#10)
    by facta non verba on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:09:01 AM EST
    wrote about this months ago in the Huffington Post and has been rehashing this every so often usually around an Obama problem like Wright or Ayers.

    Here is a story on Obama's problems with blue collar workers:

    Obama's Widening Income Gap

    I care! (none / 0) (#16)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:59:55 AM EST
    I might support a downticket of real dems too--except I am in a totally red location, not even any dems running for anything apparently. Certainly one would have no chance. That means I can sit it out without affecting the outcome--shoot, even my voting for McC would not affect the outcome.  One drop in a very large bucket.  I am watching the writeinHillary site to see if a write in is even possible here.

    I'm in TX and no (none / 0) (#18)
    by zfran on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:01:56 AM EST
    write-in vote here and this is a red state. There are dems running down ticket, but my vote will not elect them. I think even a vote for Hillary   wouldn't matter here!!

    My vote in very red GA won't matter (none / 0) (#19)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:22:20 AM EST
    which is why I have the luxury of saying I won't vote for him.

    I remember Carter.  I lived through Reagan.  Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry...hm...is there anyone in between who appealed to all voters across the board and brought the fighting dem spirit to the forefront?

    If Obama had taken one stand, made one statement to object to all the blatant sexism, or spoken out against the horrible treatment Clinton is getting from the media, I wouldn't have any ground to stand on here.

    As with everything else in Obama's unstoried political career: inactions speak louder than words.


    My song of the day (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:24:16 AM EST
    popped up on my iPod when I was vacumming yeaterday.

     Elvis Costello, All This Useless Beauty:

    It wont even make sense but you can bet
    If she isnt a sweetheart or plaything or pet
    The film turns her into an unveiled threat

    Nonsense prevails, modesty fails
    Grace and virtue turn into stupidity
    While the calendar fades almost all barricades to a pale compromise
    And our leaders have feasts on the backsides of beasts
    They still think theyre the gods of antiquity
    If something you missed didnt even exist
    It was just an ideal -- is it such a surprise?

    What shall we do, what shall we do
    With all this useless beauty?
    All this useless beauty

    TaylorMarsh.com (none / 0) (#23)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:32:58 AM EST
    has a great on the ground report from someone working for Clinton in Oregon if anyone is interested.

    I'm going to make my final push with phone calls this afternoon and tomorrow morning, then on to the next states.

    Rise, Hillary, Rise!!!

    Thanks Kathy (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:37:08 AM EST
    You have been really keeping my spirits up lately!!



    What sort of responses are (none / 0) (#25)
    by zfran on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:37:21 AM EST
    you getting on the phone?

    Over the weekend (none / 0) (#29)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:39:53 AM EST
    it was quick and to the point.  People are much more chatty during the week, and I get lots of older folks and some bored moms who really want to talk about issues and such.  I'm a good little shill for our girl, so of course I talk their ears off!

    I'd say that, of the calls that get answered in OR, it's been about split, maybe favoring Obama depending on the day.  KY is overwhelmingly Clinton, though.

    I like calling KY better!


    how hilarious would it be (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:38:23 AM EST
    if Obama claims victory and the supers turn around and give it to Hillary?

    Rise, Hillary, Rise!!!! (none / 0) (#28)
    by zfran on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:39:29 AM EST
    I think Edwards whispered in his ear (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:55:14 AM EST
    "Ixsnay on the ictoryvay"

    Also Wolfson scared him with the 'Mission Accomplished" comparison. He has backed off the big victory declaration thing.  

    I would have loved to see him get trounced in KY and lose or win very narrowly in OR and then have a big celebration.  Insane.

    Instead he is coming to Florida for 3 days.  Interesting to see what kind of reception he gets.


    "what kind of reception he gets" (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:01:51 AM EST
    I suspect it will be a controlled reception.

    Exactly, just like GWB (none / 0) (#35)
    by zfran on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:04:21 AM EST
    got in the 2000 campaign!!

    The DNC should be worried (none / 0) (#30)
    by A little night musing on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:41:16 AM EST
    I was sad to read this comment, although I must say I agree with your reasoning. Sad because you've been a very reasonable commenter and diarist, with a lot to say, and an Obama supporter, reminding me that they (reasonable Obama supporters who do not feel a need to demonize Clinton) do exist. I wonder how many reasonable people are starting to feel the way you do.

    I too am disgusted and want to smack the DNC.

    we are all very happy (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:55:16 AM EST
    that it is finally spring at my house

    hope you are too

    Interesting article (none / 0) (#47)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:55:55 AM EST
    from the Christian Science Monitor on what Obama's father's heritage (which we all know has not influenced Obama's religion in any way, and that the man is, in fact, a practicing Christian) could mean to the Muslim world.  Don't let the headline turn you off.  It's more about cultural differences and perceptions.

    Should Obama become US commander in chief, there is a strong likelihood that Al Qaeda's media arm, As-Sahab, will exploit his background to argue that an apostate is leading the global war on terror (read: attacks against fellow Muslims). This perception would be leveraged to galvanize sympathizers into action.