home

Thursday Afternoon Open Thread

Thanks to Big Tent Democrat for keeping us up to date on Florida and Michigan.

As for other news, check out the new ACLU blog. Lots of bloggers including Christy of Firedoglake, McJoan of Daily Kos, Marcy (Empty Wheel), Nicole of Crooks and Liars and Glenn Greenwald of Salon have posts up on torture.

My post is "The Unfriendly Skies of Ghost Air."

Colorado is under tornado watches and warnings today. A few have already hit down, the University of Northern Colorado is on lockdown. The city of Windsor so far has gotten hit the worst. At one school, they evacuated the kids and put them in the vault at the bank next door. Baseball size hail is expected. Denver right now is fine, but we're on a tornado watch too and severe thunderstorms with hail are coming. 40,000 are without power. The local tv stations have suspended regular programming to cover it.

More...

I have a big brief due tomorrow a court hearing to prepare for. This is an open thread for topics other than Michigan and Florida.

Comments now closed.

< Obama Talks . . . About The Florida Delegates | More On the Malign Acceptance of Sexism >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Jeralyn, be safe. (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:44:07 PM EST


    ditto that--sorry to hear abt, the bad weather (none / 0) (#58)
    by kempis on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:14:27 PM EST
    keep under cover. (none / 0) (#143)
    by scribe on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:09:49 PM EST
    And hope the power holds until you get your brief done and filed.

    A few years back, we had grape to walnut sized hail (3 waves, each bigger than the last) which left my then-car (an Escort) with a wonderfully textured corrugated roof and hood.  I was glad I'd saved my old steel mill hard hat, since I had to wear it outside to pull the car in under cover.

    And about the hard had I'd been told to "throw that darn thing out", since "you'll never need it and it's just taking up space."

    Parent

    Karl Rove subpoenaed by House.. (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:45:56 PM EST
    A subpoena has been served on Karl Rove by the House Judiciary Committee. Finally, Congress is starting to take steps to clean up the mess in this administration.
    The committee ordered Rove to appear July 10 to testify on allegations he was a key player in pressing the Justice Department to dismiss some U.S. attorneys and to prosecute Democrats

    It had authorized the subpoena earlier, but only delivered it Thursday after Rove's attorney said he would not appear voluntarily, Chairman John Conyers, D-Michigan, said in a written statement.

    Just thought y'all would be interested in this..hehehe.

    I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Monda on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:49:43 PM EST
    unfortunately anything will happen to Rove from the Hill.  Watched yesterday a hearing with oil companies.  It was a joke.  

    Parent
    Two things (none / 0) (#104)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:43:56 PM EST
    First of all, they seemed so unsorry for the greed. But then they got to the crust of the matter. We need to open up drilling in Alaska and the Pacific Rim. Wow, shades of 1976. The world is running out of oil. Let's drill in Alaska and make a pipe line. Yep,and guess what, they were only yoking. There is plenty of oil.

    I found it interesting that CNN.com had a picture of these guys and a big headline. I read the story and 10 minutes went back to quote from it and it was gone.

    Parent

    Oh, how I wish (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:57:40 PM EST
    we still had a functioning Justice Department!

    I used to follow these developments with breathless excitement. Now I know the Dems have no muscle in the DOJ to enforce these subpoenas.

    KKKarl is rubbing his pasty little hands together and chortling in his slimy den.

    Parent

    I used to follow them closely too (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:00:03 PM EST
    before someone kidnapped Josh Marshll

    Parent
    "kidnapped Josh Marshll" (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:22:48 PM EST
    I am starting to think "pod people" are involved.
    it really is the only believable explaination.

    Parent
    Indeed! (none / 0) (#66)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:19:30 PM EST
    Hmph, you'd think this was an election year (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:09:25 PM EST
    Dems revolt me.

    If they want to change the narrative about themselves, the time to do it was before the WH festooned a float with unanswered Leahy subpoenas and roared up and down in front of his house with the subpoena'd no-shows yelling "Suck it, P!"

    Parent

    I still want him flogged while he's reading it (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:04:52 PM EST
    I know ... I should be above such ideass but it's Karl Rove!!!

    :-D

    Parent

    HIGHLY DOUBT (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by athyrio on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:47:25 PM EST
    I HIGHLY doubt Hillary would want the VP slot and that is why I think Obama's handlers are saying no to her in advance as they know she wouldn't accept it even if offered...

    It's a talking point (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:50:10 PM EST
    to make the nomination race appear over.

    MSNBC got the memo and spent all day talking about whether Hillary would take the VP.

    Parent

    Huff Post claims Bill Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:50:41 PM EST
    is campaigning for Hillary Clinton to get the VP slot.  (But, I didn't open the link.)

    Parent
    If she wants it, she's clearly earned it. (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:51:39 PM EST
    Obama really is a narcassist.

    Parent
    I would argue that his narcissism (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:55:38 PM EST
    would prevent him from taking the VP spot, which would be more than he deserved at this point.

    I think his wife just hates both Clintons, as do many of the New Plutocratic Party who surround Obama.

    Whatever the reason, Clinton-as-Veep is na ga hapin.

    Parent

    I want her to stay in the Senate (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by nycstray on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:12:22 PM EST
    if she's not the nom.

    He can go win/lose on his own.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#169)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:56:00 PM EST
    she will stay in the Senate if she loses. I saw Lanny Davis on FOX, yeah I can't believe I watch FOX either, and he said that he still thought she could win but that if she didn't he thought she would do quite well as the Jr. Senator from New York in Bobby Kennedy's seat. And that's what I hope she will do if and when.

    Parent
    Ya gotta love all this (2.00 / 12) (#49)
    by jondee on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:11:05 PM EST
    crap about "selfishness" and "narcissism", with a not much more than a roaring silence in regard to policy as if that aspect were all but irrelevant.

    Vote for your fav feel-good personality. What is this, an installment of Rock of Love?

    When one starts to see the level of gross stupidity that the spinmeisters and media hucksters have reduced the electorate to, it's no wonder that many of you were so convinced 8 years ago that that coke-addled fratboy was "a consensus builder" (without necessarily knowing what a consensus builder was).

    Is "narcissism" the new uppity, btw? Im starting to suspect that it is.

    Parent

    Obama (5.00 / 6) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:14:38 PM EST
    isn't campaigning on policy. If he was you might have a point. He certainly can't seem to explain what his stances are in debates and frankly looks bored talking about it.

    Parent
    Obama does policy? (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Fabian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:15:52 PM EST
    Has he given up on the Biographical Narrative about how he pulled himself up by his single mother's bootstraps yet?

    Parent
    LOL, thanks. (none / 0) (#142)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:09:40 PM EST
    Classic Obamabot. (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:16:28 PM EST
    We are stupid, Republican AND racist.

    Feeeeeeeel the unity!

    Parent

    You don't know jondee.... (3.00 / 2) (#107)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:45:25 PM EST
    he's not an Obama-bot or a Clinton-ista...he calls 'em as he sees 'em...his principles are consistent in and out of election season.

    I wish everybody was like that...

    Parent

    But K-Dog... (2.33 / 3) (#134)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:02:03 PM EST
    ...these people don't care if jondee has been around here long, long before they "discovered" TL.  They only care that he isn't a part of the current cult o' personality and therefore, an Obamabot.  

    Didn't you get that memo?  

    Parent

    oBot trolls use others' Cheetoh Central IDs here (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:09:55 PM EST
    Cheap way to feign cred. (Ah yes, the Obama campaign is all about class ain't it?)

    I know the ID borrowing for a fact since a stupid oPod used my own ex-handle to pranced around me and fearmonger about some of "my" top concerns posted at Cheetoh HQ.

    How repellant. It's like Obama WANTS to lose the general election.

    Parent

    Really (none / 0) (#146)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:12:29 PM EST
    can you provide us with posts on this site that have come from "obot" cheetoh id's here? WE like specific examples as opposed to blanket accusations with no supporting evidence, unlike the current administration.

    Parent
    Read my post, eedjit (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:17:20 PM EST
    When someone uses MY OWN HANDLE from Cheetoh HQ unaware that I used it there for many years, I'm comfortable making that statement.

    It's certainly got more tangible evidence behind it than some of the Psychic Friends' mind-melds and chorused truthiness that pass for "factual" bases at the Cheesy Place.

    Parent

    why call me an idiot (1.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:19:59 PM EST
    is it because your weren't loved as a child? It must be. I can tell by the way you type. Please just give us the links and provide evidence that there is some sort of conspiracy.

    Parent
    As per above, your Mind Melds are really off (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:29:13 PM EST
    The Obama campaign of Self Help and Psycho Caca instead of policies really targets his audience well.

    Your analyses are idiotic, your comprehension level is dim, and my observation at least has some connection to objective reality.

    Parent

    seriously (1.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:32:29 PM EST
    a little self help for you might go a long way, maybe start with Dr. Phil. But not until you provide EVIDENCE that obamas campaign is taking over online identities. If you cannot, I can only assume you see invisible helicopters outside your window at night and that scares me a bit.

    Parent
    Yea... (none / 0) (#150)
    by CST on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:15:43 PM EST
    "It's like Obama WANTS to lose the general election. "

    Even if what you say is true, it's not like Obama personally told the person to do this.  

    Can we PLEASE stop attributing bloggers remarks to campaigns.

    Parent

    I judge not by the orangeness of oBots' fingers (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:22:57 PM EST
    ... but squawking point content of their posts.

    When a gaggle descent here with with the squawking points and linking to Cheetoh Central I conclude from the forensics that, whether by accident or design, that meeting of disasterous campaign and doofus level of follower is destined to be:

    the most expensive landslide loss in history.  

    Parent

    wow that is great (none / 0) (#162)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:33:21 PM EST
    is your name Emerson?

    Parent
    Agree (2.33 / 3) (#177)
    by squeaky on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:26:58 PM EST
    TL has become a schoolyard of Clinton fanboy refugees fighting all the imaginary kossaks and if anyone steps in to say this is nuts the pile on starts.

    Insults are fine when it comes to Obama, and yes I agree with Jondee that narcissism seems to be the new uppity.

    Parent

    Are you fricken kidding me? (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:49:26 PM EST
    That's absurd.  I think he's a narcassist.  How dare you associate that with a racial slur.  This has become so unhealthy.  It's literally impossible for anyone to express a negative opinion of Obama without someone saying it's racist.  

    Parent
    BS (1.00 / 1) (#186)
    by squeaky on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:14:54 PM EST
    Narcissism is a mental illness. He is no more for himself than either Clinton, Edwards or most sucessful pols.

    Uppity is a slur for Black person, usually a male, who is acting as if he thinks more of himself than he should be thinking.

    Calling only Obama narcissistic, even though he thinks no more of himself than other Pols think of themselves, is akin to calling Obama uppity.

    Parent

    Totally out of line, insulting (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:23:51 PM EST
    and ridiculous.  You and I share different impressions of Obama.  Mine isn't based on racial stereotypes, it's my impression of the man.

    Parent
    OK (1.00 / 1) (#192)
    by squeaky on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:29:20 PM EST
    If someone called Hillary a b*tch of shrill, will you argue that they were just being succinct?

    Parent
    B*tch is a gender charged word. (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:36:21 PM EST
    Narcassist is not at all racially charged.

    Parent
    Definitely (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:26:09 PM EST
    People use 'narcissism' when what they really mean is 'racist slur'. Feel better?

    Parent
    They over-use Narcissist to mean 'Shaddap!' too (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:37:20 PM EST
    As in, 'Why aren't you paying attention to mmmmeeeeeeeee!!!' ("Jeez, what a baby," I keep telling my 18-month old nephew, who has no business tossing around big words.)

    Parent
    Jondee (2.14 / 7) (#86)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:30:30 PM EST
    The hillheads here do not like when someone speaks ill of them. They are completely within their right to provide a constant stream of personal attacks but you are not. Let me do it for you. There are like 10 of them, completely unrepresentative of rational Hillary supporters, and are in need of assistance. John McCain has a wonderful pay as you go health plan that I am sure they will all be supporting because they ain't gonna go so they figure they are saving lots of dough. Every office, every blog, every church, every social club has them. They are a the misery club. Can't really hate em for it, but their comments do make normal people nauseous....

    Parent
    Not quite as nauseous (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:35:06 PM EST
    as Jondee's arguments on another thread supporting polygamist father's rights to pass their adolescent girls around for sexual favors.

    Unity 08!

    Parent

    I have not seen that comment (none / 0) (#106)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:45:16 PM EST
    But if it has to do with the ruling that the texas police were wrong in taking those children, I support fully. While I don't agree with the tenets of their religion and believe that child endangerment laws should be enforced, I believe they should be done legally and not en masse. Taking those kids from their mothers is reprehensible. I am all for investigating to protect those children but it must be done with proper cause and legally.

    Parent
    It never occurs to you (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:37:07 PM EST
    that people might actually have legitimate reasons for not wanting to vote for Obama, does it?

    Could you be more condescending? Sweetie?

    And if someone has a temper tantrum and starts throwing around accusations that commenters here are racist, stupid and Republican, then we're supposed to pretend it didn't happen?

    You are really from another planet here.


    Parent

    Actually, that sounds exactly like this planet. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by leis on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:42:49 PM EST
    Unfortunately.

    And we aren't supposed to pretend it didn't happen, we are supposed to vote for their guy, cause turns out they actually need "the misery club".  

    What emissaries of stupidity.

    Parent

    blame your SD's (3.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:47:54 PM EST
    they are voting for Obama. Blame the media, they never gave Hillary a fair shake. Blame the 46% of the voters that voted for the him. Reasonable. But the name calling by the "misery club" on this blog is nauseating. The level of discourse for this group of ten is embarassing. Personally, I think they should all smoke a little herb and eat some oreos, doesn't make Obama go away but feels really good.

    Parent
    No, if Obama is the nominee (none / 0) (#119)
    by leis on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:53:24 PM EST
    it will be the GE that makes him go away.

    Parent
    Really (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:55:27 PM EST
    what were your predictions 7 months ago? I am on record on this site more than a year ago saying that Hillary will not win the nom. Where were you? I hope you stay around so in 6 months i can repost this and ask you where your head is.

    Parent
    awwwww, he called us 'toots' (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:06:37 PM EST
    I just love it when you guys expose your true ugly insides for everyone to see again.

    Parent
    I believe (3.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:40:46 PM EST
    Jondees comments were about the media, nothing about race and did not call anyone stupid. Now if you feel stupid, that is really your issue not Jondees. I am from planet Zxycor, and men are called sweetie there, it is a refreshing twist to see men subjugated, although I must admit, that is why I left there.

    Parent
    Now, you not only WORM Obama but other (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by leis on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:50:07 PM EST
    Obama supporters as well.  

    She was not talking about the media. She said the media turned us into a bunch of people who were too stupid to know that Bush was evil incarnate and she also said we didn't know what a consensus builder is.

    But hello we are the low information group, what do you expect?  

    I wonder if Jondee knows what incarnate means?

    Parent

    yes you are correct (4.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:52:33 PM EST
    i took it as a swipe at the media but it is a swipe at the electorate for electing bush

    Parent
    Your belief is unsupported by fact then. (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:51:53 PM EST
    Jondee implictly made an accusation of racism with the whole 'narcissism' means 'uppity' now BS. And his entire comment was steeped in his holier-than-thou attitude of how stupid every voter that doesn't agree with his views is.

    So much for your beliefs. Read it again and believe whatever you want.

    Parent

    i guess you could (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:53:49 PM EST
    take the race angle on uppity, but I didn't. i think it is a fair argument

    Parent
    Riiiiiiiight (none / 0) (#126)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:58:12 PM EST
    let's all pretend he didn't mean anything racial by 'uppity'. wow, you're smart.

    Parent
    I have debated with Jondee (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:59:07 PM EST
    for years and I just didn't take it that way. I said you have a fair argument and Jondee should respond. Just not how I read it.

    Parent
    and I am very smart (none / 0) (#131)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:59:40 PM EST
    my mummy tells me so.

    Parent
    Hopefully (none / 0) (#124)
    by befuddled on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:55:35 PM EST
    because of a massive karmaslide.

    Parent
    I'm not voting for Obama... (none / 0) (#163)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:36:32 PM EST
    though If I'm not mistaken J prefers Obama but will vote for the Democrat.  Me?  Kerry is the last Democrat I will ever vote for, and I decided that long before this election season began.

    I have reasons not to vote for Obama, and they are the same reasons I will not vote for Hillary or McCain.  I've posted them a thousand times, but I wouldn't want to interrupt the team sports exhibition with issues again, you can look 'em up if you care.

    Parent

    well none of the ca's (none / 0) (#170)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:58:23 PM EST
    represent my views on the military industrial complex, incarceration insanity, complete failure of the drug war, equal rights for homosexuals (not portions of equal rights), free healthcare and college for all and quality education for those of us not born into money. So my vote for years has been the "not that guy" vote....

    Parent
    "Not that guy" got old (none / 0) (#171)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:06:26 PM EST
    for me bro...it feels better to vote for somebody, even if they get one percent.

    Though this year it's looking like 5-15 percent with all the pissed off D's.

    Parent

    I did that in the 80's (none / 0) (#172)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:11:02 PM EST
    and first part of the 90's. In Illinois the Dem wins every time so I felt as if I was doing it because it was "safe". I campaigned early for O because I loved his book and if he did 20% of what was in the book it would be hugely progressive, but I know the routine. Once in office they suffer from striangulation.

    Parent
    You can say that again... (none / 0) (#174)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:19:10 PM EST
    Figureheads inheriting the machine.

    I'd kill to see a monkeywrench get in there, but it would take a miracle.

    Parent

    People Here Are Tired Of Being Accused Of (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:22:16 PM EST
    being a racist every time they dare to criticize Obama. Tired of words that have never been racists suddenly becoming racial slurs.  Since when is narcissistic the same as uppity? That is what Jondee said and that is why there is this strong of an objection. The fact that you support Jondee's behavior says a lot about you.

    Parent
    Too Much Kool Aid? (none / 0) (#191)
    by squeaky on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:26:58 PM EST
    Since when is calling a candidate names, or mentally ill, a legitimate criticism.

    I think it is usually referred to as an ad hominim, aka the lowest form of attack.

    Parent

    Objecting To "ad hominim" attacks, (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:06:48 PM EST
    if that is how they interpret the remark, is one thing, turning it into a racial slur is something else again.

    Also, labeling any criticism of Obama as racial is very harmful to Obama's campaign whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Hey, if Obama supporters want to continue that practice, then by all means have fun now and pay the price in November.

    Parent

    Any Criticism? (1.00 / 1) (#200)
    by squeaky on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:19:18 PM EST
    First of all this is not a criticism, it is, at best, namecalling. Second, calling a specific comment akin to uppity is not even remotely close to this:
    Also, labeling any criticism of Obama as racial is very harmful to Obama's campaign whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

    This kind of apology is a typical nod and wink. You would be screaming bloody murder if anyone used that argument against specific sexist comments against Hillary.  

    Parent

    Please Show Me The Dictionary That (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:39:00 PM EST
    uses uppity in its definition for narcissistic.  Do you deny that uppity is considered a racial slur?  It is not a nod and a wink to anything. It is a flat out statement that trying to turn words that do not have a racial meaning into a racial slur is not only stupid but counterproductive.

    This is my last comment to you. So you can have the last word.

    Parent

    You know... (none / 0) (#199)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:10:20 PM EST
    I disagree with ya on this one squeaky...I believe we should call all the candidates more names...pikers, stooges, dirty crooked sob's:)

    "There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president."

    "The two real political parties in America are the Winners and the Losers. The people don't acknowledge this. They claim membership in two imaginary parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, instead."

    - Kurt Vonnegut



    Parent
    I've Got No Problem (1.00 / 1) (#202)
    by squeaky on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:32:27 PM EST
    With your examples, but calling Obama uppity, shiftless or any code words that appeal to racist stereotypes is cowardly, imo. There is a big difference in saying all who run for PUTUS have to be nuts, than saying Hillary is a b*itch because she acted exactly the other male candidates and stood up for herself in bold language. I not think I have ever heard you call a specific person a name in that way.

    Parent
    OMFG! (none / 0) (#204)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:38:27 PM EST
    For crying out loud, NO ONE called Obama uppity! This is like some freaking psychotic game of telephone.

    This whole ridiculous thread occurred because someone voiced their opinion that Obama behaved narcissisticly, which then was made into an imaginary slur of uppity, which then became racist slur. Jeezus F. Christ.

    Parent

    I try to mind my tongue... (none / 0) (#206)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:46:48 PM EST
    and not say things too lightly merely out of respect for others, but I also would like the entire language at my disposal without being accused of racism/sexism/pick your-ism without cause.

    In addition to showing each other respect not to offend, we should show each other the respect not to take offense without regard to tone, context, and meaning at the use of certain pc buzz words.

     

    Parent

    I second that sh*t..... (none / 0) (#111)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:48:49 PM EST
    Please let this three-ring circus be over soon so we can get on with perpetual war and police state tyranny without all the pissin' and moanin'.

    Parent
    I bet PPJ, Patrick, SUO (none / 0) (#144)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:09:50 PM EST
    are laughing their arses off reading the posts here. Haven't heard from PPJ in a long while, I hope he is ok.

    Parent
    I've seen him in a couple of threads... (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:13:50 PM EST
    ...lately.  Still the same old PPJ.  The funny thing is that none of the newbies here know that he is the original TL troll.

    Parent
    yeah but i still love him (none / 0) (#156)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:21:10 PM EST
    like a sick old uncle.

    Parent
    Me too.... (none / 0) (#164)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:41:33 PM EST
    I love PPJ.  I bust his chops on his blog sometimes.  He hams it up in the comments like we all do, but I think he's a decent human being with whacky views.

    The same could certainly be said of me I hope.

    This is gonna sound cheesy but I miss the old crew...remember fred dawes?  I hope he's allright.

    Parent

    Naw... (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:51:43 PM EST
    ...you're just Obamobot (or so I hear).  :>)

    I miss the old crew as well.  Ah well, what's an OG to do?

     

    Parent

    Yeah Mile.... (none / 0) (#173)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:15:39 PM EST
    Axelrod said my check is in the mail:)

    Groupthink is a helluva drug...this election is like a "2 Minutes Hate".  On this site's comments Obama is Goldstein, on other's Clinton is.  

    Parent

    My check comes from... (none / 0) (#197)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:47:21 PM EST
    ...the ghost of Huey P. Newton himself.  Who knew there were such riches to be made being a latte drinking, hard working white, creative class, racist and/or sexist elitist.

     

    Parent

    You nailed that one, Jl! (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:23:57 PM EST
    I usually avoid threads of 100+ comments (like this one) but I saw kdog's name under the "recent comments" and figured he'd say something interesting. Which he did, as usual.

    fwiw, I saw a ppj post on the "don't ask don't tell" thread this AM. It's a decent read.

    Can't wait for this election to be over and TL gets back to threads of 30-40 comments with almost every one having actual value...

    Parent

    excuse me (none / 0) (#153)
    by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:19:06 PM EST
    but I think you mean 11.

    Parent
    Feh (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:01:51 PM EST
    I doubt that's true. Why would she want to be on a losing ticket?

    Parent
    He wins, she's set to be next pres. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:03:03 PM EST
    He loses, she's best positioned to be next nominee.  It's a win-win for her.

    Parent
    Looked how well that strategy worked for (none / 0) (#42)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:06:30 PM EST
    John Edwards!

    Parent
    She's not John Edwards. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:07:17 PM EST
    John Edwards isn't John Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Regency on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:20:02 PM EST
    I don't see Bill (and yes I'm making this about him) being able to campaign this hard again in 4 years. This was a once in a lifetime thing. I just don't think it'll be like it was again.

    I think this is her shot; it's already made history and may still do more.  But she won't do it again.

    Maybe I'm just not hopeful enough.

    Parent

    "Edwards isn't John Edwards" (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:23:56 PM EST
    pod people

    Parent
    I want HRC to put WJC on the SCOTUS (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:11:27 PM EST
    I pray for it nightly just to see all those right wing heads explode like overripe honeydews.

    Parent
    The only job in the judiciary branch (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by scribe on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:20:45 PM EST
    which requires - as a matter of law (constitutional or otherwise) - the appointee to be "learned in the law" (or anything similar) is the post of Solicitor General.  That's the lawyer who represents the US before the Supreme Court and is often asked by the Supreme Court to file briefs stating the government's position on a particular issue before the Court.

    But, as to judges - nope.  You could be the President's dog groomer (nothing against dog groomers - I like them) and never have spent a day in the courtroom, but if the Senate gives a majority yes vote, become a federal judge or Supreme Court justice.

    For what it's worth - if you want some wingnuts' heads to explode sometime, go poke around and see how many of the current Supreme Court justices have done things (before being appointed) like try cases to a jury (for real - not as some pro bono thing), defend an actual murder case, or any of the things real lawyers do every day.  I think the last one who'd actually defended a real murder case was Thurgood Marshall, when he was one of the few black lawyers anywhere.

    Supreme Court justices are often politicians, particularly (in the past) ones the President wants to get off the stage.  Salmon Chase had been Lincoln's Treasury Secretary and was perceived as a threat to his renomination.  A seat on the Court opened up, and Chase went into it.  William O. Douglas had been an early head of the SEC and probably offended a lot of the money people - to the point where FDR needed to move him elsewhere with WWII coming.  McReynolds had been an AG (IIRC, for Wilson) and a pain.  And so on.

    Parent

    No, there are no rules for Justices (1.00 / 1) (#141)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:09:19 PM EST
    They do not have to have judicial experience, or even law degrees.  See Earl Warren.

    Parent
    The office of POTUS is all-powerful now (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:50:42 PM EST
    ... it comes with a magic constitution-disappearing, rule of domestic and int'l law disappearing, every accumulated legal precedent disappearing crayon.

    Hillary will be Empress (and divine in every sense.)

    Parent

    She would want the VP, at one tiny condition: (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by feet on earth on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:51:44 PM EST
    is the President Position is ABOLISHED!

    Parent
    That's not a good strategy IMO (none / 0) (#96)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:40:29 PM EST
    If he's trying to look tough, he's going to fail.  Majority of AAs want Clinton as VP, women might be attracted to the ticket with Clinton on it, the working class who have selected Clinton are going to feel dismissed.  If that's a strategy, it's an extremely p!ss poor one IMO.

    Dukakis on Fox discussing how to pick a VP.....  Dukakis: Get it down to 4, vet them, do it right, it's the right choice.  Gore was not a regional choice...  Q likeability- Obama would not pick Clinton (Bill) would he?  Dukakis: repeat careful thoughtful process will get the correct choice.  Q: if Hillary Clinton, would that calm sides down, it's been divisive, would that decide it?  Dukakis:  No.  Dems sound like cats fighting the night before, but in the morning all they were doing was making more cats.  We made more democrats.

    Sounds like a no from Dukakis on the joint ticket.

    Parent

    More Trouble For The DNC.... (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:01:03 PM EST
    Oh (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:05:40 PM EST
    this election is so lost. Obama's already a goner and Hillary is looking less likely to win if she gets the nomination. Such great hopes dashed by the chicago machine. Oh well, good thing is it'll give us a chance to dump all the losers.

    Parent
    there wasd another suit earlier that got (none / 0) (#50)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:11:18 PM EST
    dismissed.  My non-lawyer summary: The court did not think the laws applied in political party delegate selection rules.

    I suspect this will meet the same fate, but good for them for keeping the pressure on the DNC and making them spend some money on it.  Who's punished now?

    Parent

    What if the state pays for it? (none / 0) (#75)
    by goldberry on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:23:34 PM EST
    Who footed the bill for the primary?  And didn't the Florida legislature set the date?  To me, that sounds like there was direct involvement by the state and should come under the purview of election law.  Of course, IANAL so I could just be talking out of my ass.  

    Parent
    The state let everyone vote (none / 0) (#89)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:33:28 PM EST
    their only role in the primary, as I understand it, is to provide the means and opportunity to vote. The DNC uses the results as it will. The other court did not seem to think they had jurisdiction over that.  

    IANAL either, so your talking ass is as good as mine ;-)

    Parent

    Obama & McCain on climate change (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:05:58 PM EST
    AudacityofHypocrisy.com

    On The Campaign Trail, Obama Attacked McCain, Saying It Was "Breathtaking" For Him To Address Climate Change:

    Obama: "It is truly breathtaking for John McCain to talk about combating climate change while voting against virtually every recent effort to actually invest in clean energy." (Ben Smith, "Obama On McCain Speech: 'Breathtaking,' Not In A Good Way," Politico's "Ben Smith" Blog, www.politico.com, 5/12/08)

    But In 2005, Obama Praised McCain's Leadership On Climate Change:

    Obama: "So what can we do to protect our planet? The first step is to adopt the McCain-Lieberman amendment. This bipartisan approach is not only good environmental policy, it's good economic policy." (Sen. Barack Obama, Congressional Record, 6/22/05, p. S7008)


    Eh (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:07:44 PM EST
    I knew it was coming: the effette waffling liberal. I guess they'll be playing those Iran tapes soon. Iran was a threat before it wasn't or something like that.

    Parent
    Obama was for (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:29:13 PM EST
    McCain before he was against him!

    Oyyyyyyy.

    Parent

    Didn't Obama vote for Cheney's (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:00:39 PM EST
    energy bill?  And Exelon is a major contributor of Obama's.

    Parent
    yes! we can thank Obama for $5 gas (none / 0) (#166)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:46:50 PM EST
    McCain just rejected Hagee's endorsement (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by joanneleon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:09:06 PM EST
    with a statement saying that his remarks about the holocaust were reprehensible.  He then said that he had not previously known about these statements when he accepted the endorsement.

    He also said that he wants to emphasize that Hagee had never been his pastor, and he never had a personal relationship with him, like Sen. Obama and Pastor Wright.

    Ouch.  This puts Obama in a pinch, IMHO.

    And how ridiculous to expect us to believe he didn't know about those statements until now.  (Not that I believe a word that McCain says about anything). But again, Obama did the same damn thing and set himself up for this.  

    The Hagee = Wright arguments are ridiculous (none / 0) (#110)
    by Exeter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:47:54 PM EST
    And frankly, bad strategery by Obama-- does he really want this standard for he campaign? If so, then EVERYONE that has endorsed Obama will get the same treatment.

    Parent
    For the life of me (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by joanneleon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:56:43 PM EST
    I can't understand why Obama handled the Wright situation the way he did.  I appreciate the personal aspects of it, and that he had a long relationship with the man, etc.  But it was just bad politics all the way around.  I feel no schadenfreude about the Pastor Wright situation.  Instead I feel dread about what they are going to do with it during the GE.

    This was a masterful counterpunch by McCain.  I have to give him that.  I just hope Wright can keep his mouth shut and think about someone other than himself for a change.

    Parent

    Amusing (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by lentinel on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:11:34 PM EST
    I had a most enlightening experience yesterday over at C&L.

    They printed a story about what a scoundrel Joe Lieberman was.

    I posted a response saying they shouldn't pick on Lieberman. I said that Lieberman had a good heart and a keen intellect. I added that the voters of Connecticut showed good sense in sending him back to the Senate.

    The response was interesting. I was called a troll. An idiot. And other things I don't wish to reproduce here.

    Then, I pointed out that I was actually quoting what Barack Obama said about Joe Lieberman when he campaigned for his reelection to the Senate in 2006.

    For that, I was called a troll, an idiot, and other things I don't wish to reproduce here.

    Go figure.

    Um (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:18:36 PM EST
    I have a lower opinion of you than I did before.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:49:04 PM EST
    That's kind of a funny stunt.

    Parent
    BTW, McCain's site enlists astro-trolls to turf (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:59:14 PM EST
    ... liberal, moderate, conservative and "other" web=sites with his daily talking points.

    What a stupid tactic. As we've seen here, trolling just p!sses people off more and tends to draw out and emphasize the opposite argument more.

    TeamObama unleashed the pester power of oBots here months ago; no doubt that was a contributing factor in coalescing and strengthening support behind HRC. (I was neutral before. Now I'd walk onto the battlefield for HRC or at least lick some envelopes and knock on doors.)

    Parent

    I love this (none / 0) (#137)
    by CST on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:05:09 PM EST
    "TeamObama unleashed the pester power of oBots here months ago"

    Guess what, some of us do this for our OWN reasons.  Not because "TeamObama" told us too.  Believe it or not, people who comes here are individuals, and I'm willing to bet none of those "oBots" you mention get paid to blog, or give a crap whether their candidate wants them to or not.

    Frankly, if more "oBots" listened to their candidate we would be in a lot better shape today.

    Parent

    So what? Astro-trolls are astro-trolls (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:13:25 PM EST
    They exist, they follow instructions well, and they pester in gaggles and choruses.

    I couldn't care less what your motivations and beliefs are.

    Parent

    You're a real class act.... (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:45:15 PM EST
    But I won't hold it against Clinton:)

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#149)
    by lentinel on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:14:46 PM EST
    Why?
    Do you feel I was unfair?

    Parent
    In criminal justice.... (none / 0) (#167)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:47:05 PM EST
    I believe they call it entrapment.  Where I'm from we call it sand-bagging.

    It's always a better drive on the high road, know what I mean?

    Parent

    I know. (none / 0) (#175)
    by lentinel on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:22:43 PM EST
    It's sandbagging -

    but really.

    The reaction to a story about Lieberman is universally condemnatory. The language is foul. He is the scum of the earth.
    The pits. A Zionist tool. etc.

    If you say anything good about Lieberman in this context, you are condemned as a misfit.

    You get similar treatment on these blogs if you have anything good to say about Hillary Clinton. It's not just that they disagree with you, but they want you dead and buried.

    So, I wanted to make a point. I wanted to make clear that when a point of view that these people condemn is revealed to be a point of view that is held by the person they support, their reaction (most of them) is to condemn the messenger for ruining the party - rather than taking in something about the nature of the integrity of their chosen candidate.

    Parent

    I wish.... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:30:18 PM EST
    everybody considered the integrity of the candidate they're voting for.  That's why I can't vote for any of the 3 stooges:)

    If that's how they roll over there so be it, I wouldn't read a blog where the goal is to rip people.  I'm here to learn and share points of view.

    I hope all the refugees from other blogs don't bring that sh*t here, we have something special that I hope can be preserved.  

    Parent

    Stupid Pic Tricks for the Weekend (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:14:21 PM EST
    1. Use empty cylindrical containers (like for Pringles chips) lined with a large sandwich bag or wax paper to carry kebabs for the BBQ, empty skewers or other stuff.

    2. Use a Pringles chips container to make ice cream or frozen yoghurt sandwiches: Line as per above. Start with one cookie (your fave; I like oatmeal), add a scoop of your preferred frozen stuff, then TWO cookies, scoop ... and so on. Doesn't matter if the cookie's slightly bigger: the bendy ones will form a little ridge around the cream. For easier removal, put a circle or square of wax paper between each 2-cookie section. When the container is full, seal both ends well and freeze. To tote, put cylinder inside a bag of ice and use that to keep everything cool until serving time.

    Above is good for mini-burg patties, too, but don't let the raw / cooked groups touch. Always seal each category in its own bag.

    1. An empty, clean coffee can is great for toting mini-pitas (full sammys or empty to fill up at site) or tortillas (same deal). Make sure can is spotless so aroma doesn't transfer. (To fully deodorize: fill with hot water and add 1 tbsp white vinegar. Let sit for an hour, rinse well and let it dry completely.)

    2. An empty, clean coffee can is also great for toting cutlery, napkins, serving sized cooking and condiment assists like soy and chili sauces, other mini condoments etc.

    3. BBQs and picnics are a great way to use up any backlog of single-serve condiments from winter takeout. For a quick'n'dirty on-site BBQ baste: grab a handful of soy, mustard, plum, chili packs and cut the tops off. Squeeze into a paper cup. Stir and adjust to taste. Splash of beer, wine, vinegar or lemon tones it down. Make it just slightly hotter and less sweet than "just right" and let heat do the rest.

    4. The idea is to do as little as possible so you're fresh and rested for the weekend of loafing around.


    The DNC needs to resolve the election problems (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Newt on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:26:05 PM EST
    we face due to the caucus/popular vote nomination process, potential election fraud in states without easily audited paper trails, and the current and future effect of Republican-led state legislatures disrupting the Democratic primaries by changing their states' primary dates.

    This FL & MI mess is a great opportunity to tackle all three of the above problems.  If we re-vote by mail in MI & FL, we automatically bring both states back into compliance with DNC rules on timing of elections.  This undermines any future Republican attempts to disrupt the Dem nomination process by moving up the primary dates.  It also establishes a new direction to defeat election fraud in America.  Finally, it would creates a route for Hillary to establish that she really is more electable without giving Obamabots the chance to say she manipulated the party.  She'll actually have the votes from those states in a direct response with just the two of them on the ballot.

     and pay for the cost of a mail-in election that utilizes equipment we already have based on Oregon's successful 100% mail-in process that undermines electronic fraud by establishing an audit trail even in states that used HAVA to undermine that concept.  We've already got the infrastructure and policies in place, based on Oregon's successful 100% mail-in model.  We've got the voter rolls in both MI and FL, and enough money to accomplish it before the convention since it's much cheaper to do a mail-in than try to repeat the vote through the two states' election process.

    This is the DNC's chance to pull the rug out from under the Repub's manipulations, and to establish a new direction to defeat election fraud in America.  


    Florida delegates sue DNC (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by miriam on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:27:16 PM EST
    At ABC news:

    FORT LAUDERDALE, FL -- Three Florida delegates, including the state's Senate Democratic leader have filed a federal lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee claiming the DNC violated their constitutional rights by barring them from the party's national convention.

    "This litigation addresses the view of Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee that 1.75 million Democrats can be ignored at will," said Geller. "We believe we've found a winning legal strategy that will once and for all force the DNC to not only obey its own rules but to listen to the voices of millions of Democrats in one of the most influential states in the nation."

    I bet (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Monda on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:42:05 PM EST
    Republicans will be very happy to pay for litigation fees.  I wonder, is Katherine Harris working quietly for the DNC these days?!  
    What the DNC and Obama bloggers fail to see is that while one can argue or be "outraged" (Josh) that Hillary-FL/MI is politics as usual, for the people of Florida (or MI) is not about politics, is about their votes.  To punish people because they did their civic duty, especially in Florida (where paper trail initiatives were at stakes) is outrageous.  
    If the problem is not fixed, McCain won't even have to campaign in Florida.  The victory there will be    a walk in the park.  

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#87)
    by miriam on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:32:03 PM EST
    I see that this was already posted above.  Mea culpa.

    Parent
    New Polling:Clinton still MUCH better GE candidate (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Exeter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:52:12 PM EST
    Hominid has the probability of Obama beating McCain up to 41.2% and Clinton beating McCain up to 89.3%  He does a good job of updating the maps, with the most recent polling. It's a great site -- check it out!

    See also electoral-vote.com (none / 0) (#207)
    by cymro on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:00:04 PM EST
    McCain-Hagee cleanup (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Newt on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:06:59 PM EST
    McCain just rejected Hagee's endorsement, and Hagee withdrew it.  Right on cue.

    End result is that they mitigate the damage of Hagee's words while Hagee is still free to tell his followers who to vote for next fall.

    Damn, they're too good at this.

    wow (none / 0) (#1)
    by CanadianDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:31:31 PM EST
    Uh-huh. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:36:36 PM EST
    I'm sure that Clinton would lose the state to McCain.

    LOL!

    Parent

    That is a "wow." Not on LA Times (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:42:28 PM EST
    website yet.  What is the track record of PPI?  

    Parent
    Pop sequitur: did the song turn out to be Bon Jovi (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:24:25 PM EST
    You asked about the song played after HRC's speech and I thought I heard the dulcet strains of Living on a Prayer by Bon Jovi. I didn't check the repeat.

    However, I can't stand Bon Jovi's music -- though I'd love to spend a weekend on a beach with him making excuses for that. If Jon or anyone he knows is reading, say that I'm willing to meet him half way.

    Parent

    Immaterial for November (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:47:41 PM EST
    California is one of the 15 safe states that will go Democratic whether Hillary or Obama is the nominee. This poll is meaningless.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#23)
    by CanadianDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:54:38 PM EST
    thanks J, I just won the bet, if I was American I'd donate it to Clinton

    Parent
    Well it certainly (none / 0) (#95)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:39:21 PM EST
    speaks to the general sentiments of Democrats towards Obama and Clinton.  It would seem that rank and file Californian Democrats are now strongly favoring Obama.

    Parent
    Apparently (none / 0) (#105)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:45:13 PM EST
    He wasn't their first choice.


    Parent
    But he is their final choice. (none / 0) (#121)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:53:49 PM EST
    Apparently (none / 0) (#135)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:02:27 PM EST
    By default.


    Parent
    Didn't know that the GE was in May (none / 0) (#190)
    by tree on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:25:21 PM EST
    He's apparently their May choice.

    Parent
    Not a swing state (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:05:13 PM EST
    so not factoring into the discussion that I darn well hope that super-delegates (and all delegates, for that matter, as they can switch at will, too) are having . . . much as I am sure that Dems are relieved by this.

    I'm not a Dem anymore, but as an Independent now, I do find it interesting -- although PPI has not got much of a reputation, so I'd know to know more about it.

    Parent

    I seem to recall (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Grace on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:13:16 PM EST
    that there were polls before the primary that predicted Obama would win in California.  Unfortunately for him, that didn't happen and Clinton won by a significant margin.  

    I tend not to trust the polling data that comes out of California much anymore.  We seem to have a population that tells pollsters what they think the pollsters want to hear.    

    Parent

    agreed (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by CanadianDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:19:31 PM EST
    all polls are meaningless.

    Parent
    I think it is more accurate to say (none / 0) (#99)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:40:50 PM EST
    that polls are misused by people.

    If they were really useless politicians wouldn't spend millions of dollars on polling.  

    Parent

    "If they were really useless . . . (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:49:18 PM EST
    . . . politicians wouldn't spend millions of dollars on polling."

    I am not sure that is the best metric.
    after all the spend millions on people like Mark Penn.
    as far as California.  I am not so sure it is a solid lock for democrats if Obama is the nominee.
    CA has been showing more interest in republicans like Arnold.  Arnold will tell them McCain is like him.  and he has a point.  to a point.


    Parent

    This poll (none / 0) (#123)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:55:32 PM EST
    would suggest that you are completely wrong.

    But TL conventional wisdom pretty has just about every state a toss-up for Obama except Illinois.

    Parent

    We'll go blue (none / 0) (#139)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:06:55 PM EST
    Ahnold isn't that popular now that it has been noticed he failed to plan for bad times and tanked the budget.  We still like McCain and he has a big chance at the hispanic vote but I don't think it will be enough to put our (mostly repressed but always mark the D) state in the Repub column.

    Parent
    My friend in L.A. told me it's (none / 0) (#91)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:36:58 PM EST
    any dem this year. She works, and altho' she watches tv media, she doesn't pay much attention. So many, many are just voting dem. I'm still enlightening her and sending her to find info.

    Parent
    I went back (none / 0) (#108)
    by Grace on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:47:19 PM EST
    and looked at the polls before the California primary.  Most of them showed Obama winning, yet Clinton won by nearly 10%.

    Check it out:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ca/california_democratic_primary-259.html

    So, I still think there is a good chance McCain will actually win in California if it ends up being Obama versus McCain.  

    Parent

    I dunno about CA (none / 0) (#129)
    by CST on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:59:08 PM EST
    There was also a LOT of early voting.   And Hillary was ahead for that entire time period.  so the fact that he was ahead in the polls at the end maybe just meant he closed the gap somewhat in the final total.

    I am very confident that either Dem would win CA.  McCain is no Arnold.  Arnold would veto a gay marriage ban for one.

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#5)
    by Monda on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:40:43 PM EST
    However, to show off with California polls as strength is just ridiculous.  Meanwhile Hillary can point out polls in NC, WV etc.  

    Parent
    clarification (none / 0) (#11)
    by Monda on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:43:21 PM EST
    "maybe" was addressed to first post, maybe the poll is true.

    Parent
    McCain will not win CA whether against (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:02:13 PM EST
    Hillary or obama.

    Parent
    Bad headline (none / 0) (#193)
    by tree on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:31:42 PM EST
    Once you click on the survey link this is what it says on the first page:

    If the general election were held today, likely voters would favor Obama over McCain by 17 points (54% to 37%); likely voters also favor Clinton over McCain by 12 points (51% to 39%).


    Parent
    More from the survey pdf (none / 0) (#194)
    by tree on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:35:25 PM EST
    As the presidential primary season winds down, Barack Obama has the highest favorability rating of
    the candidates (59% among likely voters). Hillary Clinton has an unfavorable rating (51% vs. 46%
    favorable) in the state where she won the primary nearly four months ago. While Obama's and
    Clinton's ratings have remained about the same since March, John McCain's ratings have declined
    somewhat (49% favorable in March vs. 42% favorable, 53% unfavorable today). Among independent
    voters, Obama has the highest favorability rating (60%). Independent voters are divided in their
    ratings of Clinton (46% favorable, 50% unfavorable), and give McCain an unfavorable rating (53% vs.
    41% favorable). Latinos give Clinton the highest favorability ratings among the candidates (72%
    Clinton, 68% Obama, 38% McCain).
    If the general election were held today, likely voters would favor Obama over McCain by 17 points
    (54% to 37%), an improvement for Obama since March (49% to 40%). Likely voters favor Clinton
    over McCain by 12 points (51% to 39%), an improvement for her also since March (46% to 43%).

    LINK

    Parent

    And further into the survey (none / 0) (#195)
    by tree on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:39:44 PM EST
    They mention that Obama's lead over McCain has increased by 8 points since March, but Clinton's lead over McCain has likewise increased, but by 9 points. The higher Obama numbers appear to be a reflection of higher support for Obama among Independents.

    Parent
    State Primary rules (none / 0) (#3)
    by scottmcn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:39:51 PM EST
    I really have a pet peeve about Republicans and independents voting in the Democratic primaries in some states ( like here in GA ). Can someone tell me if this is a "state" law? Or is it something the parties agree to?
    It seems to me its a state law... If so how do the states get to control who can vote in each party's elections?
    If its up to the party... why would we want outsiders voting in our primary?
    (Note that in GA you are not registered with the state with any party....)
    Just wondering....
    Scott

    Not state law (none / 0) (#151)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:16:31 PM EST
    usually, state party rules.  I think some state parties like open primaries because they think if a Republican crosses over to vote in the Dem primary, maybe he/she will vote for teh Dem. candidate in the GE.  (Same idea as Obama's "Dem for a day" stuff.)  I don't know if there's ever been any evidence that that's true or it's just wishful thinking.


    Parent
    No, it's not party rules, it's State law (none / 0) (#160)
    by Newt on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:29:49 PM EST
    I've come to believe Hill does want the VP (none / 0) (#4)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:40:04 PM EST
    spot, and did ask Obama, and he did refuse her.  Some unifier.  

    I've come to believe (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CST on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:41:06 PM EST
    Pigs Fly.  That doesn't mean it's true.  Why would she ask for the VP spot when every indication is that she wants the P spot still?

    Parent
    Because it's pretty clear the Party (none / 0) (#8)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:42:03 PM EST
    supers are going to nominate Obama.

    Parent
    We shall see. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:44:38 PM EST
    repost (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Monda on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:41:53 PM EST
    I posted it in another thread, but since this is an open one, I'm reposting it.  

    Yesterday, McCain was holding secret VP talks.  Today, Obama is doing the same thing.  Isn't it a little "early" for that?  Here is the link:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24774154

    (Straight from Obama's network)



    Parent
    Of course it is. (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:42:34 PM EST
    That's why we call him the "presumptuous nominee!"

    Parent
    When was the last time (2.00 / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:57:49 PM EST
    two Northerners won the Presidency for the Democrats?

    Of course, you could argue that they could have Lincoln and Jefferson on the same ticket and still not carry a red state these days. Not unless one of them started practicing laying-on-of-hands (and not in the Clintonian sense).

    Parent

    When (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:09:57 PM EST
    was the last time a northern liberal who couldn't get working class votes won an election? Decades and probably not likely to happen in Nov either.

    Parent
    JFK (none / 0) (#60)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:14:41 PM EST
    No... (none / 0) (#64)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:17:06 PM EST
    "who couldn't get working class votes"

    Parent
    Whoops (none / 0) (#85)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:29:45 PM EST
    hmmm. . .

    I'll take "never" for $500, Alex.

    Parent

    As Harold Ford Jr says... (none / 0) (#127)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:58:58 PM EST
    Obama should be using this precious time to reach out to voting blocks he has trouble attracting.

    This is another in the line of "let's act as though we're the winner" ploys.  

    Parent

    Actually I think if she did that... (none / 0) (#26)
    by cosbo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:56:09 PM EST
    it's a game, knowing that he would say no. Now he looks like the anti-unity candidate. It hardens her support as she pushes on. I think at least. I think right now, it's a game.

    Parent
    BTD did a better job (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:45:09 PM EST
    keeping us up to date on Josh Marshall than he did keeping us up to date on Florida and Michigan.


    If Hillary is offered VP (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarissa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:55:41 PM EST
    and Obama (of course) loses, wouldn't that hobble a 2012 run?

    No. She would be best positioned for the (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:58:33 PM EST
    next run.

    Parent
    Not in this case (none / 0) (#35)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:04:51 PM EST
    I don't think, since so many people think she should be the nominee instead.  She can make the case they should have nominated her in the first place.

    that siad, I don't knkw hwat her chances are in 2012 at all.  It seems pretty clear to me that a good part of the Dem establishment just does not want her to be president.

    Parent

    Damned if you do, and (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:00:23 PM EST
    damned if you don't.

    If Hillary were to run as VP, and the ticket loses, the loss will blamed entirely on her.

    Parent

    everyone of these (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:04:43 PM EST
    arguments cuts both ways. Sad really. We have two great candidates in my estimation. A party split down the middle. Super delegates distributing votes without any context around them. So it is not the Obama supporters alone causing HRC to lose the nomination, in fact I would argue that the SD's are costing her the nod. Where is all the vitriol for them???

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:09:05 PM EST
    now they might not want her but after Nov. and what we are going to suffer through with Obama she'll look pretty good.

    Parent
    McCain nixes the Hagee (none / 0) (#38)
    by jes on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:05:31 PM EST
    endorsement. Breaking news on the MSNBO network!

    He (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:06:20 PM EST
    going to be the maverick. Just try attaching Bush to him. It won't work.

    Parent
    Yup - the media harping on it (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:20:40 PM EST
    yesterday, just like the progressive blogs were insisting, gave him just the cover he needed to do it. Also gave a couple of media cycles to get the talking point in that Hagee and he do not have anywhere near the kind of relationship Obama has with Wright, which has the benefit of being true.

    Honestly, if Dems were going to beat Republicans based on the insanituy of their preachers, we would have won a long time ago.

    Next tactic?

    Parent

    Great point! (none / 0) (#78)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:25:28 PM EST
    Honestly, if Dems were going to beat Republicans based on the insanituy of their preachers, we would have won a long time ago.

    Um, YEAH.

    Pat Robertson "The gays caused 9/11" ring a bell? He is constantly at the White House with Dubya IIRC.

    The religious thing is not the problem anyway. It's the "GD America" that will really burn Obama.

    Parent

    Thanks - too bad I can't spell (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:27:34 PM EST
    insanity!

    there, I did it!

    Parent

    Anybody know what ever happened to (none / 0) (#94)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:39:05 PM EST
    Rev. Wright?

    Parent
    it's ridiculous anyway (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:16:36 PM EST
    to equate McCain/Hagee with Obama/Wright!
    And those Dem reps who recently won special elections in Repub districts didn't sit in church for 20 years listening to Wright's racist rants and anti-white and anti-America ideology!


    Parent
    Disagree (none / 0) (#180)
    by squeaky on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:37:17 PM EST
    The white racist/bigot preachers have been embraced by the GOP for years, who have said much worse things than Rev Wright. It is clearly a double standard being applied to Wright, which, imo speaks to our countries entrenched racism. Hagee, and all the other nuts that the GOPers have embraced are quite a fair and appropriate comparison.

    Parent
    Whatever will Hufff Post (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:19:55 PM EST
    talk about now?

    Parent
    Hillary's cleavage? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:22:48 PM EST
    Clinton seems to favor (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:26:38 PM EST
    "jewelry" necklines now w/jewelray.  

    Parent
    Heh - you did it for them! (none / 0) (#88)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:32:44 PM EST
    I wonder if Arianna is taking notes?

    Parent
    Obama Plans CNN Celebration? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Tess on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:13:05 PM EST
    Just got this from Mediabistro, TV Newser:

    http://tinyurl.com/69rbmd

    Amazing he's not planning it at MSNBC...where his biggest fan club resides.

    Totally inappropriate, IMO.

    article says - no mention of him being there (none / 0) (#70)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:20:05 PM EST
    comment from the article:
    >>>By the way, the lobby of CNN Center is a public place, with shops, an atrium, a food court, arena, and hotel. If a crowd of Obama (or McCain, or Clinton, or LaRouche) supporters decided to go there, that's not necessarily a reflection on CNN.

    Parent
    but (none / 0) (#71)
    by Monda on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:20:39 PM EST
    CNN lobby is a public place.  It was explained by someone who replied to that article.  So supporters  of McCain, Hillary or Obama can go there and "celebrate."  We could have a Denver preview ;-)

    Parent
    And why would he "personally" go when (none / 0) (#97)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:40:37 PM EST
    possibly riff-raff might be there!

    Parent
    I love this-It's the map not the math (none / 0) (#56)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:13:53 PM EST
    Mile Wide Tornado in the Mile High State--Wow. (none / 0) (#179)
    by jawbone on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:35:53 PM EST
    Video of the width of the monster was truly scary.

    Living in Colorado... (none / 0) (#196)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:40:15 PM EST
    ...is rarely dull.  If you don't give Mother Nature the respect she deserves, she will get you one way or another.  

    Colorado is the Centennial State and Denver is the Mile High City (or the Queen City of the Plains).  Just sayin'

    Parent

    One good thing about NY.... (none / 0) (#201)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:30:37 PM EST
    natural disaster free...the occasional weak hurricane.  

    Mother Nature can be awe-inspiringly cruel.

    Parent

    Global warming (none / 0) (#209)
    by echinopsia on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:04:57 PM EST
    is not going to be fun for you when the oceans rise.

    Parent
    FLOWERING JUDIS! Bob Somerby a MUST READ (none / 0) (#185)
    by bridget on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:58:34 PM EST
    today:
    FLOWERING JUDIS! Journalists threw their support to Obama, Judis says, in a vast gaffe

    read all about the Obama loving media and why they threw their support Obama's way

    John Judis, Marshall, Novak, Joe Klein, Linda Douglass .... this post got it all -

    Linda Douglass leaves journalism because long long time ago - while trashing Hillary Clinton on Hardball all along - she fell for Obama and will now work for him.

    www.dailyhowler.com

    Man (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:46:38 PM EST
    Today was a complete tour de force by Somerby.  Incredible.

    Parent
    first off, I'd like (none / 0) (#210)
    by jondee on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:17:09 PM EST
    the excerable "Dr." Molly to point out where on any thread I defended abusive, polygamist fathers rights.

    And then, failing that, effing apologize; like any honorable, clear thinking Clintonian without an agenda would be expected to.

    OMFG! (none / 0) (#211)
    by jondee on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:59:39 PM EST
    You were just, like, totally way outa' line with that one.

    And speaking (none / 0) (#212)
    by jondee on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:12:53 PM EST
    of the narcissistic, power seeking, presumptuous, grandiose, condescending, brazen, terrified of commitment and only interested in one thing Obama, when was the last time we had an intelligent, earnest, self-abnegating person running for higher office in this country? I mean, honest, quality people are going to scamper with bells on to a job that entails that you spend 2/3 of your time raising money, schmoozing smarmy lobbyists and being "groomed" by consultants? Of course, that is in no way meant to impugn the ethereal Mrs. Clinton, whose muddy foot prints, as we all know, Jeanne d' Arc would feel blessed to sip from; Im refering to all the other ones.