Overnight Open Thread

Readers have a lot to say tonight. Time for your own space where I won't intervene except for site violators. The floor is your's. All topics welcome.

< Michigan Delegates Should Go to Convention Uncommitted | Friday Morning OpenThread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    As usual Daily Howler was a good read (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:38:38 AM EST
    specially funny how the MSM afinally admiited that they had recognized long back what we ordinary mortals failed to recognize - Obama was the One.
    And that Hillar's biggest mistahe this campaign was in treating Obama like an ordinary politician and not as The One.
    God are these guys for real.

    What they forget (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:53:21 AM EST
    is that Obama is not the first AA candidate, but Hillary IS the first female candidate for president.  SHE is the truly historic one.

    But of course, reality would get in the way of their argument (once again).


    Nope, there have been dozens (none / 0) (#22)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:09:09 AM EST
    of women candidates for president, since the 1870s.

    Perhaps what you mean is that there has been an AA candidate who won primaries before, but Clinton is the first woman to win a primary -- thus the first viable woman candidate for president?


    Okay, (none / 0) (#106)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:43:17 AM EST
    I should have said VIABLE candidate.

    Numerous women have run (none / 0) (#24)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:12:11 AM EST
    for President. Hillary is simply the first one to get the nomination this far.

    Shirley Chisholm (none / 0) (#39)
    by themomcat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:33:12 AM EST
    was the first AA woman to run for President and won the NJ primary in 1972. She may not have been the first woman to run but, iirc, she was the first to win a primary.

    Yes, but Hillary has gotten further than any (none / 0) (#44)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:42:09 AM EST
    previous woman who ran.

    And with the Goddess's Blessing (none / 0) (#49)
    by themomcat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:43:40 AM EST
    she will go all the way.

    Actually (none / 0) (#45)
    by Steve M on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:42:22 AM EST
    Shirley Chisholm did not win the NJ primary.  Regrettably, that's a piece of misinformation that seems to have found its way around the Internet.  I went to the primary source and found an old NYT abstract...

    Dakotan Beats Humphrey By a Big Margin in Jersey; MARGIN IS LARGE IN GARDEN STATE Dakotan's Victory Extends From the Rural South to the Northern Suburbs


    June 7, 1972, Wednesday

    Page 1, 1133 words

    Senator George McGovern overwhelmed Senator Hubert H. Humphrey in yesterday's Democratic Presidential primary election in New Jersey. The South Dakotan held 5-to-1 majorities in some counties, capturing at least 65 committed delegates to the national convention and leading in races for 18 others of the state's 109...

    And racial issues predate gender issues (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:07:27 AM EST
    somehow.  Stunning -- and that howler is from Somerby himself.  First of all, the first ships brought over women and men, but none were of color, Bob.  But gender issues already had been raised in  Europe, so they brought that societal baggage with them, too.  (See its later flowering in the Salem witchcraft trials -- but there were earlier ones in the colonies and even before in Europe, for centuries.)

    Even more stunning, of course, is the continued presumption that people of color all are male.  To media and Somerby, too, all those AAs brought in slavery apparently included no women whatsoever -- no women with gender issues such as rape perpetrated upon AA women in slavery, immediately.  (Actually, of course, that gender issue was an issue for AA men, too, in chains and helpless to protect them -- or punished even with death for doing so.)

    Well, not stunning, really.  More of the same from idiot media -- and even Somerby himself, sadly.  There is no hope for logical thought.  Somehow, the country was settled entirely by men and populated entirely, North and South, without mothers.


    I think the patriarchal system is (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:16:47 AM EST
    so entrenched in the American society that most of us just do not realize it. I have yet to come across a strong female figure outside hollywood who is as revered as the many eminent male figures outside hollywood.

    In many culture mothers connote more strength and positivity but here somehow father connotes the same more than the mother. Some of the comments by the male commenters that Hillary reminds them of their scolding mother or nagging ex wives was very revealing.


    I thought the TNR article (none / 0) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:42:04 AM EST
    vindicated Ferraro.  

    I don't like him-- (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by zyx on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:44:19 AM EST
    Charles Krauthammer--but he really takes Obama to the woodshed about his "talk to the bad guys" in the WaPo tonight.  And eviscerates Obama, IMO.  It's downright embarrassing.

    And I don't think everything Obama does is dumb--though I am still reeling from his don't-know-what-is-Hanford moment in Pendleton.  I actually believe the guy is fairly thoughtful, but I suspect he's not too knowledgeable.  Doesn't know what Hanford is, and is running for president.  Where do we get these people?

    we got him because (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:46:37 AM EST
    he was a media star at the 2004 convention. The power of television.

    I meant I don't like Charles K-hammer (none / 0) (#14)
    by zyx on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:49:28 AM EST
    Not an O-fan, either.

    I need to be more careful, even posting ephemera.


    The power of party bosses (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:50:59 AM EST
    that put him on the powerful medium of television.

    That certaily got him attention... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:25:57 AM EST
    ...but television also elevated Senator Clinton and Rudy Guilliani.  Prior to the actual votes, they were the "inevitable" front-runners, and the favored media narrative.  

    Not true (none / 0) (#80)
    by tree on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:19:36 AM EST
    From the Daily Howler, Somersby describes the banter on a Chris Matthews show in March of 2007, ten months before the first votes were tallied:

    ...Only Page expressed any doubt; Obama would be even with Clinton in the polls by late May 2007. But then, several guests had said the same thing on Matthews' February 11 program--on the weekend Obama announced. On March 25, Matthews was still excitedly asking his question, and resident genius Patrick Healy offered the consensus view: "Both campaigns think will be a dead heat by Memorial Day[2007]."

    Obama would catch up to Clinton by May; it's what all the pundits were saying.

    amusingly (none / 0) (#93)
    by boredmpa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:15:40 AM EST
    I had to write a fake memo to an adviser on CAFE/PNGV issues last spring for my MPA.  It was to an Obama presidential adviser...

    I knew nothing about him at that point, but somehow it was pres obama's adviser on that memo.  I had to update my portfolio to change it.  


    It is my opinion that he suffers from (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:51:07 AM EST
    intellectual or just plain old lazinees.

    Whatever he may say he has got things comparitively easy in life. He himself has said that often he found people more than ready to help him and support him. Many good looking people get the same push in life.

    As a result such people even though they may be very intelligent become lazy and coast on their charms failing to do the requisite hard work or such to earn respect and credibility.


    And tall people, according to studies (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:19:12 AM EST
    and taller as students.  And, yes, good-looking.  And even those favored by the alphabet to be called on first.  A degree in education, reading all those studies (and keeping up with them since) taught me the darndest things to not do when, y'know, teaching.

    On the other hand, I would say that being the only Arab American student in his schools in Indonesia would have been difficult.  So is being a brainy kid like him -- but even more so for a brainy girl like Hillary Rodham.  Being told at an early age that you can't be what you want to be (she wanted to be an astronaut), not being able to even apply to all-male Harvard, as it was then . . . all these societal messages have impact.

    Some see the societal messages as challenges.  Both of these candidates did, to their credit.  Some students I have seen really have learned how to pile on the charm as well as smarts to counter challenges.  Some -- often the shorter, less good-looking ones, just exhibit such brilliance that they may be deferred but cannot be denied forever.


    As I read her account (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:53:57 AM EST
    and looking at when Harvard -- really Harvard -- accepted women, the answer would be no.  She was accepted at Radcliffe, I think.  It had one of those cute arrangements that allowed women to take classes at Harvard (read, pay tuition to; see also Notre Dame and St. Mary's) but not violate its all-male status then.

    I could be wrong, it's convoluted at that time, as she was of the age on the cusp of, y'know, "hope and change" in higher education for women at the Ivies.  But that's the way I read what she said and what the record is on Harvard's admission of women.  Perhaps someone here who was there at the time can clarify.


    Arab American? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:27:35 AM EST

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by squeaky on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:28:52 AM EST
    That is the latest wingnut talking point.

    The Secret Muslim meme rears its ugly head... (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:40:34 AM EST
    ...and people on this site tell me I'm crazy for believing that a lot of the vote is anti-Obama for racial reasons, and not pro-Clinton.

    Enough (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by Davidson on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:25:23 AM EST
    First, Arab does not necessarily mean Muslim.  Arabic refers to a language or region; Muslim is a faith.  Obama is the son of an Arabic African.  That is part of his heritage.  Second, being Muslim is not a damn smear.  As the grandson of a Muslim it is especially disgusting to see you seem so offended by it without ever denouncing the bigoted assumption.  Lastly, for you to take one comment and use it to justify the lunacy that "a lot" of Clinton supporters are truly racist is just outrageous!

    Are you white by any chance?  I have noticed that is overwhelmingly white males who are so at ease with accusing anyone who dares to point out the obvious--Obama is a pathetically weak candidate--as racist because you have no clue as to the very serious consequences of your actions.  You are making a mockery out of the battle against racism.  As a Latino, I am growing increasingly frightened of an Obama nomination because of people like you, those who are so wrapped in their false sense of moral superiority that they carelessly inflame racial tensions without a care because it'll be people like me--not them--who'll suffer the consequences of it.

    Obama is not qualified to be president.  He has shamelessly smeared his opponent as racist simply for being his competition.  He has exploited homophobia, misogyny, and CDS for political gain.  He has not shown himself to be trustworthy on any Democratic principle.  He refuses to center his candidacy on the issues, instead creating a personality-based candidacy.  He has dismissed entire blocs of the voting electorate, sometimes in overtly condescending manners.  He is simply unelectable.

    Again, to conclude that "a lot" of Democratic Clinton supporters don't take any of those factors into consideration but instead are so obsessed by race that they refuse to vote for Obama is insanity, especially when you realize there are scores of Democrats who vote for Obama because he's black (e.g., he represents "change," he'll be a symbol of a new America to the world, etc.).


    Spare me.. (1.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:38:48 AM EST
    ..the faux outrage.  Now it is okay to decry white supporters of Senator Obama as "racists" because you assume that you can hide behind a pathetic smear by bringing up your own heritage?  You're pratically inviting me to make mince meat of your shameless homophibia smear.

     Kenya is not an Arabic country.  I am not maligning Islam.  No one outside of wingnuts and racists believe those kind of comments to be intended to "enlighten."  Shameful.  


    No (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:26:03 AM EST
    This is based on the US Census % requirements. Obama is less than 7% African based on his parentage. So, he's Arab American by definition.

    I didn't see anything in the post you responded to that even alluded to Muslim.


    Now imagine... (1.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:42:52 AM EST
    ...if I said this:

     "Senator Clinton cries on cue."

     Yeah. Nothing sexist about that.  But make a baseless, islamophobic suggestion that an African-American candidate with a name like Barack Hussein Obama (whose father is from KENYA) is an "Arab American" and implicitly attack him as a secret muslim is...above the board? Virtuous?

     Disgusting is the accurate term. That you feel the need to defend such a clearly misleading comment from a purportedly educated Clinton supporter is indicative of...something.


    Cream City did not make an "Islamophobic (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by tree on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:41:26 AM EST
    suggestion". She simply opined that Obama might have had a hard time in Indonesia as an Arab American child. His father's ancestry in Kenya goes back to Arab traders who colonized the area thousands of years ago. His name is Arabic, and Indonesian children probably would have been aware of that. You are the one who has decided that Arab equals Muslim and Muslim equals bad.  If you want to be in disgust, why not be disgusted at your own reaction to someone accurately describing his heritage. You obviously think there is something wrong with being Arab or Muslim, otherwise you wouldn't have the kind of reaction you are having.  

    Hardly (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by squeaky on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:57:21 AM EST
    It must have been Radcliffe.... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:33:28 AM EST
    ...she is older than me and even when I graduated from high school Harvard did not accept female undergrads.

    Ouch (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Steve M on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:14:09 AM EST

    Krauthammer is digusting.  But he's unquestionably right that the whole "meeting without preconditions" thing was a gaffe that Obama inexplicably decided to wed himself to.  He's been trying to walk it back ever since without saying so.

    I thought it was unnecessarily opportunistic of Hillary to seize on that answer as if Obama LITERALLY intended to meet personally with all those tyrants during his first year in office.  But then he went and said yes, he meant it 110%!

    Look, sometimes the smartest answer is "gosh, I just didn't happen to put on a flag pin today, didn't mean anything by it."


    Really stepped on some toes in (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:21:05 AM EST
    Eastern Washington with his ignorance on Hanford.

    Not sure how anyone in the country doesn't know the names and locations of the major nuclear energy plants are.

    He doesn't do much fact finding before he goes into areas. The downwind of Hanford factor is a very big concern for Oregon.


    His goof ups are getting very embarrasing (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:27:38 AM EST
    that too coming from a candidate who by all counts seems to be intelligent and values inteligence and intellectual capabilities.

    Soon like Bushisim we will have Obamaisim I guess


    Hanford is (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by zyx on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:37:56 AM EST
    the most contaminated nuclear site in the Western hemisphere.  It has an enormous, absolutely mind-boggling volume of the most possibly toxic waste.  There are votes every year or two about Hanford clean-up funding in the Senate.

    Not only that, it bothers me that a person running for president doesn't know of the historical background of the site.  It is where the first plutonium was made, which was trucked to the Trinity site and used for the first plutonium test bomb, and then, of course, more for the Nagasaki bomb, and then, of course, more for many thousand more.

    Because this was for military use, the civilian standards--laws--for safety are not imposed.  It became quite a problem.  I guess at first they didn't know how bad the problem would be.  What the excuse was, later, I don't know.  I guess the military figured that it really was ultimately Somebody Else's Problem.


    This "gaffe" Not Only Lack Of Knowledge (none / 0) (#107)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:03:25 AM EST
    but lack of preparation. Obama does not do his homework before doing town halls etc. I agree.

    Also, Obama is in favor of nuclear energy. Evidently his position is not based on firm knowledge or research on the downsides of nuclear energy if he is not aware of Hanford.

    Lack of knowledge and experience is one of the reasons  I would not want Obama as president. He would be too easily influenced if he is presented with one side of a issue.


    Please clarify: Hanford vs Hanaford (none / 0) (#112)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:21:44 AM EST
    Two thoughts on Obama's Diplomacy (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:25:02 AM EST
    1.  He doesn't have the guts to say he misspoke on the issue and has been hedging ever since.

    2.  Or he honestly believes preconditions are an impediment to good diplomacy.

    What is so frustrating about that is he keeps talking about Kennedy and Reagan as if he's following in their footsteps.

    Problem is Kennedy and Reagan both understood how preconditions play an important role in the Diplomatic process.

    So he's running around telling people Reagan and Kennedy believed things they didn't believe.

    Whatever anyone wants to say about how or why, Obama has NEVER and I mean NEVER communicated to anyone his understanding about how preconditions can be and should be used in the Diplomatic process.

    He has said the office of the president should not be used as a Diplomatic "carrot" so to speak.

    I very much disagree.  If that means I have more in common with Krauthammer on this issue, so be it, because I also know Kennedy himself has more in common with Krauthammer on this issue.  A lot more in common, in any case, than he has with Obama.

    This was the first point at which I became aware of Obama being someone I could not vote for.  Obama supporters telling me not to touch or criticize their precious (one particularly despicable Obama supporter kept saying "Write something nice about your candidate for once," ignore the fact that I had, this same person recommended every single thing written that was nothing but critical of Clinton) only re-inforced my opinion on this.


    Hey! (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Grace on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:50:11 AM EST
    Don't feel bad.  I thought that I could vote for Clinton or Obama until I started reading a lot of things about him.  I tried really hard to reconcile the things he said with what he did and I was unable to.  

    I was also put off by his extremely slim resume.  

    Once I had all this stuff put together, I was increasingly turned off by his supporters who sought to ridicule me for voting for Clinton.  

    At any rate, now I really dislike him.  I can't believe the DNC is going to stick us with him when it comes down to the General Election.  Knowing what I know now, I can't even consider him as a serious candidate for the presidency.  His past achievements aren't even as great as the guy who owns my local grocery store.  (It's a big store and part of a small chain but the guy started from scratch, not even speaking English!)  Obama is so supremely underqualified that I'm starting to look twice at the other Democrats who are running the party.  WHAT ARE THEY THINKING????!!!!!  


    The whole range of guesses (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:01:43 AM EST
    Runs from cynical to logical, to even hopeful if not also naive.

    It's a combination of all of those things.

    All I know is I had a set of expectations about a Clinton Administration.  I believed they could be met.

    I halve those expectations and I'll consider Obama a success if he meets half of those expectations.


    He just didn't know what preconditions meant (none / 0) (#37)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:30:32 AM EST
    when it was first brought up. How could he? He's never been involved.

    He does just enough to get by once he gets a title that looks good on a resume.

    First Harvard Law Review president to never publish an article, unimpressive state senator, unimpressive US Senator, etc.


    It is clearly obvious to me (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:35:54 AM EST
    He has never read the Kennedy/Nixon debate transcripts.

    Not that that shows up on any of the Harvard Law Degree tests.

    Anyway, are we to assume that if he was president during the Irish peace talks he would have gone to Belfast to meet with Gerry Adams BEFORE a cease fire?  That he would have given Adams a visa without a cease fire?

    To me that's a kind of question that remains unanswered for me.


    What DOES Obama read? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by zyx on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:43:35 AM EST
    I am not a Bill Clinton scholar, but I have read enough about him to know that Clinton read everything about everything.

    I like that in a President.


    Well, (none / 0) (#66)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:32:57 AM EST
    about the only thing I can imagine he would find intriguing enough to spend time with would be: "Dreams of My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope".

    Two books that belong in the Fiction section.


    When did Hanaford (none / 0) (#111)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:19:04 AM EST
    morph to Hanford?  The latter was already used?  The plant/lab was called Hanaford when the atomic bomb work was being done (I lived inside the fence in Oak Ridge).  And I still read about the Hanaford Waste Site.

    I am going to see Bill Clinton on Saturday (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by athyrio on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:18:41 AM EST
    evening in Miles City, Montana...Very excited about  it....Hope he gets a good reception...I think he will because Montanans are very very polite usually...(I am sure since it is so easy for Republicans to swing over and vote in our primary, quite a few will vote for Obama just to be contrary)...OH well....:-)

    Cool... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:21:55 AM EST
    I love it that for once the rest of the country got some of the New Hampshire and Iowa treatment.  We have to shut out their monopoly.  How in any of the deities names do these states represent America?  I guess they proved it was going to be 50/50.

    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by zyx on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:47:37 AM EST
    came to my Oregon town, and I rode my bike over to where he appeared and queued up and just barely got in before the building was full.  (It wasn't a very big building.)  He gave a pretty decent campaign stump speech.  The security guys were a little creepy, I thought--very intense.

    Oh--my neighbor, who works for Ron Wyden, warned me ahead of time that Clinton would be late, and he was, and I guess he always is.  So expect it.  BUT if you have limited space/seating, you have to go early anyway.  Take a paperback to read or something--I forgot!


    Pres. Clinton was always late (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by themomcat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:57:06 AM EST
    The only time I remember him being on time, actually early, was Cardinal O'Connor's funeral.

    I remember Bill coming through town (none / 0) (#99)
    by Iris on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:08:28 AM EST
    here in Eastern Kentucky on a train in 1996, and then this past Monday saw him speak at a high school  in the same area. ;)

    I think HuffPo is really loosing it. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:45:25 AM EST
    It is one thing for commenters to say stupid things but it ss something else if the articles theselves are no different from the comments. Some e.g:

    Headline story - McCain Pastor - this after they took great pains to tell everybody that Obama's pastor was off limits.

    Other stories
    Arianaa - No point in asking Hillary to stand down (seeing the success of the same) now lets push the SD to vote fo O.
    Max Blumenthal - I was the first one who noticed how dangerous pastor hagee was. HeeHaw. But But Obama's pastor still remains Off Limits.
    R J Eskow - Hillary by winning the contests now is harming Obama intentionally. Bad Hillary.
    Sherman Yellen - Forget the fact that we at HuffPo have been targeting Cindy McCain for long but Michelle O is Off Limits. Understand MSM!
    Cenk Yugur - People are racists because clintons gave them permission to do so.
    Paul Loeb - Remember Tuzla, Bosnia fire lie by Hillary let me remind you once again of the same by drawing a dubious connection with that and her popular vote claim.

    I call it (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:17:46 AM EST
    The David Sirotafication of the party.

    Hey, if the number of people who leave the party because of them is less than the number of people they bring in, then they're doing the right thing.


    Jeralyn, (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Iris on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:37:02 AM EST
    Obama supporter Arianna Huffington is encouraging readers to contact uncommitted superdelegates and try to get them to back Obama.  Shouldn't we do the same for Hillary?  For that matter, what about "buyer's remorse" superdelegates?

    I recommend contacting Obama (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by MarkL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:41:36 AM EST
    supporting SD's who are voting against their constituents' choice.

    Sounds like a good place to start (none / 0) (#98)
    by Iris on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:03:05 AM EST
    Any SD choosing between now and May 31 (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:44:15 AM EST
    Is putting their name on the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan.

    They will be known.  It will not be forgotten.

    This includes any SDs deciding for Clinton as well.


    Already done (none / 0) (#74)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:49:56 AM EST
    there's a previous thread you can find where Jeralyn recommends how to properly communicate with the superdelegates.

    I won't go to HuffPo, but I'm doubting Arianna included the helpful information that respectful communications in support of the candidate rather than trashing the other will be better received.



    Good to know, I must have missed it! (none / 0) (#97)
    by Iris on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:01:37 AM EST
    Paid bloggers have been part of the net from (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by bridget on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:04:15 AM EST
    Day One. Google the net. There is plenty of info out there.

    Professional and dedicated (fan) trolls have been part of the net sites forever. They are experts and v. talented and you would never know that they are trolls. Thats the idea, of course. They can create a lot of havoc, manipulate the sites, and fool a lot of people in the process. Sometimes the most respected oldtimers on blogs turn out to be trolls. E.g. Plenty of rightwingers post on liberal blogs. How obvious is that.

    I used to be a member of a huge sport website in the nineties and it was quite an experience. I used to be total newbie when I typed my first post but when I left the site nothing surprised me anymore. AFAIK blogs like dkos are based on those sport sites.

    I can't think of a better timing (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:06:28 AM EST
    regarding the release of the HBO movie 'Recount'. Not that it matters to the liberal elites. The Salon piece on the movie is a must read. Link below:

    An excerpt:
    Picking up on this theme, the film repeatedly shows the Gore camp bowing to an internalized need to behave decorously. "Johnny Apple says we have a week to resolve this," we see Christopher saying, as if referring to a pronouncement from on high. Whether because it was eager to behave like grown-ups, or for more practical reasons, the Gore team decided not to ask for recounts throughout the state. The decision was ad hoc and cautious, as many of Gore's decisions were.

    Yet Bush's team immediately used this decision to accuse Gore of trying to brazenly steal the election -- a line that ultimately resonated with the Supreme Court. When one Bush operative in the film suggests that Bush should ask for recounts in Republican counties, Baker says, "Hell, no. We already won. And they gave up their moral high ground when they only requested recounts in the four most liberal counties in the state." He immediately goes on TV and lambastes Gore for cherry-picking -- an obvious counterattack that Gore's team was typically unprepared for.  

    Another good para from the same piece in Salon (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:08:05 AM EST
    "By simply insisting that Bush had already won, Baker and his colleagues seized the high ground, although they had no legal or ethical right to do so. Gore's cautious tactics put him permanently on the defensive and made it easy for the GOP to paint him as "Sore Loserman," when in reality the election was still in play."

    Looks like Team Obama have learnt well on how to fight elections.

    Again another para from the salon piece (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:10:07 AM EST
    "One one side, a bunch of dithering, principled losers who politely ask permission to enter the ring. One the other, a disciplined, ruthless gang of brawlers burning with self-righteousness, a near-holy sense of entitlement and controlled rage. We can't say we should be surprised by the way George W. Bush has run the country -- the blueprint was laid out even before he took office."

    Sorry for posting so many paras from the said article. Just that the description of Team Bush could as easily fit Team Obama today.

    OK, So what about the price of oil (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:07:03 AM EST
    I am in that industry and I hate the fleecing that the public is getting. I hated those smug executives acting like they can't control the situation. To begin with, it is the speculators that are driving the price. BUT, there was the Enron Loophill bill that is part of last years farm bill that would control the price of heating oil. It is a necessary energy commodity. GW is not taking any action on this because you can not stomp on the toes of the people who got you there. If this was enforced, it would stop a lot of speculation heights. Then there were the oil guys getting to the crust of the matter. (Remember before the Alaskan Pipe Line in 76?)They want the Alaskan Oil and off shore Pacific Oil drilling which has been controlled for over 30 years opened. And there are additional things but these 2 lead the way.

    I want to know exactly where the candidates stand on these two positions. Would they enforce the Enron Loophill Bill? Would they consent to the oil drilling the oil companies want to do? And why aren't there more refineries built? These are all issues that are affecting our economy right now. This is it. When heating oil is $4.399 and 4 years ago it was 98 cents, how do we protect our own citizens? Especially the ones on SS fixed income. One minimum oil delivery of 150 gals (1-2 months worth in the winter) is $660. How do people survive?  This is a major issue. Why is it not one of the top issues? This has to do about greed and it is killing us.  

    Has Al Jazeera endorsed Obama??? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:36:24 AM EST
    A question about delegate numbers: (none / 0) (#2)
    by MarkL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:36:50 AM EST
    Suppose the FL delegates are awarded as voted, while MI gives Hillary hers and the rest are uncommitted.
    Is there any way that Hillary could end the primaries even or ahead in pledged delegates?
    It's impossible, right?

    I think that's right (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:38:54 AM EST
    But the closer she gets makes her argument about the popular vote and electability more acceptable.

    Pledged delegate is just one factor for superdelegates.


    Actually this whole Delegate (none / 0) (#9)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:45:15 AM EST
    allotment system hardly makes sense especially considering the fact that though Hillary won Texas in popular vote she lost the delegate vote, similarly though her margin of loss in one of the primaries was marginal her loss in the delegate allotment there was extremely lopsided.

    Considering the same I wonder how now they can follow the vote proportion in splitting the FL delegates.

    I think the best way out is to seat all the delegates irrespective in the convention and allow a floor vote there.


    Here's a start (none / 0) (#13)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:49:10 AM EST
    per greenpapers.com, the totals without sanctions of states -- showing a difference between them of only 70 delegates.  Of course, as we saw last week, allegedly "pledged" delegates can switch even now.  

    Sorry I'm too tired (a hard day at a hospital) to unravel all that I see on the site, but perhaps you can make more sense of it re your question about pledged delegates only.  However, as we saw some weeks ago, a super-delegate said that if the margin is within 100 pledged delegates, that's close enough to consider that category tied.

    In sum, it is and seems it will be essentially tied.

    Need to Nominate    2,210.0
    B Obama                    2,043.0
    H Clinton            1,973.0

    Still available        327.0
    Uncommitted               55.0
    J Edwards               20.0

              Total            4,418.0


    The reason I'm asking is that Obama's (none / 0) (#15)
    by MarkL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:50:31 AM EST
    lead in pledged delegates seems to be his main argument for supers these days.
    If MI were split and he didn't officially get the uncommitted delegates, I'm wondering if that "pledged delegate" lead could disappear.

    Just about, I think (none / 0) (#23)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:10:55 AM EST
    and I've been wondering along those lines, too.  But I'm just a bit stymied tonight by the rather unfriendly layout of data on greenpapers.com as well as by lack of energy to apply pencil to paper.  Or even click on my calculator. :-)

    Someone on the Khalidi thread (none / 0) (#5)
    by angie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:39:19 AM EST
    (I think Steve M or MarkL) asked in response to a post:
    "what makes Jewish people bitter? and to what do they cling?"

    And before I could post my oh so cleaver response, the parent post and that response were deleted. So, here it is:
    Maror & Guilt?


    Aren't you so glad I shared? ;-)

    That was me.. (none / 0) (#7)
    by MarkL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:42:50 AM EST
    I lost my lb. of bandwidth for that and one other comment.

    MarkL -- I thought it was you! (none / 0) (#12)
    by angie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:48:20 AM EST
    So, did I get the right answer? And if so, what do I win? :-)

    well, i'm about as Jewish as Mel (none / 0) (#19)
    by MarkL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:58:00 AM EST
    Gibson, so I'm not the person to check your answers.

    i'm glad (none / 0) (#95)
    by boredmpa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:18:56 AM EST
    i wasnt drinking when i read that.

    not the best choice of words, funny, but not the best choice of words.


    yes, the maror (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:45:39 AM EST
    Haha (none / 0) (#21)
    by Steve M on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:08:34 AM EST
    It wasn't me!  But you are funny.

    Big Dog For Unity Ticket? (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:42:59 AM EST
    While Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her advisers insist that she is determined to win the Democratic nomination, friends of the couple say that former President Bill Clinton, for one, has begun privately contemplating a different outcome for her: As Senator Barack Obama's running mate.


    Friends of the former president say his musings have been more casual: He believes that an Obama-Clinton ticket could help unify the party, and he thinks she has earned a meeting with Mr. Obama to discuss the possibility.

    According to these friends, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to be identified revealing private talks, Mr. Clinton believes that his wife's victories in major primary battles, like Ohio and Pennsylvania, and the 16 million votes cast for her candidacy make her the proper choice for Mr. Obama.


    I always wondered what it would be like (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:11:10 AM EST
    To have "friends" who speak for me anonymously.

    One day I hope to have one or two and then I will know I have arrived.


    as this is an open thread (none / 0) (#96)
    by boredmpa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:22:01 AM EST
    i suppose it's okay to tell you that you tend to get more five ratings when i've had a 40.

    My Guess It (none / 0) (#120)
    by squeaky on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:46:14 PM EST
    That this is not a secret, iow the "leak" was intentional. And as the article points out:

    And Mr. Clinton has his own ideas about his wife's best interests -- even if she sometimes does not share them.

    New progressive sites (none / 0) (#58)
    by formerhoosier on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:57:49 AM EST
    As others have noted, have taken long time sites off bookmarks and feeds.  Found a site that is men for hillary that has a focus on the sexism against her.  Recent article is a spoof on a new party with Clinton and Gore as joint ticket.  Note: acronym for party may offend some who are sensitive about religion (not profane though).  Anyway, thought if anyone needed levity, might head over there, the blogger is named Mark and not sure of the URL (can find using men for hillary is search).

    Hillary's Voice (none / 0) (#101)
    by Iris on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:15:55 AM EST
    has a nice list of blogs to replace old bookmarks with.

    Any of them can certainly (none / 0) (#60)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:09:09 AM EST
    Put their names on the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan if they want.

    And we can also (none / 0) (#77)
    by andrys on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:56:26 AM EST
    ...use the list (such as it is) in a 'group' mail-list but as a bcc: or blind carbon copy of that group-list so they don't have to see all those names on there, which is a turn-off.

      A short, to the point, note to each committed superdelegate balancing the gazillions by those worried and impatient Obama supporters would probably be worth a send.

      One of them pointed out that on Thursday not one superdelegate went to Obama though it had been expected he would get a flow once he attained, and announced he had, the majority of pledged delegates.

      As Howard Dean said on April 25 and apparently noted only on this forum:

    "I think the race is going to come down to the perception in  the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be..."

      I entered that thought at Huffpo but don't know if they'll post it, even though they say they don't mind notes that degree with editorial point of view and usually that has been true.  We'll see.


    Ooops - to each UNcommitted delegate (sorry) (none / 0) (#79)
    by andrys on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:56:55 AM EST
    Great chuckle (none / 0) (#63)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:21:47 AM EST
    On the uncommitted superdelegates link the first comment was wondering if anyone had created the same list for the Republicans :)

    Well, we'll find out for sure (none / 0) (#68)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:37:13 AM EST
    if the Obama camp puts out the word that Clinton has hired paid bloggers to disrupt the pro Obama sites.

    That's always a sure sign he's guilty as charged.

    Like McCain (none / 0) (#76)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:51:41 AM EST
    go to his website and he is asking for volunteers to cruise websites with approved talking points.

    he points out three websites:  redstate, townhall and................................................................................................. ........Daily Kos.

    How can you find out (none / 0) (#86)
    by Grace on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:54:32 AM EST
    which superdelegates have committed to who?  

    I'm in California and I think Boxer and Feinstein probably committed to Clinton early on.  But I want to find out about my other reps.  Is there a website I can go to?  Please post if you have one.  

    Demconwatch (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by tree on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:13:46 AM EST
    Has a list of committed supers here.

    contact superdelegates --- (none / 0) (#105)
    by Josey on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:51:26 AM EST

    I noticed it. (none / 0) (#94)
    by bridget on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:16:49 AM EST
    Wasn't it last weekend when Jeralyn and BTD had to delete a lot of stuff? I didn't read most of it but I noticed too that all of a sudden posters seemed to quarrel more with others or started a commotion. Seems to have slowed down now.

    That was interesting about the 400 rumor. I didn't pay any attention to it after I read it but it wouldn't surprise me at all. Not at all. That's the net for you, after all.

    I noticed it too (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Iris on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:11:48 AM EST
    it could have been to generate blog buzz to peel off Hillary supporters in the runup to Obama's declaration of victory.  Just like Bush donning the codpiece, another failed Mission Accomplished...

    Were you the Iris... (none / 0) (#118)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:45:38 AM EST
    ...that was over at Sadly, No! a while ago?  If so, did you get paid for that?  

    And, if you are, you should really go back over.  They'd love to hear from you again.


    This (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:35:02 AM EST
    sounds nothing short of desperate. If Obama has the nomination wrapped up then why force them to declare now? Frankly, I think that these super D's know that Obama is unelectable and are being put in a horrible place.

    Can you put all these together for mass E mailing? (none / 0) (#110)
    by Saul on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:15:04 AM EST
    How can you arrange these in such a way that you could just cut and paste them on the TO part of your email message and with one click send everyone the same message?

    You'd arrange them all in groups of about 25 (none / 0) (#124)
    by andrys on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:46:18 AM EST
    Make lists of the email-addresses with just a comma separating them and keep the list to 25 to make it easier on the servers and also to prevent servers that dislike huge mass-mailings.

      You can do a ctrl-c (or for macs, cmd-c) of the list and then paste it into your email Bcc: field

      That way they don't see the list of names and it's a cleaner read that looks more personal then.

      It would look a bit like

    Then sign your first and last name and the city, state you're writing from so they get a sense of a real person who cares about these things.


    Heard (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:25:05 AM EST
    a rumor today. Obama will continue to dither around about FL & MI so the nomination will go to the convention. Hillary already has the votes to win at the convention.

    Corrente posts excerpts (none / 0) (#115)
    by masslib on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:28:06 AM EST
    from an UK article that I think completely hits the nail on the head with this entire campaign season:


    I read that too (none / 0) (#119)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:29:00 AM EST
    thanks for the link, but it needs to be in this format, I think.

    Hating Hillary

    After reading the Judis article this one strikes a particularly sour note about our press doesn't it?


    Can't be finished (none / 0) (#116)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:33:14 AM EST
    Until roll call.

    report me (none / 0) (#122)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:23:07 PM EST
    look what i wrote & you wrote.  You've called me a bigot and a disgrace.

    No sir.  You are the one who should be asked to not post.  You're the one who resorts to name calling, noe me.