Friday Morning OpenThread

I just want to make a point about off topic comments. To me at least, they are unacceptable. If you do not want to talk about the issue I have posted about then you can refrain from commenting in that particular thread. I delete off topic comments and responses to such topics. Oh, and when comments are declared closed, that means you should not comment any further in that thread, I delete all comments posted after comments have been declared closed.

Open Threads, of which we now put more than a few a day, is the place to comment on your particular issues. Please use those Open Threads for that purpose.

BTW, I speak for me and my posts here. I am not sure if J sees it exactly as I do, but we are charged with policing our own comment threads. So that's the way I will regulate the comment threads to my own posts. Ironically, this is an Open Thread.

< Overnight Open Thread | The Malign Acceptance of Sexism: UK's New Statesman Notices >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    BTD - get back on topic! (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by scribe on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:35:41 AM EST
    It's annoying to those of us staying on topic, to get these darned open threads where anything can be the topic.  Too much freedom... chaos... Rethuglican nightmares.

    Oh, right.  That's what this is here for.

    Blog content (none / 0) (#60)
    by freebird60 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:24:40 AM EST
    When I started reading your blog over a year ago it was because it covered what your tag line said. It seems to have turned into a "what a politician said but in reality can't do anyway" blog. I found your blog to quite informative for my non-lawyerly point of view. Hope you return, I'll keep checking back.

    Jonathan Last at Philly.com (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Lahdee on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:44:15 AM EST
    in a piece dated this AM discusses the popular vote. He has an interesting thought to close with,
    Clinton's path is both obvious and simple: Win the popular vote and force Barack Obama and his cheerleaders to explain why that doesn't matter.
    The Roolz, it's the Roolz of course.

    Great article below. (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by ding7777 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:45:09 AM EST
    the New Statesman has an article "Hating Hillary".

    The danger is that, in their headlong rush to stop the first major female candidate (aka "Hildebeast" and "Hitlery") from becoming president, the punditocracy may have landed the Democrats with perhaps the least qualified presidential nominee ever.

    h/t Corrente

    I copied this article and I am (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:06:50 AM EST
    sending it to everyone I know. Thanks.

    The Dem Party has become a bad joke. (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:09:20 AM EST
    They never push back on anything-Gore, Kerry, Hillary. The Repubs are always the beneficiaries yet they do nothing. It's now wonder people generally regard the Dems as weak and "liberal" as an epithet.

    On courting the Jewish vote prevously posted by J (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Saul on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:49:55 AM EST
    You bet I can become a regular politician just watch me!

    Boy I would hate to have this guy call me my friend.  You can rest assure that you are expendable if need be.  

    The irony of his campaign is that becoming a regular politician, and divorcing himself of that holier than thou road he initially took as the heart of his campaign just might be what gets him nominated.

    If a reporter would ask him

    Well Senator Obama what the greatest thing you learn while campaigning for President?

    His reply should be

    Well I can say I really learn how to throw people under the bus when it's politically  necessary.

    This is how bad this guy wants to be president.  By the time he gets to the white house he will be just like those old politicians who he claimed represented the past and were considered evil.  

    Welcome to the official world of politics Mr. President.  You just made a 180.

    Obama's serial denunciations give me the creeps (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Ellie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:14:19 AM EST
    I know most of it is politics as usual (duh) but the speed at which he does it, and the general acceptance of that tactical "necessity" among his campaign and supporters is a dismal core feature of authoritarian regimes.

    I won't embrace that kind of marshalling of power that places a shallow, feel-good image over a political machine -- even one purporting to do "good" things once it's done trundling into the halls of power.

    Transparency, straightforwardness and scruples are supposed to form the core of Obama's "new" politics. The astro-trolls imperiously assure us of this virtually daily ... and yet not one day has gone by where Team Obama has actually given a tangible record of this "new" politicas in action. (I don't count rhetoric.)

    Am I nuts to be creeped out by this? One party nonsense is worse to me in that it marginalizes ANY dissent as static. That's not just a door closing but lockdown.


    Ironically, this is an Open Thread (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Ellie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:49:56 AM EST
    The events and statements of the past week have lapped satire.

    I am bereft of irony.

    I demand to be deleted.

    From your lips to God's ears (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:01:52 AM EST
    I am hoping Clinton is at the top of the ticket becase SHE is the sharper nd more seasoed candidate and the one who can carry this off.

    May 31st is coming (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Lahdee on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:11:30 AM EST
    How many times will we see the future of the party threatened by a failure to come to a "compromise" on FL and MI between now and 5/31?
    I find it amazing that this party could be so fragile. I hope it isn't, but should it prove to be I can imagine myself seeking options for the future.

    Media (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by anon on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:23:58 AM EST
    You speak for me as well. Our friend in the UK says it all.

    Just tell me (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Steve M on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:28:43 AM EST
    when are we going to see ANY sign that the SDs are moving?  The facts on the ground are not encouraging!

    At the convention (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:33:40 AM EST
    Think of it this way - these folks are politicians themselves.  None of them are going to stick out their necks until it's 100% safe for them to do so, which is why they're going to wait to see what everyone else is going to do.  This goes double for SDs from states like Ohio and Missouri, where Obama will lose by double digits.  They won't want to be seen as having come out for him early and tying their own careers to the titanic flop that his candidacy will turn out to be.

    I didn't know Sosnick and Smith were in the loop for HRC.  That's great news; unlike Gore, who wouldn't accept help from Bill Clinton's crackerjack staff, HRC appears to have more sense.

    NEVER bet against the Clintons

    I keep telling people that, myself, when they ask me if I think HRC is still in this.  If it were ANY other candidate, I'd believe she were dead in the water, but not this gal.  

    Seriously, look at this:  Long after most candidates would have been long gone, she's forcing Obama into explaining why he doesn't think it's important to count votes.  She's showing no signs of weakening or backing down.

    Now THAT quality is what I want in a President!!  I'll be with her until the end (when it comes in 2016 ;)  I know a lot of others feel the same, as well.


    I dunno (none / 0) (#66)
    by Steve M on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:37:01 AM EST
    I continue to hope we'll find some way to nominate Hillary, but it all seems very faith-based to me.

    I Wish I Could DIsagree With You (none / 0) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:46:00 AM EST
    but I can't. Every indication so far seems that the party will go out of its way to select Obama as its nominee regardless of whether or not he is the strongest candidate to win in November.

    The party seems to be operating on a faith-based premise that all the demographic  problems will magically go away before November.  They could be right but I doubt it.


    I have to agree (none / 0) (#75)
    by esmense on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:59:10 AM EST
    It has been apparent for some time now that the party establishment is determined do whatever is necessary -- manipulating the rules and the Florida and Michigan situation, threatening or bribing super delegates -- to hand the nomination to Obama. This is the reason for the unprecedented calls for the Hillary to quit (because the longer the race goes on, the more popularity she demonstrates with voters, and the more weakness Obama demonstrates, the less legitimate the party's decision will seem).

    Well, yeah (none / 0) (#81)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:14:50 AM EST
    But whereas Party leadership in Washington is not accountable to voters, you better believe that members of Congress/Governors/state reps to the DNC/heads of Feds of Democratic Women are.

    Which, again, is why I think SDs are not coming out for Obama in greater numbers.  If he's the anointed one, why haven't the SDs pushed him over the top?

    Um, because a lot of their districts went for Clinton.  And let's not forget the fact that Obama's numbers are artificially inflated.  Kansas, for example:  1.6 million voters in the state, 400,000 of them Democrats, and only 30,000 of those participated in the caucus.  Less than 10% of Dems, and under 2% of the voters in general.

    You really think, say, Rep. Dennis Moore (a Dem from the Kansas City area, whose district  includes Douglas County, home of U of Kansas and a lot of Obama supporters) wants to catch holy hell from his constituents - many of whom are Republicans, some of whom believe the 'Muslim' story - for endorsing such a liberal candidate?  There's no way.  He'd be beaten in a landslide upon his re-elect.  These SDs are facing, in a way, a mini-election of their own, the results of which are no means certain - and it's why they're not going to endorse until the last possible hour.

    My guess is the only way someone like Moore would have endorsed would be if Obama received a really resounding majority in a primary election; ironically, Obama's small-state caucus strategy may doom him longterm.

    Absolutely, this will go to the Convention.  I'm getting more sure of it every day.  And for the record, I don't think there's one thing wrong with that.


    Tyranny Alert.... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by kdog on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:29:09 AM EST
    Todays tyranny alert comes from San Antonio...the state can stick you with needles without your consent.  Link

    I don't care what I'm accused of...the state ain't stickin' mw with no needles.  That's a firm line in the sand for me...the right to whats inside my skin.

    Not sure where it stands on (none / 0) (#54)
    by Fabian on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:01:31 AM EST
    search and seizure, but I will say that from a scientific POV, blood tests are always better than breath tests if the sample is handled correctly.  

    For accuracy.... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:36:26 AM EST
    A blood test is better than a breath test, sure.

    But I long for the day when free men are judged on their behavior, actions, and content of their character....not judged on the content of their breath, urine, blood.

    Under no cicumstances should the state be allowed to invade your skin without your consent.  In NY when you get your license you have to agree to submit to a breat test or you automatically lose your license.  As much as I may dislike that policy, at least you still have a choice...submit or lose your license.  From the article it appears the cops in San Antonio have been given the right to take your blood, by force if necessary, no choice.  That's tyranny, plain and simple....and I can't stomach it.


    Well, give blood (none / 0) (#74)
    by Fabian on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:58:49 AM EST
    or be arrested for refusing to comply with orders?  

    The suspect should have to prove one way or another if they:
    a) Have a blood alcohol level above or below the legal limit.
    b) Are not functionally impaired to the point that they are a danger to themselves or others.

    If they can't prove either one, the nice officers should give them a lift to the police station and impound their car.  Keep them off the streets.


    Suspects.... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by kdog on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:13:46 AM EST
    have to prove nothing...nada, zip, zero.  

    The burden is on the state to prove their guilt, and the suspect is under no obligation to help them.  In fact, suspects have the right not to incriminate themselves.

    And what's this "follow orders" crap?  I don't work for the police, and the police ain't my momma...why sould I obey their commands if I have committed no crime?

    The answer here is to forget about DWI laws, and strictly punish reckless driving that puts others at risk...whether due to intoxication, talking on the cell, or doing your make-up or shaving in the rear-view mirror.  Reckless is reckless regardless of the underlying reasons, no?


    I'm with you kdog... (none / 0) (#88)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:48:32 AM EST
    ...I will barely let trained professionals get near me with a needle.  I sure as heck ain't going to be letting any cop come at me with one.

    There's a reason you have to aquire training to be able to take blood, give injections.  



    I'm not looking forward... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:03:22 PM EST
    to driving this Memorial Day weekend.  Going to a BBQ out at my sisters, only about 15-20 miles away, but the police are out in double numbers all weekend, doubling the odds you're gonna get your balls busted or end up stuck at a random checkpoint.

    How did we get here from our freedom-loving roots?  


    On Michigan Votes (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by flashman on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:37:27 AM EST
    This was brought up in a different post, but it was a sidebar, and I didn't want to go off the central topic.  I don't give Obama the "undecided" Michigan votes.  We might be able to speculate who those votes were intended for, but in an election, one either receives votes or not.  The whole principal of voting is you only count real votes, not what might have been.  

    I hear Ronald Reagan Jr. say there wasn't a primary in Michigan.  Huh?  Everyone has their own definition of what counts as an election these days.  I personally think there is only one.  People vote for their candidate, and at the end of the day, the votes are counted and awarded.  Simple.  He also said Hillary was the only name on the ballot.  That's a damn lie, and he knows it.  I've lost respect for so many media types this election season.  I used to have love for RRJr.

    Actions have consequences.  Obama was not forced off the ballot in Michigan.  He made that choice freely and willingly.  One cannot expect to win if one doesn't compete.

    BTD (none / 0) (#3)
    by cannondaddy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:38:48 AM EST
    you forgot to mention the other reason comments get delleted...

    There are many reasons comments are deleted (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:41:28 AM EST
    related to the site rules.

    I wanted to discuss this one specifically. Another one, as you point out implicitly, is for not linking properly and MassLib's comment will be deleted but it will lead to a stand alone post.


    can you delete (none / 0) (#14)
    by jes on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:50:10 AM EST
    this comment?

    I deleted the whole thread (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:55:32 AM EST
    and will pretend none of it happened.

    I know the payers and they are all better than that.

    But I do warn that we will not devolve onto what that thread became.

    There will be bannings of many people if they persist in that behavior.


    You know all the payers (none / 0) (#76)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:06:08 AM EST
    except the anonymous payers. ;-).

    Did I not link properly? (none / 0) (#15)
    by masslib on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:52:40 AM EST
    Sorry.  I will read up on linking here.

    masslib re linking (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by DFLer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:32:06 AM EST
    I asked about this previously and received several helpful hints from readers. The thread closed before I was able to thank them (now I can't find it to cite their names!)

    Anywhoo, I found this to be the easiest way to link:

    First, type in the comment box the name of your link, as in "article" or "link here" or "what she said"

    Second, highlight those words.

    Third, click on the chain link icon. A box comes up. Paste the actual url link in this box. Bingo.

    Fourth, test in preview....you can click on the link to test as well in preview only.

    Thanks to those who helped me with this.


    Thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by masslib on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:35:47 AM EST
    Another super-easy way to link (none / 0) (#67)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:38:25 AM EST
    1.) Go to TinyURL.com
    2.) Paste whatever super-long link you like into the box
    3.) Hit 'submit'
    4.) Receive nifty short link that's only about ten characters long, and that redirects to your original content
    5.) Post your new link here at Talkleft



    VP position by Hilary. Pro & Cons (none / 0) (#5)
    by Saul on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:42:08 AM EST
    The chance you take is if she does not take it if offered, then she can run against him in 2012 but it would depend on how good Obama did in his first 4 years then she would be running against him again.  The incumbent president as a general rule has the edge.

    If she takes the VP then probably she would have to wait 8 years, but as a general rule the VP is almost the anointed nominee as Obama leaves.  The question is does she have 8 years to give until that day.

    They both will make history though, First black president and first female VP

    Your last sentence, imo, is why (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:43:39 AM EST
    he doesn't want her as vp. It would take away from his "history" and that all and only about HIM!!

    should read: and that it's all (none / 0) (#7)
    by zfran on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:44:12 AM EST
    about HIM.

    I prefer they make history the other way (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:49:09 AM EST

    I also (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by sas on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:01:39 AM EST
    prefer Clinton/Obama.

    Why would you already be giving the top spot to him?


    So far, Change has been (none / 0) (#45)
    by brodie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:38:16 AM EST
    a very winning theme for O in the primaries, this HRC backer has to concede, just as it was for JFK in 60.  

    It's unlikely he'd want to undercut it in the GE by putting someone on his ticket who doesn't at least complement that idea.  And the two aren't exactly close buddies.

    The only good thing I have to say about the Faux Unity Ticket, which I strongly doubt Hillary is actually pushing, is that it's preferable to an Obama/Judas Richardson ticket.

    Other than that, Sibelius, Webb or Rendell would be a solid choice.  Strickland apparently is  antichoice and further has said he's not interested.  

    As for 2012, I don't think that's in the cards for her.  She's 60 yo, and this has been a brutally long campaign, something she's very unlikely to want to repeat in just a couple of yrs.  Unless of course O absolutely melts down in the GE and the general sense among Dems becomes great regret over not nominating her.  Possible but not likely -- I see O sneaking thru in the general for a narrow victory not unlike Carter's in 76.

    In 2012 she's up for re-elect.  I would expect her at that time to go for another senate term.


    Change blather... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:56:05 AM EST
    It's unlikely he'd want to undercut it in the GE by putting someone on his ticket who doesn't at least complement that idea.  And the two aren't exactly close buddies.

    Ok, this is one of the "talking points' from the media, blogs and Obama campaign that makes me go ballistic.  What in Zeus' name are you talking about.  

    How does Hillary undercut his notion of change?   You people have believed your own lies.  He undercuts her notion of competence and Democratic values.  


    Sorry Stella, but you're (none / 0) (#57)
    by brodie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:06:20 AM EST
    jumping to conclusions about my agenda -- which comes from a perspective of an HRC backer who does not want to see the much more qualified and experienced candidate taking a secondary and dependent role to the much younger and less qualified junior pol (as I've said repeatedly in about 20 posts here at TL in the last month or so).

    As to Change, it's just silly, imo, to try to argue that she doesn't undercut it -- last I checked, she was an integral and important part of the Bill Admin, and mostly for the better, and that began 16 yrs ago.

    I'm not sure how BHO can argue change while reaching out to someone who herself has been explicitly arguing for a return to the good old days of peace and prosperity (and that they were).

    Obama decided, in order to beat her for the nom, that he would have to throw Bill and his presidency under the bus.  It appears to have been a winning strategy with just enough Dems wanting to move on from the Clinton Era.

    I merely call it like I see it on this one.  I'm not happy about what seems to be a disappointing outcome for my side, but I'm not going to offer up disingenuous arguments that conflict with reality just because I'm upset about my candidate losing out.


    Yeah, but (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:44:22 AM EST
    Here's the thing:  The "change" that is needed is change from the lies of the Bush/Cheney years, not change from the solid economy/more jobs/reasonable government* of Clinton 1.

    I suspect a lot of the venom that gets directed at Hillary should really be toward the Congress that rolled over while Bush and his team of thugs ran roughshod over the country.  In many folks' minds, she's the lightning rod for a lot of it, since they think the Dem leadership should have protected us from the likes of Alito, et. al.

    To the degree that is fair is subject to conjecture.  However, in my mind that's an area where the HRC campaign is screaming for a stronger message:  The enemy is the Republicans, not Dems in Congress, although I can understand the level of scorn and vitriol that's been dumped on them in many quarters.

    *Yes, I realize Clinton 1 wasn't perfect: see health care, death penalty, etc.  But I think equating it to the Bush years is really craven on the part of Obama's campaign, and it's one of many reasons I personally won't be voting for Obama under any circumstances this November.  (Others are the FL/MI issue, the false racism accusations, etc.)


    hey BTD the start of your joint ticket? (none / 0) (#10)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:47:32 AM EST
    Clinton Campaign in Talks With Obama About VP Slot, CNN Says

    May 23 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is in formal talks with Senator Barack Obama's campaign about becoming his vice presidential running mate, CNN reported, without citing anyone specific.

    Momentum's shifting in her direction (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Ellie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:31:30 AM EST
    Pre-PA was the time to get her to fold, be a "good sport" and throw her considerable muscle and accumulated support behind the less qualified candidate.

    Anyone floating the Clinton-as-VP hooey or arguing that she can run again in 2012 is mad, frothing into their lattes crazy mad.

    Do they think all it takes is a snap of the fingers to raise the kind of jack to run for nat'l office? If you have that superpower, may I hang out with you?


    Yesterday, the source was a Clinton (none / 0) (#18)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:59:26 AM EST
    "friend". Why would a friend be undermining her stated goal of winning the nomination? They wouldn't so now there's no source. Maybe the other side is putting that out to suppress the remaining votes?

    Is the Unnamed Souse from the WJC admin? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Ellie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:55:45 AM EST
    Some of those support Obama and wouldn't be above floating such a (ridiculous imo) trial balloon now that TeamO's on the ropes.

    Ex Rectum: The time for him to close it out was pre-PA. Sorry for the broken record here, but even with his "huge" wins in NC and OR, he lost a lot of motion on his avalanche.

    His staged "huge" media events beg more questions than settle issues, eg, that "huge" free Decembrists concert deceptively portrayed as multitudes flocking to gaze upon The One was up against news of Sen Clinton's performance in the popular vote.

    It's just getting harder for media, the Dem establishment and TeamO to maintain a wall of pretense here.

    Hillary's in the house and she's in this to win it.


    shurgs if thats so (none / 0) (#22)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:04:44 AM EST
    then you don't think CNN would know who they are talking to before having their reporters report that its her camp?


    pretty sure that if they went on the air with this, they know which camp it came from.


    Or they could just be (none / 0) (#25)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:07:37 AM EST
    putting stuff out there. It isn't like the COM hasn't gotten it wrong before and had to later issue ma culpas or that a "news" etwork hasn't gone to court and argued news reporting doesn't need to be accurate and won. Frnkly, unless I hear it directly from the campaign I ain't buyin' wha's being sold.

    ofcourse not (none / 0) (#30)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:14:16 AM EST
    if Hillary did what to be VP, what she would do is go on TV and ask for it, I mean its not like we would hear rumors of Bill pushing for her to be VP, or news media reporting of formal low level talks beginning,

    no the way to begin discussion for a VP slot is for the campaign to go directly to the voters and ask for it.

    but I am doubtful of it too, but more because I would rather a Obama/Hagel ticket before Obama/Clinton so I am sooo hoping she and her campaign don't want that slot.


    Where does it say her camp is the source? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:21:06 AM EST
    It says source unspecified. Where does it say it "went on the air"?

    you can get the video (none / 0) (#34)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:22:33 AM EST
    ABC too (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:31:49 AM EST
    Interesting this morning... Clinton and Obama discussing an exit strategy and has the 'dual ticket become a reality'  The 'spouse a pain in the butt' comment was referred too.  It was an open, pleasant discussion.

    On the other hand, go to CNN, Roger Simon and some woman are on.  Women want it 'offered' as a way to assuage 'hurt feelings' (ha!) and 'no' it hasn't been sexist it has been a campaign.  It has nothing to do with unity, it is only a matter of him showing her respect.  (sorry, but I think that is laughable and it is another example of dismissing Clinton) I think CNN is missing the point that many consider Clinton uniquely qualified at this time.


    what ha! (none / 0) (#46)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:42:06 AM EST
    thats about the only reason I have seen to give it to him, first her supporters are arguing 1) she is still going to win, so why talk about VP, 2) she is more experienced so why should she be #2 3) Obama is going to lose so why she should be on the ticket 4) that group in what Ohio that is going to actively work against his campaign

    when an HRC supporter DOES say there should be a joint ticket, its because its the only way to get Hillary voters

    those HRC voters who will vote Obama will do it, no matter who is VP is, those who hate him wont no matter who the VP is, I don't see this group of voters who won't vote Obama unless Hillary is VP as being that big, maybe because we have no way to gauge it, they don't poll it, Pro-Hillary sites are against it (maybe a front page poster is for it) but read any BTD unity ticket threads its obvious posters are against it, so I don't see any signs that it actually helps him.

    the biggest reason to do it is to get HRC voters, but if HRC voters are against it why do it?


    Not me (none / 0) (#47)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:53:42 AM EST
    BTD got me.  That's bad? I'm only one voter?  I'm one of many that would go for the joint ticket.  My attitude is Obama supporters should spend time talking to people like me.  I can convince my friends and family to switch with a strong sales pitch.  :)  

    I was originally voting for the top of the ticket.  I didn't find Obama experienced etc for the job.  It took me months of research to decide who to vote for and I picked a candidate based on issues that were important to me. I felt Clinton was commited and could get some movement on.  

    I think of Obama as a GOTV candidate.  That is not an insult.  It is important to party building but I don't get from him that he is commited to any Dem issues.  So I wouldn't vote for him out of disinterest.  I was open to him as VP.  I felt he would grow as a servant, have the opportunity to demonstrate commitment to an issue he could represent the people on.  If Clinton is the VP, she will represent the people on issues.

    Different reasons why they appeal, I think.  They balance each other out and they bring voters.  I don't think bringing the voters is a bad thing.  
    That's how you win.


    well if most her voters are like you (none / 0) (#53)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:59:41 AM EST
    then a unity ticket could win, if most her supporters are like the others, then I don't see the point.

    the problem is we don't know what her supporters are like, and the best judge for those, things like blogs well they say that you are the minority, VoteBoth is eh, her supporters don't like it, but power people like Bill and her backers are pushing a joint ticket, this is another Top Down apporach, the Top is telling the voters hey you want a joint ticket.

    instead I say if it was a dream ticket there would be GRASSROOTS support for it, a unity diary here would be greeted with cheers, and then people like you would convince people like me that it could work, and in turn I move to other Obama supporters and get THEM behind it, and we go to the top and say give us the ticket we want.

    instead its Obama supporters NOT wanting a joint ticket and getting attacked by HRC supporters who themselves DON'T want a joint ticket just for different reasons.

    it just doesn't make sense to me to have a joint ticket, maybe they should do some more national polls on it, see where the country is on it,


    I see different info (none / 0) (#64)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:33:59 AM EST
    Polls aren't asking about Clinton as VP too much any more.  But they showed that the majority of her voters would vote for a joint ticket.  I think the shift in her appeal to working class is a big asset.  If she is dropped after appealing to some of these demographics, they may feel dismissed.

    If people stopped listening to the media spin that it is being forced on Obama or it is a consolation prize for Clinton and discussed how their campaign teams might mesh their campaigns and what skills they bring to the ticket, maybe more people would shift?  I was able to shift but it took a lot of blocking of the noise and just listening to certain people for an independent analysis.


    It depends on what role for Clinton (none / 0) (#71)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:51:11 AM EST
    If she's just there for ornamentation, and isn't going to get to do anything or open her mouth, forget it.  People's BS detectors are turned on full-force when it comes to this issue.

    I don't see how Obama does it, personally.  How is he going to have a (much) more qualified, (much) more experienced candidate as VP, and not look like a bumbling fool when the two of them are onstage together?

    Although I can understand why folks are pushing the idea.  It's finally really gotten through to them that we Hillary voters MEAN what we say on this:  No votes for Obama, at all, ever.  It's their only hope of bringing a significant number of loyal Democrats back into the fold, and they're going to take it.

    Whether it'll be enough is anyone's guess, since they've already let Howard Dean/Donna Brazile/Pelosi screw up the MI/FL thing, and furthermore now the media narrative will be ALL about whether Obama and Clinton can get along, a la celebrity-gossip Brangelina articles.  

    Bleah.  Sometimes I really hate living in such a craven culture, but what are you gonna do.  Guess I could go live in a hut in the Outback...


    Clinton as ornamentation? (none / 0) (#79)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:13:03 AM EST
    Really, how can people admire Clinton and then think she would allow herself to be used as ornamentation. Obama has a wife to serve that role if you want to define a role that way.  What are they going to do... fire Clinton?  Cheney has reinvented the VP role (yes, in a bad way)  Clinton can keep the strength that the position has achieved but turn it in to something positive.  Clinton's position as VP could be supporting balance between the branches of govt.  There are a multitude of issues she could own.  The President is the commander and chief, the VP?  Who knows, but my impression isn't that Cheney spends a lot of time serving as Bush's lacky.

    He has to pick someone more experienced.  It will be unbalanced in that way no matter what.  He doesn't bring experience, he brings a feeling of change of doing politics in a new way (what that means I don't know, but it's what I get from supporters)


    I hope you're right (4.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:28:56 AM EST
    My argument was intended to illustrate what could turn out to be the pitfalls.  

    I hope Obama sees things this way, and that he'd be genuine about wanting to allow Clinton to bring her strengths and experiences to the ticket.  And that he wouldn't be trying to simply use her presence as a lever with which to maneuver really-pissed-off HRC voters into supporting him, while cynically not allowing her much power.

    I would imagine that's what Obama and Clinton are working out now if the hints of negotiations are true.


    what ha! ?? (none / 0) (#50)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:56:19 AM EST
    Wrong approach.  Why don't you talk about Clinton's qualifications and what she brings to the ticket besides voters.

    See above post n/t (none / 0) (#84)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:30:01 AM EST
    Folks this has been the plan (none / 0) (#19)
    by delacarpa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:01:37 AM EST
    Good post,

    Yes the plan, the plan and it is working. People are voting in the polls against Obama. She is beating him hands down along with McCain. It will be realized soon people are rejecting him.


    Pretty scary allies (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by cannondaddy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:11:49 AM EST
    that you're teaming up with to try to bring down Obama...

    Yikes! (none / 0) (#93)
    by MonaL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:24:35 PM EST
    This group supports Hillary?

    An Electoral college tie (none / 0) (#24)
    by cannondaddy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:07:32 AM EST
    Could lead to a different kind of joint ticket.

    Mcain/Obama executive branch (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:09:34 AM EST
    I just threw up a little bit at the thought. I can't believe anyone would think that's 'cool'. yuck.

    yep (none / 0) (#32)
    by Punchy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:19:53 AM EST
    Shorter BTD:  A thread is done when I say it is.  I delete whatever I think is off-topic, which usually means anything I dont agree with.

    Go ahead: ban me.  No dissenting opinions allowed here.  Just thought I'd speak for probably thousands when I express such frustration at the tone-change on this site.

    "I speak for thousands" (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Steve M on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:31:17 AM EST
    You're a funny guy.  You sure don't speak for me and my "millions" of imaginary friends who despise all the off-topic trolling.

    off-topic? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Punchy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:58:46 AM EST
    it's an open thread.  there is no topic.  natch.

    Uh (none / 0) (#58)
    by Steve M on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:11:57 AM EST
    I am referring to all the comments that you believe are wrongfully deleted.  What on earth would make you think I was calling your comment "off-topic"?

    WOW Speaking For Thousands! (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:37:57 AM EST
    I am really impressed.

    Don't be absurd even regulars have been deleted (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Ellie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:14:18 AM EST
    ... downrated or chided at some point for technical and pragmatic reasons, but not for content (dis)agreements with the proprietor and moderators.

    Plenty of Obama supporters here (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:55:53 AM EST
    Usually the day after Hillary wins some huge state.  Jeralyn and BTD have repeatedly urged posters not to downrate based on content, unless it's full of unwarranted bile or personal attacks.

    I've uprated even astro-trolls for a good case (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Ellie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:11:38 AM EST
    And down-rated ones who are just trolling just cluttering to close down the discussion or make it hard for people to put their few cents in.

    I'd have to look long and hard for a similarly equitable treatment of HRC supporters elsewhere.

    Bank on it.


    I don't get it (none / 0) (#92)
    by MonaL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:22:19 PM EST
    downrating/uprating.  Where can I go to get more info?  What does (5.00 / 1) (#78)  mean?  Is 5 good and 1 bad?  I really don't know. I realize Kos does this too, but I've never been a regular visitor there to care.  But since I've become a regular TL visitor, I guess I should find out.  Help?

    I'm a longtime reader.... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by kdog on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:47:27 PM EST
    from the days before we had stupid ratings.

    I think I've rated 2 comments, and only because they were getting mad "1's" they didn't deserve.  Otherwise I ignore them....seems kinda childish to me, like a popularity contest.


    Third Party (none / 0) (#51)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:58:04 AM EST
    I hope and pray that the Clintons start a third party.  An honest to goodness populist party.  Enough with these two moronic parties.  I would really be satisfied with this.  Scare the pants off all the DNC yellow bellied good for nothing appeasers.  

    If they start a third.... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:03:44 AM EST
    I'm looking for a fourth:)

    I doubt they will though...there's no money in third party politics...you need to be a D or R to ride the gravy train.


    Tech makes the need for that kind of jack passť (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ellie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:28:39 AM EST
    Set up a shingle, spread the word, have people write in your name. People's access to tech for production and distribution is under the (strangely under-reported ... hmmmm) move of more artists towards self-promoting and self-distributing and, of course, making a living at it.

    Nat'l advertising and tight "branding" will always get the lions' share of attention but that's no longer the only game in town.

    I don't like how Obama's using tech to game the system rather than actually empower people the way his transiently feel-good "new" poltics cynically promised, but never intended to see through.

    HRC won me over fair and square.


    I meant there... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:34:31 AM EST
    is no money in a third party run for The Clintons...so they'd never go for it.

    I believe both the Clintons and Obamas are motivated by their own ambition to be rich and powerful, not a great desire to serve the American people.


    Yep... (none / 0) (#86)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:40:42 AM EST
    ...the days of politicians serving out of a sense of duty or patriotism are largely over.  Today's politicians are professionals and expect compensation--be it money or ego or what have you.

    I don't think that will change until we move towards leveling the playing field, i.e., public financing.  


    I would love that too (none / 0) (#77)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:09:58 AM EST
    Unfortunately my husband reminded me that a third party wouldn't get anything done with Congress, because Republicans AND Democrats would be constantly fighting to make sure the third party president was a failure.

    But I think it would be a great idea, otherwise.


    A bright side.... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:05:27 AM EST
    to high gas prices...less cops driving around busting chops.


    Sheeeeet...$ 4.09 ain't so bad if you don't have to drive by 3 speed traps during a 10 mile commute everyday.

    Bet Segways will become more popular (none / 0) (#95)
    by splashy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:35:22 PM EST
    In cities because of that. Actually, getting them out of the cars and out in the streets may do everyone more good.

    I'm hoping that many cities will make the switch to all electric cars for getting around, for everyone. They are quieter, less polluting, and probably smaller. It's a total win as far as I can see.


    Et tu, NPR? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Fultron on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:44:52 AM EST
    Pretty weak commentary on this morning's Morning Edition, IMHO. Almost made me regret my donation.

    After NPR first reports McCain's clean bill of health, Ken Rudin (I think) starts in immediately by saying that McCain has health concerns. Then Mara Liasson's chalks up Obama's troubles with the Jewish vote as racism and false information from viral emails. They also mentioned comments from Rev. Hagee praising Nazis at one point.

    Sorry NPR, but you can't outfox Fox. Give the listeners a little more credit than that.

    This is on HuffPo today (none / 0) (#73)
    by abfabdem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:56:07 AM EST

    That Obama sure knows how to manipulate a ballot.  He's been doing it since his first run for office in Chicago.  Yet he represents himself as some new kind of politician who is somehow above this kind of thing.  It's truly a credit to his campaign that he has gotten away with it.

    A couple of blogs have this: (none / 0) (#82)
    by kindness on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:17:04 AM EST
    Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings is pissed.  She discusses this in a thread titled Clinton Campaign Threatens "Open Civil War"

    On a somewhat more humorous note (not everyone's humor mind you)Jon Swift has a post titled Barack Obama Should Concede the Nomination to Hillary.

    Remember Vince Foster? (none / 0) (#90)
    by CDN Ctzn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:04:45 PM EST
    I just came back to Portland from a brief trip to Southern Oregon. Obama supporters were still basking in his large victory in Oregon . I had the opportunity to speak to a few and ask why they supported Obama's (non-existent) policies over Clinton's and it came down to not wanting to vote for a murderer.


    Well, the question came that, did I really believe Vince Foster committed suicide? Everyone knows that she was having an affair with him and that the sinister Clinton machine had him silenced; just like the Kennedy's did with Marilyn Monroe!

    Stunning! And thy still allow these people a vote.

    CA might be in play (none / 0) (#91)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:54:25 PM EST
    "A new L.A. Times/KTLA poll tested the proposition in McCain matchups with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. And in at least one of the scenarios, the results may surprise many folks.

    We aren't at liberty to reveal the exact results yet; for that, check out our homepage (latimes.com) about 5 p.m. EDT today (2 p.m. PDT).

    Some perspective...

    The last Republican to win the state in a White House race was George H.W. Bush in 1988; he defeated Michael Dukakis, 51%-48%.

    From Larry Johnson and the LA Times

    Perhaps you would like it better (none / 0) (#96)
    by splashy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:40:03 PM EST
    Somewhere that you can post what you want, maybe in your own blog? It seems to me that those that own a blog should have the say in how they want to run things.

    Blogs like this are not democracies. The people that own them pay the price to run them, so they have final say.

    Besides, I find it refreshing the way they run things here. Less back and forth that goes nowhere.