home

Open Thread - Watch Recount Tonight

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:35:52 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Recount airs tonight on HBO at 9 PM ET. Check your local listing for your time zone. It should be watched by everyone.

This is an Open Thread. Have a good afternoon and evening.

Update (TL): I'm off to see the new Indiana Jones movie (because I like Karen Allen) so this will be the last open thread for a few hours. And yes, I'm tivo-ing Recount.

Please keep it civil and don't respond to site violators. (Comment rules are here and new commenters are limited to 10 in a 24 hour period.) It's easier for me to identify and delete them when I see them called out. If you respond to them, chances are your response goes down the rabbit hole too.

< Obama's GE Margin Of Error: Nonexistent | Recount Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Open Thread - Watch Recount Tonight | 206 comments (206 topical)
    Hillary will be the nominee. (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:40:22 PM EST
    Since I am not a tepid Obama supporter, but a strong Hillary supporter, I am making the argument that Hillary will be the nominee.  She will end with the pop vote and the most votes won for the last 4 months of the nominating contest.  That will give the supers the reasoning they need to stand with her, and they will.  She WILL be the nominee, and she WILL be the 44th president of the United States.

    On a side note, BTD I am very disappointed in your rush to judgement on the RFK comments.

    Did you see Axlerove on Geo. Steph.... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:56:52 PM EST
    I am recording it, but did see Geo. ask him about the RFK fiasco...Geo. asked him about the memo being sent around with the KO spew.  

    [ Parent ]
    I heard about it. (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:59:30 PM EST
    Repulsive.  But Obama has ran a much more extremely nasty campaign against Hillary than most of his supporters will admit to.

    [ Parent ]
    By supporters, I do not mean BTD. Just (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:02:15 PM EST
    to be clear.  More the MSM types who insist he's run the clean campaign and Hillary has tossed the kitchen sink.

    [ Parent ]
    Than ALMOST (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:13:20 PM EST
    ALL of his supporters will admit.

    [ Parent ]
    Axelrod wants to get the whole mess behind (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by ruffian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:11:59 PM EST
    them, like yesterday.  He backed way off of it with G. Steph.

    The best  and funniest interview I saw was Wolfson on Face the Nation.  He defended Hillary, and McAuliffe, who I guess also defended Hillary on another show that I missed, and flat out refused to apologize to Obama, saying there was nothing in Hillary's statement that had anything to do with Obama.  Bob Shieffer snorted in astonishment at that statement of the awful truth.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly. How on earth does her comment (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:14:42 PM EST
    where she relates to RFK(SHE RELATES TO RFK)have anything to do with Obama?  Let's face it the stiffs in the MSM and much of the Party establishment have always thought of the Clintons as nothing more than white trash.  She didn't owe him or his enormous ego an apology.  She clearly wasn't referring to him.

    [ Parent ]
    I wish they had responded so (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by ruffian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:19:26 PM EST
    unapologetically to the other instances of manufactured outrage in this campaign. You can bet McCain will.

    [ Parent ]
    Me too. They should not have been (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:21:06 PM EST
    so timid.  Truth was on their side.

    [ Parent ]
    You know everything is all about obama...even (none / 0) (#40)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:26:43 PM EST
    that appeasement crack by bush was owned by obama...I don't remember that being directed to him.

    [ Parent ]
    Terry Mac was on Chris Wallace, and he cut (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:25:35 PM EST
    him no slack whatever...wallace tried to go to break and Terry just kept on talking...

    I swear some of these previously sane journalists took a mental holiday over the RFK comment.  Even Gwen Ifill, whom I usually like...I shot her off an email and let her know what I thought of her snide remarks about assassination.

    [ Parent ]

    I'll look for a tape of that (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ruffian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:54:48 PM EST
    It must have been what Bob Schieffer found so scandalous!  I swear he must have asked Wolfson 5 times if he wanted to apologize for MCauliffe. Finally Wolfson kind of laughed and said absolutely not.

    [ Parent ]
    Here. (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by ghost2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:21:46 PM EST
    link

    What a hack Wallace is.  

    Is the American press intentionally trying to turn all of us insane??

    [ Parent ]

    They are doing a good job (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by ruffian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:46:37 PM EST
    of driving me insane, I will say that. Amazing - 6:31 on that one topic. Wallace has no shame. Terry Mac was great.

    [ Parent ]
    A warning - the G. Steph roundtable (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:17:00 PM EST
    will make you sick.  For the first time ever I had to just turn it off.  Even Dee Dee Myers seems to have taken leave of her senses.  They all think the RFK thing is the last nail in Hillary's coffin.

    [ Parent ]
    Wushful thinking. (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:17:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Heh. Wishful thinking. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:18:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Meanwhile (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by janarchy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:31:52 PM EST
    even though our local NY newspaper (Newsday) tried to make it a big horrorshow of "OMG, this is is for her!" all of the NY Superdelegates and politicians laughed it off and said 'You've got to be kidding me. She's not going anywhere." The only one who was, of course, shocked, stunned and horrified beyond belief was Al Sharpton. Yeah, like we didn't see that one coming.

    [ Parent ]
    Dee Dee: "O's Father served in WWII" (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:46:01 PM EST
    Credibility is dependent upon knowing what one is talking about.

    They are talking as though Obama's autobiography's are non-fiction. I can see I need to send an email to ABC. :)

    Fortunately, it's a holiday weekend and their viewing audience is probably a small fraction of normal.  

    The entire roundtable was so biased in their assessment of the RFK mention. They carefully avoided saying the Kennedy's didn't think she was referencing anything other than the month of June.


    [ Parent ]

    I couldn't watch past the first couple of comments (none / 0) (#78)
    by ruffian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:57:10 PM EST
    I do think Obama's maternal grandfather did fight with Patton though, not that it excuses Dee Dee for totally missing the boat on the RFK thing.

    [ Parent ]
    She said father (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:37:01 PM EST
    she said something else about his grandfather, but I don't recall what that was.

    She and George both tried to paint his childhood as one of great struggle. His grandparents were quite well off.

    That grandfather never gets honorable mention by Obama, though he wrote his first book on the father who abandoned him at 2 years old, and he only saw once between then and his death.

    [ Parent ]

    What? She didn't get that wrong (none / 0) (#92)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:03:30 PM EST
    -- did she?  It was his grandfather.

    I expect lies from Obama now (hardly knew Rezko but took money from him, hardly knew Ayers but took money -- on the foundation board and in donations -- from him, too, etc.).  But Myers has been careful of facts, from what I've seen.  Now she's lost it, too?

    Or is this more discussion of the facts of history that we're not supposed to talk about now, per KO?

    [ Parent ]

    I'm sure she was just trying to support (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:40:40 PM EST
    George S's kind words for Obama. It's the first time I've ever seen her not speak on behalf of Hillary. She and George should both be ashamed of their performance today.

    The only thing George did well was during the Axelrod interview when he asked Axelrod twice if the campaign was going to stop circulating emails of KO's nasty commentary against Hillary, and no more stirring the pot.

    As usual, Axelrod would not answer the question. He just talked around it.


    [ Parent ]

    This is in actuality the last nail (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by kenosharick on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:27:20 PM EST
    in the coffin of ANY CHANCE I will vote for Obama and the slimy campaign that he is running. It is all about evicerating the Clintons (including Chelsea)and run by the most thin-skinned politician in modern history.

    [ Parent ]
    In fairness, (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by ghost2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:26:23 PM EST
    BTD rushed to judgement, but he said that he hoped he could take it back.  

    [ Parent ]
    Your Optimism (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by JimWash08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:51:32 PM EST
    It is so inspiring and so uplifting. I read the headlines and watch the news every day, and it is just so disappointing and to see how the media continues to have such a rigid handle on this nominating process.

    8 months ago, I would have laughed if someone told me the anger, the sadness, the pain, the horror and the amazement I'd be feeling in May. I started out as a Hillary-Lover and and Obama-Liker. And I said then (yes, in Aug/Sept. 07) that a Clinton/Obama ticket would be unstoppable. Then in 2016, Obama would carry the torch and we'd be living in a country led by two "firsts," and two very intelligent individuals for the next 16 years.

    Needless to say, my love for Hillary has grown much more and my confidence in her leadership is now more solid than ever. But, my like for Obama has been reduced to hate, sad to say. It sucks, but a lot of it has to do with how he's kicked back and allowed the media, his surrogates and supporters to paint Hillary, her husband and her supporters as racists, anti-Democrats, pseudo-Republicans and what-not.

    So, thank you for your optimism and positivity. It is refreshing.

    [ Parent ]

    I would like to 2nd that (5.00 / 0) (#195)
    by IzikLA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:59:15 PM EST
    Everything you said is exactly how I feel as well...

    [ Parent ]
    My Comment Above (none / 0) (#185)
    by JimWash08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:56:41 PM EST
    Was in reply to the first post by "misslib"

    And, how I wish I had HBO. I really cannot remember the 2000 election, because I was just an 18-year-old who could care less about politics. Sad to say, I only got into it in 2004.

    [ Parent ]

    Only two more hours to go (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by janarchy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:47:01 PM EST
    I am curious to see how the story is handled, esp since it was written by Danny Strong (Jonathan from Buffy for anyone who cares). The cast is stellar -- I've seen clips of Laura Dern as Katherine Harris and she's terrifyingly accurate.

    It must be somewhat like watching Faye (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:00:15 PM EST
    Dunaway playing Joan Crawford in Mommie Dearest.  I can totally envision Harris shouting "no wire hangers!!!"

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sure it will be (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by janarchy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:28:11 PM EST
    Let's face it, Katherine Harris is as over the top as one can get -- before anyone's even parodied her. Although I will say she has since toned it done quite a lot. But in 2000? She made some of my drag queen friends look demure by comparison.

    [ Parent ]
    lmao....yes the drag queens I know aren't (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:42:03 PM EST
    nearly as dramatic as Harris.  I would watch in disbelief thinking I was watching a really, really bad skit on SNL.  You cannot make that stuff up!

    [ Parent ]
    Is there any way to watch Recount (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Practically Lactating on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:47:20 PM EST
    if you don't have HBO?

    BTD, the use of the word despise seemed a little harsh on first read, but I am not offended. I understand your main concern is party unity and that you will call people out if you feel they are detrimental to that cause. Your post was consistent with past language, so I feel that your animus is not directed at Clintonites specifically, but at those that undermine unity.

    Having said that, I am not voting for Obama.  

    I am guessing (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by janarchy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:54:33 PM EST
    it'll be out on dvd soon enough. Those sort of things usually are.

    Btw, I suggest everyone stay away from the comments area on IMDB for the film. It's all about what a partisan sack of lies this film is and more HRC bashing. Apparently it's her fault about 2000 too!

    [ Parent ]

    The narrative will NOT be denied! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Fabian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:57:42 PM EST
    Some things....

    [ Parent ]
    Of course not (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by janarchy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:29:48 PM EST
    I'm just proving what an old hag I am by still being offended and surprised by the vitriol. I shouldn't be -- it's not like I haven't been hearing it most of my life. I just never expected to hear it from the Left. I'm used to the Right (as we all are).

    I was just kind of floored that someone said HRC didn't do anything to fight for Florida in 2000, probably because she was just sorry she hadn't run for President earlier (I'm paraphrasing). Reality has nothing to do with these people.

    [ Parent ]

    The funny thing is (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Fabian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:56:35 PM EST
    that I'm not adverse to voting for someone who isn't Hillary Clinton.  It's just that Obama seems abysmally clueless about the long term effects of his strategy.  It's not like the the slate is wiped clean after months of primary media coverage and everybody pretends that nothing happened.

    Narratives have been created that will endure.  

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, if I still haven't forgotten 8 years ago (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:25:08 PM EST
    and the travesty of justice then, for which I do not need a movie to remind me of every searing detail that was done to us and democracy.

    So I will not forget in a few months from now the nasty attacks from Obama and his camp and the media this year and what they did to my candidate and my former party, the Democrats.  And what they still are trying to do to both today, still trying new ways to blame it all on Clinton, the candidate who is fighting for counting the votes.  

    The Dems used to do that, only 8 years ago.  I remember.  And I will not forget.  Nor do I forgive.


    [ Parent ]

    Me either (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by livesinashoe on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:02:08 PM EST
    The funny thing is that I'm not adverse to voting for someone who isn't Hillary Clinton.

    Well, me either. And I do want change.  Of course I want change.  How many people don't want change after the least seven years?  It's a no brainer.

    That does not mean that I want to be reactionary, emotional and clingy though.  I don't want to grab the first shiny object I see because he offers changey-ness and hopey-ness.  

    I want an adult who can handle the bob to be  president.

    I jsut don't believe that's BO.  My two cents.

    [ Parent ]

    That's (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:42:53 PM EST
    my situation too. If they picked another candidate like Biden I would be very happy and would gladly support him. I keep telling people that it's not some emotional attachment that I have to Hillary so much as a very strong dislike for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Averse not adverse (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by cymro on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:49:08 PM EST
    "I'm not averse to voting for someone who isn't Hillary Clinton."

    Links

    [ Parent ]

    i deleted that comment (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:58:10 PM EST
    We do not tell people we despise them on this site. Or that they disgust us.

    [ Parent ]
    I also deleted a repost (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:00:11 PM EST
    from Edgar. Do not post the same comment on more than one thread, particularly if that thread is still open.

    Ocassinally, I let it slide if you are commenter #198 and we close at 200 comments and there's a new thread on the same topic.

    This doesn't fit that. Also, Edgar, your comment was an attack on BTD and we don't host attacks like that.

    [ Parent ]

    OK (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:07:36 PM EST
    I don't really want the party to unify behind Obama anyway.

    But if anyone does, folks will now have to go find the solution in the other open thread.


    [ Parent ]

    Unless your (none / 0) (#21)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:07:00 PM EST
    name is BTD, of course.  He told a whole raftload of us that he despised us.

    [ Parent ]
    it was his comment I deleted (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:12:26 PM EST
    on a different thread because he told a commenter he was the kind of Obama supporter he despised. That was over the top.

    I still haven't seen where BTD insulted Clinton supporters. What thread? I'll check it when I return later tonight.

    [ Parent ]

    Can Obama win w/o (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:22:35 PM EST
    try comment 41.  Lisa and Txpolitico bailed.  CanadianDem called them McCain trolls when they have actually been here longer than canadiandem.  It was not a pleasant discussion, but some people were fine, others offended.

    [ Parent ]
    And the post itself (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:33:37 PM EST
    as reading this took me aback well before getting to comments:

    I despise those Clinton supporters who say they won't vote for Obama. . . .


    [ Parent ]
    Some people (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:38:50 PM EST
    walked away because of this post and others are considering it.  I thought I would stay because I enjoy reading the legal posts, and the political stuff.. I really like discussing the polls etc. but that one was bad and so were the comments.  It was interesting to see long-time Obama supporters get so angry with Clinton supporters.  They have known all along that certain people won't vote for Obama.  Get out of the party, get off my blog.  Ouch.

    [ Parent ]
    I usually just don't say... (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by Fabian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:30:51 PM EST
    what I will or won't do.

    I do that mostly out of respect for BTD and Jeralyn.      It doesn't mean that I can't point out flaws in Obama and his campaign now.  If and when he gets the nomination, I'll stop doing that here.  

    [ Parent ]

    All I saw (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:41:04 PM EST
    Was he said "Clinton cultists" which pushed a few buttons.  We're loyal, but we don't faint.

    Bottom line, Jeralyn, BTD believes the primary is over and he's in General Election mode.  And as far as that's concerned, he believes Clinton loyalists should look at the ideas he's pushing for Unity and say "Yes.  That'll make me feel better about voting for Obama," and, for a myriad of reasons, it's not working.

    One set of those reasons has to do with a goup of Clinton loyalists who believe the primary is NOT over yet, and so they refuse to accept Unification terms while a battle is still being fought.

    Another set of reasons has to do with a group of Clinton loyalists who will not vote for Obama period.  


    [ Parent ]

    I'm both of those. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:42:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What would you think (none / 0) (#63)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:46:22 PM EST
    If Obama threw DailyKos and KO under the bus for the sake of unity?


    [ Parent ]
    I'd laugh and laugh. (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Fabian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:21:39 PM EST
    Not sure if it would change my opinion of him.   Too little, too late kinda thing.

    [ Parent ]
    That's the only thing I can think of (none / 0) (#145)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:34:18 PM EST
    Short of throwing himself under his own bus.


    [ Parent ]
    Me too (none / 0) (#175)
    by Valhalla on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:16:01 PM EST
    Although I felt the same way as BTD does with the Nader thing back in 2000.

    This campaign season I changed my mind.

    [ Parent ]

    2000 we had a good candidate (5.00 / 0) (#194)
    by dianem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:47:39 PM EST
    It was pretty widely recognized that Gore was a decent candidate. Not perfect, but a good option.  Gore didn't actively alienate people, he didn't divide the party. This election is not 2000, or 2004. During those elections we were fighting the Republican Party. Nader led a charge against the Democrats. If anybody is leading a charge against the principles of the Democratic Party this year, it's Obama. Not completely, like Nader did, but he has certainly done a lot of damage to the party this election cycle.

    [ Parent ]
    And, I strongly reject (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:44:55 PM EST
    the "cultist" label.  That's why Hill supporters support her.  Becuase we see her as a real person and a politician and we favorour leaders as real people and not messiahs.

    [ Parent ]
    Lurking, here. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:11:00 PM EST
    Please do not discount the benefits BTD brings to the discourse and to this site.  Few sites available where oppo opinions have a voice.  His is reasoned, while perhaps contrary to most of this site's visitors.  

    [ Parent ]
    I have not done that at all. (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:31:04 PM EST
    I think BTD would agree.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#80)
    by Steve M on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:58:57 PM EST
    Well, from the perspective of this Clinton supporter, there are the Clinton supporters and then there are the dead-enders.

    Not that I'm making a value judgment, mind you.  Some of my best friends are dead-enders.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:11:12 PM EST
    What you're talking about.

    Not that I'm making a value judgment or anything.  There's a lot of incoherent posts on the internet.

    [ Parent ]

    it was the thread entitled (none / 0) (#172)
    by Valhalla on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:10:47 PM EST
    Can Obama Win Without Clinton Democrats

    [ Parent ]
    So you can reject (none / 0) (#187)
    by daryl herbert on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:02:53 PM EST
    but you can't denounce?

    [ Parent ]
    You may be able to buy it on iTunes (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:50:07 PM EST
    if not today, then soon.

    [ Parent ]
    not sure, but hope so (none / 0) (#26)
    by DandyTIger on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:12:44 PM EST
    Right now I'm only seeing serial TV shows on the HBO section of iTunes, no made for HBO movies. So I don't think we'll see it soon, but I sure hope they'll expand that selection. Look there as well as on Amazon for the two main movie download locations. And check the hbo.com site as well as may have it in download or dvd (or blu-ray) format soon.

    Like many other outlets (incl. the networks), they may also have it available for streaming directly as well. TV over the internet, it's what all the hip kids are doing.

    [ Parent ]

    Easiest Way Might Be To Have A Friend (none / 0) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:01:20 PM EST
    tape it for you.

    [ Parent ]
    Do you know that you can burn a DVD off (none / 0) (#19)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:02:12 PM EST
    a DVR....and please don't ask me how it is done cuz I don't know.  But I do know a friend of mine does it all the time.  Something to check into at least.

    [ Parent ]
    Well Said! (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jane in CA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:23:13 PM EST
    You just stated much more clearly and succinctly than I what I just spent three paragraphs explaining on the other thread.

    [ Parent ]
    careful on sharing, no fair use for movies (none / 0) (#47)
    by DandyTIger on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:31:32 PM EST
    according to the MPAA. Unlike music and other media, the movie industry holds that the fair use laws don't include movies. Well, to be more precise, I think they say they hold for video tapes, but not dvd or blu-ray. Don't ask me to explain, I think they're loony. Ha, and I work with them everyday on standards committees.

    And here's a fun one, just for linking to where you can find a (copyright violated) copy of a movie on the web can cost you $4M. See here for a fun story. And just so you know how easy that is for all of us, any of our links to youtube clips we like to do, many of those are technically copyright violations. One of these days this will all get figured out in the courts, but it will be a while. One of my big pet peeves. That and the disastrous mess we have in the patent law regarding software. Oh don't get me started...

    [ Parent ]

    I used to work in the tv/film industry (none / 0) (#51)
    by janarchy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:35:41 PM EST
    I'm old enough to remember when Jack Valenti and the MPAA were having coniptions over the rental of video tapes (VHS AND Beta!) because it was going to destroy the movie industry. They only wanted people to buy them and/or to sell video stores special 'to rent' copies that were like $100-150 a piece instead of the $40-60 most video tapes were at the time.

    I remember when "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was first released on video and it was affordably prices at around $30 iirc. We sold HUNDREDS of them at our video store. The preorder list was unbelievable. Now it's pretty surprising if a single film is more than $30, usually less.

    [ Parent ]

    I remember that well (none / 0) (#68)
    by stillife on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:49:48 PM EST
    I had friends who owned a video store back in the early days when rentals were not allowed.  Of course, many stores were doing it anyway, but my friends didn't.  They ended up going out of business.

    [ Parent ]
    The place I worked (none / 0) (#160)
    by janarchy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:49:00 PM EST
    is in suburban Chicago and they're still in business after 25 years, which is pretty impressive really. They were smart -- they were like an art film house for rent, focusing on cult, classic and foreign titles rather than mainstream stuff. (And there was also porn -- shhhhh!) I don't know what they carry now, I'm going to guess they went more mainstream in order to stay in competition with the Blockbusters of the world.

    We used to sell pre-recorded tapes and laser disks and also rent vcrs along with films. Back then, it hardly seemed worth buying anything on tape because it was so expensive.

    [ Parent ]

    wow (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by stillife on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:09:41 PM EST
    I think we're identical twins separated at birth.

    My friends' video store was also in Chicago (my home town), in the Rush Street area.  I guess your friends were more business-savvy than mine.

    I remember laser disks!  My husband was hugely into them and we still have a bunch.  He entertained a fantasy for awhile of opening a laser disk rental business.  Fortunately, he didn't quite his day job.


    [ Parent ]

    I think so (none / 0) (#198)
    by janarchy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:26:56 PM EST
    I grew up in New York, went to NU, lived in Syracuse (grad school), Philly (with my ex) then back to NY. The video store is in Evanston - they've got 2 other branches now, I think. I was fired after a year there (I committed the cardinal sin of worrying about my schoolwork and class schedule first, their store second), but it was an interesting experience.

    There were several formats of laser disks at the time, including one from RCA which I can't remember the name of but they looked like giant floppy disks where you put the whole package into the front of the player and it pulled the disk out rather than a disk-disk like a cd or dvd. A friend of mine had one of those. He was a millionaire's son who always had the best electronic toys first. We carried both those and the regular ones (which I think were from Sony). There were some great releases on laserdisk. I used to take home the players and disks on weekends when they were free. :)

    [ Parent ]

    omg, I just flashed back (5.00 / 0) (#177)
    by Valhalla on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:19:29 PM EST
    to college and renting not only the movies but the VCR as well.  They weighed like a million pounds.

    See, these youngsters today have no idea how easy they have it, what with their little movie machines.  ;)

    [ Parent ]

    Yep! (none / 0) (#199)
    by janarchy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:28:39 PM EST
    I was a tv/film major so not only did I have to contend with those but also 'portable' video equipment for classes. If I hadn't had a car at the time, it would've been a nightmare. There was a 30-40 pound camera, a 30-40 pound (beta) recorder, audio equipment etc. The fact that these days you've got a 2-3 lb camera with build in hard drive or tiny disk is just amazing by comparison!

    [ Parent ]
    The Audacity that (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by jen on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:28:44 PM EST
    takes the cake!

    Obama to Bill Clinton: You've got the Unity Pony. Give it to me.

    (Lambert @ Corrente)

    You missed it (none / 0) (#64)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:46:32 PM EST
    We already had that discussion.. it was uh... a little wild.... Sunday Open Thread

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks, waldenpond (4.50 / 2) (#90)
    by jen on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:03:23 PM EST
    Been out most of the day, and it sounds like I was lucky to have missed the wildness!

    Hope whatever happened isn't too bad. This place really is an island of sanity.

    [ Parent ]

    I want to make this clear (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:38:12 PM EST
    Even though I am not supposed to write this apparently, I DESPISE cults of any kind, be they of Obama or Clinton.

    If you think of yourself as a Clinton Cultist, then I said I despise you. If you think of yourself as an Obama Cultist, then I despise you.

    I respect and admire SUPPORTERS of good progressive candidates like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. but pols are pols and they do what they do. If you think your candidate walks on water, then you are a cultist and I despise you. Yes Jeralyn, I despise such cultists.

    But let me make this simple for everyone, I will write about the election elsewhere if folks do not like the way I express myself. I have not changed one bit.

    All of you complaining today had not a peep of concern when I condemned Obama cultists. IF you want a cheerleader, then do not read me. do not comment to me. Ignore me.

    Jeralyn, delete this comment as you like. I am beyond caring now.

     

    If this blog wants to become (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:45:34 PM EST
    a mirror image of the Obama blogs, include me out.

    That is where I am.

    [ Parent ]

    That'll be up to Jeralyn (none / 0) (#88)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:02:56 PM EST
    I think.  Not any of us commenters.

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:03:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well I'll speak up (1.00 / 1) (#206)
    by vcmvo2 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:10:47 AM EST
    Please we need your voice of reason here. You are the only one that has the objectivity backed up by a terrific ability to analyze the political realities for Clinton & Obama. I may wish it was more favorable to Hillary. But I trust your reasoning. I always have.

    This is the only place on the left analyzing the issues well and with objectivity.

    Don't let the vehemence get to you. They have been reviled at other blogs with the Clinton Hate and sometimes all the bottled up emotion just pours out.

    But you are genuinely supported on this blog, BTD. It's been great seeing what you do best.

    [ Parent ]

    Can't you lampoon the Hillary cult (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:48:49 PM EST
    stuff at Noquarter, instead of painting people here with such a broad brush (my opinion).
    Everyone enjoys seeing you skewer a terrible argument. Is TL really the flagship of the pro-Hillary blogs? Are there no good targets outside of here?

    [ Parent ]
    Asit happens I painted no one here (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:56:15 PM EST
    as anything. some decided I was talking about THEM. How they decided that is for them to explain.

    Let me tell you what I told Obama supporters when they started theiur hate on me - I write what I honestly believe, frankly, brusquely and rawly.

    I always have and I always will.

    Nothing changed today. Except perhaps whose ox was being gored.

    Look in the mirror.
     

    [ Parent ]

    Who hates you here? (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:59:32 PM EST
    I can't think of anyone here who even remotely dislikes you.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:03:05 PM EST
    I guess I am imagining the comments in this and other threads going after me for supposedly *it is a vile lie) saying I said Clinton supporters were cultists.

    What I said and say now, Jeralyn can delete this, is a despise cultisits of any kind, be they of the Obama variety or the clinton variety.

    I stand by that and if that offends, well, that;s the way it goes.

    [ Parent ]

    That's fine. (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:04:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    BTD, big misunderstanding (5.00 / 0) (#200)
    by gandy007 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:33:13 PM EST
    at least I think so.

    I flew right over the cultist language because there are fanatical elements on every side.  You seem focused on the belief you only conveyed that you despised cultists of every stripe.

    You need to reread your language, because perhaps your actual words went beyond your intent.

    This is what you actually said: " "Just as I despise those Clinton supporters who say they won't vote for Obama, I equally despise those Obama supporters who would rather destroy the Clintons than win the Presidency."

    Surely you can see that this literally means that you despise anyone who would not vote for Obama, if he were to win the nomination, regardless of their reasons. The plain language includes those of us who would never vote for McCain and would gladly vote straight Democratic ticket down ballot.

    If it was your intent to tar everyone with the same brush, then I think the language was ill considered. It certainly does not promote unity.

    There are some of us here who feel a moral imperative to not vote for Obama, rather than not do so for some nefarious reason.  It was one of the most difficult decisions of my life. It troubles me deeply to think that you, as a broadminded person, can see no reason that would require that a person not vote for Obama. I would think you could respect such a decision.

    If it was not your intent to generalize, then I think a clarification would be in order, before the issue festers.  Otherwise, positions will harden, mistrust will ensue, and the good feelings that you and Jeralyn have nurtured will be for naught.  

    [ Parent ]

    We come here to hear (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:08:02 PM EST
    your voice and Jeralyn's voice.  I love the contrasting styles.  I love that both are passionate and express it differently.  I know I am in the tank as Kathy says, but, coming here, has kept me from becoming a cultist, cause I had my passions and manners checked.  So, most of us who stuck it out here, come here cause we get told sometimes how to check ourselves.  

    Heck ya we are angry about the way this campaign has gone.  Will I get over it and unite?  I don't know, I will see, but it's not over.  It's critical how people are treated in the next few months.  I am concerned about what I perceive a dangerous grab for power fueled by "the movement".  I really like checks and balances.  

    But in general, I feel better informed than in any other election thanks to you and Jeralyn.  I want to express my gratitude, and I hate mobs of all kinds as well.  But, honest, we really, really love ya.  

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, it's kind of like Swords Crossed, but (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:10:31 PM EST
    where both people have brains.

    [ Parent ]
    who defines the cultist (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by DandyTIger on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:49:21 PM EST
    I understand your point, and your feeling I think. Basically if someone is following a person or idea not because they thought it through or reasoned about it, but instead because of some irrational or religious type feeling, then there's no arguing and there's no reasoning, and you, well, have negative feelings about them.

    I usually refer to that sort of situation when I run into it as it's a religious argument. That is, I can't have a reasoned argument with you when you're having a religious argument.

    The only problem with this issue is who by and how is the religious aspect (or cultist as you say) defined. There are some heated and strong feelings here that may seem religious partly because many people here feel they've been fired from the Democratic party. They're taking it personally. So they're angry and fighting back. And when ObamaTrolls come on and stir things up, they get worse. I say they, but I definitely include myself in that.

    I think you'll find most of us can have reasoned arguments. And well more readily do that in another month or two. But we're a bit on the defensive and are a little sensitive right now. Just my $.02.

    [ Parent ]

    Who defined an Obama Cultist? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:54:20 PM EST
    I did not see the sceeam of outrage when I made references to Obama Cultists, when I ripped the Obanma blogs, Keith Olbermann, NBC and the Media for how they treated Hillary Clinton?

    Excuse me, how is this reaction different than what I get from strident Obama supporters? Look in the mirror.

    I have always written what I think. today some of you did not like what I wrote so I am evil.

    Look in the mirror. Some are becoming that which they claimed to despise.  

    [ Parent ]

    good point (none / 0) (#83)
    by DandyTIger on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:01:28 PM EST
    I have to admit, that there are probably quite a few on the Obama side that I wouldn't categorize as over the top either, just temporarily insane. Hmm, now that I just said that, maybe a lot of us are temporarily insane. OMG, am I in a cult. Time to deprogram myself.

    [ Parent ]
    I am not a cultist (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:35:12 PM EST
    because I would not vote for a certain candidate, one whom even his supporter here calls politically immature.  (I.e., I would not vote for him if the election were today -- but that is all that any of us can speak about, and maybe the unity godmother will magically sprinkle him with maturity dust, and he will become someone for whom I can vote.  But that, of course, would be a fairy tale.  And that would make me a racist, according to Obama -- according to his surrogates, and I hold him responsible for all that they say unless he renounces it.)

    And I do not deserve, in a democracy, to be despised because I would not use my vote as someone else tells me or wants me to do.  

    I especially dislike use of the term cultists, as anyone would who reads how that term was used by our government to justify attacks at Waco and other millennialists' sites.  I do not like what they do, but I dislike even more what our government did to manipulate us into denigrating as cults many groups that were not.  

    And I especially dislike anyone telling me how to vote, as anyone would who reads of all that women and minorities had to do to "earn" -- white men's term -- what white men were born with in this country.  

    Yet those were the terms and their definitions deployed and combined here.  I reject and denounce that.  If that's a problem for site hosts, I can go read more good books.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, I'm with Cream City (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Valhalla on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:09:30 PM EST
    Your definition of who you despised was "Clinton supporters who say they won't vote for Obama."  Then referred to all of us as 'outraged'.  Many, many folks have said they won't vote for Obama, with reasons variously expressed, from silly to serious.  Most people's objections were to your definition.  I initially assumed you were just being overbroad in your comment (yes, yes, I know assume = ass, you, me, etc).  

    I'm not outraged.  I'm not leaving the site, I'm not asking you to stop posting.  Wouldn't anyway since I'm still a newbie and goodness knows I've had worse opinions expressed about me.  I just think you've imputed feelings in the reactions to people with regard to your comment that they just don't have, though.

    And while of course you can despise whomever you wish, and state it wherever you wish, folks also have a right to state why they are not despicable.  I feel non-despicable because as Cream City said, I should be able to vote or not vote for whom I feel is best.

    I hope you don't stop posting here because this is  one of the few sites I've found that is civil, largely because of you, BTD.  Of all the pro-Clinton sites I like this the most because there's a lot of actual discussion, and people refer to actual data and analysis, they don't just rave (for either candidate).

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah. I guess I thought (none / 0) (#205)
    by Eleanor A on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:08:20 AM EST
    BTD was just using somewhat colorful language to express his desire that we all come together to oppose McCain.

    If I should be insulted, someone clue me in.  :)  But somehow I think BTD would have come right out and told those of us who plan to write in Hillary (or whatever) to leave, if that was what he meant.

    Reasonable people can disagree, right?  

    [ Parent ]

    I think one difference is Obama (none / 0) (#96)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:05:18 PM EST
    has run a messianic campaign.  The pic of him on the website, showered in sunlight, head in the clouds, clearly messianic.  

    [ Parent ]
    What on earth are you talking about? (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:52:03 PM EST
    Hillary doesn't have much of a cult following.  Most of her supporters are creeped out by the messianic theme of the Obama campaign and wholly reject a politician as some sort of Chosen One.  You seem like you are just looking to start an argument.  I'm not sure why.  You post what you post and I don't see anyone relentlessly attacking your chacter as any pro-Hillary poster would be on Daily Obama.  So what's your beef?

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:06:43 PM EST
    She has a small cult following.

    but it exists.

    and I despise any cult following.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, it's miniscule. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:09:14 PM EST
    And this feels a bit like a boyfriend coming up with some trumped up outrage to break up.

    [ Parent ]
    Let me ask you a questuon (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:13:26 PM EST
    could I fairly interpret your comment as insinuating that I am trumping up false outrage for some other purpose?

    [ Parent ]
    No. It just seems a bit over the top. (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:17:23 PM EST
    I'm still wondering why you are so upset.  So, that's the feeling I get.    

    [ Parent ]
    I am enraged for a number of reasons (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:31:03 PM EST
    First, I believe after my many many months of writing on this campaign, particularly my writing on the atrocious treatment Hillary Clinton has recieved, I deserved better than I recieved.

    Second, people LIED about what I wrote.

    Third, people played the blackmail game to Jeralyn about how they were leaving because of what I wrote.

    Fourth, I have lived through this crap before and I could not believe it was going to start happening again.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, Jeralyn is unlikely to fall for that. (none / 0) (#144)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:34:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    correct (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:54:17 PM EST
    I will not fall for that.  BTD is most welcome and appreciated here.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD, I just want to let you know that although (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by athyrio on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:13:20 PM EST
    I am a very strong Hillary supporter, I love and respect you and your posts, even though I disagree with you on some issues like unity...Please don't leave and please accept this as a blanket apology if I have in any way offended you...You are indeed a strong democrat and would be missed...

    [ Parent ]
    You do not need to apologize (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:16:39 PM EST
    No one does. Everyone has a right to feel the way they feel.

    What I want to know is are people going to hate on me, and whine to Jeralyn because I feel and write what I feel?

    That is what I am objecting to. Because that is exactly what happened to day.

    those who know my blogging history know that I lived through enough of that for 20 blogging lifetimes and I won't do it again.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, ok, well, I won't. (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:18:42 PM EST
    Now I see what you are saying.  I doubt for the most part anyone here will do that.  Why don't you write about it?

    [ Parent ]
    Why? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:21:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well, because you seem so upset. (none / 0) (#127)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:22:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well (non