Tuesday Night Open Thread

Your turn. This is an Open Thread.

Oh, Hendrik Hertzberg loves Chris Matthews. The Malign Acceptance of Sexism and Misogyny right before your eyes from one of our fine "progressive" writers. Frankly, this is just inexcusbale. Digby does it up right. What a disgrace.

< Obama Supporting PR Gov Down 34 Points In Own Race | A Theory on Obama's Family History Misstatements >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Faulty speaking... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:08:55 PM EST
    I wonder more about some misstatements more than others. For example, we've all probably said one name when we meant another, etc. But some misstatements are so obviously false you wonder how a person could make such a mistake.

    Let's take Obama's recent examples:

    This confusion about Auschwitz/Buchenwald, uncle/great-uncle. Did he know it was really Buchenwald and slip up or did he not know for sure and conjure a familiar name? Either way, once it comes out, it seems weird he didn't realize it couldn't be right. Auschwitz is in Poland, after all. I don't mean to make a big deal about this--it just seems odd.

    Also, the mistake when he claimed that 10,000 people were killed by tornadoes when the actual death toll was 12. This I simply can't understand. How could he think 10,000 was the right number? First, since when have tornadoes killed even a tenth that many people? Second, that would have made it one of the worst natural disasters in our nation's history--worse than Hurricane Katrina, three times worse than September 11. How could he not realize a fundamental contradiction between the scale he was claiming and the relatively small size of the news response? I don't think it means anything, but somehow a common-sense calibration was missing.

    Time depicts Hillary tied to train-track (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:34:48 AM EST
    Yes, get the picture? Senator Clinton is tied to a railroad track in the stereotypical, eroticicized, imminent-death scenario of silent films and westerns. But it's a 'joke' right? On what planet?

    Depicting the violent death of a Presidential candidate is first, and foremost, a HOMICIDAL depiction. Except when it's a woman, and the woman is Hillary Clinton, and they do it in this nostalgic, olde tyme fashion.

    What's happening here is that misogyny, and the attendant double standard, is so god-damn omnipresent, we can't see the forest for the trees.

    Ergo, women are supposed to 'have a sense of humor' about these things. Well, I'll get a sense of humor about this, when Mark Halperin, Axelrod, Obama, and Obama supporters are able to have a hearty chuckle when they see a Time magazine composite photo of Obama in an analogous state.

    Why do I feel that it's taboo to reference such an analogy, even obliquely? That's how entrenched the double standard is folks.


    How about obama being depicted as (none / 0) (#98)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:42:35 AM EST
    "strange fruit"?  There would be a howl heard across the nation.

    I take your point. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:05:46 AM EST
    But that may be unspeakable here. On the other hand, I have a hard time imagining any scenario, involving Clinton, that the MSM would consider beyond the pale. Maybe her head on a stick would be over the line, but ya never know. Maybe they could find a way to make that all jokey, a la "Lord of the Flies".

    If the killing of Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction" can be proposed as a jokey finale for Hillary, where can't the MSM go from there. Invoking that image is a venal form of psychological violence. How does it not resonate as an incitement to physical violence.


    It does resonate as exactly that, yet she is (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:10:22 AM EST
    accused of staying in the race awaiting the assassination of obama....it is completely assinine.

    The other disconnect (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:21:28 AM EST
    is that Huckabee did tell a 'joke' at the NRA convention which centered around a gun being pointed at Obama. It wasn't funny and I'm still not sure what the hell he was driving at although I think it was some sort of suggestion that Obama was a coward. In any event, we barely heard a peep out of anyone regarding this including Ms Donna Brazile (who apparently was "numb" when she heard the thing about RFK) or Al Sharpton who was also equally as hysterical, let alone any of the usual Obama suspects including Olbermann. Why the hell didn't anyone get their panties in a bunch over that, pray tell? There were a few rolled eyes and that's it (and it was televised on National TV -- I saw it on CNN).

    Oh, the hypocrisy! It burrrrrrrns!


    I just saw that (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by stillife on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:35:13 AM EST
    on Fox News tonight.  I don't remember any outrage (or any coverage at all) when Huckabee first made the comment.  I don't know what he was getting at, either, but it seemed a lot more direct and offensive than anything Hillary said.

    I wouldn't vote for Huckabee (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by Grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:07:32 AM EST
    but I thought it was a joke.  I thought he was implying that Obama was a coward and scared of guns.  

    I heard some outrage over that.  Not a ton of it, but there was some outrage over Huckabee saying that.  I think it even got a mention on NBC News (with Brian Williams).  


    Even Daniel Schorr (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by oldpro on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:39:11 AM EST
    on NPR....I could not believe my ears re

    Hillary Clinton and the RFK Assassination

    Simply awful...what's WRONG with these people?


    He's just not very bright or well read. (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:37:10 AM EST
    He has no idea how many people die in tornadoes or what countries had concentration camps.  He could remember one name of one camp, so he used that.  His memory doesn't seem to be very good either.  And isn't it rather immature and naive to repeat family stories without any verification?  My family has some doozies, but I would never repeat them as true or factual.  

    I wonder if he actually read what he's cribbed (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:15:53 AM EST
    Not just read, but pondered and digested the full meanings.

    I don't see him exercising the bravery, grace or generosity of spirit when given the opportunity to do so.

    Nor do I see him being straightforward and outspoken about his own motives and past, when given that opportunity to do so, as the leaders who allegedly inspire him.

    They didn't get ahead by avoiding leaving a paper or speech trail, hiding behind surrogates who did their hit jobs on enemies, and speaking mush out of both sides of their mouths.

    They doled out the criticisms took the hits back and forged on. I'd respect Obama more if he didn't succumb to being such a manicured symbol rather than rising to a leadership role through personal risk, work and merit.

    When Obama says he stands "on the shoulders of giants," it's as if he believes the visionaries he's cribbed existed to hold him aloft.


    New Video: American Idol Obama vs. Supergirl Clint (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by GeekLove08 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:09:21 PM EST
    Evening everyone-- here's my latest video, "American Idol Obama vs. Supergirl Clinton"


    Please let me know what you think. If you like it, Please double click the video to go to youtube and RATE, COMMENT, mark FAVORITE.

    I cited Jeralyn's post re. caucus vs. primaries in the video info.

    GeekLove, you hit it out of the park. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:44:29 PM EST
    You pulled together all the most current and relevant info an put it in a very entertaining format. Appreciated the high level production values; the inter-cutting/juxtapositions; the matching of commentary with image; the up-beat music; the variety of sources. Kudos.

    SUGGESTION: there was text running over the image of Bill Clinton while he was speaking. It's difficult to read one thing and listen to another simultaneously. Both are equally important and you don't want to divide our attention. Something to keep in mind for the next video :-)

    I also dug your video "You've Come a Long Way Baby". Keep it up!


    Thanks for your support (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by GeekLove08 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:52:15 PM EST
    and your comments and suggestions.  

    Re. the text and clinton-- I had had to do that bec. youtube only limits me to 10 minutes and I felt that I had to have every other component in.  It wasn't ideal, but the best I could do.

    Everyone, please go to youtube and PLEASE RATE, COMMENT, mark FAVORITE



    You bet. I did all three (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by andrys on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:36:12 AM EST
    My youtube ID is my nickname, a 5-letter version of my birth name that I use here.

    Yes, fantastic (none / 0) (#79)
    by Valhalla on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:09:49 AM EST
    Especially the polls montage part, that really puts it all together.

    the mcgovern logo (none / 0) (#127)
    by boredmpa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:01:55 AM EST
    that remade obama logo on the fox clip is hilarious.

    apparently they're already ready for the GE commentary. sigh. such a stupid, misogynistic primary season we've had.


    TERRIFIC job (none / 0) (#137)
    by andrys on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:34:14 AM EST
    It covers so much.  This needs to get around too.  I will do my best on that.

      One caveat: Some will be cynical about Laura Ingraham's advice at the end.  Maybe as time goes on, you will find something even better to take its place?

      But I agree with her, and you.  She's right.

      Again - fantastic !


    Digby (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by rilkefan on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:09:39 PM EST
    I recently posted a link here to a Hendrik Hertzberg essay attacking HRC in the usual hackworthy ways; now see Digby for HH's praise of Tweety.  I don't understand what's happened to so many smart liberals.

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:19:16 PM EST
    Just added to this post.

    I've nearly thrown my New Yorker (none / 0) (#30)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:25:24 PM EST
    across the room several times lately, because of Hertzberg's pieces.   Really a disappointment.  I'd cancel, but the New Yorker is part of my reading ritual since I was a kid -- waiting for my parents to put it down so I could see the cartoons and read it backwards for the funny fillers.  I'll try to avert my eyes past Hertzberg's waste of trees to get on to the good stuff.

    (Btw, BTD, your link to Digby isn't working.)


    I'm with you (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by proudliberaldem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:15:14 AM EST
    i used to absolutely love hertzberg, now i can't read him. at least his love of tweety assures me that i've made the right choice in skipping his columns. ugh.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:33:43 PM EST

    "he and Clinton are too much alike" (none / 0) (#84)
    by bridget on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:14:25 AM EST
    aarrrrgh .... knock me over with a wispy feather ...

    I made an effort and started to read the digby post about this Hertzberg fellow .... had to stop when I  arrived at that ridiculous comparison. Yikes! And these people get actually paid for typing stuff like this? Trees must die for this?

    Anyone who writes such nonsense just to please tweety doesn't deserve to be read or paid attention to EVER ....

    ok saw a real cute film last night: The Last Mimzy

    todays movie: Dans Paris

    See ya! :-)


    More blatant sexism in the media (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by gmo on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:14:06 PM EST
    This time from Mark Halperin at Time:

    A picture of Clinton as the damsel in distress, helpless, hands tied and laying across the railroad tracks.  Really, Mark?  That didn't strike you as even an eensie weensie bit sexist?  

    I suppose it doesn't matter at this point -- when MSNBC-Obamamedia has been doing far worse, I suppose all this just seems like small potatoes.  

    But some of us are still taking notice.

    I take it as a Perils of Pauline homage (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:42:22 PM EST
    That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

    Heh. (none / 0) (#72)
    by gmo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:02:40 AM EST

    Whoops. Meant to include link: (none / 0) (#23)
    by gmo on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:16:08 PM EST
    Let see Halperin give Obama the same treatment (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:56:28 AM EST
    Time seems to accept as a given TeamObama's claim of having all these pledged and super delegates firmly in his pocket.

    Again, where is the press in demanding that they go on the record?

    If Obama's such a certainty, why the he!! hasn't his scorecard been made public, for all to see, so this allegedly finished race can officially be declared over?

    This deranged collusive effort to pretend that a legitimate candidate's run for office is obscene in some way, just because people's self-serving political agendas are at risk, is antithetical to what the process is supposed to be about.

    There's nothing wrong with what Sen. Clinton's been doing, how she's been playing or how she's been campaigning.

    Example: on the Daily Show Tues/05-27-08 the humor of John Oliver's anti-Hillary bit rested on the suggestion that her campaigning in Puerto Rico was sleazy in some way.

    WTF??? I'm missing the punchline here.

    Since when is openly campaigning for delegates in an open race a shady practice? This is indeed a historically unprecedented niche created for Sen Clinton based on nothing more nor less than bald misogyny.


    Anti Troll Talking Point #1 (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by befuddled on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:28:54 PM EST

    "Rules are not necessarily sacred,
    principles are." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

    We could save a lot of arguments and thread chopping by just making a typography of talking points and their rebuttals, then refer to them by code. eg:
    Talking Point #1 It's the ROOLZ
    Rebuttal Point #1 (above)

    then all you have to do is say 1 1 in the subject line and use the space for a new thought. Trying to be helpful. :)

    Daily Show Fair and Balanced as always (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Ellie on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:30:26 PM EST
    Following the Clinton campaign, their claim of being targeted by a shallow, petty media is presented in a bit that thrashes the Clintons as paranoid ... plus, everyone knows they're racist and make over the top references to historical catastrophes like RFK so, like, it's okay.

    Following the Obama campaign, there's a bit about a shallow, petty media's intention to catch Obama in a gaffe. Presumably to "balance" the previous anti-Clinton bit, here Obama's complaints about media spin and PR are accepted as serious -- righteous, even -- and Rob Riggle thrashes media instead.

    On the upside, Jon Stewart wasn't personally tongue-bathing some right wing lunatic or mass murderer clean for re-entry into the mainstream so there's hope yet for The Fairest and Balancedist Moderate Liberal Ever.

    I was so angry at TDS (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:24:28 AM EST
    that I wound up hitting the mute button during John Oliver's piece. I never thought I'd see the day. I would argue that Riggle's piece was about Obama saying absolutely nothing other than the same schtick over and over again and not allowing anyone to ask him questions of any substance. At the beginning he (Riggle) made a big deal about asking questions about the War etc and Health Care, and all he got was an endless loop about Hope and Change and Not Pandering (or whatever it was Obama was blathering on about. I actually just tune him out when he starts to talk)

    I wish Colbert was on first (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:35:57 AM EST
    I usually miss TDS now unless a time-shifting pal tips me that it's a good instalment.

    The earlier correspondents (that Stewart rode in on) were witty and insightful. I like Oliver, Sam Bee and Aasif Mandvi when they're on but the rest are forced and would be funny if someone pumped me full of drugs. The long pauses while awaiting the huuuuuuge laff-riots that never come are agonizing.

    So too is Stewart's sad-eyed, ain't I a stinkah mugging, held way too long, directly into the camera.

    Stephen Colbert is usually worth the agony, though. I want him bad.


    I used to appreciate (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:49:14 AM EST
    Jon and his attempts to poke at the stupidity of the MSM. Lately, he seems to be drinking the Kool-Aid and quoting the gospel according to a) Markos or b) Arianna without any vetting or research whatsoever. He just is parroting the same distortions and b.s. that all the cool kids are and that gets to me. The point of being a fake news show was to actually poke fun at the stupidity, not join in. The story tonight about the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy and the whole "they'll do anything to win" meme just hurt. Hearing John Oliver continue it and try to make a joke out of the RFK thing made it worse.

    I think it's just that I know they're smarter than that and should know better. Of course, I've been saying that about my personal friends too (I can't tell you how many people were OMG! SO! OFFENDED! BY! WHAT! SHE! SAID! this weekend. The best line I heard was "I used to respect Hillary but now she's gotten so POLITICAL!"

    I sometimes wonder if I will have any social life left by the time August comes around. ::sigh::


    Jon's been drinking the Kool-Aid (none / 0) (#126)
    by stillife on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:53:22 AM EST
    for awhile now.  I turned off TDS when he mocked Hillary's Florida "victory speech".  I guess he's just pandering to his demo audience.  He gets cheap applause every time he says "Obama".

    And he gets (none / 0) (#128)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:05:01 AM EST
    boos in the right place whenever he shows disdain for HRC. It's really sad, especially when Jon kisses McCain's ass and some of the other right wingers on the show. I swear it's just one big fricking Frat these days.

    I still haven't been able to figure out where Colbert's loyalties lie. Every time I think I've figured it out, he says/does something to surprise me. Of course, Jonathan Alter's wife is one of his producers and he is a good friend of Sam Seder's so it's easy to imagine where he's leaning, unfortunately.


    Colbert is harder to figure (none / 0) (#147)
    by stillife on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:58:52 AM EST
    but Jon is thoroughly in the tank for Obama.  Did you see the show where he interviewed Peggy Noonan (of all people!) and asked her if she didn't agree that a McCain-Obama election would be refreshing b/c they're both so principled?  Yuck.

    I missed that one (none / 0) (#153)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:36:52 PM EST
    I know Peggy Noonan is besotted with Obama -- it's not surprising, really. I've been saying this entire race reminds me of 1980. The Obama obsession is just another variant on the Reagan obsession, except that more people are seeing through the Emperor's Clothes than not. But the people who don't are delusional in their belief that this is the Best Guy Ever (at least since the Shining Beacon of Hope, Ronald Reagan, walked this earth).

    Hey Tano (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:30:28 PM EST
    thanks for the '1' rating on my comment.  Does it upset you that your candidate will NEVER be Bill Clinton?

    PTSD and women (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by dws3665 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:34:39 PM EST
    This is a carryover comment from the earlier thread about Obama's misstatements and his speech yesterday about women service members.

    First off, I am an academic clinical psychologist who does research on the prevalence of PTSD for a living. Much of it funded by taxpayer dollars (so you know it's good research! /snark).

    I saw what Jeralyn posted earlier (yesterday?) about Obama's comments about the increased risk for PTSD among female veterans. This is a complex issue (hey, I'm a psychologist - everything is complex to us!), and probably not well-suited to a one-off line in a political speech, but there is nothing fundamentally factually wrong in his comment.

    PTSD is considerably more prevalent among women than men. This is one of the most robust findings in the literature, with samples large, small, and in between, young and old (it's actually true of all anxiety disorders except OCD, but I digress). There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is that sexual assault is one of traumatic events most likely to produce PTSD, and women are many times more likely to experience sexual assault than men.

    In addition, prior victimization (probably of any type) makes a person much more likely to develop PTSD following a new traumatic stressor. Women in the military are subject to considerably more non-combat potential traumatic stressors (rape, sexual assualt, extreme sexual harassment from other soldiers etc.) than male soldiers are. Thus these previous experiences may elevate the rates of women versus men who develop PTSD following other military trauma.

    So, women in the military are at elevated risk for PTSD. The VA is aware of this problem and is devoting an increasing number of resources to it, including the establishment of a Women's Division within the National Center for PTSD (this has actually been around for a while, but the VA is now throwing $$ at it). Obama was correct, but rather inartful (IMHO) about the way he phrased it, perhaps in part because it was an ad lib comment.

    There is plenty not to like about the Obama campaign and the candidate himself, but making well-intentioned, basically accurate comments in support of female veterans on Memorial Day probably isn't one of them.

    Just my $.02 worth in an open thread. Sorry if this is too lengthy.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#43)
    by Steve M on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:35:41 PM EST
    Thanks for the background.

    Appreciated for the facts -- and (none / 0) (#62)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:46:17 PM EST
    about what I guessed, owing to the greatly increased incidence of rape and its impact -- having read many accounts by women in the military (and military academies) about what they endure.

    However, I have to disagree that Obama's statement was "basically accurate" in saying that women were more prone to PTSD in a manner that suggested it was owing to them -- when it is so often owing to the men who harass them.  I know and admire many young women in the military, and he did them a disservice with his wording.

    For them, it's not "just words," no matter how "well-intentioned."  A "great orator" who can't speak more carefully will not be a good president -- or a good CiC.  I still see evidence that he does not have the experience or even the inquiring mind that I would have expected would mean educating himself by now on this situation or at least on how to speak about gender issues.


    "prone" (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:02:59 AM EST
    I don't really disagree, because "prone" is not the best word choice. It does suggest that there is an inherent tendency toward something, and there is no evidence to date that any such gender-related biological predisposition to PTSD exists. Some people think there might be a biological element to the over-representation of women with PTSD (and almost all other anxiety disorders), but we just don't know yet. Most of the very exciting research going on in the psychopathology of PTSD is focused on gene x environment interactions, whereby a person's genetic makeup makes them differentially susceptible to the effects of certain kinds of trauma exposure (no gender effects noted). The genes by themselves don't do the trick -- it's the combination of certain genes PLUS exposure to environmental trauma that may lead to disorder. By extension, this model also suggests that some people would be very UNlikely to develop PTSD even if they were exposed. Like I said above -- it's complicated! ;-)

    Of course, this is NOT what Obama was referring to when he said "prone," but I'm willing to allow him a fairly common-sense use of that term. I'll stick with "inartful," but I can see your objection to his remark and possible implication.


    Did Obama confuse PTSD with PMS? (none / 0) (#112)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:11:17 AM EST
    I'd like to know (none / 0) (#134)
    by Grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:32:09 AM EST
    how much study has been done on PTSD on women in the military versus women not in the military (compared to men not in the military).  

    Has anything like that been done?  


    Women self-report more (none / 0) (#145)
    by Kathy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:43:21 AM EST
    Men do not.

    it's not so simple (none / 0) (#150)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:51:35 AM EST
    There is some evidence that women self-disclose distress more, but the data do not indicate differing levels of disclosure of traumatic events. What you suggest may operate at some level, but it is not a complete explanation for the differing prevalence figures.

    yes (none / 0) (#149)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:50:11 AM EST
    and more is currently being done. For many years, military trauma was seen as a "male" problem, and civilian trauma was a mixed bag relevant to both men (who are exposed to more of every kind of crime than women except sexual assualt) and women (who are exposed to vastly greater levels of sexual assault).

    Recent findings about the prevalence of non-combat trauma in the military have really increased interest in women in the armed forces.

    There have been numerous studies of male and female rates of non-military trauma.


    BTD here's someone else raising (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Rhouse on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:38:52 PM EST
    not only the same points you have but goes on to show how Obamas' current coalition could actually win him the popular vote total and still lose the election.

    Of course the fun is reading the comment section.
    If you've already seen it, sorry for bringing it up.

    A Brit writes about "Hating Hillary" (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by bridget on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:45:56 PM EST

    Andrew Stephen from the NewStatesman
    Hating Hillary


    "Gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins."

    This author described the last six months as an example of "America going though one of its collectively deranged episodes ...."

    Haven't read a better article about this yet and this author seems to know what he is talking about.

    Food for Thought:
    Will the Peddlers of sexism have to account for their sins sooner or later? He seems to believe so.

    I am not so sure about that. If Iraq is any indication. I doubt the media pundits who peddled the war are losing any sleep over it and probably never felt any guilt over it either.

    Good Article ... (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:11:31 AM EST
    This quote sums it up:

    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.

    I won't be subscribing to the NYer (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:09:02 AM EST

    I'll send a letter with my cancellation.

    TX caucus (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Rachel on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:17:53 AM EST
    I'm relatively new to this, so please bear with me. I can't even remember how I stumbled upon this website, but I love it. Instead of doing actual work, I stay up and read articles and postings. One thing that has caught my attention is the debate between a caucus and a primary. I am from Texas and participated in both here. I have to say that being a delegate (one of the youungest for my age, 25) for my precinct in Texas has been the worst, most memorable political experience I have EVER had. Some have mentioned that Texas hasn't even assigned the delegates yet, which is true and will happen in June. But, I'd like to share something with you all. My precinct had a majority for Hillary. We were combined with another local precinct because we weren't large enough to have one (state) delegate. The other precinct had a majority for Hillary as well. Want to guess who the state delegate for our combined precints is for? Obama. It would take pages for me to describe to you all the convoluted mess that was our county convention. This just goes to show that the caucus process is not only corrupt, but not democratic either. I know it is really confusing and I would love to hear from another person who had a similar experience.
    I truly did not think negatively about Obama until I attended my county (Galveston Co) convention and witnessed the means they would go to for supporting their candidate. This isn't change, it is just politics. Heaven forbid they actually admit it.

    I'm watching Primary Colors (4.60 / 10) (#21)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:13:38 PM EST
    I had to get my fix on Bill Clinton's amazing win back in 1992.  I am ready for the primary season to end, with hopefully Hillary winning.

    I also started re-reading My Life as well.  When I think of what Obama's campaign has done to trash Bill Clinton's legacy makes me physically and emotionally ill.  Those ba5tards.

    The racism, the sexism, the HUGE, IMMENSE lying.  I cannot wait to go to DC this weekend to protest the DNC.  I am fighting more for the Clintons more than anything.  I am tired of what so many people are doing to them.  The Democrats are the biggest group of turncoats I have ever witnessed.

    I bet the Republicans wouldn't have treated Nancy Reagan like this if she had run for office.  Count on it.

    When a GOP member (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by RalphB on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:31:47 PM EST
    is attacked, they rise in defense and will raise hell.  The Democrats tend to be really wimpy about that kind of thing.  I think that's why Obama's passive-aggressive campaign seems to be admired for some reason inside the party.  

    They are pathetic in looking out for their own.  


    Yup, even when they really don't like each other (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Valhalla on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:54:00 AM EST
    Today I was trying to explain to a Republican friend (dyed in the wool, take-no-prisoners, hates the Clintons etc etc) why I wouldn't vote for Obama and he was simply incredulous.  But 'he's your party!'

    When I brought up the RFK thing as an example, he whipped around in his chair, looked at me full on and said "Valhalla, I am so p1ssed at Obama for making me pull for Hillary Clinton over that stupid RFK crap!"

    LOL. I told him it was ok, I'd make sure he got a Unity Pony.


    We're wimpy about alot of things (none / 0) (#130)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:43:56 AM EST
    We're too afraid we will offend someone or other.  Our political correctness is killing our party.  We won't speak out and call racism, racism, or sexism, sexism.  Wouldn't want to offend the offenders.  Ridiculous.

    Wish I could go on the 31st (none / 0) (#52)
    by Eleanor A on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:42:38 PM EST
    But am on crutches due to my own klutzy nature and can't quite manage it right now.  Let me (and others) know if there's anything we can do from home (short of pestering our state delegates + the folks on the rules committee, and phoning SD/MT for Hillary...)

    txpolitico67, Primary Colors film is great! (none / 0) (#70)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:55:34 PM EST
    Apparently the book was much harsher on the Clintons. I've been recommending this film because it's really about finding a balance between pragmatism and idealism. The film is a largely favorable portrayal of the Clintons coming to grips with that dilemma.

    I thought the film depicted Hillary as more Presidential: actually having more of the stead-fast, level-headed, clear-thinking qualities one would want in a President. The Bill character was all about passion; but Hillary struck a balance between reason and passion.


    Any suggestions for insomnia? (none / 0) (#1)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:02:17 PM EST
    I seem to have forgotten how to sleep at night.

    Read Obama's speeches? (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:04:09 PM EST
    Ambien, if you can get it, (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:05:49 PM EST
    Benadryl if you can't (and don't need to do anything before noon tomorrow. . .).

    Otherwise, whatever's on C-SPAN 2.


    i'll try the benadryl/ cspan tonight... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:08:03 PM EST
    the Obama speeches? I'll save that one for later if needed ;-)

    Um m m m, not if they are showing (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by nycstray on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:11:01 PM EST
    FDA hearings on C-Span2. That's more head exploding/anger inducing. imo anyway  :)

    If you have an MP3 player (none / 0) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:10:45 PM EST
    that plays books on tape, download a favored book from your library, put on your headphones, sit in the dark, listen and forget.

    Trust me, it's like your mommy/daddy is reading you a story.


    I endorse this approach (1.00 / 0) (#27)
    by riddlerandy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:22:56 PM EST
    Try Living History, you wont last 10 minutes.

    Ah, the bored troll. (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:27:32 PM EST
    No no no (none / 0) (#45)
    by dws3665 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:37:48 PM EST
    He is on a mission. A mission of comedy. Sit back and enjoy the ride.

    More generally: (none / 0) (#73)
    by riddlerandy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:02:43 AM EST
    try any autobiography, you wont last 10 minutes.

    Machester's book on Churchill is a good one, btw.

    Try audible.com


    Do you (none / 0) (#96)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:41:58 AM EST
    even take a breath between Clinton insults?

    You couldn't even let it go for an insomnia suggestion?

    That's the behavior of a jerk.


    I endorse this approach as well ... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:39:30 PM EST
    and if insomnia is hitting really hard, I do hot shower, then a dark room, and book on tape.

    I've found that interesting books work better than dull ones, because I get interested in the story, I relax, and then I fall asleep.

    And, as you say, Teresa, it's just like being read a story when you were a kid.


    Melanin pills -- it's natural (none / 0) (#32)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:27:37 PM EST
    just like warm milk.  Or, heck, try warm milk.  It sounded disgusting to me until I had a bad stretch, and then I learned to appreciate it.

    Also, computer sudoku.  :-)


    Try a shot of dark rum in warm milk. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:58:21 PM EST
    Melatonin (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:42:33 AM EST
    Melanin will just make you look more tanned ;-).

    Warm milk w/ chocolate.... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by oldpro on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:22:07 AM EST
    it's called cocoa...doesn't that just take you back to grandma's house when you were needing some confort?



    Try the band Lambchop (none / 0) (#55)
    by Eleanor A on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:44:03 PM EST
    It's like lullaby music, I'm telling you....the guy's voice is totally somnambulistic.

    La Sonambulist. (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:45:04 PM EST
    Sorry. La Sonnambula: (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by oculus on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:04:07 AM EST

    Callas on You Tube:



    Vegan tofu-almond-oat milk is perfect for HRC dems (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:04:09 AM EST
    Hormonally balancing; cholesterol cleansing and adjusts the good/bad kind; soothes the stomach and prevents wakefulness from acid reflux or gastric discomfort. Works for pre- or post- menopausal women; men, cut down on the tofu.

    Required: a great mini-blender or food pro

    Soak in warm water and grind together: a dozen almonds, 2-3 tbsp of dry oat flakes, 1 ounce (about a tbsp) of tofu. Add a mug of filtered water. Strain. Use as you would milk, heating on its own (add a drop of almond essense and tsp of honey) or make cocoa. It's a knockout!

    Green knockout drink: Heat shredded lettuce and fennel in a mug of water. Blend and strain. Add a touch of honey. The properties of lettuce, when heated, have a relaxing effect on the system.


    Regular moderate exercise (none / 0) (#66)
    by rilkefan on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:50:33 PM EST
    but not before bedtime.

    what i was advised (none / 0) (#116)
    by proudliberaldem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:21:16 AM EST
    don't work in bed, and clear your room of any work stuff if you can.

    BTD, I told Jeralyn (none / 0) (#3)
    by masslib on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:04:28 PM EST
    I wouldn't mention a certain story, but did you read Joan Walsh's piece about it?  What does that mean for Unity '08?  I mean, what was the point?

    They 'innoculate' vs sexism by hating The Clintons (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ellie on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:46:05 PM EST
    This is such a sleazy and obvious tactic. They start OUT talking about Sen Clinton -- the INDIVIDUAL who is running to be the Dem nominee for president; the separate human being who has a separate record, personality, body and brains from the man she married.

    Sen Clinton's rabid haters then shift to talking about The Clintons.

    Then they turn the anti-HRC hate spigot on full. By their own practices, they apparently believe this gives them license to accuse Sen Clinton and even Chelsea of lying, but being responsible for ever William Jefferson Clinton admin policy the political and media critics don't happen to like, or simply reference to impress each other.

    And in their fevered tiny brains, this means they can't be accused of the sexism.


    My comment wasn't about the media. (none / 0) (#67)
    by masslib on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:51:29 PM EST
    Um, mine was -- I'd read Walsh's story earlier (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:10:30 AM EST
    ... and this was what struck me about some of the areas she discussed.

    Otherwise ... huh???


    My question to BTD was about (none / 0) (#86)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:15:24 AM EST
    who was pushing the story and why on earth they would do that now?

    You posted private email in an open thread? (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:21:49 AM EST
    Phew, glad it didn't have work-unfriendly graphics attached.

    In future, perhaps a "Do Not Disturb" sign at the top might prevent the outrageous occurence of others using the subject header to add their few cents on an introduced Open Thread topic.


    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#90)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:24:12 AM EST
    Did you read the article?

    I encourage you to add your two cents. (none / 0) (#92)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:25:16 AM EST
    masslib, on a previous thread (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:47:28 AM EST
    I believe a commenter (andrys) said that there were links somewhere showing that the Obama Campaign tipped off the NY Post to do the initial story. I can't vouch for the veracity of that, however. Maybe I mis-understood what was being said.

    I assume we're talking about the same sorry. Don't want to tread on any toes.


    Yes, I promised Jeralyn I would (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:51:04 AM EST
    not mention the story so I am tip toeing around it.  Walsh said BO pushed the story, first with a vdeo clip and an ap piece, then with the special comment.  She said it was just wrong and it would cause some to stay home in November.

    Agreed, the Walsh article is a must read. (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:08:57 AM EST
    FoxholeAtheist, I wasn't able to respond in the (none / 0) (#139)
    by andrys on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:11:35 AM EST
    ...in the other thread.

      I just mentioned that the Obama campaign claimed the NY Post put up the story and they happened to see it.  And then they got busy writing to reporters everywhere and linked to the NY Post article, which was modified to omit their first wholly inaccurate description Clinton's remarks.

      The answer to your question can be found in the excerpts quoted and in the full text at the links given for the two articles.  If you have any questions feel free to write me at andrys1 at yahoo.com

      Eugene Robinson's post for WashingtonPost took the cake for mischaracterizing 3 days after the fact.  I got so angry I wrote two different posts.  They post immediately and allow LONG posts so you can fit in what you need to say.  He was horribly wrong in so many ways, and it's stuff like this that will keep me determined (against my better wishes) to NOT support Obama in November.  I can't take that kind of dishonest and lie-hammering networking they do.  Even if he's biased, he has in the past seemed so genteel, it was a real disappointment.

      JOAN WALSH is my HEROINE tonight.  She really blasted Chris Matthews' guest, a surrogate for Obama who shows up all the time - and tonight once more saying he got call after call saying people were angry Clinton had admitted she was staying in the race in case Obama is assassinated, and from his description you know that's what he wanted listeners to believe too.  Matthews even said something similar - didn't know how people could read it any other way.

      Joan Walsh, Ms. Earnestly Fair and Reasonable, who takes such agonizing pain to try to be fair to all, just blew her stack.  At both of them.  She said, more or less, that if this kind of willful misrepresentation continues, they'll find that MANY people will STAY HOME in November!

      I've never seen her so rightfully angry.  Actually, I've never seen her so angry.  She is so civil, in her appearances and in her Salon columns, that I sit in awe, since I am so emotional, in my way.  

      She was very good, much better than the mealy-mouthed Hillary supporters usually on.  And I've never heard anyone mention this very REAL dynamic on any of the cable tv shows.  

      Usually they just sit around and say "Oh, they always come back and unify."   In my 48 years of elections, this one is HIGHLY unusual, and I don't understand they don't seem to have an inkling about how totally alienated many are.  Mainly, longtime Democrats, who not only voted but WORKED FOR their party.

      It's because they just feel Hillary has been an non-valid interfering pest of a Candidate, who should have pulled out before her expected string of big wins (predicted by Obama's spreadsheets though the wins should have been much smaller -- 12 in WVa instead of 41) so as not to "hurt Barack" which they've warned her against for MONTHS now.

      The segment will probably be uploaded to MSNBC TV online by tomorrow, I hope.  It was on Hardball.


    Correction (none / 0) (#141)
    by andrys on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:17:18 AM EST
    2nd to last paragraph should have been:

    It's because ObamaCamp and DNC just feel or at least act as if Hillary has been a non-valid, interfering pest of a Candidate, who should have pulled out before her expected string of big wins (predicted by Obama's spreadsheets though the wins were expected to have been much smaller -- 12 in WVa instead of 41) so as not to "hurt Barack" which they'd warned her against for MONTHS now.


    That Joan Walsh segment is up now at (none / 0) (#146)
    by andrys on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:56:50 AM EST
    Youtube!  Probably a clearer copy at msnbc.com later on.


              GO, Joan !!!

    And, Obama should not count those eggs yet, lest he lay one.

    The rules have nothing saying that Superdelegates follow the lead of pledged delegates -- for if they did, Superdelegates would not be at all needed.

     Re Electability as focus for SDs:

    In virtually every electoral-college poll-match currently, Clinton is easily beating McCain today, while Obama is, overall, losing to McCain. And this is before the Republican 527 vetting of Obama.

    Clinton: 100% probability of winning (May 26)
    Mean of 322 electoral votes

    Obama: 37.3% probability of winning (May 26
    Mean of 264 electoral votes

    Alternate electoral-college polling below:

    Electoral Votes: Clinton 327 McCain 194 Ties 17 (May 28)

    Electoral Votes: Obama 266 McCain 248 Ties 24 (May 28)

    Add that she will almost surely have the popular vote lead, including
    the caucuses and, of course, Michigan and Florida (for without them, the Democrats will lose).

    Dean told one group that the DNC CANNOT nullify a state-certified vote but they can refuse to seat or count a delegation (or portions of it).

    Latest polls - at RealClearPolitics.Com


    Let me be a snooty brat for a minute (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:04:43 PM EST
    So, I've been eating Fage 0% Greek yogurt for about a year. It's really excellent, smooth, filling, low cal, etc. You can mix Equal in and it's great. Apparently it's become really popular. Fine, it's a good food and more people should have access to it, even though it's insanely expensive.

    Anyway, they've apparently started to make the stuff in a New York plant instead of (in addition to?) Greece. Well, last week I bought some new product, not realizing the change (and really, what difference should it make?) The new stuff produced stateside is gritty and distinctly inferior. I hope it's just a temporary problem and Fage gets their NY facility in order; I want my fancy elitist Greek yogurt back!

    Speaking of Greek food, (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:07:13 PM EST
    I find I never tire of spinach and feta as a combo.
    You can stuff meat with it.
    Tonight I tossed pasta with spinach, feta, oregano, and added a chicken breast. Pretty good

    Interesting (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:08:47 PM EST
    heating Feta frankly never occurred to me. I would expect it to separate pretty easily.

    Love that yogurt. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by masslib on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:09:19 PM EST
    Disappointing to hear.

    Oh no! (none / 0) (#16)
    by Steve M on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:10:12 PM EST
    That's what I would call an unfortunate twist of feta.

    Weak! (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:11:49 PM EST
    I LOVE Fage Greek yogurt (none / 0) (#49)
    by Radiowalla on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:40:26 PM EST
    but  I gave it up because it seems a bit extravagant to be buying yogurt that has to be shipped all the way from Greece.  Carbon footprint-wise, etc.

    Now I buy a locally produced yogurt which is quite different in texture, but still pretty good.

    I guess buying New York Fage Yogurt  like buying sourdough bread that isn't made in San Francisco.  It just isn't as good.


    Or Bagels from south of Edison or west of (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:44:05 PM EST
    Morristown NJ.

    I'm sad because I really liked it and it just isn't right anymore. I should bug the company.


    It's the grass; know your local organic farms ... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:55:22 AM EST
    ... and you might not score the Fage brand, but a great tasting local, authentic Balkan or Greek-style yoghurt. The grass the cows eat, the soil, the kind of dairy/farm make all the difference.

    Same goes for cheese, veggies, etc.

    Shortcut: get the blab at weekend farmers' markets, food co-ops, Greek markets that have a clientele for the real stuff etc.


    Earlier today on Fox I heard one of the (none / 0) (#5)
    by tigercourse on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:05:34 PM EST
    talking heads say that Clinton was lying about being stronger in the general election and that most polls show Obama is better against McCain. This is of course not true. Most state by state polls show Clinton to be much stronger (and have for months and months).

    But that didn't compare to a second of MSNBC that I saw. During (I think) Hardball, the crawl on the bottom said something like "Is Hillary Clinton in danger of losing her soul?"

    The media gets worse every day.

    Well, honestly, this isn't just damaging to (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by masslib on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:08:40 PM EST
    Hillary.  It's bad for women.  Really bad.  

    No way! (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by phat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:09:34 PM EST
    It did not say that did it?

    That's ridiculous.


    It's hard to believe, but I'm pretty sure it did. (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by tigercourse on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:18:03 PM EST
    The glass is half-full (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Steve M on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:11:33 PM EST
    I see it as a hopeful sign of progress.  After all, they acknowledged that she has one to lose!

    Consider the source (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:32:30 PM EST
    the media has no soul, so how can they question the existence of one in the first place?

    My life is so much better (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:36:39 PM EST
    sans MSNBC.  I had it on, all the time for a long time -- but not for months now.  I don't miss it a bit, and my blood pressure is much better.

    I'm starting to wean off all-news more lately, moving back to mixing in channels I had almost forgotten -- History Channel, HGTV to dream of digging in my garden once past a cold spell here.  It soared up to 82 yesterday, so I finally took the risk of getting to the garden store and loading up on lovely annuals.  It was warm into the early evening, so we took a walk to a favorite restaurant -- where we then watched the wind whip up outside and emerged to a 40-degree drop from a lake gale.  And there are frost warnings tonight!  

    Wisconsin in "springtime," at least along the Great Lakes -- where spring usually arrives for a day around June 6 or so, and then it can be full-blown summer with heat and humidity by June 7.  But I may be able to plant all the goodies from the garden store in a couple of days . . . if we don't have tornados and/or snow.:-)


    Heh, we're having a 30 degree drop tonight (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by nycstray on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:42:46 PM EST
    already dropped 20 from today. Should be a lovely 70 and crisp tomorrow and I'm off for the rest of the week as soon as I wrap up these last couple of designs . . .  I need to hit the plant place or green market to pick up some starter plants until I get my seeds going . . . .

    I hate to say this (none / 0) (#133)
    by Grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:26:14 AM EST
    but I'm starting to think:

    Cheer up!  Get McCain in and Hillary can run again in 4 more years.  She'll be like Gore.  Look at how many people were begging for Gore to run again this year.  

    In the meantime, McCain may not be great but I doubt he would sell us out to the terrorists.  In some ways, I'm sure he'd be better than Dubya.  At the end of the 4 years, he'll be close to 76.  That's really old to run for another term.  Hillary can swoop in and take over.  

    A girl can dream, can't she?  

    I'd like to see Hillary now, but it seems like a lost cause unless something really spectacular happens in the next two weeks.    


    Hertzberg (none / 0) (#26)
    by Radiowalla on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:21:13 PM EST
    is a hell of a good writer.

    Why he has such a crush on Tweety is beyond me, but he sure can write.

    I'm still waiting for his airstrikes on Iran (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:24:16 PM EST
    He, Scott Ritter, and Dan Ellsberg have been crying wolf for years about it.

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Steve M on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:27:51 PM EST
    I was told it would happen in a matter of days after Hillary gave Bush a blank check with that horrible, horrible Kyl-Lieberman vote.

    Makes you almost wonder if the supposedly pernicious nature of that vote was somewhat overblown, perhaps for political purposes.


    Gee ya think? (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by RalphB on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:35:12 PM EST
    Hertzberg worked with Tweety as speech writers for Carter.  That explains something, but I'm not sure what :-)

    I don't think Matthews has aged (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:46:27 PM EST
    all that gracefully.  

    He wears his dementia well though ... (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:15:05 AM EST
    ... and I always thought he had lovely breasts.

    Don't forget his bout with malaria... (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:24:27 AM EST
    He's a type I diabetic. He's pretty good for (none / 0) (#69)
    by MarkL on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:55:18 PM EST
    his age.

    Oops. (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:05:52 AM EST
    He has problems with blood sugar, (none / 0) (#78)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:06:39 AM EST
    which has to do with his erratic moods.

    Internet outrage addiction (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:33:13 PM EST
    Hertzberg's parody - intentional or unintentional? (none / 0) (#29)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:25:07 PM EST
    HH introduces a new metric: majority of the number of different ways of counting the popular vote!

    Major media fell back on this bizarre standard in Florida 2000. Was this conscious mimicry? Is he doing this just to see if we're paying attention???

    Meanwhile, in the Idaho Primary ... (none / 0) (#48)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:40:05 PM EST
    Obama is holding a 16 point lead in tonight's Idaho Primary returns so far, in contrast to his 62.3% margin in earlier Idaho Caucus preferences.

    And guess what (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:41:40 PM EST
    There are still way more Republicans than Democrats in Idaho!

    But Alice, I thought Obama was supposed to win Idaho in November!


    You sure are right about that. (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by masslib on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:45:36 PM EST
    Ron Paul is creaming Obama.  ;)

    There are - but 43,000 D's still voted (none / 0) (#151)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:41:39 AM EST
    ... in the primary, compared to 22,000 caucussers (including many GOP "Dems for a day", either sincere or disruptive).

    And Obama's share was 56%, compared to 79% in the caucus.


    BTD, will you be commenting on (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:43:30 PM EST
    why Obama says what he does about distant relatives?  Just wondering.

    Don't forget that he (none / 0) (#142)
    by andrys on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:25:21 AM EST
    ...that he is so seemingly lacking in a personal connection with the people who took such good care of him (who can act like typical white persons) that when he gave his SOARING (of course) speech after the North Carolina win, he looked up to the left and to the right at the teleprompters and talked about seeing the flags on "the coffin of ... and he said 'uh,' and looked at one of the teleprompters more searchingly, and after that pause, said "my father."

      Well, the script said "grandfather" and, guess what, the script was right.

      I think this guy has winged it for all his life.  His whole bio as collected from others' accounts certainly paint that picture, an example being Jones giving him the hard (many years) work of all the other legislators to 'steer' through for main credit to Obama once they got a Democratic majority again.  I wonder if the Repub 527s will use any of those folks, if they're no longer in public office of course.


    Laying foundation for the October surprise? (none / 0) (#64)
    by felizarte on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:46:48 PM EST
    CIA watching for al-Qaida `succession crisis'
    By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON - The U.S. is making "a big and continual push" to capture or kill al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, but his demise won't end the organization's menace, CIA Director Michael Hayden said Tuesday in an Associated Press interview. The CIA is equally interested in those jockeying to replace bin Laden in what he predicted will be a "succession crisis."

    A number of Egyptians are now part of al-Qaida's top echelon
    "It will be really interesting to see how that plays out. The organization is a lot more networked than it is ruthlessly hierarchical," Hayden said of the group behind the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. "How do you pick the next overall leader?"
    and may struggle for power among themselves. Bin Laden's current No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is an Egyptian.

    Despite al-Qaida's resilience, taking out bin Laden would be a psychological blow to the organization, Hayden said.

    I have always thought that the adm. will release or announce the demise of Osama bin laden at a time that will benefit the republican candidate.  They can do this because they know exactly where he is and can get to him at their convenience.

    McCain would have to do it himself (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:49:44 PM EST
    for it to help his candidacy.

    I don't believe (none / 0) (#135)
    by Grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:35:57 AM EST
    they are actually chasing Osama bin laden.

    Why not?

    Well, because.  As long as he is the head of the Al Queda, they don't need to be looking for the "head of Al Queda."  They know it is him.  All they have to do is monitor him 24 hours a day to know what Al Queda is up to -- so it defeats their purposes to kill him or capture him.  

    That's why he is still alive.  

    They probably could have stopped 9/11 but Dubya wasn't that concerned -- then.  


    A New Low in Clinton Hating (none / 0) (#80)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:10:06 AM EST
    This a great article by Joan Walsh at Salon. Apparently she missed the RFK hoax story while it was in progress. She weighed in on the 27th, and was not at all impressed with the whole well-oiled press gang bang.

    agree (none / 0) (#83)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:13:20 AM EST
    It's a good piece (though she does go overboard pointing out how "fair" she's been in the past).

    However, just read the comments. It's disgusting and hilarious at the same time. We need a new word for that.


    Disgustilarious? (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:22:44 AM EST
    Kinda catchy, doncha think?

    Hmmm.... (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:35:17 AM EST
    doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, but it's better than any of my efforts.




    How about its disgustingly hilarious (none / 0) (#95)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:40:30 AM EST
    John Welsh is such hypocrite (none / 0) (#99)
    by bridget on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:42:44 AM EST
    she wouldn't do a thing to displease tweety now that she finally made it on the show as anyone surely knows

    re the article
    after worrying about Obama and the oh so helpful fawning media she ends with the following:

    "I'll be on MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews" today, debating this issue with talk show host and Obama supporter Joe Madison."

    Calgon Take Me Away!


    you are mistaken (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:46:57 AM EST
    She was actually quite outspoken in her criticism of MSNBC's coverage. Taylor Marsh has a link to the youtube of it.

    The Obama advocate was, imho, a complete slime, full of his "SOME people are saying" crap.

    Joan was excellent in this segment, imho.


    I don't watch msnbc anymore (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by bridget on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:05:19 AM EST
    I'll try to watch the link you mentioned.

    If she actually stood up for Hillary, I would like to see it because she has been v. weak in that department in the past.

    Also I was talking about all those months, well more than a year now, when she was a completely silent pundit re Hillary bashing and just loved to be one of the boys. Tweety has only people on his show who agree with him and listen to him. Challengers? Hardly.

    Same with Olbermann. I bet the same old people are still there day after day. Except Craig. But I don't watch it anymore, so I don't really care what's going on there.


    Doesn't it seem like the pool of talking heads (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:08:39 AM EST
    is getting smaller and smaller?

    Mixed on Joan (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Valhalla on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:15:19 AM EST
    I haven't seen her on the tube, but read her column in Salon for a couple of years now.  I stopped, though the day she said this (mid-May):

    I have occasionally wished Obama himself would say something about the often-sexist viciousness Clinton has faced, but it's probably too much to ask in a campaign this contentious.

    Since then she's written more than one column on the  attack dogs of misogyny, but I just feel like in trying to appear objective she pulls her punches.  Just commit, Joan.  Even if I disagree, just freakin' commit.


    I think women are now defending (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:19:03 AM EST
    Hillary because they think it's over.  it's a sad commentary on many of my gender.

    Well then the only solution (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Valhalla on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:32:03 AM EST
    is to work like hell to get Hillary the nom, and watch all the heads explode.

    Really, I was thinking today that 'You Broke It, You Own It' really only works for the DNC.  The could have had it all by backing Clinton and getting Obama on the ticket as VP, or, failing that, some sort of position somewhere that he could pick up some experience and hopefully along the way learn some important lessons.  Possibly 16 years of Democrats in the WH.  But they gambled, and if they lose as they seem headed for, well, no tears from this quarter.

    But the media has no incentive to tone it down, ever, except for ratings.  Depressingly, KOs ratings have been climbing the last few months.  An Obama loss won't hurt him a bit.

    So really, the only way to strike a blow is for Hillary to carry it all the way to the convention and cause a Massive Middle-Aged Male Mainstream Media Meltdown.


    I'm supporting HRC all the way (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:07:45 AM EST
    I did my due diligence as a Dem and as an engaged informed voter and got nothing but grief from my (now former) party, from "fellow" fauxgressives, and from heads of causes I've supported in the past.

    IMO they're not going to succeed without support from me or the many they've insulted, and for no reason than to chase after gossamer. I'll suffer no guilt watching this "new" coalition of kingmakers and minions crash and burn on their own.

    My choice is clear to me: an HRC write-in come what may and worthy Dems -- ONLY worthy Dems -- downticket. The White House isn't the only house in need of a thorough cleaning.


    YES!!! (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by andrys on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:27:45 AM EST
    I just posted on that in a thread above.  I was very impressed and loved her reaction.

    "...MANY may stay home in November" - something close to that.

    She HAS been fair - she bends into yoga positions to be fair.



    dws3665, I just watched the Joan Walsh clip (none / 0) (#154)
    by bridget on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:21:12 PM EST
    over at Taylor Marsh

    and I agree, she did really well and said the right things in Hillary's defense. But its years too late. Wish she had been more compassionate, stronger, too. But overall she didn't back down, even brought up some appalling recent NBC pundit stuff - although I am sure tweety could care less. It really is hard to believe that that Madison fellow is a Dem. The Repubs couldn't have been more horrible AFAIR.

    btw. This was the first time that I watched tweety's show for ever so long and I have to say it only took a microsecond for me to get high blood pressure after hearing his phrasing of the upcoming issue. Tweety used the A word as often as possible and together with the Madison fellow they repeated it so often its now clinging and ringing in my ears. Cable really is bad for my health.

    Finally Joan Welsh dared to speak up. Too late, however. Nice to hear also she remembered that Bill Clinton was the only two-term Dem Prez in her lifetime. But then again since she is a good liberal pundit on MSNBC, she had to make sure everyone knew right away how often she hat criticized both Clintons. Actually naming the "bad  stuff" they did. Grrr....

    And This is exactly the kind of stuff that drives me nuts. Just like it drives Bob Somerby nuts. Not surprising therefore the wimpyness and hypocrisy of the liberal $$$ pundits on TV and in paper make up the major part of his posts in the DailyHowler.

    When everything is said and done this is the tragedy of this Dem campaign running a female candidate: The socalled liberal female pundits, reporters and bloggers did their v. best to ruin it for Hillary along with the village boys.


    Actually, she was pretty great. (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:48:27 AM EST
    She talked about how the Obama campaign pushed this story and there was no there there.  She said this would cause people to stay home in November.  She was quite upset and on point.

    The media (none / 0) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:25:35 AM EST
    was all over McCain's foreign policy speech yesterday.

    BTD - thanks for highlighting this (none / 0) (#148)
    by nulee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:45:49 AM EST
    Hertzberg fiasco - I might have missed it otherwise - wow, simply, wow.  Although it was clear that Hertzberg, who all through Bush II was a real beacon of creativity and dry leftist wit, he has really disgraced himself now.  It is sad, first I thought he was just feeling left out, like the oldster, wanting desperately to get a piece of the action taken by the young boyz at TPM.  But now I think his brain is gone too.  Rather than keep some platform for balanced analysis he has devolved into hagiography of Matthews, one of the biggest right wing misinformers and male ass kissers in the RWCM.   Digby hits it right - it is just like back in the early days of the 21st century (!) - when the RWCM was telling us black was white, that Gore was dumb and Bush was smart.  But now with blogs and Media Matters we were supposed to be out in front of this as progressives, instead we find we have an internal tumor within the Democratic party.