home

Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread

Your turn. This is an Open Thread.

< If The DNC Is Going To Strictly Apply The Rules . . . | Wednesday News Update >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I am still fuming from the (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:40:27 PM EST
    fake uproar over the RFK comments. Joan Walsh was visibly upset and angry yesterday explaining why it was a big mistake by Obama's people to hype this comment.  I have never seen her so angry, she is pretty cool and objective.  But I saw my own anger reflected in her.  Am I the only one who is still so pissed about this?

    No, you are not. And I'm fuming that NOW several (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jawbone on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:43:27 PM EST
    news organizations are looking at the sexism/misogyny in the Hillary coverage by the MCM (and NPR, too).  Often, they bring it up to be just as defensive about their actions as Tom Brokaw was on NBC tonight.

    [ Parent ]
    NPR (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by suisser on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:01:04 PM EST
    has been just awful in it's coverage of HRC.  I have cancelled my membership and lost all respect for what I once believed to be  a superior news organization.

    [ Parent ]
    same here (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by miguelito on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:08:06 PM EST
    I cut them off completely

    [ Parent ]
    I cut NPR off almost 8 years ago (none / 0) (#156)
    by Palomino on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:05:14 PM EST
    during the 2000 campaign and Florida "recount" b/c of their revolting a$$-kissing of Bush. They've only confirmed my decision with their (mostly) revolting, a$$-kissing coverage of the runup to the Iraq war, the invasion itself, and far too many other issues to mention here. And now I can't even stand Air America anymore.

    [ Parent ]
    I missed the actual show (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:46:02 PM EST
    but I heard all about it. You're not the only one angry about this, believe me. Sadly, even supposedly reasonable rational not-really-in-the-tank for Obama friends of mine were "appalled" by the statement for reasons I cannot fathom for the life of me. The amount of shock! and horror! from them is kind of making my brain hurt.

    Of course, no one got their knickers in a twist about Huckabee's 'joke' at the NRA convention (which actually centered around Obama having a gun pointed at him), so wilco tango foxtrot...

    Also Joe Madison's allegations about 'secret codes' in whatever HRC said is kind of in tinfoil hat land. But of course, only the Clintons are crazy paranoid looneys according to Jon Stewart.

    [ Parent ]

    Because of the way the media reported it (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by dianem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:52:52 PM EST
    The initial headlines read something along the lines of "Clinton makes reference to Obama assassination". They compltely messed up the story. It was Monica Lewinsky all over again. All the media cared about was being first or being on the bandwagon. They didn't stop to find out if their stories were true until after the damage was done.

    [ Parent ]
    The sekrit code (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:01:27 PM EST
    reminds me about Monica too. I remember the NY Times claiming that there was a sekrit code between Bill and Monica based on which tie he wore on what day. Is that like semaphore flags or something?

    Of course, I thought Monicagate was a big tempest in a teapot too but what do I know?

    [ Parent ]

    technically (none / 0) (#14)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:49:13 PM EST
    It's madness.

    [ Parent ]
    So I have to cut ties (none / 0) (#20)
    by miguelito on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:52:22 PM EST
    With Jon Stewart now?  I have been avoiding TDS figuring I could watch again after the convention or GE, but he can now join all the others

    [ Parent ]
    After last night's BS (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:55:16 PM EST
    I'm sadly going to have to do the same. He's been leaning towards the Kool-Aid as of late but last night's "The Clintons Believe In A Vast LEFT Wing Conspiracy Because No One Is Voting For Her" b.s. (and John Oliver's not even remotely funny joke about the RFK thin), just clinched it for me.

    Maybe after the convention I'll come back. Or not. If it's going to be a continued Obama-Is-Teh-Great Lurve fest, I'm outta there.

    [ Parent ]

    that is nauseating (none / 0) (#51)
    by miguelito on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:00:14 PM EST
    how about Colbert?  I liked that more the TDS actually.. can't bear to watch  Kool Aid though

    [ Parent ]
    As discussed elsewhere (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:03:47 PM EST
    Colbert seems to be covering his butt and keeping people guessing as to where his interests lie which is fine by me. Every time I think I know, he surprises me so...no clue.

    One of his producers is Jonathan Alter's wife (and we know where Alter's head is at) and he used to have connections to Air America (particularly Sam Seder and Janeane Garafolo) so I suspect he's for Obama but so far, he's still watchable.

    Personally, I'm considering going on hiatus from everyone/thing until November!

    [ Parent ]

    best to avoid it (none / 0) (#58)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:03:11 PM EST
    they have a candidate to bury.

    [ Parent ]
    Taylor Marsh has video (none / 0) (#152)
    by angie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:45:30 PM EST
    of Joan Walsh -- it is really good to watch her, even if you have to sit through Tweety & that Obama supporting a$$hat to get to her, so I recommend watching it. And count me among those still po'd about it. People who state that Hillary was calling and/or hoping for Obama to end like RKF are either deliberately lying or are vile morons. I tend to think the latter.

    [ Parent ]
    Walsh is quite correct (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:47:50 PM EST
    There's no rational purpose for further alienating Clinton and her supporters.

    [ Parent ]
    It's rational if you don't actually have a lock (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Valhalla on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:09:39 PM EST
    on the nomination.

    If they actually had been able to use RFK as the death-knell for Hillary, then they don't have to worry about Hillary winning the popular vote with PR or coming within 100 delegates, or be nervous about the remaining undeclared SDs.  They either knew or didn't care that they were courting the backlash among both Clinton supporters and folks who don't really care one way or another.

    Which argues for a great deal of desperation on their part. Or maybe just stupidity.  But you don't take the kind of chances with voter opinion that Obama and the DNC have been taking lately unless you really need to.  These are not people who are bold in the sunlight, only behind closed doors.

    Every time they gamble and lose, to me it argues for taking it to the convention because I think Hillary can win it.  I didn't think so before, but if even they're worried about it....

    [ Parent ]

    I think the RFK comment was jumped on... (none / 0) (#149)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:55:52 PM EST
    ...to kill the talk of a unity ticket more than anything else (although I agree with you that the scorched-earth talking points are part of a more general strategy to kill a potential upset).

    Her remarks are painted as if she called up the NY mob and told them to put a hit on Obama; this feeds into all the trashy "food testing" memes that if she were the v.p. candidate she would wish harm upon him.

    There's a reason that they jumped on her remarks this time, and not back in March when they were published in TIME--and it's not, as his campaign claims, that this was some sort of tipping point in "a pattern."

    [ Parent ]

    Or as if she called for (none / 0) (#153)
    by angie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:47:41 PM EST
    a SD to take Obama into a room and only the SD come out.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure, there was a rational reason -- (none / 0) (#161)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:10:17 AM EST
    it was a ploy to get more super-delegates to switch to Obama.

    On that count, it failed.  Okay, so I look for silver linings.  But really, that Axelrove, Burton, Obama, et al., could think that disseminating an Olbermann rant would win over super-delegates?   I think it can be stated with considerable confidence that the super-delegates are smarter than Olbermann.  Heck, my cat is smarter than him.  And my cat runs into walls.

    [ Parent ]

    Many are p!ssed, but Joan Walsh has not (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:12:47 PM EST
    always been on the side of what is right...She has taken much too long to decide that she is the beacon of integrity.  Too many times she has sit on a round table on Hardball and let them get away with stuff no one should get away with.  Let's see if anyone is paying attention.

    [ Parent ]
    she's reached a snapping point (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:45:26 PM EST
    and she had been willing to play along with Matthews.

    [ Parent ]
    She took long enough!! (none / 0) (#142)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:16:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Can you provide a link (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by mattt on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:50:56 PM EST
    to any Obama's people hyping the RFk remarks? (people in his campaign, not random commenters)

    I saw the campaign say the comment was "unfortunate," which implies it was an accidental misstatement, and "had no place in a campaign."  Do you suggest that talk of assassinations does belong in campaigns?

    [ Parent ]

    if by "Obamas people" (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:52:57 PM EST
    you include MSNBC, just turn it on.  I guarantee you will get a conversation about it within 10 minutes.


    [ Parent ]
    How about KO's special comment sent out (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:17:22 PM EST
    by the obama camp?  That good enough for ya?

    [ Parent ]
    I don't have a link (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:55:00 PM EST
    but Obama's talking heads all wrote scathing columns, see Eugene Robinson, Michael Godwin, some other dude on MSNBC that was battling it out with Joan Walsh.

    And no, assasination talk should not be part of a campaign.  Clinton was trying to make the point the Kennedy was still campaigning in June.

    [ Parent ]

    That other dude (none / 0) (#36)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:56:41 PM EST
    was Joe Madison.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:55:19 PM EST
    I guess you've remained blissfully unaware of the fact that the Obama campaign circulated Keith Olbermann's "Special Comment" to reporters, even as Obama and Axelrod were publicly proclaiming that there was no controversy to be had.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh yeah, (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:57:23 PM EST
    I forgot about that one, thanks Steve...to me that was the worst of the worst!

    [ Parent ]
    No, (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by mattt on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:03:12 PM EST
    I had missed the Olbermann connection.  That was inappropriate; KO went way overboard on that one and they shouldn't have been playing both sides.

    [ Parent ]
    Be sure to read Somerby on Olbermann (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Radiowalla on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:07:47 PM EST
    The Daily Howler really called Olbermann out today.

    Here's the beginning... :

    The screaming mimis keened and wailed when it was deemed that Clinton had vilely offended. Robinson, Olbermann, Herbert, and Dowd (sounds like a firm of ambulance chasers!) realized how vile the vile woman had been--and they began to tear their hair wildly. And it wasn't just these hounds of hell--hounds who howl for the mainstream press corps. Many hacks on the "liberal web" have taken to reciting this latest grim nonsense. Once Drudge had said that Clinton was vile, these pseudo-libs rushed to affirm it.

    Can our society function this way? More on that question this Friday.

    At any rate, Robinson, Olbermann, Herbert and Dowd took turns barking and howling their outrage. Which takes us back to the early days of March--to the hounds which failed to bark.

    By last Friday night, everyone knew it: Clinton's statement to the editorial board in Sioux Falls was one of the vilest things ever said. But uh-oh! As it turned out, Clinton had said the exact same thing to Time's Rick Stengel in March! When Joe Klein played the fool (again) this weekend, he cited her earlier statement......

    Don't miss the whole, sad thing.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks goodness for Bob Somerby (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by bridget on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:08:08 PM EST
    I just read the DailyHowler and was looking for a place to post about. Found it ;-)

    Somberby also points out that just one article in WaPo made an attempt to explain the Hillary commet and of course they got it WRONG. As usual. The media is hopeless. Somerby is so right.

    just a bit about "fraud" Olbermann et al:

    "Readers, if you're dumb enough to buy that sh*t, you're as dumb as this big fraud thinks you are. For the record, that was in Olbermann's "Special Comment." In it, the man who suggested, just last month, that someone should "take [Clinton] in a room and only he comes out"--that delicate poodle barked deep outrage about what Vile Clinton had said.

    Except, she had said the same thing back in March--and this hound from hell hadn't barked at all! In fact, nobody barked back in March. And everyone barked this past weekend.

    But readers, you may understand why this happened--because we've all seen this movie before. Let's explain what happened this weekend. Let's explain why Robinson, Olbermann, Herbert/Dowd/Matthews all sat up and started to bark."

    Don't miss Who Let The Dogs Out ... another must Read Daily Howler today.

    [ Parent ]

    I see we share the same opinion (none / 0) (#155)
    by Radiowalla on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:22:08 PM EST
    of Bob Somerby and The Daily Howler.

    Were it not for Bob, I probably would have jumped off the roof in 2000.  

    If only he would put up a PayPal button or give us some way to thank him for his incomparable research and his incomparable service....

    I emailed him once about this and he answered that he didn't want to make money out of his blog.  

    [ Parent ]

    Olbermans probably (none / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:56:42 PM EST
    expecting a cabinet position out of this.

    [ Parent ]
    My bathroom cabinet is available for KO :) (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:18:37 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Press Secretary (none / 0) (#135)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:49:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You mean, when he said this: (none / 0) (#57)
    by citizen53 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:01:35 PM EST
    "A politician, a person who can let hang in midair the prospect that she might just be sticking around, in part, just in case the other guy gets shot has no business being, and no capacity to be, the president of the United States."


    [ Parent ]
    He said that?!!! (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:04:21 PM EST
    Buh bye, credibility.

    And he's no Edward R. Murrow either.

    [ Parent ]

    You mean... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by citizen53 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:56:34 PM EST
    if the fact that RFK was assassinated prompted someone to get into politics, to try and make things different, then that would be out of bounds as well?

    Those who take it the wrong way, intentionally, show their true motivations, just as Joe Madison did yesterday.

    [ Parent ]

    According to (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:57:42 PM EST
    Newsday (you can find it on Newsday.com)

    Donna Brazile was just "numb" over the comment. Oh wait, she's uncommitted. She's clearly not one of Obama's spokespeople. /sarcasm

    [ Parent ]

    She never talked about assassinations (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by dianem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:03:38 PM EST
    That's the problem. She mentioned that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June, in the context of providing a memorable historic example of a campaign running into June. It was quite clear to the people listening to her, who were reporters, that she was not referring to any possibility of anybody being assassinated this election cycle.

    Are candidates held to such a high standard that they can't refer to tragic historic events? Perhaps they should have avoided speaking on MLK's assassination anniversary, since it would bring up the memory of a tragic event.

    Oh, and here's a reference to Obama's campaign sending out an e-mail highlighting Olbermann's rant about Clinton's remark.

    [ Parent ]

    or a campaign that might have overturned (none / 0) (#86)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:13:23 PM EST
    a favoured front runner if it had been able to proceed through to July.

    [ Parent ]
    She never said that (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by dianem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:17:29 PM EST
    She never even implied that. She could have, I suppose, but I think it would have crossed the line into tasteless, even though the implication would have been that SHE could be assassinated if she continues. Regardless, she definitely was simply using an example of a long gone event to demonstrate a fact about campaigning. It was no more opportunistic or "vile" than the candidates speaking on the anniversay of MLK's assassination to promote their positions on Civil Rights.

    [ Parent ]
    I know (none / 0) (#129)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:38:50 PM EST
    I don't see anything tasteless about talking about campaigns.

    [ Parent ]
    They sent an "interpretation" after (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by itsadryheat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:07:42 PM EST
    alerting the media of the "unfortunateness", which in media speak is hey, looky here. Something terrible happened and you didin't even notice it was so terrible.  Let us help you with your interpretation.  In order to be of greatest assistance with sensitizing you to the situation, here is Keith Olbermann's diatribe on the supject in living moving pictures."

     Then the campaign sent the KO heads up to the entire press list.  George Stephanopoulis charged Axelrod about the camnpaign's usual behaviour of denying in public while sending out the scum to "the entire press list" to make sure they know how to react.

     After several days they usually send out Senator Obama to say that he "takes her at her word."

     It is called direct manipulation of the media.  Select an unnoticed statement that, if you get past all of the obvious meanings and strip it of the immediate context and the context of the speaker"s actions and life, you might be able to twist it into something gross.

     Twist it to set your interpretation, then alert  the press and some spokespeople who can be talked into seeing your twist on the comment, sensitize them and then fan the outrage by sending around memos inflame and increase the negative feedback to your victim.  Then stand above the fray and "take the high road".

    That is exactly the tactic by which two people who had dedicated their entire lives to public service and civil rights became widely recognized as "racists" in less than a week.

    [ Parent ]

    That's what i refered to about the IWR (none / 0) (#89)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:14:41 PM EST
    it wasn't just a disinterested intellectual point or even a judgement call it was a rhetorical bludgeon that the press used on the other candidates. Obama didn't personally use the bludgeon--instead the lads at NBC used it all the time.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's campaign sent out (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Chimster on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:20:02 PM EST
    Keith Olbermann's talking points. They wanted to send out a message of hope and just say no to old washington political tricks.

    Honestly, I'd like to see Olbermann and Obama go into a room and neither of them come out.

    [ Parent ]

    "Who Let The Dogs Out" (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by bridget on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:12:26 PM EST
    just (none / 0) (#25)
    by miguelito on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:53:34 PM EST
    check out dailyhowler from yesterday or the day before, actually check it every day :)

    [ Parent ]
    Here is (none / 0) (#126)
    by standingup on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:35:10 PM EST
    a link to Katharine Seelye's coverage of it on The Caucus blog.

    [ Parent ]
    I would tell you (none / 0) (#157)
    by Palomino on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:10:24 PM EST
    to do your own damn homework if I thought you weren't just trolling.

    [ Parent ]
    Any chance that you have a link (none / 0) (#42)
    by Radiowalla on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:57:54 PM EST
    to this?  I'd love to see it.  
    Joan Walsh is one of my favorite political commentators.

    In answer to your question, YES, I'm pissed!

    [ Parent ]

    I am pretty sure is was on Chris (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:59:59 PM EST
    Matthews show yesterday. It was a great segment. If she is on the panel, I will watch, otherwise I switch the channel.

    [ Parent ]
    I Think This Is It (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:03:18 PM EST
    thank you! (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:05:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    OMG! (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Radiowalla on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:26:23 PM EST
    Joan Walsh ROCKS!
    Thank you so much for the link!  I think I'll play it over and over!

    [ Parent ]
    It's on Taylor Marsh--enjoy! (none / 0) (#80)
    by NJDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:08:28 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Go on over to Salon.com (none / 0) (#107)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:25:12 PM EST
    and defend her in their comments threads.  She's been taken apart regularly by the usual slavering Obama fanatics, in their usual no-regard-for-other-Dems-or-dissenting-opinions fashion.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh this is great... (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:43:21 PM EST
    I just read Ricky Martin endorsed Hill, and is urging voters to get to the polls.  Viva la Hillary!

    Hey (none / 0) (#10)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:47:05 PM EST
    If he dances around at a rally for her, I may fly to  PR myself just to attend! ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Experiencing an 80's Menudo flashback (none / 0) (#24)
    by davnee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:53:27 PM EST
    :-)

    Now if Duran Duran would just endorse, then I'd know my Hillfandom was just.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm flashing back with ya' (none / 0) (#46)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:59:15 PM EST
    Oh and Men at Work. Although I tried vegemite because of them. I haven't fully forgiven them for that.

    [ Parent ]
    Me too. (none / 0) (#116)
    by davnee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:30:21 PM EST
    Men at Work would definitely be Obama voters.  ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#132)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:45:25 PM EST
    Hadn't thought about Vegemite in decades. The only way to eat it and not gag is a tiny amount on a thick layer of butter...at least that's how the Australians showed us how to gag it down.


    [ Parent ]
    Or The Police (none / 0) (#110)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:26:47 PM EST
    But Summers has been wearing an Obama pin of late...

    [ Parent ]
    Ricky Martin...one smart Puerto Rican :) (none / 0) (#112)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:27:21 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Where the rot started. (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:45:54 PM EST
    Once the media accepted the central Obama campaign argument that voting yeah on the IWR was an unforgivable sin, and brought it up endlessly to hammer the candidates, did they make Obama inevitable?  The media appeared to very quickly judge Dem candidates by the standards that Obama would have wished them to judge. That's where this entire mess started. (as if the media didn't buy and sell the war themselves!)

    The sad thing is that he has a huge patriotism problem now, after chastizing other dems for allowing the President the benefit of the doubt.

    A guy that has to refer to his distant relatives to get some reflected military Glory is in trouble against a guy who sacrificed his own body in the service of his national and rarely mentions it himself.

    We really didn't need to be fighting a campaign based on patriot games this year.

    I was just thinking this... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:49:45 PM EST
    the flag pin, the uncle, father's coffin draped with flag.  BO's internals are showing he has a patriotism problem, no doubt helped by the Wright fiasco among other things, and the Democrats want to run him against a POW.  

    What the media did to the other candidates over an authorization Obama wasn't around to vote on is deplorable.  

    [ Parent ]

    Not sure you want to go down this road (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by SpinDoctor on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:50:13 PM EST
    Or someone will likely bring up Bosnia.  

    Bosnia incident = stupid, non-issue

    Aushwitz vs. Buchenwald = stupid, non-issue

    Scott McClellan's allegations = important issue

    [ Parent ]

    in retrospect it's (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:55:39 PM EST
    very clear that the press were asking the other candidates questions that suited Obama's purposes. So he could silently shuffle around any accountability of scrutiny himself.

    Now we are stuck with stories about Great Uncles made to cover up a paper thin record of symbolic or actual service to his nation.

    Did Obama ever consider serving himself? He'd have a made a fine JAG officer.   Not that I think anything can be done about this now, but my god the press did judge every other Democrat on the standards that best suited Obama's core arguments for his own candidacy.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't say "shuffle"! (none / 0) (#158)
    by Palomino on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:18:08 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    There is some sort of buzz on blogs (none / 0) (#162)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:20:27 AM EST
    about Obama not having registered, when required, with the Selective Service.  It's said to be the forthcoming "June surprise" from the GOP. . . .

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:56:04 PM EST
    Do you have some kind of reading problem?

    No one said anything about Auschwitz vs. Buchenwald.

    [ Parent ]

    It's trouble (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:59:05 PM EST
    any frikking way U slice it.  Mccain was incarceratedand liberated himself. First hand experience.  It can't be faked.

    He's really got to be careful about how he invokes his ancestoors because he's got no real experience of sacrifice or duty.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:06:38 PM EST
    It's a biography-based campaign, by Axelrod's own admission.

    For the Democratic primary, it's the parts of the biography where he's a community organizer and multicultural ambassador to the world.  For the general election, it's the parts where he's a proud patriot with a lengthy American heritage.

    Nothing wrong with this, but it's no less obvious a political tactic than Hillary downing a shot and a beer.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama made a reference... (none / 0) (#87)
    by dianem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:13:26 PM EST
    ...to his uncle being part of Patton's army when they liberated Auschwitz.  That was, apparently, not possible, since 1) His uncle was in the navy and 2) the Russians liberated Auschwitz. A generous reading says that perhaps his uncle (great uncle?) was actually a land based naval troop and participated in the liberation of Buchenwald.

    [ Parent ]
    Shrug (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:15:15 PM EST
    That wasn't the point of the original comment, it was brought up out of the blue by someone who wanted to take yet another cheap shot at Hillary over Bosnia.

    The original comment was about the fact that Obama has had to cloak himself in his family's military service in an attempt to compete in the patriotism debate.

    [ Parent ]

    Biography Campaign (none / 0) (#105)
    by Paladin on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:24:38 PM EST
    Look how successful it was for Kerry when he decided to highlight his Vietnam service.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:27:56 PM EST
    and Obama is running Kerry the return! Only with less experience! And no purple hearts! And no legislative record!

    Obama is toast in a general election.

    [ Parent ]

    i'm speaking to a larger problem. (none / 0) (#113)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:27:25 PM EST
    The details do not concern me very much. McCain (more his surrogates)  will get to play all sorts of games with obama paper thin concept of service and duty.  All sorts of mind games are going to go on where Obama is teased and mocked and goaded into a stupid outburst.

    The Party spent decades rehabilitating themselves with a strong national defense image/credibility and achieved a triumph with Kosovo.  Now i'm not sure where to go from here with Obama. You can argue semantics about antiwar candidates but Obama's essentially a Eugene McCarty, McGovern type. That is, he is popularly seen as an antiwar candidate. (in current policy terms he's actually hard to distinguish on the troop levels in Iraq)

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, remember all the insults (none / 0) (#138)
    by hookfan on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:05:23 PM EST
    from Kos about "chickenhawks"? Well what is good for the hawk ain't necessarily good for the chicken is it? Sure it's good for Obama to talk tough about Afghanistan, or perhaps Iran, but where is his service? He could have joined up during desert storm. He didn't. The hypocrisy is rather apparent.

    [ Parent ]
    Where was the media (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:06:44 PM EST
    when we needed them most?

    They enabled everything Bush has done.  The fact that some are now cheerleading for Obama is more than troubling.

    The US media suck.

    Bring back the Fairness Doctrine and stop the consolidation.

    Now.

    [ Parent ]

    It's either that (none / 0) (#99)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:21:28 PM EST
    they consider Obama a most juicy story, or obama is a sell out.

    The ycan't possibly be sympathetic to Democrats after the abuse they've handed out since Gennifer Flowers.

    [ Parent ]

    They'll play this one (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:26:16 PM EST
    for as long as they can.  Everyone loves a winner.  But I have to believe MSNBC has suffered, because they're full bore on Obama, who will lose in November, as it stands now, if he's the nominee.

    Who asked them to do that?  How dare they?  They don't want to appear racist?

    Not so easy out.

    [ Parent ]

    A while (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:24:52 PM EST
    back Gallup said that only about 29% of americans believe that he is strongly patriotic. I don't see how he overcomes it and it is one of the reasons I'm sure that he'll lose in Nov. His associations with radicals won't make these numbers any better and they could get worse.

    [ Parent ]
    It's something he can't even address. (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:31:07 PM EST
    he's stuck with being a vaguely exotic multi cultural expat.

    [ Parent ]
    More accurately, they voted yea on AUMF. (none / 0) (#148)
    by Joan in VA on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:54:56 PM EST
    Nobody voted for a war. They have blurred the distinction for their own purposes as you say.

    [ Parent ]
    just a thought (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ccpup on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:59:44 PM EST
    it's more than possible that not every SD whose so far publicly Uncommitted is in-the-tank for Obama or willing to submit to the thuggish, strong-arm tactics of a pro-Obama DNC Howard Dean or Donna Brazil.

    In fact, it's more than probable that there are some Undecided SDs as well as Publicly Declared SDs who are increasingly uneasy about not only Obama but with what the DNC is so blatantly doing that they may courageously "buck the trend" and go with the one who has a stronger Electoral Chance deciding to side with the Voters and not the 2000 Redux Gang.

    We always assume that these as of yet in-the-dark SDs are driven by something other than an electoral victory in November.  But what if the majority of them DO want to win in the General and are now chafing -- quietly, but definitely chafing -- under the yoke of Dean and Brazil and a horribly embarrassing gaffe prone Chosen One whose past his peak and trending downward?  

    What if they came out for Barack during the halycon days of February, but now deeply regret that and are intending to switch once the contests are over?  Or once they can figure out how to do so without suffering a broken leg or a horse's head in their bed.

    In fact, what if they'd rather cozy up to and support a sure-bet (well, more sure than Obama at this point) President Clinton?  

    Given the choice, I'd choose the President Hillary Clinton over the on-his-way-out-the-door and powerless Howard Dean and infamously thuggish Donna Brazil any day.

    That's what I think is happening under-the-radar and out-of-sight of our famously blind, deaf and dumb "media".  Let the Voters finish, she'll have a popular vote lead and, therefore, give them cover to make their choice.

    And that's why Hillary is still in.

    in-the-tank for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Chimster on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:07:57 PM EST
    I don't think the Superdelegates are in the tank for Obama either, because if they were, wouldn't they all just come out and support him after NC. Then the nomination process would be over and we'd have a new inexperienced president to promote.

    I liked the one superdelegte who was for Hillary, then switched to Obama, and just yesterday switched back to Hillary. If that's not a sign, I don't know what s.

    [ Parent ]

    I hadn't heard about that switch. (none / 0) (#121)
    by ccpup on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:32:03 PM EST
    Who was it and where are they from?

    [ Parent ]
    Kevin Rodriguez (none / 0) (#128)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:37:27 PM EST
    from the Virgin Islands.  He switched to Obama on 5/10 and swtiched back to Hillary yesterday.

    [ Parent ]
    Good points (none / 0) (#101)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:22:12 PM EST
    I agree with much of what you said.

    Especially the part where those who "declared" for Obama and might be afraid of retalliation if they switch now. It is so hard to separate his supporters from his staff, and the hardcore approach to guaranteeing themselves wins no matter what it takes, makes fear of reprisal real.

    I am beginning to think that if the DNC doesn't lock up the Obama nomination by June 4th, using whatever trick is at their disposal, they will do what they have to at the convention to make sure Hillary doesn't get on the ticket.  

    [ Parent ]

    Nothing can be "locked up" (none / 0) (#154)
    by echinopsia on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:13:52 PM EST
    by superdelegates BEFORE the convention.

    Up until the convention, as I understand it, superdelegate votes are mutable. They can switch back and forth as many times as they like.

    So are "pledged" delegate estimates (and they are ONLY estimates) mutable. They are allowed to switch allegiance.

    NOTHING is permanent until the convention, and after the first ballot, if there is not a candidate with  the magic number (depending on FL and MI) then anything goes.

    Please, correct me if I am wrong, but I think even if Obama gets the magic number in superdelegate endorsements plus pledged delegates before August, it's not final until the first ballot at the convention.

    [ Parent ]

    Got a request for $$ from the DNC today (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Radiowalla on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:00:39 PM EST
    and I took the opportunity to send it back, sans money, but with a note advising them that there will be NO further donations until they fix the undemocratic and totally baroque primary system.

    Harrumph!

    We got (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:07:31 PM EST
    not one but two. They will be sent back (hooray for no postage required envelopes) along with letters telling them just what we think of them. My fave part was the questionairre. The last question asked who you thought who had the best hope of helping the economy and middle-class Americans. The choices were a) Democrats b) Republicans. I'm going to write in "Hillary Clinton" instead.

    [ Parent ]
    For the Fall (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:05:16 PM EST
    I was reading this over at The Corner (yes, I know, but it helps to know what the enemy is saying) and Jim Manzi (whoever he is) was writing about Obama's commencement speech at Wesleyan this past weekend and he had this point which I thought was an interesting preview for the fall if Obama gets the nomination:

    "After some throat-clearing, Obama gets into the meat of the speech by offering himself as a role model for the graduating seniors:

        But during my first two years of college, perhaps because the values my mother had taught me --hard work, honesty, empathy -- had resurfaced after a long hibernation. . . .  

        I wrote letters to every organization in the country I could think of. And one day, a small group of churches on the South Side of Chicago offered me a job to come work as a community organizer in neighborhoods that had been devastated by steel plant closings. My mother and grandparents wanted me to go to law school. My friends were applying to jobs on Wall Street. Meanwhile, this organization offered me $12,000 a year plus $2,000 for an old, beat-up car.

        And I said yes.    

    The single sentence paragraph at the end of this section has got to be my favorite part of the speech, though Obama modestly allowing that his evident virtues of hard work, honesty, and empathy are due to his mother is a close second.

    What's funny about his sacrifice is that when Obama took this job, $14,000 was about the average salary for somebody getting out of college. Of course, Obama wasn't just a run-of-the-mill college graduate; he was an Ivy-Leaguer, who graduated from Columbia with a BA in political science.  A corporate career would almost certainly have been more lucrative -- for a while.  Last year, his family income was about $4,200,000. I don't have the data, but I bet that compares reasonably favorably with the average household income of 1983 Columbia political science and 1991 Harvard Law School graduates. Nonetheless, Obama did sacrifice some of his expected credential-based wage premium for a number of years.

    I'm pretty far from being a John McCain booster, but does Obama not get that he's running against a guy who spent the directly analogous years of his life in a fetid jungle prison being hung upside down and beaten with sticks until his bones broke?"

    Heh (none / 0) (#83)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:09:46 PM EST
    I guess we will find out by November if it's actually possible for people to get sick and tired of hearing that someone was a POW.

    [ Parent ]
    As long as he doesn't talk about it himself (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:19:35 PM EST
    he's going to benefit enormously from the contrast with Obama "sacrifices".

    [ Parent ]
    But (none / 0) (#118)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:30:46 PM EST
    he talks about it all the damn time!

    One of the top media myths regarding John McCain is the notion that he hates to talk about his time in Vietnam.  It's like saying John Edwards hated to talk about his father, the millworker.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think anyone accused Edwards (none / 0) (#127)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:35:49 PM EST
    of not liking to talk about the millworker dad.

    lol.

    I'll have to see how McCain handles his bio.  He'd be well advised to avoid kerry's theatrics.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (none / 0) (#134)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:48:31 PM EST
    How about this ad that McCain ran during the primaries?  Blatant enough for you?

    [ Parent ]
    Honestly, I think he'd have been crazy (none / 0) (#145)
    by RalphB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:40:11 PM EST
    not to have a ad like that during the early primaries.  Anyone who didn't use that footage would  be guilty of severe political malpractice.


    [ Parent ]
    Like being raised by a single mom Phd (none / 0) (#160)
    by catfish on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:54:31 PM EST
    with grandparents who loved and cared for you while you attended a private prep school?

    Sorry. Could not resist.

    [ Parent ]

    He skipped the year (none / 0) (#111)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:26:48 PM EST
    after college he worked on wall street writing some stuff for investment companies and thought it was boring, that is when he went to do community work.  By the way, thousands of young people do that, in my circle it is not exceptional.  Funny, some achieve way more than he did, doing it.  

    [ Parent ]
    I saw a different version of that (none / 0) (#117)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:30:31 PM EST
    I wrote letters to every organization in the country I could think of. And one day, a small group of churches on the South Side of Chicago offered me a job to come work as a community organizer in neighborhoods that had been devastated by steel plant closings.

    This whole scenario was featured as Obama's connection to Ayers and his wife on one of the FOX programs. It's one of the themes that the Republicans will be diving very deep into if they are up against Obama in the GE.

    [ Parent ]

    Of all the adjectives there are, EMPATHY (none / 0) (#130)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:43:28 PM EST
    is not one I would include for obama.  I have yet to see one ounce of empathy from him.  It is hard to show empathy while being arrogant.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama and Lobbyists... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by citizen53 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:08:02 PM EST
    It's been a stealth thing all along.  And today:

    Obama Staffer's Lobbying Work Runs Counter to Candidate's Guidelines, Ethics Watchdogs Say

    By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, May 28, 2008; 6:55 PM

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/28/AR2008052802499.html?hpid=topnews

    These connections were noted back in March, 2007, in The Hill.  Change is an illusion, as 1.5 million small donors may discover to their dismay.

    (Yer gonna have to fix that link) (none / 0) (#119)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:30:49 PM EST
    Next time you post a long URL, hit the 4th button from the left in the editing window...looks kinda like a chain link.

    Jeralyn thinks long links make the site format go all wonky.  You might want to re-post using the Approved Linking Format so she can delete your original.

    (You can also use tinyurl.com....just paste your URL into the window up front and it'll spit you out a 10-character redirect...)

    [ Parent ]

    You lost me with the 4th button thing (none / 0) (#136)
    by citizen53 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:51:11 PM EST
    and the rest.  But it's in today's WaPo article by Jeff Birnbaum.

    Sorry if I did something that affects the site.

    [ Parent ]

    Here you go... (none / 0) (#151)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:11:06 PM EST
    Link

    [ Parent ]
    Let me get this straight (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by MMW on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:08:12 PM EST
    Scott MacClelland (sp?) for years enables the Admin's every agenda, but now wants kudos and money for ratting on them after the fact, after they've achieved their ends?

    Are we in the twilight zone?

    Did he not know any of this jazz was wrong while it was happening? While he was enabling it?

    Did he just find out?

    Simple Answer To Are We In The Twilight Zone (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:22:06 PM EST
    YES

    [ Parent ]
    Where is Rod Serling when we need him? (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:45:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    soon enough (none / 0) (#91)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:16:10 PM EST
    everyone will clai they opposed Bush and his drive for war.

    No complicity eevn in his cabinet!

    [ Parent ]

    Including Cheney :-) (none / 0) (#146)
    by RalphB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:42:28 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Condoleezza Rice's book will be called (none / 0) (#159)
    by Palomino on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:32:54 PM EST