home

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:56:06 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Another day, another dollar. There must be something we didn't discuss enough yesterday. I'll be gone for a few hours, you can pick the topics. Just try not the leave the place a mess, I hate to clean.

Have a great morning, see you soon.

Comments now closed.

< A Theory on Obama's Family History Misstatements | DNC To Ignore Florida's Safe Harbor In Delegate Meeting >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Morning Open Thread | 225 comments (225 topical)
    Something (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by LoisInCo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:06:43 AM EST
    that Jessie Ventura said awhile ago while pimping out his new book keeps echoing in my brain. He said if there were a NONE OF THE ABOVE (no confidence) option on the ballot for President it would win. I am thinking he could be right.
    Fish, plankton, sea greens and protein from the sea.
    Anyone (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:38:38 AM EST
    that doubts that Hillary Clinton couldn't fix this mess that we are in is mistaken.  Although I know she can't fix EVERYTHING, it would certainly be to our advantage to have COMPETENT leadership as opposed to platitudes and glib.

    I would mark Clinton all day long on a ballot as opposed to none of the above.  I don't see a former "wrestler" as a credible source.  He may have been a governor, but so was George W Bush.

    [ Parent ]

    I'll take a former wrestler.... (none / 0) (#124)
    by kdog on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:45:41 AM EST
    over a current hustler anyday.

    At least wrestlers are honest about their game being rigged.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm behind HRC for refusing to take a dive (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:56:07 AM EST
    ... and pretending she was knocked out like the good little workout partner Obama dismissively called her. (cf his reference to her "putting him through his paces" and being like "Spring Training" for him on the eve of the PA primary.)

    She might not be a wrestler, but she's a helluva fighter. I respect her as a contestant that's in it to win it.

    [ Parent ]

    Entitlement (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by dianem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:46:35 AM EST
    It's ironic, or perhaps hypocritical, that one of the major attacks of Obama supporters on Clinton has been that she has a sense of entitlement to the nomination, yet Obama and the media have been acting like he is entitled to the nomination since Iowa.

    [ Parent ]
    Thats Hillary fighting for Hillary.... (none / 0) (#170)
    by kdog on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:20:29 AM EST
    and I'll admit she is a helluva fighter for her own gain.

    But when our nation needed a fighter in the Senate to oppose the Patriot Act, the Iraq war vote and others...she cowered at the feet of the military industrial complex, like all Democrats and Republicans seem to do.

    [ Parent ]

    Who's your pick for prez? That's not a baller? (none / 0) (#178)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:32:58 AM EST
    Honest to [deity or admired character of your choosing]?

    I couldn't begin to defend yesterday much less my checkered past, so who's your SECOND pick?

    [ Parent ]

    Whoever the third name is..... (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by kdog on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:40:01 AM EST
    honest to the sun god that's who I'm voting for.  I don't care who it is, as long as they don't have a D or an R after their name.

    I believe that we need a monkey wrench in the White House to dismantle, or at least slow down, the corrupt two-party duopoly that is threatening peace, proseperity, and liberty here and abroad.

    [ Parent ]

    Three months? (none / 0) (#3)
    by SamJohnson on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:10:26 AM EST
    How silly is it that the Democrats will wait three months after the last primary for their convention to formally vote?

    [ Parent ]
    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by ding7777 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:14:52 AM EST
    the last primary still requires a State convention to decide who actually goes to the convention

    [ Parent ]
    No doubt he's right.... (none / 0) (#114)
    by kdog on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:37:58 AM EST
    it wouldn't even be close....None of the Above would win in a landslide.

    [ Parent ]
    Brewster's Millions (none / 0) (#129)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:54:06 AM EST
    Remember the movie with Richard Pryor where he had to spend millions of dollars inherited from his grandfather in one year and end up with no assets, in order to inherit more money from an uncle?

    He "ran for office" as the choice "none of the above" - it was all over the marquee in Times Square.  

    Maybe we should try that!

    [ Parent ]

    I love that movie... (none / 0) (#173)
    by kdog on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:23:21 AM EST
    John Candy kills it as Brewster's catcher/best friend.

    [ Parent ]
    Appropriate lyrics - Working Class Hero (Lennon) (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by SamJohnson on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:07:47 AM EST
    "There's room at the top they are telling you still,
    But first you must learn how to smile as you kill,
    If you want to be like the folks on the hill,
    A working class hero is something to be."

    Hey. Vote for me now, working class hero. But we don't really need you.
    More on Obama's family history. (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:30:33 AM EST
    As was pointed out in the previous thread, Obama said in his 2002 anti-war speech that his grandfather had joined up the day after Pearl Harbor, and heard stories from fellow soldiers who had been the first to enter Auschwitz and Treblinka.

    It's been stated elsewhere that in fact his grandfather didn't sign up for quite a few months afterwards, and of course that it was Soviet troops, not American ones, that liberated Auschwitz.

    This makes it seem that the gaffe he made on Memorial Day wasn't simply a one-off misstatement, but rather a habit of his to say arbitrary variations on a theme of unclear veracity.

    This seems kind of strange. I thought it was a simple mistake, but now I can't figure it out. Why would he repeatedly make such an obvious mistake? And why was it his grandfather who heard about it in 2002 but his uncle who was actually there on Memorial Day?

    [P.S. I want to stay very far away from the Holocaust and the extremely sensitive nature of the evil history of that time. The point here is Obama's varying accounts of his family history.]

    The "theme of unclear veracity" (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:48:44 AM EST
    Good choice of words!  

    The "gentle sifting sands of truthfulness softened by the occasional waft of deception that unfairly taint the underlying sediment..."

    This might make a fun parlor game!  

    [ Parent ]

    In a more serious vein (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:54:32 AM EST
    I'm quite bummed that someone thinks they can get away with made-up stories during a Presidential election.  

    Remember that "vetting process" Hillary kept talking about?  Vetting means they will not only hit you with the truth, they'll make up some outrageous lies too!  

    Personally, I don't think all of Obama's gaffes are simple mistakes.  I believe they are fabrications created just like he used "creative writing" in his autobiographies.  The plain truth is probably mundane, the invented one sounds much better.  He can relate to his audiences better that way too.  And if no one finds out?  Hey!  He got away with it!  

    Now I've made myself wonder how long he has been doing this...    

    [ Parent ]

    "The plain truth is probably mundane" (none / 0) (#9)
    by nycstray on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:16:21 AM EST
    as are most of ours to us. But it's generally a common thread that helps us connect with others. I mentioned in another comment how the picture of him with his grandfather on the beach, reminded me of my childhood beach days with my dad (family). There's nothing 'exciting' about Edward's or Clinton's father's work, but it's a connecting thread. Obama's family history is interesting and if he would just get the facts straight and not try and 'use' the narrative to 'make up' but to 'simply' connect, he would prob be better off.  Isn't his uncle still alive? His Grandma is, so he could at least talk to her when he wants to relay family stories or facts from his family history is uncovered. Many of us are learning things about our histories all the time.

    I wonder, does Obama need to find his own voice?

    [ Parent ]

    I'm sorry (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:47:24 AM EST
    but Barack Obama, who graduated very high in his class at Columbia, probably knows what his own voice is.  

    Are you suggesting that he is book smart but not people smart?  

    I think he is *very* smart and any problems he is having are of his own creation.  

    This is his 7th political campaign.  Surely he has learned from the other six!  

    I'm not really willing to cut him a whole lot of slack.  This is only Hillary's third political campaign and she's doing quite well.    

    [ Parent ]

    He's never been challenged (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by nycstray on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:54:30 AM EST
    outside of Illinois. Or questioned much. Nope, I don't think he has found his voice, he's been orchestrated.

    And yes, I do think he is more book smart and Chicago smart than people smart.

    And I'm not cutting him slack, but I would 'manage' him differently. He's a product of his ego/desire and Axelrod, imo.

    [ Parent ]

    Own Voice (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by melro on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:02:11 AM EST
    I think if we really saw Obama's own voice his inexperience would be too evident. I distinctly remember that neither Obama nor his wife wanted the presidency at this time. He knows he's inexperienced. Obama attached himself to Ted Kennedy to learn the ropes of being a senator, therefore, JFK's speechwriter. I know I read that Obama was thought of as a radical by congress.  And now he's going to be president?

    We pick apart Obama's family history but do we ever hear about his record in Congress the past two years? Call me old fashioned but does anyone else find this pretty important? Because Obama has a very poor voting record compared to his peers missing 185 of 1098 votes in the past 2 years.

    Hillary Clinton has missed 152 of 2406 votes in the past 6 years.

    Sometimes I wonder if we aren't trading neo-cons for neo-libs with no happy medium (Clinton) for regular America. Governmental extremism for such a diverse U.S. population never seems to serve the whole of the country well.  

    [ Parent ]

    You're....joking, right? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sleeper on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:31:48 AM EST
    This is a goof?  This is a set-up?

    He said uncle when he meant great uncle.  And he said Auschwitz rather than Buchenwald.

    Surely, even the most dedicated anti-Obama folks can't possibly see this as a scandal, can they?

    Have you guys gotten that unreasonable?  If Clinton's clumsy statement about RFK was just a gaffe, then how can this even be a blip on the radar?

    [ Parent ]

    This is 527 fodder come the GE. (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Fabian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:41:30 AM EST
    Remember McCain is a Veteran and a former POW.  If Obama wants to play the "My family has served!" card, he'd best do it as accurately and honestly as possible, or it could backfire painfully.

    We've been playing by the Queensbury Rules thus far.  That's not going to last much longer.

    [ Parent ]

    What? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Sleeper on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:47:10 AM EST
    Playing the card?  It was Memorial Day.  This is literally the first and only time his family's military service has been mentioned.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, when we are supposed (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Fabian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:31:37 AM EST
    to talk about others' sacrifices and not about ourselves.

    My advice to Obama?  Stop talking about yourself and your family already and start talking somebody, anybody else!  Or people might get the impression that the most important people to Obama aren't the voters, those who are serving and have served, but Obama and Obama's family and Obama's friends.  Well, except for those friends and associates that Obama prefers not to talk about anymore, conveniently replaced by more acceptable relatives.  

    It's good political strategy, using convenient relatives to shore up the Biographical Narrative.  But I think the whole Biographical Narrative strategy is inherently flawed and weak because it is so easy for the opposition to exploit and attack.   But hey, I'm sure Axelrod will be able to handle whatever the RWNM throws at Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you not see the absurdity of your statement? (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:33:41 AM EST
    It's Memorial Day.

    Memorial Day, you know, a day to commemorate and respect the sacrifices of others?

    Someone who doesn't bother getting straight the service of his forebearers best be silent on the issue, rather than rush to score political points on their sacrifice.

    Jeez, it's hard to write this off as an innocent gaffe. Not remembering or not knowing but attempting to use it is bad enough.

    [ Parent ]

    It is not the only (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:57:06 AM EST
    time his family's military service has been brought up. he refers to his grandfather's service every time it is poltically adventageous to do so.

    [ Parent ]
    Wrong (none / 0) (#203)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:19:51 AM EST
    Do not spread misinformation here. He mentioned it in his 2002 anti-war speech and in West Virginia weeks before Memorial Day. See the threads on this where I quote the articles.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:47:46 AM EST
    the RFK gaffe wasn't treated by Obama like it was nothing. The mass hysteria from his supporters created the atmosphere where everything is now put under the microscope.

    The larger thing about this is that it plays into the narrative that Obama is clueless when it comes to foreign policy.

    And it seems like he's desperately trying to paper over his patriotism problem by embellishing stories about his family.

    [ Parent ]

    who said anything about a "scandal"? (5.00 / 7) (#79)
    by cpinva on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:02:00 AM EST
    Surely, even the most dedicated anti-Obama folks can't possibly see this as a scandal, can they?

    not that you're putting words in anyone's mouth or anything.

    a scandal would be putting out as your policy, that which someone else (your primary campaign opponent perhaps) had preceded you with, changing a couple of minor items, and claiming it as your original thought. now that would be a scandal!

    a scandal would be claiming to barely know someone, currently under federal indictment, that you did a land deal with, and it turns out you've been sort of buddies for the past 17 years, and he's done substantive fund raising for your various campaigns. now that would be a scandal!

    a scandal would be attending a church for 20 years, a church where you were married and your children were baptized, whose pastor has spouted inflammatory sermons, which you never once heard or knew anything about, even though you'd described this same pastor as a mentor of sorts. now that would be a scandal!

    yep, those items would definitely be of the scandalous variety, but not this. this is sort of humdrum, everyday type of political BS. the fact that sen. obama has a campaign history of this type of "misstatement" does lead one to wonder if he's entirely with us however.

    the whole point of jeralyn's original thread on the subject wasn't accusatory, but merely an observation, with a theory as to why sen. obama keeps making these types of gaffes.

    as near as i can tell (i've not read all of the 9 trillion posts on the thread), you're the only one who's referred to it as a "scandal".

    [ Parent ]

    And this gaffe from (none / 0) (#49)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:56:31 AM EST
    a candidate aspiring to be the President of America. How many countries and their histories will he butcher like Bush?

    As for Hillary's RFK's statement. It was a clumsy statement which only hard core Obama partisan's will see as sinister. There is a big difference.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't Feel So Bad (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ankhorite on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:46:35 AM EST
    The uncle in question was a great-uncle, no deceit there, just a manner of speaking.

    The camp in question was Buchenwald's Ohrdruf, not Auschwitz, but no deceit there, either, just a mistake.

    [ Parent ]

    Ankhorite (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:18:13 AM EST
    The problem I have is the pattern of 'mistakes' starting with his autobiography. The man has not been vetted - it scares me. And I don't particularly like what I know as I learn more about him, his voting record, his past campaigns and associations. I don't see him as strong or principled.
    Hillary is strong, and has been vetted, and has some ideals. She will fight for us. And she can beat McCain.

    So no individual deceit but all those 'mistakes' add up.

    [ Parent ]

    media creations can say whatever (none / 0) (#64)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:31:52 AM EST
    because when caught, fabrications are merely treated as "misspeaking."


    [ Parent ]
    I do not recall you citicizing (none / 0) (#146)
    by independent voter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:05:26 AM EST
    Hillary for the Bosnia lies. What a double standard I find here, every time I log on.

    [ Parent ]
    It may be (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Hope on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:34:49 AM EST
    That since he seems to have cut his white family off, that these are things he half made up.

    Personally, once I started researching my family history, everything turned out to be true, as far as I can tell.

    I'm wondering what kind of research he did on his book as so much seems to be untrue?

    Where is the fact checking on his speeches?

    (How do you get through Harvard with such sloppy work? I tell you what the collateral damage from Obama is Chicago, nest of pinko non repentant terrorists; Princeton, that Michelle thesis was terrible; Harvard lawyer can't fact check to save his life; all seem to teach moral equivalence as a matter of course.)

    I don't believe family history from the uncle himself would be wrong. He obviously hasn't heard his uncle speak about this for some time. If ever.

    Every time he speaks about his family I get the feeling he's speaking about people he doesn't know. It's all very strange.

    [ Parent ]

    And what do you plan to tell yourself (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:53:45 AM EST
    when he starts making up more stuff?  

    How long do you intend to sit around and wonder?  

    Like someone once told me, there are reasons and there are excuses.  It seems he has a lot of excuses but not many reasons.  

    [ Parent ]

    There is (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Hope on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:45:50 AM EST
    an intellectual laziness to him.

    I've said this 20 million times, but he scares the pants off me.

    He reminds me of Bush, but worse.

    [ Parent ]

    He reminds me (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:04:14 AM EST
    of Bush too.  The Democrat version of Bush.  There IS an intellectual laziness that bugs.  

    **
    You know what is really scary -- if he actually wins after Bush, who is really running our government?  THAT is scary!  Who are the puppetmasters?  

    [ Parent ]

    Axelrod I guess (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:12:54 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Senator Obama (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:33:23 AM EST
    will be very very surprised at how his media darling status will evaporate, should he become the nominee.

    Remember, KKKarl works for Newsweek now.

    The media is never, EVER in the tank for Democrats. I don't see how anyone could believe otherwise.

    [ Parent ]

    Appalachian slang. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Fabian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:49:39 AM EST
    Decently married couples had babies that were "born".

    Babies born under less acceptable circumstances simply "came along".

    My WVa friend was researching his family via oral history and found out one relative was born out of wedlock because the patriarch of the family was so terrifying that all of his children eloped in order to avoid dealing with their dad.  Well, except for the one daughter whose beau was too cowardly to do even that.  Her child "came along".

    [ Parent ]

    My dad's side of the family (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by samanthasmom on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:24:25 AM EST
    is from West Virginia.  My brother is a writer and has done a lot of research on our family. Some of the stories he has found have been funny.  When he sends me his manuscripts to read, it's fun to see how he has started with a real event and turned it into a work of fiction.  Like the great uncle who hit someone over the head with a shovel and thought he'd killed him.  The uncle took off for parts unknown for 20 years not knowing that the other guy just woke up with a headache. When I asked my brother if he ever thought about writing non-fiction instead, he said it would be too hard for him to resist "embellishment".

    [ Parent ]
    My dad (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:55:23 AM EST
    was a Master Sergeant in the Army and served in WW II and for 10 years after. I loved to hear his "war" stories. One was about the scar on the bridge of his nose caused by shrapnel. ( He had shrapnel scars all over his torso and some pieces were dug out many years later.)

    However the scar on his nose, I learned many years later caused by a beer bottle in a barfight in Waukegan IL in 1940. Sometimes folks embellish. And sometimes folks lie. Usually depends who's ox is being gored.

    [ Parent ]

    This is why (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:00:04 AM EST
    we should not be doing all this story telling to pick a president, not just story telling, but second and third hand story telling.  

    My mother in law used to say:  "never let the truth get in the way of a good story".  

    [ Parent ]

    I wish someone would (none / 0) (#29)
    by Fabian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:16:16 AM EST
    research my maternal grandfather's service for me.  All that we know is he was drafted late in the war and served in the Pacific theatre.  Like many who served, he never talked about anything he did.

    Good thing I'm not running for office.  My Vietnam Vet uncle would probably be livid if I used his service for a campaign prop.

    [ Parent ]

    Researching Your Grandpa (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ankhorite on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:42:24 AM EST
    If you're serious, I'll do it.

    [ Parent ]
    Okay, thanks! (none / 0) (#57)
    by Fabian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:16:58 AM EST
    Anthony Stopko (deceased)

    The surname is Hungarian and very rare outside of the country itself.

    [ Parent ]

    Here is another story about (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:37:11 AM EST
    signing up after Pearl Harbor. My father and his brother went down to the recruiting station in Dallas, Texas to sign up the day after the attack on Pearl. They were told to come back in two weeks because they already had more recruits than they could process. It took a couple of months before they went off to basic training. So, Obama's grandfather, and uncle, may have gone down to enlist the day after, but the delay in processing could have held up their enlistment dates for a while. Remember, they didn't have computers, and everything had to be done by hand and snail mail. And things were in disarray, bureaucratically speaking, after the attack. So, I cut some slack on the "signed up the day after" claim. Many did, but were not processed for quite some time afterwards due to the backlog of paperwork.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's Great-Uncle at Buchenwald (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ankhorite on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:37:27 AM EST
    See Comment #30 below for more links.  The Associated Press reports it was specifically Obama's great-uncle (still qualifies as an uncle) and that the camp was Buchenwald, not Auschwitz (specifically, a "sub-camp" of Auschwitz called Ohrdruf.)

    [ Parent ]
    In his book (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Hope on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:50:49 AM EST
    it was his Grand father who had heard stories from other troops "liberating" Auschwitz.

    Of course, these may be different stories, but he seems to be more and more muddled.

    There's the food stamp thing. Sometimes it's his mum, sometimes it's him.

    From what I've seen it looks likely that it was his mum (when she was doing her thesis and Obama was with his Grand ma).

    The thing is this all seems really wobbly.

    Think of your own family history, don't you know who said what? And don't you know which stories aren't quite clear, and wouldn't you know that?

    [ Parent ]

    If it's true, its a great story, the problem (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:30:34 AM EST
    however is when you make stuff up and then take all sides to all positions and facts disappear from web pages, etc., sometimes it is difficult to know what is truth, what is stretching the truth and what is not true. Just because someone says it, it may or may not be so. There is no proof.

    [ Parent ]
    Ohrdorf (none / 0) (#159)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:12:15 AM EST
    was part of Buchenwald, the one camp in Germany, not of Auschwitz in Poland.  That's the whole point.

    [ Parent ]
    Dem laywers: FL & MI can't be fully restored (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:42:13 AM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/53ww88

    The memo was sent late Tuesday to the 30 members of the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which plans to meet Saturday at a Washington hotel. The committee is considering ways to include the two important general election battlegrounds at the nominating convention in August, and the staff analysis says seating half the delegates is "as far as it legally can" go.

    Legally? (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:58:22 AM EST
    I wasn't aware of any laws or statutes which were at play in this thing.

    [ Parent ]
    I believe that as was stated by (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:32:44 AM EST
    State Senator from FL who is part of a lawsuit, that the rules and regs were not followed when they were penalized because it states that the DNC must investigate why this change existed. Maybe Jeralyn or BTD could elaborate.

    [ Parent ]
    'Legally' as to the law of the land or ... (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:31:56 AM EST
    ... a politically expedient (and media-convenient) reading of the DNC rules?

    Please don't tell me the Dems sudden, stern conscientious sense of legality towards their own code is greater than what they've patently failed to honor in their own constitutional role for years.

    Otherwise I'd have to reconsider the Marquis of Queensberry Boxing Rules Governing Contests for Endurance, Hoyle and the Who Licked the Cupcake First Means It's Her Cupcake rule for potential official inclusion in the law of the land.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh ... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:40:55 AM EST
    Worth quoting:

    Otherwise I'd have to reconsider the Marquis of Queensberry Boxing Rules Governing Contests for Endurance, Hoyle and the Who Licked the Cupcake First Means It's Her Cupcake rule for potential official inclusion in the law of the land.


    [ Parent ]
    Ellie! (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by The Realist on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:53:28 AM EST
    You do have a way with words.A Priceless visual.

    [ Parent ]
    I fought for that Cupcake as sure as ... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:00:44 AM EST
    Obama shed real political capital for that Waffle!

    With my sisters, the Queensbury and Cupcake rules kind of went together!

    :-P

    [ Parent ]

    Is the (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:57:17 AM EST
    cupcake rule anything like the "he hit me back first rule"?

    [ Parent ]
    Makes no sense (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:46:24 AM EST
    If the 50% penalty were mandatory with no exceptions possible, then Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina would have 50% penalties.  Obviously they don't.

    This all sounds like the committee gets together beforehand and decides, "Okay, it's going to be a 50% penalty.  Lawyers, write us something that backs our decision up."

    [ Parent ]

    No supprise (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by mmc9431 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:58:20 AM EST
    Bush has been finding lawyers to justify anything he wants for the last seven years! So now it's the Dem's chance.

    [ Parent ]
    Those same rules... (none / 0) (#87)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:11:54 AM EST
    ...are what empower the RBC to do anything, so yes, they are bound by them and at best can only restore half of Florida and Michigan's delegates and superdelegates.  The Credentials Committee could recommend full seating, but that would have to be voted on at the convention.

    Now here's the problem for Clinton:

    1. By next week, once more superdelegates commit, Obama will be "over the top" including the halved FL and MI delegations, and will either be far enough over the top to clinch 2209 without counting FL and MI fully, or will clinch it with them counted fully.  In other words, after next week, it won't matter whether Clinton appeals the decision or not, because Obama will be the nominee regardless.
    2. See 1.  Clinton will be forced, bare minimum, to suspend her campaign and concede that Obama is the likely nominee.

    I realize a lot of this won't sink in until next week, but I'm just laying it out for you guys so you'll know what's coming.

    [ Parent ]
    I realize a lot of Obama's problems (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:55:12 AM EST
    Won't sink in until after November, and even then I'm sure it won't sink in and it will be someone else's fault.


    [ Parent ]
    No, actually (none / 0) (#176)
    by samanthasmom on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:30:45 AM EST
    she can just take a nice vacation with Bill and Chelsea and show up at the convention with her delegates and take this to floor if she wants to. I realize that this might not sink in for you, but I'm just laying it out for you so you'll know what could be coming.

    [ Parent ]
    It will be pointless... (none / 0) (#200)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:10:32 AM EST
    ....because he will have enough delegate support by then to be the nominee regardless of how FL and MI are resolved.  He can even magnanimously support their full seating before the Credentials Committe meets to consider the appeal.  There will be nothing to fight over.  He will still be the nominee.

    The only thing a floor fight at the convention gets Clinton is the lion's share of the blame if Obama should happen to lose to McCain in November.  

    [ Parent ]

    Uh (none / 0) (#208)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:03:25 AM EST
    Could you possibly ignore my argument in a more condescending fashion?

    If the RBC's hands are tied and they can't possibly assess any less than a 50% penalty to FL and MI, then they would have violated the scope of their authority when they determined that IA, NH and SC would incur no punishment at all for violating the timing rules.  That's crystal-clear.

    You refer to how this will "sink in next week" as though somehow, if the RBC decides to impose a 50% penalty, that will prove you were right that they had no authority to do anything more.  Obviously that proves no such thing, any more than sentencing a criminal to 10 years proves he couldn't have gotten 5 years or 20 years instead.  The argument that the RBC's hands are tied is clearly false.

    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps because... (none / 0) (#228)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:18:12 PM EST
    ...those 4 states were intended to go first in January anyway, the RBC did not consider their breach to be a substantial one under the rules.

    I don't know the exact answer to that.  You'd have to see what the RBC said (and its reasoning thereby) on that point before.

    It will sink in because it will be clear that Florida and Michigan will not be dispositive in terms of determining the nominee. Obama has at least 18 of the uncommitteds from Michigan(as confirmed by DCW), plus 67 from Florida, so he will still have the pledged delegate majority regardless of what the RBC or Credentials Committee decide.  He has banked superdelegates, and will pick up more add-on delegates as well.  He will also pick up a minimum of 32 pledged delegates from the last 3 contests.  Start crunching the numbers, and it will be clear by next week that this whole argument is moot.

    It also is a spurious argument to suggest that because the RBC may have violated its own guidelines previously, that it is a good idea for them to do so again.

    [ Parent ]

    A good answer for you... (none / 0) (#231)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:33:29 PM EST
    from this site

    excerpted:

    Now that the history is over, back to the DNC Meeting of the Rules and Bylaws Committee on 1 December 2007. After Michigan and Florida had presented their continuing arguments why they thought they should be allowed to jump into January, and refused to back down, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina wished to present their cases for moving their sanctioned dates. Nevada wished to keep its original date. Iowa requested that they be allowed to move their Caucus date to 3 January because of the illegal moves on the part of Michigan and Florida into January. Then New Hampshire was congratulated by the Committee Chairman because our Secretary of State Bill Gardner requested the 8th of January a week after Iowa which had been the tradition instead of moving New Hampshire to December 2007 as had been threatened. Next South Carolina requested to move its Primary date so that it wouldn't fall on the same day that Florida had illegally jumped on.

    The Committee then ruled. The members based their ruling on the following. The state of Michigan had its chance to present its case during the previous selection period and did not meet all the criteria for a January date. Its State Party led by Carl Levin insisted that it break the rules to which it had PREVIESLY AGREED and it was offered the date of 5 February which it turned down knowing the consequences. The Committee Chairman gave the representative from Michigan one last chance to back down. He refused. A vote was taken and the Committee denied Michigan its right to delegates.

    Next Florida was given the same chance. Their argument was a bit different. They said that the Republican controlled Legislature voted to move up the date and the Governor signed the bill. However, the Democrats in the State Legislature voted with the Republicans to move the date. So, the Committee also gave them one last chance to accept a February date and they too refused and like Michigan lost their delegates by vote of the full Committee.

    As for Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina's request to move their dates, they were granted permission to do so because.....the dates they requested were WITHIN the SPIRIT of the Committee's original ruling and because the requested date changes were ALL STILL WITHIN THE JANUARY ESTABLISHED CALENDAR. Iowa was able to move itself away from Michigan's illegal date. New Hampshire did the same placing itself a week after Iowa but before Michigan. Nevada stayed the same and South Carolina moved to a week earlier than Florida instead of the same day as Florida's illegal choice. NO RULES WERE BROKEN by Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. The other states were permitted to change their voting dates to 5 February, but declined the offer and violated the rules.




    [ Parent ]
    then shouldn't NV NH SC & IA also have half? (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by pukemoana on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:43:30 AM EST
    and if they can be exempted from the legal ramifications of going early, why can't FL & MI?  Honest question here, not angry denunciation . . .

    [ Parent ]
    sorry (none / 0) (#123)
    by pukemoana on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:45:13 AM EST
    just saw steve m asked the same thing

    [ Parent ]
    Read the whole article (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:01:38 AM EST
    it was DNC staff that did the analysis and they actually do state later that there IS indeed an option to seat the entire delegation, 100% as voted, but it must come from the credentials committee during the first floor vote at the convention.

    They are trying to brow-beat the RBC into not seating the delegation.

    This is going to the convention if they don't.

    You can bet Clinton's people who were on the committee who originally stripped the delegates know EXACTLY how to reenstate them. They would not have been asking for a full deal if they didn't think it was possible.

    [ Parent ]

    Here's hopin' (none / 0) (#168)
    by Valhalla on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:19:09 AM EST
    I want it to go to the convention regardless, but if it goes because they try to lawyer around not giving the full delegations (again, how are the other rule-breaking states going to seat their entire delegations?), even better.

    People who used to hate Hillary with a passion now like her, people who used to be lukewarm have become big fans, and people who loved her now adore her for fighting.

    Can Obama stand another 3 months of this trajectory?  We'll see.  All previous attempts to call the race over have failed. (lending a bit of a cried wolf character to the most recent).

    [ Parent ]

    I didn't get to post on the Rudy for McCain's VP (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:35:31 AM EST
    thread so I'll post here.  

    If Hillary isn't going to be the nominee, I plan to vote for McCain PROVIDING he doesn't pick a religous conservative for a running mate.  

    If he picks a moderate, I'm okay with that.  If he pick a liberal Republican, I'm even better with that.  If he picks Joe Lieberman, I'd be fine with that too.  

    I can't vote for a Religious conservative so that wouldn't be good for me -- if he picked one of those.  Anything else though, I'm okay with.  

    McCain isn't the best choice in the world (Hillary is) but faced with a choice of the guy with no experience and the guy with experience, I have to pick the candidate who has the experience.  

    I'm simply not willing to bet that Dubya's Democrat cousin is going to be a whole lot better than he has been.  And I don't care who his VP is.  (Cheney was a really solid VP, and look where we are today.  That's because Cheney doesn't have to answer up to anyone.  VP's get to operate in the shadows.)

    So, it's McCain (with a moderate VP) or no one.  

    What a lousy election this is going to be!!!!!!    

    McCain would be smart (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:51:50 AM EST
    to pick Romney.  Spanish radio at one time mentioned how Romney's father was born in Mexico.  That could resonate with voters in CA, AZ, NM and TX, since the Hispanic populations that live in those places are predominantly of Mexican extraction.

    It would also put MI into serious play, scaring the Dems.

    [ Parent ]

    Totally agree. (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by MMW on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:01:14 AM EST
    I've said it before and still believe Romney would be best. Puts a lot of places into McCain's column.

    [ Parent ]
    I still think Colin Powell (none / 0) (#148)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:06:15 AM EST
    would be the best choice. However...

    Hackabee would help with the Jeebofascist contingent.

    Romney would help with the "pro-business" contingent. (McCain is self-admittedly clueless on the economy, remember?)

    I see them as being the two strongest possibilities.

    [ Parent ]

    Kay Bailey Hutchinson (none / 0) (#169)
    by zyx on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:19:54 AM EST
    Hands down.  McCain ought to name her.  A real vote-getter.

    [ Parent ]
    Hutchinson (none / 0) (#172)
    by zyx on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:21:50 AM EST
    a GREAT choice for McCain if Obama is the nominee and names a man for his Veep.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think Romney's (none / 0) (#164)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:16:15 AM EST
    father could have been born in Mexico or Daddy
    would not have been able to run for president himself.

    [ Parent ]
    Nope (none / 0) (#179)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:33:53 AM EST
    From Wikipedia

    "Romney was born in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, in the Mexican state of Chihuahua to Gaskell Romney (1871-1955), an American of English ancestry, and wife Anna Amelia Pratt (1876-1926), born to a New England and Scottish father and a German mother. Romney's grandparents were polygamous Mormons who fled the United States because of the federal government's opposition to polygamy"

    ======
    "It is notable that while Romney was born in Mexico, he was still considered to be a viable and legal candidate to run for office. His Mormon grandfather and his three wives fled to Mexico in 1886 but none of them ever relinquished their citizenship. While the Constitution does provide that a president must be a natural born citizen, the first Congress of the United States in 1790 passed legislation stating that "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States." Romney and his family fled Mexico in 1912 prior to the Mexican revolution."


    [ Parent ]

    Wow. (none / 0) (#223)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:52:33 AM EST
    Thanks for the education.  I had always understood you had to be born on U.S. territory.  I'm misinformed!  So what was the little flap about McCain then?  Seems obvious from this that there never was any even faint question since his parents were U.S. citizens.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:56:57 AM EST
    lost a superdelegate yesterday. A SD in the virgin islands switched from Obama to Clinton.

    And... (none / 0) (#145)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:05:24 AM EST
    ...he gained an uncommitted one here in the Centennial State, the head of the Colorado State Democratic Party, Pat Waak.

    [ Parent ]
    MoDo as usual has (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:10:25 AM EST
    a completely nonsensical article in nytimes. She keeps acting out her sick dreams in her articles.

    Its also because of the kind of supporters taht Obama attracts that makes me wary of him. Most of his MSM cheerleaders were equally if not more excited about Bush Jr.


    McCellan's book (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by mmc9431 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:36:49 AM EST
    I just read recap on WP site. What a slimy self serving administration this has been. And the worst part is they will all walk away untouched. This is what scares me about Obama the most. We've gone through 7 yrs of a love fest with the media and administration. They continually closed their eyes and mind. Now we could very well go through another cycle of this. I don't think the country will be well served with this.

    Will any of the progressive sites be willing to nail Obama for his errors? Or will they continue to keep their heads in the sand rather than admit they might have been wrong. Will he be the same as so many other progressive candidates that forget their supporters once they are elected?

    I want accountability in any administration. Only a fool blindly follows.

    So far (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:43:49 AM EST
    not seeing any accountability for Obama so I don't expect it to happen in the unlikely event that he becomes President.

    The "progressive" blogosphere has become a joke. It's the mirror image of free republic where the leader is the savior and can do no wrong. They've become what they used to hate imo.

    [ Parent ]

    Party Downfall (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by mmc9431 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:10:31 AM EST
    I see a definite parallel with the progressive wing of the Democrat's and the Evangelical wing in the Republican's. Both are minorities that have hijacked their parties. And both are doing their best to destroy the very prinicples of their parties. When I hear how "Joe Six Pack" doesn't matter to the Dem's anymore, I'm terrified. This has always been the very foundation of the party. Do they really believe they can win without them? We already have one elitist party. We don't need two. This concept is going to tear the party apart deeper than anything they can blame on Hilary.

    [ Parent ]
    the party (none / 0) (#76)
    by teachermom on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:58:15 AM EST
    Maybe we need a third party.

    [ Parent ]
    they wont (none / 0) (#181)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:40:07 AM EST
    six months from now I may be glad they did not but right now I wish they would.

    [ Parent ]
    We've needed.... (none / 0) (#229)
    by kdog on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:20:46 PM EST
    a third party for 40 years.  

    Where the hell have you guys been?  Seriously, it took me all of 2 election cycles upon reaching voting age to realize that this whole Democrat/Republican thing is the greatest hoax pulled on the American people since...since...since ever.

    [ Parent ]

    But the Democrats have been (none / 0) (#120)
    by Valhalla on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:41:45 AM EST
    much more efficient about the whole thing.  It took the Republicans more than 20 years before the hijack did them in (if it indeed does do them in, if Obama's the nominee we'll see).  The Democrats managed to do it in one campaign season.  Cool.

    Btw, I'm not too fond of 'Joe-Six-Pack', thank you Donna Brazile. Phffft.

    [ Parent ]

    It's easier (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:53:31 AM EST
    to lose big than win big.  And the Dems have a history to fall back on.

    [ Parent ]
    I love you, txpolitico67 n/t (none / 0) (#171)
    by Valhalla on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:20:30 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#210)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:23:22 AM EST
    I love my new pals here at TL!  

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed but for a detail: Oboiz aren't progressive (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:10:35 AM EST
    ... they're the opposite.

    I call them fauxgressive because their concern and actions are directed towards replacing one arrogant, top-down (right wing) power structure with their own.

    Actually representing people is the last of their concerns, as evidenced by their behavior towards people they insult, deride, block out of the process and then attempt to bully into handing over their (our) proxy.

    They're simply jockeying for power and control and saying whatever is expedient at the moment to achieve that.

    Witness their petulance and sense of outrage when people don't comply or carry the baggage needed for them to realize this "lofty" ambition.

    I'd send screen caps of Donna Brazile's sourball expression at having to rein in her shameless plugs for Obama and actually behave like the neutral Dem spokesperson she's supposed to be. (Short message to the Dems: when Brazile is cut loose from this role is when I reconsider my affiliation.)

    [ Parent ]

    You know what kills me? (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:23:13 AM EST
    The press is excoriating HRC night and day for supposedly thinking something bad about Obama.

    But when it comes to the ACTUAL MURDERERS in the White House, where the hell are the calls for accountability? Why aren't they screaming for BushCheney's impeachment every darn day?

    The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Rice) are collectively responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

    Nothing but crickets from our press corpse.

    They make me sick to my stomach.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by cannondaddy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:32:41 AM EST
    you guys can turn anything into an attack on Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's an "attack" line 4 u (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:54:42 AM EST
    "we would rather lose with Obama than win with Hillary"

    I see that all over the proBama blogs.  That's more sick than anything else.

    [ Parent ]

    I find it hard (none / 0) (#182)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:41:43 AM EST
    to criticize them when, if I was honest, I am feeling the same thing in reverse right now.
    I am hoping some of BTDs optimism will rub off on me today.

    [ Parent ]
    Here too (none / 0) (#198)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:02:30 AM EST
    Some guy came on bragging he was a millionaire and would 'rather lose with Obama than win with anyone'  It was pathetic.  He didn't stay long.  It's sort of like putting a flaming bag of doo on someone's front porch, ringing the door bell and giggling off in to the night.

    [ Parent ]
    Or will an Obama WH (none / 0) (#74)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:56:24 AM EST
    be willing to prosecute Bush admin crimes?

    [ Parent ]
    Punishment (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by mmc9431 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:11:10 AM EST
    When asked about this Obama said he would instruct his AG to look into this administration and if he found any "obvious" criminal acts, he would have them proceed.Proving that they had criminal intent with their actions will set the bar very high. So I don't expect anything to come from it. Plus it would take away from his bringing the country together image. (Look how well the country has been served by this attitude in regard to Nixon. We're living with the results now. If the president does it, it's legal).

    [ Parent ]
    Restoring Respect for Rule of Law (none / 0) (#206)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:37:23 AM EST
    I think you're analysis is probably right, but I think to make real "change," we need to restore respect for the rule of law; we could all benefit from re-education and leadership here.

    [ Parent ]
    It may have been (none / 0) (#78)
    by facta non verba on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:01:49 AM EST
    Bush's lies but he did the lying day in and day out. Why would I read a book where I already know the ending?

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, um... (5.00 / 1) (#128)