Wednesday Morning Open Thread

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • 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.

    Anyone (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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?


    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.


    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?

    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

    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.

    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!


    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.

    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!  


    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...    


    "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?


    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.    


    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.


    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.  


    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?


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    who said anything about a "scandal"? (5.00 / 6) (#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".


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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."

    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.

    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.  


    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?  


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


    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".


    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".

    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.


    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".  


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.)

    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.

    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.

    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

    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.

    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.

    '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.


    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.

    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.

    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!



    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"?

    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."


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.  


    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.


    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.


    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


    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.

    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 . . .

    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

    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.


    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).


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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."


    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.

    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.

    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 / 3) (#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.


    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.

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

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

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

    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.)


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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?

    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).

    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.

    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?

    Yeah, um... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:54:04 AM EST
    pardon me if I don't think Scott McLellan deserves one da** penny of my hard-earned paycheck.

    Remember, he is a guy whose job was lying.

    Zero credibility IMHO.


    Yeah. Read it this a.m. (none / 0) (#94)
    by wurman on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:18:28 AM EST
    Here's a link to MSNBC (yuk).

    Money quote------------

    Bush is depicted as an out-of-touch leader, operating in a political bubble, who has stubbornly refused to admit mistakes. McClellan defends the president's intellect -- "Bush is plenty smart enough to be president," he writes -- but casts him as unwilling or unable to be reflective about his job.

    I've watched Bu$h attempt to speak seriously.  To the contrary of Mr. McClellan, "W" is not smart enough to be president.


    I would really like to know (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by magisterludi on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:48:43 AM EST
    how Obama regards Milton Friedman and the Chicago School. The biggest problem I have with Obama is his ties to neo-liberalism. Neo-cons and neo-libs share too much in common, the most glaring being global corporatists. Universal healthcare and SS are not on their to-do lists (likely it's on their "un-do" list). The public sector should be "skeletal" with much more privatization. In other words, Reaganomics.

    These people foment war for profit and have little allegiance to the American worker (or workers any where in the world, for that matter). They are  personifications of Bad Samaritans.

    I want to know how much water Obama carries for them.

    question about neoliberals and progressives (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by kempis on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:24:08 AM EST
    Are they the same?

    What precisely is a progressive? I ask because I keep seeing "progressive" bandied about in the Obamablogs, with his supporters claiming that Obama and only Obama is "progressive."

    But what does that mean? Does anyone really know? Is it merely a "feel-good" word with definitions that shift according to the user?

    Can Kos be a neo-liberal and a progressive? Are they the same thing?

    Curious to know what folks think about this, because  it's looking to me like "progressive" has become a mere buzzword--a bow to stick on some pretty packaging.


    Kos (none / 0) (#132)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:55:39 AM EST
    is nothing more than an opportunist.  Plain and simple.

    Hasn't anyone noticed (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by NJDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:12:57 AM EST
    the irony that DK and HuffP are run by two (relatively recently) former Republicans?  

    Why does no one bring this up?  


    Add John Aravosis (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by stillife on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:19:09 AM EST
    of AmericaBlog to that list.

    I've said that (none / 0) (#212)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:28:28 AM EST
    so many times 'til I'm blue in the face.  Why do Democrats fall in love so quickly with people who were once their political adversary?

    Reminds me of when here in TX a former Republican operative ascended to the state chair's position.  God forbid a lifelong Democrat have that position.


    Hmmm, 'progressive' (none / 0) (#150)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:06:21 AM EST
    has no meaning, IMO. As such, anyone can call themself a progressive. It's like saying 'butter.'

    I think BTD's 'elitist' label might be a good synonym for 'progressive,' but I hesitate to label his definitions.

    Since the liberal wing of the democratic party consists of many disenfranchised democrats, voices not often heard from, the neoliberal label makes a lot of sense-- but what does that label mean, other than, as stated earlier, a left-leaning authoritarian leadership?


    "Progressive" (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:11:57 AM EST
    is what newfound liberals, like former Repubs Aravosis, Huffington and Kos, decided to call themselves because the rightwing scream machine demonized the word "liberal."

    It's proven to be a huge mistake, because now the Obama bloggers have taken that word and demonized it as well by associating it with their infantile, hateful and undemocratic behavior.

    We should have just given the Matt Santos speech from "The West Wing" about a million times, and taken the word "liberal" back for ourselves.


    Looks like most are thinking what I am... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by kempis on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:41:56 AM EST
    "Progressive," as used by bloggerz, is in danger of becoming a meaningless buzzword intended to create a (sometimes totally false) sense of "tribe" and nothing more.



    Are any of them liberals? (none / 0) (#166)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:17:57 AM EST
    I think the might be corporatists/centrists trying to make some imagined distinction between them and the DLC...

    It means (none / 0) (#183)
    by magisterludi on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:41:49 AM EST
    a continuation of the corporate capitalist agenda (Gawd, that sounds so "capitalist pig"-ish, but it is what it is) if the neo-libs take power.

    It was my understanding (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:03:09 AM EST
    that neo-liberals turned into neo-cons - that they were basically one and the same.

    If you check out the website from the Heritage Foundation, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anything there that didn't give Milton Friedman orgasms. IMHO of course.


    Neo-cons (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by magisterludi on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:31:49 AM EST
    are neo-libs with a conservative social agenda, right?

    interesting; that would mean (none / 0) (#188)
    by kempis on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:46:56 AM EST
    that Kos and Arianna are cousins of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby and "Milk Mustache" Bolton.

    Seriously, what are these neo-libs' positions on the social safety net? Are they opposed or just indifferent? What about regulations on businesses to protect the health and safety of workers, consumers, and communities? How about support for public education?

    Any good links on neo-liberalism out there? I'm curious about what these people really are for/against.


    My short hand for them (none / 0) (#191)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:52:19 AM EST
    "we don't like the war, makes us look mean and not cool, we want environmental laws to protect ourselves, but those sort of eeky poor, sick and desperate people, they are on their own"  

    What is funny to me they give millions to Obama and ask them if they ever gave money to a food bank or a group that serves people food or free healthcare, sure you will not find much cross giving.  Right now sort of a crisis, as older people pass away, the "charity" giving is gone.  Really sad, it's what I call now vanity giving.  They all want to come down and paint for a day and get a t-shirt, but ask them for a donation and they cringe.  


    There really needs (none / 0) (#211)
    by magisterludi on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:25:00 AM EST
    to be a conversation about The Chicago School and Obama. Why this has been ignored for so long by dems escapes me.

    Butcher I meant as in language and not in action (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:15:53 AM EST
    The very fact that pro Obama MSM and pro Obama blogs still have Hillary's statement as their headline news should tell you something about who is interested in keeping the story alive. Obama camp sent out clips of KO's special comment on Hillary to  all again in an effort to keep that story alive.

    The problem is Hillary can't afford even one clumsy statement without being derided as an Evil person by all. She can apologize till kingdom comes but the drumbeat against her for the same will not stop.
    Whereas Obama can have gaffes galore and yet he just has to make a quiet statement that he misspoke and well that's the end of that matter for the worthies in MSM and Pro Obama blogs.

    I don't know why anyone is surprised (5.00 / 9) (#60)
    by Anne on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:24:30 AM EST
    that the man who made composite characters in his autobiography would be constantly inventing and re-inventing his own history; it makes me think Obama is his own composite character.

    When Obama speaks, I am reminded that while all politicians target their remarks to their audience, he has a disturbing habit of being willing to re-write history in order to do it. Why is it never enough for him to deliver thoughtful remarks on a given subject - why does he have to reach into the wings and dust off a family member to talk about, knowing that he has to tweak that person's story to do it?  

    My own armchair analysis is that it is reflective not of his overblown sense of himself, but of a really deep level of insecurity and need to belong.

    What's really going to be his undoing, I think, is that he has advisors like Axelrod who tap into those insecurities all the time, who have convinced him that it's okay, for example, to sacrifice granny in a major speech if he can score points.

    I can't speak for anyone else, but people who are their own inventions kind of scare me.

    Kinda like Bush being a Texas cowboy (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by magisterludi on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:39:51 AM EST
    which his northeastern pedigree (and his fear of horses) actually belie.

    Greenwald (none / 0) (#189)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:48:15 AM EST
    Greenwald just wrote a book about how the RNC always runs candidates on the narrative and mythology, yet he is fully in the Obama tank and not once that I have seen has he applied his critique to Obama.  I loved his writing, but now, I am really dubious about his ability to be a critical thinker.  But then again we saw what happened to Krugman when he did apply his criticism to Obama policies.  

    Since he is the "narrative" (none / 0) (#165)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:16:36 AM EST
    do we understand that millions of people made up their mind based on the narrative and the composite characters in his books? Is this ok to be picking a president based on an acknowledged fiction? How is this ok?  Well, the news now is not news, they like stories, they sell better, sort of like entertainment.  I come back to why the media is pushing him, his story captures the audience and the demographic we want.  He brings a "movement" not just voters.  Like someone said yesterday on the primary vs. caucuses, the primaries bring out those "casual voters"  

    Now we are told that we should let them win cause it will be good for us and McCain is bad for us.  Well, little darlings, I fail to see how this is better for us or democracy.  


    Well, it's not okay, but then, (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Anne on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:42:43 AM EST
    I tend to live in reality and not the environment that is contrived by the media and advertisers and the entertainment industry.  All Obama is doing is feeding his own psychological deficit - the need to belong - and taking advantage of the insecurity of others the way all too many people do these days: they buy things.  Toys and gadgets and bells and whistles.  Houses and cars they can't afford.  Clothes they don't need.  Obama is a "thing," packaged and advertised and sold.  He's the cool car with the big payment, the megamansion with the huge mortgage and no furniture.  The prestigious school.  The designer clothes.  Things.

    It's very symbiotic: Obama sells himself as the latest cool thing which makes the shallow feel important and "in;" by being bought - worshipped and adored - Obama gets proof of his own worth.  He's Sally Field in the Oval Office - "you like me, you really, really like me!!!"

    What is wrong with me that I am immune to the sales pitch, see the flaws in the product, don't think "things" make me cool, am not afraid to be "left out" of the in crowd?


    Sleeper - that's not true (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:44:31 AM EST
    >>>Clinton harping on Bittergate and Rev. Wright.  She brought that crap up every chance she could

    When Hillary was asked, she responded.
    Rev. Wright - she nor I would have "attended his church."  Don't remember her commenting on Bitter/Cling-gate.
    otoh - Obama initiated racheting up the hysteria over her RFK remarks and even circulated Olbermann's Koolaid video to the media.

    Sorry, but... (1.00 / 5) (#88)
    by Sleeper on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:13:57 AM EST
    I think your memory is playing tricks on you.  The Clinton campaign was the all-Wright, all-bitter, all-the-time show for weeks on end.

    You can say that all you want, (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:24:32 AM EST
    but find some articles articulating her doing this. I think you'll find any quotes from Hillary was when she was asked about it directly. Obama was not asked about Hillary's comments, he just sent out press memos and continued the conversations. Please at least be "honest" in your assessments.

    Proof, please? (none / 0) (#137)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:00:38 AM EST
    In their own words... (none / 0) (#209)
    by cannondaddy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:07:29 AM EST
    I don't think that Senator Clinton intended anything by it and I think we should put it behind us. -Obama

    I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Senator Obama made about people in small-town America.  -Clinton

    Both candidates apologized in much the same manner, saying their words were not intended the way they were being interpreted.  I've never heard a single Clinton supporter cut him the slightest slack on his gaffe, and she certainly didn't.


    That is apparently what (none / 0) (#187)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:44:53 AM EST
    DailyKOS told you to think.  The Clintons weren't doing that.  Faux News may have been, but not the Clintons.

    Sleeper is a chatterer (none / 0) (#204)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:21:11 AM EST
    and limited to 6 comments in a 24 hour period. See the comment rules. Come back another day.

    Iron Jawed Angels (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:48:28 AM EST
    I happened to catch a February movie on HBO last night about the women responsible for the 19th Admen. You know, the one that gave us women the right to vote. These women picketed the WH in all the four seasons of weather, were cursed upon, jailed and beaten. They just never gave up. They were Democratic women who campaigned against Pres Wilson in protest. Even after 80+ years, there are similarities. A very inspiring movie.  

    I watched this yesterday too (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:04:21 AM EST
    It made me want to tell Clinton to never give up!

    They have been showing that and Hacking (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Joan in VA on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:10:25 AM EST
    Democracy for a few weeks now as a run-up to Recount(I think). All three thought-provoking films. We owe those women alot. Lucky for us they were so strong. Hard to believe it took so long to get us the vote.



    Yeah, (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:22:35 AM EST
    The movie originally aired in February and they are repeating it now. I only saw it yesterday for the first time. I thought of our Hillary and what she is going through. Recommend the movie. Gave me more resolve.

    Older wiser talklefters (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:57:23 AM EST
    I have been going back in my mind for the past 30 years and I cannot recall any official of any active administration who spoke so poorly as McClellan did of this. Granted it is merely a few quips from a book he is trying to sell to retire on but they were rather direct. Can anyone remember a similar case of direct confrontation that was so direct? And even more importantly from someone that was not asked to leave but did so on their own accord..

    Scott McClellan (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by cannondaddy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:03:54 AM EST
    obviously feels he was wronged in the Plame affair.  He seems to believe Bush was duped there as well...  It is not 100% negative either.  It seems he views the President as sincere but misguided in his efforts to lead the country.  Probably an honest assessment.

    I would agree (none / 0) (#91)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:17:14 AM EST
    but I cannot recall another so close to a president that was not canned challenging the candor or integrity and certainly none that accused of propaganda. I think he was cleaning out his conscience and probably still thinks W is misunderstood. W just wants to be liked, I have seen this type of leader a million times. Ineffective and unrespected is how they end up and W fits it like a glove. 10 excerpts hardly damn an administration but the wording in them especially coming from the former spokesperson seems to be especially damning....

    Most interesting revelation (none / 0) (#92)
    by cannondaddy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:17:43 AM EST
    was McClellan's Secret Service handle: "Matrix".

    I thought the most (none / 0) (#103)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:28:34 AM EST
    interesting was when someone said that the war would cost 100-200 billion and W got angry and said "he shouldn't be saying that". I am certain that there is a direct lie to the american people regarding the cost of the war.

    I think (none / 0) (#163)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:16:04 AM EST
    McClellan was scorned and it's now payback time.  The bonus is he will make a few bucks.

    If he was so troubled by all of this when it was going on, if he had any principles, he should have said something then.

    I just see him as a money-grubbing opportunist.


    John Dean's first book ... (none / 0) (#186)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:42:47 AM EST
    "Blind Ambition" was very tough on the Nixon administration.

    Of course, that didn't surprise anyone, since he'd blown the whistle on the Nixon administration in front of congress.

    I seem to recall some rather negative books from Clinton officials, but the names and details escape me at the moment.


    thanks (none / 0) (#196)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:59:08 AM EST
    I have not read it, I will look for it.

    The drip, drip (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Lil on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:30:25 AM EST
    knocks against Obama are starting to turn into an open faucet. I'm getting nasty e-mails about him from right wing acquaintances that are viscious, and it seem to be stepping up. (Anybody else have people sending them anti-democratic e-mails even after you tell them you are a proud liberal and ask them to stop?) I don't know what to do about that. I'm starting to fret over the GE and can only hope the Republican "brand" is such dirt that it will not matter, because I believe the flood against Obama is coming. Thanks for the open thread.

    Apparently (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by NJDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:35:37 AM EST
    (according to a poster on TM), Carville was on Good Morning America and said that he and many SD are really po'd about the Obama camp's handling of the RFK non-issue and that now this thing will definitely not be over by June 3rd.  

    I can't watch the tape at work, does anyone want to confirm this? link

    Assuming this is true, that would mean that: 1) the Raggin' Cajun has his fighting spirit back, and 2) common sense just may prevail!

    it seems a lot of people are POed (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:40:09 AM EST
    but as far as common sense prevailing, I am losing hope.
    I do agree with the poster Lil that a flood is coming.  there are many fingers in the dike preventing it from happening in time to give the nomination to a winner.
    that is the last thing they want.  but it is coming.

    It's true... (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:57:26 AM EST
    I watched the video and Carville is extremely upset about the RFK BS.

    Diane Sawyer was trying to get Carville to say that Obama tried to stop the hysteria, and he said, "Come on, Diane, I'm a political operative, not a journalist. I'm not falling for that."

    It was great.

    Carville also was saying that anything could happen regarding the convention. He definitely left the door open.


    "regarding the convention" (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:06:21 AM EST
    I hope they tear the place up.

    Non-violently, of course. :-) (none / 0) (#152)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:07:55 AM EST
    or course (none / 0) (#154)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:08:41 AM EST
    or OF course (none / 0) (#156)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:09:32 AM EST
    if I could type

    Good (none / 0) (#190)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:49:54 AM EST
    Obama and the DNC thought they could push this as a good way to get rid of the B**ch for good, but instead, it's a reason for Hillary to stay in.

    I find that absolutely fantastic.


    Does anyone else feel like this primary (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:38:03 AM EST
    is like the "pods" are taking over and Hillary supporters are trying to stay awake???

    to me it is more like (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by jes on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:04:58 AM EST
    having been rescued from the Matrix.

    exactly (none / 0) (#162)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:14:15 AM EST
    what I have been saying.  no one kidnapped Josh Marshall.  he has been replaced with a pod person.

    Please (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:07:17 AM EST
    "And then Wolfson blames Obama for it, when his campaign tut-tutted Clinton for it and otherwise let it drop.  Compare the Obama reaction to the Clinton harping on Bittergate and Rev. Wright.  She brought that crap up every chance she could."

    You are truth-challenged.  Perhaps too much Kool-Aid?

    Why is there no outrage for Obama using (1.00 / 0) (#70)
    by carmel on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:47:59 AM EST
    Auschwitz, the most gruesome and horrible Nazi death camp, as an example of "his family heroics" in a speech, while Obama employs virulant, anti-Israel, anti-semitic advisors such as Zbigniew Breszinski, the now departed advisors Robert Malley and Samantha Powers, military advisor Merrill McPeak who says the Israel problem can't be solved because of NYC and Miami, major Obama backer George Soros, who would like to redraw the map of the middle east without Israel on it, and Rashid Khalidi, who is virulant in his hatred for Israel, and of course the endorsement of Obama by Hamas and Obama's many middle eastern donations to his campaign. Why is it lost on Obama that because of the Holocaust, which Ahmedinajad denies ever happened, the State of Israel was born, with the cries of "Never Again". Now Obama has a campaign filled with advisors who would like to make Israel disappear, while Obama tells his Jewish constituents the exact opposite, and shows that he has no understanding of why Israel exists or protects itself at all costs.

    This can be a more benign question (none / 0) (#157)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:10:43 AM EST
    Why is Z-big one of his Advisors and he goes around talking about JFK's and Reagan's and not Carter's policies?

    What does it mean (none / 0) (#6)
    by mexboy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:41:25 AM EST
    when someone gives you a 1 rating?

    Are they rating you a troll?

    I think so. (none / 0) (#18)
    by JoeA on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:06:32 AM EST
    1 is troll rating and 0 is to hide rate something.

    I don't think the "hide" rating feature is active on TL though.


    Either they think your comment (none / 0) (#26)
    by Fabian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:08:41 AM EST
    was a complete waste of time or worse, or they are just PO'd at anyone who doesn't share their opinion.

    It means.... (none / 0) (#134)
    by kdog on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:57:04 AM EST
    they are childish...the person doing the rating that is.

    Exactamundo. (none / 0) (#220)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:44:31 AM EST
    Clinton in the White house for the next 16 years (none / 0) (#10)
    by barryluda on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:32:41 AM EST
    If McCain wins in the GE, he would be 72 years old.  If Obama were to win with Clinton as VP and serve for 8 years, then when Clinton wins after that she would be our first women POTUS at a young 70 years old.

    All the more reason to hope (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:50:17 AM EST
    That McCain wins.  He'll be 75 after his first term and Hillary will only be a jaunty 64!  

    Hillary could be President in 2012!!  Go Hillary!!!!  (And this is only if she doesn't manage to nail the nomination now!!  C'mon Superdelegates! WAKE UP!!!!)


    It's safe to say (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by ccpup on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:29:07 AM EST
    that she and Bill know something we don't know, otherwise they wouldn't still be in.

    These are two of the most intelligent political minds in our recent history.  Not perfect, mind you -- who is? --, but they both know DC inside and out and if there were absolutely no chance whatsoever of her gaining the Nomination, she wouldn't still be running.

    A good friend of mine who's been active in National Politics since at least Nixon (and wears her battle scars very proudly) said to me a couple months ago that it was "in the tank" for Obama.  

    I spoke with her last week, though, and she said that he was making too many people nervous with his lack of experience and overtly strong-arm tactics (plus her decisive wins in States the Dems need) and she now says that the below-the-radar trend is strongly swinging back to giving Hillary the nod.

    That's what I think the Clinton's are seeing and why she hasn't dropped -- and won't drop -- out.


    His campaign's tactics and focus is suggestive (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:47:31 AM EST
    They were clearly banking on generating a loud media chorus to push her into folding before PA.

    Now the Obama bluff is that they pretty much have all the delegates they need in their pocket, and credulous media are still taking these uncorroborated claims as factual.

    Why they don't just do their job and demand to know why these apparently solid supporters didn't simply go on the record before, and aren't doing so now, is the begged question here.

    So I agree that HRC has more reason to stay in it to win it than fold, no matter how much the Oboiz jump up and down kicking up fuss after fuss about this.

    She wouldn't be in it except to win it.


    The Clintons understand (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by ccpup on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:54:15 AM EST
    that they're not going to direct the media narrative.  So, they and Ickes are focusing on what's REALLY important and that's the SDs and helping them clearly see -- and it doesn't take too much effort, actually -- her Electoral Strength.

    Let the Obama Boyz think they're playing the media like a fiddle.  Once she has the nod, it will be THE dominant Political Comeback Story of the last 20 - 30 years.

    And petulant, angry, disappointed, "wronged" Obama will be a whiny afterthought.


    Hooray for the war! (none / 0) (#33)
    by Sleeper on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:36:37 AM EST
    I'd mention the men and women who will die or lose their limbs or attempt suicide from PTSD from now until January 2013, but I don't really see the point.  Collateral damage, I guess.

    Considering (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:41:21 AM EST
    the fact that Obama has shown exactly zero leadership on this issue I think it's pretty much a moot point. Anyway, his advisor has said that he plans no immediate pull out and will want to keep 100,000 troops there.

    Have you even considered the fact that Obama could make things even worse? Obama can't even decide if Iran is a threat or not.


    Re: Considering (none / 0) (#50)
    by Sleeper on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:58:03 AM EST
    I've considered the fact that anyone who succeeds Bush as president is going to have a hard time of it, and is going to make mistakes, and be blamed no matter what.

    But both Clinton and Obama have said that the process of withdrawal needs to begin.  They won't be fast enough for me, that's for damn sure.  But they'll start it.  Either one of them.  McCain has wed himself to this war, and he will never begin to draw down.  His whole idea is that the goal isn't to come home, but to get Iraqis to settle down and accept our permanent occupation.

    The GOP cannot be rewarded with another term for this disaster.  Either Clinton or Obama would be acceptible to me when it comes to Iraq.  And people who glibly say that they hope, or will vote for, a McCain victory just to buy another chance for their gal Hillary because wouldn't that be swell, just anger me to no end.

    But the idea that we need to protect Israel from Iran is just pandering, no matter who says it.  (All three have said it, I'm sure.)  Israel has 150+ nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to use them on Iran.  Iran has somewhere between zero and one nuclear weapon, and no delivery system that can hit Israel.  This idea that candidates need to out-Netanyahu one another in order to scramble for Jewish voters, most of whom I'm sure don't want to see Israel antagonizing her neighbors, needs to stop.


    Pander Huh? The Q to Hillary was (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:07:12 AM EST
    as President what would she do if Iran bombs out Israel. Her answer was a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question. Is that pander?

    Yes, it is. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Sleeper on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:10:32 AM EST
    Because she should have rejected the question from the start.  Iran is run by a gang of corrupt, wealthy clerics who dole out companies and public funds no differently and no less cynically than Soviet commissars in their day.  They have no desire for open war with Israel; they're too comfortable where they are.  The right is pushing this absurd notion that Iran would create one nuclear weapon, or two, or whatever, immediately fire it at Israel, and ensure their own obliteration by Israel's vast arsenal (not to mention NATO and American weapons).    Threatening Iran with hypothetical destruction is pointless pandering, no matter who does it.

    And this is an Obama problem too.  It's an American problem, really.  Israeli politicians can be far more flexible in dealing with terrorists and rival nations than Americans ones can, it seems.


    I think (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:23:02 AM EST
    Obama is too waffly and won't withdraw any troops because he's too afraid of the GOP.

    The problem is that polls show McCain more trusted on the Iraq issue than Obama.

    The electorate will always back strong and wrong like McCain vs. weak and right like Obama especially when there is a war going on.

    This is the one shot for either of them imo. Voting against Obama is larger than being about Hillary.

    The IAEA just came down on Iran for their nuclear program.

    What is Obama's stance on Israel? It seems to change daily. He can't seem to decide on anything. One day he's for meeting without preconditions and the next day he's against. He can't make a stand on anything imo.

    An Obama presidency would be another repeat of an inept Carter presidency. Do you want that?


    To say if one country tries to obliterate (none / 0) (#89)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:15:28 AM EST
    another and we would step in that that somehow is pandering, check your history and facts.Oh, and, check on Obama's Iraq position v. Hillary's. I think you'll see a difference. He says, we'll see, she says, they're out!

    Let's not make it worse (none / 0) (#175)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:27:00 AM EST
    than it is.  10,000 troops, not 100,000.  And to be fair, Hillary would do the same, according to what she's said.

    Sleeper (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Kathy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:36:07 AM EST
    Those of us who have family members serving in two war zones do not appreciate your graphic and casual use of the violent things that can happen to our loved ones for political commentary.  It's quite tasteless and harmful.

    You don't speak for me (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:04:08 AM EST
    and I am one of you. So please don't speak for all of us who have loved ones in Iraq or Afghanistan. I for one wish there were more talk and media coverage of those coming back without limbs or in caskets. It offends me that the "cost of war" is not being paid by politicians or media pundits children, and perhaps an open dialogue about injuries and death would get people to think about the hell of this war.

    She cannot be his VP, imo. (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by nycstray on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:58:08 AM EST
    That would just be SO wrong. I really can't even process the thought . . .

    I don't really want her to be (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:20:58 AM EST
    his VP.  But, if he offers her the job and she wants it -- what can I say?  I'll have to vote for her.  

    I really, sincerely, honestly, think she is the best candidate for President right now.  If she isn't the nominee, my choices are soooooo limited.  I really hate thinking about it.  


    Yesterday's Story: Buchenwald, not Auschwitz (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ankhorite on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:31:18 AM EST
    The New York Times is carrying the AP story that Obama misspoke Auschwitz when he should have said Buchenwald, and said uncle when great-uncle would have been more specific.

    Any hope of getting an update displayed as a footnote on your story here?

    Obama misspoke (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:05:05 AM EST
    but I haven't seen any headlines screaming "Obama hates Jews!"
    But Hillary wants Obama assassinated so she can be the nominee.
    See the difference in the 'interpretations'??

    Obamamites rarely update their anti-Hillary diaries with facts and reality.


    In fact (none / 0) (#192)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:54:07 AM EST
    MSNBC was still talking about the RFK flap YESTERDAY.  

    Far more serious gaffe than for conjured outrage (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:28:49 AM EST
    ... over Sen Clinton's Bosnia memory or the trumped up RFK "scandal".

    Let's see if those hypersensitive cultural monitors expend a fraction of the same media time and column inches on as negative an interpretation of the gaffe, with the appropriate raging denunciation sent Obama-ward.

    Let's see if this inspires a sputtering special finger waving commentary from Keith Obamann. (Good freakin' luck and good night on that possibility.)

    But most of all, let's hear an official commentary on this from the Dems.


    Dems struggling to finance convention (none / 0) (#46)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:50:22 AM EST
    It's Hillary's fault! (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by stillife on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:54:28 AM EST
    And some are concerned that the protracted nominating fight between Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has made fund-raising more difficult.

    When he loses in November, and I believe he will, that will be her fault as well.  


    If they were competent, they'd have $$ (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by Xeno on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:04:47 AM EST
    Honestly, Dean and his minion must be the most incompetent crew ever to run the DNC. In a year where dem candidates for president are raising money hand ove fist, the party should be solvent. The reason they're not is poor planning and a badly run primary process. Maybe if Dean, Brazille and the lot forego their salaries, which they haven't earned, the party can afford to run the convention.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#193)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:54:47 AM EST
    So Obama isn't offering anything out of his large coffers?

    Not till he has the nom (none / 0) (#202)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:13:48 AM EST
    Kind of makes one wonder.  I read articles that he has the delegates but they hold out because the really like and respect Clinton. but.... don't you wonder what the he!! is going on when Obama hasn't gotten his donors to give to the DNC.  Maybe he's waiting until it's really close to the convention so no one can take it away from him if he implodes.  I want to see the tape Larry Johnson keeps referring too.  :)

    Anybody got a poll on where we stand in PR? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Saul on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:24:21 AM EST

    No. But BTD did mention in last night's (none / 0) (#90)
    by jes on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:16:56 AM EST
    PR diary that he suspected one would be out in a day or so. Numbers came out in the Gov race and he thought that they had probably polled the primary at the same time.

    must read of the day: (none / 0) (#95)
    by cpinva on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:19:22 AM EST
    harold myerson's column in the washington post. two observations:

    1. it's nearly a complete ripoff of an ezra klein post in the american prospect.

    2. it might as well be titled "won't someone please send that bi*tch away from me!"

    apparently, neither mr. klein or mr. myerson bothered to do much research on votes in a democracy. as well, they are disengenuous to the brink of lying outright.

    but go read it yourself, don't take my word for it.

    thank goodness no one pays them to write this stuff! oh wait, they are paid!

    more on Obama's "outsider" ruse (none / 0) (#104)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:30:07 AM EST
    scroll to "The same old Washington game with the same old players" --


    Did anyone read the Yahoo! (none / 0) (#110)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:34:23 AM EST
    story regarding the 38-page memo from the DNC's lawyers about MI/FL? At best only 1/2 the delegates will be seated.  I love how the stories lies about "Obama had his name removed from the ballot", like he had NOTHING to do with it. However, it looks like the movement along the Clinton side has them genuinely worried.

    I for one will be in DC.  The DNC has asked for extra security so "that everyone will be safe."  It wouldn't surprise me if this doesn't brink on chaos.

    What about (none / 0) (#117)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:39:11 AM EST
    the popular votes? Did the story mention them?

    This is the important thing to me...unless we just want to cede both states to McCain and keep them red for years to come.


    In a more serious vein (none / 0) (#118)
    by delacarpa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:40:01 AM EST
    a news conference was held on May 22 in Washington DC to discuss Obama's media swooners who have refused to vet this canidate. That is Ok I guess because we know he will be by GOP and Lordy, what they will find. For a preview it is on the internet under USASURVIVAL Most people would have trouble getting a security clearence with this info.

    Drudge in the tank for Obama (none / 0) (#125)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:50:10 AM EST
    Pittsburgh Tribune

    Drudge knows as well an anyone (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:04:37 AM EST
    who will lose in november.

    or (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:12:46 AM EST
    even more frightening, perhaps he wants him to win.
    when has Drudges interests EVER been the same as ours?
    but then that is what I have been asking about all the republican and "red state democrat" support for months and months.
    now that I think about it I find it completely believable Drudge would be for the chosen one.

    Re: In the tank (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Anne on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:05:39 AM EST
    I have started to visualize the lobsters "in the tank" at the grocery store, all relatively happy, oblivious to the boiling water that awaits them and what that means.  

    I think those in the tank for Obama are as clueless as the lobsters about the boiling water that is the general election.


    thank you (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:08:08 AM EST
    imagining them as lobsters awaiting garlic butter almost makes up for the "Granny Clampett democrats" crap.

    Final Update: Obama in NM Results in a Rebuff from (none / 0) (#155)
    by SunnyLC on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:08:51 AM EST
    * Final Update: Obama in NM Results in Excuses, 3 Pinocchios, and a Rebuff from Vets?


    It seems to me that some vets (many vets?) actually rebuffed Obama's announced visit to the Bataan Memorial, hence the relocation....

    PLUS MORE....

    Ultimate in concern trolling? (none / 0) (#199)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:07:40 AM EST
    If Clinton doesn't get the nom, maybe she shouldn't even go back to the Senate.  It appears her peers are concerned about her roll.  Maybe she should just go home, IACF.  Is anyone sick of this yet?  What a bunch of marooooons.

    They make me want to leave my species (none / 0) (#214)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:34:55 AM EST
    Honestly, some days the prospect of morphing into a jackal or a buzzard seems like it would be an evolutionary leap forward.

    "It was very important to me to come right back to work, I think it was my nature, but I think it was a lot of people's nature," Lieberman said, standing just off the Senate floor last week as his Republican colleague Bob Bennett happened to pass by.

    "He's one who made the adjustment in about 30 seconds. There're some who had a little bit more difficulty coming back," said Bennett, a Republican who represents Utah. Looking archly at Hillary Clinton, just steps away, he added: "There're some still walking around like President in exile."

    Clinton's brief departure from the campaign trail up to Capitol Hill last week was a jarring reminder of what awaits her if, as most expect, she fails to win the Democratic nomination. As she weighs her return to the Senate, Clinton is in the uncomfortable position of being the focus of even more scrutiny and speculation than when she entered the chamber in 2001.

    It reads like Lieberman and Bennett rehearsed this in the outer hall beforehand. [/Sheesh]


    New ad out against Obama (none / 0) (#201)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:13:07 AM EST

    Now, I don't necessarily buy what this ad is all about, but here's what the organization who made the ad (Vets for Freedom) had to say:

    "Vets for Freedom is not a 527, nor an attack organization. Our 24,000 members and 50 state chapters comprise a cross-section of America's veterans--Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, and liberals--all of which are interested in one thing: victory in Iraq, Afghanistan, and overall the War on Terrorism."

    This follows up an ad they put out last week


    Better turn the fan on high - the stuff is starting to fly!

    Good News for Obama: Neocon endorsement (none / 0) (#205)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:25:03 AM EST
    Ok, so we got Anne Coulter and now Obama gets Fukuyama

    Your Head Has Been (none / 0) (#213)
    by squeaky on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:28:49 AM EST
    So tightly nestled in Hillary land that it is not surprising that you have missed the rather old news that Fukuyama disavowed neocon ideology, and now is more anti-war than either Hillary or Obama.

    Now that the neoconservative moment appears to have passed, the United States needs to reconceptualize its foreign policy in several fundamental ways. In the first instance, we need to demilitarize what we have been calling the global war on terrorism and shift to other types of policy instruments. We are fighting hot counterinsurgency wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and against the international jihadist movement, wars in which we need to prevail. But "war" is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle, since wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a "long, twilight struggle" whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world.


    Although he gets it wrong that the neocon movement had passed (2006) he does seem prescient about their impending demise which will be capped by a Democratic rout in November 08.

    But he has this right and clearly is in touch with the way most Americans are thinking:

    ELEANOR HALL: So which president do you think would be the best placed to handle these challenges? Would it be president McCain, president Obama or a president Clinton?

    FRANCIS FUKUYAMA: Well, it is a little bit difficult. In my own thinking since I have to vote in this next election, I personally actually don't want to see a Republican re-elected because I have a general view of the way democratic processes should work and if your party is responsible for a big policy failure, you shouldn't be rewarded by being re-elected.

    I think of all the Republicans, McCain in many ways is the most attractive but he is still is too, you know, he comes from the school that places too much reliance on hard military power as a means of spreading American influence.



    I guess you buy it? (none / 0) (#215)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:36:04 AM EST
    You embrace any opportunistic pandering political fool, go ahead.  

    These days oppurtunistic (none / 0) (#218)
    by jondee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:39:45 AM EST
    pandering, fool/tool is alawys a matter of degree.

    If you've dont know that, I've got an L. Ron Hubbard I'd like to sell you.


    I need an editer (none / 0) (#222)
    by jondee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:50:52 AM EST
    Or one of those monkey helpers (preferably the winged kind). Oy.

    Hilarious (none / 0) (#219)
    by squeaky on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:43:32 AM EST
    You embrace any opportunistic pandering political fool, go ahead

    I embrace no one. You on the other hand seem to think that Hillary is a goddess and act as an adoring love struck devotee.

    Both Hillary and Obama have bought the neocon WOT full bore. You are obviously on board as well.


    "goddess" (none / 0) (#226)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:12:25 PM EST
    Compared to the alternatives she is a minor diety, I have not elevated her to goddess yet, when I will I will call you.  Look, Fukuyama whether he is in the womb of neoconism or whether he is not, is and should be discredit as an intellectual and someone who is offering public commentary.   Read my post:  "Good news" and comparing it to Coulter's endorsement of Hillary, do you understand satire of any kind unless I need to buy a truck with neon to advertise it as such for you.  

    As I may have my you know what stuck in the you know what, I still don't know what you have your you know what stuck in, but you need to loosen it a bit.  


    Hahahahahaha (none / 0) (#230)
    by squeaky on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:21:09 PM EST
    Coulter's endorsement of Hillary is of course a sham and comparing it to Fukuyama's endorsement of Obama is also a sham.

    There needs to be great downplaying of the whole war on terrorism. To call it a war I think has over-militarised our objectives and the means that we have used to prosecute it, and I think there has to be a greater shift to the use of soft power in projecting American influence and then there are large areas of the world where we have kind of neglected thinking about things like east Asia where you have obviously got some very big changes going off.


    I wish that Hillary or Obama would have the guts to denounce the WOT. They are either sold on it, or too afraid that not pandering to the bedwetter vote would sink them.


    It's not what he says (none / 0) (#216)
    by jondee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:37:27 AM EST
    and thinks now, it's what he said and thought back
    when what he said and thought would make Obama look like more of a hawk than Mrs It Takes an Obliterated Village.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#224)
    by squeaky on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:52:40 AM EST
    I do not understand your comment, jondee, can you clarify? Are you saying that Fukuyama is now on board with the WOT? I did not know that Obama was in the race Feb 2006.

    No (none / 0) (#225)
    by jondee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:57:24 AM EST
    not saqying that, squeak. I was being satirical, (or attempting to be), in responce to the intent of the other person's post.

    Thought So (none / 0) (#227)
    by squeaky on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:15:08 PM EST
    It's like shooting fish in a barrel these days... Love struck is not so far from being drunk. Not that I am against either state...

    McClellen (none / 0) (#207)
    by lentinel on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:46:52 AM EST
    I'm sure you will be posting about this soon, but Scotty McClellen's has a book that is about to be released that says, (brace yourselves), that BUSH LIED about the reasons for invading Iraq.

    Of course this is no news to anyone, except maybe Charlie Rose.

    The tragedy is that we have no political leadership that has the courage to end this nightmare. Not Obama, not Clinton and not McCain.

    I will vote for the first one of them that uses the information revealed in the book to begin a campaign to end the war as of this minute.

    and arrest Bush and company (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:37:30 AM EST