home

Saturday Night Open Thread

I'm sure there's more going on in the world besides Guam. Here's an open thread -- you pick the topics. I'll be back at some point.

< Guam Caucuses | Presidents and Young Children >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I'm watching Angel Season 4 (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:49:57 PM EST
    so tired of all the bloodsuckers out there in the political realm, so I thought I would take a break and watch Angel, a fun and quirky bloodsucker.

    I miss Buffy and Angel so much.  Great shows.  Superb lines.

    Don't forget Firefly. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by cloudy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:13:31 PM EST
    I loved all the Whedon shows.

    [ Parent ]
    how can you? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Nasarius on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:23:30 PM EST
    Season Four? I'm sure there's a good story arc buried in there somewhere, but that whiny little snot Connor makes every episode unwatchable for me. And Evil!Cordy is so disappointing.

    Connor is every bad, annoying teenage stereotype mashed into one character. Which is really strange, because Joss did such a fantastic job of creating three-dimensional high school characters in Buffy.

    [ Parent ]

    Started Season 1 (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:40:35 PM EST
    a month ago, working my way through it. And, um Cordy is the reason why I LOVE Angel so much.  Her character was the greatest evolution of ANY one person in the Buffyverse, period.

    HOW can you diss Cordy?  Argh!!

    [ Parent ]

    On repeated viewing (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by rilkefan on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:34:24 PM EST
    one comes to see that Connor has a lot going for him (including a talented actor).  E.g. he's right a lot, even if fate keeps overturning his sensible observations.

    Season four was in my view the best year of Angel.  The Beast, Wesley and Lilah, the hilarious episode where everything goes Angel's way, then Angelus and his insights, the real Willow showing up from Buffy season 5, the magic bullet, the final realization of the false prophecy from the previous season, the undercutting of the triumph at the end - that was a terrific arc.

    [ Parent ]

    and don't 4get (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:40:52 AM EST
    Faith busting outta prison!  I LOVE Faith.

    It would have been very cool if Faith could have led a spin off series with Harmony, (wini)Fred, the chick who was the electricity superpower, Ann and some new characters thrown in the mix.

    And to spice it up from time to time have alums from the Buffyverse show up.

    I still HATED that Anya was killed in the series finale on BTVS.  

    [ Parent ]

    New series for Joss Whedon! (none / 0) (#176)
    by alexei on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:29:14 AM EST
    Its Dolls House starring Eliza Dushku (Faith).  Started production this past April and have secured 7 episodes.

    [ Parent ]
    That's great news! (none / 0) (#192)
    by splashy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:21:13 AM EST
    I love everything he has done. Such a great touch!

    [ Parent ]
    In (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by sas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:50:07 PM EST
    regard to Hillary it means nothing.

    But heartbreaking, just heartbreaking about the horse.

    Yeah, I was uneasy remembering Ruffian... (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by alexei on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:53:00 PM EST
    another great filly who ran with the colts and shattered her legs and was euthanized.  I saw that big beautiful filly, Eight Belles, and I thought, yes, you go girl and I was so happy to see her finish so strongly and then the terrible news and seeing her on the track.  I started crying because I knew and sure enough, the Vet said that and I turned off the TV.  I've watched now two horse races in the last five years (used to watch all the time) and it was this one and when Barbaro was injured.  I can't do that again.

    I had standard breds (harness racing).  So, it is really heart breaking to see these magnificent animals destroyed.  I think that the breeding of  thorough breds must be changed.  Too much stress on those thin legs.

    The worst though is articles like Jake Tapper on equating this with the Presidential Race.  It is despicable!

    [ Parent ]

    Oh boy..one of my pet peeves!!! Thanks! (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:54:33 AM EST
    It's not the breeding that needs changing, it's the investment banker mentality that pervades racing now. When I started out in racing, yearlings were broken to saddle in the fall of their yearling year and then turned back out for the winter. Then as two year olds, they were brought in to start their training in March, or early April up north. They would start racing the last two weeks in July, and the big debut races for two year olds were at Saratoga in August. Horses back then routinely raced into their 5th year, 4th if they were big stakes winners and were going to stud. They also raced often, up to once a week. The average was once every ten days. The more expensive horses ran a bit less often.

    These days they don't turn the yearlings back out, they start them in training so they will be ready to breeze, run at racing speed, for an eighth of a mile at the two year old in training sales in Feb. These sales were usually in August when I started. Some in July. Now the first races for two year olds are in mid-April. Some of those horses aren't actually two yet, and they are racing on open knees some of them.

    The thing is that a horse's joints close at certain ages, just like people's do. Ankles close as yearlings, knees at about 2 1/2. Breezing on open knees is one of the stupidest things a trainer can do. Or used to be. The spine closes at 4, which why you aren't supposed to jump a horse under 5. That used to be a rule in all horse shows. Isn't anymore, though.

    Anyway, when the yearling prices skyrocketed, I mean some fool paid $13.1 million for a horse that hadn't been even broken to saddle, let alone raced!! And he never raced, either. Broke down in training and went to stud. They also started using steroids to bulk up the horses..steroid bloat makes them look great. It also puts useless weight on their legs. Useless in that it isn't muscle or bone that is useful in racing or anything else the horse will be doing. And the steroids can interfere with breeding..Genuine Risk and Cigar are two examples of horses whose breeding ability was compromised by steroids. Of course, they also compromises the immune system including the inflammatory response, which contributes to bone density among other things.

    Then after the people pay a lot of money for a horse that has been trained before his body is ready, and medicated to the max, unlike the olden days when no trainer would dream of breezing a horse with open knees and meds were illegal, they can't wait to get their money back and send the horse on to the races.

    When Thoroughbred racing gets back to being about the horses and not about how much you can flip them for at a young age, and then get your money back from that, then they will go back to the old fashioned way of doing things and the young horses will be sounder and will not break down in such huge numbers. Being old fashioned is good for some things, like horses in horse racing.

    To illustrate the market..a couple of years ago, two people bought a yearling for $495,000, the following Feb. they sold him for $16 million. The colt was named The Green Monkey after a bar at Raffles in Singapore. He pulled a gluteal muscle in training and was out for months. That means he sprained his ass...then he came back and managed to not win any races, the best he did was fourth in an allowance race. Now he is at stud. See what I mean about the investment banker mentality?? It's not about horses and horsemanship any more, it's about profit margins.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for breaking out age and growth (none / 0) (#190)
    by nycstray on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:59:47 AM EST
    I commented in here somewhere a mention about dog ages and when they should be active in sport because of growth and bone maturity. For Dalmatians, you wait until approx 18 months or so before you start ramping up the distance and/or intensity. You need to find other ways to wear out those younger ones until their bones/joints are set. Power walking is a good option along with mind games and short activity sessions through out the day. I actually had to work with my Dal because she ran so hard she would crash over her front feet. She basically would out run herself. Freaked me out. At the time, I always made sure I had enough money for a double knee blowout on hand. Gotta give her credit, all the crashes (some into trees!) and she came out in one piece!

    Hopefully, they'll soon consider and raise the age for these races. It should be about the horses, not the $$$. Nothing more beautiful than watching an animal doing what it was bred to do.

    [ Parent ]

    If they went back to the old schedules (none / 0) (#200)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:57:02 AM EST
    and got rid of the steroids and painkillers, that would probably do it. They are working on getting rid of the steroids. Now if they will just change the sales dates and racing dates to later in the year..sigh.

    [ Parent ]
    Fascinating (none / 0) (#202)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:16:05 AM EST
    Thank you for the education!


    [ Parent ]
    Thanks FLA... (none / 0) (#210)
    by kdog on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:28:35 PM EST
    As a huge racing fan I found your post very educational.  I always suspected drugs and diluted blood lines were to blame for the frailty of todays thoroughbred...I had no idea about horses being rushed to the track before they are ready.

    I felt sick after the race...Eight Belles ran her heart out, she was the only one to even sniff Big Brown....a great performance that sadly ended in tragedy.  

    Pretty lame of PETA to try and blame this on the jockey...I have no doubt that if the jock felt her go lame he would have pulled up.  As if the jockey doesn't surely feel sick enough about it, now he's got the arse-clowns at PETA trying to crucify him.  Jerks.

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed (none / 0) (#5)
    by dissenter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:51:16 PM EST
    Very sad. I bet on Big Brown but it was hard to enjoy.

    [ Parent ]
    So sad. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by lobary on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:10:08 PM EST
    Seeing that horse suffer on the track at the end of the most famous race in the world was hard thing to watch.

    My thoughts are with her owners, trainer, jockey, and handlers.

    There was very awkward moment shortly after the race ended. NBC interviewed the track doctor and he broke the news to the viewing audience that the filly had suffered a devastating injury and had to be euthanized. When he said it I felt sick to my stomach. Not ten seconds later NBC cuts to the camera crew following the entourage of the winning owner and they're overjoyed and basking in victory. Very poor timing by the director in the TV booth.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Unbelievable. (none / 0) (#93)
    by lilburro on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:11:04 PM EST
    It was hard to watch.  I had to leave after Big Brown won (well...in part because I didn't bet on him).  But knowing that it was literally all over, even though she finished in second place.  Too terrible.  It still confuses me that horses recieve these treatments, but after Barbaro died I read many graphs explaining how horses are basically one of nature's miracles (based on the amount of weight that goes on each foot)!  I suppose that explains it.  But very sad.  And of course the TV coverage was pretty crass.  What a surprise.  

    [ Parent ]
    On a lighter note, everybody all talked out (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:56:47 PM EST
    on Guam? That was quite the thread!

    NO (4.25 / 4) (#185)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:01:25 AM EST
    Guam, population 173,000, now has more guaranteed delegates than Michigan, population 10,000,000 and Florida, population 18,000,000.

    [ Parent ]
    Looking forward to the town hall tomorrow (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Anne on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:11:20 PM EST
    with Hillary - I know she'll be giving her usual boffo performance.

    Meanwhile, Obama will be on MTP for a full hour.  For some reason, I think he got a full hour right before some other watershed primary, but I could be wrong.  Something tells me Timmy will be working his hardest to make sure Obama shines; I will have to leave it to others with stronger stomachs to watch.

    Really hoping Tuesday's results will have a general STFU effect on Obama supporters and the media.

    I imagine Arianna Huffington (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Lil on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:26:26 PM EST
    is having major cognitive dissonance tonight. Does she hate Timmeh or love Barack more?

    [ Parent ]
    yeah well (5.00 / 6) (#91)
    by facta non verba on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:08:00 PM EST
    on CNN the other day on her book tour she had the gall to say that she hadn't "endorsed" anyone. I guess running a love fest for Obama and a hatred of all things Clinton doesn't count as an endorsement.

    Arianna is a joke.

    [ Parent ]

    Keepin' it real like Donna Brazile! (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:13:35 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah (none / 0) (#186)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:03:42 AM EST
    she's a joke and a former right-wing hack.

    [ Parent ]
    Still Laffing At That One Lil.... (none / 0) (#71)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:51:05 PM EST
    sending arianna some truth laced tums.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sure you're right (none / 0) (#43)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:27:07 PM EST
    but at this point?

    I could stand in for her and give her talking points.

    [ Parent ]

    Since her voice is starting to get on my nerves, (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Lil on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:30:37 PM EST
    I wish you could stand in for her.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL* (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:34:09 PM EST
    Can't be worse than Bush.  :)

    [ Parent ]
    OMG (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Lil on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:43:44 PM EST
    you are so right, but I bet you couldn't do his talking points, because you'd have to understand what the heck he was saying, which logical people really can't do.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh God, yes! (none / 0) (#59)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:41:54 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    In which case, watch Tracey Ullman (none / 0) (#189)
    by cymro on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:29:24 AM EST
    Her show, State of the Union, is a hiarious commentary on the US, and most episodes begin or end with a send-up of Arianna.

    Blogs and Kisses!

    [ Parent ]

    Why (none / 0) (#139)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:16:45 PM EST
    would you think Russert will be easy on Obama?  Russert is a solid Republican. Considering BO's recent behavior post a debate disaster, Russert may want to bring justice to Gibson.  Russert loves to make people squirm, and Obama is a master at squirmming.

    [ Parent ]
    The Gas Debate (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:18:38 PM EST
    has tickled me.

    I look at it as yet another way Hillary is a leader.

    Let's fight about nuthin' honey.  :)

    It's given them a very innocuous way to throw barbs.

    But it harms no-one.

    I love it.  She's truly an important and vital figure in American politics who cares about people, down to even making sure we don't end up hating one another.

    kid oakland (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by eleanora on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:29:44 PM EST
    is having a fit about it on Kos. I used to admire his writing so much, but he seems blind to how adroitly Hillary stole this issue from McCain for the GE and how much it will help later if she's elected. People will trust what she says more because she's on their side instead of the big oil companies, which will make passing her good long-term energy package much easier.

    [ Parent ]
    I confess (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:43:39 PM EST
    I'm so uncool I never visited this KOS site.  I got a snootfull at Huffington Post.

    But I'm just not angry enough for most of those sites mentioned, so I do admit...they don't have a lot of influence.

    I'm a moderate Democrat.  Nothing about Hillary's plans scares me.  I do confess, Obama scares me financially.  He seems to not understand the reality about those of us in CA.  He just doesn't get it.

    Hillary is a Democrat I can vote for without feeling like I'm shooting myself in the foot.

    I'm not so sure about him, frankly.

    I may vote my self-interest, which would be McCain if Obama is his opponent.

    But my heart belongs to Democrats.

    Just not my pocket-book.

    [ Parent ]

    Me too (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by dissenter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:54:32 PM EST
    I live in CO and I work on contracts so I have to pay all the self employment taxes, get my own insurance, etc. Increasing the payroll tax will be very bad for us. My husband and I also care for our parents so we have massive expenses that aren't deductible. His payroll tax increase alone might convince me to do the unthinkable. I can't afford his taxes.

    He has no idea how a lot of people work or how much it costs to live. Rezko isn't helping me get a cheaper house.

    [ Parent ]

    Payroll tax? What did I miss?! (none / 0) (#100)
    by nycstray on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:20:49 PM EST
    I work for myself also.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh ya (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by dissenter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:41:34 PM EST
    We are too rich for Obama so to save social security he is gonna raise payroll taxes (that nasty 15% social security tax we pay while others pay 7.5%). Employers pay that other half if you get a W2. If you are self employed and get a 1099, you pay the other half too. That adds up and you can't offset it with any deductions. You pay, just like you pay 100% of your health insurance, life insurance, etc.

    In Obama's world, $90K is rich no matter where you live.  Apparently he doesn't realize it costs a lot more to live in NY than IN.

    Wait til the GOP runs those ads.

    [ Parent ]

    Damn! That was not registering with me (none / 0) (#128)
    by nycstray on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:57:56 PM EST
    prob because I have my own name for that tax, lol!~

    Yeah, NY currently and then I'll be moving to that other 'cheap' state, CA. We have a whole 'nother view of Cost of Living levels.

    [ Parent ]

    Jeffrey Liebman (none / 0) (#188)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:18:52 AM EST
    Obama's chief economics policy advisor wants to partially privatize Social Security by in part raising FICA deductions for delivery to Wall Street. Consider it Wall Street's tip jar.

    Liebman is part of Obama's Milton Friedman Memorial Economics team of Cutler, Goolsbe and Liebman.  They are all free market, free trade ideologues.

    Of course most of Obama's 'high information voters' are completely unaware of the fact that Obama's econ team would feel right at home working for G W Bush.

    I've been told by some Obama supporters (you know, the educated class) that we're supposed to ignore all that icky policy stuff. I believe that 'icky policy stuff' is one of their technical terms.

    [ Parent ]

    Ghoulsbee (none / 0) (#195)
    by magisterludi on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:45:02 AM EST
    is the reason I dumped Obama. But, no worries- George Will and Wall Street are still on the bus!

    [ Parent ]
    AnnInCA...I Saw Many Times On HuffPo (none / 0) (#73)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:53:14 PM EST
    when you were savaged time and again by those nasty obamaholics.  Earl Ofari Hutchison wrote a piece to day and he got ripped a new one on there.

    [ Parent ]
    I;m convinced Obots are *FOOLS* (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by thereyougo on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:02:47 AM EST
    'nuff said. I bet the average age is 24.

    You can tell by some of the comments.

    [ Parent ]

    How does proposing something that won't help (1.00 / 1) (#164)
    by fuzzyone on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:55:50 PM EST
    show she is a leader.  Really, its baffling to me.  Obviously she is betting most people are too stupid to realize that the only thing that suspending the gas tax will do is allow oil companies to put more money in their pockets (or, if a windfall profits tax really is put in then to change where the tax is extracted in the process, but now who ultimately who pays it since the price at the pump won't go down).  Both sides have done things that appalled me in this race and this is not the worst, but it does show that her general view is that most people are too stupid to realize when they are being scammed by a politician, and of course she may be right, but that is not what I am looking for in a leader.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think its a scam to give me a few (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by thereyougo on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:09:18 AM EST
    bucks to tie me over in the SHORT RUN.

    You must be filthy rich,so you can't see how a few dollars in my pocket is better than nothing at all. Whats your or Obama's solution?  GWB blames the Congress for not blasting ANWAR for a few barrels that won't even come fast enough to do us any good right now when we are hurting.

    think about that silly stimulus package we're getting in a few days, whether IT will do the trick, to jumpstart this old heap the economy

    [ Parent ]

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by dissenter on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:11:56 AM EST
    It isn't the $30 you might save over the summer. It costs like $800 to fill up a tractor trailer. Those vehicles deliver our food, consumer products, energy and most everything else.

    Gas prices always rise in the summer. A little break will mean a little break in a lot of places

    [ Parent ]

    I did some 'math' (none / 0) (#191)
    by nycstray on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:06:37 AM EST
    taking averages, a semi that gets 7mpg (yes, that's an average) will save about $1 every 28 miles. they will travel approx 31250 miles during the 'holiday'.

    Remember, it's not 'just' gas, it's also diesel, which is a $.24.4 tax.

    For every $30 in gas saved, a family can buy at least 7 gallons of milk (or . . pick your base product).


    [ Parent ]

    You are not going to get anything (1.00 / 2) (#178)
    by fuzzyone on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:32:51 AM EST
    The price rise in crude is far more than the increase at the pump.  Refiners have raised the price as high as they think they can without depressing demand.  Their margins are shrinking.  If the tax is cut the refiners will just see it as a way to raise the price they charge.  The price at the pump will not change, refiners will just make more money.  The fact that ANWAR and the stimulus package are nonsense does not make this not nonsense, its just more nonsense. It's a scam and you have fallen for it.  Lay off the cool aid.

    [ Parent ]
    Lay off the Kool Aid? (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:46:41 AM EST
    Dude, pump up on the Xanax?  Who you calling stupid?  I believe you have been misdirected.

    the big orange satan's URL ain't talkleft.com

    It's Saturday night.  Relax and go fill up your gas tank before Hillary removes the taxes on it.  You'll feel MUCH better.

    [ Parent ]

    Reality is reality regardless of the URL (none / 0) (#206)
    by fuzzyone on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:38:43 PM EST
    I think either Clinton or Obama will be a fine president and I don't agree on either about everything. I think Clinton probably has the better argument on health care mandates for example, though I think there are reasonable arguments, both substantive and political for Obama's approach.

    On this however, there are just not two sides.  Anyone with a basic understanding of economics and the current situation in the oil market would know that the gas tax holiday will do nothing, nada, zip, zero, to bring down pump prices.  Even if refiners don't grab the whole reduction, which is almost certain given the state of the market, any price decrease will increase demand and bring the price back up almost immediately, especially in a high demand period like the summer given the current inelastic supply.  Its Econ 101.  

    What appalls me about this whole episode is that rather than attacking McCain, who came up with the idea first, for putting out such crap Clinton joined his voter deception bandwagon.  

    Its quite telling that in this would discussion on one has had a substantive response to my basic point.  

    [ Parent ]

    Great show last night (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by phat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:28:50 PM EST
    Steve Earle.

    He's good.

    I was pleased that he is an Edwards man. I figured he would be.

    He didn't endorse Clinton or Obama, just the Democrats, I'm glad about that.

    It's funny, a good chunk of the crowd were not pleased when he started talking politics. Where have they been the last 15 years?

    Gas tax: Hillary's dominating the narrative (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by toinerz on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:50:19 PM EST
    I ran a google news search for "gas tax" + hillary. Result: 5,315 articles. In the last day that is. Hillary is clearly setting the current narrative in the campaign. I think this is positive for her because her story is reaching voters while Obama's story is merely a response to hers. Hillary's story can swing votes because it has a substance of its own (one you might agree or disagree with). While Obama's reaction may reduce this effect, it won't make voters go: "Oh, now I have a reason to vote for Obama."

    On DKos there's a diary about how the gas tax debate should be framed by Obama supporters. It's ironic, today alone there are 38 diaries on DKos about the gas tax. Mission accomplished for Hillary...

    just saw a new Obama NC ad (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by angie on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:55:06 PM EST
    starts saying "another negative ad from Hillary Clinton" (it is negative to criticize Obama on policy, I see) and then goes on to show snippets from USA Today saying her call for a gas tax holiday "is political pandering" and Obama's plan "calls for going after price gauging."  No mention that Hillary's plan also calls for that.

    [ Parent ]
    Typical Obama (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:25:35 PM EST
    Steal her plans and policies, pass them off as his own, and dare her to claim he's doing that.

    Perhaps Russert will ask him about it tomorrow.  At the very least, I hope he grills him on what makes policy comparisons "negative" campaigning.

    He's the master at gouging...but Hillary said in the last debate she would have price gouging investigated.

    [ Parent ]

    Here's her NC remarks (none / 0) (#106)
    by nycstray on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:26:19 PM EST
    NYTimes Editorial (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by kenosharick on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:51:27 PM EST
    I was stunned after reading this. It is frankly bizarre. They are claiming that the Clintons have been "pummelling" Obama with non-stop racist attacks and that these attack have backfired and Barack is doing GREAT with white voters. Did I dream Penn.? And recent polls? The NY Times is flat out making up lies. Worse than FOX News.

    I don't mean to sound like a wingnut (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by lilburro on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:22:39 PM EST
    but the NY Times has done a lot to compromise itself.  I don't put them in a different category really than the big name blogs, The Nation, or TNR.  

    The LA Times has been an interesting alternative but they do seem to have it out for Obama.  

    The influence of the NY Times is an interesting question though.  I think they are largely irrelevant to people outside the NY metro area.  There are plenty of exceptions, of course.  Many NYTimes columnists are run in our local NC paper.  The gift of Dowd sadly carries across the country!  But, so does Cal Thomas.  They both belong in the same d#mnable boat, and I'm sure they wouldn't mind being there together.

    [ Parent ]

    There's a thread here somewhere-earlier (none / 0) (#82)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:58:23 PM EST
    today about that. We mostly agreed it was crazy-talk.

    [ Parent ]
    It's astounding (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by boredmpa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:30:39 PM EST
    They are blatantly attempting to stir up trouble right before or on the day of primaries.  I don't know what their agenda is, but it's unacceptable.

    Remember, the day of the Mississippi vote they ran the infamous 3 AM ad = KKK propaganda Op-Ed

    And just before the major NC primary they run "Since January, the Clintons have pummeled Barack Obama with racially tinged comments and questions about his character."

    I honestly believe someone should organize a boycott.  Their editors have gone off the deep-end to select such biased and inaccurate re-visioning of the clinton campaign and do a disservice to our democracy by publishing it right before primaries.

    They ran a critical piece on military analysts last week, and what the hell is this??? It's a campaign hit job, that's what, and no different.

    [ Parent ]

    It's all in the pocketbook (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:32:54 PM EST
    Stay away from the NYT web site, and cancel your subscription, if you have one.  Until people show the media they will not tolerate, and pay for, this kind of journalism, they have no incentive to stop it.  If they lose all their customers, they can't sell ads.  We'd see a big change if just one major newspaper was made a solid example of what power the people really have.


    [ Parent ]
    Note: (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by boredmpa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:37:40 PM EST
    I didn't realize that this is a new columnist... still he is dishonest in his second column ever and joins the dowd/rich weekend rantfest already in progress.  And I do feel his dishonesty/trolling is on a different level than the rantfest that is dowd/rich.

    [ Parent ]
    Apparently schizophrenic, too. (none / 0) (#196)
    by magisterludi on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:53:18 AM EST
    The NYT "strongly" endorsed Clinton for the nom.

    Makes my brain wiggle.

    [ Parent ]

    An undecided superdelegate says... (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Dawn Davenport on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:53:27 PM EST
    ...according to this story:

    Jerome Segovia, a superdelegate who has yet to endorse a candidate, told The Sunday Times that if Clinton could narrow the delegate gap to below 100 in the remaining eight contests, superdelegates would feel free to vote with their conscience and back her.

    Segovia, a member of the Democratic party's powerful rules committee, which could play a key role at the convention in the event of a near-tie, is leaning towards Clinton after initially favouring the Illinois senator.

    "Obama has got to be 100 delegates ahead of Clinton by the end of the race. If he is, it would be perceived as undemocratic to back her. Anything under 100 delegates is effectively a tie and it would be seen as reasonable to support Hillary," he said.



    She Can Make It....Wish Edwards Would Give (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:58:42 PM EST
    her his delegates now.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe he will with (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:41:59 PM EST
    this on the table.  Elizabeth might be able to convince him of the merits in doing so.

    [ Parent ]
    If Obama's old projections (none / 0) (#104)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:24:42 PM EST
    hold, the remaining dels would split about 203/205.  Look for shifts in his non-AA vote.

    The Obama projections are to take NC by 8, IN by 7, lose WV by 12, win OR by 5, lose KY by 14, lose PR by 15, win MT by 11 and win SD by 15.

    Based on getting 90% of the AA vote, the projection of non-AA vote needed is.....

    NC .36
    IN .46
    WV .42
    OR .52
    KY .38
    MT .54
    SD .57

    If Obama's non-AA support drops below these levels, Clinton can pick up some delegates.  Reality?  to make up those delegates, Obama would need to run at about 37% of the non-AA vote.  Clinton will not get the white male vote in Montana, so that reduces her chances to get within 100.  My number was always 150, so I was disappointed to hear 100.


    [ Parent ]

    IN, KY, and WV... (none / 0) (#113)
    by Dawn Davenport on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:35:50 PM EST
    are the states where I think the non-AA vote will exceed his campaign's projections.

    [ Parent ]
    ugh, I meant his losing the non-AA vote... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Dawn Davenport on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:38:55 PM EST
    ...exceeding his projections.

    [ Parent ]
    Montana commentors (none / 0) (#124)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:54:10 PM EST
    didn't think she had much room there, does anyone have any familiarity with South Dakota?

    [ Parent ]
    SD = Tom Daschle = obama's backer (none / 0) (#142)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:23:27 PM EST
    so there might not be much wriggle room for Hillary...SD  = South Dakota, not Superdelegates

    [ Parent ]
    I'm very confused by the (none / 0) (#129)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:58:21 PM EST
    delegate rules.  Is it possible for Edwards to give his delegates to her?

    [ Parent ]
    I believe Edwards Has To Endorse (none / 0) (#150)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:32:18 PM EST
    Clinton so that his delegates might vote for her.

    [ Parent ]
    Iowa (none / 0) (#157)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:45:35 PM EST
    still sitting on their Edwards delegates?


    [ Parent ]
    Counting Fl and MI, there's only 14 delegates (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:00:35 PM EST
    difference. Though don't know what they gave him for MI. This is per the counter at MyDD.

    [ Parent ]
    Every delegate counts (none / 0) (#158)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:47:22 PM EST
    in this race.

    [ Parent ]
    OMG! (5.00 / 6) (#90)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:04:07 PM EST
    I totally know Jerome!!! I worked with him on the Dean campaign.  We coordinated Hispanic/Latino outreach back in 2003-2004. I coordinated 11 states in the south and southeast and he did the New England corridor down to DC (where he lives) I am getting on the phone with him RIGHT NOW!  I didn't realize that he was a Super D!

    [ Parent ]
    not only a superdelegate... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Dawn Davenport on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:32:31 PM EST
    ...but also a member of the Rules committee, as the story mentions.

    [ Parent ]
    So he must have voted (none / 0) (#120)
    by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:47:08 PM EST
    for the Obama super-delegates' amendment to change the rules to then strip MI and FL of all delegates.  From what I saw of the video of the meeting, only one member voted against.  It was Don Fowler.

    [ Parent ]
    Then, MI and FL (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:34:19 PM EST
    absolutely must be included in the true counts.  Even if the delegates aren't seated, the fact that she won them doesn't change.

    [ Parent ]
    BTW (none / 0) (#97)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:16:56 PM EST
    is your username from Female Trouble?  Dawn Davenport was Divine's character's name in that movie.

    "Nice girls don't wear Cha-Cha heels!"

    [ Parent ]

    yep (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Dawn Davenport on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:31:27 PM EST
    ;)

    [ Parent ]
    chicklet and confetta (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:03:30 PM EST
    were the names of my dogs back in the day!  i can quote you female trouble, hairspray and polyester ALL day LONG!

    i LOVE it!  Nice to meet u Dawn!  Say hi to Taffy for me

    [ Parent ]

    Well, aren't they (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:58:28 PM EST
    funny.  Hardy, har, har.   I hope those are being slammed by other commentors.  Deleted would be appropriate.

    The 7 vote thing... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:25:00 PM EST
    is fascinating.
    "Wit has truth in it; wisecracking is simply calisthenics with words." Dorothy Parker
    I thought this was cute (5.00 / 4) (#174)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:28:56 AM EST
    Found on Riverdaugher/Confluence, via Bloomberg

    Bill Clinton unleashed: When the former president and his Secret Service detail stopped for the night at the Valley River Inn in Eugene, Oregon, he found himself amid about 500 whippet fanciers and their dogs.

    Rather than head to his room, Clinton held an impromptu two- hour town hall-style meeting. He petted the dogs and mugged for photos with canines and owners in town for the American Whippet Club's 22nd National Specialty Show.

    "He just talked to us and talked to us and talked to us, and he was reluctant to leave," said whippet owner Karen Lee, 46, of Lincoln University, Pennsylvania. Clinton finally headed upstairs at about 1 a.m.

    I love dogs more than I like myself, so I enjoyed this story.

    Request for explanation (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by GOP Lurker on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:47:07 AM EST
    First off, forgive my intrusion/insensitivity if you perceive it as such. But as a Republican, I'd like to ask:

    (1) How does this proportionally-awarded delegate system help the Democrats? From the outside I'm seeing nothing but the rending of garments, gnashing of teeth and dangerous division of the party.

    (2) Is this the best way to pick a nominee or is it the best way to appease competing factions w/in the Democratic Party? I ask in good faith and under the perhaps-naive notion that selecting a nominee should be the goal of the process.

    (3) Will this process produce the candidate most likely to beat McCain in November? From my perspective... I'm thinking it won't.

    x (none / 0) (#199)
    by Mary Mary on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:53:05 AM EST
    It's about power in a power structure. It has nothing to do with (2) or (3).

    Your party (any party) is the same. In fact, your party probably has more trouble with (2) than the Dem party does, as Dems have had more practice at it. I'm speaking specifically of the social con/financial con split here.

    [ Parent ]

    Please file your request under 'BS' (none / 0) (#203)
    by Boia on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:41:11 AM EST
    First off, forgive my intrusion/insensitivity if you perceive it as such.

    Of course, and rest assured that nobody here perceives it as intrusion/insensitivity.

    Most of us understand that's its fake concern/interest; and most of us also understand that any time a Republican relies on the arch deployment of certain banalities ("I ask in good faith and under the perhaps-naive notion..") he is showing only bad faith and cynicism.  (And, of course, though he believes he's scoring points, all he's doing is wiggling his little wet pinky in the air.)

    But that, of course, is no surprise: our GOP Lurker--who seems to think his weaselly compliments fool anybody--belongs to a party whose smooth and harmonious process has vomited up a war-loving, lobbyist-sucking, double-dealing hypocrite.  For whom, as he's proudly told us, he will vote.  (And why not?  The Lurker supports NAFTA and CAFTA; a market-based health-care system and tort reform; a flat tax and no repeal of Bush's tax cuts; the war, and more wars--as does John McCain, his party's nominee.)

    Give me the Democratic mess every time.

    [ Parent ]

    Do forgive me (none / 0) (#205)
    by GOP Lurker on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:34:52 PM EST
    I had thought that this site was a more civil than you have demonstrated here.

    I will go away and not post here any more, as per your fervid desires. Enjoy your victorious echo chamber, you big tough guy you!

    [ Parent ]

    Did you see Hillary's horse Eight Belles (none / 0) (#1)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:49:14 PM EST
    had to be put down at the Derby? She was the only filly. I hope this isn't a bad omen, beyond being heartbreaking, of course.

    Oh no, I did not see that (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:14:38 PM EST
    My office mate and I were admiring her picture on the net yesterday. Such a gorgeous animal. So sad.

    My name here Ruffian is a tribute to another great spirited filly that died fighting all the way. I named my dog after her.  We'll say a prayer for Eight Belles.

    [ Parent ]

    happens all the times (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Salo on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:37:22 PM EST
    you should see the death toll for steeple chasers.

    [ Parent ]
    And the injuries to the riders are pretty (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Anne on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:59:17 PM EST
    horrific, too.  One of my daughters has ridden since she was 6, hunter/jumper, on the local and regional circuit, and now just rides for pleasure - occasionally exercising horses for her old trainer.  Thankfully, she never rode point-to-point, although she could have, as we have a very active steeplechase season here in MD.

    As long as I live, I will never forget sitting outside the ring watching her jump a course in a lesson, when her horse took off early, hit the rails with his knees, got one caught in between his legs and went down on his chest.  She was still on him at that point, but he rolled over her.  Oy.  Fortunately, after an ambulance ride to the hospital, she came away with 10 stitches in her chin, a mouthful of stone dust, and was sore for days - and her horse was fine.  Scariest moment of my life as a mother - remember leaping over the fence wondering if this was the moment when all of our lives were going to change.

    Trouper that she was, 2 days later she competed in a show; she was fine, I couldn't even watch!

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, jumping is very dangerous (none / 0) (#187)
    by splashy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:06:30 AM EST
    There are people that get paralyzed and killed doing that. Sitting on top of an animal that is much bigger than you are, that could possibly fall on top of you, or being thrown and hitting your head, breaking your neck or your back is always a possibility.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes! (none / 0) (#6)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:51:26 PM EST
    Horrible story.  

    [ Parent ]
    First filly ever in the Derby (none / 0) (#7)
    by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:52:59 PM EST
    a few years ago was Eight Belles, so I read.  A good choice for the first woman every to win a primary race.:-)  Btw, I've also read that a surprising number of horses are injured in races and die.  So sad, such beauty in motion, and such emotional ties for their owners and riders.

    [ Parent ]
    The first filly to win the Derby was Regret (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:11:13 PM EST
    in 1915. Then came Genuine Risk in 1980 and Winning Colors in 1988. There have been 38 fillies started in the Derby, with the three aforementioned winners. Given how many colts have entered and not won, the girls are holding their own. Genuine Risk is still alive, retired in VA. She had a lot of trouble getting in foal and only had two foals, Genuine Reward and Count Our Blessings. Winning Colors was put down due to colic in Feb. 2008. Regret had 11 foals, with one being a stakes winner. His name was Revenge.

    Hillary reminds me more of this filly, Rags to Riches, who won the Belmont last year by beating Horse of the Year Curlin in a stunning stretch duel. Enjoy watching it.. it's great race. She looked him in the eye, and he couldn't quite meet the challenge.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks! I got bad info (none / 0) (#95)
    by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:15:27 PM EST
    and just heard that Eight Belles was the first filly in several years in the Derby, anyway, and that accords with your detailed history.  And that there have been three winners, wow -- and one as early as 1915.  Even before we got the first woman in Congress. I would say it's past time to get a woman winning the White House to be as historic as the Derby, huh?

    [ Parent ]
    The thing to look at is the names and the (none / 0) (#108)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:29:04 PM EST
    sequence of the names of the fillies and their foals..heh. Ok, follow me on this one..teeheehee.

    Regret and Revenge..regret for Bill's being a total dick about some things in the White House..revenge in winning the first election for NY Senator. Then Genuine Risk..the run for the Presidency..with Genuine Reward and Count your Blessings seen as what she will do for the voters and her take on life. Winning Colors..what she will wear to be sworn in.

    And just to kick in that last filly, Rags to Riches, the story of the Clintons leaving the WH millions in debt and then pulling out and making tons of money with their books and his speaking engagements.

    Can't beat that for an American success story, now can you??  Oh, and did you see Chelsea at the Derby? She looked lovely in her Derby hat.

    [ Parent ]

    There is a track near me and I was saddened (none / 0) (#13)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:00:58 PM EST
    to find out how common it is. They are not meant to run so fast on those skinny legs apparently. I know some enjoy the sport but I think the price is too high.

    [ Parent ]
    The horses here are run too young (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by jerry on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:18:30 PM EST
    My daughter's riding instructor says that these injuries are almost unheard of in England.  I think he says that in England they are running the horses when they are older and that we run the horses too young.

    I am not qualified to know one way or the other what the truth of this is, except I find it pretty sad, and while I can believe the horses do love to run, I find the accidents followed by euthanasia monstrous.

    [ Parent ]

    I love watching the ponies run.... (none / 0) (#23)
    by lobary on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:11:57 PM EST
    ...but I'm becoming sympathetic to this view. This happens all the time.

    [ Parent ]
    I think they start them too young (none / 0) (#24)
    by nycstray on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:12:10 PM EST
    and that's where part of the problem is.

    I happen to be a Dalmatian owner/lover. They are bred to run miles, but you don't run them young. Same with agility and other dog sports. You want the growth to be finished and the bones/joints to be matured. Size it up for a horse. I'm not familiar with their training, but the full out running of a race must take a toll on the younger ones.

    OK, I'm off before I start crying again . . .

    [ Parent ]

    The derby has too many horses (none / 0) (#107)
    by lilburro on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:28:23 PM EST
    too young.  It's absurd on the part of the people who organize it, but they are driven by the popularity of the race....sigh.  

    [ Parent ]
    They do have too many horses. (none / 0) (#115)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:37:21 PM EST
    But 3 years old is not too young.  The idea behind the derby was as a proving ground for up-coming horses.  2 and 3 years old are not colts.

    [ Parent ]
    My understanding (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by lilburro on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:52:05 PM EST
    is that 4 years is the age at which a horse reaches maturity.  I also believe that those newly 3 years old get to compete with those almost 4.  2 years is way too young, IMO.  They need those bones!  

    [ Parent ]
    Tragic. (none / 0) (#10)
    by nycstray on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:58:34 PM EST
    It's just heartbreaking. I feel bad for the trainer and all others involved with her.

    Such a sad ending for a beautiful Filly. R.I.P. Eight Belles  :(
     

    [ Parent ]

    A commentor (none / 0) (#12)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:00:19 PM EST
    on one of the other posts said some supporters were celebrating that the filly came in second.  I hope they weren't aware of what happened to Eight Belles.  So sad.  I watched Barbaro and did not want to see something like that happen again.

    [ Parent ]