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

  • Contribute 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.

    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.


    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!!


    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.


    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.  


    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.

    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!

    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!


    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.


    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.


    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.

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

    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.


    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.

    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.



    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.  

    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.

    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?

    yeah well (5.00 / 5) (#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.


    Keepin' it real like Donna Brazile! (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:13:35 PM EST
    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.

    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.

    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.


    Since her voice is starting to get on my nerves, (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Lil on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:30:37 PM EST
    I wish you could stand in for her.

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

    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.

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


    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.

    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.

    I confess (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    Me too (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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!

    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.

    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.


    How does proposing something that won't help (1.00 / 0) (#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.

    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


    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


    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).


    You are not going to get anything (1.00 / 1) (#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.

    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.


    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.  


    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?

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    An undecided superdelegate says... (5.00 / 2) (#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 / 1) (#84)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:58:42 PM EST
    her his delegates now.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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?

    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

    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?

    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.

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

    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.

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

    OMG! (5.00 / 4) (#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!

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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!"


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

    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


    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.

    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.


    Well, aren't they (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    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.


    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.


    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!


    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.


    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.

    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!


    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.

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

    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.

    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.


    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?

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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 . . .


    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.  

    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.

    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!  

    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  :(


    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.

    It wasn't apparent to everyone watching the TV (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:19:55 PM EST
    that it happened. They showed a brief shot of her on the ground and after that it was obscured by the ambulances. She fractured one ankle, a condylar fracture and then the other ankle when she tried to keep from falling. She was put down on the spot.  Let me just say to those of you who don't know about horses, she was dead before she realized she was in pain. The adrenaline from the race combined with the shock means that it takes several more minutes than she lived for the horse to feel it. Just so you know..ya know?

    Thank you. I didn't know that. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by nycstray on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:25:36 PM EST
    Thanks for that. I know that it is much worse (none / 0) (#40)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:26:00 PM EST
    for the humans than for the horse. I'm just one of those sappy animal lovers who projects my feelings onto them.

    Appreciate Your Input... (none / 0) (#130)
    by AmyinSC on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:02:09 PM EST
    I was hoping you might say something abt this given your experience.  It helps to know she didn't suffer...Such a loss, though.  As soon as she came in second, I found myself wondering how she'd do in the net big contest, and then they announced she was down.

    It was tragic - my partner and I just burst into tears when it happened.  And it was clear that Big Brown's entourage had NO idea what had happened...Sad...


    do not repost (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:17:37 PM EST
    their comments here.

    Stay classy, Obamaborg. (none / 0) (#50)
    by lobary on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:34:47 PM EST

    In fairness, they're not all as stupid as some, but this is emblematic of the mindset at the Big Orange. Keith Olbermann would surely approve.


    Provide a piece (none / 0) (#56)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:39:32 PM EST
    Most try not to give traffic (no money), so if you could provide copy of a short, relevant part.. that would be good.  :)

    friends don't link to... (none / 0) (#92)
    by white n az on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:10:48 PM EST
    lekfests - especially Cheetos driven lekfests...take a screenshot, upload it to flickr or photobucket or something and link that.

    Omens (none / 0) (#96)
    by diplomatic on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:16:55 PM EST
    When the Red Sox won the World Series in 2004, I thought it would be an omen that Kerry was going to win.  But he didn't... I think omens are only omens when they turn out to be... omens! lol deep.

    To counter that to the (none / 0) (#103)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:22:56 PM EST
    sports/superstition crowd:

    The Giants beat NE, who, were @ the time undefeated, for the Super Bowl.

    Hillary is our Giant Patriot!!!


    Is that what happened? (none / 0) (#121)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:49:41 PM EST
    I saw that she was down. But I had to take off...

    Special elections in Louisiana (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:50:41 PM EST
    iffy results from the 6th now. There's no way a Democrat will win the 1st.

    were any of the dems (none / 0) (#11)
    by Kathy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:00:05 PM EST
    tied to Obama/Wright?  Wasn't Mississippi having a special election today with some dems who had commercials run against them?

    Speaking Of obama/Wright....Learned (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:26:21 PM EST
    about this on McLaughlin Report tonight...shows once again the character or lack thereof concerning obama.  He has been a continual supporter of Wright since the day they met.



    Mississippi is later (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:12:34 PM EST
    I don't think they used the Wright ads in LA.

    Maybe not the Wright ads, but they're (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Anne on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:20:36 PM EST
    linking Obama in a very negative way with candidates in special elections.

    Read this today - GOP Tests Anti-Obama Strategy: From the article:

    Don Cazayoux insists he pays so little attention to the presidential campaign that, even on the verge of capturing a seat in the House of Representatives, he was unaware that if he wins Saturday he will become a superdelegate, tasked with helping to decide the Democratic presidential nominee.

    Yet in the run-up to Saturday's special election, the state representative's image popped up time and again in local television ads, paired with that of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). One spot had side-by-side photos of Cazayoux and Obama with the words "big government scheme" describing the local candidate's stance on health care. Another showed Cazayoux with Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and charged that Cazayoux supports a "radical liberal agenda." Another spot mocked him as "Don Tax You."

    Faced with the prospect of losing a seat that the GOP has held for the past 33 years and the further thinning of their ranks in Congress, Republican committees and their conservative allies have poured more than $1 million into an effort to turn the race for Louisiana's 6th Congressional District into a referendum on Obama, the Democratic front-runner for the White House.

    And this Baton Rouge-based district's ad war, which is being fought largely on policy positions, is softball compared with the high and tight pitches Republicans are throwing in northern Mississippi. With a surprisingly competitive House special election there set for May 13, Republicans are running ads showing the Democratic candidate with Obama; his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.; and outtakes from Wright's controversial sermons.

    Having shed their belief that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) would be the bigger drag on down-ticket Democrats in the fall, congressional Republicans are field-testing a potential general-election strategy that pins Democratic candidates to Obama. It comes just as Wright reclaimed the national spotlight this week with a series of controversial appearances, sparking new questions about how white working-class voters will respond to Obama's candidacy

    So, it seems like the effect on down-ticket Dems ought to be of concern to superdelegates.


    Someone please explain something to me.. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:36:51 PM EST
    I have been watching politics for a very long time..since JFK, actually. Now, if the GOP sees Obama as more of a drag on down-ticket Dems than Hillary, why does the DNC think he is more electable?? This does not make sense to me. Does it make sense to anyone else?? Or has my logic gone askew in my "old age"(56)?

    Who knows (none / 0) (#165)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:57:29 PM EST
    what the DNC is using for logic this election season.  Although, if I get to the point where I feel I have to vote for Obama (I'm still not expecting him to win the nom, though), I will not be able to give him a democratic congress. He hasn't told me what he plans to do to us, so I will contribute to his chance to prove he can reach across the aisle and I will feel the checks and balances are in place.  I'm sure I won't be the only democrat reluctant to give him a blank check in power before he has proven himself after two years.

    The Memphis market includes (none / 0) (#88)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:02:13 PM EST
     northern MS and is plastered with GOP ads tying Childers to Obama (and in a decidedly not nice way, might I add). The newest has Childers on grainy vid denying Obama endorsed him and, before you can say Bob's yer uncle, they trot out the quote of Obama doing just that.

    I try to pay as little attention to anything having to do with MS as possible (Haley Barbour is the guv- enuf said) so I have no idea how it's playing.


    Looks like the Dem will win... (none / 0) (#87)
    by OrangeFur on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:01:10 PM EST
    ... as predicted.

    A quick glance at Cazayoux's website suggests he's not as bad as some southern Democrats, but he's still pro-life and against "amnesty" for immigrants. His website is deliberately vague on a number of other issues as well.


    not as bad as some southern dems? (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Kathy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:03:57 PM EST
    Yeesh, have you looked at some Northern and midwestern dems lately?

    Well... (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by OrangeFur on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:20:01 PM EST
    ... Dems in general aren't exactly making me burst out into song, northern, western, eastern, or southern.

    that's "pro forced labor" (none / 0) (#134)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:09:21 PM EST
    Just heard about Guam- did he really (none / 0) (#9)
    by kenosharick on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:57:23 PM EST
    win by only 7 votes? Media will report he wins in a LANDSLIDE!!! BTW- who gets how many delegates? Is it proportional?

    Looks like (none / 0) (#14)
    by eleanora on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:03:20 PM EST
    they'll get two delegates each, plus there are five supers. So far Clinton has one SD, Obama has two. The recount may change things up a little, plus I read somewhere there's an add-on delegate that will come later.

    And they are talking recount.... (none / 0) (#80)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:57:10 PM EST
    50-5t0 (none / 0) (#15)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:04:42 PM EST
    on the 4 delegates.  :)

    I'm sorry, but Guam is a funny story to me.

    So apropros!  We got wins by a smidge.....and now we even have a recount!


    Gonna be a recount but 7 as it stands now. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:04:55 PM EST
    They will each get 2 and then there are 5 superD's who the majority seem like they're going to Obama.

    I mean 4 not 2. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:05:19 PM EST
    Scratch that. 2 each. 8 half- delegates. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:09:03 PM EST
    Isn't that the weirdest thing? (none / 0) (#29)
    by eleanora on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:16:53 PM EST
    Maybe they want more people to go to the mainland and party, but I'd be squicked out being only half a vote. My best friend when I was little had half-birthday parties in the summer (she was a Christmas baby,) and we had to dress in unmatching clothes and shoes and bring half-presents. I hope the Guam delegates do something fun like that :)

    Please (none / 0) (#26)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:13:14 PM EST
    I'm feeling more like Super-Dog-Mom.  I went out today and slayed a bag of natural dog food, guaranteed not to be tainted.

    Now, what's serious and interests me is a case from San Diego, Cynthia Sommers.  The SD prosecution won a murder conviction.  Then they had to cut her loose because it turns out there was no arsenic.  

    I want to know from SOMEONE what we can do to stop malicious prosecution.

    But, in the meantime, I'm cool with talking about dogfood.  :)

    Back Home my dogs get the Puerto Rican diet (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:21:58 PM EST
    Dry dog food with rice and beans and leftovers.

    Habichuelas and Arroz Con Pollo??? (none / 0) (#69)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:48:35 PM EST
    Chuletas (Pork chops) (none / 0) (#78)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:54:57 PM EST
    chicken bones are dangerous.

    Yep (none / 0) (#81)
    by dissenter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:57:30 PM EST
    My little darling gets boneless chicken thighs lol

    If we are talking dogs (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by angie on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:45:42 PM EST
    I have a little 2 year old maltese -- rescued from a breeder who wanted nothing to do with him because he was born an honest to goodness hermaphrodite! Boy parts on the outside, girl parts on the inside.  Yes, I had to get him spayed and neutered. Anyway, the breeder had kept him for the first two years of his life in a kennel because he couldn't breed him & couldn't sell him -- and he is so sweet and loving. Nobody wanted him. :-( When I found out about him 8 months ago (through my cousin) I didn't want him either because I already had 1 chihuahua and 2 cats, but I took one look in that little freak's eyes and knew he was one of us.  So he is now a part of my own little freak show (2 dogs, 2 cats, 1 person).  His name is Jack, but my dad nicknamed him JackandJill.  He lives his life as a boy, but he pees like a girl.  

    My dog (none / 0) (#30)
    by dissenter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:18:10 PM EST
    has allergies and can't eat any dog food. So, I have to make her chicken and rice every single day. It is a nightmare - never mind expensive - but she is worth it:)

    She is so much better now.


    I raw feed 5 cats and one dog (none / 0) (#35)
    by nycstray on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:22:16 PM EST
    have been for about 6yrs. I find it easier  :) I do things in bulk though. And when I cook meals for them, I also do it in bulk. My kitchen can get pretty festive when I'm prepping mass pet meals, lol!~

    I guess I do it in Bulk (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by dissenter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:29:54 PM EST
    At least the chicken. I buy a ton at Costco, cook it up and just make the rice fresh every day. It is still a hassle. I can't imagine doing it for all of your animals.

    What's really bad is my mom takes care of the dog when I'm abroad so she has to do it. Thank God she loves the dog lol


    I buy a lot of it pre-ground (none / 0) (#64)
    by nycstray on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:44:46 PM EST
    meat, bones and organs. I add extras to it for the cats. I also grind my own. The dog I hand body parts to for the early meal and in the evening she gets a smaller meal of ground and extras. I make my own supplement mixes, so that's also easy. The cats eat a bit over a pound a day as does the dog, so I just keep a few days worth in the fridge and the rest in the freezer (they have their own chest freezer!) The dog gets to share my evening meals also for extra veggies and some grains.

    My mom started doing more home feeding. I had to laugh one day when I called her. She was still a bit grossed out from cutting up lamb hearts, lol!~  Most folks I know that home prepare just pack up individual meals for the 'pet sitters'. It's funny how many people think it's odd  ;)


    Raw diet (none / 0) (#101)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:20:55 PM EST
    I did it for my previous dog due to his hip dysplasia. He had it when he was just a few years old and started avoiding putting weight on one of his back legs. The vet said he would eventually need surgery and it would always be a problem. So I took him to an acupuncturist/vet who suggested a raw food diet for him.

    After a few trips to the doc for acupuncture and the diet change, his hip dysplasia never bothered him again. Sadly he passed a few years ago, but thanks to that diet he had 14 great, active years.

    Every month or so I'd buy a bunch of ground meat and a giant box of chicken necks from the butcher. I'd sort it all into plastic containers - 2 raw necks and a handful of raw meat. Then I'd freeze them (thank goodness I have an extra freezer). At dinner time he'd get that plus the supplement (he hated organ meat and veggies so I had to eliminate them). Sometimes I'd switch some chicken necks for turkey necks and I'd give him different types of meat for variety. If you want to watch a visitor freak out feed your dog a giant raw turkey neck in front of them. The crunching into and eating the bone never failed to impress.


    I am my Dog's Mom (none / 0) (#38)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:25:29 PM EST

    Yikes on having to cook everything!  


    My dog (none / 0) (#51)
    by misspeach2008 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:35:13 PM EST
    has epilepsy, and the meds made her gain lots of weight.  She's a Golden and was the size of a coffee table.  Went the chicken and rice route, but she developed an allergy to the chicken.  Now she eats ground turkey, baked sweet potatoes, and a mix of broccoli, cauliflower, zucchini, summer squash and carrots.  She loves it, and she's lost 20 lbs in the last two months.  The good thing is that if I'm tired of cooking after I make her dog food, I can just share it with her.  ;^)

    Weight Watchers (none / 0) (#55)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:39:30 PM EST
    would be pleased for both of you!  :)

    From San Diego Union Tribune: (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:24:33 PM EST
    In December, a judge granted Sommer's request for a new trial, saying her former attorney, Robert Udell, made several mistakes that might have prejudiced jurors. Udell admitted he made some errors.

    Oh it's moved past that (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:26:26 PM EST
    They retested some samples.

    No arsenic at all.

    The State dismissed the case, but they won't admit wrongdoing.


    post mortem (none / 0) (#76)
    by Kathy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:53:58 PM EST
    should have shown yellowing fingernails, tainted hair, etc.  You can dig folks up 100 years on and test their hair or the juices in the ground and find heavy metal poisoning.

    And, if I were writing a snapping good thriller, the smell of burnt almonds when the torso is opened!


    The county would be extremely (none / 0) (#183)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:53:40 AM EST
    foolish to admit wrongdoing as there will likely be a civil lawsuit.

    But didn't he die kinda mysteriously? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:40:28 PM EST
    Just sayin'. Doesn't seem as malicious as what AA's get in Texas.

    Well, (none / 0) (#65)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:45:39 PM EST
    He died young.  He was sick.  He kept going to the docs, but he was so young.

    I think it's one of those cases where young guys die unexpectedly.


    I make my beasts cookies a lot. (none / 0) (#60)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:42:28 PM EST
    I cook up several lbs of brown rice and add whole wheat flour, some boullion granules or soy sauce, brown sugar or molasses, maybe some grated carrots, some eggs and milk to bind. I spread the batter-dough out on parchment paper covered cookie sheet and bake, then cut in bars. They love them and it's cheap, easy, and healthy.

    Wow (none / 0) (#67)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:46:32 PM EST
    I bought my dog natural treats.

    Does that count?  


    add liver! (none / 0) (#68)
    by nycstray on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:46:48 PM EST
    but don't lick the spoon! save that for the dog. lol!~

    * yes, I licked a liver spoon once . . . .


    My "pup" is on antibiotics. (none / 0) (#194)
    by Fabian on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:35:27 AM EST
    I was late with the Frontline this spring and he got a tick-borne infection.  He gets doses mixed in soft food.  He adores tuna - but that's not environmentally kosher.  Cheap canned salmon - doesn't like.  Clearance priced Newman's Own lamb and rice - smells just like people food.  Looks like it too.  And no, I didn't taste it.  He loves it, though.

    (The Dog is 90 pounds, wolfish looking purebred mutt and fortunately, a vet's best friend.)


    Special Congressional Election in Louisiana (none / 0) (#54)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:38:20 PM EST
    Republican Jenkins is beating Democrat Cazayoux by about 4k votes so far according to local Baton Rouge tv stations.

    The GOP linked Cazayoux to Obama and Wright.  If the Dems lose this will give HRC MORE ammo that Obama will be damage down ballot opportunities.

    The supers and leadership do not care- (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by kenosharick on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:53:35 PM EST
    they are ready to throw away this election out of fear they might hurt the feelings of AA voters.

    it's Hillary's fault (1.00 / 2) (#109)
    by diogenes on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:29:20 PM EST
    Since Hillary, the Democrat, has had her proxies actively pushing supers to vote for her because Obama is "unelectable" due to Wright, it gives permission to Republicans to very openly use Wright.  
    If you think Swift Boating was bad, imagine what it would have been like if a Dem in the primaries did it to Kerry- then establishment Repubs (rather then the lunatic fringes) could have jumped in.

    The Republicans (5.00 / 6) (#117)
    by sumac on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:41:13 PM EST
    never needed anyone's permission to use Wright (and any other issue real or imagined) against Obama.

    Um... (5.00 / 5) (#119)
    by lilburro on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:42:31 PM EST
    I think Ickes said Supers have been asking him about it (NYTimes).  Additionally, Republicans don't need to ask for permission.  I don't know why you think they are reading her Super D arguments, however many they are privy to, as necessary for the go-ahead.  As far as Swiftboating goes?  Get real.  Jeremiah Wright at the National Press Club conference is not Hillary's fault.  

    As far as right wing attacks go, I can't wait for the Republican ads that say, "Even Dem VP Obama thinks socialized medicine is too expensive for this country.  Do you really want to give your paycheck to our government?  Vote John McCain."

    Not that the Repubs want to hide behind Dems.  They don't seem to need it.


    He is doing just as much pushing on the (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:11:12 PM EST
    the superD's. She's dishonest, divisive, negative sounds like  right-wing talking points to me. And he sends them all a state-by-state electability memo that conveniently leaves out Ohio and Florida.

    If you'd been paying attention (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:30:59 PM EST
    the Right has been playing on the Wright "thing" for the better part of the year now. Hannity's been on it for quite some time.

    Clinton had nothing to do with it.


    You mean the way Obama did it (none / 0) (#136)
    by Radix on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:11:24 PM EST
    to Hilary?

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    Andrew Sullivan: the case for Obama/Clinton (none / 0) (#105)
    by catfish on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:25:05 PM EST
    Obama/Clinton: a hate-filled dream ticket:
    It is for many in the Obama camp an unthinkable thought. But politics is sometimes the art of adjusting today to what seemed inconceivable yesterday. I'm talking about the possibility -- and the powerful logic -- of a unity Obama-Clinton ticket for the Democrats.

    I see the hate-filled part (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:50:22 PM EST
    Was this type of language supposed to promote a joint ticket?..........................

    So what is she up to and what is Obama to do about it? There are three main theories behind Clinton's refusal to acquiesce to mathematics: she simply cannot tolerate losing a nomination she believes she has a dynastic right to; she is trying to ensure that Obama loses in 2008 in order to run again herself in 2012; or she wants to be offered the vice-presidential spot on an Obama-led ticket. I'm beginning to suspect the last option is the most plausible, and it gives Obama a potential opening: why not give her what she wants?  

    Worries about Obama's relative youth and lack of Washington experience would be allayed by the presence of the Clintons. The toxicity of the Clinton baggage could be balanced by the hope Obama has inspired.

    The downside? They hate each other. Over this campaign, Obama's supporters, along with many others, have been taken aback by the raw, unprincipled bare-knuckle politics that the Clintons have unleashed against the greatest talent to emerge in national politics since Bill Clinton himself. ... When I raised the idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket on my blog last week, Obama-supporting readers were outraged and offended. I can see why. I defer to nobody in my contempt and suspicion of the Clintons.

    The Clinton dynasty has lost to the new pretender, but it hasn't been defeated in one fell swoop. Dynasties rarely are. The old guard also has enough clout and enough support to threaten Obama with considerable collateral damage -- if it wants to -- and that's the message it is now clearly sending.

    If Obama wanted to flatter her even more, and keep her occupied, he could offer her the healthcare portfolio -- allowing her a second chance to do what she so fatally failed to do 15 years ago. And if she turned him down, he could nonetheless say that at least he tried.

    Oh yeah, I feel the unity now. :)


    And the Dowd-Sullivan award for horrible journal- (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by lilburro on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:02:15 PM EST
    ism goes to...

    Dowd & Sullivan!

    Thank you, thank you everybody!  


    You could try this (none / 0) (#133)
    by Radix on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:09:15 PM EST
    What a nasty piece of work (5.00 / 6) (#125)
    by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:54:56 PM EST
    and what a nasty man Sullivan must be.  Another to avoid.  Ugh.

    Yes he is (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by dissenter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:57:34 PM EST
    And he was a big cheerleader to go to war which makes this all the more remarkable.

    The bloggers who were the most rah-rah (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:29:23 PM EST
    about Iraq are the ones who hate her the most for her AUMF vote. They feel guilty about what has transpired and she's Bad Mommy because she didn't save them from themselves. Maybe psychobabble but there is a discernible pattern.

    Here's her NC remarks (none / 0) (#106)
    by nycstray on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:26:19 PM EST
    Please (none / 0) (#127)
    by halstoon on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:57:52 PM EST
    Tell me you all agree with Frank Rich here.

    I think all crazy preachers are the same (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by dissenter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:12:53 PM EST
    My problem is with Obama....and his own words and policies. A white nutcase is the same as a black one. I don't think Wright is really the issue for most people. It is Obama's "bitter" remarks and his arrogance. He has insulted people all on his own.

    It's so many (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:15:12 AM EST
    reasons.  His refusal to tell us what he plans to do if he gets to the WH, his inability to tell the truth about even the most basic parts of who he is, his inability to articulate a logical, well-thought out stand without a teleprompter, his refusal to acknowledge the truth about the role his "friends" play in his run for the WH, his constant use of the race card, his constant accusations and character assassination attempts at Bill and Hillary Clinton (the best president and first lady this country has enjoyed in decades) for his personal gain, his vulgar hand gestures at Hillary because he destroyed himself at the PA debates, what he would bring along as a first lady who shows so much disdain for the people of this country, etc.

    Am I missing something? (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:14:05 PM EST
    Did McCain belong to Hagee's church?  Was Hagee a part of McCain's campaign team?  Were McCain and Hagee closer than I know?

    I'm not being snarky, I'm really serious.  I've heard many people make the comparison so I'm wondering if there's something beyond just an endorsement.


    You didn't miss anything (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by RalphB on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:55:33 PM EST
    McCain does not belong to Hagee's church.  He is not a part of his campaign team.  He is not his spiritual mentor.  Unfortunately, we cannot say the same about the Obama-Wright connections.

    What you're missing is the fact that (none / 0) (#146)
    by halstoon on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:26:11 PM EST
    Hagee is someone who McCain thought was very important to his campaign. He sought Hagee out and pitched his candidacy in hopes of getting access to Hagee's congregation, a huge megachurch with a broadcasting license.

    So McCain worked to get the blessing of a man who says things like the Catholic church is a whore and gay people cause hurricanes with their parades. The GOP also begs for the votes of people who think abortions and homosexuals caused 9/11.

    Those things are okay. The endorsements of Hagee et. al. are portrayed as positives by the MSM. Rev. Wright gives credence to a ridiculous theory and suddenly Obama is facing disaster.

    Does that help you see the point?


    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:40:12 AM EST
    It seems a lot like comparing apples and crabapples; you can stomach one, but not the other.  

    No, I don't agree with him (none / 0) (#143)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:24:36 PM EST
    I read the article and he makes some great points.  His comment about America becoming a white-minority nation, well, I can maybe understand where he's coming from but here's the rub:

    Minorities by and large do not vote in the numbers that whites do.  The big exception this time are the AA's who are coming out for Obama.  Glad to know they are voting in great numbers but voting for him because he's black is wrong.  Vote on policy and judgement, not platitudes and his race.

    Frank Rich criticizes McCain, and rightfully so.  But Rich is a typical liberal. So what if the 'party of Lincoln' doesn't have ONE elected offical in their ranks?  Doesn't mean they haven't tried, they just haven't won an election. Alan Keyes, Michael Steele and Lynn Swann are all black republicans.  I believe the candidate who ran for governor in Ohio was black too.

    Rich needs to do his homework.


    I know where you're coming from, but (none / 0) (#154)
    by halstoon on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:34:55 PM EST
    I disagree. I think black people are absolutely justified in coming out to vote for Obama to help him become the first black president. I see that as totally different from white people coming out to help McCain be the next white president.

     Obama's policies are essentially the same as Clinton's, and Edwards' when he was in, and like the Democratic platform. Early on, black people didn't care b/c they figured--like everyone else--that Clinton was going to be president. When Obama won Iowa, it was suddenly a reality that a black man could be president. I admit that a year ago I didn't think so, not yet. I hoped that it would be true in my lifetime, but not this year. So I know kinda how they feel. I decided to vote for Obama b/c he was a black man who had a real chance at being president, and I liked his (and the Dems) policies. His speeches are special, and pretending that a great orator can't affect great change is to ignore history.

    Clinton was supposed to be it; I understand the deep disappointment, but Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime figure, and I think America should take advantage.


    "Once in a lifetime figure" (5.00 / 5) (#159)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:51:04 PM EST
    how in God's name does that qualify him to be President?  I guess you will not understand, it's great that you guys think he is so charming.  But he is not qualified to be president and some of us think Hillary is the once in our lifetime person who is actually qualified.  

    Obama injected his preacher in the campaign by using him and then dumping him.  I don't want any preachers.  C'mon we all think the white preachers are loopy so who cares.  


    Obama is a once in a lifetime figure? (5.00 / 6) (#160)
    by RalphB on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:52:31 PM EST
    what a huge of load of crap.  he's an empty suit with a good speech writer.  please don't confuse him with Martin Luther King.

    Must have missed a post (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:53:51 PM EST
    where you address the question you raised?  

    Obama sure is a once in a lifetime figure--- (5.00 / 5) (#166)
    by MarkL on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:59:36 PM EST
    a chance for the Democrats to elect a President with as little to recommend him as Bush.

    You all may not think the president is supposed to (none / 0) (#168)
    by halstoon on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:03:05 AM EST
    inspire the country, or you may not be inspired by Obama, but either way I think youre in the minority--vote-wise--on either count.

    Being the best orator of a generation combined with leadership skills and a motivational attitude is a great package for president; just ask Bill Clinton. Or Reagan. Or Kennedy. Or Roosevelt. Or Lincoln.


    If Obama were a good orator, you'd have a (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by MarkL on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:13:09 AM EST
    point. He's extremely dull. He has a good voice though. Is THAT enough?

    What leadership? (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:19:26 AM EST
    skills are you talking about?  Name one thing he's done that had him in the role of the key leader.  He won't even stay in a job for 2 years before he's bored and moving on to his next ambition.  Problem is, he has no accomplishments that he actually worked for...he networked himself into everything through his friendships with Ayres, Wright, Rezko, etc.

    he's leading a movement that is defeating (none / 0) (#207)
    by halstoon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:34:43 AM EST
    the most powerful Democrats since Kennedy. that takes some real leadership skills.

    "inspired" (5.00 / 9) (#175)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:29:04 AM EST
    Inspired, inspired to do what?  Put up a sign?  a bumper sticker? something on myspace?  vote?  What?  Change careers?  Join the peace corps?  Go work with Doctor's Without Borders?  Inspired to do what?  Protest till the war stops?  Organize a national strike?  What?

    All I see from this inspiration is a new age kind of feeling good about the America and oneself.  This is not inspiration this is air.  Airatory.  Obama's oration is like compared to the great inspirational orators is like me playing air guitar.  

    Voting is your obligation as a citizen.  I am tired that we all have to fall on our knees cause some people are finally doing what they are supposed to be doing:  Voting.  


    inspired to vote and participate (none / 0) (#208)
    by halstoon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:38:16 AM EST
    is a good thing. to date, he's inspired more people to vote for him, leading him to win 31 contests to clinton's 5.

    i try to talk positive about obama w/o bashing hillary, but all you people can do is trash the likely nominee.

    but if i react by dogging hillary you'll all cry foul.

    you're so...bitter. ;o)


    Beg to differ (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:32:03 AM EST
    Regardless of the "rules", Hillary has garnered more votes than BHO, so your minority think is balderdash.

    I can see why some might be swept up in the oratory of BHO, it just doesn't apply to me.  Kinda like when Vanilla Ice came out, his album cover had a sticker on it that said, "SEVEN MILLION FANS CAN'T BE WRONG."

    There is something called buyer's remorse.  A lot of Bush voters feel that way now.  And I have seen more than a few people who said they wish they could take their votes back on Barack, and that includes, a few AA voters as well.

    I am a Chicano.  And if Bill Richardson had gotten as far as Barack I certainly wouldn't be supporting him because of his Latino heritage.  I would still be two feet firmly planted in the Clinton camp.

    I was in 1992 and in 1996.  And I gladly plop myself there again in 2008.


    Maybe, but we're the ones (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by eleanora on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:36:54 AM EST
    he has to inspire if he wants to win in the fall. Perhaps instead of just blaming and finding fault with us, Senator Obama should try to figure out what would inspire us, what would motivate us to follow him? Your description of his skills in those areas seems to be rather subjective.

    And I believe Clinton's still 12,000 votes ahead in the primaries even if you add estimates for the four caucus states that refuse to release their tallies. Wait, 11,993, pending recount. I almost forgot Guam :)


    You can't eat speeches, pay groceries with (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by feet on earth on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:19:24 AM EST
    inspiration, or fill the tank with hope.  That's Obama's problem with the street smart working class who work with sweat in low-paying jobs.  They eat lunch out of their brown paper bags, not at fancy cafe-o-let outfits blogging away.  
    Until Obama gets it, he can deliver the most inspiring speeches and fail to get the vote of the street-smart and self-educated working class people.  

    It's a class issue, the contempt of most liberal democrats with the party base (the working class) is the friction in the party.  Obama has failed miserably in inspiring them.  His supporters and the pro-Obama media, accusing them of racism,  and of being white-trash can fill good about appeasing their white-guild, but they are doing it at the expanse of party unity and of Obam's ability to appeal to them.

    But what's new, they think of themselves as the pure segment of society,  the holders of the truth, the educated class that must teach the masses what to think and how to behave.
    Ha, those blue-collar people, so pig-headed, so uneducated,
    so small-town, so bitter, forget them, they don't count.
    WRONG!!!  They are smart people, with fine noses for smelling BS a mile away.  Their hard lives the teacher.

    There, I got it off my chest.


    All this talk about Obama supporters being ugly (none / 0) (#209)
    by halstoon on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:42:34 AM EST
    and divisive is bullsh!t. Just look at the reactions of supposed Democrats here.

    BTD's unity talk here is a joke, unless unity means Obama supporters getting behind the candidate who's lost the great majority of contests.


    And Hillary isn't? (none / 0) (#204)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:47:46 AM EST
    "Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime figure,"

    Please sign the petition (none / 0) (#140)
    by chopper on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:17:50 PM EST
    Please sign this petition to help the voters in FL and MI be heard.  Save our democracy.


    Speaking of dogs (none / 0) (#179)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:36:36 AM EST
    I just downloaded an audiobook for my MP3 player via NetLibrary called "Finding Mr. Right" by Emily Carmichael.

    It seems Lydia was having an affair with her best friend Amy's husband.  While on a date the elicit couple were killed.  Now dead Lydia has to come back to earth -- as a mangy Corgi -- to find Amy a new husband.

    S'posed to be funny, and apparently the first book in a trilogy.

    Ahhh, I needed something that has absolutely nothing to do with politics.. ;-).

    Hope everyone is having a nice evening.

    Dems Win Louisiana 6th District (none / 0) (#197)
    by john horse on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:09:03 AM EST
    Its another frabjuous day!!!  Democrat Don Cazayoux has won a congressional seat in Louisiana that has been in GOP hands since the 1970's.

    With the surge in Iraq turning sour, our economy in recession, gas and food prices up, income stagnant,and a host of issues like health care and global that have been neglected for the last 8 years by the GOP, the only way that Dems can lose is if we fight each other instead of fighting McCain and the GOP.

    Since they can't run on 8 years of peace and prosperity the GOP strategy is to sling mud at the Dem candidates and try to divide us.

    After either Obama or Clinton gets nominated, lets remember that united we stand and divided we fall.  Our country can't afford another 4 years of Bush policies.