Bloggingheads Video on Tuesday's Primaries

Law Professor and blogger Ann Althouse and I have another Bloggingheads TV diavlog on Tuesday's primaries. The topics (you can click on any one or watch it all, but warning, it's 54 minutes total):

  • Did the mayor of Gary, IN try to sabotage Hillary’s victory? (08:34)
  • Jeralyn makes the case for Clinton to stay in (09:39)
  • Ann fears Obama is too liberal, Jeralyn that he’s not liberal enough (05:59)
  • Will voters think Obama is angry because he’s black? (08:35)
  • What’s the real difference between Obama and Hillary? (04:46)
  • Looking ahead to a McCain Supreme Court (05:19)

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Rezko: Defense Rests, No Witnesses Called | Book Salon for "Snitch" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Comparing today's emails from both (long) (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:59:36 PM EST
    both asking for donations. Check the tone:

    Friend --

    News broke this morning that Senator Clinton made three separate loans to her campaign in the past 30 days -- including one as recently as Monday.

    These loans total more than $6.4 million, which combined with her previous personal loans, add up to at least $11.4 million she's loaned her campaign since February.

    A spokesman said she may continue to "loan the campaign additional money out of her jointly-held assets" -- which include more than $100 million in income since her husband left the White House.

    Meanwhile, by winning a double-digit victory in North Carolina and closing the gap in Indiana, Barack won another 100 delegates.

    Barack Obama is now just 169 delegates away from winning the Democratic nomination. It's within sight.

    This is a decisive moment in this race.

    Barack has already won more votes, more delegates, and more than twice as many states as Senator Clinton, whose path to the nomination has grown extremely narrow. But these loans show that her campaign will continue to contest the remaining primaries vigorously.

    We need to show that the voices of more than 1.5 million ordinary people donating whatever they can afford are more powerful than one person giving more than $11 million to their own campaign.

    Now is the time add your voice to our historic movement. Make a donation of $25 to match Senator Clinton's loan:


    Here's the math of where we stand ...

    There are only six contests remaining on the Democratic primary calendar and only 217 pledged delegates left to be awarded. Only 7% of the pledged delegates remain on the table. There are 253 remaining undeclared superdelegates, for a total of 470 delegates left to be awarded.

    With North Carolina and Indiana complete, Barack Obama only needs 169 total delegates to capture the Democratic nomination. This is only 36% of the total remaining delegates.

    Conversely, Senator Clinton needs 326 delegates to reach the Democratic nomination, which represents a startling 69% of the remaining delegates.

    With the Clinton path to the nomination getting even narrower, we expect new and wildly creative scenarios to emerge in the coming days.

    While those scenarios may be entertaining, they are not legitimate and will not be considered legitimate by this campaign or its millions of supporters, volunteers, and donors.

    You can help make sure Barack Obama is the nominee. Please make a donation of $25 now:


    We want to be clear -- we believe that the winner of a majority of pledged delegates will be and should be the nominee of our party.

    And we estimate that after the Oregon and Kentucky primaries on May 20th, we will have won a majority of the overall pledged delegates.

    Evidently, the Clinton campaign agrees. According to a recent news report, by even their most optimistic estimates the Clinton campaign expects to trail by more than 100 pledged delegates and will then ask the superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters.

    But we have our own case to make: that millions of Americans volunteering their time and donating in small amounts have built a campaign that has won the most delegates, the most states, and the most votes.

    And this campaign -- your campaign -- will be the one that wins the presidency in November and delivers a wave of support for Democrats at every level of office.

    Now is the time to step up and make it happen by owning a piece of this campaign. Make a donation of $25 today:


    We'll be in touch as the situation evolves.
    Thank you,


    David Plouffe
    Campaign Manager
    Obama for America

    Dear *,

    Today, in every way that I know how, I am expressing my personal determination to keep forging forward in this campaign.

    After our come-from-behind victory in Indiana, there are just 28 days of voting left. But we've never campaigned with the stakes as high or the time as short as they will be over the next four weeks.

    And with you by my side, I'm going to keep fighting for what I believe in until every voter has had his or her say.

    From the very beginning, you and I have counted on one another, working through every challenge and seizing every opportunity. That's not just the way our campaign works. That's the way America works.

    As we enter the final four weeks of this contest, let's keep working our hearts out.

    Contribute now to keep moving our campaign forward.

    In six days, we have the chance to show our strength in West Virginia. If you'll stand with me, it's an opportunity I intend to make the most of.

    There's no question about it -- we've got to make every one of these next 28 days count -- starting with today.

    Contribute now, and let's keep winning together.

    As we've told each other time and time again. There will be good days and not so good days in the course of this campaign. But there will never be a day that we can't count on one another.

    As we enter the final 28 days of voting, I know you'll give it everything you've got. And you know I will do the same.

    Thanks for being such a wonderful friend and ally,

    Hillary Rodham Clinton

    I like her style; and very speedy (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:04:45 AM EST
    thank you e-mail.  

    Clearly two (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:11:49 AM EST
    very different things.  One: campaign spin by a surrogate with a less than positive tone, expect new and wildly creative scenarios to emerge in the coming days snark and something like 16 references to Clinton.  I'm guessing Obama is not going to take BTDs advice and focus on McCain. It really is a campaign run on Clinton hate.  Well, they have been pretty successful with it.  I wonder how well his Repub hate campaign will work for the GE.  It's a turn off for me, but I'm not voting for him so I'm biased.

    The other: the personal touch, never mentions Obama and 16 or so references to 'we' and 'our.'
    Looks like she's taking BTDs advice and focusing on her own campaign and not Obama.


    Running (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:15:17 AM EST
    on McCain hate won't work. If dislike of bush, which was immense, wasn't enough to boot him out then it certainly won't work for McCain.

    huh? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by tnjen on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:02:34 AM EST
    Hit piece if there ever was one. I stopped reading when he race-baited AA votes at 3/5 of a vote. Obama supporters and the party will pay for allowing the Clintons to be painted in this light. They've done what the GOP has always wanted to and it will have severe consequences for years to come.

    the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:06:44 AM EST
    was deleted, the url was long and skewed the site. urls must be in html format, use the link button at the top of the comment box or the html coding below the preview/post buttons.

    George Will makes me sick (none / 0) (#106)
    by DFLer on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:00:57 AM EST
    I try not to read Will, for health reasons, but this column jumped out off the op-ed pages of my daily and grabbed me by the throat before I could resist.

    Beside reiterating the baseball bs, which Somerby has succinctly covered previously, the MOST heinous remark by Will was implying that Hillary would only count two thirds of the AA vote....basically characterizing her as a slaver. Despicable.

    (I love baseball. It is my favorite sport. But if I hear one more bow-tied elite snob like Will waxing on about the pastoral nature of the great game, I think I'll puke. Lemme hear a little chin music! Put a high hard one in your pasture, you idiot)


    Well now, Will may be an elitist snob (none / 0) (#111)
    by mikeyleigh on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:41:00 AM EST
    and his politics are atrocious, but he does know baseball.  If you haven't before now, read some of his writings on the game.  Personally, I think he should stick to that and get out of the political racket altogether.

    I Know (none / 0) (#114)
    by DFLer on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:50:43 AM EST
    that he knows baseball and writes about it.

    He just irritates me. He's the ultimate pastoral blatherer. Okay George, I get it. He probably disdains the Twins and the Dome. So there! #:)

    Gimme Thomas Boswell: "Why time begins on opening day" or "How life imitates the World Series"


    Here's the last paragraph (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:22:28 AM EST
    of Adam Nagourney's latest read in NYT:

    Still, even a mild defection of Democrats could prove critical if the country undergoes another presidential election as close as the last two, and Mr. Obama's advisers said they were well aware of that as they prepared for the months ahead.

    I've (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:29:45 AM EST
    decided that Obama's campaign is completely clueless when it comes to the general election. A speech about unity just isn't going to cut it.

    The problem is Obama. He just doesn't have the qualifications to be President and there's nothing that they can do about that. Also, he has no national security argument other than being against the war. Those ns democrats aren't going to vote for him either. The GOP is saying that he has spent 143 days in the senate. I guess the argument they will be making is that you should put someone whose been working for your company for 5 months as President. That'll be an effective argument for people in their forties and above.


    Remember the 'Bitter Speech'? (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:46:49 AM EST
    He gave his FP creds in that one . . .


    As far as his total work experience goes, I've worked for bosses like him. Never again. They have good qualities, but they are missing the 'thing' that makes it work. The process. No hands on leaves a big hole . . .  


    Obama's biggest electability issue imo (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Left of center on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:23:41 AM EST
    Hillary women (tens of millions of them) just watched some nobody come out from nowhere, accuse her and her husband of racism, and probably undercut their chances of ever seeing a woman president,do Obama supporters really expect them to vote for the people responsible for all of this?

    white men (none / 0) (#35)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:34:16 AM EST
    the electorate will be around 130 million in november not a few thousand people in a caucus

    This morning on the Obama News Network, (none / 0) (#97)
    by kayla on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:07:48 AM EST
    Andrea Mitchell said that the Obama camp feels that they already have women because of Roe v Wade and that Jews are the real issue for them.

    I hope they really aren't underestimating women like that.


    Roe v Wade Was An Issue In 04 (none / 0) (#100)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:56:48 AM EST
    and the Soccer Moms went for Bush.

    They're using Roe v Wade as threat not argument (none / 0) (#105)
    by esmense on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:54:48 AM EST
    but, as an argument it is an argument for a Democratic Congress and Senate that will block right wing judicial appointments -- not an argument for a Democratic president who is anxious to compromise with Republicans and court Republican voters.

    Then the first thing we need to do is (none / 0) (#107)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:06:21 AM EST
    hope Leahy gives up leadership of the Judiciary committee (he won't) because he isn't terribly interested in holding up conservative judges.

    One slight problem with the argument that Obama will put up good judges is that he wanted to vote for Roberts. I don't know how I'm supposed to trust his judicial priorities.


    I don't trust his judicial priorities (none / 0) (#109)
    by esmense on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:25:07 AM EST
    Taking Hillary out of the fight for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Left of center on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:54:43 AM EST
    would be like pulling Mike Tyson out of the ring and putting in Pee Wee Herman. Another of Obama's electabilty issues is that he can't fight himself out of a wet paper bag. The GOP are licking their chops.

    Spring: part two (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:14:35 AM EST
    Out front: the tulips have quieted.  A few pink and yellow ones left out front poking up out of a bed of lime blossomed euphorbia.  The forget-me-knots are still going and the pink rhododendron is blooming.  White Iris sit amongst the purple pincushion flowers.  The bark is beginning to crack on the paper birch and the oxalis is blooming pink under the redwood tree.

    Carport wall: Purple and pink ranunculus and scarlet sweet william, are mixed in with red leafed heuchera, and the white bacopa is trailing over the brick top of the wall.

    Patio: the fish are busy in the newly sprouted lily leaves and the Royal Sunset rose has begun to bloom on it's trellis on the fence.  The rose, lemon tree and honeysuckle rise to the occasion when the sun hits them.

    Playhouse: the clematis is still spreading up the fence and over the rustic playhouse (on stilts) and the ferns, hostas and bleeding heart are safe under it's shade, the wild violets are rampant and the foxglove are starting their climb for the sky.

    Backyard: the cutting bed is in transition.  The tulips, freesia and white azalea are done and the snapdragons, standard roses and strawberries are coming on.  It looks like it's going to be a bumper crop.  The hummingbirds are busy at their feeder hanging at one end of the copper arbor and the goldfinches have arrived to feast at their niger feeder at the other end.  I had forgotten how yellow they are and how striking the markings on their folded wings.

    Westside:  the white crowned sparrows are emptying the feeder twice a week.  The male flicks out the seed he doesn't like.  It's obviously the flax seed as that is what is blooming under the feeder.  The fig tree has popped. The neighbors 50 year old flowering cherry tree hangs heavy over our shared fence and it is making snow storms when it gets hit by the wind.  Quacking aspen is turning green but not enough for the birds to hide in yet.  The wisteria is heading along it's fence and up it's arbor.  Pink blooming heuchera, columbine are blooming under the trees and the tarragon is going crazy.

    How goes it in your neighborhood?

    My natives are just amazing this year. (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Fabian on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:41:27 AM EST
    Due to have two special needs kids, my gardening has suffered for years.  The youngest can't go anywhere without being watched nonstop or he'll wander off.  Very frustrating.

    So I was pleasantly surprised this spring when my natives came through like I was tending to their every need.  The huge clump of wild geranium is blooming like it was some fancy hybrid.  The tiarella are putting on a show after slowly spreading for years.  The fresh growth of the wild ginger and Allegheny pachysandra is lush and healthy.

    There's really no manual for using native plants in the landscape, so you have often have tp spend years planting and observing.  There is no "plug and play" especially with shade lovers which are slow growers by nature.

    My favorite is senecio obovatus, round leaf ragwort.  Such a lovely name!  Bright yellow flowers, a perennial that blooms in a year from seed, easy to grow.  And a native to the eastern half of the united states.


    This year (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:09:52 AM EST
    my dogwood finally bloomed after two years of waiting. It was important to me because my beloved Jack's ashes are buried below it. Jack was my yellow lab buddy for only five short years before a heart ailment rare in labs took him from me. I was as bereft as I've ever been when he died and seeing the tree bloom now, well, it just gives me solace. It's beautiful, just like Jack.

    Love my dogwood. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Fabian on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:46:01 AM EST
    Orginally I cursed whoever put a tree in front of my only(and very shady) kitchen window.  But it turned out to be the only tree that would have done well in that spot.  Dogwoods will NOT grow up against buildings.  Instead they will always grow away from them unlike just about every other tree or shrub out there.

    I can't say much for the rest of their landscaping efforts.  Only the dogwood, one blessedly disease resistant crab apple and two sturdy azaleas remain.

    They are all, to some extent, natives.  The native american crab apple has white, scented blossoms and is largely disease resistant.  Mine is unlikely to be the native species, but it's not some skanky tree that gets every disease in the book and sheds more leaves in July than October.  If it had been - it would be firewood right now.


    Trees have busted out. (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:06:34 AM EST
    I SO love when the trees get the 'lime green hue' as the first leaves are poking out. Then they all bust out wide open. I look out my windows now and all I see are fresh green leaves  :)

    The birds are back. The Mocking birds are particularly nice with their pre-sunrise songs when I'm walking my dog :)

    Met last weekend with my CSA group and it looks like I'll be getting in on the action at the community garden also. Very excited about that!!! Getting updates from the farm on what's being planted just thrills the heck outta me. The opportunity to 'play' in a garden, OH MY! Need to start working on my kitchen/fire escape garden more seriously . . .

    Now that the dog and I have adjusted to the overload of pollen, park visits will be especially nice with the great weather. I love working for myself and even more so because I have a dog and we can stop and smell the roses during the day. There's a community garden by the dog park and she loves to smell each individual plant along the wrought iron fencing as we walk by. Hopefully we'll be able to hit the first mow in the park. That's always a hoot. She goes nuts sliding in the fresh clipped grass. I end up with a slightly green and black spotted Dalmatian {grin} And then we go over to the baseball fields and she rolls around in the fresh laid infields. Adds a nice burnt sienna color to the mix. And if it's rained recently, fergetaboutit, a mud finish just rocks in her world, lol!~  Yes, I get strange looks as we walk home . .  but I also get a truckload of smiles :)


    after 2 days of being stumped (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:04:42 AM EST
    on the whole "Yarn Over" stitch (I'm a full lefty knitter), the simple phrase "Bring your yarn to the front of your work between the needles" totally explained it in a way that the initial guidebook totally missed.

    ::small things happy dance::

    I can now move forward with my project.

    I just got mail from the DCCC... (5.00 / 8) (#85)
    by OrangeFur on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:33:40 AM EST
    ... with a token survey to fill out and a request for yet another donation. I'm thinking of writing the following:

    Dear Speaker Pelosi,

    Thank you for your service to our country and our party.

    I notice that the DCCC is once again asking me for money. I understand that campaigning is expensive, so I don't blame you for making the request. This time, however, the answer is no.

    Here's why:

    You may remember a DCCC fundraiser in San Francisco a week before the 2006 elections. You were there, as was Rahm Emanuel, but the main attraction was President Clinton. I was among the many hundreds of people who had happily contributed at least [*] to attend. Back then, you and the DCCC had no qualms about using the great affection Democrats had for President Clinton to raise money, and he, of course, was only too happy to oblige.

    Two years later, however, it's a different story. You and other Democratic Party leaders have stood silently while his reputation, as well as that of Hillary Clinton, has been repeatedly slandered by Senator Obama's campaign and by the media. You did not defend them against inflated and baseless charges of racism, and you did not speak out meaningfully against the ridiculously unfair media coverage that Senator Clinton's has suffered throughout the primary season.

    Clearly you are free to support whichever candidate you choose, and it appears that you have chosen Senator Obama. But we are Democrats first and campaign partisans second. I am extremely pained and troubled by the way you have passively allowed the smearing of two of our party's most dedicated and accomplished public servants. It would have taken only one strong statement from someone in your position to put an end to it, but no such statement ever came.

    I expect that the party will once again ask for President Clinton's and Senator Clinton's help this fall. I am certain that they will do everything they can. They deserve much better than they have received.

    Sincerely yours,

    P.S. End the war already, please?

    It's a wonderful letter (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by tnjen on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:14:53 AM EST
    You sum up what a lot of others, including myself, are feeling. I really don't think the elites of the party realize what they've done. They think the anger will simply pass once a nominee is chosen and that we will forget. I can only speak for myself but I will never forget what the DNC allowed to happen, and in some cases gleefully promoted, this cycle.

    It's ironic but to me this --both their actions and inaction-- is the tear in the party and why many of us won't come back together should Obama win out. He went too far and they helped him. The racism charge was the political equivalent of attempting to brand them (as well as supporters) pedophiles. Further, the sexism/misogyny that has taken place in the media and in Obama's campaign amplifies the pain and grievances.

    Their silence on these things while simultaneously moaning about her damaging him by simply having the audacity to exercise her right to compete spoke volumes. I won't reward that.


    I should have made it clear... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by OrangeFur on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:40:03 AM EST
    ... I blame the negativity more on the media than Obama, though both are responsible.

    The Dem elite may not have wanted to intervene with Obama, but they could have stepped in with the media. They didn't. As Martin Luther King said, sometimes silence is betrayal.


    they could've done (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by tnjen on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:15:46 AM EST
    ...something. They didn't have to do a public smack down but they most certainly could've said something privately to the campaign. That the race card kept getting played tells me they didn't. As to the media... I agree 100% that is where they really failed big time and I did take their silence as betrayal. Great quote, btw.

    What I find (none / 0) (#113)
    by mikeyleigh on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:52:58 AM EST
    interesting about the media and the playing of the race card is that just about the time the Obama campaign employed it against Hillary's remark regarding the roles of MLK and LBJ in the civil rights movement, Tom Brokaw was putting the finishing touches to his documentary about King.  He makes quite clear the respective roles both men played, their mutual admiration, and mutual suspicion of each other.  But nobody could walk away from that show not understanding how necessary each of them were to the process.  My long-winded point is that the media, at least some of them, were well-aware of the true nature of the story, could have, and refused to say even one word that might have blunted the unfair critism Clinton received.  

    I Want To Know What An Obama Supreme Court (4.00 / 1) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:48:26 PM EST
    nominee would look like. I'd like clear talk and examples of what type of justices he would select.

    I'm fairly confident it won't (3.00 / 2) (#10)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:07:06 AM EST
    be a bitter old woman!

    Roberts Roberts and more Roberts (none / 0) (#38)
    by Serene1 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:36:54 AM EST
    besides of course Obama may follow his hero Reagan's footsteps and appoint other conservative judges also.

    But that is just my opinion.


    The problem is Obama (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by tnjen on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:42:10 AM EST
    ...has shown no values. How are we to discern the judges he'd appoint when the evidence on Roberts is condemning and he's displayed no core values? He claims post-partisanship and yet hasn't defined what this post-partisanship is or means.

    Cass Sunstein (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Deadalus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:06:11 AM EST
    Cass Sunstein.  You can bet on it.

    Cass Sunstein Would Not Make Me Vote For Obama (none / 0) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:37:46 AM EST
    to safeguard the SCOTUS.

    Sunstein is a proponent of judicial minimalism, arguing that judges should focus primarily on deciding the case at hand, and avoid making sweeping changes to the law or decisions that have broad-reaching effects. He is generally thought to be liberal, although he has publicly supported various of George W. Bush judicial nominees, including Michael W. McConnell and John G. Roberts. Much of his work also brings behavioral economics to bear on law, suggesting that the "rational actor" model will sometimes produce an inadequate understanding of how people will respond to legal intervention. Wikipedia

    Judicial minimalism

    Their anti-conservative, yet also anti-liberal stance is well-expressed in the concurrent belief of many minimalists that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided by its overly liberal court, but also that modern conservatives who either sit on or influence the Supreme Court of the United States are wrong to try and overrule that case at one fell stroke, its effect on the law having become a stable precedent. Depending on the minimalist's particular preferences, a minimalist on the court would be likely to either very slowly bolster or chip away at abortion precedents rather than proclaim a lasting ban or legalization on abortion via Constitutional rulings. Wikipedia

    Cover of Time magazine (3.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Tove on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:11:29 AM EST


    Kind of jumping the gun, aren't they? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:20:49 AM EST
    My god. (none / 0) (#78)
    by OrangeFur on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:58:27 AM EST
    What the *&%$#! is wrong with the media?

    When did they stop reporting news and start predicting it/making it instead?

    Given the number of times they've been wrong already this season (see saying John Edwards would suspend his campaign when it was discovered that Elizabeth Edwards' cancer had returned, calling MO early for Clinton, etc.), you'd think they shut up. I suppose the snarky asterisk is a small mitigating factor, but seriously, the media needs to remember its job.

    At this rate I think WV will be closer than expected. Why would people go vote when everyone is telling them it's over?


    I'm worried about that too (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by stillife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:20:14 AM EST
    that the "Obama has already won" meme will depress turnout in WV and KY.  Of course, even if Hillary wins both states by 25 points, I'm expecting that her victories will receive little media coverage.

    Don't worry about WVa (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by liminal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:32:27 AM EST
    First, WV has a real primary.  We are nominating everything from magistrates to SCt justices, from county clerks to Senator.  Many WVians will turn out to vote for those offices.

    Second, we have early voting.  Early voting started April 23, and continues to May 10.  There are two Saturdays (May 3 and May 10) for early voting.

    Third, Hillary and Bill Clinton are barnstorming the state today.  Senator Clinton has a big rally scheduled at the state capitol, and President Clinton is going on a big tour of small WVa towns that haven't seen hide nor hair of a presidential candidate in generations.

    Fourth, WVians do not like to be counted out and do not like to be dismissed.  Every time the NY Times does some disparaging story about Appalachia, even our most liberal paper sends a reporter to do a disparaging story about NYC.  Yes, I'm serious.  We're used to being dismissed (tiny, rural, bitter old rednecks whose sports teams are also dismissed and blah blah blah.  you see where I'm going.) and don't like it.

    Fifth, particularly in rural communities, there is a fair amount of anger at the WV Dem leadership in Washington for supporting Obama, against the wishes of their constituents.  I think it's more about the kind of elitism that that represents.  I'm hearing grumbles against Rockefeller and Rahall from die-hard Democrats - folks who have photos of the time Al Gore stopped by the Tri-State Airport, and the like.

    Sixth, I heard a local poll this morning from a pollster with lots of experience polling WV.  He had Clinton leading 56% to 18%.  He polled just registered Democrats and independents, and found that John McCain outpolled Barack Obama [i]among registered Democrats and independents[/i] in WV.  

    Seventh, near as I can tell, the Obama campaign is pretty much ignoring us.  Our primary is scheduled on Tuesday.  Thus far, Obama has no scheduled visits here.  See number four.  


    It looks like I'm first to hear this. (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:15:09 AM EST
    I even started listening to this before it was posted here.

    I really don't understand why there is the view, as Jeralyn expressed, that HRC will get more through congress.  Where's the proof?

    Has she passed legislation that impacts the entire nation or the world (such as being the lead D on gov. accountability and expanding international arms control, or being one of two lead Ds on the biggest ethics reform in 25 years?)

    And, if she's going to be so great at moving legislation, why (with all of her inherited D Party power) does it seem that BO is just as (maybe more) popular with the D Congressional leadership and membership, i.e. SDs?

    The answers to these questions demonstrate why BO is actually the more capable leader.  Jumping up and down and claiming that you're a fighter, changemaker, resultser, doer, solutionser, doesn't actually accomplish anything.

    Persuasion is not HRC's strength.  When she's in a bind she reverts to the attack mode.  But, only part of persuasion it being tough (look at BO's election history; he can play hardball) but that is only part, it's much more important to be able to use "soft power."  Even Sun Tzu (and parts of the Bible) knew this,and it's still true.

    She know (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:16:57 AM EST
    how Washington works which is extremely beneficial to getting things done. Obama doesn't even know where his papers are according to him.

    You don't know anything about her. (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by echinopsia on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:28:25 AM EST
    Persuasion is not HRC's strength.

    You are tragically misinformed. In the Senate, she is known as a hard worker and a former of bipartisan alliances to get legislation passed. She is actually praised as a genuine uniter.

    Read this.

    And this.

    And this.

    And this.


    Your links only prove (none / 0) (#112)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:50:39 AM EST
    my point.  There's plenty of print saying that HRC is a worker bee.  And, she is.  She's a small bore task doer, she's not a leader.  Nothing indicates she's a great leader.  She's not a coalition builder when it comes to big legislation.  Her only tools are: 1) avoid big challenges where she'll fail because she can't persuade, or 2) go for big things (health care or presidential run) then "knee cap" when in a bind which fails because persuasion is more complicated than manipulating and attacking.

    I read the really long piece you linked to (The Atlantic) a while ago, it's the most interesting of your links because it's so long.  Towards the end it clearly reveals that HRC is not a leader.  Read toward the end of the piece and you'll see it for yourself in some pointed commentary.  And, that piece identified 9-11 funding (don't forget Schumer/Byrd) and preventing base closings (don't forget Byrd) as her biggest "accomplishments" in all her years in the Senate--extremely small bore, not at all leadership.

    She's been on the sidelines, she's been avoiding challenges, she's preferred gimmicks, e.g. her flag burning ban that was never going anywhere.  This reminds me of the current McCain/Clinton flimflam gas plan; she's for phony results, it's all about image and poll tested micro-targeting.  It's not about persuasion, leadership, reality, and truth.

    I say; not this time.


    Clinton is a poor choice. (1.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Deadalus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:19:25 AM EST
    It's remarkable how she's spun her failure to pass Healthcare as a qualification for getting a second shot.

    And this past week she utterly embarrassed everyone with her gas-tax holiday (a measure with no chance of passing, and something economists and environmentalists oppose) and her statements that she would obliterate OPEC and Iran.  

    Based on these moves, it would be difficult to predict what she would pass.  It wouldn't be difficult to predict how she would govern, though.  Based on her campaign, there would be lots of media leaks, infighting, and poor preparation.  


    I really think that you need to go back (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:27:54 AM EST
    and read through the history of HRC and the whole UHC situation. One thing you'll note is where a group of NC Republicans (along with a Congressman) got together and burned HRC in effigy in the early 90s.

    Additionally, you'll note that her efforts were undermined by several Democratic members of Congress.

    I think DP Moynihan may have apologized for his participation in that effort.

    Given where we are now with regards to the health care discussion, I'd say that her efforts were not in vain. Nor were they as complete and utter a failure as you seem to want to make them out to be.


    You really need to take the night off (4.33 / 6) (#28)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:26:03 AM EST
    No offense, but you have made over 60 comments today, called other posters names, and cussed.  Really, you need to call it a night.  

    Did ya know I'm demented? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:40:25 AM EST
    I love it when the Unity Pony comes to town ;)

    That poster has lost it (none / 0) (#43)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:47:02 AM EST
    That poster is off the deep end. Man... this is one of the most proliferent chatterers yet.  Outright cussing, calling people delusional, repub troll, incompetent, trollish, pathetic, sore loser... it's just cringeworthy.

    All around good stuff (none / 0) (#47)
    by Deadalus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:48:52 AM EST
    I called him demented because he was bashing Sen. Obama for being raised by a single mother, among other things.  He also woefully misunderstands posts and has a clear reading comprehension deficit.

    I did NOT bash him for being raised by (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:58:18 AM EST
    a single mother. I disagree with how he uses his past for his benefit to the disrespect of those that raised him.

    And I'm a she who reads and comprehends perfectly fine, TYVM. No deficit here . . .


    I'm frequently called (none / 0) (#57)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:58:00 AM EST
    a lot of those things by HRC folks here.  It doesn't bother me.  I also endure unjustified troll ratings because of my POV, but I don't care.

    But, I look forward to your defending me in the future, as you demonstrate that your dissatisfaction expressed here is based on principle rather than opportunism.


    You don't need (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:16:07 AM EST
    to be defended.  You don't cuss or chatter. :)

    count on it! (none / 0) (#60)
    by bjorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:59:29 AM EST
    I have a very open mind.  I want information.  BTD and Jeralyn both provide a lot, and so do most posters here.

    60 comments? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:04:59 AM EST
    If that's true, Deaedulus, you need to stop now. No more than 10 per day.

    At least she has a health care plan (none / 0) (#33)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:31:06 AM EST
    Plans don't matter....legislation does (3.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Deadalus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:34:28 AM EST
    One that has utterly no chance of passing AT ALL.  Mandates are DOA in Congress.

    Tell that to Obama and his mandates. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:41:55 AM EST
    Take off the goggles dude (none / 0) (#54)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:53:12 AM EST
    then maybe you can see

    Or just mix in a Google or two (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ellie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:45:05 AM EST
    Just so I don't waste a post, I prefer the other trolls who huddle up on what super-genius free psycho-caca they're going to dump into a thread. EG,

    How sad that "you people" are angry and bitter that you have to vote for Bad Monster Lady. We say "we we we" but you're all "I I I". (I don't have the heart to correct the Marshmallow Peep on the scene to erode morale; I was likely saying, Ai Ai Ai carubma, what can these pests possibly think they're accomplishing?)

    I liked this other troll that was either nuked or buried in one of the cluttered threads so I could answer. Haughty Troll started the brief message by asking,   How is that not condescending. and ended it with I am noting that you did not answer the question. (That one got a LMAO. I mean, what's s/he going to do, REPORT the poster in question?)


    They're makin' a list! (none / 0) (#99)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:19:15 AM EST
    Checkin' it twice!

    Gee, I wonder who's been naughty?


    If Mandates Are DOA, Why Did Obama Include (none / 0) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:55:19 AM EST
    a mandate in his plan?

    In order to prevent UHC (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by tnjen on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:01:20 AM EST
    ...from ever being achieved by creating a feel-good medicare plan b, only this time let's "think of the children," style stop-gap measure?

    That's a problem... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:08:15 AM EST
    ...because you're essentially claiming that BHO is against UHC, while HRC is for it.  Just not the case, and I say that as a person who doesn't like either plan.  This is a nonissue, sorry.

    Obama (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:38:56 AM EST
    is against uhc. His plan is designed to fail and even worse guarantee that we never have uhc in this country.

    Probably.. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:59:06 AM EST
    ..because mandates for children and mandates for adults are qualitatively different in a big way.

     Just a guess.

     I want single payer, mind you.  I'm not endorsing either plan.  But that being said, I don't want to give insurance companies a boon just because.  And, of course, I can see the difference between mandates for minors and mandates for adults.  I think almost everyone can.


    I can't see a difference (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:08:08 AM EST
    they both get sick. and if you want to keep costs down then you have to have a universal mandate to increase the insurance pool

    Honestly (none / 0) (#108)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:06:52 AM EST
    if you think she's been in attack mode and not Obama, then I can't see where much reason would be useful.  Prima facie evidence galore that you're ignoring.  

    Therefore, nuance arguments are fruitless.


    Vote Fraud? (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Deadalus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:16:17 AM EST
    It's been dismissed by everyone else.  

    I also am very skeptical.  I was in Lake County myself.  The turn-out in Gary was unbelievably impressive.  100,000 doors knocked on in the last week, and with early voting, many, many people voted.

    In any case, Indiana has done everything it can to suppress votes.  It's stringent 6am to 6pm time frame disadvantages commuters in NWIndiana.  Not to mention the Voter ID law nonsense upheld by the SCOTUS.  

    I'll (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:18:02 AM EST
    tell you one thing:
    The Mayor of Gary did Obama no good. He made Obama look like some corrupt inner city pol with that stunt of holding back the votes.

    Hypocrisy. (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Deadalus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:21:28 AM EST
    I don't recall anyone here complaining about Cuyohoga county coming in so late.....

    ....the reason for the late vote in both counties is identical.  In Gary, they transfer the votes to a central location in Crown Point, about 12 miles away before counting them all at once.  Absentee ballots are counted by hand.  This is similar to Cuyohoga county's central-location process which kept the vote there from coming in until after 2am EST.  

    Tell me if you can find Jeralyn's Videoblog about this.


    It wasn't (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:24:19 AM EST
    the problem of coming in late, it was the problem of the mayor deliberately holding back the votes to keep the state from being called for Clinton. It was sleazy.

    The Mayor of Hammond said that he had the votes counted but deliberately held them back.


    Please don't make allegations (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Deadalus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:25:25 AM EST
    That you cannot prove.

    If you knew the area, you'd know that these two have a feud going back years.  They absolutely despise one another.  Mayor McDermott is not a reliable source, and you have no proof that they deliberately held the vote back.

    They had amazing turnout, record numbers, and an underfunded system (GOP sucks).


    You have provided some useful info (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by bjorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:30:59 AM EST
    but you also are all over the place tonight with in your face stuff.  It is not hard to figure out the motives of most who post here but you are a puzzle to me.  If you are trying to persuade us to vote for Obama your methods are mostly ineffective.  I think you are clearly very dedicated and have worked hard for Obama but you could benefit from better social skills.  Or maybe you thrive on in your face conflict or maybe you just hate Clinton.  In my experience your methods don't get you much at the end of the day.  BTW I will vote for Obama, but it is despite people like yourself, not because of you.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#42)
    by Deadalus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:46:06 AM EST
    Welll, I've been very reasonable in the past, in the face of much worse than I've dished out.  So judge on a few instances and you don't have the full picture.  

    Someone basically called me a racist yesterday for working for voter protection, so when someone called me that on the blog tonight, I kinda blew up for a bit.  Anyway, I don't think anyone should be convinced by blog posts one way or the other.  And the tendency here is to deflect an argument and turn onto an ad hominem re: Wright, Ayers, etc.  That's what got me so riled up earlier coupled with being called a racist 2 days in a row by a supposed HRC supporter.  My apologies.


    You should stick with the info (none / 0) (#45)
    by bjorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:47:44 AM EST
    approach. You have provided some really useful info for me.  I respect your commitment.  

    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Deadalus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:51:19 AM EST
    It gets, uh, difficult sometimes.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:30:59 AM EST
    blogged on it the other night.

    I have a different (none / 0) (#48)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:49:16 AM EST
    view than Bjorn.  I think you're contributing a lot of great information.  I'm always interested in pro-HRC (that's why I like talkleft) and pro-BO (my candidate of choice) stuff.  So, thanks for filling in some details about the Indiana voting.  I'm sure that many of the HRC folks also appreciate your insight, hopefully they want all the facts too.

    I think we agree (none / 0) (#51)
    by bjorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:52:26 AM EST
    I just didn't like the in your face stuff.

    GA6th Dem is right (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:13:56 AM EST
    We heard the mayors -- both of Gary and Hammond -- the Gary mayor held back the machine vote totals for the rest of the county. The other mayors knew their cities vote totals and turned them in within an hour of the polls closing. There was no reason for withholding the votes from the media.

    I've heard glowing praise (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:14:35 AM EST
    of McDermott from others in the county.

    BTW you were great with (none / 0) (#72)
    by bjorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:33:59 AM EST
    Althouse...you are smarter and more animated than she is...sometimes she looks disconnected from the conversation.  

    Why has Indiana always (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by bjorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:24:33 AM EST
    declared a victor at poll closing time in the past, but this time there were all this weird complications, that apparently never happened before?

    Turnout (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Deadalus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:26:48 AM EST
    You weren't there.  The turnout in Gary was off the hook.

    It's the same reason that all the polls had her up by at least 5.  They totally lowballed the Gary turnout.


    fair point (none / 0) (#34)
    by bjorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:32:52 AM EST
    it's not a fair point (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:16:44 AM EST
    whatever the turnout in Gary, he could have let the vote totals get released for the other cities in Lake County, particularly the ones south of I-30. The votes were in, machine calculated and available. But they favored Hillary. And so he sat on them until Gary's votes were reported first, creating the illusion the entire state of Indiana's outcome was in doubt.

    If I had watched the video first I would have (none / 0) (#73)
    by bjorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:37:00 AM EST
    known that...next time I will watch the video before I get caught up in the comments.  

    I hope you aren't saying that (none / 0) (#5)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:02:46 AM EST
    with a straight face . . .

    Dear dog (none / 0) (#7)
    by echinopsia on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:04:47 AM EST
    It's by George Will, and it's pure swill. Don't even bother.

    BTW, Hillary really is a lifelong Yankees fan.

    Since Will starts out with the long-debunked canard that she only became a Yankees fan when she was running for Senator, it's a good indication of the value of the rest of the piece.

    That would be zero.

    Thank you for posting this link (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by bjorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:12:18 AM EST
    I had not read this before...it kind of makes me sick how much misinfo is out there about Clinton.  Even sadder that they use the misinfo to create the "liar" "panderer" persona.  I have even more respect for Clinton after reading this because she really doesn't complain about this crap she just keeps trying to demonstrate who she is through her deeds and work.

    Maybe they're on Barack's bowling team (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ellie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:51:25 AM EST
    Pandering, huh? What was he doing by voting three times for a similar Gas Holiday?

    What's funny is (4.00 / 1) (#23)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:23:04 AM EST
    many of us have more than one team. And the other is usually in the other league. When I moved to NY, I went Yankees because I was an SF Giants fan and still wanted to cheer/follow my NL 'home' team. My friend went Mets, which I never understood because she has to cheer for both when they play each other! So even if Hillary didn't become a Yankees fan until her senate run, it's perfectly acceptable in my book. Keep your old team and cheer for a new team  :)

    And to think, Hillary cheering for the Yankees makes her somehow . . . eeeeevil!


    Mr & Mrs Met always creep out a bit (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ellie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:59:44 AM EST
    I mean, it's inevitable that they're going to get their heads bashed in with a baseball bat!

    I love sports mascots, especially the poorer choices in character and theme. The Brewers' sausage races have achieved their own level of bizarreness. I LOVE the Padre. (I have a couple of cousins who are monks. They're the coolest dressed people I know.)

    Oh, and the Olympic ones are great. Where do they go? I imagine some are living in a fleabag motel, and others are passed out drunk in a bar somewhere.


    Responding to the video ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:52:06 AM EST
    ...seemed pretty good.

     A victory for all.

     Jeralyn: I thought you did well on Althouse.  I tend to agree more with her than you, but I thought you held your own and, in this segment at least, she revealed more of her own bias and came across as less than objective, comparatively.

    thanks, Alec (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:43:01 AM EST
    I like Ann, so it was fun to do. More like having a conversation than a debate, even as we disagree.

    Deadulus (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:11:08 AM EST
    You are new here. 60 comments in one day is beyond excessive. You can come back tomorrow but no more than 10 comments a day. Maybe you can start your own blog.

    Good Points Jerayln (none / 0) (#77)
    by beyondalldoubt on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:56:18 AM EST

    Even though I am an Obama supporter, you raised many good points.

    I never thought about it like that before that maybe Hillary needs to stay in this until all the votes are counted so Hillary supporters would feel it was fair, and then go to Obama feeling as though they all got to vote and weren't cheated.

    NY 13: Another Dem Pick-Up? (none / 0) (#79)
    by themomcat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:02:41 AM EST
    Since this is an open thread, I thought this diary from MYDD would be of some interest here: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/7/22927/58166 Vito Fossella has been entrenched in this district in NY for awhile. NY 13 is Staten Island, the smallest borough of NYC. It encompasses all of SI and part of Brooklyn and had been Republican, well, just about forever and is the only district in NYC that is Republican. Now, because of a DWI arrest and some innuendo, Vito's seat may be in play. The borough is very conservative, especially the south shore.

    He goes into the Bay Ridge area, right? (none / 0) (#82)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:14:46 AM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#83)
    by themomcat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:23:59 AM EST
    and Bay Ridge because it is still very Italian Catholic tends Republican. I am not sure how hard hit by the housing/mortgage meltdown that part of the district has been but they are having their economic issues with businesses and job losses.

    My friend moved there a couple (none / 0) (#86)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:57:37 AM EST
    years ago. She says her area is very republican (aka as watch my mouth, lol!~) She was in a building here that sold due to gentrification when she moved there. The building she moved into went up for sale a few months after she moved in (yes, she was ticked!) She got lucky and it's an owner live in deal, so she's safe from having to move. I'll have to check with her on what's changed with housing there. I wasn't aware of the other economic issues there. The 2 people I know living there wouldn't be effected by local job loss etc. It's quite peaceful and nice where they live. And dog friendly with fairly decent rents. If I didn't have such a good deal where I was, my dog would love living over there. We could hit the water. My access got closed off where I am :(

    Staten Island (none / 0) (#88)
    by themomcat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:30:09 AM EST
    is more or less divide in half by the expressway (I-278). The South Shore is mostly one and two family homes with a smattering of garden apartment complexes and townhouses. There are 3 public housing complexes and the tenets are very closely screened by the city housing authority. It is the more affluent part of the borough and the most Republican conservative. House prices were running in the mid $500k range but that has changed since the economic slowdown and the mortgage crisis. House sales have slowed dramatically and new housing starts have slowed. In my neighborhood, there were a couple of older homes that were bought up by developers and torn down to the foundations to be replaced by McMansions that take up a bigger % of the property. Most of them are still empty or have gone unfinished. The North Shore is less affluent, even though there are pockets of expensive older homes. There was a building glut of these ridiculously small townhouse complexes that had no yards and only minimum space for parking a car. Most of the public housing and federally subsidized housing is on the North Shore and there is a large problem with crime and drugs. The North Shore is racially more diverse and Democrat/Liberal in political preference. And. by the way, you have made me miss by dog. Mulder was a very large Labrador Retriever who passed over the Rainbow Bridge a year ago in January. :-(

    Foreclosures (none / 0) (#89)
    by themomcat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:34:47 AM EST
    SI has the highest rate of foreclosures in NYC. Rents are pretty high: $1000/ mo for a studio apartment not including utilities. And public transportation is terrible.

    Jeralyn, you looked good and smart (none / 0) (#101)
    by feet on earth on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:26:01 AM EST

    Reaction (none / 0) (#104)
    by bordenl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:48:35 AM EST
    I did not expect Jeralyn to have that much Noo Yawk in her voice IMHO.
    The most interesting thing Althouse said was about McCain not bothering to mention Scalia in his speech. Jeralyn is 100% right, all the federal courts are important, but McCain as a member of the Gang of 14 is held to the standards of "extremism" established by the Gang of 14. If we get a judge like Alito we may get a judge with the same style of enforcing very conservative ideology with very narrow rulings which focus on the particular statutes. Another question for the Straight Talk Express is whether McCain would appoint someone like Posner (more on the libertarian side of things). We would see if he actually knew anything about the question.

    You have the temperment of a saint, Jeralyn. (none / 0) (#115)
    by lyzurgyk on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:05:29 PM EST
    I would have gone nuclear when Althouse tried to twist "black eye" into something racial.    

    And another thing ... (none / 0) (#116)
    by lyzurgyk on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:52:44 PM EST

    ... the next time somebody throws Operation Chaos at you, point out that Rush Limbaugh couldn't even influence the Republican primary.   His guy Mitt Romney got crushed!  

    That's the first time I've ever heard Limbaugh called "a breath of fresh air".   Fresh air is not the smell that comes to most minds at his mention.


    Althouse (none / 0) (#117)
    by Avedon on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:05:28 PM EST
    I can't believe I tried to watch that.  When I got to the part where "black eye" was a racially insensitive comment, I had to stop.

    My god that woman is a piece of work.