Sunday Afternoon Open Thread

I'm taking the afternoon off from blogging. Here's two of my favorites, both from the 9/11/ Concert for New York City that seem appropriate today -- the Goo Goo Dolls "American Girl" and BonJovi's "Living on a Prayer.

Also, John Rzeznik and Jon Bon Jovi are two of my favorite faces to look at.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Turnout in Puerto Rico May Be Low | Clinton Wins Puerto Rico By Wide Margin >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Just another thank you here, (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:18:58 PM EST
    and if anyone deserves the afternoon off, it's you (and BTD)!

    The good Father is at it again: (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:40:26 PM EST
    At his own church, St. Sabina's, Pfleger said, "Hillary and McCain would wish they had a preacher with the integrity of Jeremiah Wright. ... They got some old weak preacher...some old Joel Osteen cotton candy preacher."


    It looks like this happened on the same (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:44:09 PM EST
    day as the last one, just a different church.  Well, Obama could do something huge here and really go at Pfleger for speaking hate about the Clintons, and now McCain too.  Come on Barack!!

    He could, but he won't. Doesn't have it in him. (5.00 / 8) (#22)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:49:21 PM EST
    He's never defended Bill and Hillary against the crap that the preachers threw their way.  He is a coward and I think agrees with the preachers.

    Can I just say (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:50:02 PM EST
    that you are a very forgiving person?

    I will say this: If Barack Obama apologizes sincerely and repeatedly for his treatment of HRC and her supporters, it will go a long way towards healing the Democratic Party.

    I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for it to happen, though. Obama has already given his statement on Pfleger's remarks.

    McCain's statement was far superior.


    McCain really did a good thing (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:53:11 PM EST
    I have continued to be disappointed in Obama.  I keep hoping he will step up.  I have been giving him the benefit of the doubt because I figured part of it was not wanting to show weakness or give Clinton an edge. He knows how close this race is.  But if he is the winner some time next week, that excuse won't be there any more. So, he better start doing something, anything to show he is a leader.

    If an apology isn't followed with proof (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:09:41 PM EST
    that the behavior won't repeat itself, it's just a string of empty words.

    How sincere can it be? (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:25:09 PM EST
    Having profited from sexism and bigotry and name-calling, he's very sorry but he'll keep the nomination?  C'mon!

    I have zero faith in anything he says (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:28:00 PM EST
    He's actually never apologized for anything, which says to me he has no intentions of being held to a need to change his behavior.

    And why would anyone believe (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:25:58 PM EST
    him if he #1 appologized or #2 changed his behavior. Has he not proven "HE" will do anything it take to get elected? Who goes under the bus next?

    meaningless (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by zebedee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:28:33 PM EST
    I like your spirit of forgiveness but to me whatever he says in this regard after wrapping up the nomination is meaningless. Obviously he wants to win the GE so he may well do this but what could "sincerely" possibly mean in the circumstances. Actually many would rather not have their intelligence insulted by such a phony apology.

    He will be sad and disappointed (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:52:55 PM EST
    that a person he hardly knew would say these things.

    I hope so. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:14:01 PM EST
    I hope it predates his apology and the warnings from the archdiocese to quit with the political commentary. He has been mocked quite a bit lately, but it saddens me that he would willingly throw himself under the bus for Barack Obama. He actually does do good things for the underprivileged in Chicago. More, IMHO, than Obama ever did.

    This comment on Political Punch makes (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:34:24 PM EST
    me shudder.

    WestCoastMessanger, everybody knows that Church has as objective to fashion moral values, fight for the poor, the weak and the dispossesed, that is what Church is doing i.e fighting for social justice and that is why Obama is calling on democrates not to exclude Church but rather include them in the democratic party decison making and visionning processes. That is what great leadership is about and all Churches have the moral obligation to take care of social justice and stronger moral values. God bless America, God bless Obama. OBAMA08.

    The Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:40:26 PM EST
    let the religious wackos into their Party and let them start influencing policy decisions and platforms.

    The Party became something unrecognizable.


    Cringe. (none / 0) (#17)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:44:44 PM EST
    Didn't he promise his boss not to (none / 0) (#60)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:22:03 PM EST
    mention her ever again? No candidates names, etc. That's what I read.

    Obama leaving Trinity UCC (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by BernieO on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:45:44 PM EST
    The media is ignoring what Obama actually said about leaving the church.

    We don't want to have to answer for everything that's stated in a church," Obama said Saturday. "On the other hand, we also don't want a church subjected to the scrutiny that a presidential campaign legitimately undergoes."

    "I'm not denouncing the church," he said, "and I'm not interested in people who want me to denounce the church." He said the church's congregation does not hold anti-white or anti-American views.

    So he is doing this to protect the church from further scrutiny and there is anti-white or anti-American going on there. Funny that the people in the videos, including other clergy present, showed no surprise or outrage at either Wright's or, Pfleger's anti-white rants.

    well that sure changes things (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:48:53 PM EST
    I thought he did it because of the tone of the sermons, etc.  Every President I can remember has had a church and a pastor, when maybe not Reagan so much, but none of them had to quit their churches to spare it scrutiny.  

    I'm white... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:54:46 PM EST
    and I wasn't outraged.  White entitlement exists, and it ain't just about wealth.  The rants weren't so much anti-white as anti-white entitlement.  I said this once before, even though I'm broke as a joke I get white perks.  Easier to get hired, less harassment from law enforcement, and others. It's not a fairy tale.

    In general, I wish we all took the time to try and understand each other instead of throwing up the "I'm outraged" flag.


    kdog, I agree about the white stuff (5.00 / 9) (#31)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:57:19 PM EST
    I am white too.  But it is the tone of his church that makes me feel creepy.  As I have said before, Wright and Pfleger sound hateful when they shout and mock Clinton.  The mocking is what takes it over the top for me. It is so hateful. I can't condone that regardless...IF they left Clinton out of it, did not mock people, that might be different.

    I'm not hearing (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:08:07 PM EST
    a lot of solutions being offered at that church either. They seem to be preaching hatred and victimization to me.

    I agree 100% that there is institutionalized racism in this country. Now, what are they going to do about it? Screaming that white people should turn over their 401K's isn't helping much.

    And the sexism of Jeremiah Wright and his utter ignorance about AIDS, and the anti-Clinton remarks of both preachers, are repugnant to me.


    They are preachers.... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:15:26 PM EST
    which in my book means they are out to fill collection plates.  That's their job.  If they solved the white entitlement problem they might be out of a job...lol.

    I'm not saying they've got the answers...I'm just saying I don't find it offensive, and I know where they're coming from.  

    Sheeet...I'm always here rabble rousing and I don't have any answers either:)


    A very well payin job, too (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:21:29 PM EST
    See Rev. Wright's retirement home.

    So.  Money changers, yes.

    Solution providers, No!.


    LOL! (none / 0) (#71)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:26:54 PM EST
    You are indeed an honest man kdog. Good for you!

    I guess I just compare these guys unfavorably to MLK when it comes to preaching about race and racial relations.

    But then, who really compares to him? It's like comparing your high school physics teacher to Einstein, I guess.


    They're hustlers..... (none / 0) (#96)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:42:54 PM EST
    madam, they just happen to be my kind of hustlers:)  

    I won't give 'em a dime, but I can enjoy the rants.  

    Just wait...if Obama is our next president they'll be calling him Uncle Tom in no time.


    You are 100% right (none / 0) (#104)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:45:44 PM EST
    about that.

    Rev. Wright said as much. :-)


    Kdog, 'sweetie', thanks for the 'concern'. (none / 0) (#135)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:04:48 PM EST
    Please give it a rest. You are being disingenuous, to put it mildly. I find this very telling: you recently gave a 5 RATING to the following sanctimonious comment by a banned Jeralyn-bashing commenter named Taboo:

    "Deconstructionist here.

      I have been banned by Jeralyn for the "audacity" of daring to persist indisagreeing with her.

    I consider that a cowardly thing for her to do.

      I disagree with you her on  many issues and I challenge her and others where we disagree. Being incapable of intelligently countering my challenges all she  can resort to is censorship.

      The irony is that I get banned for pointing out that unappealing aspect of her character shortly following some of the kool-aid drinker's fervent denials that was how  she behaves."

    Perhaps this clarifies your real opinion of TL. You whole-heartedly agree with somebody who says the the site owner/moderator is "cowardly" and practices "censorship".

    They don't call you guys OBama-cons for nothing. Fly away home, please.


    Nice to meet you too sweetheart..... (none / 0) (#150)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:14:39 PM EST
    I remember the incident well, and was very disappointed with Jeralyn's decision to ban Decon, one of my favorite commenters.  I still love her though...and I miss Decon's take on things.  I still value this blog as a place to learn and share....now did you have a point or are you just playing blog cop?

    Really? (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:25:24 PM EST
    Guess you are not listening, or something. The tape I heard of Father Pflege, apart from churchy ranting and Hilary bashing, suggested that something like Lincoln's 40 acres and a mule (+ inflation adjustment) be reinstated as reparations for the AAs slave labor for 200 years.

    The german's did it, and they had slaves for a much shorter period of time.


    I agree to a point.... (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:58:24 PM EST
    about the white entitlement societally. But what he said about Clinton was really unfair and quite mean-spirited. Effectively, his comments translate to no one can run against an AA without being ridiculed and mocked and accused of feeling entitled to the presidency because of their whiteness. I think that is where the outrage comes in.

    I see your points too.... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:07:20 PM EST
    I guess I'm from the school that says all candidates for office should be mocked mercilessly.  I didn't have a problem with the things Bill and Geraldine said that set off the Obama folks either.

    kdog... (none / 0) (#51)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:16:48 PM EST
    ...if you ever make it out this way, let me know so I can buy you a beer/cocktail/?.

    Will do MileHi my man..... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:26:29 PM EST
    Only if you let me reciprocate with a spliff:)

    Same applies if you are ever in NY.

    In fact I've daydreamed how cool it would be to have a TalkLeft convention one day, meet all you knuckleheads in the flesh.  I nominate Las Vegas:)


    Deal! (none / 0) (#199)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:20:48 AM EST
    Forward into the past (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:09:26 PM EST
    It all seemed so terribly retro.  Trust funds?  Who has trust funds nowadays except the top .0001 percent?  Going into daddy's business?  C'mon.  That kind of thing stopped in the 1940s for all but .0001 percent.

    It's like he's hooked on some notion of America that comes from Jimmy Stewart movies and the Donna Reed show.


    As members left services at TUCC this (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:45:07 PM EST
    morning they were asked for their reaction to Obama's removing his membership.

    The ones I saw smiled and said, "he's still part of our family."  I'm sure he is.

    He has given me no reason at all to believe a word he says. I'm surprised he ever admitted to being a member of TUCC since Ayers is just someone he once had a conversation with, Father Pfleger was a casual acquaintence (who just happened to get a $100,000 earmark from Obama), and on and on the story goes.


    If in fact the tape surfaces (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by athyrio on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    and is as described, what will happen....will the DNC see it as enough of a reason to have him resign? I would hope so but geezzzzz they have ignored stuff to date....

    It will be a "distraction" (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:11:49 PM EST
    Eagleton, Tom (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:13:15 PM EST
    he wasn't at the top of the ticket, but those of us who remember the comparatively small negative that had him humiliated and removed from the ticket can see Obama being forced out of the race if much more history of the kind we've already seen comes out.

    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Eleanor A on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:20:18 PM EST
    Most members of the MSM and many Obama supporters are so unobjective right now that Obama could be caught in bed with all the drag queens from "The Birdcage" and a squadron of undead zombie queens from New Orleans and people would still be clinging to The Precious Mythos.

    Hell, at this point, I almost hope he does get the nomination, so we can get his crushing defeat over with already and quit having to listen to these self-righteous know-nothings.


    well matt, (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:13:59 PM EST
    i understand and appreciate your position. that said, i believe it's deluded. you essentially state that the only reason you intend to vote for sen. obama in the GE is not because you think he's the best for the job, but only because he's a democrat, all democrats are created equal and any democrat is better than a republican.

    you aren't alone. jeralyn, BTD and many others have expressed this same view. i vigorously disagree. it's my belief that sen. obama is entirely lacking in the substance needed to effectively be the CEO of USA, Inc.; mere form is no substitute. no, i don't think mccain has it, i think he's batsh*t crazy.

    my fear is that, even with a veto-proof majority (which it appears the dems will have after nov.) in congress, they'll be too willing to go along with him, at least initially. i believe a pres. obama would cause more damage, to both country and party, then a pres. mccain would be allowed to, by a democratic congress.

    he will be a one-hit wonder. we really don't need another 4 years of damage control, 8 is quite enough.

    but, that's just me.

    i do appreciate your thoughtful post though.

    Donna can you please shutup.. (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by TalkRight on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:14:22 PM EST
    Donna Brazille.. just now on CNN:

    WE GAVE senator Clinton net 25/26 delegates.. perhaps that are not sufficient for her ....

    That's why I am watching... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:18:09 PM EST
    ...Bonanza right now on TV Land.

    I guess her momma (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:18:56 PM EST
    never told her when to keep her mouth shut.

    That woman (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:30:22 PM EST
    thinks she gave HRC something?

    After taking away her votes and giving her delegates half a voice?

    Whatever she's on, I don't want any.


    Another way to say it (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:35:24 PM EST
    BTD's post on Hillary Clinton's responsibility to rebuild unity this morning was wonderful. Sometimes a woman's point of view adds a very colorful take on the same topic.

    George S (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:35:36 PM EST
    reported this morning that there is a ton of stuff coming out about Obama and his church. Apparently, he is one some of the DVD's cheering Wright's speeches.

    And the Dems (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:39:46 PM EST
    head off a cliff in November.

    Speaking of cliffhangers. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:44:17 PM EST

    Obama gets enough committed SDs to claim the nomination.  However, in the weeks between his claim to the nom and the convention, the excrement hits the turbine and his polling plummets.

    Then comes the convention and the vote....do the delegates choose a weakened, limping candidate or not?


    I believe (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:53:18 PM EST
    this scenario is exactly what will happen.

    What will the SD's do? Hopefully, they will jump off the sinking ship Obama. Even rats know enough to do that.


    Rats (none / 0) (#146)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:12:18 PM EST
    are more intelligent than SDs.

    Is this related to Larry's promised tape? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:40:30 PM EST
    I don't know. (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:04:09 PM EST
    George just said it was related to TUCC and Obama's attendance there. I gathered that there is footage of Obama being present and cheering at one of Wright's rants.

    BTD, (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:37:04 PM EST
    "My momma taught me to play by the rules and respect those rules. My mother taught me, and I'm sure your mother taught you, that when you decide change the rules, middle of the game, end of the game, that is referred to as cheatin'."

    -- Donna Brazile, quoted by NBC News.

    one could reasonably argue that, by not following the rules, the DNC effectively changed them in mid-stream. that would be called cheating.

    There used to be rules (none / 0) (#113)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:50:27 PM EST
    About drinking fountains and where to sit when one rides the bus.

    Another PRO-Clinton website (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Mrwirez on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:41:24 PM EST

    It makes for some good reading.

    Every post on that site is good (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:00:19 PM EST
    reading. Thanks for the link.

    No big deal.. its Michaelle turn.. (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by TalkRight on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:45:17 PM EST
    to be thrown under the BUS>

    you cannot ascribe her wife's comments on Obama. period.


    I am shocked at what Michaelle said. I did not attend the church that day.... I am shocked to learn she would use that kind of divisive language.... err... But I can disown her no more than you can disown your wife...

    Had a thought over at DK. (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:53:27 PM EST
    If people insist that Clinton Lead on the whole Unification Initiative, then that makes her a de facto Leader.

    And if Clinton is doing all this Leading, then what is Obama doing?

    Personally, I'd tell Clinton to go for it.  Take the danged Unity ball and run with it!  It's nigh impossible for her to take ownership of the Change meme, but Team Obama has dropped the Unity ball completely.  

    McCain is making a grab for the Change meme.  (Not like he has a choice there, with GWB looming over him.)  Clinton can grab the Unity meme.  That will leave Obama with just the Hope meme, which is all very nice but happens to be the least substantial of the three.

    Thought+DK=oxymoron. (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:11:58 PM EST
    You must be the only one thinking. The rest are spewing. Your idea is interesting, though. Still hard to think about unity, personally.

    I feel sorry for the stalwarts there. (none / 0) (#174)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:50:47 PM EST
    There's still a few left.  I guess they can ignore the total cr@p better than I can.

    I must be one of the few posters here (none / 0) (#186)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:31:03 PM EST
    who has never spent much time on DK.  I think I've looked at the website "maybe" five times.  

    The last time I was there, there was a diary written by some young person lamenting how she was a Republican who couldn't imagine why she was in love with BO.  She was a college student, a MENSA member (ha!) from Kansas or somewhere like that, who suddenly rolled out of bed one morning as an Obama supporter.  It was syruppy and all full of self-discovery and felt a little like reading a romance novel.  

    Another diary was from a Clinton supporter complaining about how poorly she was being treated over there.  It had tons of comments that I didn't read.  She was being treated exactly like Clinton supporters are treated by a lot of Obama supporters.  Can they hate us any more?  

    The whole website just seemed kind of juvenile, which is probably why I don't read it very often.  

    I also checked out MyDD that day too.  It was better but I've read it even less:  Maybe twice in my internet lifetime?

    I have to admit, I like TalkLeft.  :)  


    DK has had it's good times. (none / 0) (#191)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:05:34 PM EST
    This is NOT one of them.

    BTW - what you read was the typical reaction when a confessed rightie "sees the light" and comes to Obama.  They are swamped with praise and adulation because people take these anecdotes as proof positive that Obama has something totally unique and amazing.  You too could write a rec list diary simply by talking about how you were a Republican or Hillary supporter who realized the error of your ways, repented and came to see how superior Obama is.

    You'll notice that the Clinton supporters here who weren't initially on her side tend to follow an entirely different narrative.  No seeing the light, no admitting the error of their ways.  Usually it was just research and looking beyond the media narratives that did it.

    DK used to be a lot more signal, a lot less noise but nowadays there's just enormous amounts of noise there.  I learned more about the whole primary process in two weeks here than I did in three months at DK.  Way more signal here, plus the moderation weeds out the untruths.


    McCain's comments on Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:01:12 PM EST
    Whoa. I just saw the video showing McCain answering a reporter's question about Pfleger's screed on Clinton. I've just gotta say:  those were some wonderful words McCain said and if Obama had said anything like that he would have gone WAY up in my estimation. "Uncalled for, unwarranted, and disgraceful. She deserves the same respect as any of us." You're damn right! I'm no McCain fan, but I think he meant those words and they are right on. I don't understand why Obama can't take the high road on this stuff - it would do him a world of good in the public eye.

    Surprised That You Believe Him (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:05:41 PM EST
    Were Obama the underdog McCain would be standing up for Obama, and castigating his opponent, namely Hillary. His comments have zero to do with Hillary and 100% to do with getting himself elected. He is not to be trusted, same as all of them.

    Obama needs to apologize to Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Raven15 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:12:27 PM EST

    Your comment, like Obama's political style, is so minor league. Politicians who play the game well know when to be gracious to their opponents.


    Yes When They Win (none / 0) (#152)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:16:49 PM EST
    When Obama is the nominee he will be all love and gush when it comes to Hillary, guaranteed. If Hillary somehow wins the same will be true for her.

    By the way I voted for Hillary, but am not a cultist like you.


    Yes (none / 0) (#177)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:55:00 PM EST
    and it will obviously be a load of garbage.

    He owes her a heartfelt apology over these crude pieces of crap he calls friends.


    Perhaps you're right squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:12:32 PM EST
    Have you seen it? I'm suspicious of him too, of course, but he really did seem sincere. The reporter's question was not about Hillary. In fact, the reporter was trying to bait him into talking about the church. But McCain changed the subject and said the one thing he did find repugnant was the trash talk about Clinton.

    All I'm saying is that I heartily wish I would hear those sentiments from Obama. I find it curious that he doesn't defend her from that stuff because he would gain so much from doing so.


    He Will (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:23:15 PM EST
    If he clinches the nomination. At this point the best thing for the dem voters would be for this to go to the convention with both candidates embracing Mario Cuomo's idea. That would allow enough time for unity and face saving. It will also give Obama and Hillary the luxury to be lovey dovey toward each other, like McCain has for Hillary now.

    ...the two could announce they will complete the primary schedule and Convention with the winner becoming candidate for president and the other agreeing to be a candidate for vice president, thereby mollifying to some extent the constituency of the candidate who was not chosen as the nominee for president.

    Think of it, over the next eight years we could elect both the first woman and the first African-American to become president of our nation. That's not a dream: it's a plausible, achievable, glorious possibility -- if our two remaining candidates have the personal strength and wisdom to make it happen. The joint statement announcing their agreement would rock the nation and resound across the globe -- sweeter than any political poetry; smarter and more meaningful than any tightly intelligent political prose.

    Mario Cuomo


    I suspect that after 20 years of hearing (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by tree on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:11:43 PM EST
    the kind of hate and ridicule that comes out of the mouths of Wright and Pfleger and the rest, that Obama genuinely can't see how hurtful it all is. He never stood up in his church against that kind of talk. I don't think he's capable of it now. He is not a leader, he is a follower. And his judgment is impaired. He may know how to do what is popular but I'm not sure that he knows how to do what is right when right isn't popular.

    "Hate" (none / 0) (#201)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:27:16 PM EST
    Oh please, please, please.

    You know what's hateful? A hundred thousand dead, maimed, traumatized and displaced in Iraq.

    Another kind, IMO, is the half asleep, passive-aggresive variety that historically countenances any number of lying thugs acting "in our name" but comes all undone when a contingent of the least represented starts getting too rude and noisy.


    Over a hundred thousand dead in Iraq (none / 0) (#203)
    by tree on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:51:31 PM EST
    is a profound tragedy, made possible by an attitude that stereotypes people by their race, ethnicity, or religion. That kind of attitude is hateful and it deserves to be condemned when anyone professes such hatred. It isn't suddenly acceptable when a black pastor spews it, or when a white Catholic priest spews it in a black church, anymore than its acceptable when a white minister does it in a white church. Hatred is hatred. If you are worried about passive-aggression, look first in the mirror. Be the change you want to see, before you selectively condemn others.

    Sorry, but (none / 0) (#204)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:01:13 PM EST
    no matter how much you'd like to believe it, Hillary dosnt stand, in some magical way, for all women past ,present and future.

    As you say, look in the mirror; your destiny's in your own hands.


    Anymore than Obama (none / 0) (#205)
    by tree on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:16:12 PM EST
    stands for all black men past, present and future, as much as you would like to believe it. Clinton does not represent all women to me. She is simply the better and more qualified candidate. It has nothing to do with her gender or her race, anymore than Obama lesser qualifications have anything to do with his gender or race.

    Pfleger ridiculed Clinton as a white woman who considered herself "entitled" as a white woman. He used a hateful stereotype to describe her. You want to condone that, go right ahead. But don't think that it "entitles" you to lecture others on hatefulness.


    They have always seemed like respectful (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:19:09 PM EST
    colleagues. If they run against each other, there will be less personal attacks and more issues-based discourse. Obama could take a lesson there.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:53:28 PM EST
    As bad as McCain is, he's classier than the other guy.  If Obama is the clear victor, shouldn't that give him some room for grace?

    I guess not.


    I'm sure there are going (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:05:03 PM EST
    to be some good books written about this primary season.

    The one Title I would like to see would be titled ...

    "Pass the Koolaid" with Howard Dean and Donna Brazille on the cover holding a glass of koolaid.

    I would love for the book to cover the reaction of the DNC when Sen Clinton announced the run for President 2008.

    Another Chapter on the "Run, Obama,Run" headed by
    Dachle, Durbin,Kennedy and Kerry.

    And then there would be a chapter on the Media featuring MSN.

    Then the chapter explaining only half people...andtheinvisible women, working class and poor.

    Oh! If I could only write!!

    I'm just not sure what the final Chapter will be.

    What??? Everything is upsidedown .... (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by bridget on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:49:06 PM EST
    first thing I read when coming online: Obama satisfied with the ruling

    Fox news:

    ..."while he believes he conceded Hillary Clinton a net of delegates in states where he did not campaign or compete, he's satisfied with the ruling."

    Obama conceded Hillary delegates in Michigan. You can knock me over with the tiniest feather right now.

    AAAhh ... now I understand Malveaux from CNN who just said that they had to give Hillary something, or the Hillary supporter to satisfy them (paraphrase) and I had no idea what she was talking about. Amazing how wrong I am during this whole campaign.

    THEY HAD TO GIVE HILLARY SOMETHING. Because Obama didn't compaign or compete.

    Isn't this the weirdest thing you ever heard re a Dem primary? Ever?

    The whole CNN panel seemed to be d'accord w. what was going on yesterday. Brazile held grand court and talked unity and civility. Said that she was so surprised - after the committee had decided over lunch to come out in a civil and united front - Harold Ickes didn't play along. She also said she held back yesterday. Not now, however.

    After five minutes CNN I turned it off.

    It's propaganda (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:57:01 PM EST
    Just don't watch.  Ever!

    But Obama is not helping talking like that (none / 0) (#183)
    by bridget on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:18:40 PM EST
    I also heard Brazile "graciously" say Obama had his work cut out for him in November - re the Hillary supporters I think she meant. Rolling eyes.

    btw. I just told my husband what you wrote and he asked me to tell you he agrees ;-) he always tells me not to watch. Even 5 minutes is too much.


    Foxhole Atheist.... (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:42:16 PM EST
    May I be so bold as to offer you some unsolicited and kindly advice?

    Don't bother with these guys. Do not engage. It is not worth it. It is all insult, insult, insult, spin, spin, spin, lie, lie, lie. Furthermore, when you engage with one, the whole lot of them will circle the wagons and join together, swear the TL Old Timers Loyalty Oath and swarm you, all the while defending their right to violate the site rules with impunity because they've been here longer than you. And they will get away with it too.

    Next, they'll be calling you a racist, a Hillary shill, a cultist, and all kinds of other names, and they'll rally around each other and get away with that too because they are specially privileged to do so.

    Don't bother! Ignore them. Most of it is stupid and intellectually vapid anyway.

    BTW, I like your moniker very much. I hope I didn't insult you by sticking my nose in, but I really think it does no good to engage in this situation.

    I'm sorry you feel that way Dr.... (none / 0) (#190)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:05:04 PM EST
    And just when I thought I was finding common ground with some of our newer commenters like Maria and Cream City and hellothere, as much as we may disagree:)

    I'm sorry if you have felt "swarmed" Dr...this blog has undergone major changes as the election got going and when I see people I've debated for years getting outnumbered by the newer, exclusively pro-Clinton, commenters...I've chimed in to back them up.  Squeaky, jondee, MileHi, sarcastic unnamed one, JLvngstn....they are practically family to me:)

    Our style may be biting and snarky...but I can assure you our aims are true....to learn and laugh and debate with one another.  And to comiserate about the sad state of our union:)


    Well, to each his own kdog (none / 0) (#196)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:32:12 PM EST
    What I've observed numerous times is the dynamic I described above - I find it very ugly. But there's no accounting for taste I guess.

    Dr. Molly, THANKX for the sage advice. (none / 0) (#192)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:17:37 PM EST
    I can't thank you enough for providing context and giving your sage advice on this litte dust-up.

    I don't know the history of some of these players and sometimes it's not easy to tell when engagement has reached a point of diminishing returns.

    I always make a point of reading your posts for your sensibility, insight, and wonderful way with words.

    *BTW: the moniker, FoxholeAtheist, is a homage, of sorts, to Pat Tillman who is sometimes characterized as a spiritual person who didn't subscribe to hard-core, organized religion (even when he was in the final 'foxhole').

    Now I'm off to go walk in the sunshine.


    Good because (none / 0) (#193)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:39:51 PM EST
    you and Kdog have derailed this thread and made it filled with personal attacks, and now I have to spend time cleaning it.

    Kdog is a long time and valued member of this site.

    And while I'm ranting, here's a heads up that this site will not link to or host rumors of videos bashing Michelle Obama.  You'll need to go elsewhere to discuss it.


    Jeralyn, I don't know what happened here (none / 0) (#197)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:58:46 PM EST
    after I posted my last comment this afternoon. I had an unfortunate exchange with Kdog. However, I absolutely don't accept that I share blame (with Kdog) for having "derailed this thread and made it filled with personal attacks" as you claim.

    I made no personal attack: I suggested that he might be "disingenuous" in his professed respect for this site and its commenters. In return for that, Kdog fitted me with a pair of "nice jackboots" and saluted me with a "Hiel

    You say "Kdog is a long time and valued member of this site". I realize I don't have the benefit of Kdog's longevity, and I don't know what he did to accrue value, however I didn't expect to meet with this level of express personal devaluation from you or a "valued" member of TL.

    For the record, I don't ever recall "bashing Michelle Obama" or linking to any post or video that has bashed her. I have also never expressed any animosity or disapproval toward you, TL, or your editorial standards. In fact, my original comment to Kdog called him out for having done precisely this latter thing.

    I am looking forward to eventually becoming a long time member of TL and, hopefully, to feeling somewhat less devalued than I do at present.

    That being said, if I am altogether not welcome here, please let me know.


    This has been playing on my nervous system for (4.66 / 3) (#61)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:22:16 PM EST
    some time. I hope it won't be deleted. This stuff has been making me very, very edgys and I would like to hear intelligent refutation or confirmation:

    The emphasis of the "new coalition" that will discard the elderly, women, the poor, in favor of the young and strong and attractive;

    The emphasis on one charismtic figure who is to be taken on faith -- indeed, to be taken <emasem> a faith;

    The bullying of voters and vicious denigration of underdog opponents;

    The emphasis on "unity" -- which in practice, means the submission and silencing of opposition;

    The emphasis on undefined and ultimately empty  slogans -- "hope," "change," "unity" Indeed, the subversion of language to the point where words are in practice the opposit of what they mean;

    The denigration of the poor, calling them "racists" who can be run over in the great march of triumph;

    The willingness to override the "will of the people";

    We know from his comments last week that Obama doesn't know much about World War II history -- but I know a little.

    Could it happen here?

    Tell me I'm being paranoid.

    I don't think it can happen here (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:26:04 PM EST
    because if Obama does not expand his coalition he cannot win.  If he expands his coalition it will be a sign that he has found a way to be more inclusive and more considerate of the will of the people.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:28:51 PM EST
    He can't steal two elections.

    Or can he?


    That's not the way it usually works, Bjorn (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:54:53 PM EST
    You intimidate and silence the rest. You insult them, and make it clear that they will be bullied and intimidated if they don't get with the program.

    By controlling the MSM, and making them part of the new power elite, you control information. The low-information types will be getting their idea of the "truth" there anyway, and will passively go along.


    If I saw that were happening I would (none / 0) (#126)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:59:15 PM EST
    devote myself full time to beating it back and informing people.  I am not underestimating the power of the MSM because it has been huge in this election...but I hope Americans are smarter than that at the end of the day.  I better stop writing now, because even as I wrote that i thought, geez we did give Bush 8 years...

    If it didn't happen with Bush... (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:27:53 PM EST
    ...it won't happen with Obama. What I fear we have here is just your run-of-the-mill elitist losing democratic candidate.

    Read this and see.. (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:35:22 PM EST
    I am starting to wonder that myself. Propaganda taking the place of truth. Just like Bush. Read this from a blog at WriteHillaryIn.com. It is chilling. Really tells us what Obama is all about, and it has little to do with what he claims he is about. The connections they make are very interesting. It scared the hell out of me. I think it should be printed out and presented to every Obama supporter. Make them read it, discuss it and then explain why they want him for President.

    What scares me (5.00 / 6) (#89)
    by daria g on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:39:13 PM EST
    Is when longtime friends of mine rush to insult my candidate, email me cheap shots or post them on my Facebook or on their blogs, go out of their way to provoke and basically act like dicks.  They just can't resist an opportunity to make vile accusations about Hillary and have to make sure I know about it, many years of friendship be damned.  Even after it's been more than clear that Obama is the frontrunner and highly likely to win.  

    I don't understand this and it disturbs me.  I have never once jerked them around over petty cheap shots on Obama, but apparently asking "why should I vote for him?" was sufficient to merit this kind of treatment.

    Every discussion site I frequent (or used to) with the exception of the Clintonista blogs has been full of vicious insults of Hillary.  It disturbs me that Obama supporters can't quit doing this when they're ahead.  It disturbs me that they either don't know or don't care that millions of people on Hillary's side are just as invested in this race as they are.  Someone writing in the Wall Street Journal earlier in the primary season observed that you can say anything you want about a woman.  It's true.  I never thought I'd see it, but here we are.

    The constant insistence on Unity and the constant attempts to drive us toward Unity through insults and thuggish behavior disturb me.  As do some of the powers-that-be in the party blithely stating that we'll have Unity in the fall, as if those of us who disagree simply don't exist.  I don't believe in Unity if we're going to have democracy, frankly.


    I know the feeling (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:49:33 PM EST
    life long friendships have been scuttled because I refuse to See The Light. I've been personally insulted ('How can you vote for her?', 'You're voting like an old lady!', etc.) along with my candidate. I have not done the same to them even though I could.

    I was also told I am not really a feminist cos I haven't embraced the Majesty that is Michelle Obama and actually dislike her.

    Funniest thing is that I've been an active Democrat and feminist since before I was old enough to vote (thanks to my mom). None of my friends have ever done more than thrown some money at candidates or signed a few petitions.


    what I understand is -- (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:57:25 PM EST
    Obama has used rightwing talking points throughout the primary including basing his campaign largely on "beat the B---h!"
    There are far more pro-Obama diaries focused on smearing and demonizing Hillary than presenting Obama's positions on the issues.

    Heck - most Obamamites don't even know Obama voted with the Republicans to give huge tax breaks to the oil companies and voted against capping credit card interest rates - votes that have created hardships for many college students.


    You (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:08:36 PM EST
    know what's funny? Nixon's "silent majority" may raise it's head in Nov only decades later. They can insult us, threaten us or anything else but they can not make us vote for Obama. We aren't having a national caucus in Nov. and there still is a secret ballot. I think it's also a large reason Obama hasn't been doing well in diversely populated primaries.

    You're being paranoid. (1.00 / 0) (#99)
    by Curious on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:44:00 PM EST
    Really really paranoid.

    Reflecting, (4.11 / 9) (#6)
    by mattt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:36:33 PM EST
    on my recent posts and the replies to them...

    [I posted this to the PR thread just before it closed.  It's probably more appropriate here, and since it's an apology I wanted people to actually see it.  Sorry for the double posting; if that's a major issue for mods please delete.]

    I am voting for Obama, but I'm not, as has been suggested a couple of times, one of his more devoted fanboys.  I've engaged here at TL, most often defending the Obama side, in order to hear all side sof the issues and also in an effort to stick pins in a few anti-Obama memes that I consider fallacious.  Not because Obama is TEH GREATEST!!! but because I've believed since Texas that he's our likely nomineee, and I want the Democrats to win in November.

    I am not saying Clinton's supporters are nutz or being deceived - there are some good arguments to make against Obama.  But there have also been some arguments offered that are not fact-based, and it bothered me to sit quietly and watch them solidifying into an obstacle to Democratic prospects.

    But I know I'm relatively ineloquent, have a bit of a short temper, and my information isn't as good as people who've spent more time following all these issues.  And, in reflecting on some posts here yesterday and stuff I've read elsewhere, I've been reminded what it's like to really have an emotional investment in a candidate.  That's not how I feel about Obama, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that kind of enthusiasm and have felt it myself in the past for other candidates (I'm not going to date myself by saying who).  On the whole, despite best intentions, I've probably done more harm than good for the health of the "unity pony."

    Jeralyn, BTD and the community: please accept my apologies for any comments you found offensive or improperly argumentative.  Please don't associate my poor arguments with the Obama campaign, or other Democrats at large....I don't represent either.

    I'm not signing off; I'll be staying around to keep hearing those opposing viewpoints and perhaps jump in the mix now and then.  But out of respect for the deep feelings a lot of good Dems have about the candidates I'm going to take a step back from engaging on all the little points about the nomination process.  Late, yes, I know; hopefully better than never.

    Thanks,  Matt T

    Thanks Matt (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:38:20 PM EST
    I think that was very eloquent.

    Nicely put (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:41:08 PM EST
    Hope you stick around, Matt.

    As someone who was once an Obama supporter, you all are a day late and a dollar sort.

    I don't know the particulars of what went on on TL, but I do know my experience with Obama supporters only led me to be too embarrassed to be associated with them, and nly led me to have much higher esteem for Hillary Clinton, who I had dreaded would run for president.

    The bunch of you should have thought of the consequences a long time ago. You have no idea how many people you all have turned off - and, unlike the delusions of the dKossites, not all of us were Hillary supporters - far from it.


    Mattt (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Mrwirez on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:45:14 PM EST
    My last post was deleted. I see from your comments, you have A LOT of 1's. Maybe you will receive 5's at the Blinding Orange site.



    That's awfully nice of you Matt T (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:51:37 PM EST
    And I don't even know what you said! But very nice sentiments and obviously honorable motivations. We all get weird during internet sparring sometimes.

    Now... I have an honest, non-partisan question for anyone who has an opinion. Isn't what happened yesterday with the RBC an awfully dangerous precedent for future primaries? Won't it mean that future candidates in very tight races can play games like taking their names off ballots in states they could lose, and then try to get some votes later based on exit polling, or other factors? Or am I just being paranoid and was this a singular, messy episode?

    (I'm not saying Obama deliberately played this game; I'm asking an honest question about precedents.)


    well, by email this morning I (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:55:26 PM EST
    asked Donna B. why they gamed the system and why she and the committee broke the rules, but accused others of doing it. She emailed me back with only, "I respectfully disagree." Kinda like standing on the sidelines and saying I'm against the war, but not being in the senate yet to actually vote on it!!

    Much like Obama (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:18:59 PM EST
    No need for me to bring unity or explain logically why we did what we did. You're just going to have to wait until Hillary finally gets busy doing what she is supposed to do and get you on track for Obama.

    Dr. Molly... (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:56:32 PM EST
    your concerns are EXACTLY why I'm so upset about yesterday.

    There is no reason to set these types of precedents, and yes, I believe they will have long-term, deleterious effects on the democratic process.


    Also, a precedent for Repub legislatures (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:20:22 PM EST
    to create bad press and confusion for the Dems.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#40)
    by mattt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:08:39 PM EST
    for the kind replies.

    Molly, you're right a dangerous precedent was set.  But this problem has its roots in the chaotic nomination system.  I'll have to wait for the historians to figure out exactly how we got to yesterday's meeting, but once we did....what solution would not have constituted a dangerous precedent?  Consider how any of the alternatives before the committee, if considered precedent-setting, might be exploited by future candidates.

    The most important parties for the RBC to satisfy yesterday were the state parties; after all, they (theoretically) represent the voters in those states.  Apparently the committee accomplished that, while respecting the voters in the 40+ states that didn't break the rules.  So I think they made the best they could out of a complex situation where nobody's interests could be fully satisfied.


    Hmmm ... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:17:53 PM EST
    I think they made the best they could out of a complex situation

    Matt, you should have quit while you were ahead.


    I wish they had said something about (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:21:09 PM EST
    an intent to review this process between now and 2012 to make sure this never happens again. But, they seem unable to admit they could possibly be wrong.

    This is as much a battle between voters and the DNC as it is between voters and Obama.


    Yes, (none / 0) (#165)
    by mattt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:38:52 PM EST
    I would have liked that too.  The Dems will be lucky to survive this keystone kops - like primary in a very bad year for the GOP; we need to clean things up before next time.

    They allotted votes and delegates (4.00 / 3) (#63)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:23:54 PM EST
    to a person who had voluntarily removed himself from the ballot.

    They also took away delegates that had been rightfully earned through votes, and gave them to a person who had removed himself from the ballot.

    If you think that is not a dangerous precedent, I don't know what else to tell you.

    The proper solution:

    MI - 73 delegates to HRC
         55 Uncommitted - free to vote for whomever
         they want at the Convention

    But of course, their precious Obama would not have benefited had they done so.

    It was a travesty.


    No problem, Matt. (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:16:46 PM EST
    ...thanks for the apology.

    Matt - please explain - (none / 0) (#138)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:05:59 PM EST
    >>>But there have also been some arguments offered that are not fact-based, and it bothered me to sit quietly and watch them solidifying into an obstacle to Democratic prospects.

    I'm not signing off, (none / 0) (#167)
    by mattt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:44:03 PM EST
    but I promised not to argue.  At least not until things have cooled off a bit during the window between the final primaries and the convention.

    I really wish (none / 0) (#182)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:17:46 PM EST
    you'd tell us what arguments here are not based on fact.

    Let me understand this (3.00 / 2) (#49)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:15:38 PM EST
    All candidates are responsible for absolutely every word publicly expressed by every one of his or her supporters, and, should somehow exert iron-fisted-Third-World-dictatorial control over all public expressions of his or her supporters. Or, I have missed something?

    I thought calling oneself a democrat meant,in part, that you were opposed to totalitarianism?

    Or, is the manufacture of consent through uniformity
    of thought and the silencing of dissent what we need now, "in this time of crisis"?

    A comment on it (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:25:42 PM EST
    Would suffice.

    Remember when Geffen called the Clintons liars and Obama went on TV all smiles and said, Not my job to comment on what other people say?

    He wouldn't have to tell Geffen, and others to shut up.

    He could tell them they are wrong.

    Can you fathom the difference?


    Look (none / 0) (#91)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:40:24 PM EST
    You know how this works. Geffen is a HUGE contributer. When was the last time you heard a candidate publicly rebuke one of those? They hold the purse strings.

    Have you ever for a moment wondered why C and O cant ever bring themselves to publicly utter the phrase "neocon"? It ruffles too many of the wrong feathers.

    Is this childlike innocence or naivete?


    That's true (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:45:51 PM EST
    He would have had to risk losing some donations.

    We all know if he doesn't dog whistle on Clinton Derangement Syndrome he cuts into his base support.

    Problem is, don't blame us for not supporting or voting for him.


    How about answering (none / 0) (#115)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:52:06 PM EST
    MY question now?

    Or, do you risk incurring the wrath of the gods?


    I think I answered (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:03:01 PM EST
    In the affirmative and provided relevant critique.

    But he's "different"! He said so. (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:48:00 PM EST
    Sounds like rebranding (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:55:10 PM EST
    of the same old stuff to me.

    Neither (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:54:10 PM EST
    Is this childlike innocence or naivete?
    More like cultism. Some Obama and Hillary supporters have lost all perspective. For them Obama or Hillary are deities whose honor has been desecrated and they need to be avenged. Amazing how easily some people forget that Politicians are all professional liars who will tell you exactly what you want to hear.

    Did you just call (none / 0) (#132)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:03:56 PM EST
    Obama a liar?

    Yes (none / 0) (#140)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:08:39 PM EST
    Why, are you a cultist that believes your candidate as pure as Ivory soap, and somehow unlike all the other Pols?

    No (none / 0) (#142)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:10:27 PM EST
    But I think Obama is a liar too.

    But Not Hillary? (none / 0) (#145)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:12:16 PM EST
    Bwaaahahahahahha. You are in the tank but deep.

    I didn't say (none / 0) (#149)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:13:36 PM EST
    She wasn't a liar.

    I said we agree that Obama is a liar.

    Is Max Cleland a liar?

    Is Russ Feingold a liar?


    With apoligies to Godwin (none / 0) (#168)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:45:49 PM EST
    as I get older, every day it becomes clearer to me how Hitler rose to power.

    And no,Im not comparing Our Lady (Of Blessed Memory)
    to Hitler.


    Neither Obams or Hillary (none / 0) (#200)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:10:52 PM EST
    got where they are by publicly putting billionaires in their place. And it'll probobly continue that way as long as the money equals speech equation holds true.

    Plus, if Obama ever said no! to Geffen, the shock to Geffen might induce a cardiac arrest and then Obama might have a real scandal on his hands.


    You must be kidding... (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:31:59 PM EST
    No, not every word of every follower.

    But in this case, a very consistent picture is being put together of people that Obama himself identified as insiders. These are the people who have been his insiders for over 20 years.

    We can't give a candidate a pass for his whole adult life.


    Picture (none / 0) (#112)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:50:10 PM EST
    "being put together" by WHO?

    You dont think there might be just a tad of an element of Roveism in all is; not even for a moment?

    Btw, I'll vote for homegirl if she gets the nomination.


    Nobody... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:31:47 PM EST
    rocked that show harder than The Who.

    Here's to my dream that we won't get fooled again, though I fear we already have been.

    "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"...were truer lyrics ever sung?

    Forgot... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:32:45 PM EST
    the link

    From the same show..... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:43:27 PM EST
    Stones Salt of the Earth

    Always loved that one, maybe the DNC should give it a listen.....

    "Let's drink to the good not the evil,
    Let's drink to the salt of the earth"

    Richards is god:)


    The unsinkable Keith Richards! (none / 0) (#20)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:47:51 PM EST
    Love him.  And I'm a huge Who fan as well.  Thanks for posting the links.  =)

    loved watching that (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:50:59 PM EST
    Thanks, Kdog. This was one of the best concerts ever. I have a VHS tape of it somewhere and forgot the Who and the Stones were there. I'm going to search and watch the whole thing again.

    For the rest of you, it was a benefit concert for the New York City Fireman that aired live on network television after 9/11.


    No problem.... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:00:33 PM EST
    thank you for the inspiration....the MSG network is always playing the documentary of the concert and if I catch it I have to watch the whole thing...so emotional and moving and reassuring.

    I believe it was Bono that said "rock-n-roll can't change the world, but it can change the world in me".  Ain't that the truth.


    Early in the campaign ... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:27:42 PM EST
    I was speaking to a friend who has some minor press relations role in the Obama campaign.

    And I was talking with her about how Obama didn't really do it for me.  I was talking about how he was only a few years older than me, but I didn't think felt like "my generation."

    I somewhat jokingly said that if he didn't have at least two punk rock songs on his I-pod, I wasn't going to vote for him.

    She said she'd check and get back to me on it "later that day."

    I still haven't heard answer.

    One of my early disappointments with the Obama campaign.



    That's funny.... (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:49:03 PM EST
    But having the right songs on your i-pod isn't enough...I mean Bush has Creedence on his i-pod...I guess "Fortunate Son" went right over his head:)

    Sheeet...I still haven't joined the i-pod revolution, I'm a luddite who loves his cd's and vinyl....nothing sounds better than vinyl:)


    If he had some punk on vinyl ... (none / 0) (#184)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:20:01 PM EST
    that would be even better.



    I think he is spinnng (none / 0) (#34)
    by ajain on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:58:32 PM EST
    Maybe there really is a tape. But I think he saw the rumor on the internet and is now playing it up.

    That's just my hunch.

    I think he was first. Then the rumors. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:18:29 PM EST
    Goo Goo Dolls (none / 0) (#37)
    by lobary on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:04:52 PM EST
    I've tried but I've never been able to get into the Goo Goo Dolls. I'm a huge Replacements fan, so whenever I hear a Rzeznik song I can't help but want to listen to some Westerberg instead.

    That said, I have a bit of a soft spot for Tom Petty, so it's a good cover.

    Aside to cmugirl (none / 0) (#62)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:23:39 PM EST
    In regard to your questions on the Colorado initiatives on the ballot this year, I would suggest that you take a look at Colorado Politics (linked on the TL homepage).

    There are some pretty smart people over there that know their stuff on that--much more so than I.

    As I understand it, there were issues on how the petition signitures were gathered, so there are some legal issues to be resolved at the moment.  The "right to work" issue will probably be on the ballot.  

    Thanks! (none / 0) (#97)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:43:09 PM EST
    You're most welcome! (none / 0) (#198)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:19:02 AM EST
    CoPols is a great little place for those interested in Colorado state politics.  

    Larry Johnson broke the rumor ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by dwmorris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:32:09 PM EST
    some time ago. Limbaugh may just be pivoting off NoQuarter.

    Larry characterizes it as fact, not rumor. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:34:14 PM EST
    I use the word "rumor" because ... (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by dwmorris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:41:15 PM EST
    nobody has publically acknowledged seeing the tape. Johnson, Limbaugh, etc. --- all second and third hand "reports."

    It appears to be fact (none / 0) (#98)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:43:10 PM EST
    CNN - Geraldo just said something about the guy who broke the Elliott Spitzer story (about the prostitutes) but I missed exactly what he said.  I'm not sure but he might have said that the same guy is the one saying this story is true.  

    Geraldo characterized it as "an indelible record" but didn't say video.  


    Whoops! Geraldo is FOX (none / 0) (#109)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:48:47 PM EST
    not CNN.  Still, this is sounding a little more serious now.  

    Even if it's true ... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:54:14 PM EST
    Obama will offer more of "teh awesome speechiness" and the MSM will eat it up.

    And McCain's landslide will be increased by a couple more states.


    Roger Stone of the infamous acronymed T-shirt (none / 0) (#114)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:51:25 PM EST
    against Hillary fame and infamy? Dirty trickster extraordinaire?

    Who actually did have the dirt, alas, on Spitzer. Altho' I love Gov. Paterson (we Jersey folk near to NYC get enmeshed in NY politics). I was happy to see him take steps to have the state treat gays married in other states equally to any married couples. Cool. May mean he has no intention of running for his own term, but, who knows?


    I think what he said (none / 0) (#125)
    by DFLer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:58:33 PM EST
    was more like.."well they didn't beleive the Spitzer story when it broke, but it turned out to be true.

    There were more (none / 0) (#80)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:33:25 PM EST
    "We all", "we dont", and "we will" statements on the other thread than you hear in a Borg episode of Star Trek.

    Resistence is futile.

    And, if the above is "too offensive", maybe we all need to become Hare Krishnas or move to North Korea.

    You obviously weren't an avid (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by tree on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:03:08 PM EST
    watcher of Star Trek NG. There was no "we", there was only the BORG, or the collective. There was no separate consciousness from the ONE.

    So nice try at an insult, but ineffective. We aren't interested in joining the hive mind, even if "Resistance is futile."


    Insult (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:34:00 PM EST
    How was the characterization inacurate?

    Or do you mean "we" in the Royal (jelly?) sense; the editorial sense?


    I'm assuming that you were (none / 0) (#194)
    by tree on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:53:35 PM EST
    trying to insult other posters here for using "we" by comparing them to the BORG. I assumed that partly because you implied that those you were addressing would think you were being "too offensive". If you weren't implying any insult by comparing posters to the BORG, then I apologize for misreading your poorly worded comment.

    I already explained to you how the characterization was inaccurate. If you were a part of the BORG you did not use the term "we". There was no "we", there was no "I", there was no "you". There was only the BORG. There's your Star Trek NG lesson for the day as well as one of the reasons your BORG reverence was a poor characterization

    As for the number of "we" answers that you noted and ridiculed, you didn't mention which other thread you saw them in. However, there were mutiple threads today in which some posters asked others what Obama or his supporters needed to do to get support from either Clinton supporters in general or from the posters here at TL in general. They were specifically asking the posters to speak for themselves and others like them--i.e. from the We perspective. Nice of you to now attempt to ridicule people for answering the questions as asked. But par for the course sadly. Ridicule is so-oooooo unifying.


    That's "BORG reference"-- (none / 0) (#195)
    by tree on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:57:06 PM EST
    not BORG reverence, of course.

    Transcript on his web site ... (none / 0) (#107)
    by dwmorris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:47:03 PM EST
    Wash your hands after you visit (I won't provide a link for obvious reasons).

    Can you summarize? (none / 0) (#141)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:10:04 PM EST
    I think his server is done.

    He just says there is a rumor (his word) ... (none / 0) (#159)
    by dwmorris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:26:03 PM EST
    circulating. I don't think he has anything new to add to the rumor mill.

    I am not surprised at all. (none / 0) (#124)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    Michelle has a giant chip on her shoulder.

    You mean Fox, right? (none / 0) (#127)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:59:46 PM EST
    Geraldo is not on CNN. That's Donna's network. There would have been fireworks indeed if he'd said this in her presence.

    Hasn't (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:16:44 PM EST
    this become the dumbest media evah? We have the Prima Donna Obama over at CNN, and Keith Gasbag Olbamaman over at MSN4Obama and FOX that just hates all Democrats no matter who they are and what they say. And this is OUR media. What a frakking joke!

    for those talking about write-ins in Nov: (none / 0) (#160)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:26:38 PM EST
    More on that from Minneapolis (none / 0) (#180)
    by DFLer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:04:40 PM EST
    Feminist leader says no to Obama

    star tribune

    interview pre-dates rules mtg., but there's a reference to a write-in campaign


    Vincent Bugliosi (none / 0) (#202)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:09:02 PM EST
    whos seen a few, can make all the cases he wants for why the President and a few others should be on trial for murder; as long as he dosnt swear or raise his voice, we'll just ignore him.

    The whole business is just too sordid and unpleasant.


    Yes (none / 0) (#166)
    by phat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:40:47 PM EST
    I don't think this needs to be discussed here.

    Ooops... I'm sorry-- I didn't see that. (none / 0) (#181)
    by Exeter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:17:20 PM EST