home

Late Night: Losing My Religion

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:06:30 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

REM in South Africa:

This is an open thread.

< A Hole In Our Culture | McCain's Dilemma: The Media >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Late Night: Losing My Religion | 193 comments (193 topical)
    Thanks! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by standingup on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:09:30 AM EST
    What a great choice of music for tonight's Late Night thread.  A good laugh was just what I needed.  

    Hmm.... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by JustJennifer on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:17:44 AM EST
    Anyone have anything to say about Dennis Kucinich and the 35 articles of impeachment he introduced this evening?

    Frankly, I think he's a grandstanding fool (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:18:58 AM EST
    I'm certain that won't be a popular opinion.

    Parent
    Or maybe not a fool (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:19:48 AM EST
    Maybe he just wants fools to pay off his campaign debts.

    Parent
    How so? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by JustJennifer on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:20:25 AM EST
    Seems to have a pretty valid case to me.

    Of course our fearless leaders will never go through with it.  And for that they should feel shame for the remainder of their lives.

    Parent

    I think the validity of his case (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:21:00 AM EST
    is largely irrelevant.

    Parent
    Ok then (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by JustJennifer on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:27:12 AM EST
    What is relevant?

    BTW the only place I can find any info on this is a democrats.com.  I watched some of it live on C-Span but the MSM is completely ignoring it.  Posers.

    Parent

    It's likely being ignored (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:28:55 AM EST
    because it will go nowhere and do nothing. That's the litmus test for a stunt like this.


    Parent
    Why is it a stunt? (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by JustJennifer on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:31:29 AM EST
    Because Pelosi and Co. sold their souls by taking impeachment off the table?

    I don't know about you but I liked hearing someone standing up and saying what we all know is true.  I am sick of watching us punk out on this issue.  Bush and Cheney are traitors to this country and they should be rode out of town and shunned forever.

    Parent

    Pelosi and co were right about impeachment (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:34:00 AM EST
    It was never going anywhere in the Senate.

    And that's all I have to say about the matter.

    Parent

    So what? (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by JustJennifer on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:37:20 AM EST
    So it wasn't going to go anywhere in the Senate.  Didn't stop the Republicans from doing it to Bill Clinton.

    So.... we should do nothing?

    Parent

    How'd that work out for the Republicans? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:38:16 AM EST
    Seriously, no one can discuss this rationally on the internet, so I'm going to cut this short.

    Parent
    Hmm..how did it work out? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by JustJennifer on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:40:22 AM EST
    You mean 8 years of a Republican president?  Seems like everything has worked out pretty well for the Republicans.  We are the ones who have been getting screwed.

    Parent
    Check the 1998 elections (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:41:50 AM EST
    and get back to me.

    Parent
    Speaking of impeachment, and Gennifers.. (none / 0) (#185)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:55:56 AM EST
    this story caught my eye this morning..
    Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones are offering Internet viewers the lurid details of encounters they claim they had with former President Clinton -- for $1.99 a pop.
    And they are doing publicity shots for their site in the driveway of the Clinton Library.
    On Monday, both women walked down a manicured avenue to the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock and chatted with an interviewer from the syndicated television program "Extra."

    Disgusting, completely disgusting. I know that the Clinton Library is open to the public, but I hope Bill makes an exception for these two tarts. Like a restraining order keeping them off the property. He wouldn't allow call girls to ply their trade on the driveway of his library, so why allow these two to ply theirs?

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:40:05 AM EST
    but I think she made a mistake with that statement. She could have left it open with something like "if something comes up that meets the level of impeachment, we'll consider it".

    Parent
    By that (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by LoisInCo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:34:27 AM EST
    standard he should have voted for the war. Because we went anyway.

    Parent
    Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:36:06 AM EST


    Parent
    I am not arguing (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by LoisInCo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:38:26 AM EST
    that the rest of Congress should go along with it. But yes, I believe it is important to have a voice on record anyway.

    Parent
    I half agree with andgarden (none / 0) (#86)
    by Alec82 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:13:50 AM EST
    This is basically a stunt.  Politically it is too volatile to touch, and Kucinich knows that.  He panders like the best of them.  

     At the same time...I know a lot of people who won't vote Democratic but consider Kucinich to be the conscience of the party, or leftists and p'oed independents, at least, in congress.  I still want to hear him say it, even if it goes nowhere.  Someone needs to say it for the history books.  What has happened in the last eight years is a terrifying disgrace.  Pelosi and the other centrists are concerned with winning elections, and I respect that.  But I want someone in my party to say the obvious and call these people out for what they are.

     The writing really was on the wall during the Clinton years.  There really was a difference between the two parties, notwithstanding Naderite false promises.

     

    Parent

    The thing is that the "stunt" (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:06:33 AM EST
    made it into the Congressional Record. So historians and people who are interested in political history will know that at least one Democrat had a spine and tried to do something about Bush and Cheney. For that alone, I will be forever grateful to Dennis Kucinich.

    Parent
    Ignoring It (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by creeper on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:17:47 AM EST
    Yes, they are.  I saw a reference to this on a CBS News comment board.  Having heard nothing, I ran a Google search for "kucinich+impeach" and got only references to past efforts.  Had decided it was false info till I saw this thread.

    I just wish this legislation were being introduced by someone with more media savvy than Kucinich.  

    But it sure as hell IS relevant.

    Parent

    It was on C Span, so it should eventually end up (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Newt on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:33:23 AM EST

    Here


    Parent

    Seems to me that Dennis serves a purpose (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Mark Woods on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:39:00 AM EST
    of dragging our pendulum back to the left. His lack of subtlety rips away the rhetoric of the watered-down-in-the-name-of-political expediency, and often comes as a refreshing breeze.

    I fear becoming naught but a crusty cynic if i fail to note the courage of his stance, albeit doomed, as others here already said.

    We are, after all, mental patients in the media's asylum waiting room, being prepped for our imminent post-platform re-conditioning, so that we post-Dream Clintoniks don't resist but instead quietly and obediently get in line with the coming Party line of our One Great Leader are we not?

    Our proscribed treatment will last 2 months and will successfully reverse our prior delusions, I'm told. Swell, huh?

    Parent

    That's because (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Emma on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:17:24 AM EST
    we voters have been co-opted as junior political pundits.  We no longer care about what's right or wrong, legal or illegal, true or false because we're too focused on the manipulation and exercise of political power.

    We can't be a check on the manipulation or exercise of political power because all we're interested in is whether it benefits us or, even more cynically, whether we're right about if and how it's going to work this time.  Are we GOOD jr. pundits, that's the issue:  have we correctly identified how political power is going to be manipulated this time and have we aligned ourselves with the winning side.

    I'm tired of this parlor game.  Because so long as we continue to participate in it, it's true that the validity of the articles of impeachment is irrelevant because we, as jr. political pundits, have ceded any power we may have as voters or activists or progressives or Democrats to make the articles relevant or even to argue about it their relevance.

    Parent

    He did?! (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Y Knot on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:19:19 AM EST
    Rock on, Dennis!

    Parent
    I think it's very good timing. (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Newt on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:33:40 AM EST
    Left wingers have been furious with Pelosi & Reid for not coming through with big progressive action after the last election.  I'm continually reminding them that we should have won many more Senate seats than we did in 2006, and we will have to have a huge majority to impeach and hopefully charge Cheney et. al. with treason once Bush is disempowered for pardons.  

    I think Kucinich has risked his career with this.  It's the kind of action that I think takes role reversal for, as in "when the people lead, the leaders will follow."  It's similar to gay rights.  We can't expect our elected officials wreck their careers standing up for us.  It's something the public needs to do.  Hence my frequent call for straight people to take a stand on gay rights at the federal level so the marriage issue can't be so effectively used as a wedge issue.


    Parent

    I stopped reading your comment here: (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:35:38 AM EST
    I'm continually reminding them that we should have won many more Senate seats than we did in 2006
    You don't know what you're talking about.

    Parent
    please don't insult (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:45:00 AM EST
    commenters. If you disagree, say so and why.

    Parent
    Sorry. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:47:41 AM EST
    Dalton makes the obvious point that I didn't bother with.

    Parent
    I'm referring to the process (none / 0) (#38)
    by Newt on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:49:39 AM EST
    after a majority in the House when the Senate gets to the actual trial.

    And gee, I thought my comments about us little people being leaders were very astute.  Sorry you didn't read that far...

    Parent

    Risked his career? (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:47:11 AM EST
    The guy promised his constituents repeatedly during his reelection campaign in 2006 that he would not run for President again, because there was concern that he was spending too much time flitting around the country and not enough time attending to the needs of the district.

    The day after he locked up that reelection, he filed to run for President again.  And this year, in spite of that flagrantly broken promise, he sailed through the primary without a scratch.  I daresay his career is hardly on the line.

    Parent

    Holding the opinion (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:52:24 AM EST
    that Kucinich is anything other than a progressive hero is strictly verboten among the pure.

    Parent
    Jeez Andgarden (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Newt on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:47:23 AM EST
    You're pretty mean to insult progressives who look to our leaders like Kucinich to take a stand.  People have been hoping, calling, demanding, begging for our representatives to stop this administration's dismantling of our Constitution and country's good name in the world.  

    Kucinich is trying to take them on, call them to task, maybe even STOP Bush from continuing these dishonest activities.  It's a very brave thing to do, and I don't see a lot of other reps stepping up to the plate.

    And all you can do is insult the people that support and respect this man?

    That's really lame.  Maybe you can fill us in on some of the great things you've done to stop this criminal George W. Bush.

    Parent

    You have no credibility if (none / 0) (#151)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:35:35 AM EST
    you think Vermont "needs" a Dem. senator.

    Parent
    Better whacko fringe (5.00 / 7) (#88)
    by Fabian on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:16:46 AM EST
    than Nancy Pelosi who didn't even hold onto impeachment as a threat.  She basically said "Hey, don't worry about us.  We won't do anything for two years that might endanger the Presidential elections for us.  Sure, we might let one of the most corrupt, damaging, venal administrations get away with everything because power is more important than principles.  But the electorate will forgive us because we are better than the Republicans."

    Better than the Republicans?  We might need an electron microscope to actually prove it.

    Parent

    Fabian... (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Alec82 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:22:15 AM EST
    ...you truly are the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party!

    Parent
    only one Dem (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:12:27 AM EST
    has stated Bush and Cheney have not committed impeachable offenses and prior to the Iowa caucus, Kucinich endorsed him.
    Obama.


    Parent
    I strongly disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Newt on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:53:59 AM EST
    I think we should have fired Joe Lieberman and gotten a Democrat elected from Tennessee and Vermont.

    Parent
    We Did Fire Leiberman (none / 0) (#158)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:43:51 AM EST
    then the Republicans elected him as an independent.

    Parent
    Bush (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:42:55 AM EST
    and Cheney are not going to be charged with treason if Obama makes it to the WH. Obama wants to play kumbaya with these people not indict them.

    Parent
    Bah (none / 0) (#129)
    by JustJennifer on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:01:36 AM EST
    I am so totally disgusted that my party has decided to stay away from impeachment.  There is ample evidence - I read all 35 articles this morning and any one of them would be easily proven.

    The Obama situation didn't make me consider leaving the party for good but this situation certainly has.

    Parent

    Go Dennis! (none / 0) (#193)
    by Lora on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:21:19 AM EST
    It's about frickin' time!

    I once again christen the Mainstream Media the Mouthpiece Media.  Whether you think Kucinich's latest is a stunt or, as I do, what a responsible government representative does when the executive branch is totally out of control, it is newsworthy and should be reported.  And discussed!

    Raw Story has coverage.

    Parent

    One more Joshua comment before bedtime (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by zyx on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:23:42 AM EST
    Once I went through that I'll-read-the-Bible-all-the-way-through phase.  Guess how far I got? To Joshua. Joshua and the Isralites didn't just bust down some walls when the other people were on vacation and occupy the real estate, and the other folks were having a great time at the seacoast and they forgot to come home or something. It was gross and sanguinary and just not my cuppa at all.

    I've hit most of the other high points, because I've had lots of church attendance at those good liturgical churches where they cycle through the most improving readings thoughout A, B and C year Sunday mornings, and my kids went to an Episcopal day school and I hit a lot of morning prayer services too.  But never cover-to-cover through the book.  I quit at Joshua.

    Losing my religion... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:25:21 AM EST
    Sigh.  I was hoping this song would be playing at some OTHER blog.

    Anyone watch the Polanksi docu... (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:47:20 AM EST
    ...on HBO? I found it fascinating in its look at the judicial corruption in the case, and I thought it was very well done. I remember the case from when it happened, but didn't know a lot of the details the docu brought up.

    Also, Rebecca Traister has another great piece in Salon, in which she finally fesses up to having voted for Hillary. Traister wrote the piece about sexism in the media during NH (and was the first to take Chris Matthews to task), and has been one of the few writers to call the media on their sexism throughout this campaign.

    From her current piece:

    Clinton was such a hard-ass that she turned her butchest male critics into the hysterical harpies they accused her of being. What fun, during that final debate, to hear Obama grouse (justifiably) about the ludicrous questions he was facing, while next to him, the broad who had, in an earlier debate, been asked about the fact that nobody liked her cheerily removed the shiv from her thigh and used it as a toothpick. Sure, many people moved quickly from the thrill of having two historic candidates to the hair-pulling headache about how much damage their contest was doing to the party, but get over it! When was the last time we had so much fun in an election year?

    It's a wonderful column in praise of a wonderful dame.

    That was a great Salon article (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:08:25 AM EST
    but it kept building and building...  And the last sentence was kind of a letdown, sort of like Hillary's campaign.

    I think, of all the things Hillary did in this campaign, the one I most enjoyed watching was seeing Republicans who hated her slowly move over to her side.  It was so bizarre!  They loved her because she fought, and fought, and fought...  Kicking and screaming, she just wasn't going to go down without a fight -- and they loved that.  

    I'm convinced Hillary needs to run again because she would be a true "crossover" candidate.  There are many Republicans who would crossover to vote for her.  She's simply that amazing.  

    Parent

    Ok, I have to admit. (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:53:00 AM EST
    The Age Of Joshua thing is really disturbing to me and another of the signs of what I think is astro turfism, the Axelrod specialty.  Funny though, that they make such an effort for these guys, but I guess working class whites, will have to wait as will women.  I want my own astro turf campaign.  I feel left out.  I want pandering.  

    If Obama makes it to the WH (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:18:56 AM EST
    will Axelrod go with him like Rove went with Bush?  Disturbing thought, I know.


    Parent
    Axelrod (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:40:23 AM EST
    would have to go with him.  How could he manage the message without Axelrod?  Axelrod is the one who frames the message.  Obama would be lost without him.  

    Not only that, it appears that Obama is basically running on Axelrod's platform:  ie. the platform Axelrod laid out for a candidate.  

    You know....  Why don't we just elect Axelrod?  We kill two birds with one stone that way...  Or is Axelrod not a very good public speaker?  

    Parent

    Far fetched theory #1 but (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:57:27 AM EST
    plausible.  

    I read the English versions of Israeli and Arabic papers.  While we are diddling with the primary, Condi has been a very, very bush person.  Something is brewing.  

    Sample of her projects:

    Rice to hold talks with Israeli, Palestinian teams

    So, this is my theory.  They will patch up a last minute agreement.  Condi will be McCains VP and trump Obama.  

    I have no idea if they will succeed, but I think she is even talking to Syria.  

    No, just look to history (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by daryl herbert on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:06:29 AM EST
    Every president wants to "solve" the Israeli/Palestinian crisis during their last 6 months in office.

    Clinton couldn't do it, so Bush sure as hell can't.

    The last gasp of a lame duck presidency is not the time to try to solve the I/P dispute.

    Parent

    Gotta Like The Theory Though (none / 0) (#173)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:11:46 AM EST
    Not because Bush can deliver, but because this administration has masterd the art of political theater.  i.e.  They accomplished nothing in their first term, but managed to get re-elected.

    Parent
    Interesting but (none / 0) (#47)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:03:55 AM EST
    Condi is so tied to the Bush adminstration, won't that just make it harder for McCain to defend his 'maverick' image? (btw, I've always liked that word but I have a feeling I'm going to hate it by the time Nov. rolls around).

    Parent
    Not if she delivers.... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:08:38 AM EST
    I know Clinton tried.  He got close.  These guys are working on a non binding agreement.  I think there will be some last minute trick to cleanse the RNC, fake, but they will do something.  

    Parent
    Article on the internet (none / 0) (#51)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:17:04 AM EST
    over the weekend that indicated the two countries were holding peace talks and hoping to reach some agreement.

    Much has been going on in the bush administration.  

    Seems they have a goal to achieve the Obama issues before election. I chuckle to myself every time I see one of these issues taking a priority and wonder what Obama is going to have to talk about during the GE.

    Parent

    A Question For the Women Here (5.00 / 8) (#56)
    by creeper on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:26:28 AM EST
    Have you personally been the victim in recent days of some form of sexism?

    I ask because I've recently run into a "stifle yourself, Edith" attitude from several men I know.  Yes, they've always been chauvinists to some extent but suddenly they don't seem inclined to make any effort at all to hide it.  In fact, they're really aggressive about it.

    I know this sounds paranoid but it's what I'm experiencing.  From condescending replies to blog comments I've made to, in one case, being told to my face to "shut up", they refuse to carry on a civil argument.  Instead, they dismiss me out of hand.

    Am I the only one?  And could this possibly be a reflection of the political climate?

    I have written here that I saw this (5.00 / 7) (#65)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:50:55 AM EST
    in my workplace after the Hill-Thomas hearings, and I am so sorry.  It turned my life and thus that of my kids into a living h*ll, as I was subjected daily to seriously sick stuff -- even stalking, when a sicko former felon there was sicked on me -- and then was turned down for tenure, meaning loss of my career.  And the guys chortled lines straight from the hearings.  Hang in there.  I hung on, I appealed, I kept my job -- and a lot of them are gone, and I'm still there.

    But this is why I am sick, myself, of all the media stories now saying that this campaign will mean such progress for women.  Bull.  I predicted this. . . .

    Parent

    Yep, the message has been received -- (5.00 / 8) (#77)
    by FemB4dem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:54:03 AM EST
    got a problem with a woman?  Obama has showed the way -- condescend and mix in some good old fashioned sexism.  Actually, what is weird is that the republican males of my acquaintence have been reaching out and supportive lately, it's the Obama boyz who are being disgusting.  Very odd. Perhaps the McCain camp has sent out a memo.  If they start humming Abba tunes we'll know something's up.

    Parent
    Perhaps the line has been crossed (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:10:50 AM EST
    It could be the method/actions that are causing them to react. They all have family, friends, coworkers that they may not want to see receive this treatment. I was raised by Republicans {grin} and you can bet yer bottom dollar, the crap we've seen is not acceptable when it comes to family, etc. We've hit a point where many have both parents working, so mistreatment won't be accepted at certain levels? I think Hillary gained a lot of respect for a reason. And it wasn't just politics.

    Parent
    Btw, what saved me was (5.00 / 7) (#68)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:02:20 AM EST
    other, older women who worked to turn my turndown around, worked on the powers-that-be when I was barely capable of continuing against what seemed to be awful odds.  Here's what they taught me:  Do not be silenced -- not with each other.  We only find out about each other's harassment when we find a safe place to tell each other our stories . . . and then may find that we're not alone, we're not crazy, we're not the cause, and it's happening more widely.

    And then, you may just have a pattern that could be evidence of a hostile environment not just for you but for women (and often others -- minority men, small men, etc.) in general.  And that's a no-no.  That's when the specter of the EEOC arises. . . .

    Parent

    There are laws now but (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:17:30 AM EST
    that wasn't always the case.  

    I think the worst time in my life was when I had to quit a job in outside sales because the manager thought I should be sleeping with the customers to sell more.  

    Throughout most of my career though, I've ended up in management positions with a lot of men working for me, usually in male-dominated industries.  That's an infinitely trickier swamp to wade through.  

    Parent

    Infinitely so, yes. Been there (none / 0) (#200)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:53:24 AM EST
    and done that several times, most of my career years (in several careers).  Now I'm in a more gender-balanced workplace.  So, of course, the salary level is lesser . . . but there are so much more important things in life.  Grace, your comments here have been so affirming and strong; bless you.

    Parent
    "Do Not Be Silenced" (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by creeper on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:14:39 AM EST
    Thank you so much for this.  You're the only person who has validated what I'm feeling.

    The fourth time it happened I reached the point where I started wondering if it really is me and if I should, indeed, "shut up".  But I can't find anything I've written or recall something I said that should trigger such nasty responses.  

    The worst part is that while he agrees with me that the way I'm being treated is wrong, my husband also says "let it go."

    And yes, one of the venues where this is arising is a male-dominated sport.  While I don't participate as a competitor I'm one of the primary judges on a national level.  The misogyny has always been there to some extent but they've attempted to cover it up in the past...possibly out of fear that I would retaliate on their scoresheets.  (That's about as likely as hell freezing over.)  Now it's as though they feel no need to even attempt to be civil.

    Whatever the reason it's a thoroughly depressing experience.  But I think you've given me sound advice and I thank you.

    Parent

    Don't be silenced (5.00 / 6) (#93)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:22:42 AM EST
    Never shut up.  Seriously, try humor first.  If that doesn't work, be a b*tch.  Like I said in another post, there are men who will feel totally wrong with the whole thing (and you can tell who they are) but they will never speak up.  They'll let it all fall on you.  The trick is to not make them feel uncomfortable but to put the aggressors back in their place.  

    Once, I worked at a company with all men.  My supervisor bought me a color monitor for my computer and set it up in the shop.  He called me into the shop to see it.  Every man I worked with was in the shop and the computer monitor had a porno program running on it.  (Something called "Molly" -- she was a computer generated f*cking program.)  The only reason my supervisor did this was to embarrass me and get my reaction.  The trick for me was to not satisfy him with a reaction he would enjoy.  

    What I do remember is that several of the men felt uncomfortable in that room.  You could tell.  They only politely laughed and they looked like they would prefer to be anywhere but there.

    I watched the program for a couple of minutes then I turned around and said "Great!  But what else does it do?"  And everyone laughed.  Even the guys who felt like they didn't want to be there.  All the tension left the room.  

    I think women have such a tough job in the workplace.  You have to be hard yet you have to be soft too.  If you are too hard, the sensitive guys won't be able to align with you.  If you are too soft, the macho guys won't be able to deal with you either.  You have to be almost schizo since you need to be hard and soft.  Tough yet sweet.  

    Hillary is my hero since she did all sides of the spectrum so well.  She shed tears when she had to, she threatened to bomb Iran when she had to.  She showed all the angles women have to show to get ahead.

    You have to whip those sports guys back onto your team.  If they all think they are too macho, I'd be a little bit more of a b*tch, a funny b*tch but definitely not a sister type.  Don't let them walk on you.  Put them back in their place.  If they treat you bad, say "Excuse me?  If you think you can walk on me...  " Then read them the riot act.  You'll probably only have to do that once.          

    Parent

    Oh, Creeper, I hope you come back (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:51:12 AM EST
    to read this thread and many more responses to show you that I am far from the only one, and you are far from alone.

    Hold this mental picture in mind:  When I did win my appeal and promotion -- after many agonizing months, and no, I never will be over it, even years later -- I had turned from hot anger to cold anger, much more scary.  So I followed workplace form and called for a meeting on a ruse.  Once I got all the guys (and yes, all who had the power over me and voted me off the island were guys) in the room, I amended the agenda, as it were -- to the point that one finally made a motion for "mercy."  After my reply to him, no one dared second him.

    My agenda was a 33-item list detailing just some of what they had done to me in six years (the requisite number of years to come up for promotion).  And when they started messing with me about it, I shut them down fast by using the line I had learned in the Hill-Thomas hearings:  Do you want me to send a copy of this list to your wife/mother/sister/daughter?  So they had to sit through an agonizing hour-and-a half for them but vengeful glee for me.

    And when some kept saying, but but but this is not very likeable of you, what slayed them once and for all was my saying that they didn't get it -- that I didn't care a whit whether they liked me, but they darn well would at least act like they respected me, if only for the sake of other (lower-level) women in the office and young women interacting with all of us.

    Now, not all guys were named on my list, as there were -- as others here note -- several who simply did nothing for years as I was mistreated.  One of them, a dear guy, came to me after the meeting in his own agony and said he was so sorry, gosh, he really hadn't realized how bad it was blah blah blah.  I told him he was a dear, as I would need him near again . . . but I also told him that the nuns (he was Catholic, too) had taught me that sins of omission were as sinful as are sins of commission.  I think he went to confession fast.

    Anyway, part of getting through may be to daydream of getting revenge -- not that you ought to do so, as I'm in a work situation that has its rules that I could use.  But maybe just daydreaming of hideous tortures of the men might help.

    However, I have to add, also see if you have an exit option.  Things got better for me for a while, but with the hiring of another even more evil guy who also had the energy to do serious harm, I finally got a transfer to another area of my sizeable workplace.  It set back my career considerably, at great monetary cost to me ever since -- but it's just money.  I am much happier.

    Hang in there, Creeper.  Come on back anytime for support, too.  Support made all the difference to me.  If only there had been the internets then. :-)

    Parent

    Ahhhhhhhhhhh (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:05:12 AM EST
    That warms my heart.  That's the kind of response I, as a woman, have gotten for years and years and years.  

    There are ways to fight back:  

    Humor works a lot of times.
    Being a b*tch works sometimes.  
    Being a genuinely warm motherly woman works sometimes too.

    Ultimately, you have to fight it because, if you don't, it will only set you back.  So, you need to figure out how to counter this to put you on equal footing -- and that's the part that can be tricky.    

    Parent

    I say take the high road ;) (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:52:07 AM EST
    "sweetie" and "bless your heart" could be effective tools  ;)

    Kidding aside, yes, you do need to look at the situation and decide how best to respond. You need to learn to detach and take an overview perspective. It's hard, but putting emotion aside to look at the situation can work well.

    I'm usually pretty good at dealing, but the blindsides get me. I find myself unable to respond because I'm too busy picking my jaw up off the ground :(

    I must say, I'm damn glad my "coworkers" all have fur and 4 legs at this point in time!

    Parent

    I should have added (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:28:57 AM EST
    It's not real good to be the "humorless b*tch."  You'll never become part of the Boy's Club that way.  Humor really does help so "sweetie" and "you're likable enough" might help.

    If someone told me to "Shut up," I'd be inclined to say "But I've only begun to speak!" with a wide-eyed innocent look that might throw them off.  

    Honestly, in all my years of work, I've put up with some disgusting BS mostly because I got hardened over time.  You have to remember though, a lot of men are sensative and don't exactly condone this type of behavior either -- they are just too weak to stand up to it.  So, women are expected to stand up to it and stand above it at the same time.  We walk on a very thin tightrope.  That's why it really helps to have a very good sense of humor.  

    Parent

    Sometimes the humor can get dark (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:43:35 AM EST
    and that is when the fun starts. I was one of the first women to work on the track, one of the first who wasn't related to a trainer or owner, that is. And I ran into a lot of sexism, even though I could do the job as well or better than my male co-workers. When propositioned, my line was "Oh no, honey, you keep your family jewels, if you give them to me you won't get them back, and you might need them someday!" Or if he was married, I would say, "Sure, bring a note from your wife saying it's ok and we're on!"

    One guy was just oblivious. Even the trainer got after him about it. So when the vet came to geld one of the colts who had gotten too rank to train, I had a little word with him and a couple of the grooms. When the vet was done with the colt, he turned and said, "Got any others to cut?" I said, "Yeah, one." And pointed to the oblivious guy. The other grooms grabbed him, dropped his pants and spread him out on the shedrow. The vet washed him off with Betadine, and got out his scalpel. You never heard so much noise!! And shrill too..really shrill.  The trainer arrived in time to "rescue" him. After that, the groom was oh so polite.

    I did have one incident where a groom reached out and grabbed my boob, then laughed. I smiled at him, kicked him hard right below the knee cap on both legs, and then nailed his crotch as he was rolling on the ground. That was the last time anyone put their hands on me without permission. Even when they legged me up on a horse, they asked first.

    Humor works well, pain works better. Heh.

    Parent

    Apparently (5.00 / 0) (#180)
    by Fabian on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:37:46 AM EST
    you weren't the only one with a poor opinion of Mister Oblivious.

    If only more Oblivious Ones could have revelations like that!

    Parent

    Yes, (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:50:28 AM EST
    this past weekend. But this guy has ALWAYS had that attitude so I can't really make any judgements from that.

    The internet stuff has been going on longer. Once the boyz found out that I was a lady I was called all kinds of names.

    Parent

    Hillary was victim of proscription (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:41:56 AM EST
    http://savagepolitics.com/?p=673

    Recently, Sen Hillary Rodham Clinton was the victim of what I perceive to be a writ of proscription levied against her by her own party. Using racism, gender bias, character assassination, mass media propaganda and just plain, old fashioned mean spiritedness and greed as tools, the opportunity for the most qualified candidate to lead our country was effectively removed. We sat and watched while the DNC systematically destroyed any hope of Sen. Clinton to earn the office she was competing for, and then, watched further, while she was publicly humiliated and forced to proclaim her support for her rival, Barrack Hussein Obama. Although ancient Rome was arguably one of the more savage cultures in world history, there was at least a modicum of respect for those who were proscribed. But today's proscription is more brutal than it was in ancient times.

    For example: In ancient Rome, the dead body of those who were proscribed was not paraded about the Empire while a ventriloquist had them seemingly spouting accolades to support their former rival.


    Parent

    Good Link (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by creeper on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:27:32 AM EST
    Proscription is an excellent term for this.  It's as though the belittlers are actually attempting to remove the victim from the picture altogether.  "Go away.  Shut up.  Too bad."  Complete dismissal.

    It's scary in a way that a person could be so utterly discounted.  I know it's a function of the perpetrators' inability to make their argument rationally but that makes it all the more frightening when it works because there's little defense against it.

    Humor may be the only way to handle it though it's hard to think of anything funny in some of those situations.

    Parent

    You're not the only one. (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:15:53 AM EST
    I've been called a "single-issue" voter concerned about a "niche" constituency when I expressed dismay at how the DNC has sold out women.

    51.1% of the population is a "niche"? I said. Issues that affect that 51.1% are a "single issue"?

    Yes, apparently. In the eyes of many, the rights of women are tiny and trivial and not at all important.

    But it wasn't just men saying this.

    And I have to highly recommend the quick and dirty response to being grabbed or fondled. Go for their balls - grab and give a good hard squeeze while looking him right in the eyes. They don't expect it, and nothing is quite as effective in getting your point across. You don't have to hurt them too badly, just make it very clear that you could.

    Parent

    Obama needs some new speechwriters (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:34:54 AM EST
    I'm tired of hearing "McCain is George Bush's third term."  

    Also, the "Change, change, CHANGE, cHaNgE, ChAnGe, change, change, change, change" thing is really wearing thin.  

    I want some meat.  Some concrete.  I want to hear some new things.  I want some serious CHANGE!  George Bush is so yesterday.  I want to hear about tomorrow.    

    SPAM! (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by Fabian on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:01:44 AM EST
    I immediately thought of Monty Python's Spam song when I read your little "change" chant.  

    Works even better than Alice's Restaurant!

    Parent

    Listeners seriously need some change (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:27:11 AM EST
    in the form of new speeches.  Seriously.  

    What we are getting is spam.  Lots and lots of spam.  Obama is the spam king.  He has spammed "change."  

    I can't believe I'm the only one who is upset about this!  If I were a reporter in his press corps, I would have complained in print by now.  I'm just really getting sick of the word.  

    Change.  

    Yuck!!!!!  

     

    Parent

    It wouldn't be so bad if he (none / 0) (#166)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:48:37 AM EST
    would just articulate what kind of change and how he was going to do it. But just saying "change, change, change" over and over makes him sound like a panhandler.

    Parent
    A heartelt shout-out from the heartland (5.00 / 8) (#62)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:46:54 AM EST
    to commenter hellothere, who wrote the following in a thread that closed too soon for me to reply about what the Obama campaign's youth contingent could do:

    The only thing that would impress me would be [for them] to get on a bus or train right now and head off for the heartland. i'd go where all of this tragedy with the weather is taking place. i'd have some of these young people out there asking people what they need and want instead of telling them.

    Thanks for thinking of us, hellothere.  We are reeling here.  You may have seen the horrific devastation in our lovely Dells, where with tourism our number-one industry in Wisconsin, this means that thousands of workers -- including many of my students -- are suddenly out of jobs this summer to pay for college in fall.  

    But beyond homes toppling into newly formed rivers hundreds of feet wide, devastation that you see on tv, those are only a few of the thousands of Wisconsinites and other Midwesterners now homeless  or with homes badly damaged -- but homeowners who tried to get flood insurance but were denied because dams don't break.  Well, the dams didn't break, but new rivers formed to take homes away, to flood thousands of others . . . and even entire downtowns of some of our largest cities.  And our record rainfall of as much as a foot in a matter of hours now is threatening dams, with thousands more being evacuated today and tonight, to await whoknowswhat tomorrow -- when it will rain again.

    And not just homes but entire worthy groups are getting hit, like the Hispanic community group in my city had just bought two buildings for a new center -- two multistory buildings that collapsed from the rains even on only the first night.  That will mean more thousands of our most needy will not get basic community services for years, while the group has to recover from its loss.

    And everyone, please also think of our farmers, already dealing with a very late spring due to our record winter precipitation (aka snow:-) and now looking at flooded fields that may mean a year's livelihood lost.  And this at the time that our state already was reeling from yet more factory closings by the thousands, many in the towns nearby those farmers who worked two jobs to hang onto the land they love -- some of them "century farms" in their families for a hundred years or more -- and now may have lost both jobs.

    Enough.  I can't begin to describe what is happening here and across the Midwest.  We are grateful for few fatalities.  We fortunate ones can cope with flooded basements for two days now -- my son and his dad have shop-vac'd and bailed water for all but a few hours in the last 48 -- because we still have our homes.  To see how bad and sad it is, just in my city, see jsonline.com.  And since this still-barely-blue state has been denied federal disaster status and funds through disaster after disaster as punishment for staying Dem, ask your Congress critters to help push for our plea for federal disaster status, and fast.

    It could help to get some families back into their homes, some farmers back into their fields, and some students back into college in fall.  Thanks.  

    My thoughts are with you (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by standingup on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:09:11 AM EST
    I heard about the flooding in Wisconsin today and began thinking 2008 is beginning to be very reminiscent of 1993.  I did a quick google and discovered I was not alone as the DesMoines Register had just published a timeline of Key events surrounding the flood of 1993.  

    I remember the devastation well.  We lost many homes in Missouri that were not in a flood plain and so also had no flood insurance.  Our crops this year are lagging behind every other state thanks to the wet spring.  Many farmers here are very anxious and they don't even have a crop in the field that would be lost and need to be replanted if it flooded.  

    Cross our fingers that the weather patterns will change soon.  I don't see the coverage of this on the news that it probably warrants but have no doubt it could get much worse before it gets better.  

    Parent

    I remember the Great Flood of '93 (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:27:28 AM EST
    so well, with relatives in Iowa and in St. Louis.  Some finally came to stay with us -- we had safe water then . . . but now, those on wells here are warned to switch to bottled water.  (So of course, stores in those areas ran out in no time.  We had a good supply here so sent it west with my son and the shop-vac.)  We can only pray that the rains due tomorrow are not as bad, but we well recall how your brief breaks of sunshine were followed by worse, and for weeks.  

    Even so, as you know well, we now have to fight for weeks against the mold and mildew damage that already is beginning.  Tomorrow, the trip to the home supply store is for bleach for some of our basement walls, where we have some seepage.  And in a house over a hundred years old, it can happen fast.  I'm already back on allergy meds, as my nose knows before the spots begin on the walls.:-)
    Even in the big city, our water supply was badly compromised by sewage system overruns.  The city is even warning the usual cadre of curb scavengers to stay away from the stuff stacking up on curbs, as it could make them sick.  

    Ohhhhh no, as I write this, I hear rains again.  They weren't supposed to come so soon.  And now thunder.  Time to get out the flashlight, the transistor radio, the cell phone, and check the weather watches and warnings. . . .   Cheers.  

    Parent

    Yuck. My heart goes out to you (none / 0) (#81)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:35:11 AM EST
    Here in California, we have these disasters on a seemingly regular basis.  If it isn't the floods, it's the fires or the earthquakes.  

    I've always wanted to visit the Dells because it looks so beautiful up there.  

    What town are you in?  


    Parent

    Hey, Grace, sun is shining here (none / 0) (#188)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:08:19 AM EST
    if briefly, and we feel likes moles crawling out of our holes.  You know that feeling in Cal, as I have family there, too, and so we always have to watch the tv through your disasters and get out maps to see just how close are canyons, faults, etc. . . .

    The Dells are phenomenal, the result of another natural disaster (at least for the mammal life here then) 15,000 years ago when an Ice Age lake drained just as yesterday's did, and the ancient one carved and curved through sandstone to create our gorgeous gorge called the Dells.  The way to see them is from the lovely Wisconsin River, and on our "Dells ducks, WWII amphibious land-water vehicles . . . but not for a few years now, as that operation was on the Lake Delton that is no more now, until engineers figure out how to fill it again.

    But in our state where tourism is our number-one industry, the number-one site remains my town, Milwaukee -- and especially in summer, when we have ethnic festivals every weekend to celebrate our immigrant heritage (and one in fall for our Native heritage here) as well as the world's largest music festival, Summerfest.  And our gorgeous Great Lake is wonderful 24/7 -- I'm just a few blocks from it and thus not far from our world-famous Calatrava-designed art museum and much more.  Ya oughta come down by Mwokee, ain'a hey, as we say!

    Parent

    I'm In Iowa, Just Downstream (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by creeper on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:27:31 AM EST
    You've described the situation here to a T.  Rivers out of control, fields flooded, trees toppled...and no end in sight per the National Weather Service.

    This is 1993 all over again.  And it's not good.  We'll lose a lot of the crop this year.  I cringe to think what that will do to food and fuel prices.

    My son works barges.  He'll be without a job if this continues.  Treacherous currents and the effect of boat wakes on flooded ground have already closed some stretches of the Mississippi.

    Our governor, also a Democrat, has said that fully a third of Iowa counties need federal aid.  I wonder if we'll get it.  Not a word out of Washington so far.

    Hang in there, Cream City.  You are not alone.

    Parent

    "My son works barges" (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:03:54 AM EST
    I did this for several years in the 70s.  yeah.  when the river is flooding it is a really scary job.
    I saw a guy almost get cut in half by one of those huge dock ropes that snapped under the pressure.
    if he is a deckhand, like I was, they use those things all the time.
    tell him to be careful.  screw the barge, the captain and the company.  you only have one head.


    Parent
    I am in central IL (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:45:22 AM EST
    and it has been weird.  it has literally rained every day since winter.  the farmers can not plant.  all the fields I drive through to get to work are lying fallow.  it is a big big problem.  the various crops should be half grown by now.  I cant help but think this is going to effect food supplies.
    we have had tornado warnings literally almost every day.  and several sightings.  thankfully no hits locally.  yet.  but at home in arkansas they were devastated.  no one I know personally died but all my favorite restaurants are gone and several people I know lost houses to either floods or tornadoes.

    Parent
    Obama's Ongoing Flip Flops (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by daryl herbert on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:00:45 AM EST
    Austan Goolsbee is back.  After NAFTAgate, the Obama camp said he was just "a volunteer."  Now that Hillary is down for the count, Obama's bringing Goolsbee back.

    What does that say about his position on NAFTA?  He hasn't been banging the NAFTA drum lately.  I guess he only pretended to oppose NAFTA to get votes from those bitter small town hicks who cling to guns, religion, xenophobia, and anti-free trade sentiment.

    Today, Sen. McCain is a very bad man for supporting the Bear Stearns bailout.  But once upon a time, Obama was in favor.

    Also, Goolsbee was in favor of the subprime lending practices that got us in trouble.  Further, Obama now has a corporate bigshot involved with the subprime debacle . . . helping him to pick his VP.

    And how 'bout them Iranian Revolutionary Guards?  He viciously attacked Sen. Clinton as a "saber-rattling" warmonger for voting to call them terrorists.    (TalkLeft thread on the subject here.)  What did he do last week?  He called them terrorists, and he says he's always wanted them to be called terrorists (the McCain press release in that link shows in detail how Sen. Obama was unfair to Sen. Clinton, which is why I included it).

    Change you can believe in.

    This isn't the last of it. He's going to flip flop every week between now and the convention.  He won't flip flop on keeping troops in Iraq . . . at least, not until after the convention.  He doesn't want to get booed out of Denver.  No, look for that flip-flop in early September.  If he's really craven, he's already got it scheduled for September 11, 2008.

    This is the stuff I really can't stand. (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:23:27 AM EST
    I'd love to be able to support Obama but I really have a lot of problems with supporting him.  

    These ever-shifting/flip-flopping stances need to stop.  He needs to stand for something.  He doesn't have the long record McCain has so you don't know what things he really will stand up for and what he won't.    

    Parent

    The flip flop on Kyl-Lieberman infuriates me. (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by FemB4dem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:40:02 AM EST
    How many times did he use that as a club against HRC, when he didn't even have the guts to show up and vote on the resolution himself?  And now, he not only turns around and endorses the guts of it -- that the Iranian National guard be labeled terrorists -- but says he has "consistently urged" that they be called terrorists. Agh!  Here we go again with the "nobody has been more supportive of [fill in the blank] than Barack Obama" bull sh*t.  Is there anything this man really stands for?  How in the world did the Dems end up with a bigger flip flopper than John Kerry.  For god's sake, the 527 ads will write themselves.    

    Parent
    I can't vote for him (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:45:52 AM EST
    because of things like this.  

    AND, he doesn't have a long record to look at.  Honestly, where does he stand?  Who knows?  Right?  Without the long record, there is no telling what he believes on any of the issues.  

    I'm voting for McCain because of this (and because my state is solidly blue -- I can't hope to eat into the blue unless I vote for red!)  

    Parent

    I didn't think there was (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by mikeyleigh on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:56:14 AM EST
    a phrase I'd get tired of hearing more than "Nobody could have known" as used by the Bushies over and over to excuse everything from 9/11 airplane attacks through the Iraq debacle and right on to Katrina.  However Obama's repeated use of "Nobody has been more supportive" of whatever is really beginning to annoy me.

    Parent
    Obama VP consultant (none / 0) (#172)
    by PamFl on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:02:25 AM EST
    James Johnson, the corporate bigshot helping pick Obama's VP, attended the Bilderberg Conference in Chantilly, Va. (June 5-8, 2008) on behalf of Obama.
    This group affliation, along with the Joshua Generation Project being formed by the BO campaign, is unsettling. Joshua is a prominent figure in Black Liberation Theology.
    Any comments?

    Parent
    Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by SamJohnson on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 02:40:48 AM EST
    If I haven't said Thank You recently for having us over for the great discussion, Thank You. Even before your place became a safe haven where Democrats could escape the campaign related propaganda machines and honestly discuss issues and our lives, it was a place where Democrats could escape the campaign related propaganda machines and honestly discuss issues and our lives. Actually, it was a place where even non-Democrats could come and present their case if done with respect and reason. Thanks for putting so much effort into maintaining this space for us, I know you know exactly why that means a great deal to me, which is yet another reason to say Thank You.  

    So many flips in so little time! (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 04:50:44 AM EST
    If you try to be the candidate for all, it's more than likely, you'll end up being the candidate for none. And it's hasn't even been a week.

    Donna Brazile has flip flopped too (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:57:33 AM EST
    Earlier this year she said she'd resign from the Dem Party if the SDs chose the nominee.
    LOL


    Parent
    Perhaps someone should write (none / 0) (#127)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:59:44 AM EST
    and remind her of that. I cannot, she has stopped replying to me. But someone else could,

    info@brazileassociates.com

    Parent

    another group has been writing her (none / 0) (#137)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:08:18 AM EST
    about her flip flop and she's been responding with vitriol, calling them "haters" who don't share her (Obama) values.

    Parent
    I hope that group is collecting (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:45:41 AM EST
    their emails and will send them to the sponsors of, and the programs on CNN and ABC who so regularly bring her onscreen to speak knowledgeably to the people.

    As long as their message to her was without an "all caps" dialog and shows her response to be unreasonably angry, she will be more likely to lose her "gigs".

    I read that the DNC is now starting to get very angry with their callers, as well.

    Parent

    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:32:25 AM EST
    you were right about Obama's trashing of the Clinton economic legacy. He's now given McCain a huge opening to talk about how Obama is running for Jimmy Carter's second term.

    Anyone following the Jim Johnson story? (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:37:33 AM EST
    "Long-standing ties between a member of Senator Obama's new vice presidential search team and a prominent mortgage executive the senator has pilloried could become a political liability that hampers the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's ability to tap into public ire over the subprime mortgage crisis.
    Share Share Email

    James Johnson, one of three people tapped by Mr. Obama recently to oversee the search for his running mate, took at least five real estate loans totaling more than $7 million from Countrywide Financial Corp. through an informal program for friends of the company's CEO, Angelo Mozilo, the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday. The Journal said at least two of the mortgages, among a series of loans made available to people Countrywide officials called "friends of Angelo," were at rates below market averages, though it is difficult to predict a market rate without access to nonpublic information about a borrower's credit history and other factors that can reduce interest charges on a loan.

    Among the loans to Mr. Johnson, according to the Journal, were a $5 million home equity line of credit against a house in Ketchum, Idaho, a 5.25% loan of $1.3 million for a home in Palm Desert, Calif., and a 3.875% loan of $971,650 for a home in Washington, D.C. The interest rates applied for the first five years of the loans."

    story via Politco from the NY Sun

    (The WSJ also had an article about this this past weekend)

    Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae

    Guess I should proof before hitting post (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:41:11 AM EST
    Johnson was CEO of Fannie Mae (hence the second link in my second post).  The report that is linked showed that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million.

    And again, Obama shows superior judgment with those he surrounds himself with.

    Parent

    Mark (1.00 / 0) (#105)
    by nacewsey on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:58:25 AM EST
    Penn

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:05:11 AM EST
    When will they figure out they're not running against Hillary any more?

    Parent
    I know, pivot already! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:19:56 AM EST


    Parent
    I know (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:23:17 AM EST
    But it still didn't answer my question - Obama brags he has superior judgment, so what does this have to do with Hillary?

    I didn't even mention one of the other people on his VP search committee - Eric Holden - who was criticized by both Dems and Republicans for his role and oblivion to the conflict of interest in the Marc Rich pardons.  He's also someone to watch as an AG candidate.  Yikes!

    Parent

    Good point (none / 0) (#128)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:00:48 AM EST
    There's no difference at all between Obama and Clinton on the issue in question.

    Despite what some naive people will tell you.


    Parent

    "This is (none / 0) (#203)
    by tree on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:07:51 PM EST
    not the Jim Johnson I knew." Insert new name, rinse, repeat.

    Parent
    a must-read by Anglachel (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by kempis on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:47:14 AM EST
    link

    yes, great diary! (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:47:56 AM EST
    >>>>Looking back, there is a trajectory of the A list blogs starting in and around the advent of the Iraq War, rising to critical mass with the 2004 elections, hitting a golden period between 2004 and 2006, then starting to tilt away from "documenting the atrocities" to becoming participants in it. I really think the high point of the blogger influence has to be the battle against Bush's attempt to privatize Social Security, led by Josh Marshall. Since the 2006 Yearly Kos, however, anyone paying attention has been able to see where the big-name blogs were headed, and wasn't to stay in opposition to the MSM.


    Parent
    Post-mortems on Hillarys campaign (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by kenosharick on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:53:56 AM EST
    are disgusting as can be expected. The media is laying the blame 100% at her feet without taking into account the DNC bias, fla/mich fiasco, nasty campaign run by Obama,ect.- not to mention the extreme media bias. THEY HONESTLY BELIVE THEY WERE EVENHANDED!!!! If it is possible they are getting me even angrier. Heaping scorn on Hillary is no way to get my vote.

    Like (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:57:19 AM EST
    I've said before: the media whoring for Obama is going to tick off so many people that they're just not even going to think about voting for him. The media is actually his worst enemy but he doesn't realize it yet.

    Parent
    Media Sheep (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:28:29 AM EST
    don't even realize they are being duped.  I've had too many conversations with people who've completely bought into the media narrative to think that they have any capability to think for theirselves anymore.  

    Parent
    Bonnie Erbe (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:15:51 AM EST
    has a column up about what the Obama campaign should do to try to get the Clinton Dems on board. You should see the comments. The Obama supporters are still spewing hate filled rhetoric at Hillary even after she is out of the race. I simply can not fathom what is wrong with these people.

    In a way (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:19:40 AM EST
    I think they realized a long time ago they would never escape the Clinton Brand.

    Obama's administration, if he makes it that far, will still be compared to the last Dem administration.  Not the last Republican Administration.

    Favorably or disfavorably as the case may be.


    Parent

    I copied this (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by eric on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:36:18 AM EST
    from comments in another thread discussing the McGovern campaign:

    we ran a 24hr shop because we had too limited funds to hire adequate staff.  why?  because the kids who were running the show alienated every older democrat they encountered!  it was a classic parent/child war!  the problem is that the "children" running the base level campaign forgot to stop fighting when they got mcgovern nominated!

    The kids have no idea what they are doing, once again.


    Parent

    The reason given for asking Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#181)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:37:51 AM EST
    to withdraw from the race was to allow Obama to move on to the GE.  It looks like he is, but his supporters are stuck. Seems they have issues with "transitioning". Maybe they'll figure out that fourth period is over and the bell has rung if they get a little recess. As long as they are still Clinton hating, McCain is getting a free ride.  It's actually kind of funny to watch since they really aren't saying anything about Hillary that they haven't already said.  I hope she takes a nice vacation.

    Parent
    I'd like to send this one out (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:26:21 AM EST
    To all the women out there thinking of leaving the Democratic Party.

    A little song at the end of an open thread.

    Because of my serendipitous moment yesterday with the Lyle Lovett title (Joshua Judges Ruth).

    The Song is called "She's Leaving Me Because She Really Wants To."

    Thank you my friend
    I sincerely appreciate the words you say
    About how she'll cry
    And how she'll grieve and miss me
    When she goes away

    Say them again
    I need to hear the words once more
    I can't believe
    How she'll miss me when she's gone
    And how she'll want to come back home
    And never leave

    But she's leaving me
    Because she really wants to
    And she'll be happy when she's gone
    She'll be happy
    She'll be so very happy
    She'll dance and sing
    Or even learn to fly
    And spend her time with anyone but me

    What's that you say
    That I'll get over her the more that time goes by
    But time goes so slow
    When all I have to do is sit around and cry

    No she won't be back
    I'd be a fool to try to fool myself that way
    I know she hasn't one regret
    Because she hasn't had one since
    The day she came to stay

    She's leaving me
    Because she really wants to
    And she'll be happy when she's gone
    She'll be happy
    She'll be so very happy
    She'll dance and sing
    And even learn to fly
    And spend her time with anyone but me

    She'll be happy when she's gone
    She'll be happy when she's gone
    She'll be happy when she's gone
    She'll be happy when she's gone
    Speaking of religion... (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:44:46 AM EST
    Think Progress is reporting that contrary to Karl Rove's declaration that his leaving the WH was on his own terms, Bush actually fired him...in church.

    According to a Time reporter who has a new book out, Bush went to Rove's church with Karl and gave him the bad news - while they were there - that it was time for him to go.

    Reminds me of people who break up in public places thinking it will avoid an emotional scene.

    HRC is NOT (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Andy08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:52:59 AM EST
    releasing her delegates !!

    A Texas delegate who was on that Monday night call posted a comment on the blog where the unfounded rumor started:

    "I am a National Delegate for Clinton from Texas. I was on the conference call. Delegates were NOT released. We were told the same thing YOU ALL were told on Saturday. That she endorsed and would work for Obama.

    To use the term "released" is not accurate. She and Harold Ickes asked that we hold together because of health care issues Hillary wants on the democrat platform.

    By the Way: ALL pledged delegates can vote their conscience at Denver. EVEN BO Pledged delegates can switch at Denver"
    Please drop No Quarter from your blogroll (1.00 / 1) (#100)
    by digdugboy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:51:40 AM EST
    After the homophobic hate-speech in this article on No Quarter, it seems like it might be time for all leftist, progressive blogs to drop Larry Johnson's blog from their blogrolls.

    If any blog went off like that about women, it would be dropped, I'm pretty certain. Why should gays get any less respect?

    Donnie McClurkin (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 07:30:58 AM EST
    anyone?

    Parent
    I posted quotes from (none / 0) (#136)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:07:57 AM EST
    that "homophobic rant" here yesterday.  it was hilarious.  stop whining and find a sense of humor.
    btw (Im gay)


    Parent
    I've gotta say, yesterday I (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:15:46 AM EST
    sent the u-tube video of the media and Hillary and the vile treatment of her...my brother wrote back and said well, this could be of the racism that went on and don't take it so personally. He is gay, and I wrote back suggesting substituting a woman for a gay man and see how you feel. I have heard nothing back, which only means he probably doesn't agree with me. I think the worst of people came out this season and it's gonna take more than, a "get over it" to heal, at least for me.

    Parent
    I dont disagree with what you said (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:19:29 AM EST
    but the post he is talking about was on the absolutely vile Andrew Sullivan.  and it was about hoisting him on his on petard.
    it was, as I said yesterday, poetry.


    Parent
    You really (none / 0) (#198)
    by Andy08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:51:37 AM EST
    don't get it do you digdugboy : maybe you are just transferring your own feelings/bias.

    Those two articles are about the despicable Sullivan
    and the author of that post is a proud open gay.
    He is one of the most intelligent,  and thoughtful people
    writing in blogs today.

    Get a hold of yourself.

    Parent

    Change, more change, votes (none / 0) (#2)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:10:58 AM EST
    I got the chance to meet Stipe briefly during the 2004 Vote for Change tour.  Couldn't have been more sincere in his praise for all the campaign volunteers who were there that night.

    So of course I'm a bit disappointed in his decision  to back Obama early on.

    Maybe there's still hope for Pete Buck. ;)

    Id seen them back in my JR year in HS (none / 0) (#3)
    by sociallybanned on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:12:09 AM EST
    88/89.  Indigo girls open for them and I think we were one of the youngest ppl there.  Its amazing they can keep producing great music

    Slept through the Joshua Religion diary (none / 0) (#12)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:24:51 AM EST
    Fell asleep in my lounger chair. Yeah, I have one and it is comfortable. Might be because of the 3 hrs sleep I had Sun night or heat exhaustion from searching for lost kittens at the neighbors. Anyway, when I read it, I was thinking, that is such a right wing idea. Maybe it will work or maybe it will go the way of Bill Clinton's New Covenant. Remember that one? On his 92 acceptance speech at the convention? He decided to name his new campaign plan that. I was like, what in the world is he talking about. Never heard about it again. Heh. Guess I was not the only one who thought it was OT back then.  

    Am I the only one questioning the (none / 0) (#29)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:43:15 AM EST
    wisdom of Obama's 50 billion in stimulus checks? Could that money be better spent in something like national infrastructure, an effort at developing new fuels, shoring up social programs, rebuilding various government agencies trashed under Bush, etc?

    I just want to know (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by janarchy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:47:00 AM EST
    where he thinks he's going to get all the money for all these things he wants now. He keeps talking about spending money but not how to pay for them.

    Reminds me of some other empty suit who is currently occupying the WH.

    Parent

    End the war. (none / 0) (#99)
    by wurman on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:41:17 AM EST
    Stop the "off-the-books" supplemental war funds, currently about $12 billion per month.

    Spend 4 months "on-the-books" for stimulus.  End program.

    Old arithmetic.

    Parent

    Except that (none / 0) (#184)
    by janarchy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:54:56 AM EST
    he is now talking about extending the war for at least another 16 months. He is not an anti-war candiate anymore. So not so old math.

    Parent
    Is it not 1 regiment per month to return, (none / 0) (#194)
    by wurman on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:25:01 AM EST
    then a residual force to defend the embassy & strike out at "hotspots" on occasions?

    The "burn rate" would drop to about $1 billion a month.

    Parent

    But we borrowed foreign funds (none / 0) (#190)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:16:41 AM EST
    to afford our foreign wars.  Another arithmetical problem for which your fix won't work.  

    Parent
    And the borrowing would go on for (5.00 / 0) (#196)
    by wurman on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:30:19 AM EST
    some time--perhaps 2 years as the "tax & spend" budget process came into effect.  I've read that there will be tax increases.

    It took Clinton's financial efforts about 3 years to become effective & attained surpluses in the 6th year.

    These are just my guesses, not altogether factual, although Sen. Obama just added a Secy. Rubin colleague as an economic advisor.  The approach could & should be similar.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:49:12 AM EST
    I admire how Obama manages to play Santa Claus at the same time he promotes his campaign around the idea that he's not Santa Claus.

    Parent
    So it is pandering (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by LoisInCo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:52:55 AM EST
    like he claimed the gas tax holiday was but, newer and better?

    Parent
    Dalton, I so enjoy your semi-treatises (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:20:55 AM EST
    even though we disagree on candidates.  But you are my favorite Obama supporter by far, for your reasoned writings here of full, thoughtful paragraphs.

    Then you come up with a one-word comment like this.  I nearly spit my trendy Trader Joe's wasabi mayo on faux crab bits onto the computer screen.  So I gotta say, this Dalton guy has a lot of sides to him yet to be seen.  There may be hope for this country.

    Parent

    Dalton, aren't you hoping (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:25:18 AM EST
    to run for an office soon?

    I think Cream City's observation is worth a big "I second that".

    Parent

    That sounds like an (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by standingup on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:49:04 AM EST
    excellent endeavor and also great for a political resume.  I hope you are successful in your efforts.  

    I'll add my name to the list of those supporting you for a future run for public office.  I have been very impressed with your knowledge and even more with your temperament in discussions with others.  

    Parent

    Excellent. So many of our best (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:55:35 AM EST
    legislators here got their start in student government.  I knew you were thinking of running, and you have much time ahead to do so.

    So I hope you are not using your real name here, as some of your reasonableness could come back to haunt you in this crazy political climate, when reason is not a prized commodity and could be held against you.

    Parent

    This answer is yet more evidence (none / 0) (#202)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:59:44 AM EST
    that you could be the sort of public servant we so need.  You just keep trusting your instincts, Dalton, as they seem to be so good and wise.

    And it's cool, actually, that I do know your name now, as that means I can watch for your rise.  And remember, rise you will, if you take the time to set the yeast properly.  You have decades and decades ahead to do good, as long as you take the time now to do well.  Finishing college comes first -- not that you have to rush through it.  If opportunity to include in your preparation some out-of-class cool things to do, so what, take an extra semester.  It's only three months, after all.  Especially watch for, say, internships in D.C.?  Almost every college in the country is part of that consortium program. :-)

    Parent

    I Agree (none / 0) (#111)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:24:11 AM EST
    I said the same thing with Bush's stimulus package. Unemployment has risen and the economy keeps getting worse. The infrastructure is crumbling. Money could be designated for state projects with requirements that local contracters be used and that require some type of apprentice program to train new workers. This would throw money into the economy short term but would have long term results.

    Obama does not really represent change. He just recycles old ineffective solutions to existing problems.  

    Parent

    ABBA (none / 0) (#50)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:13:44 AM EST
    I Have a Dream

    This Is News (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 01:36:49 AM EST
    The Palestinian factions Fatah and Hamas, at loggerheads since the Islamist Hamas seized power in the Gaza Strip last year, have sent emissaries to Dakar to engage in a "process of fraternal dialogue" mediated by Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade, a statement said Saturday.

    "Emissaries of the leaders of Fatah and Hamas have met in Dakar where they started a process of fraternal dialogue aimed at ironing out divergences and reconciling the Palestinian family," said a statement sent to AFP by the Senegalese foreign ministry.

    The text dated Saturday was co-signed by Senegalese Foreign Minister Cheikh Tidiane Gadio "for the facilitator," by Hikmat Zeid for Fatah and by Emad Khalid Alamy for Hamas.

    The meeting, whose length was not stated, was an initiative by Wade who is current chairman of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC)..

    [snip]

    "We call for the immediate launch of a national dialogue based on the Yemen initiative" that foresees a return to the situation in the Gaza Strip prior to the Hamas takeover, Haniya said.

    AFP

    The Yemen initiative has no preconditions. A non-conditional dialogue has started.

    McCain and Roe v. Wade (none / 0) (#97)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:08:11 AM EST
    Interesting article:

    McCain and Roe v. Wade

    In a 1999 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board, McCain said, "I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America" to undergo "illegal and dangerous operations."

    George W. Bush turned that statement against him in the 2000 race for the GOP nomination. The National Right to Life Committee ran ads denouncing McCain -- one reason he lost the important South Carolina primary to Bush.

    Something to ponder....

    the john mccain of 2000 (none / 0) (#98)
    by nacewsey on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 06:24:31 AM EST
    is not the john mccain of 2008

    Parent
    The Barack Obama of April (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:06:20 AM EST
    Is not the Barack Obama of May.


    Parent
    the public John McCain of 2000 (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:06:34 AM EST
    is not the public John McCain of 2008.
    what he really thinks we do not know.  I have a feeling there is nothing he would love more than to stick it to the people who cost him the presidency and cost the country Bush.


    Parent
    It's true (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:13:10 AM EST
    Pols are pols.


    Parent
    Looks Like Both Candidates Are Starting (none / 0) (#155)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:41:22 AM EST
    out about equal in that. What McCain REALLY thinks we do not know. What Obama REALLY thinks we do not know.

    Parent
    so it comes down to (none / 0) (#164)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:48:15 AM EST
    who do you trust

    Parent
    Neither n/t (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:17:27 AM EST


    Parent
    good grief! (none / 0) (#108)
    by cpinva on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:15:23 AM EST
    hasn't he lost it by now?

    Roman Polanski (none / 0) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:26:17 AM EST
    last night I saw a pretty amazing documentary on HBO  about the Polanski trial.  it was shocking. I am not minimizing what the man did but he deserved a fair trial and he absolutely did not get one.  Manson got a fairer shake from the legal system than he did.
    not to run on but the prosecutor in his trial was in the doc and said he was not surprised and did not blame Polanski for leaving the country.
    the prosecutor and the defense joined in eventually getting the judge removed from the case but Polanski was already out of the country.
    if you think the vulture media or judicial  malfeasance is something new you need to see this documentary.  Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.
    since this is a legal blog I would love to hear what any of the legal eagles think.
    from the sundance review (none / 0) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:35:23 AM EST

    Perhaps the most fascinating fact (and this was something I did not know) came in the reveal that, when a new judge was assigned to the case in 1997, he agreed to throw out the charges if Polanski were to return to the States -- on one condition: that the hearing be televised. Because of that, Polanski decided against coming back. And who can blame him?

    Is Polanski a great filmmaker who made a mistake, or a perverted coward who ran from the law instead of facing the music? Watch the film and decide for yourself.

    Parent

    I don't think a film is the best basis (none / 0) (#145)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:20:55 AM EST
    for deciding the question you pose.

    Parent
    perhaps not (5.00 / 0) (#148)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:26:49 AM EST
    but it is a great way to debunk myths.  the facts revealed in this film will make you angry.  no matter what you think of what he did.  I was very young when this happened but I was for most intents and purposes an adult.  but I still did not know 90% of what was discussed in this film.  and it is not a bunch of reporters talking about what the "think".
    it was the people involved including the "victim".
    at this point in time a doc may not the the best way to understand what happened but it is all we have and Polanski deserves the chance for what we (meaning the US legal system) did to him. IMO.


    Parent
    According to Wiki, and consistent (none / 0) (#153)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:39:18 AM EST
    with my recollection, Polanski, pleaded guilty to statutory rape, which is based on the age of the person he had sex with, in this case, 13.  It is irrelevant whether the sexual intercourse was consensual.  Because there was a plea bargain, there was no trial.  He then left the country before sentencing.  Thus, a felony warrant for his arrest was issued.  Polanski chose not to return to the U.S. to be sentenced on the underlying conviction and resolution of the FTA.  

    Parent
    please, just see the film (none / 0) (#162)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:45:44 AM EST
    it is far far more complicated than that.
    and the fact that that is in wikipedia only underscores it.

    from the Hollywood Reporter:

    It really is an amazing story, and Zenovich does it justice. She includes dozens of interviews, and did dozens more she doesn't include. Except for some rare archival footage, such as a scene of Polanski on the set of "The Fearless Vampire Killers" directing Sharon Tate, the director was not interviewed for the film. But many people from his life appear as friendly witnesses, including Geimar. In addition, Zenovich and her crack editor Joe Bini expertly weave in telling scenes from Polanski's films that suggest his legal troubles were like something out of one of his dark and twisted movies.

    Most people remember that Polanski left the country, but few know why and under what circumstances. "Wanted and Desired" finally sets the record straight, and, if there is any justice in the world, Polanski will be allowed to return to this country not as a pariah but as someone who made a mistake and has more than paid for it.


    Parent

    Agree to disagree, I guess. I think (none / 0) (#165)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:48:35 AM EST
    he is welcome to return to the U.S. and deal with the sentencing.  

    Parent
    he was invited back (none / 0) (#171)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:58:40 AM EST
    to have the charges dismissed if he would only do a "televised" trial.  he declined.  if you see the film you will understand why.


    Parent
    Think he was... (none / 0) (#167)
    by Alec82 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:49:33 AM EST
    ...tipped that the judge was going to disregard the plea agreement and sentence him to half a century in prison.

     Might have been some underlying issues.  Sex crime prosecutions are notorious in the criminal justice system.

    Parent

    that is the tip of the iceberg (none / 0) (#170)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:57:33 AM EST
    I dont want to take up enough bandwidth to explain it (cause it would take a lot) but the things that the judge did in that trial were criminal.  so says both the defense and the prosecutor.
    which is why he was removed from the case for misconduct.
    please, set you preconceptions aside and see the film.

    Parent
    Irrelevant? (none / 0) (#177)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:21:47 AM EST
    Seems to me that since you are judging the guy for his transgression. It does matter whether it was consensual. It still would not make him any less of a great filmmaker, but if it were not consensual, he would certainly be a horrible monster, imo.

    Parent
    the question of consent (none / 0) (#179)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:29:11 AM EST
    was not avoided but it was dealt with carefully because the girl was 13.  the question really is can a 13 year old person consent.  it should be noted that the girl and her family made it known he should not be incarcerated and that, they along with every other source who has an opinion including his "90 day observation in Chino", said he should have probation.  
    the judge is the one who should have gone to jail.
    he made Judge Ito look like a combination of Thurgood Marshall and Earl Warren.

    Parent
    The question of consent is irrelevant (none / 0) (#182)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:39:08 AM EST
    because that is why CA has a statutory rape statute.  Based on age.  

    Parent
    which is why it was not dealt with (none / 0) (#186)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:57:02 AM EST
    in the film.  it is irrelevant to the points the film makes which is about his treatment by the legal system.
    even if the girls mother brought her to the party at Nicholsons house and left her alone with him.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#192)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:20:14 AM EST
    But we are not talking about the law here. And your thinly veiled legal speak is not convincing enough to hide your personal judgement.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#176)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:18:20 AM EST
    He is truly one of the great filmmakers of all time.

    Parent
    the title (none / 0) (#187)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:58:51 AM EST
    is about how in France he is honored and "desired" in the US he is "wanted"

    Parent
    This may need a post of its own (none / 0) (#113)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:29:02 AM EST
    entitled: Losing My Mind...

    Clinton releases delegates?

    Hillary Clinton on Monday asked Democratic primary delegates who would have supported her in her presidential bid to back her former rival Barack Obama.

    The request came in a Monday night teleconference, said Virgil J. Mayberry, a Rock Island County Board member and one of Sen. Clinton's delegates.

    Sen. Clinton threw her support behind Sen. Obama Saturday after suspending her campaign.

    "She wants us to unite behind Obama and help him," said Mr. Mayberry, who chairs his party's minority caucus on the county board.

    Mr. Mayberry said Sen. Clinton talked for about five minutes to Democratic national convention delegates from all over the country. She appeared upbeat, he said.

    "Over the phone, she seemed jovial," he said. "I can't say happy-happy, but she was talking to her people."

    According to Mr. Mayberry, she also thanked the delegates for their support and said she planned on continuing to pursue health care as a major issue for the party during the upcoming campaign.

    But Sen. Clinton would not discuss her intentions toward the vice president's position on Sen. Obama's ticket, he said.

    I think this means that the August scenario is no longer viable.

    The august (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:44:49 AM EST
    scenario was never a reality. The party would do everything in it's power to stop it. That's obvious after the MI/FL debacle.

    Parent
    That was obvious by the way (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:45:52 AM EST
    they treated her!

    Parent
    That's been my feeling, too, but (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:31:06 AM EST
    I've avoided saying anything because too many people seem to have been counting on this going to a floor fight, with Hillary somehow managing to prevail.  For me, the DNC slammed the door on that possibility when the RBC took delegates away from her and gave Obama additional delegates he never earned - the DNC is determined that, even if by August all signs point to an Obama loss and a Clinton win - nothing gets in the way of the Obama nomination.

    I just hope that Hillary gets whatever it is that she has to have been promised in order to make this move.  Or maybe, it's what she knew she would do all along, believing that there would be no moving forward until she did so.  I think there had to have been enormous pressure on her not to be seen as standing in the way, preventing a full-throated general election strategy.

    Even though she has given them permission to vote for Obama, I suppose there is nothing that says they have to, but I think unless something looks remarkablty different in August than it does today, Obama will get the nod on the first ballot.  Wouldn't surprise me if there was pressure to make it a nomination by acclamation so as to skip all the feared drama.

    It's all very sad and demoralizing.

    Parent

    I don't believe it's demoralizing, I (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:41:03 AM EST
    believe those that have "sold their souls" to endorse Obama will reap what hey sew (and I'm not even religious).    

    Parent
    Well, it will be interesting to see how long (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:53:13 AM EST
    her delegates will hold onto their support - and I suspect - and hope - many will, but I think it's hard to ignore the request from the candidate herself.

    What's demoralizing is the realization that so many have fought the good fight so hard, for so long, only to be thwarted by the Democratic Party  itself.  No one minds a fair fight, but this one wasn't - and is a big factor in why so many are leaving the party.

    I think there are a lot of people who had the power to do this the right way, who didn't fight for that principle, who gave in as if it didn't matter - for them, yeah, I think karma might be a much bigger b!ich than they realized.

    Parent

    Given up (none / 0) (#175)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:17:32 AM EST
    Me too.  I'm not even hoping for a big Obama implosion before August, because I don't think there's anything -- not even the proverbial dead girl live boy scenario -- or polling in single digits -- that would make Dean, Pelosi et all back off him.

    And if there was, I think anything that big would taint the whole party, including Hillary.  I wouldn't want her to have to run with something like that hanging around.

    They chose him, he chose himself, they can win or lose on their own.  I'm looking to 2012 now.

    I'm not as demoralized as I probably should be.  Sent in my switch to indie this week (copy to Dean), nonvoting in November, won't watch the convention except when Hillary speaks, and now looking at my local races.

    Regardless what happens, Hillary is still standing.  She's not going anywhere.

    Parent

    I'm dealing with my "disappointment" (5.00 / 0) (#183)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:47:28 AM EST
    by volunteering to work for Ed O'Reilly, the gentleman who is challenging John Kerry in the September primary.  I am realistic enough to know that a newbie like this isn't going to unseat Kerry, but every vote he gets is a dig at good old John, and maybe Ed will "live to run again another day". I have a group of friends who step up to the plate together and do GOTV every time our state senator is up for re-election.  I've already started recruiting them to help him, too.  I had forgotten how much fun rebellion is.

    Parent
    The only possible positive I can (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:04:40 AM EST
    see in this is that the Republicans may decide now they are safe to start vetting him publicly.

    Parent
    A poster at the Confluence disagrees (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:27:49 AM EST
    Link

    His take is this

    "Ickes, in response to another question, stated that no party rules actually require delegates to vote for their pledged delegates (this was in response to a "when are we released?" question). Though, I think that works both ways! 8)

    Ickes also seemed to be saying (this is what I got from it, I may be wrong), that HRC would be leveraging her delegates to get spots for her people on the platform committee, etc., at Denver. IMHO, I think it's retarded (I apologize if there's a better word to use...), b/c the platform is worth #%&@. Seriously...raise your hand if you've ever read the party platform? That's what I thought. IMHO, the only leveraging is getting a role in picking A) the VP pick or B) the next DNC chair or C) potential future administration people. But whatever, that's just me..."

    Parent

    you have to imagine (none / 0) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:37:44 AM EST
    it must be a relief of some levels.


    Parent
    This greatly saddens me, however, (none / 0) (#117)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:41:03 AM EST
    perhaps this was part of what she and he discussed last week. I imagine it will hit the news (if it already hasn't), but is is unusual for her to release her delegates quietly like this?

    Parent
    Don't know what to think about this one (none / 0) (#121)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:46:09 AM EST
    On the one hand, I wanted her to keep them as leverage for her health care plan and whatever else she wants (VP if she wants, although I don't favor that).

    On the other hand, most people thought Obama got her pledged delegates when he announced he'd won anyway, so might as well give them to him now and not in some big sickening show at the convention.

    Parent

    I did favor her as VP only because (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:50:52 AM EST
    she is there to give her expertise, she is still making history in more than one way and that would be the only way I could vote the "party." I agree with BTD on this one, but in a few months, it won't matter any more because whoever he picks, will be lauded as the greatest thing since, since, since, well, HIM!

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#132)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:04:45 AM EST
    she did get something out of the "secret meeting".


    Parent
    Any ideas what? (none / 0) (#138)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:10:45 AM EST


    Parent
    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#142)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:18:58 AM EST
    VP, SCOTUS, her health care plan?

    Parent
    The more I hear the media (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:24:32 AM EST
    and the pundits speculating about her being VP, I really cannot imagine she is even being considered privately, SCOTUS, perhaps, health care has been attributed to EE, not HC, not exactly a ringing endorsement of her. I guess we'll see?

    Parent
    FALSE RUMOR (none / 0) (#201)
    by Andy08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:55:04 AM EST
    HRC is NOT releasing her delegates. That was an unfounded rumor
    started in certain blog and discredited already. See my comment below.

    Parent
    R.E.M. (none / 0) (#115)
    by eric on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:37:12 AM EST
    I went to see R.E.M. last Thursday.  Great as usual.  Also, I HIGHLY recommend their new album, Accelerate.  It sounds like vintage R.E.M., with a strong return of a "live" sound and plenty of jangly guitar from Peter.

    Check out Tristero's (none / 0) (#160)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:44:46 AM EST
    "Obama at his best," complete with video, critiquing an Obama speech on religion.  It's at Digby.  No, I didn't watch the video.

    Late Night: Losing My Religion | 193 comments (193 topical)