home

Friday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:55:37 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Here's where I wish I was this weekend. Unfortunately, it's all sold out. But you can watch videos from last years event here.

I'm also thinking this would be a be a great way to recover from the Democratic Convention.

"'Tis a privilege to live in Colorado."

This is an open thread.

< Fox and Obama | Death Sentence Tarnished By Conflict of Interest >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Friday Open Thread | 198 comments (198 topical)
    I haven't seen much reaction to the report (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:57:59 AM EST
    that the DNC is moving its core operations to Chicago.  Is this an unusual move in a presidential election cycle?

    Did the DNC, or part of it, relocate to Nashville when Gore ran?

    According to the WaPo, yes. (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:10:38 AM EST
    But I can't seem to find out when - if it was post-Convention or pre-Convention. And tellingly, the Post doesn't say. The scale of the move and the completeness of the merger seems to be unprecedented.

    Personally, I am absolutely appalled. I think this is confirmation that the fix was in for Obama a long time ago. There is no way such a move happens so quickly and totally without a lot of planning.

    The Democratic Party is now an instrument of Chicago-style corruption.

    [ Parent ]

    all the more reason to beware the (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:49:23 AM EST
    new democratic party. they have much to answer for and i for one won't give them a pass because they claim to use the word democrat. i won't hold my nose. i will be too busy asking questions and so should all of you.

    [ Parent ]
    Not good news (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by lambert on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:18:41 AM EST
    Partly, I wonder if their fundraising collapsed in the light of stealing the nomination for Obama, which is basically what they did.

    I wonder what the people who bought those "bonds" Dean was selling think about this?

    [ Parent ]

    I think the DNC's fundraising has been bad (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:24:31 AM EST
    for three reasons. First, Howard Dean does not inspire confidence. Second, the Clinton connected donors have not trusted the DNC for some time. Third, Obama prefers to run his own shop, and has not asked his donors to send money to the DNC.

    I think now that Obama has it locked up money will start flowing from his maxed-out donors to the DNC.

    [ Parent ]

    the key phrase is maxed out. (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:50:43 AM EST
    and from where will the money for the convention and the ge campaign come from? i have heard that they are letting the corporations pay for the convention. now isn't that special?

    [ Parent ]
    But they don't (5.00 / 7) (#55)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:52:23 AM EST
    take money from lobbyists, you know.

    Just their wives and their lawyers. All bundled together in a nice little package.

    [sticks fork in eye]

    [ Parent ]

    a good snark post on friday is always welcome. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:53:21 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    My concern is not as much (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:57:27 PM EST
    with the inflow of money but the outflow.  Have we heard how this will impact the down ticket candidates?  I don't have enough information to judge at this point.  

    I hope this move will not be at the expense of other candidates or used to strong arm them into supporting Obama.  

    [ Parent ]

    Strongarming has already happened (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:11:25 PM EST
    You may have missed the reports of Pelosi's 'sternly worded letter' to SDs dragging their feet on endorsing Obama.

    Which we (most of us) all made fun of, but depressingly, seems to have worked.

    Moving HQ to Chicago, canceling multiple parties for one big party, and now moving to one big voice vote at the convention (instead of the traditional state by state votes) are all so eerily reminiscent of major authoritarian movements in history, I'm getting seriously creeped out.

    If you have true enthusiasm on your side, there's no need to do any of that.  It's only if you're forcing people into a show of enthusiasm that those sorts of things are required.

    It's the reverse of 'if you build it, they will come.'

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, the only source I've seen (none / 0) (#193)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:40:08 PM EST
    is the statements here.  I guess I believed them just because it's consistent with the move and the larger coup by the new coalition.

    I'll look to see if I can confirm or invalidate the vote rumor and post on a later open thread if I can.

    [ Parent ]

    The comment from (none / 0) (#195)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:44:04 PM EST
    americanincanada in response to Capt Howdy's request for a link will take you to an interesting blog on the subject. LaRouche didn't cite his sources, so not sure where it came from, though.

    It's a comment on this Open Thread, though.  I think it's downline from here.


    [ Parent ]

    Not real pleased (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:43:57 AM EST
    but then I cancelled my monthly contribution a while back. No more funds to any Democratic organization from now on. Any contributions will go directly to a specific candidate and they will have to have something else going for them other than just a D after their name.

    [ Parent ]
    'hlr' is an impressive advocate (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:02:53 PM EST
    for Clinton. She has her own blog, and has been a very active bundler for the Clinton campaign. She's trying very hard to help Hillary retire her campaign debt.

    [ Parent ]
    Happy to (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:40:42 PM EST
    Link

    [ Parent ]
    He's leaving Dean in place, but putting his (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:37:53 AM EST
    own staff in place.

    [ Parent ]
    the question might be asked if (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:51:31 AM EST
    perhaps dean is his staff. i certainly do ask and am waiting.

    [ Parent ]
    I've been wondering that (none / 0) (#159)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:03:30 PM EST
    for a few months now.

    [ Parent ]
    He can't move Dean out yet (none / 0) (#175)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:14:12 PM EST
    Dean's term isn't up until Jan. 2009.  

    They only way any of this baloney will be reversed is if the Dems lose in November.  And even then, I'm skeptical there'd be any change.  I fully expect the 'narrative' (beginning to really dislike that word) to be that it's all Clinton's fault.

    [ Parent ]

    well that may be true! but i do think about the (none / 0) (#185)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:28:10 PM EST
    fact that dean has been partial to obama and many of his people now work in his campaign. so, dean's tenure may be longer. if obama loses, i expect to see dean gone.

    [ Parent ]
    oh geez (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:58:45 AM EST
    a dear friend who lives in Aspen just died and I was considering a last minute trip out there this weekend for the memorial.  
    maybe that is not such a good idea.  I probably could not even find a hotel room.

    So sorry (none / 0) (#10)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:05:39 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    thanks (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:16:17 AM EST
    he was old and lived more than any other 5 people I know so, you know, it is what it is.
    but thanks.


    [ Parent ]
    Just wondering.... (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by suisser on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:05:11 AM EST
    Where's HRC now? Vacation I hope, suspect not though.
    Anyone know?

    Not a clue but... (none / 0) (#125)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:40:05 PM EST
    a) I hope she is on vacation.

    b) Let Obama be front and center as the presumptive nominee.

    c) Don't let anyone have any excuse to talk about her.  This will shift the media attention to Obama versus McCain.  Hillary has already endorsed Obama.  The only notable events for her are:
    Releasing her delegates.
    Accepting or rejecting the VP slot.
    The DNC Convention.

    Other than that, the primaries are over, her campaign suspended.  She's only a distraction now.  Some might welcome that distraction....:)

    [ Parent ]

    slipping further away (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:09:59 AM EST
    added noquarter to my favorites last night.

    I hear you. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:13:57 AM EST
    I think that the worst thing about this primary is that people are so disrespectful of how others are using their votes.

    Personally, I don't get how anyone could support either Obama or McCain, but neither would I condemn them for their choices. I acknowledge that they have reasons for their votes. Why can't others do the same?

    This is supposed to be a free country.

    [ Parent ]

    You can vote for someone (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:19:45 AM EST
    without endorsing or supporting them. That's what many of elected officials seem be doing with both candidates.

    For those of us who didn't get our preferred candidate, we still got a Democrat and there are many reasons to prefer a Democratic administration to a Republican one.

    As I'm sure you've noticed, while I now support Obama for President, I haven't stopped criticizing him or the Democrats when I find something objectionable. Nor do I plan to.

    [ Parent ]

    Sadly, this will be the 3rd time in a row (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:25:22 AM EST
    for me to vote that way.

    [ Parent ]
    Some of us (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:29:48 AM EST
    don't feel Obama is a Democrat.

    I feel my current choice is between a religio-con and a neo-con.

    That's why I am leaving the top of my ticket blank if Obama is nominated at the Convention.

    Intellectually, I know very well why people are supporting Obama, but I don't "get" it in my gut. I feel that I know too much about him now to support him and his "new" Democratic Party.

    However, I don't jump all over people who say they support him, or McCain, or Bob Barr, or Cynthia McKinney. I used to, but no longer.

    I'm tired of blaming people for what the parties do. This is the worst election choice I've ever had to make, and I'm sure many others feel the same.

    [ Parent ]

    Is there a single example (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Pegasus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:53:27 AM EST
    of Obama making a policy proposal that you fear would weaken the wall between church and state?  Calling him a "religio-con" is pretty extreme given that, IMO, there isn't.  

    Doing outreach to religious moderates and progressives (and that's what the Matthew 25 thing is) doesn't mean he's a theocrat, let alone a conservative one.

    For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.

    Matthew 25: 35-36

    Pretty good summation of some core progressive values, I have to say.

    [ Parent ]

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:59:13 AM EST
    the problem that Obama has is the same one George W. Bush has...and it's that the government should be seen as a vehicle to enforce religious doctrine.

    [ Parent ]
    Whaaat? (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by daring grace on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:33:29 PM EST
    Obama advocates using government to promote religious doctrine?

    Are you just inferring this because his campaign is doing outreach to religious voters, or has he explicitly said this?

    Time magazine has an article up now about his meeting with Christian religious leaders.

    It cites the surprise of many of them, especially the conservative ones, that he did meet with them.

    Just as he has said he's going to try to do all along: meet with people, talk to people even across lines of disagreement, and finding some common ground: around Darfur and U.S. poverty, for example.

    The minute he emulates Bush, he loses my support. I don't see him doing that here.

    [ Parent ]

    He wants (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    to continue the office of faith and he has said religion will be a priority in his administration. Sounds like it to me.

    [ Parent ]
    That Is Absurd (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:44:16 PM EST
    THe fact that Obama is going after religious votes, on a solid democratic platform, does not in anyway indicate that his position is that:

    the government should be seen as a vehicle to enforce religious doctrine.

    That is nutty as is comes.


    [ Parent ]

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:08:17 PM EST
    but you haven't been paying attention. He's promising to keep the office of faith based funding and also promising that religion will be a top priority in his administration.

    You guys are missing the fundamentalist dog whistles that he's sending out. This is the same thing Bush has done previously.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL! (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:02:29 PM EST
    Have you read anything on TalkLeft for the past several days?

    Do the words "Joshua Generation" mean anything to you?

    How about the meeting with evangelicals from the "faith community" (that means the Christian faith, of course) and making religion a priority in his Administration? (Go back a couple of days for this one.)

    [ Parent ]

    So... your answer is "no"? (1.00 / 0) (#85)
    by Pegasus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:05:49 PM EST
    You don't have any examples of how Obama would infringe on church-state separation, and are basing your fears solely on campaign outreach efforts.  Good to know.

    [ Parent ]
    excuse me! anytime a candidate is (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:08:44 PM EST
    pushing religeon in a campaign, they are making religeon an issue not us. and looking back at the recent history of over the top religeous advocates trying to game the system to their advantage and our disadvantage leaves me saying, "keep religeon out of the campaign and in your heart". Christ also spoke to that very issue by the way.


    [ Parent ]
    I can! (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:28:25 PM EST
    Obama not only supports Bush's Faith Based Program, he wants to expand it. Second, although his church is not opposed to gay marriage, he is because of his religous beliefs. He doesn't believe that the gay marriage should be dealt with in Washington. It should come from the ground up. (In other words: It's not going to happen) Another point is he is in favor of expanding the school voucher program. This has been a cornerstone of the Radical Right for years. The federal government will then be supporting the religous schools.

    [ Parent ]
    Bzzt. (2.00 / 0) (#119)
    by Pegasus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:36:43 PM EST
    That's sure not what he says about faith-based initiatives.  He wants to return them to pre-Bush status.

    And vouchers are nowhere to be found on his education agenda.

    [ Parent ]

    Debate (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:54:10 PM EST
    he supported school vouchers in a debate.  I remember it clearly, I was appalled.  Also, go review his earmarks and his requests.  He IS for faith based programs.

    [ Parent ]
    Skeptic, Not a Supporter (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:09:55 PM EST
    "I will not allow my predispositions to stand in the way of making sure that our kids can learn," Mr. Obama, who has previously said he opposes vouchers, said in a meeting with the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. "We're losing several generations of kids, and something has to be done."

    [snip]

    He said he was astonished to learn that a voucher program in Milwaukee had never been tested in a longitudinal study to find out whether it had helped children or not. "If there was any argument for vouchers it was, all right, let's see if this experiment works, and then if it does, whatever my preconceptions, my attitude is you do what works for the kids," Mr. Obama said.

    [snip]

    "I don't think anyone can call him a voucher supporter out of this, but it is an intriguing response," Mr. Williams said. "It is a different kind of answer than most of us are used to hearing from politicians."

    The president of the National Education Association, Reginald Weaver, told The New York Sun today that he believes Mr. Obama still opposes vouchers.

    Told a current longitudinal study is ongoing, Mr. Obama said he would respond to its findings with an open mind.

    link

    [ Parent ]

    Rather surprising for a former (none / 0) (#174)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:13:25 PM EST
    professor of constitutional law.

    [ Parent ]
    Supporter (none / 0) (#183)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:23:29 PM EST
    The argument for vouchers, according to Obama is to try it, evaluate it (based on what?) and then go ahead and expand if studies (by whom?) show it works.  I didn't find his answer intriguing at all.  He has an answer different from what I want to here... 'no, everyone is entitled to a quality public education.'  I don't want to see parents having to make the choice between a decimated public school system or being indoctrinated in specific religious belief systems.

    Obama's statements, along with his earmarks and earmark requests show his is a supporter.

    [ Parent ]

    Recent Update On DADT (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:41:07 PM EST
    In a recent interview with The Advocate, a gay newsmagazine, Democrat Barack Obama stopped short of promising to lead the way for change, saying only that he can "reasonably see" a repeal of the current ban if elected president.

    Indeed, the gays-in-the-military issue has slid from being a top campaign pledge of President Clinton's to a footnote on the Democratic agenda even as some of its staunchest opponents soften their rhetoric and acknowledge that the nation's attitudes are changing. yahoo

    Maintaining the existing policy IMO is nothing more than a religious policy. There is no legitimate military reason to maintain this policy and many legitimate military reasons (lose of trained interpreters) to repeal it.  

    [ Parent ]

    I also read (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:59:32 PM EST
    in another interview that he said he would repeal DADT and then allow the military to make the decision. That takes the issue back to the 1950's!

    [ Parent ]
    He is a weak character in standing his ground (5.00 / 0) (#203)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:08:04 PM EST
    ... and in being forthcoming in giving people reliable information about his positions and motives.

    He isn't transparent and bounces too much between contradictory or oblique positions to pin down about anything, even substantial policies.

    I don't regard him as trustworthy on acting with the agenda he has given, or, in future, of adhering to promises.

    His behavior in tossing people curbside speaks volumes to this: he does so when caught and cornere and then hustles on off until the next toss-off.

    [ Parent ]

    thats a christian (none / 0) (#68)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:58:00 AM EST
    text.

    Apealing to religious people in a non-denominational way is fine.

    [ Parent ]

    Appealing to them in ANY way is fine. (2.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Pegasus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:07:23 PM EST
    As long as you aren't promising federal funding to religious groups or saying that religious faith will take precedence over civic values.  Which Obama isn't, so I don't understand the objections.  Votes are votes.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:15:03 PM EST
    has pretty much implied that Religion is going to be a top priority for his adminstration. I think he is promising funding to these same groups.

    [ Parent ]
    I DON'T think so. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Pegasus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:24:42 PM EST
    Because I haven't seen a shred of evidence that he has, and he's been quite clear on church-state separation in the past.  If you can supply evidence, fine.

    Also, I think this is my tenth or eleventh comment today, which means as a new commenter I'll have to shove off for the day.  Be well, all.

    [ Parent ]

    Here: (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/news/article.cfm?id=8133

    He's saying that he will keep the office of faith based initiatives.

    [ Parent ]

    Did you read that? (none / 0) (#181)
    by Pegasus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:19:39 PM EST
    "I want to keep the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives open, but I want to make sure that its mission is clear," Obama said in response to a question about his commitment to reduce poverty in America. "It's not to simply build a particular faith community. The faith-based initiatives should be targeted specifically at the issue of poverty and how to lift people up."

    ...

    "We make sure that it's open to everybody," he said. "It's not simply the federal government funding certain groups to be able to evangelize." [all emphasis mine -- P]

    Nothing there warrants the above claims that religion will be a major focus of the Obama administration, or that he'll expand faith-based initiatives.  To the contrary, he'll ensure it's not used for proselytizing.

    Here's Sen. Clinton:

    "It's a personal call, it's a family community, religious call, and it's a governmental call. And we've got to do more to respond to that call," Clinton said. "I want us to have a partnership, government to government, government with the private sector, government with our NGOs and our faith community to show the best of what America has to offer." [emphasis mine]

    Doesn't address FBI's, but she's talking in the same vein.

    Sure is a lot less scary when you look at their words.

    [ Parent ]

    It's the (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:45:36 PM EST
    same thing Bush said. He should support the elimination of that department all together. It's rife with corruption and cronyism. Obama just seems to want different cronies to replace the already existing ones. Are you okay with that?

    Clinton was advocating for a partnership not what Obama is advocating. And why do you guys continue to mention her? Are you still afflicted with CDS or what?

    [ Parent ]

    I never had CDS. (none / 0) (#201)
    by Pegasus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:57:18 PM EST
    I like Hillary Clinton, and thought I'd throw it out there since I assume you trust her judgment.

    Along those lines... from the Times

    Hillary Clinton has declared that there is no contradiction between "support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles."

    And re: cronies, I have no idea where you're getting that idea.  Maybe a little ODS?

    [ Parent ]

    His is seeking federal funds (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    He may not be promising federal funding on the campaign trail, but I suggest you go review his earmarks in detail. He is promising money and doing his best to get it.  He requested, it looks like, over 6 million dollars for faith based programs and private religious schools.  I haven't researched the other programs listed, but I wouldn't be surprised if those are run by religious entities.

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree (none / 0) (#176)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:16:43 PM EST
    the party I would belong to states no preference as to religion.  Not even tacitly.

    There are ways to do this without stating preferences.

    [ Parent ]

    Matthew 16:13-19 (none / 0) (#112)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:30:05 PM EST
    Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

    I note this because of the Matthew's reference. The beginning of the Catholic Church. Being a non practicing Catholic, the Joshua reference seemed strange because the Catholic Church  always was about the gospel of Mathew,Mark,Luke and John.

    Because I do not believe that religion should play any part in government, as more nations have been destroyed by religios bickering, I do not like this direction that Obama is taking. It seems so pandering to the right wing. That scares me.

    BTW, why couldn't those rules be used as a non-religious and modern terms. Why does it have to be a bible reference. It leaves too many people out while obviously trying to capture the Republicans. Oh yeah, go out trying to capture the other party while leaving your own tattered and in shreds. Does this mean soon that the old Dems will become the new GOP and the old GOP will become the new Dems? Are we trying to be the really all big tent party while leaving 'other' non Christian religions behind? Maybe there really is a need for a 'real' third party of Independents. I don't know the answer to this but I do see a lot of problems right now that our Democratic party is ignoring.  

    [ Parent ]

    I do agree that there are many reasons (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:54:44 AM EST
    to prefer a democratic admin., however, there are also other reasons not to support having THIS democratic admin. and that is what I believe is the objection of many here. I choose to vote the way I choose. I don't make a big deal about it, but it is like being called a "racist" because I voted for Hillary instead of Barack. Respect is respect, no matter who you are, or what your vote is.

    [ Parent ]
    I've noticed Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by angie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:01:18 PM EST
    and regardless for whom I choose to vote this November, I want to tell you how much I, for one, appreciate it -- supporting and/or voting for a candidate should not be with blinders on -- point out his/her mistakes, hold him/her accountable & demand they be addressed appropriately. One of the biggest turn-offs for me about Obama is, in fact, his rabid supporters who dissemble and excuse absolutely every wrong move he makes, rather then calling him out on them.  


    [ Parent ]
    We will never get anything out of them (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:01:34 PM EST
    when they know we'll always vote for them.

    They don't care about our opinions or criticisms, only about our votes.

    [ Parent ]

    Your vote is only valuable when it is in doubt (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by davnee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:23:52 PM EST
    That's an important rule of politics.  Be nobody's low-hanging fruit if you want to get something in return.  Now it may be for some that even just having a D by the name is valuable enough this election cycle to earn their vote.  I'm asking for more for mine, but I don't condemn anyone who feels otherwise.  These are precarious times.

    [ Parent ]
    I think the bar needs to be higher (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    In this current climate, continuing to criticize is an act of courage.  But it shouldn't be.  It should not be.

    I disagree that voting for someone can be done without supporting them.  That is exactly what a vote is.  But even so, it is an argument that cuts both ways.  If voting for Obama does not support him, then a vote for McCain does not support him either.

    I'm not voting for either, because I'm not supporting either.  My standards for voting for someone are abysmally low.  I've voted for people who were really at the outer edges of whom I could stand to support.  But in this campaign both have failed that very weak test.  I only wish there was someone in the running whom I could support.

    I understand both those who continue to support Obama and those who are so fed up that they are voting for McCain.  More power to both of them.  But I am heartily sick of the bullying coming from my own (now former) side that no true whatever (Democrat/liberal/progressive/human being/pet lover) could do anything except vote for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#164)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:06:42 PM EST
    Thanks and I am very happy that you are continuing to use your voice to be critical when warranted.  My question or problem is how do we do something to truly impact change?  What can we do so that our issues and concerns are not dismissed?  

    I don't personally feel I have any leverage with the party or a candidate outside of my vote, monetary contributions or time for volunteering.  Do you have any suggestions?

    [ Parent ]

    I've thought about it often.... (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:20:43 PM EST
    and the only way to truly impact change is to raise enough hell until the man locks you up.

    I've racked my brain and it's the only way...as Thoreau, Alice paul, MLK, and countless others have shown us in the past.  

    Unfortunate I know....that's why I've given up on many changes I'd like to see made...I'm too selfish to sit in a cage to get make them happen.

    [ Parent ]

    yow (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:43:12 AM EST
    that's a pretty icky site.

    [ Parent ]
    is it icky (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:48:50 AM EST
    because it supports Clinton, or because it uses the same blogging tactics defined by obamablogs?

    [ Parent ]
    Well (4.50 / 2) (#69)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:58:31 AM EST
    Considering I'm a regular at TL who supports Clinton himself, I'm pretty sure it's not the former.

    Is it more icky than the pro-Obama blogs?  Well, it's hard for me to compare, since I don't spend a lot of time reading that dreck.  But it seems like NQ is at about an Americablog level of discourse.

    [ Parent ]

    and americablog discourse (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:03:09 PM EST
    Wins the day.

    [ Parent ]
    hmmm, the degree of echo chambers (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:10:53 PM EST
    on the web for obama now and even more of an effort coming from his campaign to perhaps silence questions and criticism leaves me asking why are you not addressing that issue. no quarter is one of the few remaining sites asking questions. sure it has issues, but we are left with few places left to even lurk. so i say let larry ask the questions that need to be asked.

    [ Parent ]
    I went over there recently following a link, (none / 0) (#104)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:24:18 PM EST
    and "wow!" -- there are like single and double digits worth of comments for all the posts.

    The comments used to be in the hundreds.  Either Aravosis has banned a bunch of folks or no one is listening anymore.

    [ Parent ]

    hmm... (1.00 / 0) (#31)
    by festus800 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:34:18 AM EST
    I respect your decision to not support Obama, but I don't understand the appeal of No Quarter, a blog that is so full of vitriol and lies, half-truths, it just seems to exist to stoke fires of various rumors, many of which have (apparently) no shred of truth to them (see Obama not eligible to be prez b/c of citizenship, Michelle Obama "whitey" lies, Larry Sinclair).  For the sake of what?  McCain?  I've read many of the posts there, and most of them are so incoherent that it really is mind-boggling.  In addition, with the way those posts parrot right wing attacks, it's hard for me to believe that anyone who reads, respects, and/or agrees with that site ever genuinely believed in Hillary Clinton's policies for America.  This is not even getting to the extremely hate-filled commenters, who are downright SCARY.  I read TalkLeft because I value the blog posts and commenters at this site, and No Quarter seems borderline certifiable.  Anyway, happy trails.

    [ Parent ]
    and you think that the blogs that (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:44:48 AM EST
    dove into the tank for obama are any better. larry does bring up some issues that need to be addressed but seem verboten in the pc age to me. you can bet that the repubs won't forget either.

    not to say that i agree with smearing. i don't. i am saying that assuming that larry is racist and his questions are smears is not accurate either. i can't comment on the commenters there. i find people with power in the democratic party scary right now.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't read comments (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by davnee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:56:36 AM EST
    Not on sites like NoQuarter or Politico or Drudge.  I won't even comment on Kos et. al.  The comments are by and large disgusting.  It's frightening what the veil of anonymity does to discourse.  What I've learned from this primary season is that no group is immune from turning uncivil.

    [ Parent ]
    i didn't say anything about larry being racist, (1.00 / 0) (#59)
    by festus800 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:54:30 AM EST
    though i do think many of the posts on his website unreasonably inflame people about race in ways that has nothing to do with what Obama has stated is his view of the issue.  The things on that website are smears, plain and simple.  He's posting again and again about a video that he himself has never seen, but "knows to exist" b/c of some shady sources.  Even Michelle Malkin doesn't believe it.  Nobody does, b/c smears like this happen to every Democratic candidate during the election.  Sure, if the tape exists, I'm wrong, whatever.  He's also referred to and passed along the story of Larry Sinclair, a felon who has failed multiple lie detector tests.  These are, by definition, smears.

    I don't understand how you can say that Obama is benefiting from some PC-ness in the media when two posts ago Jeralyn listed two apologies that FoxNews had to give that called his wife a Baby Mama and referred to their celebratory gesture a "terrorist fist bump."  This stuff is being aired everywhere, No Quarter is just a forum to fan the flames to destroy the democratic nominee.  (Again, I ask you, to what end?  McCain?)

    BTW, I've never understood the view that the election was "stolen" from Hillary.  She lost in delegates (even if FL and MI were seated fully), and according to the rules of the game.  The superdelegates declined to be persuaded by her arguments, as was their right.  I wasn't persuaded by her either.  So it goes.  The whole theme of No Quarter is that Obama was "the chosen one" and not properly elected by the democratic party.  It's factually wrong.  You can be mad about how Obama played the game, how the media covered the campaign, etc., all that is understandable from my perspective, but it's just not true that the election was stolen.

    [ Parent ]

    hmm, it seems to me that you (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:58:49 AM EST
    are overlooking a number of very important points that get brought up on no quarter. not all of it is smear so please refrain from smearing yourself. you have a right to your opinions, but many of us thinkt that the dnc made up their minds before the voters. that isn't smear.

    [ Parent ]
    you're defending a website, (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by festus800 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:04:54 PM EST
    by saying "not all of it is smear."  i think i rest my case.

    [ Parent ]
    rest your case? bull! the web sites (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:12:52 PM EST
    that support your candidate with the exception of talk left and a few others have indulged in a degree of trashing and smear that i have even seen. no quarter isn't perfect but larry asks questions. are you afraid of the answers.

    [ Parent ]
    That letter from Obama (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:29:08 AM EST
    I lifted from my mother's...Not only does the check return card say "We are the ones we've been waiting for...we are the change we seek", but the 4 page letter is nothing but fluff.  It's mostly biography(a generous retelling), a shout out to Hillary for breaking "barriers"(mhmm), discussion of cynicism, and two lines of anything remotely touching on policy; the war, tax code, and health insurance for every American "that wants it."  That's it.  The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are never referred to.  Only "our party", "other side" and "opposition".  

    There is an additional glossy flyer that refers to not wanting to "re-fight the fights of the 90s".  I still don't know what that means.  Universal health care?  Gays in the military?  Progressive tax code?  Protecting social security?  Environmental issues?  Which of these arn't we going to need to re-fight?

      I think the Democratic Party is actually the new Independent Party, only some Democrats don't realize it yet.

    It's the Unity Party, (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:35:05 AM EST
    the party of Broderism. Pearls are clutched whenever confrontation happens. We must all join hands and sing kumbaya, even when our goals are supposedly diametrically opposed.

    Hooray.

    [ Parent ]

    Looking And Sounding More And More (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:39:36 AM EST
    like the Unity08 Party to me. Unfortunately, the things that the NEW party seems intent on adopting from the Republican Party are some of the things I dislike intensely such as for us or against us attitude, the religiosity and SS on the table etc.  

    [ Parent ]
    I got that in the mail, I tore up (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:42:53 AM EST
    the piece you send back and wrote I would never vote for him...put it in the envelope and sent it back.

    [ Parent ]
    american in canada (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:32:16 AM EST
    could you repost that thing about Dean and locking out the Hillary supporters and delegates from the convention?
    I think it may have been removed from the other thread for being OT (I suspect).
    at least I cant find it and no time to google.
    but it is important.
    Here it is (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:48:59 PM EST
    LINK

    As well, we have this from Dean, which seems to bolster the claim:

    The New York Times Reports:

    When Mr. Dean reached out to Cynthia Ruccia, who started an organization of female Clinton swing-state voters threatening to vote for Mr. McCain, Ms. Ruccia asked that the Democratic convention include a symbolic first ballot for Mrs. Clinton's delegates. Mr. Dean discouraged the idea on the grounds of unity.

    Not to mention on the recetn Clinton conference call they mentioned their delegates hanging tough so that their credentials were not removed as Senator Clinton wants her delegates to be able to attend the convention.


    [ Parent ]

    Me and BTD were NBA wrong (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:33:14 AM EST
    Hats off to the Celtics for the biggest comeback in finals history, and hats over the faces of my Lakers for the biggest choke.  I don't know what Phil Jackson was doing or thinking, but I kept waiting for him to turn during a timeout and point to Magic and Kareem behind the bench and say, "You see them?  Honor them, learn from them and RUN!!"  They came out playing defense and, most importantly, RUNNING.  Running on misses, running on made buckets, they were in the open court dictating the pace of the game.  Then...they simply stopped.  How?  Boston picked it up, sure, but this is the NBA finals, you're at home, and it's a MUST win game.  This loss is all the Lakers to claim.  Biggest.  Choke.  Ever.

    Boston sports fans are riding some heady times.  

    Absolutely Painful (none / 0) (#37)
    by Paladin on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:41:17 AM EST
    I couldn't believe what I was seeing.  The final insult was Kobe Bryant walking off the court with 3 seconds left.

    I thought I'd seen it all.  I've been a Laker fan since they moved to LA from Minneapolis.  Witnessed all the heart-breaking Celtics' losses.

    I agree with your comments - Jackson was clearly out-coached.  Congrats to the Celtics.  They deserve it.

    At least I didn't have to see Red Auerbach light a cigar...

    [ Parent ]

    "'Tis a privilege to live in Colorado." (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:36:03 AM EST
    Indeed it is.  If we only had an ocean...

    I spent a week at a dude ranch (none / 0) (#36)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:40:58 AM EST
    in LaVeta, CO. Could barely breathe or sleep at night. It certainly is beautiful, though.


    [ Parent ]
    The Spanish Peaks... (none / 0) (#56)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:53:10 AM EST
    ...are indeed a lovely area of our state.  Not over-ran with tourists or over built like some areas.  Quaint little towns like Cuchara and LaVeta, wonderful streams and forests and wildlife areas...

    Unfortunately, a lot of beautiful places around there are being destroyed with coalbed methane wells.  

    [ Parent ]

    Sexism (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by zebedee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:57:39 AM EST
    From the NYT article about sexism against Clinton:

    "Angered by what they consider sexist news coverage of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, many women and erstwhile Clinton supporters are proposing boycotts of the cable networks, putting up videos on a "Media Hall of Shame," starting a national conversation about sexism and pushing Mrs. Clinton's rival, Senator Barack Obama, to address the matter"

    If Obama, the beneficiary of all this, gets the media credit for starting an anti-sexism "conversation" after standing idly by and even participating to some extent, would this be the ultimate hypocrisy?

    Who is asking for (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    'a national conversation' besides Howard Dean?  Whose credentials in this area are a bit weak, to put it mildly.

    (serious question, I haven't seen anyone who gets the sexism of this campaign ask for it)

    [ Parent ]

    Yes. Yes it would. (none / 0) (#138)
    by LoisInCo on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:53:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Finally (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by LoisInCo on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:23:23 PM EST
    A candidate (other than Bill Richardson) Does NOT rule out being Obama's VP.

    Link

    Oh, say it ain't so... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:39:42 PM EST
    I don't think we can go through that again.

    Maybe that's what all of this was really about, making Kerry look only slightly less desperate and overweaning than Joe Lieberman groveling for a spot on the McCain ticket.

    [ Parent ]

    My favorite part was: (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by LoisInCo on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:02:37 PM EST
    The answer is probably not, but if the right definition were given to the job, then you'd be foolish not to say that you would think about it or consider it.

    In other words " make me the next Cheney!"

    [ Parent ]

    That Would Be A Great Pick (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:00:35 PM EST
    Can't think of any better way for Obama to lose the "elitist label" than by picking Kerry as his running mate.

    [ Parent ]
    Kerry would have to undergo an old-time (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    religion intervention though.  I admired his restraint in discussing his religion.

    [ Parent ]
    Restraint in discussing religion (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:08:53 PM EST
    is so old Democratic Party. Everyone needs to get with the new program and welcome the far right religious folks with open arms.  

    [ Parent ]
    I fail to see how Obama campaign (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:29:21 PM EST
    will carry this off.  Each time he discusses faith and religion, I immed. think of the Revs. Wright and Pfleger.  Might be better to try a different tack.

    [ Parent ]
    MO Blue - thanks for the laugh, (none / 0) (#171)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:11:23 PM EST
    even if it did mean that I am now wiping Diet Coke off my desk... :-)

    [ Parent ]
    bwahaha (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:28:10 PM EST
    Oh, I only hope Kerry is picked for VP!

    That would be priceless.

    [ Parent ]

    The Midwest is under water. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by magisterludi on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:26:55 PM EST
    Iowa is a disaster area. Anyone from the area out there? How's it going? My heart goes out...

    Hospital in Cedar Rapids is being (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:36:48 PM EST
    evacuated, including skilled nursing facility for elderly, frail people.

    [ Parent ]
    And there will be (none / 0) (#134)
    by magisterludi on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:48:23 PM EST
    evacuations all along the Mississippi for several days, I heard. Des Moines is under voluntary evac now.

    [ Parent ]
    Just to be clear... (none / 0) (#141)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:55:40 PM EST
    ...not ALL of DMS is under voluntary evacuation orders.  Just the flood plane along the Raccoon and Des Moines rivers.  

    For those interested, here is a map...

    http://tinyurl.com/6o3g8r


    [ Parent ]

    Relatives are supposed to fly from (none / 0) (#144)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:57:09 PM EST
    Cedar Rapids Tuesday early a.m. to Minneapolis and then to CA.  After picking up a woman in Iowa City.  

    [ Parent ]
    I have a friend in Ames (none / 0) (#114)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:31:42 PM EST
    They're OK so far but Cedar Rapids and Iowa City are under water.  Her son goes to school in Iowa City where classes may be cancelled this fall (!) because it's such a mess.

    [ Parent ]
    No... (none / 0) (#130)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:42:35 PM EST
    ...Iowa City is not under water.  It does not have the large flood plane like Cedar Rapids. It is protected somewhat in that there are good sized hills between the Iowa river and the main campus/downtown.  There are low lying areas that flood quite often, but the whole city certainly isn't under water.  I highly doubt that they will be cancelling school in the Fall.  They didn't in '93.  

    Downtown CR is under water because it is built on low-lying ground along the river.

    Des Moines invested heavily after '93 in suring up the levees and making sure the water supply isn't disrupted.  Hopefully, the levees there and all along the Mississippi hold.  

    [ Parent ]

    Downstream in some (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:56:23 PM EST
    areas in Missouri, Chesterfield for example, they spent a lot of money on building up the levees and then built like crazy on the other side.  They had better hope the levees hold because this time there is even more at risk than they had in '93.  I don't understand the thinking behind their actions, seems like a big gamble to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Infrastructure and good planning (none / 0) (