Friday Open Thread

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.


    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.

    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?


    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.


    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?

    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]


    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
    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.  


    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.'


    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.


    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.


    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.

    '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.

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

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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
    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.

    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....:)


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.)


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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."


    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.


    "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.



    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.

    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.


    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.  


    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!

    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.


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

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


    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.

    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.

    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.


    Here: (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:04:27 PM EST

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


    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.


    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?


    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?


    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.

    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.


    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.  


    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.

    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.  

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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?


    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.


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

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.



    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.  

    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.

    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

    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.


    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...


    "'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.

    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.  


    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)


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


    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.


    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!"


    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.

    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.

    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.  

    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.

    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... :-)

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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...



    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.  

    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.

    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.  


    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.

    Infrastructure and good planning (none / 0) (#137)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:50:31 PM EST
    are wonderful things.  So is learning from past disasters.

    Someone I know works at the county planning office and she runs into people who think a flood plain is just an arbitrary meaningless line on a map.  Thank goodness we actually have zoning restrictions to save people from their own stupidity - or the greed of developers.


    Well, all I can tell you (none / 0) (#140)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:54:16 PM EST
    is my friend said they're considering cancelling fall classes.  She says that the bridges across the river that connect two sides of campus are threatened and many buildings, including the library are expected to go under.  

    And more thunderstorms are predicted in the next few days.


    There will be quite the mess... (none / 0) (#156)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:03:06 PM EST
    ...to be cleaned up, but the bridges and building aren't going to wash away.  There are some buildings along the river--the Memorial Union, Arts building and so forth that may not be able to hold classes for awhile, but school will go on as it always has.  

    Iowans don't just quit because of a little water.  


    I feel like breaking into a chorus of (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:12:22 PM EST
    "We are in Io-way!"  from the Music Man.  

    Good luck to you. =)


    IOWA (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by MrPope on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:34:48 PM EST
    i never seen flooding like that other than Katrina...  crazy   i feel so bad for those people

    Anything about this seem familiar? (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:37:54 PM EST
    Fairytale, MLK, etc.?


    oh. darn. They are in my town. (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:56:07 PM EST
    And I am missing the event.  I'm completely devastated.


    (Besides my one son would probably ask who the loud man was and why was he shouting.)


    Why can he talk as a preacher when he (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:03:00 PM EST
    is at a fundraiser but fumbles when asked a question at a news event? I read how he got to be head of the Harvard Law Review. He went to the Republican members there and listed all his negatives first and why they might not want him. They were impressed as  he was correct in his statements. Then he told them how he would work for them and unity. Maybe that is how he plans on winning people over. Even in his bitter speech he mentioned how it was having a black person speaking to a pretty solid white crowd. People could understand that but then he made a mistake of ridiculing that solid white contingency.   The people in the room laughed but the people ridiculed were not amused. That is where he makes his slip ups. He has his Macaca moments.

    BTW, anybody get the call from McCain asking if they wanted to ask him a question on the live broadcast tomorrow? I did, but declined.


    Perhaps BTD could do one of his prologues (none / 0) (#161)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    followed by a pith question?

    Will Michelle Obama Bashing spark Hill supporters (1.00 / 0) (#99)
    by MrPope on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:19:38 PM EST
    Seeing that Michelle is now coming under full sexist and racist bashing and attacks by the repub machine... will Hill Supporters feel compelled to support OBAMA in response to the sexism/racism.  Or is the hatred for OBAMA so deep.. that Michelle will not get any backing for being attacked just like Hill was?

    I won't join in it (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:30:14 PM EST
    but my sympathy is - shall we say - limited, in light of Michelle's snide comments about keeping your own house in order, and the silence of the Obamas on the trashing of Hillary.  

    Live by the sword, die by the sword.


    So far, I haven't heard any sexist (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:33:39 PM EST
    remarks (if there were some, please enlighten me). Just as Hillary's words were up for scrutiny, so should Michelle's. Going after her character I do not agree with, however, for Mr. Obama to defend his wife's honor on what she herself has said, is disengenious in itself.

    It's more likely to engender a chorus of (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:42:27 PM EST
    "what goes around, comes around."

    Or, "karma's a b!tch, isn't it?"

    I don't have much sympathy for either Obama on this.


    So Much For Principals (1.00 / 0) (#133)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:48:11 PM EST
    "Oh, how awful that must be for her!" (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:03:13 PM EST
    "Those people should be ashamed of themselves.  Someone should do something!"

    Now that Obama owns the Democratic Leadership, I'm sure they'll fall all over themselves to defend any and all Obamas.

    After all, that's what happened for Hillary, right?


    If it happens that Michelle Obama (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:09:13 PM EST
    becomes subject to attacks, that would be wrong; I would not encourage attacks, or condone them, and I would express that wrong is wrong no matter where it's coming from or who it is directed at, but it doesn't mean I will feel sorry for her when she experiences something her own principles did not move her to push back against when it was being directed at Clinton.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#184)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:25:28 PM EST
    Not to mention that while I have no way of knowing, it seems not unlikely that the campaign will use sexist attacks on Michelle in the same unscrupulous way they used racism.

    While I condemn sexism from any source, I don't endorse or support the cynical, calculated and political use of it.  It just inures people to real instances of it and makes it harder for true victims to get help or advocates to advance real change.  Hypocrisy about sexism will be nearly as damaging as sexism itself.  And both Obamas have already set the stage for this path.


    Personal attacks on everyone should (none / 0) (#188)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:30:31 PM EST
    stop. There is enough in policy, experience, what they say, etc. to fill the news. Character can be addressed as it relates directly to the success or failure of a potential administration.

    If Obama were to put John Kerry on the ticket, his wife would most likely be the media target, again, too.

    It's been going on forever, but it sure would be nice if we could see it stop.


    Show me the nutcracker! (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:46:04 PM EST
    Your "just like" is not likely accurate.  Has Chris Matthews talked about crossing his legs or MO castrating anyone yet or suggesting that Barack might need food tasters in case his wife gets ambitious?  Randi Rhodes call her any names yet?  Kos agreed she is no longer a Democrat?

    You may wish to rephrase.


    She needs to be accountable for what she (none / 0) (#191)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:33:36 PM EST
    chooses to say. MO didn't get much press for her claw action along with the comment "I want to scratch his eyes out" about Bill Clinton when she was interviewed by a UK publication.

    The Obama's would serve themselves well to practice the absence of personal attacks.


    None of us hate Obama (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:49:52 PM EST
    I feel that the bashing that Michele might take is because of her own actions and not for Michele hate as is was for Hillary. I do not believe that sexism is involved for Michele because she choose her own words and actions. But, for the reason they should not have attacked Bill, including the Obama camp, they should not attack Michele. Yet, Michele was one of the attackers and that was very wrong. I don't even look at Obama and Michele as one unless he is projecting a 'solo' person. She seems to be her own person.

    A Sympathy Vote For Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:56:49 PM EST
    I do not support sexist or racist comment no matter who they are directed against. Obama has from now until November to convince me that he stands for the issues I care about and will not adopt Republican policies that I find repulsive. So far, I am not in favor of the NEW Democratic Party,  their strategy or direction. Hatred has nothing to do with it.

    You are so off-base in that conclusion (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:16:45 PM EST
    It is not hatred for Obama, it is a lack of trust because of what he does say, and for what he refuses to say. It is because he is not qualified or ready for this huge job.

    The country needs someone who could actually give 23 hours a day if need be right now. We need someone who can actually find our pulse in an emergency. So far, he hasn't done a decent job of figuring out what drives people, what they need, or how to resolve some critical issues.

    It is not hatred. For you to over-simplify this won't succeed in closing the gap between his supporters and his non-supporters.


    Vastleft joins lambert and me (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:57:11 AM EST
    I call myself an Obamaskeptic. (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:00:05 AM EST
    I am tepid on the word "tepid."

    Really, it's blind and ridiculous (bordering on spiteful) to vote for McCain as some kind of retribution for what has happened in this primary.

    That's IMHO, of course.


    I am not voting for McCain (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:05:15 AM EST
    but one persons spite is another persons justice.

    Living in a red state (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Leisa on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:31:38 AM EST
    I have yet to decide what I will do...  I will respect everyone's democratic right to vote for the person they feel will the best CiC.

    I realize that what I am about to say may not be popular.  I really hope that many people will understand that some Democrats that say they are voting for John McCain are not doing it out of spite, they feel that he will be better as CiC.  Many people do not trust Obama and the DNC has lost their confidence.  I will not call them names because of that.  I feel the same way, I don't trust ANY politician or party right now.

    IMHO, Obama ran too soon, voters don't know him. His reactionary changing of positions, expediently tossing 20 year relationships because these people "suddenly" change, saying he is against politics as usual but having some of the "old guard" as backers and advisers make people question his ability to stand up for anything he says.  Where is his resolve?  What does he really stand for?  Look at what has changed since he has become the nominee...  

    I am still paying attention, and I will vote as I see fit because I am a "good Democrat", just as we all are IMHO.  


    I live in a red state too. (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by davnee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:45:45 AM EST
    Actually it would have been a purple state if Clinton ran, and my vote would have been exciting and meaningful.  In any event, I plan on leaving president blank.  I won't ratify the Obama nomination.  I object to it on numerous levels.  But that doesn't mean I will vote for McCain.  He's going to win here in a walk anyway, so what I do isn't really important to anyone but me.  So I have the luxury of rejecting the corrupt DNC and Obama, and I intend to fully and happily avail myself of that luxury.  I feel for people in swing states.  But if I lived in one, I think I'd still be following my course.  If the DNC hadn't corrupted itself, I might have held my nose if Obama had run a good GE campaign that repaired damage and addressed his huge flaws as a candidate, but the corruption is something I really can't look past.  I won't  ratify that.

    I live in a blue state (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:08:49 PM EST
    and I'm not going to hold my nose and vote.  Not this year.  The Democratic Party is no longer the party I used to know - why should I feel any loyalty?

    Well if it is truly blue (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by davnee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:29:56 PM EST
    then you are off the hook just like me.  It costs less for us to stand on our principles.  (Assuming you would consider a R victory a cost.)  I can't prevent an R victory here, and you aren't needed to safely prevent one there.  The real pain in our abstention will come in $$$.  The DNC will never get a dime of my money that's for sure.

    New York (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:37:14 PM EST
    Can't get much bluer than that.  I will vote down-ticket.  Even though my Congressman eventually caved (this week) and supported Obama, he fought the good fight and I like him in general.  So I will vote for him.

    ITA with you - no money, ever!  With the exception of ACLU, I'm hesitant to vote for political causes b/c they might be in the tank for Obama.  I'm sticking to art charities for now - just sent some money to Brooklyn Academy of Music.


    Me too (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:33:19 PM EST
    I live in Illinois, so the question of the winner is moot. At last I have the option of not voting or feeling guilty that I enabled a Republican. I'm getting bery tired of having to pick the lesser of two evils. Until I hear with my own ears that Obama is the progressive that everyone seems to think he is, I will hold my vote.

    It amazing to me that in an election that should have been a given, he feels the need to destroy the party and rebuild a new one, I think we could have won easily with the old one!


    Alas, my nose enjoys life on my face. (4.60 / 5) (#12)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:07:05 AM EST
    An eye for an eye. nt (none / 0) (#11)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:05:45 AM EST
    I will vote for him (4.00 / 3) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:03:05 AM EST
    and I might even occasionally defend him or say nice things about him, but you can be sure that I won't enjoy it and that I won't forget what he and his campaign did.

    I don't think anyone ever learns anything (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:05:29 AM EST
    by forgetting.  I expect I will have to defend Obama on a lot of race-based jabs.  I  will have to keep my tongue firmly out-of-cheek when I recall how race has been used against non-racist Democrats during the primary.

    If these tactics work for the DNC and Obama (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:34:12 AM EST
    we can commit ourselves to never forgetting, but they will receive the votes gladly and not give a royal rip how we feel about it. Many democrats voted "yea" on bush's request for authority to act as he felt necessary againt Iraq, but attached conditions and expectations to their votes. The vote was all he cared about, and all he needed to do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, and we all know how that went.

    I shudder to think the people of this country are willing to relinquish their power over the government.


    Excuse me (4.00 / 3) (#38)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:42:18 AM EST
    but I have two options in the fall. I can help elect a Democrat, or I can help elect a Republican. All other alternatives are irrelevant.  

    For Obama supporters who are (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:47:11 AM EST
    genuinely supportive, knowledeable, will vote  for the candidate or party, I respect your vote..please respect my decisions on my vote..for the "blind followers" of which there seem to be many, I respect your "right" to vote, but do not respect your blind allegiance.

    excuse, those are your choices. (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:47:41 AM EST
    many of us are looking for the democratic party we used to know and can't find it. the "new" democratic party has to prove they are about what democrats have said they were for years. that remains to be seen.

    That's what I'm talking about. (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:48:18 AM EST
    I don't appreciate that attitude. I'm not judging your "tepid" support for Obama, or Jeralyn's, or anyone else's.

    Clearly, we all have reasons for voting the way we do. Can we have a little respect for those reasons, rather than dismissing them?


    From me, no (4.00 / 3) (#53)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:51:22 AM EST
    I do not respect Democrats and liberals who voted for Nader in 2000, and I do not respect people who will participate in helping to elect a Republican this fall. For example, I hold Florida resident Barbara Ehrenreich in eternal contempt for what she did in 2000.

    Do your rules only apply to Dems? (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:55:48 AM EST
    Certainly to anyone who supported (3.50 / 2) (#64)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:56:38 AM EST
    any other Democrat for nomination.

    Makes no sense (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:41:16 PM EST
    Some were Republicans and Indies. Many folks voted for who they thought would be the best president. When that person is no longer running, they should feel free to pick who they feel is the next best. Without being guilted/bullied/fear carded/disrespected. And that should apply to Democrats also. Otherwise, it's looking an awful lot like a GWB Dem party.

    The fad of this election (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by LoisInCo on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:51:55 PM EST
    is the notion we must use carrots and sticks. They offer us a rotten carrot and beat the beejesus out of us with a stick and tell us now arent you glad you're a Democrat?

    Well, good for you then. (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:56:55 AM EST
    Glad to see that you are being honest. Those who disagree with you have no reason to do so and deserve no respect.

    By the way - many of us who will be leaving the top of the ticket blank will NOT be helping to elect a Republican. I live in a blue state that Obama SHOULD win comfortably.

    It's called an act of principle.


    You call it principle (3.50 / 2) (#74)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:01:34 PM EST
    I call it something else. It's a word that Jeralyn won't allow me to use here.

    LOL! (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:04:15 PM EST
    Judge, jury and executioner, that's who you are.

    Now you know why I'm doing what I'm doing.

    Mindreading at its best.

    Time for lunch, later all.


    You seem to choose between (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:04:47 PM EST
    candidate and/or party. I choose, this year (unlike past years) to vote my country first. I truly believe our country will be in serious trouble (even more than it's in now) with THIS democratic admin. I, for one, plan to try and elect a dem. congress (good luck in TX), and that is my pledge to my democratic principles. It is not, for me, dem. or die. It is country first. Sometimes, some things are just unacceptable. I am a mother, educated, experienced in politics, a leader, a seeker of knowledge, and a proud american. I respect your vote and your thinking, please respect mine. Thank you.

    I will not respect a vote for McCain (2.00 / 1) (#87)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:06:46 PM EST

    Then you don't really believe (4.50 / 2) (#93)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:09:56 PM EST
    in the constitution.

    Ridiculous (3.50 / 2) (#95)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:11:54 PM EST
    Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean that I have to respect it.

    I believe you don't have to (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:20:38 PM EST
    "agree" with it, nor do you have to "respect" it, however, civility goes a long way. You think my thinking and logic is wrong...I think your thinking and logic are yours and s/b respected as a human being. I know you are knowledgeable and I believe educated..instead of always telling me I'm wrong, why don't you tell me why you're right. Obama supporters seem not to be able to do this, and I still do not know why?

    Here's why . . . (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:28:07 PM EST
    Obama still needs to "sit down and figure things out"  ;)

    You consistently forget Door #3 (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:58:23 PM EST
    Fight for what's right.

    The DNC is being hijacked, the Obama campaign is taking his nomination like never before in our history, and sitting back casually accepting it is something I cannot do. The weakness of the democratic congress has extended from their inability to go toe to toe with Bush, to their inability to address the injustices happening inside their own party. They are responding to their constituencies with anger. This is unheard of, and until I am certain this party can handle control of the country, I cannot support it this election cycle.

    McCain has nearly twice as many delegates as is needed to gain the nomination of his party, but you don't see him taking over the RNC.


    It kills me that (none / 0) (#189)
    by otherlisa on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:31:19 PM EST
    so many Nader supporters in 2000 are now 1000% behind Obama and refuse to tolerate any dissent from this decision or criticism of Dear Leader.

    I was one of the people urging my progressive friends not to vote for Nader, that it was a dreadful mistake, that Gore was a good man and Bush was worse than they knew.

    You wanna guess how many of these folks are part of the Obama-wagon?

    Call me Cassandra, I guess.


    Good luck with that (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:03:15 PM EST
    they don't care abour your memory, as long as you vote for them.

    We should be ... (none / 0) (#83)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:04:50 PM EST
    ...skeptical of all politicans running for national office.  Unless you are in the upper 2% of income group, politicans aren't very likely to have the same experiences, wants, needs or desires as an average person.  

    They're from a whole different world than 99% of the people.  

    It is more often than not, chosing between the lesser of two evils for that reason alone.  There are very few pols these days that get onto the national stage for the good of the country, it is sadly mostly about person ambition, ego and wealth.  


    I wonder (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:57:12 AM EST
    what's going to happen with the "tepid" support in the end? Is tepid enough to go to the polls in Nov. or only if it ends up being convenient?

    I wanta live in Colorado (none / 0) (#6)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:04:53 AM EST
    In MI you see adds on TV for Colorado and Ca, on how great they are (I am FROM Ca), I really wonder what adds we run in those states to get peolpe to come to us?

    Funny how most jazz festivals (none / 0) (#18)
    by shoephone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:19:34 AM EST
    inculde very few jazz groups anymore. Oh well. The old days are gone. That's why I no longer go to festivals.

    Wondering if... Tift Merritt is any relation?

    No relation (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:26:58 AM EST
    We are originally from Westcliffe, Colorado (none / 0) (#25)
    by athyrio on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:30:55 AM EST
    (my hubby was raised there) and they used to have a really nice Jazz festival (I think in August) that might be good this year too....FYI...

    Is it too soon to talk BSG (none / 0) (#28)
    by davnee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:32:31 AM EST
    or should we wait for an evening open thread?  I'm just antsy because this is the last ep until frakkin' 2009.  I have a feeling the ep will blow my mind, but it better not crush my spirit by taking Laura Roslin away from me.  I don't think they will kill her tonight, not with a whole half-season left to go.  But RDM does love the darkness, and I can't help thinking that her finally finding love with her flyboy comes with a whole lot of postage due.

    Whaaaaat?! (none / 0) (#44)
    by Emma on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:45:20 AM EST
    Last episode until 2009!!??  Seriously?  Fill me in, I thought this was the last season.

    Scifi will air the rest of the eps next season (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by davnee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:49:15 AM EST
    And they will start airing the last 10 episodes (half season) in the spring, just like this season.  Hence 2009.  

    ugh (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Emma on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    I really lost a lot of interest during the last hiatus.  I don't know if I can sustain any until 2009.

    But how 'bout Mary McDonnell last week?  She's pretty incredible.


    She rocks. (none / 0) (#178)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:17:42 PM EST
    No doubt about it.

    Although I was happy with the end, I wasn't as thrilled with the hospital-bed ghost-of-christmas-future nature of them.  I get the point, that Roslin was letting the burden of leading humanity eclipse her own humanity, but thought it could have been fleshed out better.

    So, the office pool on the 12th was Roslin, but that looks unlikely now.  My second bet was on Gaius.  We'll see.


    Never too soon. :D (none / 0) (#60)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:54:39 AM EST
    The commercial looks great - lots happening.

    I know Roslin has to die, but that will break my heart.

    You know you can watch it online today at the SciFi site. Can't decide. Should I or shouldn't I?


    Stay pure (none / 0) (#86)
    by davnee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:06:00 PM EST
    I thought you could only watch the first ten minutes online anyway?

    I actually want Roslin to be the twelfth cylon just so she doesn't have to die, at least not before reaching Earth.  She deserves to get that cabin in the woods.  And with the final five appearing to be part human, or at least going way back with humans, it may not be so bad to be a cylon.


    Today (none / 0) (#90)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:08:31 PM EST
    you can watch the whole thing. I've given in and am watching now. I'm weak and proud of it.

    SciFi.com is airing it all day today (none / 0) (#80)
    by janarchy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:04:10 PM EST
    From 9 am to 4 pm, once an hour, the full thing will be running.

    No spoilers please. (none / 0) (#88)
    by davnee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:07:07 PM EST
    If you watch.  I'm actually at the office pretending to be working so I can't view until tonight.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#42)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:44:40 AM EST
    How come 5280 doesn't sponsor a music fest of some sort?  

    I'm looking forward to the Westword Music Fest tomorrow.  Always fun to see all of the local bands during the day, so I don't have to stay up past my bedtime!

    Very Cool.... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:01:19 PM EST
    Manhattan grand jury dismisses all charges against Spiderman.  Link

    Climb on Spidey...climb on.

    Wasn't... (none / 0) (#97)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:14:29 PM EST
    ...there more than one?

    Yes. (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:20:13 PM EST
    Yeah.... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:24:41 PM EST
    Climber # 2 hasn't been before the grand jury yet.

    I'm hoping for a double-header sweep for liberty.  Let them climb...if they should hurt somebody besides themselves, hold them responsible....and let freedom ring.

    Then again, climber # 2 is black and not famous, it may be tougher for him to get his charges dismissed.  We are all anything but equal in the eyes of the law, as regular TL'ers are more than aware.  

    Mountains, even man made ones, are there to be climbed.  I salute both daredevils.


    Jeralyn... (none / 0) (#77)
    by desertswine on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:03:01 PM EST
    Any chance of getting your take on Vincent Bugliosi's new book sometime?

    Iraq Treaty aka Client State (none / 0) (#146)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:57:40 PM EST
    But I have not seen it posted here yet, so...

    A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

    The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

    But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

    The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq - a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

    Patrick Cockburn

    Well worth a read. The intrepid Cockburn has been a great source from the beginning of the Iraq fiasco.  

    I've read the Iraqi government is not (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:07:56 PM EST
    enthusiastic due to provisions for multiple permanent U.S. miliary bases and immunity for civilian contracts such as Blackwater.

    Yes But (none / 0) (#179)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:17:46 PM EST
    There is blackmail going on, the US is holding over 50bln in oil revenues, using the UN sanctions and will not release the money until they sign.

    The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq's money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.

    US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal, details of which were reported for the first time in this newspaper yesterday.

    Patrick Cockburn


    Tim Russert. (none / 0) (#204)
    by Esme on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:43:43 PM EST
    It's being reported (by the New York Times) that Tim Russert passed away last night due to a heart attack. Has this been confirmed anywhere?

    If true, my heart goes out to his family. At 58, he was much too young to die.

    McCain (none / 0) (#205)
    by MrPope on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:08:10 PM EST
    I will be voting OBAMA... and if Hill won  I would have voted Hillary....   but McCain..this guy really creeps me out....  I smell DRAFT  by 2011  everytime i look at him...  I am not sending my babies and grandbabies to Iran to die in the sand.


    TIM RUSSERT RIP (none / 0) (#206)
    by MrPope on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:11:42 PM EST
    rip TIM RUSSERT  i was just watching him last night on TV....  wow

    TIM RUSSERT RIP (none / 0) (#207)
    by MrPope on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:11:42 PM EST
    rip TIM RUSSERT  i was just watching him last night on TV....  wow

    Fla delegates still fighting (none / 0) (#208)
    by Amiss on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 01:28:31 AM EST

    It seems that Obama's people are trying to replace the Hillary delegates with their own and there has been a huge fight brewing here, maybe our first hurricane of the season.