home

Friday Afternoon Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:36:05 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

You can continue the ongoing discussions regarding sexism, McCain's disdain for the Constitution, or any other subject you choose here. I do apologize to folks looking for discussion of criminal law, but believe me, you do not want me writing about it. Jeralyn is in Aspen and TChris is tied up apparently.

Open Thread.

Comments closed.

< Praise Bill Clinton, Do Not Bury Him | Bad Political Analysis >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Friday Afternoon Open Thread | 211 comments (211 topical)
    Hillary's Future (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by JayHub on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:37:34 PM EST
    I think Hillary would be wasted as VP. Remember, unless you're pulling the strings from behind the throne like Cheney, it's a powerless and low profile job that would do little to use Hillary's many talents.

    Personally, I'd like to see her in the Cabinet as Health Secretary until a SUPREME COURT slot opens and then I'd like to see her appointed there. She could do a lot for the country as a Supreme Court Justice over the next 20 years.

    I'd be interested to hear what others think.

    Supreme Court Pick (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Gambit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:41:36 PM EST
    Hillary is too high profile and powerful in this country to be "wasted" even as VP. The supreme court is a tantalizing idea i hadn't thought of. She's certainly qualified.

    [ Parent ]
    But she's so divisive..... (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:15:31 PM EST
    ...she'd never get Senate approval.

    <snark>


    [ Parent ]

    Hil on SCOTUS? (none / 0) (#86)
    by TomStewart on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:24:40 PM EST
    Sounds good to me. All you would need would be an overwhelmingly Dem Senate. Should be hard at all, with all the help the Republicans are giving us.

    [ Parent ]
    Not Health Secretary (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:50:26 PM EST
    She's more powerful in the Senate, plus Obama can't fire her there.  She's got her own power base independent of the DNC now.  She should work on maintaining that - draft some good legislation, travel around the country as well as her district making speeches, send out regular emails to her supporters, etc - and make another run in 2012.

    [ Parent ]
    Also, even if she's health secretary, Obama (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by rjarnold on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:11:55 PM EST
    wouldn't let her push her universal health care plan. He argued against mandates, and even though he was wrong, he would be called a flip-flopper if he put mandates in.

    [ Parent ]
    ...and you think that would stop him? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by A little night musing on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:17:06 PM EST
    he would be called a flip-flopper if he put mandates in.

    Heh. I wish he would, though. But I'm afraid it makes too much sense, and would alienate his libertarian base.

    [ Parent ]

    And also, it is not the political expedient (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by rjarnold on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:33:36 PM EST
    thing to do. He won't put in mandates no matter how much sense it makes. It one of the few things we can know for sure about his Presidency.

    [ Parent ]
    Not So Fast (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Athena on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:12:14 PM EST
    I'll get back to you after August 27th.

    [ Parent ]
    She should be President of the United States (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:20:36 PM EST
    She's the best qualified, best experienced and the voters want her. She won fair and square, without shredding votes, stealing delegates or being propped up by media and ambitious insiders gaming the system and padding their totals.

    The closer voters look, the more they see that she is the leader we need starting from day one.

    I deserve no less. I hope we get a real leader in the White House for a change.

    Obama's not ready or qualified for the job yet. He hasn't even fulfilled his promise to complete a senate term or shown he can lead. His time will come in due course and if he earns it, he won't need to carried to the finish line.

    This is Hillary's time.

    [ Parent ]

    She should go to Denver and represent 18 million (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:27:00 PM EST
    ... enthusiastic supporters and so the Super Delegates and Democratic party can show some appreciation for all she's done for the Dems in her career.

    THEN she should decide her course of action.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:43:26 PM EST
    This is what I think she likely wants, and how I think she would be able to serve in the way she most finds fulfilling. I don't pretend to know her mind, tho'--I just hope that whatever her future is, it's something that we can all agree she wants.

    [ Parent ]
    I dunno (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by cmugirl on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:46:33 PM EST
    She's too much of a partisan policy wonk I think to go to the Court.

    Although the thought of Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh, Phyllis Schafly, Tony Perkins, FOX NEWS, James Dobson, George Will, Glenn Beck, and all the Obama-bots' hair standing on end does give me a little smile!

    [ Parent ]

    No way. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:53:18 PM EST
    She would be the powerful counterweight to Scalia that we need.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree... (none / 0) (#122)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:42:29 PM EST
    ...policy is a strong point for her.  I think she'd make an outstanding Majority Leader.  She's certainly got a lot more spine than that wimp Harry Reid.  

    If Edwards isn't going to AG, I think he would be a great SC justice.  And, the added bonus of still having the wingnuts head explode.

    [ Parent ]

    What if the Dems aren't the Majority (none / 0) (#149)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:52:48 PM EST
    Byrd may retire, Kennedy may not be able to return, (on the off-chance O wins) Obama could be gone, if he selects another Senator as VP, that's another one down.

    Are they currently a majority by more than 1 ?

    [ Parent ]

    Hopefully... (none / 0) (#193)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:14:19 PM EST
    ...the D's will win a few more seats this November so they can offset any potential loses and add to the total.  

    Colorado will do our part and send Udall to Washington.  

    I really think BO will pick a Governor--perhaps from the West.  

    [ Parent ]

    It's hard for me to imagine Byrd retiring - (none / 0) (#202)
    by liminal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:20:19 PM EST
    - though I think he probably should.  That said, if he retires, our Democratic governor in WV will appoint Byrd's replacement, and could well appoint himself.  He may appoint a DINO, but he wouldn't appoint a Republican.

    [ Parent ]
    Too old for SCOTUS (none / 0) (#216)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:27:09 PM EST
    Hold on, I'm not saying Hillary is old. After all, she is in my cohort. But, we need to appoint folks in their late 40's/early 50s to the court. We need people who can serve at least 30 years.

    That said, I think Hillary is brilliant, and we would be darn lucky to have her doing anything.

    [ Parent ]

    Honestly (none / 0) (#49)
    by LoisInCo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:11:23 PM EST
    I think she should ditch public office and open her own american poverty wing of the Clinton foundation. She could also become a public advocate for issues without having to face the whining of the Democratic Party. GRASSROOTS BABY!
    Fish, plankton, sea greens and protein from the sea.
    [ Parent ]
    I was wondering if she would do something (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:17:25 PM EST
    like that. She doesn't need the party as much as they need her, heh. Bill's been doing quite well and I can see the 2 of them as quite a positive voice/force out there.

    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely agree. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:17:51 PM EST
    It's all up to her about what she wants to do, but I think she deserves to retire from politcs. Remember, its not the Clinton's party anymore.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, I wouldn't mind is she & Bill (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by cosbo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:19:13 PM EST
    started a completely new party altogether. We need a viable third party. Something like Democratic Progressive Party. I would love having a serious third party. I think the Clintons could actually do it.

    [ Parent ]
    Right On! (none / 0) (#55)
    by bjorn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:14:18 PM EST
    F em

    [ Parent ]
    Hillarys future? (none / 0) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:46:35 PM EST
    my bet? there are already people working on how to handle those "caucuses thingies" better four years from now.

    [ Parent ]
    Supreme Court (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:46:24 PM EST
    I don't know of such things, but every time I hear that offer it's a deflection.  Hillary is not a jurist, she is a policy person.  She was perfect Presidential material.  I am trying to understand why I get annoyed at the suggestion.  I think it's because Kidd Oakland started spewing it here months ago.  

    Feels like a "pain and suffering" (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by eleanora on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:51:55 PM EST
    damages award in a civil lawsuit to me. "Sorry we shoved you down and then kicked you in the ribs for a few months, but here, have a consolation prize! :D"

    Just another way of shunting her and us aside as they stomp in big boots across the political landscape, on their way to a future that apparently doesn't include us.

    [ Parent ]

    I dunno (none / 0) (#31)
    by CST on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:58:53 PM EST
    That I would ever call the supreme court a "consulation prize".  That being said, I do think this is stupid and never gonna happen.  I don't think that's her goal either.

    It does sound like a nice cop-out though - Yea sure we'll give Hillary a job maybe if someone steps down in a few years...  She deserves something a lot more concrete than that

    [ Parent ]

    It's a fair distance (none / 0) (#32)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:00:44 PM EST
    away from serving the people the way Hillary wants to.

    [ Parent ]
    See: Katherine Harris & the GOP (none / 0) (#141)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:49:18 PM EST
    for how well that kind of thing worked out for her.

    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?

    More like a dozen if you ask me, when it comes to promises made by politicians.  

    [ Parent ]

    I really want to see Hillary put her mark on (none / 0) (#29)
    by Newt on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:57:12 PM EST
    history OUTSIDE of Bill's legacy.  I personally think being a SCJ would be a snooze for her, but it's clearly an area she could stand up for us, as well as stake her own legacy.  

    But if there's some way to negotiate Senate Majority Leader within the party, I'd be more than impressed with her clout.  I think many of her supporters will vote for the ticket that will put her there because it gives her a framework from which to push for our issues.  It also gives her a good place to run for Prez in four years if Obama fails to achieve progressive results.

    [ Parent ]

    clueless (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:35:35 PM EST
    Hillary supporters can't be bribed, at least I can't. I vote on issues and principle. The DNC and your candidate that you constantly troll for are the reason Hillary's supporters are having trouble "coming home."

    [ Parent ]
    Ha, I'm not trolling by supporting Obama... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Newt on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:55:18 PM EST
    I have my own concerns about his ability to work for issues I care about, especially women's equality and gay rights.  But I am definitely counting on the Yes We Can movement to demand and make the changes I'm looking for in the next four years.

    That said, I don't want to see Hillary consigned to waste away in the Senate after losing this nomination.  She's got enormous negotiating power and I hope she got something for her and for us in that meeting with Obama last night.  

    If Hillary comes out of this with something as fantastic as Senate Majority Leader when there are some 50 or so Dem senators ahead of her, clearly voting for the Obama/non-HRC ticket IS voting on issues and principle, not bribery.  She'd be much more able to effect change there then as VP, and it would clearly establish her clout in the party if she jumped seniority to get there.

    [ Parent ]

    Right (none / 0) (#163)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:58:51 PM EST
    because the "Yes We Can Movement" has been so good at holding his feet to the fire about misogyny and gay rights in particular.  I can certainly see why you're optimistic.

    [ Parent ]
    The last thing I want a progressive candidate (none / 0) (#195)
    by Newt on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:15:48 PM EST
    to do is stand up for gay rights before he's elected.  Not only would that be used against him, but I've already seen what happens when we trust centrist politicians to stand by our causes (Can anyone say DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell?)  After the election is the time to make the point that gay rights won't be such an effective wedge issue once equal rights are dealt with at the federal level.  (Please see my previous posts for those arguments.)

    In the same way that the Bush admins beefed up conservative communications channels by misdirecting public funds through so called "faith based" initiatives, the Yes We Can movement has consolidated a number of progressive groups, from peace workers to gay rights groups.  Many progressives that have be floundering in small groups have come together in various networks because of this movement.  

    Trust me, there's no going back.  


    [ Parent ]

    BTW, (none / 0) (#165)
    by Newt on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:59:09 PM EST
    I would have voted and worked for Hillary if she had gotten the nomination, and I will still do so, even if she gets it from Denver.

    [ Parent ]
    Supreme Court (none / 0) (#126)
    by chrisvee on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:43:24 PM EST
    The problem with the current make-up of the SCOTUS is that right now we're playing defense rather than  offense. What's the point of wasting her writing elegant minority opinions by naming her to replace Stevens or Ginsburg?

    If the opportunity existed for Chief Justice, that might be be a different kettle of fish.

    [ Parent ]

    Zimbabwe (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by CST on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:49:29 PM EST
    Mugabe had the opposition leader arrested for "attracting a crowd" - while campaigning....

    What a joke, I dunno what's worse, a traditional dictator, or a dictator who pretends to be an elected president.

    Not only that (none / 0) (#35)
    by CST on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:03:30 PM EST
    He actually officially halted all campaign rallies for his oponent citing "security concerns".  The only security concern he has is being shot by one of Mugabe's cronies.

    Oh and no more food aid becuase they are encouraging the opposition...


    [ Parent ]

    Yikes. (none / 0) (#64)
    by eleanora on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:18:52 PM EST
    In some ways I'm grateful McCain is holding his own in the polls right now. I could see Bush/Cheney pulling a similar schtick in the fall if the R's know for sure that they're losing the WH and Congress too early.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain's favorability in key demographics (none / 0) (#81)
    by Newt on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:23:34 PM EST
    is declining already:



    [ Parent ]

    Re Sexist comment made on Larry King Show... (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Aqua Blue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:56:11 PM EST
    Last night, an accusation was made that Hillary is "emasculating" Obama.

    I sent an email to ABC about Charlie Gibson having a most unflattering video of Hillary with her talking in slow motion. She looked like she was scowling and had no enthusiasm.

    Often the media showed the favored candidate with larger image and positive look, while Hillary's head shot was smaller and unsmiling.

    Pundits said that Hillary was acting childish when she did not suspend before the votes were even counted last Tues.  I thought she did the right thing.  She was being respectful to the people who voted in the last Primary.   She was bashed for taking a couple days to reflect on what to do and how to do it.   I don't think that a male would have been abused for that.

    So many sexist ways to discriminate!  Hillary could not win with the media.    No matter what she did or said, the spin was negative.

    What is surprising to me is how many people believe comments as gospel.

    I a sick of the lemming mentality.  

    It doesn't say much about his masculinity (3.66 / 3) (#124)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:42:57 PM EST
    Only men who are weak can be "emasculated" by strong women. Strong men have confidence in themselves and treat women as equals. They have no fear of female superiority, because they recognize that some women will be better than them at some things (just like some men will) and it doesn't bother them.

    [ Parent ]
    Pesident Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by abiodun on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:58:07 PM EST
    For me Bill Clinton is a hero and will always be. Just look back at how he bested the repubs in the 90s, in spite of all their tantrums and threats! He left the next president a country in a great shape, this president cannot say that come jan 2009.

    Partially Agree (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by JayHub on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:02:10 PM EST
    I voted for him twice and he did a lot of good things, but he embarrassed us all with the Monica Lewinsky affair. Even worse, the affair gave an opening to the Republicans to create gridlock in his last years in office and get GWB elected. I thought at the time he should resign and let Al Gore become President in 1998. Gore would have been a lock on the 2000 election then and we'd be in a different world.

    [ Parent ]
    B Clinton (none / 0) (#39)
    by Gambit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:05:11 PM EST
    Where do yall think he ranks in the last 50 to 80 yrs?

    [ Parent ]
    exactly where the historians have him (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:08:17 PM EST
    22-26...Middle of the pack.

    [ Parent ]
    65% approval rating (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:28:04 PM EST
    best of the modern presidents.

    [ Parent ]
    people's view (none / 0) (#121)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:41:53 PM EST
    fall generally along the lines of economic satisfaction, historians take into account all public policy and long term effect of said policy. I loved Bill but I think 18 or 19 is accurate. He was slightly above average as a president in my estimation comparatively speaking within his peer group. Ronnie is still ranked ahead of him which i take issue with, but i think after a few more years and the morality prejudice wears off, he will move ahead of reagan. Being that it should not be counted in their assessments and i believe it is, he does suffer some from the impeachment hearings....

    [ Parent ]
    yes (none / 0) (#145)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:50:12 PM EST
    historians take other things into account besides the quality of life enjoyed by Americans.

    I like the job approval rating.  Oddly Reagan comes in under Clinton at 64%.  Jfk and LBJ too.  3 of the top 4 are dems!!!!  

    Ok.  I think historians impose their view on what a president should be.  A group of them will be conservatives.  Another group probably voted for Nader.

    I think you get my point.

    [ Parent ]

    ahh yes (none / 0) (#210)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:23:21 PM EST
    and crude was selling at 10 bucks a barrel...The good old days. Historians are human, they cannot help themselves. I wish they weren't so we wouldn't have to wait 40 years for a real assessment, but alas we have chat rooms where we can debate it...

    [ Parent ]
    Overall job rating, or (none / 0) (#213)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:23:42 PM EST
    in the last year or two of a presidency, might well be a far better way to judge presidents than some of these silly rate-the-presidents polls I've seen from a group of not only biased but overrated and self-important historians.

    Not to mention that with most of 'em highly specialized within their field, they are unlikely to be all that familiar or up to date with the latest findings wrt the presidencies of those outside their narrow range of knowledge.

    On the matter of bias and cluelessness of historians, the C-SPan sponsored (iirc) poll of historians which came out not long after Bill left office had him rated with or below Nixon on the issue of honesty/ethics.  INcredible.  Almost as if they'd polled a group that was 2/3 conservative Repub historians.

    Then there are the wimpy CW-spewing tv-seeking historians like Doug Brinkley.  He showed up a few yrs back at a Clinton Presidency symposium at Rutgers and, with Bill present in the audience, proceeded to rank him as no better than mediocre.

    I kinda liked it when later on in the conference, Bill got a chance at the mike to respond, and did so with gusto, with Brinkley having to sit on stage and take the incoming from an obviously ticked off Bill.

    [ Parent ]

    Breaking News? The stock market? (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:03:53 PM EST
    Wow. No often that Brian Williams breaks into the Ellen show to tell us things suck! Oh yeah, and there's dangerous weather out there too . . .

    And oil prices rise almost 10 dollars per (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:32:10 PM EST
    Check the gasoline price next Wed. because of that artificially created spike. That's the scary aspect for our economy

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, they did oil prices, unemployment and (none / 0) (#114)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:37:33 PM EST
    the stock market all in one fell swoop. I was expecting political news or a severe weather report when they broke in. Not the close of market and all the other factors.

    I don't drive, but I do keep my eye on gas/diesel prices.

    [ Parent ]

    Just wrote about this (none / 0) (#206)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:21:14 PM EST
    I posted an item about the big oil and gasoline price run-ups just a little while ago on my site, The Cost of Energy:

    http://www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/2008/06/06/the-mainstreams-creeping-belated-awareness-of-peak -oil/

    Note to the powers that be: If this is considered an unacceptable plug for my work/site then PLEASE accept my sincere apology and delete this comment.

    [ Parent ]

    The Supreme Court (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by abiodun on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:06:59 PM EST
    I have always believed that the US SC is the best place to have HRC provided we can get a Dem president to appoint her. We progressives need a reliable, constant and unwavering voice there.

    That is one of the places where your decisions cannot be appealed, and she can use her intellectual capacity, her familiarity w/progressive and gender issues, and her tenacity to convince other justices there. This will be akin to T.Marshall and how he was able to move the Court on civil rights issues, or Ginsburg on gender issues.
    Moreover, it is a shame that a country where women make up 53% of the population only has one on the SC.

    I still don't see it (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by cmugirl on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:13:56 PM EST
    Since she's never been a judge, she has no body of opinions to judge her on (her political stances, of course would be fair game), but they are two different beasts.  I know it's not a requirement to have been a judge before, but I just don't see it happening.

    And for the person who opined that she would be great as HHS Secretary - I suppose, so, in theory - she would make an excellent cabinet secretary in any position, but HHS gets her lost.  Can anyone (without looking it up) tell me who is the current HHS secretary and who was the one before that?

    [ Parent ]

    Consider this (none / 0) (#220)
    by JayHub on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:28:12 PM EST
    Supreme Court judges have often been people with practical, real world experience, not just prior judicial experience. Earl Warren is a classic example, he had been Governor of California. William O. Douglas had been head of the SEC. They were lawyers, but people with real world experience. There are lots of other examples.

    Laurence Tribe, the Harvard Law scholar, who is advising Obama, says he's Senator Obama's looking "for people of broad experience, people whose deepest values and whose empathy with others makes them wise human beings as well as expert lawyers."

    [ Parent ]

    Not a chance (none / 0) (#117)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:38:41 PM EST
    Can you imagine the outcry if Clinton were nominated to the SC? Can you imagine Congress approving the nomination? I'm not saying she wouldn't be good, but she isn't especially qualified to argue law at that level, she once failed a bar exam (I know this happens a lot, but it would be used against her), and it would be regarded with hostility by the media, the right, and many Obama supporter's who will never get over the idea that Clinton is a race-baiting witch.

    [ Parent ]
    Jack Cafferty is now reporting (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by bjorn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:13:12 PM EST
    Obama insiders think Bill Clinton is to "toxic" to be a high profile surrogate for Obama.

    This is so STUPID!!!  Supposedly the Obama camp is leak free, except when it comes to the Clintons, then they are happy to leak info on how horrible they both are....

    This drives me crazy.  I want to be excited about Obama, and when I hear these stories from the people "around him" it makes me think the must be Donna Brazile clones.

    I wouldn't listen (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by CST on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:15:05 PM EST
    Given the fact that Obama said they wouldn't be talking to the press about this uuntil they decided the V.P. - I really wouldn't hang too much clout on what an unnamed "insider" said about Bill.

    [ Parent ]
    Or perhaps Bill isn't available and this is cover (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:19:34 PM EST
    something about what he said in SD . . . . heh.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll bet he brought in more voters than any other (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Teresa on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:17:28 PM EST
    supporter campaigning for either side. Ask the people in Ohio, TX, PA, SD, etc. The media just wants to bash Bill and there is always an available basher.

    [ Parent ]
    I think that's fine (none / 0) (#133)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:47:30 PM EST
    I would like to see them give Bill Clinton a break from being a champion for Obama. He doesn't owe him anything, and certainly not if Obama doesn't give a lengthy speech on how his own dirty politics made him say what he did about Bill Clinton. Publicly admitting that he was wrong to do what he did would go a long way in improving his credibility.

    "Does he share your values" numbers are going down for Obama, and this has a lot to do with it.

    [ Parent ]

    As I said in another thread the other day... (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by cmugirl on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:19:43 PM EST
    BC should smile sweetly when anyone asks and politely tell them to F**k off.  But seeing as he is a southerner, he'll probably say something like, "Well, bless your heart, I don't think so."

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for the lol!~ (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:22:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Even Obama himself can't control... (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:20:53 PM EST
    ...the deranged Clinton haters in his own camp. This totally contradicts everything that the candidate has been saying lately. LOL. Or maybe I'm not being cynical enough. Obama says the nice things about Bill while his surrogates reassure the haters that Obama is just kidding.

    [ Parent ]
    Was just watching that, too. (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by shannon on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:17:08 PM EST
    Cafferty's blogs are always full of Clinton haters, but this one was particularly disgraceful. The last comment certainly emphasized the "elitist" perspective of many Obama supporters: that Bill should only campaign in those states that are the new Mississippi's - W. VA, Kentucky, PA, not the ones that are "enlightened".

    Unity with this crowd?

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, well Obama might want to have a little (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:20:36 PM EST
    chat with Al Gore about how well distancing himself from Bill Clinton worked out for him...

    [ Parent ]
    No loyalty (none / 0) (#138)
    by catfish on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:48:22 PM EST
    Republicans follow each other off a cliff, but Democrats sure do stab each other in the back.

    [ Parent ]
    Look (none / 0) (#179)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:05:36 PM EST
    Obama has the biggest loser contention in the Democratic party supporting him.. Daschle, Kerry, et al know how to do nothing but lose elections. The party is so stupid that they're going to lose a winnable election. The more these losers cling to Carter the more likely they are to lose in Nov even to John McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    thinking of changing my tag (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:24:34 PM EST
    to HarrietC

    going to have to work (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:25:31 PM EST
    on the Patty and Selma cigarette voice though.

    [ Parent ]
    HarrietC (none / 0) (#185)
    by Gambit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:08:51 PM EST
    Don't do it Cap! Those who don't vote for Obama have my respect, but McCain defectors are traitors to the future of America period.

    [ Parent ]
    dont worry (none / 0) (#187)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:11:13 PM EST
    I think its actually just Harvey Firestein having some fun with us.

    [ Parent ]
    I would like to see John Edwards (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by zyx on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:27:28 PM EST
    considered for the Supreme Court.

    THAT would make the conservatives in this country really have conniptions.

    And rightly so.  The thought gives me warm fuzzies.

    Another good choice (none / 0) (#178)
    by JayHub on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:05:14 PM EST
    I agree. He fits the type of person Obama said he would appoint last year. "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

    Hillary fits too.

    [ Parent ]

    Not only does Edwards not have any (none / 0) (#211)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:23:32 PM EST
    judicial experience, he has little constitutional law experience - he would be terrible on the Court.

    Edwards also is not a good fit for Attorney General; he needs to be working in an area that speaks to the causes he believes in - he would be a much better fit at HHS or the Dept. of Labor.

    [ Parent ]

    Someone fairly high profile over at (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:28:30 PM EST
    orange is trying to put the Clinton and all of her associates are evil genie back in the bottle that he helped uncork in the first place.  I have to admit that it is giving me a bit of satisfaction to watch him try to undo the dammage he has done.

    It is really important to remember that when you throw gasoline on a fire repeatedly and stoke it with all kinds of kindling, the fire is going to be difficult to put out.  People really should think before they do this sort of thing whether or not they will find it useful to have anything salvagable left in the ashes.

    Kid Oakland? (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by eleanora on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:37:54 PM EST
    Just guessing, as I can't bring myself to even click on that link anymore. DK, TPM, Carpetbagger, and so many others that kept me sane after 2004 now are just as poisonous as Red State.

    [ Parent ]
    Nope. Not KO. n/t (none / 0) (#134)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:47:35 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Let me know (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:51:59 PM EST
    if thereisnospoon ever posts something like that.  I'll actually resurrect my long-dormant account and respond to him.

    Not that I'll be holding my breath, or anything.  Blue isn't my color.

    [ Parent ]

    Bingo. (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:54:28 PM EST
    He's trying to promote his radio show featuring an evil Clinton supporter and it isn't going that well.

    [ Parent ]
    OMG (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:00:36 PM EST
    TINS thinks he can resurrect his reputation with the Clintonistas?  What is in that Kool-Aid?

    OK, this evening I go over there to see.  I'll only check out DKos from home where I have AdBlock.

    [ Parent ]

    Okay - I don't think he is trying to do (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:28:25 PM EST
    that.  What he is trying to do is self-promotion of his radio show which will feature Joe Wilson tonight - problem is that he's so sullied the Clintons and everyone associated with them that the large majority of commenters are criticizing him for not wanting to take Wilson to the woodshed on his show and/or declaring their eternal allegiance to the cause of erradicating/excluding people like Wilson from the Democratic Party - which was TINS idea in the first place - he's the one who has led the charge to destroy the Clinton wing of the party at all costs - even if it meant destroying the party.  Now he's trying to walk it back asking coyly if people really believed that he wouldn't be supporting Clinton right now had she been the winner.  It is hilarious - in a sick and twisted sort of way.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm looking fearfully outside (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by eleanora on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:14:35 PM EST
    expecting a pig fly to past my window any minute.

    [ Parent ]
    Pigs... (none / 0) (#204)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:20:32 PM EST
    ...already fly.

    http://tinyurl.com/3pyxa9

    [ Parent ]

    anglachel (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:32:40 PM EST
    joins TL in boycotting that which shall not be named:

    This post may get me kicked out of the PB 2.0 community, but I really don't give a damn.

    Link

    and tries to get a handle on the spiraling hatred and vemon:

    This blog is where I post my opinions about stuff, mostly political stuff. You want to pontificate? Blog sites like this are free. Get one and knock yourself out, just like I'm doing. I'm not really interested in "building community" as much as I am in making people think. As I said in the past, don't assume I agree with you because I said something you wanted to hear, and likewise don't assume we have nothing in common because I don't say what you want to hear. We disagree today, but may have a lot to discuss tomorrow.

    **

    it is sort of encouraging to see people like this one and the ones that run this blog try to keep the lid on.
    its going to get harder and harder.
    IMO.

    Eff Teh Narrative! (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:35:03 PM EST
    I went over to the Orange, just to see what there was to see.  Obama got credit for speechifying against how the GOP buried the Global Warming bill in the Senate and danced on its grave.  "Leadership!" they cried.  Eh, whatever.

    Then I cruised through this and that diary until I got to Cenk Ugyur's diary.  Hillary and Bill have divided the party!  Obama should put them to work undoing all the damage they have done!  It's a just penance for their sin!  Thus sayeth Teh Narrative

    Granted, I don't keep up on who is writing what over there - but doesn't anyone stop and think anymore?  Just Bill?  Just Hillary?  All by their lonesome selves?  Aren't there other Dem "leaders" who should talking Unity?  Pelosi? Reid? Dean? Brazile?  (I heard that snickering!)

    Is this the Democratic Party?  Or is it just a bunch of spineless pols who can do nothing on their own or do nothing except further their own selfish goals?

    Unity is just a word unless someone, somewhere gives us some principle to Unite around.  Saving someone's political bacon is not enough for me.  If you are nothing more than a self serving pol, then you can save your own bacon.  If I ask what you've done for me lately and the answer is the blatant deflections "B-b-but the WAR!  SCOTUS! The REPUBLICANS!" - forget it.  Talk to me when you have a real track record.  Impeachment.  Forcing Bush to veto a Global Warming bill.   Forcing even a token troop withdrawal.

    Good thing the Dems have Hillary to blame for EVERYTHING, or they'd have to own up to their own failures.  Hillary Clinton is going to become the Roe v. Wade of the Democrats.  Too dang useful to get rid of, even if they want to.

    This is why (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:42:47 PM EST
    I don't want her to be his running mate.  She'd just continue to be a scapegoat for the media and the Blogger Boyz.

    Obama needs to fix this himself.  If he were truly secure about his positions, his qualifications and his mandate to run for President, he wouldn't have to resort to tearing down the Clintons.  For a so-called Unity candidate, Obama is remarkably negative.  

    [ Parent ]

    Funny, Obama didn't even show up for the vote (none / 0) (#118)
    by ineedalife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:39:54 PM EST
    He, McCain, and Clinton all have the same position on the bill. All missed the vote. All wrote letters condemning the filibuster but none could be bothered to actually vote to end it.

    So, where is the leadership? Why does anybody think anything will change in an Obama administration?

    [ Parent ]

    But - he gave a Speech! (none / 0) (#156)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:56:19 PM EST
    That's leadership!

    (And if you've heard me complain about Senator Voinovich already, I apologize.  But Voinovich is another one who makes bold speeches calling out the Bush administration and votes to support the very thing he speaks out against.  It takes more than words.)

    [ Parent ]

    A great position for Hillary Clinton... (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by OrangeFur on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:35:43 PM EST
    ... is senator from New York.

    The only role in someone else's administration that would be suitable would be a Cheneyesque VP role or the kind of role she had when Bill Clinton was president.

    Any other cabinet position is a big step down in terms of independence and influence.

    She's much more powerful now than she was two years ago; with Ted Kennedy sick, she will be the most important senator in the next Senate. Obama will either be president or back in the Senate, but diminished by losing.

    This is the perfect position for Hillary... (none / 0) (#125)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:43:12 PM EST
    PRESIDENT AND COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF HILLARY CLINTON!!

    GO HILLARY!!!!!!!

    [ Parent ]

    Well, of course. (none / 0) (#207)
    by OrangeFur on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:21:45 PM EST
    If she ever decides to go for it again, I'm with her from the announcement to the inauguration.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (none / 0) (#140)
    by ineedalife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:49:12 PM EST
    The same fate will happen that awaited the moderate GOP pols that took cabinet positions in the Bush administration. They had their careers ruined by Bush's ideological minions and handlers they were forced to accept.

    [ Parent ]
    Million Woman March in Denver? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by GeekLove08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:45:55 PM EST
    If you are tired of the sexism and misogyny in American politics, let's start organizing to meet in Denver.

    do I have to be a woman (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:47:46 PM EST
    or can I just feel like one?

    [ Parent ]
    Men invited to march as well (none / 0) (#147)
    by GeekLove08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:51:42 PM EST
    The name is tentative.  May change to be more inclusive.  Maybe M.A.M.E.
    Millions Against Misogyny in Elections (it could cover those protesting in Denver, locally, and the "invisible" who are physically unable to protest.)

    [ Parent ]
    MAME! (none / 0) (#152)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:53:47 PM EST
    how gay.  I could always try impersonating my new hero Harriet but I think my voice is to high.

    [ Parent ]
    I personally love (none / 0) (#160)
    by GeekLove08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:57:00 PM EST
    Rita

    [ Parent ]
    sweet (none / 0) (#166)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:00:12 PM EST
    mee too

    [ Parent ]
    Daily Howler today (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:49:28 PM EST
    Somerby has a great section today about the big name liberals' silence when Hillary has been  fighting off sexist press attacks all these years.

    Must reading for Hillary faithful.

    You can't make this stuff up (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:58:59 PM EST
    No that Obama is the presumptive nominee, his cheerleaders are willing to admit some doubt.

    ...my suppressed anxieties about him are bubbling to the surface. That is: I fear that he will lose to John McCain ... and I wonder, if he does win, whether he can be nearly as good a president as some of us have had the audacity to hope.

    Well, I can relieve his anxiety and answer his questions:  Probably and NO

    delude deny attack (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:06:27 PM EST
    rinse
    repeat

    [ Parent ]
    How dare (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by chrisvee on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:28:00 PM EST
    that evil woman spend even 30 seconds enjoying the undeserved praise of her throng?  Doesn't she know that she's supposed to declare herself unworthy and slink away in shame for having continue a race that was pretty much a dead heat?? Next you'll be telling us that women were fainting and had to be removed from the event!

    [ Parent ]
    *sigh* (none / 0) (#170)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:00:57 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    LOL (none / 0) (#182)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:07:35 PM EST
    His honest assessment is full of lies ;-).  One example, Hillary DOES INDEED poll ahead of him, which is one reason he had to get her out of the race.

    I don't have the energy to pursue the others.

    [ Parent ]

    no quarter (none / 0) (#186)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:09:05 PM EST
    According to an astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson, if the election were held today Hillary beats McCain and Obama loses to McCain. Period.

    Vote By Numbers

        This conclusion comes not from wishful thinking but from a new method of analysis on the statistics of polls that has been accepted for publication in the journal Mathematical and Computer Modeling. The authors, J. Richard Gott III, a professor at Princeton, and Wes Colley, a researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, are not political scientists. They are astrophysicists. And one of the tasks of scientists is to clarify the apparent complexity of the universe by using the language of mathematics.

    Essentially the method is taking into account the median results of the polls a few weeks before an election. Using this method, Gott and Colley were able to pick the correct result in 49 of 50 states in 2004.

        Here's what they discovered: in swing states, the median result of all the polls conducted in the weeks prior to an election is an especially effective predictor of which candidate will win that election -- even in states where the polls consistently fall within the margin of error.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't (none / 0) (#192)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:13:33 PM EST
    think that she necessarily wants him to lose so much as believes he will lose. And the fact that he is very likely to lose to McCain in Nov. has been obvious to all political junkies for quite a while now.

    [ Parent ]
    from left field (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:17:37 PM EST
    but it funny and its friday.  just got this had to share:

    It was necessary to keep a good supply of cannon balls near the cannon on old war ships. But how to prevent them from rolling about the deck was the problem.
    The best storage method devised was to stack them as a square based pyramid, with one ball on top, resting on four, resting on nine, which rested on sixteen.
    Thus, a supply of 30 cannon balls could be stacked in a small area right next to the cannon. There was only one problem -- how to prevent the bottom layer from sliding/rolling from under the others. The solution was a metal plate with 16 round indentations, called a Monkey. But if this plate were made of iron, the iron balls would quickly rust to it. The solution to the rusting problem was to make Brass Monkeys.
    Few landlubbers realize that brass contracts much more and much faster than iron when chilled. Consequently, when the temperature dropped too far, the brass indentations would shrink so much that the iron cannon balls would come right off the monkey.
    Thus, it was quite literally, cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey. And all this time, you thought that was a vulgar expression, didn't you?

    I am so embarrased (none / 0) (#209)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:22:15 PM EST
    snopes - status = FALSE
    I grovel in mortification.


    [ Parent ]
    Yahoo article on race and young voters (4.20 / 5) (#18)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:51:12 PM EST
    Here

    Perhaps I'm being oversensitive, but it seems as if this article is saying that young people are not voting based on race, but everybody older whe opposes Obama is. I believe that most (not all) of the people who don't support Obama simply do not believe that he would be a good President. Older people especially tend to respect experience and value it over charisma. The implication in this article is that younger people aren't necessarily supporting Obama becasue of race, but it is a factor, but older people consider race the dominant issue. They even quote a woman who says she simply won't vote for a black man for President.

    I really resent the implication that since I oppose Obama I must be a racist, or even that white people in general aren't voting for him becasue of race. Isn't it possible that the opposite is happening - race is influencing people who support Obama but not other people? I just don't think that race is that important in this day and age. Maybe to some people, in some places, but overall I think that more people voted for Obama because he is black than voted against him because he is black. Poll numbers back me up.

    I can list a do