home

Friday Afternoon Open Thread

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    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 / 0) (#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
    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 / 0) (#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
    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

    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!

    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
    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

    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

    Yahoo article on race and young voters (5.00 / 3) (#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 dozen reasons I don't support Obama, none of them having anything to do with his race. I can also list ways that race has benefitted him, as well as ways it has made his race more of a challenge. I guess it bothers me that race has become such an issue in this campaign, and I believe that Obama's campaign has made it an issue. I hate that the Clinton's were tarred as racists. It was sleazy, Rovian. I was reading about the infamous race memo the other day, and I actually saw comments by Obmaa spokespeople suggesting that the memo was valid, even as his campaign officially denounced it. That memo set set the tone for the campaign. It was effective. Obama supporter's still cite Bill Clinton's "racist" attacks in NC and Hillary's "racist" reference to Johnson pasing the Civil Rights Act as the deciding factors in their supporting Obama. Since then, any reference to race by a Clinton supporter has been spun as race-baiting, even if it was merely stating that white voters weren't sold on Obama. Axelrods astroturfers had a lot to do with this. They flooded the web with every campaign meme (did you notice how the ideas started at a lot of locations simultaneously, instead of gradually spreading through the web like normal ideas?). It still annoys me that people say that Obama's campaign never said anything nasty about Clinton, when they did so repeatedly.

    I agree with you that you have other reasons (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:19:50 PM EST
    But even a number of people in the article said that race is an important bonus. I don't think it was simply "vote for Obama because he is black". If he had been a different person, less charismatic, not as well educated, less Progressive, I don't think his being black would have helped. But I also think that people wanted to show that America is not the stodgy, bigoted nation we are reputed to be and Obama met a lot of objective qualifications and also accomplished that goal. Too many people have said this for me not to beleive it.

    Nonetheless, thank you for expressing your views so clearly. I think I understand better how so many young people could have been swayed by Obama's message. I've been looking at it as a rock star effect, and there is much more to it.

    Parent

    I agree, except with point #3.. (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by rjarnold on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:22:34 PM EST
    If you take a close look at him, I think he is actually less of an idealist than the other candidates, he just comes across as one.

    And I'm also a young voter, and I wanted to support him when the primaries started, simply because he seemed like a cool, authentic guy. And he also played tennis and basketball which are my two favorite sports. But then I found out more about him and thought Edwards and Clinton would actually make better Presidents, but I was still looking for a reason to support him. It didn't really matter since I live in Florida.  

    Parent

    Your vote will matter in Florida (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:35:11 PM EST
    Obama is going to need every vote he can get. I doubt that he will win, anyway, but don't assume that your vote doesn't matter. You're not one of the lucky ones who can vote their ideals without fear of repercussions (like I am, thank the powers). Sorry.

    Parent
    I meant that it didn't matter because of (none / 0) (#130)
    by rjarnold on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:46:05 PM EST
    that whole FL/MI situation. I know that my vote matters in the GE, so I am 98% sure that I'll vote for Obama.

    Parent
    Hee! (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:22:37 PM EST
    I think everyone should support who they wish to support, but...you think Obama is idealistic?

    The guy who claims delegates from a state where he deliberately removed his name from the ballot?

    The guy who pretends he doesn't take money from lobbyists, when he does take bundled money from their firms and spouses?

    The guy who runs misleading ads about not taking money from oil companies?

    The guy who has a different position every day on Iran and Jerusalem?

    I wonder where your factual basis for thinking Obama is idealistic comes from?

    I think HRC is idealistic because she continuously fights for traditional Democratic Party ideals. She tried for UHC in 1992, she got S-CHiP passed despite all the pushback, she and Patty Murray spent a year and a half getting RU-486 sold over the counter despite massive obstructionism from Bush and Senate Republicans...etc. etc. etc.

    Parent

    I understand (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by cmugirl on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:40:30 PM EST
    and respect your opinion, especially where you don't like being told you don't have the experience but you think you could do a job (trust me - I'm looking for a job as we speak).

    In my opinion, at least (and many others), we have had a president for the last 8 years who did not have the requisite experience and knowledge to do the job (and he WAS much older).  We do not want another person who is going to take a week to figure out how to use the phone and where things are, nor months to really learn how things work from 1600 Pennsylvania.  THIS is where experience comes into play - how to get things done.  We are facing such terrible crises on so many fronts (including the fact that the Dow has dropped like crazy today).

    And, according to every poll ever taken on the subject, most people don't see the partisanship in DC as a pressing problem.  Frankly, after the last 8 years, I personally don't want someone who is so in love with Republicans, that he seems to want to marry them.  I want someone to come in who can work with them, but, with the help of a large majority of Dems in Congress, basically will ram through actual progressive measures.  I don't want Obama to sit around a campfire and smoke the peace pipe.  I want to get stuff DONE.

    Parent

    Comparisons of experience (none / 0) (#157)
    by Artoo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:56:26 PM EST
    Bush has proved himself both stubborn and incompetent. Even if Obama is inexperienced (I don't agree), comparing him to Bush in this regard is a bit much.

    Parent
    My brother is 21 (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by liminal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:53:59 PM EST
    - and he's where you are on the "fixing Washington" schtick that has been such a big part of Obama's appeal to the yoots of 'Merica. We had plenty of conversations like this one:

    Me: "We don't need more bipartisanship.  We aren't where we are because the Democrats won't compromise!  We are where we are thanks to an excess of Republican partisanship."

    He: "I know!  I just still believe that he can change the culture of Washington."

    Me: "How?!?!"

    He: "I don't know; I just still think that!"

    Sometimes I'd point out that Romneybot was running against Washington, too.  I think that, essentially, the whole "running against the culture of Washington" is a very effective campaign slogan that cannot deliver the changes promised, and older voters have (collective breath), heard this kinda thing before, from both sides of the aisle.  It's meaningless verbiage.  I do think my brother (and many Obama supporters) are sincere.  I also think they're wrong.

    Parent

    that seems like someone who was brainwashed (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by rjarnold on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:01:02 PM EST
    he's just repeating slogans and doesn't know what they mean.

    Parent
    In my experience (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:32:29 PM EST
    (little joke) inexperienced people who think they can do a job as well as someone who has experience are deluding themselves.  I certainly don't say that every experienced person is better than every inexperienced person, but realistically, most people get better at a task as they do it more often.  And frankly, my sympathy is limited, considering that I (and the vast majority of the rest of the experienced workers) had to pay my dues to get where I am.  I don't see why those who are currently inexperienced ought to be allowed to line-jump.

    Parent
    Bravo (none / 0) (#50)
    by Gambit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:11:45 PM EST
    Yeah the whole unqualified/inexperience think ticks off the youth. (me) and please no one has said most of clinton's supporters are racist. that's ridiculous on its face. it's not that young people hate hillary it's just we don't want the drama (much of it undeserved for clinton largely because of her husband)

    Parent
    Ok (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by cmugirl on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:17:29 PM EST
    Let's buy your argument for a moment. (For the record, I'm a Gen-Xer [39], so not an "old lady" who supports Hillary).

    You stated you were young and that you don't like hearing that he's unqualified.  Why does it bother you that someone who IS more experienced and qualified points that out to the country?  And with your age and obvious inexperience (since by default, you CAN'T have a great deal of experience), would you feel that you are qualified to become CEO of General Motors in November?  It's kind of the same thing.  Had he stayed in the Senate and actually developed more of a resume, more people might be apt to take him a little more seriously.

    Parent

    I suspect they would... (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:24:34 PM EST
    Think they were more qualified to be CEO of General Motors, I mean. I barely remember being 25, but I remember thinking that all of these older people had it wrong and that I could do a better job if I only had a shot. Experience was not relevant. I was fresh, new, and recently educated, and I thought I knew it all. Then I remember being just a bit older and being extremely annoyed to run into 25 year olds who felt the same way I had - but I was the old fogey holding back their fresh new ideas.  

    Parent
    I wish all 25 year olds had great paying jobs.... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:56:37 PM EST
    ....cause that would mean that maybe by next year I could stop paying my 24 year olds rent every month. And her car insurance. At least she finally got health insurance this year.

    Parent
    You guys pushed nominating someone... (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by cosbo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:35:39 PM EST
    with little or no experience, with shady radical connections, who will be panned as an elite liberal professor who connects more with the likes of Wright, Ayers & the rest than with the working folks who make up the base of party. You all pushed him on us in time when things are desperate & dangerous, not just for us here in this country, but around the world. Instead of giving the American people & the rest of the world a candidate they can  all rally around, win, and start fixing the world, you made sure the opposite will likely come about. You gambled and we're the ones who will end up paying.

    Parent
    You may be right (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by cmugirl on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:47:55 PM EST
    But my guess is, if he gets elected, the only people that will be elevated are his Wall Street and K Street backers - he's a politician, after all.  You will all be forgotten as soon as he can throw you too under the bus.

    Parent
    And if he (none / 0) (#177)
    by LoisInCo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:05:12 PM EST
    isn't, then oh well you don't really lose much right?

    Parent
    Uh (none / 0) (#223)
    by zyx on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:32:10 PM EST
    You make me think of the movie "Being There".

    It will make you FEEL good, just if he's elected, and you just BELIEVE it will turn out well.

    That's just too "hopey", kid.

    "then the question is whether or not he'll be a good POTUS, and I think he will."

    Can you tell me what the first part of that question means?  Meanwhile, my head just exploded, and I will clean up my monitor and my room.

    Parent

    Well I hope your gamble pays off... (none / 0) (#180)
    by cosbo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:06:09 PM EST
    for the rest of the world, for the people who are suffering, who are going homeless in this economy, who are scared to death of what's coming tomorrow.

    But I doubt it. I'm in NY and most democrats around me do not believe he can win the GE. They have absolutely no confidence in him or his ability to be their leader, especially with his radical past connections and his emerging polarization.

    Parent

    If you think ageism is bad now (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:49:21 PM EST
    ...just wait until you're 50 and get laid off because you earn too much money and some 25 year old will work for half of what you're paid - and nobody wants to hire you because you are going to raise their health insurance costs and they think you don't know as much as the 25 year olds on the market.

    Nearly everybody over 45 worries on some level about this. You don't grow out of this problem - you grow into it. And god forbid that you should lose your job at 55 or 60.  Nobody hires anybody that old in a tech job. We're dinosaurs, even though our skills are solid and we've been doing the work for longer than you've been alive.

    Parent

    Obama's no kid..... (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:50:03 PM EST
    ...the reason he lacks inexperience in not because of his youth, its because of his resume.

    Parent
    Precisely (5.00 / 2) (#225)
    by Landulph on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:56:59 PM EST
    I think the whole "experience" debate is kind of framing the issue in the wrong way. For me, the big qualm isn't Obama's lack of experience, in terms of number of years in public office; it's his lack of ACCOMPLISHMENTS. I think, Dalton, this is where some of the confusion comes from; you're conflating Obama's age ("youth") with his [relatively meagre] accomplishments ("experience"). The guy's 47 years old; he's NOT that young, and it's certainly not comparable to getting your first job out of college at 22 or 23 or whatever.

    Strictly speaking, Obama is middle-aged; he's actually a year OLDER than Bill Clinton when he ran for President in 1992. By that time, BC had spent 12 years as Governor of Arkansas, and was, by most estimates, one of the very best in the state's history, having ramrodded through a number of important reforms (check out the Lyons/Conason book "The Hunting of the President"), and was hailed by some as the man who brough his state into the 20th century. When Al Gore first ran in 1988, he was only 39, but had spent 8 years in the House and (like Obama) 4 in the Senate; even so, he was respected for his expertise on matters ranging from toxic waste disposal to arms control, and had long been regarded as "one to watch." Similarly, Johns Kerry and Edwards had both produced significant achievements by the end of their first 4 years (I'm pretty sure Kerry was already investigating CIA/contra drug smuggling at that point). JFK was 43 when elected, but had spent 6 years in the House and 8 in the Senate--you get the idea.

    Obama, by contrast, essentially did nothing for his first 7 years in the Ill state senate, and it wasn't until the D. floor leader decided to "make me a Senator" (as he told a reporter) that Obama was given a variety of bills that had been formulated by other legislators, so he could get the credit and inflate his resume in preparation for a Senate run. Before then, he was essentially a backbench hack, in which respect, he wasn't really that different from large portions of Congress (how many of us had heard of soon-to-be-ex-Senator Larry Craig before he bathroom-sexed himself into Laughinstockland?), but its pretty thin gruel for a future commander-in-chief. For a 47 year old guy who wants to be POTUS, he just hasn't DONE all that much under his own steam.

    Parent

    Ageism (none / 0) (#93)
    by Gambit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:27:29 PM EST
    I really do understand where you are coming from, but i disagree. clinton would be a great president but that doesn't mean someone with 20 years less experience wouldn't be. Look at Chelsea for goodness sake. I'd take take her for half the warmongering "elder statesmen" in the house or senate right now!

    Parent
    But this isn't the (none / 0) (#131)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:46:27 PM EST
    same as your first job out of college?  This is really one of the most important positions in the world and I don't understand how people can take it that lightly?  No one person can have enough experience to prepare them for POTUS.  The lack of  sufficient experience to be prepared for the job is the real risk.    

    I recognize you are very fair and rational in the discussions here, so please don't take think this is directed at you, rather what you are describing to be the case.  

    Parent

    I must... (none / 0) (#162)
    by AX10 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:57:51 PM EST
    be one of the only young people who highly
    value experience.  On the other hand, I could never stand people my own age, so I have little in common with them.  I was always mature for my respective age.

    Parent
    Don't want the drama? (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by ineedalife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:30:40 PM EST
    Gawd, this is gong to be a really boring country 20-30 years from now. In most country, a presidential affair is yawnsville. If youth can't handle this, what can they handle?

    Here's a clue. There will be drama in an Obama administration. Unless he truly is an alien, he, and all his cronies, are afflicted with human nature. Crap will happen.

    Parent

    you don't want the drama? (none / 0) (#208)
    by DFLer on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:22:01 PM EST
    but are willing to reap the rewards?

    Parent
    Experience (none / 0) (#172)
    by chrisvee on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:02:04 PM EST
    As a hiring manager, there are positions where I'm looking for requisite skills and positions where I'm looking for skills plus demonstrable experience.  I've always found that the best teams are made up of  people with a mix of experience, ideas, and backgrounds.

    However, we're talking about the POTUS, arguably one of the most powerful positions in the world. Experience is key, especially after 8 years of Bush Administration buffonery.

    Parent

    A great article (none / 0) (#176)
    by CST on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:04:54 PM EST
    On this is found here

    I totally agree with everything you posted so far.

    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 (5.00 / 2) (#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 / 0) (#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

    Very disappointed yesterday to hear (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:04:10 PM EST
    Four FL superdelegates jumped from Clinton to Obama.  Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was included in the four.

    For the strength of character she displays, it is hard to understand what the underlying force is that is causing these people to jump off their own principles for this incapable candidate.


    Personally, I think Debbie has lost it...since (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:33:55 PM EST
    she is part of FLA representation, I would not have jumped ship that quickly....tells me that she doesn't care much about FLA, just her own political position.

    Parent
    Ummmm (2.00 / 0) (#38)
    by CST on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:05:07 PM EST
    Maybe it's the fact that Clinton herself is jumping...

    Parent
    So? (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:33:40 PM EST
    They don't need to publicize what they are doing prior to the convention.  Hundreds haven't.


    Parent
    Jumping or being pushed? (none / 0) (#201)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:19:43 PM EST
    Is this is how Unity happens, from the top down?

    [pondering the implications]

    Parent

    The Supreme Court (5.00 / 0) (#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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    sher's comment (3.66 / 3) (#226)
    by sher on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:54:08 PM EST
    I have been "lurking" on this site for months. I signed up yesterday because I wanted to thank BTD for one of his posts that set forth his reasons for tepidly supporting Obama's candidacy.  I had  been curious.  BTW, there are comments that I have given "5" rankings and I have given ""1" ratings only to comments that have personal insults.  I disagree with many  of the opinions on this site but value Jeralyn's criminal justice work and yet I have not given every comment a "1".

    I don't think personal attacks on either Obama or Clinton are helpful.  I am from the invisible demographic----a middle-aged AA woman.  Voted for WJC first term and did not vote for him second term.  I understand how many of the people on this site feel and I am not trying to add insult to injury.  I have only troll rated if I felt the comment was beyond the pale not if I disagree.  

    Let's try (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by abiodun on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:11:18 PM EST
    Aquablue, Javacity...le's try to move on. I understand we need to vent, but there is no need to keep stoking the anger of other dems, progressives and feminists here.


    abiodun....this is an open thread and (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:32:09 PM EST
    anyone can post what they like...it is going to be a long time til you hear the last of what java has been posting.

    Parent
    awaiting Sher's troll rating....why ya hiding? (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:38:17 PM EST
    Right (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:36:24 PM EST
    because I wouldn't be angry myself if those feminists weren't constantly telling me to be angry.

    I have a better idea.  How about you let all the other posters decide for ourselves when it's time to move on, assuming, of course, that it ever is.

    Parent

    Sher (1.00 / 0) (#168)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:00:41 PM EST
    Joined the site today just to go through rating people with troll level ratings and not brave enough to post an opinion.

    Obama trolls do so much damage to their man.


    Why not? (none / 0) (#2)
    by cmugirl on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:37:53 PM EST
    What kind of law do you practice? I thought it was criminal law....

    I represent evil corporations (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:39:27 PM EST
    in commercial litigation.

    Parent
    Ah (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by cmugirl on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:43:11 PM EST
    Well, it's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it!  :)

    Parent
    Court Appointees (none / 0) (#7)
    by Gambit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:44:06 PM EST
    I heard last night that the next prez could end up easily replacing as many as about HALF the supreme court! Is that true? OMG!

    Parent
    You think? (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by cmugirl on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:52:51 PM EST
    Thomas isn't that old, as I recall, but we could all only hope...

    Parent
    Ginsburg (none / 0) (#33)
    by Gambit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:02:06 PM EST
    is he left wing or right? (i'm only 24 yrs old)

    Parent
    Ruth Bader Ginsberg (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by eleanora on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:09:15 PM EST
    is a very left wing Clinton appointee. She and Stevens are both wanting to retire for their health, but are waiting for a Dem president before doing so. God bless them both.

    Parent
    *SHE* (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:10:34 PM EST
    is left wing.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    Parent
    And (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:22:36 PM EST
    may I add, one of only two women to ever serve on the Supreme Court in the 200+ year history of this country, and the only one currently on the Court.

    Parent
    Gambit....I know many are incredulous that (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:22:50 PM EST
    you didn't know Ginsberg was a she, but we learn by asking questions.  There are plenty of knowledgeable people on here that are more than willing to help you learn....it's great that you are showing an interest in all things political.

    Parent
    Yow (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by Emma on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:23:05 PM EST
    Yeah the whole unqualified/inexperience think ticks off the youth. (me)

    I can see why it would.  Me and Mr. Justice Ruth Ginsburg.

    Parent

    left wing, and he's a she :) (none / 0) (#40)
    by NJDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:06:51 PM EST
    Uhhhhhhhhh (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:08:34 PM EST
    Ginsberg is a she. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Don in Seattle on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:10:41 PM EST
    Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a Clinton appointee, is a centrist as far as I'm concerned, but is considered one of the two most liberal members of the current Supreme Court.

    Parent
    Scalia (none / 0) (#58)
    by Gambit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:17:05 PM EST
    i've seen scalia a few times over the past year and he seems like the petulent type that would on hang on death's door itself just to subvert progressive ideals (you know, the law)

    Parent
    Ruth Ginsberg (none / 0) (#146)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:51:36 PM EST
    There she is!

    Link

    But it's easy to get confused about gender since we've only had 2 women on the Supreme Court in the history of our nation -- and no AA women.  Ruth is Jewish, at least.

    I'm not fond of Ginsburg ever since she ruled in favor of developers on an eminent domain case in 2005. Taking land away from private citizens for developers is completely wrong and opens huge doors for corruption. It's an example where just because a Democrat appoints the judge, it doesn't mean they'll rule less outrageously.

    Parent

    Four (none / 0) (#11)
    by mattt on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:49:11 PM EST
    of the nine are over 71 years old; two more are 68 and 69.

    Parent
    Stevens (none / 0) (#73)
    by ineedalife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:21:20 PM EST
    Ford appointed him. He is 88 years old. Republicans appoint liberal justices too.

    Parent
    Although the Republican President (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:28:46 PM EST
    doesn't know he is appointing a liberal.  That comes later.

    Parent
    The Republican party changed. (none / 0) (#224)
    by liminal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:44:16 PM EST
    Not even McCain would appoint a justice like Stevens or Souter these days.  The GOP has changed.  I still consider Stevens a centrist.  It's just that the Court has moved so hard right that they drove off the shoulder and into the weeds some years ago, never looking back.  

    Parent
    and you're a Yankees fan (none / 0) (#83)
    by A little night musing on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:24:00 PM EST
    ...but we love you anyway!

    Parent
    Nooooooo (none / 0) (#91)
    by CST on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:27:22 PM EST
    Say it isn't so.... anyone but the yankees

    Parent
    Yankees fans ROCK! ;) (none / 0) (#98)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:28:54 PM EST
    I find their sense of entitlement (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:45:28 PM EST
    disturbing.

    Parent
    Rooting for the Yankees... (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Artoo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:00:46 PM EST
    To paraphrase Bill Simmons, is like rooting for the house in blackjack.

    Parent
    I find it festive ;) (none / 0) (#161)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:57:21 PM EST
    I'm a Mets fan (none / 0) (#137)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:48:01 PM EST
    but my son is a rabid Yankees fan.  He even got his picture on the front page of the NY Post some years ago when he and a friend were in line for tickets for the playoffs.  

    I don't like the American League.  To me, the DH rule is a bunch of crap.  I guess I'm always on the losing side.  =)  

    However, I am happy that I raised my son to be a baseball fan.  Baseball is just like life, only more so.  It's a beautiful game.

    Parent

    I like both teams (none / 0) (#158)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:56:33 PM EST
    but when i moved to NY, I went Yankees so I wouldn't have to go against my NL Giants  ;) Yanks are fun for the most part and have had some good times over the past 20yrs because of them. Reminds me, need to get out to the stadium soon. Gotta make the most of this last year :)

    Parent
    Nick has been there twice (none / 0) (#174)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:03:13 PM EST
    this year.  He's very sentimental about the old Yankee Stadium.

    Parent
    We've usually been before now also (none / 0) (#190)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:13:02 PM EST
    I'm just so behind with life these days!

    I'll be taking tons of pics there this summer. I'll never forget my first game there :) At one job, one guy would walk by all of our offices saying "Bleachers tonight" and we'd all actually leave on time and have a good ol' time out in the bleachers. Some of us are still in the same fantasy league 9yrs later :)

    Parent

    My heart (none / 0) (#139)
    by chrisvee on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:49:03 PM EST
    is now broken. BTD has feet of clay.

    Parent
    Some Voices (none / 0) (#14)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:49:49 PM EST
    are organizing an official boycott of MSNBC and NBC. If they collect enough names, the sponsors will listen.

    Sometimes that's true (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:37:12 PM EST
    but, it has been the force of numbers that got Imus fired, Schultz suspended, Chris Matthews having to do an on air apology, John Gibson fired.

    If they send their protests to the sponsors, they are impacting the dollars. Companies aren't going to pay big bucks to advertise during programs the public won't watch.


    Parent

    Fox News (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:07:33 PM EST
    Msnbc, cnn, usatoday, nytimes, wsj.com all have the unemployment story above the fold on their websites, some more prominently than others. Two months ago Foxnews ran the headline banner on their front page for several hours "WHAT RECESSION?" Foxnews mentions the increase in unemployment below the fold on their website in small print (in the morning it was above the fold but in small print under other less significant stories). I know McCain needs all the help he can get but those visiting Foxnews who are hard core readers are probably feeling this recession as well. I love that they are hiding from it, it only helps the left as people will log on somewhere else to read about the crappy economy and might just read a story or two with a "fair and balanced" approach from another site....

    Fox (none / 0) (#70)
    by Gambit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:20:09 PM EST
    Fox news is one step above a joke and Sean Hannity is the biggest fascist tool on there.

    Parent
    FOX no longer has a monopoly (none / 0) (#197)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:16:31 PM EST
    on "jokes" and "fascist tools".  I guess the market for ersatz journalism is growing.  Jeff Gannon could probably get a job on a major network now.

    Parent
    You know (none / 0) (#215)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:26:21 PM EST
    what? MSNBC has become as much of a joke or even more so than FOX.

    Parent
    Lieberman language (none / 0) (#68)
    by Rashomon66 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:19:44 PM EST
    If anyone doubts Lieberman is now an [Independent] Republican they need look no further than his latest silliness. Yes, he now uses the slur Malkin and Rush use. Let's hope we can win some more Senate seats so Harry Reid doesn't have to play nice with him anymore.


    Hillary's role (none / 0) (#78)
    by zebedee on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:22:48 PM EST
     Obama could look at creating some kind of structure to allow her to contribute on multiple fronts. This happens in Europe, kind of a super-department. For example, Secretary of State for ???? (maybe Family?) that puts her in charge of Health, Education, Labor and Housing. She could have separate Secretary of States (non-cabinet) or under-secrataries for each individual department.

    This would offload from Obama since he by his own admission isn't operationally focused and he could focus more on external stuff like Iraq, Middle East, as well as energy policy etc

    This kind of role for her would persuade more of her voters to support Obama than a VP slot

    Bingo (none / 0) (#219)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:28:11 PM EST
    This is exactly the kind of thing I've been talking about online for some time--Obama carves out a big chunk of policy for Clinton and makes it clear in advance that she's operating with his full authority.  When it comes time to actually sign bills, etc., he would have to do it, obviously, but he could still formally hand her a pretty sizable portfolio.

    Honestly, I think that would be very smart, but I'm not sure Obama is willing to play that far outside the box.

    Parent

    Obama's already talking about a second term. (none / 0) (#95)
    by notsayin on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:28:28 PM EST
    What's the saying? (none / 0) (#150)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:52:58 PM EST
    Pride goeth before a fall.

    Parent
    "eliminated" (none / 0) (#191)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:13:08 PM EST
    News to me.  Maybe I need to start getting my news at the Orange place again so I can keep up on the changes to The Narrative.

    Parent
    I don't have "follower" (none / 0) (#212)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:23:33 PM EST
    stamped on my forehead.

    I don't need anyone else to tell me what to think.  That's why I'm not in Team Obama.

    Parent

    It's just interesting (none / 0) (#188)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:11:20 PM EST
    how it glosses right over all that harrrd werk of Presidenting and jumps right to the assumption that everything turned out so well that America elected him twice, just like GWB.  

    Parent
    Charlie Rangel (none / 0) (#119)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:40:24 PM EST
    was just on with Neil Cavuto. Neil challenged Charlie's ongoing criticism of the Bush administration, so Neil reminded him that the congress has an approval rating that is even lower than the administration's.

    Charlie responded that opinion polls don't really mean anything.

    He's sure not doing the party any good with his appearances lately.


    Rangel (none / 0) (#222)
    by Gambit on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:30:45 PM EST
    why are you attacking him? i thought he supported hillary?

    Parent
    Great Post (none / 0) (#189)
    by Daryl24 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:11:37 PM EST
    Query: what time will Hillary Clinton speak (none / 0) (#196)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:16:11 PM EST
    Saturday and will her speech be televised?