home

Friday Evening Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:53:49 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Just a heads up, I will be live blogging Hillary Clinton's speech tomorrow including the Media atrocities that will proceed it. I think it is scheduled for Noon tomorrow. It surely will be televised by all the cable news networks.

Another Open Thread.

< Bad Political Analysis | Prosecutor Sees No Evil in the Baltimore Police Dept. >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Friday Evening Open Thread | 194 comments (194 topical)
    Pollitt's The Nation article today (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by angie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:05:38 PM EST
    As some of you may have read, I emailed Ms. Pollitt to ask where these kinds of article were during the primary here.
    I also cc'd Judith Long (editor) on that email. I thought you might like to read Ms. Long's response to me:
    Absolutely not. She wrote about it at least once, but I think it was more than that.

    That's it, that was her entire response to me. So, I replied as follows:

    "Absolutely not"? Is that your reaction to my email? And you are the editor, right? Flat denial because Ms. Pollitt wrote about it "once"? No comment on the sexist behavior of the Democrats or Sen. Obama? No comment on the vote stealing by the RBC? This should have been shouted from the roof tops by all progressives & all women for the last 7 months. To hide behind your statement that Ms. Pollitt wrote about it "once" ("maybe more") is laughable -- how many articles did you run about the racism in this primary or the brilliance of Sen. Obama or the terrible tactics of Sen. Clinton? Yeah, I thought so. Keep on creating your own version of the Ministry of Truth at "The Nation" and keep on telling yourself that you are a progressive if that helps you sleep at night. As for me, I'll believe my lying eyes.

    I suppose there is just no room for my dissenting point of view in "The Nation," hmm? I didn't expect there to be, really.  Tres triste.

    I doubt she'll bother responding again -- deny, deny, deny.

    That's like Donna B answering (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:44:26 PM EST
    my questions as "I respectfully disagree." I guess these women have problems with their behavior or else they would defend it. Amazing.

    [ Parent ]
    I Swear... (5.00 / 4) (#154)
    by AmyinSC on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:45:21 PM EST
    If I could give a TWENTY on both emails, I would!!

    [ Parent ]
    Don't give the networks (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:10:18 PM EST
    any ratings.  Watch the blog-cast on HillaryClinton.com

    Will do! (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:33:58 PM EST
    I already got the e-mail from Maggie Williams.

    I know I'm gonna be crying buckets.

    [ Parent ]

    That' What I Was Thinking... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by AmyinSC on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:46:58 PM EST
    And my partner just mentioned that THEN the networks will spin it that no one CARED what Clinton had to say.  I could stand to watch it on C-Span, if I had to - does anyone know if they are covering it?

    [ Parent ]
    I'm coming to terms with bitterness (5.00 / 10) (#11)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:27:19 PM EST
    I have never thought of myself as a bitter person, and I personally hate the term, but I looked up the definition and it fits. I'm angry that Clinton was attacked by Obama and that people believed every attack. I'm angry that so many women were dismissed as "just" feminists who supported Clinton. I'm angry that my party chose somebody I truly feel is not qualified. I'm very, very angry at how Obama's campaign used personal attacks charging racism to insulate him from criticism, while all the time claiming to be above the use of race or personal attacks.

    So what do I do about it? People keep telling me that Clinton supporter's will get over it and move on, and in a week we will be cheering on Obama as if nothing were wrong. I doubt I will do that. My family has a history of holding grudges. But it feels petty to hang around criticizing Obama when I don't have a better option. McCain isn't better. Well, I'm pretty sure of that. I think he is better in terms of experience, and probably character, but not in terms of politial beliefs. But I'm enough of an old-timer that I don't see McCain as the extremist he is currently posturing as in order to get right wing votes. I don't want to hang around as a "spoiler", but I can't seem to let go. I can't seem to move on. Maybe time will  fix it, but I still haven't "moved on" from the election of 2000, so I doubt I'll simply forgive and forget this.

    I'm not sure what I'll do (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:36:15 PM EST
    in November, except that I'm quite certain I won't be voting for Obama.  Talk about holding grudges - I have a great capacity for it.  I'm like an Italian with Alzheimer's who forgets everything but their grudges.

    [ Parent ]
    If not Obama or McCain (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by RalphB on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:49:49 PM EST
    may I suggest Cynthia McKinney on the Green party ticket?  Personally I've got no problem voting for McCain, but seems to me Cynthia might be a better protest than not voting at all.


    [ Parent ]
    I would totally lmao if Cynthia beat (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:00:46 PM EST
    obama.....

    [ Parent ]
    I don't like anyone's affiliation (none / 0) (#93)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:09:25 PM EST
    with Farrakan(sp), including Cynthia McKinney's.

    If I'm not feeling like too much of a beotch, I may vote for Nader -- because of his VP pick.

    [ Parent ]

    I like (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:27:01 PM EST
    some of the articles he's written.  However, he'd be a lesser evil.

    I honestly don't like any of the candidates on the ticket for November.

    [ Parent ]

    You like Matt Gonzales? (none / 0) (#98)
    by catfish on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:12:03 PM EST
    "I may vote for Nader -- because of his VP pick."

    Are you from San Francisco?

    [ Parent ]

    Gratefully, you needn't be bitter (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:26:53 PM EST
    to refuse to vote for a candidate who is not qualified for the job.

    So, let the anger subside and vote your choice for the Senator, Congressperson, Governor on your ballot that you believe will be the best for the country.

    I find it is so much more effective to make my decisions based on intelligent research instead of emotion.

    I won't be watching anymore national or cable news for awhile. It seems we are now going to have to hear Obama's viewpoint on every darn thing that happens in the country. Yikes.


    [ Parent ]

    You mean (5.00 / 7) (#145)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:41:19 PM EST
    his TWO OR THREE viewpoints on every single thing that happens.

    [ Parent ]
    :) LOL (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:46:51 PM EST
    That's exactly what I mean.

    If I never hear another sentence that starts with, "well, look...." I'll be happy.


    [ Parent ]

    Except... (5.00 / 4) (#181)
    by AmyinSC on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:59:05 PM EST
    As my partner said, he'll have to call Hillary first since she won't be making those statements in public anymore!!

    And really - HOW could ANY of us possibly "get over it" in two days?!?!?  I mean, really - there was real, and significant damage done, not JUST by Obama, but by the DNC.  So, yeah - I have no qualms saying unequivocally - I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA - EVER.  I do not think he is anywhere NEAR qualified for the post.  And when people say I am handing this to the Reps, I tell them, No - Obama and the DNC did with all of their (many) machinations.  So, THEY can take responsiility for that (and really - when Obama wants Bush I's Foreign Policy, how different is he really going to BE?  He seems far more like Bush II to me anyway, and since he has blessed little on which voters can make their determination, I guess we have to go with what he actually says, right?  Or do I say that because I'm bitter???  Darn - and here I am with no guns or anything!).

    [ Parent ]

    Here's a Bible for you. (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:14:27 PM EST
    Link

    I looked for a gun, but I couldn't find a virtual one that actually worked.  ;^)

    [ Parent ]

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by tek on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:45:00 PM EST
    The Obama "bump" is now the rage of the U. S. (MSM)

    Gag me with a spoon.

    [ Parent ]

    -GASP- (none / 0) (#173)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:54:32 PM EST
    Didn't you see how spontaneous it was?!?! And surely you must have got a thrill up your leg to see how cooool the Obama and Michelle really are, didn't you?

    No? Then you must be a Clinton supporter. Pfft.

    *gist of a conversation I overheard on the Metro on Wednesday evening.

    [ Parent ]

    My 72 year old mother who is a Clinton (none / 0) (#178)
    by bjorn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:57:01 PM EST
    hater was all excited by the Obama bump too. I don't get it.  I think Michele and Barack really love each other which is great to see, but why all the rage about the fist bump?

    [ Parent ]
    Go over to Riverdaughter at Confluence (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:48:02 PM EST
    where you will have lots of people to commiserate with...many people are not letting go....who could blame them!

    [ Parent ]
    I'd wait and see what Hillary says tomorrow. (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by sweetthings on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:53:05 PM EST
    It may or may not make you feel better about your options, but it can't hurt.

    I've had no dog in this particular fight from the beginning, so I can't really say I feel your pain. However, I do understand the frustration of emotionally and materially investing yourself in a candidate that ultimately loses. It sucks...no two ways about it. But I do think it's important to realize that even though she ultimately lost, Hillary's contribution to our democracy was very real, as was your own. She may or may not be on the ticket, but she will influence the Democratic agenda, and the campaign she ran helped sign up more new democrats than anything we've ever seen before. Here in Texas, the Democrat party is leaps and bounds stronger than it has been in recent memory, and I suspect the same is true in many other red states. We are going to take back the White House, increase our dominance in Congress, and make sure the Supreme Court doesn't slip any farther. It's going to be a very, very good year for Democrats and for our country, and Hillary was and will be a significant part of that victory.

    You done good, dianem, as did Hillary. Still sucks that she lost, I know. ;)

    [ Parent ]

    Honestly (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:58:25 PM EST
    I don't get the Supreme Court argument.  Obama wanted to vote for ROBERTS.  How could anyone think he'd be trusted for SC picks.

    [ Parent ]
    If he wanted to vote to confirm Roberts (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by mbuchel on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:28:31 PM EST
    wouldn't he have, like, voted to confirm Roberts?

    [ Parent ]
    He was (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:34:13 PM EST
    talked out of voting for him. He really doesn't seem to have any convictions.

    [ Parent ]
    No, one of aides (5.00 / 5) (#138)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:37:12 PM EST
    said, "Hey, dude, that would be really stupid"'

    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 4) (#166)
    by tek on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:52:11 PM EST
    His campaign advisor (he was already campaigning) told him it would hurt him in the campaign.  Like his advisor told him to make a speech in 2002 against Iraq because they could use that in 2008.

    The Obama guy this morning tried to bait me with the Supers argument and Roe, I said, I can't get pregnant so I don't care about it.  He got really steamed.

    [ Parent ]

    I Share Your Bitterness, Dianem (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:07:09 PM EST
    As for me, I'm 90% sure I'm going sit this election out.

    Being just 26 years old, it would have been only the 2nd Presidential election I'd have participated in, and I was looking forward to pulling the lever for a candidate that I loved and supported 101%, with a smile on my face. -sigh-

    As of now, it is not meant to be, so I see no purpose in hauling butt to a polling booth this November. And, I'm sorry, but there is no dollar amount in the world that could get me to vote Republican, that's for sure.

    [ Parent ]

    I encourage you to vote local (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:24:18 PM EST
    Find local candidates you can support and do so. There is no reason to let anger about this election cost us our voices. I'm going to support a local candidate - Charlie Brown (Yes, the guy putting on all the web ads is in my district). He's competing for a right wing seat against a carpetbagger, but it's in a very right wing district. He needs all the help he can get. I'm sure that there are good people locally who would really appreciate an enthusiastic and politically aware supporter.

    [ Parent ]
    I really respect my congresswoman even when (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:32:13 PM EST
    we don't agree, and I will be working hard for her.

    [ Parent ]
    I Have Thought About (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:37:24 PM EST
    voting locally. However, I have to admit that I've not followed local politics at all in recent years.

    I'm pretty sure all the elected DC officials endorsed Obama, so that is a definite deal-breaker right there .

    Considering the sad state that much of DC (esp. the NE and SE areas) is in right now, I'd guess those elected officials haven't been doing much to deserve reelection.

    Nevertheless, I will do my homework; it is my promise to you. And if they supported Hillary, I will look at what they have done and what they plan to do to improve this city.


    [ Parent ]

    I can (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by tek on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:41:17 PM EST
    totally relate to what you're feeling.  I think it's worse for us because we watched good candidates get swiftboated and cheated in the last two elections and now it's our own party that has done this to us.  I felt so good when Hil didn't concede, but now they're going to force to do it.  

    I visited McCain's web site.  I read his issues page.  I was surprised that he isn't anything like "W." Still, not the Clintons. The blog over there is respectful and chatty.  Nice. I don't know if I can vote for him, but I won't vote for Obama.  For me it's not a grudge.  I sincerely believe that Obama is a bad person with dangerous connections.  I believe the senators backing him have corrupt reasons for what they're doing and it scares me.  In a way I think it would be better to have a Republican president and a Democratic Congress than all one party.

    Oh, and I think Cindy McCain would be a stunning First Lady!

    [ Parent ]

    Disagree but don't insult (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:06:34 PM EST
    other posters.

    [ Parent ]
    Not to mention (4.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:19:10 PM EST
    all the Iraq vets suffering from IED-caused brain damage.

    Brain damage is real.  My son suffers from cerebral palsy - which is one flavor of brain damage.  Strokes - brain damage.  Teddy Kennedy - likely to suffer some "brain damage" as they treat his cancer.

    [ Parent ]

    If (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by tek on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:54:27 PM EST
    you thought the Cllintons attacked Obama, you're too young to understand politics and you're watching too much Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, and Stephen Colbert.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow... (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:56:08 PM EST
    wow...you are just...wow...

    Am totally unimpressed with your post here.

    [ Parent ]

    Typical Obamite Arguments (5.00 / 5) (#196)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:06:51 PM EST
    And neither Hillary Clinton nor her supporters could or would have released that picture of Obama -- which surfaced on Drudge to begin with. Get that straight.


    [ Parent ]
    I'm angry too (4.00 / 2) (#46)
    by hookfan on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:51:50 PM EST
    However, I'm coming to believe that the best way to express my anger is to vote for Obama. Mainly because I want to see the restoration of a strong congress and some dismantling of the "unitary executive" concept of the presidency. I don't see any chance of that happening if McCain gets voted in. This Democratic mix in congress just doesn't stand up to Republicans. However there is no better circular firing squad than Democrats toward each other, and Republicans really play much better from the minority position rather than trying to govern anything.
       Obama imo is so inexperienced his only chance of survival is to continue to be a lying thug. The current Democratic leadership is imo a bunch of unprincipled lying thieves. I'm hoping, true to form, the congress will try to render the Obama Presidency impotent, and thus reassert congressional power. They will only get republican help in doing that if there is a Democratic President. Imo post Bush weakness is good in the presidency.

    [ Parent ]
    You (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by tek on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:48:11 PM EST
    have outlined exactly why I'm worried about Obama.  The Dem majority never reined in the unitary executive power and now they'll have a puppet who loves that power the way Bush loved perceived power.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    [ Parent ]
    Okay but who are the puppet masters? (none / 0) (#193)
    by hookfan on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:06:06 PM EST
    I'm hoping congress will be. We can work long term on replacing them to again represent our values. With Republicans out of power they will attack Obama persistently, and may work to swing power back to congress where they will have greater input. The Republican revolution was premised in part on a strong congress and a weakened presidency. Bush changed that. But it hasn't worked out well for them.

    [ Parent ]
    OK, I realize that my anger is over the top, (4.42 / 7) (#128)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:30:52 PM EST
    but how would voting for Obama express your anger? Let's give the "lying thug" the Presidency, let the the DNC get away with the underhanded way they conducted the primaries, and expect the congress to put checks on a Democratic President when they haven't checked a Republican one? And that will make you feel better? You're not angry.

    [ Parent ]
    The one thing I learned (5.00 / 6) (#170)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:53:20 PM EST
    from parenthood, is that you never, ever reward behavior unless you want to see it repeated.  The two year old who learns that they can make a parent laugh instead of scold by using the Charm Defense(impish grin of sheer cuteness) quickly makes the Charm Defense a habit.  

    I would do everything to stop them from seeing me smile.  I'd even turn my back until I put the proper parental Stern Frown on my face.

    Same thing with Obama.  He'll try the Charm Defense.  "Look at me!  I'm being nice to Hillary Clinton.  Aren't I great!".  It takes more than that to clean up the mess he helped to make.

    I'll use Team Obama's standard on Obama.  Obama should defend Hillary Clinton against any sexist or untruthful attacks because she's a fellow dem.  Disrespecting Hillary Clinton is not just dissing a pol, it's dissing many of her supporters that the Dems need to vote for them in November.

    We shall see.

    [ Parent ]

    Okay (none / 0) (#206)
    by hookfan on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:15:21 PM EST
    but who's behavior do you want to reward? If McCain is elected, you reward the unitary executive Bushian approach. And if McCain is elected the supreme court will most likely be further shifted in the direction of corporate power and presidential power. Roe vs Wade is not the only or arguably the primary issue. Further loss of individual rights and potential corporate favoritism is a primary concern. Do you want to reward that behavior? Do you want to reward a further slippage toward Executive power? I don't.

    [ Parent ]
    Because (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by hookfan on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:55:18 PM EST
    My anger at Bush is greater. And Secondly, I would dearly love to see Obama repeatedly smacked down by enhanced congressional power and real oversight. That won't happen if we have a Republican President. There is a reason behind the lying Democratic leadership preferring Obama to Clinton. I believe one reason could be they perceive Clinton as too strong and competent to be controlled. Obama is imo inexperienced and vulnerable. Obama imo is weak compared to both Clinton and McCain. I would dearly love to have his weakness exposed by a strong congress. I hope he winds up weaker than Jimmy Carter. Nothing like Democratic ability to backstab one of their own. Witness the Clinton saga. McCain, I believe will be capitulated too. Obama? pfft. He'll be cut to pieces.
       I think the opposite of you because of the congressional capitulation towards Bush-- a republican. Democrats don't show deference to Democrats they backstab and crucify each other. No? Consider Clinton, and the support Lieberman got over Ned. Look at the reception Murtha got in Congress. I'm hoping for the same for Obama.
       It's only with a strong congress that there is any hope long term to prevent a continuing slide toward a pseudo-Democracy and a functional dictatorship. And I'm really angry fueled by fear of that slide. The only hope is for a change to a weakened presidency.

    [ Parent ]
    I think you're imaging much of this stuff (1.00 / 5) (#39)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:49:36 PM EST
    You're angry your candidate lost. I can understand that. It was a grueling and ultimately very close contest. But to accuse Obama of using race is laughable. To accuse Obama of being the attacker and not the attacked is also laughable. These are fringe positions, to which most people do not subscribe. The entire cannot be wrong. Think about it.

    [ Parent ]
    You position is the one on the fringe. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by RalphB on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:50:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, in this forum mine is a fringe position (1.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:52:21 PM EST
    I'm talking about the rest of the world.

    [ Parent ]
    We'll see (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:55:52 PM EST
    in November....

    [ Parent ]
    Kinda makes you wonder when (1.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:57:41 PM EST
    Hillary's own voters accuse her of doing most of the attacking in exit polls. Granted, they're not bloggers.

    [ Parent ]
    No most are responding to (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by RalphB on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:59:35 PM EST
    what they've seen in the Obama leaning media.

    [ Parent ]
    Why must you insult them? (1.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:01:57 PM EST
    So you can make informed, independent judgments but they cannot? They're just sheep, huh? Masses of working class, uneducated folk?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, yes you are! (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by RalphB on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:05:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Do you (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:30:36 PM EST
    realize in 2004 there were huge numbers of people who actually thought we found WMD's in Iraq? If the media picks up a narrative people will tell the media what they want to hear back to them. It obviously didn't matter in the end to those voters did it? Large numbers of them said they weren't going to vote for Obama anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 6) (#73)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:02:16 PM EST
    when the mainstream media tells you over and over and over again that Hillary was attacking constantly while Obama was being a teddy bear, people tend to mirror that fake construct.

    If you can believe exit polls, that is.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe they were exposed to her negative ads (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:04:32 PM EST
    You don't think that is a viable possibility?

    [ Parent ]
    They were exposed (5.00 / 7) (#90)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:08:00 PM EST
    to both candidates negative ads.

    Obama morphed Clinton into a racist for Gawl's sake with the tacit endorsement of the media.  You think THAT wasn't a negative attack?

    However, the media's approach was to blame Clinton for negativity, but not Obama.

    Seth, your candidate won.  It's time for you to stop with your anger about it.  

    [ Parent ]

    People believe the media (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:20:45 PM EST
    I don't know where you read that. I must have missed that particular poll. Obama's campaign started the "Clinton is using race" meme with the race memo. Quote from the original Huffpo article:

    "The Obama camp did not return repeated requests for comment. But campaign spokesperson Candice Tolliver told Politico that, in regards to the race-based comment: "Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this really an isolated situation or is there something bigger behind all of this?""

    The media lapped it up, because it made a good story, and Axelrod spread the word on the web, makint the idea look like it had come from the public. But just because a lot of people believe something, that doesn't make it true.  Most people believed that Hussein had WMD and that the Iraq War was being won until several years after hte war began. Some still do. It's all about spin. Axelrod ran a ruthless, Rovian campaign in which he spun facts in ways that fed people's prejudices about Clinton. Liar. Manipulative. Selfish. Overly Ambitious. They convinced people that Clinton would do anything to win - including destroying her hard-earned over a lifetime reputation as a supporter of Civil Rights.

    [ Parent ]

    The one that must not be mentioned (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:21:20 PM EST
    ah ah ah..... you aren't being a graceful winner.  You're still obsessing over Clinton.  At a certain point you are going to have to quit sniping at her.  Try to be a graceful winner.  I know it is difficult for Obama supporters to let go of their anger.  You are grieving the end of the primary process, but it will be ok.

    [ Parent ]
    I was sad for her. I wished both could have won (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:25:26 PM EST
    I liked Hillary before I ever heard of Obama.

    Anyway, it's all over. These arguments are pointless.

    [ Parent ]

    If they are pointless (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:55:53 PM EST
    why do you continue to engage in them?

    [ Parent ]
    I think yours (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:51:41 PM EST
    is a DailyKOS position.

    [ Parent ]
    I see DKos... (5.00 / 6) (#105)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:20:46 PM EST
    ... is promising a Sunday symposium on "Why Hillary Lost". Good to see they've hard at work patching up wounds and unifying the party.

    [ Parent ]
    I wandered on over (5.00 / 6) (#121)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:29:17 PM EST
    They seem to be trying to be nicer, but they aren't very good at it. People keep talking about forgiving Clinton and her supporters, as if we've done something wrong. Others point out that it's over and write recipes (indicating that they think the diarist is trolling) in any diary defending Clinton, no matter how reasonably or calmly it is done. The general attitude is "we really need their votes, so be nice to these poor deluded people". They keep talking about healing and how we'll get over it, as if we have the flu. They simply cannot accept that some Clinton supporter's really, really don't like Obama. You can cut the condescention with a knife. It is not a place to go to get over bitterness.

    [ Parent ]
    Better than I expected. (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:29:35 PM EST
    I was guessing they'd burn her in effigy and have a drinking game for her speech.

    (I'd devise a drinking game for Obama's speeches, but we'd have to throw out the top fifty words and phrases to keep people sober for more than ten minutes.)

    [ Parent ]

    What does Hillary want tomorrow? (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by 1jane on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:28:24 PM EST
    Clinton will go on fighting for the principles she believes in and she'll go on fighting for her party. The last thing in the world she would want is for her supporters to become spoilers. She doesn't want revenge or anger as her legacy.It would be a tragedy if the party didn't unite when it's the first time a woman ever came close. Her supporters will make the right call. She will never forget their loyalty. Her job, as it is for every candidate who has ever lost, is to pull the party together. She will give a great speech tomorrow!

    [ Parent ]
    It's not about what she wants (5.00 / 6) (#137)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:35:16 PM EST
    I'm not a Clinton worshipper who follows her every word. I never was. I make up my own mind about who I support. And it's not the job of the loser to bring the party together - it's the job of the winner, especially when he is running on his ability to bring about unity.  I'm sure she will give a great speech tomorrow. She is a wise woman and I respect her. But she is a party loyalist and she will say whatever she has to in order to try to save the party from the drubbing they expect to get in November.

    [ Parent ]
    It's an insult (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:44:23 PM EST
    to say we're voting revenge.

    I'm not voting for Obama because I believe he'll be another Carter.  I have other reasons too, but that was my first.  And when gas prices are high, all the Republicans have to do is remind people of the lines around the block to get gas when Carter was president and people will flock to McCAin.

    And who cares if Clinton jumps on the party train.  Most of her supporters aren't authoritarian followers.

    [ Parent ]

    Sometimes people mistake (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:52:18 PM EST
    protest for revenge. I was speaking to a high school class about the 60's, and I asked them if there was anything important enough to them to get on a bus and risk their lives for. Not one of them could think of anything. If you've never experienced passion about an injustice, it's hard to understand the visceral feelings that some people have.

    [ Parent ]
    Carter was not responsible for (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:00:06 PM EST
    high gas prices.....He certainly got blamed for it though.....

    The high gas prices caused what used to be called "cost-push" inflation, which even an economic slowdown could not completely quell.  So, stagflation....And then the monetarists rose with inflation-hawk Paul Volker as the head of the Fed.  As so it has been ever since....

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton attacked (5.00 / 8) (#69)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:00:58 PM EST
    his readiness.

    Obama attacked her character.

    Let that digest for a bit

    [ Parent ]

    first day (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:05:11 PM EST
    surrogate geffen called her a liar, obama smiled played along and then brought up the Lincoln bedroom which is in the repub playbook listed under"attacking Clinton's character."

    [ Parent ]
    Ayers is a good (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:11:17 PM EST
    friend of his.

    Obama launched his state senate campaign on Ayers front porch.  The affiliation is REAL.

    [ Parent ]

    He is (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:33:00 PM EST
    associated with Ayers. Even Axelrod conceded this point.

    [ Parent ]
    Come on (1.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:06:43 PM EST
    This was a fued between friends. Obama had nothing to do with it. Since when is Geffen a surrogate?

    [ Parent ]
    Since everyone that ever said a thing in defense (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by rooge04 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:08:17 PM EST
    of Hillary was branded as one.

    [ Parent ]
    denying it (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:10:11 PM EST
    isn't going to work.

    Obama's theme on Clinton: she's untrustworthy.

    Clinton on Obama:  he's not ready.

    [ Parent ]

    10 comments per 24 hours (none / 0) (#114)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:24:54 PM EST
    Boris new commentors are limited to 10 comments per 24 hours.

    [ Parent ]
    Seth, this is very badly done (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:01:28 PM EST
    and perhaps PET and its variants in training might help.  Practice not using the "you" and instead using the "I," etc.  Try validating feelings and thoughts, not denying them -- that is, if you wish to be persuasive and work for your candidate.

    It is not persuasive, nor is it even minimally nice, to tell someone who has poured out her/heart that their feelings and thoughts are "laughable" and "fringe," as they certainly are not; they are thoughts held by many here, as you well know.  And you might be worried that we're not on the fringe, at all.  Let's see when we count the vote in fall.

    And it negates the necessary-but-far-from-sufficient line that you "understand," as it then is clear that either there is no understanding.  Or, worse, if you do, it's not empathic.  Instead, it's understanding that the writer is down, and opportunistically making it worse.  As this is a law blog, if you are a lawyer, perhaps the "reasonable woman" standard applies.

    Think about it.

    [ Parent ]

    You're wrong (3.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:15:48 PM EST
    attack Obama on the issues. Leave this damn false racial element out of it. Obama bent over backwards to avoid race. It is indeed laughable to accuse him of interjecting race as a means of gaining an advantage. Mainstream opinion holds that is was the Clinton campaign that played the race card and attempted to paint Obama as the black candidate. It is indeed a fringe opinion to suggest wildly that it was Obama who played the race card.

    I understand that feelings are hurt, but these accusations are beyond the pale and are ugly. Most of all they are untruthful. And by the way, some people are not persuadable. In my opinion Obama should not waste his time and resources trying to convert the more hardcore Hillary supporters. It's much better to invest time and resources elsewhere.


    [ Parent ]

    "mainstream opinion" (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:23:50 PM EST
    Ha!

    That's one precise term there - "mainstream opinion".  Would you like to define that term in precise and concrete terms or should we just take it to mean that the average hopelessly biased pundit/blogger/talking head would agree with you.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, Seth - you are exactly the result (5.00 / 9) (#169)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:52:54 PM EST
    Oabama and the mainstream media were going for in this election; you have been played to a fare-thee-well, kid.

    Here, let me help you with your comment...

    "Leave this damn false racial element out of it." translates to "How dare anyone but Obama have any credibility on matters of race!"

    "Obama bent over backwards to avoid race." translates to "Look! Watch Obama do a backbend - pay no attention to the memos his campaign people wrote and distributed to the media to get them to demonize the Clintons on race!"

    "It is indeed laughable to accuse him of interjecting race as a means of gaining an advantage." translates to "We think that if we laugh no one will realize that we did interject race."

    "Mainstream opinion holds that is was the Clinton campaign that played the race card and attempted to paint Obama as the black candidate." translates to "The media did a great job reading off the script the Obama campaign wrote for them."

    "It is indeed a fringe opinion to suggest wildly that it was Obama who played the race card." translates to "Maybe the more times we call it fringe, the more no one will pay attention to it; we will use hyperbolic rhetoric like 'wildly' to make people think the Clinton supporters are crazy."

    "I understand that feelings are hurt, but these accusations are beyond the pale and are ugly." translates to "The truth hurts so much that we must pretend that it does not exist."

    "Most of all they are untruthful." translates to "We've seen how the Bush administration just declares things to be so, so often that people begin to believe it, so we are doing it, too."

    "And by the way, some people are not persuadable." translates to "Why, oh why, won't these d@mned Clinton supporters get with the program?"

    "In my opinion Obama should not waste his time and resources trying to convert the more hardcore Hillary supporters. It's much better to invest time and resources elsewhere." translates to "We don't give a rat's a$$ about the Clinton supporters."

    Here's a news flash for you, Seth - we cracked the Obama-speak code a long, long time ago, and now we can just sit back, shake our heads and tsk, tsk with pity for you, because what you don't realize is that Obama doesn't give a rat's a$$ about you, either.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD Seth didn't get your memo (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:04:34 PM EST
    he's telling Clinton supporters to get lost again.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh yeah that's right, obamaholics always (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:05:49 PM EST
    right, Clinton supporters always wrong.  Using my ignore button now.

    [ Parent ]
    What's wrong with the fringe?.... (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:33:19 PM EST
    ...been there my whole life. Opposed the war in Vietnam in 1967, burned my bra in 1969, thought disco sucked in the 70s, hated Reagan in the 80s, opposed the war in Iraq in 2003, and so on.

    [ Parent ]
    the entire world cannot be wrong* (none / 0) (#42)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:50:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No," the entire cannot be wrong" (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by suisser on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:57:50 PM EST
    is perfect. It has just the right amount of Borg about it.

    [ Parent ]
    No, there are about 18 million voters (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:02:52 PM EST
    who are right on this one....thanks for playing


    [ Parent ]
    yeah, sure.... (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:38:02 PM EST
    ...and that's why they found WMDs in Iraq.

    [ Parent ]
    W's (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by tek on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:58:41 PM EST
    followers argument.

    [ Parent ]
    Everything you say is true, with the possible (1.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:11:00 PM EST
    exception of Bosnia. Obama didn't attack her over that. All in all Hillary's negativity contributed to her demise in this election. Superdelegates were either outraged or unnerved by her attacks and tactics. Thus they by and large went for Obama

    [ Parent ]
    A cryptic reply (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:45:19 PM EST
    count how many times the ghost of hamlets father says the word remember.

    [ Parent ]
    Is the stock market crash the Obama effect? (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by nulee on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:44:45 PM EST
    Just asking?  I know I am worried sick.  We've got some real problems that need to be solved by tireless, tough, left wing leaders = Hilllary.  Not a slap happy newbie (Obama) or Bush 3 (McCain).

    I wish all the SDs would read Neil Tyson (who is AA by the way) and switch their votes overnight.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06tyson.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

    Probably oil and jobs (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Burned on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:47:14 PM EST
    We're running out of both.

    [ Parent ]
    Two things (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:49:23 PM EST
    1.  It wasn't a real crash, just a big drop.
    2.  When these things happen people place blame on things that probably have nothing to do with it.
    3.  The media is blaming the crash on bad job numbers and the oil price surge

    However, speaking from my own perspective, I do think if Hillary had been nominated, it would have had a positive PSYCHOLOGICAL effect on the market and the market is very psych driven.  However, current realities in the economy are main driving forces.

    Things like "who is elected or not elected" are often brought up, but I feel they can be discounted.

    [ Parent ]

    and POTUS (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:55:50 PM EST
    blamed the high unemployment number on college graduations.

    ::sheesh:: That happens every year...this one is dramatically bigger.

    [ Parent ]

    You must be replying (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:59:10 PM EST
    to the wrong post.  I never said anything of the kind.

    [ Parent ]
    even the nonpartsans admit (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:54:31 PM EST
    obama is a gamble.  Justified by a potentially huge return if it pays off.

    But for now I know its unrelated but I wouldn't blame wall street if they're nervous.

    [ Parent ]

    I already got an email from right wing NewsMax (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Newt on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:40:38 PM EST
    with the subject:  Attack on Iran Coming; Obama's Stock Market Crash

    No kiddin.  

    [ Parent ]

    Because everyone is saying the Clintons (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by nulee on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:47:26 PM EST
    have alienated AA support and clearly they have not, that's just another media meme.  

    [ Parent ]
    Tell that to 1jane! (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by RalphB on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:53:33 PM EST


    Must be my womanly hysterics! (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by rooge04 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:56:00 PM EST
    Thanks for helping me prove my point.

    yeah really..... (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:42:16 PM EST
    ...settle down, woman. You are NOT helping the Unity Ambassadors do their job. You're supposed to help, remember? You're a woman.

    [ Parent ]
    Pardon me? 1jane was attempting to tell me about (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by rooge04 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 05:58:32 PM EST
    sexism. I was simply schooling him on what it actually is.  And again, me pointing out the truth to you is not ranting.  But thanks for playing anyway.

    When the truth (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:04:51 PM EST
    is too much to hear,  you resort to shooting the messenger.

    It just ain't right. Selling your soul not for me (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Saul on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:05:09 PM EST
    Funny you watch these guys run for a nomination.  They all say, pick me I am better, that guy over there is no good.  Some of the remarks during the debates when we had all the candidates both on the Dem and Rep side were vicious.  Yet as the all cancel out and the last one standing gets pick those that left say yeah that guy is best.  I will support him.

    We all expect this to happen but it seems that something is really wrong with all that. Where's their principles.   What I hate about politicians is they never stick to their guns in what they truly believe and they never can be themselves.  They want to be everything to everyone and if there is a group of votes out there that are  bigger than what your friends represent they go ahead it pick the bigger group and throw your friends or your true beliefs under the bus for a handful of votes.  

    I would have had more respect for Obama if he would have stuck to his strong support for the Palestinians but he threw them under the bus to woo the Jewish vote.

    I would have had more respect for Obama if he would have stuck to his first speech on race on Obama where he said he could not disavow himself from rev Wright.  Yet when he wanted not to loose votes he came back and dumped him.  Then again later he dumped the church.  

    He had to change from what he really believed in order to win the votes.

    Why do you have to sell your soul to get the votes.  Just isn't  right.

    and one of the problems is (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:12:19 PM EST
    that in this "either/or...absolutist" world we find ourselves in, too many people believe the spin to the point where they really seriously hate the other candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Well on the Palestinian issue, (none / 0) (#123)
    by rjarnold on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:29:30 PM EST
    didn't he say that he opposed the settlement policy and that he would try to support the creation of a Palestinian state? That at least would help the Palestinians.

    [ Parent ]
    His past views were very pro Palestine (1.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Saul on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:40:08 PM EST
    almost against Israel.H  Something like how Carter views it in his new book. He was involved in fund raisers that the Palestinians gave to him. He wasn't look at the time on both sides just was supporting the Palestinian view. Now that he is running for president he is more on the Israel side. If the Jewish community would have asked him to go public and denounce the Palestinian  side in order to get their vote he probably would have done it.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, but to be a Presidential candidate (none / 0) (#163)
    by rjarnold on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:50:17 PM EST
    you can't take Carter's position. Even Carter was marginalized. I symphasize with the Palestinians, but I understand why he had to go pro-Israel.

    [ Parent ]
    NYC crane inspector charged (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by scribe on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:08:52 PM EST
    with falsifying inspections, helping operators cheat on licensing tests and taking bribes.  Officials say he was not involved in the recent crane collapses which have killed about 9 people, but still....

    Thing is, when the government pays a guy with 25 years on the job the grand total of about $75k annually, in one of the most expensive cities in the world, they can only expect some of those underpaid guys to go crooked.  And then they're surprised when cranes fall down....

    Who insures those companies? (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:20:27 PM EST
    We've had crane problems in Ohio.  Smaller cranes, but still one dead here, another there.  Someone pays the big bucks for property damage and loss of life.

    (IIRC - one of the OH crane incidents involved an operator under the influence.)

    [ Parent ]

    Thing is, if you think you are not getting paid (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 06:22:31 PM EST
    enough, you go find another job.  You don't "go crooked" and risk people's lives.

    [ Parent ]
    He's the second one to be arrested (none / 0) (#198)
    by nycstray on