home

Late Evening Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:12:41 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

This is it for me tonight. I'll start live blogging the goings on in Washington regarding Hillary Clinton's speech tomorrow around 9 or 10.

BSG is getting quite freaky if you ask me. But I have to see it through.

Oh and Big Brown goes for the Triple Crown tomorrow in the Belmont. It's been 30 years now since the last Triple Crown winner.

This is an Open Thread.

< CNN Poll: Clinton Gives Obama 3 Point Bump As VP | Catching Up on Siegelman >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Late Evening Open Thread | 199 comments (199 topical)
    BTD, just wanted you to know (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ap in avl on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:20:30 PM EST
    that I think you've done a wonderful job holding down the fort today.  Thanks for all of your hard work.  Hope you get a chance to take a bit of a break before you jump back in the saddle tomorrow.

    This political campaign has totally changed my (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by kenosharick on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:27:04 PM EST
    TV habits. I used to look forward to KO and MSNBC every night- no more. I actually have been watching FOX (I am so ashamed). Hannity is taking apart Obama and I kind of like it. I have CNN on now and they barely mention Obama- on and on about Hillary and her speech tommorrow and how could she have lost? They are totally OBLIVIOUS to the role the played!!! As is tweety. CNN and Candy Crowly are blaming her loss on the fact that she was "not herself" or "strong enough." And Bill's "behavior" They are delusional.

    Fox News (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Coldblue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:34:20 PM EST
    has been patiently waiting for an easy opponent.

    CNN and MSNBC have helped their cause.

    [ Parent ]

    I know what you mean.... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by vml68 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:39:34 PM EST
    I used to watch John Stewart and Stephen Colbert regularly but had to stop 'cos I could not take the Hillary bashing (And I adore Colbert!)

    [ Parent ]
    I know. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by AX10 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:40:54 PM EST
    I do not like nor trust Obama.  I have no problem
    listening to Hannity.
    Afterall Ted Kennedy has been on his radio show many times.  If it's o.k for Teddy K. to go on Hannity's show, then why can' we watch/listen if he want to.

    [ Parent ]
    Hannity (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Athena on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:12:21 PM EST
    I watch Sean all the time.  Had his research been picked up by the MSM in time, Obama would not have been the nominee.  Oddly, Hannity was laying out all of Obama's awful electoral vulnerabilities right in front of the DNC, but they don't care.  And Hillary could not have used the Wright issue at the start - the media would have annihilated her.

    [ Parent ]
    I have (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by bjorn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:14:31 PM EST
    watched Hannity and Colmes a half dozen times during the primary.  I don't get Colmes...is he a real pundit or just a foil for Hannity?  He doesn't seem like a strong voice for much of anything.

    [ Parent ]
    Colmes is supposed to be the anti- (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:28:54 PM EST
    Hannity, but he never puts up much of a fight.  And, he always sounds like he has marbles in his mouth...interesting factoid...he is married to rightwing talker, Monica Crowley's, sister.  You have probably seen her on McLaughlin Report...took Tony Blankley's place, I guess.

    [ Parent ]
    He also doesn't ever seem to have (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:40:06 PM EST
    much substance in his arguments or points. I turn the channel when he joins the mix.


    [ Parent ]
    wow (none / 0) (#45)
    by bjorn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:34:00 PM EST
    so he really is just a foil not a true opposing viewpoint.  He does not have the same star energy Hannity has...not that I like most of what he says but it does have the "it" factor and Colmes definitely doesn't.

    [ Parent ]
    And to think (none / 0) (#180)
    by Fredster on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:45:38 AM EST
    I used to refer to them as "Insanity and Comb-over"!!

    [ Parent ]
    I like Monica Crowley. Didn't know Colmes (none / 0) (#47)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:36:01 PM EST
    was married to her sister. Hannity, who I do catch once in a while, although loud, outshines his partner. He's the star, why I'm not sure. Does anyone know is Hannity is married?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes he is (none / 0) (#82)
    by Andy08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:24:43 PM EST
    and has two daughters; older one is 6.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry. (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Marco21 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:39:19 PM EST
    All this Hannity talk is making me want to pull a Liz Lemon - Blerg!!!

    He is a nutcase, delusional serial liar.

    [ Parent ]

    As is (none / 0) (#103)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:51:27 PM EST
    Keith Olbermann!!!

    [ Parent ]
    I would categorize Olbermann (5.00 / 7) (#113)
    by Marco21 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:03:44 AM EST
    as a narcissistic, buffoonish douchebag.

    To think I used to watch him on a nightly basis.

    Reminds me of that Tina Turner line from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.

    "One day, a cock of the walk. Next day, a feather duster."

    [ Parent ]

    Olbermann needs help. (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by shannon on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:17:32 AM EST
    He's still cracking himself up tonight joking about Hillary's laugh and being sarcastic about her speech tomorrow. I don't know why I even watched him for a while tonight. He's been extremely predictable, although sometimes insane.

    [ Parent ]
    Colmes is a robot (none / 0) (#99)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:50:55 PM EST
    constructed by Hannity to be a phony liberal foil.


    [ Parent ]
    During the 2004 race, did anyone happen to see (none / 0) (#141)
    by otherlisa on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:34:14 AM EST
    the time Wes Clark almost gave Sean Hannity a stroke? It was over the whole "cheerleading" flap. I can't even recall who was accusing whom of cheerleading. All I remember is Wes Clark, smiling, sticking to his guns, cutting off Hannity, Hannity getting red-faced with rage and stomping off (they were doing interviews at the convention). Colmes just sat there with a bemused smile.

    God it was beautiful.

    [ Parent ]

    I watch Hannity too (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:50:31 AM EST
    But listen to him on the radio more often.  He had been fussing about Obama's church, their Black separatism movement, and Rev Wright for at least 6 months before the rest of the media finally picked up on it.  He also knew about Rezko and Ayres.  If ''little ol' Sean Hannity" can find this stuff, why can't the rest of the media?  

    My guess, they didn't want to find anything negative about Obama so they didn't look.  Sigh...........if only they had.  

    [ Parent ]

    I have done exactly as you have. (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:46:30 PM EST
    I am so upset and very out of my norm (which was my pattern for so many moons). Now I hardly turn on the t.v., (except non-news shows), I've even stopped reading the newspaper, and, I feel like I may be looking at at least 4 more years of worrying about this country in the hands of someone so unqualified. Listening to some of the Obama bloggers that have moved-in, this further lessens my confidence. I kinda like the idea of the thank you's listed down below!!!

    [ Parent ]
    The shock, turned into anger, ... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:12:07 AM EST
    with Saturday's DNC farce, then into disbelief and despair after Tuesday's course of events. It is absolutely repugnant what these so-called party leaders, representatives of the democratic voters have done. But then again, momentary political 'convenience' has been the norm for this entire debacle. Sadly, in the end, democracy lost, because the people's voice was muffled by its own party.

    The Democratic Party is no longer my party, let the Braziles, Deans, Pelosis have it. I got their message loud and clear that they did not need me, middle-class, gun, religion clinger and NOW BITTER Hispanic woman (who btw happens to have a PhD in History), so they won't NEED MY MONEY either.  

    The money BO's party requested in its 'presidential campaign survey', I sent to Hillary. I hope her supporters do the same to help to defray some of the accumulated debt of her campaign and allow her some independence from accepting BO's $, enabling her to SUSPEND INSTEAD OF CONCEDE HER CAMPAIGN without having strings attached.

    REMEMBER, S/HE WHO PAYS CALLS THE SHOTS!

    WE CANNOT ALLOW TO BE CORNERED OR FORCED INTO VOTING FOR HIM. TO DO SO IS TO SUCCUMB TO THE BULLYING FOR THE SAKE OF "PARTY UNITY", AND TO ACCEPT THE BLAME FOR ALL OF THEIR TRESPASSES.

    What do we do now? Short of voting for McCain or staying home, there could be another alternative. We are 18million strong, we have our nominee. The party, the press, even some of her loyal politicos may have abandoned her, but WE HAVEN'T! The same way we've raised tens of millions for her campaign can donate $5 dollars each ($5 X 18mill = 90mill). This will knock out her debt and give a hefty jump start to her Independent presidential candidacy.

    [ Parent ]

    Our party has gone totally nuts................... (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:54:57 AM EST
    Over someone they barely know.  I can't stand it.  I can't watch MSNBC anymore, at all.  Rachel Maddow is all but kissing Obama's backside, along with Mathews and Olberman.  They're all disgusting.  Never again.

    [ Parent ]
    Maddow (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Brookhaven on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:46:58 AM EST
    About 4 years ago, I would listen to Air America Radio (before it got overtaken by the bots:mostly) and she used to do the 9 am show with Liz Winstead who was her boss at the time.   I always found Liz to be the more daring one, who didn't mince words.  Maddow was more measured and self-conscious about her words.  And, I always found Winstead more interesting, witty and didn't take herself seriously unlike Maddow.  

    I wasn't shocked when Winstead was fired and Maddow was kept on and they groomed her from her morning show to her eventual 6 pm spot.  I thought Winstead was the more talented of the two so I've never warmed up to Maddow.  

    She's so off in her analysis and has bought into the HRC as evil script so wholeheartedly and this from a person who I clearly remember saying on her show earlier last year that she didn't find Obama inspiring.  So what happened?  

    She's very intelligent no doubt about it but she's so far gone over the cliff about Obama her analysis has suffered as a result.  

    She's lying high with the other two stooges, KO and Tweety.  I've even heard her praise Tweety on the air after all the insane crap he said about HRC and she had the nerve to look astonished at Ferraro when both appeared on the Today Show with Maddow saying sexism didn't play a part in the campaign.  

    The hypocracy of these people and the hubris and self-serving diatribes against HRC and lullabies for Obama is enough to make one want to spit in the subway station in NY even though it's illegal and I would never do such a thing as spit, normally.  

    [ Parent ]

    I don't watch any of those shows, and (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:50:20 PM EST
    before Clinton lost, I was already down to 4 or 5 blogs. Now there's no point in sticking around, for me. It's not like spending times on blogs was a great use of my time in the first place--althought talking with the people here is nice.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't leave -- you are always so witty (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by angie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:01:03 PM EST
    and a little respectful dissent I think is ok here (which is what I plan to do) just no stumping for the GOP (which I do not plan to do).

    [ Parent ]
    Well, McCain is not ideal, to say the least; (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:07:46 PM EST
    however, I truly think Obama would be a horrendous at foreign policy---viz. his comment on Jerusalem, for example. He is committed to widening the war in Afghanistan, possibly in Pakistan too, while simultaneously beginning to hedge on his promise to remove troops from Iraq.
    I don't think there is any underlying philosophy at all in his foreign policy (or any of his politics, for that matter). I don't see him as the person to right the ship of state. McCain may actually do better in that regard. I don't think he really is a warmonger. He's rather like Reagan, isn't he? Reagan talked very tough, but we fought no major wars under Reagan.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain is much like Reagan in foreign policy (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:57:54 AM EST
    I think McCain will keep us safe and out of more wars.  Heaven only knows what Obama might do.  I just have no faith in his foreign policy.   I cannot vote for someone I don't trust to keep my country safe for my kids.  

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks to Nancy (none / 0) (#104)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:53:14 PM EST
    By all accounts, he was gung-ho to invade Nicaragua until she talked him out of it.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't forget Grenada! (none / 0) (#139)
    by Grace on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:33:55 AM EST
    Major major conflict.  Took all of what -- 8 hours?  :)

    [ Parent ]
    goodbye to so many blogs (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by noholib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:58:19 PM EST
    I became distrustful of the MSM when they were blind to the ,even the NYT and Wash

    [ Parent ]
    sorry - incomplete Goodbye to so many blogs (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by noholib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:39:01 PM EST
    I started a comment, then stopped, but hit the wrong button.  Just forget about this one.  I realized I didn't want to dignify them by naming all the TV shows, newspaper columnists, and blogs that I no longer read !  

    [ Parent ]
    Being delusional must be a requirement (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:15:08 PM EST
    for being a talking head or faux newscaster.
    All I want is for Clinton to suspend and hold on to her delegates as I have a feeling, the democratic party may be needing Hillary in August.

    [ Parent ]
    They criticize Hillary, too. (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by shannon on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:12:04 AM EST
    During this campaign, Hannity and the right-wing talkers have actually been fair and balanced. (I can't believe this is happening!) MSNBC, especially, is so biased toward Obama that all you get is Obama love and Hillary hate. That's why some of us have been watching Hannity.

    [ Parent ]
    Fox is suprisingly evenhanded (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:19:04 AM EST
    in their dislike of both Clinton and Obama.  Who'd a thunk it?

    Also, as someone who hasn't watched MSM in years (aside from major disasters like Katrina, the tsunami, 9/11 where I figure I can see the pictures and ignore the squawking), I find Fox interesting because they telegraph the RNC agenda and talking points pretty well in advance.  Forewarned, forearmed and all that.

    [ Parent ]

    msnbc has become a joke (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:20:35 AM EST
    it's not a news network, it's a cheerleading squad

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I mean at least "balanced". (none / 0) (#124)
    by shannon on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:13:07 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Ya know (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:11:21 AM EST
    if Obama supporters really want to help their candidate they could just be quiet. This idea that somehow they can "talk" us round or insult us or shame us or guilt us into supporting Obama is foolish.

    Perhaps in time some of us will decide to hold our noses and vote for an inferior candidate one more time because the Republican is so much worse. Others, I'm one, will not vote for Obama with or without Senator Clinton as VP.

    The best thing Obama supporters can do is to stop the gloating, stop the Clinton bashing, and go away and gloat, victory dance or whatever with other Obamacrats. Right now, you are doing more harm than good. And I say that as someone who enjoys every boneheaded move from a group of people for whom I have no respect whatsoever.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't watch any news on tv anymore. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:56:36 PM EST
    At all. And I used to be a news junkie. I feel much calmer now. BP never rises. I highly recommend CSPAN for speeches.

    [ Parent ]
    You know (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by phat on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:30:02 AM EST
    We had hopes for Air America. And we all have wished for a "progressive" version of Fox.

    Is this what we get for wishing?

    [ Parent ]

    You are not (none / 0) (#162)
    by facta non verba on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:19:21 AM EST
    alone. The only MSNBC program I can safely watch is Morning Joe. CNN depends. If I see Donna Brazile, Jack Cafferty, Roland Martin or Jamal whatever his name, switch-a-roo.

    The McLaughlin Group still pulls me in even though Monica Crowley is hard to stomach.

    [ Parent ]

    Getting Started (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Athena on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:28:35 PM EST
    A task ahead is to turn the national teach-in over sexism into action.  This is not just about Hillary - Hillary's treatment exposed how all women are treated.  That's why the resonance is so strong.

    Watch out for the classic tools of delegitimation: analysis becomes whining, anger becomes bitterness, dissent becomes divisiveness.

    And no, Senator Obama and the DNC, these are not "distractions."  

    getting started - via Women's Media Center (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by noholib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:24:15 PM EST
    Good idea!
    Some here may want to apply or nominate someone for the Progressive Women's Voices training program of the Women's Media Center.  Its purpose is to counter the gross underrepresentation of women in the media by training women to write and speak out more effectively in print and on TV. The deadline June 12 is quickly approaching for the third and final class of Progressive Women's Voices in 2008 - 10 more women to train and promote in the national media. More information on the program at http://www.womensmediacenter.com/progressive_womens_voices.html.

    Please consider nominating someone good, or apply yourself, or at least spread the word.

    [ Parent ]

    Um, several of those women (none / 0) (#137)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:30:39 AM EST
    at the link, those "participants" -- graduates of the program, I gather -- have been leading "feminists" against Clinton in this campaign.  See writers for the Nation, see anti-Clinton petition organizers, etc.  Anyone applying might want to look more into its aims.  Just sayin'.

    [ Parent ]
    So... (none / 0) (#186)
    by Y Knot on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:20:21 AM EST
    Is it not possible to be a feminist and against Clinton?  

    The way you put quotes around participants and the general warning tone, makes it look like you don't think that's possible.

    Maybe the group itself doesn't have a particular viewpoint on Clinton, but the individuals each made up their own minds?

    [ Parent ]

    BSG ? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:33:13 PM EST
    if you tell us what happens, I won't have to stay up for it here on the west coast.

    stay up. it's way freaky. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by cosbo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:43:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's worth watching (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by janarchy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:07:24 PM EST
    It's mostly Laura-centric with a lot of Cylon stuff going on. Hard to explain, even having seen it once. :)

    [ Parent ]
    It IS freaky and (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:15:30 PM EST
    it just adds to my theory that the plot since season 2 (hell, maybe since season 1) is the foreshadowing of this entire campaign.

    Baltar = younger guy who develops cultlike following and unseats the older, wiser and more experienced older woman with promises to lead the people to the promised land (New Caprica).

    Roslin = real leader who almost steals the election (that's a metaphorical comparison btw) but loses out to Baltar, both the Presidency and the direction of the people

    Invasion of New Caprica by Cylons and ruin of human society = gas prices, economic woes, and the clusterfrak of a war in Iraq.

    Resistance/Roslin = forced underground, brave souls hang on and return Roslin to rightful place as leader of people, to be led to the TRUE promised land.  TL is The Resistance, return of the true leader is Clinton in 2012.

    Ok, so it's not a perfect parallel.  But it's a little close for comfort, eh?  Oh, and Roslin and Clinton's significant others are both named Bill!

    [ Parent ]

    Ooooh (none / 0) (#62)
    by janarchy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:57:49 PM EST
    Ron D. Moore's either psychic or...I dunno what.

    All I know is why can't we have a President like Lee Adama? Now there is a man I would vote for (or do anything else he'd like. ::cough::)

    Tonight's episode was pretty chilling -- I wasn't sure WHERE they were going with what happened to Gaius but...yeah. Wow. Now Laura knows what we've known for 5 years.

    I will say the Cult of Gaius is a little bit scary in its parallels to the Cult of Obama. I think I'm thankful there's no Gaius Gurl singing songs of praise about him.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah.... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Alec82 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:12:58 PM EST
    ...but Gaius keeps a harem...like Bill...

     Just kidding, of course.

    [ Parent ]

    Pfffft. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by janarchy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:57:18 PM EST
    Then again, Gaius is too accomplished to be Obama. He's actually an expert in something.

    [ Parent ]
    I wouldn't invite that parallel (none / 0) (#116)
    by s5 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:07:15 AM EST
    if I were you.

    Roslin is a great character, but she's also delusional and lately, tyrannical, using her authority and close relationship with the military to consolidate executive power over the elected representatives. And she herself has never won an election, unless you count her brief victory where she conspired to steal the ballots before stepping down in shame.

    That said, I stopped looking for parallels between BSG and the 2008 election, once I found the ultimate parallel: John and Cindy McCain are Saul and Ellen Tigh. It's uncanny.

    [ Parent ]

    Didn't say it was a PERFECT (none / 0) (#131)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:20:44 AM EST
    analogy.

    In fact I rather hope it's not, given what the prophecies of Pythia say about a dying leader.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm very skeptical (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by s5 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:24:33 AM EST
    that the dying leader is necessarily Roslin. What if the dying leader is a cylon with no access to a resurrection ship? Now that ahem certain events have transpired (really trying to avoid spoilers here), one could say that cylons are an inherently dying race.

    [ Parent ]
    BSG (none / 0) (#122)
    by reslez on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:12:54 AM EST
    Your analysis is quite thoughtful but I have to admit I can't stand the character of Laura Roslin anymore. She always reminded me of GWB.

    Person with little relevant experience becomes president. Leads people forth in aftermath of catastrophic attack. Becomes a messianic leader convinced of own righteousness, inspired by questionable religious visions. Overrules more experienced military leaders. Steals election and gets caught. Bans abortion. Tortures political opponent. Rules without regard for openness or transparency (in recent episodes).

    Actually, what annoys me the most is that the writers always try to have it both ways with her. For example, when she stole the election she got caught, which somehow made it morally OK. I've noticed there are few consequences for main characters on BSG. Still, it is a decent show. (But not as good as The Wire.)

    I found an interview with BSG creator Ron Moore where he remarks on the similarities.

    [ Parent ]

    Lee kinda addressed this (none / 0) (#134)
    by s5 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:25:58 AM EST
    In his courtroom speech, he made a big show of pointing how no one is ever held accountable for anything. I think he made a convincing argument, which filled in some of the holes for me.

    [ Parent ]
    The moral point... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Alec82 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:43:06 AM EST
    ...is that the situation is like no other.  Everything WOULD change if there were fewer than 40K humans left and we were all fighting for survival.  Which is the more unique, science fiction angle of the show.  And what separates the analysis from what the Bushies have done.

    [ Parent ]
    Had she not overruled the military (none / 0) (#135)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:29:38 AM EST
    in the beginning, they may have lost all of humanity.

    I have not liked her as much lately because all sorts of ego and self-justification going on in her.

    But she's very practical and tough, and in a catastrophic situation that's what is needed.  I don't think she really escapes consequences.  She's dying, after all (a literary punishment, if not a direct moral one).  And still better than Gaius, as head of his own little freaky cult.  Of course, Galactica's plight is truly (although fictionally) catastrophic, not faked up crisis as we have with GWB.

    Sigh.  Really, I just want to believe that Ron Moore is foreshadowing a successful Clinton run in 2012.


    [ Parent ]

    TM has (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Andy08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:35:31 PM EST
    a request from one of Clinton's supporters today asking:

    We are trying to get a "Thank you card campaign" started. We want to flood Senator Clinton's DC office with thank you cards. On the front of the envelope we are writing "WE ARE ONE OF 18 MILLION" and we are asking her to take it to Denver. We want to reach as many supporters as possible so it can be effective. THE ADDRESS:

    THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

    UNITED STATES SENATE

    476 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON

    DC 20510-3202

    Pass it on.



    TM adds at the end (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Andy08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:37:12 PM EST
    But a thank you card for all she's done works too.

    Hillary fought for us. So let's send a card to Senator Clinton. Then tell your friends to send one. Then get them to get their friends to send one.



    [ Parent ]
    This is a great idea. Do we (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:41:09 PM EST
    just mail the envelope with that address on the front and say I am one of the 18M, or send a card that says that. Sorry, I'm tired tonight.

    [ Parent ]
    now.org has an email one (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by angie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:57:25 PM EST
    quick and easy.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:17:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I just sent my card....GO HILLARY!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:23:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Think the idea is for actual cards though. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:46:13 PM EST
    She said is was from Terry-think it's McAuliffe?

    [ Parent ]
    No, (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Andy08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:14:15 PM EST
    it is spontaneous from the people; it is coming from a Clinton supporter, Terry L.   (this is not from her campaign).


    [ Parent ]
    You're right, and she said Terry L (none / 0) (#56)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:51:34 PM EST
    then, several comments said they had received emails from Terry.

    Not sure, but I do think Taylor was trying to tell them it was not Terry McAuliffe when she added the L.  I have no idea why she didn't feel she could tell who it was.


    [ Parent ]

    Sending a Thank you card to Hillary (none / 0) (#68)
    by Serene1 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:07:59 PM EST
    would signify that we have accepted that the race is over. Instead of a thank you card I would rather send a card that says "Denver here we come" and a card to DNC like RD suggested.

    [ Parent ]
    Not mine! (none / 0) (#129)
    by angie on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:19:47 AM EST
    I wrote my own message (not the NOW one) and I thanked her for all she has done so far, that I would respect her decision, but begged her to leave her options open (ie, not release her delegates) as you never know what could happen this summer.

    [ Parent ]
    I wouldn't worry about that (none / 0) (#188)
    by Y Knot on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:40:00 AM EST
    It really doesn't matter if she "releases" them tomorrow or not, they're still hers.  They can choose to follow her suggestion or vote for her anyway.

    As of last night, Obama has 2244 delegates, to Clinton's 1886.  Even if she decides to fight the MI ruling (I'm betting she won't bother) and the Committee  takes away all the delegates from him, he'd still have enough to clinch.  Ironically, by August, I think he'll probably be more likely to push that than she will, since it won't have an effect on the outcome, and it would be a bone to throw MI.  

    At this point, it would take a major disaster on Obama's part for her to become the nominee.  On the order of news coming out that he killed someone, or a devastatingly horrific attack from the Republicans that would make Kerry think he got off easy.  Or you know, something worse.

    If that were to happen... no matter what she says to her delegates today, Clinton would be the obvious choice to replace him.  No one at that point would say "Oh, well... we can't choose Clinton, she released her delegates."

    [ Parent ]

    National Organization of Women - e thank you's (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by noholib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:41:33 PM EST
    Thanks for this link.
    Yes, real cards would be great.
    But just in case you might forget, why not do it now on the NOW link?  It's really easy and quite cathartic.  

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#138)
    by shannon on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:31:33 AM EST
    I just sent my card of thanks and offered my support if should decides to go Indie or take it to Denver!

    [ Parent ]
    Riverdaughter suggests... (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:49:47 PM EST
    that we send post cards to Dean/Brazile saying "We are one of the 18 million".

    http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/oh-yes-wait-a-minute-mr-postman/

    I like that idea, too.

    [ Parent ]

    I will be sending both the thank (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:58:15 PM EST
    you and to the DNC. Love both ideas.

    [ Parent ]
    Me, too (none / 0) (#59)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:54:13 PM EST
    Saw you over there today :)

    I comment under a different name over there.


    [ Parent ]

    I can't remember (none / 0) (#92)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:44:14 PM EST
    who it was that said we should send the DNC

    RSVP cards for November 4 that say NO, very sorry but we can't attend the election for your candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    Post cards (none / 0) (#54)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:50:52 PM EST
    would be better. Letters or cards are going to be stuck in inspection forever.  Just a thought.

    [ Parent ]
    Good thinking (none / 0) (#72)
    by Andy08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:15:21 PM EST
    waldenpond !  A postcard would work faster.

    [ Parent ]
    "Senior political analyst" Candy Crowley (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by kenosharick on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:41:07 PM EST
    of CNN was asked what she saw as the one moment when Hillary's campaign "started to unravel." She said it was Clinton's vote to give bush authoriation fo the Iraq war- which was several YEARS before the campaign started. This demonstrates the extreme incompetance of the MSM.
    And she makes the big money!!!

    Then, another male guest was asked the (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:45:44 PM EST
    same question today and he said the turning point was the Bosnia story.

    Funny how Obama's non-existent uncle liberating Auschwitz didn't bother him one bit, though. Or, JFK bringing his dad to the US, OR Selmas making it possible for him to be born.

    About the only "stories" I do believe are that he is distantly related to both GWB and Cheney.


    [ Parent ]

    yes, those (none / 0) (#75)
    by Andy08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:18:33 PM EST
    two are the only ones that fit...
     

    [ Parent ]
    it was when they began (none / 0) (#90)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:41:53 PM EST
    attacking clinton in south carolina with the false tears story about katrina. racist dog whistles.

    [ Parent ]
    It was when Oceania attacked Eurasia. (none / 0) (#91)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:42:35 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    huh? sorry! (none / 0) (#101)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:51:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Lol (none / 0) (#161)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:13:33 AM EST
    See MarkL, you can't leave!  Where am I going to get my comic relief?

    [ Parent ]
    funny that she thinks Obama won on that (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by sociallybanned on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:04:31 PM EST
    because if that's the case, socialworker.org is dogging the crap out of Obama and says by the looks of it, the war and more wars (refocusing on Ahfganistan (msp?)) and sending more troops in.  

    Obama also talks about the need to "refocus our attention on the broader Middle East" and "finishing the fight in Afghanistan." So we are likely to see some troops now in Iraq shifted toward the occupation of Afghanistan, and also toward possible new interventions in the region.

    PEOPLE WHO believe Barack Obama will end the occupation of Iraq are likely in for a rude awakening. Despite talking about withdrawal from Iraq, his plan would keep troops in the country for years to come, likely well beyond his potential first term.

    Most importantly:

    Take the issue of troop levels. Obama's Web site says, "Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines." What do we imagine the purpose of those troops will be? To provide housing for homeless people? To teach children who are illiterate? To wipe out malaria and easy preventable diseases that kill millions of children ever year?


    [ Parent ]
    Well, the troops will bring a new kind (none / 0) (#67)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:05:29 PM EST
    of change, obviously!

    [ Parent ]
    this is somewhere on the NASW (none / 0) (#69)
    by bjorn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:09:04 PM EST
    website?  

    [ Parent ]
    socialist so they pretty much nitpick everything (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by sociallybanned on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:17:55 PM EST

    but found this interesting cos so many say they are socialist and support Obama but socialist are offended.  LOL They do not like him!

    http://socialistworker.org/2008/06/04/will-obama-stop-the-war

    [ Parent ]

    The Iraq vote was (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:56:37 PM EST
    just an excuse. If it hadn't been that, there would have been some other excuse.

    [ Parent ]
    She lost (none / 0) (#95)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:45:34 PM EST
    the minute the librul media got their grimy little hands on her.

    [ Parent ]
    Crowley's got a point... (none / 0) (#189)
    by Y Knot on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:45:26 AM EST
    I firmly believe that if she hadn't voted for the war, she'd be the nominee today.  Hands down.  If she had voted against it, Obama would have had no launching point for his campaign.  That was the one thing that really separates them on issues.

    It's the one thing Clinton herself admits was the basis for his argument that he would be a better President than her.  "I have experience, he has a speech he gave in 2002." (misquoted I know, but that's what I'm referring to.)

    If Clinton had stood up and said the war was wrong in 2002, I think she would have crushed him early on, even if he had run, which I doubt he would have.

    Well, anyway, all just fantasy speculation.  But I think Crowley's point is valid.

    [ Parent ]

    If she hadn't voted to authorise the (none / 0) (#191)
    by JoeA on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:04:28 AM EST
    war then I'm convinced Obama would not have run this cycle,  he wouldn't have had an opening.

    [ Parent ]
    How big a gaffe was Obama's (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:53:44 PM EST
    "undivided Jerusalem" comment?
    To me it displays either a horrifying level of ignorance, or a level of support for the extreme Zionist position which is equally frightening.

    Ah, but.... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by vml68 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:07:17 PM EST
    ...he has gone back and changed that and explained what he really meant... :-)!
    Anyone see shades of "I was for it before I was against it"?!

    [ Parent ]
    Really? What did Obama Really Mean? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:08:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You'll have to ask him about that... (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by vml68 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:16:54 PM EST
    Apparently his "handlers" had to fix the gaffe. I can't remember where I read the article or I would post a link.

    [ Parent ]
    no one has done more for the great (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by bjorn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:18:11 PM EST
    divide in Jerusalem than B. O.  

    [ Parent ]
    Israeli politics is like nuclear (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:21:02 PM EST
    deterrence theory, in that you have to be extremely careful what you say, because so many words and phrases have set, significant meanings.


    [ Parent ]
    Very long article (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:27:24 PM EST
    on the front page of Savage Politics goes into depth on the foreign affairs Flip Flops of Obama. It's very informative.

    They spent lots of time on his comments/policy ideas on Israel.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow, thanks! I'll have to read the (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:30:27 PM EST
    whole thing later.
    But really, who cares. The GOP has chosen charismatic amateurs before---why can't we!

    [ Parent ]
    Because there is so much more at stake (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:35:11 PM EST
    this time.

    The country is in such a horrible mess. How in the world can we trust this man to clean it up?

    I am so much less afraid of McCain, as long as he has a bigger, stronger democratic majority, of course.

    Soon, I'll be staying at riverdaughter's The Confluence site. The Obama youth who are starting to take over the comment area here aren't good for my mental health. It was so much fun until then.

    [ Parent ]

    No! (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:48:10 PM EST
    the both of you, please don't leave.  There's a lot of us non-youth here.  We just type a little slower, that's all.  You both have interesting takes on whatever's going on, plus you make me laugh.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with Valhalla. I'm guessing (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:52:23 PM EST
    I'm one of the "oldsters" here and I have so enjoyed the commonness we have. We come from the same eras, same experiences, and we basically think alike, and obviously, we've learned to have a great deal of patience. Please stay, I, too would miss you very much.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh i'm not going.. but I just feel like (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:58:04 PM EST
    I don't have anything to say now.
    When the primary race was on, there was a point to criticizing Obama, because I wanted to show Hillary was better. Now he appears to be the nominee, and I have no enthusiasm at all for him. I have a teeny bit more interest in McCain, because he really is an interesting politician. People who think his "maverick" title is outdated are so wrong.
    His proposal to institute "question time" here is quite surprising and new.
    Don't expect a similar level of innovation from Obama.

    If there were one issue which would get me on board for Obama, it would be global warming/energy policy, but that is not a strong area for him, IMO.

    [ Parent ]

    oh mark, as the campaign unfolds (none / 0) (#93)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:44:55 PM EST
    i think that you will find a lot to share and a number of things to comment on in the upcoming race. i must confess i too have thought i would be pulling back and perhaps may yet do so.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with you, Mark (none / 0) (#112)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:02:55 AM EST
    He's an interesting guy with an interesting take on things.  I LOVED the "question time" idea.  I think his invitation to Barack to go to Iraq with him is pure genius.  And the unstructured debate challenge is, too.

    I very much liked the pre-2000 McCain and thought at the time that if he wasn't so damn conservative, it would be such a relif to have somebody in the White House who didn't talk in circles all the time.  That was one of the reasons I liked Howard Dean so much. That's what McCain used to be like.  If he can get that back, Barack has no chance at all.

    [ Parent ]

    I remember (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:15:14 AM EST
    in 2000 that I was TERRIFIED that McCain would beat Bush and win the GE.  I was relieved when Bush won the primary because there was no way under the sun that the idiot could win the general!

    Little did I know...

    I don't like McCain at all for his conservatism.  However, he comes across as amazingly likeable as a person.  I watched one of his commercials about his time in Vietnam and I actually shed a tear!

    As for the "how do we beat the beotch" comment --  That isn't nearly as bad as some of the atrocities that have come out of the Obama campaign.  Racism?  Come on.

    I think McCain has a heck of a chance, especially if Obama keeps with the ridiculous foreign policy gaffes.  Obama seems unwilling to actually sit down and learn something about governing.   He's neve done it before, just went from election to election, office to office.  And he's completely not studious.

    My heart would not be broken if the presidency went to the guy who spent 5 years in a box.  I could completely justify it in my mind.  I've been meaning to scan a tree of life diagram, so I could put an arrow to the tree that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid belong to -- the VERTEBRATES ;-).  I'm a broken record on that subject.

    Anyway...

    [ Parent ]

    Agree JavaCityPal (none / 0) (#78)
    by Andy08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:21:08 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I meant (none / 0) (#79)
    by Andy08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:21:39 PM EST
    I agree with you   ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    not taken over by youth (none / 0) (#97)
    by noholib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:45:57 PM EST
    Regular commenters, please stay if you have the time. Don't be scared by young newcomers.  Just ignore the ones you don't like.  I think plenty of old fogeys will stick around.  It will be just as much fun as ever!

    [ Parent ]
    WORM!!! (none / 0) (#55)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:51:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You startled me :) (none / 0) (#77)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:21:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    WORM, Jerusalem edition (none / 0) (#102)
    by Landulph on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:51:25 PM EST
    Apparently the story is that when he said "undivided", he meant Jerusalem should be not be divided by roadblocks, barbed wire, blockades, etc. Horse hockey. The word "undivided" coupled with "Jerusalem" has a very specific meaning in the context of Israeli/Palestinian relarions (to wit, continued Israeli sovereignty over the Old City/East Jerusalem). At best, Obama was guilty of a stupid and sloppy use of language, the kind that leads to international diplomatic incident, and that our current Moron-in-Chief has proven so adept at over the past eight years. At worst, he got caught in a pander and is lying through his teeth.

    [ Parent ]
    Clarification of Clarification (none / 0) (#110)
    by Landulph on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:00:38 AM EST
    Additionally, within one hour of this initial clarification from the Obama campaign *which apparently provoked protests from AIPAC), they wheeled out his hand-puppet Robert Wexler to indicate that, yes, Obama supported an undivided, Israeli-ruled Jerusalem, and always had throughout this campaign. Basically, Obama succeeded in pissing off both sides of the debate in less than 24-hours. F*cking amateurs.

    [ Parent ]
    Just wait, (none / 0) (#158)
    by Grace on S