Saturday Evening Open Thread

Don't bet the mortgage payment on any horse to win the Triple Crown. It hasn't happened since Affirmed won it all in 1978. Big Brown was this year's hope.

Long Island's favorite horse failed miserably in his quest to become the first Triple Crown winner in 30 years when he pulled up and finished last in a huge upset in the 140th Belmont Stakes on Saturday at Belmont Park.

On the other hand, betting the mortgage payment on the Belmont winner, Da'Tara, would have returned a nice profit at 38-1. (TalkLeft does not endorse gambling with your mortgage money.)

This is an open thread.

< O'Connor Backs Educational Videogames About Judicial System | McCain Loves Dance Music >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Big Brown finished out of the money... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by NotThatStupid on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:48:08 PM EST
    ... completing the Triple Crown-Democratic Primary oracle begun with the destruction of the filly, Eight Belles, after the Derby.

    For those of you into signs and omens.

    I missed the race (3.33 / 3) (#79)
    by akaEloise on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:44:45 PM EST
    Please tell me the horse who won was not named Angry Crazy Racist Old War Hero.

    Big Brown... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by masslib on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:48:15 PM EST
    poor thing.

    He's fine, just had a bad day, (none / 0) (#10)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:06:53 PM EST
    probably due to the heat in NY. Some horses don't do well in the heat, and it seems like Big Brown is one of them. The FL Derby he won was in cooler weather than the Belmont. I thought he was a shoo-in too until I saw the temperature. That sort of heat on a sunny day means that the temperature on the race track itself, with the heat radiating up from the sand, is well over 100 degrees. Like about ten degrees higher than elsewhere. The track sand stores and radiates heat amazingly. I have almost gotten heatstroke galloping in cooler temps than they had at Belmont today. I think he just had a "touch of heat" No harm done since he wasn't asked to go on and do more, but a disappointment for sure. Maybe next year..

    Was that really it? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:10:55 PM EST
    Jeez.  :(  Didn't seem to bother Da'tara.  I guess he doesn't deserve the Triple Crown then...

    I think it was the heat.. nothing else (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:20:04 PM EST
    makes sense. He is sound, the foot is fine, he has been training well. Not being on steroids wasn't a factor, that's not how they work. Some horses don't do well in high temps. Neither do some people. I mean, in 97 degree weather, how far and fast can you run?? Not as far or fast as you can in say, 85 degrees, right? Horses are the same way. Some do better in hot weather than others.

    Da'Tara ran a great race. And Dutrow should have known better than to tempt the gods of racing with his big mouth when Nick Zito had two horses in the race. Belmont is Zito's home track, and he knows his stuff. If I were a trainer with a horse in the Belmont, I would be worried about Nick no matter how good my horse was. Dutrow should have kept his mouth shut, or at least had some humility. He didn't, he was punished. Simple. The horse will be fine. Dutrow, maybe not so much. Heh.


    My dog slows considerably in the (none / 0) (#41)
    by nycstray on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:49:36 PM EST
    heat and even more so when the humidity kicks in. Thankfully! Some dogs around here don't and I would be kinda ticked if she were a heat lovin' gal! I try and get a couple to a few miles a day on her. Today she was content with shady strolls.

    I was wondering about the heat out there today when I heard it was coming in. Yesterday was beautiful. Today was like someone flipped a switch.


    My dog really poops out in the heat... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:53:51 PM EST
    ...she's getting up there in years though. And she's a beagle so she's kind of um chubby.

    experts say (none / 0) (#52)
    by bjorn on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:56:40 PM EST
    anything over 85 degrees is too hot for dogs. I live in AZ so we have to go out at 5 am in the summer to get in walks.

    In the summer time, we walk on (none / 0) (#56)
    by nycstray on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:02:52 PM EST
    the shady side of the streets. Winter, the sunny :)

    I love the pre-dawn hours and also the mid-night hours.Our dog park is pretty much all shade so on 'iffy' days, you can still get some activity in.


    I have a Dalmatian (none / 0) (#55)
    by nycstray on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:59:45 PM EST
    The first summer it kinda freaked me out until I figured out her 'weather patterns'. We would be walking along and she would just plop down on the sidewalk! Now we have a routine and I carry a water bottle just to wet her down with. The huge puddles after thunder storms are heaven  ;) Luckily, our park is busy late into the night so I can take her to the track at mid-night if she gets too hyper.

    I'm trying to help my parents find a Beagle right now :)


    I love my beagle.... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:16:15 PM EST
    ....the only thing I would change about her is that she would bark a little less.

    oh god (none / 0) (#71)
    by bjorn on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:19:29 PM EST
    how true...our beagle is a food whore and howls and howls until he gets his treat.  He is a howler alright.  I understand most beagles are! We love him though.

    I have a Walker hound who warbles at me (none / 0) (#81)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:52:40 PM EST
    when she wants something.. she has a lovely hound voice, deep and melodic. My Bichon is the yappy one when she is on the wrong side of the door..LOL The hound is a rescue, she was left out on the road without a collar which is a usual way of dumping a hound that either won't hunt anymore or is getting old. She ended up in a kill shelter, and I adopted her. She is seven, so she was getting up there. She is living out her life in AC'd luxury as a house dog. She loves it. Well, except for the barn cats. She is scared of them, and they like to take advantage of that and herd her. Really..two will get on fence posts at the gate and the toms will stalk her and she will move away from them, right where they want her to go. Once I had to take the car and go rescue her from the end of the driveway. The cats were blocking her from coming back down it after they had herded her down to the mailbox. So after I stopped laughing, I went and rescued her in the car so she would be "safe" going by the cats. They weigh 8-10 lbs. She weighs 40 lbs. Go figure. Heh.

    One of my cats teases my dog (none / 0) (#89)
    by nycstray on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:08:12 PM EST
    that way. she'll sit by a doorway in such a manner that my dog won't pass her. Dog sits there and whines until I come and "save" her. lol!~

    Walkers are beautiful hounds. I like their size a bit better than Beagles.


    Our dogs, a Rasta Yorkie and a boarder collie mix (none / 0) (#92)
    by suisser on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:11:50 PM EST
    in our NE heat today have been as uncomfortable as I.  It's hot in CT, Hilary is out of the race, I have no place to lay my head down a rest. I don't know what the future holds, I'll just follow the dogs and find all cool, shaded and damp spots where I might gather my thoughts around me.  I'll come round to what I must do, but I see no "uniticorns" in my immediate future. More like a "processing pony" I need a nap and shade and time to think.

    He was also drug free... (none / 0) (#14)
    by citizen53 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:10:03 PM EST
    for the first time.

    I caught that also (none / 0) (#35)
    by nycstray on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:43:47 PM EST
    and I'm glad he was. Don't know if drugs would have been worse in this weather or not. Didn't want to find out.

    I wonder if that $$$$ sperm buy is still on . . .


    No, just off one steroid.. (none / 0) (#57)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:03:09 PM EST
    He was on Lasix, which is a diuretic which is given to lower the blood pressure by removing fluid from the body which is supposed to help keep them from bleeding. It can also dehydrate a horse very quickly on a hot day like today. So, he wasn't drug-free and it probably was the heat which was exacerbated by the Lasix. NY does not allow horses to run on Bute.

    That reminds me of something interesting (none / 0) (#15)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:10:13 PM EST
    which I read not too long ago.
    Did you know that man can outrun every animal on the planet? I'm serious. Of course, by outrun, I mean  in distance, not speed. The fastest animals overheat quite rapidly. A cheetah will stop running the instant its temperature reaches a critical level.
    Man, on the other hand, is built for running.
    In the last few years, races between horses and men have been run with man finally winning.
    IIRC, the distances are around 20 miles.

    Mark....I will try to remember that the next (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:41:49 PM EST
    time a mountain lion is chasing me... :)

    Just think that YOU are chasing the (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:43:20 PM EST
    PUMA, and you know you will win!

    I can do that.... (none / 0) (#36)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:45:17 PM EST
    i couldn't bring myself to watch this year. (none / 0) (#162)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:15:44 AM EST
    barbaro broke my heart. i was so afraid that a tragedy would happen today. heck, i even change channels when the poor dog is going to be killed in some monster movie. you can see it coming. the killer or monster is prowling around and the dog is barking barking. yeah, i know it's a movie, but color me very soft hearted.

    So, it's Halperin. . .buuuuut (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:52:03 PM EST
    I agree:

    Mr. Obama's narrow victory came from a powerful combination of two constituencies. The first was white, highly educated, reform-minded Democratic elites. It's easy to forget how skeptical this bloc historically has been toward the Clintons, whom they view as slick and scandal-stained opportunists. They rooted for the improbable Paul Tsongas in 1992, and for Bill Bradley over Al Gore in 2000.

    The second was African-Americans. Bill Clinton overcame political adversity in 1992 and throughout his presidency in large measure because of support from African-Americans, but this time they went for Mr. Obama.
    A collection of Hillary Clinton's tactical campaign mistakes would be a thick book. But she lost the race because Mr. Obama summoned the support of one group that never much liked the Clintons -- and of another group that always did until now.

    Halperin has reformed slightly (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:58:09 PM EST
    He's actually been saying some fairly rational things in the last few months.  That's compared to the insane, however.

    He's certainly right on this, and it's far more sensible than most of the other "analyses" one reads from The Village.

    Does he say how Obama thinks he can win against McCain with that sliver of the electorate?

    Me, I've always felt more comfortable when I find I'm supporting the same candidate working-class voters are. (At least here in the northeast.)  That group usually--not always--has an uncanny instinct for seeing through phonies.


    You are, easily 60-70 % (none / 0) (#25)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:29:23 PM EST
    Of blacks are working class.  Thanks.

    This is the first time in recent memory (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:32:38 PM EST
    that working class blacks have broken from working class whites on their choice of a nominee. I think that's implicit in Halperin's point. For the first time in a long time, they joined with the latte liberals to choose a candidate.

    Honestly (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Shawn on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:45:56 PM EST
    I'd say this was the first time ever. Neither McGovern nor Dukakis - the only two "Creative Class" or latte liberal candidates nominated prior to this* - won the black vote in the primaries.

    *Kerry is retroactively seen as that type of candidate, but a large part of his support came from working-class Dems frightened by Dean, the real Creative Class candidate.


    If Obama wins I hope he (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by bjorn on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:47:06 PM EST
    will deliver policies and programs that really benefit the AAs.  He owes them big time.  The latte liberals don't need him for anything but to end the war, which is IMPORTANT. But Obama really needs to deliver to the working class of all races, ethnicities, etc...I would also like to add that I think Jesse Jackson Sr. and Al Sharpton did a good job of staying out of it so as not to create distractions.

    You are wrong, the latte class need him... (4.80 / 5) (#43)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:52:20 PM EST
    ...very much. And I'm not just talking about the price of arugula. They need him to remain the media darling so that they can hide behind him and not be the butt of MSM jokes anymore. You can't imagine how much that means to them. </snark>

    I hope he can bring the price of (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:54:13 PM EST
    Iberica Jamon under $90/lb.

    Mmmm...good stuff!!! (none / 0) (#114)
    by vml68 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:54:11 PM EST
    If he can bring the price down, I might just be able to tolerate seeing him win......Nah, I can't stand the man. I guess $90/lb it is!

    heh heh (none / 0) (#45)
    by bjorn on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:53:13 PM EST
    I heard something thought-provoking on (4.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Grace on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:52:28 PM EST
    TV today.  

    Here's the question:  Will a President Obama spell the end of Affirmative Action for blacks?  

    I didn't get to hear the discussion but it was an interesting question.  If a black man can reach the highest office in the country, do blacks really need AA anymore?  

    Did anyone else hear this discussion?  


    I think its' because of affirmative action (none / 0) (#121)
    by Clinton2012 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:08:28 PM EST
    that he is so close to being president. At least it is THE reason he is the nominee for the DNC.

    I am all for ending the affirmative action..
    and.. that doesn't mean a Black person cannot be a president on his own merits .. like Michael Nutter, mayor of Philadelphia!


    the conservatives would certainly use (none / 0) (#150)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:48:38 AM EST
    that argument to end affirmative action if they can.

    As long as they keep it for others (none / 0) (#166)
    by splashy on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:35:36 AM EST
    That need it.

    In fact, I have read that there has been affirmative action used to benefit males in colleges, because there were so many females applying.

    It can go in many directions, so ending affirmative action is probably not a good thing.


    Jesse Jackson has been touring (none / 0) (#42)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:49:55 PM EST
    Africa, for some reason. Don't know where Sharpton is.

    Sharpton's been around. (none / 0) (#50)
    by nycstray on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:54:30 PM EST
    The Shawn Bell killing. He has been a bit quiet the past couple of weeks, but before that, he was out there.

    Didn't South Park do an episode about (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:38:59 PM EST
    Jackson and Sharpton being sent to the ends of the earth to keep them out of the fray?

    SNL did that (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Shawn on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:43:03 PM EST
    On Robert Smigel's "TV Funhouse." I don't watch "South Park", so maybe they did something similar.

    It was SNL (none / 0) (#143)
    by MKS on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:50:11 PM EST
    and a funny skit--a cartoon actually.

    Shawn & MKS...you are correct....thanks (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:59:11 PM EST
    And MKS, I will try to remember to use African American henceforth...

    jackson is late to the party. bill clinton (none / 0) (#151)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:49:39 AM EST
    has been doing a great deal for africa with his foundation. you know more than just one school for girls.

    Doesn't matter who the candidiate is (none / 0) (#60)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:09:21 PM EST
    Power corrupts and abolute power corrupts absolutly.  It doesn't matter how amazing the candidate is, it will happen.  Thus it our job to make sure they put in place policies that help everyone.  I hope Obama gets elected and I hope he is a historically good president, but if he is not this Black Obama supporter will have no problem throwing his butt out.

    These candidates aren't gods, their politicians.  We need (in my mind BOTH Obama and Hillary supporters) to keep this in mind more.


    Universal health care is a biggie (none / 0) (#164)
    by splashy on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:31:22 AM EST
    If we can get him to do it. That would do so much for all the working people, I can't tell you how much that would change their lives!

    Universal, no opting out for anyone, and help for those that can't manage it.

    That was my big sticking point, and I would consider voting for him if he would do that one thing.


    So the Tsongas wing of the party.... (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:15:38 PM EST
    ...finally got their man.

    halperin is full of it... (5.00 / 13) (#29)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:34:50 PM EST
    Obama didn't 'win' based on any costituency group other than 'party hacks'.

    Hillary Clinton had two really bad weeks in February after Super Tuesday.  Barack Obama had three really bad months since then.  The party elders decided to ignore the message being sent by the voters, and go with Obama campaign cash.

    Obama won because the "villagers" -- those people who the left is usually so contemptuous of -- decided long ago that the Clintons were not "one of us"... that they came from 'the rabble', and didn't aspire to be 'elite', and that was unforgiveable.  So the media villagers picked Barack Obama, and the 'political' villagers endorsed that choice, because he was the only alternative to the dreaded clintons.


    No he's not (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:38:01 PM EST
    Answer this question: would Obama have still even been in the race after Super Tuesday if blacks had backed Hillary as strongly as they ended up backing him? I think the answer is absolutely not. I think the Bill Bradley comparison is instructive in this regard.

    Hillary would have won (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by pie on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:11:50 PM EST
    the AA vote easily if he had not been running, obviously.

    But even though they probably would havevoted for him even if she was ahead, they wouldn't have affected the outcome.

    And they certainly won't be able to affect it sufficiently enough in November.  He'll need lots of other minorities, blue collar workers and seniors, those he didn't get in sufficient numbers in the primary.

    The campaign needs to stop talking about not needing certain groups of voters, unless it wants to lose in November.


    I believe (hope/pray. . .) they understand (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:16:45 PM EST
    that they need to expand their coalition considerably.

    I have a feeling (5.00 / 7) (#73)
    by pie on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:23:01 PM EST
    they're not quite as confident about the next stage.  I can see it in the Obama supporters' comments.  They've gone from, "Oh, Obama will be able to survive anything they throw at him to...


    Hillary was very easy on him.  Republican voters won't be disgusted or worked up into a lather about that mean John McCain, so the bullying and the nasty comments about him aren't going to work.

    I hope they have Plan A, B, C, and D.


    I made the mistake of reading (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by nycstray on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:03:25 PM EST
    at his site. Bill and Hillary need to prove themselves as Democrats, lol!~ I didn't read any farther than that.

    Just a taste:

    I truly hope the Clintons work for the party this election, they have let us down for the last two by not campaigning for Gore or Kerry. Or I hope they at least get out of the way.

    Maybe a position for Chelsea somewhere would be a better olive branch and a good check on Mom and Dad.

    I really need HRC and Bill to show us they are true democrats and not working for the other side...

    Well, the majority of the Democrats voting (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by Teresa on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:06:55 PM EST
    think they are real Democrats. I wonder about some of his supporters. I think they think they invented the Democratic Party.

    I'm not a Democrat (none / 0) (#131)
    by flashback on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:23:50 PM EST
    But I'm really excited about voting for Obama.

    Wasn't Hillary very much a centrist in the Senate?  I don't remember a whole lot of progressive rhetoric until this primary, and it was fairly late in the primary, too, wasn't it?


    I can tell (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:33:24 PM EST
    your not a Dem because Sen Clinton has never been a centrist.... that IS the problem..... the Clintons are for Arkansas.

    If she was a centrist... she would now be the nominee.


    I think their records are almost identical (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Teresa on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:36:05 PM EST
    except Obama voted for "Cheney's" energy plan and he voted to confirm one of the military guys (was it Gage?) and she didn't. Her health care proposal is much better and she wouldn't even put Social Security on the table right now like he did.

    I guess it depends on how you define progressive. His actions and words don't speak too much for me compared to hers.


    He also voted to extend trade fast tracking (none / 0) (#178)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:37:49 PM EST
    which Hillary didn't. McCain didn't vote on it.

    Reminds me of the old saying (none / 0) (#167)
    by splashy on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:03:34 AM EST
    "Kids think they invented sex, and their parents don't do it."

    He, he.


    Sounds like (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by pie on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:07:34 PM EST
    Halperin is a republican troll.

    Heh heh heh.

    I wish I could tell him what a lowlife scumbag he really is.


    What utter crap (5.00 / 6) (#120)
    by Landulph on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:08:12 PM EST
    Honestly, are these people 12 years old. Gore (at the advice of Donna "Sushi-for-Brains" Brazille) deliberately distanced himself from the Big Dawg--he didn't WANT to be associated with him. I'll lay easy money that if Bill had campaigned just one weekend in Ark. or Tenn. Gore would have become Pres., Fla. or no Fla. And in 2004, Clinton got up from his sickbed (he'd just had bypass surgery, remember?) to campaign for Kerry. Really, given the treatment the large swathes of the Democratic party have given them over the past 5 months, I'd say Bill and Hillary would be more than justified in telling them, "Screw it--you're on your own til Nov." (They won't, of course, but they'd have every right to).

    I completely agree on Tennessee. (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Teresa on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:18:52 PM EST
    A lot of people here didn't consider Al enough of a Tennessean, as if it's his fault his dad was a Senator and he spent a lot of his youth in DC. That, plus him not coming here to ask for their vote really turned some off. I can't tell you how many people told me "he won't even live here when he is out of office". I'm so glad he proved them wrong on that.

    There was no excuse for them to lose here. We elected a Democratic Governor two years later and had a black Democrat almost beat a rich white man two years ago. I still can't believe how they screwed that up (Gore and Brazile, not Harold Ford).


    Clinton Interview (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:27:20 PM EST
    on Charlie Rose. Bill addressed Arkansas and Gore. The was told to stay out of it. Bill said had he even known the polling was going bad there he would had made a few calls for Gore and Gore would have won there. (which would have given him the presidency and spared us 8yrs of Bush). I've never quite forgiven Gore for that.

    No doubt in my mind (4.66 / 3) (#137)
    by suki on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:37:08 PM EST
    that Clinton could have won Arkansas for Gore.
    I don't let myself think about it anymore - it's still depressing.
    Senator Clinton would have won Arkansas, too.
    Sentor Obama doesn't have a chance here.

    Where do these people (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by standingup on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:48:44 PM EST
    get there information?  It was Gore's choice to distance himself from the Clintons, not the other way around.  Bill did campaign for Kerry as much as possible considering that he had bypass surgery in the middle of the campaign.  

    Fast forward to 2006, they were campaigning and raising money for Congressional Dems.  I attended one event where Bill campaigned with Claire McCaskill (the ungrateful) and held a fund raiser for her in St. Louis.  


    Bill Campaigned For McCaskill In MO (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:53:47 AM EST
    Hillary held a fund raiser for her in NY. McCaskill the gracious, thanked them by stating on MTP that she would not want Bill in the same room with her daughter. Claire has a lot of class. No.

    personally i think whoever is writing (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:52:58 AM EST
    comments like that need to prove they are good democrats.

    Really? (none / 0) (#93)
    by badguppy on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:12:37 PM EST
    The campaign is publicly stating they do not need certain groups of voters? That is a very stupid thing for a campaign to say.

    Obama won by dividing us!! (5.00 / 7) (#49)
    by Clinton2012 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:54:22 PM EST
    .. so much for a unity candidate..

    He fostered racist feelings for the Clinton couple .. the one who had done the most for the blacks..

    He tarnished Clinton's record on almost everything good in 90's to one of the worst. He demeaned our own favorite president in our own eyes.. the only one to win 2 term in recent history.

    He tarnished the poor white democratic voters voting for Hillary into a group of racist people who are bitter and clinging to guns and religion..

    Yes.. .. so much for a Unity candidate.. that he had made the RNC candidate a viable opponent in this election in Nov .. the one that DNC almost had a lock on it and cannot afford to lose.. but is a suspense NOW.. will he .. will he not!!


    Yes he got the help of the media in everything (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Clinton2012 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:37:07 PM EST
    he wanted.. they even abetted the charges he framed and help him frame those charges.. but that does not acquit him.

    I believe every word Clinton said on Obama.. he is not a commander-in-chief material. .. and I think he owes us a lot of answers before I can vote for him..   and the DNC owes us a lot of question before it can count on me to vote on Party Line.


    two bad weeks versus three bad months (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by mary kate on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:09:11 PM EST
    The new 'new math,' I guess.

    Or maybe just a game of Ratboat.


    New good words for Hillary by Obama and his (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Clinton2012 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:45:39 PM EST
    supporters or another "Just Words" from the Saint Obama.

    Ok (none / 0) (#144)
    by suki on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:52:15 PM EST
    that is just hilarious!

    African Americans (4.00 / 1) (#122)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:09:22 PM EST
    voted for Obama because he was, at least part, African American.

    It is not that they did not like the Clintons nor do not like them now. I would assume that they wanted to be part of an historic vote even if Obama does not win in the GE.

    This is pretty simply so I don't know how Halprien makes an entire column about it.

    O course Obama made no mistakes at all.


    Re: Halperin (none / 0) (#12)
    by Spike on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:08:55 PM EST
    Are young voters not worthy of note?

    Young voters (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Shawn on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:19:42 PM EST
    Many of Obama's young voters would fall into one of the groups described by Halperin.

    Less so (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:21:42 PM EST
    I think what happened in Iowa has still not adequately been explained. But the young voters were probably most important in that contest.

    I hope so (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by zyx on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:24:59 PM EST
    I was a loyal Democratic voter during the Reagan years and Bush I years.  I learned that young voters have to live with disappointment sometimes.  

    I am learning that older voters have to live with disappointment sometimes.

    Do you want today's young voters to, um, learn that they always get to win, is that it?  Because if that's the message you want them to have, then good luck to you and to them, sweetie.


    You are talking about a generation (5.00 / 7) (#76)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:40:03 PM EST
    that gets trophies just for showing up. Not a generation that thinks competition is something that goes on in life, they think it goes on on television, like on those "reality" shows. They think they can win all the time because their parents have made damned sure they never heard the word "NO!", they never had to actually lose because it would make them feel badly about themselves, and they think that lip service is real service because that is all they have been required to give. Yes, they think they can and should win because no one ever told them there can be such a thing as a losing side for them. They have never been on it. The self-esteem that their parents were so careful to make sure they had, even if they never did anything to feel good about, leads them to believe that whatever they do, they will win. They are in for a very rude awakening. Who knows, it might even do them some good.

    You nailed it! (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by sociallybanned on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:37:49 PM EST
    They are in for a rude awakening!  

    well said. (none / 0) (#117)
    by Clinton2012 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:59:31 PM EST
    the world has some reality shows in (none / 0) (#154)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:56:42 AM EST
    store for them that should be a real deal breaker down the road. things aren't nearly as positive as they used to be. so acting like the world is ours simply because won't fly in the face of reality.

    it is also a voting block that won't stick (none / 0) (#163)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:17:33 AM EST
    togther long term. there is no glue there and no real common interests. the major portion of the aa vote has more in common with the blue collar white voters. i think that is where they will return over time. fluke!

    5-1 odds... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Addison on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:57:22 PM EST
    ...this thread evolves into a manufactured link between Big Brown and Obama.

    I hope the maximum amount of coverage is focused on how horse racing can be cruel. I think horse racing is an ok sport, but if you insist on running horses that are sculpted so thin as to break, and are run for money largely outside the transparent realm of independent judgment, that's not gonna fly as more and more horses fall on the track.

    Animal cruelty isn't murder, but it's not excusable.

    I knew he wouldn't win. (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by pie on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:16:35 PM EST
    When Smarty Jones couldn't do it, I realized that it takes a very rare horse to do it all.  Now that they're breeding for certain characteristics, it seems even more unlikely that they can find that special horse.  I wish they'd just let nature take its course and stop fooling around.

    I'm still not over the fact that that horse was lost in the Kentucky Derby.  I guess I'm not into bloodsport.


    Anyone hear what Bill and Hillary (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by suisser on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:12:45 PM EST
    might be up to the next few weeks?  I'd LOVE to hear that they're taking a month off to sleep and read and laze in the sun somewhere. I know it might be a stretch but I hope they do. Let them rest and let Obama have a bit of a go as the nominee.

    Yes! (none / 0) (#107)
    by sociallybanned on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:42:17 PM EST
    I hope she relaxes and plans for 2012 b/c by then the word will be out how Obama backers were responsible for MI and FL moving up their dates not Hillary.  See Wayne Barrett truthout.org article.  

    What  I notice with Obama is that he delivers great "rehearsed" speeches very well.  However, he screws up tremendously with impromptus.  He doesn't speak how he has voted or what his empty rhetoric tells his supporters.  


    Just read the other threads for today... (5.00 / 8) (#53)
    by NotThatStupid on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:58:46 PM EST
    ... I guess it's time to thank Jeralyn and BTD for providing this oasis of sanity during the primaries.

    Now I'd best look for another site at which to comment (not that I ever had much time to comment here), since I can't support Senator Obama.

    I hope I'm allowed to say, in parting, that I believe that voting for Senator Obama would be to:

    • expressly accept the tactics used by his campaign in the primary season,
    • approve of the behavior of the media during the primaries, and
    • sanction the actions of the Democratic Party leadership in general and its RBC in particular.

    I feel that condoning all these things would be more dangerous to the country than a McCain presidency would be. If the Democratic Party becomes the thing it says it opposes, what hope is there for all of us?

    And I have never believed him to be qualified.

    Once again, thanks and good luck to everyone here.

    When you find (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:52:56 PM EST
    another site, please stop back and let me know.

    I wont abandon talkleft.com (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by sociallybanned on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:47:28 PM EST
    They brought so much truth and facts about Hillary here than any other site.  They helped me become a well informed citizen.  I agree with you and will not be casting my vote for Obama.  After the KY caucus today, it fueled me even more to stay with my new choice "McCain".  PUMA!  While his voting record is crappy, I believe he just lined up with the Republican party and frankly I believe that he didnt vote for Bush as miserable Arrianna Huff stated.  Some ppl are bitter about the primary but I'm inspired to make sure, the best candidate wins, especially someone who is able to handle that 3am call and it's not Obama.

    I frankly just will not read articles to benefit Obama in a positive note and therefore, I'm sticking around.


    second that! (none / 0) (#155)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:57:53 AM EST
    I will get behind Obama now (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Lil on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:25:52 PM EST
    but I will never return to certain blogs again, and I don't feel like I have to send $ anymore. Since so many new folks are now Dems, it seems like less pressure on some of us to carry this party. I hope the newbies win. We need a Dem in the White House.

    BTW, Too bad about the horserace.

    athyrio, if you are around somewhere.... (5.00 / 6) (#100)
    by Teresa on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:31:06 PM EST
    I just want you to know that my heart really hurts for you. I know how much you love Hillary and how much you need insurance. I hope you hang in there and are strong. Maybe Senator Clinton can win the fight for health care for all. I think her fellow senators owe her that much.

    All our best thoughts should be with athyrio (5.00 / 6) (#126)
    by RalphB on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:14:10 PM EST
    Hang in there and let's try to hold congress's feet to the fire on UHC!

    A Question for Obama Supporters (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by Landulph on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:13:41 PM EST
    This is a sincere question for Obama supporters: What is the difference between Bill Clinton's "triangulation" (bad) and Obama's "postpartisanship" (good)?

    To me, they both sound like two sides of the same coin--with the difference that Clinton was operating in a political (massive GOP majorities in Congress) and ideological (no post-Bush implosion, no blogoshphere/media critique) environment far less hospitable to the enactment of a progressive agenda.

    Truly, this is a serious question, because it really disturbs me that his own supporters (those who I've spoken to so far) cannot tell me exactly what their candidate is talking about on this score.

    Triangulation is the word of (5.00 / 8) (#135)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:35:48 PM EST
    the 'old' generation.  Postpartisan is 'new' and 'fresh' 'hip'   means the same thing... postpartisan just has an aura about it.

    Words (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:49:05 PM EST
    Sort of like "surge" rather than escalation or "enhanced interrogation" rather than torture. I really get ticked when people try to hide their actions by candy coated words. "Patriot Act" is another great one.

    It really is Dilbert's World, isn't it? (none / 0) (#172)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:54:37 AM EST
    Susan Sarandon's plea for Unity (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:11:48 AM EST

    While speaking well of Obama, Sarandon expressed dislike for the possibility of Hillary Clinton running for vice-president.

    'That would be hypocritical, because he is for change and she is not, she is for power,' Sarandon said.

    Can the Obama movement be any more divisive, and angry and moronic than it already is?  I don't think so.

    I'm still not on the hate train.

    I hate this. (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Esme on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:34:05 AM EST
    They are ALL running for power. The reason Obama is running is to have the power to instill change. Why would you run for President if you didn't want power?

    The sick, underlying idea behind this statement is that somehow, it's wrong for Hillary to have power, or to want it. Sick. Sick. Sick.

    As for Susan Sarandon: when she accomplished an iota of what Hillary has, maybe then she'll have the right to comment on Hillary's motives.


    I lost any respect I had for (none / 0) (#171)
    by tree on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:47:43 AM EST
    Sarandon when she crossed the picket line  put up by Jewish Voice for Peace in front of Lev Leviev's jewelry store in Manhattan. Leviev's millions help fund illegal Jewish settlements on confiscated Palestinian lands in the West Bank. Sarandon is more about diamonds and power than she is about "change".

    please stay off the train (none / 0) (#174)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:09:41 AM EST
    we don't want you riding our coattails. We don't care for angry bloviators.

    When Howard Dean (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by LoisInCo on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:32:51 AM EST
    saw sexism:

    He has belatedly recognized the cries of sexism, Mr. Dean said, particularly when a friend showed him a video compilation of broadcasters' comments about Mrs. Clinton.


    If he is as honest as people used to claim in 2004 he would add this:

    I was regrettably distracted from reading all the letters sent to my office by democratic women because I was busy fondling Barack Obama's donor list.

    He saw a video his friend sent him? (none / 0) (#168)
    by Esme on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:29:08 AM EST
    So, Howard never watches cable TV?

    Not even when (none / 0) (#170)
    by LoisInCo on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:39:36 AM EST
    he appears on it apparently.

    Is the media darling status wearing off? (3.66 / 6) (#85)
    by Emma on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:06:46 PM EST
    This YouTube clip looks like it's from ABC News.com and Jake Tapper.  It's the Bottom 10 VP picks for Obama, including Ayers (domestic terrorist), Rezko (convicted political fixer), Wright (GD america), Pfleger (suspended by the church), and Kwame Kilpatrick (indicted superdelegate supporter).


    For anybody troll rating this (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by Emma on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:54:38 PM EST
    I didn't make this up.  I didn't make the video.  This isn't from No Quarter or some other pro-Clinton site.  It's from ABC News and I think it's relevant to Obama being the presumptive nominee.

    The relevant (none / 0) (#138)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:43:52 PM EST
    part of this is ... every one of those clips could end up in a Repub ad.

    I'm trying to have a little hope that Obama can get elected.... and that is just not very encouraging. So that is 10 ads that we get to watch as the WH becames a distant dream.

    And it just stirs the anger more because we had a chance.

    ABC is friend to Dems.... and not much of a news channel. Although it is slightly better than MSM.


    Forgot the NO (none / 0) (#140)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:45:55 PM EST
    ABC is NO friend to Dems

    ABC has been toughest all along on BO (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by davnee on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:14:10 PM EST
    At least as far as I've seen.  Not just the debate, but they also debuted the Wright tapes on GMA.  Steph has taken a shot or two, particularly questioning Dean on Michigan.  And Jake Tapper has been taking shots all along.  I'd love to see BO get tossed out of his protective media bubble, and actually have to start you know campaigning on his own merits, but ABC may not be the best indicator.

    This was fairly clever (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:29:21 PM EST
    under the guise of humor (I guess), lining up all his questionable associations plus pointing out his break from Clinton.  And it's not something the Obama campaign can easily respond to, being a big montage.  (except maybe giving a speech on the need for a national conversation on montages, perhaps)

    Yeah (none / 0) (#139)
    by Emma on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:44:53 PM EST
    I thought so, too.  Very well done as a "humorous" piece that hits all the talking points.  

    Kilpatrick's a new one, but very interesting.  Gov. Granholm is looking into removing him from office.  Not that I think she will, but I'm surprised she's even looking into it.  I thought it would have been safer for her to leave all that mess to the City Council.


    Besides Fox of course. (none / 0) (#128)
    by davnee on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:14:59 PM EST
    I think that's an obvious assumption in my post but just wanted to be clear.

    I don't see how (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by daryl herbert on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:04:53 PM EST
    Hillary dropping out makes Obama a better candidate.

    Rezko/Ayers/Khalidi/Wright/etc. have been there all along, and I don't see them going away any time soon.


    Repub tactics (none / 0) (#108)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:42:27 PM EST
    something we do not need. They are trying to keep the negatives going.

    MY thoughts.... it is TRASH!


    repub tactics (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by RalphB on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:05:30 PM EST
    maybe, but it's ABC Nightline.  That media darling status may be fading.  :-)

    You're right (none / 0) (#112)
    by Emma on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:52:27 PM EST
    it is Republican tactics.  Which is pretty much the entire point, I thought.

    I started a thread over at... (none / 0) (#3)
    by citizen53 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:50:46 PM EST
    MSNBC sports site about Affirmed, the best horse I ever saw, with the biggest heart.

    Come on by, even if it is MSNBC.  :)

    Here is a YouTube of the 78 Belmont, a race for the ages.

    And here is a recent LA Times article as well.

    Affirmed was nice (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:00:18 PM EST
    I'll always be a Secretariat gal, though.

    Here you go.. Secretariat's Belmont (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:11:15 PM EST
    My all-time favorite race. He was the greatest horse ever to set foot on a track. When he was on his game, no one could catch him. People compared Big Brown to him, but they didn't look at the times. Secretariat set records, which still stand, in all three races. Big Brown didn't come close to any of them.

    Perhaps... (none / 0) (#26)
    by citizen53 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:30:07 PM EST
    but he did not run against Affirmed, so it's all a matter of preference.

    Affirmed ran on the lead and often set a slow pace.  But he would not be passed.


    He was a great horse, no doubt (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:54:15 PM EST
    but he was not Secretariat. Not by a long shot.

    Did you read the article in the Times? (none / 0) (#59)
    by citizen53 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:08:14 PM EST
    Angel Cordero, who rode Darby Creek Road in the race, said:

    I really didn't think Affirmed could go a mile and a half. I learned a lot watching that day. I didn't know until then that he wanted to go for it, that he was the kind of horse who would wait for another horse to come up to him, and then he'd go again.

    From what I saw of Affirmed, he would not have let Secretariat pass.

    There are no absolutes when it comes to racing and comparisons, only opinions.


    I saw both of them race, in person (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:15:59 PM EST
    and I can tell you, in the Belmont Affirmed would have been a well-beaten second. No one was going to catch Big Red that day. The horses that finished second to Secretariat all broke records too. How many did Affirmed set, or break? How many horses had to set new records to beat him, or even finish second to him? None. I saw both of the race and Affirmed was a great horse, but Secretariat was a truly legendary horse. There is a difference. Secretariat ran in accelerating fractions, each quarter mile faster than the last. Affirmed didn't. I could go on, and on. But I won't. :)

    I saw them both also... (none / 0) (#77)
    by citizen53 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:42:02 PM EST
    but I am not trying to prove anything, just say what I believe.

    Affirmed did what he needed to win.  He may not have beaten Secretariat in 73, but that does not mean Secretariat would have won in 78 either.

    Like I said elsewhere, Wilt scored 100 points in a game.  But he did not win the titles head to head with Russell.

    I just watched Cinderella Man last night.  Did anyone think that Corbett would beat Baer?

    Since they never faced off, we will never know.  What is best on paper is not always what occurs.

    That is what makes sports great.  There are no sure things.

    Have a good one.


    No offense... (none / 0) (#11)
    by citizen53 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:08:01 PM EST
    but that is like rooting for the Yankees of 1927.

    He was never challenged like Affirmed.

    Alydar was the only horse to ever finish 2nd in all three triple crown races.


    I may be showing my age (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by tree on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:36:41 PM EST
    bu I have to disagree with you on that assessment. Sham challenged Secretariat in both the Derby and Preakness, and challenged him through the first turn of the Belmont. But the reason that Secretariat won by such a large margin in the Belmont because of the time record he shattered in that race. Alydar was still around to challenge Affirmed at the end of the Belmont because they had both run a very slow pace. Affirmed's win had more to do with smart riding by his jockey, Secretariat's win was due to pure thoroughbred excellence.

    We'll never know... (none / 0) (#39)
    by citizen53 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:49:21 PM EST
    but even with the slow pace, Affirmed's times are near the top.

    He showed more grit and determination than any horse I ever saw.

    But for Affirmed, Alydar would have won the Triple Crown.

    It's like in basketball.  Bill Russell was not as skilled as Wilt Chamberlain, but somehow he always bested Wilt.  Secretariat was a great horse.  But I would not bet against Affirmed.


    But he was bested twice by (none / 0) (#70)
    by tree on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:19:20 PM EST
     the older Seattle Slew as a 4 year old.

    Most horses have ups and downs. (none / 0) (#87)
    by citizen53 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:07:30 PM EST
    Look at Seabuscuit.

    Secretariat lost 5 times in 21 career races.

    Affirmed won 22 of 29, with 5 seconds.  Like Secretariat, he finished out of the money once.  

    Actually, Slew was the 4 year old at the time they raced.  In one race, they say that Affirmed's saddle slipped.

    No one's perfect.  :)

    Have a good one.


    Newsday quote (none / 0) (#9)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:03:20 PM EST
    doesn't do the race much justice IMO.  Why Big Brown never went for it made the whole thing quite suspensful.  

    Wonder why.  The trainer was a real diva about it though.  


    seattle slew here! (none / 0) (#156)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:00:19 AM EST
    Only 11 horses have won the triple crown (none / 0) (#7)
    by Saul on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:58:26 PM EST
    and one of them was from my home state of Texas.  The horse was Assault from the King Ranch.

    Here are past winners

    seattle slew is a great favorite of mine. (none / 0) (#20)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:19:39 PM EST
    i also like his personality. he passed away only in the past few years. the heart of great horse! so few!

    Not Triple Crown, but (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:33:02 PM EST
    one of my favorites is Smarty Jones!  He had a great personality, and as someone from that part of Pennsylvania, he was a great local hero.  

    Smarty for the camera


    I know, I loved Smarty Jones.... (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:41:47 PM EST
    ...and of course, Barbaro. That horse touched my heart.

    Same here. (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:49:29 PM EST
    For some reason Big Brown didn't really do the trick for me.  I wasn't really attached.  

    I remember Charismatic fondly too.

    Watch out!  Wikipedia says Smarty Jones' little foals were "born in 2006, and will likely begin racing mid- 2008 or early 2009."


    Dwindling Attachment (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:04:33 PM EST
    I found Big Brown was easy to become attached to after the Kentucky Derby, but the more his trainer spoke up the less attached I became. It was surprising that for a small field in a long race he would get tangled up the way he did early.

    Some days are like that, even for us mere mortals.


    yup, i love that picture. beautiful horse! (none / 0) (#160)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:10:58 AM EST
    I watched the race ... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:09:56 PM EST
    and it's funny just how much actual horse race coverage sounds like the "horse race coverage" of politics.

    Even the post race analysis of why Big Brown lost had the same breathless quality.

    I don't have much respect at all (none / 0) (#147)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:16:51 PM EST
    For horse race pundits.

    All a horse has to do once he or she wins is walk around with a wreath and eat yummy oats.

    Maybe this is what Obama excels at.  Who knows.

    Anyway, in politics, once you win the race, the real work begins.


    The lesson is... (none / 0) (#44)
    by OxyCon on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:53:06 PM EST
    ...be careful which metaphors you gloat over. They can come back and bite you in the rear.

    As the presumed Candidate (none / 0) (#54)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:59:08 PM EST
    Will Obama be able to exert his influence on his fellow politicians that are campaigning for him. One major issue that everyone in the progressive community seems to agree on is no amnesty for the telecom's. Claire McCaskell has voted with the Republican's on this issue everytime it's come up for a vote. Maybe if he exerts some influence we can finally bury that bone forever. Force Bush to give them a blanket pardon on his way out the door. He's going to need a whole stack of those things with all the criminality in his admin!

    FWIW... (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by k on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:12:33 PM EST
    It's been my opinion all along that it will be the McCaskell's of the party that will be exerting their influence on Obama.

    I've always felt that one of the reasons so many in the party establishment backed Obama was because he would be a lot easier to manipulate/control than Clinton.


    My bad... (4.66 / 3) (#69)
    by k on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:19:06 PM EST
    I forgot and kicked the unity pony.



    Maybe just a nudge! (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:29:18 PM EST
    in the right direction

    Judge ordering spanking (none / 0) (#61)
    by rishi on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:11:35 PM EST
    I saw this story about judge ordering spanking of a 14 year old girl in the courtroom. Is it possible/legal? I am not sure if it is true.

    The Times (UK) reports (none / 0) (#72)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:21:49 PM EST
    Hillary's exit

    "Hillary Clinton goes loudly as Barack Obama seeks to woo her supporters"

    Obama's campaign enjoys a significant fundraising edge over that of McCain, 71, after raising $272m in the past 18 months.

    The Obama and Clinton camps are tentatively beginning to merge their fundraising apparatuses after Hillary told leading donors on a conference call: "He needs to know all of you. He really needs your help."

    She is planning to keep her core donor team in place, however, so she can control how to dispense the cash. Clinton's finance chairman predicted that her supporters could bring in a further $200m but warned that the amount could depend on whether Obama picked her as a running mate.

    Clinton has not fully accepted her vanquished status, despite her eloquent speech. The New York senator merely suspended her campaign last night, ostensibly so that she could raise money to pay off her $30m debts. A transition team has been appointed to negotiate the terms under which she will campaign for Obama - a somewhat bizarre case of the defeated usurping the role of victor, since losers rarely get to set the conditions.

    Robert Barnett, a Washington lawyer who handled Tony Blair's multimillion-dollar book deal, and Cheryl Mills, another lawyer and confidante, are expected to bargain hard for help with settling Clinton's debts, including an $11m personal loan that she made to the campaign.

    Clinton is believed to be haggling over the extent to which she will be Obama's highest-profile campaigner against McCain, as well as over the guarantee of a star turn at the Democratic National Convention.

    While the title of the article and the language makes me wonder a bit if CDS is an international epidemic, it is an interesting development.  I think it will be quite a task to figure out what Clinton's role will be.  Obama might as well make her his VP just to simplfy things.  After all, this is politics.  The loser doesn't just go to Dairy Queen for a sundae and a round of "good game"s.

    Weird line, this: (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:14:27 PM EST
    "Clinton has not fully accepted her vanquished status."

    Well, if she's still able to dictate terms, then she's not all that "vanquished".  Actually, 'accepted' and 'vanquished' don't make sense together at all.

    Sorry, I'm sure it seems I'm nitpicking (and maybe I am) but the degradation in writing skills really bugs me.


    More sexism ,,,,, (5.00 / 8) (#105)
    by tree on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:38:15 PM EST
    Dominance and  submission.  I am so-ooo tired of the patriarchy.  

    The line that jumped out (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by k on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:41:50 PM EST
    at me was

    ...Hillary told leading donors on a conference call: "He needs to know all of you. He really needs your help."

    Didn't I read somewhere that Clinton had more money for the GE than Obama? And didn't I also read somewhere that some of her big donors wrote a letter threatening to withhold funds for some reason? (lots of "some's" in that sentence...plenty of nitpickin' material for you)

    I may be misremembering but, if not, it will be interesting to see what her donors do. I'll be interested to see if they jump right on board or if they take a wait and see position.


    so the dnc is selling off the convention (none / 0) (#157)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:06:38 AM EST
    to corporate sponsors since many democrats no longer send them funds. that line about the big donors makes me wonder if maybe the general campaign is getting needy as well.

    say what you want about republicans and most of it will be true. but i think they will come out for mccain with donations and votes. don't look for crossover from independents or republicans. that is no not going to happen.


    According to the news article, there (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:07:53 AM EST
    is a loophole for soft money donations to national conventions.

    loop hole or selling off! words! (none / 0) (#159)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:10:01 AM EST
    the corporations are way too cozy with both political parties. they need to be removed.

    put your money where your mouth is (3.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:11:20 AM EST
    donation to talk left, $100 that McCain will not win.

    why don't you donate to hillary? (none / 0) (#176)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:18:12 PM EST
    when i contribute to talk left is not your business.

    by the way just WHY ARE YOU TRYING (none / 0) (#177)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:19:51 PM EST

    Good luck Obama you need it. (none / 0) (#116)
    by sociallybanned on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:55:15 PM EST
    If he is even to McCain and they haven't begun with attacks, I believe Obama is going to lose the GE by a landslide.  We should start making predictions.

    My c-span(s) didn't show the speech (none / 0) (#80)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:48:37 PM EST
    so I had to watch CNN(I don't watch tv news anymore) and their graphic was CLINTON: THE EXIT. Anyone else think that was really strange? Like why did her speech need a title/graphic? Can't they just show the news without having to name it? I think her speech was just part of election 08 and didn't need it's own graphic like they do when someone dies or the Pope visits. And somehow "the exit" seems like the wrong phrase. Or is it just me?

    Joan (none / 0) (#83)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:53:22 PM EST
    I received an e-mail from the Hilary people with a link to the video but I don't know how to add it to this note.

    Here's the link to (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by pie on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:11:05 PM EST
    the speech.

    I still haven't watched it.  Maybe tomorrow.


    It won't be any easier pie. I watched it again (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Teresa on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:13:52 PM EST
    this afternoon and it hurt just as bad. The second time, though, I thought it was even better than when I watched it live. I was less nervous about what she would say so I could listen better.

    Rewatching now (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:19:24 PM EST
    It strikes me just how not defeated that crowd is.

    I've watched a lot of losing Democratic crowds, and that just wasn't one.

    Simply the best.


    They were really proud weren't they? (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by Teresa on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:23:47 PM EST
    The part toward the end, where she addresses the female part in more detail than in the past, really tore me up. Both times.

    The second time, I noticed how much emphasis she used in the word "respect" where she said women deserve respect. To me, that was her message to her party and the media, because she didn't get any.


    I finally read the text (5.00 / 9) (#101)
    by pie on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:34:51 PM EST
    of the speech and was teary-eyed.  Not because she lost, but because of what we have lost in terms of an experienced, grownup, unflappable leader.  I know what she would have been able to weather; I don't know enough about Obama's history, other than it doesn't compare to hers.  After Bush, we so need someone that can't be broken by all the forces that conspire against the presidency.  That Bush was propped up by the media to the incredible degree that he was does not give me much hope.  They don't like a democratic agenda.

    So here we are.




    I know pie. And if there was ever a time when (none / 0) (#123)
    by Teresa on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:11:09 PM EST
    we need the most capable and strong leader, it is now. I don't understand how our party thinks Obama can lead us out of this mess. Frankly, I'll bet you on the inside, he is scared. I would be with this economy, gas, the wars, etc. Scary times.

    Hillary gave a great speech (none / 0) (#99)
    by Baal on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:27:48 PM EST
    at a time when I know she can't be feeling too good.  Any criticism is an attempt to drive a wedge in the progressive movement.  Remember that Obama and Hillary agree on about 95% of issues.

    What progressive movement? (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by pie on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:36:19 PM EST
    Actually, (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by pie on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:42:32 PM EST
    what makes one a progressive and why does Obama fit the bill?

    Youth (none / 0) (#119)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:07:35 PM EST
    I am really glad to see the youth of the country stepping up. They're the ones that will be paying for Bush's blunders for years. I just hope they stick with it and not turn away when they get disappointed. On the campaign trail politician say a lot of things. Then when they get to the GE they move more center to right. Then once they get in office, they find 1000 reasons why they can't fulfill the promises made. Look at the 2006 election. After the votes were tallied I really though, finally we're going to rein the madman in. It didn't quite happen that way. I sincerely hope that 2008, there will be no acceptance of excuses from any of our politicians from the top down.

    To andgarden: (none / 0) (#153)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:56:30 AM EST
    after Clinton's Sat. speech, do state party rules determine whether the delegates pledged to Clinton must vote for her on the first ballot?