home

Sunday Afternoon Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:24:41 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Your turn again.

Joe Gandleman responds to my posts on Obama's VP selection thusly:

YET ANOTHER SUGGESTION OF ENTITLEMENT: . . . Question: if the person who gets the Vice Presidential slot is the one who got the next largest number of votes, then why bother with Veep selections? Or hasn’t it been that the Presidential nominee balances political needs and then makes a decision. There is no entitlement to the V.P. slot.

Of course there is no entitlement to the VP slot. What Joe forgets is there is no entitlement to VOTES either. What Joe and other people commenting on my posts seem not to get is that I am not making an argument that Hillary is entitled to anything - I am making an argument that Obama would be wise to CHOOSE Clinton, as it will help his chances in November. I do wish people would actually address my post instead of dreaming up arguments to refute that I never made.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< How Can Obama Lose The Election? | A Shocking Sentence >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Afternoon Open Thread | 196 comments (196 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The post-mortems (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by eleanora on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:42:39 PM EST
    are sadly hilarious. Analysis: Clinton loosens up -- finally has some good reporting, but the actual analysis is jaw-droppingly obtuse:

    "The speech offered a telling glimpse into what might have happened had Clinton shed her pantsuit-clad androgyny and presented herself instead as what she was: a female trailblazer, going where no woman in this country had ever gone before."

    I...just don't know what to say to that. Heads we win, tails you lose.

    I saw that yesterday (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by lilburro on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:55:25 PM EST
    what a crock.  Aside from the fact that pantsuits were her choice of clothing and that she should be left alone about it (and would be left alone, were she a man), every woman in this country knows that Clinton's biggest goal at the beginning of the election was to show she could be commander-in-chief.  She was able to do that.

    Female trailblazer?  Yeah, that would've totally worked.   I'm sure the MSNBC guys would've loved that.

    [ Parent ]

    pantsuit-clad androgyny (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by noholib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:58:26 PM EST
    Now, I'm confused, what IS the problem of Hillary Rodham Clinton for so many people--is it the fear of a smart woman as a castrating b----, or is it really the specter of androgyny or something else?
    And the uproar over the "cleavage" in an article several months ago?  What DO these reporters want?  

    [ Parent ]
    At some point (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:17:53 PM EST
    you have to be gratified that they ae still attacking her.

    It's telling.  They may never stop.  Leno is pracically out of a job if he can't base his entire opening routine on the Clinton jokes.

    [ Parent ]

    Salo, you are so funny. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:22:52 PM EST
    It's good to have you around.

    [ Parent ]
    Leno is actually funny. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:00:31 PM EST
    I watched CNN yesterday.  They talked a lot about Clinton but it seemed like everyone of them was angry about her.  Not angry about what happened to her, but angry about her even running as hard as she did.  

    I just don't get it.  

    I hate having to watch FOX all the time but at least the people on FOX don't seem mad.    

    [ Parent ]

    It's the pantsuits (5.00 / 8) (#82)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:16:13 PM EST
    That's why she lost.  They are all closet fashion police.

    [ Parent ]
    www.hireheels.com (none / 0) (#101)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:33:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Pant-suit androgyny?! (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by jginnane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:05:41 AM EST
    All remaining Presidential candidates, when referenced in the media, should be so described:

    Try it!

    "The pantsuit-clad, androgynous elder John McCain, and the androgynously pantsuit-clad Barry Obama, met to discuss their campaigns."

    [ Parent ]

    Androgyny, Not the Pant Suit (none / 0) (#160)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:00:57 PM EST
    I don't really think they're talking about clothes. Their point is -- and I'm not sure I agree with it -- is that Clinton would have been a more effective, persuasive candidate if she had more explicitly framed her campaign as one to promote gender equality. That goal was always implicit but also secondary to being the best presidential candidate regardless of gender. In hindsight, was that smart?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:34:18 PM EST
    Both CLinton and Obama were deliberately avoiding running on:
    The Black Man and Race
    or
    The White Woman and Gender

    Because it's really hard to talk about The Issues if you've framed yourself as The "Whatever" Candidate with A Issue that isn't in the public's top five or ten issues.  It's self marginalization and while it might, just possibly work in the Primary, it usually would doom the candidate in the GE.

    [ Parent ]

    gender equality - a successful campaign pitch? (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by noholib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:40:03 PM EST
    Spike, I just don't know.
    As much as I would love to have gender equality and women's rights as human rights be the centerpiece of  the campaign, it's quite difficult to imagine that as a winning slogan -- given everything we've witnessed these past few months.  Would people have responded even worse if she'd been explicit about these goals? Senator Obama claimed to be beyond race and she claimed to be beyond gender, and it seems that our society was more ready for the former than the latter.  Ah, this is all so tiring ...

    [ Parent ]
    I was joking (none / 0) (#173)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:59:00 PM EST
    but unless I missed a really, really crazy David Bowie moment from the Ziggy Stardust era in her campaign apparel, are people really trying to say that it's ok to micro-analyze her cleavage in decoding whether she's presenting herself as the women's equality candidate?  Truly?

    [ Parent ]
    What does a Female Trailblazer wear? (5.00 / 7) (#64)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:57:53 PM EST
    Was there a dress code and some secret set of rules she was suppiosed to follow?!

    Androgyny? Clinton?! lol!~ I dare say she prob finds pantsuits comnfortable and easy. I know I prefer pants to skirts any day of the week. Good thing I wasn't aspiring to be President or Dog forbid, a "Female Trailblazer" . . . .

    [ Parent ]

    A hajib? (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:08:10 PM EST
    Sackcloth and ashes?  A nun's habit?  Or maybe a paper bag over her head?  Remember when she showed a little cleavage and the MSM boiz went crazy over that?  

    [ Parent ]
    That's why I'm confused! (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:11:59 PM EST
    I wonder what woulda happened if she suddenly had sported a skirt?  OH MY! She's showing some LEG! {it must mean something . .  she's using her sex to get votes!}

    [ Parent ]
    A skirt? (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:16:07 PM EST
    No way!  The CDS crowd always had rude things to say about her "cankles".  

    [ Parent ]
    EEEP! I forgot about that one! {sigh} (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:19:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Several women have mentioned to me (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:11:59 PM EST
    they had heard Clinton switched to pant suits because, when she wore a skirt and stood on the edge of the stage to greet people, wearing a skirt didn't work.

    Also, not sure in what world the critics of her wearing a pant suit are living.  I seldom see women in my office or in court wearing skirts.  

    [ Parent ]

    That makes sense. (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:18:22 PM EST
    Also, with all the traveling, I'm sure pants were easier.  

    I wore/wear pants for the ease, comfort and easier upkeep durring the day. I'll break out a dress in the heat of the summer, but it's casual and I can go the bare leg route  ;)

    I swear this campaign season has really made me feel like there's a push to set us back a few steps. Or at least get us back in line to a degree.

    [ Parent ]

    The meme against Clinton for wearing (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:21:29 PM EST
    pant suits during the campaign is especially ironic given the recent death of St. Laurent.

    [ Parent ]
    well pants suits when climbing in planes, (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:41:15 PM EST
    platforms and bending down for this and that is certainly more comfortable for men and women. i think she dresses very well in fact much better than pelosi. ugh! sorry, but that lady just brings out the worst in me. she(pelosi) has been so polarizing.

    [ Parent ]
    tell you the truth when i see either men or (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:17:18 PM EST
    women putting down a woman who doesn't deserve it, then i look directly at the smart mouth. i wonder why they feel so small and then i wonder if maybe they really are.

    y

    [ Parent ]

    At least no media commented (5.00 / 7) (#113)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:50:52 PM EST
    yesterday, to my knowledge, on what she and Bill and Chelsea wore to the D.C. speech.  From what I could see, it looked like basic black (with a turquoise blouse).  A dark pantsuit was quite different for Clinton, whose jewel-like fashion colors in recent months have been so energizing and symbolic of joy.

    So I switched to black yesterday and today, as I am in mourning, too.

    Btw, if Carl Bernstein called me out for thick ankles in print and on national tv, repeatedly, I would switch to pantsuits, too -- in addition to how sensible they are for travel on the campaign trail.  Now, ask me what I think of Bernstein's looks? :-)

    [ Parent ]

    I hate to comment on Clinton fashion since (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:12:17 PM EST
    it seems to be somewhat gauche, but...

    I loved her bright colored pantsuits and her jewelry.  It was a very classy look.  

    I also loved the jacket (or top) Chelsea had on the night her mother gave her speech after the South Dakota win.  It was also very classy.    

    I don't know who picks these clothes out but they should be commended.  I really can't think of anything offhand I didn't like that either of them wore.  

    [ Parent ]

    yahoo has been so in the tank. (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:33:26 PM EST
    i see things in the morning on yahoo that make me say wth! then i look at some reasonable blog like tl and see the reality.

    [ Parent ]
    Let's play: what's wrong with the media? (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:55:36 PM EST
    start here:
    Former President Clinton, forever a riddle as a man and public figure, was seen by many at the beginning of his wife's campaign as a political genius, statesman and racial healer who had done much through his charitable work to erase the stigma of his impeachment for lying about an affair with a young White House aide and other personal sins. But his conduct during the campaign on his wife's behalf, right up to a blistering tirade against a magazine writer last week, raised new questions about his judgment and blotted his legacy.
    Whose opinion is this? How was it arrived at? Who cares, it's God's delivered truth!

    ARGH!

    it's kinda what the term limit (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:06:36 PM EST
    on Presidents is supposed to be about.  Republics are nasty ignoble backstabby places.   See Caesar or Sulla.

    No one will ever let a powerful lefty brand like  the Clintons repeat  or reinorce FDR's revolution.   You 26 years of experience to even know what to do let alone 16 years to know how to do it.

    We could have had a brand as powerful as  that of FDRs.

    [ Parent ]

    Hows that (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:33:27 PM EST
    "powerful lefty brand" welfare-to-work working out?

    I mean, we all know the poor deserve to punished for their "poor life choices", my question is was it punishment enough?

    [ Parent ]

    It's sooooo funny... (none / 0) (#29)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:35:28 PM EST
    people always yammer about welfare reform but I NEVER hear anyone trying to reinstate it.  Hmmm.

    [ Parent ]
    I'd be happy if (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:41:22 PM EST
    they just cut off the govt contracts to pigs who stow their profits in offshore tax shelters.

    [ Parent ]
    i'd be even happier if they cut off (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:43:04 PM EST
    tax breaks for corporations that move their business off shore and offer them to corporations that work with them to create jobs here. there is so much we can and aren't doing.

    [ Parent ]
    Really not concerned with what would make you (none / 0) (#42)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:43:09 PM EST
    happy.  But the welfare reform=BC bad president needs to die until the Democrats nominate someone who campaigns for reinstating a big welfare program.

    [ Parent ]
    Didnt say he (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:52:59 PM EST
    was a "bad President" just that he's not incapable of error. Does that make YOU unhappy?

    [ Parent ]
    No. Because until someone (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:56:24 PM EST
    argues for expanding welfare, I find it hard to see it was an error.  Seems most people are happy he did it, but also happy to be divisve by calling it an error.

    [ Parent ]
    well i hope you are for cutting to welfare (none / 0) (#178)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:19:52 PM EST
    to corporations. bush really pushed that as you know.

    [ Parent ]
    The absence of historical FACT-z. (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by wurman on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:48:17 PM EST
    The ideas behind welfare reform & NAFTA had (& sitll have) validity.

    The obvious factoids that Bu$h xliii & his henchthugs implement things in a stupid, phony, ridiculous manner does not make Pres. Clinton responsible for their results.  Bu$hInc has always intended to prove that government does NOT work.  So they make it not work, as per Norquist & the bathtub drownings, etc.

    This would be as foolish as blaming Sen. Frank Church, D-ID, many years ago, for the obviously unconstitutional results of the Patriot Act.  After all, Church was responsible for FISA.

    As Archie Bunker so graciously put it: "Ipso fatso . . . ya' gotcher' self a problem."

    [ Parent ]

    LOL, good point. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:41:34 PM EST
    I also don't hear too much about who exactly is hurting because of welfare to work. That's not to say that no one is suffering, just more a reflection of how little is has been talked about or analyzed.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't deny it's hurt people. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:44:52 PM EST
    But it's a false issue to people who demean Bill Clinton because so far as I can tell none of them want to resurrect pre-reform welfare.  So until they do, they should kindly STFU.

    [ Parent ]
    I still want to know why its so bad... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:48:34 PM EST
    ...that's my point. Nobody talks about it at all. Even beyond reinstating welfare the way it used to be, nobody even talks about reforming what it is now. Nobody seems to care about it except as something bad to lay on the Clinton administration.

    [ Parent ]
    Again (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:55:15 PM EST
    these people aren't sacred cows from the Temple of Shiva. They can handle a little "demeaning", believe me.

    [ Parent ]
    They go ahead. Start arguing for (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:58:12 PM EST
    expanding welfare.  Check with Obama's policy people.  See if he is up for that.

    [ Parent ]
    I think Roosevelt got a few things (none / 0) (#89)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:20:42 PM EST
    wrong myself.   Powerful brand though.

    [ Parent ]
    do you believe that obama will support (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:35:35 PM EST
    the very very successful fdr agenda? i don't! personally i think he'll be a good guy for the big corporations.

    [ Parent ]
    Fyi, for reports of who is suffering (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:18:30 PM EST
    from welfare-to-work programs, I'm in the city where it started, in the state with the goshawful Bushie governor behind it then, Tommy Thompson.  And it has been horrible mainly for, surprise, women and children.  It has driven many single moms, especially, out of school -- college, vocational schools, etc.  Some were my students, only a semester away from a degree.  

    Now, how does that benefit any of us, to continue to keep women below national norms in education and thus income -- and income taxes back to us? The program also has been, surprise, corrupt as can be so benefiting others but not recipients.

    If anyone is interested, here in the city and state where we now have long-term studies, see many reports at jsonline.com (the largest paper in the state) and madison.com (the two papers in the state capital) and many others can be googled; use the term "WW2."

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, I agree. (none / 0) (#97)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:28:52 PM EST
    But those who made it a big talking point in this election have no plans to roll it back.

    [ Parent ]
    Sadly so. What is needed (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:55:57 PM EST
    is far better oversight for far less corruption, so that the needy women, children, disabled, and others  get our tax money, and training for work if they can work -- but suitable work and with sufficient child care -- instead of fat cats padding their pockets on our money and the misery of others.

    Instead, we have seen devastation to worthy programs that date back not just to AFDC and just to the New Deal but even before, to the Sheppard-Towner Act won by women, newly enfranchised suffragists, who worked so hard for the program for other women and their children -- until the male medical profession-corporate complex demolished it, too.  

    [ Parent ]

    And good ol' Gloria Borger (5.00 / 11) (#15)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:12:49 PM EST
    just can't stop telling Clinton it's her job to be subservient -- after Gloria did so much to deprive us of Clinton in the job she wanted:

    CNN analyst Gloria Borger said Clinton must speak to the female voters who supported her, "many of whom are so angry about this race.  She really has to tell women why Barack Obama is the best candidate for president," Borger said. "She has to go a long way to try [to] get rid of that anger."

    Don't ya love that ambiguous last line -- implying Clinton's anger or mine, I dunno?  But no, Gloria, it's Obama's job to talk to me and tell me why.  As soon as he gets off the golf course, I guess.  I begin to wonder if the guy is as threatened by angry me as he was by Clinton?  If so, I'm staying far away from him, as I know now how he handles women who resist him.  Under the bus with sweetie me, it would be -- and I would be dogs*t on his shoe.

    Much in the CNN article reeks to the heavens, such as again that asinine Obama quote about Clinton shattering the glass ceiling.  That tells me he really doesn't get it -- he's "tone"-deaf to the most basic terms from decades of discussions on gender.  Or is he?  Somehow, it reminds me of Clarence Thomas saying he never really read or knew much about Roe v. Wade.

    [ Parent ]

    Can't Borger come up with her own (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:15:18 PM EST
    reasons for Obama being the best pick herself?  Is this going to be an administration or candidacy where the people failed Obama and not the Obama who failed the people?

    Are pundits and nesreaders insane?

    [ Parent ]

    What I find most perplexing about this is.... (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:45:53 PM EST
    ...that the more people believe that Obama is inspirational and transformational, the less they want him to do for himself. We must come to him, he need not win us over. Now I don't say that this is something Obama himself believes. i think he's willing enough to try to win Clinton supporters on his own terms, but his media fans particularly seem to not want him to do anything but just be Obama. As if asking him to do more would somehow be unseemly.

    [ Parent ]
    Maria....obama inspired me to transform (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:49:23 PM EST
    into a Hillary supporter...does that count?  :)

    [ Parent ]
    Me too actually.... (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:50:49 PM EST
    ...I never in a million years intended to support Hillary. I was wishing that she wouldn't run.

    [ Parent ]
    I told my Obama-loving mom (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:31:30 PM EST
    last night, when she was going on about how "inspiring" he is, that he inspires me to turn off the TV!  Does that count?

    [ Parent ]
    absolutely.....welcome to the club! (5.00 / 5) (#125)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:17:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You too?? (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:45:41 PM EST
    Why, sure it does! Inspiration has many manifestations.

    I usually just put it to mute or just change the channel to something more palatable. There's only so much "What I meant to say..." and hopey, changey rubbish I can take.

    [ Parent ]

    "come to him" - fan behavior (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by noholib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:22:55 PM EST
    Maria, "We must come to him?"  To my ears, that is extremely strange and worrisome language in politics. I can't help but see all this as having the trappings of a religious, conversionist movement. Too many of his supporters see him as the truth and the light and the way -- with the halo of a savior or a messiah.  And given the degree to which he has run on his personal biography, it's not surprising that he simply has to BE himself in order to satisfy many people.
    And many people who thrill to him think that all they have to do is attend rallies en masse and be excited and cheer. Accept as personal savior or cheer like a fan at a sporting event or rock concert.  I'm not accusing all Obama supporters of these kinds of behavior, but it has certainly been noticeable among more than a few.

    [ Parent ]
    Ugh (5.00 / 6) (#93)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:26:07 PM EST
    Just another reason why I do not want Hillary within a mile of his campaign.  If Obama is such an awesomely inspiring leader, why can't he bring home the Clinton vote on his own?

    Once again, it's all on her.  Even though she's out of the race, she apparently wields an amazing amount of power and Obama, Mr. Unity, the candidate who's supposed to bring the whole country together, can just sit back on his a** and wait for her to deliver her constituency.  Funny that.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm Confused (none / 0) (#157)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:46:07 PM EST
    Is it possible that the talking heads like Gloria Borgia are representing their own opinions and not those of Obama?  I know it has often been difficult to distinguish the two, but might this be an issue as to which we Clinton supporters might need to do a little parsing?  

    On www.politico.com yesterday, Ben Smith wrote that Clinton's speech was "...met instantly by a call from Obama's campaign to his supporters -- via e-mail and text message -- that they send Clinton messages of thanks."

    And can anyone tell me (yes, I'm this obtuse on some matters) how to write to Gloria at CNN -- I think she needs some advice from us!


    [ Parent ]

    No Gloria. (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by AX10 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:36:28 PM EST
    It is the choice of each voter whom to decide to vote for.  It is NOT Hillary's job to to do that.

    [ Parent ]
    I think what I find so offensive (5.00 / 10) (#107)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:43:15 PM EST
    about Borger and those making similar comments, is that they fail to consider that many of us actually looked at all the candidates, analyzed, studied, researched, listened, read, watched debates, asked questions and spent a fair amount of time actually thinking about which candidate would best represent us and best serve the country - and Obama did not make that list.

    She also fails to consider that a lot of the anger is directed at the party that more or less foisted this candidate on us - we are not fools.  We understand quite well that there is no reason the DNC had to wait until the 11th hour to resolve the problems with Michigan and Florida, no reason it could not have gotten a re-vote worked out well before the end of primary season - leaving us to believe that their end-game was all about Obama, and the RBC meeting did nothing to prove us wrong.

    And then there's the possibility that people like Borger are still amazed that so many people - women AND men - did not buy into the media narrative, we didn't get our talking points from them, we didn't let them push us in the direction they wanted us to go.  That we are not all mindless sheep, easily led, is not making the media happy.

    Maybe in Borger-land, it makes sense that the candidate who spent months making the case why she is the best candidate now has to do a 180 and make the case for the nominee, but in the world I live in, I think that case needs to be made by the candidate who wants the job.

    [ Parent ]

    look the poorest informed blogger (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:37:44 PM EST
    here probably knows more than this gloria person. she just spouts out whatever she naive thinks the big boys at her job want. we've seen folks like that in the work environment.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe that's why (5.00 / 5) (#152)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:30:02 PM EST
    the MSM and blogworld can't let go of Clinton.  Because they were unable to impose their obviously superior judgements on 18 million people.  And even now, when she lost, they're still not buying it.

    How dare 18 million people not validate their egos?  

    [ Parent ]

    all these so called pundits are (none / 0) (#179)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:22:48 PM EST
    people like us who put their clothes on like us. the major difference is they have more makeup and bigger paychecks. and for these paychecks they'll say and do just about anything.

    [ Parent ]
    All still much more (none / 0) (#35)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:38:03 PM EST
    angry about vulgarian children of a vulgarian nation making sexist remarks than they are about hundreds-of-billions spent murdering people.

    Or is it just that the other is so obvious that no one ever needs to talk about it?

    [ Parent ]

    Even blogclogging your deflection attempt stinks (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:53:10 PM EST
    The thread you're "contributing" to on happened to be about a specific bad pundit.

    angry about vulgarian children of a vulgarian nation making sexist remarks than they are about hundreds-of-billions spent murdering people.

    Rather than micromanaging other people's reactions on a topic, why don't you introduce that particular one and see who bites?

    I mean, if you're so personally more concerned with the "billions spent murdering people" and all.

    Otherwise you're just intentionally creating irrelevant clutter here as you did to swell and derail the GE topic.

    [ Parent ]

    Media bias (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:03:11 PM EST
    A very interesting poll out of Rasmussen today.

    Just 17% of voters nationwide believe that most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of election campaigns. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that four times as many--68%--believe most reporters try to help the candidate that they want to win.

    snip...

    Voters have little doubt as to who is benefitting from the media coverage this year--Barack Obama. Fifty-four percent (54%) say Obama has gotten the best coverage so far. Twenty-two percent (22%) say McCain has received the most favorable coverage while 14% say that Hillary got the best treatment.

    At the other extreme, 43% say Clinton received the worst treatment from the media. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say the media was roughest on McCain and only 15% thought the media coverage was most unfair to Obama.

    Looking ahead to the fall campaign, 44% believe most reporters will try to help Obama while only 13% believe that most will try to help McCain. Twenty-four percent (24%) are optimistic enough to believe that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

    The numbers are pretty overwhelming. Can't fool all of the people all of the time.

    are those 15 % Obama's extended family? (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:08:12 PM EST
    ???

    [ Parent ]
    that poll is encouraging (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:09:10 PM EST
    the public can be trusted to know what's up and what is underhanded.

    [ Parent ]
    Salo...it is certainly encouraging...was (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:56:15 PM EST
    beginning to wonder if America was still asleep.
    And, haven't obama's unfavorables been on the rise?

    [ Parent ]
    I confess that I have engaged in (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:15:03 PM EST
    useless chattering with Jlv..
    Please, learn from my example and don't make the same mistake.

    MarkL....lol....kinds like when a tick gets (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:51:18 PM EST
    under your skin... :)

    [ Parent ]
    Or a mosquito bite, perhaps? (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by ap in avl on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:35:20 PM EST
    Try not to scratch it.  It just gets worse.
    But I know it's annoying.

    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn - are you still looking for (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:20:15 PM EST
    good music?

    Judy Collins

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvzUdM29_uA

    Please Hilary, Don't accept VP (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:22:14 PM EST
    I have been for the unity ticket in any combination from the start. The last 3 days have shown me that there's absolutely nothing Hilary could do to right this ship. If she runs and Obama loses, it will be because of her. If he wins, it will be in spite of her. And if he loses without her it still will be because of her.

    I think that all of those super delegates (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by TomLincoln on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:37:46 PM EST
    who threw the race to Obama be recruited by his campaign and the DNC to do the heavy lifting of getting him elected now. Since they decided he was the best candidate for the party, they should have no problem convincing everyone else about the correctness of their choice. It already seems that these jerks not only took it away from Hillary, but then expect her (and Bill -- and probably even Chelsea) to be on the campaign trail constantly for BO. I do not want to see Hillary as BO's VP. I will support her in everything she decides to do except that. Let The One try to win on his own, without the assistance of the Clintons. I do not get to vote for President (I live in Puerto Rico) but if I did, I would simply sit out this election at least as to the presidential candidate, or else write in Hillary's name. I have not voted in many of the gubernatorial races here, simply because it is all more of the same crap no matter who governs this island. That may seem odd given that I follow politics very closely both here in PR, as well as nationally, but that is the case. However, Hillary represented to me the best presidential candidate I have encountered in my lifetime, much better than even Bill Clinton, who I hold in a very special place. I went to our State Elections Commission and re-registered (otherwise I could not vote in Dem. Pimary) just so I could vote for her. I took dozens of people that day to vote for her. I detest that the media and other Dems. are now placing the onus of an Obama campaign on her. Let him win on his own if he can. Or let the Super Delegates and other DNC members run around telling everyone how The One should win. This is a sad election cycle for me.

    [ Parent ]
    Excellent Post (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:41:51 PM EST
    Let The One try to win on his own, without the assistance of the Clintons.
    I agree. I used to be all for the Unity Ticket (only if Hillary was on top) ...

    And then I shifted to a phase where I believed an Obama/Clinton ticket would be good. But now, I just hate the idea of it. (Sorry masslib and others, no disrespect to you) I would vote for it with one hand on my nose.

    However, Hillary represented to me the best presidential candidate I have encountered in my lifetime, much better than even Bill Clinton, who I hold in a very special place.

    Agreed 100%

    I detest that the media and other Dems. are now placing the onus of an Obama campaign on her. Let him win on his own if he can. Or let the Super Delegates and other DNC members run around telling everyone how The One should win. This is a sad election cycle for me.

    Say, are you privy to what is going on my head? You have expertly expressed everything I've been thinking and feeling today. Thanks.

    On a related note, CNN's Jeff Toobin and several others have actually had the bone-headed audacity to say -- on a number of occasions -- that the Obama campaign should actually recruit Chelsea Clinton to be the 'ambassador' of the Clinton campaign and send her to places that her mom carried.

    Err... ok, dictate what the 27-year-old daughter needs to do to get her mom's once-competitor into the White House; nevermind if she wants to or not. What a crock'o'shiz.

    [ Parent ]

    yup, let those supers now get out there (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:46:00 PM EST
    and tell us why they voted for obama. convince us supers. do your jobs. and while you are it, if you are in congress, please explain your lower than bush poll numbers.

    [ Parent ]
    No Obama/Clinton - petition? (none / 0) (#31)
    by 1950democrat on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:36:36 PM EST
    An Obama/Clinton ticket would not be good for either of them. I hope that people will not pressure him into offering it or pressure her into accepting it.

    Perhaps we should get up a joint petition for supporters of both sides to express that. I've got a  draft at

    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nohillaryvp/

    NO Obama/Clinton

    For differing reasons, we oppose having Hillary Clinton as VP on an Obama ticket.

    Signers include both supporters and opponents of Hillary Clinton. Opponents may think she would detract from the ticket; supporters may think she could use her time better in the Senate or elsewhere.

    Any comments before I publicize this?


    [ Parent ]

    Hillary has made it abundantly clear (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:38:34 PM EST
    she wants the VP spot.  I abhor any supporter who would not support her in this.

    [ Parent ]
    This (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by tek on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:08:44 PM EST
    is the current meme of the Obama people, usually followed by a whine about how they don't want the Clintons anywhere near the WH because it would be unfair to Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Do Obama people want O/C ? (none / 0) (#109)
    by 1950democrat on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:45:10 PM EST
    Whether or not Hillary wants VP, how many Obama people really want her to have it?

    Kennedy, Pelosi, Carter, and others are against it; they think she would detract from his ticket.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, they are wrong. (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:48:16 PM EST
    But your petition would help them make their case.  I can not not believe you would openly sponsor a petition against what Hillary is signaling she wants.

    [ Parent ]
    Detract, eh? (none / 0) (#114)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:51:08 PM EST
    well, honestly if outshine is detract then, yes  ;)

    I have to wonder if her camapigning for him is going to work. She'll still outshine him . . . . She did that yesterday when she laid out the issues as reason to support him. This whole thing is just so freakin' pathetic.

    [ Parent ]

    Last poll I saw had (none / 0) (#154)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:33:08 PM EST
    his supporters (not the party insiders) split 50/50.  Sorry, I don't remember which poll that was, but it was within the last few days.

    [ Parent ]
    When? (none / 0) (#44)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:45:12 PM EST
    I've never, ever heard that come from Hillary or her campaign.

    Lanny Davis started that web campaign against her wishes. He said so.

    [ Parent ]

    Feinstien is her most prominent surrogate. (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:48:15 PM EST
    She laid out the case today.  Wolfson and McCauleffe have given every indication she wants it. I can't imagine why anyone would doubt she wants it.  Her team is giving out the signals.

    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely, Hillary wants VP... (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Aqua Blue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:57:03 PM EST
    She is strong enough to hold her own and do a good job for the country.   Obama needs her if he wants to accomplish what he says he wants for the country.   Hillary and Bill can get it done.

    And, the most important point is that it opens te door to the Presidency in 20016 for HILLARY.

    [ Parent ]

    2016 (none / 0) (#188)
    by 1950democrat on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:06:54 PM EST
    In 2016 HIllary will be 68 years old. Bill may need another quadruple bypass heart surgery around 2020.


    [ Parent ]
    i also just saw that feinstein said that (none / 0) (#180)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:25:37 PM EST
    obama can't win without her supporters. that is a given. but they don't seem to see it that wa considering the comments of brazile and others.

    [ Parent ]
    I (none / 0) (#74)
    by tek on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:10:02 PM EST
    believe Obama people WANT Hillary to want the VP desperately so they can cling to their framing that she will do anything for power.

    [ Parent ]
    Wondering how it's abundantly clear? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:58:07 PM EST
    Not disagreeing necessarily but what do you see as proof?

    [ Parent ]
    Feinstein. (none / 0) (#69)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:07:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps those that are making it (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:08:56 PM EST
    abundantely clear see the writing on the wall and know he needs her to win AND govern  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Saw her but sorta uncomfortable (none / 0) (#86)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:18:40 PM EST
    to watch. I have seen her surrogates making the case but can't help feeling they are speaking for themselves rather than her. Or being good Dems. Just not totally buying it. Maybe because I don't see it as a good deal for her.

    [ Parent ]
    I'd bet it's because it is not (none / 0) (#96)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:27:30 PM EST
    what you want.  There's nothing but upside for Hill, and I would argue the Democrat's.  Her surrogates wouldn't be saying what they are saying if she didn't want it.

    [ Parent ]
    downsides to Obama/Clinton (none / 0) (#105)
    by 1950democrat on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:40:58 PM EST
    I've seen Hillary herself quoted as saying she does not want it but would accept it to help Obama get elected in November, IF the party asked her to.

    I see a lot of downsides for her as VP. I'd hate to see the party and the candidates pressured into a combination ticket which neither candidate really wants, and which would be a source of friction and a waste of her ability for four or eight years (then she'd be 68 and past her prime to do her own thing).

    If a Pres Obama wants her help, she can help him better from the Senate than anywhere else.


    [ Parent ]

    She has never said she doesn't want it. (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:42:47 PM EST
    She said she wasn't persuing it, but would accept it if asked.  Honestly, when someone openly acknowledges they would take it, they want it.  You don't want it.  She does.  

    [ Parent ]
    How many Obama people really want O/C ? (none / 0) (#120)
    by 1950democrat on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:10:44 PM EST
    Getting back to the point, how many Obama people REALLY want O/C?

    Do Obama people want it just as a 'unity ticket' for winning in November?

    Or do Obama people really want to see that team in the White House for 4-8 years?

    It doesn't matter who I support. This is a question for Obama people as to what they really want, and why.

    [ Parent ]

    Who cares who the Obama supporters want? (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:00:02 PM EST
    Excuse me, which voters does Obma want now?  he's already got his.  They are not going anywhere.  

    [ Parent ]
    time should smooth it all out (none / 0) (#166)
    by Shahryar on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:30:26 PM EST
    I became a strong Obama supporter over time so I guess I qualify as one of "them".

    I think the next month or so should help a lot of Hillary supporters to listen to Obama, free of the Hillary filter. You might be surprised to find you like him better than you thought you would.

    And in the next month Obama supporters will see Hillary Clinton as a valuable ally instead of an opponent.

    The VP decision should be made in a clear headed way, free from the emotion of the recent contests and I know that by early July Hillary Clinton will be an extremely reasonable choice for Obama and a choice that Obama supporters would embrace.

    [ Parent ]

    Please stop doing this. (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by echinopsia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:19:39 PM EST
    help a lot of Hillary supporters to listen to Obama, free of the Hillary filter. You might be surprised to find you like him better than you thought you would.

    It's not helping. It's insulting. And I think you're projecting.

    I don't think there are many, if any, Hillary supporters who see Obama through a "filter." We see him plainly and clearly. That's why we don't prefer him.

    If anyone's supporters are seeing the other candidate through a filter, it's Obama's. The Obama and media narrative about Hillary is almost entirely false - they do not see or describe her as she really is.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree there's an Obama filter...too! (none / 0) (#181)
    by Shahryar on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:29:11 PM EST
    I thought it was implied in what I said.

    Let's see how we feel in a month. I think we'll find we agree on a lot more than we agreed on Monday.

    [ Parent ]

    No. (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by echinopsia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:54:41 PM EST
    There is an Obama filter only.

    Believe me, we know all we need to know about him.

    We know his background, his bio, his speeches, his (lack of) serious credentials and experience, his (everchanging, depending on the audience) positions.

    What we need to see is something different from what we've seen so far - as in, respect and recognition for the issues of the constituencies of Hillary's coalition.

    Let him, and his followers, redeem him- and themselves by acting and talking like Democrats, not trashing but praising the Clintons and Bill's administration.

    Let him and his followers publicly praise the Clintons for their history of hard work for civil rights and other Democratic issues. Remove the taint of racism with which he and they tried to tarnish their legacy.

    Let him and them make a good faith effort (because this is something he can't match in his lifetime) to show that there is NO acceptable prejudice in the Democratic Party. Let him and them renounce and reject sexism as they renounce and reject racism.

    Until and unless he and his followers make an effort along these lines there is nothing that will change how I feel in a month, a year, or a decade.

    [ Parent ]

    The More I Listen To Obama And (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:15:30 PM EST
    his surrogates the less I like the idea of him becoming president. The more I see and hear about the NEW Democratic (Obama) Party the more I am convinced that it does not represent me or my values. So much so that I have become an Independent after decades of being a Democrat.  

    I spent over a year researching all the candidates and didn't decide to vote for Hillary until a week before my primary. Obama's "poison pill, Harry and Louise" right wing ad distorting the truth about UHC was the straw that broke the camel's back. Hillary doesn't have any thing to do with my assessment. Obama's position on issues I care about, the method his campaign took to to win the nomination, his lack of preparation for the actual job of being president and his character are the determining factors. So I don't think time will change much of anything.

    [ Parent ]

    Well Start Listening To McCain (none / 0) (#193)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:40:56 PM EST
    That will be a good antidote to cure you.

    [ Parent ]
    I Already Know I Won't Vote For McCain (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:18:27 PM EST
    I don't need reasons why I should not vote for him. The question remains whether or not I vote for Obama. The fact that Obama is not McCain is not sufficient reason for me to vote for him.


    [ Parent ]
    It Is Not That (none / 0) (#197)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:56:08 PM EST
    It is that anything to help that slug (McCain) get elected is against most of our principals. The only time I listened to Obama was the Wright speech and contrary to most here I was touched. And Hillary's last speech was amazing.  But, for me, most of the pandering BS talk by all pols is not for me.  I do not like to listen to any of them.  I prefer to read the stuff if there is a good reason to.

    [ Parent ]
    Voting For Obama Would Violate (none / 0) (#199)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:52:23 AM EST
    some of my principals also. There is no question that McCain could if Congress doesn't do its job be bad for the country. It is also true IMO that an unrestricted Obama could be harmful in other ways.

    Once again, for me this has nothing to do with Hillary. I have major concerns about Obama and the direction of the Democratic Party. I may be able to resolve these concerns before November or I may not. Obama needs to provide me with a whole lot of information on issues I care about if he wants my vote. Speeches without substance don't do a whole heck of a lot for me. I plan to wait and see what develops.

    [ Parent ]

    Loses with Clinton? (none / 0) (#158)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:51:35 PM EST
    In my mind, the best reason for Obama to ask Hillary to be his VP is that she will help them get elected.  Can you tell me why you think if he offers and she accepts (after careful thought & negotiation) that the ticket will lose?  

    I've read many comments from Hillary supporters saying they will only vote for Obama if she is on the ticket. True this is not scientific evidence, but it leads me to believe they should be able to pull off a win -- together.

    Your thoughts?

    [ Parent ]

    One piece of cheery news ... (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Inky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:24:35 PM EST