home

Late night: The Shape of Things To Come

A consensus choice between me, Shelby Sadler and Andrew Travers -- a reporter for the Aspen Daily News and our resident 27 year old DJ. (Anita's already asleep but she would agree.)

This is an open thread. I'll be back in Denver tomorrow and will check in tomorrow night.

< McCain Loves Dance Music | Unity: The Day After >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    According to Obama (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:12:09 AM EST
    Those are the kinds of things that would make it impossible for her to unite the country the way he can.

    Test the memory of Clinton supporters.

    Give it a test.

    Yes.  We know Republicans are bad people who attacked Clinton in horrible ways, what we didn't expect is Obama turning those attacks into a reason why he should be president.

    Please vote for mccain (1.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:13:55 AM EST
    we don't want your whiny vote.

    Parent
    It's just as bad (none / 0) (#84)
    by Eleanor A on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:58:34 AM EST
    As someone saying they wouldn't support an AA, gay, Latino or woman candidate because that person wouldn't win.

    There shouldn't be any place for any of this, IMO, in Democratic discussions about electability of candidates.

    Parent

    I was about to "get over it" (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:22:46 AM EST
    No.  Not really.  But I was thinking.  I was like, Ok, gotta think practical, well, I started a new job two weeks ago, and i'm sitting there thursday morning and i hear two, i call them morons, talking about the election and they're talking about how she can't be VP because she'll be, get this, impeached.  can you impeach a VP?  i don't know.  but that's what they were saying, and then they went off about how she'd be next in line and have a hit put on Obama.  that's what THEY were talking about.

    it's very frustrating.  I know that's an ugly side of this election that no one wants to see on their blog.

    but it's real.  that's what, i call them morons, were saying.

    That is the Obama movement.  that is the voters Obama can't risk losing because he's so unprepared in so many other ways, that he EMBRACES them.

    I can't be a part of that.  i know i'm not supposed to judge obama by his supporters.  yes.  that makes sense.

    But it is THE HATE TRAIN.  And I can't be a part of it.

    If Obama wants my vote, and admittedly it is only one vote in a blue state, but if Obama wants my vote, he needs to make it clear to me that the, i'll call them morons, should NOT be voting for him in November.

    I don't know how he can make that clear.

    But that's the threshold for me.

    Just to tie this up.  I did not "join" their conversation.

    I am in a purple state. (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by LoisInCo on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:25:18 AM EST
    And I see no way he could earn my vote. Well thats not exactly true, there are few ways, but nothing he will ever do.

    Parent
    If I thought for a second (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:32:16 AM EST
    If I had the impression from Obama, i don't know how he can convey this impression, but if he can convey it somehow, that if he was beside me overhearing that coversation, and then I stood up and told them they were morons, and if I had the impression that Obama would stand up and say "He's right, you're morons.  Shut up!"

    I'd vote for him.

    If he can convey that impression, in some way, it's a threshold, I'll know it when I see it.

    Brutally blunt, He needs to RISK VOTES to earn MY VOTE.  I believe that is Obama's dilemma here.

    If he believes he's risking too many votes to earn my vote, then so be it, that's the way of the world.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#16)
    by LoisInCo on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:37:36 AM EST
    you can always take comfort in the fact that, if there were media cameras near that conversation, he probably would. With a wink.

    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:39:19 AM EST
    Wouldn't pass the threshold.

    Without the wink, it might.


    Parent

    Its a lose lose (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by LoisInCo on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:43:46 AM EST
    for him. He risks alienating his obnoxious base(which isnt all of it but a large enough segment)to gain a certain percentage of Clinton voters. It wouldn't even be all of the hold outs. Everyone has a different requirement and he wouldn't be able to meet them all. That is the price of the tactics he used to win in the first place.

    Parent
    Actually, I don't think there's anything he can do (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by FemB4dem on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:34:32 AM EST
    to alienate his base, the kool-aid drinkers.  They truly seem to think he can do no wrong.  I think he won't try, at least succesfully, to reach out to us simply because he has no clue how to do so. Instead, he will go after independents and republicans, further alienating Clinton dems.  At least that's what I hope he does -- I have no doubt they will reject him; by the time the NRA and the 527s are done with him, he will have no chance with that crowd.  Then he will be forced to turn back to us.  By then, we will have steeled ourselves to march in lock step and vote for McCain -- for the good of the country and for the good of the democratic party we will rebuild from the ground up.

    Parent
    It will be interesting (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:58:34 AM EST
    to see how this plays out.  I agree with you; I don't see him reaching out to Clinton voters. He ran his campaign, in large part, on dissing the Clintons.  It won't be easy to backtrack from that.  Plus, he may be "inspiring" (according to my mother) but he lacks the common touch.  It will be very difficult for him to connect with her base, which constitutes large segments of the Dem Party.  It's a huge base just there for the taking and I'm sure McCain is well aware of that.  

    How ironic would it be if McCain courts that vote while Obama goes after Repubs and Indy's?  

    Parent

    I sure hope (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:06:29 AM EST
    That the powers within the Democratic Party have sat him down and given him a reality check. If he sincerely believes he can make it to the White House on the back of disgruntled Republican's and independants, we're in serious trouble. He lost to McCain on independants in the open primaries. And he would lose his "progressive's" if he moves more to the right to attract the Republican's. Neither is an option. I also can't believe that anyone still thinks that the western strategy can work. The western states that he won in the primaries will do him no good in the GE. Pink elephants will take over the Earth before Kansas turns blue!

    Parent
    Agreed (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:14:29 AM EST
    also, I have a strong feeling that McCain will win the Southwestern States.  

    I will be watching the polls with great interest over the next few weeks.  It seems that many Obama supporters believe that his support will surge with Hillary out of the race, but I'm not so sure about that.

    Parent

    No doubt (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:21:57 AM EST
    I think the conventional wisdom is that "where else can they go". They've relied on this with the AA and gay communities for years. Sadly it seems to work! I think the progressive blogs and the media have the same opinion. We'll see. For myself, the only person that can bring the party together is Obama. It can't and shouldn't be Hilary's or anyone elses responsibily. He needs to show me what he has to offer rather than Change and McCain is worse.

    Parent
    The problem with (none / 0) (#60)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:27:02 AM EST
    the "where else can they go" theory is that many Hillary supporters are blue-collar Dems.  Reagan Dems, if you will (although I am not one personally) who will not hesitate to cross party lines in November.  It's absolutely Obama's responsibility to bring these voters on board.  He touts himself as the candidate of unity - if he can't even unite his own party, what hope is there for him in the GE?

    Parent
    DNC (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:59:33 AM EST
    I don't think they're expecting him to win this year. I think they want his $$$$ and his address book, because they think it's magic. I think they're saving themselves for 2012.

    I have a feeling his voter base and fundraising ability were based on imagination.  As the euphoria wears down and he becomes just another candidate with a slight resume and shady friends, the fundraising will wane. And the wondrous youth vote that is supposed to make it all worthwhile? As he becomes another candidate with a flag pin on his lapel, he won't be "cool" anymore.

    I think there's going to be a lot of disappointment this summer.

    Parent

    agreed (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by kempis on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:47:16 AM EST
    ...by the time the NRA and the 527s are done with him, he will have no chance with that crowd.

    I just keep thinking about how easily Kerry was destroyed with so little. The GOP are masters at "the politics of personal destruction" and they are on the inside track with the electorate because they haven't dissed the working class's values. They sure as heck don't look after their economic interests, but they don't insult them nor look down on them.

    The NRA and the 527s and Obama's own gaffe-proneness are going to burn the teflon off by November and even KO and Chris Matthews and Jack Cafferty are going to be breaking up with  Obama.

    I think the Democratic party has made a huge miscalculation.

    Parent

    Is there anything (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Emma on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:55:36 AM EST
    anybody sees -- besides "media darling" status -- that makes them think Obama will be able to fight off these inevitable attacks?

    Serious question here, not snark or rhetorical.

    Parent

    Beats me? (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:31:45 AM EST
    Maybe they're under the mistaken impression that yelling "racist" at the GOP will make them go away?  If there are answers to your question, I'd like to see them.


    Parent
    take a look at this (none / 0) (#77)
    by laurie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:07:18 AM EST
    http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5637

    The whole of Open Left is a fascinating look at Obama nuDem philosophy

    Parent

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Emma on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:18:47 AM EST
    I'm not sure what consolidating Obama's power to take over the Dem party has to do with fighting back against Republican attacks.

    Also, does anybody here believe this is a real possibility:

    McCain is such a weak candidate, and the Republicans are in such disarray, that a solid White House victory, 5-7 Senate seats, and 40-50 seats in the House are clearly possible.

    Do we think that the Republicans will remain in disarray?  How weak is McCain in actuality?

    I'm sorry, if this is a strategy, I don't understand it.

    Parent

    That bothers me, because (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by splashy on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:47:39 PM EST
    I don't know what he is planning to do for sure.

    It appears he will not bring universal health care, for instance. So, what will we get from him? Something that costs twice as much, and doesn't cover everyone?

    Parent

    Dem Party doesn't care (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:55:46 AM EST
    if Obama wins in November, IMO.  He's bringing money into their coffers and the lure of new voters (we'll see how that works out for them now that much of the traditional Dem base has been thrown under the bus).

    This is the same party that took impeachment off the table and brought us DINO's like McCaskill.  They'd rather kick the Clintons out of the party than nominate an electable candidate.

    Parent

    good point, they'll do the W.O.R.M. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:38:40 AM EST
    and so he can really say anything. He should do that. He should come out and say such things. The kool-aid drinkers will talk about what he really meant and be fine with that. Of course in that case they may very well be right, that he didn't mean it.

    Ah, that's the problem with that reputation, driven by his more orange supporters, that he really means something else no matter how much he panders. He's a multipanderer (as someone here coined the term), and that in itself makes it difficult to pull that off.

    Parent

    VP's can be impeached (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:27:24 AM EST
    Too bad Nancy didn't start that with Dick.  He might have been gone sooner.  

    Parent
    Obama (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by Nasarius on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:49:46 AM EST
    Maybe I'm strange, but I still don't get the impression that Obama is running for President. He's engaged in a high school popularity contest, and it reflects that way in his supporters.

    There was absolutely no reason for him to run for President in the first place, other than his sudden popularity. He's not uniquely qualified for the position. He's not qualified, period.

    Parent

    Well there was anothe good reason... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:23:47 AM EST
    ...the fact that this particular election was the Democrat's to lose. Therefore, all he had to do was win the nomination.

    Parent
    Having accomplished all a Senator possibly could (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by Calvados on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:12:34 AM EST
    after two years in office, it was clear to him (and soon to his supporters) that the next logical step was to be President.  

    It makes me wonder what he'll do after exhausting the challenges and possibilities of the Presidency after maybe 16 months--appoint himself to the Supreme Court?  That would make his choice of a VP very important.

    Don't forget that he ran the Harvard Law Review for a year, so he's got clear management experience, and he definitely knows how to hire an effective campaign manager.  That description started to sound a lot like President Bush, so I just checked, and the government of Texas is even bigger than the Harvard Law review.  I guess I just talked myself out of being confident that there is evidence Senator Obama's management ability.

    Parent

    I'm Not Sure That Obama Could Get (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:39:38 AM EST
    this under control NOW even if he wanted to do so. It was very evident that he had no real desire to control it during the primary when it was of benefit to him to silence legitimate queastions or even the mildest of critism. Bush had his 30%er and so does Obama. Bush had the Dixie Chicks and Obama has Tavis Smiley. Bullying thugs are useful to silence any form of inquiry into what a politician is actually doing or to silence desent. Bush did not speak out against his supporter thugs because they served his purpose. Obama has not (Tavis Smiley) and IMO will not speak out his supporter thugs because they serve his purpose.

    To me sileence on these actions is the same as consent. This type of political thuggery is not acceptable no matter which party employs these tactics.  

    Parent

    How does (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:18:02 AM EST
    this excuse what Obama has done?

    Hearing McCain is worse than Obama as the reason to vote for Obama is really tiresome.

    Don't Let Obama (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:33:00 AM EST
    off the hook.  These claims become self-serving justification for Obama campaign not to reach out to those who voted for Hillary. Even Gail Sheehy (CNN) said HILLARY! has lots of work to do to bring these voters over to Obama. It is Obama's responsibility to give them a reason to vote for him.  

    Parent
    Indeed. (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:13:31 AM EST
    After Hillary's speech yesterday, it's entirely in Obama's court. IF he can't do it, he has no one to blame but himself.

    Parent
    nope, it's all up to Chelsea (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:53:38 AM EST
    to campaign hard for Obama, otherwise his lose will be Hillary's fault. Haven't you been listening to Jeffery Tubin.

    Parent
    I was surprised (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by standingup on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:42:44 AM EST
    and disappointed to hear almost the same thing from Ed Schultz on Larry King last night.  He was complimentary of Hillary's speech, thought she deserved just a short break because it is urgent she  gets to the task of convincing her supporters to get behind Obama.  

    Do these people honestly believe that Clinton's supporters simply take marching orders from her and are incapable of making their own decisions?  Obama is making a big mistake if he believes he can get those votes without doing something to earn them.  I find it insulting that they believe I would vote for Obama because of an appeal from Hillary.

    Parent

    Simple Answer (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:12:12 AM EST
    Yes. Need I remind you that all of Hillary's voters are uneducated, low information people. Therefore, they need someone to do their thinking for them.

    Actually, I find this rather amusing. Hillary's voters discounted almost everything that the media, Dem leadership and Obama and his supporters said and came out in large numbers to vote for her. They were told she was a demon, that she had no moral standing, that she and Bill were racists, that Bill was as bad as Bush and that she had absolutely no chance to win. Yet, month after month, they chose to think for themselves and went out in large numbers to vote for her. I don't think it is Hillary's supporters who are the ones who are easily lead into doing something just because someone tells them to do it.  

    Parent

    Same answer. (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:47:20 PM EST
    Yes.  I have been barraged by emails from Obaman family and friends telling me to do what Clinton told me to do.  When I engage and discuss, I am told again that it seems I did not really listen to her speech.  (I have now listened to it twice, and I know that if any of them did listen, they dissed her throughout.)

    I finally said that, y'know, she called on Dems to unite, and since I no longer am a Dem owing to its corruption, she wasn't talking to Independents -- we who do not head like lemmings over that cliff where Dean, Brazile, Pelosi, et al., took the party for the sake of shiny pennies . . . and then I say that Obama said he was gonna be so great at getting Independents, so it's his job to talk to me . . . <crickets>.  Oh, they will be back, though, barraging me with more inane reasons why I am the problem.  Well, if I'm part of the problem, I can't be part of the solution, now, can I? :-)

    Parent

    Pundit post-mortem: You go girl! over there now (5.00 / 9) (#36)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:54:28 AM EST
    ... and STFU like you were always supposed to.

    I haven't skimmed Punditstan's sanctimonious eulogies of Sen Clinton's campaign yet.

    I thought this essay by Rebecca Traister at Salon efficiently highlighted much of what we saw both from candidate and detractors. (Hillary's Final Curtain by Rebecca Traister, Salon, June 08/2008)

    Now all the jerks who were throwing the rottenest vegetables at her for obscenely competing for an office for which she believed herself qualified -- and actually WAS -- are lavishly complimenting her ... on her newfound subservience.

    Yep, the script now calls for her to turn over her accumulated wealth and work to the less qualified, less accomplished and less talented rival who couldn't beat her on his own merits.

    But he ran a better campaign! isn't a big selling point with voters, IMO; it's like bragging he had the better bullsh!t. He had better marketing, fatter wallet and burned 3x the money to barely keep up. YEAH, that's who I want in office! Woo um, hoo!

    Nor could he pass her on his own without Saruman Dems' hard-pressing a butcher's thumb on the scale and even shoving Sen. Clinton's hard-earned votes and delegates into his column.

    Hillary Clinton earned my respect, loyalty and vote during her campaign.

    Speaking as only one of her 18 million voters that fits into several of the categories that Club Obama would rather not be affiated with, it will be my lavish joy to watch them work, without my assistance, to get their guy into the White House.

    And should he not get trounced as the most expensive landslide loser in history (IMO), get his back for four years.

    My future participation will be to make sure that the political capital that Sen Clinton earned from ME isn't turned over to any individual or party that didn't deserve, merit or straight up earn it.

    If the astro-turfers we've seen the past week are any indication, my non-compliance -- not uncommon apparently -- is being typified as spite, a standard motivation behind Chick Flick villainy (LMAO).

    On that issue the hair-pulling and stomping has already started and has yet to explode into the kind of crescendo of another incomprehensible Keith Obamann finger-wagging, head exploding sputterfest.

    If any of those feckin eedjits paid mind to the phrases Obama clumsily cobbled into his speeches, Club Obama wouldn't be trivializing non-compliance as an eye-rolling feminine device employed simply to p!ss them off.

    They'd see it instead for what it truly was: a core principle of resistance and revolution. It's the heart and soul of peaceful resistance to longterm injustice and the core of civil disobedience through the ages, from Buddha to Gandhi to X to MLK and beyond.

    It's been a staple of feminism forever; Cream City could give you cites and history to beat the band. Isn't it sad and funny that what Club Obama and their most visible proponent have been speechifying about ad nauseum, Hillary went on out and actually DID?

    I'm Indy, I'm peaceful, I'm out of this political drudgery but one thing that I've realized now is that I'm a feminist for life.

    I always have been but I said so less frequently in my life, not from shame, but because I didn't think that people who enjoyed my contributions and benefited so greatly from my efforts didn't need reminding.

    Apparently they do, so in that area I'll gladly comply. In the other expectation of turning over work without expecting cred or respect, er NO. Seen it, done it.

    I love this post, Ellie (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by magisterludi on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:09:32 AM EST
    Hit me right in the gut.

    Parent
    Absolutely (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Emma on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:53:38 AM EST
    My future participation will be to make sure that the political capital that Sen Clinton earned from ME isn't turned over to any individual or party that didn't deserve, merit or straight up earn it.

    You're whole post is great.  But this in particular really explains why I'm not voting for Obama.

    Parent

    Agree (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by A little night musing on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:12:11 AM EST
    It's a great post, and agree about that line.

    I'm not saying I won't vote for Obama, but at this point I'm not saying that I will either. I'm watching him and his campaign, very closely.

    That HRC asked us to help him get elected means a lot, but it's not enough.

    I'm still looking for evidence that he knows that he's broken something and he needs to fix it. His statement yesterday wasn't.

    Parent

    ditto (5.00 / 7) (#47)
    by kempis on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:58:28 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton earned my respect, loyalty and vote during her campaign.

    Indeed.

    And she won my affection, too.

    Watching her yesterday, I got the sense that she and all of us who support her take comfort in the unexpected, genuine affection we came to regard her with.

    I certainly never expected to love Hillary Clinton. I respected her but I was wary of her, having been exposed to the old memes from the 90s. Unfortunately, half the party embraced that evil caricature of Hillary. The rest of decided it was bunk. As a result, we saw Hillary unfiltered: resilient, smart-as-hell, funny, warm, feisty, fearless, and mature.

    Parent

    "Never expected to love Hillary Clinton" (5.00 / 6) (#70)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:12:52 AM EST
    That was me, too.

    Matter of fact, when all the whining started about how Hillary only won NH because of the 'girlfriend' vote, I told a friend that I liked her because I thought she was tough and would get things done, but I imagined that if I knew her in real life I wouldn't like her much, nevermind consider her a 'girlfriend' in that sense.

    Well, I eat my words.  She's my hero, now.

    Obama doesn't have enough time to win my vote no matter what he does. Integrity and character can't be bought no matter how much money you raise, and 5 months isn't long enough to develop them.

    Parent

    Yep, I'd love to have a beer with her (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:13:24 PM EST
    and hear that chuckle.  And I don't even like beer.  But for her, I'd down a stein -- or several.  Him, not so much.  Why do I picture him ordering some boutique beer and then being one of those who first carefully wipes down any part of the bottle that might have had human contact?

    Of course, I don't pick presidents because they could be good girlfriends, boyfriends, or beer buddies.  But we're told that many Americans do -- and whether Obama can connect as Clinton does, I dunno.

    Parent

    wow, well said n/t (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:42:17 AM EST
    I finally (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:11:01 AM EST
    unsubscribed to all the democratic emails. Hillary still has my email address and when she hands it over to Obama I will again unsubscribe. I'm not sure whether I feel sad or relieved.

    All The Other Kids Do It (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:05:13 AM EST
    was never considered by my parents as a legitimate defense when I was growing up. I never considered it a legitimate defense when my children used it and my daughter doesn't consider it a legitimate defense with her children.

    Maybe things are or were different for you but for a large segment of the population "everyone does it" is not the best way to win an argument. I refuse to condone the actions of the Democratic Party because the Republicans do it to.  

    Why it's going to be hard for Obama to win (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by kempis on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:20:17 AM EST
    Much has been made of his eloquence in contrast to McCain's pedestrian, weird-smile-punctuated delivery.

    But without a teleprompter, Obama sometimes is completely lost. Not just a little but completely.

    Here's an example from this past week in Bristol, Virginia.

    (I am awful at using the link software here, so this  will probably not work. If it doesn't, I encourage everyone to google "obama gaffe bristol virginia." You'll find it.



    Thanks for the laugh (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:24:28 AM EST
    I needed that.  A breathalizer?  LOL.  

    And he hasn't gotten enough sleep?  Just wait till those Repub 527's launch into action.  

    Parent

    Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:36:05 AM EST
    If the media starts playing these, it's toast time.

    Parent
    Here's the youtube link. (none / 0) (#76)
    by halstoon on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:57:55 AM EST
    Your link (none / 0) (#78)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:09:20 AM EST
    gaffe

    Use chainy thing in comments. And to name it so the whole address does not take up space, between the ><a  stick the title.

    Parent

    Thank you :-) (none / 0) (#85)
    by kempis on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:09:39 PM EST
    Found this hilarious too (none / 0) (#82)
    by laurie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:28:06 AM EST
    I'm addicted to Red State Update (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by kempis on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:10:34 PM EST
    The bearded, older guy reminds me of my late Pappy. :)

    Parent
    They're great ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by tree on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:03:36 PM EST
    And if you want a real crack-up, check out their "bedroom eyes" photos on their website.

    Parent
    Chicago (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:21:05 AM EST
    Is there something in the water in Chicago? I'm from Cleveland (which is not that far away geographically), and any politician from there who associated with Wright, Ayers, Pfleger, Meeks, etc would be ridden out of town on a rail (as, frankly, would many of these worthies themselves, in all likelihood). I just can't understand why these people are considered more or less mainstream members of the Chicago community.

    I'm sure McCain's campaign will exploit this. Remember "San Francisco Democrats" from '84? Or "Taxachussetts" from '88? GOP has a knack for turning geographical labels into political slurs.

    I'm from Chicago (none / 0) (#61)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:31:38 AM EST
    The city is pretty much two cities, the north side with the Cubs and Wrigleville and then the south with the Sox! Neither side pays any attention to the other. But I'll be the first in line to compliment the Daley's. Chicago is a beautiful, clean and well run city.

    Parent
    Trojan Women (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:13:40 AM EST
    This is getting to sound more and more like a page out of Euripides' "Trojan Women." Has any other defeated candidate had this many demands put on them to grovel and obey?

    They want her led in chains during the triumphal parade. They want to see her stripped naked and forced to serve his wife as a slave.  They want her to suck his ....  

    This election, more than any I've ever known, has been governed by psychological processes, rather than political ones.

    It's about projections, and archetypes, and primal rage at women who cannot be controlled.

    As Anglachel said, he wishes to ride into town on a Unity pony, sweeping to victory. But he doesn't want to examine at the fact that the Little Train Who Could chugged into town at 3 m.p.h. with bad engine trouble.

    "Overshadowed" by a talented man indeed. Does this man ever work? Has anyone ever seen him work?  His Harvard Law Review career was distinguished by the fact that he was the only president never to have written an article. They passed a rule after he left that all presidents had to have written an article.  The only article, apparently, he has ever written was a co-authored one on health care.  The senior author was ... you guessed it ... Hillary Clinton.

    Donna Brazile told us we were no longer wanted in the party.  Yet now they want Hillary to deliver  us as voters? Huh?

    They aren't dealing with their contradictions.

    Hill did the right thing. Get out of the way -- graciously, gracefully. Get out of the way, and let the little train go over a cliff.

    I don't think a VP candidate ever saved a bad presidential one.  It's a waste of her considerable skills.

    Go back to Congress, Senator Clinton. Make a thousand stars shine.

    Proper Address (3.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Alec82 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:47:43 AM EST
    This bothers me a bit.  Why is it Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama, and Mrs. Clinton (the latter, to some friends of mine, is particulary bad....in (CA, at least) legal world we usually address women as Ms.).

     Hell, I even say President Bush, and that is pretty gracious.

    I'll try to answer (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by themomcat on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:37:40 AM EST
    Usually it is up to the individual lady whether she want to be a Miss, Ms. or Mrs., depending on marital status. Many single women prefer Ms. for personal reasons, sometimes for security so it is not known that they live alone. For married women it is optional and entirely up to them how they wish to be addressed. In the case of divorced or separated women, Ms. is usually the choice even if they have returned to using their maiden names. When the preference is unknown, Ms. is the current correct way to address a lady. In Sen. Clinton's case, I believe she has always addressed as Mrs. Clinton when she is not being addressed in her official capacity as Senator. However, either Ms. or Mrs. is correct.

    Parent
    Shouldn't it Be (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:36:19 AM EST
    Senator Clinton?

    Parent
    Yes. (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:20:04 AM EST
    It can be either. Both are correct. (none / 0) (#99)
    by themomcat on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:56:13 PM EST
    That was my point. Social etiquette. Remember Emily Post. ;-).

    Parent
    Blame George Washington, in a way (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:29:51 PM EST
    as in the days when presidents had humilitas, one of the most significant steps he took toward ridding us of our legacy of obeisance to divine rule, i.e., kings and queens, was that he fought against fancy titles and said that "Mr. President" was fine.  So the title long was "Mr. Senator," too.

    You're also seeing impact of the stuffy New York Times style, in which second references never are simply surnames but must be preceded by Mr., Mrs. . . . or, grudgingly at long last, Ms.  The poster above explains, of course, that the choice between Mrs. or Ms. is a matter of personal preference -- by the woman herself.  I suspect that in the case of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who had to forego use of her maiden name for the sake of her husband's political career, she opted for the Mrs. for the same reason, and then for her own political career.  Of course, yes, "Senator" is best.

    Do allow me, though, to note that although none of the candidates, including the "professor," have opted to earn a medical degree or doctoral degree,  it has the benefit for women of conveying the only gender-neutral and marital status-neutral title we can earn.  So some of us are addressed as Dr.

    However, I have many students who simply cannot wrap their heads around calling a woman Dr.  They want to use Mrs., which I do not prefer.  They are the same ones who can't bring themselves to use Ms.  And too many these days were not raised well and/or are born to be in sales, so they address me by my first name.  I finally started telling them to just call me Sir.

    Parent

    since you are so confident (2.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:16:02 AM EST
    that O is going to lose why don't you give me 10-1 odds on a 100 dollar bet donation going to talkleft. Electronic handshake and i will remind you in a few months that your 1k donation is due

    If you're giving 10-1 odds ... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:45:28 AM EST
    you think Obama's victory is pretty unlikely too.

    Parent
    I'll take that bet (none / 0) (#28)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:19:43 AM EST
    Works both ways (none / 0) (#30)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:27:39 AM EST
    you lose 500 goes to a charity of my choice and 500 to TL

    Parent
    deal (none / 0) (#88)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:51:48 PM EST
    deal as long as it is not (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:53:09 PM EST
    a republican charity!

    Parent
    Are you a contributing member here? (none / 0) (#34)
    by cpa1 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:38:56 AM EST
    I have a $100 at the DailyKos I am trying to get backm but for the benefit of Talk Left, why don't we do this.  If Obama loses, you put in my $100 and yours and if he wins, I'll put in yours and mine.

    Parent
    yes i am (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:51:26 PM EST
    and i will take your bet

    Parent
    Why is Robert Wexler on my TV everyday (none / 0) (#1)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:40:47 AM EST
    this week? Is it an audition or is it because he wrote a book?

    its payback (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:43:07 AM EST
    for his early support of Obma.

    Parent
    Kay B. Hutchinson is there too (Larry King) in (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:49:12 AM EST
    a show taped today. You would think Hillary was her best friend! They really are going to try to appeal to Clinton supporters by being extra nice. Isn't it weird to see Republicans praising a Clinton?

    I know it's mostly fake but it beats seeing Democrats bashing her.

    Parent

    Since I'm the only one up, I'll just add that this (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:00:36 AM EST
    is truly a Hillary love fest. All she had to do was quit beating Obama and endorse him and now they love her.

    The first caller, an Obama supporter, wants Chelsea to campaign. I visited DKos for little bit today and some people there said the same thing.

    We finally have a Clinton everyone loves! She really is an impressive young woman.

    Parent

    Ha. (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by LoisInCo on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:02:07 AM EST
    If Chelsea doesn't stump for Obama she will be under that bus quicker than lightning.

    Parent
    Even BTD (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:08:57 AM EST
    Thinks she's more electable now.

    I know.  I'm not a nice person.


    Parent

    lol, he loves her in his heart. (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:15:31 AM EST
    In all seriousness, his respect for her is huge. I think she truly shocked him. His electability argument due to media treatment is sure going to get tested soon. Not on MSNBC but elsewhere on other stations (maybe). The 527's will be brutal.

    I'm glad he is here but one of my biggest regrets with this election is that I didn't get to see him rip in on those hypocrites at DKos like he would have and has done in the past. The internet would have melted down.

    Parent

    There's no really ripping in (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:26:01 AM EST
    To anyone on the internet.  There's only mob rule.

    I'm no fool.  I know we do our form of "piling on", problem is, of course, I think we're right.

    Parent

    edgar08- (none / 0) (#24)
    by magisterludi on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:19:15 AM EST
    you're passionate. That's not a bad thing and neither are you.

    Parent
    Wait Let Me Get This Straight (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:57:25 AM EST
    Chelsea was being used and abused by Hillary when she campaigned for her mom but now it is O.K. for her to campaign for Obama.

    Parent
    Not just (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Emma on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:58:29 AM EST
    okay.  But imperative.  Just wait and see.

    Parent
    What will David Shuster say? (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:18:47 AM EST
    Is Obama p*mping her out?

    Parent
    yep, I heard jeffery tubin say that too (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:48:56 AM EST
    implying that the only way for Hillary to show she is really behind Obama (and thus let off the hook for being her fault if he looses) is as if Chelsea walks the street for Obama. OK, I made up that last part, but he did say she would have to campaign hard for Obama. I really think the honestly believe this stuff too. Is it me, or is there a bit of sickness to all of this.

    Parent
    You must be a guy... (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:15:25 AM EST
    It's the desire to punish an uppity woman by humiliating her. Since she doesn't seem to get humiliated easily, they need to find new ways of making her scrub the floor.  Nekkid, maybe.

    Parent
    Some of this is less embracing Clinton now (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:17:43 AM EST
    than it is moving the bar continually higher, so when Clinton (or the Clintons) don't meet it, they can say "see, I told you she wouldn't really get behind him!"

    I'm expecting them to call for the Clintons to start donating their organs to him any minute now.

    Parent

    If I were Chelsea, I would be very busy (5.00 / 6) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:52:55 AM EST
    doing other useful things this summer. The reality is that there is absolutely NOTHING that any Clinton could do that was deemed enough to be worthy.

    I think that McCaskill's daughter and Caroline Kennedy's children should hit the campaign trail for Obama since they have such great powers of persuasion that they were the prime reason for their parent's choice of a Dem nominee.

    Parent

    Fox Cable Has Not Gotten the Message (none / 0) (#31)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:28:57 AM EST
    Yesterday a long discussion about Vanity Fair article & isn't Bill up to old tricks and wasn't article fair. Only one commentator pointed out there's almost no named sources for article. No one mentioned suit brought against Vanity Fair as result.

    Perhaps Fox thinks they can pick the Clintons off against one another?

    Parent

    I watched this too... (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 03:17:20 AM EST
    And all I can say is that I'm really tired of the word "Change."  

    Really.  I am super-tired of hearing it thrown into every conversation by nearly every politician.  I'm tired of hearing "Well the voters are looking for Change..." and "He/she is a big proponent of Change."  

    I would Change the channel, but that involves that dreaded word:  Change.  

    TV newscasters want us to "Change the way we do business" and "Change our driving habits."  I can't even Change my mind without encountering Change again.  

    Anyway, this is just my own personal protest from this election cycle.  I've never seen a word so overused as the dreaded "Change."  

    Parent

    Hell has truly frozen over (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Eleanor A on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:54:40 AM EST
    What with all of us watching Fox, and now this lovefest...

    Parent
    Never in a million years (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:29:46 PM EST
    would I have thought I'd watch Fox News for anything.

    But it's been equally harsh on Clinton and Obama.  And you can pick up the Republican tpm there.  They telegraph every move.

    But then, never in a million years would I have thought I'd not care which dog won the Presidential fight.

    Remarkably freeing, that.

    Parent

    Blue Tide (none / 0) (#51)
    by 1jane on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:09:28 AM EST
    With our economy in the tank, a war that John McCain supports and his continuious gaffes,numerous factual errors and "worst speech ever award" Democrats have a chance to take the White House, the Senate and the House. Down ticket local Democratic candidates will benefit from the blue tide that is rolling across America. Communities, schools, city and county governance is going toward progressive ideals for the first time in a long time.

    "In the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it."

    Andrew Sullivan needs to get on board. (none / 0) (#75)
    by halstoon on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:54:34 AM EST
    This is not helpful. Sullivan should apologize for his backhanded compliments and rude tone. "Buh-bye?" I really don't think Barack Obama would endorse such a review of Sen. Clinton's campaign. What Sullivan said about Hillary being overshadowed by two more talented men may be true, but I don't think this weekend was a time to point that out, or to accuse her of being tied to identity politics. Hillary's campaign was based on her qualifications to be president, and not on her gender. She deserves more respect than that.

    Okay, it is the endtimes, after all. (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:49:41 PM EST
    Halstoon and I agree.  Thank you for that.

    Parent