home

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Your turn. Keep it civil.

This is an Open Thread.

< What Obama Can Do Now On FISA | Obama Briefly Forgets Hillary at Unity Event >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Does BO (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Lahdee on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:20:55 AM EST
    have a problem with the leadership issue? His numbers, if the poll BTD cited earlier is to be believed, are softening. Is that a product of his increased exposure or is it a concern?

    I think it's very much a concern that our (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:24:23 AM EST
    nominee seems to only lead by 2 or 3 points against a man who belongs to the same party as one of the most unpopular men in American History (he's real close to beating out Benedict Arnold).

    Apparently voters still don't like flip floppers.

    [ Parent ]

    BO has a lot of probelms, I guess. (none / 0) (#135)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:19:46 PM EST
    He went to do a fundraiser for HRC and never mentioned it in his speech - and had to go back up on stage to ask people to donate to her.

    What a guy!!!!  Just the kind you want as your POTUS!

    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Obama-Clinton-Fundraising.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=O bama+Briefly+Forgets+to+Urge+Help+for+Clinton+&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

    [ Parent ]

    With the economy in this condition... (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by stefystef on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:26:19 AM EST
    why isn't Obama polling better?  I was listening to the Bill Press Show yesterday and he had a guest host (can't remember his name) who was interviewing Bob Schieffer (who should have stayed as the CBS Evening News anchor) and Bob said something interesting.

    He said that he was surprised that Obama was only looking at 3-5% leads (statistical dead-heats) against McCain considering the low ratings of Republicans and the President.

    I wondered that too... perhaps the shiny new-ness of Obama is finally wearing off and people are seeing him for what he is... and they aren't so thrill anymore.  Perhaps buyers's remorse?

    I have no doubt (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by talex26 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:31:43 AM EST
    that Clinton would be polling higher than Obama. At least people, like her or not, knows who she is and what she stands for. That they can vote for.

    Someone who they do not know who they are or what they stand for is hard to vote for.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree completely (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by kempis on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:57:00 AM EST
    Regardless of how people feel about Hillary, her competence is not in doubt.

    During the primaries, I was disappointed to see rock-star-ness trump competence in the eyes of pundits and party leaders, mainly because I believe that this is a time when most people who care enough to cast a vote want to put someone in office who knows what the heck he or she is doing. Competence matters enormously in contrast to Bush's incompetence. Electing a knowledgeable, experienced, and capable executive would have been THE change we need.

    As it is, I find myself doubting Obama's preparedness and thus his competence. And certainly McCain 2008 is not an attractive alternative. I never in my adult life imagined that I'd contemplate sitting out a presidential election....

    [ Parent ]

    Who (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:25:31 AM EST
    would have? Our chance to finally get rid of GOP rule? 8 months ago I was so excited about our prospects in Nov. Not so much now. Frankly I don't see where winning this election is that important. I don't see the point in putting another Jimmy Carter in office. I don't see the point in voting for someone who is as clueless about the economy as McCain. I don't see the point in voting for someone who is more worried about what Republicans think of him than anything else.

    PS-I'm a moderate not a left winger. Obama's moves to the center have no appeal to me.

    [ Parent ]

    I really doubt she would be up much more (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:30:22 PM EST
    This country is so evenly divided.  It will be a very long time before a candidate wins by a huge margin.  People might not like Republicans, but democrats aren't liked that much eather.  The better of two evils will never poll by huge amounts over the first evil, I really think this is how most Americans view it.

    [ Parent ]
    Why did you rate we like that? (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:48:38 PM EST
    I just don't understnad the point?

    [ Parent ]
    Don't sweat it Sam... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:53:54 PM EST
    ...it just means you're on the right track.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe because you called (none / 0) (#201)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:01:16 PM EST
    the Dem candidate evil?  That's Obama-bashing?

    [ Parent ]
    Divided? (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:56:28 PM EST
    With Bush's approval ratings at an all-time low, the country's outlook worse than it's been since 1992, and eight out of 10 people saying the Democrats could do a better job on virtually everything? source

    Divided? I think not.

    However, if Obama continues to try to out-conservative McCain, it will be a very close (and that means divided) election.

    If he'd start acting like a real Democrat he might be able to change that. I'm not holding my breath.

    [ Parent ]

    Buyer's Remorse (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by JimWash08 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:42:55 AM EST
    Funny you say that (and I've seen it mentioned frequently in recent days on this Web site.)

    I was having a discussion with my colleague today -- a friend whom I've never spoken politics with before, until I found out last Friday that he voted for Obama -- on the FISA debacle and he said 'buyer's remorse' too.

    I was really surprised that he, a fresh college grad at 22-years-old, said that. What's even better is he said, "Hillary definitely wouldn't have voted for it if she was the nominee, that I'm sure."

    But buyer's remorse would be significant if the product could actually be returned. I fear The Obama is here to stay and it makes me sad.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree and don't forget (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by abfabdem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:50:17 PM EST
    after March 1 or so, she got over 600,000 more votes than Obama and won 7 out of 12 primaries.  It was like, the more they did see him the less they liked him.  Which is why he ducked debates and kind of hid out until the primaries were over then let the super delegates carry him over the finish line.

    Like a sports game analogy--the guy was ahead by the fourth quarter but the opponent suddenly started playing great and was coming on strong and could have won but the guy stalled and ran out the clock to eke out a victory.  At least that's what it felt like to me.

    [ Parent ]

    Dems approval lower (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:45:46 AM EST
    This Dem led congress has lower approval than friggin' Bush.  Isn't it a record to be in single digits?  9%! What the h3ll is that?  

    Voters are less happy with the Dems than they were with the Repubs.  Repubs are giving this Dem congress the higher ratings... that means Dems/Indies are the angriest.

    [ Parent ]

    maybe because without the Clinton brand (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:46:48 AM EST
    the only other dem president people can remember wasnt so great for the economy and obama spent the primary destroying the Clinton brand.

    Anyway, if one does believe in a cause and effect relationship between such things, the stock market does not seem to be responding to obama's message for the future.

    I hear gas consumption is down.  That's great but if theres one thing I'm the most sure of its that if obama gives his version of a malaise speech and asks America to take public transportation and stop driving so much, he will get a bounce for a week or so tops and then people will start saying "what are you doing to fix this?" and his numbers will plummet.


    [ Parent ]

    Good point: Obama attacked Dem brand (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:57:19 AM EST
    but the attention went to alleged Dem attacks on Obama, could he be C in C, etc.

    But past the primaries, it's less about personalities and more about party -- and so the voters are left with the party standard-bearer who dissed the party's best years in recent memory.

    Reap, sow.

    [ Parent ]

    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:57:49 AM EST
    sorry, I meant sow, reap. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    And Dem leaders cheered him on (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by BernieO on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:10:10 AM EST
    This is what drives me crazy about the party. Obama trashed the one really successful president we have had and party leaders and the media loved it. Clinton's record, particularly on the economy was amazing - strong growth, a surplus, and millions moving out of poverty. Imagine Republican doing such a stupid thing instead of building on that legacy?

    Clinton's record is proof that Democrats, not Republicans, know how to govern and promote prosperity, not deficits. Too bad so few people are ever reminded of that. As much as I hate to see a Republican win the presidency part of me thinks that this is what it will take for the party to finally wake up. In the long run it may be worth the chance.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:59:25 AM EST
    I sure wish we had been smart enough back then to listen to all that stuff Jimmy Carter had to say, but the lesson I draw from the whole experience is that America doesn't want a Scold-in-Chief.

    I think Obama has absorbed at least some of that lesson as well.  That's why, when he wants to score points with GLBT voters, he doesn't make a speech and say "America, stop being so homophobic!"  No, instead he just goes into the black community and says "black people, stop being so homophobic!"  He gets to pin a pro-GLBT ribbon on his lapel either way, and apparently the black community (Jesse Jackson excepted) is more willing to let Obama scold them.

    [ Parent ]

    Democratic leaders let this happen (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by BernieO on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:27:17 AM EST
    All these years Republicans have been lying about how great Reagan was and what a loser Carter was in comparison. I never hear Dem leaders challenge either of these, even now when Reagan's "There is no oil shortage" garbage is coming home to roost. It should be crystal clear by now that Reagonmics does not work. It ballooned the debt and seriously worsened income inequality when he tried it in the nineties and it has done the same since Bush reinstated it. In between our economy was incredible due to Bill Clinton.  

    And no one points out that had we stayed on the road to energy independence that Carter put us on we would not have needed to get involved in either Iraq war. Let's not forget it was the fact that our troups were stationed in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War that turned Osama against us. (And, as James Baker admitted, that war was definitely about oil.)

    [ Parent ]

    Just read Bob Somerby (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by BernieO on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:32:44 AM EST
    at dailyhowler.com. His post today about the Reagan rules is the perfect example of how Democratic leaders just acquiesce to the Republican world view:
    "The "Reagan Rules" have been in place for roughly thirty years now. They're widely accepted by the DNC; by liberal journals and intellectuals; and of course, by the mainstream press."
    An example:
    "Under terms of these "Reagan Rules," Republicans and conservatives can say whatever they please, no matter how ludicrous, about major budget issues."

    And Obama is no different which is why Bush now has the power to legally spy on us, Obama and his campaign included. Nixon must be spinning in his grave.

    [ Parent ]

    Minor correction (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:29:08 AM EST
    apparently the black community (Jesse Jackson  and the Black Agenda Report excepted) is more willing to let Obama scold them.

    BAR has been writing posts strongly criticizing Obama for using the AA community and painting all black people in such a negative light. Glenn Ford has gone so far as to recommend voting for McKinney rather than Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    He comes (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:29:51 AM EST
    off as a scold and a "know better" when it comes to women imo. He seems condescending a lot of times and comes off as if he is trying to "teach" us rubes something. Those press releases are atrocious.

    [ Parent ]
    Kinda reminds me of how at (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:55:55 AM EST
    a GWB press conference and he leans foward on the podium to "teach" and "tell" us "this is what a leader does"!!

    [ Parent ]
    Personally, I LOATHE being told what (3.00 / 2) (#168)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:46:10 PM EST
    to do...and for obama to come across as knowing what I need to do is laughable.  He needs to learn to do his homework before he opens his mouth to insert his foot...Lord help us....

    [ Parent ]
    The economy (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by eric on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:54:38 AM EST
    never was his issue and although he should, he can't seem to adopt it.  He could walk away with this thing with a little economic populism.

    Can you imagine what kind of lead John Edwards would have right now?

    [ Parent ]

    I think for all the early Hoopla about Obama.... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:28:56 AM EST
    ...i.e., all the rockstar coverage, that by the time November rolls around its going to be another "hold your nose" election only its more likely than not that the Democrat will win this time.

    [ Parent ]
    The voters have no real reason to think (none / 0) (#13)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:31:11 AM EST
    that Obama would be better for the economy then McCain. He has no history on economic matters and I don't think speaks that much about the issue.

    [ Parent ]
    This is typical. (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:28:38 AM EST
    Rove ignores subpoena, refuses to testify"

    He had been scheduled to appear at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing Thursday morning. A placard with his name sat in front of an empty chair at the witness table, with a handful of protesters sitting behind it calling for Rove to be arrested.

    The dems will "consider" contempt charges.

    Pathetic.

    They will consider..... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:29:47 AM EST
    ....and then they'll do nothing.

    [ Parent ]
    I feel some more Sternly Written Letters (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:34:17 AM EST
    about to happen. Maybe, we should replace Democratic politicians with "creative writers." We could have them submit samples of their letters prior to voting on who to select.

    [ Parent ]
    Someone needs to hold a session (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:32:24 AM EST
    with Democrats in Congress and explain that "compromise" does not mean "give the other side whatever they want and politely ask if it might be possible to maybe get one or two teeny-tiny things for their side - pretty, pretty please?"

    From Think Progress:

    Democrats in Congress are negotiating a compromise on offshore oil drilling. "Democrats also want any compromise plan to include investments in clean and renewable energies, a crackdown on oil speculators and proof that the oil and gas companies are fully utilizing land that is already leased for exploration."

    They are hopeless.

    When the other side says (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by madamab on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:39:48 AM EST
    "Bipartisanship is date rape,"

    you should know what you're in for if you don't back 'em down.

    But somehow, this bunch of Democratic "Leaders" seems to think "Thank you sir, may I have another" is a good negotiating technique.

    [ Parent ]

    I want to see T Boone Pickens (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:55:16 AM EST
    plan.  He's been trotting around the teebee shows and has a commercial out saying 'we can't drill our way out of this one'  I am open to Repubs who want off oil not just foreign oil.  He's using his own money to build the largest (nation? world?) wind farm in Texas.  He thinks we need to use natural gas while we get alternatives going and stated that geographically, the US has the most wind (I have no idea if that is fact.)

    I will wait and see what his personal campaign is.  He stated he was bypassing a govt that got us to where we are and is going directly to the people and willing to use his own money.  My guess is alternatives are now profitable enough.

    [ Parent ]

    This is awesome..... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:38:35 AM EST
    Give it up for these female prison inmates battling the fires out west.  Link

    Redemption is a beautiful thing....


    funny Larry Johnson quote (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:39:15 AM EST
    on Jesses on air lip slip:

    "Man up, dude. Just admit that for you told the truth and you liked how it felt."

    LOL! (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by madamab on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:40:23 AM EST
    Good for LJ. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Jesse must have been fuming (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by BernieO on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:21:04 AM EST
    for months. By going ballistic when Bill Clinton compared Obama's SC win to Jesse's win and acting like being compared to Jesse was equivalent to being compared to a child molester, the media and the Obama campaign were incredibly insulting to Jackson. Considering that Jackson  risked his neck as a young man by fighting for civil rights he deserves more respect from Barack and Co. even if they do not agree with everything Jesse has said or done. No wonder Jackson is fed up.

    Obama shows no respect to those who have gone before him and prepared the way for him to have a chance at the presidency. He disses the people who fought against Vietnam and for women's and civil rights in the 60's (too messy for Mr. Clean) and look at how he trashed Bill Clinton! Obama even dared to say that Clinton's administration left poor people behind just like Reagan's did when, in fact, record numbers of people moved out of poverty during the 90's. Bill is right to not "get over it". This is bad not only for his legacy but for the credibility of the party as a whole. We should all be touting Bill Clinton's record, not running from it.

    [ Parent ]

    great line (none / 0) (#41)
    by Lil on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:49:33 AM EST
    and how bout that beating Jr. gave his father yesterday?. That was something. A little family loyalty is a good thing. It actually kinda scared me how harsh he was. I thought if they can do that to Jackson Sr. nobody's safe.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, much as I despite JJ Jr. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:59:49 AM EST
    it would be understandable that he could have issues about this particular issue of fathering children out of wedlock -- as you may recall that JJ Sr. did.  That also could have made Obama's comments sting a bit for JJ Sr., too.

    [ Parent ]
    and, as usual, First Read jumps in (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by Josey on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:05:53 AM EST
    with a narrative to RESCUE Obama! - Jackson's comments help Obama because white people don't like Jackson.
    Ahh...illogical logic from the same media that shapes public opinion and chooses our nominees.


    [ Parent ]
    it also illustrates vividly (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:08:45 AM EST
    why no one pays any real attention to the MSM.
    as much as they would like us to think they do.


    [ Parent ]
    CNN took the "apology" live, (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:13:01 AM EST
    Fox and MSNBC did not. I thought that was interesting given the nature and the person apologizing. Al Sharpton said, rather calmly, that he accepts that Jackson apologized and Obama accepted. More than he did for Imus!!

    [ Parent ]
    Kyle-Lieberman redux (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:46:09 PM EST
    Rachel Maddow, substituting on MSNBC's Countdown, defended Senator Obama against McCain's charge that Mr. Obama did not vote for the Kyle-Lieberman Amendment (actually he skipped the vote, but said he was against it), since Mr. Obama supported a different bill that also labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.  I seem to remember that Mrs. Clinton's vote for Kyle-Lieberman was much criticized by the Obama campaign and was a big issue for Obama in the debates; none of this was mentioned by Ms. Maddow.

    [ Parent ]
    In reality (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:11:53 AM EST
    The "typical white person" would react to Jackson's comments not by saying "hey, I like Obama more now!" but by grabbing the popcorn.

    [ Parent ]
    heh (none / 0) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:14:21 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Painting with too broad a brush (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:40:22 AM EST
    Believe it or not there are actually white people who like Jesse Jackson, Sr. a whole heck of a lot more than Obama. At least he was willing to take risks to promote his beliefs. Whether you agreed with him or not, he stood for something.

    [ Parent ]
    Jesse Jackson (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:42:07 AM EST
    was not afraid to practice the politics of contrast.  He told people exactly what was wrong with Reagan and his policies, and we'd be a lot better off if all our candidates would practice that sort of bold truth-telling.  Oh, and he did it in rhyme so folks would remember.

    [ Parent ]
    As far as oratory goes (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by MsExPat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:38:41 PM EST
    Jesse Sr. runs rings around Obama. Heck, so does Al Sharpton. I thought that Sharpton's convention speech in 2004 left Obama's in the dust. It was soaring, lovely--remember the story he told about Ray Charles?

    [ Parent ]
    I also preferred Sharpton's speech in 04 n/t (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:08:28 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:08:55 PM EST
    That was a great speech.  "We didn't get the mule, so we decided we'd ride this donkey as far as it would take us!"

    I also thought Bill Clinton's speech from 2004 was outstanding, particularly the way he lays out the differences between Republicans and Democrats so clearly.  A textbook example of what BTD and I refer to as the politics of contrast.

    [ Parent ]

    Truly, truly creepy (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by ineedalife on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:43:14 AM EST
    JJ Jr. could have just shut up and sat this one out and everybody would have understood. You know there were internal discussions in the Obama camp on how to respond. The fact that Jr. was forced to publicly denounce his own father and further grovel to Obama indicates there is some real sick stuff going on inside there. JJ Jr. is also the scumbag that led the 'Clintons are racists' campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    I developed a whole scenario around that... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:52:00 AM EST
    ...In my scenario Jesse laid into Jr. in private for not vetting the speech and letting Obama use that line about black men acting like boys. So Jr. didn't take Dad's comment very well. LOL.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#61)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:02:30 AM EST
    Where could he have possibly gotten the idea that it's okay to throw your own family members under the bus?  Hmm....

    [ Parent ]
    Hmmmm. (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:44:52 AM EST
    Seems that Angela Merkel is not too thrilled about Obama using the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign backdrop for a speech when he visits Germany.

    ...
    Steg noted that the Brandenburg Gate has become "a place with a particular exclusivity, intensity and symbolism" in view of past speeches by sitting U.S. presidents and events such as a large rally in solidarity with the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

    As a result, he said Merkel has voiced "great skepticism as to whether it is appropriate to bring an election campaign being fought not in Germany but in the United States to the Brandenburg Gate."

    Steg said that "no German (chancellor) candidate would think of using (Washington's) National Mall or Red Square in Moscow for rallies, because it would be considered inappropriate."

    They sure have learned a lot from Bush, haven't they.

    I am starting to like her (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:47:57 AM EST
    a lot.


    [ Parent ]
    I have to agree (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:08:10 AM EST
    It's a little early for Obama to go around billing himself as a world-historical figure just yet.

    I had a similar reaction to the speech he gave after winning in Iowa.  It was a fine speech, but I was like, isn't this a bit much for winning one primary?

    On the plus side, at least he's not going to try and rub Merkel's shoulders, I assume.

    [ Parent ]

    if I needed a reason (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:46:46 AM EST
    to never watch MSNBC again I got another one this morning.  CNN and FOX carried almost all of Hillarys comments at the fundraiser.   MSNBC carried only a couple of minutes.  they had a much more important thing to cover.  walking so old fossil baseball player down memory lane.


    is not just "feeling blue" (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Salt on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:47:30 AM EST
    Obama walks the abortion minefield
    By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN  

    Those who work on the front lines of the abortion debate couldn't quite believe what they were hearing: Obama, in an interview with a Christian magazine, seemed to reject a mental health exception to the ban on late-term abortions. They feared that Obama, like Democrat John Kerry in 2004, was adopting a view favored by abortion opponents to appeal to conservatives.

    After days of examining his initial comments and a subsequent clarification that he supports a mental health exception -- as long as the woman suffers a diagnosed illness and is not just "feeling blue" -- some activists are satisfied, while others are far from it or just plain confused

    ...

    Of course this is a highly offensive statement. I am at a loss to understand why democrats specifically women would not demand a remedy.  

    Um, many are (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:55:38 AM EST
    but the remedy they're asking for is no Obama, which doesn't play very well for most (not all) media.

    [ Parent ]
    What's worse (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:09:27 AM EST
    is all the little boys on the blogs who are like "hey, Obama is totally right, you shouldn't be able to get an abortion for feeling blue!"  As if women are seeking out third-trimester abortions every day for feeling blue, and doctors are providing them.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:10:50 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I confess... (none / 0) (#133)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:17:33 PM EST
    to being both far from satisfied and totally confused.

    Besides, the clarification will not see the print pages of that Christian magazine.

    [ Parent ]

    Is it just me or is this campaign a yawner so far? (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:55:31 AM EST
    I know there's no nasty 527s out yet but I keep thinking that if Hillary were the presumptive nominee it would be a lot more exciting.  

    God yes. It's a snooze fest (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:57:40 AM EST
    watching Obama and McCain out conservative eachother.

    [ Parent ]
    it would (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:59:36 AM EST
    because they would already be unleashing the 527s.  they are not yet on Obama because they do not want to give us another reason to pick a real candidate in August.
    but fear not.  it will get much more interesting after labor day.


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, that's my take on it. I soooo want Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:05:14 AM EST
    to be the nominee after a floor fight in August.  Or some revelation about Obama.  Wishful thinking.

    [ Parent ]
    yep (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by kempis on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:04:37 AM EST
    Obama's not living up to his hype, and McCain is downright creepy. Most days the race is too boring or awkward to follow.

    [ Parent ]
    I was wondering about (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:06:34 AM EST
    this energy independence campaign from T. Boone Pickens.
    I saw one of the commercials.  he is not kidding around.  it almost looked like a campaign commercial.
    if T. Boone pitched his stetson in the ring it could liven thing up quite a bit.


    [ Parent ]
    check it out (none / 0) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:11:33 AM EST
    Wow! (none / 0) (#178)
    by kempis on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:09:54 PM EST
    A friend called the other day to see if I'd seen this commercial. Since I've been avoiding media, no I hadn't.

    Wow.

    This is exciting. And it may take this kind of bazillionaire-outsider push for us to make any sort of progress toward energy independence.

    But do you really think he's going to run as an Independent?

    [ Parent ]

    it sure looked like a (none / 0) (#189)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:29:17 PM EST
    campaign commercial didnt it?


    [ Parent ]
    Word. (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Little Fish on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:16:19 AM EST
    I was thinking things couldn't get any more boring but there's an article today on HuffPo about Kathleen Sebelius's VP chances.  So yes yes it can.  

    The article also states that Sebelius might be "the top Obama VP candidate who doesn't urinate standing up".  Stay classy HuffPo!

    [ Parent ]

    236.com (none / 0) (#90)
    by Little Fish on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:18:25 AM EST
    *It's actually on 236.com but it comes through as HuffPo on my RSS Reader.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep (none / 0) (#62)
    by flashman on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:03:10 AM EST
    Someone wrote a day or so ago that the campaign makes one yearn for the seemingly endless primaries.

    [ Parent ]
    My take on Kos's take on Obama, Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:56:55 AM EST
    Gawd (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:21:09 AM EST
    When will they shut up about Kyl-Lieberman already?

    Do you know how many Democrats who voted for Kyl-Lieberman also voted against the IWR back in 2002?  10 of them!  Obviously there was an argument for supporting that amendment beyond "I like surrendering to the Republicans."

    [ Parent ]

    I find it hysterical because (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:23:24 AM EST
    Obama famously skipped the vote.

    [ Parent ]
    You know (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:28:25 AM EST
    I don't think he skipped the vote for political reasons, unlike the vote to condemn MoveOn.  I think he skipped the vote because he was skipping a lot of votes back then, and no one really cared about this amendment.  I think there was a total of one floor speech in favor of it and one against.  You didn't see Wes Clark at stopiranwar.com lobbying for Senators to vote against it.

    But when the vote happened and all the blogs went crazy with anti-Hillary outrage, Obama realized that hey, maybe some people on the left see this vote as a litmus test!  So he went to town with it.  Pure opportunism, that's all it was.  You never saw him say one word about it in advance, and of course, he co-sponsored a bill himself that would have labelled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

    [ Parent ]

    If Obama didn't have (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by mikeyleigh on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:45:11 AM EST
    a history of skipping potentially embarassing votes, I might be able to agree with you.  

    [ Parent ]
    If he skipped it because no one cared about it (none / 0) (#127)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:01:09 PM EST
    then his campaign should not have used it as a club to hit Clinton.

    I think he skipped it for political reasons - he would have wanted to vote the same way Clinton did, but wanted to leave some room for doubt there for the Rorshach test.

    [ Parent ]

    How To Lie With Math (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by flashman on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:01:42 AM EST
    Last week, David Brooks wrote a pretty important piece on the 'money class' and thier presence in the presidential race.  Most important was the conclusion that regardless of the outcome of the election, the eventual winner will be tied to wealthy contributors, who have different priorities than the rest of us common Democrats.  Obama's supporters went into full spin mode with a weak attempt to use a mathimatical parlor trick to discredit Brooks' conclusions.  The author of this nonsense trys to convince us readers to take the leap of faith that the only thing that matters is how many of the cited sectors contribute more to McCain than Obama, rather than more meaningful metrics, like the total amounts contributed by wealthy patrons.  Here is an analysis you won't see from any Obama supporter.

    Sector              ratio O/M    % ea sector
    Lawers                   3.6            6.2
    Securities               1.8            3.3
    Communications       5              3.2
    Medical                  2.3            2.7
    Real Estate             1.3            2.4
    Education               10             2.1
    Comm Bankers         1.3            0.8
    Hedge Funds           1.9            0.7
    Totals For High        2.8   
    Total Totals            2.7   

    In the chart above, the first line is the ratio of money contributed to Obama by sector to money contributed to McCain, and the last line is the total percentage off all money contributed to both candidates by sector.  According to the author, 5 out of the 8 sectors contributed more ot McCain as a percentage of his total contributions than to Obama.  The reasoning here is that if the number is higher than 2.7 ( in the first column ) that advantages Obama.  However, looking at the last column, we can easily see that not all sectors are created equal.  Lawers, for example, contributed 6.2 percent of all money in this campaign, and to Obama at a ratio of 3.6 to McCain.  Contrast that to McCanin's advantage from Commercial Bankers and Hedge Funds Managers, who contrubuted 0.8 and 0.7 percent respectively.

    In the final analysis, the percentage of Obama's contributions from wealthy contributors EXACTLY MATCHES that of McCains, and only 45% of Obama's contrubutions are of amounts less than $200.  Further, the millions contributed by wealthy patrons is an important metric, no matter how many mathimatical games you can play.


    Only 45% (none / 0) (#85)
    by indy in sc on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:15:07 AM EST
    only 45% of Obama's contrubutions are of amounts less than $200

    That's a pretty high percentage.  In fact, higher than I thought.  What is McCain's percentage of under $200 donors?

    [ Parent ]

    I read (none / 0) (#106)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:33:13 AM EST
    that Kerry's was about 37%?  Probably in the same article or on Rasmussen.

    [ Parent ]
    I Would Imagine (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by flashman on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:25:09 PM EST
    that many of Obama's supporters would be surprised to find that, despite all the rhetoric about Obama's army of small donors, less than half of the money has come from these small donations.  Also that the percentage of his money from wealthy donors matches McCain's.  But percentages tell only part of the story.  The narrative being pushed is that the total of all mony raised, being several times that of his opponent, lessons the impact of donations from wealthy contributors, some of which contributed 5 to 10 times more to Obama.  So, for example, 18 Million dollars contributed by lawers to Obama is less significant than 5 Million by lawers to McCain.  As though lawers, who contributed MORE to Obama expects LESS for their money.  Just doesn't wash, IMO.

    [ Parent ]
    Not Surprised (none / 0) (#200)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:58:33 PM EST
    But I am impressed by the idea of $129 million collected in amounts under $200.

    [ Parent ]
    Previous campaigns did not count (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:34:49 PM EST
    buying t-shirts or bumper stickers or posters or tickets to Obama events as "donations."  The Obama campaign did and does.  That may account for most if not all of the 8% difference.

    There was a good article early on in the primary season, describing and in awe of this brilliant new tactic to pump up the small-donor numbers to look awesome etc.  After that, I never saw discussion of the tactic again -- just media repeating the numbers provided by the Obama campaign, media comparing to past campaigns, without media reporting the reasons.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, 45% (none / 0) (#195)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:54:22 PM EST
    of approximately $286 million is pretty impressive to me.

    [ Parent ]
    GOP group files complaints against Obama (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Exeter on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:01:54 AM EST
    with the FEC and Senate Ethics committee over his mortgage.  I think they have a valid point.

    Really? What is the valid point? (4.00 / 3) (#139)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:36:05 PM EST
    I don't see it.  What I do see is a conservative group trying to tie his name with an ethics scandal so they can run an add in october, regardless of the facts.  What do you see?  Did you read the article?  Did you see that his lower cost morgage was lower then the average, but normal for someone with good credit, makes good money and good standing in the community?  Stop this nonsense.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I don't like it (none / 0) (#202)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:05:57 PM EST
    I would love to get that kind of a mortgage rate. My credit is flawless. But I couldn't get below 5.87% back in 2003 when rates were low, even with a 30% downpayment. Why should Obama get a better rate than I can get?

    [ Parent ]
    How do we get Dems to stand firm, lead? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jawbone on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:05:48 AM EST
    What about an organized effort to send copies of our de-registering as Democrats to the DNC?

    "We'll come back when you start acting (voting, legislating, standing tall, or something) like Democrats," or some such motto on each.


    Dems (none / 0) (#88)
    by Josey on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:17:27 AM EST
    have been pleading with the spineless Dems for years.
    St. Obama was cast as THE ONE to lead us to the Promised Land.


    [ Parent ]
    oh (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:16:59 AM EST
    and what planet is Obama campaigning on when he riffs on how we all need to learn french and spanish.
    now, I am not arguing that this might not be a good idea "in general" but I do not think it is a good idea in a general election.
    having said that, you go O!


    What would have to happen at the convention (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by MsExPat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:18:08 AM EST
    for Hillary to come away with the nomination? I'm talking real-politik here, not wishful thinking, hopes or pipe dreams. Does anyone know the party rules well enough to do a realistic rundown? She is coming into the convention with several hundred pledged delegates--how many supers would have to peel off from the Obama side in order to pull an upset--30? 50?

    Or are the party bosses so firmly in control of the convention that this is an utterly impossible scenario?

    175. (none / 0) (#91)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:20:23 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    175 Superdelegates (none / 0) (#97)
    by MsExPat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:25:43 AM EST
    is a lot. That means you'd have to convince nearly two hundred party insiders to take an extraordinary action. That sounds like a fairly insurmountable bar to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Probably (none / 0) (#104)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:30:50 AM EST
    It would take something extremely significant for the party to switch nominees at this point.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, and there's the entropy factor (none / 0) (#197)
    by MsExPat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:56:20 PM EST
    Even if something extraordinary were to happen, I'm sure a lot of superdelegates would resist changing their vote because they'd think it would cause even more damage to the party's chances of winning to change nominees mid-stream

    There's a huge psychological hurdle there.

    [ Parent ]

    A heartwarming story.... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:25:17 AM EST
    of a man trying to do right by his friend.

    Humanity does have its moments....sun god bless you sir.

    New Rasmussen polls out today... (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:42:17 AM EST
    ...show NJ to be tightening and McCain gaining ground in MO.

    But what caught my eye was this, from the NJ poll:

    Women, a key voter bloc at play in the presidential campaign, continue to support the Democrat (52%) far more than his Republican opponent (28%). Fifty-three percent (53%) of female voters voiced support for Obama a month ago, but McCain has fallen significantly from 34%. Those voters have moved into the undecided column.

    Men, on the other hand, have shifted even more dramatically to McCain. Now 54% of male voters back McCain, up from 46% in early June, while 34% favor Obama, an eight percentage point decline from a month ago. Only 6% of men are undecided as opposed to 15% of women.

    So here's yet another state where men are switching from Obama to McCain, while women's support of Obama is growing. I'm surprised this widening gender gap has been pretty much ignored by the media.

    If it weren't for the women's vote, and their higher percentage of participation in voting (resulting in women being given more weight in polling), Obama would be in pretty bad straits.

    It also bodes ill if there's a depressed turnout among women in November.

    What Jesse Jackson really said: (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:09:50 PM EST
    ... I want to cut his netroots off ...


    Pure (none / 0) (#132)
    by nextgen on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:13:37 PM EST
    Funny!

    Well done...

    [ Parent ]

    Just took a look at TPM (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by frankly0 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:12:38 PM EST
    for the first time in a long time to see how they covered the FISA vote, and the fact that Obama voted for, and Hillary against.

    Here's the only post I could see on the front page:

    FISA Passes Senate

    The final vote was a rout: 69-28.

    No surprises here. Just the weight of disappointment.

    Late Update: Worth noting that Hillary voted against the bill, while Obama --as we've noted here before -- changed positions on telecom immunity and voted for the bill.

    --David Kurtz

    I mean, that's it for the front page?

    And this single post is not even authored by Josh Marshall?

    Of course, there are endless posts from Marshall bashing McCain for one thing or another.

    Problem is, the man has no credibility anymore when he criticizes anybody. Coming from his pen,the knocks mean nothing. They could be genuine substantial issues, or the most trivial, overblown of irrelevancies -- the man simply doesn't discriminate. It's simply non-stop, wall-to-wall, fill-all-space-and-time slamming.

    It's funny how seeing the likes of a Josh Marshall from an opposing side opens one's eyes to the remarkable deficiencies of such a "pundit". In that sense, the primary season has been quite a revelation.

    ok (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:22:32 PM EST
    now you are grasping.  have fun with it.
    and get used to NQ.  they aint going no where.  quite the opposite.  their numbers are growing daily.
    and you want to know why?  because in the great tradition of US business, they are giving a great many people what they are looking for and not finding anywhere else.
    and no amount of demagoging or name calling will stop them.

    in fact (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:24:28 PM EST
    I would just add that in fact the demagoging and name calling and race baiting is what drove most of their readers there in the first place.
    so, have at it.

    [ Parent ]
    What relationship? (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:26:35 PM EST
    You mean the fact that they're on the blogroll with a zillion other blogs?  Who cares.  I can't remember the last time any of the bloggers on TL linked to something at No Quarter.  Some of the more outlandish topics have been declared off-limits for discussion here.  I'm not sure why the blogroll should be such a big deal to you, it doesn't imply some kind of ongoing embrace.

    That quote about Tim Russert was obviously rude, by the way, but still pretty much true in my book.  Should this blog delink every blog that had something nasty to say about Jesse Helms this week?

    Stromfront? (1.00 / 0) (#161)
    by nextgen on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:35:20 PM EST
    Is that a genral rule or just specific to this case?

    I mean would you be ok if there was a link to Stormfront?

    How about Savagepolitics?

    Is there a line, if so where.  

    (that's a real question)

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:40:08 PM EST
    Is there a link to Stormfront?  I think not.

    Your error lies in the assumption that a link indicates an ongoing endorsement of the blog at the other end, as if Jeralyn sits there every day and considers whether any of the 100 blogs have crossed over the line and should be delinked.  If you want to bring it up with her, why not drop her an email.

    [ Parent ]

    sadly, no (5.00 / 0) (#169)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:46:51 PM EST
    it is not a real question and everyone reading this knows it.

    [ Parent ]
    That's the problem (1.00 / 0) (#174)
    by nextgen on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:00:58 PM EST
    it is a real question.  It's really a pretty simple question, what are the community standards.  I can already see that by simply asking the question I have been labeled as a troublemaker when that is not my intent.  

    I make a point to visit and read at all kinds of sites, even ones I think are vile to get a understanding of those I disagree with, even vile place like stormfront.  

    Funny thing, when I go