Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread

Your turn.

< Pols Are Not Your Friends | Obama v. McCain on War On Terror >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:44:23 PM EST
    The generally invaluable Poor Man, on the controversial Obama magazine cover:

    The problem with putting a big Surgeon General's warning label on this satire reading NO!! NOT REALLY!!! BUT JOHN MCCAIN THINKS SO!!!! is that doing so would make it not a satire; or, if it were a satire, a satire of humorless liberals. (And would presumably fail for the same reason that this satire allegedly fails - many liberals appear to sincerely believe this is a good and necessary correction.) I further suggest that "A Modest Proposal" would not actually be improved by putting the whole thing in the blood-drenched mouth of a Tory industrialist named "Dasterdly McBabyeater von Evil" and/or renaming it "An Absurdly Broad Caricature of Aspects of Contemporary Society which The Author, In Truth, Deplores". True, the idiots being satirized won't "get" the joke - that's the joke's value to those who do. I may be a horrible elitist, but I don't think jokes are improved by pitching them to people with no sense of humor.

    its been fascinating (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:49:06 PM EST
    to watch who is on what side of this argument.

    I agree. (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Faust on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:03:17 PM EST
    For myself, I'm with Digby and Somersby on this one.  

    I dont really have (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:17:57 PM EST
    a strong opinion.  I suppose I see their point but I also think the Obamans would have been far smarter to have never mentioned it.
    personally my choice it to never censor anything.  censoring it and denouncing it only makes people want to find out what its all about.
    and the point has been made before that worse things or certainly equally bad things, that were not nearly as obviously humor, were said about Hillary and she did the right thing and ignored them.

    Really? (none / 0) (#107)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:20:12 PM EST
    censoring it and denouncing it only makes people want to find out what its all about.

    I thought we were all really ticked off that Kerry never responded to any negative information, or at least not quickly enough.  The Obama campaign seems to be watching for these issues.


    there is a huge difference (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:25:47 PM EST
    in letting a bunch of yahoos convince the nation you shot yourself to get out of the military and getting all whipped up about a cartoon.

    The only difference. . . (none / 0) (#119)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:41:30 PM EST
    is that in Obama's case the material was propagated by people who probably thought they were helping him.

    But the allegations (which are really being made) that Obama is a secret Muslim infiltrator are no more or less ridiculous than the allegations against Kerry, they are equally baseless, and they are clearly intended to ruin his name and destroy his electoral chances.  Kerry should have acted faster and Obama better learn from his example.  Since the allegations against Obama are not being propagated openly (there's no "Crypto Muslims for Truth" group) if anything the New Yorker may have done him a favor by giving him the opportunity to attack this openly.

    I hope to heaven Obama won't repeat Kerry's mistakes (he's got enough of his own to worry about) and it seems he's determined not to.


    I think you make an excellent point (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:12:22 PM EST
    every talking  head, blogger and man on the street has been given the chance to say how outraged they are by the image.
    it has even occured to me that it may have been orchestrated.
    lets see if anyone actually gets fired as is being suggested in some places.
    I say no.

    Certainly no one will get fired. (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:14:03 PM EST
    For publishing an editorial cartoon?  In the New Yorker?

    I very much doubt it was orchestrated, but certainly the Obama camp is making use of it.  He's caught a number of lucky unlucky breaks recently -- like Jesse Jackson.


    cant find the story (none / 0) (#142)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:18:32 PM EST
    but I was reading someplace believable this morning that the editor was worried about keeping his job.
    like I said.  we will see.

    Picking your battles (none / 0) (#122)
    by RalphB on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:48:11 PM EST
    really seems to be a problem for the humorless liberals.  This is about as silly as the Mohammed cartoon controversy in the Netherlands which led to violence.  I'll bet none of the complainers about the New Yorker cartoon cover complained about that one.

    Or those psycho ex-girlfriend jokes about Hillary (none / 0) (#128)
    by Faust on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:04:20 PM EST
    Man those were so funny!!!!!!!!!!!



    But he's not (none / 0) (#123)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:51:00 PM EST
    attacking the rumors, he's attacking the New Yorker. He's already been fighting quite hard on the subject of the rumors, but he doesn't help himself by creating a controversy over this magazine cover.

    Well. . . (none / 0) (#129)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:06:26 PM EST
    I wouldn't say they attacked the New Yorker, exactly.  But that cartoon is the most accessible expression of the rumors that are going around and I think it was quite reasonable of them to use it as a proxy.

    The question of how Obama (none / 0) (#121)
    by Faust on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:47:12 PM EST
    and his campaign should treat the cover, and how individuals in the blogosphere respond to the cover are two different things entirely. Should Obama's camp try and aggressively assault the media or let it slide? That's a tactical decision for the campaign.

    Is this good satire? Is it even HONEST to call it good satire? That's a judgement each of us can make as individuals.


    I admit that I laughed (none / 0) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:52:59 PM EST
    Like you said. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Faust on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:01:27 PM EST
    It's facinating to see who reacts to this and how they react.

    See the right-wing Commentary (4.50 / 2) (#155)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:51:48 PM EST
    piece by Podhoretz -- it's a marvelous defense of the New Yorker from a comparate far on the other side of the spectrum, and it hits on the need for humor.  And he links to a howler by the always wickedly insane Borowitz Report -- a list of the jokes about Obama that will not be allowed.

    Made me imagine George Carlin chuckling from above -- in the company of Lenny Bruce, Will Rogers, et al.


    Then there's always (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:58:18 PM EST
    That you call that a marvelous defense (none / 0) (#195)
    by Faust on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:27:34 AM EST
    if funny to me. Pohdertz does not even comment on the cover. Its quality as a piece of satire is assumed in his piece. His article is about how Obama should not have responded so quickly to the cover in a negative way because (in his view) it was bad tactics.

    As I noted above the question of how Obama's camp reacts to the cover and the question of whether or not the cover is good satire are two different questions. Again, Pohdertz is attacking the former largely he because he assumes the latter is resolved.

    The fact that Pohdertz responds in this way just gives more weight to Digby's analysis imo.


    I had a response to that (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:59:10 PM EST
    over at my place, but it is NSFW.

    Suffice it to say, I am with The Editors on this one.

    Context is everything.

    Since this is an open thread and we love polls around here:

    Obama beats Bush hands-down, but Al Gore and Hillary Clinton do better against McCain than Obama, sez Rasmussen.

    The last paragraph is interesting:

    These numbers help explain why Election 2008 is competitive even though events so heavily favor the Democrats -- because the Republicans are on course to nominate their strongest possible general election candidate but the Democrats are not. Perhaps even more importantly, the data suggests that voters don't see a potential McCain Administration as the third term of President Bush.

    I don't think much of the "McSame" meme myself.


    Yeah, the "McSame" business is (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by MarkL on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:00:04 PM EST

    NPR reporter w/McCain campaign (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:08:29 PM EST
    sd. today Sen. Obama's meme that Sen. McCain has backed away from his immigration reform proposals is a "stretch," as the reporter says the two are quite close on this issue:  secure the border, secure work place violations of immig. law, do something as to pathway to citizenship for those already here illegally.

    Hasn't McCain said (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:16:12 PM EST
    he wouldn't sign his own immigration bill--he has to close the border first?

    McCain has flip-flopped on immigration big time....


    He has quite openly said he's (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:53:58 PM EST
    changed his mind about what's politically doable right now.  Not sure that qualifies as a "flip-flop."

    Huh? (none / 0) (#134)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:12:07 PM EST
    He changed his position out of political convenience, not out of principle, and that is just fine--not a flip-flop?

    He is pandering to all sides on the immigration issue simultaneously--that is simply dishonest.


    Sen. McCain sd. he couldn't get the votes (none / 0) (#160)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:02:49 PM EST
    in the Senate to pass Kennedy/McCain bill.

    The story they had this morning on (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by liminal on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:28:06 PM EST
    McCain versus Obama on Israel was similar.  First, they played Obama's AIPAC speech; then, they played comments by Susan Rice walking back Obama's statement that one of the planks of a secure middle east peace was that Israel retain an undivided Jerusalem as its capital.  Rice said, basically, that WORM was that he understands that the status of Jerusalem is a final status issue to be negotiated by the parties.  Then, NPR called up some McCain spokesman who kvetched that it was hard to compare and contrast McCain's policies with Obama's policies since they couldn't figure out what Obama's policies were.  Lukewarm Obama supporter though I am, the story made me cringe.  

    In fairness to GWB (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:17:52 PM EST
    And I can't believe that's my subject title...

    That was Bush's plan too.  He was much more of a moderate on immigration than other areas.

    So in essence McCain is with Bush on this issue, they just both happen to be right.


    Ouch (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by davnee on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:39:38 PM EST
    That paragraph stings.  My guess is that HRC will poll better than Obama all the way to November.  She was already the stronger candidate, electorally, coming out of the primaries and now she gets the benefit of not being out there to take the blows and to make the mistakes.  Not that she'd make near so many as Obama, imo, but still, the grass is always greener and all that when it comes to voters.

    I know it ain't happening, but wouldn't it be so nice if the SD's would wake up before the end of August and do the right thing?  I can't help still wishing for it.


    Oh thank god (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by talesoftwokitties on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:39:14 PM EST
    I thought I had lost my mind, not to mention my humor.  Alas, all is well.  Whew!

    Couldn't agree more (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by RalphB on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:17:21 PM EST
    this was flat-out funny satire.  If you're hacked about it, get a sense of humor.

    my first reaction as well (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:18:51 PM EST
    Ditto. With the caveat that burning (none / 0) (#156)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:53:10 PM EST
    in the fireplace, after Obama's FISA vote, ought to have been not the flag but the Constitution.

    But that, of course, is not funny at all.


    I see it as a room in Sean Hannity's brain (none / 0) (#184)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:27:56 PM EST
    I laughed, and I love it. I think Obama should have taken that approach - used it as a weapon to ridicule the right wing noise machine, instead of playing the victim of evil satire.

    To explain my reaction to the cover, I have to explain a little of my reaction to the fist bump photo that is most seen in the media, and that is used as the model in the cartoon.  I love photography, and since the fist-bump I have stared a lot at that photo.  I love it because it seems to me to capture their relationship so well.  They are sharing an important moment together, and looking right into eachother's eyes.  Michelle looks so focused and fierce, and playful at the same time,  clearly expressing encouragement and belief in her husband. I think it's beautiful.  It has even made me regret not having such a strong relationship of my own, and I do not do that often.

     I think it will go down as the iconic photo of this campaign, and I'm sorry the stupid Fox 'terrorist fist bump' crap tarnished it.

    What struck me most about the cover was the perfect capture of Michelle's expression in that photo. Now, you would think that loving the actual photograph so much, I would be dismayed at it being used in satire, but my reaction is the opposite, because the artist seems to have shared my notice of the impact of that, and used it to great affect.  That is art.

    I refuse to insist that everything is dumbed down to the level of entertainment weekly. If the New Yorker , for gods sake, can't run cartoons that take some thought, what's next?  Does Colbert have to stop calling Obama a secret Muslim, which he does in a way that makes fun of himself, and not Obama?  Just shoot me.


    Conyers may hold hearings, but plans no action on (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jjsmoof on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:49:04 PM EST
    Conyers may hold hearings, but plans no action on impeachment


    They are just shoving it in (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:01:11 PM EST
    our faces, aren't they? See? Look how little we care about the rule of law! Aren't we teh awesum?

    I'm sure George, Dick, Condi and Rummy are shaking in their jackboots.


    just wondering.... (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Josey on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:55:35 PM EST
    how Kucinich will fund his next primary campaign without Bush to impeach.
    Wexler is another big impeachment barker with no bite.
    Will the Dems really have impeachment hearings when the Dem nominee has declared Bush and Cheney have not committed impeachable offenses?!?

    no one posted this yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by NJDem on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:49:04 PM EST
    so I thought I would now.  

    Not trying to pile-on or anything, but I know there are some on this blog for which this story would put a smile on their face:

    "Crowd erupts during Obama speech -- but it's over mention of Clinton"

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:56:57 PM EST
    First comment on that item: "Or maybe Clinton planted people there. It isn't like she hasn't done it before..."  Love these people.

    They simply cannot comprehend (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:03:08 PM EST
    that anyone could possibly like and support Hillary more than their Chosen One, Blessed Be His Name.

    They are in for a huge shock in November.


    think how much fun (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:31:50 PM EST
    the "I told you so's" are going to be.

    however they will be met (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:45:34 PM EST
    with the ever popular "its all Hillarys fault"

    "Fun?" (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:16:26 PM EST
    Really?  There have been stories about the torture of a boy by the U.S. today on this blog.

    McCain voted against prohibiting the CIA from torturing people it holds....

    Cutting off noses.....


    gosh (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:20:06 PM EST
    I guess we should have nominated a candidate who could, you know, WIN.

    Exactly (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:26:05 PM EST
    You've gotta love all the guilt-tripping from the supporters of the likely loser, as if everything bad about a McCain administration will be our fault - because we supported the likely winner.

    Guys, if you really fear four more Republican presidential years that badly, you should be telling your superdelegates you changed your mind and they should nominate Hillary. It's not too late.


    Yes, it is (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:31:08 PM EST
    Get back to us when you have one, just one, superdelegate that switches to Hillary.....

    get back to us (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:32:56 PM EST
    when Obama wins

    For what it's worth go to (5.00 / 0) (#175)
    by Rhouse on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:41:45 PM EST
    Alegre's Corner and read this about superdelegates for what it's worth.

    No public reversals (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:54:59 PM EST
    This is unconfirmed rumor from a very unreliable source.....

    Dream on.....


    Make sure she's on the ballot (none / 0) (#152)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:40:08 PM EST
    at the convention, if you're so sure none of them will switch.

    Put your money where your mouth is.


    That may happen (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:44:10 PM EST
    but if Obama is smart, Pelosi will have the vote at 10:00 a.m. Monday morning....

    And the vote would be cathartic and you would support Obama as the nominee if Hillary lost the roll call vote?


    Well, it would help a lot (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:58:22 PM EST
    if in the previous requisite step of the convention reviewing the recommendations of the rules and bylaws committee, the delegates would reverse the parts of its ruling that violated the very charter of the Democratic Party.  And at least admonished the committee that it overstepped its bounds and contributed to making a bollocks of this campaign.

    Obama no doubt still would win the convention.  But if he wants to win the election, he could use the votes of us former Dems who are appalled by the corruption of the committee and thus of the party -- so far.  I, for one, will be watching for what happens in that step of reviewing committee recommendations, repeat, recommendations.

    And it would be useful, too, for the convention to instruct the committees and leaders to come up with something to fix the corruption of caucuses.


    You mean if Obama is scared (none / 0) (#177)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:11:13 PM EST
    And he should be.

    There will not be a roll call. According to (none / 0) (#185)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:29:31 PM EST
    Craig Crawford of MSNB:
    With the dust settled on the primary season, one thing is clear: Obama is the presumed nominee thanks only to superdelegates. He never did win enough pledged delegates to reach the winning number, falling about 350 votes short. His expected victory stems from beating Clinton among superdelegates 463-257, according to a tally on Real Clear Politics.

    All the more reason for Obama to make sure that there is no roll call including Clinton's name on the ballot at the national convention -- which a few die hard fans of the former First Lady are still clamoring for.

    Why highlight just how close the Democratic contest really was? And there is certainly no gain for Obama in dwelling on how he had to depend on superdelegates to win the nomination.

    Well, sure, according to a lot (none / 0) (#193)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:13:37 AM EST
    of people who don't decide it.

    You broke it, you own it. (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:14:47 PM EST
    That just never gets old for me.

    I am smiling. (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:22:53 PM EST
    I just want to (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:41:00 PM EST
    point something out. When Barack mention Hillary before mostly white crowds people boo. When she got mentioned before a mostly Latino crowd, well...



    my unity moment (none / 0) (#89)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:00:30 PM EST
    to paraphrase tina fey: gee that would suck, TWO super intelligent hard working people in the white house working to solve America's problems, we can't have that now can we?

    Well maybe that gives Obama too much credit but that's my unity moment.

    But really what's so sad is how Obama and his people feel they must fight against living in the shadow of the Clinton brand.

    People.  Obama supporters.  Does Steve young worry about how much applause joe Montana gets???


    Nope. He just went out and (none / 0) (#126)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:02:45 PM EST
    created his own history  ;)

    Over on another blog I read this letter (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:49:07 PM EST
    sent to Obama today. It is from McCain. Did we think the GOP wouldn't notice:
    In the coming days, I understand you will travel to Afghanistan for the first time and visit with a few of our European partners. Like my travels to these regions, I trust this trip will afford you a unique opportunity to see the facts on the ground firsthand and witness the work of our brave men and women who sacrifice so much to secure our freedom.

    In February, I had the privilege of visiting and talking with our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. These brave Americans serve their country with incredible passion, pride and courage. As you know, NATO's International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) plays an integral part in the current operations and reconstruction of Afghanistan.

    There are concerns about the imbalance between some European nations, their level of commitment to the fight in Afghanistan,...
    However, despite these successes, I am concerned our Subcommittee has not held any hearings on these issues over the last two years. With oversight of NATO relations and its role in Afghanistan, I believe it is time for us to focus closely on these issues. As Ranking Member of your Subcommittee on European Affairs, I would welcome a chance to hold a hearing on NATO's mission in Afghanistan upon your return.

    The success of Afghanistan is critical to the future of NATO and vital to our efforts to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban. As the situation in Afghanistan grows more tense, it is time for us to hold a hearing on the mission there. I look forward to working with you to schedule this hearing.

    Wait (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:55:22 PM EST
    McCain is actually the top Republican on Obama's infamous subcommittee?

    I wonder what McCain has ever done to push for hearings on Afghanistan, not to take away from the point he's trying to score at Obama's expense.  If McCain is the Ranking Member of the subcommittee now, that means he was probably (not necessarily) chair of the subcommittee before the Democratic takeover in 2006...


    No, McCain's not on it. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:00:25 PM EST
    Pretty sure he's not, anyway.

    Mystery solved (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:05:39 PM EST
    The letter is not from McCain, but from Jim DeMint.

    In the previous Congress, this subcommittee was apparently chaired by George Allen.  So I'm sure they were really on the ball...


    I looked this up once. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:33:09 PM EST
    George Allen actually held at least three hearings, including one when he was in his losing campaign against Jim Webb.

    The House subcommittee, chaired by Robert Wexler, has held nine hearings in this Congress, I seem to remember.


    You are right and I left a word out (none / 0) (#183)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:19:18 PM EST
    when I introduced the letter.  The word should have been from the McCain camp.  DeMint is one of McCain's campaign officials and I wasn't clear about that.  Sorry.

    Well (none / 0) (#14)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:01:38 PM EST
    Unless I'm misreading, he's certainly claiming to be in this letter!

    Yeah... makes me question (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:04:13 PM EST
    the letter's authenticity.  I assume communications between the campaigns get proofread.

    He's Not (none / 0) (#16)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:02:20 PM EST
    Jim DeMint is the Ranking republican member.  That letter officially makes no sense unless McCain wasn't the guy who sent it.

    Maybe it was DeMint (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:04:05 PM EST
    and the blogger made a mistake.

    Or, maybe McCain is confused again...;-)


    DeMint sent the letter. (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:05:47 PM EST
    Not McCain.

    McCain seems to be taking a jab at (none / 0) (#113)
    by Nettle on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:31:12 PM EST
    Obama not holding any committee hearings on NATO.  Said he'd been too busy to do that since he announced he was running for Prez in '04 - oop, first thing in '07, I mean.  He seems to have let Richard Lugar do all the work and policy proposals on NATO - Lugar, who wants to claim energy security as a weapon, as if the War on Terror in new clothes and guess who just said the very same thing?  Mr. Let's get back to eastern Afghanistan Obama.  

    But all this Afghanistan bluster is highly disingenuous on everyone because they all know but the MSM and very scant alt media will talk about the long-sought pipeline from Turkmenistan thru Afghanistan, Pakistan and on to India.  Englehardt mentioned it the other day in the Nation but didn't do justice to the situation.  Lots of behind the scenes stuff going on over that pipeline, not to mention the pipeline from Iran thru Pakistan to India that the Bush admin wants to stop and why they offered India nuke support instead.  

    Canada has sure taken note of their NATO troops being put in harms way for a gas/oil pipeline.  


    Obama has held subcommittee hearings (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:18:51 PM EST
    To say that he has held none is not accurate...Notice the qualifying langauge about the subject of the hearings.

    Nobody made that claim (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:11:07 PM EST
    The qualifier was included in the post you're "correcting."


    Obama not holding any committee hearings on NATO.

    Try to wait until someone actually says something inaccurate, wouldja?


    Do you have the date of when Obama actually (4.00 / 1) (#174)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:40:30 PM EST
    did hold a hearing?

    should have written (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by NJDem on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:52:22 PM EST
    "for whom" this story...

    Also, I forgot my favorite section from the article:

    "...What ignited that outburst was the mere mention by Obama of the name Hillary Clinton, his vanquished party opponent.

    She wasn't there, of course. But in absentia the Democratic Party's loser got a noticeably warmer response than the winner, perhaps a reflection of that lingering party unity thing that was taken care of up in Unity."

    Good news.... (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:52:38 PM EST
    On a open thread last week I linked to an article about the effort of regular Joe to make sure his friend, a well-liked neighborhood homeless guy, received a proper burial.

    Consider it done...

    Just in case you needed your faith in the human race restored...sun god knows I do.

    Mid-summer Classic tonight.... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:02:12 PM EST
    Go National League!  The league that plays real baseball...if you wanna hit you have to play the field, as my little league coaches used to say.

    Boo (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:06:53 PM EST
    The American League is the best.  Letting pitchers bat is actually a little bit Communist in my book, a sort of enforced equality that never seems authentic.

    Recent research reveals most minor league (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:11:36 PM EST
    pitchers do not bat until they reach "the show."  No wonder they are so pathetic; well, except for Jake Peavy.

    I hope folks noticed (none / 0) (#39)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:14:52 PM EST
    C.C. Sabathia making headlines by becoming the first pitcher since 1970 to homer in both leagues in the same season.  Third in major league history.  The guy hits bombs.

    Yes. (none / 0) (#68)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:32:57 PM EST
    And my husband is so happy (NOT!) that Cleveland traded him, although he was going to be a free agent at the end of the season.

    Helping himself win; indeed. (none / 0) (#165)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:42:07 PM EST
    Bambino Sabathia (none / 0) (#171)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:20:14 PM EST
    Not sure I would classify them as bombs, but with three career homeruns in 45 at bats he hits homeruns at a pace slightly better than Hank Aaron and Willie Mays. Now that he is in a real league we'll get to see what he can do.

    Communist? (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:16:01 PM EST
    Never heard that one...

    I'd call the DH the invention of a capitalist pig...owners wanting to sell tickets with more home runs, the rules be damned.  Me?...I'll take a 1-0 pitchers duel anyday...you're holding your breath with every pitch.


    Sure (4.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:35:11 PM EST
    But a 1-0 pitcher's duel should occur because of the skill of the dueling pitchers, not because the rules insist that every ninth batter must be incompetent at the plate.

    I do not think football would be a better game if we forced the punter to line up at defensive end.


    It's not ecthed in stone... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:46:21 PM EST
    that pitchers cannot be good hitters...in fact there are quite a few who are tough outs.  Sleep on 'em and they'll make you pay, as many National League pitchers now all too well.

    Can't remember the guy's name now (none / 0) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:03:12 PM EST
    but years ago, the Red Sox won a game 1-0 when the pitcher pitched a shut-out AND hit a home run.  I think pitchers should have to hit.  There should be no specialists in baseball.  There aren't in hockey, basketball or soccer, only football.

    Specialists (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:05:09 PM EST
    No specialist in Hockey and Soccer?   What do you call a goalie?  So really you are just left with basketball which only has 5 players at a time so of course they can't specialize.

    Oops. OK, you're right (none / 0) (#172)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:26:11 PM EST
    forgot about goalies...

    Ha! (none / 0) (#19)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:04:10 PM EST
    I'll take "better baseball" over "real baseball" any day.  But alas, I am not a purist, and I am also a biased sox fan.

    Relative talent disparities are fleeting. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:06:05 PM EST
    But playing by the correct set of rules is eternal.  ;)

    Well (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:09:24 PM EST
    I would argue that a DH will always be a better hitter than a pitcher.

    And rules change all the time.


    Sure, but the DH rule alone doesn't explain (none / 0) (#37)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:14:25 PM EST
    the AL's ongoing dominance.  There's just a lot more talent over there, across the diamond.

    Hubby watched the All-Star Parade (none / 0) (#48)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:17:16 PM EST
    at lunch today.

    Gave my all-American heart a little twitter to think about it.


    Personally... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:23:47 PM EST
    I'm a little tired of guys who can't field a lick taking up a roster spot that could be filled by a complete player.

    It's not Home-Run Derby...it's a baseball game.  Nobody should only play half of every inning...that's exhibition bullsh*t.

    Why stop at the DH, why not hit 9 guys and field 9 different guys.


    Too bad our NL teams will never get (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:10:15 PM EST
    home field advantage again!

    I don't think it's better either.... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:26:35 PM EST
    you rarely see sacrifice bunts, double switches, or pinch hitters in the AL...you never see a pitcher have to battle through a half inning when he's got nothing left so the manager can pinch hit for him and not have to waste 2 relievers.

    So much more strategy at work when the game is played correctly.


    Thinking... (none / 0) (#64)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:30:17 PM EST
    ...is hard work.  And for those edumacated elistist lieberals...

    Just imagine the damage W can do if he's the next MLB Commissioner!


    Not A Chance (none / 0) (#141)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:17:10 PM EST
    Won't have to worry about that. Now even the less well read folks know GWB will bankrupt anything he touches. Gotta give the man credit though, he is consistently bad. At least you always know what's coming next...more bad.

    I dunno about that (none / 0) (#67)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:32:33 PM EST
    On the flip side, you don't have to watch David Ortiz try and play a horrendous first base. Because let's be honest, they wouldn't kick him off the roster.

    Plus, by "better" I don't mean "better to watch", I mean they win more - so they are better teams.  And you do see those things in the AL - especially late in the season.

    But again, I am not a purist, and I am biased.


    Equally biased.... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:40:10 PM EST
    Lets Go Mets!  9 in a row coming into the break...it's about damn time!

    Regarding a guy like Ortiz, that's where even more managerial strategy comes in...is the big stick/no field guy better for the club than a more rounded player?  Do you put in a defensive replacement?  I love those kind of intricacies only a NL manager has to worry about.

    My dog could manage an AL team:)


    Heh (none / 0) (#84)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:52:48 PM EST
    Honestly, it never ceases to amuse me how NL fans act like letting pitchers bat makes the game into 3-D chess or something.  It's not that big a difference.

    I'd say it's about as big (none / 0) (#92)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:04:40 PM EST
    as the difference between having a semi-guaranteed out 3-4 times a game vs. giving those ABs to a fat, slow hitter (Milton Bradley excepted).

    In each case, it's very slight.


    The difference between the AL and NL... (none / 0) (#71)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:34:59 PM EST
    AL baseball: Single, walk, three-run homer.

    NL baseball: Single, sacrifice bunt, two-run homer.


    whatever (none / 0) (#130)
    by DFLer on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:06:38 PM EST
    plenty of small ball in the AL too....like the Twins, for example

    Being a Phillies Fan (since 1964 - (none / 0) (#75)
    by Rhouse on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:38:25 PM EST
     sob ), I've always liked to watch a pitching duel where it comes down to late innings- the game's tied, runners in scoring positions and the manager has to decided if he leaves his pitcher in to bat because he's doing so well keeping the other team from scoring, or he pulls him for the chance to get some runs.  And then he has to hope his bullpen can hold it for him, it's choices like this can turn a managers hair white, or get him fired.
    (I've also seen games where the pitcher has hurt himself while trying to hit a homerun, too.)

    Kdog has it right ... (none / 0) (#180)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:41:02 PM EST
    the DH removes tons of strategy from the game.

    Too bad... (none / 0) (#25)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:06:52 PM EST
    ...it's being played with the DH.  The NL needs to break the looooong losing streak tonight.  

    No doubt the Rockies would have won the WS last year had they had the home field advantage...


    Umm... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:28:38 PM EST
    I love ya Mile...but I believe your guys got swept.  Playing all 7 at Coors wouldn't have helped.

    Helluva run they had to get there though!


    Sure it would've... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:33:25 PM EST
    I would have been able to score a ticket!  That would have made all the difference in the world.

    In the All-Star game... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:37:08 PM EST
    ... the DH/pitcher thing hardly ever comes into play, since pitchers almost never bat. I remember an AL pitcher getting a plate appearance a few years ago when the NL starter couldn't get anyone out in the early innings, but that's about it.

    I actually have come to appreciate the extra subtleties that come with having pitchers bat, though. It must be a lot more fun to be a bench player on an NL team than an AL team


    The National League (none / 0) (#109)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:25:31 PM EST
    is the only professional league in the world that doesn't have a DH.  

    Didn't know that.... (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:08:07 PM EST
    Thanks for the knowledge.

    Then there is only one true professional league in all the world in my book...everybody else may as well be playing beer-league softball...when is the AL planning on implementing courtesy runners, starting with a 1-1 count, and the EH?...:)


    I used to look at it the same way (none / 0) (#179)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:33:19 PM EST
    But I think it is silly to let pitchers get a free out every 9 batters.  

    So, in the news today, (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by dk on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:06:24 PM EST
    I read that Obama wants to keep a residual force in Iraq, and send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan, while McCain leaves open the option of permanent bases in Iraq, and wants to send three more brigades to Afghanistan.

    Ready, set, Spin!

    McCain offer anything concrete yet? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:09:14 PM EST
    Dates, numbers, anything?  Or is he still just telling us withdrawal will happen... eventually?

    Didn't he say (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:11:17 PM EST
    2013? Coincidentally, after the end of his potential first term in office?



    Right. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:17:10 PM EST
    It's "step 1: elect McCain, step 2: ____, step 3: welcome the troops home in 2013."  

    Should work out a lot like "step 1: invade, step 2: _____, step 3: be greeted as liberators" did.


    Unfortunately (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:21:56 PM EST
    neither candidate is believable on Iraq IMHO. They really are about the same now. It's going to take a lot of very delicate work to extricate us from that tar pit, and I don't think either one wants to admit it.

    Thanks, Bush, for giving us this wonderful quagmire...


    No. (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:26:56 PM EST
    If you believe that Obama can't, or for some reason won't, deliver on what he's promising, then there's probably nothing I can say to change your mind.

    But based on what they are proposing right now, there's a vast gulf between Obama and McCain on Iraq.  Obama's talking about immediately beginning a withdrawal upon taking office, that would wrap up in the summer of 2010, with no permanent bases, and McCain's talking about staying the course and theoretically coming home in four years.  Except for those bases, of course, because Iraq is like South Korea to him.


    McCain's position is clear (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:13:28 PM EST
    Withdrawal will happen immediately after we win, which will happen immediately after he takes office, because he knows how to win wars.

    Then we will win in Afghanistan the exact same way we won in Iraq, and all the money we save will be used to balance the budget and give every new baby a chocolate eclair.


    That is where (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:14:32 PM EST
    he and Obama differ.

    Obama would never give a baby a chocolate eclair. Not healthy!


    Well (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:15:30 PM EST
    most likely he would give the baby an eclair, and then regret it immediately afterwards... ;)

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:16:08 PM EST
    Game, set, match to Steve M. :-)

    that is not the eclair I knew (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:28:22 PM EST
    So would he give the baby (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by dk on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:17:35 PM EST
    a cigarette, I guess.  He has those, right?

    And he doesn't like sweets (none / 0) (#56)
    by jb64 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:24:05 PM EST
    Minty Gum perhaps

    Chocolate eclair? What is he, FRENCH? (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:16:11 PM EST
    Maybe a chocolate Donut and a cup (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Rhouse on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:24:50 PM EST
    of Starbigbucks coffee?

    Speaking of... (none / 0) (#146)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:25:32 PM EST
    Speaking of the French. It seems a Liddy Dole commercial highlighting her street cred with bringing home some pentagon budget bacon to North Carolina uses a French plane in her ad...last used by the Iraqi air force. Gotta love campaign ad agencies.

    Wait, only the babies get chocolate eclairs? (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:19:31 PM EST
    He really is just courting the youth vote...

    Poor Mayor McCheese. (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:13:12 PM EST
    The American Family Associations--cough fundies cough--are boycotting McDonald's.  Not because of the unhealthy food, but because of teh gheys...

    "What the boycott of McDonald's IS NOT about
    This boycott is not about hiring homosexuals.
    It is not about homosexuals eating at McDonald's.
    It is not about how homosexual employees are treated.

    What the boycott of McDonald's IS about
    It is about McDonald's, as a corporation, refusing to remain neutral in the culture wars.  McDonald's has chosen not to remain neutral but to give the full weight of their corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage."

    The comments are tres amusing, in a sad, sad sort of way.

    BTW, the Mass. Senate (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:12:07 PM EST
    just voted to overturn the 1913 law that says only legal residents can be married in Mass., so gay couples from out of state can get married in Mass.  The House has yet to vote, but I think it will pass there, too, and certainly be signed by Gov. Patrick.

    Woohoo (none / 0) (#101)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:14:41 PM EST
    I am very proud of my state these days.  Do you know every member of the Mass delegation to the house voted against FISA.  We were the only state to do so.

    I wonder if they will make it easier to get a divorce from out of state too.  I know that has been a big problem for many couples.


    Nope (none / 0) (#173)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:29:04 PM EST
    Every member of the Vermont House delegation voted against it, too.  (All one of him)

    I lived in Mass. most of my life before moving to the only place in the U.S. more liberal in its politics.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#186)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:30:41 PM EST
    Must've missed that one :).  Big fan of VT, used to spend a lot of time in Cabot as a kid, got a lot of friends and family out there.  I am too much of a city kid though to ever move there myself.

    I'd become a McDonald's customer (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:17:10 PM EST
    except for my doctor's admonitions.

    But... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:24:41 PM EST
    ...they have healthy food there now.  It is all part of the homosexual agenda!  

    the funny part is that (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:30:32 PM EST
    none of the ones I know would be caught dead eating in one.
    drive thru only.  at best.

    not be (btw) (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:37:41 PM EST
    I proudly and regularly scarf down BigMacs and fries.

    Double cheeseburger... (none / 0) (#83)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:50:52 PM EST
    ...small fries and strawberry shake for me an occasion.  But then, my doctors want me eat all the empty calories I can.    

    Me too.... (none / 0) (#133)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:10:46 PM EST
    I like the new Angus burgers...not bad.

    And they always had the best fries.

    But I still prefer BK or Wendys...and the greatest fast-food burger of all time, White Castles.


    steak and shake (none / 0) (#136)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:13:41 PM EST
    altho white castles (none / 0) (#138)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:14:14 PM EST
    are culinary art.

    Ah, Steak and Shake (none / 0) (#163)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:40:41 PM EST
    A childhood favorite. Unfortunately, none here on the west coast. Are you from Illinois?

    Sigh... (none / 0) (#181)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:50:40 PM EST
    ...No White Castle's out here--and the closest In-N-Out Burger is in Phoenix.  Never had a Steak N' Shake burger.  

    There's a local place called Smashburger that is very, very tasty, albeit a tad expensive.  


    If ever you're in Peshtigo (none / 0) (#194)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:19:07 AM EST
    in Wisconsin, close to the UP -- well, if ever you are, you may have some splaining to do. :-)

    But make a stop at Mickey Lu's, a '50s diner that is not retro like the ones in the big trendy cities.  Nope, Mickey Lu's is still as it started and never stopped -- and still serving the truly great burgers a la the White Castle era.  So you need a bagful.

    But skip the burger, say I, and go for the malted!  A real malted, still made in an original Horlick's machine with the real Horlick's malt powder -- and with Wisconsin custard, which isn't pudding but our sinfully rich ice cream.

    If you stop there even once, you will go to Peshtigo again.  The northland where nothing changes is calling to me now. . . .


    How pathetic (none / 0) (#95)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:09:06 PM EST
    Love this one (none / 0) (#150)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:37:35 PM EST
    This makes me sick! McDonals's has chosen to accommodate a small group of people who live by what is right in THEIR eyes, and they expect all of society to accept their definition of morality and tolerance. "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools."

    Mote, eye, beam.


    could I just say (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:44:22 PM EST
    as long as McCain calls it the internet and not the internets I could care less if he know  how to use it or not.

    True (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:56:21 PM EST
    But "a google" was pretty bad...

    That being said, I really don't think this matters that much and is just a chance for tech types to whine about how he doesn't "get" them.  Pretty good article today on Stumper about how insignificant this stuff is, presidents aren't even allowed to use e-mail for security reasons.


    "presidents aren't even allowed" (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:12:15 PM EST
    thats fascinating.  I  had no idea.  I wonder if they ever cheat.  wonder if they jump into some thread anonymously and mix it up.

    Chuckle. :-) (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:19:23 PM EST
    And I needed a chuckle today, and badly so.  Thanks -- I now can envision, every time a poster really goes over the edge with stoopidity, that it's Bush.

    I have a often suspected (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:28:06 PM EST
    some Obamans here and else where had more at stake than a point.

    Well (none / 0) (#108)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:20:15 PM EST
    There is no computer at the Oval Office and apperently no web at the executive residence either.  Not allowed may be a bit strong.  Highly discouraged for reasons of national security.  But Bush didn't e-mail and probably McCain and Obama wouldn't either.

    however (none / 0) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:29:43 PM EST
    the pic of him using "video professor" was pretty lame.
    my advice would have been to have avoided that particular photo op.

    A touching read (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:58:47 PM EST
    Well, (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by pie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:37:47 PM EST
    we can blame a lot of the perceived differences on republicans' ability to lie convincingly and dems' inability to tell the truth.  There definitely are differences, just not the ones advertised.

    In the end, Tony Snow couldn't be saved by his politics.

    Elizabeth knows that all too well.


    I will take this opportunity (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:40:02 PM EST
    to again urge you to get a colonoscopy.  Snow was 53.  his problem probably started developing around his 40th birthday as harmless polyps that could have  been easily removed in an exam.
    however it can start earlier.  I posted the obit of a friend the other day who died at 40.  and the  trouble usually starts at least 10 years before any symptoms.
    I had 5 removed 2 days after my 40th birthday and if I had not I would most likely be dead now.
    since then I have been completely clear.  it seems like at a certain age something clicks and the trouble starts.  once you get rid of it, so says the several doctors who have performed the procedure on me over the years since, it may never happen again.
    AND they give you great drugs if you ask for them. my instructions are always the same - "I have a far greater tolerance for drugs than I do for pain.  I dont want to feel this".  and I never have.  it is quite painless.
    and it is an absolutely horrible way to die.

    Great News for Florida Democrats and Obama! (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by john horse on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:35:42 PM EST
    Great news for Florida Democrats and for Obama.
    Per the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel (found in the blog Fla politics)

    Democrats have posted even greater gains statewide, up 106,508 voters from January through May, compared with 16,686 for the Republicans.

    Yes you read that right.  Dems outgained Republicans in Florida 106,508 new voters to 16,686.  

    Even in Florida (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:38:50 PM EST
    Those voter registration facts are making the rounds though the state's newspapers this week. Looks like the Dem wave has started rolling through Florida now. There are even Dems on the ballot challenging some longstanding Cuban-American GOP office holders in Miami. To me that is the benefit of a 50 state strategy and having a Dem on every possible ballot. Sometimes the stars are aligned and we kick some tail no matter what color people think the state might be.

    We're Also Ready In Tallahassee (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by john horse on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:05:04 PM EST
    to kick GOP tail.  When is Obama going to do some serious campaigning in Florida?    

    I agree with you CoralGables.  Obama can win in Florida.  Here are two big issues in Florida that I think favor Obama: McCain wants to privatize Social Security and favors offshore oil drilling.    


    Dems posted greater gains in FL2004 (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Josey on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:41:55 PM EST
    but it didn't help Kerry.

    I got here too late to comment in the thread (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:04:09 PM EST
    but I wanted to remark about this:

    I'm distressed beyond words over his patent disrespect and disparagement of his most loyal voting constituency, who have asked little more of him than to be as proud of them as they are of him. It makes me sick the way he takes the votes of my family and friends for granted and gives them nothing but the back of his hand in return for their steadfast support. They deserve much better, and he's not nearly good enough.

    I wonder why no one has brought up the obvious (to me) parallel: If HRC were to address audiences of women by scolding them and telling them they need to be more personally responsible and better parents, I doubt she'd be getting a pass, much less being praised for it. In contrast, when she speaks to women (and women's issues) she does not use negative stereotypes about women. She praises women, celebrates their achievements, and respects her audience.

    (There is much more good commentary at Make it Plain)

    I don't the actual audience was the NAACP--nor (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by jawbone on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:12:55 PM EST
    the black church earlier.

    It's white voters, imho.  If it were actually black men and parents, it would have been couched in terms more like your hypthetical Hillary discussion. Praise, then urge even more efforts, etc. Some mention of the societal problems affecting even the most dedicated parents, some programs to make it easier to do good parenting.

    But that's just me.


    Right, so he's telling black audiences (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:14:12 PM EST
    what he wants whites to hear.

    Obama: The "Good" Black Man (5.00 / 0) (#182)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:19:10 PM EST
    Which is my crude approximation of that scolding.

    Uncle Obama n/t (none / 0) (#190)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:19:57 PM EST
    Uncle Barack n/t (none / 0) (#191)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:20:34 PM EST
    Not One Drop Of Oil Spilled During Katrina??? (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by john horse on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:44:29 PM EST
    We are being pounded by propaganda from Bush and McCain that not one drop of oil was spilled during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.  The fact is only the Exxon Valdez oil spill was worse.

    If you don't think there was any oil spill then watch this video.  (Per talkingpointsmemo and thinkprogress)

    This has really gained traction--heard it from (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by jawbone on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:07:33 PM EST
    customer in my mechanic's waiting room. Used info as reason to drill off the Jersey Shore. Quelle horreur!

    Is Rush pushing this story?


    Bernanke on the economy (5.00 / 0) (#187)
    by nellre on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:52:54 PM EST
    Any body remember a couple years ago when the fed kept raising interest rates until the housing boom turned into a housing bust?
    Anybody remember the housing boom was the only thing keeping the economy humming?
    Blame the fed. They broke it, we bought it.

    He testified today before congress. Mostly very very gloomy inflation with no growth. Remember stagflation? Remember Jimmy Carter got the blame?
    Is there a connection?

    Two little notes from MY great state of (none / 0) (#27)
    by Rhouse on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:08:15 PM EST
    Pennsylvania.  From the "Wasn't anyone here who could help?", Obamas' campaign choses a guy from CA to run the PA day-to-day stuff.  And, who says a party scandal can't save you money, just ask Ralphs' lawyers about this.

    In Virginia, (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:13:02 PM EST
    my stepmother is running one of Obama's campaign offices. The other two are being run by out of state talent.

    It's interesting, because a lot of Virginians applied for those jobs according to my dad.


    And they seem to be w+nking off (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by Rhouse on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:20:59 PM EST
    others as well.  It appears that some of the Democratic staffers on Capital Hill aren't exactly happy with the Obama crowd and effort in down election strategy.  Here's a link to the Politico article if you want to go there.
    (code +=a)

    I saw that. (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:23:18 PM EST
    Let's just say I'm not too surprised. ;-)

    Hmmmm (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:19:29 PM EST
    Guess that puts to rest the idea that Obama voted for the FISA bill because that's what the leadership wanted, no?

    As ye sow, so shall ye reap, you jerks.


    I posted a report from the Iowa Register (4.50 / 2) (#188)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:58:01 PM EST
    a few days ago. the O camp hired state Democratic volunteers for the O campaign and directed them to work in areas with lots of young people (certain college districts) and then pulled out of collaborative GOTV efforts with state and local Democratic volunteers. The local politicians were upset because these locals are now left high and dry.  These downstate races by the way, are the pipeline for higher office and this strategy is counterproductive the article reports.

    Honestly, I take great pleasure (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:15:17 PM EST
    in all of the aggravation our corrupt PA Dem pols caused Ralph Nader. He deserved it.

    all I wanted was a pair of shorts (none / 0) (#94)
    by Josey on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:08:25 PM EST
    made in the USA. But today at the mall there were only shorts made in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Hong Kong, Marianna Is, India...
    OK - I bought the Marianna Is ones. Aren't they a U.S. territory or something? At least I don't think they have a big military.

    If you want clothes (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:10:28 PM EST
    Made in the U.S. you better be prepared to start sewing.

    If you cut your jeans into shorts, does that count as "made in the USA"?


    LOL (none / 0) (#132)
    by Josey on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:09:15 PM EST
    Uh oh. (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:14:30 PM EST
    Didn't you hear that Hillary Clinton personally maintains sweatshops on the Marianas?  Or something like that.

    I know it's true because I read it on Daily Kos.


    No, but I think the labor exploitation (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:14:30 PM EST
    there is even worse than in some of those "foreign" countries.

    The Marianna Islands was the work of (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:01:16 PM EST
    Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff. They saw to it that the GOP congress allowed the sweatshops to by pass the US labor laws.  But they did have the MADE IN USA label.

    Try allamericanclothing.com (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:32:26 PM EST
    formerly known as union jean company.  I don't think they have shorts right now.

    This site is better: American site that lists US companies.  I didn't see mens shorts, but they listed pumpkin creek for women.


    thank you so much! (none / 0) (#139)
    by Josey on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:15:14 PM EST
    Ouch (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by RalphB on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:38:24 PM EST
    The Mariannas was Tom Delay's pet sweatshop country.  What a miserable choice that you can't even find something made in the USA.  Can we really be that far down the tubes?

    don't even get me started on food! (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by Josey on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:21:06 PM EST
    Maybe even fast food burgers are shipped from China.
    And maybe those bad tomatoes were fed China fertilizer.

    Grow your own or (none / 0) (#192)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:31:10 PM EST
    join a CSA!  Local food tastes better, is fresher and healthier and usually doesn't rely on brutal exploitation of migrant and/or illegal immigrant labor.

    (We have migrant workers in Vermont, but they're paid and treated well and regarded as seasonal members of the community.)


    I bought some shorts (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by RalphB on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:41:51 PM EST
    from Columbia Sportswear.  They're made in Nicaragua, but at least it's the right hemisphere.

    Oooh! Look what Susie Madrack found in the NYTImes (none / 0) (#166)
    by jawbone on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:05:05 PM EST
    about a Brooklyn DA's subpoena for the IP address of an anonymous commenter at a blog run by Ben Smith (of Politico) and a friend. The blog is called Romm 8, bcz City Hall's press room is Room 9.

    There's a happy ending--to this story. But do read, as it is a bit scary.  Of course, revealing they'd even received the subpoena was verboten bcz it might interfere with an ongoing investigation.

    BTW, Ben Smith does not take a strong stand against giving out the info. Might want to learn to use one of those anonymizing programs....

    It appears it's important to know what the IP provider's code of privacy is--some require the blogger to inform a commenter of anyone wishing to learn their identity, thus permitting the blog owner to tell the individual commenter.

    Bloggers concerned about possible litigation may want to check the privacy policies of their Internet service providers, to see whether they include a pledge to notify any customer whose site is the subject of a subpoena, Mr. (Jonathan) Zittrain (a law professor at Harvard) said. I added the parenthetical info.