home

Friday Morning Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:18:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It's a jail day for me, which means an open thread for you. Have fun, and please keep it civil.

< Brooks: The Era Of Big Government Returns | Indianapolis Implements Plan to Curb Police Misconduct >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Friday Morning Open Thread | 150 comments (150 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Obama: superorganizer (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:25:46 AM EST
    It is clear that the benefit of those years to Mr. Obama dwarfs what he accomplished. Mr. Kellman said that Mr. Obama had built the organization's following among needy residents and black ministers, but "on issues, we made very little progress, nothing that would change poverty on the South Side of Chicago."

    NYTimes

    Same pattern even back then. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by zfran on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:41:33 AM EST
    He helped with mostly "words" but his actions and his thought processes were of himself first and then felt "embarrassed" as the people he took on  to help misbehaved in front of others.

    Parent
    Too bad obama doesn't man up over (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:38:05 AM EST
    his misbehaving....always do as I say, not as I do with this guy.

    Parent
    Not surprised... (none / 0) (#3)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:37:44 AM EST
    ...parts of the Southside truly look like they are in a war zone.  Burned out buildings and cars, urban blight everywhere and crushing poverty all around.  Hard to make sweeping change in those kinds of conditions.  

    Although, I have to say, as a extremely white person, I've always been treated very well by the locals in my visits there.  We love going to the Checkerboard Lounge for authentic--and I mean authentic Blues.  

    Parent

    Excellent ruling... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:37:28 AM EST
    from the great northwest.  Link

    In a case where the only probable cause for a search was the sweet smell of reefer, the judge said...

    "Our state constitution protects our individual privacy, meaning that we are free from unnecessary police intrusion into our private affairs unless a police officer can clearly associate the crime with the individual."

    Ya can't pin that smell on me copper!

    One step forward... (none / 0) (#5)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:41:15 AM EST
    ...two steps back.

    http://tinyurl.com/6zbmm3

    Someday we'll get it right.

    Parent

    You wiped the grin.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:48:07 AM EST
    right off my face with that one Mile...you couldn't have waited an hour or two before posting that?

    Parent
    Sorry... (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:50:48 AM EST
    ...but I was just so PO'd when I read that this morning.  Facking fackers.

    Parent
    Hillary vowed to stop the raids (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:53:06 AM EST
    any word on the Os position on medical marijuana?


    Parent
    No but I can guess.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:59:43 AM EST
    he'll say he's down with medical mj until he takes the oath, then the DEA big-wigs suddenly convince him otherwise.

    Parent
    I hope not (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:14:56 AM EST


    Parent
    Your Link Is More Up To Date (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:56:24 AM EST
    No doubt they scanned the records and copied the HDs before return..

    Parent
    why does that judge (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:42:10 AM EST
    hate america?

    Parent
    Well These Seattle Cops Didn't Get The Memo (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:53:23 AM EST
    Seattle police Tuesday raided a University District office used by medical-marijuana patients, but the operator says he has been following state law and the authorities were overzealous.

    [snip]

    King County prosecutors say the raid was justified. Martinez's neighbors have been complaining about a pervasive smell of pot, they said, so authorities need to figure out whether Martinez has been breaking the law.

    link


    Parent

    Al Gore's Clean Energy Speech (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:40:47 AM EST
    was wonderful.  Here is the link to his We Can Solve It org.

    Issues are where it's at.

    From Sara (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:41:41 AM EST
    At Orincus, Standing at the Nexus of Change

    An interesing analysis of the primary. Good read and provocative.

    it was worth the read... (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:40:47 PM EST
    but, I don't know if i'm buying it or not.  As far as I'm concerned Hillary lost for one reason and only one reason.  And that was because Obama got 80 - 90% of the black vote.

    I understand completely that he won Iowa without a large black presence in that state and the same in Wisconsin and Oregon and the small red states.  But, so what?  

    The only reason he won in states like MO and the southern states was because of the huge percentage of the black vote.  And the only reason Hillary didn't win by much bigger margins in Ohio and PA and many other states was because of Obama's huge percentages of the black vote.

    It made all the difference and it happens to be exactly what Geraldine Ferraro was trying to say and was pilloried for saying.

    Parent

    More than one reason (none / 0) (#137)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 06:32:50 PM EST
    Iowa is a caucus state, and the accusations of gaming those events can't be ignored. Additionally, you can't discount the reason he took 80-90% of the black vote. He had to make the Clintons out as their enemy.


    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#27)
    by splashy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:02:33 AM EST
    Worth the read.

    Parent
    what did you think of the companion piece by (none / 0) (#86)
    by DFLer on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:07:33 PM EST
    Melissa McEwan ?

    Parent
    I think that Melissa's piece (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by misspeach2008 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:51:02 PM EST
    voices the concerns of the second wave feminists. Sara's piece is more from the current group of young women who consider themselves feminists. The older feminists see the current campaign by the Democrats as entrenching sexism and misogyny into a "winning strategy" for Democrats and are having to decide if they are willing to sacrifice a Democratic win to combat it. Sara suggests that historically women have had to take a backseat to black males in the fight for full equality, and if we just wait a few years, our turn will come. As an older feminist, I might be willing to listen to Sara if the ERA had followed in the steps of the civil rights gains for blacks in the 60's, but it didn't.

    Parent
    Talking Points (none / 0) (#121)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:44:21 PM EST
    That seem rather empty to me. Sounds like much of the stuff that has been voiced here: Obama is a misogynist and should not be rewarded by being the better of two evils.

    I do not know how you can characterize this as a companion piece to Sara's. Nothing particularly fresh or insightful about it, imo.

    Parent

    That's easy: I can characterized it as (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by DFLer on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:48:40 PM EST
    a companion piece because the linked site did, as in:

    OpenLeft invited several feminist and womanist bloggers to participate in a round-robin of guest posts on the meaning of Hillary's success -- and failure -- as a primary candidate, and what implications its has for progressives. The first piece by Melissa McEwen is here. This is the cross-post of the second piece, which is from me. [Sara]

    My description is one of context, not a quality rating.

    Why this designation gets your back up so, I do not know. I asked for your opinion of the other piece, and you gave it. Nuff said.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#129)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 05:21:11 PM EST
    Round robin of guest pieces seem more fitting description. A companion piece, imo, implies that it is functioning on a similar quality level. So if it got my back up that is why.. In terms of quality Sara's piece was on a much higher level, imo. It asked questions and attempted to answer them. I have followed her for some time and always find her writing insightful. Melissa McEwen's piece on the other hand (never read her before) can be reduced into a one or two sentences, and it would be the same, hardly any content, imo.

    I do not have CDS, I like Hillary and Bill, and thought she was treated horribly by the media. An insightful critique of that syndrome would be welcome reading for me. But this was same old, same old, bashing, booring, imo.


    Parent

    I liked hers more (none / 0) (#133)
    by splashy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 05:52:35 PM EST
    Because it focused on the feminist issues more.

    Parent
    How So? (none / 0) (#134)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 06:12:10 PM EST
    Many feminists voted for Obama, and do not see him as a misogynist, or a sexist. Are they colluding with and perpetuating misogyny more than those who are supporting McSame, be it actively or passively?

    Parent
    It's not a question of which candidate (none / 0) (#136)
    by misspeach2008 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 06:28:04 PM EST
    is more sexist and misogynist than the other for me. I refuse to vote for either one of them. I am not willing to settle for the "lesser of two evils". From now on I will only vote for "good". The top of my ballot this fall will be blank. If this passively elects one candidate, that's what will be. I don't care which one gets elected because I don't want either of them.  It's a waste of Jeralyn's bandwidth for us to argue about whether Obama is a misogynist or not because I sincerely doubt either one of us could change the other's mind. I haven't walked in your shoes, and you haven't walked in mine.

    Parent
    There's good to vote for.... (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by kdog on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 09:20:58 AM EST
    misspeach...Nader, McKinney...at least consider giving a third choice some numbers and maybe we can break this two-party duopoly in our lifetimes.

    Parent
    Obviously, Got It (none / 0) (#144)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:52:22 PM EST
    But are you speaking for splashy?

    Parent
    No, just for me (none / 0) (#146)
    by misspeach2008 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:33:38 PM EST


    Parent
    In the one I liked more (none / 0) (#149)
    by splashy on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 07:51:21 PM EST
    Different generations were not pitted against each other as much. It was more of an "we're all in this together" kind of thing.

    Parent
    did everyone see Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:42:17 AM EST
    comments yesterday about how he has a thin skin when it comes to the right saying things about Michelle? How he said she didn't ask for this as she was 'just supporting her spouse'?

    if thats what she is doing (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:48:05 AM EST
    she should adopt Lauras Xanax grin and stop talking about policy.  if she talks about policy she is getting into the ring.  period.


    Parent
    I totally agree. (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:52:30 AM EST
    I was actually shocked when he admitted it got under his skin. it's like asking for more.

    here is the link...it's stunning.

    Parent

    It's Like Asking For More (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:03:55 AM EST
    A twist on the Chimp's bring em on?  Great idea in this case. Because trashing Michelle will really piss off a lot more people than Obama.  Trashing Michelle  will certainly help him in the GE.

    Americans do not like that kind of dirt bag stuff...  Particularly when it is not already a habitual national pastime.  

    Parent

    Depends. (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Fabian on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:11:30 AM EST
    Are you talking about Michelle?  Then it could be a positive.

    Are you talking about Barack?  Being thin skinned and over reacting is a known problem for Obama.  I'm expecting the Right to try to rile him up over and over again to get him to lose his cool.

    So sure.  Let Obama speak out in support of his wife, but keep the anger under wraps.  Campaigns are all about appearances.  Passion is good.  Being "emotional" is bad.  

    Parent

    The best quotes from the Glamour magazine (none / 0) (#42)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:17:59 AM EST
    article, IMHO. Overly emotional, you tell me. Take special note of the comment about Hillary Clinton.

    It's infuriating, but it's not surprising, because let's face it: What happened was that the conservative press--Fox News and the National Review and columnists of every ilk--went fairly deliberately at her in a pretty systematic way...and treated her as the candidate in a way that you just rarely see the Democrats try to do against Republicans.

    She's the most honest person I know, she's smart, she's funny, so yeah, it infuriates me. And I think that it is an example of the erosion of civility in our political culture that she's been subjected to these attacks, and my attitude is that the people who have attacked her in the ways that they have...if they've got a difference with me on policy, they should debate me. Not her.

    When you see in the span of two or three or four weeks essentially the same talking points being used on a whole variety of shows or a whole variety of columns, over and over again....Hillary Clinton was subject to this, others have been subject to this in the past...It is part of our political environment that I'd like to change.

    I don't have a thick skin when it comes to criticism of my wife. And you know, the problem is that rarely do these folks have the guts to say it to your face.

    Parent

    He is in complete denial (none / 0) (#138)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 06:39:42 PM EST
    over who he is and what he has done. Who was it who stood in NC the morning after the PA debate scratching his face to try to disguise flipping the bird, and wiping himself off of the dirt of having been beaten in the debate? All directed at Hillary, as were so many more of his demeaning comments.

    If Michelle is just a spouse supporting her husband, what was Bill Clinton doing? He isn't running for anything, so he sure wasn't there for himself.

    Parent

    Americans also don't like a whiner (5.00 / 7) (#34)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:11:51 AM EST
    And in this instance Obama appears as such. His wife is a campaign surrogate, she makes speeches on his behalf, speaks for him at solo events and has a staff of her own. she is fair game and everyone knows it.

    For him to say she 'didn't sign up for this' or 'she's a civilian' is utterly ridiculous and disengenuous to the extreme. It's the equivalent of saying, 'it's not fair'.

    He doesn't get to have it both ways, to use her as a campain surrogate and keep her off limits. If he wants her left alone then he needs to pull her from the trail.

    Parent

    Shrug (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:16:35 AM EST
    Maybe I'm the only person in America who isn't convinced that she's fair game, then.  It's bad enough that we make a huge deal out of meaningless incidents of misspeaking when the candidates do them, but I don't agree that if Chelsea Clinton flubs her line, it would be fair for the GOP to start running ads about what a terrible person Chelsea is.

    Do you believe that Michelle Obama literally was never proud of her country prior to this political campaign.  If you think so, then I guess I can see why you'd feel her remark is fair game.  Personally, I find it hard to believe she really meant it that way, and I don't think we need to hold her to the same "you can never misspeak" standard we hold the actual candidates to.

    Parent

    It has nothing to do (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:21:48 AM EST
    with any one particular quote from Michelle. she is out there campaigning on his behalf, doing events for him, speaking for him. She is doing solo events and making television appearances, talking about policy and telling us what she and Barack want for us and our country. That is what makes her fair game. Period. She becomes no different than any other campaign mouthpiece.

    And my issue isn't even with that. it's with Obama stating over and over how angry it gets him when she is criticized. they will use that against him. it doesn't make him look strong, it makes him look like a whiner. A victim.

    As far as Chelsea goes, if she had made a stupid statement in public while campaigning for her mother I would have expected it to be front page news and I doubt Hillary would have whined about it.

    Parent

    Well, it isn't all about "misspeaking." (5.00 / 8) (#46)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:23:01 AM EST
    She made a comment about the ability to "keep your own house in order" that was a direct slam at Hillary.  Michelle injected herself into the campaign when she said this so if she takes any grief from it it's her own fault.

    Parent
    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:28:04 AM EST
    and look, I thought that was a sleazy comment too, but I won't agree that it makes her fair game for criticism over anything else whatsoever that she might happen to say.

    If she's laying out Obama's health care plan or taking shots at his political opponents or what have you, of course it's fair to respond.  But when she says "I'm proud of my country" or whatever, come on, that's just being a supportive spouse.

    Parent

    it's very easy to question (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:36:00 AM EST
    Michelle's pride in this country when you add that statement to her other where she said American are just mean (or something like that) and then add her attendance at Rev Wright's church where "blame whitey" is the theme of the day.

    Why is it that any statement that any other candidaet or their surrogate makes is parsed over and over to find the real hidden meaning, but it's somehow unfair to do that with the Obamas?

    Parent

    cause those are the rules (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:38:30 AM EST
    geez
    get with the program

    Parent
    Because Obama said so (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:39:36 AM EST
    It isn't fair, she's just a spouse. /snark

    Parent
    not just Michelle (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:41:51 AM EST
    you aren't even allowed to "parse" what Barack says.

    Parent
    of course (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:51:36 AM EST
    you have to wait until "what he really meant" is explained.


    Parent
    That's True (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:54:16 AM EST
    A colleague of mine was 'complaining' about how everyone, including the media (well, maybe except some GOPers) are so careful in how they critique him because no one wants the Clinton Treatment (of being called racists).

    Gotta hand it to him and his hangers-on for using that weapon well.

    Parent

    That was an egregious weapon, so personally (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by DeborahNC on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:24:12 PM EST
    I can't congratulate him for using it effectively. Some tactics in a campaign are so reprehensible that they diminish one's character and integrity with their usage. For me, that one was what revealed the true Obama. After that, the unity message just DID NOT resonate with me.

    I know that you weren't defending him, but just recalling that tactic really gets my hackles up.

    Parent

    My Bad (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    I should have used the [/snark] tag.

    I agree with you. I think it's weak for anyone to use race or gender as a point to make an argument. I don't think Hillary ever used her gender to further a cause or stem an argument ... and the only time she came remotely close, and rightfully so, was when she and Bill had to defend Chelsea from the NBC remark.

    Parent

    I forget to use the /snark label too sometimes. (none / 0) (#147)
    by DeborahNC on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:17:21 AM EST
    It was around the end of the New Hampshire primary when I felt the political winds change. There were a few small aspects of the campaign leading up to the racist-based accusation that seem harsh, but with that, I knew that they were going to use the full arsenal with low-blow tactics. I was livid, but I was also sad, because with that assertion the whole face of the primary changed for me.

    Parent
    Yes, but look what he doesn't have (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:22:01 PM EST
    going for him....

    A CAST OF 300 ADVISES OBAMA ON FOREIGN POLICY

    link

    You are correct, little or no foreign policy for obama...winging it isn't going to cut it.

    Parent

    It would have been nice..... (5.00 / 7) (#82)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:04:05 PM EST
    ...and I think I could have had more sympathy for Obama if when the press was going ballistic about it being "fair game" to ask Chelsea about her father's infidelity, the Obama campaign had chimed in with a little support. I think that what Chelsea had to endure was far more humiliating than anything being dished to Michelle at this point in time. And yes, I know that the Obama campaign did not have a duty to defend Chelsea Clinton when he was running against her mother...but that would have been a nice time to  make a point about "changing the tone" and so forth and it would have gotten him a lot of brownie points with people like me. Of course, it would have angered one of his bases--the media.

    Parent
    Not about 'misspeaking' (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:07:22 PM EST
    If she's campaigning, she's fair game, just like any other campaign surrogate.  

    For her 'proud of my country' remark, it's all on vid, so people can see for themselves.  As little experience as Obama has, he didn't just get into politics yesterday and they both grew up in the same time and political climate as I have.  They should both understand by now, if they didn't before, that the things you say in public are open for public criticism.  Period.

    He can't simultaneously claim the kind of hands-off stricture the media observes for spouses who do not put themselves into the political fray and have her out in the same  fray.

    G*d!  I would have been so much more impressed with him if for once he'd turn the whole victimhood thing around and say "Michelle's an awesome, intelligent, strong and politically astute woman in her own right, and nothing makes me prouder than being married to a woman who can stand up for herself in the face of today's crazed  media atmosphere" instead of harping on how victimized she is.

    Personally, I don't particularly like Michelle, but I'm glad she's campaigning for him because I much, much prefer that to the story where the candidate keeps his wife locked in a box except for a few smile-for-the-camera photo shoots.  Blech.

    Parent

    True, but (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by cmugirl on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:14:18 PM EST
    You realize she made this statement twice in the same day?  Once is a flub, twice - you really mean it.

    Link

    Parent

    It's not misspeaking when it's scripted (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:41:54 PM EST
    as is more than evident in that Michelle Obama said her line -- about previously not being proud of her country her country -- twice in the same day.  

    Parent
    Shrug (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:46:19 PM EST
    So that means she knew how it would come across, right?  She really meant to convey the idea that she's never been proud of her country before?  I find that hard to accept.

    Parent
    WMRM. What Michelle Really Meant. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:48:43 PM EST
    This thing runs in the family.

    Parent
    Well, seems to me the treatment should (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:17:20 PM EST
    be fair all 'round.  Hyper-parsing, which I do not generally approve of (hate it, in fact) seems to always 'uncover' evil deeper meaning in any but the Obamas, but if it's Barack or Michelle, what's 'uncovered' is always angels and light and puppies and sugar cookies.  

    She said what she said, it was scripted and she said it twice.  She hasn't even WORMed it or inartfulled it.  No one has a duty to read Michelle's 'true' feelings as relentlessly positive despite her actual words, just as she shouldn't be attacked for what she didn't say.  (see Clinton, H, 2008 presidential primary)

    For pity's sake, they're both lawyers and pols.  They know words matter, and they know how to play the game and play to the crowd.  Had she said 'I was never so proud of my country AS WHEN' it would be a whole different ball game.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:26:58 PM EST
    I am pretty darn sure she has WORMed it.

    I am just not the type of Hillary supporter who believes that because my candidate got a raw deal, everyone else needs to get the same raw deal to make me feel better.  There is too much focus on gaffes in our politics, period, let alone gaffes by family members.

    I am no more convinced by the notion that every word out of Michelle Obama's mouth is carefully chosen and calculated for effect than I was when people used to say the same things about the Clintons.  No one is like that, except maybe Mitt Romney.

    Parent

    Chelsea is not anyone's spouse, and (none / 0) (#139)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 06:43:43 PM EST
    even if her mother were to be president, she will never live in the Whitehouse or represent the country around the world.

    Michelle wants to be the First Lady, and that position does represent the country internationally.

    There's simply no way to properly compare an adult child to a spouse. Ronald Reagan had a very outspoken, critical daughter who the democrats never used against him, remember.

    Parent

    trashing (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:29:36 AM EST
    Trashing Theresa Heinz Kerry didn't win any sympathy for the dem ticket....

    Parent
    that was then (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:32:18 AM EST
    this is now.  I think the press is going to be way more interested in any perceived slight for Michelle.  having said that, I am not sure the voters will care much.  I dont think most people like her much.

    Parent
    Some polling a while back revealed that most (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:37:15 AM EST
    voters don't really know much about Michelle or Cindy McCain.  But I've seen other evidence that people who do know about Michelle don't much care for her.  I'm wondering if any Democrat-related 527s will try to tarnish Cindy McCain.  My feeling is that if they go after her and the prescription drug thing it will backfire.

    Parent
    Michelle could boost (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by misspeach2008 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:50:07 AM EST
    her "likeability quotient" with just a few changes in her pronouns.  For example when she talks about children, she says, "Is it good for my kids?" instead of "Is it good for our kids?" It's a little thing, and may seem nitpicky, but it extends the feeling people get that both she and Barack are too self-centered. Complaining about the high cost of ballet lessons when other moms would just like to be able to put sneakers on their kids' feet isn't endearing.

    Parent
    especially when (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:59:27 AM EST
    the forum that she first made those "high cost" of raising HER children comments was in front of a bunch of women where the avg income was around $30,000 and she was complaining about spending $10,000 per year on piano, dance and sports activites.

    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:25:53 PM EST
    Don't have much evidence for it (yet), but MO already doesn't seem to get the same spun-glass treatment that BO gets.

    Things may be marginally better than with Heinz or even Hillary back in the 90s, but not by enough to really help.  Most polls I've seen show a fair amount of strong unfavorables for MO.

    Some attacks on Dem. wives have been head on, but most are not out in the open at all.  They take advantage of existing and entrenched sexism and exploit themes that go straight to folks' reptile brains, bypassing the kind of filters that can get caught in straight up attacks.

    Parent

    Strong women of all types (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Fabian on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 05:43:32 PM EST
    will end up with strong negatives.  Thus sayeth society, thus sayeth our culture.

    It sucks.  All women, white, black or purple have to walk through the mine field of gender based expectations and stereotypes.  If she is a mother - is she a "good mother" or "bad mother"?  If she isn't a mother - why not?  Is something wrong with her?  If she is married - who is her husband?  What does that say about her?  If she isn't married - why not?  Is something wrong with her?  Is she accomplished?  Does she have an education?  Does she make more money than her spouse?  More educated?  More powerful?  

    And if you take all those questions and apply them to a man, you realize how the playing field is tilted.  

    Parent

    Wow, really? (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:48:58 AM EST
    Geez, stuff a sock in it, Obama! It's part of the politics game.

    His constant whining about everything he doesn't like or agree with is just incredible. He needs to get used to it if he plans on occupying the White House for the next 4-8 years. And Michelle should too.

    *Cue the downratings from the Obamans...

    Parent

    Ha!!! If he doesn't want (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by zfran on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:49:54 AM EST
    her to be scrutinized by the right, then she shouldn't be out there being a surrogate for him. She, personally, imo, should not be criticized, but anything she says in public is fair game.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:57:05 AM EST
    The McCain campaign complained about an Obama supporter on CNN who simply mentioned that Cindy McCain has a lot of money.  That's whinier in my book than anything Obama has complained about.

    To be honest, even though I'm not much of a Michelle Obama fan at all, I am tired of the way the GOP always makes the wife of the Democratic nominee out to be some awful dragon lady, every four years like clockwork.  If Obama wants to be the one to push back against that, I'm fine with it.  And he gets good husband points, because it's what I would do for my wife in the same situation, regardless of whether there's a legitimate argument that she's "fair game."

    Michelle Obama is a very smart woman, but she's still the spouse, not the candidate.  And if she made a statement in attempting to support her husband that came out a little "inartfully," I don't think that should get her featured in a thousand attack ads.  Our political process would not be worsened if people refrained from going there.

    Parent

    If Obama can force a repeal (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Fabian on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:06:35 AM EST
    of the "Clinton Rules", I'll give him a lot of credit.  No Democrat has ever defeated the Clinton Rules.  (But some have used them to their advantage...)

    Parent
    You've nailed the difference right there (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by angie on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:46:46 PM EST
    Talking about or criticizing the fact that Cindy McCain comes from money is not fair game -- that has to do with her personal family life & has nothing to do with the campaign. And I say the same about commenting on Michelle's personal family life (for example, comments to the effect that she "wears the pants" in the family). However, things that Michelle &/or Cindy say or do in public for the campaign are fair game -- with those words and actions they are no longer "just the spouse" but are thrusting themselves into the public eye to try to get their respective husbands elected.

    Parent
    this amazes me... (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:59:20 AM EST
    as much as the Obama campaign and its surrogates attacked Bill Clinton, the spouse of their primary rival, I can't believe they don't get laughed at openly when they try to say Michelle should be off limits...

    If they want her off limits, send her home and get her off the public stage.

    Parent

    Well Bill was more than (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Fabian on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:05:05 AM EST
    "just a spouse".  Typical Obama supporters often brought up his old career as POTUS to justify various attacks - on Bill and Hillary.  

    Any candidate's spouse can choose to be out in public as much or as little as they choose.   It's well known that the media will scrutinize presidential candidates and their spouses (and other family members) intensely.  

    Parent

    i never bought that ..... (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:24:31 AM EST
    "not just a spouse" excuse either.

    Obama's campaign comes up with more excuses why everything they do is "fair" and nothing the opposition does is "fair" that I have ever seen before.

    You could almost call his the "affirmative action campaign".  But, then they would call you a racist.....

    Parent

    I saw on TeeVee last night (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:03:31 AM EST
    that they are sending  her home.  she is planning to "spend more time with the family"

    Parent
    I seriously wonder why they would want to (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by DeborahNC on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:31:57 PM EST
    remove the charming Michelle from the world stage. What a conundrum! ;-)

    Parent
    Did she get fired? :) That's the NO. 1 (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:27:48 PM EST
    excuse for the repubs when they leave a position..."I want to spend more time with the family"

    Parent
    This from the guy who put his kids on the (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:16:09 AM EST
    entertainment channel.  For dog's sake, he's using his own family and then he complains about the coverage.  Not only thin skinned but also a hypocrite.

    Parent
    Tired of high property taxes?.... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:46:30 AM EST
    Convert your home into a house of worship...link

    Not to defend a millionaire tax-dodger or anything, but I admire the ingenuity.  When our gripes with our government become too much to bear, tax dodging and tax revolting are our only non-violent options to make change happen.

    Jerusalem Fried Chicken (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:49:07 AM EST
    Double cheeseburger with a side of Jesus...

    Parent
    that does it (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:49:44 AM EST
    I am officially founding the Church of the Presumptuous Assumption.
    in my garage.
     

    Parent
    I was thinking.... (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:57:48 AM EST
    of The Native American Church of Latter Day Sinners and the Glorious Reclamation of Divine Liberty.

    Tax free and legal peyote as a sacrament...talk about hitting the Daily Double!

    Parent

    hey,shouldn't that be... (none / 0) (#24)
    by nic danger on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:58:45 AM EST
    the Powerhouse Church of the Presumptuous Assumption ?

    Parent
    ah (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:08:50 AM EST
    a living Firesign Theater fan.


    Parent
    Well, I think we're all bozos on this bus. (none / 0) (#35)
    by scribe on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:13:19 AM EST
    I'll follow up - the electrician just got here.

    Parent
    dont crush that dwarf (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:16:17 AM EST
    hand me the pliers

    Parent
    yeppers... (none / 0) (#43)
    by nic danger on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:18:49 AM EST
    still living. have been a lifelong fan.glad there seems to be so many of us around.

    Parent
    I just wonder (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:25:45 AM EST
    how many people watching Peter Jacksons wonderful Dead Alive, also known as Braindead understood the genesis of the Sumatran Rat Monkey.

    Parent
    It's a butte... (none / 0) (#69)
    by EL seattle on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:42:00 AM EST
    ... and a might purdy one.

    Parent
    My house aready is ... just ask the cats (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ellie on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 05:02:58 PM EST
    Daily they get the prime cuts of what we brought in from the foraging and the hunt to mollify their contempt.

    They sniff, gobble it, joyfully bat around the new squeak thing and then suddenly walk off in a huff because the BBQ plans didn't include them.

    They're not wrathful or vindictive cats but I just know they judge us harshly while we sleep, to awaken to ... that stare. It's up to us to figure what we did wrong and be better next time. It's this practice and striving that improves us.

    Tax write-off please!!! [/Colbert gimme hands]

    Parent

    Election fraud (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Lora on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:14:26 AM EST
    If you have no doubt as to the integrity of the vote in Ohio 2004 and for the nation in 2008, perhaps you should.

    From the Brad Blog:

    Ohio Attorney Files to Lift Stay on '04 Election Case, Cites Allegations, Evidence of Massive Fraud by a Number of GOP Operatives

    Impeachment (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Lora on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:44:14 AM EST
    Nine (count 'em, nine) Republicans voted to send one of Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment to the judiciary.

    They are (as posted at dkos):

    Congressman Kevin Brady (TX)
    Congressman Wayne Gilchrest  (MD)
    Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC)
    Representative Don Manzullo (IL)
    U.S. Congressman Tim Murphy(PA)
    Congressman Ron Paul (TX)
    Congressman Dave Reichert (WA)
    Congressman Christopher Shays (CT)
    Representative Mike Turner (OH)

    Ron Paul.... (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:54:29 AM EST
    love 'em or hate 'em...that's a man of principle right there.

    Parent
    I Love It (2.00 / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:05:36 PM EST
    When you get deluded, shows that we are all human.... The guy is a pandering pol, just like the rest.. The only difference it that he is telling you what you want to hear..


    Parent
    I don't think Ron Paul is a pandering politician. (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:16:04 PM EST
    If you've ever followed him you'd know that he says what he believes without regard to what other people think.  He's a crazy loon but an honest loon.  

    Parent
    Pandering to who? (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:28:00 PM EST
    He's a Republican squeaky...why would he pander to people who want Bush impeached...aka non-republicans.

    99% of pols pander...guys like Ron paul and Dennis Kucinich are in the 1% who don't, imo...though I very well could be wrong.

    I just don't see what that vote gains Ron Paul personally...makes him even less-liked by his fellow Republicans, and Dem-types still hate him for his (again principled, though I disagree) abortion stance and anti-welfare state stance.

    Parent

    I disagree with him on almost all issues but he (none / 0) (#95)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:32:21 PM EST
    was right about Iraq and the run-up to the war.  I give the man credit for that.

    Parent
    Interesting list (none / 0) (#74)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:50:01 AM EST
    I don't recognize all the names.  Gilchrest and Jones have been apostates on the war, as I recall.  Ron Paul is Ron Paul.  Reichert is pretty wingnutty, but he faces a difficult race against Darcy Burner and probably wants to burnish his "I'm not in lockstep with Bush" credentials.  Shays is the only Republican Congressman in the entire New England region and clearly has reason to sweat.  Not sure about the others.

    Parent
    Reichert should have lost to Burner (none / 0) (#140)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 06:57:01 PM EST
    last time. He got a school bus driver fired because she flipped the bird at the Presidential motorcade when she got stuck having to wait for it to pass on one of his fundraising visits to Bellevue. Major kiss-up act to take on something so ridiculous.

    His Sheriff's background, with his failure to capture the Green River Killer in his many year search (even though he actually interviewed the guy), baffled me. I'm sure he won just because he ran as a Republican in that district. Jennifer Dunn would have held the position in that district for as long as she wanted it, and only because of the party.

    I voted Burner last time, but have moved out of that district since.

    Parent

    Excellent Opinion Piece (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:05:52 PM EST
    For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?

    Krauthammer usually misses the goal post with his columns, but lately, over these past few months, he's been scoring. He's been extremely critical of Hillary, Obama and McCain. Granted, he's more critical about the Democrats, but he doesn't pull criticisms out his butt the way other syndicated columnists often do.

    Today's column is a hat-trick (to continue with the soccer analogy). He makes a great case about the brouhaha around Obama and Brandenburg Gate.

    A great summary:

    Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself. There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
    Ouch! n/t (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:37:51 PM EST


    Parent
    His attitude will be a problem for him in the (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by DeborahNC on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:40:53 PM EST
    general election. No question about that.

    Parent
    Read it and was surprised (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:51:50 PM EST
    to see the gloves not only off but gone.  Calls out Obama as a narcissist -- that's serious stuff, no holds barred.

    It's spreading among columnists of color, too -- yesterday's syndicated column by Leonard Pitts, Jr., was quite a read, along the lines of Bob Herbert's last week.  Not that I ever will consider many of these columnists credible again, after their behaviors before.  But if Obama is losing them, then what?

    Parent

    And Krauthammer (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    is credible at this point, why?

    I hear Cheney thinks he's a narcissist too.

    Parent

    Of course not. But you can't see (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:36:53 PM EST
    that the attacks are ramping up from the neocons?  And at the time that his strongest supporters among columnists, the AA columnists, are backing away?  And all that isn't cause for concern?

    This is not a contest for a journalism award, y'know.  But if you don't see reason that this could cost some crossover voters Obama counts on in his strategy -- well, then, you just rest easy there.

    Parent

    What was his take prior? (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 07:06:41 PM EST
    He appears on talk media panels frequently, but I rarely paid attention. Was he an Obama supporter until now?

    Not sure what he said that requires more credibility than he has. I found the article to be quite accurately representative of many people's attitudes toward Obama.

    Parent

    Yes we all know (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:56:46 PM EST
    exactly how much Obama "estimates himself" -- somehow.

    That the man just dosnt know his place is a given at this point.

    Speaking of galloping chutzpah and not being able to sound ones own measure, that neocon weasal/wmd pushers like Krauthammer still have the temerity to show their faces in public is more of a testament to monumental self delusion than any behaviors of Obama could probobly ever be.

    Parent

    Bless your heart, but (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:37:56 PM EST
    Krauthammer and other columnists aren't asking for anyone's vote.

    Parent
    Well, here's a story that TChris might (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:13:32 PM EST
    have some interest in; I know it about did me in this morning when I opened the paper...

    Documents show state police monitored peace and anti-death penalty groups.

    Undercover Maryland State Police officers repeatedly spied on peace activists and anti-death penalty groups in recent years and entered the names of some in a law-enforcement database of people thought to be terrorists or drug traffickers, newly released documents show.

    The files, made public yesterday by the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, depict a pattern of infiltration of the activists' organizations in 2005 and 2006. The activists contend that the authorities were trying to determine whether they posed a security threat to the United States. But none of the 43 pages of summaries and computer logs - some with agents' names and whole paragraphs blacked out - mention criminal or even potentially criminal acts, the legal standard for initiating such surveillance.

    State police officials said they did not curtail the protesters' freedoms.

    There's more and it doesn't get any better.  Some days ir's downright embarrasing to be a Maryland resident...and I wonder what's happening in the other 49 states.

    One of my law school classmates (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:47:53 PM EST
    had worked as an undercover cop in DC before law school.  He'd infiltrated a group of white supremacists who were dealing drugs to finance their lovely hate activities.  His work resulted in a bunch of arrests and the disintegration of that particular group.  

    This is all long before 9/11 and the WOT turned our attention to the 'real' threats to society.

    Sigh.  That's just one example, but in terms of where we put our limited resources, I'd much rather they go to toward eliminating real harms than going after those dangerous peace activists.  Unless they're also pink Commies, of course.  ;)

    Parent

    Yikes and we are......... (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:49:14 PM EST
    ....among the bluest of the blue. Sometimes you realize just how little that gets you.

    Parent
    You said it Maria.... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:55:05 PM EST
    Sometimes I wonder if the "blue" in my "blue state" stands for police blue.

    Liberal...Conservative...both equally adept at authoritariansim.

    Parent

    That is why if you are in a group (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by splashy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 06:14:13 PM EST
    Of anti-war activists or whatever that the powers that be don't like, you have to be squeaky clean and very suspicious of those that want to go with violence.

    If members suggest any thing that is unlawful, or anywhere near over the top, you can pretty much assume they are plants there to screw things up so they can take the group out.

    They have been doing this for a long time, and will continue to do it because it works. Any excuse to stop people from standing up for themselves is good in their eyes, even if they have to work to convince others to get the excuse.

    Reminds me of the video where there were some demonstrators that discovered the police plants by their boots. The plants had masks on, and bricks in their hands, trying to give the police a reason to arrest the demonstrators.

    The older wiser demonstrators noticed the boots, and called the plants out. The police made a show of arresting the plants to get them away from the demonstrators. It was funny, but sobering all at the same time.

    Parent

    Rasmussen (none / 0) (#38)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:15:21 AM EST
    There very interesting polls from red states going into the weekend.

    North Carolina McCain +3
    Virginia          McCain +1
    Nevada          Obama +2

    To be honest (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:21:15 AM EST
    I am more intrigued by their polls that show Al Franken ahead of Norm Coleman and Jeff Merkley ahead in Oregon for the first time.

    Parent
    Merkley & Franken (2.00 / 0) (#70)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:43:47 AM EST
    The Jeff Merkley poll would override my thoughts that the incumbent will hold on in Oregon based on his favorable ratings. Perhaps even good favorables can't help a Republican this year.

    Franken, I would still be shocked to see him pull it off. All he has going for him right now is the "D" next to his name. He has been swimming in bad press. A Survey USA the same day has Franken behind 13. Guess we'll have to keep an eye out for the next poll from Minnesota to see which pollster is right.

    Parent

    Stuart is going to win (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:27:53 AM EST


    Parent
    i'm more interested (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:26:47 AM EST
    in why we aren't seeing more discussion of the national polls from yesterday and today showing Obama tied or up 2.  We sure see a lot of coverage when those showing Obama up 6 or more come out.....

    Parent
    I am pretty interested (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:30:02 AM EST
    to see what the mega rally at the Brandenburg Gates is going to do.  will he get a bump or will people think its not quite right for a candidate to be holding mass rallies in other countries.
    I pick B.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:32:14 AM EST
    Despite the confident Obama supporter who posted on this site that the Brandenburg Gate speech was a "done deal," apparently it is not gonna happen.  Sound judgment, I'd say.

    Parent
    where ever it is (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:33:25 AM EST
    it will still be a mass rally.  the Obamans will love it.  other people, not so much I think.


    Parent
    He isn't doing the Gate anymore (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:33:04 AM EST
    due to objections from Chancellor Merkel. He will now be speaking at Berlin's Victory Column.

    LINK

    Parent

    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by pie on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:39:52 AM EST
    I thought Angela went to Bush to ask him what to do.

    Honestly, where do these people come up with this stuff?

    She had the last word after all.  I think it would have been a huge mistake for Obama's people to push this.  Actually, I'm not quite sure what they were thinking to suggest it without checking with the German government first.

    Parent

    For what it's worth (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:50:47 AM EST
    Here is a great article from the German press about the whole controversy and the interplay between German domestic politics and our own.

    Parent
    Thanks. And this is my complaint: (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by pie on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:16:48 PM EST
    Presidential campaign strategists take nothing more seriously than the backdrops that appear behind a candidate.

    I don't care about background or its significance.  I doubt most americans would realize the significance.

    I care about issues and problem-solving.  I think most of us do afterhavin to live in Bush's America.  I can't tell you what a turn off the pomp and circumstance is in this election.

    Yuk.

    Give me substance over pretty backgrounds, please.

    Parent

    yes but,.... (none / 0) (#101)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:45:27 PM EST
    The press cares about the backdrop and will report ad nausem on it, especially on cable.  The press will convince the viewers of the importance and that's how it helps the candidate.

    Even without the Brand. Gate in Germany, he will still get the huge rock start rally an dthe press will convince voters of how impressive and important that is...

    Parent

    Of course it mattered nary a whit.... (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:54:20 PM EST
    ...to the press when Bill Clinton was on the receiving end of that adulation abroad. In fact they managed to turn it into a bad thing. And then, when Europe was none to happy with Shrubby and his war mongering ways, that was somehow supposed to reflect well on his "leadership."

    Parent
    And to think he has a staff of 300 plus to handle (none / 0) (#66)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:41:06 AM EST
    his foreign affairs issues....

    Parent
    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by pie on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:44:05 AM EST
    Doesn't exactly give me a good feeling about him when he mimics Bush's poor diplomatic gestures.

    Parent
    I also read somewhere that Obama (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:55:43 AM EST
    has stopped using that new "presumptive presidential seal" he had created at the end of the primaries.    LOL

    Parent
    But "Vero Possumus" will live on. . . . (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:46:48 PM EST


    Parent
    lol (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:33:17 PM EST
    How that got past his handlers, I'll never be able to imagine.

    Obama hasn't won anything yet, but he or someone on his staff seriously needs that momento mori guy now.

    Parent

    Vero Possumus will give me perpetual joy (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Ellie on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 05:22:25 PM EST
    The seal, the time and BS that went into presenting the precious offering to the world: "It's my d!ck in a box!"

    The brisk movement to replace a government by tantrum (and goons) with the governance of a continually Miffed Leader (who never personally says why), Perpetually Outraged Subordinates On His Behalf, and swarms of txt-msg'ing Pesterers to bother people into weary submission to the message/flip flop du jour.

    True, they little Possums are inclined to behave like pests but maybe they're just really REALLY needy about wanting to be loved.

    Parent

    Ah, more for the menagerie (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 07:53:17 PM EST
    with "posh-bees"!  I love it: Perpetually Outraged Subordinates on His Behalf.  

    As ever, Ellie, your takes on this nonsense are a joy. :-)

    Parent

    Not just complaints from Merkel (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by angie on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:55:35 PM EST
    Complaints from the German people and the rest of Europe who, unlike Obama, seem to understand the difference between being a candidate for the Presidency of the US and actually being the President of the US. Furthermore, I'll give 10-1 odds that the new venue for his speech is going to seriously piss of the French -- not hard to do, granted, but still not too politically savvy. ;-)

    Parent
    do you suppose calmer heads could (none / 0) (#63)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:38:39 AM EST
    prevail and he could be convinced to cancel the "stadium rock start coronation" during the convention in Denver?

    Parent
    That's Be Awesome (none / 0) (#131)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 05:23:38 PM EST
    If he found the balls to call the Stadium Coronation off*, I. WILL. VOTE. FOR. HIM.

    After all, he'd really need my vote then because he'd have pissed of 70,000 people and the folks in the media who've been carrying his water all this while.

    *Yeah, Never. Gonna. Happen.

    Parent

    He'll definitely get my vote... (none / 0) (#73)
    by EL seattle on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:45:43 AM EST
    ... if they hire Bruno Ganz and Otto Sander to put on their dark overcoats one more time and hang out with Peter Falk in the crowd at the speech.

    Parent
    Right now (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:27:07 PM EST
    I would think the American public is more concerned with the problems at home. With the economic climate the way it is here right now, most people could care less about Germany! He should be here touting his economic package and dissing the Republican's for their responsibility in all this.

    Campaigning in Europe seems more like a place to hide right now rather than face the American people.

    Parent

    AP had an interesting poll today (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:33:02 PM EST
    On enthusiasm among voters for this election.

    It seems those pesky Independent voters are bored stiff by the whole thing:

    article about the polls:
    Indpendent, uninspired and undecided

    In other polling news today:

    Gallup: 45/44
    Ras: 47/46 (with leaners)

    Both within MOR.

    Taken altogether, Obama's support has considerable passion but not all that much width.  McCain has a equal width but is much more lukewarm.

    Parent

    CNN discussed a poll (none / 0) (#142)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 08:31:05 PM EST
    37% find Obama patriotic
    73% find McCain patriotic

    What that means, I don't know.  I must be an independent.  ho hum

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:38:55 PM EST
    I wonder how many of the people who called McCain unpatriotic are liberals.

    Parent
    Today's episode of.... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:38:21 AM EST
    it could be worse, we could live in England.  Link

    Un-freakin'-believable....this ain't a shoplifting case, it's a kidnapping for ransom case.

    and Today's episode of.... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:41:37 AM EST
    whats Doogie doing?

    Dr. Horrible

    The third webisode goes up tomorrow, and they are all free until Sunday.

    You should have mentioned (none / 0) (#115)
    by Fabian on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:16:29 PM EST
    "Joss Whedon".

    I had it running in the background and I heard the music and lyrics and thought "Gee, this really reminds me of Buffy "Once Again,With Feeling".".

    So I let it run through to the end and Joss Whedon pops up in the credits.  Not my imagination, after all.

    I love the internet.  :)

    Parent

    Meet the Robin Hood..... (none / 0) (#120)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 01:35:07 PM EST
    of gasoline.  Link

    Premium no less!

    New Zealand (none / 0) (#145)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:58:29 PM EST
    In court yesterday, Walker, who has Asperger's syndrome, a mild form of autism, smiled as he heard the prosecution describe how international investigators considered his programming to be 'amongst the most advanced' they had encountered.

    Judge Judith Potter described him as a young man with a bright future and ordered him to pay damages and costs of £5,500, but did not record a conviction.

    She said that Walker was immature and unable to set proper boundaries for himself in relation to his 'undoubted expertise' in computers.

    If he had been convicted, he could have faced five years' imprisonment on each of the charges.

    Both the prosecution and defence counsels said in court that police were interested in talking to him about a job 'on the right side of the law'.

    link via link

    Friday Morning Open Thread | 150 comments (150 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment