Saturday Morning Open Thread

Open threads are where you can post comments not germane to posts on particular topics. We delete off topic comments. Please keep it civil.

The is an Open Thread.

< Sunstein's Dangerous Advice to Obama | Code Pink, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi at Netroots Nation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Where Is The Discussion (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by flashman on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:50:33 AM EST
    About the move to scrub Hillary from the ballot at the DNC convention?  I've read numerous articles describing how 'damaging' it would be to Obama to have Hillary's delegates vote at the convention.  What a crock!  I'm sick of the thugishness from this campaign to put in every 'fix' imagniable.  This convention needs to be conducted in a conventional manner, and Hillary's delegates deserve the right to vote for her.  This is yet another arrogant power play from Obama's campaign.  It's just this sort of thing that pervents me ( and many others ) from getting behind him.

    BTW, I was dismayed to leard that Taylor Marsh supports this demonic move by the campaign.  I don't have the links just yet, but I'll provide them in the eventual discussion.

    Haven't been discussing it (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:55:57 AM EST
    Sen. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. We support him at TalkLeft. It's time to move forward. If you have a specific objection to Obama's policies or campaign, feel free to state it. If you just want to rant against him or level personal insults at him, please do it elsewhere.

    I think my objection is specific (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by flashman on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:14:04 AM EST
    The process IS important to bring the coalition together.  Continued attempts to 'fix' the process will backfire, IMO.  Further, I feel strongly, as do many others in the coalition, that the 'unity' campaign continues to manipulate the process to exclude some.  This is a great example, and just might be a good insight to how him administration might be conducted.  I feel more and more alienated by these moves.

    Hillary deserves to be on the ballot. Her supporters deserve to be able to cast their vote.  I cannot get behind a rigged process.  Maybe your're right, I might not belong in a group that prohibits and criticism of the 'supposed' candidate.  I only support groups that enourage discussion and debate and welcomes informed, well tought-out opinion.  I can't support any group that contaminated by the very mentality that we previously railed against.


    It's Over (2.00 / 4) (#54)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:37:35 PM EST
    I am sure that you would like to see Obama humiliated, but the flip side is that Hillary gets humiliated. No point to it, it is over and Obama is our nominee.

    I do not see how any outcome of your proposal would allow you to save face and drop the inconsolable act.


    It's a Nomination, Not a Coronation (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by flashman on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:58:32 PM EST
    Hillary deserves to be on the ballot.  Need I go over all the reasons again?  Also, her supporters deserve to vote, chear... whatever for her!  People worked very hard for this; they need it.  For her and her supporters, this is no less than another kick in the teeth by a contingent of the party who whined about her being in the race, whined about imaginary racism, whined about Super Delegates and now wants to pervert the process that has been a tradition over many campaigns.  Democratic party?  I think not.

    If Obama is so worried he will be humilated, then he should not have run in the first place.  Why should the rules be changed for one candidate?  What makes him more special than Kerry, Gore, Clinton, etc?  Why should anyone who is shoved aside support him?  This is not the way to unify the party.  Once again, large swaths of the party is told they are irrelavant.  It's "We don't need you, we can win with a NEW coalition" all over again.

    For those who want this to be over, tell the campaign to stop opening the wounds all over again.


    What Are You Pining For? (2.66 / 3) (#62)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 02:04:35 PM EST
    ANd what possible outcome where Obama is the nominee will mitigate your inconsolable state?

    Whatever happens at the convention, one thing for sure, is that the adults will be in charge with the single idea of bringing the party together. Hillary is one of them and will undoubtedly be part of how this is played out.


    I'm Pining For A Democratic Process (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by flashman on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 02:12:09 PM EST
    in the Democratic party.  If the process is so manipulated, then it's nothing more than a circus.  That will further divide the pary, not bring it together.  Hillary will do what she believe is the right thing, she's been disrespected so many times already, and has shown class at every step.  The right way to bring the party together is to include everyone.  Those excluded have ever right to take whatever actions they deem fit.

    People will not be bullied into supporting the party.  Niethe will they be intimidated or shamed.  This is a losing strategy, and why I and other remain on the sidelines.  Get back to me when you find a way to include the rest of us.


    You Have Been Included (2.66 / 3) (#66)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 02:18:46 PM EST
    But are threatening to take your toys home.

    How do you see the democratic process playing out, so that you  wind up feeling included?

    From what you are saying the only way you would feel included is if Hillary wins the nomination, no?


    No (4.00 / 3) (#67)
    by flashman on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 02:20:01 PM EST
    I've said over and over that SHE NEEDS TO BE ON THE BALLOT.  Try reading, it's very easy.

    So If She Is On The Ballot (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 02:26:26 PM EST
    And Obama is named the official nominee, you would get behind the nominee?

    I Might (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by flashman on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 02:30:16 PM EST
    if, by dropping this absurd demand, that signals his commitment to including everyone and following time-honored traditions, which btw, have a very real purpose.  IMO, he needs to discontinue 'fixing' every process to his advantage.  This would be a very good first step.

    Please clarify (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:01:27 PM EST
    So, is convention procedure an out-of-bounds topic?  Or just the nominating procedures?

    I can see the part of flashman's comment qualifying as insulting -- 'crock' and 'demonic' (although the latter was aimed at TM, not BO), but the issue he (I'm guessing 'he') brings up is part of the political process.  And much of it is aimed at the DNC, not Obama specifically.  Just like the many discussions of the defects of caucuses or how delegates are apportioned in primary states, this is a procedural point which has substantive impact on the election.  

    I'm just trying to find out where the line is.


    I suspect this topic is getting (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:31:14 PM EST
    treatment similar to discussing, at one time, "a certain pastor."  The ban on discussing the latter topic gradually eroded.  I'm hoping the ban on discussing the former will also dissolve.

    I Guess I Missed The Topic Getting Banned (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by flashman on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:36:17 PM EST
    and I admit I've been taking some time off since the end of the primary.  The election is beginning to bore the h**l out of me.  But if we're banning real and facutal topics now, I'm afraid I'll have to pull my support from the site.  That's unfortuante.

    I haven't seen a formal proclamation of (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:57:50 PM EST
    banning but have noticed the FPers aren't discussing it as Clinton is so yesterday.

    I haven't either, that's why I asked for (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 02:12:23 PM EST

    My understanding of the comments policy is something like this:

    "Obama is a big jerk for not letting Clinton's name into nomination"  -- violates policy, insulting to Obama.

    "The DNC is making a mistake by not putting Clinton's name into nomination because they alienate voters by breaking their own traditions" -- ok

    If that's changed or I've misunderstood, I'd like to understand what the correct or new policy is.


    Except Nobody Called Obama A Jerk (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by flashman on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 02:24:09 PM EST
    I said that the IDEA that having Hillary on the ballot humiliates Obama is a crock ( i.e. false, imaginary, made-up, exaggerated )  There was no personal insult in the posting.  I think we've just gotten too sensitive 'round here.

    Yes, I agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 02:30:00 PM EST
    My examples weren't trying to summarize your original post, but demonstrate where the line is (or where I think it is).

    nothing is out of bounds (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:31:14 PM EST
    for discussion on an open thread. It's just that the usual rules against name-calling, personal attacks, chattering etc. still apply.

    If this is what you want to discuss, go for it. That's what open thread means. If others are interested in discussing it, there will be comments. If they aren't, other topics will dominate the thread.


    With all due respect I'm now confused what an open (none / 0) (#15)
    by Saul on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:21:08 AM EST
    thread is.  Just above this was posted and agreed too.

    So here is an open thread where you can make any kind of comment you want to make. It's because off-topic comments are deleted from the other threads that open threads like this one exist.

    obviously (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:20:04 PM EST
    that refers to topics of the comments, not the content, which must abide by site rules.

    And the comment (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:07:23 PM EST
    was about the nomination process and rules of our convention. Never before has a contender not been able to have their votes cast, until possibly now.
    I accept that Obama will be the nominee unless there is disaster. But there is no reason to not follow the time-honored tradition of actually having the vote.
    Obama wants to be the nom by acclamation, and not to bother with the fact that he had some great competition. If he's worried about the SDs, well he just has to worry.

    Not against TL guidelines to discuss Dem PArty rules and the Convention.


    Answer (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by DYBO on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:21:16 PM EST
    There's no discussion, because there's no such "movement to scrub Clinton."  Dean made that clear in an interview earlier this week in which he stated that her name would be put in nomination, and she will speak.  

    No. That is not what Dean said (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 08:53:44 PM EST
    from the quote I saw.  He said her name would be on the ballot.  That is not the same as having her name put in nomination.  I will spare others here the explanation of what happens next in each case, as you can look it up -- before you try to shut down discussion again of what remains unresolved as to what will happen at the convention.

    Thus........ (4.00 / 3) (#79)
    by DYBO on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:25:40 PM EST
    ....it appears that the comment was just a gratuitous Obama-bashing with no basis in reality.  That's against the rules, IMHO.

    Good Lord (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by flashman on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:43:22 PM EST
    Read about it here and here.  We are not in the habit of keepign our heads in the sand.  These people are out of hand.  What's gratuitious is that they think we should stand for it.

    McSame Supporters? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:50:01 PM EST
    When asked about the ads criticizing him and Speaker Pelosi for Clinton supposedly not being on the ballot at the convention, he scoffed. Clinton will be on the ballot at the convention, and will be speaking there. Dean indicated that the rules were so clear on this matter, that the groups running these ads and spreading these rumors must be associated with the other internet rumors going around, such as Obama being a Muslim. He also speculated that McCain supporters might be behind these rumors.

    Chris Bowers


    Absurd (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by flashman on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:55:55 PM EST
    So, Donna Brazile is a McCain supporter now.

    The problem is "there's a strong feeling" that Sen. Clinton's delegates need the chance to vote for her, Mr. Devine said. Many are still angry with a party decision that they feel deprived her of delegates from Michigan and Florida. "You don't want a situation where anybody feels they've been cheated," he said.

    A second option would be for Sen. Clinton to be nominated, complete with laudatory speeches and happy floor demonstrations. By prearrangement, Sen. Clinton then would take her name out of consideration and endorse Sen. Obama's nomination.

    "There's nothing symbolically wrong to putting her name in," followed by a scripted withdrawal, said Ms. Brazile. But the spectacle of a rapturous welcome for Sen. Clinton would be irresistible to television and could embarrass Sen. Obama.

    Has this woman no shame?


    And Yes (2.00 / 0) (#91)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:05:18 PM EST
    At this point I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Brazile is a McCain supporter. It would explain a lot, imo.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:01:24 PM EST
    What does that have to do with the fact that Hillary is going to be on the ballot at the DNC?

    Or do you think Chris Bowers and/or Howard Dean is lying?

    Or are you just providing a unlinked non sequitur?


    Non Sequitur? (none / 0) (#97)
    by flashman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:37:39 AM EST
    The links show exactly what I've been talking about.  I have no idea what you're trying to say.  Once again, I suggest reading.

    Glad To See A Satisfied Customer (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:42:37 AM EST
    Another Non Sequiter (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by flashman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:52:36 AM EST
    Sen. Clinton's campaign office didn't answer emails seeking comment.  Under party rules, Sen. Clinton's huge delegate count gives her the right to put her name into nomination. "But do you do it?" asked Ms. Brazile.  "Politically, does it heighten tensions?"

    Do you do it?  Is she freeking nuts?  I'll say it again, nobody has the right to even suggest she not by on the ballot.


    Yup (none / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:58:57 AM EST
    Considering that is nonsense.

    More Nonsense (none / 0) (#102)
    by flashman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:14:42 AM EST
    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.

    Now, that's Craig Crawford, Donna Brazile, Taylor Marsh, none of whom are McCain supporters.  Don't tell me there isn't a movement.


    Seriously? (none / 0) (#103)
    by DYBO on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:20:00 AM EST
    This is what Brazile is reported to have said:

    "There's nothing symbolically wrong to putting her name in," followed by a scripted withdrawal, said Ms. Brazile.

    What's the controversy?  That's the way it's been at every Democratic convention in modern history.

    Some folks are contriving a controversy as a foundation for gratuitous bashing.


    What? (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by flashman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:27:36 AM EST
    That is NOT the way it's been at ever convention.  That is not the way a legitimate convention is conducted.  It's a joke.  The only way to have a legitimate candidate is to nominate using a legitimate process.  Folks want a legitimate nomination process.  It's not about bashing; it's about not turning the convention into a circus.  If Obama wants to be a legitimate candidate, then he needs to be nominated in a fair and honest way.

    Nostalgia? (none / 0) (#109)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:37:16 AM EST
    Today, the party's presidential nominee is chosen in a series of individual state caucuses and primary elections. Superdelegates, delegates whose votes are not bound to the outcome of a state's caucus or primary, may also influence the nomination. Due to the scheduling of caucuses and primary elections early in the election year, the party's presidential nominee is usually known months before the Democratic National Convention. Historically, however, the party's choice of the presidential nominee was usually not known until the last evening of the convention. The choice was an often contentious debate that riled the passions of party leaders. Delegates were forced to vote for a nominee repeatedly until someone could capture a minimum number of delegates needed.


    The nature of Democratic (and Republican) conventions have changed considerably since 1972. Every 4 years, the nominees are essentially selected earlier and earlier in the year, so the conventions now officially ratify the nominees instead of choose them. The 1980 convention was the last convention for the Democrats that had even a sliver of doubt about who the nominee would be.



    Living In The Past, Are We? (none / 0) (#112)
    by flashman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:00:47 AM EST
    Do I really need to remind you that this primary election is razor thin close?  Or that Super Delegates have to settle the question, since neither candidate was able to aquire a simple majority of the delegates?  

    BTW, the question I responded to what this balony about having a "scripted withdrawal"  You're message does not do one daggon thing to address that.


    Was Razor Thin (none / 0) (#113)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:24:59 PM EST
    Is more apt. Dream on though, nostalgia at this point, imo.

    I will take Dean's word over Taylor Marsh and Donna Brazile.

    Clinton will be on the ballot at the convention, and will be speaking there. Dean indicated that the rules were so clear on this matter...

    Dream About A Ligit Democratic Process? (none / 0) (#116)
    by flashman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:48:55 PM EST
    I don't believe Dean.  He has shown to be dishonest and ineffective.  Why did the RBC run him over during the primary?  Dean and the DNC will do anything to fix the process.

    Clearly (none / 0) (#119)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:00:48 PM EST
    You couldn't care less about whether Hillary is on the ballot or not. It appears that have decided that no matter what Obama is an illegitimate candidate.

    Sorry that I took you seriously and thought that if this issue was properly resolved it would assuage your disgust, pain or whatever it is you are holding on to.


    I Care About Just The Very Think I Said (none / 0) (#121)
    by flashman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:10:16 PM EST
    Why do you need to act like such a child and make stuff up?  You're opinion of what I care about is irrelevant, and quite uninformed.  Clearly, you have no qualms about makeing comments on things you have no informaion or baises.  You are being dishonest making those personal comments.  Why do you deny direct quotes from Obama's campaing and RBC?  If Obama's campaign isn't trying to fix the convention, then why doesn't he come out and tell us that he will follow the rules?  He hasn't done that.  I've told you over and over what will satisfy me.  To continue to say otherwise it blantent dishonesty on your part.

    Someone Is Winding YOu Up (none / 0) (#127)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:15:36 PM EST
    I believe that you are being played, or you are tormenting yourself for no apparent reason. There is no reason to believe that this Democratic convention is going to be any different from any convention that we have had for the last 25 years or more.

    There is not a grey area about how the process works.  Hillary will be on the ballot and defeated. The nominee has already been selected the vote is a formality. Why you would expect anything other than this seems crazy to me.


    When Obama's Campaign (none / 0) (#132)
    by flashman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 07:50:43 PM EST
    makes a statement to that, then I might believe it.  But they are attempting an underhanded move to have only himslef on the ballot.  He will not be a legitimate nominee if that's the case.

    Whe won't he make the statement?  That would solve it, but he won't.  He is being foolish, arrogant and eletist.


    Last Word (none / 0) (#123)
    by flashman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:33:37 PM EST
    I'm not going to continue to take personal comments from you.  It's clear that you, as most of O's supporters, can only hurl personal comments as a substitute for discussion of the issue.  My last word comes dirctly from Obama's campaign:

    The Obama campaign said Monday that the Illinois senator would accept the nomination at the 76,000-seat stadium where the Denver Broncos football team plays so that thousands of nondelegates could attend. But the campaign hasn't settled other key questions about the convention, including whether Sen. Clinton's name will be put into nomination, said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

    Until this campaign makes a statement that the convention will be conducted in accordance with the rules, and that the ballot will be fair and honest, he has not earned my support, or the support of countless others who are getting tired of the process being perpetually fixed.


    Dean Has Cleared It Up For You (none / 0) (#128)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:17:23 PM EST
    But you refuse to believe it. Your choice.

    You're wrong (none / 0) (#125)
    by DYBO on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:03:27 PM EST
    I can't even remember the last time a convention decided the nominee - except for Ford against Reagan in 1976.

    The modern convention is, in fact, a coronation of the person that won the primaries.

    And what Brazile said is simply a statement of that fact.


    And Obama won (none / 0) (#126)
    by DYBO on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:06:14 PM EST
    That's another fact.

    How many of those you referencing (none / 0) (#133)
    by flashman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:55:45 PM EST
    was decided by SD's?  How many were close enough to even warrent a vote?  There have been many conventions where the candidate was decided.  The 1960 saw several that did.  How many of the campaigns since then had such a divided party?  Hillary has every right and deserves to have her nomination put forward.  If Obama resists that, then we see him as nothing more than crook, trying to rig the process.

    Is there a link to that interview? (none / 0) (#82)
    by EL seattle on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:12:52 PM EST
    Or a name of the newpaper/magazine/TV/radion source?  I find that it's usually easiest to end a he-said/she-said sort of arguement with a link or some sort of direct source attribution.

    Look again (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by DYBO on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 08:51:06 PM EST
    Squeaky provided a link to an interview.  Dean also made the same comment in a speech to Netroots Nation, but that event is not well-covered by mainstream media.

    There is no credible or substantial "movement" to suppress Hillary at the convention.  Speculation of that is gratuitous Obama-bashing not allowed on TalkLeft - IMHO.  That is what provoked Jeralyn to admonish the commentor.


    Read My Links (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by flashman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:40:45 AM EST
    They show a move to take Hillary off the ballot.  These aren't my words, they are the words coming from Donna Brazlie.  Jeralyn haw not admonished the commentor.  She clearly stated this is a valid topic of discussion.  There's no point in writing things that are so easily disproven.

    Wrong (none / 0) (#104)
    by DYBO on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:21:50 AM EST
    They are speculations by writers, with no specific facts about an organized effort.

    They have direct quotes. (none / 0) (#107)
    by flashman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:28:55 AM EST
    Not speculations.

    Look again (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by DYBO on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 02:00:06 PM EST
    The "quote" you are probably thinking of is outside Brazile's quote.

    What Brazile said is just a statement of fact in regard to the way conventions operate.  The writer followed it with his or her own opinion.

    There are no substantive facts on which to infer that there is an organized effort to suppress Clinton at the convention.  

    This is just contrived Obama-bashing.  


    Opinions (none / 0) (#110)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:40:43 AM EST
    Not rules or facts. Dean stated the facts and the rules, but it is much more fun for you to work your self up into a lather about what Brazile's opinion is.

    You got what you wanted. But you are still inconsolable.


    This Isn't Settled (none / 0) (#111)
    by flashman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:55:09 AM EST
    Dean doesn't know what's going on.  He wasn't able to settle the questions of FL and MI in any reasonable way.  He won't be able to settle this either.  Why is Obama's campaign opposed to a role call?  Why is Donna and the RBC trying to put in the fix?  What are they afraid of?

    Huh? (none / 0) (#114)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:29:53 PM EST
    Clinton will be on the ballot at the convention, and will be speaking there. Dean indicated that the rules were so clear on this matter...

    To believe something you supposedly do not want to hear by Donna Brazile and Taylor Marsh who are spouting their opinion, over Howard Dean's statement of fact, something you supposedly want to hear, seems twisted. Sounds like you are playing out a victim role here, for no apparent reason.


    This is the same Howard Dean (none / 0) (#115)
    by flashman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:42:41 PM EST
    that allowed votes to be stolen from one candidate and gifted to another candidate who didn't earn them.  Also remember that Donna Brizile was instrumental in propagating this travesty.  On the question of Dean's honesty:

    Feldman, who says she has raised about $100,000 for Clinton, has turned her prowess to raising money for advertising demanding a convention vote, and she has teamed with a fellow pro-Clinton blogger, Marc Rubin, to form the Denver Group to lobby the Democratic National Committee, much of the staff of which has already moved from Washington to Chicago to work for Obama

    Dean is being dishonest about who is advertising.  These are not McCain supporters.

    I'm guessing you're not answering my questions because that too would embarasse your candidate.  New Kind of politics: Democracy is less important than advoiding embarassment.


    Embarrass My Candidate? (none / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:55:04 PM EST
    lol. Sorry not in your ballfield. Sounds gradeschool to me.

    Well, You Continue To Dodge The Questions (none / 0) (#118)
    by flashman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 12:58:30 PM EST
    Speaks volumns to me.  The whole issue came up because to advoid Obama being embarassed.

    I Could Care Less (none / 0) (#120)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    About whether or not Obama is embarrassed. Your questions are what? Asking me what I think of Taylor Marsh or Donna Brazile's opinions.

    I have already answered that.


    My questions are on this thread (none / 0) (#122)
    by flashman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 01:15:03 PM EST
    The whole issue is that Obama is embarassed by having a real process.

    That Is Your Opinion (none / 0) (#129)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 04:20:58 PM EST
    And quite out there, imo.  Obama has won the nomination, Hillary is supporting him, why would he be embarrassed?

    Do you think that he is worried that the delegates and SD's are all of a sudden have an epiphany and vote for Hillary?


    Obama Has NOT Won The Nomination (none / 0) (#131)
    by flashman on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 07:45:57 PM EST
    You're the one who is out there.  I don't know why Obama won't let the process work.  That's what I've been asking, and you've been avoiding.  I think he does it out of arrogance and eletism, IMO.

    Thanks to squeaky... (2.00 / 0) (#96)
    by EL seattle on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:58:33 PM EST
    .. for following up on this and providing the Dean link for this thread. (#87)

    I hope at some point, Netroots Nation will be able to provide transcripts of their events.  It would be a pity if presentations by people like Gore, Pelosi, and Dean aren't archived in anything other than blog accounts.


    I now have DSL.

    Fear me and get outta my way!! while I speed around the internets!

    Welcome To the 20th Century (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by flashman on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:05:04 PM EST

    it's fun (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:34:40 PM EST
    I've been able to turn on images for the first time in years.

    This is the first time I've ever seen what TalkLeft looks like, for one.

    And my browser no longer crashes while trying to do online transactions.

    The downside: I'm not getting as much done. I used to do the dishes or run to the store or whatever while a page loaded. Now --- poof! It's done.


    Whatever you do (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    do not go to youtube and look up your favorite musical artists or songs.  Total time waste, but fun!  Not only can you see talented people cover songs, but you can see the untalented do the same!  My personal favorite is Leonard Cohen covers.  My son is fond of Devo.  

    I'm still not sure what it means when a six year old's first musical and music video crush is Devo.  


    oh gawd, *love* Devo! (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:12:17 PM EST
    Even believe in devo(lution).

    How embarrassing is that?


    I didn't think they were (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:38:46 PM EST
    that good musically until I got to listen them a lot.  The lyrics are definitely above average.  Freedom of choice/freedom from choice?  Not exactly Young Romance!

    The funny thing is that I looked for covers of Devo tunes and the only thing I found was some  middle school kids re-enacting the Whip It video.  If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, what does it mean if no one copies you?


    ... stuff is that way. The roots of both were pretty much entirely intellectual, in addition to being anti-establishment, etc.

    As a former punkette (of sorts) who lived in San Francisco at the beginning and height of it, I can testify it was a bunch of eggheads behind most of it, despite appearances.


    Nature Notes: Birth and Death (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:20:22 PM EST
    We have Cooper's hawks around again.  The family whistles and calls to each other for a couple hours from predawn to dawn.   I also discovered a cardinal nest right outside the kitchen window.  It was there for weeks before then, because I could hear the cardinals cherking to each then.

    I began to realize I hadn't seen the male cardinal in days and that I hadn't heard any calling either.  Cooper's hawks are bird hawks.  All birds of prey specialize, and Cooper's take other birds on the wing.  I think the female cardinal is a single mother now.  So I'm a little sad about it.

    It could be worse though.  Last year the wrens were making a total ruckus.  A jay was raiding their nests and they lost their nestlings.  I was a bit put out.  I had put several wren nest boxes up that they had chosen not to use.  Good nest boxes are predator resistant.

    The long, barred tail is probably the best identifying feature of a Cooper's hawk.  They are birds of trees, not open fields so it's hard to get a good look at them.  The annoying thing is that the call matches a sharp-shinned hawk, but the bird we see is not "blue jay or pigeon sized" but larger.    

    The past few weeks ... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:25:25 PM EST
    at my new place, I've been enjoying juvenile cardinals. The first week, mama and papa were feeding them, even though they were almost full size.

    It was very amusing.

    And it's been fun to watch them grow up. They're now fully on their own --- which reminds me, I need to fill the cardinal feeder.

    I never had Cooper's at my other place, only red-tailed. But they're mighty enough as it is - for the last couple of years, they've been keeping a nest in a big oak in my yard area. They've come after me a few times, and I caught one scheming on my hound when she was still fairly small. Needless to say, I chased him away before he carried her off.


    I grew up with red tail hawks. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Fabian on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:50:23 PM EST
    They are beefy compared to the Cooper's but when a Cooper's wings past, they are big enough to make an impression.  A red tailed takes rabbits and such, which takes a little more oomph than swooping down on a sparrow.

    Wow Squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by blogtopus on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:22:16 PM EST
    Following your strawman / slippery slope argument, do you think that Americans should all just STFU and do whatever they're told to do?

    Throttle back on the caffeine, a tad bit.

    Jeralyn has her own opinion- and it is her site, so it is TL's official position that Obama is the Dem nominee.

    That said, Obama is NOT YET the dem nominee, technically, and it seems that the DNC and the O campaign seem to be so mortified by the POSSIBILITY, however small, of a delegate revolt at the convention that they are willing to appear draconian and petty just so they feel better in their widdle biddy hearts.

    It seems a very strange thing to, on one hand, totally downplay the power the erstwhile Hillary supporters have, while simultaneously cowering from some strange fear that those same voters will somehow rally together to wrest the nomination from Obama in August. It makes no sense.

    Unless, of course, you couple that with the cordoned-off PROTEST AREAS in Denver, and you have an exceedingly insecure group of party leaders, clutching at their nomination while the telltale heart of its party base beats on and on under the convention hall floor.

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:28:17 PM EST
    Strawman? Nonsense. The analogy was accurate and to the point. An open thread is a place to freely comment on whatever you are thinking, reading, or want to discuss. Totally free space to comment, but subject to TL comment rules. Break the rules and you suffer the consequences.

    Move-on email (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by blogtopus on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:27:26 PM EST
    Just got a very personal message from Eli P. with MoveOn (heh) pointing out just how silly McCain and Bush are for telling people that by thinking happy thoughts all of our problems will go away.

    Um. How is that different than telling people that embracing some nebulous form of change will make all of our problems go away?

    If MoveOn's message is about Actions, Not Words, then they have a lot of self-examination to do. I advise using a mirror to get to all those hard-to-see places (like your forehead).

    One of our own from TL shares her (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 07:48:05 PM EST


    Well (3.00 / 2) (#77)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 03:17:20 PM EST
    Maybe when you feel the pain, which you express but deny, then you will be able to move on. Seems like there must be a way out where you do not have to lose face.

    Hillary is a great example, imo. But she is a pol after all, so it is not surprising that she is doing the right thing.

    That's just silly. (1.00 / 0) (#24)
    by EL seattle on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:18:07 PM EST
    "Open Thread" may be a generic sort of expression, but it's reasonable for a board to have some rules for it.  For instance, even if a comment stream was entirely appropriate to this site, if the person(s) making the post were writing everything in Spanish or Russian or any other language that's unfamiliar to the rest of the folks here, it would certainly be a sensible use of their power to delete these comments without hiring translators beforehand.

    top of the morning to ya (none / 0) (#1)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:25:43 AM EST
    I'm going out and playing. So there.

    One question BTD. You said:

    Open threads are where you can post comments not germane to posts on particular topics. We delete off topic comments.

    OK, so I'm officially confused. But I hope this off topic post in an open thread isn't deleted. :-)

    OK, so topics. I need to get a tractor. Anyone have preferences. I like both green and orange (John Deere and Kubota). I'm thinking 30hp is enough, but I may go to around 40hp. Anyone out there with tractor experience? Why do I feel like I'm on the Green Acres show? Oh yea, because I'm out in the country and have no idea what I'm doing. LOL

    There is no subject in an Open Thread (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:27:07 AM EST
    By definition there can be no off topic comments in an Open Thread.

    Your confusion is not explicable to me.


    it's a joke based on what you said BTD (none / 0) (#3)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:30:54 AM EST
    I should have put a snark there. I understood what you were saying, but I took advantage of what I perceived as a clumsy way of saying it. Ha, I guess I was clumsy. :-)

    Why was it clumsy? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:46:11 AM EST
    off topic will be deleted didn't specify not here (none / 0) (#48)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:21:30 PM EST
    Palomino in comment #4 got at the clumsiness a bit. In a nutshell, one reading or interpretation of the post text could be: Open threads are where you can post off topic comments. Off topic comments will be deleted. Yes, I know you meant off topic comments are deleted from non open threads and so here is where you off topic folks can get stuff off your chest. But you didn't specify where off topic comments will be deleted, so it could be here also. I think everyone knew what you meant, as did I, but the wording just tickled my funny bone.

    Tractors are terrific toys. (none / 0) (#5)
    by misspeach2008 on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:39:39 AM EST
    Get one with as many gadgets as you can afford. I learned to drive my dad's tractor when I was 12. I have no idea how many hp it had, but it was huge. I liked to try my hand at "circular farming".

    My Favorite Toys (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by flashman on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:55:47 AM EST
    It's rare to hear someone talking about tractors.  I love them!  I have a 1941 Ford/Ferguson, and a 1961 Case backhoe/loader.  When I bought these wonderful machines, I though I would be living on a farm.  Unfortunately, I haven't been able to make that move, so I have them in my backyard, to the chragirn of my neighbors :)  I have found a few uses for them in rennovating my 60 year old house.  They are mostly for my entertainment though.  I yearn for more roon to drive them.

    Massey Ferguson Kind of a Man (none / 0) (#19)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:52:26 AM EST
    Their advertising jingle is forever etched in the musical memory of every midwesterner, I'm certain of it.

    Oh, a Case (wo)man! (none / 0) (#29)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:27:14 PM EST
    Whereas Prius and _____ (insert fashionable item) are just the things, elsewhere, there is no greater status symbol in these parts than a Case!



    A Case MAN, actually (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by flashman on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:59:29 PM EST
    The first name in backhoe/loaders, IMO.  I wanted a vintage Case for years, finally found one in my budget.  I have alot of hydraulic leaks right not.  Hopefully, I can get it in my garage soon and begin the restoration :)

    BTW (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by flashman on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    I want to share with you a little trick I came up with to start my Case in the middle of Winter.  I read alot of blogs about this subject, and it seems that most believe you have to keep your old diesel tractors indoors in the Winter.  Although my old case lacks glo-plugs, I can start it in any temperature without using starter fluid.  What I do is: I attach an aluminum dryer exhaust hose to my 45,000 btu portable kerosine barn heater.  I then shove the other end into the engine compartment, and cover it with blankets to keep the heat in ( CAUTION:  Dont' let flammable blankets touch the exhaust hose; it get's VERY hot )  I fire up the heater, and after about 20 minutes, the old girl fires right up :)

    that's what I keep hearing (none / 0) (#6)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:42:28 AM EST
    is figure out who much power you need, say 30 to 40 hp, and then add 10 to that. Hmmm, more pondering. As for attachments, yes, there are zillions of good ones. But they have standards and you can add them any time. In fact, you can even rent attachments. So I'll get just what I need now and get others as I need them.

    Easy (none / 0) (#13)
    by cmugirl on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:09:17 AM EST
    Go with the American brand.

    But (none / 0) (#18)
    by flashman on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:42:11 AM EST
    Kubota makes great tractors.

    Case (none / 0) (#20)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:54:45 AM EST
    You can never go wrong with a Case.

    If you can find one.

    Just sayin'!


    So does John Deere (none / 0) (#40)
    by cmugirl on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:50:38 PM EST
    Grew up in Detroit and my grandfather worked on the line for Fisher Body.  Can't ever imagine buying a Japanese, German, or other type of car.  My family has had over 50 cars - including 2 work vans my dad had (Chevy) that each got over 150,000 miles.  The one time they went off the script and got a foreign car - a Toyota Camry - it was a complete piece of junk. I don't buy that nowadays there is a huge difference in quality - I think it's a perception that will take a generation to erase.  My whole extended family drives American - I don't know of any major problem anybody has had with their cars.  And 95% of all GM cars get at least 30 miles to the gallon.

    Yes, I know the parts are made all over the world, but I am xenophobic enough that I prefer the profits going to Detroit and into American communities as opposed to going to Tokyo or Frankfurt.  I also know that now those companies have plants here that are hiring American workers, but they aren't unionized and if we weren't buying them, those American workers would be working for American companies.

    Ok, my rant is over.  Sorry - you may now resume the rest of the thread.


    How about making an electric tractor? (none / 0) (#7)
    by nycstray on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:45:19 AM EST
    Some smaller farmers are converting old ones. I looked this up because my farmer said something about plugging in their old Allis Chalmers and I was like "whaaaat?" Clueless city girl here :)

    I would think the problem (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by flashman on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:30:46 AM EST
    Would be a lack of decent range.  You just can't get alot of energy out of batteries, and that's why so-called "hybrids" are so popular.  All-electric vehicles suffer from poor range.

    I've been looking at converting a motorcycle to all-electric, but every conversion I've looked at so far don't have the range I need to commute to work.  Maybe my company will allow me to plug in at work to recharge for the trip home :)


    I think on a small farm (none / 0) (#73)
    by nycstray on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 02:38:47 PM EST
    they are getting enough out of them. The farm I get my produce from referred to it as their cultivating tractor. It sounds like it cut down on their weeding last week. I skipped the garlic harvest today (heat whimp!), so I won't get a chance to check it out until a later event there.

    exactly (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 10:53:21 AM EST
    great explanation for open threads. Thanks.

    excellent replies, thanks (none / 0) (#55)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:38:15 PM EST
    I'm leaning towards those two brands simply because they're the closest. Nothing like service departments near by. I do like the American brand issue. Whenever possible I do like to buy local. Though like BTD I'm a bit of a free trader. I am happy getting all sorts of things from other lands, of course hoping many from another countries feel the same. I can't very well say otherwise while I ride a BMW motorcycle. :-)

    But I think I'll go with the John Deere in this case. Just my leaning right now. And I think I'm going with something in the 3000 line. But I might move up to the 4000 line. We'll see. More playing with them at the dealer, which is quite fun all by itself. Go out and test ride a big tractor today, you'll have fun.

    Interesting side note, most of the new tractors take the new ultra low sulphur diesel, which means you can get it at gas stations as they're all converted. The bad news here is that lots of farmers have older equipment and will soon be using two different types of fuel (for old and new equipment) which will be a hassle. And even worse when the non low sulphur gets harder and harder to get. It can be difficult making those transitions though they're the right ones to make.


    BTD (none / 0) (#17)
    by Salo on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 11:37:55 AM EST
    just did a quick tour of the Dark Side and they have been waiting for the current clash about Iraq.  
    They certainly anticipated their own attempt to rehabilitate their war.

    will it work or not, who knows?

    Serious Question (none / 0) (#32)
    by coolit on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:28:34 PM EST
    Why was noquarter taken off as a link on the right side of the screen?

    I can not answer that question (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:30:05 PM EST
    But I can say I would have done it because of the type of posts No Quarter.

    why that blog? (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by coolit on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:33:17 PM EST
    and not americablog, huffingtonpost, or other such blogs that seem equally as hostile?  I had thought that the 'liberal' blogs had some sort of truce to not abandon each other during this difficult election season.

    I would have taken them of f too (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:12:41 PM EST
    But it is not my blogroll.

    now that is fair (none / 0) (#57)
    by coolit on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:40:44 PM EST
    and consistent.

    thank you


    Coolit....I was wondering that same thing (none / 0) (#36)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:35:49 PM EST
    myself....I guess dissenting opinions on obama are not allowed anywhere anymore....

    It is kind of strange.... (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by coolit on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:42:02 PM EST
    why say, 'my dissent is ok, but someone else's is not?'  

    It will be a long time before we can look back and see the 'truth' behind Obama.  So let's just hear everyone's opinion and let each person decide how they feel.

    Or.... just say, 'I don't like anyone that differs than me.'  Which is what most blogs have become.  It's kind of like group think.

    But this picking and choosing which dissenting opinion is acceptable... I don't get it


    I've been watching ... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:48:44 PM EST
    ... this exact same argument going on at a homesteading forum.

    Of course, in that case, it's about five homesteading forums all battling each other at the forum in question and carrying over arguments that have been going on since 2003, by my count.

    Arguments by the exact same people, I might add.


    Lordy, it's fun to watch!


    I removed it last night (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 04:36:29 PM EST
    I was cleaning the blogroll of sites that have gone dormant and not posted in months. I removed No Quarter because of the constant personal (as opposed to policy) attacks on Obama. They will be back after the election is over.

    Interesting tidbit: (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 01:35:34 PM EST
    Interesting... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by EL seattle on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 02:18:11 PM EST
    According to this link,

    "The respected blogger Marc Ambinder of TheAtlantic.com is reporting tonight that a company associated with Clinton's top advance team leaders, the Markham Group, purchased that domain name on June 8."

    That's Marc Ambinder of TheAtlantic.com.  Not Marc Ambiner of Atlantic.com, or Marc Ambiner of AtlanticMagazine.com, or Marc Ambiner of TheAtlanticMagazine.com.

    The story goes on to say:

    "Come 2012 Clinton would have to choose which race she'd enter. Two years ago in her first Senate reelection bid, her main website was HillaryClinton.com, which she still has. Plus HillPac.com for her political action committee and another one for her '08 campaign debt donations.
    So why would she need another website with 2012 in it, unless.... "

    Unless... there are many possible reasons that someone might want to control more than one domain name.  There isn't always one easy shady answer to everything.


    I have 4 domain names (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by nycstray on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 02:44:12 PM EST
    all that could be a shoot off of my business name.  And I buy both .org and .com

    Clinton 2012 as a concept hasn't exactly been off the radar and not talked about. She should control that. I'm sure they own a few others.


    It's very possible (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 09:37:54 PM EST
    that she took the domain name so that nobody else could squat on it.  People domain squat all the time for large sums of money.

    Yes, both sides are going crazy over this (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 02:28:13 PM EST
    Some Obama supporters are flipping out because they see it as a big secret and further sign that yes, Clinton is the Great Satan and is undermining Obama's campaign at every turn.  Clinton's supporters are flipping out because they read it as a secret signal that she'll run in the 2012 presidential election and they're elated.

    But I think this is another internet tempest in a teapot on both sides.

    Clinton already owns hillaryclinton.com, she doesn't need HRC2012.  Who knows that that company is doing -- hell, maybe they are just reserving the name so that IF Obama loses it can't be snapped up CDSers and turned into an anti-Clinton site.  Maybe they're just optimists, or pessimists, as the case may be.  Domain names are cheap.  It's not like they're buying ad time during the 2012 Superbowl.

    The FR letter she sent -- of course she's asking people to roll over GE contributions to her Senate reelection fund.  What pol on earth wouldn't?  Who turns down money from supporters?  

    Oculus -- sorry, now I seem to be flipping out, and you just provided a link.


    My prediction is Clinton won't (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 05:01:19 PM EST
    run for Pres. in 2012-- too much grief.  I just report the news!

    lol (none / 0) (#138)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:01:50 PM EST
    Go for it