home

Sunday Afternoon Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:00:53 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I think Obama has this election won barring some unforeseeable event. But I find it silly when Obama supporters tie themselves in knots to explain away non-positive news. Not to pick on anyone in particular, but tremayne at Open Left provides a prime example of this silly stuff:

[W]hy the divergence today [between Ras and Gallup]? Here's one item I found on TPM written during the Democratic primary which may explain it:

[. . .] [I]t was Saturday, the toughest day of the week for polling. . . . In general this cycle, Saturday polling has hurt Obama. It tends to undersample those who are out and about, and has a particularly large effect in robopolls, where many respondents hang up when they're busy. Gallup has a much more robust methodology, and though the poll is fairly new, we've seen much less variation between its Saturday and weekday samples that with Rasmussen.

Is this true? I seriously doubt it, but worse than that, the attempt to spin everything positive to Obama is just self defeating. What you look like is an analyst with a built in pro-Obama "house effect." Just treat day to day poll movements, especially trackers, for what they are worth, very little. No need to spin every single twitch in a poll. Makes you look like a hack.

This is an Open Thread.

Speaking for me only

< A Belated Apology | Does Race Influence Death Penalty Decisions in CA? >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Afternoon Open Thread | 132 comments (132 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Pollsters vary (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:29:10 PM EST
    There's no need for an elaborate explanation unless there's some huge difference.

    As any good Clinton fan scan attest eh? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:35:55 PM EST


    Parent
    what about this poll though? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:33:41 PM EST
    The defender is jumping through logical hoops over a polling sample.

    I tend to think it's a form of hacktackular apologetics.  

    It's a reminder of 2000 IMHO.

    I was stunned (none / 0) (#11)
    by Fabian on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:50:24 PM EST
    that this was about a lousy poll, of all things.

    Especially now, before the conventions.  The only polls that are truly significant to me are state by state with full demographic breakdowns.  Otherwise, they are all just data points in a sea of data points.

    Parent

    Anyone else watching "Mad Men" tonight? (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Dawn Davenport on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:57:06 PM EST
    The second season debuts on AMC.

    I only recently caught up with the first season by watching it on On Demand, and it was as good as the reviews (and number of Emmy nominations) said it was. I highly recommend it to anyone who grew up during the '60s, and I'd be interested in what younger viewers think of it without the cultural contexts.

    To see the overt discrimination against women, minorities and gay people shouldn't be as depressing as it was to me, since we've come such a long way since then. But the show rouses all sorts of emotions in me since it reminds me of the societal repression of that time.

    Was Tempted Yesterday (none / 0) (#20)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:04:48 PM EST
    To purchase the Season 1 DVD box set. (Bonus: Really nice packaging)

    I've been told by friends too to give it a shot, however, after reading that it's set in the 60s/70s, I decided to hold back on it a while (I'm an 80s kid.)

    Call me shallow but I'll wait to see how it fairs at the Emmys. If it does really well, I'll give it a shot, but if it doesn't, I'd be convinced that it appealed to just a select viewing audience and industry-insiders who had nominating power.

    There's just so many good shows out there. Not enough time (or $$) to invest in all of 'em. -sigh-

    Parent

    It's a great show... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Dawn Davenport on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:12:05 PM EST
    ...and not just because it's stylistically beautiful, with detailed costuming and set design to replicate that period.

    The characters are complex, the dialogue is terrific, and the entire show gives a wonderful feeling for the era, not just culturally but also politically (if the two can be separated).

    During the first season, part of the storyline was the Kennedy-Nixon campaign (the ad agency in the show is doing some of Nixon's commercials).

    Parent

    Any women in it? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Fabian on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:26:05 PM EST
    Not that I don't like men, but all men, all the time just grates on me a bit.

    Parent
    The women in it... (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Dawn Davenport on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:37:38 PM EST
    ...are the most fascinating characters, imho.

    The secretarial pool is rife with archetypes (but not stereotypes), from the woman who works her way into the copywriting team by staying late on her own dime to the lead secretary/office manager who's learned to survive by her looks and her wiles.

    And the wives in the suburbs are complex characters, with their inchoate longings to be something more than "just a mom," which at the time was so rebellious as to warrant psychiatric visits. There's also a co-owner of a large dept. store and a bohemian type; both characters are strong and memorable.

    I, too, was afraid the show would simply mirror the societal focus on men from that era, but it accurately captures how both sexes were victims as well as victors.

    Parent

    Plenty of women in it (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by stillife on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:47:17 PM EST
    Mad Men shows both the male and female POV.  I've been a fan since the first episode, and I've recently been watching the DVDs.  In the commentary, one of the actresses talks about the isolation of the characters, particularly the women.  There's a definite feminist POV - think Betty Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique" and Helen Gurley Brown's "Sex and the Single Girl".  The acting is excellent, the writing superb, and it's just a gorgeous show, filled with existential despair.  It's not just the nostalgia factor; the show makes you realize how far we've progressed and how far we have left to go.

    I'm kind of bored with politics these days (I miss Hillary!) so TV shows are filling the gap.  I can't speak too highly of Mad Men, which is IMO the best show on TV.  HBO must be kicking themselves for passing on it.

    Parent

    Funny, my experience was (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:57:48 PM EST
    that on the day I voted in the primaries, I preferred Clinton but thought Obama would be fine if he won.

    It was the rabid, uninformed, and savage behavior of the loudest Obama supporters, combined with the KA over-the-top idol worship, that started turning me away.  The more his campaign became represented by those two (overlapping) groups, the more it turned me off.  Because I really, really, don't want the leader of my country chosen by those groups.

    I don't want th eleader picked (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:00:10 PM EST
    by russert or his proteges.

    At least the foaming mouthed people you are describing ARE ordinary voters by default.

    Parent

    Then better not vote for Obama (3.66 / 3) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:24:05 PM EST
    He is the overwhelming choice of "Russert and his proteges."

    Parent
    And it's still occurring plenty (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:35:08 PM EST
    Hence, the tauting of the 200,000 draw in Germany, when the draw was probably the free rock concert and free food, rather than the American presidential candidate.  Why else would 200,000 Germans come to see Obama.

    Parent
    Maybe they were interested in finding out... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by EL seattle on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:48:12 PM EST
    ... for themselves what this new guy is like?

    I don't think that many of the 200,000 people who attended had to drive 150 kilometers to get to there, so it was probably an easy event for folks to take part in.  The question of how many of the 200,000 were "actively interested", and how many were "just curious" might be impossible to determine.

    Parent

    Would you go out of your way (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:45:31 PM EST
    to see Putin?  I mean, honestly, do workaday Germans REALLY care that much about the American president.  I mean really, be honest in your heart of hearts.

    It. was. the. concert. and the. food.

    Parent

    After BushCo (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:03:06 PM EST
    Any Democrat is heaven,

    Parent
    Hillary Would Have Been Ar Least As Popular (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:06:24 PM EST
    Anti BushCo sentiment is high in "old" Europe.

    Parent
    What a sweet thing to say. And so (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:41:55 AM EST
    unexpected.

    Parent
    Sweet? (none / 0) (#143)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:44:51 AM EST
    Why's that? And unexpected? Hardly I voted for Hillary, met her and was wowed by her personal power and grace.

    Maybe you are confusing me with another commenter. I have always been supportive of Hillary in general. The problems I have had with Hillary are the exact same ones I have had with Obama.

    My position here has always been that there is almost no difference between the two candidates but I thought Hillary had a better chance of winning the GE.

    Parent

    Oh, just teasing. I know all that. (none / 0) (#144)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:05:54 PM EST


    Parent
    The Germans are a bit odd (none / 0) (#118)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:46:40 PM EST
    about Black Americans. They actually love them to bits.  If you are a black dude or dudette it's a dating paradise if you like the Hansels and Gretels.

    Parent
    I've seen one news story claiming that (none / 0) (#75)
    by Pegasus on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:52:16 PM EST
    (from World Politics Review), which has been reposted elsewhere.  Any confirming stories, before we start taking that speculation as fact?

    Parent
    The first debate did it "for good" (4.50 / 4) (#93)
    by bridget on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:36:48 PM EST
    Absolutely the uninformed, rude and rabid Obama supporters didn't help, but I thought I let him speak for himself (the Obamafans didn't have a clue what he stood for anyway and still don't - not really). Considering he is now the Dem nom that is downright depressing. I can't remember the last time when that happened.

    Compared to Hillary Obama sounded like a freshman student during the debates. He hemmed and hawed, then hemmed and hawed some more. Then begged for more time. Clearly, he didn't know what he was doing. That was pretty much it for me. He lacks conviction and compassion. No wonder He never improved. How could he. Reading speeches is something anyone can do.  

    I could have done better than he did. What a depressing thought IMHO.

    Parent

    Obama's protection in Afghanistan (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:13:44 PM EST
    You got it - brought to you by Blackwater.

    Us News & World Report

    The money quote: (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by jawbone on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:21:48 PM EST
    ...Obama was overheard saying: "Blackwater is getting a bad rap." Since everything appeared to go swimmingly, maybe he will take firms like Blackwater out of his sights, the company's supporters hope.


    Parent
    A bad rap? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by pie on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:04:28 PM EST
    Interesting.

    How many different military arms do we need?  

    What kind of medical facilities are available for wounded Blackwater employees?

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#119)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:48:17 PM EST
    One of their Braches is called Hospital Services, another one is Hotel  & Hospitality.

    Parent
    Holy... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:26:33 PM EST
    I guess we should look for a "Blackwater actually is getting a bad rap" diary on the rec list at Daily Kos any day now.  No points for correctly predicting the author of said diary.

    Parent
    Hahahahha (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:43:52 PM EST
    Overheard by a conservative rag. Ah the innuendo.....  

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:28:28 PM EST
    I'd like to hear him deny it, to be sure.

    If we can stipulate that it would be really bad if he actually said it, I am willing to agree that it's possible he didn't say it.  However, I'm not really up for the "this is an outrageous smear, but even if it's true, it's not a big deal" double-pronged defense.

    Parent

    US News and World Report (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:12:13 PM EST
    The rumor is at USNWR.  I didn't know they were a repub publication... but here is the article.

    Back in March, he seemed pretty clear that he would not rule out  using Blackwater and would not sign Clinton's proposed legislation to ban the security firms.

    So, his 'overheard' statement isn't in the least surprising.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#128)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:17:52 PM EST
    The blackwater troops ban that Hillary proposed was only for diplomats. She was not suggesting that private security companies would be eliminated all together.

    Someone has to be hired for security stuff. The military is busy.

    Parent

    In Any Case (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:09:03 PM EST
    He did not hire them, they were provided by the state department or whatever. Do  you think that he had Blackwater in Israel Germany France?

    I don't.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:37:26 AM EST
    The issue is what he supposedly said, not whether he "hired" them.  Who said anything about whether he "hired" them?

    Parent
    If we're going to have this (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:15:13 PM EST
    for every up and down related to the polls...this is going to be one very very long election.

    I Know, Right? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:25:30 PM EST
    For every "bump" that Obama gets and every "drop" McCain sees and vice-versa, the media, the bloggers and the random nutbags go crazy with them with large front-page headlines and ridiculous analysis.

    The one that is especially silly is CNN's "Poll of Polls." How in the world can that be worthy of attention when they never reveal which polls they averaged, how those polls were conducted and when, and which demographics those polls cover, among other factors?

    Parent

    Accountability? (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Fabian on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:27:58 PM EST
    Science?  Data? Facts?

    You must be confusing these infotainment "journalists" with actual Journalists.

    Parent

    OMG!!!! (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:35:44 PM EST
    T"hat single digit bounce was just sooooo incredibly stupendously shockingly important!"

    heh

    Parent

    Almost Entirely True (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:30:01 PM EST
    You can find which three they average but they don't put it out for all to see. The problem with it is there is no pattern to what three they choose. They bounce around like a ping pong ball making each result they publish non-comparable to the last. So although they are slightly hidden but findable, their end result is no more than a quirky snapshot that can't be used against any past or future CNN Poll of Polls.

    Parent
    Wow. That makes it entirely meaningless (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:26:58 PM EST
    as mot even useful for trend-spotting, much less a snapshot.  Thanks for the background.

    Parent
    You are right (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:12:47 PM EST
    Probably not even worth a snapshot.

    Someone was quoting this CNN poll the other day and I hadn't seen it listed at fivethirtyeight or RealClearPolitics so I went searching. Ever have one of those days when after your research, you realize your work was a big waste of time? That's what I felt after reading the (lack of) methodology behind the CNN Poll of Polls.

    RCP is pretty basic averaging and an easy site to follow and understand. 538 is far more statistical and probably better if it doesn't give you a headache first. CNN's poll of polls is closer to horse manure.

    Parent

    If CNN changes polls they survey (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by kenosharick on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:08:40 PM EST
    each week, it is logical that those favoring Obama are the polls chosen. CNN is firmly behind the Obama campagn, after all.

    Parent
    That Logical Approach Would be Lacking (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:17:04 PM EST
    Not only is your bias showing, but you would be wrong. In their last national poll of polls they used the three most favorable to McCain. But as there is no pattern, the next may be the three most favorable to Obama.

    Parent
    I am so terribly sorry that my "bias" (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by kenosharick on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:34:27 PM EST
    is showing. God knows, no one here is biased in any way for or against anyone or anything.

    Parent
    I have a question (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:24:49 PM EST
    One poll (I think Ras - sorry, no link) seems to consistently show that a generic Dem beats McCain hands down.  When either Clinton or Gore are named in the poll, they beat him handily while, if Obama is named, he leads McCain by very little or is actually tied.

    If he is supposedly polling so well in all these states, and has all this energy, why is that more people are turning away from him (or at least cooling towards him)?  I know it's early, and I know I'll never vote for either, so I'm looking for someone else's opinion on this.

    Thanks.

    it is a good question (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by ccpup on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:05:26 PM EST
    and one I'm sure Obama Supporters would rather not have to answer.  Obama, despite the present Media Love Fest and the over-the-top, desperate insistence of many that he is The One, is just not connecting to those voters (namely blue collar, rural voters) he needs to.

    Kerry lost the Presidency due to HIS inability to connect to rural voters -- especially in the State that decided it all, Pennsylvania -- and I strongly suspect we'll see a repeat of that in November.  

    McCain, for all his flaws, SEEMS like he's "one of them".  Obama seems to be above it all and not sincerely interested in either listening to or necessarily solving the average voter's boring problems.

    My opinion only, of course.

    I do find it fascinating that Hillary v. McCain match-ups have shown up in some Polls recently.

    Parent

    Um, Kerry WON Pennsylvania. (2.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Pegasus on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:03:16 PM EST
    And that error is representative of the rest of your post.

    Parent
    Um, I'm gonna bet pup meant Ohio (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:00:14 PM EST
    Which actually DID decide the race and which Kerry lost (along with 30 other states).

    Parent
    yes, my mistake (4.40 / 5) (#80)
    by ccpup on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:02:27 PM EST
    I did mean Ohio.  But it's not uncommon for those who backstroke in the Kool-Aid all in service to The One to viciously attack those who disagree with them.

    Thanks for the support, cmugirl.

    Parent

    And you didn't answer the question (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:01:55 PM EST
    Which was the whole point of the original post. What are the explanations for Obama, the already acting President, to not be doing as well in match-up after match-up against McCain as someone who dropped out of the race two months ago and someone who was never in the race.

    Parent
    the response? (4.40 / 5) (#81)
    by ccpup on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:04:20 PM EST
    la-la-la-la-la-la-la ... I can't hear you.

    Oh-bam-A!  Oh-bam-A!  Oh-bam-A!  Oh-bam-A!

    :-)

    Parent

    You're cherry-picking. (3.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Pegasus on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:17:27 PM EST
    I haven't seen recent polling showing Clinton up over McCain in a theoretical matchup by more than (IIRC) 8.  Which happens to be today's Gallup lead for Obama.

    All in all, I think it's an irrelevant question anyway.  Obama's going to be the nominee, he's consistently up in current polling, and the what-ifs aren't important.

    Parent

    Price for convention (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:38:58 PM EST
    I thought this article was confusing. Price for Obama tickets? Activism (the Denver Post)

    [Those who want a seat will begin the process at their local Democratic Party office. While demonstrating their ability to attend, they also will be encouraged to sign on to the campaign as volunteers.]

    Do people actually have to sign a commitment to actively campaign for Obama to get a ticket to the convention?  

    [Give us a sense of whether or not you're really serious about this. If you're not, we're going to provide someone else with this.']

    Will one person be denied a ticket for someone else?  What about party partisans that can't campaign for Obama?  Seems odd.

    Reading Problems? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:51:19 PM EST
    Or anti Obama fever getting in the way

    Those who want a seat will begin the process at their local Democratic Party office. While demonstrating their ability to attend, they also will be encouraged to sign on to the campaign as volunteers.
    "They fill out a form; there's a conversation," Hildebrand said. "We ask them and encourage them to register voters and to get out the vote and those activities that are important to us. It's not a requirement, but it's going to be an encouragement."

    Still confused?


    Parent

    Why would it be necessary? (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by pie on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:57:55 PM EST
    I happily worked for Kerry in Michigan, but would have never wanted to go to the convention.

    This one's in Denver.  Th difference is that the acceptance speech will be at a different venue.

    Squeaky, they're not looking for just any democrats.  They're looking for true believers.

    Parent

    True Believers? (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:02:44 PM EST
    Hardly, they are looking for volunteers that will register voters and work for the campaign. Being a cultist, as you imply, is hardly necessary.

    Nice spin though.  

    Parent

    In Colorado? (none / 0) (#39)
    by pie on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:04:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Good will offering. No pressure. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:40:26 PM EST


    Parent
    The Halo-Effect (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:56:10 PM EST
    Geez, the media just cannot seem to get away from using photographs like this one -- used in that linked article -- to let us all know that he is The One.

    Unfortunately, I don't have the link now, but there actually was a site that archived all the images -- for magazine covers, news articles, advertisements -- that were used of pictures of Obama against a circular backdrop or bright light in some God-like pose.

    [example 1] [example 2] [example 3 - at a private fundraiser in CA]

    Parent

    yes (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by ccpup on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:13:33 PM EST
    and the more the Media does stuff like that, the less Obama will seem like "one of us" to the Regular Joes whose votes he needs if he's to win.  

    Obama and his campaign (as well as their respective egos) may be getting off on being hailed as The Messiah, but the average voter may grow weary of the parade and distrustful of The One if, after looking at his history, they can't figure out WHY he's better than the older guy with the long years of service.  

    I suspect eventually it'll move from voters being told he's The One to demanding "okay, convince me why you SHOULD be The One" only to be met by a string of "uh"s and "um"s and refining.

    Parent

    I'm starting to believe (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:37:58 PM EST
    that the reason for all of this is to repulse the public into voting for McCain.

    Parent
    They don't show him in a good light at all (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by bridget on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:23:15 PM EST
    since Obama insists on cutting his hear supershort to the point where his scalp shines thru - it doesn't look good at all. His head is too small and got the wrong shape, his ears are too large for that kind of haircut. Just look at the mag cover (example 2). V. unattractive.

    Obama needs a make-over. But I may be the only one who thinks that way. Obviously, a lot of Obamafans go bananas at the sight of him.

    I don't. Never have. Never will. Hemming and hawing is also not my cup of tea but that is another story ... ;-)

    Parent

    If Anyone Wrote This Kind of Stuff About Hillary (5.00 / 6) (#140)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:53:01 AM EST
    "His head is too small and got the wrong shape, his ears are too large for that kind of haircut. Just look at the mag cover (example 2). V. unattractive."

    Oh, wait a minute. They did. And there were HOWLS of outrage at how sexist etc. (Including from me who found this kind of superficial focus too insulting for words).

    Parent

    Well Done (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:38:49 AM EST
    Thank you Grace. I was sure there would be many reactions to that currish comment but instead it received several rave ratings and no followup at all. I wanted to respond, but each attempt degenerated to guttersnipish chat on par with the original. You accomplished the task with tongue firmly planted in cheek. My compliments.

    Parent
    Example Number 2 looks like... (none / 0) (#44)
    by EL seattle on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:18:20 PM EST
    ... he's talking to an nebulous space energy-form on the bridge viewscreen in the original TV Star Trek series.

    There's at least on blog site that's made this sort of thing its focus.  Even if you're an Obama supporter, I think that this is an aspect to his campaign that should be a cause for concern.  The American public loves an underdog, and they love to watch an odds-on favorite take a fall.

    Parent

    it's a growing media narrative (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by ccpup on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:13:15 PM EST
    and how anyone who's followed politics the last few cycles can NOT see is still astonishes me.

    A candidate riding high and being a "sure bet" does NOT get viewers or sell newspapers.  The American Public prefers to watch train wrecks, not premature victory laps.  The fawning coverage of Obama is designed to set him up, up, up on the pedestal pre-Convention so they can make him their own personal political pinanta POST-Convention.

    To keep the public tuned in, they gotta destroy him.  The public's attention won't be kept if he continues to be the recipient of over-the-top coverage.  Secondly, coverage like this -- as I said earlier -- tends to turn off those same voters he needs:  rural and blue collar voters as well as independents.

    If McCain remains the underdog to Obama's rock star, you can bet more voters will be turned off by The One and turn solidly toward The Maverick.

    The Media has never been about getting the Dem elected.  Expect them to bring out the Big Guns post-convention.  Or even the week before or week of the Convention.

    You can bet on it.

    Parent

    Yeah, (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by pie on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:19:07 PM EST
    in other words, the acceptance speech will be open to those who promise to work their little butts off for Obama in the battleground states.

    Creepy.

    Maybe I don't get it, but... (none / 0) (#106)
    by rdandrea on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:38:13 PM EST
    ...Isn't that how we get people elected?

    Please be more specific about your beef.

    Parent

    Oh my. (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by pie on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:21:06 PM EST
    Kansas, though not a battleground state, remains important to the campaign, as Obama's grandparents lived there and he visited the state often as a child.

    That's hilarious.

    Why is it weird to offer people who volunteered (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:31:25 PM EST
    first crack at the tickets?   I don't understand how this is cultish.  How do you recommend the tickets be given out?

    Parent
    When... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:54:24 PM EST
    Judging by some of the responses here, it would appear the same people that thought it would be an empty stadium are now concerned that tickets are hard to come by and not available to everyone.

    Looks to me like those handing out tickets are just trying to be sure that those who receive them really will be attending rather than hawking them Ebay.

    Parent

    An empty stadium (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by pie on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:10:23 PM EST
    is not the problem.

    The empty candidate is.

    Parent

    Oh, very good point. n/t (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by stefystef on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:28:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh, for the love of God... (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Anne on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:15:51 PM EST
    What's next?  Signage appearing soon in cities and towns across the land:

    "Obama Slept Here!"

    Can the Obama Pilgrimage be far behind?  "Walk where Obama walked.  Eat where Obama ate.  Sleep where Obama slept."

    I can't stand it.

    Parent

    but you could retire off the Profits. (4.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:51:07 PM EST
    See that's your pension sorted out already.

    Parent
    Oh, please. (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by pie on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:31:23 PM EST
    It's not a requirement, but it's going to be an encouragement."

    That's baloney at its worst.

    Give it up.

    Reminds me of (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Grace on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:47:51 PM EST
    "no preconditions but preparations"

    I don't like the way the Obama campaign (and the candidate) make use of the English language.  It reminds me of how we ended up with words like "proactive" and "paradigm."  It's bogus corporate-speak.  

    Parent

    Not so much corporate-speak as... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by santarita on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:08:53 PM EST
    distinctions without a difference.  It's an attempt to defend against allegations of flip-flopping.  They don't think we are smart enough to know what they are doing and why they are doing it.  

    Actually, now that I think about it, they may be right at least with regard to the so-called journalists who are covering the campaign and looking for gotchas instead of looking at the substantive issues.  

    Parent

    well, (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by ccpup on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:06:40 PM EST
    evident by one of the Posters in this thread, not everyone IS smart enough to understand what it is they're really saying.

    I guess it helps if you drink the Kool-Aid, but the damn stuff gave me an itchy rash and dry heaves.

    Ugh.

    Parent

    Grace....I believe it is called blatant b.s. :) (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:53:35 PM EST


    Parent
    It's reminiscent (4.00 / 4) (#59)
    by pie on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:52:11 PM EST
    of Bush.

    I do not like it.


    Parent

    I can't stand Bush, but some of the things (none / 0) (#60)
    by Grace on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:56:23 PM EST
    he said while in office were hysterically funny:

    "put food on their family" and "Is our children learning" come to mind...  ;-)

    Parent

    Yeah. (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by pie on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:01:27 PM EST
    So Obama will talk gooder.

    If he's elected.

    He'll also talk and talk and talk.

    Parent

    We'll get a "historic speech" on (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Grace on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:31:22 PM EST
    every subject!  And extra speeches during any type of crisis!  


    Parent
    Yawn! (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by bridget on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:08:59 PM EST
    just a test ;-)

    Parent
    Migina- "irrational Obama haters?" (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by kenosharick on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:41:37 PM EST
    you're joking right? or do you mean rush limbaugh and his ilk? There has never been a candidate that got such unwavering, unconditional love and support from virtually all the MSM, party leadership, and blogoshere. And in my persoal experience it is the Obama supporters who go WAAAAY over the line, evicerate people, and chase them off of blogs.

    You've lost me here (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by Grace on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:10:38 PM EST
    Supporting McCain by opposing Obama is irrational.

    What does that mean?

    Many Democrats said that "experience" was important to them during the primaries and Obama does not have a lot of experience.  There are Democrats who are being forced to support McCain by the DNC because McCain is the candidate with experience and the qualifications.  I don't know of any Democrat that is thrilled with McCain, but I think the DNC knew, up front, that Obama was not going to be able to suddenly match McCain's "experience" factor.

    The DNC Super-delegates were supposed to be able to correct voting errors but they chose not to and now the party is choosing to go with the weaker candidate.  They proactively selected a candidate for us.  

    If they should somehow come to their senses and nominate Clinton, then I would once again be able to support the party's choice for President.  But I'm not going to vote for someone I don't feel is qualified to hold the office.  
       

    Parent

    Grace- I was replying to another (none / 0) (#115)
    by kenosharick on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:31:59 PM EST
    post claiming that Obama supporters were justified in their over the top behavior because of all the horrible, constant, vicious attacks he has been under-supposedly. I never said anything about supporting mccain, I don't.

    Parent
    There was a post deleted in there (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:09:52 AM EST
    and it had the words I quoted in it.  (A post by Migina -- but it's gone now.)  

    Those particular words don't make any sense.  If you support McCain, by default, you are opposing Obama and everyone else running for president.  Likewise, if you support Obama, you oppose everyone else running.  

    As far as not supporting Obama goes, there are quite a few Liberals/Democrats who can't bring themselves to support him for a variety of reasons.  It's not like we are suddenly Conservatives and Republicans.  We just can't support that particular person for that particular position.  I'm still voting for the other Democrats down ticket.  

    Parent

    grace- your post makes no sense to me. (none / 0) (#138)
    by kenosharick on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:37:54 AM EST
    i do not support mccain or obama

    Parent
    And here I was (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by pie on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:49:21 PM EST
    going to apologize to you in case you were running the marketing blitz for Obama.

    :)

    p.s It's not working.

    End of The Affair? (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:55:17 PM EST
    I doubt it.

    But, as Obama ascended from underdog to front-runner to presumptive nominee, the flame seems to have dwindled. Reporters who cover Obama these days grouse that Obama's flacks shroud the campaign in secrecy and provide little to no access. "They're more disciplined than the Bush people," a reporter on the Obama trail gripes. "There was this idea of being transparent, but they're not. They're total tightwads with information."
    - (Sherman, The New Republic, 7/24)

    Interesting article (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by Grace on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:34:45 PM EST
    Just from the little bits and pieces that have been leaking out here and there, that's kind of what I imagined with the Obama campaign.  

    The press put up with this kind of BS from the Bush campaign.  Are they planning to put up with it from Obama too?  

    I'm not in favor of the highly secretive government we've had for the past 8 years so I don't take stories like this lightly.    

    Parent

    Agreed. Secrets And Lies. (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:46:48 PM EST
    That's basically what led to the rise and fall of the Bush administration. The rise was extremely quick, but the fall was slow and extremely painful.

    I have no doubt, judging from the behavior of its key figure and other likely top brass, that a future Obama administration will turn out to be a redux.

    But, considering that some of the best brains that the party and the country has to offer are on its side, there may be a glimmer of hope of a different outcome.

    But, just a glimmer.

    Parent

    I appreciate your opinion of an Obama win (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by stefystef on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:12:28 PM EST
    but I beg to differ.

    I know reading this more liberal websites make you feel a Democratic win is in the bag, but I read them all, all sides.

    This is going to be a very, very rough ride for Obama.  Personally, I think the Kool-aid is wearing off... and while people talk about of Change, but in the end, they go for what they know.  There is a lot of unknown about Obama.

    It's not McCain's race to win, it's Obama's race to lose.

    Open Thread... (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by weltec2 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:54:14 PM EST
    Okay, then let's assume C&L is right and Obama's team really is floating Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, as Obama's running mate. Seriously. What then? Would people go flocking around Hillary's house begging her to unsuspend her nomination?

    No... no they wouldn't. They could continue adoringly after BO, praise his willingness to reach across the isle, and throw rose petals at the feet of Obama and Vineman as they ascend into the clouds of the Whitehouse.

    All the people who say they will either (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:41:06 PM EST
    vote for McCain, vote Green, or not vote for Pres., will feel entirely vindicated if Obama chooses not only a woman who is not Clinton but a Republican woman.  Slap.  Slap.

    Parent
    "entirely vindicated"? (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by weltec2 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:31:08 PM EST
    I don't want to "feel entirely vindicated." That will not give me any sort of sick satisfaction at all. I want to send Obama back to the Senate and say, 'Now sit down and do your job and attend to your business.' I do not want him in the Whitehouse where I fear he will let the Bushies off with a smile and a wave. He will put conservative judges on the bench. He will run an economically devastating administration. And he will straddle both isles trying to make everyone happy and accomplish very little in the way of social programs.

    Parent
    In my dreams... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:25:24 AM EST
    Obama chooses Pelosi as a running mate...

    I gleefully smack them both down in the voting booth by picking names other than theirs!    

    Vengence is mine, baby!  ;-)    

    Parent

    Please, no (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:00:59 PM EST
    Man, I've had to work pretty hard to overcome some serious dislike of Obama, his campaign, and his supporters in order to be supporting him now. If he picks Veneman for VP, then WTF? It would be an outrage. How can any self-respecting progressive support that ticket? She's horrible.

    Parent
    In my experience (4.60 / 10) (#4)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:31:44 PM EST
    Many of the people who dislike Obama feel that way because of the irrational behavior of his supporters.

    Here is a textbook example of the "how dare you criticize The One" argument.  I mean, as much as I think the PUMA folks go over the top a lot of the time, it's hard to read a diary like that one and not concede that they have a point.

    Good Point (none / 0) (#142)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:48:48 AM EST
    There are irrational supporters, brimming with contemptuous nonsense, on both sides.

    Parent
    Bold Statement (4.20 / 5) (#9)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:47:53 PM EST
    I think Obama has this election won barring some unforeseeable event.

    Nevermind that (1) neither of them have chosen a VP yet, (2) the conventions aren't over; stages for lots to happen (3) a single debate hasn't taken place between M and O.

    ---

    So in other developments:

    1) Obama has said on record that he's not going to participate in a single 'town-hall'-style debate with McCain -- separate from the 3-scheduled pres. nominee debates in Sept. and Oct.

    (So what is he afraid of? Obviously, unlike debates with Hillary, debates with McCain would be substantial since there are significant policy and ideological differences. So, what gives?)

    2) The McCain campaign launches ads in Colorado and Pennsylvania tonight higlighting the Obama campaign's decision to skip over the planned visit to meet with injured soldiers in Landstuhl, Germany, over fears that it may look "political."

    (Uh okie, so what was the 1+ week trip shaking hands with world leaders and posing at historical sites? A tax-payer-funded holiday?)

    Just a sense of the mood of the country (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:52:25 PM EST
    I think the electorate are interested in peace.  Obama at least seems to represent that prospect.
    (infact he appears to be planning some jaunt in cantral asia and an escalation in Afghanistan, but that's an observation for another day) The public is just generally exhausted with the high drama of Iraq and like Churchill when he was beaten by Atlee the nation is looking for the left and center left to build a nation fit for heroes...The Churchill's, Bush's and McCain's of this world are not welcome for the moment.

    ...if Obama had some guts and vision he's got an oportunity to reshape American welfare and healthcare in a very left friendly way.

    Parent

    It not only looked too political (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:22:03 PM EST
    for Obama to visit the military hospital as had been planned -- it was too political.  By his own choice, because he planned to be there with campaign staff.  Them's the military rules.

    Obama still could have gone with Senate staff, if any came along on the trip -- or own his own without staff.  And since the military rules are to preclude turning the wounded into photo op props, there were not going to be media groupies along, anyway.  Still awaiting an explanation of why that option wasn't pursued.

    Parent

    i'm thinking in terms of a general (none / 0) (#14)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:56:27 PM EST
    feeling that the public has with war fatigue and a general feeling that teh war mongers ought to go away for bit and take a breather.

    When Attlee beat out Churchill before Japan surrendered for instance...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election%2C_1945

    Parent

    good slogan too (none / 0) (#17)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:58:35 PM EST
    'Let us face the future.'


    Parent
    I think BO is concerned (none / 0) (#129)
    by weltec2 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:15:02 PM EST
    about the variety of unforeseen variables that can arise in small community environments and he does not want to risk the momentum that he has going for him right now on a fluke that he may have to explain and explain. I think he would prefer the controlled TV medium where he is already the perferred darling of the press and where the moderator will probably favor him.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by stefystef on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:49:50 AM EST
    Personally, I think a lot of Obama's "momentum" has gone, which is why taking the Mystery Magical Tour international was so important.

    There will be a slight bounce for Obama in the polls, but nothing that will last.  

    You are so right when you say Obama prefers the controlled TV medium with the media who have made them his darling.  Obama does not play well in rural and small communities.  If the rural and small communities come out in full force, Obama will have alot of problems in November.

    Parent

    That's understandable... (none / 0) (#130)
    by EL seattle on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:30:25 PM EST
    ... but it could be perceived as "playing out the clock" by some of the uncommitted voters that he's trying to win over to his side.  

    Parent
    Yes, a form of (none / 0) (#132)
    by weltec2 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:52:57 PM EST
    "harmless" rope-a-dope while McCain falils away wearing himself out... every once in a while dancing away waving at his crowd of well-wishers.

    Parent
    Is Edwards out for V P and AG? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:27:50 PM EST

    Becausr of the Hunter affair.

    he won't be doing much stumping (none / 0) (#6)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 03:34:44 PM EST
    Jesse jackson has a love child and, well he's front and center in the Obama campaign. It'll blow over soon enough.

    Parent
    What? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by oldpro on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 04:03:27 PM EST
    Are we watching different campaigns?

    Jesse Junior is front an center.

    Senior is deep in the background...only visible when he brings bad news (ie. thru open mics).

    Parent

    he's out there (none / 0) (#41)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:05:45 PM EST
    but it has nothing to do with his love children.

    Parent
    Quite right. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by oldpro on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:44:21 PM EST
    He and Al Sharpton are playing along...so far.  Low profile for now.  Just wait 'til one of them feels dissed or gets pissed about something...or gets in trouble themselves...again.

    They're not about staying out of the spotlight so this must be a real strain on them.  And others.

    Fascinating.  It'll be even more fascinating if Obama wins and they are not only ignored but not invited to WH events.  Gotta make room for those across-the-aisle Rs, ya know!

    As for love children, John Edwards, etc...what crap.  Who cares?

    Parent

    A general service announcement (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:02:26 PM EST
    I have a zero tolerance policy for insults directed at me in my threads.

    The reason is because I do not get to insult you back. If I could, then there would be no problem. But alas, I do not get to.

    I want to make it clear that the first time you insult me, you will be permanently banned from my threads. Not even once do you get to insult me.

    Did the Yankees lose today or something? (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:49:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Not yet (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:05:21 PM EST
    ESPN has it now.

    Parent
    I don't know how the Yankees are doing, (none / 0) (#101)
    by Rhouse on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:15:22 PM EST
    but the Phillies still weren't able to give todays' game away.  And BTD was referring to a poster in the ' Cass Sunstein "Liberals" ' thread who was being stupidly argumentative in his/her posting.

    Parent
    It is very difficult to fathom how (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:30:22 PM EST
    any thinking person could support any connection between Sen. Obama/Pres. Obama and Mr. Sunstein.  

    Parent
    Padres finally found a team they (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:38:32 PM EST
    can beat:  Pittsburgh.  Yeah.

    Parent
    Mets win.... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:47:24 PM EST
    Johan goes the distance...stay a game up on those Phils baby:)

    Parent
    Nice catch by Beltran too. (none / 0) (#114)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:30:17 PM EST
    Hey, I wanted to thank you and everyone else who left words of encouragement for me the other day.  It meant a lot in this very difficult time.  

    I appreciate it.  And I will be fighting.

    As for the person that rated my comment a "2", well, let's just say you confirmed the true nature of your character.  

    Parent

    Good to see ya pal..... (none / 0) (#139)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:45:39 AM EST
    and thank you for being you my man...us crazy drummers gotta stick together:)

    Parent
    He wins if (none / 0) (#94)
    by delacarpa on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:43:42 PM EST
    the voters think they would rather have him over McCain to fight the war in Alfansantan and if he has the trust of the American people. IMO Obama without either of these it will be McCain. Remember McCain was right on the serge and also McCain wins hands down on the trust issue in the polls. Me, I have no pony in this race.

    There's a war in Alfansastan?? (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Pegasus on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:09:33 PM EST
    I'm afraid that may cause some tension with the Russkanese.

    Parent
    Pakialfalfa (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 09:44:24 PM EST
    right next to Indianana.

    Parent
    Thankyouthankyouthankyou (none / 0) (#105)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:35:57 PM EST
    and mu pony not in the race, either, thanks you as well.  For a moment, there, I thought it was my eyesight. :-)

    Parent
    When I was in the army (none / 0) (#127)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:14:18 PM EST
    I recall manoeuvres where our company Quebec Coy. Royal Green Jackets, was rechristened Liberation Army of Quebectina, and the area of operations looked oddly like the Falklands--but was called for the purposes of the army games Fuqistan.  The good guys of course were the British Army.

    Parent
    Warning: anecdote. (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:50:41 PM EST
    I asked my friend, who used to sport a "Question Authority" bumper sticker on her ancient VW bug, if she wasn't disappointed with Obama's change of mind on FISA.  She shrugged and sd. he's the candidate.  

    Sunday Afternoon Open Thread | 132 comments (132 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment