Monday Open Thread

99 Days to the election. To me nothing has changed. Obama is a shoo in. Tell me why I am wrong about this and other things in this Open Thread.

Oh, and speaking of 99 and Obama and Germany (sort of)

< Obama's Futile Chase For "Values" Voters | Novak Has Brain Tumor >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Robert Novak has a brain tumor. I'm wondering (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:42:22 PM EST
    if that had something to do with him not seeing the pedestrian he hit the other day.  Get well, Robert.  

    Maybe. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:50:58 PM EST
    Did they evaluate him after the accident?  Sometimes people don't realize how impaired they are when it's obvious to others.

    Wanna bet (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:00:44 PM EST
    the very first phone call he gets is from Teddy Kennedy?  Strange bedfellows indeed, but Teddy's never let ideology get in the way of reaching out to people.

    or is this (1.50 / 2) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:43:14 PM EST
    the brain tumor defense.

    Classy. (none / 0) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:58:17 PM EST
    look, I read the story (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:02:25 PM EST
    the only thing that makes me think it probably is not is that nothing was going to happen to him anyway so he needs no defense.  which is indefensible.  what do you suppose would happen to you or me if we hit a pedestrian and left the scene?

    For whatever this story is worth... (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:51:09 PM EST
    My mother had a fender-bender the day she was apparently having a stroke - she didn't see the car because she couldn't see and was not aware of anything on her left side.  She was cited with leaving the scene and later pled guilty.  It didn't matter for her so much because she was never going to be driving again.

    However, the woman she ran into/sideswiped sued her for her medical costs (this woman called her lawyer first, then went to be "evaluated").  My mother's insurance company defended her, of course, and we had written testimony from her neurologist, plus my testimony about her behavior that day, and the end result was they found that my mother was not responsible because she was suffering a medical event.


    Personally, I'd (none / 0) (#65)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:19:32 PM EST
    have to use the twinkie defense.

    Or, the 'senior moment/twinkie combo.'

    Yeh...that oughtta do it.

    Now all I need is a jury of my peers...


    You think somebody would (none / 0) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:25:47 PM EST
    invent a brain tumor to get out of a traffic offense?

    well (none / 0) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:29:29 PM EST
    it was really a perhaps misguided attempt at humor.
    but to you question, I would put absolutely nothing past Novakula.
    nothing.  please remember who we are talking about.
    if he thought he might actually get into trouble and needed an out.  yes.  I think he might pay a doctor to say so.  I do.
    having said that I hope he gets well.  I would rather miss the old crackpot.

    you are wrong (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:42:39 PM EST
    O is not a shoo in.  he may win but he is no shoo in.

    How foolish can you be? BushCo stole (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Blowback on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:47:06 PM EST
    2000 & 2004, what makes you think they will give it up this year? Practice makes perfect. Oh, yeah, watch out for the October surprise! I predict it will be McBush in Jan 09. sorry, sad but true

    I dont even think (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:48:54 PM EST
    they will have to steal this one.  but ironically many may believe it stolen for reasons mentioned in the last thread.

    one other thing about Diebold etc (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:52:32 PM EST
    there is one major difference with this election.  Obamans.  if there was a Florida or Ohio type "incident" does anyone think there would not be blood in the streets?

    If you are correct, is this a reason (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:54:12 PM EST
    to "elect" someone because of what may occur if he loses?

    I never ever (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:58:28 PM EST
    said it was.  just asking.

    This, I believe, has been (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:00:59 PM EST
    mentioned before, perhaps it was during the primaries. What have "we" become if we fear rioting and hostilities if a candidate loses?

    I didnt say I feared anything (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:06:38 PM EST
    I said this.  (some) Obama fans are fanatics in a way that no candidates supporters  have been in my life.  many are, actually.
    I personally cant remember people fainting in the aisles in my lifetime.  can you?

    Never! Personally, I think the (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:08:08 PM EST
    faints were plants. Why not!!

    there were a lot of plants if thats true (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:10:01 PM EST
    Well, they still talk about "swooning" (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:14:59 PM EST
    people and no one has fainted recently that I've heard about? Some may have been hot, but to have so many seems suspicious to me. They could have been caught up in the "rapture" of the moment!

    Fainting (none / 0) (#49)
    by CST on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:10:48 PM EST
    I remember Bill Clinton saying at some point that he made em faint too during this election.  Maybe those rallies were just really hot...

    I could've lived with an overzealous reaction after the Florida debacle in 2000 if it had ended with Gore as president.  I wish his supporters had been more "fanatical".


    absolutely (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:12:54 PM EST
    I would have been on the front lines.  and I might be this time.
    I did not say it was a bad thing.  I only said it is far more likely this time.
    and I think it is.

    Maybe more likely (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by CST on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:17:02 PM EST
    Maybe not.  Those young millenial supporters are a lot better at chanting "yes we can" than "down with the man" (no I didn't rhyme those on purpose).  We aren't really the confrontational types.

    Aren't college students more likely to riot... (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:22:12 PM EST
    ...as part of a victory celebration?

    and then (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:21:32 PM EST
    you may have a point.  

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:27:05 PM EST
    if there was ever a time for a little good old fashioned rioting that was it.

    Of Course People Have Fainted (none / 0) (#77)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:27:05 PM EST
    at other political rallies.

    I recall it happening at both Gore and Kerry rallies. And probably Bush's too.

    The media and others (like you) opt to make it into evidence of something...adoring or fanatical. The rest of us see it for what it probably is: too long standing in close quarters in a warm place.

    Here's one mention of one at a Kerry rally:


    "''I think we have somebody who's fainted there,'' Mr. Kerry said, hopping off the stage to check on the man as the murmuring crowd made way for him. Moments later, he reclaimed the stage and said calmly: ''Ladies and gentleman, he's all right. He's all right. He's a World War II vet, and he's been standing for a while on his legs and he needs a little air and a little water.''"


    Yes, all the time (none / 0) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:29:29 PM EST
    campaign rallies are hot and crowded and frequently delayed by hours.  People always faint at them.  You don't think the people who fainted at Mondale's rallies were overcome with hope and thrills up their legs, do ya?

    I Have No Idea (none / 0) (#103)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:49:45 PM EST
    But then I never believed that people were fainting at Obama's rallies for that reason either.

    Fear (none / 0) (#50)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:11:05 PM EST
    motivates Democrats nearly as much as guilt.

    Independents?  Doubt it.


    there was no blood (none / 0) (#34)
    by Blowback on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:04:05 PM EST
    in 2000 by Gore people, Donna Brazile, my old friend. What makes you think this year will be different?

    is that a serious question? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:05:04 PM EST
    yes (none / 0) (#45)
    by Blowback on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:09:13 PM EST
    see above (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:10:19 PM EST
    [A____ B____ M__] (none / 0) (#52)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:11:52 PM EST
    It's a stereotype embedded in our culture.  Unfortunately.  Women get called "shrill" and "hysterical".  Is that better than being characterized as prone to violence and rioting?

    perhaps I am being (4.20 / 5) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:16:43 PM EST
    misunderstood.  I am not suggesting that AAs would riot if Obama loses.  AAs, it seems to me, have been among the most reasoned people in this contest.
    they consistently polled as the group most likely to vote for Hillary if she got the nomination.
    I am talking about the Obamabots.  we all know who they are.  we have argued with them for months.  we have seen the unreasoning madness in there hearts.
    these people are fanatics.  fanatics can be dangerous.

    Purposefully misunderstood (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by angie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:19:44 PM EST
    You didn't mention anything about race, Captain Howdy. The fact that others assumed that you must have been talking about AAs rioting tells more about them than you.

    Please do not "assume" (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:28:20 PM EST
    anything. Captain Howdy did not make it perfectly clear what he meant to begin with. This particular subject, as I mentioned, had been discussed on an older, previous thread, I believe during the primaries. Any one bloc of rioters is dangerous. I agree that some "fanatics" will rebel, but no one really knows how? To me, people are people, are people!!!

    I didn't assume anything (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by angie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:31:22 PM EST
    I read the responses to Cpt. Howdy's initial post -- those posters brought up AAs rioting -- that is a fact. Sorry you don't like me pointing that fact out, but there it is -- facts are stubborn things.

    As a discussion point, angie, (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:43:36 PM EST
    anything you disagree with that I might say, I welcome. However, I believe I was first responding to Captain Howdy's initial post on this. If it got lost in the translation, or my translation, I do apologize. I don't believe I mentioned AA's or race in any of my posts, however.

    I didnt really assume that of you (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:39:15 PM EST
    but I have to ask.  is anyone seriously saying that there is a level of fanaticism surrounding Obama that we have not seen much in modern times?

    I don't know. (none / 0) (#113)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:13:14 PM EST
    I didn't see it in real life - just in the blogs and the blogs seemed to be truly surreal during the primary.

    whew (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:22:02 PM EST
    Thanks for clarifying. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:27:06 PM EST
    I don't know.  I've never met an Obambot in person.  I know an optimistic Obama supporter, but I don't think he's an Obamabot.

    I wonder who make up the majority of Obamabots.  I can't see any seasoned, cynical voters thinking that Obama isn't yet another politician.  I can see people who weren't around or paying attention during the Clinton and Reagan years capable of believing that Obama is not a carefully packaged and marketed political product, that he is pure and unsullied.


    I witnessed lots of fanatical behavior (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:31:19 PM EST
    by Obamabots at my caucus in March.  I know exactly what Capt Howdy is saying.  

    yes indeed (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:41:29 PM EST
    for anyone who doubts I suggest some reading about the caucuses.
    a lot posted about those lately.  and its not pretty.

    maybe its my job (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:33:19 PM EST
    or my choice in dates, but I am around a lot.
    they are mostly young people who have never been involved in politics before, can not imagine a world in which Obama will not win and say they will not tolerate one.
    I hear frightening thing on an almost daily basis.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by CST on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:39:14 PM EST
    I have heard nothing like that.  But I am in the post-college millenial group, so maybe we're too old for such sentiment at this point.

    Most of my peers support Obama, but do so rather cynically.  And they would not get off their a$$es for any kind of protest/riot.  But then, we are old enough to have already voted for 1 loser.


    Yeah, me (none / 0) (#79)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:27:24 PM EST
    Blod on the streets?  Are you kidding?

    That's a quote from (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:32:12 PM EST
    Donna Brazile. On CNN.

    A low point, among so many, in modern politics and modern "journalism."


    I agree with BTD (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by ajain on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:48:58 PM EST
    My problem with that is that this election has really become too boring. I want it to either be over, or I want Hillary Clinton back in the race. The sheer stupidity with which the press corps treat her enrages and (more importantly) engages me in the way McCain vs. Obama really does not. Maybe its just the summer months, but I want this election to be over already.

    Not just bored, aggravated. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:54:45 PM EST
    A presidential race should be about the substantial problems the nation faces.  The candidates want winning issues and the media refuses to press them on serious but unexciting issues like The Economy.  So we get Obama the Political Pop Star coverage.  The blogs are hardly any better.

    Of course, as I think you're implying ... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:22:27 PM EST
    the economy is only unexciting to the privileged blogging and media class.

    To rest of us, a candidate who was focused "like a laser beam" on fixing the economy, would be very exciting.


    I live in Ohio. (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:06:32 PM EST
    A keen interest in the economy is a given here.  I don't think Obama or McCain want to take a stand because it's hard to stake out a sure fire winning position.  Frankly the economy s*cks and there is no nifty catch phrase that voters will rally to this season.

    I think it's a bit of a waiting game.  Let the other guy go first and then either trash that proposal or  go one better.

    I'm hoping against hope that the debates will feature serious questions about the economy.  The primary debates were huge disappointments when it came to serious talk about anything.


    At this point, (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by pie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:24:46 PM EST
    I don't even care.

    This has become too boring for words.  Hope that changes before November.  It's really quite stunning to think that people would feel this way after Bush, but there it is.  Neither candidate is exciting.  Since the dems act less and less like an opposition party, it really makes the whole political landscape quite depressing and lackluster.

    However, since ennui will only lead to worse outcomes for the country, we'd better shake this off and try to develop some enthusiasm.


    At this point, for me, the Democratic (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:51:38 PM EST
    "brand" is so broken that I'd rather the Dems not be in complete control, i.e. congress and the w.h. Then, no one is watching anyone. At least, for me, we the people have a chance of holding on to what little of our rights we have left if the dems (or repubs)don't control all 3 branches. Why would any incoming president want to "roll-back" any executive directives that have already been established. The electorate is treated like sheep and respond similarly. You may be correct that Obama will win, I just don't think, at this point, knowing what I've learned thus far, he will be right for this country for what I believe. Neither would Sen. McCain at this point. And so the dillema continues...  

    I'm furious with the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by stxabuela on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:20:22 PM EST
    and their back room deal to secure the nomination for Obama. However, McCain scares me. I can't believe how much he has flipped to the right since 2000. Since Obama left for Europe, I get the impression that McCain has been reduced to flinging feces in a desperate attempt to get something to stick.  

    Barring an October surprise at a martial law level of seriousness, I believe Obama will win. Surely he will be better than McCain. I only hope that the DNC realizes its candidate won in spite of its actions, not because of it.  I'm not going to "get over it." Both parties are broken. I want a third party, called "Wake UP, Sheeple!"


    I hate that song. Hate, hate, hate it! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:52:25 PM EST
    Oh, and I think Obama is favored too.

    What! (none / 0) (#56)
    by lilburro on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:13:33 PM EST
    This song is so good!!  <not snark!>

    I think Obama is going to win as well but it will be interesting to see how he wins.  I'm disappointed that SUSA seems to be taking it slow.

    Living in a "blue" country again will probably be more gratifying than I can even imagine right now.


    Don't ask me... (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:58:29 PM EST
    I thought Kerry was a lock.  I've given up trying to figure out the American electorate...I mean I can't believe people still vote for anybody with a D or an R after their name.

    If GW can win two terms, McCain can win.  

    It's easier to handicap horseraces...and thats saying something.

    Bingo (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:01:12 PM EST
    The money quote...

    If GW can win two terms, McCain can win.

    two terms (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:04:12 PM EST
    the most interesting thing yet to know (besides the VPs) is if McCain will commit to one term.
    I think its possible.  and I think it could make a difference.

    I disagree. GW (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:07:21 PM EST
    was a pretty good candidate and ran a near flawless campaign. McCain is in no where near the same league. This election is Obama's to win or lose. McCain can do little to nothing at this point, thanks to Bush.

    I disagree that Bush was a good (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:11:05 PM EST
    candidate. His staff may have been good, but not him. He just seemed to show up when he was supposed to, said stuff (some unintelligible) and the (hand-picked)crowd cheered. I think McCain can do better than sit back thanks to Bush. I liked his video on the media's love-fest with Sen. Obama. But, he certainly can do more. As for Sen. Obama, I think he could do better as well.

    Their is revisionist history (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by angie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:28:08 PM EST
    and there is just insanity -- in what universe was GWB ever a decent candidate? Yeah, maybe compared to Obama he was, because at least he was a Governor of a big state.
    The truth of the matter here is that if GWB can get elected twice, so can Obama -- they are both being thrust on this country by the media, their hard core fanatic supporters & their "flawlessly run campaigns."

    Then the media (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by pie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:49:27 PM EST
    did their job well, becasse for anyone paying attention, Bush sucked as a debater and as a candidate.  The media portrayed him otherwise.

    I agree (none / 0) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:58:12 PM EST
    Bush was a moron.  anyone who saw him speak knew he was a moron.  he was a terrible candidate.  he could only have beaten an even worse candidate in 04. Kerry.

    just FYI (none / 0) (#127)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:37:02 PM EST
    the man who ran Bush's campaigns in 2004 (and perhaps 2000, as well) is now in charge of McCain's campaign.

    I think it's less the candidate than it is those who run the campaign and craft the message.  As long as the candidate can stick to the script, the campaign won't hit as many potholes.

    But both these candidates have a hard time doing that.  With McCain, I believe most voters will be more forgiving as he has a long history as a Senator, has the back story of his time as a POW and, having been around forever, seems somehow more "familiar".

    With Obama, straying off-script presents it's own challenges because many people don't know what, exactly, he stands for ... other than the innocuous, repetitive Hope and Change.  With the lack of a history and being someone "unfamiliar", more voters are liable to tune him out when he strays from the script or is faced with "scandal" (see September/October).

    Being fairly new, those voters he needs -- Independents, blue collar, rural -- have nowhere to hang their hat with him.  So, it'll just be easier to go over to McCain who they may disagree with, but at least he feels like "one of them" and offer a sense of stability and security in that he's a face they recognize.


    Never (none / 0) (#149)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:57:26 PM EST
    I never believed Kerry was going to win. What chance did he have. Everywhere I went -- I was doing research on the East Coast at that time -- I ran into the same thing over and over again. Dems were allowing Repugs to define Kerry. Kerry, like Gore, would not defend himself against the lies of the Swift Boaters for Slander. Dems seemed uncertain and cowed by the onslaught. Even today most Repugs that I know still believe that the Swift-BSers were telling the truth.

    Hahahahahahahahaha! (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by TheJoker on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:58:53 PM EST
    Afternoon ladies and gents! I was sitting around watching Reno 911 the other day and came up with a list of my favorite original comedy shows of the summer. They are as follows:
    The Colbert Report
    My Boys
    The McCain campaign

    I would never be so rude (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:02:07 PM EST
    as to say you're wrong, BTD.  But I do doubt anyone who so casually and confidently predicts the winner of a Presidential Election 4 months out.

    Obama, despite the 24/7 news coverage, is still basically undefined in Voters' eyes.  And this "who is he really?" attitude is evident in the polling, although I tend to discard those this far out as well.

    The problem with being undefined at this stage in the game eg. being the presumptive Nominee is that the Opponent then has September, October and the first week of November to negatively define him.  And the American People quickly tire of "shoo ins".  They prefer nasty train wrecks especially if it involves someone who's scaled the heights and is a "favorite".

    Expect the Media to turn on Obama with a vengeance once he's the Actual Nominee and expect the majority of Americans to eat up all the salacious, titillating details with a spoon.

    In fact, one of several media narratives has already begun:  

    John McCain as "David" -- not as well-funded and not as popular -- going against Obama's rock star "Goliath" -- incredibly well-funded and beloved, but inexperienced.  Being the underdog, McCain's come-from-behind story arc (mid-October, I'd say) will meld quite beautifully into the Public's need to see the "mighty" fall -- or continue their rapid descent -- off their pedestal while the "average guy" who's "scraping by" rises to the challenge and "wins" in the end.

    Add the above to the negative defining Obama will endure and he's far, far from a shoo in.

    Since this is an open thread (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:04:29 PM EST
    An interesting anecdote from the somewhat insane Dave Kopel:

    In Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Florida, Republican John McCain has been running a TV ad for the past couple weeks showing McCain at a 2007 Republican presidential debate, extolling the military service of non- citizen Hispanic immigrants, and calling them "God's children."

    During the speech, the camera cuts away from McCain to then-candidate Tom Tancredo, who looks rather dour. Marc Ambinder, an on-line columnist for The Atlantic, perceptively noted on July 11 that the Tancredo shot is far from unintentional.

    The shot is what's known as a "dog whistle" - a political term of art first used in the 1990s in Australia. It means using a phrase (or a picture) that may have little significance to the general audience, but which appeals to a select group which knows the special meaning...

    As Bush dog-whistled Christians who believe that America has a special mission from God, so McCain is dog-whistling pro-illegal alien supporters, who believe Tancredo is the devil incarnate. McCain does not use words to tell the broader audience about his long record of opposition to cracking down on illegal immigration; rather he quietly conveys that position via the Tancredo dog whistle.

    It's not a sure think (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by dianem on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:08:52 PM EST
    In a rational world, it would be, but this nation is not rational. The right wing machine has not kicked in and Obama has made some serious mistakes already. Moving away from his base on key issues, not keeping his word, his initial defense of Wright followed by his rejection, his refusal to take on the right's "Obama is a Muslim terrorist" attack head on, his rejection of Bill Clinton. He has done a lot of right things. His campaign is easily as nasty and subtle as any right wing attack, and I suspect that McCain has a really tough fight in front of him.  Who will be more effective in tarring the opponent? The prayer in the wall was a brilliant move. He didn't have to leave a prayer, but he had to have known that there was a chance that it would get out - and he wrote a beauty.

    This isn't just a referendum on Obama. McCain has to show that he's competent, and his language is being parsed by the Obama campaign as carefully as they parsed Bill Clinton's. Every gaffe is highlighted and spun as an indication of mental confusion. If McCain performs well in the debates and Obama doesn't, the growing perception that McCain is not mentally fit for the job might fade. This is as much a referendum on age v. youth, experience v. change.

    I've heard conflicting reports (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by angie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:16:41 PM EST
    I've read that the prayer was removed & I've read a statement from the Israeli paper that ran it that the Obama camp issued a copy of the prayer to the media, which is what they printed. Who knows what the truth is anymore -- I know the European press, for example, is reporting that there were no more then 20,000 in attendance at the speech in Berlin (and that there were 2 free concerts, as well as free beer and food before Obama came on) but in the American press I keep reading the # is 200,000 (and little to no mention of the bands, food & beer). The Ministry of Truth -- it isn't a joke anymore.

    There is no question (none / 0) (#106)
    by dianem on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:55:08 PM EST
    ...that our media tend to spin in favor of Obama. This is probably good - if it lasts until the election. I hadn't heard the "20,000" number or the claim that Obama had released the prayer to the media. I would love to see a source. It's tempting to believe what you want to believe. I felt like the "secret prayer" release was simply too good to be true, and I am very tempted to believe that it wasn't orchestrated by the campaign. But at the same time I tend to trust the media to get at least basic facts right, and I recognize that there are people who find it advantageous to spin against Obama. I used to trust Democratic sources, but they've lied to me enough that I'm not sure who to believe anymore.

    The sources I'm talking about (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by angie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:18:27 PM EST
    for the 20,000 are from the Greek channel I get via satellite so I can't link it -- even if I could, it is in Greek.  But I am telling you, I'm fluent in Greek and I'm not "believing what I want to believe" -- that is what they reported -- about 20,000 people, two bands & free food & beer. And trust me, the "Europeans love Obama" story the msm is reporting here isn't exactly the truth either. I'm not saying they hate him, but the reality is they're pretty much nonplussed over him.

    Interesting (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by CST on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:22:38 PM EST
    The BBC reported over 200,000.  They are pretty reliable.  Also, I am not sure I would use Greek reporting as a benchmark of how Europeans feel about Obama.  Frankly, I think we need to stop thinking of Europeans as one cohesive group (like they need to stop thinking of the U.S. that way).  However, it is pretty clear that Germans love Obama.  That would include the public and the news media.

    just sayin (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:33:54 PM EST
    nmentioned in national reporting was the fact that Obama was preceded by a rare, 45-minute free concert by actual rock stars The Decemberists.

    and brats and beer.

    with that lineup I could probably pull a hundred thousand.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by CST on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:38:22 PM EST
    I remember when Jon Kerry came to Pittsburgh he did so with Jon Bon Jovi in tow and got a pretty big crowd.  I certainly don't remember any hoopla about that.  And in that case I can definitely say, I was only there for the band and free food...

    I am pretty sure he wasn't able to pull nearly 200,000 people though.  Although, in fairness to Jon Bon Jovi and Jon Kerry, Pittsburgh isn't nearly as big as Berlin.


    Kerry got 77,000 in Madison, Wisconsin (none / 0) (#145)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:39:19 PM EST
    in 2004.  Or, of course, actually Bruce Springsteen did -- and that is the way it was reported in the media then, and with photos of Kerry and Springsteen together.

    So I find it fascinating that the media (here) are not reporting the realities of what brings out these sizeable audiences to Obama rallies.  Just saying.

    Oh, and of course, Kerry lost.  Anyway.


    The Decemberists (3.66 / 3) (#129)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:39:55 PM EST
    performed right before the Portland, Oregon rally during primary season, which is why the crowd was estimated at 75,000.

    I would have gone to see them (none / 0) (#131)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:49:05 PM EST
    NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, IHT, FOX (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:36:56 PM EST
    Over 200,000 as well.

    Die Welt, Spiegel, et al. Must be a conspiracy.


    I didn't mean to imply you were wrong (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by dianem on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:36:32 PM EST
    Just that there is a lot of misinformation out there and it's sometimes hard to tell truth from fiction. I tend to trust overseas media more than locals simply because they have less of a history - or reason - to be biased. Their ratings (and profits) don't depend on how badly they offend certain Americans. But there is also a tendency to trust sources who reinforce our own biases, which means that I have to be careful what I believe.

    The Only Conflicting Report (none / 0) (#133)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:58:28 PM EST
    I could find was from the newspaper itself, Ma'ariv, which reported that while under fire for publishing the note.

    Indeed, the report I saw seemed to have a reproduction of the actual note itself, handwritten,  on the front page.

    The Obama campaign has said nothing about the note, and no other news organization (that I can find) has backed up this claim of the Obama campaign releasing the content of the note for publication.


    Obama Campaign Response (4.00 / 1) (#141)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:40:43 PM EST
    Re: published Wailing Wall note:

    via Ben Smith @ Politico

    "Obama spokesman Bill Burton flatly denied the contention that Obama's prayer, in the form of a note slipped into the Wailing Wall, was "approved for publication."

    "That didn't happen," he said in an email.  "We have neither confirmed nor denied the prayer to anyone.""


    It should be a shoo-in for the Democrat (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by esmense on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:05:23 PM EST
    but I think it will be close, and I think McCain has more room to improve his current standing -- with a good VP pick and smarter efforts to create distrust of Obama -- than Obama does.

    The problem for Obama is that his entire appeal to voters is based on his personal characteristics -- his image as presented by the campaign. Voters have to decide that he can and will do what they think needs to be done in their best interest and that of the country based on who they hope he is rather than what they know he has done and has demonstrated he can do.

    The large number of still undecided and in many cases still unengaged voters, who are in general the least partisan voters, not only have to get to know him, they also have to become believers.

    That's a high hurdle. One that would probably be too high without the significant failures of and disgust with the party currently in power and/or with a marginally better candidate on the other side.

    For that reason Obama is especially vulnerable to the opposition's effort to destroy his image and create distrust of him personally. An effort that has not yet kicked into anything like high gear yet, but that is sure to do so at some point.

    Obama's campaign is quite sophisticated -- at both image making and in protecting that image. But there isn't much new and dramatic they can do in terms of postive image making at this point -- he doesn't have any new arguments to make for himself. Or many dramatic new moves he can make. His VP pick isn't likely to add much excitement because, with such a personality based campaign, he can't make a VP pick that could upstage him. The rest of his campaign will depend on his performance in the debates and will be spent hoping that as the undecideds become familiar with the image he's established they too will become believers -- which basically means spending a lot of time defending himself against negative attacks. While also, of course, attacking McCain negatively.

    McCain on the other hand doesn't have to be someone you can believe in. He just has to  appear to be the safer choice.

    This is a good analysis ... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:24:44 PM EST
    I'd add that Republicans are traditionally good at the late game.

    Also that the convention may give Obama another chance to improve his image.  It's a good venue for his Mad Ave style campaign.


    That's why he is a vulnerable candidate.. (none / 0) (#135)
    by rjarnold on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:09:18 PM EST
    His campaign promoted him as some sort of superman. They have built him up as an honest, authentic, principled, change agent that takes tough stands and will change the culture in washington. He is relying on that image even though it doesn't stand to much scrutiny. It also doesn't even make much sense considering that he also calls for bipartisanship for its own sake.

    So, I believe that the election will come down to how well McCain and the Republicans are able to smash that silly image. The good news is that so far they have done a lousy job, and even if it they are somewhat successful, Obama has a huge edge with his policies.


    From Today's LA Times (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:53:29 PM EST
    "The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign. You read it right: tougher on the Democrat."

    I'd say... (4.66 / 3) (#19)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:54:51 PM EST
    Wait and see until after the debates.  Obama has already proven it's not his strong suit, but when he is up there hemming and hawing and sounding like a law professor, and McCain(no great debater himself)gets a few snappy soundbites in, it's going to be close.  I thnk most people in the know think it will be close.  There have even been several postulations that Obama could win the popular vote (by winning in the cities) and losing the electoral vote (sound familiar?)

    I agree the debates are key (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:57:29 PM EST
    going to be very very big news and big viewing audience this year.
    make or break for both.  

    I think the VP spot is important this time too. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:32:14 PM EST
    People say they do not vote for the VP, but I think it makes a difference this time. I loved Gore but thought JoeL was the worse VP selection. Obama with a Hillary would be a sure winner, but if you put Nunn or a Chenney type on the ballot,I think it would have an effect. The same for McCain, especially with the age factor. People don't want an unknown on that ticket. This will continue to be interesting. It seems the Primary was like the play off games to the SuperBowl. Just like the new Denver convention bags are an example of the AT&T Pre Game show.

    I've thought the same for (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by TheJoker on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:39:32 PM EST
    a long time and I think others think the same but aren't sure. Over the last 10 to 15 yrs America has learned the potential importance of the position. The VP counts this year.

    yes (none / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:35:56 PM EST
    and double that if McCain commits to only one term.

    Those debates are a big "?" (4.66 / 3) (#37)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:05:01 PM EST
    for me as well.  If it was Clinton versus McCain, my money would be on Clinton because she's got the chops when it comes to ex temp speaking and The Issues.

    But Obama?  He's still um'ing and uh'ing and I haven't seen an improvement on nuts on bolts policy.  He'd also best watch it when it comes to any ageist cracks.  He needs every vote he can get.


    job one for Obama (none / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:46:25 PM EST
    I suspect will be to try to push McCains buttons and make him lose his temper.
    it will be fun to watch.

    and vice versa (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:55:43 PM EST
    Obama has some sore spots as well.  The GOP may use 527s to push Obama's buttons while McCain stands clear or McCain may try it as well.

    McCain may have a temper, but he's also been a pol for a long time.  He may be able to hold it together  for the length of a debate.


    indeed (none / 0) (#119)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:21:37 PM EST
    and he is far less used to being challenged.  I noticed it in some of the recent interviews. which seem to be getting a tiny bit better.  he will not simply be able to talk over McCain.

    Hey BTD (or anyone) do you (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:45:55 PM EST
    think that Obama's "neo-southern strategy" is as fruitless and futile as the pitch to "value voters"?

    You are not wrong about this. (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:46:50 PM EST
    If you were, that would make also me wrong about this, and we both know that could never be.

    oops (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:47:28 PM EST
    Republican presidential candidate John McCain moved from being behind by 6 points among "likely" voters a month ago to a 4-point lead over Democrat Barack Obama among that group in the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll

    Dollars to donuts, that poll is an outlier. (none / 0) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:49:45 PM EST
    time will tell (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:54:03 PM EST
    Link? (none / 0) (#39)
    by nr22 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:05:51 PM EST
    here ya go (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:08:09 PM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#57)
    by nr22 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:14:38 PM EST
    Doesn't make much sense (none / 0) (#54)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:12:36 PM EST
    McCain is leading amongst likely voters but losing among registered voters.

    And the Gallup daily tracking poll has Obama up 8.

    Don't get your hopes up, Captain Howdy.  This is an outlier.


    I bet they are using their usual..... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:17:46 PM EST
    ..."likely" voter formulas. I don't think those are going to work this year.

    Plus (none / 0) (#74)
    by nr22 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:25:22 PM EST
    Most people agree that using likely voters this far out from the election is a bad idea. Much better to use registered voters for now.

    Spot on Maria. (none / 0) (#92)
    by TheJoker on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:34:20 PM EST
    I'm shocked that people don't see this coming. If Obama maintains his lead of 3 to 6 points, and adds an energized and galvanized AA and youth vote, it's game over. This is why you WILL NOT see an obsession
    with every poll that comes out on the prog. blogesphere. The young scamps know what's coming.

    Makes one wonder.. (none / 0) (#59)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:15:18 PM EST
    What this mostly does is put out the question as to  the legitimacy of Gallup right now. The Friday/Saturday/Sunday Gallup tracking poll puts Obama at +8 and the USA Today/Gallup poll over the same three days puts McCain at +4.

    Regardless of which one is the current "snapshot" Gallup obviously has some methodology issues.


    Methodology issues.... (none / 0) (#88)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:31:39 PM EST
    many will agree with that when they hear that Gallup called me last night (Sunday).

    Very nice woman calling from Indiana, I think she said.  Took about 20 minutes.

    Q was only between Obama and McCain...no other choices.

    Rest of Q were demographics...


    via (none / 0) (#17)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:54:27 PM EST
    Ben Smith's Blog, MoveOn.org has a new ad out. It's a spoof on Phama ads. It's about hope. In the last scene a woman and a man sit, she holds up an egg and says, "This is you brain." The man says, "and this is your brain on hope," as he holds up a baby chick (awwwww). What are we betting that some wingnut will say it's anti-patriotic because it's not an eagle?

    Wow, that's stupid (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:57:40 PM EST
    Not even clever.

    If they wanted to be edgy, they'd describe John McCain as some kind of disease.


    I think I'm (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:03:23 PM EST
    throwing up a little in my mouth.  Not fair.  I need those barf bags for voting in November.

    Seems kind of pro-life to me........ (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:27:58 PM EST
    ...or am I reading too much into it, lacking hope as I do.

    It's a twofer... (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:33:50 PM EST
    ...this is what passes for creative these days.

    I thought that was awful... (none / 0) (#46)
    by skuld1 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:09:27 PM EST
    IMO that was pretty bad.

    Go for those emo voters! (none / 0) (#60)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:16:20 PM EST
    It's not going to win over any new voters.  It's an interesting take on the Rally The Base meme, though.

    funny (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 01:56:36 PM EST
    although not to everyone I suspect.  CUIL.com just launched a big campaign to compete with GOOGLE.
    you cant access the page.
    some poor IT guy will be looking for work tomorrow.

    Heh (none / 0) (#32)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:02:34 PM EST
    I tried it out this morning.  The site was very slow to load.  I tried a search, and not only was the formatting of the results singularly unimpressive, but when I clicked to the 3rd page of results (out of 10) I got a "your search has found no hits" error message out of nowhere.

    This site might have the greatest algorithm evah, but you only get one chance to make a first impression.  How they can go live with something this ambitious, and not even have a front end that works properly, is beyond me.  I could write their epitaph right now.


    Too bad.... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:12:34 PM EST
    nobody is running who would render this Peter Tosh verse obsolete....from "Whatcha Gonna Do".

    Mama, Mama, dem hold Papa
    Seh dem hold him fe smoke ganja
    If mi never jump two fence, dem hold mi too
    So tell mi Mama, whatcha gonna do?

    After 8 years of Bush/Cheney... (none / 0) (#71)
    by pmj6 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:22:24 PM EST
    any Democratic nominee should be a shoo-in. However, Obama is yet to open a commanding lead over McCain, and he seems to underperform vs. McCain in comparison to a generic Dem-Rep ballot. I tend to share the view that Obama has peaked and is now on the downhill slope. His attractiveness was largely due to the combination of charisma and absence of track record that would antagonize certain demographics. We saw this during the primary campaign, where the longer it went the worse Obama was doing relative to HRC (to the point of avoiding debates), and we'll likely see it in the general election too.

    From everything I'm hearing (none / 0) (#101)
    by TheJoker on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:47:36 PM EST
    the AA community wouldn't even protest/riot unless there is evidence the election was stolen. They've been expressing that they fully expect White America to reject Obama. Period.

    Deutschland--"Du hast mich. Nein." (none / 0) (#112)
    by wurman on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:09:22 PM EST
    Rammstein perfomance, live MTV Awards--Europe YouTube (link):

    "You have me.  No."

    Good song (none / 0) (#122)
    by CST on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:28:58 PM EST
    Interesting play on words (for any German buffs out there).

    Du hast, and du hasst sound exactly the same but mean very different things.  One is have, the other is hate.  So the song goes:

    Du has(s?)t
    Du has(s?)t mich
    Du hast mich gefragt und ich hab nein gesacht.

    In English that is:

    You have(hate?)
    You have(hate?) me
    You have asked me and I have said no.

    The last one is clearly have, but the others could easily be hate and the song is very toungue in cheek, so I think the pun is intended.


    Sie haben Einsicht. . . . (none / 0) (#138)
    by wurman on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:28:04 PM EST
    The video that earned the award is even more of a pun than the lyrics by themselves.

    And the use of the song in the movie Matrix as backdrop to the conversion (eloctrode implantation) of Anderson to Neo--THE ONE--made another pun for my Verständnis.

    I couldn't resist the comparisons.


    I've never bought into ... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:45:55 PM EST
    the notion that the best way to make Obama a shoo-in is to keep saying he's a shoo-in.

    I understand the rational.  And so far it's worked for Obama.

    But the technique, effective as it may be, rubs me the wrong way.

    W: The Teaser Trailer (none / 0) (#137)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:22:35 PM EST
    The teaser trailer for the Oliver Stone-directed film "W" has leaked.

    Check it out.

    Josh Brolin    ...     George W. Bush
    Elizabeth Banks    ...     Laura Bush
    Ioan Gruffudd    ...     Tony Blair
    Thandie Newton    ...     Condoleezza Rice
    Ellen Burstyn    ...     Barbara Bush
    Jeffrey Wright    ...     General Colin Powell
    Richard Dreyfuss...     Dick Cheney
    James Cromwell    ...     George Herbert Walker Bush
    Scott Glenn    ...     Donald Rumsfeld
    Rob Corddry    ...     Ari Fleischer
    Toby Jones    ...     Karl Rove

    George Herbert Walker Bush (none / 0) (#140)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:39:08 PM EST
    should be very flattered with James Cromwell. Think he is an extroidinary actor.

    Ellen Burstyn as Barbara Bush??? (none / 0) (#150)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:36:19 PM EST
    No way! Karl Rove was cloned with cells from Barbara Bush's... well, we won't go there. But my point is... this woman is evil. Does anyone believe that Ellen Burstyn can do that level of evil? I don't think so.

    MileHi.... (none / 0) (#158)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 11:56:22 AM EST
    good to see ya, hope you're doing as well as can be...been worried about ya my man.

    Thanks kdog (none / 0) (#159)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:01:43 PM EST
    I'm scratching and clawing to stay above the ground and so far I've been successful.  Every day is a challange though.  

    One day at a time for now...


    It's all any of us can do.... (none / 0) (#160)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:16:14 PM EST
    a day above ground is a good day.

    I'm not a praying man...but I'm hoping for you.


    Yeah... (none / 0) (#164)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:31:22 PM EST
    I guess it was lot easier to run this joint when 20-30 knuckleheads were commenting as opposed to hundreds of knuckleheads.

    Maybe once the election is over (none / 0) (#165)
    by CST on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 02:19:42 PM EST
    some of us "knuckleheads" will leave you alone :)

    I honestly don't know what I'll do.  I got into it for the election, but now I'm hooked.  TL is as addictive as crack and ice coffee.


    Better not.... (none / 0) (#166)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 02:43:07 PM EST
    knuckleheads like you better stick around CST.

    You woulda fit right in back in the "old days".

    Couldn't agree more about the addictive qualities of Talkleft...I found the place on a lark maybe 6 years ago and never left...it's the only political blog for me.


    Hope You Stick Around (none / 0) (#167)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:18:41 PM EST
    I agree with kdog, you would have fit right in "old days".  It would be a loss, if you left..

    I concur... (none / 0) (#168)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:22:59 PM EST
    ...with Mr's Squeaky and kdog.  You're one of the good knuckleheads, CST.  

    Thanks kdog and squeaky (none / 0) (#169)
    by CST on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:25:23 PM EST
    Nice to feel the love :)

    I probably will.  It's too much fun to banter with people.  I get to learn something and I get my comic relief.


    That's the best part... (none / 0) (#170)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:38:15 PM EST
    its such a diverse group...people from all over the country (world even) and all walks of life.

    If you ain't learning here there is something wrong with you.


    I learn the most (none / 0) (#171)
    by CST on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:45:52 PM EST
    From the threads I don't even post on, because I don't have much to add, so I just keep quiet and read.  Then I go home and spread the word.

    Thanks M. Hawk... your username is really too complicated but I didn't want to leave you out :)