home

Holiday Eve Open Thread

Time for an open thread. Anyone around?

< Obama: Mental Distress Can't Justify Late Term Abortion | No Flip, Today's Attack Flops >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    CNN, Anderson Cooper (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:14:08 PM EST
    tonight -- discussing WORM about Iraq today.  Yeegads!  Two men totally screaming their heads off!  One screaming you can't win in Iraq without troops and the other one screaming Obama has always been consistent!  Too funny!!  You usually have to pay for this kind of entertainment (unless you regularly watch Jerry Springer, of course).    

    I heard Rachel Maddow (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:47:53 PM EST
    try to defend it against the MSNBC panel with Joe Scarborough also.  It did not go well.

    I only heard a little in the car - I cant keep track of his current stance.  Rachel was saying Obama did not say today that he still agreed with the 16 month deadline, but she was also saying he has not changed his position since March. Scarborough was making fun of her as she laughed at him calling her out on the contradiction. It was a big mess.


    [ Parent ]

    Based on your description, (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:19:02 PM EST
    I'm watching the repeat. Yeller i.d.-Ed "Blowhard" Schultz. That guy really can yell! Can't say I've missed him during my media boycott.

    [ Parent ]
    Sending some love to TalkLeft (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:24:14 PM EST
    Having just verified that my "stimulus payment" has arrived in my bank account, I've a little of it along to TalkLeft. Small donation and in $US, but it's the thought that counts (I hope).

    Thanks to Jeralyn, BTD, and TChris, for helping me keep what little is left of my sanity and for staying on top of the legal/crime issues that I came here for in the first place!

    I'll join you (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Coldblue on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:50:26 PM EST
    While I'm not in harmony with supporting the nominee simply because he is the Democrat, this site (and the proprietor) are worthy of a contribution.

    Hats off to TalkLeft.

    [ Parent ]

    Senior Women Web denied credentials (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:33:03 PM EST
    to the Dem convention in Denver (as well as the GOP convention), although writer, lawyer, and longtime feminist leader Jo Freeman has reported from conventions since the '60s.  (See her web page , click from this link, with much else that is great reading -- plus her collection of convention and movement memorabilia not to miss.)  She asks for help -- see how below -- because she has been denied press credentials.:

    The Democratic Convention Committee in particular seems to be giving out all of its credentials to bloggers, to the detriment of the publications I have traditionally written for.  Press credentials are given only to press organizations, not to individuals, so I always have to apply through and write for a specific publication.

    I always apply to the Periodical Press Gallery, and through the 2000 conventions, the PPG always credentialed the press organization I represented (which varied over the years).  These were all print publications.  When I applied in 2004 through Senior Women Web [an online magazine], we were denied.

    However, because [the 2004 sites were close to home for her], I went anyway.  PPG recognized me as a "regular" . . . and gave me a "no show" pass (i.e. one allocated but not picked up by another a publication).  I thought having done this in 2004, PPG would surely credential SWW (me) in 2008, but it didn't.

    Senior Women Web was denied again this year.  The DNCC and RNCC haven't allocated all passes yet, she says, but replies she received suggest that they do not take Senior Women Web seriously.  And  owing to the distance to be traveled this year for her to convention sites, she can't make a last-minute trip as last time.

    If you think that Senior Women Web should be credentialed for her readers to have her take, as ever, on political parties' concerns and activities of women and/or feminists, please contact:  Drew Brookie, Media Logistics, DNCC,
    dnccpressgallery@demconvention.com and Tamar Mintz, TMintz@gopconvention2008.com and/or special_press@GOPConvention2008.com.

    oh my... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:42:07 PM EST
    This hurts*.

    *their chances that I will take them seriously. Frack the DNC and the pony it rode in on if Jo Freeman can't report. That's a deal-breaker for me. Big Tent != Unity? WTF?!

    [ Parent ]

    Pander to everyone (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:45:18 PM EST
    except women.  

    [ Parent ]
    Especially (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:47:43 PM EST
    Senior Women and their online magazine.  Under the bus with good company there, of course.  

    Out with the old, in with the New . . . Dems.

    [ Parent ]

    Related to Obama's FISA cave (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:35:55 PM EST
    I no longer have a scintilla of doubt that he would have voted for the AUMF like Hillary did if he had been a junior freshman Senator with presidential aspirations at the time.

    Just happy to have that cleared up. One less thing to wonder about.

    Fish on the General Election race (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:41:47 PM EST
    Is That All There Is?
    TAGS: GENERAL ELECTION, PRIMARIES
    From early February through the beginning of June, the lament one heard from the political pundits (echoing Cicero's first oration against Catiline) went this way: How long shall we have to endure the ordeal of the Democratic primary? How long before we get to the real thing?

    But now it turns out that the primary season - extended, it was said, beyond expectation or reason - was the real thing. And I say that because, at least to date, the current season - the season that was to bring a once-in-a-century contest between two men of different generations and clearly opposed ideologies - has been totally uninteresting.




    oops..lost link (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:42:19 PM EST
    Don't watch that - watch this! (none / 0) (#54)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:50:21 PM EST
    Peggy Lee - You won't regret it.

    No really, read at the link in the parent. But if that's all there is... sad.

    How have I lived this long and the body public has learned.... NOTHING.

    [ Parent ]

    On a personal level it's been good for me (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by MarkL on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:49:25 PM EST
    that Hillary lost. I was totally absorbed with the primary race; now, I hardly care who wins in November, so I'm spending a lot  less time watching blogs.

    [here insert smiley face -- preview demands it] (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Klio on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:11:07 PM EST
    My experience as well, to the benefit of my actual work!

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, same here.. making some (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by MarkL on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:12:55 PM EST
    progress on my research now ( i think!)

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:00:43 PM EST
    I would probably be investing a lot of time in Hillary's election.  Now, I'm investing that time in my family instead.  I finally decided about a month ago that these Obama supporters are just so unbearable, they can go ahead and elect their nominee themselves, if they're able.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm just popping in (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:10:57 PM EST
    My oldest tured 16 today. We spent the day out grilling. It's nice to knw that while I was gon Obama managed to make it clear to his supporters that they aren't to use the Roe V. Wade argument. May every man who has ever told a woman what she should be allowed to do with her body(at the dentriment of it)be forced to suffer the pains of carrying around something that saps the nutrients from their body and alters their hormones.

    I wonder if he plans on offering any help for those women who he insists most go through mental distress whether they like it or not or if he does like the typical male that will never have that circumstance thrust upon him and IGNORE it.

    Snowballs have a better chance in Hades.......  

    Ah, first kid to get the driver's license soon? (none / 0) (#196)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:14:34 AM EST
    You have your own Hades ahead.  Hang in there.  But a tip:  When you get the car back, be sure to turn down the sound on the radio before you click it on.  You're driving along, you decide to catch the news, you click on the radio button -- and out comes the loudest sound level, usually on some station or playing a CD you never would select for yourself.

    It can make you hop the car right over a curb -- or lose control of the car as you take both hands off the wheel to cover your ears and save your hearing.  Hang in there. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    New York Times editorial board (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:15:38 PM EST
    agrees with posters here:  New and Not Improved

    Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush's abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.

    Lots of points in this editorial including FISA, etc.  

    unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by boredmpa on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:35:16 PM EST
    i've already met my once-a-month contribution limit to the nytimes ad statistics.

    Maybe there will be something interesting in august.

    [ Parent ]

    Whoa (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by MsExPat on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:01:28 AM EST
    The Times calls Obama on his flip flopping, big time. Strong stuff, and so soon. He's been the "nominee" for like, 25 days now, right?

    [ Parent ]
    Anyone watching the ABC series, (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:20:37 PM EST
    "Hopkins," about Johns Hopkins Hospital, and some of the doctors and their patients?  

    I live 25 miles north of Baltimore, and not only have a family member who works at one of the Hopkins campuses, but have had family members treated there; it's quite a complex - really a city unto itself.  The area looks good on TV, but the hospital is located in a pretty bad area - typical of urban hospitals, I guess.

    We feel lucky to have such a great hospital so close.

    I watched for a few minutes (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:48:50 PM EST
    but it was the kind of show that makes disease too real, I turned it off and watched a rerun of Bachelorette, I'm still trying to figure out who she picks Monday night. I'm rooting for the snowboarder from Breckenridge.

    [ Parent ]
    I watched the first episode of Hopkins and (none / 0) (#102)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:27:16 PM EST
    enjoyed....already have the DVR set for every week til it ends....I miss that old show Trauma In The ER...that was very good too.

    [ Parent ]
    Two A+ Grades for Johns Hopkins (none / 0) (#103)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:27:23 PM EST
    Johns Hopkins...great doctors and great lacrosse

    [ Parent ]
    Hopkins (none / 0) (#114)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:38:01 PM EST
    Hopkins is the biggest slum landlord in the city. They own those bad neighborhoods - are slowly tearing them down to expand.

    [ Parent ]
    Dang! I missed it and I wanted (none / 0) (#160)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:56:01 PM EST
    to watch. I was thinking it started next week :( Hopefully they'll do the rerun of the first before the next, but if they don't I'll be there next week anyway. Thanks for the reminder :)

    [ Parent ]
    now the talking head on CNN (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:26:32 PM EST
    is using the supreme court threat to claim that no one onthe left will leave Obama over these flip/flops.

    I disagree.  The major worry I have about Obama is that he will nominate centrists to the courts in order to avoid fights with the right and make good on his theme of bipartisanship.

    And, i think the a dem controlled senate would be unable to stop a dem president from having centrists confirmed.  It would be much easier for a dem senate to stop McCain's judges than to stop Obama's.

    We need reliable liberal judges to replace the liberal judges that are going to be the ones to retire.  And, they need to be younger and healthier than Roberts and Alito.  I have no confidence that Obama would appoint such liberal judges.

    Well, he's wrong (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:37:21 PM EST
    because I already left.

    [ Parent ]
    I have no faith (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:55:06 PM EST
    Obama would do anything I would like him to, and I mean ANYTHING.

    Liberal judges?  Yeah, I like them too.  

    But I also like Roe v. Wade, gun control, separation between religion and state, and a whole host of used-to-be Democratic issues.  

    I'm still looking for the candidate that is going to pander to ME!  I want to be pandered to too!    

    [ Parent ]

    Oh - heard something on the radio (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:37:27 PM EST
    yesterday that just blew my mind...

    POTUS 08 on XM Radio airs a show called "PJM Political" - part of Pajamas Media - that I do not normally listen to because it makes my head hurt.  

    Yesterday, I heard Kathleen Parker, a conservative op-ed writer, being interviewed by Glenn Reynolds and "Dr. Helen" - whoever she is.  Parker has written a book called Save the Males, which is apparently predicated on the theory that "gender equity" has tipped too far toward women, with the result that males are being left behind.  This is, of course, bad for society.  Apparently, women have been allowed to bamboozle society into not only taking up their cause, but making it okay to demean and marginalize men at the same time.  This pervasive belief that women don't need men has broken down the family structure and weakened marriage.

    Seriously, that was her argument.

    I didn't hear more than about 5 minutes, but it just had me shaking my head; the interviewers were all but shouting "Hallelujah!"

    Sigh.

    Dr. Helen (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:54:24 PM EST
    is Glenn Reynolds' (law professor who writes Instapundit) wife (she is a forensic psychologist.) Her blog is here.

    She made an excellent movie about teen crime a few years ago called "Six."

    I consider them friends.

    [ Parent ]

    She's awful. So her column runs in my paper (none / 0) (#121)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:51:32 PM EST
    of course, neocon as it is.  I often cannot even look at her column until I've had lots of morning coffee.  And even then, I'd rather read Dear Abby.

    [ Parent ]
    a 1 (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by boredmpa on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:52:55 PM EST
    Because I am sick and tired of people categorizing dissent and opposition as irrational and delegitimizing that dissent as just about anger.

    Don't pretend you haven't read the actual arguments; they've been posted here many times.  

    And as far as I'm concerned the continued attack posts like yours and squeaky's are just as inappropriate as shilling for mccain.

    Really? (2.00 / 1) (#125)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:56:22 PM EST
    I voted for Hillary but have been equally critical of her and Obama as regards the war, crime and anything else I had a problem with.
    I have also been supportive of both when their positions pleased me.

    As far as I have read, you have only loooooved Hillary and bashed Obama at every chance possible.

    So much for principal.

    [ Parent ]

    and your (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by boredmpa on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:15:02 PM EST
    attempt to change the topic,
    qualifier of "as far as i've read"
    coupled with the exaggerated attack on loooooove/bashing

    suggests that while you may have your own principles you don't support basic principles of ethical discourse even among your peers.

    Because regardless of whether I have been loving or hating or supporting or opposing policies, systems, and candidates, you've been repeatedly attacking and marginalizing individuals on this blog.  It's not productive, not ethical, and suggests you have limited interest in the discussion required for democracy.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes As Far As I Have Read (2.00 / 1) (#142)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:23:50 PM EST
    And I have read most of your comments. You have only one purpose here and it is clear. It is dishonest to go on about principals about dissent and opposition when that is not what you are doing. Calling Obama an empty suit and all the other names is not dissent or opposition, it is bashing and smearing.

    There never was a dimes worth of difference between Hillary or Obama, just style and packaging, imo.

    And you are all principled about your right for dissent and opposition but you want to shut up others who find your positions shallow?

    Sounds like a big double standard to me.

    [ Parent ]

    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by Grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:11:46 AM EST
    There never was a dimes worth of difference between Hillary or Obama, just style and packaging, imo.

    There was a huge difference between Clinton and Obama -- and that was in their Commitment and Principles.  

    You see, Hillary had the ability to make a commitment to something, a lifelong commitment.  She also had principles and she would never compromise on her principles.  She actually could "Stand for something."  

    Obama couldn't even remain committed to Reverend Wright.  You know why everyone says he throws people under the bus?  It's because he can't maintain his commitments to these people or ideals.  He compromises on his "principles" over and over again.  (Everyone calls it pandering and "pols being pols" but it's really compromising principles.)  Does he really stand for anything?

    So, you might think it's just "style and packaging" but it's really substance.  She's made of much tougher material than he is.    

    [ Parent ]

    I criticize everyone (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:50:31 PM EST
    realizing that no candidate is going to support my position on issues, but still, the Democratic nominee is better than the Republican.

    [ Parent ]
    i appreciate that position (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by boredmpa on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:13:27 AM EST
    and i appreciate that you don't snark/undermine people that hold different positions.

    It's one of the reasons I don't repeat the same posts/arguments from earlier this year: most people have already read them and many of them were contextual.  It's also one of the reason's why I've been quieter, except to deflate the balloon that certain pivots/panders are going to work.  

    Anyway, I feel the need to correct people when they come onto the blog and reframe a decision I and others made back in March or April -- before I was even angry.  I'm not here to advocate for PUMA, I'm here to analyze/critique and maybe play armchair quarterback, and the baity posts are a distraction.

    ------------
    Horse race aside, i'm an MPA and will continue to read the blog for the crime updates as much as anything.  

    Thanks for all you do.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't mean to put down valid opinions (none / 0) (#134)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:04:02 PM EST
    if they have valid opinions.  I'm rereading my comment to see if I've attacked or even insulted anyone.  Is the PUMA what you're referring to?  I don't think the PUMA approach will work to elect a democrat, and given it's name, it's definitely about anger.  But we can agree to disagree on that if you think it's a positive movement that will help our party.  

    What about the rest of what I wrote?  I'm all for dumping Obama if he's really a turncoat or stealth candidate, and if there's another viable option (not McCain).  So what can we do to move forward?  

    [ Parent ]

    sigh. (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by boredmpa on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:53:24 PM EST
    Allow me to channel Big tent-like indignation:

    Who the hell are you to define valid opinions?
    And do you expect me to believe you reread your first paragraph and didn't see your attack and marginalization?

    And since when does Principles+Resolve+Snark ==Anger?

    Spare me.  I don't care whether we agree or disagree, I care that when someone is called on reframing a principled and commonly held position that they at least friggin recognize it and apologize.

    here is one example of a "valid opinion"
    there are many others, and that particular one isn't that great because it's too high level.  

    ---
    i am not debating that argument here and if you want me to just participate in pure emotionless political discussion, then leave the attacks out of your next post.


    [ Parent ]

    Two Must-Reads (in my opinion): (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:57:45 PM EST
    The Guardian's two-part piece on how the American left co-opted the right-wing rhetoric against the Clintons for the primaries:

    Part 1

    Part 2

    "Billary", the two-headed monster created by the rightwing to demonize the "two-for-one" presidency of Bill Clinton and his feminist, advisor wife Hillary Clinton, also stumbled out of its grave, given new life by liberals who defended the Clintons against the very same attack when it was her being used against him during his administration, but now found it politically expedient to use him against her. Billary was back in vogue, and infamous Clinton-haters in the media like Maureen Dowd or Chris Matthews (who remains as fixated on Clinton scandals, especially the Lewinsky matter - the scandal that made his career - as ever) accused Hillary of being nothing without her husband, only having come within inches of the presidency because her husband had cheated on her. The progressive blogosphere largely remained silent, or, worse, acquiesced by suggesting there was some truth to the categorisation.

    and the leaked accounts of the meeting Obama had with evangelical leaders a couple weeks ago, as told by The Nation.

    Ah, the Bible according to Rezko (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:14:50 PM EST
    re the preacher who declared "it is unscriptural not to own land."  What a glimpse that article gives.

    But yeh, Obama's time with the evvies didn't work -- per the coverage of this weekend's meeting of 100 Christian right preachers and leaders to coalesce around McCain.  All that pandering and no payoff.  When will it finally p*ss off his fans?  Are they reading this coverage or only whatever is on his website?

    [ Parent ]

    That Guardian piece is a reprint (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:22:51 PM EST
    from Shakesville by Melissa McEwan. Love to know the story of why they ran it. It is good.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's the scariest part (none / 0) (#139)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:17:54 PM EST
    Through his daily radio broadcast--the third most popular program in the United States--

    If Obama's outreach to evangelicals can usurp some of that conversation, our party's future will be a lot brighter.

    [ Parent ]

    This PUMA stuff is a kneejerk angry reaction. (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:51:14 PM EST
    WRONG.

    Okaaay. What is it then? (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:56:53 PM EST
    A) A way to get a Democrat elected as Prez.

    B) A way to keep half the Democrats engaged in case Hillary wins the nomination.

    C) A friendly, joking response to what happened in the primary season.

    Help me out here.  Are PUMA people not angry?  Is it a productive movement that I don't understand yet?

    [ Parent ]

    You know I wrote a bunch of other stuff (none / 0) (#162)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:59:26 PM EST
    in that comment.  Want to talk about any of that?

    [ Parent ]
    A confession (5.00 / 5) (#188)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:57:53 AM EST
    I have been cheating on TL.  I have gone to an unnamed at this time site's, beta new site testing their product.  I must say, what I love about TL

    1.  You don't have to each time you comment have to write an encyclopedia about the history of the world and politics.

    2.  Humor, people here have a real sense of humor.
    3.  Scolders vs. victims, the universe is not divided between those who scold and those who crumble at the implication of criticism, telling you about their dysfunctional family.  UGH.  Enough.  
    4.  There are some truly critical thinkers at TL.
    5.  TL is my first read.
    Group hug and happy 4th of July.  


    awww (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by boredmpa on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:12:01 AM EST
    But who do I get to complain to about SF?

    Where I can get a doctor's appointment the same day in San Francisco and yet have to wait 14 days to get the lab appointment for the tests the doctor wants....

    Gah.  And they didn't enroll me in healthy san francisco, so I have to take a morning off work, hand over the same income verification forms to the same people, and then go to SFGH if I want lab work before the 19th.

    The doctor was very good though, this time, last time I was stereotyped the moment i walked in the door which is kinda annoying...I keep forgetting that you have to tone down the gay with doctors because some make assumptions and ask particular questions based on your group social profile.

    [ Parent ]

    Here's Glenn Greenwald's take on Obama's (4.00 / 1) (#99)
    by rjarnold on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:24:57 PM EST
    latest statement on FISA for those who are interested:

    http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2008/07/obamas-new-statement-on-fisa.html

    This statement has so many equivocations and vague claims as to be worthless. In a society that lives under the rule of law, government officials and corporations which break our laws are held accountable by courts of law, not by vague promises from politicians of some future "review" and "recommendation" process grounded in claims that we can trust the Leader to do the right thing, whatever he decides in his sole discretion and infinite wisdom that might be. That is no consolation for blocking courts from adjudicating whether laws were broken here, which is what the bill that Obama supports will do.

    I'm Surprised, Sort Of (2.00 / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:07:33 PM EST
    Senator Clinton voted NO on the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003, a bill banning the late term abortions known as partial-birth abortions, except to save a mother's life.  HOWEVER, Clinton states in the Oct. 13, 2000 debate for the NY Senate race that she could vote for a ban on such abortions if the mother's health, as well as the mother's life were in danger.  The Bill made no exception for a mother's health, which was why Clinton could never vote for the bill.

    where I stand

    Wonder whether she would also draw the line against mental distress as a reason for late term abortion. Looks like, as in most issues, she is identical with Obama.

    I am wondering how she can (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:42:21 PM EST
    campaign for a man who is discounting the women she represents.

    How will she answer the question when asked; "Do you agree with Senator Obama that mental distress is out as a criteria for late term abortion?"

    [ Parent ]

    From What I Gather (none / 0) (#118)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:46:18 PM EST
    She is on the same page regarding that. Both of them voted against the measure only because it did not include language regarding the health of the mother. Had that language been in both would have voted for the ban.

    [ Parent ]
    What does her voting history (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:09:02 AM EST
    and actions say? Mothers health doesn't say she's on the same page as him. That rates as a vague term, imo, and needs to be defined. He seems to have clarified some of the mother's health language by saying "mental distress" doesn't qualify. Until I hear that from her, I can't say they're on the "same page". I don't see how you can either.

    [ Parent ]
    so, you think (none / 0) (#144)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:30:57 PM EST
    mental distress is healthy?

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (none / 0) (#146)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:35:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama's position NOW is that he would BAN (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:49:30 PM EST
    abortions even ifthe mother had mental distress.  So, Obama doesn't consider mental distress to be a health issue for the mother because it wouldn't qualify as an exception under "Health of the Mother".  So, Obama must consider mental distress to be healthy

    [ Parent ]
    Wrong (none / 0) (#156)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:52:41 PM EST
    You are twisting his words.  

    [ Parent ]
    Bwwwaaaaahhhhh! (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:52:21 AM EST
    Really, how much are you getting for this mental pretzeling?

    [ Parent ]
    when the mother is crazy, that can (none / 0) (#195)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:14:01 AM EST
    be bad for the health of the child, too. Mortally so, sometimes:

    Susan Smith, etc.

    Obama is being very shortsighted in not supporting the mental distress argument, because it is much more profound than physical health. And physical health is a good reason. So mental health is even more so. Both for the mothers health, and the childs.

    [ Parent ]

    Erm (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:57:12 PM EST
    That's pretty different from Obama's position in my book.  I suppose you could assume she only means physical health unless she says otherwise, but that's not what she said.

    [ Parent ]
    As Far As I Know (none / 0) (#133)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:02:49 PM EST
    This is the first time Obama made a distinction regarding mental distress. I went to the magazine and it seemed out of the blue, almost a non-sequitur. I wonder if the article was edited so that the question was left out.

    Hillary has, as far as I can tell been in line, up til now, with Obama as to the reason they both voted against the ban.

    I guess, for me it should be up to the woman period. So both of them seem about the same, imo.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:20:40 PM EST
    It's hardly up to the woman period if both she and her doctor agree that the pregnancy should be terminated for reasons of mental trauma, but it can't happen because the law says that's not a good enough reason.

    It's possible the interview was edited, or that Obama simply understood going in that this is an important sub-issue for pro-lifers.  When Democrats say there has to be a health exception, pro-lifers turn that into "they're saying all you have to do is claim you're depressed that day and want an abortion" which, needless to say, is not something that ever happens in the real world.

    [ Parent ]

    Sub Text (none / 0) (#143)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:30:16 PM EST
    What is was about. It does not make any sense that Obama or Hillary would rule out serious mental illness from their "health" stipulations. But who knows.

    It sounds plausible that the context was along the lines of "they're saying all you have to do is claim you're depressed that day and want an abortion".

    [ Parent ]

    You would not know enough (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:56:01 AM EST
    to make your absurd assertion, Squeaks, unless and until you also had a quote from Senator Clinton that would distinguish "mental distress" from overall health of the mother.

    As you don't have that quote, and you won't get it from Senator Clinton, please stop this silliness.  You always are cantankerous, but you usually do not so blatantly disrespect this blog with such blather.

    [ Parent ]

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#191)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:08:12 AM EST
    Nothing disrespectful about anything I have said. I believe that Obama and Hillary have identical positions on Late Term Abortion.

    Unlike many here, I take the view that mental distress as it was used by Obama is not a technical term but a colloquial term meaning anything from mild depression, to being stressed out about being ready to give birth.

    Hillary talks about severe health problems or losing the ability to bear children, as the missing language in the bill she voted against.

    Personally I would like a clarification from Obama on this. Nothing he has ever said would suggest that a woman who was having severe mental health problems would not qualify as an exception to a ban on late term abortions.

    [ Parent ]

    nothing except for... (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:12:36 AM EST
    I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term.


    [ Parent ]
    It's Up To The Doctor (none / 0) (#198)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:21:25 AM EST
    Is Hillary suggesting that it is not up to the doctor, in her ideal version of the bill?

    [ Parent ]
    No matter how you slice it (none / 0) (#201)
    by Steve M on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:50:01 AM EST
    I believe any statute would require that a doctor certify the statutory prerequisites for a late-term abortion are met.

    The question is what the prerequisites should be.  If there has to be a serious physical problem, then the doctor has to certify that a serious physical problem is present.  If he thinks the woman's mental state is such that she shouldn't carry the baby to term, there's nothing he can do about it (except break the law, of course).

    [ Parent ]

    In Any Case (none / 0) (#200)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:42:29 AM EST
    It was a stupid thing to say. Considering that it is all over the place I am sure that we will get clarification as to whether he was using a medical term.

    [ Parent ]
    Sounds to me like pandering (none / 0) (#202)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:50:13 AM EST
    to evangelicals and anti-abortion voters.

    I'm not worried that Prez Obama would go out of his way to try to limit choice.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm a little confused... (none / 0) (#148)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:42:57 PM EST
    Didn't you say this bill was in 2003?  Obama wasn't in the Senate then.  How could he have voted for or against it?  

    [ Parent ]
    Correct (none / 0) (#172)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:21:06 AM EST
    Although, judging by his positions and Illinois record it is clear that he would have voted against it for the same reasons as Hillary. He voted against the "Born Alive" bill which was a similar attempt to overturn roe v wade.

    [ Parent ]
    The Born Alive bill (none / 0) (#178)
    by Grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:32:15 AM EST
    was NOTHING like the Partial Birth Abortion ban!  

    The Born Alive bill denied medical care to babies that might have survived an abortion!  I believe Obama was the only state senator to vote the way he did.  How could anyone vote to deny medical care to a baby that is born alive?!  Roe v. Wade does not cover that!    


    [ Parent ]

    It Was A Stealth (none / 0) (#180)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:39:23 AM EST
    Bill that was a anti-abortion agenda, much like the partial birth bill. Notice the similar sounding language in the title?

    But now Obama is a baby killer?

    Here is what he had to say about it:

    The other email rumor that's been floating around is that somehow I'm unwilling to see doctors offer life-saving care to children who were born as a result of an induced abortion. That's just false. There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the "Born Alive" bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill. The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn't think it was going to pass constitutional muster.

    Relevant Magazine


    [ Parent ]

    I like the Chicago Tribune (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Grace on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:08:43 AM EST
    instead of Relevant Magazine, don't you?  
    Chicago Tribune:  Obama Part 7;  Careful Steps, Looking Ahead

    SPRINGFIELD - Sen. Barack Obama calls himself a strong defender of abortion rights, and the presidential contender quickly condemned the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding a ban on a controversial late-term procedure. The decision, he feared, "will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose."

    But this is how Obama voted in 1997 when he was new to the Illinois legislature and got a chance to take a stand against bills to impose a similar statewide ban on what critics call partial-birth abortion:

    "Present," the political equivalent of taking a pass.

    <snip>

    Legislators face an array of sensitive topics, but few pack the emotional and political wallop of abortion. Obama has long publicly promoted his support for abortion rights, but his voting record in Springfield is not simple to read.

    Obama said he sought compromise with abortion opponents, but they balked. As a fallback, he said he worked out an arrangement with abortion-rights advocates to encourage Democrats to vote "present" on some bills if they feared a "no"would look insensitive and endanger their re-election.

    But few of the other Democrats who voted "present" on abortion bills recall such a strategy. And, like Obama, they weren't politically vulnerable.

    So, Obama says he only voted "present" because it was a strategy?  A strategy only he remembers?  

    Obama audio on Born Alive bill

    I don't have speakers on this computer so I can't hear this...  ???  

    Here's another link to someone who has researched his votes on this issue and provides references:  Jill Stanek, Pro-Life Pulse

    I'm receiving more and more email requests for corroboration of Barack Obama's votes on IL's Born Alive Infant Protection Act as state senator. So I'm going to write a permanent post.

    It was brought up in the Illinois senate too many times for me to provide links to all of them but they are all available at the last link I posted.

    [ Parent ]

    But "she" is not the nominee!!!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:33:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    True (none / 0) (#147)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:37:13 PM EST
    But this is an open thread. And I do not know if you are aware, but Hillary is a subtext in most threads here, irregardless of the fact that she is not the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    Irregardless is not a word n/t (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:55:48 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Thanks (none / 0) (#171)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:15:54 AM EST
    I thought that little green line in my spelling and grammar box was trying to tell me something. Usually it is red..... as I am a terrible speller and my grammar, uhg.  

    Never paid any attention during english... oh well, I am good at art and music.

    [ Parent ]

    It is to those who (none / 0) (#187)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:57:06 AM EST
    are so confused about principles that they spell it principals.

    [ Parent ]
    I'd love to hear how she answers that question (none / 0) (#152)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:50:01 PM EST
    not that politicians can be trusted to tell the truth.  

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, depending on the issue (none / 0) (#167)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:11:29 AM EST
    and politician, I think you can count on some of their words.

    [ Parent ]
    Late term abortions are not (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Grace on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:52:16 PM EST
    usually done unless the mother's health or life is in danger.  I don't know if it's even possible to have an "elective" late term abortion because most doctors won't do them (late term abortions).  

    The most common, safest way to perform them was the style called "Partial birth" by the pro-life groups.

    Hillary refused to vote for a ban on the procedure if "mother's health" wasn't included which I think is reasonable -- and I think severe mental distress would fall under the "mother's health" catagory.    

    [ Parent ]

    Considering Hillary's UHC plan (none / 0) (#175)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:29:50 AM EST
    includes mental health parity I would assume she would include mental distress and will continue to believe so until someone proves otherwise with a link or direct quote.

    [ Parent ]
    No, not elective. Requires medical approval (none / 0) (#189)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:00:11 AM EST
    and it thus would be health care professionals who would define health -- and as we saw in comments here, mental distress is defined as a health condition to be diagnosed by a doctor.  

    Ergo, as ever, Clinton is saying to leave it a woman and her physician.  Why it is so hard for Squeaky to see the obvious comes under another health condition.

    [ Parent ]

    what do you mean by (none / 0) (#190)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 01:04:53 AM EST
    another health condition?

    [ Parent ]
    Has anyone made a flip flop list on Obama? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Saul on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:04:56 PM EST
    Is there a web site that has them listed?

    Flip flopping is one thing (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Jim J on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:11:23 PM EST
    but sticking a finger in your own supporters' eyes is something completely different.

    There is an arrogance about Obama's blatant policy reversals, an unspoken "so what are you going to do about it" attitude that I find disgusting, as well as distressingly familiar.

    As usual, the Obamabots are simply thrilled that he "noticed" them in tonight's Dear John letter on FISA. They have always sold themselves very cheaply.

    [ Parent ]

    Being ecstatic about getting form letter (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:12:50 PM EST
    is just pathetic. I mean, if the letter addressed the concerns, that would be one thing. But jeez!

    [ Parent ]
    Are you officially (none / 0) (#12)
    by talex on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:23:41 PM EST
    off the Obama Bandwagon?

    [ Parent ]
    I was never on the bandwagon (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:30:58 PM EST
    He has my vote, but not much else.

    [ Parent ]
    The vote is all that counts (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by talex on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:37:01 PM EST
    Harsh words fall on empty ears. All he wants is your vote. After you give him that you have given him all he wants and have received all you are going to get.

    Sorry but it is true.

    [ Parent ]

    Thank you for your opinion (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:38:51 PM EST
    I disagree.

    [ Parent ]
    Ahhhh, the vote (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:42:51 PM EST
    is all that really matters.  

    [ Parent ]
    To him, that is. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:45:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    My position is that, beyond the primary, (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:48:33 PM EST
    I have to have a really good reason not to vote for the nominee. Essentially, McCain would have to be a better choice. And he's not.

    [ Parent ]
    Examine the Facts So Far (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by talex on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:54:37 PM EST
    I said "harsh words" and "all you are going to get" So he received harsh words over the last two weeks and what did you get?

    A reworked speech in the form of a form letter that said he agrees to disagree with you and that's that.

    We all know a Pol is going to be most responsive when he needs your vote or wants money. That is what we have today. And what did you get?

    And that is all you are going to get.

    So I don't know what you are disagreeing with. It's only going to get worse.

    [ Parent ]

    I think he wants my money (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:49:27 PM EST
    as much as he wants my vote.  More in fact, since I live in Florida which he does not care about winning.

    [ Parent ]
    No he has plenty of big money (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:13:09 PM EST
    Doesn't need the little guys anymore... he will be too busy to give speeches for the next couple of weeks.

    NYT  Fund raising

    [The Obama campaign was initially powered last year in large part by high-dollar donors, but his schedule of traditional fund-raising events fell off this year in the face of a packed campaign schedule. Mr. Obama attended only a handful of fund-raisers, relying instead on contributions over the Internet.

    Now, with his schedule freed up and faced with the need to raise more than $200 million for the general election, Mr. Obama's major fund-raisers are eager to have him back to headline events that require attendees at the highest echelons to contribute more than $30,000 a person to a joint fund-raising committee]

    {Wednesday in Colorado Springs and attended a $1,000 a person ...Chicago on Wednesday...attendees needed to contribute or raise $28,500....Wednesday evening, Ms. Pritzker... were hosts of a dinner for high-dollar donors -- the required contribution was also $28,500 ...Last week...collected about $5 million at an event featuring celebrities in Los Angeles...200 people who had contributed $28,500 per couple, or raised $50,000.

    It continues, but the point is, he's fine for money.  Dennis Quaid and Samuel Jackson got your back.

    [ Parent ]

    He never needed the little guy's money... (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:51:58 PM EST
    ...he just needed to say that was where his money came from so that the little guy could feel "invested" in him. You get what you pay for, I guess.

    [ Parent ]
    how much worse would it haveto get for him (none / 0) (#57)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:51:31 PM EST
    to lose your vote?

    [ Parent ]
    Sam Nunn (none / 0) (#60)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:52:35 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You are VERY tolerant. (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:58:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I am a Democrat (none / 0) (#73)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:00:16 PM EST
    and I will go out of my way to avoid enabling McCain and the Republicans.

    [ Parent ]
    well i'd rather not enable (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:35:26 PM EST
    what Obama and the DNC did this time around either

    [ Parent ]
    Are they really? (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:53:17 PM EST
    Then his flattery worked.  To me that letter was just the same statement he made last week, coupled with more praise for the grassroots.  I guess the one line shout-out he gave them in the statement last week was not enough.

    Makes me wish Hillary had found a way to praise the grassroots for influencing her in her AUMF vote. Maybe she should have said that they convi