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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!"

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

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.

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.
   

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

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

So all streets all blocked in my area, and I'm trapped, trapped I tell you!

Fireworks already going off, too.

Me? I'm poor. I haven't taken a vacation since 2002 (working vacation), and the last one prior to that was in the '80s.

Montana - Obama +5

I THINK OBAMA IS GOING TO HAVE A BIG PROBLEM.  I think Obama is going to be so over exposed, the media will be so saturated by his soaring rhetoric that people will tune out.  It will be obvious to the lowest information voter that Obama can make horsesh** smell like perfume that they will tune him out.  I was reading his justifications and I felt he was making good, reasoned arguements BUT I also felt that it was obvious that he could make good, reasoned arguements for or against anything.  Thus I was left with no idea what he really meant or what he really believed.  So I began to tune out his arguement because it felt like he could argue for anything.  

I think we need to be clear about what we want from our candidate.  If the Dem electorate comes to some sort of consensus and specifically communicates that, we can either demand it from Obama or try to nominate Hillary instead.  Getting mad and not voting is not effective in electing a Dem president.  

PUMA is not an effective strategy to get a Dem elected as Prez.  The primary was 50/50, the party had to happen to pick a nominee.  The rules committee made decisions that some Dems don't agree with, and if they had made them the other way, plenty of Dems would be angry at that instead.  If the party insiders had chosen Hillary, we would have lost the AA vote (car wash day), the youth vote (no one pounding the streets this fall) and we would have a lot of centrists going for McCain because they 1) Hate the Clintons, 2) Don't think a woman can protect us from terrorists, or 3) Relate to him the same way guys on this site seem to relate to him.  

As a left wing Dem, I need to decide if the FISA/mental distress/expand faith based initiatives is pandering or is some stealth position on Obama's part.  I think it's pandering.  I think he's made a bid to undermine the lock the GOP has on centrist voters and even Republicans.  His straddling the fence on everything is maddening, but if it works he'll win the presidency.

The evangelical voters, especially the youth, might be convinced that Obama understands their concerns about liberals "pushing" abortions and women being able to just change their mind and get late term abortions.  Their leadership will either support Obama, or just not support McCain so rabidly if they're convinced Obama's new Faith money will come their way.

If centrist voters trust him because he supports FISA, they may not vote for McCain if they think Obama will cost them less money in Iraq.  I'd like to live in a world where a Democrat can fight FISA and win the presidency, but that's not the case today.  I think if the Dems vote against it, our very powerful government will find a way to have a terrorist attack on our soil.  Americans will die.  And the Democrats will lose this fall because they fought FISA.  

It's very frustrating coming here to see what everyone has to say about something and having to wade through all the Obama bashing.  If you hate him and want to vote for someone else, why not just go do that?  And if you think he's a stealth Republican, then go to a PUMA site and work to get Hillary nominated instead.