home

Thursday Evening Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:01:53 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Our earlier open thread is full, and it seems like people have a lot to vent about today. Here's another thread, all topics welcome, just please keep it civil.

< Court Rules Bush Aides Not Immune From Subpoenas | Late Night: Candy Everybody Wants >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Thursday Evening Open Thread | 205 comments (205 topical)
    I can't believe how angry I still am.... (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:10:44 PM EST
    For the first time in a long time, I put on MSNBC.  It's hotter than hell here in CO (10 degrees higher than normal....and close to a record high and I live at an elevation of over 6000 ft.) and I don't have AC.  Best to stay inside and keep the house closed to keep the intense sun out.  

    Anyway, when the political shows came on I realized my anger has not dissipated one iota.  I can't even look at Maddow without an angry sense of betrayal.  Shuster makes me want to puke...along with Gregory and Barnicle (guess I should be happy Pig Matthews is on vacation.).

    And listening to them talk, it still stuns me how they got away with their mean, sexist crap for so long.  It shouldn't have mattered but I think it did. I think the democratic party used the media to get rid of the woman.  Seriously, I feel that way so please don't tell me not to. If I could I would take back any support I ever gave to Dean; I would take back the vote I gave to Kerry.  These two men have betrayed millions of democratic women who supported them and their party for years

    That's my vent and I am sticking to it.

    Yeah, my mood is always "that time of the (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by MarkL on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:13:15 PM EST
    month" for me now, and I'm not even a woman.
    Those people are outrageous.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by shoephone on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:18:38 PM EST
    Try Black Cohosh (herbal remedy).

    [ Parent ]
    Black cohosh (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:32:57 PM EST
    saved my sanity, and possibly even my life!


    [ Parent ]
    Whenever I wonder (5.00 / 7) (#107)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:24:48 PM EST
    if I'm being petty and vindictive, I just think about the DNC RBC meeting.  That tends to put things in sharp relief for me.  

    [ Parent ]
    I am a lot happier since I stopped (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:18:00 PM EST
    watching most of the news.  We don't have cable, so I can't watch - oh, boo-hoo! - MSNBC or any of the other cable news shows.

    I'm reading more - for pleasure - which is something I realized I had been missing.

    Life's just too short.

    It's hazy, hot and humid here in Maryland - par for the course for this time of year - the air is the equivalent of dog breath.  Really, that's the closest thing I can compare it to.  The good news is that I live in the country, where less concrete and asphalt and more trees and general greenery means temps are 10 degrees cooler than in Baltimore, where I work.

    [ Parent ]

    I honestly feel for you (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by kempis on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:18:43 PM EST
    I simply cannot watch MSNBC any more. I was so infuriated by Matthews and Olbermann and Maddow during the primaries that I can't bear to even look at them. And I'm even in the "Gee, OK, I'll vote for Obama over McCain" camp.

    Can't watch CNN either, come to think of it....In fact, I've been enjoying reading more, watching more Turner Classic Movies and catching up on old episodes of Battlestar Gallactica that I missed. :)

    But I hear you. If I turned on MSNBC right now, I guarantee I'd be right where you are within moments.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, it did matter. It still matters. (5.00 / 11) (#20)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:24:40 PM EST
    And it will matter for a long time.

    The actual sexism and misogny and the faux charges of racism.  All of that will matter to the end of time.

    [ Parent ]

    And Don't Forget... (5.00 / 9) (#69)
    by IzikLA on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:58:00 PM EST
    They betrayed the men that supported Hillary as well.  I think we have to get away from talking about all the upset women because it doesn't quite capture the scope of it and somehow the media always makes that sound belittling.  Point being, there are LOTS of us men as well, and many of us are as equally unhappy!!

    Other than that, well said - I can barely look at those people these days.

    [ Parent ]

    I know you are right (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:12:19 PM EST
    but as much as I try I cannot identify as much with your feelings as that of other women.  Women, not unlike myself, who have worked four decades for democratic causes; women who always took the back seat because it was always the men awarded the leadership positions in the local parties.

    I know men supported Hillary and I RESPECT THEM greatly.  Unfortunately, I have come to the point where unless it is pointed out that a man supported Hillary, I assume he's going to talk down to me if he is a democrat.  I KNOW it's wrong....it's just what I am feeling.  But deep down I greatly appreciate the many men who have and continue to support Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    I think it's a trick of the noise vs actual number (5.00 / 5) (#153)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:49:06 PM EST
    The CDS/pro-misogyny crowd was so loud and relentless and, many of them have broadcast gigs that are considered legitimate by  many people, there are many days when it seems as if we're just surrounded by the worst and all the good guys have been disappeared.

    The worst for me was all that time I spent looking for even marginally intelligent political analysis before I hit TL.  I'd visit the big sites like NYT and WaPo and the most benign articles would have 100s of comments with the most appallingly sexist language.

    It was not only men, but the loudest, most vile and most prolific seemed to be mostly men.  It didn't matter how many times I told myself that all these little word ejaculations blobbed all over comment sections did not represent the mainstream or majority of the population, it was really difficult to hold onto that.  Very hard to shake that off.

    [ Parent ]

    What Pro-misogny crowd (3.50 / 2) (#239)
    by liberalone on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:46:17 PM EST
    I do not believe that there is a great pro-misogyny crowd in the Democratic party.  Unfortunately, many of the folks who refuse to acknowledge the reality of racism in this campaign and nation want throw around charges of sexism.  You cannot have it both ways.

    Issues of race and gender are far larger than the political goals of either Clinton or Obama.  Those of you who choose to trash Obama are more than welcomed to do so. No one will accuse you of racism, unless you make a racist statement.  Just like folks should feel free to critique Clinton without the label of sexism or misogyny.

    Currently there is only one viable party for progressives in this nation.  While it is not perfect, it has a far greater track record of sustained improvement for minorities and women.  If you want to create a new party, have at it.  I will not accept that the Democratic party is misogynistic.  

    [ Parent ]

    Good for you.... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by mogal on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:22:13 PM EST
    I'm watching TCM and Lee Marvin just said when offered a job in a western SHOW, "I'm not going to spit on my whole life." Doesn't this describe how you feel andalot of us feel?

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think it had anything to do with gender. (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by WillBFair on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:42:36 PM EST
    I think the media got rid of the most accomplished and knowledgeable dems of our time. They want weak and pliable leaders, and eight years of Clinton successes were more than enough. They started the smear campaign before Bill and Hill were even in the White House. This was just an extension of it.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it was split between motivation and tools (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:54:18 PM EST
    Many used sexist riffs and whathaveyou as tools to, as you said, get rid of one of the most accomplished Dems.  But others have genuinely sexist motivations.

    Of course, just using sexism as a tool is a sexism problem in itself, but the fact that it was used as  tool in some cases doesn't mean it wasn't intentional misogyny in others.

    [ Parent ]

    I finally saw Mama Mia this afternoon... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:14:49 PM EST
    ...Meryl Streep singing The Winner Takes it All was awesome.

    I saw it Monday (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:13:04 PM EST
    and YES...Meryl was great.

    And I LOVED the scene when all the woman left their chores and danced. I just wanted to be with them.

    [ Parent ]

    I understand it is a remake of (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:38:38 PM EST
    Buena Sera Mrs. Campbell. You can catch it on TMC once in a while. Cast at that time in 1968.
    # Gina Lollobrigida
    # Phil Silvers
    # Peter Lawford
    # Telly Savalas
    # Shelley Winters
    # Lee Grant


    [ Parent ]
    I loved that movie! (none / 0) (#178)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:11:14 PM EST
    Every time I open a can of soup, I think about "Mrs. Campbell".

    [ Parent ]
    Yes that was a great scene too. (none / 0) (#105)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:23:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The family is going to make a double (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by Rhouse on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:25:47 PM EST
    feature of the new Mummy movie and the new Batman flick tomorrow.  None of  the movies to come out later this summer hold any interest for us, so we're getting the air conditioner replaced and renting stuff.  

    [ Parent ]
    All done (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:16:25 PM EST
    with the bar exam!  Hope I passed.  You never really know, but so far I'm 3 for 3 taking these silly things.

    Today was the essay portion, and there was a question about a girl named Christine who was being prosecuted for her involvement with an escort service, and you had to figure out if certain testimony was admissible regarding a certain Governor Spitfire who allegedly spent tens of thousands of dollars for sex with the defendant.  I swear to God they asked this as an actual bar exam question.  You gotta love New Jersey sometimes.

    On the multiple-choice section, the question I spent the most time on had to do with a subject near and dear to TL hearts, criminal procedure.  It went something like this:

    A police officer pulls over a car after running a computerized check on the license plate and finding an outstanding arrest warrant on the owner.  After the driver confirms that he does, in fact, own the vehicle, the officer places him under arrest.  He then proceeds to search the car and finds a quantity of marijuana in the glove compartment and cocaine in the trunk.  Unbeknownst to the officer, however, the arrest warrant had actually been vacated by a judge and only remained in the computer system because of a clerk's error.

    After the defendant is charged with drug crimes, his attorney moves to exclude the drugs seized from the vehicle.  The only argument offered by the prosecutor is that the search was incident to the arrest.

    Based on the prosecutor's arguments, should the marijuana and/or cocaine be excluded from evidence?

    Well?

    Boy am I glad I'm just (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by shoephone on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:23:36 PM EST
    a musician and not a law student. That arrest scenario doesn't seem very cut-and-dried to me.

    Aren't you going to tell us how you answered?

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe! (none / 0) (#40)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:39:45 PM EST
    I want to give some other people a shot at it first.

    Maybe Jeralyn will weigh in and tell me the right answer, because I don't actually know. :)

    [ Parent ]

    It's been a decade since the bar for me (none / 0) (#162)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:57:22 PM EST
    and I don't work in law anymore.

    The only thing I can spot for sure is a good faith exception for the officer on warrant, due to the clerk's error.  But that's easy.

    [ Parent ]

    Gov. Spitfire! What a hoot. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:31:28 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well, i'm not a lawyer, but that sounds (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by MarkL on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:32:09 PM EST
    easy, on the face of it. The evidence should be excluded. Is that what you said?

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#42)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:41:53 PM EST
    There is an interesting body of law relating to what happens when the cops make a good-faith mistake.  For example, say they go to an address to execute a search warrant, and they don't realize that it's a multiple-family dwelling and the upstairs is someone else's residence.  So they go in the upstairs and find evidence of a crime, without knowing that they weren't supposed to be searching that half of the house.  I believe there's a case that says that evidence is actually okay because it was a good-faith mistake.

    Whether that case applies to this bar exam question, well, I honestly don't know.  I'm not even positive I'm describing the case right.

    [ Parent ]

    Ha! I would have said (none / 0) (#50)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:50:11 PM EST
    the opposite.  The officer couldn't know the order was vacated.  

    [ Parent ]
    I dont' see why it should matter. (none / 0) (#53)
    by MarkL on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:51:23 PM EST
    The officer had no right to search the vehicle. The face he thought he had one should make no difference.

    [ Parent ]
    What you say makes sense, but it isn't so (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by angie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:23:01 PM EST
    A "good faith" exception exists for police officers; ie. he relied in good faith. I don't practice criminal law, so I'm not up on all the nuances to give an "A" answer on this question, but I know the bar examiner will be looking for a discussion of the good faith exception.
    As for Steve M -- just remember -- you don't have to answer perfectly, you just have to answer better then 60% of the other poor saps. ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:24:36 PM EST
    The concept is that the exclusionary rule is a pretty harsh sanction, allowing criminals to go free because the constable blundered.  Just because you have a prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures doesn't mean you also need to have an exclusionary rule - in fact, to my surprise, most countries don't!

    So the reason the exclusionary rule is so harsh is to deter bad conduct by the police.  When they've acted in good faith, and there's obviously no way the police officer in this question could have avoided the mistake, it's reasonable to relax the exclusionary rule a bit.

    Or so the logic goes, anyway.  One thing about being a lawyer is, you basically have to learn what the law is, whether you think it's fair or not :)

    [ Parent ]

    Steve M (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:53:00 PM EST
    A) Congrats on finishing another bar exam!  (But weren't you posting throughout the days here?  How did you do that?)

    B) Let me try to answer the question.  The criminal lawyers in the group can correct me.

    I think the search is valid because the police officer acted in good faith that a valid warrant existed. Since the police had broad authority to search a vehicle, depending on what they are looking for, and since there is an exception for automobiles (if police believe there may be "fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime", they may search the whole vehicle and any container that might reasonably contain those items.

    I am probably wrong on this, so more expert opinions are welcome.

    [ Parent ]

    Take a look at (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:59:54 PM EST
    Arizona v Evans and the Herring case -- here's one analysis

    [ Parent ]
    Woo Hoo (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:03:42 PM EST
    Looks like I guessed right!

    (Ok, time to fess up - I pulled out my Bar/Bri Mini Review book)

    Looks like they examiners used that exact fact pattern for the question.

    [ Parent ]

    But here's the catch (none / 0) (#98)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:18:43 PM EST
    Notice how the fact pattern says the prosecutor makes only the "search incident to arrest" argument, and the question specifically says "based on the prosecutor's arguments..."

    I think what they're saying is that you're right about the automobile exception, but it shouldn't be applied in this case because the prosecution didn't argue it.

    Instead, you're left with only a search incident to the arrest.  And I'm pretty sure the law on this - it's called the "lunge" doctrine - says that when the police arrest a driver, they can search every part of the car that's within the driver's reach, but they can't go in areas like the trunk.

    So my answer was that the marijuana gets in, but not the cocaine.  I dunno if that's right, but it was a fun thought process on the way there!

    [ Parent ]

    Ah dam*! (none / 0) (#136)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:42:05 PM EST
    That whole part about reading the whole question to see what they are really asking.

    I hate that part.

    [ Parent ]

    I forgot to add (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:04:13 PM EST
    Congrats on being done with the bar exam and think positively -- I'm sure you passed so allow me to extend my congrats now -- and please let us all know when you get the results. What state are you in?

    [ Parent ]
    I practice in NY (none / 0) (#101)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:21:12 PM EST
    but I thought I'd add the NJ bar to my resume since I'm now a NJ resident, and it's helpful because my firm sometimes gets work in NJ.  NJ has very difficult pro hac requirements because they don't want the zillions of NYC lawyers taking all their business.

    Most people actually take the NJ and NY bars at the same time, because the state-specific portion of the NJ exam is nothing but essay questions on the multistate topics, so there's not really any extra studying.  Or so I thought - they actually had a civil procedure essay today, and I hadn't studied the first thing about civil procedure.  Luckily for me, it was a question about class action certification, and I spent 3 years as a class action lawyer. ;)

    [ Parent ]

    BTW (none / 0) (#141)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:43:39 PM EST
    Without sounding stalker-ish - I found your page on your firm's website.  Amazingly you look just about what I imagined!

    [ Parent ]
    Depends... (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by santarita on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:13:22 PM EST
    30 years ago when I took the bar and we still had the 4th Amendment, the answer might have been different.  I think that there are cases that talk about the glove compartment being considered in plain view (especially if the car driver had to open the the glove compartment to get the vehicle registration to show the officer.  The trunk is off limits unless the officer spotted the marijuana first.      

    I haven't had to deal with those questions since I don't do criminal law.  But I watch "Law and Order".  So I must be an expert.

    Hope you passed!

    [ Parent ]

    Yes and no. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by TChris on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:30:34 PM EST
    No suppression of the contents of the glove compartment, yes as to the cocaine in the trunk, which cannot be searched incident to arrest.  The failure to remove the warrant from the computer happens quite frequently and as long as the cop relied on the information in good faith, he had probable cause to make the arrest, so that's really a red herring.

    [ Parent ]
    Awright! (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:46:00 PM EST
    I got at least one right. :)

    [ Parent ]
    TChris I actually wanted to ask you (none / 0) (#137)
    by Rhouse on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:42:14 PM EST
    your feelings on this given some of your recent postings. http://tinyurl.com/6l8ysq
    It has to with a police SWAT team going wild.

    [ Parent ]
    Wasn't there a SC case on this (none / 0) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:39:11 PM EST
    fairly recently where the Court decided the evidence didn't have to be thrown out if it was discovered in good faith, even if in technical error?

    OTOH, betraying my layman's status totally, are cops allowed to search the car of anyone they arrest for any reason and charge them for whatever they may find?  If the guy wasn't arrested on, say, suspicion of drunk driving, what evidence does the cop have the right to go looking for?

    [ Parent ]

    Complicated answer (none / 0) (#122)
    by angie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:32:52 PM EST
    again, I don't do this kind of law, BUT if you are arrested in your car (as you propose, pulled over for dui, fail the sobriety test, put under arrest) then the police can search your car. For all practical purposes, in that case, even if the police didn't search your car then & there or if the police happened to arrest you in your car on other charges (i.e., not related to driving), your car would be impounded and the contents inventoried and anything found in it would be admissible. Generally, most automobile searches are upheld without a warrant. But, if you are not arrested in your car (i.e., just pulled over/being questioned) and you do not consent to a search of the vehicle, the police will have to establish at a minimum that they had probable cause to search.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for the explainer (none / 0) (#214)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:31:25 PM EST
    I'm not too crazy about warrantless searches of any kind, particularly if they're just fishing expeditions.  If I'm arrested at my house for murder, don't they have to get a warrant to search my house? (Not that they'd have any problems getting it under that circumstance, but still...)  I don't get why cars seem to be exempt from the normal rules.

    [ Parent ]
    Basically because cars are mobile (none / 0) (#227)
    by angie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:36:26 PM EST
    in that, they are easier to transport from place to place than a house. You might not agree with or like the rationale, but there it is.

    [ Parent ]
    NO. But I am not a lawyer. I think (none / 0) (#73)
    by hairspray on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:58:56 PM EST
    that finding marijuana under the circumstances is really besides the issue.  Common sense says no, but what do I know?

    [ Parent ]
    Anyone watching So You Think You (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:22:15 PM EST
    Can Dance this season?  There's so little on TV that I kind of got hooked on it.  I know next to nothing about the technical aspects of the various dance steps, but it really has just been great fun watching these very talented young people week after week.

    They have to cut two tonight to get down to the Final Four, and honestly, I don't think any of them deserve to go home.

    embarrassingly enough (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:03:30 PM EST
    yes, I do watch.  Thanks for the reminder.  I will try to catch who gets booted before I watch Burn Notice.

    My guess for who might go (I have to go look up the names)... ok: Twitch and Chelsea.
    Not easy, they are all very talented.  Now that I look at the pictures....I have to say I was surprised to see Will eliminated.

    [ Parent ]

    I'll stay with Courtney and Mark getting (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Rhouse on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:17:51 PM EST
    voted off, and that Katee wins it all.  

    [ Parent ]
    Waldenpond....loooove Burn Notice (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:39:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Mmmm Hmmmm (5.00 / 0) (#166)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:01:34 PM EST
    All I can say is  - Michael Weston - very hot.

    [ Parent ]
    Agree (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:08:13 PM EST
    love his smile.

    [ Parent ]
    Okay I got One of the TWO to be voted (none / 0) (#165)
    by Rhouse on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:01:03 PM EST
    off the island.  I'm still sticking with Katee to win it all, but d+mn Joshua is good.

    [ Parent ]
    shhhhhh! (none / 0) (#184)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:13:27 PM EST
    hey, hey, hey.....West Coast here.... I still have 2 hours to go. shhhhhh.   :)

    [ Parent ]
    SYTYCD...one of my favorites. I thought (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:39:08 PM EST
    Twitch or Mark would have gone before Will, but you hafta vote and if your fans don't, you are toast.  They have had some phenomenal dancers this year....Joshua and Katee are my top picks and it is going to be hard when it gets down to just them....the others have NOTHING to be ashamed about.  I think Twitch might go home tonight and maybe Chelsea...oh hell, don't want any of them to go...how about a six-way tie?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama using race card? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by fctchekr on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:23:52 PM EST
    Just posted this on morning open which is closed now.

    What's everyone's take?

    It's an interesting preemptive race baiting strategy: on three separate occasions BO put it out that Republicans will try to paint him as... i.e. someone they've never seen before on dollar  bills. (see below)
    If Obama was reacting to the ad, than he's off mark. The ad attacked him for his celebrity, it didn't attack him because of his race. Here's the text and link:

    "At three stops in the battleground state of Missouri, Obama told audiences that his opponent is trying to make voters "scared" of him because he doesn't look like past presidents -- an apparent reference to being black -- and has a "funny name."

    "Nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face," Obama said Wednesday in Springfield, Missouri. "So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He's risky."

    This is not the first time Obama has delivered this line. He made similar comments dating back to the Democratic presidential primary. But a McCain adviser said Davis reacted strongly because the McCain campaign said Obama was directly responding to a new McCain campaign ad.

    The political ad, which the McCain campaign released Wednesday, features starlets Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. The ad calls Obama the "biggest celebrity in the world" and asks, "But is he ready to lead?"

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/31/campaign.wrap/index.html

    I think that's unquestionably what (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:41:38 PM EST
    Obama was doing.  (Stupid idea, though, in the general election, IMHO) The McCain people were smart to pounce on it hard right away.  I'm sure they were waiting for it, having seen it over and over again in the primaries.

    [ Parent ]
    Supposedly (5.00 / 8) (#44)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:43:22 PM EST
    Robert Gibbs said that "doesn't look like the other presidents" line wasn't a reference to race.

    Now, I mean, who the heck are they kidding here.

    [ Parent ]

    yea (4.00 / 1) (#87)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:11:08 PM EST
    Gibbs said it was a reference to 'experience'. I am not sure how that relates to Washington and Lincoln though. We all know what he was talking about, he did it three times today at three different speeches.

    [ Parent ]
    I read that he said it related (none / 0) (#171)
    by angie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:04:47 PM EST
    to the fact that Obama isn't a "Washington insider" like all those presidents are! Neat trick for George, as the capitol wasn't even in Washington when he was President.

    OT -- is it just me or does anyone else have a pet peeve about referring the men on the money as presidents? Hamilton & Franklin weren't presidents -- and that is 1/3 of the 6 most popular bills (1s, 5s, 10s, 20s, 50s & 100s).

    [ Parent ]

    Here we go again... (5.00 / 9) (#21)
    by OrangeFur on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:25:19 PM EST
    McCain released that (in my mind) ineffective ad comparing Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears and saying they were all empty celebrities. Now the NYT editorial board is saying that the ad is racist, because it turns out that those two are white women, and a white woman was used in a racially tinged way in a commercial that ran against Harold Ford two years ago.

    Coming from the same people who ran an Op-Ed saying that Hillary's 3 am ad was a remake of Birth of a Nation, and pillaged her for her LBJ comments, this maybe shouldn't be a surprise. But the thought of another three months of incessant claims of racism makes me retch.

    Recently, Obama also claimed that McCain's strategy would be to point out that Obama doesn't look like the other presidents on the currency. McCain responded by saying that Obama is playing the race card from the "bottom of the deck." The NYT editorial board isn't so fond of that either, apparently because 12 years ago or so one of OJ's lawyers said used the same phrase.

    Honestly, could political coverage be any worse?

    Lou Dobbs hauled out all the bills (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:30:07 PM EST
    we've got tonight -- $1, $5, $10 bills, etc.  Showed all the ones with presidents on them and even the secretary of the treasury and the inventor of the stove aka Ben Franklin.  Showed 'em all, and then showed 'em next to a bill with Obama on it.

    That made the Obama line look really quite silly.

    Dobbs drives me nuts sometimes, but he can really get to the core of an issue in interesting ways.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:43:50 PM EST
    Would have been funny if someone had slipped a peso in there :)

    [ Parent ]
    If anyone did look like them, (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:59:26 PM EST
    they would be dead. They are a sickly shade of gray. Also, their clothing style is so over.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, they all looked really dead. (2.00 / 0) (#194)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:21:51 PM EST
    Seriously dead.  Not to mention in need of new hairstyles.  And sideburns also are just so passe.

    I get giggles thinking about Obama with Ben Franklin's bald pate and shoulder-length locks or with Jackson's sideburns.  Thank heavens that Dobbs refrained from taking it that far to show just how silly is Obama's comment.

    Silly and dangerous.  Quite a combination for a candidate.  I don't think it's going to go over well.  As a commenter elsewhere noted, race-baiting won't work with Repubs because they're not counting on the African American vote.

    [ Parent ]

    Right (5.00 / 0) (#204)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:27:20 PM EST
    Race-baiting won't work for the Republicans because they aren't counting on the Africa-American vote?  Did you really just say that?

    I do like the deconstruction of Obama's comment to the point of absurdity.  I am disappointed in you guys that you haven't accused Obama of being ageist with this comment.

    [ Parent ]

    His surrogates have been (none / 0) (#233)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:39:43 PM EST
    dog-whistling the age issue to beat the band-- McCain is "grouchy," "tired," "grumpy," etc., all words deliberately intended to characterize him as someone who's too old.


    [ Parent ]
    But, to address your point re the NYT (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:31:51 PM EST
    the NYT ought to be ashamed of itself.  Yeh, that'll happen.

    So if McCain talks about the budget deficit, and some racist sometime, somewhere talked about the budget deficit, then McCain is a racist.

    Uh huh.  Please, NYT, provide transcripts for your editorial board to show their grades in logic class.

    [ Parent ]

    The O camp didn't get the racist (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:58:34 PM EST
    drum beating quick enough on this. Wonder if it will work since O just played his own race card (again!). They were much quicker with some of this stuff against Hil.

    [ Parent ]
    If the NYT editorial board didn't die (5.00 / 0) (#175)
    by angie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:07:34 PM EST
    of shame after running the article accusing Hillary's 3 a.m. ad as being based on "Birth of a Nation" (even though one of the children in the ad was, in fact, black), then they aren't going to be shamed by this.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#78)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:00:31 PM EST
    Nice deductive reasoning, there (or is it inductive reasoning?)  You hit the nail on the head, Cream - congratulations!  You can get a job with the Obama campaign!

    [ Parent ]
    Ugh, you just insulted me (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:25:37 PM EST
    by suggesting that this could get me a job with that campaign.  That campaign does not want people who can see through the crap they're pulling.

    [ Parent ]
    My most humble apologies (none / 0) (#132)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:40:37 PM EST
    Meant tongue-in-cheek, of course. :)

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, I know. (none / 0) (#156)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:51:46 PM EST
    I owe you a smiley-face, too. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Harold Ford (4.00 / 1) (#188)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:18:04 PM EST
    when asked if he thought the Spears/Hilton ad by the McCain campaign was racist. He said NO without equivocation. On MSNBC of all places.

    [ Parent ]
    He said the ad used against him (none / 0) (#198)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:23:25 PM EST
    Wasn't racist either.

    [ Parent ]
    anyone who looks at that ad (1.00 / 0) (#149)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:47:22 PM EST
    and sees racism instead of the argument that is really bing made that Obama is an empty suit just like Paris Hilton must go through life looking for racism in everything.  If you find racism in that ad the problem is with YOU,not the ad.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#182)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:13:09 PM EST
    Because comparing a United States Senator to Paris Hilton certainly seems reasonable to me.

    I have no idea if their intention was race baiting but I find it surprising that their campaign didn't at least acknowledge the possibility that the charge would be made.  

    It's not like that charge wasn't just recently levied against a Republican in the last election cycle.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL (5.00 / 0) (#191)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:19:12 PM EST
    and don't forget (I Love Bush) Britany. The first thing that comes to mind when you think of Senator Obama is Britany Spears, anyway, right.....  no big deal...

    [ Parent ]
    I was imagining (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:24:42 PM EST
    How McCain would have responded if the Obama campaign were to release an ad that was so disrespectful of McCain that this ad was of Obama.

    I think McCain's head might actually explode.  The guy specializes in being offended and outraged.  

    [ Parent ]

    the ad used against Ford (none / 0) (#209)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:28:22 PM EST
    was completely different.  That had a woman actually INVITING him to call her and presumably set up a date.

    Paris Hilton is most famous for being famous.  There is no there, there with Paris.  That is exactly the comparison they were making.

    I understand that you feel Obama deserves musc respect as a sitting US Senator.  But, there are many people out there, that McCain is trying to reach who feel Obama is an inexperienced empty suit.  And, that has nothing to do with race.

    [ Parent ]

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:32:15 PM EST
    So you think it is fine to be disrespectful of Obama?  I'm make sure to remind you of that the next time you defend McCain and say we need to be respectful of him.

    If you think that Obama is in any way comparable to Paris Hilton in any way, you're a clinical idiot.  

    [ Parent ]

    i don't care whether you are respectful (3.00 / 2) (#228)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:37:22 PM EST
    of McCain or not.  Although, I don't think the commercial is disrespectful.  I just think it is pointing out that Obama is being treated like a rock star when he doesn't have the talent or experience to deserve  that treatment

    And,i think the comparison to Paris is legitimate because I don't believe Obama is qualified to be president.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually? (none / 0) (#226)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:36:21 PM EST
    Wow. Sounds intense. So Britany and Paris were only "virtually" smitten by him, while in the other video it was 'actual'? Is that your point?

    LOL

    [ Parent ]

    I just have a hard time believing (none / 0) (#186)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:15:26 PM EST
    it will work.  Maybe I'm some sort of bizarre optimist (my friends would tell you differently), but won't people read about or watch the Paris bit of the ad and ask, 'NYT, are you smoking crack there in the editorial room?'

    I mean, all the folks not already in the tank for Obama.

    I went and watched the Paris ad after I saw a bit of hullabaloo about it and thought I must have gotten the wrong ad.

    I really, really have to hope this backfires, and in a big way, because it's ruining any reasoned or logical discourse in the whole country.  If McCain does come out with an actually racist ad, I know I'll be sorely tempted to just shrug and say, 'meh'.

    [ Parent ]

    So let me get this straigh (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:29:44 PM EST
    McCain's ad comparing Barack Obama to Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears isn't ruining reasoned and logical discourse in the country.  No sir.  It is the RESPONSE to his vapid and petty ad that is ruining reasoned and logical discourse.

    [ Parent ]
    See my post above, Obama loves this (none / 0) (#130)
    by catfish on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:39:52 PM EST
    they've been hoping for this.

    [ Parent ]
    Nothing racist about the ad...... (none / 0) (#170)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:04:18 PM EST
    You can make anything sound bad, but this ad. I saw it and immediately got from it the fact that Paris and Brittany and Obama were all mega stars to the world. I mean, did they have to spend hours on the trip to the jail for Paris? And the release? Was this really news? Did Paris deserve all the publicity by the media? Aren't there a million Paris's out in the world without the name and money? She is nothing special and she adds nothing to any of our lives. She doesn't even have talent but 'she is a celebrity'. And that is the comparison of Obama and Paris and Britany. They are not Frank Sinatra or the Beatles. They are not worth the faint. And that was the message of the commercial. White or Black, you can be a 'star'. Maybe they needed to put in P Daddy.

    In all my life, words that were just slang to me, I now find had a racist background. I had no idea. They were just expressions. And maybe that is my problem. I did not see white, white, and black in the commercial.I saw 3 people. And I never remember a candidate get so much press going to Europe before he is even nominated. Awwwwwwww, the celebrity status. Amazing.

    [ Parent ]

    That makes me angry every time... (5.00 / 12) (#22)
    by OrangeFur on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:26:27 PM EST
    He's basically saying that people won't vote for him because they're racists. And he says it over and over and over again.

    If McCain in fact talking a lot about (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by MarkL on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:57:24 PM EST
    Obama? Based on the primaries, where Obama made exactly the same charge against Hillary---and was completely wrong---I suspect Obama made the charge without any attempt to verify it.
    I mean, they MUST be talking about him.. right?

    [ Parent ]
    I don't find it an undercurrent at all. (5.00 / 11) (#23)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:26:59 PM EST
    It looks quite blatant to me.

    And I don't like it one little bit.

    I don't like it a lot.  It is shutting down discourse on race in academe, for one place -- and a crucial place for the future of this country.  I see it already, and it will be very clear come the school year.

    It's shutting (5.00 / 8) (#33)
    by Emma on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:34:38 PM EST
    down discourse on race everywhere.  I have been raked over the coals repeatedly simply for disagreeing that some particular incident was racist.  It is becoming more and more impossible to talk about race anywhere, any time.

    [ Parent ]
    i don't want to hear about it for 4 years. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by hellothere on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:55:31 PM EST
    i don't want to hear about obama period. i want him to tell america what he plans to do if he is elected president.

    [ Parent ]
    The only 2 things I know for sure (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by angie on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:43:42 PM EST
    that he will do (1) replace the White House bowling alley with a basketball court, and (2) take the tv out of the Lincoln bedroom ('cause ever the mean mommy, people staying there should be reading the Gettysburg Address, not watching tv -- of course, he doesn't say what those people should do after spending the 2 minutes it takes to read the Gettysburg address).

    [ Parent ]
    From reading The Brethren (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:49:03 PM EST
    I know that they already have a basketball court down the street at the Supreme Court.

    Apparently they really do call it "the highest court in the land," too.  Cheesy :)

    [ Parent ]

    Yup (5.00 / 0) (#169)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:03:27 PM EST
    When I moved to DC, I took the Supreme Court tour.  They confirm the fact about the basketball court being above the courtroom and they really do call it "the highest court in the land".

    Apparently Clarence Thomas used to play up there with the law clerks until he hurt his knee.  Wonder if he said "ditto" when one of his teammates scored? </snark>

    [ Parent ]

    Right, he's playing chicken, daring (4.60 / 10) (#26)
    by MarkL on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:30:39 PM EST
    people to call him on the tactic, confident they will not do so because of the cries of "racism" which will greet any criticism of the tactic.

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:05:51 PM EST
    on MSNBC last night, Harold Ford was asked if he thought the McCain ad depicting Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton was racist; he said NO.  Tonight
    on one of the MSNBC political talk shows, Pat Buchanan made the point that Obama supporters are improperly trying to paint every criticism of Obama as racist.  This stuff worked on Dems with white guilt and Dems who could be riled up to blame Hillary and blame Bill, but it will not work in the general election - in my opinion.  

    I thought Obama was far more effective today when he took McCain to task for not being able to come up with anything more significant to put in his ad than pictures of Hilton & Spears, and asking why, with all the challenges faced by the nation today, McCain could not focus on the important issues.  

    But I don't think that having the campaign take one tack and Obama another will work in the general election.  The indepedents are trying to decide on Obama. I don't think they'll spend much time distinguishing between the candidate and his surrogates, nor will they be persuaded by guilt or attempts to shut down criticism.  

    [ Parent ]

    Very well said` (5.00 / 0) (#223)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:34:36 PM EST
    As for Ford, my sense is that he has made it a personal rule never to find anything racist.  He's always said that that truly racist ad run against him in his election wasn't.  So I wouldn't take what he says as representative on that kind of thing.

    [ Parent ]
    I think your point that (4.20 / 5) (#225)
    by frankly0 on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:35:16 PM EST
    the bogus claims of racism that worked so well for Obama in the Democratic primaries will simply backfire on him in the general.

    Just about every person who hears such trumped up accusations and believes them is already well to the left even within the Democratic Party -- they are virtually non-existent in other swaths of the political spectrum.  

    And it's actually worse than that still if the Obama campaign contrives further accusations of "racism" where there is none. There is the "boy crying wolf" effect as well. The Obama campaign really had a certain allotment of credibility they could use in claiming racism, and it has now been entirely exhausted.

    Let the Obama campaign try it some more. Let's see where they get if they start claiming simply being called "arrogant" must have racist overtones. Let's see which remaining voters could possibly be persuaded by that argument after all their other concocted claims of racism in the past.

    [ Parent ]

    Bangladeshi. (5.00 / 7) (#34)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:35:58 PM EST
    I read that Cindy brought her to the US without telling her husband first. Which I find kinda cool on her part.

    Well (5.00 / 15) (#37)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:38:35 PM EST
    A charitable reaction is that he's overdoing it just a wee bit on the prophylactic thing.

    What I really don't get is how his supporters can continue to claim every last thing the GOP does contains a secret racist undercurrent because, if you so much as show a picture of Obama, you're "reminding people he's black."  I never understood how it's supposed to matter if you remind people he's black when every last person on the planet knows it, but you certainly can't claim that the merest reference is racist when Obama himself talks about it again and again and again.

    But then again, this takes us all back to the primary, when we were constantly told that Obama was doing everything in his power to keep race completely out of the campaign.  I think the appropriate reaction to that goes without saying.

    I have had a few surprises (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:55:25 PM EST
    that come from getting my news from the radio and internet.  I think it wasn't until Ken Blackwell ran for the governor of Ohio that I actually saw a picture of him.  Before then I didn't know he was a black man.

    Now Obama is an entirely different story.  Anyone who doesn't know that the man with a "funny" name is black probably doesn't live in the United States.  

    [ Parent ]

    Hm (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:26:07 PM EST
    You didn't watch Election Night 2004?  He was on all the news channels.

    I remember watching him and thinking, "wow, this guy really seems to be on the ball, thank God it's him in charge and not that nutball Katherine Harris."  It was only later that I found out what an extreme right-winger he was.

    [ Parent ]

    Blackwell in 2004 (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:09:57 PM EST
    was not only Secretary in Ohio with authority over elections, but he was also Chair of Bush Reelection Campaign in Ohio.

    [ Parent ]
    2004 (none / 0) (#144)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 08:45:25 PM EST
    At that point I had a one year old and a three year old.  We watched Sesame Street.  I listened to the news from NPR.  

    I had two kids who didn't sleep on the same schedule.  I once spent three hours using every strategy I could to get one kid to take a nap.  The only one that worked was sheer exhaustion.  

    In addition, at that time I was way too angry at GWB in particular and the media in general to spend more time with news coverage than I needed to.

    [ Parent ]

    Ha! (none / 0) (#168)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:03:16 PM EST
    or doesn't live on this planet.

    [ Parent ]
    How about (5.00 / 6) (#63)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 07:56:10 PM EST
    The fact that Gov. Sebelius, other Obama campaign officials, and even posters here said we are not allowed to question his lack of experience, nor call his attitude "arrogant" or "cocky" because those are  racist code words.  So, apparently, we are only allowed to be against "hope" and "change"