home

Monday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:00:13 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Since I'll be awol this evening-- see post below -- here's an open thread for you.

All topics welcome, but please remember the site rules.

< Monday Night TV | McCain on Rights of the Disabled >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Night Open Thread | 204 comments (204 topical)
    I wanted to post this earlier (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:09:35 PM EST
    but the thread was closed by the time I got home.

    Today I drove for the Democratic Host Committee in Denver, picking up Dem staffers at the airport and delivering them to their hotel. Very interesting chatter amongst themselves as I was playing chauffeur.

    The Host office and the staffers were all a-twitter about Obama's decision to accept the nomination at Invesco field. Tickets must be printed, seats must be assigned, transportation must be arranged, does this mean we can give out more tickets to our constituents? The news media, apparently, is furious at having to make arrangements for two locations. A single phone line, apparently, costs $800 to $2400.

    I didn't get a feeling that the staffers were necessarily opposed to the idea, just that it's causing an incredible amount of trouble and inconvenience. They were talking about staying an extra day or two to arrange walkthroughs at the stadium.

    money (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by CHDmom on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:53:26 PM EST
    Who is paying for the extra stadium? I thought they were having problems paying for the convention. So now they have to rent a stadium, rent a second stage,lights, sound, ect and have another set of stagehand working about 10 days to build everything and take it down? sounds like ALOT of money.Not to mention twice as many tractor trailers bring everything doesn't sound very "green".

    [ Parent ]
    Details (none / 0) (#164)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:00:16 PM EST
    Here

    [ Parent ]
    thanks (4.00 / 1) (#224)
    by CHDmom on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:12:44 AM EST
    I see Howie said they have plenty of money, so I guess the DNC will pay for it?

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting story (5.00 / 21) (#5)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:10:59 PM EST
    about Hillary for those who missed it.

    Wow Wow Wow. (5.00 / 17) (#7)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:15:35 PM EST
    If anyone wants to understand the incredible differences between Obama and Clinton, this is it.

    She is remarkable.

    He is unremarkable.

    [ Parent ]

    Shainzona...succinct and right on target!! (5.00 / 9) (#8)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:19:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    He is going to..... (2.63 / 11) (#39)
    by Veracitor on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:43:46 PM EST
    ......be President.  She isn't.

    [ Parent ]
    Out of the two running, my money is on (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:47:45 PM EST
    McCain...and let's see what skeletons come flying out of your boy's closet and how many more times he shoots himself in the foot between now and the convention.  And perhaps you might have heard, there is no nominee until said convention....thanks for playing.

    [ Parent ]
    Oy Vey (3.00 / 4) (#87)
    by cpa1 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:38:15 PM EST
    I got a Special Notice from the DNC today that has to be responded to within 72 hours.  I keep sending these back saying thanks to the DNC Chairman's disgusting behavior favoring Obama, I want to have nothing more to do with the DNC...and yet they keep coming.

    I'm not a Hill Raiser, or at least I wasn't when all this started.  Obama and more importantly, the Obama supporters that I hated from the DailyKos made me jump to be very respectful of Hillary and the kind of person she is.  I am not really a feminist either (although I do support feminist issues), I just think Hillary has the class and the intelligence to be president and Obama is "self interested only" liar.  I don't like him at all but I'll probably vote for him.

    Stellaaa asked me a question on an earlier open thread, about the Obama interview with the Reno Gazette: http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026
     

    That interview, and a few issues with his credentials tipped the scales against him, were you convinced by this interview?   I found it really telling.

    The interview did tip the scales for me.  First he voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice, for Sec'y of State, which I though a little odd for someone who thinks he can take the high ground on the Iraq war.  Avoiding the Alito filibuster stoked the fires.  

    Then in the interview I heard this guy go after the Clinton legacy and after that I thought he was a piece of _.  Then he went after the baby boomers by saying he is not vested in the 60's and 70s, a time when people liked to solve problems with Love-Ins.  Then he complained that 80% of our medical costs go to 20% of the population, pandering to the kiddies who don't see what kind of horrible person he really is.  Then towards the end he got delusional, telling everyone that he is the only one who can see problems and solve them.  Finally, he had the unmitigated gall to praise Reagan, at which point I said to myself, F__ him!

    I hated him after watching that interview but I hate the Republicans even more.  I think he will lose to McCain and part of me wants to see that happen, even though I will vote for him, at least as of now.  

    Tennis Match

    Wow, BTD, the best tennis I have ever seen.  I didn't think Roger could come back the way he did and I cannot believe what an incredible player Rafa is.  I don't know how you can have that much control of your body with your mind.  And as Martina says, whatever you do to condition yourself to these grueling matches will payoff tenfold in the end.  I wonder what it is like to be in that kind of perfect shape, perfect conditioning so that the mind can tell the body what to do and the body doesn't hesitate.  Each of these shots, I could lay out on paper, how to hit it, where to hit it and how hard.  But, doing it on the court, even when you are fresh, is an amazing feat.  This match truly brought an end to any era dominated by Roger Federer.  Now if Andy Roddick would only hit deeper and put his opponents on the defensive more often, he could win more Grand Slams.

    [ Parent ]

    You own your vote. You DO NOT (5.00 / 5) (#136)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:30:52 PM EST
    have to vote for BO....ignore the top spot and vote downticket so if McCain wins, maybe there will be enough Dems in Congress with spines to keep him under control.

    [ Parent ]
    If McCain wins? (1.66 / 3) (#231)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:15:58 AM EST
    Of course he'll win if Hillary supporters refuse to vote for anyone.  I don't understand why you would encourage other voters to not vote for president in the hopes that McCain will win.  This is a left wing site and you're promoting the Republican candidate.  You can vote however you want, but is very sad to see you subverting the party on this site.

    Anyway, our country doesn't have another four or eight years to wait for Hillary to run again.  


    [ Parent ]

    Got your crystal ball (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:48:59 PM EST
    in just the right position?

    Heh.

    [ Parent ]

    I just love (5.00 / 17) (#47)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:51:01 PM EST
    these little unity ambassadors.  Don't you?

    [ Parent ]
    Strange that underneath the hope and unity (5.00 / 17) (#50)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:52:43 PM EST
    is just a bunch of mean-spiritedness.

    [ Parent ]
    It cuts both ways (4.00 / 3) (#57)
    by anydemwilldo on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:57:11 PM EST
    Some of us really try.  We get sneered at too.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 6) (#117)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:11:37 PM EST
    The Hilary/Obama war is over. Obama is going to be the nominee. But that doesn't mean that Democrat's, particularly progressive shouldn't be insisting that our candidate is representing our veiw. Winning the nomination wasn't a blank check for Obama. He has a committment to live up to his committments (and party principles). Too many of his supporters are willing to give him carte blanche. I do have to wonder if the tables were turnrd, if they would have the same reaction to Hilary? When someone is wrong, their wrong. This smacks too close to how the right wing and the media that thought GWB could do no wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    So true (4.83 / 6) (#201)
    by Palomino on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:54:25 PM EST
    Don't you wish that a sufficient number of Republicans had placed principle and country over party in 2000, not to mention in 2004?

    [ Parent ]
    exactly mmc....gwb redux (4.50 / 2) (#120)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:16:57 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I would love if they went away, but in (5.00 / 11) (#54)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:55:56 PM EST
    their quest to line up voters for obama, I think they do faaaarrrr more harm than good.

    [ Parent ]
    So much the worse for all of us. n/t (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:00:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    If I were you (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:48:17 PM EST
    I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

    [ Parent ]
    Who are you (none / 0) (#116)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:11:28 PM EST
    Tracy Morgan?

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for the link (5.00 / 12) (#12)
    by Coldblue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:21:44 PM EST
    I missed it.

    One more tear for what could have been one of the best presidents this country has ever had.

    [ Parent ]

    It's too (4.17 / 17) (#16)
    by tek on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:25:26 PM EST
    disgusting that we could have had a great president who would have totally turned the country back around but instead the Democrats give us a fraud.

    [ Parent ]
    SteveM....thanks for sharing that....the bad (5.00 / 14) (#13)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:21:49 PM EST
    thing is those kinds of stories just make me all the sadder she is not yet the nominee.  I have not given up hope that she will be.  Those obamatrolls on this site who always accuse that those of us who will not vote obama is because we are bitter/sour grapes, etc.  No, it is because we want the best for America; the democratic party be damned...Hillary is what America needs NOW...

    [ Parent ]
    I was directed (5.00 / 8) (#24)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:33:23 PM EST
    to her blog several weeks ago and then read about her.  

    She rocks.

    But no one rocks more than Hillary Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    She was (4.77 / 9) (#48)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:51:48 PM EST
    a professor at my law school, as it happens!  Super-duper-smart person.

    [ Parent ]
    At U-M? (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:55:37 PM EST
    I read her CV.

    Wow.

    [ Parent ]

    Lovely story (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:35:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That -- and Clinton's first speech (5.00 / 11) (#41)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:45:15 PM EST
    after suspending her campaign really got me.  The speech to the high school graduating class, as she had promised the graduate -- a daughter of a volunteer years ago -- that she would be there if the girl did not quit but got to graduation.

    The video of the girl walking into her graduation with Clinton at her side, the faces of the other graduates realizing the greatness of the moment -- all faces of color, btw, from what I could see -- was wonderful.  They got a message that quitters never win . . . and that there are many ways of winning.

    [ Parent ]

    Cream....I find it amazing that a racist like (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:58:13 PM EST
    Hillary would do such a thing! (huge snark)

    [ Parent ]
    unfounded accusation (none / 0) (#130)
    by Yotin on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:27:17 PM EST
    Hillary a racist? This is a violation of the rules. Support your contention.
    Hillary has a 96% rating by the NAACP.

    [ Parent ]
    Only 96%? (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:29:37 PM EST
    For your information, "snark" means the comment is not intended seriously.  "Huge snark," well, I assume you can figure that one out.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, it is nice to see that (none / 0) (#142)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:34:45 PM EST
    accusation against her defended, even if the post s/he was responding to was a huge snark.

    [ Parent ]
    Be cool, Yotin -- and google for definition (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:36:50 PM EST
    of snark.  And Pssst is good with me for a long time here now.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks Cream.... (none / 0) (#161)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:57:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    yotin.....huge snark = no she is not a racist (none / 0) (#135)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:30:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Didn't know whether to cry or scream (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:06:32 PM EST
    Crying is quieter at this hour . . .  I'll scream again tomorrow.

    Thanks for the link :)

    [ Parent ]

    Wow! I'm a 58 year-old-man and I got kinda (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by mrjerbub on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:37:31 PM EST
    choked up. I think we are going to think long and hard about what really happened here. An opportunity missed? To some of us...

    [ Parent ]
    London ho! (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:19:35 PM EST
    I'm headed off on my study abroad trip to London in a little less than a week now, and the class I'm taking over there is going to be about UK Campaign Politics. I think it'll be an interesting experience to see the differences, obvious or otherwise, between our American way of doing things, and the British way. Somehow, I have a feeling I'm going to like their way better.

    Then again, this is the country that gave us Margaret Thatcher and Gordon Brown.

    I do have a question however, for those familiar with London: Any of you know some cheap places to get fish and chips over there? Especially near Belsize Park or Hempstead? That's where I'm staying, but I can't find any sort of consensus on the restarauntur services online and figured I might ask some of you guyses here at TL. You're the smartest folks I know. :P

    I've been to London once (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:21:05 PM EST
    but my impression was that you couldn't throw a rock without hitting a fish and chips place.  Lord knows I ate it enough.

    [ Parent ]
    Pub food is terrific (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:38:32 PM EST
    there and in Ireland, a whole different level from the basic burger pub food too often on this side of the pond.  Of course, some of the best is not British but from all those years in Injuh; I loved the curries.  Also, Indian takeaway is a staple.

    And the cheeses!  Try the British version of mac and cheese for comfort food -- and you will never allow the term to be used again for that glow-in-the-dark orange stuff in a box perpetrated on the American people.  

    But a tip:  Avoid a breakfast food beloved by the Irish, so also found in Brit spots, called "black sausages."  Ugh.  No meat in them at all.  Famine food from An Gorta Mor.  A step up from eating grass, as my people had to do.  But not much of a step.

    [ Parent ]

    Pub food was (none / 0) (#42)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:46:09 PM EST
    good when we went.  More choices and a bit healthier and tastier.  I can't imagine it's gone backwards since then, especially with the likes of Jamie Oliver and Nigella on the tube.

    [ Parent ]
    Just stay away from (none / 0) (#204)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:55:17 PM EST
    the "steak and kidney pie."  Aaauuggghhh!

    [ Parent ]
    That sounds amazing. (none / 0) (#217)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:05:16 AM EST
    And I'm a huge fan of curries and Indian food myself, so I'll have to check those places out.

    I knew you were my favorite poster for a reason. :P

    [ Parent ]

    Our son was tranferred there a year ago.... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:00:00 PM EST
    he loves it and I'm sure you will too.  Fish and Chips all over the place!   Enjoy!!!!

    [ Parent ]
    Can't get them at pubs (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:05:07 PM EST
    Try a take-away. Pubs have mostly gone upscale with their food.

    Whatever you do, don't eat eels. Gah.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, and Dalton? Safe trip! (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:38:43 PM EST
    And enjoy.  And get around Europe a bit, too.  Brits consider Amsterdam -- amaaaaaazing Amsterdam -- a day trip (emphasis on trip:-).  And Galway is wonderful, very popular with ye youngsters.

    But if you can get to Dublin to the Trinity College campus to see the Book of Kells . . . don't miss it.  (But if you see the Garda, another tip:  Do not, not, not try to take a picture.  Not fond of electronics, those guys.)

    And much, much more you will find for yourself in London.  Terrific.  My son is heading there for the first time this summer, and I know that he will be transformed, too.  

    [ Parent ]

    Fish and... (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Jeannie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:12:28 PM EST
    Never order fish and chips in a restaurant - usually expensive and not good. Find a small cafe/take out where that is all they sell. And if there are local people there lined up - you know you have hit gold.
    In your first pub, go up to the bar and order a Bass for me.....

    [ Parent ]
    Hempstead Heath is a lovely place with (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by hairspray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:40:54 PM EST
    lots of students. Wonderful neighborhood and  very tony. Just walk around and go into the crowded places where the students are; the prices will be good.  Good for London that is.

    [ Parent ]
    Try to get out of the city (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:57:32 PM EST
    and see some of the English countryside.  It's wonderful.  The West Country-- Cornwall and Devon, etc.-- is quite marvelous if you stay away from the big tourist spots.

    And by all means, at least once have a "cream tea"-- tea with scones spread with clotted cream and usually strawberry jam.  Ahhhh, heaven!

    [ Parent ]

    Second this! (none / 0) (#227)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:14:14 AM EST
    out of the city that is :) I took the train through Wales from London, and it hooked up to the ferry to Ireland. Beautiful ride! I was just planning on staying overnight, but ended up staying a few days.

    I went to London for a week and ended up staying a month. It's pretty easy to navigate the food while being clueless as I was  ;) I ended up staying at a friend of a friends apt there after my first week and had no prob cruising around and getting meals on the fly.

    One thing I did find interesting was that the city streets are set up more in a spiderweb pattern, along with the opposite side of the road driving. I went on several walks (I'm a walker) to check things out and I kept ending up in the same zone. Once I go used to it, I was able to set out and actually hit different areas. I ran into this prob taking the tube and then walking, also. A GPS might have been handy  ;)

    I had a great time there just kicking around. I actually looked into moving there, lol!~

    [ Parent ]

    Try... (none / 0) (#17)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:30:30 PM EST
    ...the local pub.  Usually decent local food (fish n' chips, bangers and mash, etc.) at the most reasonable price.  Otherwise, you'll find food stalls all over--especially at the markets.  

    Lots of little shops selling great Thai, Mediterrian and other ethnic foods too.  

    I had the best lasagne ever at a little place in London--better than anything I had in Italy even.  

    [ Parent ]

    Indeed (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:33:57 PM EST
    I love Borough Market in Southwark.

    [ Parent ]
    You'll probably be in Tube zone 2 (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:31:53 PM EST
    but if you make it into town--and I assume you will--forget the pub fare and make way for Edgware Road. There's a place not four minutes walk from Marble Arch station called [Maroush III http://www.maroush.com/pages/map_M3.htm. It has some of the best Lebanese food I've ever tasted anywhere. It's a bit pricy, especially with the Pound as strong as it is now, but the food is worth it.

    [ Parent ]
    fish and-- (none / 0) (#35)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:42:18 PM EST
    I do not like fish--but fish and chips from one of the Harry Ramsden's is a big, big exception.  My husband said that the difference is that that chain uses a delicate white fish--anyway, it is super good, and it is eat in.  They have a web site: choose southeast UK; Eusten (sp) station is a London location.  Give it a try for sure--and be sure to douse with vinegar.  Other than that, legend has it that the best inexpensive places to eat in the UK are often Indian--tandoori, etc.  

    There was a nearly American drug-store-style eatery, very good, south of Parliament on a side street toward the embankment.  But try once at least tea on the balcony and some the goodies on the food floor at Harrods, ices or such at Fortnum and Masons--pricey for sure, but to be in London and not sample those--sheer poverty of spirit as well as pocket book.  For the rest of the time, head for one of the grocery store chains (including Marks & Sparks, formally called Marks and Spencers) for excellent take-out--eat cold or heat in a microwave.

    [ Parent ]

    I've been to London once (none / 0) (#37)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:42:48 PM EST
    in 1994.

    Things were very different then, although the IRA was supposedly lobbing missiles into Heathrow before and after we landed.

    (I wasn't worried for some odd reason.  Heh.)

    The money exchange will hurt more, fer shure.

    [ Parent ]

    I was (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:55:32 PM EST
    at Waterloo Station, just a few years ago, waiting for the train to Paris.

    I had a candy wrapper to throw out, and would you believe it, I couldn't find a single trashcan!  I was looking all over.

    Suddenly it occurred to me that the most likely reason there were no trashcans in the public spaces is that, not too long ago, the IRA liked to put bombs in them.

    And there I was, stuck with my candy wrapper.  Talk about letting the terrorists win.

    [ Parent ]

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:59:36 PM EST
    And there I was, stuck with my candy wrapper.  Talk about letting the terrorists win.

    We have, haven't we.

    But the terrorists are wearing suits and ties and housed in nicely-appointed offices.

    [ Parent ]

    Indeed, it's a constant frustration (none / 0) (#62)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:59:48 PM EST
    Washington DC can be the same way when there is some impending important event.

    [ Parent ]
    I have one comment (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by tek on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:22:58 PM EST
    we marched in the community 4th parade with the Democrats.  The Obama campaign sent people over.  This was in FL.  Every one of the Obama people was black (about 5 people, not one of them from our town).  On the parade route there was not one eruption of wild applause for the Obama signs, mostly silence.

    This weekend I discovered (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:31:36 PM EST
    that I could use the same password I use on mydd here and the password for TL at mydd. I have the same name on both places and the passwords are somewhat similar though not identical. I'm guessing it is a glitch resulting from a similar comment system?

    Anyway, just thought I'd put that out there in case in the GE some screwy things happen with accounts being hijacked or people being spoofed and causing problems on these blogs.

    I've decided that Obama is not a (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:31:45 PM EST
    flip flopper.  

    He's a Weeble.  That's because "Weebles wobble but they don't fall down" and he basically wobbles around answers to issues.  I think his "refining" his stance on Iraq is more wobbling than anything else.  

    Anyone agree?  

    Salo's comment yesterday was perfect (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:17:42 PM EST
    Ever try to flip jello?


    [ Parent ]
    For those who think caucuses stink.... (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:38:04 PM EST
    read at your own peril.

    link

    Reading this makes me (5.00 / 0) (#169)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:10:17 PM EST
    scratch my head with wonder that we can do this and call ourselves Democrats. I understand the reasons for the caucuses. I have read them again and again. But they are not convincing.

    [ Parent ]
    I voted in the Tx 2-step and (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:27:08 PM EST
    in my precinct, id's were not checked, voter id card #'s were not checked, the purpose of which to be sure you were a registered voter, and show proof (your voting receipt) that you had voted earlier in the day (those in "charge" said that if one was there to caucus, of course they had already voted). Forms were missing, there was no organization. It was a mess, and possibily illegally run. The state was asked to investigate various allegations, but refused.  

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting News Out Of Baghdad (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:55:43 PM EST
    BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating.
    ...
    He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security.
    ...
    Al-Maliki said in a meeting with Arab diplomats in Abu Dhabi that his country also has proposed a short-term interim memorandum of agreement rather than the more formal status of forces agreement the two sides have been negotiating.
    The memorandum "now on the table" includes a formula for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, he said.

    "The goal is to end the presence (of foreign troops)," al-Maliki said. Link

    The Iraqi government kicking us out might be the only way the occupation will end any time soon.

    MO Blue...nice to see someone calling (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:10:22 PM EST
    this debacle what it is...an occupation, not a war.

    [ Parent ]
    As Obama likes to say: "Uh...." (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Chisoxy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:38:29 PM EST
    He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security.

    How is that different than what we've had. They keep failing to meet the standards.

    [ Parent ]

    Some differences IMO (none / 0) (#131)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:28:48 PM EST
    ....his country also has proposed a short-term interim memorandum of agreement rather than the more formal status of forces agreement the two sides have been negotiating.

    The memorandum "now on the table" includes a formula for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, he said.

    No formal status of forces agreement would allow the next president more leeway. The "formula" could mean that particular time related goals would be established and if met, the result would be X number of U.S. troops would be withdrawn until all U.S. troops are gone. To date, no timelines have been established and neither party has proposed complete withdrawal. For those politicians who favor a timeline, this provides justification for  it since it would be a the behest of the Iraqi government.

    Small things maybe due to fact the Iraqis have not been able to provide the necessary security but it does open a couple of doors IMO.

    [ Parent ]

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:35:54 PM EST
    the root cause of this whole status of forces mess is the fact that the UN Security Council resolution expires on 12/31/08.  Now, who the heck told the Security Council that an awesome expiration date would be right at the moment the US is having a transition of power?  It guarantees that a lame duck president will be binding the hands of his successor to some degree, even if we assume the good faith that GWB clearly lacks.

    [ Parent ]
    Can't they get away with the short term (none / 0) (#153)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:49:42 PM EST
    interim memorandum of agreement that the Iraqi government is proposing?  If the UN Security Council were willing to accept that and modify the resolution accordingly, that would solve the problem of the new president being stuck with something that GWB dictates.  Is there some reason that cannot be done?  

    GWB does in fact want to bind the hands of his successor. I'm almost sure that it was reported that he was going to make it so the next president had no other option than to follow his Iraq strategy (if you can call it that).

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#216)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:03:42 AM EST
    I think that is a fine solution, actually.  My point is simply that it would have been better still to have the UN mandate expire in a non-election year so that the problem never arises.

    Maybe the point was hotly negotiated in the Security Council, I really have no idea.  You assume John Bolton or whoever would be trying to maximize the Bush Administration's influence over the process, but you'd think the other member states would be more interested in the stability of Iraq.

    The thing is, in a sense, the Democrats have already won this battle just by making a stink about it.  Of course Bush can sign his name to anything he feels like and pretend like he doesn't need Senate approval, but if there's a reasonable prospect that the next administration is just going to call the thing illegitimate and tear it up, the Iraqis understand that reality and aren't going to go along with Bush's proposal.  A contract is only useful if you can be confident it will be enforced.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmm (5.00 / 7) (#56)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:56:48 PM EST
    That's arguably just a tad over the top.

    Agree, a tad, but made me laugh anyway. (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:01:34 PM EST
    Well, snicker I mean.

    [ Parent ]
    Whew....testy aren't ya? Apparently someone (5.00 / 6) (#74)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:08:29 PM EST
    struck a nerve there...btw in case you didn't notice, you are in violation of site rules...Clinton losers?  Well, I never...lmao

    I really don't care (3.50 / 2) (#94)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:46:57 PM EST
    I read diaries like this with a bit of sadness.  I don't make fun of amorphous faceless groups of people on the Internet.   What's the point?  

    But now even some of the people that I thought were more rational here have become more interested in taking shots at Obama and his supporters.  

    Oh and I didn't use the term Clinton losers.  I don't take shots at the people here except on occasion when goaded fairly heavily.  

    [ Parent ]

    Wow....passing the shovels around TL (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:00:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Factual statement (2.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Veracitor on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:44:25 PM EST
    Read the thread, and tell me how else I'm supposed to address people that are hostile because they bet on a losing horse.

    [ Parent ]
    No. (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:59:14 PM EST
    You obviously have no idea of how we feel, and even less ability to figure it out.

    We didn't back a loser. We are not hostile just because the nomination was handed to someone else, unearned.

    Repeating your own baseless and WRONG assumptions about how and why we feel the way we do just makes you look ignorant - and it doesn't help your candidate either.

    [ Parent ]

    We're hostile because the losing (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:02:05 PM EST
    horse was picked----a loser for the Dems (probably), and a loser for the country if elected.

    [ Parent ]
    your tunnel vision is showing Veracitor (4.80 / 5) (#100)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:59:05 PM EST
    For myself, I only see America as the big loser in this race.  The lesser candidate was picked, pure and simple; and it wasn't even honest.  Hillary will do just fine and as you can see, she still has a ton of supporters.  If you are interested in country first, party second, you might want to take a second look at obama's creds.

    [ Parent ]
    When the race is rigged (4.25 / 4) (#124)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:22:42 PM EST
    it's not the horse's fault.  The jockeys may be prosecuted, but the horses go on to long lives in greener pastures.:-)

    [ Parent ]
    Obama won fair and square (2.55 / 9) (#147)
    by RosieScenario on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:41:13 PM EST
    Obama played by the rules, collected the most pledged and super delegates, and won the nomination fair and square.

    The flawed primaries in FL and MI were resolved with a good faith effort on all sides.  Many Clinton supporters on the RBC voted for both the FL and Mi compromises.

    Senator Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee because he has the most committed delegate votes.  The race was not rigged in any way.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, thank God (5.00 / 12) (#156)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:53:17 PM EST
    Nice to see a new name around here.  I was worried we wouldn't get the chance to rehash all this stuff yet again tonight.

    [ Parent ]
    D**n ya, now I got soda up my nose. :-) (5.00 / 5) (#163)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:59:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    FAIL (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:53:21 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Rosie....he still does not have enough (5.00 / 4) (#159)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:54:01 PM EST
    delegates.  Please remove the glasses with the rose tint and go check the rules before making these kinds of statements.

    [ Parent ]
    Without rehashing who said what (2.00 / 0) (#219)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:06:04 AM EST
    and who did what wrong in the primaries, it was a close race and the electorate went pretty much 50-50.  There was racism and sexism from both sides, and false racism and sexism claims.  If the party leadership had supported Hillary instead, we'd be in the exact same situation, only a different group of Democrats would be furious.  The young Obama supporters would walk away instead of pounding the streets for our party this fall.  AA's would have a car wash day and not vote.  People who gave up on American politics years ago and who came back to vote for Obama would leave in disgust after concluding that the Dem party is still a bunch of cheaters.  Either direction the Dem leadership went, our party would have been split.  

    So now what?  Some Dems promote McCain in the hopes of proving a point or punishing the party or enhancing Hillary's chances in four or eight years.  But we can't wait that long.  We are going bankrupt, and McCain will keep us on the sorry path we've been on for the past eight years.  
    Somehow we have to get our party back together.  BTD is right - focus on the issues, and try to get the party/candidate/electorate to be in alignment with our core values.  The unmentionable cat movement is growing, and from arguments I read hear and on other blogs, the anti-Obama rhetoric is just reinforcing the anger.  I think it's time for PUMAs to do something besides encourage votes for McCain.  Either use your political clout to demand Obama put Hillary on the ticket or choose another third party candidate who the party can and will rally behind.  If McCain wins, especially if he wins because Hillary supporters won't vote Dem, the Obama half of the party isn't going to stick around.  You'll be on your own with half the political power you would have had with a united, or at least a cooperating Democratic party.

    Even if Obama wins, we still need the majority of our party backing our shared issues, not just criticizing our new president.  We're going to need unity/cooperation well beyond the election or we'll have wasted the best chance in our lives to redirect our government toward a progressive agenda.  


    [ Parent ]

    Without rehashing this in detail--- (5.00 / 3) (#222)
    by MarkL on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:10:06 AM EST
    you're wrong. There was overwhelming sexism in one direction, both from Obama's camp and from the media. There was also an attempt to paint the Clintons as racists by the Obama camp.
    Nothing the Clintons or their advisers did compares in the least. You can't make it so with a sweeping dismissal.


    [ Parent ]
    LOL (5.00 / 6) (#166)
    by Jackson Hunter on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:06:33 PM EST
    That is some good snark!

    The Party violated their own "Sunshine Rules" when they discussed the issue in private at the RBC.  That is the reason for PUMA, not Hilary support.  That was a crooked game played by crooked rules. by a bunch of perennial losers who haven't won a Federal Election without a Clinton since 1976!

    Three other states, in which Obama would be quite competitive, violated the same rules FL/MI did, where he would not be as competitive.  Gee, that was just a co-inky-dink, right?  Those waivers were innocently granted, right?  Yeah, you betcha.

    Sorry, I'm not buying what you are selling, but you are certainly free to try to sell it if you can.  Good luck.

    Jackson

    [ Parent ]

    Apparently, McCauliffe and Ickes bought it, since (2.00 / 0) (#177)
    by RosieScenario on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:21:34 PM EST
    they were on the committee that penalized FL and MI (but not other states) BEFORE any voting took place, and voted to do so.

    [ Parent ]
    Speaking of snark, your tag line is (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:23:44 PM EST
    HILARIOUS.

    [ Parent ]
    Rosie, you're confusing (5.00 / 0) (#223)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:12:19 AM EST
    two different meetings -- August 2007 vs. May 2008.

    You could look it up.  Then you'll be able to catch up here.

    [ Parent ]

    You could read the post, as I did. (2.00 / 0) (#234)
    by RosieScenario on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:21:18 AM EST
    Jackson Hunter on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:06:33 PM EST said:

    (snip)
    Three other states, in which Obama would be quite competitive, violated the same rules FL/MI did, where he would not be as competitive.  Gee, that was just a co-inky-dink, right?  Those waivers were innocently granted, right?  Yeah, you betcha.

    end quote

    My comment was correct.

    Quite the Welcome Wagon around here.

    [ Parent ]

    Off toic, Rosie. I'm talking 'bout (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:06:43 PM EST
    horsies here.  Lots of Derby fans here.  

    Now, when I talk about bad races, your scenario has Obama in it?  Not very optimistic, er, rosy of you.

    [ Parent ]

    The race wasn't rigged (2.00 / 2) (#212)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:00:24 AM EST
    What the DNC did was finish the primary.  Obama had already won.  It was just a matter of superdelegates committing, and I'm sure many of them didn't want to be the deciders who went against the part of the electorate who voted for Hillary.  

    What would you have them do, help Hillary win instead?  Or just let the party flounder all summer?  

    You might not like their methods, but they had to end it so we could focus on the GE.


    [ Parent ]

    I would like them to have chosen the (5.00 / 3) (#218)
    by MarkL on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:05:57 AM EST
    popular vote winner and the overwhelming strong finisher: the experienced, knowledgable candidate.. since you ask.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#228)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:14:24 AM EST
    He had already won, except for the fact that if the superdelegates chose to commit to Hillary instead of him, he wouldn't have won.  Interesting word games you're playing here.

    [ Parent ]
    I've never called (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:25:23 PM EST
    you a name or attacked you.  I'm not calling Obama a name either and I'm not attacking him.  

    Are you talking about yourself?  

    What would you call a politician who "refines" their positions like Obama does?  

    Actually (5.00 / 7) (#82)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:29:06 PM EST
    I am sort of enjoying having it both ways, and watching to see if you guys can elect your candidate on your own.  Obviously, you have a far deeper knowledge of politics than me, to understand why it's helpful to your candidate if you alienate fellow members of the party.  So good luck putting it to work.

    The religious right (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:05:06 PM EST
    did this for years -- and it worked, didn't it?  

    ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    Kinda (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:09:36 PM EST
    But they had a more popular figure at the head of their movement.

    [ Parent ]
    Whenever you're ready..... (2.50 / 2) (#97)
    by Veracitor on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:49:40 PM EST
    .....to be united, then we can talk about it.  Serial Obama-bashing does not promote unity.

    [ Parent ]
    Hey, whenever YOU are ready to (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:52:53 PM EST
    act like a uniter, we're ready.

    [ Parent ]
    Shrug (5.00 / 12) (#112)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:08:22 PM EST
    I've seen how Obama supporters behave and I have no interest in "unifying" with them.

    I've never before seen a race where the supporters of the winning candidate tell the supporters of the losing candidate that it's their responsibility to get unified, but like I said, you guys apparently have an insight into political strategy that I lack.  So good luck getting your candidate elected without my assistance.

    [ Parent ]

    It's a new kind of political strategy. (5.00 / 10) (#146)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:40:20 PM EST
    It's called "Get over it."  It's used all the time with women who are deemed to emotional to do anything else or to think for themselves.  No matter what happens, you just tell them to "Get over it."  I think it dates back to Biblical times.    

    This is the first political season that has had a woman running, so it's perfectly acceptable to tell her supporters to "Get over it."  

    <snark>

    [ Parent ]

    that you precondition it to something (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:25:26 PM EST
    other most do and not you puts a quick end to any idea of "unity". what you say in essence is fall in line and shut up. that's how i take it. no thanks

    [ Parent ]
    I wonder if anyone has read about what (5.00 / 3) (#230)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:15:46 AM EST
    is happening in Iowa?  In a nutshell:
    Obama campaign, not Iowa Democratic Party, to coordinate GOTV in Iowa (desmoinesdem)According to this report at Iowa Independent, the Iowa Democratic Party's "coordinated campaign" for getting out the vote has been disbanded, with "field staff that was previously working for down-ticket races now being placed on the payroll of Obama's presidential campaign and working almost entirely on its behalf." Bleeding Heartland is worried about how this will affect Democratic candidates in some battleground state legislative districts.
    It seems that the O campaign wants to concentrate and pay canvassers in student/AA rich districts where the Obama turnout will assure a victory, and not help the rural and small districts where Obama will not bring in big numbers.  This plan will dry up all hope of increasing important state legislative Dems who have depended on the coordinated GOTV effort.  Who said this wasn't all about Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    No desire to be "united" (4.87 / 8) (#149)
    by badger on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:45:09 PM EST
    Being "united" doesn't stop erosion of the Bill of Rights, provide universal health care, or support a woman's right to choose.

    I just want a decent President leading a competent government.

    Maybe in 2012 ...


    [ Parent ]

    Oh really (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by RalphB on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:33:25 PM EST
    She put herself in this race, much as Hillary did in '92.  If I remember correctly, Hillary fought back herself.  Michelle should try that, then she'll get some support.

    But Obamatrolls is ok? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:36:22 PM EST
    Way to be consistent.

    Food!! (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:43:13 PM EST
    I have a recipe recommendation.
    I've been thinking about lentil salad---that sounded summery:
    It's a simple recipe which I found delicious, with a great texture.


    INGREDIENTS

        * 1 cup dry brown lentils
        * 1 cup diced carrots
        * 1 cup red onion, diced
        * 2 cloves garlic, minced
        * 1 bay leaf
        * 1/2 teaspoon dried thyme
        * 2 tablespoons lemon juice
        * 1/2 cup diced celery
        * 1