More Tuesday Night Speakers Added to DNC

First came the news came that Hillary Clinton would speak at the Democratic Convention Tuesday night. Yesterday came the news that the keynote speech, to be given by former VA. Governor Mark Warner, would also be Tuesday.

Now there's this: the Tuesday lineup will also include Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, Governors Ted Strickland of Ohio and Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, Senator Bob Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania and Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana and Federico Peña, former Mayor of Denver and Secretary of both Energy and Transportation.

That's 10 speakers for Tuesday night. By contrast, Monday night, there are 5 speakers, 3 of whom are Michelle Obama, her brother and Barack Obama's sister.[More...]

Update: There's a difference between principal and featured speakers. The principal speakers Tuesday in prime-time are still Mark Warner and Hillary Clinton.

As announced earlier this week, Mark Warner, former Governor of Virginia, will deliver the Convention’s keynote address, and Senator Hillary Clinton, who is a champion for working families and one of the most effective and empathetic voices in the country today, will be the headline prime-time speaker on Tuesday night.

Update: Title of post changed as there were 10 total speakers some nights at the 2004 convention. Here's the 2004 list.

One difference between 2004 and now: Then, the first night speakers' were party leaders (Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter and Hillary) while the candidate's wife, Theresa Heinz Kerry, spoke on Tuesday. This year, Michelle Obama goes first and former President Clinton speaks Wednesday.

Update: Colin Powell will not be attending the DNC.

< Township Trustees May Be Charged With Hissy Fits | Arkansas Dem. Party Chair Killed in Shooting >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Notice (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by cmugirl on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:29:09 PM EST
    Bayh is not on the list.  Cross off Sebelius for VP.

    This guarantees that no one will have too much time to "stir up the crowd" - wouldn't want any dissent.

    Now we know, (none / 0) (#153)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:29:00 PM EST
    It's Bayh.  If it was Kaine, Mark Warner would be introducing him since they are both Virginia Governors, and both supporters of Obama.  

    Bayh.  Blah.  Color me unexcited.


    Neither is Biden n/t (none / 0) (#162)
    by joanneleon on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:41:57 PM EST
    I thought most were day speeches (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:31:06 PM EST
    and Clinton, Warner were at night. I just saw it written up that way when I was clicking around. Yahoo perhaps?

    I read it like you (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:42:41 PM EST
    As announced earlier this week, Mark Warner, former Governor of Virginia, will deliver the Convention's keynote address, and Senator Hillary Clinton, who is a champion for working families and one of the most effective and empathetic voices in the country today, will be the headline prime-time speaker on Tuesday night.

    I did too, except for this per J's link (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:50:50 PM EST
    Tuesday night's featured speakers include Convention Co-Chair Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, both early supporters of Barack Obama, who will outline his detailed economic plan to grow the economy, create jobs, restore fairness and expand opportunity.  

    Plus, the keynote by Warner, and it really isn't "Hillary Night" anymore.


    Excuse me (5.00 / 7) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:58:17 PM EST
    They could have 309 speakers, and even a few actual exciting ones, and it will be Hillary's night. There is nothing anyone can do about that.

    And Wednesday night will be Bill's night.

    MoDo wrote an idiotic column again to day, but that part she got right.


    It will me to me, but I was under the impression (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:08:18 PM EST
    that they were going to honor women and the 18 million cracks in the ceiling, etc. With one hour of prime time, do you think she'll get part of it? The subjects listed don't have any salute to her mentioned.

    Let me gripe, BTD. I was looking forward to a little more than one speech of many. I do think she'll be one of the more exciting ones that night.


    Well of course it will be the (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:10:14 PM EST
    Clinton's respective nights.  The question is whether the DNC/Obama camp is attempting to drown them out.

    It's like attempted murder.  Just because someone doesn't succeed doesn't mean they are not not culpable for trying.


    But I'm wondering why? Why all of a sudden (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:17:44 PM EST
    are they cramming more people into Tuesday?  Is this normal? Or is it because Hillary refuses to go along with Obama's desire to have her concede her delegates before the Convention? Is she being punished or am I reading way too much into this.

    Well, just because the DNC would like to (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:22:32 PM EST
    not let either Clinton on stage or anywhere near a microphone these days, doesn't mean that the long speaker list is proof that they are trying to do that.

    But it's suggestive.

    Esp. when Obama's acceptance is on the anniversary of the MLK speech.  I'm betting that won't be drown out by multiple speakers talking about the economy.  I bet they mention it a few times.

    At this point, I'm thinking of starting a pool whether they mention the Women's Suffrage anniversary at all on Tues night.


    Would be a fitting time for all (none / 0) (#161)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:03:03 PM EST
    to contribute a little something to your local League of Women Voters. The League was born in 1920, just after ratification of the 19th amendment. I think Hillary would approve this message.

    Speaking of MoDo's column today (O/T) (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:41:14 PM EST
    It would be in Obama's best interest for his campaign to reject and denounce all associations with that woman and rescind all future invitations to her to hang out with him on his plane.

    She's such a toxic, hate-mongering lady. Ish!

    Alright, back to the topic at hand...


    I blogged about MoDo today (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by ajain on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:32:35 PM EST

    That woman has really lost her mind.


    Great write-up! (none / 0) (#119)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:04:46 PM EST
    Thanks for sharing it. When you've got Joan Walsh agreeing with you, you know you're on the right track! heh

    Great article (none / 0) (#154)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:35:21 PM EST
    And you are so right.  MoDo has lost what little mind she had.  She's just making up junk!  What a strange person.  I can't imagine that she would have any credibility with anyone.  

    Each night has (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:26:35 PM EST
    principal speakers and featured speakers.

    The featured speakers are the lesser ones.

    Here's the 2004 list.

    The principal speakers Tuesday will be Warner (keynote)and Hillary who will be introduced by Chelsea.

    The remainder are featured speakers.


    Accorigng to the AP (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:54:09 PM EST
    Bob Casey is in the evening too.

    Can't say about the others.

    Also, we get to revisit the lie about how his father, who is also anti-abortion, was not allowed to speak in 1992 because of that, when in reality it was because he would not endorse Clinton.  If anyone dares to spin it that this Casey given is being given this slot to make amends for his father...my head will explode this time.


    I like how the Obama campaign (5.00 / 12) (#33)
    by dk on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:57:52 PM EST
    decided to "balance" Hillary with someone who doesn't believe that women should have the right to control their own bodies.

    I'm waiting for the announcements about additional speakers for Wednesday night.  Maybe Barney Frank and Donnie McClurkin?


    And McCain is out there (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:59:18 PM EST
    testing the Pro-Choice waters  ;)

    I didn't get around to noticing that (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:12:03 PM EST
    Too busy hearing Chris Matthews in my head 'this party, in 1992 wouldn't even let this guy's father speak because of his views on abortion...'.  Count on it.

    Wait... (5.00 / 11) (#35)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:58:09 PM EST
    Bob Casey is speaking on the 'Celebrate Women' night?  WTF?!?!

    I wonder why they don't just hang a big banner saying 'We Dont Really Like Women, Just STFU and Send Money'.

    Oh wait, maybe they will...


    It's no longer our night. (5.00 / 9) (#41)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:00:15 PM EST
    It's about the economy now.

    We've been busundered again.


    Yeah. I think they are. Got another phone call (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:21:02 PM EST
    today from the DNC. Told the woman I wouldn't send money and that I thought the primary election was a farce and that there is NO way I will vote for Obama and that I thought Howard Dean and Donna Brazille should be fired!

    I wonder if they are enjoying the "unity" they have created?


    derridog, what was the woman's response? (none / 0) (#138)
    by bridget on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:34:15 PM EST
    did you get the feeling that they cared at all?

    She got really huffy and tried to argue with me (none / 0) (#185)
    by derridog on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:08:31 PM EST
    about how the primary was all fair and square and I just hung up.

    I don't blame you for hanging up ... (none / 0) (#186)
    by bridget on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:08:24 AM EST
    obviously she didn't care what a voter had to say

    just wanted to argue

    that is not the way to get contributions from voters

    how do they pick these people?


    Celebrate Women Night? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:16:34 PM EST
    This sounds so demeaning I can hardly believe it.

    This is obviously a smokescreen to try to pretend that the democrats didn't participate in one of the dirtiest, most sexist campaigns I have seen in my lifetime.

    Women are over half of the population.
    But the power is in the firm grasp of the other, less developed, half.

    So, the boys give the women a "night".
    Thanks for nothing.


    Oh! (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:24:13 PM EST
    lentinel -- I'm sorry, the 'Celebrate Women Night' thing was my snarky title.  The DNC didn't call it that (that I know of).

    SPOT ON!!! (none / 0) (#155)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:39:29 PM EST
    THE LAST thing I want from these goons is a pat on the head.  "There, there, dear, please don't be upset, we're trying to tell you how much we like you.  We really, really, care about you, as long as you sit down, shut up, and vote like we tell you."

    Thanks, but no thanks.  


    They are saying (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:31:17 PM EST
    The economy is the theme for Tuesday. Nothing about the anniversary. This sounds truly astounding.

    According to The Page:

    Kansas Gov. Sebelius and Arizona Gov. Napolitano will outline Obama's economic agenda.

    Ohio Gov. Strickland and Pennsylvania Gov. Rendell will talk about how they believe the past 8 years hav weaked the economy.

    Pennsylvania Sen. Casey and Massachusetts Gov. Patrick will discuss how voters' ideas, stories have influenced Obama's economic policy.

    Montana Gov. Schweitzer, former Denver Mayor Federico Peña will discuss energy and the economy.

    In the evening Mark Warner will keynote, Hillary Clinton will give a headliner speech on the working class.

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:44:39 PM EST
    Looks like I can nap until Hillary comes on.

    I agree (none / 0) (#156)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:42:31 PM EST
    Could this be more boring?!  

    Oh yeah, it could.  They could nominate Bayh for VP.  


    What have his sister, brother-in-law (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by catfish on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:43:44 PM EST
    done for the party? Just curious.

    They are just introducing Michelle (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:56:54 PM EST
    I don't have a problem with that.

    Kinda standard, the family intro (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by lmv on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:23:06 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure Theresa was introduced by one of her sons.

    And, I think the Bush twins introduced either their mother or HW.  (I don't remember who and I'm too lazy to google GWB.  I do remember they were kind of funny.)


    that's petty (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:28:12 PM EST
    family members usually make the introductions of the candidate's wife. see here.

    Given the speaking line-up (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:47:27 PM EST
    Seem Bayh and Kaine are the nes left to choose form for VP.

    Unless he does something crazy and names Powell.

    And where is Al Gore?

    Not Kaine (none / 0) (#168)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:40:23 AM EST
    Since Warner is speaking earlier.  If it was going to be Kaine, Mark Warner would be introducing Kaine.  Mark lead the charge for Obama in Virginia and got Kaine on board.  

    Maybe they can all (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by sister of ye on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:50:33 PM EST
    give their speeches in the nude, just like in the original convention ... oh, wait, I'm confusing it with the original Olympics. Well, maybe we can get new world records for fastest speeches.

    Lord, I hope TCM is showing some good movies that week.

    Yanks are playing the Sox (none / 0) (#31)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:56:34 PM EST
    heh, I have my viewing priorities  ;)

    Michelle Obama's brother (5.00 / 10) (#45)
    by hannekevandongen on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:01:55 PM EST
    I'm wondering whether the brother of Michelle Obama that will speak at the convention is same person that said of Clinton:

    "the whole crying now before every primary? You've got to be kidding me. If I was a woman, I'd be embarrassed for her."


    mmmmmmmm Unity????

    That would be the one (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:09:00 PM EST
    I think she only has one brother, Craig Robinson.

    Wow, just read those comments linked above (none / 0) (#140)
    by bridget on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:40:11 PM EST
    is that nasty or what?

    Not cool to say the v. least.


    I wish Hillary would tell Obama (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by FemB4dem on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:07:18 PM EST
    to take a flying leap, and refuse to partake in this travesty.  Bill too.  I know they won't, but one can hope.

    Speaking of Governor Schweitzer, there's an interesting article in the Billings Gazette today about him telling voters (both Dem and Repub apparently), that if they don't like Obama on guns, McCain's no better, and they ought to vote for Bob Barr:

    "If guns are your primary issue, you're probably not going to like either of these guys," Schweitzer said during an telephone press conference put on by the Obama campaign.

    Hah!  Now that's a rousing endorsement.  This is clearly Schweitzer's recognition that Obama will be toast with a large segment of the Montana population once the NRA starts running ads after the Dem convention, and reflects his hope that he can help deflect some of the anti-Obama vote to Barr rather than to McCain.  Are we seeing a new "western strategy" at work here?  Admit Obama is "bad" on guns but say McCain is too?  It won't work, IMO.  As the Gazette article also points out:  

    "The NRA has given Barr a grade of A-plus, while handing McCain a C and giving Obama an F for their votes on gun-related issues in Congress over the years."

    So much for a western stratgey.  You can't win in the west with an "F" from the NRA, particularly against a westerner and war hero who has received a passing grade.

    It will be interesting to hear what Schweitzer has to say at the Convention.  Too bad it will be on what was supposed to be women's night. Hillary should just say forget about it.  What a joke.

    2004 also did not have two candidates who (5.00 / 11) (#54)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:07:22 PM EST
    split the vote right down the middle of the party.  One of those dozens speaking Tuesday night had 18 million people vote for her since Jan 2008.

    No one else comes close.

    And sorry -- Monday -- McCaskill?  What has she ever done that's remarkable for the Democrats?

    Monday's obviously Obama Loyalty Night, where he pays off those outside his family.

    What did Jim Langevin ever do (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Maize on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:11:04 PM EST
    that's remarkable for Democrats? He had a primetime speaking slot at the 2004 convention.

    I really think that some people are just looking for things to get offended about.


    And by the way (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Maize on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:12:54 PM EST
    Jim Langevin is pro-life. Strange how there was no outcry about him speaking at the convention back in 2004.

    You keep harping on the 2004 convention (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Nike on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:24:42 PM EST
    But that one didn't work, did it?

    This is not about being p.c. It's about being both humanly generous and politically pragmatic.

    I would not necessarily find it personally objectionable if Obama were to showcase, say, Operation Rescue on a night that should honor women's rights within the political state. (Of course, I do not believe that Obama has any identifiable commitment to protecting women's rights, but that's a different issue.)
    BUT, I would think it was pretty stupid politically to alienate more than 50% of one's possible voter base.


    I think you hit the nail on the head with this (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Amiss on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:58:47 AM EST
    "BUT, I would think it was pretty stupid politically to alienate more than 50% of one's possible voter base."

    Just another snub to women by him.


    Maybe she could come down with a sore (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:24:53 PM EST
    throat at the last minute and just won't be able to do it. We can hope. I hear the Christian Right is praying for rain for Obama's big speech.  Maybe we could join them.  Know any rain dances?

    Hillary's not a great speaker (none / 0) (#85)
    by NealB on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:16:02 PM EST
    I liked her 'it takes a village speech' that she gave with Chelsea many years ago. Her voice was finally easier to listen to in the last months of her campaign when it got to be hoarse and took on that 'do and die' timbre. Hillary's a dear; no doubt about it. But inspirational, she's not. If she came down with a cold and wasn't able to make it, it's hard for me to believe many outside of her diehard fans would miss her.

    You obviously missed most of the primary (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:26:56 PM EST

    now... (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by jedimom on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:38:28 PM EST
    I could not disagree more. Over the course of the primaries Hillary came into her own and she is an excellent speaker, absolutely excellent.

    Well yeah, she's a bad speaker to those (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:44:24 PM EST
    ...with CDS. I happen to think she's a great speaker and find Obama to be an irritating, halting speaker. I prefer to read his speeches.

    Oh , but don't forget about her "cackle" (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:54:38 PM EST
    and the fact that she reminds certain men of their ex-wives (and probably their mothers).  That evidently interferes with their being able to listen.

    Hillary Clinton is a fine speaker (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by bridget on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:54:18 PM EST
    and plenty inspirational - plenty

    You better believe Dems will listen to her speech.

    18 Mill people wouldn't have voted for her had they not been inspired and touched by her personality and message - and the way she has conducted herself since 1992

    besides who else has achieved what HC has done: fabulous and internationally admired First Lady, Senator of the US, Presidential candidate and winning primary after primary ... more than one with a huge margin ./. rival Obama who IMO was selected by the Dem party one can hardly deny after listening to people like John Kerry.

    P.S. "Her voice was finally easier to listen to ...."

    not cool at all, NealB, not cool at all.


    hillary's a dear? (none / 0) (#130)
    by sancho on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:50:20 PM EST
    thanks for the compliment, sweetie.

    Ummm (none / 0) (#147)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:08:18 PM EST
    Hillary's a dear;

    Yeah, the little woman is quite sweet, isn't she.

    Do you know how horribly patronizing you sound?


    Speakers (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:35:08 PM EST
    The Dems have enough tweeters, they need some bigtime woofers.  When on earth will we hear some god*amn fire from these people?  And I mean fire.  Habanero, Howard Beale, MLK fire.  

    I always thought (none / 0) (#84)
    by nemo52 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:15:00 PM EST
    the Big Dawg was a big-time woofer!

    For me, anyway, the list of speakers (5.00 / 11) (#80)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:55:10 PM EST
    is proof positive of the "new" Democratic Party as Barack Obama envisions it, and I couldn't be more depressed about the reality of that.

    I'm pretty sure that the powers-that-be in the party have deluded themselves into believing that the crowds attracted by an inexperienced candidate with the gift of gab, who is long on hope and short on substance, was evidence that what we want and need is a watered-down, wishy-washy, can't-we-all-just-get-along party, when what we really want is a party that sharpens the focus, fights for what is right and takes no prisoners.  

    When people realize that the result of buying what Obama is selling will only prove Ralph Nader's assertion that there isn't any appreciable difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, there is going to be severe malaise.

    They just really do not get it.  Not now, and maybe not until colossal failure arrives on their doorstep.

    You make it sound like 1992 (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by MJB on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:18:56 PM EST
    "an inexperienced candidate with the gift of gab, who is long on hope and short on substance, was evidence that what we want and need is a watered-down, wishy-washy, can't-we-all-just-get-along party"

    Sounds like our 1992 nominee, who was also 47 years old when nominated.

    How did he fare in November?


    Bill Clinton was inexperienced? (5.00 / 7) (#95)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:25:07 PM EST
    Being a part time senator in IL is totally the same thing as being a Governor of a state.

    You keep telling yourself that.


    Elected office is the only acceptable experience? (none / 0) (#103)
    by MJB on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:31:08 PM EST
    If it is, then you better scratch almost everyone except Joe Biden off of that list of acceptable VP candidates, because anyone else that you can think of is too "inexperienced" -- that is, if holding elected office is the only experience you find acceptable.

    Also, you must have missed the 1992 campaign in which Bush I's campaign bashed Bill Clinton for his lack of relevant experience.


    Obama's non-elective experience.... (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:47:33 PM EST
    ...is not all that impressive to me as qualifications for the presidency either.

    Heh. (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:15:02 PM EST
    Yes, Barack's three years as a part time community activist are on par with Bill running the McGovern campaign in Texas, his stint as a professor at the University of Arkansas and him being Arkansas Attorney General.

    I've heard Bill Clinton called a lot of things but (5.00 / 7) (#99)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:28:22 PM EST
    not "short on substance".

    Are you kidding me? (5.00 / 7) (#100)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:28:46 PM EST
    You evidently don't know anything about Bill Clinton to even suggest that he was 'inexperienced' when he ran in 1992.

    Thanks for playing.



    Experienced (5.00 / 5) (#143)
    by Miri on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:53:57 PM EST
    Obama cultists are grasping at any straw they can find.

    One of their talking points is that Bill Clinton was just as inexperienced sas the Messiah.

    Bill Clinton has been a governor for TEN YEARS!

    He was the most senior governor when he ran for president.

    He had been the president of the Governors Association.

    Bill Clinton won every single debate.

    Bill Clinton could talk intelligently about any subject and in great detail without notes or teleprompter.

    These are just a few differences. Obama is barely qualified to be a major. He hasn't accomplished anything in any job he has held. He hasn't stayed at any job long enough. He arrived in the Senate and immediately started running for president. His so called experience is in the state legislature.

    And Obama is not a good debater. He lost all the debates to Hillary, Edwards, Biden even Gravel.

    He is terrible in interviews when he is without notes and a teleprompter.

    The guy is a media creation. And empty suite running on media adulation.

    Paris / Britney comparison is quite fitting. They are all famous for being famous, without any accomplishment to back it up.


    And Bill was a Rhodes Scholar..... (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by sallywally on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:28:49 PM EST
    When did Obama pick up that particular honor?

    I heard Clinton read 300 books on the side in a year while at Oxford. Don't remember where. I can't read a hundred and I'm retired!

    No comparison at all. Eight years of GW Bush have faded some memories of what it was like to hear Clinton speak extemporaneously on any issue. And of course those young Obamans were probably only about nine years old when Clinton was last in the WH.

    I wish I could hear Bill debate Obama....

    But then, wasn't Bill sixth in their law school class and Hillary first?


    Great idea. A Bill and Obama debate. (none / 0) (#158)
    by bridget on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:56:38 PM EST
    AFAIK MSNBC are v. occupied with ratings

    they really should consider putting on that debate

    even I would interrupt my ongoing TV news boycott and watch that one. Forget the Olys ;-))


    Haha (5.00 / 5) (#122)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:20:52 PM EST
    The only thing the two of them have in common is their ages when running.  What a silly statetment.

    Um and Clinton was born in Hope, not long on it.


    Sounds like 1992? Not even close ... (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by bridget on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:23:28 PM EST
    as everyone who witnessed campaign 1992 knows.

    Bill Clinton actually did have a hope message with plenty of substance and after years and years of GOP rule it was v. inspiring.

    Obama only copied "the man from hope" overall message and that is where the similarity  -if one even call it that  - ends.

    I still remember how impressed I was w. Bill Clinton who could answer any question in one or two sentences, without hemming and hawing. He actually knew what was going on in other countries like Europe, for instance, and discussed the economy, the national debt, universal health care, education (I remember how impressed I was when he suggested apprenticeships (part of the German educational system) for students who are not cut out for college etc. Who else knows about stuff like that - certainly not Obama IMHO.

    Bill Clinton knew how the cookie crumbled and knew one didn't have to invent the wheel with smarts and knowledge.

    Oh - And re charisma and charm Obama cannot even compare to Bill Clinton. Not even close.

    And thats the way it is.


    Yawn (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:11:59 PM EST
    Let me know when the guy with the ego the size of Texas is done with the Democratic Party will ya?

    Bingo! (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:46:37 PM EST
    I just KNEW there was a Texas connection!

    We no longer have a DNC (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Bluesage on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:03:46 AM EST
    We now have the ONC (Obama National Committee) and I don't want to be in his club.  If we Democrats can ever actually take our party back I'll be first in line. I don't even recognize the party I've belonged to for forty years. When Dean, Pelosi, Brazille and all the others suffering from CDS can be booted we may actually be able to build a strong party again.  

    Judgement not Hate (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by fctchekr on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:38:07 PM EST
    I think it's very dangerous to mimic the Republicanese hate-meme, but that's exactly what Obama supporters enacted against Hillary during the primary.

    And it really hasn't let up.

    That's unfortunate because this isn't about hate at all, for many of us it's just a realistic view of a candidate we don't think measures up.

    You know the adage: bad behavior is learned. Both parties are so inextricably linked, they mirror each other...in every worst way possible...

    Respectfully (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Ennis on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:03:29 PM EST
    You have a distorted view of what happened in the primaries.  Maybe you were expecting a tea party, but politics is a rough business.  Hillary gave as well as she got.  

    Nothing happened that should prevent a reasonable left-leaning person to withhold their support of Obama against the alternative.


    My alternative is Cynthia McKinney (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by allimom99 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:26:48 PM EST

    a "reasonable, lefte-leaning person" Now give your lecture to someone who HASN'T got a clue. Obama is proving not to be a progressive. I'd rather keep my Constitution intact, thanks just the same.


    Respectfully - from an Obama supporter - (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Xanthe on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:33:30 PM EST
    that's different from my experience on the blogs - too bad we didn't meet sooner.

    More Fantasy Land... (none / 0) (#164)
    by fctchekr on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:27:42 AM EST
    Anyone who is truthful can not deny that Obama's supporters took over the internet with the most vile attacks on Hillary supporters. I was there everyday at WAPO. It was brutal. I was accused of being a racist every single day. Has it been fully covered by the media? No. Will the thousands of thousands of bloggers who experienced this racial hate for not supporting  him forget about it?

    Not a chance.


    It happened so fast, didn't (none / 0) (#176)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 06:01:07 AM EST
    it?  One day I realized that I was being gang blogged - and not only about Hillary.  There was so much half truths about President Clinton's presidency.  I think it was concerted and I believe these people were paid.  It doesn't say much for the campaign.

    I even gave up my garden blogging on DK - well, I will find another blog somewhere about gardening.  I do miss some of the garden people though.


    You (none / 0) (#137)
    by Nadai on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:29:00 PM EST
    keep telling yourself that, sweetie.  And try not to feel down periodically.  I hear that causes wrinkles.

    Focused on the Fantasy (none / 0) (#163)
    by fctchekr on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:20:06 AM EST
    I guess if you're ingesting CNN and MSNBC, Huff, Kos as a steady diet, you probably think you're well informed and every one else's view is distorted.

    Just today I was trying to remember the last (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:26:30 PM EST
    time I saw a positive story about Clinton in any sort of mainstream media.

    Surely there must have been some.  Right?  One?  Anyone?

    The Obama camp really hasn't stopped running against Clinton, not even yet.  I think they've tried but his supporters aren't willing to let go.  I think that sort of hate has become addictive.


    Nope, there were no positive articles about Hill (none / 0) (#159)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:02:26 PM EST
    Once the MSM, Chris Matthews, and Olberman, fell in love with Obama, they dropped Hillary like an ex gf.  They wanted NOTHING to do with her.  They just wanted her to GO AWAY so that they could get on with their new love.  

    she certainly is! (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by cpinva on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:54:24 PM EST
    and Senator Hillary Clinton, who is a champion for working families and one of the most effective and empathetic voices in the country today,

    far more so than the presumptive nominee, who can't even be bothered to come up with an original policy position, but instead leeches off of sen. clinton's.

    i suspect, if the DNC had its way, the clintons would just conveniently disappear. as it is, they both make everyone else in the party look shabby by comparison.

    how did the democratic party come to this low level, in a year when taking the white house and congress should have been a walk in the park? they're getting ready to nominate a third-rate poseur for president; why?

    think i exaggerate? if sen. obama is so hot, how come he only leads sen. mcain (arguably gwb II) by 4 or 5 points in the polls? and don't bet on a huge, post-convention bump. aint gonna happen.

    4 or 5 points in the polls is a lot. (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ennis on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:06:08 PM EST
    More importantly, Obama continues a positive trend, and the electoral map is very advantageous.

    no, it isn't, not for (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by cpinva on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:34:59 PM EST
    someone supposedly the hope of the party and country. show me where obama is on a "positive trend"? not according to the polls, should you believe them. actually, he's flat-lined since the end of the primaries. fortunately for him, mcain is such a bungler, he's done little to take advantage of the situation.

    given all the advantages of media and money, obama should be riding a 10-15 point crest, going into the convention. he's not. and this is before the repub 527's come out to play.


    Considering there is that big Obama movement (none / 0) (#157)
    by bridget on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:49:19 PM EST
    underway with people crying and fainting at the sight of him - as we are told nonstop by his fans and media supporters -

    a 4 or 5 point lead is really not v. much IMHO.


    Yes there is a positive trend for Obama (none / 0) (#171)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:14:14 AM EST

    The poll average at realclearpolitics.  Read it and weep.


    here (none / 0) (#172)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:16:09 AM EST
    try here (none / 0) (#173)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:18:09 AM EST
    I did try (none / 0) (#184)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:32:47 PM EST
    For some reason it wouldn't take the url.

    Not true (none / 0) (#160)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:15:05 PM EST
    The race, and the electoral map is getting closer and closer.  Rasmussen has Obama up by TWO points.  That's a dead heat.  In 2000 and 2004 we were WAY up in the summer.  Obama cannot close the sale.  The more people know Obama, the less they like him.   He was a terrible choice for our party.  I am so angry that he didn't wait until 2012, or beyond.

    When the reality of what they've done sinks in,  the MSM is going to sorry they fell so head over heals in love with him. Chris Matthews leg will stop tingling and his head will start spinning.  


    Sorry (none / 0) (#174)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:20:14 AM EST
    That was last week's news.  Obama has had a solid 5-point lead since he was nominated, and it's growing.  Although some states have narrowed, he would win a landslide if the election was today.  

    If women want the anniversary (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:38:10 PM EST
    of women's suffrage celebrated, we are going to have to do it ourselves. I understand that a couple of groups have secured a parade permit to hold a celebration of women's progress and Hillary's historic candidacy. Maybe that is what ired Obama enough to ignore the anniversary during the convention speeches. Or maybe only his candidacy is historic enough. It does send a message to women. I don't know if he wants to upset us, or if he just doesn't give a d@mn. He's making leaving the top of the ticket blank more difficult and not in a good way for him.

    Democratic Platform Inconsistancy (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by OxyCon on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:01:11 PM EST
    The following passage is quoted directly from the 2008 Democratic Party Platform draft:

    We believe that standing up for our country means standing up against sexism and all
    intolerance. Demeaning portrayals of women cheapen our debates, dampen the dreams of
    our daughters, and deny us the contributions of too many
    . Responsibility lies with us all.

    So, how does that square with allowing Michelle Obama's brother a plum speaking slot at the convention, after Craig Robinson said this about Hillary Clinton:

    Of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, Robinson (Michelle Obama's brother) said, "the whole crying now before every primary? You've got to be kidding me. If I was a woman, I'd be embarrassed for her."

    This may be the last time I get to hear (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by WillBFair on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:16:58 PM EST
    the Clintons' plain, accurate, and knowledgeable speech. Baby, I am so going to be glued to the set.
    I'll surely vote for the precious because there's no other choice. I just can't listen to his canned rhetoric and shallow cliches.

    I have to wonder (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 08:35:50 AM EST
    -- with nearly half of Americans sick and tired of seeing Obama -- what the ratings for this Democratic Convention will be.  Wouldn't surprise me if they're expecting historic viewership and end up doing decidedly less.

    Try and spin THAT, DNC.


    They will have as may speakers as they (4.77 / 9) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:27:51 PM EST
    think it will take to diminish Hillary's role...honestly, I have never seen such a thing and it is disgusting.

    I guess you didn't watch the 2004 convention, then (4.50 / 8) (#4)
    by Maize on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:30:56 PM EST
    Here's a list of all the speakers on Tuesday night at the 2004 convention (the night when Obama gave his keynote address):

    Tom Daschle, U.S. Senator from South Dakota, Democratic Leader
    Howard Dean, Former Governor of Vermont, 2004 Presidential Candidate
    Richard Durbin, U.S. Senator from Illinois
    James Forbes, Senior Minister at Riverside Church, New York City
    Richard Gephardt, U.S. Representative from Missouri, 2004 Presidential Candidate
    Chris Heinz, Stepson of John Kerry
    Teresa Heinz Kerry, Wife of John Kerry
    Mike Honda, U.S. Representative from California
    Ted Kennedy, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts
    Jim Langevin, U.S. Representative from Rhode Island
    Carol Moseley-Braun, Former U.S. Senator from Illinois, 2004 Presidential Candidate
    Janet Napolitano, Governor of Arizona
    Barack Obama, State Senator from Illinois, U.S. Senate Candidate
    Ron Reagan, Son of former President Ronald Reagan
    Christie Vilsack, First Lady of Iowa
    Ilana Wexler, 13-Year-Old Founder of Kids for Kerry

    I count 16 speakers. So far, they have less this year.


    There were no major rifts to heal in 2004 (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:43:20 PM EST
    Edwards, the closest competitor to Kerry, was already the VP selection.

    What does that have to do with anything? (3.25 / 4) (#13)
    by Maize on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:45:46 PM EST
    Political conventions have lots of people giving speeches. That's pretty much what they're about.

    I thought they had a little bit to do with (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:48:45 PM EST
    getting the whole party enthusiastic about the election. But I can see I was wrong.

    Hmmm.. My First Thought (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by flashman on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:50:00 PM EST
    was to dilute Hillary's role.  But if that list is correct, then I was wrong.

    Not necessarily (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:55:28 PM EST
    given that Monday have 5 speakers, 3/5 of which are Michelle Obama or Obama family members.

    Me, I'll wait for Hillary's speech to go up on YouTube.  I was going to tivo the whole thing but why waste my hard drive space.


    There will be more than five speakers on Monday (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Maize on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:58:30 PM EST
    From their press release:

    Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Barack Obama's sister Maya Soetero-Ng and Craig Robinson, Michelle Obama's older brother, will be among the featured speakers on Monday August 25th.   As previously announced, Michelle Obama will headline Monday night.

    Note, it says they'll be "among" the featured speakers. They have four hours to fill on Monday; they aren't going to do it by having five people talk for almost an hour apiece.


    read it again (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:05:06 PM EST
    it doesn't say there will be more speakers than the five on Monday or that additional ones will be added.

    It doesn't say there won't, either (none / 0) (#52)
    by Maize on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:07:00 PM EST
    And it doesn't say that the five people listed are an exhaustive list of who will be speaking.

    Oof! (none / 0) (#65)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:19:03 PM EST
    Yeah, I'll probably just look up Strickland's speech online to see if he says what needs to be said.  I'm hoping all the Rust Belt speakers have some kind of cohesive message.

    As for the Story Of Obama - I'll reserve judgement until after the event.  (Did any other candidate use the "Story Of __" format?)


    Okay, what do you suggest happen on Tuesday? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Maize on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:51:58 PM EST
    Well... (5.00 / 10) (#23)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:53:09 PM EST
    there is the small matter of the anniversary of women's sufferage. Would be nice for the convention to celebrate that.

    And I'm sure it will. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Maize on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:55:51 PM EST
    With an anti-choice speaker. (5.00 / 10) (#34)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:57:53 PM EST
    And a pro-choice platform! (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Maize on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:59:14 PM EST
    For now. We are talkin' Obama afterall. (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:01:22 PM EST
    Very hard to justify (5.00 / 8) (#44)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:01:25 PM EST
    Casey speaking on a night that should be dedicated to women.

    Sufferage should be celebrated by Hillary and only by her.


    Hillary should speak for four straight hours? (3.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Maize on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:03:36 PM EST
    Don't you think she might get a little hoarse?

    I thought the whole point of the Obama candidacy (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by karmadillo on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:26:27 PM EST
    was that we were all going to get a little hoarse.

    That is ridiculous (none / 0) (#177)
    by independent voter on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 07:54:56 AM EST
    Women would not have received the right to vote without MEN voting for it. Also, Hillary is not the only representative for the entirity of women in this country, contrary to what you seem to believe. Good grief, get some perspective

    and an anti-gay keynote speaker (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by allimom99 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:50:51 PM EST
    I'm not sure how anyone could be (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:02:35 PM EST
    'sure they will' when all the DNC-originated announcedments are touting it as economics night.  Plus Mr. Democrat Anti-Abortion Advocate is on the agenda.

    I mean really, speculation is fine but at least base it on some evidence, rather than fantasy.


    Maize is chattering and (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:11:54 PM EST
    blog-clogging. Maize is limited to 10 comments a day in a 24 hour period. Any in excess of that will be deleted. Maize is registered and posting under another screen name here. That isn't allowed and the other user account is now banned.

    LOL (2.33 / 3) (#63)
    by Maize on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:16:18 PM EST
    Posting facts to counter unfounded speculation is now "chattering and blog-clogging." Okay, whatever.

    Enjoy your anti-Obama echo chamber.


    Thanks for showing (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by pie on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:16:18 PM EST
    your hand.

    Your pom poms are looking wilted.


    How many of those from 2004 (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:51:37 PM EST
    were short little bits of people introducing other people?

    All the people on that list (none / 0) (#27)
    by Maize on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:54:49 PM EST
    were "Featured Speakers," so they weren't just giving introductions.

    Oh come on (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:56:28 PM EST
    I remember the 13 year old's speech. Not really featured or very long. And IIRC John Kerry setp-son simply introduced his mother.

    When you have 16 people speaking in 4 hours (3.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Maize on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:02:32 PM EST
    some speeches are going to be longer than others. Not everybody is going to get exactly 15 minutes; the major speeches will be longer, which means some of the other speeches will be shorter.

    The major speeches on Tuesday will be given by Mark Warner and Hillary Clinton; therefore, they will have more time. This is no different from what happened in 2004.


    An introduction (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:04:03 PM EST
    is not a speech.

    Rationalize all you want. We don't buy it! (none / 0) (#78)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:50:11 PM EST
    But only Obama & Reagan were primetime (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by lmv on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:00:20 PM EST
    Obama got the best spot and he was followed by Ron Reagan, whose name the Dems hoped would resonate with voters.  (Except he's been a Democrat most of his adult life.)

    2004's list is a useless comparison.  Most of these people were speaking during the day to CNN and MSNBC viewers.  Most on this year's list will be, too.

    This is the question.  What time will Hillary speak?  How long will she have?  Why isn't SHE the keynote speaker?  

    Are Obama/Dean/Pelosi so stupid to think people would rather hear from Mark Warner than Hillary?  How removed from reality are they?  


    No (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Maize on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:06:02 PM EST
    2004's list is a useless comparison.  Most of these people were speaking during the day to CNN and MSNBC viewers.  Most on this year's list will be, too.

    Wrong. That list from 2004 is primetime speakers only.


    Honey, I watched TV that night (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by lmv on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:14:15 PM EST
    And you are WRONG.  In my time zone, it was BO and RR, Jr.

    This year, I won't be wasting my time or my TiVo's.  

    And, since I can't stand MO, no need to rush home for that one, either.  


    The pundits talked thru most of those speakers... (none / 0) (#113)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:50:59 PM EST
    ....as they will probably do again this year.

    Was there a candidate who (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:49:12 PM EST
    split the vote with Kerry?

    and it looks like colin powell (3.50 / 2) (#2)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:28:23 PM EST
    will be there.  Wonder how much time he can have?  As much as he wants I hope

    Are you serious? (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Xanthe on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:51:59 PM EST
    The Colin Powell who spoke before the UN using his considerable credibility to attack Iraq.  That Colin Powell.

    Do you not see the irony that he is speaking at the convention of the man who pretty much came into the slot on the basis of his much vaunted speech against the War and the perception that he is and has been against that War.  And has been lionized for it.

    Is it me?  Maybe it is.



    Powell (none / 0) (#81)
    by cmugirl on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:56:08 PM EST
    FOX (specifically Bill Kristol) is reporting that Powell is set to endorse Obama, and may even speak at the convention. (Sorry, no link)

    Hilarious (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:18:52 PM EST
    I've got absolutely no respect left for Powell, so I find this stunt to be just that - a stunt.

    Powell was a spineless hypocrite back in 2002, and still is six years later. I suspect that he continues to harbor some unbelievable anger towards the GOP and the Bush Administration for 'misleading' him, hence this stunt.

    If anything, Powell himself misled the entire nation and the world with that lie-filled UN speech. He was, and will always be, complicit in the run-up and eventual execution of this mess-of-a-War Against Terror.

    So, for Powell to now publicly 'endorse' Obama -- he who prides himself as being against the war with a run-of-the-mill speech he gave from the comfort of his state senate seat -- is hilarious.

    This endorsement will not free Powell of the shackles that link him to W. Bush & Co. and this mess we're in. I'm also pretty sure Condi's itching to do the same, but can't since she's still in the Bush admin. and part of the GOP.


    Powell (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Bluesage on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:10:05 AM EST
    Has always been a spineless hypocrite and a yes man.  He grew through the ranks of the military by being the go to guy for covering up Mai Lai.  He just has a nice smile and warm demeanor but his humanity ends there.  The rest is hype.

    Would anyone care? (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:35:35 AM EST
    Does anyone care who Powell endorses?  

    Ha ha, will he be as big a hit as.... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:52:11 PM EST
    ...Zell Miller was at the Republican convention?

    Andrea Mitchell has said it is not true (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:25:34 PM EST
    and that Colin Powell will not attend either the Republican or the Democratic convention.

    Bill Krystal did not name his source, and I'm hoping he embarrasses FOX so badly with this "breaking news" that he finds himself OFF the list of people called to speak on TV...every channel for the rest of my life.


    Let's see... (none / 0) (#133)
    by pie on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:53:52 PM EST
    Kristol puts it out there, and even when Powell doesn't show up, the conspiracy theories abound.

    Kristol is the lowest form of political animal.


    OH! (none / 0) (#149)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:19:47 PM EST
    I don' think Obama wants that.

    I would have voted for Powell in a second if he had run before the disaster he promoted in February, 2003. Powell had a great following until he became a willing player in the Bush Administration.

    When I hear Colin Powell, I have a fashback to 2003, him sitting at the table at the UN adamantly proclaiming that those "high specification aluminum tubes that would be used in centrifuges for enriching uranium."

    Even I gasped at that.


    I guess I do not harbor (none / 0) (#181)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:09:44 AM EST
    the same resentment for a man who has dedicated his life to serving us in the military and done so admirably.  Powell has since expressed regret for his speech at the UN and I cannot fault the guy for presenting the evidence as it was presented to him.  I am on record on this site as saying that I did not believe the WMD allegations but i am not nor was not privvy to the information he had.  I do not think for one minute that General Powell lied or misrepresented the information given to him. General Powell has a storied career serving his country and I am even more hard pressed to ignore the majority of his career for that bloody awful speech that i did not agree with.

    perfect (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by pluege on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:54:14 PM EST
    a disgraced republican who will live in infamy for splinelessness - just the highlight the democrats need.

    POwell denies rumor (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:54:37 PM EST
    Spokeswoman Peggy Cifrino tells Fox News: "There's absolutely no truth to it whatsoever. Colin Powell will not be at either convention. There's absolutely no truth to this."

    Thank you Jesus - err (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Xanthe on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:59:46 PM EST
    I mean aic.  Praise the Lord.

    Not Speak ing Means You're a VP Contender? (none / 0) (#91)
    by fctchekr on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:20:46 PM EST
    What's the timing on this: my understanding is the VP announce will proceed the convention. Because none of the supposed picks are speaking means? Kaine, Bayh, Richardson, Biden, Clark...are contenders? Interesting how Gergen and maybe one other pundit ( can't remember know who) were the only ones who thought he really needed her votes now.
    What's everyone's take on this?

    It's just a list of speakers (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by MJB on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:25:04 PM EST
    The pundits have to have something to talk about, so the chatter is, "Aha! X is scheduled to give a speech on (Monday/Tuesday/Wednesday), therefore X is not going to be Obama's running mate!"

    But why does that have to be so?  What would stop Obama from picking any of those people and just moving their speech from wherever it is on the list to Wednesday night?  Nothing.


    You're right! (none / 0) (#107)
    by fctchekr on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:40:15 PM EST
    It's all a game to keep us off guard.

    My take is that I'm not speaking, either (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:30:36 PM EST
    so I must still be in the running!

    You can have Obama's spot (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by fctchekr on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:43:18 PM EST
    there's a bunch of us wouldn't mind at all...

    count me in. (none / 0) (#131)
    by cpinva on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:51:50 PM EST
    there's a bunch of us wouldn't mind at all...

    psst, he's not my candidate! (none / 0) (#132)
    by cpinva on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:53:14 PM EST
    PS... I hope your candidate loses...

    Well... (none / 0) (#134)
    by pie on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:06:24 PM EST
    this blog is trying to show a unified face.

    Won't matter.

    Minds are made up at this point.  Unless some miracle occurs, the outcome is in doubt.

    The answer is too many. (none / 0) (#136)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:28:33 PM EST
    The convention speakers often come off sounding like they're being pushed in and out of some revolving door.  It is not the best "theater" because too much of the schedule is driven by politics rather than by tenets of creating a good show for the audience.