Friday Open Thread

Will Sen. Barack Obama name his VP candidate today?

The TL kid was notified by text yesterday he received two tickets to Obama's acceptance speech event at Invesco Field. While he was not an Obama supporter during the primaries, he recognizes that it will be an historic event and is excited to witness it in person. I am too.

What's going on in your neck of the woods or your thoughts today?

This is an open thread.

< NY Times on Lawyers' Involvement in John Edwards' Mess | Bush, Rice, Are "Georgians Now" Too >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Ruler of the West? (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:41:36 AM EST
    How usual is it that the presumable presidential nominee would issue a statement that allowing a certain (Detroit) politician to attend the convention would 'be a distraction'?  Apparently, it was a word to the wise--local justice seems to agree with the nominee.  But it IS his convention?  Not the party's?

    Despite that, I note that Fox declares Obama to be a weak candidate because he let the Clintons 'steal the convention.' (And because he won't debate.)

    As to my opinion, I am becoming still more fearful of the next four years.  I tend to think the dice are loaded against certain citizens (subjects): those of us who are not young and elite.

    FOX is absolutely wrong....Hillary having (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:46:06 AM EST
    the chance for a vote, like any other contender, is not what makes obama weak.  He is a weak candidate period!  He has made many missteps, flip-flopped on issues repeatedly, has not shown ANY leadership in any way, shape or form.  So, trying to paint Hillary as making him weak is just outright b.s.

    Compare and contrast. (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:52:27 AM EST
    He looks weak next to her...

    Funny...for a basetball player, he hasn't got the moves down.


    I saw some of that on FOX yesterday (5.00 / 4) (#183)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:47:23 PM EST
    and kept thinking someone in the media really should compare the news that took place between the end of the primaries and the convention over the past couple of decades.

    Was anyone screaming at the men to give up their delegates and let King Gore, His Majesty Kerry, The Honorable Jimmy Carter have the convention their way and toss the democratic nomination process away to create illusions about the strength and character of the certain nominee?

    Is this over-the-top destruction of the process because of Obama's lack of credits for the job, or Hillary's superior experience and judgment? Or, is it as simple as the puppeteer needing to pull all the strings? I really want to know who the puppeteer/s is/are before I cast my vote for anyone (or no one).

    Something is so seriously amiss.


    I think (none / 0) (#26)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:58:58 AM EST
    This is more than the presumptive nominee - this is many members of the party saying it wouldn't be wise for Kilpatrick to attend.



    let me get this straight (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:06:53 PM EST
    Obama will pose for a picture with Kilpatrick, but he refused to pose for one with Gavin Newsom?

    I guess in Obama's World alleged criminals are somehow more acceptable than those who believe that All Should Be Created Equal.

    Barack, for me, is the Democrat's version of Bush.  And both make my stomach turn.


    Ding, ding, ding! (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:15:42 PM EST
    Obama will pose for a picture with Kilpatrick, but he refused to pose for one with Gavin Newsom?

    Yes, isn't it interesting?


    ...and predictable. n/t (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:18:14 PM EST
    yep.... (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:25:53 PM EST
    get it "straight" is right.

    Pics with indicted pols and campaign rallies  with ex-gays (Rev Donnie McClurkin)


    McClurkin (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:20:13 PM EST
    was my deal breaker.  Out & proud gay guy here.  I would rather know my adversaries upfront (the GOP) as opposed to prevarication from Obama.

    What did Gavin Newsom (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:54:56 PM EST
    do to him to deserve that (dis)honor?

    Mayor Newsom, to me, has always seemed to be the Democratic leader for the next generation. Intelligent, respected, hardworking and a high-achiever who's championed everything that a good Dem should (health care for all, gay rights and equality, jobs and education, strong support and respect for Bill and Hillary Clinton etc.)

    But, that's just me. Obama must have felt threatened.

    I hope Newsom succeeds in his gubernatorial ambitions, and maybe, he'll run for President some day.


    He supported gay marriage apparently (none / 0) (#216)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:20:11 PM EST
    Did you hear? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by eric on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:45:51 AM EST
    They have found a Bigfoot!


    Press conference at 12:00 Pacific time.

    In search of the mythical (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:49:00 AM EST
    Democratic Congress?

    The story appears to be imploding (none / 0) (#53)
    by scribe on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:18:04 PM EST
    Their website won't load, the press can't reach them, and they're starting to look more and more like hoaxers.

    As if they didn't already.

    I'm betting they're going to be found in a gin mill somewhere, laughing about the gullible people they drew in....


    So you're saying.... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:53:34 PM EST
    the real Bigfoot is still out there....yet to be discovered:)

    I've been so pre-occupied with the local Montauk Monster I forgot all about Bigfoot.


    Code words (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:45:52 AM EST
    I was wondering what are the code words that are used to put women in "their place"/ take them down a notch.    Which are the strongest, and more importantly how do you combat them in a PROFEFESIONAL environment (not your personal life where you can say screw you more easily and directly).

    This question came to me as I was talking to my dad about the recent code words for Obama thrown out there.  In many ways I don't know how to combat these code words or phrases like "your not like them" in the professional sphere (no problem in my personal life), as being labeled a trouble maker can hurt our career path.

    About 20 years ago (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:51:34 AM EST
    at my job I was in a meeting with another man.  A female co-worker was with me at the time.  She and I are computer programmers and we were meeting with him to discuss project requirements.

    At the end of the meeting he said to us "I'll have my girl set up another meeting"

    It shocked me even that many years ago.  And, with a straight face I asked him if his daughter was working here for the summer.  After we left the meeting my female co-worker couldn't stop laughing at what my response to him was.


    Hysterical, impulsive, over-reacting (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:54:16 AM EST
    are three terms that ought to ring bells about stereotyping of women -- and effectively dismiss our concerns.  Y'know, we "periodically feel down." :-)

    And you bet that being labeled a troublemaker if we object to such treatment is effectively used to keep women from being able to win change -- i.e., used by the power structure to maintain the male status quo.

    "You're not like them" rings bells for women, too.     It can be communicated in interesting ways.  For example, in one of my professional positions in which -- as with all of them -- I was the only one in management, the men would head off to fundraisers such as golf tournaments, the ones with sweeties handing out prizes on every green.  And the guys never even considered having me go along.  Finally, I raised the issue -- not as a personal issue but as a business concern, since my position was one that logically would be most likely to be included.

    The guys sent me flowers in apology.  Aarrrgghh.


    "feel better" and "calm down" (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:13:26 PM EST
    also "see you are upset" and "discuss this rationally".

    Anything that implies the words coming out of your mouth are fueled by emotion and not reason.


    how 'bout (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:18:34 PM EST
    if these "hysterical", "irrational" voters who aren't "getting over it" just threaten, in their most effective Dangerously Calm, Angry Mom way, to "turn this car around" and go home "without getting any ice cream" (all code words for "I'm going to kick your a** if you don't shut the f**k up")?

    Would the Obama Campaign and his minions at the DNC shut up and start actually working to get their votes?


    Ha. I used to just stop the car. (5.00 / 8) (#67)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:25:07 PM EST
    And my kids learned my mantra:  "A good driver needs good passengers."  They can recite it to this day.  (Along with another of their fave mom-mantras, when they would fuss about a bit of rain or a bit of a splash in the pool:  "Water dries.":-)

    And my, they would be so mortified when I pulled over.  All those people passing by in cars, wondering why that woman was just sitting there.

    But they really learned that yelling mom was not the one to be feared.  Quiet mom, speaking mantras through gritted teeth, made them quake.

    So, yeh, I may have to apply the same strategy to my vote.  A good voter needs good choices.


    "Don't make me stop this car" (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by DJ on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:31:03 PM EST
    my favorite

    It's a difficult thing (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by indy in sc on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:55:42 AM EST
    and a fine line to walk for minorities and women (and particularly, female minorities).  For women I think the code centers around the word "assertive."  "She's very assertive" = she's a b!tch.  "She's not assertive enough" = she's a typical wishy-washy woman.  It's hard to deal with in the professional sphere.

    For Obama, the code words centered around his supposed "arrogance."  That meme was spread far and wide after his overseas trip.  McCain is practically conducting his own negotiations with Georgia (and sending his own delegation) and no one is saying it is presumptuous or arrogant of him to do so.


    Oh stop that. He is arrogant. (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:06:12 PM EST
    So is Bush.  So is Putin.  So is that French President.  There are lots of arrogant people in the world.  

    Is he more arrogant (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by indy in sc on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:44:31 PM EST
    than any other politician?  Than McCain? If not, why does he get called out on it?  That is the point.  Not that Obama is just golly gee humble--that his actions are discussed as arrogant and McCain's are discussed as presidential or tough.

    I think of McCain (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:53:59 PM EST
    as a pragmatic jerk.

    I'm not sure if McCain believes his own press, although Obama appears to.


    "Jerk?" (none / 0) (#182)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:46:58 PM EST
    Male code word.

    It's much more polite (none / 0) (#198)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:56:39 PM EST
    than the other words I could use.  It's not exactly gender specific.  Perhaps "capable of a superficial charm but tends to be irritable and impatient" would be better.

    McCain is not arrogant. He's alot of things, (3.00 / 2) (#110)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:03:06 PM EST
    arrogant isn't one of them.  Few would describe McCain as arrogant.  It's not like only Republicans can be arrogant and only Democrats are not arrogant.

    I beg to differ. (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by indy in sc on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:29:50 PM EST
    There are way too many stories about his conduct from fellow senators and other colleagus that demonstrate his arrogance--not to mention his documented verbal attacks on Cindy.  I don't know that he's any more arrogant than any other pol, including Obama, but he is definitely arrogant.

    here's my question about "arrogant" (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:06:17 PM EST
    Is there a "rule" somewhere that says if ALL politicians are by nature "arrogant" that you can't call one of them out on it unless you call them all out on it?

    As far as I'm concerned if people who don't support Obama want to call him arrogant, go right ahead.  And, similarly, if people who don't support McCain want to call him arrogant, go right ahead.

    No one got all up in arms in the past when Bush & Cheney have been called arrogant.

    Do all black candidates just get a pass on their arrogance?

    The level of Obama's arrogance is an opinion.  Some agree, some disagree.  Why shouldn't those who believe he is arrogant be allowed to express that without being accused of using racial code words.  Obama's own peer group from his law school days describe him as always having been arrogant.


    C'mon. . (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:11:51 PM EST
    "Arrogant" is an obvious dog-whistle.

    "Dog-whistle," of course, being anything negative on a personal level that you say about my candidate...


    you are right I guess (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:20:45 PM EST
    but, the problem I have is that those who keep insisting that it is a "code word" always refuse to tell you what word to use instead or to admit that you just aren't allowed to call an actual arrogant candidate arrogant id they are black.  They just keep insisting that he isn't arrogant.  Which is a matter of opinion, isn't it?

    Exactamundo. (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:50:18 PM EST
    How about "unresponsive" (none / 0) (#50)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:17:16 PM EST
    Maybe "cold fish"?  "insensitive"?  

    All good. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:47:06 PM EST
    "Cold fish" is right on the money. But I think all of those are reasonably well covered by "arrogant." Though, to me, he's mainly just humorless.

    How about (5.00 / 0) (#192)
    by Ennis on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:54:08 PM EST
    "confident," "intelligent," and "poised"?

    Must be in the eye of the beholder (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:58:31 PM EST
    which, in my opinion, is absolutely the way it should be. You have your right to see him in the light of your standards, as does everyone else who is voting.

    yes (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:15:00 PM EST
    and every single person at his law school who said that are using code words because they're racist.  

    In fact, you posting what you did means you're also a racist because you dare, DARE question Our Good and Able Leader Barack Obama aka The One.

    You see how easy it is to assign blame to everyone else while ignoring the reality about a historically weak candidacy all at the same time?

    Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!  This is FUN!!!!!!!



    So how do you respond when (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:33:46 PM EST
    Codes words can be true (and they often are otherwise they wouldn't be succesful), but the ussage is meant to degrade.  For example, I am guessing Obama is personally very arrogant (most people who rise to his level are- especially many black people who had to rise while deeling with a buntch of other stuff), but saying he is arrogant code or is it simply an observation?

    Here in lies the problem that minorities and women face.  The obervations are often true.  Hillary I am guess is controlling (generally you don't become a nominee by letting others control your moves).   At what point do I say your saying she is controlling is code vs. observation.  And if someone fights back when you say that is code by saying "stop playing the gender card", how do you respond?


    Well the problem with code words (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:31:07 PM EST
    IS that they are also perfectly normal, legitimate words to use.  Otherwise they wouldn't be codewords.

    Once you get into trying to evaluate coded language, it gets quite murky because what is really a determining factor is people's motivations for using them.  Then it gets iffier because some subset of people using them are not knowingly being racist or sexist (or other ~ist), but have internalized whatever the coding is hiding.  Eg, all the people who claim that Clinton is too ambitious.

    But none of this means every use of a particular word is 'coded'.  The problem comes when that assumption is made regardless of context, situation, or person.  And it's much, much worse when the negative assumption spreads far beyond code words to equate any critical word with the ~ism of your choice.  That's just a plain corruption of language.


    If you go to (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:37:34 PM EST
    YouTube and watch Obama's speech at the 2004 convention, you'll see a much different style of speaking, and a much more humble projection of who he is than anything you see today. He continues to develop his "I'm so much better than all of you" persona as time goes on.

    ball-breaker (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by pukemoana on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:17:43 PM EST
    I've been called a ball-breaker--not exactly code though, is it?  Context: my temporary position was being made into a permanent job so everyone knew I'd be applying and would be the top contender--the boss advertised the position with the salary capped at a level significantly below what I was entitled to according to my qualifications and experience (nb no comparable job advertised at the time had a salary cap, let alone an extremely low one).  I voiced my dissatisfaction with the unusual restrictions through the appropriate channels and got  named a ball-breaker by my male colleagues (but also got the salary cap removed!)

    Code words (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by Nadai on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:31:10 PM EST
    Anything related to emotion, both overemotional and unemotional.  Women's emotions are seen as inappropriate, uncontrollable, and/or out of proportion, yet at the same time, being unemotional is 'unnatural' for women.  Words and phrases like hysterical, take things personally, Ice Queen, have a hissy fit, out of control, on the rag, whiny, pouting, upset, etc.  The slightest show of emotion (especially anger) can trigger the accusation that you're on the verge of a toddler-style meltdown.

    A lot of the time, this is phrased in a 'joking' manner so the speaker can disavow it when you get angry - it was just a joke, why are you getting so upset?  And of course, the simple fact that you got angry is somehow proof that you are hysterical, taking things personally, having a hissy fit, etc.

    It's impossible that you have a legitimate reason to be angry or that your anger is in proportion.  Many men feel it's their prerogative to decide how much anger you get to feel (none, usually), how you get to express it (you don't), and how long you're allowed to be angry (5 nanoseconds, starting 10 nanoseconds ago).  Other emotions such as sadness or hurt are treated in much the same way, though sometimes there's a little leeway there if he feels contemptuously benevolent.

    The only thing I've ever personally found to work in combatting this is to cultivate a reputation as a b!tch you don't want to mess with, mostly by refusing to be cowed.  Other women have more success with conciliation, but I could never pull it off.  Even so, I wouldn't say it works well all the time, nor does it put a stop to people ragging on you out of your hearing.  Nothig I know fixes that.


    Cool insight (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:37:45 PM EST
    Thanks.  The disavow is such powerful tool.

    Disavow, delegitimize, degrade (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by Nadai on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:48:37 PM EST
    the trifecta of oppression.

    That would be an awesome (none / 0) (#101)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:55:19 PM EST
    Bumper sticker

    "cat fight" (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:18:41 PM EST
    That's what used to make me crazy.  Any time there was a legitimate professional dispute or disagreement between two women, the men in positions to resolve it would wave it away as "just a cat fight."

    Grrrr.  I'll show you cat fight, you dog.


    OMG, yes (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Nadai on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:28:47 PM EST
    How did I forget that one?

    OT:  One of the reasons I so love the 'name' PUMA is because, for me, it evokes that phrase but turns it around.  It's like saying, "You want a cat fight?  I'll give you a cat fight!"


    Well, I don't think we humans (none / 0) (#113)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:04:59 PM EST
    will ever refer to others w/o reference to things like sex, age, race, religion, etc. Especially when we don't like the other person.

    "Code words" seems so dramatic, so cloak-and-dagger.

    We call males we don't like @ssholes, jerk*ffs, $hitheads, $cumbags, horse's @sses, etc. - words that are rarely, if ever, used toward women.


    I've heard those words applied to women (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by tree on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:20:14 PM EST
    lots of times, and even had them thrown at me a few times. I think you must live a sheltered life if you think those terms are rarely used toward women.

    many (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by jedimom on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:36:01 PM EST
    there are quite a few!

    if you research under gender bias coding (I recently did a research paper on the newspaper coverage of the primary candidates and needed this info) you will see there is some work being done now, a lot of work has been done in Canada also..

    In my piece, most often, expressive verbs associated with gender qualities are used , and in my research I found A section NYT reporters like Nagourney name on pieces that used verbs the AP and Reuters Handbook for Journalists specifically says NOT to use to avoid biased reporting...a very clear bias was there and even my pro Obama adviser agreed...

    she replied or she said becomes: she attacked, she taunted
    the coverage of the debates was particularly striking, with almost no mention of the body language of Obama or Edwards and ongoing play by play descriptions of every physical move by Clinton

    she frowned, she scowled, she didnt smile, she smirked, it was unreal frankly.

    often terms involving emotionality are used...

    It goes further into sexuality as well, since we are on talkleft, here is an interesting piece on "the use of gender loaded identities in sex stereotyping in juris prudence"



    PssttCmere08- Cool give me a 2 (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:39:37 PM EST
    Can you tell me why?    Is your keyboard broken?  I can send you one?  

    For me personally (none / 0) (#107)
    by CST on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:01:36 PM EST
    It is the less blatant things.  Like the fact that the new male employees get invited to golf, etc... but it is assumed that I don't play (I don't, but I am not opposed to learning and the boys aren't exactly pros either).  
    Also, chivalry is sometimes a weird problem.  I don't know whether to be flattered or annoyed, but basically in the professional environment I feel like it just reminds me that I'm "different".  In a personal relationship it's a different dynamic, but I feel it doesn't really belong in a professional environment.  It's weird, because sometimes people being nicer to you, or treating you different seems like a good thing, and is probably well-intentioned, but can feel like a lack of respect, or in some ways condescending.

    A good example of this (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by CST on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    Is Obama pulling out Hillary's chair at a debate.  Was it well-intentioned, probably, but it gave the impression of condescention.  Like, thanks, but if I can run for president, I can get my own chair.  It just serves to highlight the fact that you're "different".

    Exactly! (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by indy in sc on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:36:53 PM EST
    Every time I saw a clip of Obama pulling out Hillary's chair, I cringed.  It really did look like she was somehow "less equal".  I don't think he would have been criticized for not doing it--so he should have skipped it.  

    We'll have to watch and see if he does the (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:39:04 PM EST
    same thing to McCain in an effort to show him as old and feeble. :)

    CST, as someone who plays golf, (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:32:47 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure you aren't invited to play golf because you don't play.

    If you did play and had a real interest in the game you'd naturally join in the normal office chit-chats about playing golf, and you would be playing with your office mates.

    Oftentimes that comes about not because you're invited, but because you invite.

    Also, trust me, you don't learn how to play, especially as a rank beginner, by going "golfing" with people who do know how to play. You'll hate it, and your playing partners will too.

    Get yourself some clubs, shoes, etc., and a solid summer's worth of once-a-week lessons. Hit buckets on weekends. Watch some of each weekend's tournemet and know who won.

    Once you have some skill and knowledge, join in the golf chit-chat at the office. (Listen to your pro, not the guy in the next cubical over. Many of the guys will try to give you their (abysmal) swing tips - do what the smart guys do in the same situation, just nod your head appreciatively and don't listen to a word.)

    Develop a reputation of being an enjoyable person to play golf with regardless of your skill level.

    Love the game. You'll be in the "club" in no time...


    That's a nice theory (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by Nadai on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:41:48 PM EST
    and maybe it's even true at CST's office, I wouldn't know.  At my last job, however, all the new male employees were invited to go golfing right off, whether they golfed or not, and none of the new female employees were.  Yes, if a woman had the temerity to ask, the boys would graciously allow the little lady to tag along.  Few women went more than once.  Being made to feel like a third wheel for hours on end is not a pleasant experience.

    Trust me, (1.50 / 2) (#213)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:08:11 PM EST
    if the "little lady" had reasonable skills and was fun on the course, she'd be still be playing with the boys.

    Trust me on this too, the social skill that make someone enjoyable to play golf with are many the same social skills that makes them enjoyable to work with. Not to say that you can't be enjoyable to work with unless you're enjoyable to play golf with.

    And, lastly, be aware there are also many guys who get invited to play once or twice but never again...


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by CST on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:44:18 PM EST
    I would generally think this is true.  Except they aren't golfers either, and in some cases, also beginners.  It's not like they are "big-shot" golfers or anything, the new guys or the old guys.  It's the same with stuff like poker too (which I can play).  Just random things that are considered "guy things".

    Seriously? (1.50 / 2) (#204)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:00:22 PM EST
    Never-played-before beginners? Your officemates have more patience with non-golfers than I do.

    Regardless, if you really want to get in that "club" learn to play, love the game, and be fun to play with.

    Also, I think once you're in a "box" in the office, it's hard to break out of it. Whether it's getting into the golf "club" or the poker "club."

    Learn to play golf now so when you walk into the office on the first day of your next job when you're a clean slate you're ready to go.

    Kinda the same with cards, although that, in my experience, is much more testosterony and less likely to include women.

    Hey, sometimes life's like that...


    Here's something that bothers me.... (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:37:09 PM EST
    ...and its a bit tricky, but real. Have you ever been in a meeting where a young, pretty female (who is bright but somewhat inexperienced) is made a big deal of by a "male-in-charge" whereas anything you (a middle-aged woman) have to say is barely attended to? This actually happens a lot and its very embarrassing because often most of the other men in the room realize that what young pretty thing just said is actually quite lame but they have to pretend it is substantive because "male-in-charge" is impressed.

    Yes except (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by CST on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:50:22 PM EST
    I'm that other "young female".  And yes, I've noticed, although in engineering there aren't too many of the "older females" to compare it to.  However, I would like to say, I don't enjoy being made a spectical of, and I feel a little annoyed that they are so "surprised and impressed" that I should have a brain.
    I guess the point is, I would like to be treated "equally" and when people over-react to your achievements it just reminds that they had low-expectations to begin with.

    Electoral race tightening (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:48:13 AM EST
    today's numbers

    Give McCain VA (currently tied) and IN (Obama up by 1) and it's Pres McCain come next January

    What happened to that 50 state ladslide?  Obama has fallen behind in NV and CO in the last few days.

    Looks like obama is really going to (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:55:29 AM EST
    need those other 7 states!!

    Obama needs to spend just about every (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by tigercourse on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:34:20 PM EST
    day between now and November camped out in Ohio. He's going to win or lose this election there.

    talking about The Economy (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:07:32 PM EST
    Hope and Change aren't going to sell that well.  DHL, anyone?  Huge loss of manufacturing jobs under Bush?

    Hope?  Nice.
    Change?  Whatever that means.

    Jobs?  Keep talking...


    OH (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by jedimom on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:14:37 PM EST
    Apparently Obama got the message on OH b/c he seems to be preparing to run ads about DHL that make it sound like an unAmerican stealer of jobs, but his campaign apparently uses DHL services?


    My hubby was outsourced from DHL when his engineering job was given to an H1B visa worker, why would the other jobs be any different?

    I thought we were a global economy and were supposed to get with the program.

    Me, I think we need health care to keep jobs here.


    No doubt (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by Ennis on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:34:53 PM EST
    ...he'll spend time in Ohio, but so far he has led there ever since nominated - currently four points.

    McCain is getting killed by his DHL lobbyist friends.


    not quite (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:39:14 PM EST
    Rasmussen 7/21 McCain up in OHIO by 10
    Quinnipac 7/29 Obama up by 2

    Current RealClear Average Obama up by 1/2 point


    re; (none / 0) (#104)
    by az on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:00:04 PM EST
    for the first time  i believe Mccain will win the election .

    Obama will not win Ohio , if the election is decided there .

    And he is not winning Virginia too


    Depends on the definition of "win"? (1.00 / 0) (#150)
    by Ennis on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:32:50 PM EST
    He's currently ahead in both states, which Kerry and Gore lost.

    Looking good.


    Check RealClearPolitics polls (none / 0) (#172)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:41:08 PM EST
    the average of all current polls show

    VA - McCain up by 0.6%
    OH - Obama up by 0.5%


    3 days ago (none / 0) (#180)
    by Josey on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:45:59 PM EST
    Obama was up 7 pts in Gallup. Today - it's tied.

    10 days ago, the Electoral College projection (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:55:43 PM EST
    at electoral-vote.com had Obama with 316 electors and McCain with 209 electors, with 13 ties/tossups.

    Today, it has Obama with 284, McCain with 241, and still 13 ties/tossups.

    Of course, that means another shift of 15 electors puts Obama under the requisite 270.  Ohio has 20. . . .

    Not good.  Just projections, but not good.


    check again TODAY (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:02:16 PM EST
    McCain is now at 250 and Obama at 275 with 13 (VA) tied.  and IN with Obama up by 1.

    Just give VA and IN to McCain and he wins.

    They already have OH for McCain.


    August 15, 2004 Electoral Vote (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:56:47 PM EST
    Kerry 327     Bush 211

    From the previous thread (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:49:20 AM EST
    Obama learned nothing from John Kerry and the windsurfing incident.


    Also: I can't wait to see Phelps swim tonight!!

    Phelps Is Superhuman (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:54:09 AM EST
    Count me in among those who's been absolutely blown away by Mike Phelps.

    I really think he's got tiny flippers and gills that the naked eye can't see. He's amazing.

    Tonight, he'll likely match the record for most number of gold medals, and tomorrow night, he'll break the record. Phew.


    I think tonight is his toughest race. He is racing (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:00:47 PM EST
    against the world record holder (though Phelps has been beating him lately). If he is going to lose one race, this will be it. The other guy is well rested and Phelps has to be getting tired.  I think he will win and I also think he is part fish!

    I missed our Olympic open thread last night. It was a fun night to watch.


    it was a fun night to watch last night (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:06:35 PM EST
    the US gymnasts were able to overcome shaky judging and still come out 1 & 2. I was so proud of and for them.

    i missed the thread too (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Little Fish on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:08:26 PM EST
    I had found a live feed of the all-around so I wasn't in the dark. I'm a little miffed they started the gymnastics competition after 11pm and that they delayed it on the west coast! Wtf we could have had it in prime time. To deny all the girls around this country a chance to see two of their own not only compete but kick butt is blah.

    As a young girl womens gymnastics was THE THING for me to watch in the Olympics. Girl power! I could have cared less about swiming or diving and to this day don't care for Track and Field, bit I've always watched the gymnasts.  The only thing I remember about the 84 Olympics was Mary Lou. I didn't know the significance of a perfect 10, just that I had a young girl from my country that I could root for. And in 88 watching Phoebe Mills intently and hoping she could pull something off. Zmeskel and Miller in 92 and all the wonderful girls in 96. It took 20 years between Mary Lou and Carly to get another all-around. We've never had 2 gymnasts who went into the all around being serious contenders, let alone favorites, for gold and the year we do and its airing at midnight, ridiculous. (Not to mention Beach Volleyball was the primetime event. Srsly.)

    lol little rant there. But YAY to Nastia and Shawn they were both amazing. Especially Nastia, who was near perfect and had to overcome suspect judging (how did they take any points off on her vault?). Boo to NBC.


    Mary Lou was there last night (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:40:54 PM EST
    and the interaction from her in the stands with the gymnasts on the floor was great fun to watch.

    Btw, she is a relative by marriage of a family member who tells wonderful stories about her as a girl in the Appalachians, just before her rise.  As they say, she comes from good people. :-)


    I saw her at lunch one day way back when she was (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Angel on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:49:39 PM EST
    in college.  She was a little pudgy then but looked just like she did on television.  She was by herself and I didn't want to bother her, but she did smile at me when we made eye contact.

    I just looked up her bio and she has 4 daughters!  And she is 40 years old, born in 1968.  Talk about making me feel old......


    Mary Lou (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by Little Fish on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:01:27 PM EST
    Was such an amazing role model for me. I wanted to be her-I HAD to have the Wheaties Box and all the magazines and a fancy leotard. (I may have even pretended to be her on occasion, staging my own Olympics... we won't discuss that though lol I was young). MUCH better than Madonna, imo.

    Remember (none / 0) (#123)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:12:24 PM EST
    though, that there are many, many amazing athletes.  It is relatively easy to win several gold medals in swimming, versus in other events because the swimming events are all relatively similar.  

    In the Seattle PI, one article points this out: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/ronjudd/2008114991_olyjudd15.html

    Phelps is amazing, but is also surrounded by a ridiculous amount of hype.


    The media is the hype-I blame them (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:40:00 PM EST
    Phelps is amazing, but is also surrounded by a ridiculous amount of hype
    It is true, but I don't think it is his doing. He looks tired. He looks tired of the hype too. He gave 10 years of his life preparing for these events. He even gave up a gold medal in Athens to let his teammate compete instead.

    The other night in the open thread, some commenters even wrote they would like him to lose one just to lose the hype. Would they think the same for their own child or themselves. He is amazing and I am very happy for him. He is very exciting to watch. He swims 4 miles a day. I can't even get my butt in gear to walk 20 mins a day. Hopefully the hype will get more children interested in sports. Any of these sports should. Just like Tiger inspired kids to take up golfing.  


    I Agree (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:12:21 PM EST
    I should have said that I'm not at all caught up in the Phelphs media hype, but because he's inspired me to get my butt to the gym every morning before work and to the pool on weekends to lead a healthier lifestyle.

    I used to be a competitive swimmer in high school and always medeled in inter-school and inter-state meets. I wish I could say that a health or physical condition forced me to drop it in college, but I just became lazy and got caught up in the college partying and the other rubbish that college kids do.

    So imagine that, a guy who's a 2-3 years younger, inspiring me to get myself back into the sport that once got me excited (and a six-pack!) like no other. I really should be ashamed.


    if I understand that correctly (none / 0) (#175)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:42:56 PM EST
    he didn't give up a gold in Athens.  As a member of the qualifying heat team for the race, he received a gold medal as well.  Just not the GLORY of being on the final team.

    That works too (none / 0) (#185)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:48:45 PM EST
    Thanks, that is not how I heard it last night.

    That's not at all (none / 0) (#191)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:52:45 PM EST
    what they said last night.

    they may not have been clear last night (none / 0) (#202)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:59:14 PM EST
    but, I don't believe for one minute that the swimmers who EARN the USA a spot in the final by swimming the qualifying heats, but then don't swim in the final, are not given medals.  It wouldn't make any sense.

    The reason the other swimmer wasn't going to get a medal WITHOUT swimming in the final was because he hadn't been in the qualifying heats and Phelps had.  In order to get his gold, the other swimmer had to swim in the final as originally scheduled.


    well i think it was (none / 0) (#195)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:55:28 PM EST
    He swan the qualifying heat and the other swimmer was scheduled to swim in the final because he beat Phelps in the US to qualify for team.  But, then Phelps won the individual race gold in Olympics which would put him on relay team instead of the other guy.  But, the other guy hadn't been in qualifying heats as Phelps was, so he would have been left out.  So, Phelps let him keep his original spot on the final team to earn his gold.

    Still a nice gesture and one that might be able to be returned this year because Phelps has not been in the qualifying heats for the last relay team...


    I saw this earlier but (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by prittfumes on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:53:52 PM EST
    did you get a load of the comments!

    How about this one (none / 0) (#112)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    The convention is going to unfold exactly as O'bama has planned.

    The deal with the Clinntons was O's idea, and it was his planning that got the deal done.

    I love the smell (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Nadai on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:31:58 PM EST
    of delusion in the morning.  It smells like ... bullsh!t.

    Ha ha, I noticed that more and more... (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:44:13 PM EST
    ..of the remaining longtime Kossacks are starting to seem a bit exasperated by the compulsion of those that remain besotted to unconditionally support and convey brilliance to everything Obama does.

    Real men (1.00 / 0) (#157)
    by Ennis on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:36:34 PM EST
    ....swim with sharks.  There's nothing sissy or elite about body surfing.  But hey, it's a slow Obama-bashing day.

    Heh, never knew I was a "real man". (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:51:39 PM EST
    First comment: BO is HOT! lol (none / 0) (#74)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:32:31 PM EST
    I'll take men's gymnastics (none / 0) (#103)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:57:59 PM EST
    for HOT! men.

    aren't those (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:46:06 PM EST
    comments just going to feed right into McCain's "Dreamy Eyes" commercial that just came out?

    That's what I want.  A "HOT" president.  One who understands hip hop hand gestures so he can brush foreign leaders off his shoulders and scrape them off the bottom of his shoes.


    My only issue with Phelps (none / 0) (#106)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:01:18 PM EST
    is that he's been over-hyped.  The media has a man-crush on him, wants to have his man-baby.  Makes me nauseous.

    Did TL kid get the message (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:58:12 AM EST
    that others have gotten with the tickets, Jeralyn -- that he has to do six hours of volunteering for Obama . . . or, excuse me, voter registration?

    Happy Friday (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Lahdee on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:06:06 PM EST

    The RNC has announced that Ronald Reagan will not be appearing at next month's convention. Elvis is relieved.

    John McCain in Aspen, "Yes, Phil Gramm is here, but strictly as a friend. Is he still an a**hole? Why yes, yes he is."

    The search for a republican veep continues. Head of the search committee Ben Neumarker says it been difficult, "No one is returning my calls." Asked how he was going to rectify that Neumarker replied, "We're thinking of offering Hooters franchises and really fast cars."

    I'm sorry (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:14:51 PM EST
    John McCain in Aspen, "Yes, Phil Gramm is here, but strictly as a friend. Is he still an a**hole? Why yes, yes he is."

    But that's just funny.


    I am so excited about being able to go (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by athyrio on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:07:07 PM EST
    to Denver and support PUMA and Hillary in whatever way that I can...Is anyone else here going?? To say I am thrilled is an understatement as I didnt think my health would allow it this year....:-)

    My knee won't cooperate (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:33:31 PM EST
    and neither will my hip, cortizone aside.

    I'll watch you from HERE...at home, comfy cozy with friends, snacks, drinks and an indoor toilet!


    I am taking my electic scooter so if you see (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by athyrio on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:51:36 PM EST
    a little old lady with white hair and glasses on a scooter that is me....:-)

    Have a good catharsis (3.50 / 2) (#167)
    by Ennis on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:39:41 PM EST
    and take some pictures to remember the official nomination of our first black president.

    "president"? (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:50:12 PM EST
    Is this a nominating convention or the Inauguration?

    Have a good cataharsis (1.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Ennis on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:38:08 PM EST
    and take some pictures of the next President.

    Can someone explain (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Bluesage on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:14:56 PM EST
    Why Rick Warren, A Purpose Driven Life author,and IMO a popular cult leader, is conducting a debate between Obama and McCain tomorrow night.  I have a real problem with these "religious leaders"  having such a prominent role in our politics and having such high profile access and influence.

    This Is News To Me (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:18:24 PM EST
    (Kinda shows how much I really care about the election now too, huh?)

    So is this a real face-to-face debate moderated by Rick Warren or will it be like that lame Faith Forum where the two candidates would be questioned individually?


    Nope-one at a time. (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:28:26 PM EST
    The other will be in a cone of silence, I guess.

    Anyone know a prominent (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:20:19 PM EST
    gay or feminist who would like to offer a similar proposition?

    A gay feminist?  A black gay feminist theologian?


    That whole thing creeps me out. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:22:16 PM EST
    I didn't like that CNN faith debate, either. I read in Rolling Stone that McCain has to force himself to go to church on Sunday-which is a plus to me. I haven't read anything lately about Obama-does he go regularly or just when he wants to speak?

    So what is it you appreciate about this (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by independent voter on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:46:22 PM EST
    what is the "plus" to you? The hypocrisy? That is so unbelievable, somehow the fact that the man forces himself to go to church, clearly posturing, is impressive to you.

    For some of us, it's not "impressive" (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:53:10 PM EST
    but it's nice to know he's not overly religious as some on the right tend to be  ;) We like our politics and governing served up with out the side of religion to go along with the main course.

    How do you not understand (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by independent voter on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:08:26 PM EST
    that it is even worse that he is using religion for whatever purpose? I have disavowed organized religion, yet I still can respect someone who devoutly believes. The basic premise of all main stream religions are great: kindness towards others, acceptance, charity, selflessness. It is when human beings USE the religion for what they want that it goes awry. This is what John McCain is doing if he truly has to "drag himself" to church.

    Maybe he believes but just isn't (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:21:15 PM EST
    that keen on church. I don't know, and don't really care. What I care more about is expanding Faith Based programs, having religion ruling choice, stopping stem cell research funding and a few other issues like that. One thing I like about Hillary is she has a clear line where religion and government are concerned. She keeps her religion private as it should be. If McCain is a reluctant church goer, big deal. He's certainly not alone.

    Just my personal opinion. (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:34:24 PM EST
    I tend to like religious people who keep it as a personal belief and are the sort who struggle with sleeping in on Sunday. I don't like religious people who try and force their beliefs on others-they are the sort who go to church often for all to see and have to talk about it incessantly. It seems obvious that you have to go to church to be elected in this country so I don't fault hypocritical politicians. I think churches use us more than anyone will ever use them. Whatever premise you think they operate under, they have largely become a means to enrich the few.

    Warren is atypical (5.00 / 0) (#174)
    by Ennis on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:42:52 PM EST
    He's not hung up on wedge issues and believes Christians are called to actually help needy people and protect the planet.

    It will be a good forum, and show Christian voters what a real Christian like Obama might look like in the White House.


    Dinner With Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:15:31 PM EST
    Anyone know the outcome of that? Wasn't the drawing last week or something?

    I've been checking my e-mail frequently hoping for some good news.

    I just got the email (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:17:48 PM EST
    and others seem to be in earlier batches, so yours ought to arrive soon.  It has info on the dinner companion picked.

    And it has a new fundraising offer -- for tickets to the convention with great Hillary seats and special access or something.  Sooooo tempting. . . .


    Thanks Joan and CC (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:23:50 PM EST
    Hmm, convention seats? Nah, I'll pass on that

    (But I'll still contribute money if it's ONLY going to a cause strictly under Hillary ... no Obama, no DNC.)


    Talk About Timing (none / 0) (#85)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:39:41 PM EST
    As I was posting my reply above, the latest e-mail from Hillary come through to my Inbox. Amazing!

    But, something about this e-mail has me all uneasy.

    The format of the e-mail is eerily similar to the type of e-mails that the Obama campaign has been sending out all year.*

    After every paragraph, comes a repeated line asking for a contribution.

    In this case, it is "Join me in Denver. Contribute today."

    Has the Obama campaign taken over fund raising and outreach duties from the Clinton campaign?

    *I don't, and have never subscribed to Obama campaign e-mails. But I've seen the ones that friends receive. I don't think the Clinton e-mails have ever used that repetitive style before, have they?


    Ahem.... (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by Ennis on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:44:01 PM EST
    Has the Obama campaign taken over fund raising and outreach duties from the Clinton campaign?

    There is no Clinton campaign.


    Ahem (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:49:52 PM EST
    Yes, technically, there still is, since the Democratic Party does not have an official nominee yet.  And since my sister works for the campaign (at least for a few more weeks), you are incorrect.

    Selected on the 8th. Sorry. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:18:21 PM EST
    I didn't win either.

    Mark Warner Fun Facts (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:16:35 PM EST
    He is not from VA, he is not a Southerner. He was born in Indiana, spent some time in Illinois and moved to Connecticut in HS. He came to NoVA as a staffer for Dodd. He went to GW and Harvard Law. He was an early investor in wireless communications and became wealthy. He is a fomer VA governor and party head. He lost to John Warner in a Senate race in the 90's(Warner vs. Warner). He was successful as governor because he is very centrist and he is still talking about bi-partisanship in his current Senate race. He is no one's idea of a progressive. He is not anti-gay as has been stated but is rather not strongly pro-gay. He and Kaine both have enacted rules against discrimination in state agencies regarding sexual preference. These rules could be undone by future governors, however. It is extremely hard to pass any real progressive laws here due to the extremely rabid wingnut constituency. He did enact a rule allowing unmarried couples to benefit from lower interest mortages through VA Housing which had previously only allowed married couples and singles.

    Interesting. A reverse migration (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:21:11 PM EST
    since Indiana began as a colony of Virginia -- when Clark, with the French and Metis support (anti-Brits that we are), Fort Vincennes and changed the trajectory of the Revolution as well as the map.  So, many Virginians settled Indiana.

    May this reverse migrant Warner also be the reverse of the first governor of Indiana, from Virginia and then of Vincennes -- William Henry Harrison.  I put him right up there with Jackson for perpetrating some of the worst of our early policies.


    I call him a carpetbagger. <s> (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:25:44 PM EST
    oh snap Creamy1 (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by DFLer on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:33:02 PM EST
    great historic tidbit

    Kaine was not born in VA either (none / 0) (#155)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:35:29 PM EST
    Ohio, I think.

    Maybe Obama thinks he will get a two-fer if he picks him for VP.


    my partial mistake (none / 0) (#159)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:37:07 PM EST
    Born in Minnesota, raised in Kansas.

    I'm an idiot - I'll stop now (none / 0) (#163)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:37:59 PM EST
    raised near Kansas City, MO

    Ha. Love it. We planned our place names (none / 0) (#179)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:45:41 PM EST
    that way, so the feds have trouble finding us here in the vast, ever-shifting Heartland.

    The most fun is seeing outsiders wrestle with pronunciation of our many Native place names.  Worst are the jock media, when one of our locals lands in the NCAA top teams.  We get our yucks that way. :-)


    Jerry Wexler died (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:03:09 PM EST
    As someone who worked in the music stores in the mid 80s to the mid 90s, this is a big loss for the recording industry.  Wexler was one of the original founders of Atlantic Records and gave a little lady named Aretha Franklin the boost she needed, and produced 'Respect'. He also worked with everyone from Ray Charles and Otis Redding to Led Zeppelin and George Michael.

    Wexler also coined/introduced the term "rhythm and blues" when the record industry was using the term "race records" to identify black music.

    I am SO going to listen to Aretha right now in tribute.

    Aw, That Takes Me Back (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by daring grace on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:15:34 PM EST
    Thought of him when Ahmet Ertegun passed a couple years ago.

    A different era in music management and production, that's for sure.


    Um, this speaks for itself (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:06:28 PM EST

    Not so much about politics, except for this one little paragraph.  I don't think it reflects on the candidate, but I just found it weird enough to share.

    The couple hosted a na_ked rally for presidential candidate Barack Obama and naked karaoke nights. A friend's "mobile se_x dungeon" -- created in a small cargo truck -- was parked alongside the house.

    lol, says a neighbor.... (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:14:25 PM EST
    "Once in a while it sounds like a raccoon dying," Rosenstiel said.

    I also don't think it reflects on Obama but that quote was funny.


    Chinese Gymnists (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:12:27 PM EST
    There was no Open thread last night so I couldn't post this -- but I wondered what everyone else thought about the age issue of the female Chinese gymnists?  

    Yesterday, I heard over and over again (either CNN or FOX) about how one of the Chinese girls weighed only 68 pounds.  They interviewed an American gymnastics teacher who said all of her girls weighed like 100, 110 pounds.  I was kind of shocked that they thought this was criteria to be used in judging someone's age!  I live near many Asians and there are many adult female Asians who can't possibly weigh over 80 pounds!  On the whole, the women are much slimmer (finer bone structure) and shorter than white women so why is it impossible for a healthy 16-year old to weigh 68 pounds?

    I'm not denying that some of those girls could have been under 16-years old.  I am flabbergasted that the media would think their weight is a determining factor in age.      

    Those girls looked like they hadn't even gone (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Angel on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:40:48 PM EST
    through puberty yet.  We know what girls look like and what young ladies look like.  Sixteen is totally different from 12, 13 or 14, regardless of being Caucasian, Asian or whatever.  Besides being a rule violation it is dangerous for "girls" to perform routines that are meant for older, more mature bodies.  Chinese news had previously reported that the girl named He was 13 years old only 9 months ago.  And she's now 16?  LOL  She looked to be about 12.  

    Is this a new rule? (none / 0) (#197)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:55:48 PM EST
    The 16 year old minimum age?

    I am probably remembering wrong, but I thought there had been 12 year old competitors in Olympics past from some eastern European countries. Gymnastics and figure skating competitiors come to mind, and even a child USA skater, I thought.

    I could be really wrong, but maybe they changed it when they started allowing people who were making money in their sport to compete as amateurs.


    The rule was in effect back in 2004. Nastia was (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Angel on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:04:35 PM EST
    not able to compete in Athens because she was not old enough.  I don't know when the rule went into effect but it was before 2004.  

    Based on prior year applications, I have no (none / 0) (#132)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:19:37 PM EST
    doubt at all that those girls aren't sixteen. There's too much out there showing otherwise. I read that the younger girls are more flexible (and more likely to be injured) and that gives an unfair advantage.

    Their size doesn't concern me (our Johnson girl is only 4'9") but the paperwork is proof enough for me.


    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by BernieO on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:26:16 PM EST
    but I also thought just going on size was silly since Asian women are often smaller than Americans. Their faces sure look young and there seems to be plenty of evidence of the Chinese cheating on this one.

    Well, their diminutive size (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:37:28 PM EST
    and that they still have their baby teeth. (As Bella Karolyi jokingly said...)

    It was the weight issue that I (none / 0) (#200)
    by Grace on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:57:42 PM EST
    objected to.  

    Asian women are considerably smaller than we are.  I knew a professional Asian model who worked for the big designer houses and she was only 5'8" which was considered to be "towering" and an oddity in Japan.


    paperwork (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Little Fish on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:48:24 PM EST
    I know! The paperwork is what gets me. Its not just idle speculation based on looks, because they can be decieving, but there's a paper trail. Prior to this year He Kexin's (who's amazing on the bars btw) birthdate was listed as Jan 1st 1994 and several articles from 2007 state her age as 13 and then magically in February of 2008 she gets issued a passport with her birthdat as Jan 1 1992 and those articles get scrubbed and the IOC is all "lalalalalalalalala look a shiny object!" Its frustrating.

    Did you see the 15yo Chinese divers? (none / 0) (#139)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:27:47 PM EST
    there was a difference.

    I couldn't even watch (none / 0) (#168)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:39:45 PM EST
    Those girls have gotten so tiny and thin it really creeps me out.  

    They used to at least look healthy.


    What say you. (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by delacarpa on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:29:42 PM EST
    Seems Obama is down in the Gallup poll today and its a tie, once again doesn't it prove that Obama just might not be able to pull this out His 45 page document to FIGHT THE SMEARS opens the door to many questions of his background. Obama in fighting the smears campaign will indeed put focus on his background and there are many questions. He needs to come forward and not just put out a 45 page document but level with the American people to ease their minds.

    don't you remember (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:34:45 PM EST
    whwn Obama and Claire were going to deliver MO for the dems too?  He lost the lead there quite a while back.

    Obama shifting on taxes (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:36:25 PM EST
    and moving towards McCain?

    Nice /snark (none / 0) (#194)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:55:17 PM EST
    So he is going to delay doing anything, raising the taxes on the wealthy, for 10 years?!?

    Why is the MSM not reporting this?


    It will be historic, especially if Hillary ends (3.67 / 3) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:40:34 AM EST
    up with the nomination.  And, you all know it is a slim chance, but one all the same.

    If That Were To Happen (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:50:33 AM EST
    and I really hope it does, how can we be sure that Obama and his minions won't manipulate the results somehow to make sure it is unaccepted?

    Anyone know the nitty-gritty details of how the vote is conducted, counted and verified?

    -sigh- I just read Obama's enroute back to Chicago. I was just getting used to reading my favorite news website without seeing his name pop up for something he said or did (or didn't do).

    I'm also hearing Biden's name pop up more frequently as a running mate--as frequently as Bayh's name.

    Uh-oh, Jeralyn won't be happy! Well, neither would I.


    Biden, Bayh.... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:53:54 AM EST
    doesn't matter to me.  If it's not Hillary, I'm not voting for Obama.

    agreed (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by sleepingdogs on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:44:58 PM EST
    I am only going to vote for Obama if I have to in order to vote for Hillary!

    It could happen. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:52:03 AM EST
    On a scale of 0-100 Exploding Heads(Dem and GOP combined), where does a Clinton nomination rank?

    101 :) And that would truly make this (4.00 / 4) (#17)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:53:49 AM EST
    campaign/convention historic for some, hysterical for others...

    I'd be looking for the media/GOP (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:09:58 PM EST
    response.  I can already predict the Democratic response.  Bloggers will spit nails.  Politicians will pretend that they were always best buds.  The Media will have their staffers writing talking points with them.  Some media figures may have to have their air time limited to keep them from making unfortunate gaffes.

    And women will go out and invest in steel toed foot wear, strictly for educational purposes.


    I see MKS doesn't really believe in (none / 0) (#47)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:15:39 PM EST

    Sure, I do (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    I just don't see the convention the same way you do.....

    convention (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:15:26 PM EST

    How about (none / 0) (#199)
    by Ennis on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:57:14 PM EST
    "winner takes the prize"?

    I don't know, that diminishes the role of POTUS (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:02:02 PM EST
    to me.

    It isn't a prize, it is a responsibility that needs to be taken with nothing but seriousness. I don't really care if the POTUS looks great body surfing, I care if her/his words are respected and trusted here and around the world.

    Calling it a prize reminds me of the poker cards this administration passed out to the troops as a symbol of the goal of the Iraq invasion.


    OK (none / 0) (#211)
    by Ennis on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:07:41 PM EST
    How about winner wins nomination, losers lose.

    Yes, I can see, you don't want anyone to (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:19:00 PM EST
    rock the boat and cause the presumptive king not to be crowned...just like byteb over there....no matter, the more low ratings I receive, the more scared I know the obama followers are.  And, if obama were to make it, his dwindling AA support is gonna cause him fits, along with everything else that is piling up on him.

    Okay, Obama is cratering (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:33:49 PM EST
    .....ever since February.....

    I do think the convention will be interesting....Hillary will be supporting Obama wholeheartedly.....


    And, she has one vote to cast in November (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:04:12 PM EST
    Just one, like everyone else. If she wants to support and vote for Obama that is her right. I will use my own good judgment on how I cast mine.

    FISA/Glenn Greenwald (none / 0) (#1)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:34:35 AM EST
    Glenn's Wednesday post is yet another reason to be unhappy with Congress.  He compares Morton Halperin's very public criticism of one FISA bill followed by a fast pirouette and support of a very similar FISA bill.

    Why?  Well, you can go read for yourself.

    Does anyone really understand (none / 0) (#7)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:47:01 AM EST
    PUMAs?  Or more precisely, does anyone who comments on PUMA actually understand them or actually try to?  I just read Kos talking about PUMA in the same way he would talk about LGFers.  [shrug]  Maybe he thinks that will help Obama win?

    Why read Kos? Read a PUMA site (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:56:39 AM EST
    and go to the source.  Even if seeking an outside perspective, Kos would be the worst.  

    I do. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:03:02 PM EST
    It's just that with all the PUMA material available, no one seems to want to commit journalism.  Depending on which site you go to, they may contradict each other.  

    Re contradicting one another... (5.00 / 9) (#62)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:21:02 PM EST
    that's because PUMA isn't monolithic except in their rejection of Party Unity (My Axx) following this primary campaign.

    There are many subsets of PUMA, each with their own reasons.  For some, it's about the Party and its processes (that would include me).

    Others, Dean and Brazille.  Some, just about Hillary.  Still others, it's a flatout rejection of Obama as unqualified.

    There may be a small subset of racists as well but I haven't run across them in PUMA sites I've visited.

    And perhaps even a radical subset of radical feminists who have had their fill of 'the men' screwing up the party, the country and the world.

    The last one is just a wild guess...


    You can't find the common thread between the (5.00 / 4) (#210)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:07:33 PM EST

    I'm sure you've asked this question before, and it's been answered over and over in comments at TL.

    The common thread is that PUMAs are furious with the DNC for the way they gamed the primary and they are protest voting in whatever way each PUMA sees fit...what they have in common is that their vote will NOT be for Obama. That's all. Nothing complicated about it.


    Question (none / 0) (#203)
    by Ennis on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:00:21 PM EST
    What are PUMA's going to do with themselves after the convention?

    Seems to me they will functionally extinct in about two weeks.


    What's a LGFer? (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:18:48 PM EST
    I'm a PUMA and I've read pretty few depictions that captures what PUMAs are.  Of course, part of the problem is that most people writing about them have an agenda of their own one way or another.

    There is also a ton of blurring of lines between various groups who are protesting either Obama or the DNC.

    From my perspective as armchair sociologist/psychologist/anthropologist (it's a big armchair), one of the most interesting things to me is how PUMA has developed into not just a PAC or a political movement, but almost an identity.  The coincidence of the acronym and a real, formidable animal has helped (automatic logo/mascot and ready-made themes).  But when people talk they say "I'm a PUMA" not 'I'm a member of PUMA'.  It's also used as an adjective.  It's closer to when people say 'I'm a Democrat' or 'I'm a Republican' -- you don't hear people say 'I'm an NRA' or 'I'm a MoveOner'.

    Well, this comment will almost certainly be deleted, but I thought I'd through that out there.

    From the little I've read of netrootz descriptions, though, PUMAs are whatever the netrootz needs them to be so they can be totally demonized and cast as the big bad enemy.


    LGFers (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:24:05 PM EST
    Little Green Footballs - a far right wing website.  Fascinating to read when there was still a Republican primary being fought.  Known for conspiracy theories and a great place to find Clinton haters.  Not known for anything resembling critical thinking or net roots journalism.

    I think one common link between (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:36:05 PM EST
    the various PUMA thinkings is, not going to "get over it, STFU and fall in line". AKA "never again".

    Are There Different 'Official' Meanings (none / 0) (#70)
    by daring grace on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:26:11 PM EST
    of the acronym?

    I had generally heard it stands for Party Unity My A$$.

    Last night when there were two people (Murphy and Bower) representing PUMA on Hardball the segment was introduced as discussing People United Means Action.

    Do you know if it's an evolving name? Or are there different ones?


    There are different ones. (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:29:35 PM EST
    Different official organizations.  Different websites.  Different stated goals.  

    Um, sort of but a bit of a correction: (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:55:00 PM EST
    The acronym started as a sort of a joke on a Dkos-refugee/pro-Clinton (and pro-liberal) website.  Lots of people on the site started calling themselves pumas.  One of the frequent commenters and occasional posters on that blog just went and registered it as regular pac (527) a day or two after the acronym originated.  Only rather than use the ~My Ass version, which I'm not even sure would be accepted by the FEC/IRS, she used 'People United Means Action'.

    However, the ~My Ass version is much more popular among supporters and opponents alike, so you will see it used both ways.  There is an official site, set up as a blog, and the other main site is the one where it was 'born'.

    Some folks who call themselves PUMAs don't even realize it's a PAC where you can become a member.  That's what I mean about it becoming a sort of identity thing.

    Also, there is a large number of other sites that have formed a larger coalition, and almost all of those sport PUMA logos in one form or another.  I've also seen it applied as a term for anyone who rejects voting for Obama whether that person has ever even heard of the group or not.  But that is not how pumas themselves would define it, I don't think.


    Some have changed the original (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:37:35 PM EST
    because they won't show it on tv with the axx part and to try to make it less in-your-face.

    Both are valid (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by janarchy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:40:30 PM EST
    People United Means Action is the official name under which the PAC was registered. However, most PUMAs are well aware that Party United My A$$ is the accepted meaning of the acronym since that is the intent of the PAC. To fight for real party unity, rather than this faux "You're either with us, or you're against us" unity that people like Pelosi have been trying to shove down our throats.

    As I understand it (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Nadai on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:42:57 PM EST
    the 'Party Unity My A$$' phrase was used in a comment on The Confluence.  From there, it went viral in a big way.  The PUMA Pac was started later and cleaned up the acronym to mean 'People United Means Action'.  Most of the people I see using PUMA, though, clearly go with the first meaning.

    They altered it when they turned it into (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:44:55 PM EST
    a PAC, iirc. It's the same group.

    Thanks, All (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by daring grace on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:12:07 PM EST
    I appreciate the clarifications.

    I was reasoning that the Party United etc. was an immediate topical response to primary/RBC meeting events and that the People United was the ongoing offshoot to continue the fight in months and years to come.


    As a PUMA (5.00 / 5) (#147)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:31:33 PM EST
    I will say that it's about the process failing. It's about the DNC failing to address the obvious sexism and favoritism.  PUMA's just want a fair shake, and we feel that when the RBC gave Obama delegates he did NOT win was the final straw.

    The superdelegates were put into place to ensure that the strongest candidate would be in place so we wouldn't have another McGovern, Carter in 1980, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry.  Two winners in 40 years.  But I digress.

    PUMAs just want the Democratic Party to be democratic.  Hillary should be afforded the same consideration of any other candidate at convention time.  The pesky fact that she garnered more popular votes should at the very least, be the barometer the DNC should go by.


    Fabian....Kos and the kossacks have (4.00 / 4) (#12)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:51:07 AM EST
    had their world turned upside down by this turn of events.  It is easier just to throw stuff out willy nilly than to learn what PUMAs are all about.  PUMAs are about democracy being skewed to fit obama's bill.  And, those following obama who truly can be obejctive and honest, know something ain't right in River City.

    Funny thing is (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:59:27 AM EST
    they'll defend Obama against anything, but no one seems to acknowledge the DNC did anything to support Obama.  They barely admit the DNC exists.  It is still all about Obama.

    One great irony is that (5.00 / 7) (#214)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:08:14 PM EST
    they very online-community/social networking environment that so helped Obama is part of what has fueled PUMA.  The sense of identity and community has been fueled by opportunities of online communication and organizing.  I doubt the group could ever have existed without it.

    I think some part of the sense of being turned upside down (aside from a bunch of women sticking up for themselves -- gasp!) was that the netrootz thought that online advocacy and organizing was their turf alone.  One of the newer slogans (for PUMA) is 'We are the ones no one expected' -- I think that captures some of the disequilibrium caused in a lot of sectors.  It is the astonishment of kings whose serfs have declared that they'll be owning their own little bit of land, thank you very much.  Further, having driven many puma folks off their netrootz sites, they hold no sway whatsoever over them, which is maddening.  


    The Olympics Tennis final is set.. (none / 0) (#16)
    by rjarnold on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:53:15 AM EST
    It's going to be Nadal vs. Gonzales. Nadal will probably win.

    I think Nadal got lucky against Djokovic (my pick to win the gold), who had some really bad errors at the end of the match. Nadal should beat Gonzales in the final.  

    I'm disappointed that we won't see (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:55:38 AM EST
    a Wimbledon replay (men and women).

    me too. But it's not beach volleyball so we (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:08:06 PM EST
    probably wouldn't have seen it. I'm so tired of watching volleyball at a decent hour and then staying up past one to watch the more popular events.

    Did you see the Blake match? (none / 0) (#28)
    by indy in sc on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:59:46 AM EST
    I only caught the end and the commentators were wondering aloud whether Blake would shake Gonzales hand.  They indicated some kind of bad call happened that Gonzales should have owned up to.  What happened?

    There was a bad call (none / 0) (#36)
    by BrianJ on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:07:00 PM EST
    A Blake return went long and nicked Gonzalez' racket, but the umpire didn't see it and gave the point to Gonzalez.  Gonzalez had been trailing 8-9 in the third set, but won that game and the next two to win the match.  Blake believed that Gonzalez should have recognized the bad call and given a point back to Blake.

    Blake contends (none / 0) (#39)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:10:41 PM EST
    that a ball which was called out just barely nicked Gonzalez's racket and Gonzales swears up and down he didn't feel anything, so why should he give up a point just because Blake thinks something happened which maybe didn't?

    I play tennis and had something similar happen where my opponent said the same thing and I didn't feel anything.  In fact, my racket was lower than the ball bounced, but my opponent made a stink and I just gave him the damn point.

    I won anyway, but he insists he got cheated and did his best to broadcast how I couldn't be trusted, blah, blah, blah.  I think Blake is pulling a similar stunt.


    The replays showed that the (none / 0) (#60)
    by rjarnold on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:20:23 PM EST
    ball really did hit Gonzalez's racket. But I could see how he might not have felt it.

    I didn't see it live, (none / 0) (#41)
    by rjarnold on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:12:01 PM EST
    but I heard about it. Blake hit a ball that nicked against Gonzales's racket and then went out of bounds. The refs didn't notice, Blake argued with them and Gonzales didn't admit that it hit his racket. And that was in the third set when Blake was winning 9-8.

    Former UK Drug Warrior.... (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 12:38:18 PM EST
    spills the beans about what he learned while enforcing prohibition.  Link

    I think what was truly depressing about my time in UKADCU was that the overwhelming majority of professionals I met, including those from the police, the health service, government and voluntary sectors held the same view: the illegality of drugs causes far more problems for society and the individual than it solves. Yet publicly, all those intelligent, knowledgeable people were forced to repeat the nonsensical mantra that the Government would be 'tough on drugs', even though they all knew that the Government's policy was actually causing harm.

    Will we continue to lie to ourselves forever?

    TChris had a post on this the other day. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:30:07 PM EST
    Anybody know the bent of Tampa Bay news? (none / 0) (#108)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    Saw this little gem, and while I always wonder of the slant of the paper, it makes me pause because is this a small chink in the armor of the Great One? We all know McCain and the Republicans do this, but this is someone actually challenging Obama?

    PolitiFact: Obama campaign cherry-picks sources

    I'm curious to see who it is (none / 0) (#144)
    by SoCalLiberal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:30:19 PM EST
    But I won't sign up for the texting.  It's going to be non stop texts to give money, vote for Obama, and inevitably to give Obama's PAC (whichever one he discovers after the election) money.  No thank you.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#212)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 02:07:57 PM EST
    I won't give any campaign my cell phone number.

    No VP annoucement today (none / 0) (#218)
    by WayneInSF on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:28:59 PM EST
    Probably Monday or Tuesday.

    Probably Biden.