Saturday Open Thread

Your turn.

< The Fairy Tale Revisited | McCain Embraces Giuliani's 'Tough on Crime' Stance >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • DCBlogger (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 11:48:46 AM EST
    asks at Corrente why Max Baucus is such an impediment to healthcare reform if he isn't on the HELP committee. The answer is simple: Baucus is Chiarman of the Finance Committee. It's jurisdiction a la wikipedia:

    The U.S. Senate Committee on Finance (or, less formally, Senate Finance Committee) is a standing committee of the United States Senate. It concerns itself with matters relating to the bonded debt of the United States; customs, collection districts, and ports of entry and delivery; deposit of public moneys; general revenue sharing; health programs under the Social Security Act (notably Medicare and Medicaid) and health programs financed by a specific tax or trust fund; national social security; reciprocal trade agreements; revenue measures generally and those relating to the insular possessions; tariff and import quotas, and related matters thereto; and the transportation of dutiable goods.

    In short, virtually everything that has a revenue impact has to go through Finance. Baucus is at least as powerful as the chairman of Appropriations.

    I would have posted this comment there (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 11:49:19 AM EST
    but after months of trying to contact anyone there, I still can't get my account approved.

    I'm in the same boat (none / 0) (#5)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 11:52:48 AM EST
    (well, weeks not months).

    Try and catch (none / 0) (#8)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 11:58:33 AM EST
    Lambert on this blog and ask him to approve you.

    thanks for the hint! (none / 0) (#12)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:04:30 PM EST
    I've done that, and it doesn't seem to (none / 0) (#56)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:55:52 PM EST
    work, either.

    Noticed a comment on another blog that said the same day they were approved on Lambert's Corrente, they were banned for making a pro-Clinton comment.

    I finally stopped reading there since it was impossible to comment.


    skeptical (none / 0) (#63)
    by dws3665 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    I find it hard to believe anyone was banned at Corrente for pro-Clinton posts unless they were utterly vile about something (a la some of the No Quarter folks).

    Not sure why, but I didn't have much trouble getting registered at Corrente, though it may have required a quick email to lambert at some point.


    Haven't been reading there (none / 0) (#68)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:11:26 PM EST
    for awhile, so don't know. I was just repeating what a commenter said on another blog about his/her personal experience.

    i understand (none / 0) (#77)
    by dws3665 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:18:59 PM EST
    but lambert and several other posters there are clearly very positively inclined toward HRC and skeptical about Obama. Other FP'ers are more vocal in their support of Obama, though.

    Perhaps they don't approve. (none / 0) (#23)
    by wurman on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:15:35 PM EST
    Could be that Corrente folk read your comments on TalkLeft & would prefer not to see them, or similar remarks, on that blog.

    DC Blogger, here (link) has a contrary statement to your Baucus & Finance Committee hold-up as a comment to his own entry, which also contains a bracketed [] reference to the Baucus chairmanship in the body of the post, etc.


    I am obviously not entitled to post there (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:20:50 PM EST
    so I have given up asking.

    The bracketed comment you point out is on a quote that DCBlogger says s/he doesn't understand. As to the comment:

    I will have to reread HR 676 again, but if the funding mechanism is in the bill, I am not sure it would have to go through finance. And even if it does, it may be that Baucus would be content to vote against it rather than stop it.

    I can guarantee DCBlogger that HR 676 has to go through Finance.


    it's been my experience (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by dws3665 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:07:13 PM EST
    that this won't be the first thing DCBlogger doesn't understand, such as that a "White Sale" in a housewares store doesn't have racial overtones.

    Does DCBlogger understand (none / 0) (#71)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:15:48 PM EST
    Baby Sale?

    Years ago, my roommate and I worked in retail advertising and he was on the copy end. He got a weekend assignment to come up with new ideas for White Sale and Baby Sale. I was very happy I worked on the art end of things, lol!~


    Nothing to do with Baucus. (none / 0) (#79)
    by wurman on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:20:41 PM EST
    Ezra Klein's statement to the netroots poobahs was a red herring.  HR 676 died in the 108th & 109th congresses.
    This comes from GovTrack (link)
    This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books.

    Your comment is absolutely correct: the bill is/was designed to be funded through Medicare, so Baucus & the Finance Committee would have been involved, but it never got there.

    It has been "re-introduced" to the 110th congress.  Here's a list of where HR 676 had to "clear" in order to get out on the floor of the HOUSE (not the senate!).

    This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process where the bill is considered in committee and may undergo significant changes in markup sessions. The bill has been referred to the following committees:
    House Energy and Commerce
    House Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Health
    House Ways and Means
    House Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Health
    House Natural Resources

    Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow, "Proverbs for Paranoids: if you've got them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers."

    Klein is one up.  Pointing out to netrootzers that their questions don't get to the issue(s) is not an effective way to gain entrance to their clubhouses.


    All of this discussion (none / 0) (#99)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:59:15 PM EST
    is predicated on the assumption that the bill would pass the House. Of course, in reality that is not a good assumption at all.

    Republican revolt (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by cmugirl on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 11:49:51 AM EST
    I posted this on earlier open thread, but I think it was too late.

    I found this kind of interesting.

    Congressional Republicans were protesting Pelosi's refusal to schedule a vote allowing offshore drilling yesterday, by staying on the floor and speaking after Pelosi adjourned the House for a 5 week recess. The light were shut off, the mikes killed, but they stayed there and talked.  It wouldn't have been a big deal, because C-Span's cameras were shut off, and very few people were there, but tourists were then allowed to come in and reporters were still there trying to cover the speeches, while trying not to get kicked out.

    "Right at the stroke of five Georgia Rep. Tom Price announced that House Republicans were ending their impromptu protest on the floor of the chamber, ending a five-plus hour rebellion with a round of "God Bless America."
    The assembled tourists, aides and members in the chamber gave Price and his compatriots a standing ovation. They left the chamber to shouts of "USA! USA! USA!"


    It doesn't matter if you agree with offshore drilling or not, if this little story makes into the MSM, the highlight and spin of the message would be that the Dems voted to break for 5 weeks instead of discussing gas prices.

    I read something today that said (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:02:35 PM EST
    Obama is now FOR offshore drilling?  



    It's another case of (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by tlkextra on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:16:50 PM EST
    Saying anything to win. On some things, I don't mind him changing his mind, but when it becomes blantantly clear that it's all about winning, I question how effective it is.  The recent polls said something like 70% of public want drilling. So, he seems to wait until it's safe with the majority and politically correct and then he changes his position. At this point, it seems the Undecided Voters would have no idea of who he is, other than he too, is constantly undecided.

    I agree with your point about the flipping (none / 0) (#74)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:17:28 PM EST
    but I have real concerns about the poll. Who did it and how were the questions worded and placed?

    It reads like a quickie TV remake... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by EL seattle on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:03:58 PM EST
    ... of the showdown between president Clinton and the Gingrich showdown of '95.

    If the repulblicans are able to simulate these sorts of battles, casting themselves as the little guys who're in the right and keep a'comin', I'm not sure what sort of legacy the democrats will have by the end of this election.


    But here's the rest of that story - (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:19:45 PM EST
    that was all a political stunt:

    House conservatives engaged in political theater today, storming the floor after Congress was adjourned "to attack Democrats for leaving town without doing something to lower gas prices." Politico reports, "At one point, the lights went off in the House and the microphones were turned off in the chamber, meaning Republicans were talking in the dark."

    "Bring the Congress back. Let's have a real up or down vote," House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) proclaimed. In fact, there was a real up or down vote on gas prices just two days before. And Boehner is well aware of it because he was responsible for ensuring it didn't pass. Dan Weiss explains on the Wonk Room what occurred this week:

    During yesterday's vote on the Commodity Markets and Transparency Act (H.R. 6604) to rein in oil profiteers, House Republican leaders pressured 13 of their members to switch their vote from "yes" to "no." Thanks to these strong arm tactics and weak members, the bill to lower gasoline prices by controlling profiteers failed by a vote of 276-151, falling ten votes shy of the two-thirds majority required for passage under the suspension of the House rules. Once again, the GOP leadership used their power to help keep oil prices and profits high, while hurting the average driver.

    Boehner strong-armed his own conservative members to ensure a bill didn't pass because he wanted to engage in today's political theatrics. After killing a bill that would have addressed gas prices, House conservatives have decided they want to blow hot air in the dark.

    [Bold is mine]

    Yeah, the GOP really, really cares about the consumer...

    Meanwhile, Barack Obama, in another show of compromising when he doesn't have to, "nuances" his stance on offshore oil drilling.

    Is it any wonder that on issue after issue, so many of us have no confidence that whatever stand he has "always" been for or against will actually survive as actual policy in an Obama administration?

    As I said last night in the Dem Party platform thread, this will be the "Hokey-Pokey, Okey-Dokey Democratic Platform;" it's in, it's out, it's in...okey-dokey?



    What does offshore drilling (none / 0) (#6)
    by Makarov on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 11:53:20 AM EST
    have to do with gas prices? I'll answer that for you - nothing for the next 8-10 years.

    What does your comment have to do (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:03:39 PM EST
    with the one before it?

    cmugirl was pointing out that it would look bad for the House to adjourn for vacation instead of addressing a major issue of concern for most Americans.

    Whether offshore drilling would affect prices tomorrow or not for 10 years is irrelevant.  It's the idea that the House is running off to frolick on vacation while doing nothing to address a key concern that's problematic.


    Yes It Would Look Terrible (1.00 / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:12:45 PM EST
    Especially if you leave out the information Makarov has provided. Not to mention that the House Republicans are in bed with big oil.

    And again, neither of which is relevant to (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:30:05 PM EST
    cmugirl's point.

    People are getting desperate with gas prices so high.  Republicans have put forth a proposal.  Democrats have put forth nothing.  Their response to the (R)s proposal is to run off on vacation.

    Now, keep in mind many, many people are either cutting out or limiting their own vacations this year because of the expense of gas.

    So, how do you think Pelosi's move will look to them?  Like the Dems are deeply caring and compassionate about the 'common' person's concerns?  

    It doesn't matter that offshore drilling won't yield results for 10 years.

    This is exactly the mistake Dems make over and over, and which the Republicans never make.  Dems lecture about how supremely right they are on policy minutiae while ignoring the fact that people are hurting.  Republicans do stuff.  Anyone not in the high income brackets and who has had to fill their gas tank in the last 8 months want to see something done.

    Republicans are able to tap into the attraction Americans have for fighting spirit while Dems lecture and moralize (it's your own fault for not inflating your tires properly!).   Sheesh.


    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by cmugirl on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:01:03 PM EST
    I never said I thought the Republicans were serious - just that they pulled this in front of cheering tourists and the press.  Was it a stunt?  You bet. But, all I know is - stunts work.  That's why politicians use them.

    New moniker - WCRM (what cmugirl really meant).


    So Even Though (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:34:05 PM EST
    The fact that maintaining your car by keeping your tires properly inflated, doing tune ups, and filter changes regularly, mandating increased fuel efficiency (or just driving more fuel efficient cars),   will save more oil than all offshore drilling combined, you believe it is better to pander to an uninformed public by opening up offshore drilling?

    I will check back with you when you are bashing Obama for equivocating on offshore drilling.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Steve M on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:21:52 PM EST
    When you suggest a public policy option whereby the government can optimize car maintenance as readily as it can open up offshore drilling, that will probably become a viable alternative.

    Al Gore made this point very well in his movie.  Of course we should all do what we can to try and conserve, but individual commitments to conservation are not the answer.  There has to be a political solution.

    Opening up offshore drilling is a stupid idea, but at least it's something the government can actually DO.  The government cannot wave a magic wand and mandate properly inflated tires.


    True (none / 0) (#181)
    by cmugirl on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 05:06:36 PM EST
    We should all maintain our cars and use them as little as possible.  Yet, I don't see you advocating we get rid of all plastics.

    Again, you miss the point of the story, but I'm not surprised.  The point was that it looks bad to take a 5 week vacation when the economy (and yes, that includes the price of gas and oil) is out of control, and most other people in the country are not getting the same vacation.  In fact, many are working 2 or 3 jobs (if they can) to make ends meet, and Congress couldn't be bothered to work until noon on Friday.


    What would you have the Democrats do? (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:01:02 PM EST
    do? (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by dws3665 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:08:32 PM EST
    Make a serious commitment to alt/renewable energy and implement windfall profits taxes on Big Oil.

    Windfall profits taxes on oil (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:18:48 PM EST
    are a bad idea.  Taxes pass through, so we'd just be paying for them, not the oil companies.  

    WPT is a loser (none / 0) (#87)
    by CK MacLeod on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:43:09 PM EST
    (Beware:  McCAIN SUPPORTER)

    Even people who aren't aware of the sad history of the Carter Era Windfall Profits Tax can smell a scam.  They know you can't encourage production - the only short- to mid-term answer to dependency on foreign oil - by reducing incentives.  The public supports increasing domestic supply, and, even if there wasn't plenty to say against the notion that the supply and the benefits must all be deferred ten years, they'd still support it.  Attacking "speculators" is another phony approach to a real problem from a bygone era.  

    The Republicans favor the kitchen sink approach.  Going back to the DR NO ad and consistently since, they've successfully branded the Democrats as favoring "one armed tied behind the back."  That's not where the voters are in August 2008 with gas hovering ca. $4.00/gallon.  Given the state of polling (and in my opinion the real state of the problem, btw), barring a collapse in the oil market, I think the only question is how quickly the Dems will cave in, and whether they'll do so in time to convince voters that they can lead rather than having to be dragged kicking and screaming about "saving the planet" and oil "making us sick."

    Many of us have expected Obama to try to find the spot 1 millimeter to McCain's left on energy, but being in favor of 44 1/2 nuclear power plants and drilling everywhere except off the coast of Marin County won't be a winning position.  If y'all don't get a filibuster-proof Senate, big gains in the House, and control of the White House, this issue in combination with the hubristic overreach of the Obama candidacy will be the reason.

    If McCain starts turning up green in a multiple polls (still a big if), I really wonder what desperate measures Obama will try.  There seems little prospect for reviving the charisma campaign.  Iraq seems unlikely to do it.  He can't run on race - that's a loser for him.  What exactly does he stand for other than soak the rich at this point?  He can wait for McCain to slip badly - but McCain's been at this for a lot longer than he has.  Who's more likely to make a real slip (or even a minor verbal slip)?

    I'm really curious about what you thoughtful, un-blinkered lefties think a) Obama can do to try to re-gain the initiative, and b) what at this point he has to offer voters?  Think he might shoot his wad on a VP choice just to change the discussion?  


    the public supports increasing domestic supply (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by dws3665 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:48:58 PM EST
    because the public doesn't understand that increasing domestic supply only sounds good but ultimately does nothing to solve the problem.

    As for making slips, perhaps McCain should take a group of Shunni's on a fact-finding trip to Czechoslovakia to investigate.

    Surely you're kidding, right? McCain is a malaprop machine!

    As for the questions at the bottom of your post, i will leave it to another poster who is more enthusiastic about Obama to respond.


    Czechoslovakia (3.00 / 0) (#104)
    by CK MacLeod on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:03:18 PM EST
    Isn't that one of the 57 states?  Where 10,000 people died in a tornado last year?  Where Hillary -  I mean, Britney was born?  Maybe we should ask Sam Nunn, who was also visiting Czechoslovakia recently.  

    Two can play at that trivial stupid game.  As for increasing domestic supply, I disagree strongly with your assessment, but I'll leave arguing about that to a different day.  For political purposes, the fact that the public favors the kitchen sink and is likely to do so until and unless THEY declare the crisis over, is enough.  


    Let me know (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by dws3665 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:23:24 PM EST
    when Barack makes these statements repeatedly, as if he doesn't understand how many states there are, like McCain clearly doesn't with respect to Sunnis, Shias, and the map of Europe.

    And as for two playing the "trivial stupid" game, you brought it up, so clearly you thought it was a strength for your most awesome candidate.

    Ask Sam Nunn all you want. I'll be sure to let you know when he is the candidate running for office as the standard bearer for his party.

    Feel free to disagree with me about domestic supply. I will have the pleasure of enjoying the company of pretty much every analyst who has written about the oil supply problem, but you go right on living in a world where John McCain is someone we should want to be President.


    Sure you don't mean... (none / 0) (#150)
    by CK MacLeod on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:40:56 PM EST
    ..."the company of pretty much every analyst who has written about the oil supply problem" whose words have penetrated your echo chamber?  

    If in your world your candidate rarely if ever makes verbal slips; rarely if ever needs to revisit and re-explain controversial comments, rarely if ever contradicts himself; rarely if ever needs to apologize after offending constituents or potential constituents; rarely if ever gets basic facts absurdly wrong; and is a smooth, engaging, interesting, and informative off-the-cuff extemporaneous speaker then I wouldn't be suprised if near perfect unanimity on oil supply and every other significant issue is also to be found there. I would, however, be surprised if you or any other denizen was capable of assessing the state of the presidential race (or anything else) with interesting objectivity.  


    getting lectures (none / 0) (#160)
    by dws3665 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:49:37 PM EST
    from a McCain supporter about objectivity and echo chambers? The comedy never ends. Make sure you call into Hannity and tell him that one.

    In case you missed the nuance, I'm not saying Obama is any of those things. As if there is a politician who NEVER misspoke. Nice straw man, dude. Obama is, however, far more intelligent and right-thinking than McCain. Or is it a badge of honor for you that your guy would have flunked out of college if it weren't for his dad?

    The evidence of McCain's midget intellect is everywhere - McCain just can't stop saying the same, dumb, wrong things over and over, and listening to you attempt your false equivalencies is freaking hilarious.


    A specific plan (none / 0) (#94)
    by waldenpond on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:51:44 PM EST
    He's being portrayed as the 'no' guy on energy.  If he wants to backtrack on oil (I think we need off oil not just foreign oil) he needs to challenge the Repubs, that it is not going to have any effect on world oil prices, that it's a gimmick and that, sure he'll play that game if and only if, it's with legislation that guarantees the development of alternative energies and a very specific, large scale plan of how that's going to be done.  His state has corn, if he says corn ethanol won't work, people might take him more seriously.

    No, I don't think he'll bring out VP yet.  This campaign is still about him, too distracting.


    See, here's the political problem... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by CK MacLeod on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:43:06 PM EST
    ...there are most definitely at least two sides to this discussion just on price - and the public is already inclined to believe that exploitation of indigenous US oil and other carbon economy resources is a good thing compared to letting foreigners do it.  They'll be left with the impression that it at least could help significantly, and in the meantime the worst thing that would happen is that some Americans might make some money instead of some non-Americans.  They'll be inclined to accept whatever local environmental risk, and, as for global warming, they understand intuitively that, if you're also claiming that the impact on supply is marginal, the global environmental impact can't be more than marginal either.  They'll also be inclined to believe in technological fixes to environmental dangers (they have a lot more faith in technology than they do in politicians...).  

    In short, if undecided, people are likely to end up believing what they want to believe (how do you think Obama ever got nominated?), especially if it seems unlikely to cost them anything.  

    I also don't think you want to bring up corn ethanol, as few who examine the issue in any detail end up on side of the corn-centered subsidies + import restrictions favored by Obama and opposed by McCain.  


    hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by dws3665 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:48:25 PM EST
    the worst thing that would happen is that some Americans might make some money instead of some non-Americans.

    ROFL. Yeah, that's the worst thing that could possibly happen. No wonder you support McSame.


    This is one of our problems going. (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:43:48 PM EST
    I am taking this one from AmericaFreePress but if you google Chinese Oil drilling, there are several sources.
    While Washington dithers over exploiting oil and gas reserves off the coast of Florida, China has seized the opportunity to gobble up these deposits, which run throughout Latin America, the Caribbean and along the U.S. Gulf coast.

    The Chinese have forged a deal with Cuban leader Fidel Castro to explore and tap into massive oil reserves almost within sight of Key West, Florida.

    So with this in mind, the anyone can drill and it might as well be us doesn't sound so bad. Look at the pollution in China. Do you think they care about any damage they can do to our shores and not be responsible?

    ...ROFL all you like... (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by CK MacLeod on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:50:03 PM EST
    ...you may not believe it, but, once upon a time, I could have gone on for pages explaining in detail and even getting angry about the downside of the oil economy.  I seriously doubt that you could bring up some "worst" I don't already know about - indeed that I hadn't myself argued while supporting your side in debate or discussion.  Rather, however, than pursuing such a discussion, under the unlikely pretense that we could change each other's beliefs here and now, why don't you explain how, between now and November, you and your allies are going to change the poll numbers or neutralize the issue?  It looks for the moment like your standard-bearer, for one, has begun to cash in his chips on it.  

    At least close the tax loopholes and subsidies (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:49:22 PM EST
    for oil companies.

     I guess in typical Rep fashion they would call taking away a loophole "raising taxes", but I don't care.  If we can't even defend that stance, we are in serious trouble.


    Brings up the gas tax holiday again. And of (none / 0) (#72)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:15:56 PM EST
    course the Democrats trashed that one.  The symbolism was there.

    The timing here is just incredible (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by BrianJ on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:38:49 PM EST
    If Obama had made his no doubt "principled" decision to support offshore drilling even a few hours earlier, the House could have debated the proposal.  Instead, he helped hand John McCain a cudgel with which to beat the Democrats- and himself- for at least six weeks, on at least the #2 issue in the US of A.

    No wonder the Republicans were singing.  They have taken the measure of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate that the Democratio Party laughingly refers to as "leadership," and they are not impressed in the slightest.


    Yes (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:10:32 PM EST
    The public will be outraged that Nancy Pelosi is not willing to give Exxon et al, a bigger share of oil to profit on. Of course the outraged public will be willing to forget that Exxon profits were once again record breaking, $11.68 billion that's $1,485.55 a second.

    Was there no control in the energy bill? (none / 0) (#157)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:47:22 PM EST
    Isn't that where they could have gotten some gains on the oil companies? Please advise.

    Even Fox was mocking (none / 0) (#33)
    by waldenpond on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:23:58 PM EST
    the Repubs.  They were laughing and said it was like the last day of school and tp'ing things.  One guy was smirking and said Bush is NOT calling them back to work on this and they moved on to another topic. There is a lot of focus on jobs right now pushing it out of the media too.  So I don't know how much traction it will get.  

    Finally saw McCain's "the One" ad on (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:04:36 PM EST
    TV yesterday.  Two Democrats here, and we just burst out laughing!  Too funny!  

    I'm sure it's probably been discussed here but I can't find the thread.  

    Anyway, if anything, I think it shows that McCain still has a sense of humor.  

    I'm more sarcastic than most, and I loved it (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:08:23 PM EST
    I also suffer ODS, so I can't tell how it will play with evangelicals, or undecideds.

    But also, with this phenom of comedians not being able to joke about Obama, humor could be a welcome relief of tension.


    This ad is giving me hearing problems now... (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:41:34 PM EST
    On TV, they just said "We're waiting for Barack Obama who will bless the crowd in just a few minutes."

    Well, actually they said "We're waiting for Barack Obama who will address the crowd in just a few minutes."



    McCain's campaign does have a sense of humor (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:12:21 PM EST
    His campaign has been very, very poorly run from most angles, but the humor is a positive.  Also, McCain is often convincingly self-deprecating, which people tend to like.

    Although I thought 'Celeb' was even better, but maybe that's just because it was mocking the media lovefest and that offends me more than the O camp's arrogance undertones.


    I'd agree that McCain's campaign (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:21:19 PM EST
    hasn't been very good...  But his advertising has been great.  I don't get to see a lot of the ads here in California (nobody seems to be spending money here) but the ones I see are very good.

    The Celebs ad was good for McCain because it provoked a lot of commentary.  

    I don't believe the Obama campaign has had a quick response to the "The One" commercial.  Guess that one caught them off guard?  ;-)


    They managed to take his (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:27:16 PM EST
    photo ops off the table. Pretty slick. If he uses images of his Euro Tour, McCain won't even need to run the ads again.

    I think they think it is one of their own ads (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:39:58 PM EST
    It's another one liberal talk radio (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:13:47 PM EST
    thinks is a compliment to Obama.  Clueless.

    To expand (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:35:58 PM EST
    it is like they think the Republicans in 2004 were admiring Kerry's windsurfing skills.

    It will be hard to refute attacks when they won't even admit Obama is being attacked.


    Yes, I got a kick out of it too.. (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by daria g on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:27:46 PM EST
    It was SO funny.  The audio alone had me actually laughing out loud.  I also thought to myself, how ironic - the GOP has probably made so many dead-serious ads with portentious quasi religious  voiceovers and shining rays of light in the past 8+ years. And here they go again... to parody the leading Democrat.

    Still thought Hillary mocking Obama (you know, "the sky will open up, the light will come down, heavenly choirs will sing..") was the funniest moment of the entire primary.

    Obama's campaign seems to have a big weakness of being unable to truly laugh at themselves, or to brush off criticism. Don't know about you guys but around some of my friends, "arugula" might as well be a four-letter word these days.  It's absurd.


    Perhaps that ad will go down in history (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:51:33 PM EST
    as one of the greatest political ads "evah."  

    I didn't realize so many others got a kick out of it too.  


    Oh yes (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:10:20 PM EST
    I watched it a few times yesterday. When I first saw it, I thought it was a snippet from the piece Fox did to go with the London Times article. I laughed even harder when I realized it was from McCain's camp.  His ad team must be having a blast with what Obama has given them to work with and the fact they actually get to run with it.

    Now you went and made me (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:47:50 PM EST
    look it up.  And I cracked up at the Charlton Heston clip!

    Re the comments below, c'mon -- even the more manic of the Obama backers can't see that and think this makes them look good?  If so, they really are blinded by the light.


    They sure can (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:56:19 PM EST
    I think it must be part of the kool-aid affects.

    I don't know if you listen to Cenk Uygar on 'The Young Turks', but he loves these McCain ads.  Thinks Obama looks great, the humor is lame and people don't get it, so they help Obama.  

    All I heard for 4 years is how the liberal radio and blogosphere was not going to stand by and let the next Dem candidate get attacked.  Here is an attack right under their nose and they can't see it. Hopeless cases.


    On FOX TV, the McCain supporters (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:25:30 PM EST
    are really pushing this "The One" meme now.

    A supporter was just asked about McCain's chances of winning (or something like that) and he said it would be awfully hard to beat Obama because Obama is a celebrity now, etc. etc. etc.

    This is incredibly funny!  What a wild campaign this is going to be now that I see what they have planned!  There is no way McCain can beat Obama because Obama is like Britney Spears now!  <snicker>  ;-)


    The Ads Really Don't Make Either Look Good (2.00 / 0) (#110)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:11:24 PM EST
    And so, to me, it's a net loss for McCain.

    The people he's (you should excuse the expression) preaching to with this ad are people who are already his own supporters or already Obama detractors.

    Otherwise, the ad reads as kind of silly and beside the point.

    There are smart content (policy contrasting) ads out there waiting to be made where he could really wound Obama. Clinton made such ads in the primaries and I think some gained traction.

    But this kind of thing doesn't worry me, particularly.


    It should (none / 0) (#218)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 07:55:30 PM EST
    This is just the warmup.  As far as I can tell, it's mostly internet stuff.  The Repubs are just aiming these ads at the people -- web users, politics geeks -- who get the humor.

    They are not wasting even a second worrying about whether the literal minded among Obamas supporters who really do believe he's The One think it helps him.  

    The 3 ads so far that have come into my sphere of noticeability (which generally doesn't include McCain), Love, Celeb and The One, have all gotten pretty good playage numbers on YouTube.

    It is remarkable to me that a group that collectively has so little sympathy, compassion or empathy for people generally is still much, much sharper at exploiting preexisting emotions of the general population while the Dems continue to fall down on it.


    McCain (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    has the humour down for sure.  I loved his ad using ABBA "Take A Chance On Me".  Being an ABBA fan myself (and McCain is too from I have read), it was a PERFECT hook to disaffected Clinton supporters:

    "If you change your mind, I'm the first in line, honey I'm still free, take a chance on me."

    Now if McCain pranced around like Frida or Agnetha in those platforms and gold lame shorts he would FO SHO get my vote!  


    After Bobby Kennedy (There Was Barack Obama) (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Edger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:06:09 PM EST
    One more warning on Obama and the Dems. Don't say we didn't tell you.
    by John Pilger

    Should Obama beat John McCain to the White House in November, it will be liberalism's last fling. In the United States and Britain, liberalism as a war-making, divisive ideology is once again being used to destroy liberalism as a reality.
    On the war in Iraq, Obama the dove and McCain the hawk are almost united. McCain now says he wants US troops to leave in five years (instead of "100 years", his earlier option). Obama has now "reserved the right" to change his pledge to get troops out next year. "I will listen to our commanders on the ground," he now says, echoing Bush. His adviser on Iraq, Colin Kahl, says the US should maintain up to 80,000 troops in Iraq until 2010. Like McCain, Obama has voted repeatedly in the Senate to support Bush's demands for funding of the occupation of Iraq; and he has called for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan. His senior advisers embrace McCain's proposal for an aggressive "league of democracies", led by the United States, to circumvent the United Nations.
    The objects of these uncontrollable passions are as one in their support for America's true deity, its corporate oligarchs. Despite claiming that his campaign wealth comes from small individual donors, Obama is backed by the biggest Wall Street firms: Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, J P Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse, as well as the huge hedge fund Citadel Investment Group. "Seven of the Obama campaign's top 14 donors," wrote the investigator Pam Martens, "consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages." A report by United for a Fair Economy, a non-profit group, estimates the total loss to poor Americans of colour who took out sub-prime loans as being between $164bn and $213bn: the greatest loss of wealth ever recorded for people of colour in the United States. "Washington lobbyists haven't funded my campaign," said Obama in January, "they won't run my White House and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president." According to files held by the Centre for Responsive Politics, the top five contributors to the Obama campaign are registered corporate lobbyists.

    What is Obama's attraction to big business? Precisely the same as Robert Kennedy's. By offering a "new", young and apparently progressive face of the Democratic Party - with the bonus of being a member of the black elite - he can blunt and divert real opposition. That was Colin Powell's role as Bush's secretary of state. An Obama victory will bring intense pressure on the US anti-war and social justice movements to accept a Democratic administration for all its faults. If that happens, domestic resistance to rapacious America will fall silent.

    Wait (none / 0) (#24)
    by Steve M on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:16:38 PM EST
    Who are Obama's senior advisors that support the neocon "League of Democracies"?

    League of Nations didn't work out so well (none / 0) (#29)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:20:57 PM EST
    but maybe the history knowledge of the average voter is bad enough that it won't matter.

    Are you saying Bobby Kennedy (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:42:17 PM EST
    was beholden to Wall Street?

    Did you read the article? (none / 0) (#134)
    by Edger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:57:45 PM EST
    It doesn't appear so.

    No. I read your comment and the (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 05:24:50 PM EST
    excerpts you included.  Also, my question wasn't addressed to the author of the article.

    P.S.  Good to see you here.


    Thanks. Good to "see" you too. (none / 0) (#196)
    by Edger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 06:22:40 PM EST
    As he explains in the article, Pilger traveled with RFK right up to the day of his assassination, and he describes conversations with Kennedy that lead to that conclusion.

    O.k. Now I'll have to read it! (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 06:24:18 PM EST
    That's why I put the link there... ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Edger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 06:25:51 PM EST
    Actually, I thought it was only (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 06:35:36 PM EST
    mandatory to read links in BTD posts.  Mea culpa.  

    It's a good article - so is this one...:-) (none / 0) (#203)
    by Edger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 06:40:46 PM EST
    Barack Obama's Deceptive Left Impression
    by Paul Street @ ZMag, July, 15 2008
    From the beginning of his political career (in the Illinois legislature in 1996) through his historic presidential campaign, Obama has been a dedicated centrist.  He has shown himself (for those willing and able to see) to be deeply respectful to - and invested in - dominant hierarchies and doctrines of class, race, nationality, religion, gender, and global power. A close and careful analysis of his record shows that he is man from whom the lords of capital and the masters of empire have nothing to fear.

    Many progressive Obamanists have been woefully derelict when it comes to investigating the historical record that shows this to be true. Some of them have gone to remarkable lengths to advance the silly idea  that the real Obama beneath that record is a stealth "true progressive" - a Manchurian leftist doing "what he has to in order to win the presidency." Many of them have a painfully  pale and partial sense of what they mean when they call themselves "progressives." And many have fallen prey to the illusion that Obama must be a left-leaning progressive because of the color of his skin.  

    Still, I do not entirely blame many progressive Obamanists for becoming excessively invested in "their" corporate candidate. Obama likes to complain that voters see him as a blank sheet on to which they project their own particular world view and aspirations. But he knows very well that he and his corporate image and marketing consultants have done their best to sell Obama as a man for all moral and ideological seasons (as well they "should" given the ideology-blurring logic of the American "winner-take-all" "two party" and candidate-centered elections system).  And Obama knows very well that his campaign has responded to widespread progressive sentiments and anger (fed by eight incredibly reactionary and plutocratic years under George W. Bush) by working to create the false impression among certain targeted audiences that he is a progressive, populist, and peace-oriented opponent of Empire and Inequality, Inc.

    Street's full article is also available (none / 0) (#208)
    by Edger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 06:59:23 PM EST
    here, for those who are not paid members of ZNet.

    New Yorker on Tavis Smiley this week, Obama (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:13:03 PM EST
    Smiley hsas always been skeptical. Here's a pull quote:
    ...Obama talked about his Kenyan father, who "got a scholarship to study in a magical place, America, that shone as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before." To Smiley, this sounded dangerously naive. "I love America," he said, "but this ain't Disneyland. There's nothing 'magical' about America." In quieter moments, Smiley often strikes a note of concern about whether, after the campaign, Obama's "soul will be intact." One night, driving through Los Angeles with a friend, the actor Wren T. Brown, SMiley said, in a soft voice, "We are going to have to keep that brother at the top of our prayer list..."

    And Rick Hertzberg again fawns over Obama (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:18:06 PM EST
    "it was the three-point shot heard round the world," Hertzberg writes of Obama's slam-dunk in Kuwait, that Andrea Mitchell said no press saw, could have been his first or tenth attempt.

    I watch Tavis Smiley's show ... (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:53:59 PM EST
    and it's true, he's always been skeptical about Obama.  It predates Obama's decision not to attend his "State of the Black Union" event.  Though I'm sure that didn't help.

    FWIW (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by NJDem on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:43:04 PM EST
    New Florida poll: McCain 45, Obama 40

    In a new poll released by the Florida Chamber of Commerce, 45 percent of Florida voters said they would vote for Sen. John McCain if the presidential election were held today. Forty percent said they would vote for Sen. Barack Obama. Fifteen percent were undecided.

    Happy now BTD :)

    I just took a poll (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:55:20 PM EST
    here at my house and all registered voters, i.e., me, will be voting for the Green party candidate this year.

    Happy now Pelosi, Dean and Brazile?  One less pesky downmarket gay Latino to worry about.


    I'm starting to get a little scared... (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:19:30 PM EST
    FL (none / 0) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:41:15 PM EST
    was always off the table for Obama.

    One thing you should learn to be able to do (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:46:58 PM EST
    is separate message and messenger.

    A person's ideological bent is important to consider , but the arguments a person makes can and should be evaluated independently.

    If McCain says eg, 'budget deficits are bad', his statement is correct regardless of his motivation for making it.  (I'm stealing Cream's example from a slightly different topic).

    Otherwise, it's just condemnation by association, which is intellectually shabby at best.

    Listening to the (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:52:37 PM EST
    Bay City Rollers, "You Made Me Believe In Magic".  OMG I am completely floored with all the backfiring bullsh1t going on with Obama and the racism.

    EVEN on NPR...NPR!!!!!!!!   When Obama FIRST made the comment about him being black raised eyebrows there.  The commenter said something to the effect that Obama needed to be very careful about lobbing the race card.

    When NPR is even lecturing about Obama using the race card you KNOW he's in trouble.

    And on another note:  him accepting the nomination at that football stadium will play RIGHT INTO the narrative that the GOP is successfully using right now about him being a lightweight sellebrity.

    Totally plays into it (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:27:18 PM EST
    him accepting the nomination at that football stadium will play RIGHT INTO the narrative that the GOP is successfully using right now about him being a lightweight sellebrity.

    That's the whole point of the ads.  He's "The One," the biggest celebrity in the world!  The football stadium completely makes the point.  

    McCain is taking an interesting tack when you think about it.  He's selling himself by overselling Obama.  No wonder the Obama campaign is confused by this.  


    Overexposure (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by BrianJ on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:44:37 PM EST
    Kills celebrities dead.

    If Obama actually had an issue-based message, then he could hold the spotlight and remain interesting for the next three months.  But he doesn't.

    His entire message- literally-  is that he can succeed where King Canute supposedly failed.  "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow..." from McCain's The One ad.

    I'm waiting for the Most Awesome And Healing Concession Speech EVAH! in 94 days.


    And McCain is going to help (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:41:16 PM EST
    Obama become overexposed.  Brilliant strategy.  Without going negative but by being super-positive towards Obama, he can turn Obama into an even shallower candidate than he already is.    

    Overexposure? (none / 0) (#130)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:49:43 PM EST
    Never!  Let me start a rumor that Michelle Obama is pregnant and we'll see if there is such a thing as overexposure.

    (Standard tabloid fare:  Babies, breakups, affairs, adoptions, health crises.)


    I had to delete my own (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by waldenpond on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:00:47 PM EST
    comment on the other thread as it was over limit, but here's my idea for an ad going after the media again... someone thought that forcing McCain to use positive pictures of Obama was an achievemnt, I think it can be used against Obama.

    It provides the McCain camp great fodder to mock the media.   I'm waiting for a McCain montage of Obama with all of the halos around his head and the lights around him.  Those photos and magazine covers were over the top.  Mock the over-exposure.  Start with one clip at a time, slowly and then speed up this they are flashing by.  The photos could be shrinking to the back ground and make a collage of Obama forming a star.  "He's a star but is he a leader?"

    or......Show a multitude of picture of Obama with the media.  'he's their (media) star but America needs a leader'  Mock the media presentation of Obama.  

    I think the McCain gets some hits in by focusing on the media.


    Bingo! (none / 0) (#204)
    by kempis on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 06:42:11 PM EST
    He [McCain]'s selling himself by overselling Obama.

    In a nutshell. Well-done.


    Do you think Rove is behind these McCain (none / 0) (#206)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 06:45:04 PM EST
    ads?   I find it especially amusing McCain's Mom, who hasn't seen The One and is clueless on current pop culture, is critical of the ad, thus giving her son cred. with much younger generations of potential voters.  

    I think *someone* knows what they're doing (none / 0) (#210)
    by kempis on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 07:15:50 PM EST
    I may be wrong, but it looks like the idea that Obama is all image and no substance may be sticking, much like the Kerry "flip-flopper" label was plastered on him during late summer in 04. The GOP are a bunch of evil geniuses when it comes to identifying their opposition.



    I think it does (none / 0) (#223)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 08:18:24 PM EST
    have Rove's watermark on it....the really, really effective attacking of strengths.  

    Obama, on the other hand, attacked Hillary's strengths among AA's in a way that made him vulnerable in the GE.  His strategy was too clever by half.


    McCain's ad guy (none / 0) (#228)
    by RalphB on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 08:36:11 PM EST
    was Mark McKinnon, the TX Democrat who was Bush's ad man in 2000.  I don't know if he's still with the campaign but he was originally.

    New FL Poll (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:53:47 PM EST
    McCain 45 - Obama 40   (15 undecided)

    From St. Petersburg Times newspaper:

    In a new poll released by the Florida Chamber of Commerce, 45 percent of Florida voters said they would vote for Sen. John McCain if the presidential election were held today. Forty percent said they would vote for Sen. Barack Obama. Fifteen percent were undecided. ...

    So, what do guys think of Obama's flip-flop on off-shore drilling? Funny it happened in FL; isn't it?

    Drilling? Florida? Obama? (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    Well, Obama don't care about no drilling happening there.

    Florida:  The land of the 1/2 vote in the 2008 Dem primary.


    they will (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by dws3665 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:03:49 PM EST
    only drill for half as much oil off the coast of Florida as they do off of other states' coastlines.

    It took me a minute to get (none / 0) (#81)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:26:02 PM EST
    this. I almost posted a serious reply, lol!~

    LOL !!! (none / 0) (#173)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:28:42 PM EST
    Not just the Clintons (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by sj on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:09:10 PM EST
    Lexis/Nexis  is how Obama's previous cite of Paris Hilton is easily accessible to anyone looking for it (for example).  It's devastating for anyone looking for opposition research.  And one of the reasons why so many people are afraid to say much of any substance.

    Ever heard of "the internets"? (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:24:03 PM EST

    Hullo!? What happened to my comment ... (none / 0) (#182)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 05:14:40 PM EST
    ... on Gail Collins' trigger for the "fairy tale" exchange???

    Squeaky, I'd love to write positive things ... (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:39:51 PM EST
    about Obama.  But every day he seems to do something new that's embarrassing or right-wing.  Sometimes both at the same time.

    The flippity-floppity on offshore drilling being the most recent head-slapping example.

    If you want the Democratic Party to move as far to the right as Obama is dragging it ... fine.  

    But please respect people who choose to complain about it.

    And there are plenty of places online where unquestioning Obama adulation is the order of the day.  You can always visit them if this place gets you down.

    And Never A Criticism From You About Hillary? (3.00 / 1) (#125)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:42:52 PM EST
    That makes your case really weak, laughable, imo.

    What has she done lately (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:47:12 PM EST
    that we should be criticizing?

    Spoke out about Energy?
    Spoke out about infra-structure investment?
    Spoke out about Bush's attempt to classify certain birth control as abortion and limit access?
    Holding fundraisers for Obama?
    Campaigning for Obama?
    Voted no on FISA?


    Sounds Perfect (1.00 / 0) (#144)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:21:58 PM EST
    Never saw a perfect pol though.

    No she's not perfect (none / 0) (#176)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:43:58 PM EST
    but she sure isn't giving me much to complain about these days! I honestly have no prob with her staying in the Senate and fighting the good fight with her new capitol. She's always been a worker, but now she has some extra umph to go with it.

    I've always suspected that given the chance, she would be less of a centrist. She may just have that chance now, one way or another.


    as you are so fond of pointing out (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by dws3665 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:07:43 PM EST
    Hillary is not the issue any longer. Obama is the nominee.

    And again your assumptions are downright hilarious -- that no one who now criticizes Obama ever criticized Hillary. When you don't know the truth, or the truth might upset your imaginary life, make stuff up!

    Are you sure you're not really a Republican? (/snark)


    The only thing that's laughable is that ... (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:26:01 PM EST
    like all fervent Obama supporters, when you're backed into a corner all you can do is shout, "Clinton!"

    Instead, why don't you point to something that Obama's done recently that's worthy of praise?


    Sorry I Never Have Been (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:41:36 PM EST
    A fervent Obama supporter. And although you claimed early on to  feel the same way about Hillary as you do Obama, your comments have told a completely different story. Relentless bashing of Obama and only praise of Hillary.

    Yeah, I thought she would be better in the GE as well, but now that is irrelevant, ancient history.


    Again, point to something praiseworthy that ... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:43:44 PM EST
    Obama has done recently.

    Google Is Your Friend (none / 0) (#167)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:10:37 PM EST
    Sorry I am not playing pinata today.

    Instant Replay: (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:29:39 PM EST
    S:  Please say something nice about Obama.

    R:  Can't find anything.

    S:  Blah, blah, blah ... Clinton.

    R:  What nice things should I say about Obama?

    S:  Blah, blah, blah ... Clinton.

    R:  What nice things should I say about Obama?

    S:  Beats me.


    Well, as Sen. Obama points out, (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 05:52:12 PM EST
    he was on the front page of the NYT twice this week (due to McCain ads, but still, . . .)

    BS (1.00 / 1) (#187)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 05:31:00 PM EST
    Been there done that, you are playing games too. If you are smart enough to type your name you can do all the research you need to to find one positive thing about Obama.

    But you knew that.


    The same on issues? (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:43:15 PM EST
    Doesn't that depend on where he finally lands on an issue? I have a problem with his lack of fight and willingness to cave. And he was pretty busy putting everything on the table for some issues that it's kinda hard to say what he would really do.

    Quite frankly, he's frustrating as all heck. His lack of experience was my concern when this all started. I could have gotten past that if he brought other solid 'stuff' with him. Right now, he's a major disconnect.

    Thankfully, I live in a blue state and I'm moving to a blue state!

    Neither one. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Edger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:57:01 PM EST
    What in that quote would lead you to make that assumption?

    For more than a year I've been trying to make clear that I think nothing is going to change in terms of US foreign policy until enough people use the leverage they already have, and withhold support of and votes for democrats until they do what people want them to do.

    They are politicians. They will do what people want them to do to earn the votes they need to remain in or gain power. But as long as they have the confidence that they will have the votes they need in spite of the fact that they continue to enable bush and the imperialist foreign policies of the past 60 odd years, then they will continue to treat people as suckers.

    OK, I Agree With All That (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:12:31 PM EST
    But, I for one, am not willing to vote for McSame just so that the liberal troops have something to fight for. BTD, Jeralyn, you, me and many here have been arguing, over the years, that the democratic party is selling us out, and we have been hardly drooling admirers resorting to benign passivity. I do not see how we are all of a sudden going to roll over, as Pilger argues, with Obama as Prez. Obama is running as a Centrist, Blair ran as labor. I do not think Obama will veer anymore to the right as president unlike Blair.

    I disagree with Pilger that the end is near and if Obama wins liberalism, progressivism will also die with it.

    What are you suggesting that we do, at this point in time? Boycott Obama as the democratic nominee? I do not see how that serves us. And who to replace him? Feingold. Yes I would love that, but he will never be elected.


    some common ground (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by dws3665 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:23:52 PM EST
    My suggestion is that we make noise when Obama veers to the right and let him know that it's not okay.

    There has to be some kind of credible threat that his supporters won't support him -- at least not unconditionally -- for it to influence his behavior.

    I understand that campaign season is a dicey time to be complaining too loudly about a candidate, but really there is no better opportunity. If, as some here have argued, Obama wins on a campaing that consists of little more than "not McCain/Hopey-Changey," than there will be very little to demand from him (except that he not be an ill-tempered social conservative who doesn't understand the economy).


    It's probably too late to do it now (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Edger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:24:20 PM EST
    But if we had been able to start a movement a year or more ago to get enough people to make it clear to democratic candidates, all democratic candidates, that they would lose the congressional majority and not win the presidency this year unless and until the democratic congressional leadership had defunded and ended the Iraq occupation, repealed the MCA, shelved telecom immunity, impeached Bush and Cheney, and laid war crimes charges where needed, those things would all have been completed or nearly completed by now and Obama could be cakewalking his way in the biggest landslide in history this November... instead of running right now with a what, a one point spread between him and McCain? Christ, Mcain should have been buried before he started.

    The whole situation right now is utterly stupid, imo.

    Once people vote their leverage evaporates.

    Maybe enough people will smarten up in time for 2012, but I doubt it.


    Sadly (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:47:55 PM EST
    I think that the country is further to the right than you imagine. Both Obama and Hillary are more to the right than I am comfortable with, yet they were both super popular.

    If Finegold had run his numbers would have been as low as  Kucinich's.

    I will be happy to see the GOP out of the WH. The fight continues after that, regardless of what Pilger says.


    "Hold their feet to the fire" (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by Edger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:09:10 PM EST
    After electing them. That should work. About as well as it worked after the 2006 midterms...

    Hold their feet to the fire with what leverage?


    Uhhh (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:17:30 PM EST
    The only leverage that works, Fire them.

    But in all seriousness, if my position were the majority, I am sure Obama and Hillary would have pandered to me, much more than they have already done. The way I see it is that Obama, Hillary and McSame are representative of where America is today, to varying degrees.  THey all have adjusted their positions based on their polling of where most Americans are.


    Fire them? (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Edger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:28:02 PM EST
    That's exactly what I've been suggesting for more than a year that they need to be threatened with.

    To force them to do the things I outlined above to earn the votes, which they would have done had they been scared enough, and then sweep them in to office with a landslide.

    For too many years the bush republicans ruled with fear of terrorism and f*cked up the whole country, and now Democrats enable bush all the way and try to rule with fear of republicans.

    It's time for voters to start ruling the democrats with fear and force them to do the things that need to be done.

    Enough of buying fear from anyone.


    Not hiring them in the first place is (5.00 / 2) (#222)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 08:15:13 PM EST
    far more effective.

    Pols are very difficult to fire once elected, for reasons that have nothing to do with actual job performance.

    Anyone who has ever been in a position to hire or fire other people at work knows it's much easier to not hire a risky candidate in the first place than fire them once they're on the job.


    He's a good salesman. (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Edger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:32:44 PM EST

    lol (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:42:43 PM EST
    Obama gives good speech. (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:09:17 PM EST
    And he was smart enough to marry Michelle.  Naw, strike that.  I hate to talk about people's private lives.

    Obama gives good speech.  He's ambitious.  He's great at gaming the system.


    Fabian.....but obama is weak as can be (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:20:50 PM EST
    and stuff like this keeps adding fuel to the fire...



    I was supposed to be saying (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:25:57 PM EST
    nice stuff.  So I did.

    I've got dozens of gripes with Obama, including him confusing "gaming the system" with "campaign strategy".  


    It's been awhile since I was here (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Edger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 05:57:11 PM EST
    Things change.

    Where did the comment go that I replied to? And why are so many comments deleted?


    There is also an issue (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by sj on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 07:45:10 PM EST
    with the site when posts have over 200 comments.  Deleting comments that don't conform to site standards means the rest of the comments can be read.  It's weird, though, sometimes.  Those dangling responses.

    Why? (none / 0) (#224)
    by Edger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 08:21:52 PM EST
    What happens at 200 comments? Is the thread unreadable if it goes over that or something?

    Read the first comment in this thread. (none / 0) (#200)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 06:30:09 PM EST

    Also, there is a commenter now who was appointed comment moderator by Jeralyn.  


    Thanks, Oculus... (none / 0) (#213)
    by Edger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 07:25:40 PM EST
    What is he selling? (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by Edger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:48:52 PM EST
    Smoke, mirrors, and "not called republican".

    This is why I try to avoid ... (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:49:44 PM EST
    tit for tat.  Because it always devolves into personal insults.

    For the record, I don't hate Obama.

    I will most likely vote for him.

    I disagree with him on policies and strategy.  I think what angers many Obama supporters is that those of us who were critical of him from the beginning were right.

    Or maybe it's just that when you're in love everything critical looks like hate.

    Sometimes I hate being right. (5.00 / 3) (#209)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 07:05:19 PM EST
    I'd rather be wrong about Obama.  I'd rather he be a vibrant Leader with solid progressive positions and policies.  I'd rather he be a careful and deliberate campaigner.  I'd rather he'd have studied the way the right and the media framed previous Dem noms(Gore, Kerry) so he could avoid the same fate.  I'd rather the race issue be about every minority person in the nation but Barack Obama.

    I'd rather be wrong than right if it meant having a candidate I could support and support with enthusiasm.


    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by Edger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 07:23:28 PM EST
    Thanks... I think ;-)

    The problem with your indiscriminate (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 08:10:42 PM EST
    accusations of Obama bashing is, as I said above, the inability of separating the message from the messenger.

    Obama's either a good candidate or a bad candidate, regardless of what I, Robot Porter, or any other commenter on TL says.  It really doesn't matter what someone's motivations are, their praise or criticism is either valid or invalid.

    But rather than respond to what people are stating, your standard response to any criticism of Obama is 'basher!' 'hater!' and other variations.

    Not to mention, it conflates two very different states of mind.  I don't criticize Obama because I'm a Hillary supporter; rather I support Hillary because I find too many things about Obama worthy of criticism.

    Are you blue in the face yet? (none / 0) (#225)
    by pie on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 08:26:50 PM EST
    I remember pleading with people in the primary to explain why they supported Obama instead of saying vile stuff about Hillary.  I wasn't the only one - many of us were stunned at the garbage being tossed around.

    Never happened.  They kept at it.

    What goes around, comes around.

    Too bad for Obama.


    your desperation is odd (4.75 / 4) (#136)
    by dws3665 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:04:42 PM EST
    My criticism of Obama is not that he is presumptuous, no matter what your preconceived notions may be, but you are clearly not interested in understanding my views. You simply want to complain that other people have opinions that differ from yours and hector everyone who does not share your enthusiasm for Obama. And put words ("nothing positive about Obama") in their mouths. Go for it.

    And if you (or others) honestly care about the ratings system here, that's also your right. But forgive me if I don't share that particular pain.

    Sorry Dude (3.00 / 2) (#141)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:19:33 PM EST
    I have never noticed you at TL, so I have no idea what you stand for. I for one am voting for Obama, second choice to Hillary, but I see little difference, save for style.

    I have no problem criticizing any dem, and have done my share of it without ever falling in love, unlike the Hillary and Obama cultists that have been locked in mortal combat for the last six to eight months.


    "Sorry Dude" seems rather (none / 0) (#193)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 05:56:23 PM EST

    Oh Well (none / 0) (#205)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 06:42:50 PM EST
    I am not a model citizen.

    I don't feel demeaned (none / 0) (#214)
    by dws3665 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 07:27:19 PM EST
    I am a dude, at least, and it's just an expression.

    I did, however, wail tears of sorrow that squeaky had not noticed me before. (/snark)


    At Least I Got One Thing Right (none / 0) (#215)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 07:33:38 PM EST
    Sorry for the snark..

    BS (1.00 / 1) (#105)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:03:43 PM EST

    What's more likely is you just don't like it for the Dem candidate to be criticized.

    Nonsense. I have made myself clear, and have criticized all dems. I voted for Hillary and criticized her as well as Obama. Never been a groupie though.

    Neocon foreign policy in McCain admin (none / 0) (#4)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 11:50:43 AM EST
    is why I would still vote for Obama despite truly loathing some of his campaign tactics.

    In response to someone in the last thread.

    Ras on Day of the Week Bias in polling (none / 0) (#7)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 11:55:59 AM EST
    A few days back BTD criticized some netpundit for trying to explain away Obama's drop in daily tracking by claiming that the polls varied by the day of the week.

    Ras has an analysis disputing the day of the week bias.

    I missed the computer discussion on (none / 0) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:10:00 PM EST
    the other open thread, so I'll try and start it here.

    I just configured and ordered a touchscreen tablet notebook computer from Costco.com -- an HP TX2500Z.  For a ridiculously low price, I got lots of memory, 320 Gig hard disk, plus icky Vista.  Of course, I had to get Vista, because its tablet functionality is supposedly better.

    I'm a student, a 45 year old working on a second undergrad degree in Biology (first degree was PolSci).  I take a class every quarter.  With about 4 classes to go, I finally decided I needed a note-taking PC -- one where you can draw pictures with a stylus and not just type.  The nice side benefit is I can install my GPS software on it and use the computer as a big-screened touchscreen GPS.

    And of course, Costco's liberal 3-month return policy makes it a risk-free buy.

    So it will be fun.  Anybody have a tablet PC and like it?  Hate it?


    How complex do your pics and notes have to be? (none / 0) (#142)
    by Ellie on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:20:28 PM EST
    I don't have a tablet but I do work with graphics a lot.

    I beam notes from my ancient PDA/stylus and/or a separate hard tablet when drawing on copies of the graphics.

    Otherwise I find that "attaching" sound with a headset and mic (relative to drawn-on quadrants I've numbered or lettered) is efficient too. (Bonus: I get the VOX transcriptions this way too.)


    Theoretically (none / 0) (#226)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 08:27:13 PM EST
    anything that you can write by hand can be "drawn" directly onto the monitor of the computer.   The monitor itself is a tablet, and apparently uses Wacom technology.  I'll have Microsoft One Note, which opens to a piece of notebook paper.  Flip the "convertible" screen to put it in "tablet mode", pick up the stylus and write directly on the computer.

    I hope in practice that it works as well as in theory. Link


    Whatever happened to Kathy (none / 0) (#18)
    by magisterludi on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:11:41 PM EST
    and KUSA? Anyone?

    Last I recall, she said she was going (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:21:27 PM EST
    out of the country; I sort of expected her back - here, anyway - long before now.

    Kathy? (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:40:23 PM EST
    [That used to work.]

    Sigh. Yes, I keep looking for (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:50:24 PM EST
    "You rang?" in reply.  And for Kathy's pithy take on this all . . . and, of course, the KUSA reports on just which anatomically incorrect if not impossible position the cats are taking to express displeasure with the current state of politics.

    well Danger Kitty has been feeling (none / 0) (#188)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 05:32:27 PM EST
    a bit under the weather. I found her curled up with a dry nose when I got home .

    If that's any indication of anything...


    I hope kitty is fine (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 08:28:06 PM EST
    Sorry about the loss of your other pet (I remember from reading on another post where you wrote me back.)

    I had a feeling she wouldn't be coming back (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:18:16 PM EST
    Around that time, lots of Clinton supporters, mainly women, felt they should leave here.

    Has everyone seen MoveOn's latest ad (none / 0) (#32)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:21:30 PM EST
    Heard about it (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by waldenpond on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:31:07 PM EST
    but hadn't bothered seeing it as it's going to need to be pulled now that Obama has 'ahem' refined his position.  Or, if Moveon is actually an issues based org, they will add Obama.  Ha!

    They really need to update their (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:44:56 PM EST
    site. They're using it as a donation "Gimmick", lol!~ I love a good Saturday Giggle  :)

    This is part of the reason Obama is (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:51:27 PM EST
    anti-527, as well as why the campaign volunteer training emphasizes personal conversion rather than issue education.  It curtails his ability to flip flop.

    Now there's a record from his own side detailing his backtrack.  If MoveOn had just stuck to exalting him, they'd not be in this embarrassing position.  oops.


    Perhaps Moveon should (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:16:47 PM EST
    just put together their own "The One" commercial?  

    sierra club's put one together (none / 0) (#183)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 05:17:50 PM EST
    on the drilling thing. Looks like they didn't get the memo about the newish position.

    Not "refined" (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:58:40 PM EST
    shamelessly flip flop (again!) on off-shore drilling! As well as on the $1,000 relief for gas&food prices ...

    What were all those `strong' criticisms Obama had about HRC  ideas of using a windfall profit tax on oil companies to pay for a gas tax holiday ??

    Is there anything at all that Obama really, I mean really, believes in?

    Obama: the master of the I was against it before I was for it technique....


    Just wanted to thank you, BTD (none / 0) (#38)
    by stxabuela on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:32:59 PM EST
    I've really enjoyed the fairy tale and race card posts and commentary.  

    In AP article summarizing (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:41:11 PM EST
    this Congress's accomplishments v. Bush, Harry Reid says we'll fight if we must but we'd rather dance.  

    You Are More Nuanced (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:43:02 PM EST
    And reasonable than most here, imo. Sorry about the blanket statement, it doesn't apply to you.

    Apparently.... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Oje on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:01:44 PM EST
    Obama finds it difficult to knock back two campaign caricatures at the same time:

    "I was in Union, Mo., which is 98 percent white, a rural conservative, and what I said was what I think everyone knows, which is that I don't look like I came out of central casting when it comes to presidential candidates," he told The St. Petersburg Times. "There was nobody there who thought at all that I was trying to inject race in this."

    Umm, so he concedes he is a celebrity?

    I guess he was injecting (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:11:06 PM EST
    unfair Hollywood casting practices into the campaign then. Really, why do only white guys get to play presidents in the movies? (Except on 24)

    Seriously, does he really not see the difference between just commenting that way and saying that McCain is telling people not to vote for him because of his race? I just don't believe it.


    And that he's playing a role (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:13:16 PM EST
    He didn't come out of central casting, so a talent scout must have discovered him?  One talent scout named John Kerry, perhaps?

    Funny name, looks different? What a feckin' eedjit (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by Ellie on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:06:02 PM EST
    WTF? Has Obama just been pulled out of some kind of hyperbaric chamber? I'm kind of embarrassed all around -- at the debate and at the state of this Dem offering and the media rictus We're Not Racist smiles -- that after not only one but two black Secretaries of State and countless black pols (m & f) in the last few decades, Barack Obama can get away with claiming he "looks different".

    Sweet thirsty Jeebus in search of a muthaf*ckin ice tea! How does letting Obama get away with this crap improve a dire situation, and why is anyone letting this pass?

    And as for his funny sounding name, good grief tell it to Dikembe Motumbo.

    There are several million people with "funny sounding" names from all different traditions and backgrounds that -- :: shockers :: -- have managed to engage in democracy and, and, EVERYTHING.

    And people wonder why I've tuned out a "brilliant" campaign that's continually lowered the debate even from what the Repugs established this young century.


    I grew up with (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:05:11 PM EST
    Eastern European names.  Watching the substitute teachers take attendance was always cheap entertainment.  There were usually two or three names that the teacher would pause at and either look plaintively at the class for assistance or forge bravely ahead with their best pronounciation.

    And, apparently, (none / 0) (#106)
    by Oje on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:05:50 PM EST
    this academic skipped the primaries:

    "I am somewhat mystified that he isn't attacking much harder on the policy front," said Ronald Walters, a political scientist at the University of Maryland. "He needs to rev up his attacks, and his proposals."

    Poetry, no prose, baby! Same article.


    Aww! (none / 0) (#111)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:13:15 PM EST
    Skinny kind of underfed looking cat.

    The info states they think it's (none / 0) (#120)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:34:56 PM EST
    a juvenile and that was what popped into my head when I saw the pic. That awkward stage, lol!~

    Awww, Gangly Adolescent Kitty n/t (none / 0) (#121)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:39:51 PM EST
    It's cute..... (none / 0) (#113)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:13:54 PM EST
    ...but then I tend to think that all cats are cute.

    It's too bad I missed this scummy pathetic comment (none / 0) (#114)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:15:30 PM EST
    From the otherwise excellent piece on race earler today:

    new] On the fairy tale? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 09:07:25 AM EST

    I disagree with Wilentz that Bill Clinton's mention of Jesse Jackson was not racial. He was attempting to diminish Obama's win in South Carolina and used Jackson as the comparison. It was very wrong of Clinton to do that.

    I must remind myself that it's OK on this blog to provide conjecture on what everyone else is trying to do and that that includes commenting on the bloggers on this site themselves.

    Yes.  That's what BTD THINKS Bill was trying to do.

    And BTD was WRONG.

    Just like he was wrong when he thought Hillary was trying to say something menacing when talking about RFK.

    What a pathetic comment.

    It deserves to be removed from a forum that tries to rise above conjecture, slander and divisive rhetoric.

    That comment is clearly beneath BTD and he should stop.

    creeps? gross? (none / 0) (#162)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:00:38 PM EST
    If you are talking about politicians, I agree.

    Yes, Them (none / 0) (#164)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:08:23 PM EST
    And all the drooling sycophants that surround them.

    Where there is power and fame (none / 0) (#170)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:21:06 PM EST
    there will be groupies.

    No surprise there.  People find their ego gratification in the strangest places - entertainers, sports teams, politicians.  


    Obama Camp: no debates (none / 0) (#177)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:46:30 PM EST
    except for usual 3...

    From AP (25 min. ago)    
    Obama backs away from McCain's debate challenge

    It seems to me (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by BrianJ on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:50:10 PM EST
    That if he believes his reputation as a strong debater (which seemed thoroughly unearned from the primary debates) is in peril, it's better to lose relatively early with plenty of chances to correct the damage than to melt down in prime time in mid-October without a chance for recovery.

    It's going to be an interesting September/ October for Obama... the same way that the Titanic had an interesting evening on its maiden voyage.


    Funny, towards the end of the primaries, (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 05:52:15 PM EST
    he said he wouldn't debate Clinton anymore because he was moving on to debating McCain(part of their Clinton marginalizing strategy). He also said that he would debate McCain on Iraq, Iran and the Middle East "anytime, anywhere" (or similar). Oh, well.

    I was just reading a similar article (none / 0) (#180)
    by sj on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 05:01:30 PM EST

    Your article left out this little section

    "Advisers to the Illinois senator, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss strategy, say Obama is reluctant to take chances or give McCain a high-profile stage now that Obama's the front-runner."

    Wisely, I think.  Looking at how close the race is, while "frontrunner" is literally true, it's a very fragile claim.  And while I don't discount the statement that they are not authorizied to discuss strategy, I doubt that the statement itself was unauthorized.


    That anonymous quote is (none / 0) (#192)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 05:55:01 PM EST
    particularly ironic in light of today's SUSA poll.

    Did I Miss The Memo? (none / 0) (#184)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 05:20:39 PM EST
    Is using the commonly understood term PUMA no longer allowed, and a deletable offence?

    Many here are seem to be PUMA, profess to be PUMA,  or as is was resolved, PUMA lite, because of the site rules that do not allow calling Obama names.

    apparent;ly so (none / 0) (#189)
    by dws3665 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 05:34:31 PM EST
    pretty much all of the upthread comments referencing the term are gone, although parts of the exchanges without the term remain.

    Perhaps in an effort not to have TL show up when people google "the cousin of the cougar."


    Offence. (none / 0) (#195)
    by pie on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 06:11:47 PM EST
    Is using the commonly understood term PUMA no longer allowed, and a deletable offence?

    I don't know where you live, but I've been surprised at the number of Canadians that have involved themselves in this election across the blogosphere, especially the peaceniks.



    Yup (none / 0) (#207)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 06:53:22 PM EST
    my one comment went bye bye.  No great loss.

    Confusing - the current rules are not revealed... (none / 0) (#216)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 07:39:50 PM EST
    ... under current published Comment Policy. By the published rules, PUMA-related discussions exchanges would seem to be

    ... not to mention the capriciously draconian rules BTD enforces in his threads. If this is a BTD post (which I can't tell by looking at the comment I'm replying to), I should be banned for life ... but you wouldn't know his rules without accidentally discovering them one at a time, deep in BTD comment threads.

    If this is not a BTD thread, I'm not sure whether or not I've committed a capital offense under an eliminationist regime ... and I've only been absent a few days.


    Off With YOur Head (none / 0) (#219)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 07:58:45 PM EST
    I think BTD is more clear then waldenpond, but that is just me.

    BTD is more clear than (none / 0) (#220)
    by pie on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 08:09:23 PM EST
    waldenpond on one issue - that he doesn't tolerate personal insults.

    Criticizing Obama, otoh, has become a personal insult to some posters here.



    I guess we are living on borrowed (none / 0) (#201)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 06:33:19 PM EST
    bandwith re snarky one-liner edict!

    Is that a snarky one-liner?? ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Edger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 07:21:34 PM EST