Convention Open Thread

There seems to be an unstated desire for a Convention Open Thread. Please keep your comments germane to the post you are commenting in.

Kathleen Sebelius is speaking now. Very . . . erm . . . calm. Obama dodged a bullet there. Can't even deliver a line worth a damn.

< Bloggers vs. Big Media at the DNC | Not Covering The Convention >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Oh, Sen. Boxer. What about Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:16:53 PM EST
    recent waffle on off-shore drilling?

    aaah... (none / 0) (#114)
    by weltec2 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:27:46 PM EST
    Nancy's been fixing him waffles again. It's going to be an interesting four years. Somehow I suspect BO is going to get fat on her waffles.

    I didn't think it was possible that I would look (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Iphie on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:23:37 PM EST
    forward to anything at this convention, but I am genuinely excited for Hillary's speech. I have a feeling it's going to be a highlight -- and not just because I supported her, and not just because the media is going to do whatever they can to make it fit their narrative. I'm excited because I think it's going to be good and because over the course of the campaign she got really good at the speechifying thing.

    And I also saw a picture of Hillary and Chelsea walking together today and I have to say that that is a tableau I'm particularly fond of seeing.

    I was just sitting here thinking that I may never (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Teresa on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:26:32 PM EST
    see a national speech from her again. I need to move to New York, I guess. It makes me sad, but I expect a good speech. When Michelle mentioned Hillary last night, you could hear vibrations over the TV.

    See this is where my (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Iphie on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:32:52 PM EST
    congenital "glass half full" perspective comes into play -- I am imagining this speech to be a beginning of sorts. I think I have an idea in my head that there is some kind of a parallel between her speech tonight and Obama's four years ago.

    I'm going to be (none / 0) (#117)
    by weltec2 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:31:53 PM EST
    very surprised if they have allowed her to write her own speech. Bill had a hard enough time insisting on writing his own speech. I'm almost afraid to listen to hers.

    Don't worry - she and Bill are probaby the (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:42:57 PM EST
    best there are at winging a speech that sounds like something they worked on for weeks.

    If she has something to say, she will say it.


    I have a hundred 5s (none / 0) (#176)
    by weltec2 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:07:50 PM EST
    in my heart for you if you're right. I really do want to believe it.

    You never know (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:33:23 PM EST
    She could very well be the trouncing President McCain in 2012.  The moronic DNC may be greasing her wheels while thinking they are doing the opposite.  

    no, (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:33:32 PM EST
    she's not going anywhere.  You'll see her give a National Speech again, but I'd still tune in to see this one, though.

    I'll miss it, sadly, as I have a slew of West Coast video conference calls scheduled (hoping for a cancellation, though) and will have to catch it later.  But my assistant will be monitoring TL for me and quietly slip me brief updates on what's happening.

    (one last night hilariously read "pelosi" and then a huge angry face with big eyes and red, red lips)



    Just heard (none / 0) (#177)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:07:57 PM EST
    from a HRC delegate:  There'll be a real roll call Thursday.  Will post more details if I get any....

    They've already collected the delegate votes (none / 0) (#184)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:11:06 PM EST
    they made sure Obama would have enough to win.

    Unless Clinton delegates were made to switch, the decision to seat FL & MI at 100% made Obama even further from the necessary total.

    After this convention, the Super Delegates would never make all four days a tribute to the loser.

    Make no mistake, this is not a real roll call.


    My understanding is (none / 0) (#196)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:21:54 PM EST
    HRC supporters are not being made to switch uniformly...probably it's a case-by-case or state-by-state thing.  But I know of several who have told Party leaders they won't vote for Obama under any circumstances.

    Probably they'll just keep jumping from state to state until they get whatever number they're looking for.  But the Hillary 300 group got pledges from nearly 30% of the delegates in one state with which I'm familiar.


    Interesting twist to the narrative (5.00 / 7) (#67)
    by Lahdee on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:11:12 PM EST
    the women on the CNN set got downright defensive about the heat Hillary is taking about getting on board. It came out from one of the female anchors like, not an exact quote, "Ted Kennedy barely shook Carter's hand and Gary Hart didn't make it easy either. Why is it the men get to do that and the women have to just lay down?" There was an awkward silence. I hope somebody gets that up on utube later.
    There are signs, on CNN at least, that they may be ready to listen to Senator Clinton. Now will they drop their precious narrative of drama and dissent (Bernstein seems wedded to this) or will they let the events lead?
    I'm not holding my breath, but this is a historic evening.

    excellent... (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by kredwyn on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:15:32 PM EST
    Bernstein is (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:19:37 PM EST
    an overrated blowhard and a johnny-one-note in his CDS.  "Clintonian psychodrama" this and that is the range and depth of his analysis.

    As for the woman anchor -- Campbell Brown iirc, normally seen playing GOP-friendly -- who suggested some sexism in the way Hillary has been treated by the media, I'd say thanks for finally waking up to notice.

    But I'll gladly accept the accurate commentary, even if I think it was mostly suggested by a media blogger (Eric Boehlert?) much earlier today.


    Have they been reading Boehlert and Somerby? (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by jawbone on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:23:00 PM EST
    Or just finding the courage to use their brains, which I imagine are pretty sharp to have been hired initially. Too bad they've had to dumb down to keep their jobs and move up the ladder.

    At least I hope they're bestirring themselves--they'll probably get a warning talking to, memo, or...demotion.


    Chris Matthews does it again (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by litigatormom on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:33:09 PM EST
    A little while ago Tweety was interviewing Lisa Caputo, Clinton's press secretary when she was First Lady.  Caputo was talking about how strongly Hillary would speak in favor of Obama, and Tweety interrupted her and asked, "So what is the Clinton's sinister plan for restoration to the White House." Seriously. Well, okay, he didn't use the word sinister, explicitly.  But his tone of voice said it all.

    Caputo laughed and said, "I can't believe you are asking me this question." Tweety said, "Are you telling me there is no plan for restoration?"  Caputo said, "The Clinton's only plan is to get Barack Obama and Joe Biden elected."  Tweety was not satisfied with this answer.

    He's bent on making Hillary look bad, the sore loser, the renegade who will destroy Obama's chances.  And yet, in the lovefest for Ted Kennedy last night, there was no mention of the fact that he NEVER endorsed Jimmy Carter in 1980, and in fact made Carter run after him on stage in order to grab Kennedy's hand and raise it in the air for the most awkward "unity" salute ever.

    Even Olbermann is embarrassed by Tweety insistent desire to provoke someone into saying that Hillary is bitter and is out to sabotage Obama. He's stuck to the "previews of the speech show she will strongly back Obama." And if Olbermann is embarrassed and defending Hillary, you know things are bad.

    Why does Chris Matthews exist?  Can someone explain that to me?


    I can (none / 0) (#133)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:38:40 PM EST
    Because people continue to tune in and watch him. He gets ratings, ratings get advertisers, and the show goes on.

    And, of course, those who watch, get riled and instantly tell others who then tune in to catch a glimpse of that car accident.


    Hmm, I believe TedK did in fact (none / 0) (#155)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:48:57 PM EST
    endorse Carter in 80.  And there was that scene on the podium where Teddy only shook Carter's hand, then quickly moved away to the side to wave to the crowd, failing to give the customary unity salute.

    Iirc, it was in 92 when Jerry Brown never got around to endorsing Bill.

    In 68, Gene McCarthy didn't endorse HHH at the convention, and would only do so tepidly a few days before the Nov election.

    Those are my recollections of the major non-endorsements by Dems in recent times.


    He should have just picked Hillary. It's all (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Teresa on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:28:02 PM EST
    Clinton all the time on CNN. At least then there would have been some happy stories.

    an English friend (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:28:32 PM EST
    perfectly summarized the current divide the Democratic Party is in this afternoon before heading back home over the Pond.

    She said

    "It's 2000 all over again.  Only Obama is Bush, lacking in experience but with the media in his pocket, Hillary is Gore with undoubtedly more experience and the majority of the Votes in her pocket and the DNC and the Dem Leadership are the USSC deciding the race for their Candidate against what the voters wanted."

    She then said, "Oh, and the blogs that feverishly support Obama are those laughable Brooks Brothers mobs in Florida pounding on the glass yelling at the people to stop counting the votes and let their Candidate win"

    If anyone wonders why there are so many Dems so angry at the Dem Leadership and the DNC and still unwilling to vote for Obama, I think my friend's observation accurately conveys the very deep, unshakable and still bitter root of it.

    Unfair was unfair in 2000 (when we were told to "get over it") and unfair is unfair in 2008 (when we are told to "get over it").

    Spot on - Brooks Brothers protest (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by catfish on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:40:25 PM EST
    Spot on.

    Excellent observation (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by mogal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:41:29 PM EST
    Oh, my, this is so on target! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:44:16 PM EST
    Your friend went straight to the heart of the matter.

    Not really.... (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Realleft on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:47:09 PM EST
    From my perspective at least.  The "majority of views" part especially.  It only barely adds up this way if you add Michigan and Florida into the tally.  I'll give on Florida, but you just can't do that because that wasn't a real primary (with only Sen. Clinton listed, just who were those 238,000 uncommitted votes for?). And since you can't do that, you can't say "deciding the race for their Candidate against what the voters wanted."

    Look, at a minimum there was just as many people supporting Obama as Clinton.  And based on the way the system was set up, Obama ended with considerably more delegates than Clinton.

    It's time to give up on this narrative.  It works only if you are seeing things through Clinton-supporters eyes.

    So, I imagine I'll be attacked again, but politics is a tough business and someone wins and someone loses and sometimes it's real close.  Sen. Clinton is great, she just didn't actually win the primary this time around.  That doesn't mean you need to stop supporting her, and it doesn't mean you need to vote for Obama, but it doesn't mean the rest of us need to continue to go along with a misleading narrative.


    The majority of those (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:52:48 PM EST
    uncommitted voters were Edwards voters with some of the others that joined them-including Barack.

    She won more votes. Now that he has agreed to seat them the record stands and she has more votes. No way around that.


    Good point, LatinoVoter (none / 0) (#127)
    by Realleft on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:37:00 PM EST
    Since Obama agreed to seat the Michigan delegates, I think that does make for a fairly compelling case for counting those votes into popular vote totals (although I still have some reservations about then not counting any of the "uncommitted" votes, hmmm...).  

    So then Sen. Obama agreed to that, knowing that this would change some perceptions of popular vote totals, and that could be used against him as an argument that he really lost.  Hmmm... Since I like Sen. Obama, I guess that seems pretty magnanimous to me, though I'm guessing that's not how I'd see it if I didn't like him (and I'm sure not how others see it).

    Best to all...


    Wrong. It was a real primary (5.00 / 12) (#40)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:53:17 PM EST
    by law, and that's what matters.

    What you mean is that Obama wasn't a real candidate.  His choice.  He tried to make Michigan meaningless.

    He just didn't foresee, shortsighted as his strategy has been, that Michigan's primary would take on an entirely different meaning.  And not favorable to him.


    which makes me wonder (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:01:51 PM EST
    how he's polling in MI right now?  Is it a strongly Democratic State or could it be a pick-up for McCain?

    Yep. (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by chel2551 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:03:03 PM EST
    What you mean is that Obama wasn't a real candidate.  His choice.  He tried to make Michigan meaningless.

    He and his pal, John Edwards.

    As usual, Cream City tells it like it is.


    It wasn't just Obama... (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Realleft on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:08:26 PM EST
    as I'm sure you know.  The DNC ruled that MI violated the rules and everyone but Sen Clinton and Dodd removed their names (and Kucinich, who tried but was unable).

    The DNC ruled that prior to the primary that it would not count in December.  That's the part that matters.

    So, from my perspective, Obama won the popular vote, the pledged delegate vote and the superdelegate vote.  It was close, but there was still a winner.  That's the way democracy works, not changing the rules later to favor one of the candidates.

    Anyway, enough of that.  We won't agree and I didn't expect we would.  The point is that the narrative is from only one side of a multi-side story.  I will grant you the respect that if Sen. Clinton had removed her name along with the other candidates, and Sen. Obama had stayed on, you would still have the same perspective on the issue.  I know I would.  


    Actually... (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by kredwyn on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:19:01 PM EST
    The DNC did no such thing with regards to MI.

    MI was a legit primary that some candidates opted out of for their own political reasons. It was never declared illegal as a primary.


    If MI didn't matter (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by Iphie on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:19:07 PM EST
    then why did the RBC decide to take votes from Hillary to give to Obama? If MI didn't matter why did the DNC just decide to give them back their full delegate counts? You can't have it both ways -- either it mattered and votes were stolen, or it didn't count and MI (and FL) should have been stripped of their delegates, end of story -- and the DNC is trying to have it both ways, even if you have selectively only told part of the story.

    And really, it helps no one to keep declaring that certain states don't matter or to condone what the RBC did on May 31st -- neither of those tactics are going to work come November: all states count and no one is going to take any of McCain's votes and give them to Obama.


    I must admit (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:20:13 PM EST
    that I admire your ability to write this:

    "not changing the rules later to favor one of the candidates"

    with a straight face in light of the RBC meeting and the giving of four delegates of Hillary to Obama during their four hour closed door -- ahem, ALSO against their own rules -- meeting.

    Not saying it's classy or that I aspire to be able to do that.  I'm  just saying it's impressive you could write that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary.


    Gotcha (2.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Realleft on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:46:10 PM EST
    It's not like I think I know everything or am right on everything.  I have discussions as much to learn as to share my own perceptions.  But I don't expect you to put in the effort to give me a full rendition as I'm sure you all discussed this before in detail at a more appropriate time to the actual event. And despite how conversations may go here, I'm not trying to argue some point from a particular camp's perspective.

    What had I meant is that if the DNC declared in December that the primary delegates wouldn't count at all, then why did they count them at all?  My understanding was that the eventual counting of any delegates was a compromise on all parties part.

    Anyway, don't mean to rile people up, it just seems to me that there are many sides to some of these stories and no single perspective seems to really capture all of it when I look at it.  I don't expect others to agree with me.


    Get your facts straight... (none / 0) (#179)
    by kredwyn on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:09:26 PM EST
    Do your research. And then come up with an "understanding" based on what happened rather than what you think you want to have happened.

    Perception and reality are often different...


    answer... (none / 0) (#183)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:10:52 PM EST
    What had I meant is that if the DNC declared in December that the primary delegates wouldn't count at all, then why did they count them at all?  My understanding was that the eventual counting of any delegates was a compromise on all parties part.

    because the intention was always to count them, once the nomination had been decided.  The RBC went beyond the spirit and intent (as well, in the case of NH, SC, and IA) of the rules in order to "shows who's boss", and wound up having to "fix" things to achieve the outcome that they desired (an Obama nomination) when it turned out that Plan A wasn't gonna happen.

    The rules have specific provisions in them for states that went "out of turn" -- loss of ALL superdelegates and 50% of voting strength of its elected delegates AND any candidate who campaigned in a state that was sanctioned became ineligible for elected delegates from that state.   (The RNC rules stripped 50% of delegates, but permitted campaigning anyway.)

    The RULES (which are voted on by the entire DNC, not just the RBC) were NOT intended to punish voters by completely disenfranchising them -- rather it punished the politicians who created the problem, and did its best to eliminate the incentive for states to go early by making it pointless for candidates to campaign there.

    And the requirement for not sanctions for not abiding by the schedule was mandatory -- NOT optional.  The RBC completely disregarded the LETTER of the rules by not sanctioning the three states that changed their dates.  It should also be noted that the IA, then NV, then NH, then SC order was considered a key element in the schedule... it was supposed to be TWO caucuses, one of which had a significant minority presence, followed by two elections, one of which had significant minority presence.  New Hampshire, but jumping ahead of Nevada, should absolutely have been sanctioned for violating the what was a key part of the compromise with the new schedule.

    In other words, the "rules" never mattered to anybody -- not the RBC, not Clinton, and not Obama (who like Clinton, also said that all the delegates should eventually be included -- the battle was over timing of when the rules should be ignored.)


    puhleez.... (5.00 / 9) (#97)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:22:57 PM EST
    nobody removed their names in Florida (and no, there was no impediment to doing so).  

    The decision by Edwards and Obama to remove their names had nothing to do with the rules -- it was pure political calculation designed to appeal to the self-important voters of Iowa and New Hampshire.

    Obama made a calculated political risk and took his name off the ballot.   He didn't anticipate that it would matter who got the most votes, so he took his name off the ballot.

    You can't count voter that you didn't get, just like Clinton can't count people who didn't show up at caucuses for her because she didn't make much of an effort in a bunch of caucus states.


    Well put. (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by jawbone on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:25:44 PM EST
    Speaking for me only.. (none / 0) (#85)
    by DET103 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:19:05 PM EST
    ...to your last hypothetical, no I wouldn't. I couldn't care less what the names are, wrong is wrong.

    And here I though the primaries were over (none / 0) (#139)
    by DemForever on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:40:56 PM EST
    the primaries may be over... (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:18:58 PM EST
    ...but the disinformation campaign of Team Obama and its supporters is eternal -- and the truth is just as eternal as the lies told by the Oborg.

    And so... (none / 0) (#151)
    by DET103 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:48:18 PM EST
    ...was the 2000 election thus what we got in 2004. It's over, forget about it!

    The fact that the convention is underway (none / 0) (#154)
    by DemForever on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:48:48 PM EST
    was my first clue

    Actually, when the Rules Committee (none / 0) (#164)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:53:32 PM EST
    decided to seat FL & MI at 100%, did Obama keep the lead?

    Yes... (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:15:53 PM EST
    because Obama would not have lost the lead had all the delegates been seated as elected.  

    What it would have done is taken Obama's small, three digit lead in elected delegates and reduced it to about 70...out of (IIRC) a couple of thousand.


    It would be much easier to be (5.00 / 8) (#41)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:54:08 PM EST
    dispassionate about the primary if so many of us didn't feel like the DNC thumb on the scale was not now firmly lodged in our eye.

    wrong (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:55:13 PM EST
    We have a Nominee now who lost CA, NY, NJ, NH, PA, OH, FL (where he broke the rules by running ads from nearby SC a week after SC's Primary ended) and, yes, MI where he took himself off the ballot and then urged people to vote for Uncommitted.

    A Nominee for the Democratic Ticket who couldn't even win the Democrat's vote in States which are and always have been crucial to us winning in November.

    The MAJORITY of Democratic Primary Voters -- not caucus voters and certainly not Red State caucus voters --, but Democratic Primary Voters made their choice loud and clear.  And it wasn't Obama.

    But, like the USSC before them, the DNC made their own decision and, gee, look how well has THAT worked out -- as he falls in the polls and has a solid 25% of Democrats refusing to vote for him.


    I just don't see how he can win (none / 0) (#199)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:26:43 PM EST
    You get to feeling like Cassandra...doomed to see the future, and cursed that nobody will listen to you.

    Doesn't make it any easier to consider the fact that eventually our view will likely be the common wisdom.


    The RBC (5.00 / 11) (#44)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:56:44 PM EST
    counted votes where people walked into a voting booth in Michigan and punched Hillary Clinton as if those people punched Barack Obama.  Now, whatever else there is to say about Michigan, I don't think it's fair, right or democratic to change the way people voted.  Seat the Michigan delegates or don't, but to change the vote tally by acting like people who voted for Hillary Clinton really voted for Barack Obama is BS. And they did it, btw, to give Obama two whole delegates so he didn't need it.  It was done because they could.

    Obama broke the DNC rule in FL (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:03:12 PM EST
    but he stayed on that ballot.
    The only reason he took his name off the ballot in MI - and orchestrated with other candidates to do the same -was to hurt Hillary in Iowa, which was angry that MI was discussing having primary ahead of Iowa.

    correction (none / 0) (#32)
    by Realleft on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:48:29 PM EST
    it should read "because Michigan wasn't a real primary."

    correction #2 (none / 0) (#36)
    by Realleft on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:51:57 PM EST
    Fingers aren't typing right tonight.  Should also read "majority of voters" not "majority of views."

    Excellent observation n/t (none / 0) (#94)
    by stefystef on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:21:18 PM EST
    Here's Ed. Bashing McCain...I guess only (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Teresa on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:31:30 PM EST
    Hillary supporters will play that role in this convention.

    They are not afraid to get their hands dirty (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:21:45 PM EST
    Maybe that was the prompting for the Rendell comment comaring Obama to Adlai Stevenson that Tweety was so upset about.

    I think you're right (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:37:46 PM EST
    We saw something very similar to that in the Polling done during the Primaries.  He always seemed to under-perform what had been expected of him in the Polls.

    For instance, he was shown in one poll leading in CA by 10 points and ended up losing it by 10 to Hillary.  And I'm sure there are other examples of polling showing races much closer for him than they turned out to be.

    If the McCain camp is smart, they'll run a commercial of clips from some of Obama's more strident and condescending supporters in answer to how he thinks of those who won't vote for him.  

    It'd be a damning 30 seconds of tape.  Especially the clips of those who got speaking slots at the Convention!

    There's a great analysis on this (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:44:00 PM EST
    at pollster.com, 'way back in the early primaries.  I've posted it here then, but it still will be on the site.  There's a name for the effect.  And yes, it was evident even then.

    And I agree, it probably still is happening.  If a pollster calls a home where a Clinton supporter has to put up with other sorts, most likely the reply will not be truthful.  That voter still has to live there and put up with the blowback if honest.


    anecdotal evidence... (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by huzzlewhat on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:23:54 PM EST
    Among my friends, very few know that I'm considering not voting top of ticket in November. In general discussions, the perception is of course I'll vote for Obama, and I never challenge it. So far, they know that I was a Hillary supporter, and they know that I'm not going to vote for McCain -- the rest is assumption. And if someone asked me outright, I might just lie. I'm trying really hard to get enthusiastic, but it's a private, personal thing, and I don't want the hassle.

    At the risk of being petty (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Redshoes on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:40:16 PM EST
    I've been tuning in and out and from a production standpoint there are 2 things getting on my nerves.  1st the announcer lady -- I keep expecting the speakers to come out in bathing suits and ball gowns.  2nd the tunes -- yikes!  covers and bad covers at that -- I just listened to a dreadful rendition of "Sisters are doin' it for themselves"  Liked Ed Rendell though.

    The word "commemorative" (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:09:36 PM EST
    seems to be beyond the skills of announcer lady.  Pretty funny. She gave up the 2nd time around.

    I keep waiting for them to reveal (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:11:35 PM EST
    the giant Wheel of Democracy and invite random audience members to "Come On D-o-o-o-wn!"

    ROFLMAO!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Emma on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:52:08 PM EST
    No kidding!  It's like watching "Miss Congeniality"!  "And heeere's Jim! Whit!a!ker! from AaalaaaasKA!!!!"

    Too hilarious!


    Rep, Tammy Baldwin is relating one (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:40:25 PM EST
    of those heart rending stories of a person w/cancer, insurance problems, etc.  But she mentioned bankruptcy.  Oops.  

    Sen. Barbara Mikulski...On Emily's List program... (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Aqua Blue on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:41:38 PM EST
    said, "Put CHANGE in women's checkbooks."   Time for equal pay for equal work.

    Women earn $.73 to the dollar compared to men.

    Nice to see someone forwarding this issue.

    And look it up state by state (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:46:39 PM EST
    and see that the number is an average.

    In many states like mine, it's much lower -- and my state is at the median.  It's about 67 cents for women per male dollar earned here.  So it's below that in half of the states -- and well below it in many.


    Thus, It's Actually Good (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by The Maven on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:52:23 PM EST
    to see that this evening's final schedule features Lily Ledbetter between the remarks of Bob Casey and Mark Warner.  I'll concede that it will be a cutaway for the TV coverage, but the folks in the convention hall will hopefully get to appreciate her as a symbol for the fair pay movement.

    I'd Be Happier (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:59:27 PM EST
    if she wasn't following a speaker who will be arguing to take away her reproductive rights.  

    Glad to see fair pay mentioned at the convention, but it doesn't change the fact that the Dems have loaded the schedule with Republicans and anti-choicers or that they happily floated guys like Hagel for VP.  


    Heck! (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:05:57 PM EST
    even the Dem VP nominee said he'd gladly run with McCain or against him.

    Jeanne Shaheen (none / 0) (#102)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:23:47 PM EST
    went to town on it earlier this afternoon at the Womencount PAC event.  She was just terrific.

    Talk about a (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by chel2551 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:51:23 PM EST
    rectal cranial inversion, Tweety just opined that if Obama won in November, he'd probably win in 2012.  He asked, "How will the Clintons get back in the White House?"

    The person speaking for Clinton was incredulous.  She said,  "For God's sake, Chris, how can you even ask that question?!"

    Tweety is such a moron.

    CSPAN is my friend! (none / 0) (#43)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:55:17 PM EST
    I tried MSNBC for a few minutes and couldn't take it.  Sorry I missed Lisa Caputo - I switched just before she came on.  Glad she took it to Tweety.

    I saw it too (none / 0) (#59)
    by IzikLA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:06:36 PM EST
    And it was only one in a series of questions and prods from Matthews and Olbermann trying to stir up any controversy.  It's literally been all about Clinton all day long.

    I know, I know - but MSNBC is the only news channel I get in my office!!!!


    I changed the channel (none / 0) (#72)
    by chel2551 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:13:37 PM EST
    and went to C-SPAN.

    For me, the sound is better on C-Span-fuller, more (none / 0) (#121)
    by jawbone on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:33:37 PM EST
    depth. Might be PBS's feed or their feed to my cable company. But everyone sounds a thousand miles away. No sense of crowd involvement, much less enthusiasm.

    Sound thin and bad for the podium speaker as well.

    Except for Announcer Bot (who I gather from the pronounciation problem is not a perfected bot), who is all too easy to hear.


    Heard Dennis Kucinich speak and in my (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:51:38 PM EST
    opinion, that was a speech that should have seen a prime-time slot - a laundry list, cleverly written, of the horrors of the current administration, with a constant refrain of "Wake Up, America!"

    Was in the car again (cat to the vet for stitches removal), so couldn't see, but the talk was that he brought the crowd to their feet.

    Problem is, the Dem power structure wants to hide people like Kucinich, pretend that we don't have any angry liberals in our midst.

    Dems need more of that anger, stoked often, not this oh-so-polite, let's-not-get-carried-away cr@p.  

    First time I felt any interest or real energy for the issues - from myself or the crowd.

    "Hide people like Kucinich"? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Realleft on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:57:09 PM EST
    By giving him a chance to speak?  Who would you have him replace in prime time?  One of the two Clintons speaking?  Warner, Kennedy, Michelle Obama?

    It was an exciting speech by the way, IMHO.  Missing the visuals, you did miss how much the crowd was into it.  And Sen. Kucinich was excited, too, bouncing up and down throughout the speech.


    Pssssst He's a Rep. (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:23:08 PM EST
    not a Sen. Thankfully, it looks like he'll keep his seat. He actually had a primary challenge.

    I had a phone call, and watched Kucinich (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by catfish on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:03:15 PM EST
    with the mute on. It looked like people weren't listening to him at first, and by the end they were totally listening, and getting up on their feet.

    Dang! Hope they replay that one. He is an excellent public speaker, always puts his heart in it, and he writes good speeches too.


    A regular at ShakespearsSister has been posting (none / 0) (#125)
    by jawbone on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:35:35 PM EST
    videos of some of the speakers.

    He asked for requests from readers.

    Maybe he's got in and can put it up.


    C-Span has it (none / 0) (#147)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:47:01 PM EST
    They are putting up a lot of the speeches so they can be viewed whenever.

    Found it - oh it was good. He can speak. (none / 0) (#203)
    by catfish on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:30:02 PM EST
    C-SPAN has the Kucinich speech (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:58:48 PM EST

    Really worth a listen.

    I almost voted for Dennis. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:02:09 PM EST
    But I did the pragmatic thing instead.  I didn't regret it.  I just wish I could have voted for both Hillary and Dennis, and written in Al Gore too.  

    I loved (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by shoulin4 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:02:58 PM EST
    Kucinich's speech! It was fantastic. I wish that they had had him in at a more prime-time spot, that speech definitely needed to be heard by so many more people.

    Kennedy Legacy (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:05:05 PM EST
    I bought a ticket for a ride on the Unity Pony this afternoon, and listened to Ted Sorenson's speech, and some others following it.  The theme seemed to be the Kennedy legacy, and how Obama is its inheritor. As much as I would like to believe that, I just can't, when I think of all the leadership experience and skills Kennedy brought to the office that Obama just does not have.

    I've also been thinking about how the people who revere Kennedy the most are the ones of his own generation, like my 80 yr old aunt, who still has his portrait on her wall.  Do these people support Obama?  Not if you believe the polls.  

    If we did not already have the phrase 'You're no Jack Kennedy' in the book, we would have to invent it.

    It is so unnecessary - let Obama make his own name for himself.

    Listened to News and Notes (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:13:41 PM EST
    on my NPR station [link] and they were talking about how Obama is of the post civil rights generation.  There was some muted talk of how this new generation doesn't appreciate the experiences and point of view of their elders.  But that topic was only discussed in passing and not explored in depth.

    I don't get the whole first/second/third waves of feminism, mostly because I use the most general definition of feminism and avoid defining every detail.  But I'm wondering if there isn't also a first/second/third wave/generation of civil rights as well.  


    There are first/second/third waves (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by shoulin4 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:23:11 PM EST
    of the Civil Rights Movement. However, after the deaths of the great leaders of the first and second, and the subsequent unraveling of the all of the progress that was gained in the 80s, not to mention many groups being pitted against each other for political aspirations, while some the third generation does reap the rewards of the Civil Rights Movement, a very good number of them have regressed so far back into the hardship that their forefathers (for lack of a better word) worked for that not only do they not recognize what, how hard, and for how long their previous generations fought for them, they don't see a way or even a need to fight for themselves.

    This is, by the way, a complete construct of my own opinion and experiences growing up. In no way am I presenting any of these words as fact or beyond proof. I'm shoulin4, and I approve this opinion.


    When I first saw the title... (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by kredwyn on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:09:45 PM EST
    I thought it read "Conventional Open Thread"

    James Carville just said... (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by mogal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:13:07 PM EST

    ..."Hillary Clinton will set the table beautifully
    with silver, crystal, etc.  It is up to Obama to provide the food."

    lol!~ Gawd I wish I could handle CNN (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:16:23 PM EST
    I'm working on children's product, so getting p!ssed at CNN would be counter-productive!

    Kepp posting the Carville highlights please!


    Carville is the only reason I watch CNN (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by mogal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:25:43 PM EST
    Carville (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:27:40 PM EST
    is wearing truly geeky white sneakers...but he's being pretty articulate.

    Right now: Anna Burger, SEIU...CNN was talking over her so I went CSPAN...

    (was supposed to get a floor pass for tonight but decided I'd really rather watch this all on television...avoiding security lines, lots of walking, etc.)


    Oh d@mn (none / 0) (#201)
    by Nadai on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:27:34 PM EST
    You mean he took off his black and yellow PUMAs - I mean Pumas?  :)

    That would be the "substance". (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:25:55 PM EST
    Will Obama offer us a delicate consomme or a hearty stew?  

    One scene from Ratatouille comes to mind:

    "Tell your chef that I want whatever he dares to serve me!"  [Anton Ego, food critic feared by chefs everwhere]

    Just as he came on, I had to go teach (none / 0) (#109)
    by Teresa on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:27:07 PM EST
    debits and credits to my step-daughter. When I came back, he was saying something like "I said it to him and now I'm saying it on TV". Do you know what he was talking about?

    Carville told Bill Clinton he shouldn't appear on (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by mogal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:38:12 PM EST
    stage with Obama on the final night.  It's OK for Hillary but not Bill.

    Carville told Bill Clinton he shouldn't appear on (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by mogal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:38:45 PM EST
    stage with Obama on the final night.  It's OK for Hillary but not Bill.

    About Bill being at Invesco (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by 1040su on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:00:14 PM EST
    Conversation about Hillary being at Invesco & if Obama asked her, she would be on stage.  Wolf said what he really wanted to know is whether Bill & even Chelsea would be there.  James said he didn't think it would be appropriate.  That it would be Obama's night with Hillary as a complement to that & Bill shouldn't be there.  "I said it to him & now I've said it on TV."

    A Credit Card Bill of Rights? (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:14:24 PM EST
    With Biden on the ticket?!

    Wasn't that just PRICELESS?? (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:18:24 PM EST
    Someone failed to edit that speech after Biden was selected.

    Chris Matthews over the top (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by DFLer on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:14:54 PM EST
    Just said that "how the Clintons present themselves (at this convention)[ re obama etc}...and I haven't seen it yet., is the most important part of this election...more important than any war in Georgia or Afghanistan." (I paraphrase from memory)


    Earlier he asked Clinton person Ms Caputo, so what plans do the Clintons now have for taking the White House back "for the family"
    Caputo gave him the high hat.

    germaine to the other thread (none / 0) (#93)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:20:59 PM EST
    he sounds just like a blogger.

    so i don't really know who has co-opted who.


    He is a blogger (none / 0) (#112)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:27:42 PM EST
    He's not a journalist, never has been. He just talks opinion. The only difference between him and a "blogger" is that he explores his thoughts and opinions in front of a camera instead of a keyboard.

    yeah (none / 0) (#126)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:36:18 PM EST
    but i bet he has his own suite.

    complete with leg tingler.


    He's a celebrity "blogger" (none / 0) (#140)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:42:23 PM EST
    Arianna seems to be the closest thing to a celebrity blogger, and probably has many others aspiring to get where she has gone despite what she has had to sell to get there.

    More good news for the conventioneers (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:15:48 PM EST
    Turns out we killed 60 CHILDREN in that air raid in Afghanistan.  And the Afghan gov't, like the Iraqi gov't, has had it with us.  Perhaps Obama can talk about how to change THAT.

    Juan Cole early on warned that wanting to go full (none / 0) (#81)
    by jawbone on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:18:13 PM EST
    bore into Afghanistan was something that needed to thought about deeply, analyzed thoroughly, and was, on whole, a very bad idea and we'd better have a very clear objective we wanted to achieve.

    I fear the Dems simply see it as the place we can have a "good war," and thus they can look macho and all security conscious and such like.

    Not a place to play make believe.


    Afghanistan is... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:27:22 PM EST
    ...where superpowers go to die.  So many of my fellow citizens seem entirely brainwashed by the military/industrial complex LIFESTYLE we've lived for 60+ years now.  So what if our founders explicitly warned us against the folly and self-destruction of foreign entanglements and military misadventures.  Our founders are only good for Halloween costumes, I guess.  And our smartest people only for being mocked.  We are a phucked up place indeed, and Obama ain't helping it with his inexcusable passivity and lack of nads.

    The Dems (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by dissenter on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:29:46 PM EST
    are out of their minds when it comes to Afghanistan. I just spent a year and half working there. We can't fix that place. Karzai's government makes the Iraqi government look like upstanding civil servants. There is nothing to work with. It is a lose, lose proposition. There is nothing we can fix. Genghis Khan couldn't win there. The Soviets couldn't win there. The Brits couldn't win there. There are no winners in Afghanistan. There are only losers. And as much as you might not like to hear this...that goes for the majority of Afghans themselves.

    The media won't tell you this.

    Just like they won't tell you that Kabul is now SURROUNDED.


    I read about that over at MoonofAlabama--b is Fr? (none / 0) (#171)
    by jawbone on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:00:54 PM EST
    Anyway, Bernhard brings a European sensibility and perspective to our jejeune foreign policy (or lack of policy).  

    He has a post in the past week, 10 days about how dangerous our vaunted paved highway, designed to move supplies more easily but sold as making commerce easier, has become. Huge fuel tankers maker great targets for messing up a highway for quite awhile.

    And now we're taunting Russia and daring them to tell us we can't use their land for resupply from the north. Oh, help!

    Tell us more, when you have time! Must have been quite an experience.


    PBS has incredibly young Obama supporter on for (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by jawbone on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:15:58 PM EST
    discussion of when/whether Hillary supporters will "get in line" (the Obama supporter's words and she appears incredibly young).

    She believes totally that Obama means the change he talks about.

    What change? Doing what? What objectives? Oh, not to be asked...bcz she is a believer. Oh, dear me.

    She was like Chines gymnast young. (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:19:07 PM EST
    I came to post about her (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:37:31 PM EST
    that was so creepy when she said the delegates had to fall in line. It sounded scary coming from someone who was 20 years who was voting for the first time.

    These yoots are clearly the children of the Bushies in 2000.


    Gergen said (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by waldenpond on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:44:27 PM EST
    she has to discuss a whole lot of issues... (uh duh.)  Everybody's putting a lot of weight on her to do things in this speech (uh duh)

    Gloria Borger will there be an apology?  Toobin: no, nor should she, change blah, blan blah

    Some other talking head: have a cathartic process. (gag)

    Bernstein: 'someone says' about her 'feelings'.. she doesn't like Obama.  She's angry woudn't but she's a dem, her and Bill's legacy at stake, biggest event of her life... blah, blah, blah.

    Another talking head: she likes Obama, blah, blah

    Roland Martin is on so I must change the channel.

    What does Hillary have to apologize for? (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:50:14 PM EST
    If Obama doesn't need to apologize, no one does.

    As soon as Donna B replaced Carville, I changed the channel.

    Gergen's statement was so poorly thought out. How many minutes does she have, and just why does she have to say anything other than to thank her supporters, give her vision of hope, and tell everyone to make sure the democratic ticket wins.

    I'm so sick of these expectations and demands being put on her that have never been put upon anyone else. She ran a fair, clean and energetic campaign. We are obligated to her, quite frankly.


    She was *terrific* (none / 0) (#166)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:56:41 PM EST
    earlier today at the Womencount PAC event.  She said she was going to give people a lot of reasons to vote Democratic.

    She also said, after she talked about supporting Obama:

    • We're going to work to see talking heads who denigrate women are punished
    • We're going to change the caucus system
    • We're going to make things easier for women candidates generally

    I can see why there's criticism that she's not supporting Obama.  She's giving lip service to him, but she's also still saying there's plenty wrong with what happened this primary season.

    p.s. She looks awful.  Like she's been through a war.  Wonder why.




    She is not giving lip service (none / 0) (#178)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:09:13 PM EST
    And she does not look awful.

    That's ridiculous.


    Did you see her today from five feet away? (none / 0) (#205)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:33:49 PM EST
    I did.  I'd look worse if I'd been through what she has.  I say this not to be critical but because it breaks my heart.

    Perhaps I'm not making myself clear.  I'm not being critical of her for not supporting Obama - I realize she has to do that for practical reasons.  I have no idea how she's not telling him to kiss her immensely more qualified ass, personally, and I'd be the first to tell off anyone claiming she's not doing enough of anything to help this Party, after everything she has done.  

    It thrilled me to death to hear her say a lot of things that were specifics about how we're gonna fix what happened to her, though.


    Will there be an apology for what? (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:21:28 PM EST

    She has to apologize (5.00 / 0) (#202)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:27:50 PM EST
    for not getting down on her knees and kissing the Messianic @ss, apparently.

    This is getting unbelievable.


    I rushed home to see this (none / 0) (#150)
    by americanincanada on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:47:45 PM EST
    but got here in time to see that last round table. All I can say is...ugh...

    Man, Kathleen Sebelius makes me (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:09:50 PM EST
    want to curl up and go to sleep.

    This convention needs some fire - not the equivalent of reading the train schedule.

    Veeerrrrryyyy loooowwww keeeeeeyyyyy. n/t (none / 0) (#185)
    by jawbone on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:11:44 PM EST
    Better than her SOTU response (none / 0) (#187)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:12:43 PM EST
    still not exciting, but she does have an air of competence about her. And did make an effort with eye contact.

    Didn't these things used to be you know, FUN?! (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by rooge04 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:15:26 PM EST
    These "new Dems" are boring as heck.  Where's a Mario Cuomo to get the crowd fired up???  What's happening to my party!?!??! Good lord these people are BORING and absolutely no one is paying attention.

    i tuned in (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:25:57 PM EST
    I don't want to be healed.

    I'll take care of my own healing.

    I want an f-ing job.

    I haven't heard a peep (none / 0) (#1)
    by eric on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:14:34 PM EST
    about protesters, chaos, demonstrations, or any of the havoc and destruction that we were promised at the DNC.  What's the word on the ground in Denver?

    We Hillary supporters are too old for anarchy! (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Angel on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:18:25 PM EST
    Tons of coverage in the local media (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:26:17 PM EST
    The links are on the right side TL's front page under "Local Convention Coverage".

    The locals dailies seem to have more in-depth coverage than the TV outlets, so I'd check the Post or the Rocky Mountain News.  

    The average Denverite is talking more about the Obama death threats than the actual convention.


    Also google up Jo Freeman (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:40:55 PM EST
    legendary feminist and journalist and author.  I've written before here about her battle to get credentialed, and she did.  So I'm reading her reports daily (I'm on the email list so don't go to a link, but I think it's at SeniorWomen.org?).

    You bet there are protests.  But she knows well and teaches social movements, so she has some adroit commentary about how much better we were at this in the '60s.  Especially good analysis of differences from '68 -- as she was there then, too.

    Read anything Jo writes -- books, blog, et al.


    I overheard Freeman (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:30:26 PM EST
    saying something at Womencount about how great it is Dem candidates were black and female, etc.  But then she didn't seem to believe there was much wrong with Hillary's treatment at the hands of the Party.

    Guess I'll cruise by her blog, but I was a bit disappointed to hear her say such a thing.


    One of the protesters said that (none / 0) (#9)
    by Aqua Blue on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:28:04 PM EST
    the area designated for proesting (gated and fenced) was quite far from Convention center and that it was made difficult.

    There are a lot of mobile protesters (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:34:30 PM EST
    The likes of this one:


    There are also cops in full-out riot gear everywhere.  It's a little unsettling, tell you the truth.


    Full Riot Gear (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:20:33 PM EST
    Scary to encounter. We also see it at events that could be a "target". Between full out riot gear, bomb dogs and fully armed guards, YIKES! fun in the streets and subway stations . . . NOT.

    do we expect a bounce for the Big Man? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Salo on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:19:35 PM EST
    Or a flatline?

    Has anyone seen any overnight (none / 0) (#12)
    by dk on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:31:31 PM EST
    ratings numbers?  My assumption is that other than political junkies, no one is paying attention to this convention (particularly given the timing at the end of August right between the Olympics and Labor day weekend).  But, of course, I could be wrong.

    ah, here is where I might get... (none / 0) (#18)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:36:23 PM EST
    ...my answer...

    BTD, what do you think of the decision to bump Rendell and Strickland from the evening schedule.  They were supposed to be the designated attack dogs for tonight.  (and former PA guv Casey has a spot almost immediately before Warner now.)  

    Earlier, you said you thought that the selection of Biden signalled a more agressive "Bush's 3rd term" messaging from the Dems.   What do you think is going on now, and why?

    In What Way (none / 0) (#31)
    by The Maven on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:47:40 PM EST
    did they get "bumped" from the schedule?  Moved around, perhaps, with Rendell ending up in the early evening, but Strickland is following Warner just prior to the prime hour of broadcast network coverage.  I don't think there was ever an expectation that either one would be featured in the final hour of the evening.  Certainly, the Aug. 13 press release wouldn't lead me to think that.

    then they moved strickland again... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:02:12 PM EST
    HuffPo has a "full schedule" that has Strickland speaking in the hour before Rendell just did.

    And while I agree that the Aug 13 schedule does not suggest they'd be on the Network hour, it did suggest that they'd be on in (eastern time) evening hours.  

    But I'm much less concerned about possible Clinton slights than I am about your impression of the "messaging" that we've been seeing....


    Rendell was the attack dog - for the early evening (none / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:07:06 PM EST
    his whole speech was on MSNBC.

    ccpup (none / 0) (#25)
    by tek on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:41:37 PM EST
    Love, love, love your post.  As usual Europeans aren't hoodwinked as easily as Americans.

    John Sweeny, AFL-CIO Pres., (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:50:01 PM EST
    us getting a very long time to speak but is not a very good speaker.  

    22 million watched the first night (none / 0) (#38)
    by Gabriel on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:52:43 PM EST
    more than the first night of 2004.

    Great news!

    Did they stay through to Michelle Obama (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:57:32 PM EST
    after the usual Dem screwup of the schedule, pushing her past prime time?  (Teddy Kennedy's unscheduled talk was part of the reason.)  I talked with several people today who just couldn't stay through.

    The ratings hour by hour are what matters, just like with the Super Bowl.  No advertiser pays first-quarter rates for ads in the second half if the game is boring.  So ratings always are broken down into quarters for football and quarter hours, too.  Anyone saying how many million watched in Michelle Obama's hour?


    A link? (none / 0) (#96)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:22:19 PM EST
    The network numbers are only at 12 mil and change.

    The on air nets (none / 0) (#136)
    by Lahdee on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:39:29 PM EST
    did 12 Million or so, but apparently the cables did better. Link

    Folks, it finally happened (none / 0) (#56)
    by blogtopus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:03:18 PM EST
    I got religion, just not the kind that I think Obama would appreciate. (I think this is germane to this post, seeing as how tonight will be Hillary trying to convince people to vote for Obama)

    I was speaking with a client of mine and we began to understand that we both have the same wavelength when it comes to politics (thank ghod)... I mentioned that I didn't like Obama's policies / politics, but that he seems to inspire quite a bit of young'ns with his speeches. (this was my mode of thought this morning because I  keep hearing how awesome and emotional Michelle Obama's speech was - and I keep thinking how I don't intend on voting based on how good a speech giver you are). He agreed, and we both said we were Hillary supporters.

    My client then went on to say that he sees this race as taking control of a super tanker... no matter who controls it, changing directions will take a long time to make happen. The fact is, even if Obama doesn't bring about Universal Health Care, the attention will have been brought infinitesimally closer to that eventuality. Even if Obama is as bad as McCain would have been in terms of religion, abortion, etc, the fact is that he will stand as a symbol to the world that we wanted to change - we voted against the party that brought Bush. As empty a suit as he is, or worse yet filled with Chicago politics, as a symbol, he will show African Americans that there is literally no limit to what they can do -- and the inspirational value of that alone is no small trick.

    I don't agree with the UHC argument -- I think Obama can do damage to our attempts much like the deep-sixing of Hillary's plan pretty much hurt future attempts -- but with the rest I can agree: most people are not going to know the dirty tricks Obama played to reach his place, or how empty his rhetoric is... they'll just know that America chose a black man with a foreign-sounding name to lead their nation. To think of what that means to a young boy in the ghetto with bigger dreams, or of any race, I think it might just be worth it.

    As for that young GIRL with big dreams, well, we'll always have Hillary, fighting no matter what. If Hillary never gets to the presidency, she'll at least be known as the most powerful, most intelligent, most well-known person of our time NOT to be president, and that carries a weight all its own.

    Now, after all is said and done, I am not excusing Obama for all his trashy maneuvers this primary season. It will just be easier for me to accept him if he wins... and it makes me realize that payback for his deeds can happen AFTER he wins, too; he'll just go grey a lot faster than Bill, with all of us harping on his non-liberal stances.

    Anyway, I had to say this. Unless Obama does something more destructive than he has in the next few months, I'll be voting for him.

    my 16 year old (5.00 / 7) (#74)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:14:17 PM EST
    niece sends me emails often and, at the end, her signature reads:

    Excellence is the best deterrent to racism and sexism -- Oprah Winfrey

    A week or so ago I noticed that was missing and I asked her why.  She said because it was a bunch of bs.  She then said "If a man with no experience, but a nice smile and the ability to give a good speech can pole vault over the woman with experience and intelligence and who's been working her entire adult life for others, what does that say?"

    It may be nice for the boy in the ghetto, as you say, but who cares?  If the hard working woman who studies 'till all hours and works 12 hour days six days a week gets shafted and stabbed in the back in order for that boy -- who may or may not have earned or be ready for the position he's being given -- to succeed, are you saying it's somehow worth it?  Somehow okay?

    Because of this, my niece is more of a cynic than she was six months ago.  

    Thanks, Donna and Nancy, Howard and Barack!


    :( That's so sad. (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:03:26 PM EST
    I thought of the message it was sending to young women/girls, but spent more time being outraged from the standpoint of women my age who have way too much personal experience in this area.

    I hope your niece kicks some serious behind at whatever she decides to do with her future.


    I expect a lot of unsupportive comments (none / 0) (#92)
    by blogtopus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:20:32 PM EST
    not because you are unsupportive people, but because I probably didn't explain myself well enough.

    I'M NOT EXCUSING OBAMA. But I think that, FOR ME, PERSONALLY, I would like to think that I pushed a little bit in the right direction, EVEN IF FOR THE WRONG REASONS.

    Like I said, I don't think Obama would appreciate being voted for merely because he's black; but all things being equal here (and I think he and McCain are pretty much equal in most things), I feel that it would be a step in the right direction to show a little change in the white guy, white guy, white guy, white guy pattern.

    I would have liked to have it be white guy, white guy, white woman, but that choice was stolen from my hands. I can't help that now, so I'm going with the other choice.

    That said, you go ahead and do what you want to make the world better in your eyes; ain't no way I'm going to stop / discourage that. I haven't left the tribe as much as you might think. ;-)


    To counter (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:26:27 PM EST
    A friend and I were talking, and she feels that a bad non-first-white-guy president will be, in the long term, worse for minorities than any symbolic gain to be gotten from electing a minority.  (or a woman, for that matter, but we happened to be talking about Obama, who she does not think will be a good president).

    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:25:25 PM EST
    I think Cynthia McKinney made it very hard for AA candidates here in GA for a long time. They've done lots better since she left politics and have been reelected statewide.

    I think having a bad AA candidate win like Obama is worse than not winning. Just like I think having an incompetent woman win would be very bad for women in general and set them back literally decades. I would have never supported Hillary simply because she was a woman. I supported her because she was a d*mn good candidate.


    Not true. (none / 0) (#129)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:37:27 PM EST
    Much as liberals like to cite racism as a big-time factor in this campaign, a one-to-one poll of whether voters preferred McCain or Colin Powell showed that ...

    The voters overwhelmingly favored Powell.

    Surely if the racism meme was ironclad, Powell would have lost?

    It's time to look at the candidate qua candidate -- not as symbol.


    If he hadn't called the Clintons racists (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:45:46 PM EST
    and allowed his supporters to be tarred with that same big brush, I'd be more supportive of where you're coming from.

    But I think a lot of blacks - not all, mind you, but a lot - seem to believe that now's their chance to return the favor when it comes to discrimination, and that it doesn't matter what their behavior's like when it comes to promoting their guy.

    I just can't go along with that in any kind of good conscience.  Others have already put this better than I, but I don't think the folks who stood by and said nothing when the Clintons were lied about and their reputations were trashed, should be rewarded by pretending there's anything inspirational whatsoever about Obama's candidacy.

    The song lyric going through my head the last few days has been a rousing chorus of "here comes the new boss, same as the old boss."  Anybody who thinks Obama's about anything but big-city machine politics is in for a rude awakening.  


    What you say is true (none / 0) (#162)
    by blogtopus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:52:20 PM EST
    I wouldn't be 'rewarding' his behavior by voting for him if I thought that his trashing would have any lasting effects on the Clintons. Witness for yourself how popular they became afterwards.

    I still love Hillary, and know she's the best person for the job. If Obama loses it will not be because you and others ran away, it's because he didn't reach out.


    I don't get where you're coming from (none / 0) (#168)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:59:57 PM EST
    although I've seen you make other intelligent comments here, and I know you're not a troll.

    How can you say there'll be "no lasting effect on the Clintons"?  When Hillary will be blamed for losing this election?  When she personally looks like she's been thrown down the stairs?

    When it actually matters to them that they're called racist, when real, actual racists don't give a damn who says that about them?

    When it's patently untrue?  When people from their own Party shouldn't be leveling such baseless, horrific charges?

    I just got nothin', man.


    I meant (none / 0) (#173)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:01:10 PM EST
    Hillary will be blamed for losing this election for Obama.  When he'll lose it for himself, but you better believe it'll get laid at her feet.

    Just like she's being blamed now for "not doing enough to unite the Party."


    Don't know how to answer these (none / 0) (#175)
    by blogtopus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:05:12 PM EST
    We expect them to get blamed no matter what, right? I still expect them to weather it, and rise above it. Hillary would have won if the primary had gone on longer. And next time she'll be prepared, I'm sure. I'll be there waiting.

    If it means anything, my wife, who did vote for Obama in the primary, has begun to vomit repeatedly. Whether this has to do with her vote or with the Dem convention or is just coincidence I don't know, but I'm off to get some gatorade.

    Take care, be back soon everyone!


    Wow. This is one of the weirdest posts I've seen. (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:19:31 PM EST
    So you are not going to vote for a candidate because he can do the job well, but because he is a SYMBOL.

    Don't you think the job of president is a little too important to merely symbolize itself?  

    After all, when I was hired for my job, it wasn't because I symbolized anything -- but because I could get the job done.

    As for what Obama will symbolize to future generations, I think we'll be finding out in the next few years what they will remember him for.  

    (And please cut out the "funny name" meme: Pawlenty and Huckabee are pretty funny to me, and there are plenty of funny names in America. Besides, Obama CHOSE this name as a marketing device.  He could have been "Barry Dunham," or "Barry Soetero" if he'd wanted.)


    Probably not going to defend this much more (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by blogtopus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:27:45 PM EST
    I've got other things to do this evening, but UC:

    Obama's only positive value against McCain is his value as a symbol; I basically expect the same from both in every other aspect. If, for me, they're both going to be the same in the office, why shouldn't I vote for the only positive difference Obama has?

    As for the funny name comment, I didn't say 'funny name', but I did mean 'different' name; it may not be a value to the US, but it is for the middle east, for Europe, and the rest of the world. Like it or not, Barack Obama is not a name you would own and have people assume you're a midwestern american.

    And, as I said above, I don't expect kudos for this decision, but I wanted others to know why I decided this way. You make your own choices still, thank ghod, so decide not to vote for him. Easy.


    Not sure I can agree with you (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:24:59 PM EST
    but with the rest I can agree: most people are not going to know the dirty tricks Obama played to reach his place, or how empty his rhetoric is... they'll just know that America chose a black man with a foreign-sounding name to lead their nation. To think of what that means to a young boy in the ghetto with bigger dreams, or of any race, I think it might just be worth it.

    Rangel, Conyers, and so many more have risen to their heights in government because they worked really hard to get there, and they have proven time and again they have the well being of all the people at heart. I don't think Obama's resume teaches anyone anything about working hard to achieve the highest office in the country.

    I also think you are wrong about how the dirty tricks not making it to the history books. Just wait a few years. If Obama doesn't win this time, how the Democrats handled the primary will be non-stop talking heads analysis.


    nice post.... (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:33:05 PM EST
    ...even though I disagree with it, its refreshing to see someone attempt to make a rational positive argument for Obama.

    what I disagree with is that is Obama runs the country like he's run this campaign, all the gains made on 'image' will be wiped out once people realize that the "image" has no relationship to the "substance."  And the long term consequences of that will set us back even further than we are now.

    Obviously, your mileage varies.... but at least you don't have CDS (yet) ;)


    That's what this place is all about (none / 0) (#124)
    by blogtopus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:35:01 PM EST
    Thanks for the support, in a way. I will NEVER have CDS; she's still my choice for best candidate in a lifetime, and I will have a batch of HC12 tshirts and bumper stickers ready if Obama loses Nov 4th.

    I do get where you're coming from, I (5.00 / 5) (#137)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:39:53 PM EST
    really do.  A year ago, I happily said I would vote for whichever candidate we nominated; I believed then that we had some quality candidates, all with strengths, and I was sure it would not only be okay, but it would be just a whole lot of fun.

    I went from being an Edwards supporter to being a Hillary supporter; in defending her all the time from the usual cr@p we've come to hear about her, I ended up doing enough research that I came to see that she was the best candidate.

    No one was more surprised than I was...I had been fearing and even dreading a Clinton presidency, thinking about all the baggage, knowing the media would never let her be the president but would insinuate that all her decisions were really coming from Bill.  As I saw her strength in the face of a relentless onslaught of the worst treatment out there, I realized this woman would be her own woman, and would not cave in, kowtow or cede her authority to anyone - not even her former-president husband.

    Can I tell you that I have tried - over and over - to see what the true believers see in Obama?  I just can't.  I don't.  The reasons have all been expressed here for months, and nothing I have seen has convinced me that everything will be okay if he is elected.

    On top of the reasons why I do not support Obama is the matter of the party hierarchy; if I thought for one minute that the party bosses were going to take Obama in hand and guide him to better places on policy and issues, I might be able to cast a vote for him - but the party poo-bahs seem to be embracing this new brand that is watering down to the point of being meaningless so many of the issues that matter to me that can't bring myself to go along, to get on board.

    And then, there's Congress...a body full of weak, spineless creatures who seem to have Joe Lieberman disease, and it's getting worse, not better.  Make no mistake - the Blue Dogs are going to be the Top Dogs if Obama is elected, and together with their Republican pals, are not going to be giving us the agenda we need.

    I am glad for you that you have reached a decision you are okay with; the decision I have made not to vote the presidential ballot is one I am comfortable with, even if I am not happy that that's the only decision that made sense to me.


    I completely respect and understand your decision (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by blogtopus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:48:33 PM EST
    As I said, this is my own, and don't expect a lot of hallelujah on this one. I'm not a true believer, because I know who he is and what he did. But much in the way I think he is not worthy based on all that he has chosen to do, ironically I think he is valuable in the one thing he could not choose - his race.

    Roughly put, I'm voting for the token black guy. Sad, exquisitely so, but it was only because he made it so by providing nothing else to support him for.


    I just wanted to say that, (none / 0) (#64)
    by shoulin4 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:08:55 PM EST
    I loved your post, every word. Although, as a young girl with big dreams, I don't necessarily feel a dream deferred by Obama.

    Yeah? (none / 0) (#188)
    by Nadai on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:12:43 PM EST
    Wait until you're 70 like my mother and still no woman has ever been President or Vice President.  She won't see it in her lifetime and frankly, I doubt you will, either.

    Well, being that I'm AA (none / 0) (#206)
    by shoulin4 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:42:52 PM EST
    I never thought that the black guy would even have a chance in my lifetime, what with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and the likes.

    Women have done many great things in the face of male dominance. But now as always, life has many battles, not just one.

    I guess what I'm saying is that while the media really was awful, what am I going to do about the media? I hated the sexism about Hillary just as much as I hate BET and Rush Limbaugh (sp?). But what I'm going to do about that? Freedom of speech/expression and all. At the same time, I didn't feel personally slighted by means of sexism by Obama at all. My dreams haven't been deferred by Obama because I have a multi-opponent fight.

    Interestingly enough, and I apologize for being off-topic, I don't hear much about the opinions of black-women on the battle of the primaries. It's usually black men and white women. But what of the minorities who are doubly- or even triply-discriminated against? Yeah Hillary didn't win, and the media was disgusting, but hey, how about that! Obama won and, good God, I think I've a black person who doesn't bring me and my fellows shame at every turn (like some). Here's a black guy in my generation that I can be proud of.


    (LOUD applause) (none / 0) (#148)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:47:27 PM EST
    But weren't we supposed to not talk about the race issue any more...?  Did I miss a memo?

    (wishes this rating scale went up to 11) n/t (none / 0) (#191)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:16:42 PM EST
    What is the purpose of the musical (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:08:19 PM EST
    interlude w/live music?

    Also, why the heck waste free TV coverage taking The Panoramic Photo?  

    It may seem silly (none / 0) (#143)
    by Lahdee on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:44:44 PM EST
    but I remember years where our featured speaker, and yes our candidate, were delayed until after 11PM Eastern. I'd rather have an interlude or two, or for that matter, fifteen or twenty, if it gets my featured players on the stage when it matters.

    Have been wondering about two (none / 0) (#63)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:08:51 PM EST

    1.  Will the crowd in the hall have "Hillary" signs like they had for Kennedy and Michelle?


    2.  Are the Obama people going to make sure there is no boo-ing/hissing/cat-calling when Clinton speaks?

    In my guess . . . (none / 0) (#69)
    by shoulin4 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:11:46 PM EST
    1. I don't see why not.
    2. I doubt that those people will be needed to squash dissent because I doubt that dissent will take place.

    OK, I have the last two epdisodes (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:12:08 PM EST
    of The Wire Season 3 to watch before Hillary comes on.

    It was a tough call, but I've never watched a convention before and had no idea they were this boring.

    Good thing BTD isn't watching. (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:18:27 PM EST
    Hoyer is on.

    I'm not really a fan... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:19:51 PM EST
    ... but Steny's actually giving a pretty good speech.

    Hey! Town Hall (none / 0) (#128)
    by Emma on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:37:14 PM EST
    And Jennifer Granholm!!!

    WashoeJim, here she is.  :)  Hope you're watching.

    I was watching! :) (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:53:15 PM EST
    I'm so proud of her ... she's the governor of my home/birth state.

    Unfortunately, she is a Canuck (no offense to Canadians) and a HUGE Hillary supporter (no surprise! strong women always support strong women,right?)


    That explains (none / 0) (#167)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:58:07 PM EST
    Chris Gregoire (an Obama koolaid drinker).

    Oops (none / 0) (#186)
    by Emma on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:12:41 PM EST
    Sorry about messin' up your name. Too much to drink.  Glad you saw her.  :)

    Although, (none / 0) (#135)
    by Emma on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:38:59 PM EST
    at the moment she seems a bit like a game show host.  ??  What's up with that?  Definitely odd.

    Nice haircut, though.


    Jennifer Granholm looks great (none / 0) (#132)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:38:14 PM EST
    At least they're letting some women talk, tho I'm still pretty irritated a man is headlining tonight.

    Why wasn't she mentioned as a VP (none / 0) (#145)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:45:54 PM EST

    She (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by dissenter on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:49:39 PM EST
    was born in Canada I think

    Ah! I should know better than to assume! (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:09:51 PM EST
    I just figured she was a busunder, especially after the way she was treated by his supporters.

    Re: Canada: you're right (none / 0) (#159)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:50:50 PM EST
    Also, I stand corrected.  Warner's speaking before Hillary.  Just saw the sched on C-SPAN (HRC 8:30 MST)

    Clinton Supporter (none / 0) (#152)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:48:19 PM EST
    I think she was born in Canada and became a U.S. (none / 0) (#160)
    by bjorn on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:51:47 PM EST
    citizen later.

    I just had to say that (none / 0) (#138)
    by shoulin4 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:40:27 PM EST
    "abandon hope, all ye who enter here"
    was the funniest thing I've read today. Kudos for the arrangement of those words!

    That's a quote from (none / 0) (#204)
    by Nadai on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:31:33 PM EST
    Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy.  It's the inscription over the entrance to Hell.

    "America's Townhall" (none / 0) (#158)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:50:30 PM EST
    Anyone watching this "panel discussion" that's being moderated by my home state Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-Mich.)?

    It seems incredibly contrived and scripted. I love Granholm, but I wish she didn't have to do this (although she's doing a pretty good job of moderator)

    Charles Barkley (none / 0) (#172)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:01:03 PM EST
    has a speaking spot!

    Oh wait, this is just a long interview.  Why is the camera on him?  Hm.

    Oh, media.

    Don't forget if the site goes down.... (none / 0) (#200)
    by Teresa on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:27:11 PM EST