Late Night: Sunset Grill (A Thank You to CNN)

CNN took over Brooklyn's Bar and Grill outside the Pepsi Center this week. After hiking over viaducts from downtown to get to the Pepsi Center, waiting in 15 minute security lines in 90 degree heat, it's an oasis. [More...]

There's an outdoor patio area with lots of televisions, tables and chairs. The indoor bar and restaurant had television screens, a CNN reporter's filing area, free wi-fi for everyone, cell phone charging stations, and free and plentiful food and drink -- including a full bar with premium brands.

It isn't open to the public -- you need credentials which CNN offered me (and several hundred others).

Today was the first day I went inside. I got there at 3, got an excellent seat at the bar and left at 8 pm. Dinner was cooked by four of Denver's best chefs and outstanding. The CNN reporters and anchors were there mingling (Photos as soon as I process them.)

It was such an inviting and friendly atmosphere with great vibes all around. An oasis from the heat and commotion at the Pepsi Center. And an extremely generous gesture by CNN.

On election day in 2006, CNN flew about 100 bloggers into Washington for a live-blogging party at the Tryst in Alexandria, Virginia. I didn't think anything could top that. The CNN Bar and Grill did.

Thank you, CNN.

< Live-Blogging Joe Biden | A Historic Night >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    CNN is creaming MSNBC (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:06:16 PM EST
    on convention coverage.

    When CNN switches to commercials I flip over to MSNBC and invariably find Olbermann and Tweety, both uncomfortable and disgruntled as they crouch on their "set" outside a train station.  It's windy and Tweety's dyed blonde hair is disheveled, Olbermann is wincing as the unruly crowds in front of the station drown out their voices.

    Couldn't happen to a nicer pair of jerks.

    Wars: preceding thread, someone said... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:14:09 PM EST
    that the Democratic majority in Congress has kept us from war with Iran.

    Uh, uh. Tonight Joe Biden has us entering into another cold war with Russia, which may turn into a hot war over Georgia.

    Plus, Biden was roaring about sending more troops into Afghanistan, under the pretext of 'getting the people who really attacked us'; and wasn't Pakistan thrown into the mix as well? When will we learn: every sexed-up new war is as bogus as every preceding, tired-ass old war.

    Yeah, good thing we're not at war with Iran...yet. Honestly, if Bush made a big push to go after Iran, via Israel, or whatever, just before the election - would Obama/Biden face down McCain to nix the plan? And risk looking 'weak on national security' in November? I think not.


    Russia's acting... (none / 0) (#13)
    by pmj6 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:33:09 PM EST
    ...as if the second Cold War already existing, accusing the US of supplying Georgia with arms and other assorted nonsense. Biden is only acknowledging the obvious.

    What makes this more credible than (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:52:50 PM EST
    aluminum tubes; uranium enrichment; WMD; Saddam attacked us; Iraq has ties to Bin laden; etc.?

    Why not have skepticism be our default position when it comes to war-mongering talk like this?


    Are you saying the Russian accusation... (none / 0) (#43)
    by pmj6 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:11:05 AM EST
    ...is accurate?

    I don't have a problem with skepticism... (none / 0) (#51)
    by pmj6 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:21:15 AM EST
    I do have a problem with instant and unquestioning acceptance of Russian claims.

    That's terrible (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:58:39 PM EST
    Why, I remember when those dastardly Soviets accused us of smuggling arms in order to undermine the Soviet-friendly regime in Afghanistan.  Why, they even used it to justify an invasion.  Lord knows we would never actually do such a thing.

    I think we outright sell or give arms to Georgia. (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:05:24 AM EST
    No need to smuggle.

    When Saakashvili (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by BrianJ on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:37:10 AM EST
    Had protestors beaten in the streets of Tbilisi last fall, he abandoned the "Rose Revolution" first.  He deserves nothing but the boot.

    I thought we sold arms to them too. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:19:59 AM EST
    I heard it on the news back when this whole mess started.  

    Heh! (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Landulph on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:06:43 AM EST
    Good point. And THAT operation was conceived and orchestrated by Carter's NSA, one Zbigniew Brzeznski, now a leading Obama foreign policy advisor. It's a funny world we live in . . .

    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:09:29 AM EST
    the Soviets were apparently 100% right about us, but what they didn't realize was that our real intent was simply to provoke them to invade.

    Here is the fascinating interview in which Zbigniew Brzezinski told the whole story.  As far as I have been able to determine, it is completely genuine.


    Yes, here's the direct Brzezinski quote... (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:35:37 AM EST
    Regarding the US role in the Soviet/Aghan war (1979-89), in a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Zbigniew Brzezinski recalled:

    "We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would...That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap...The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War".

    Charmed, I'm sure. As an Obama national security adivor, maybe Brzezinski can work the same magic for Obama as he did for Carter. That went so well.


    I don't trust the translation... (none / 0) (#47)
    by pmj6 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:17:57 AM EST
    I've read that interview in other publications, and I don't remember Brzezinski saying anything about trying to provoke USSR to do anything. Carter administration policy was to pursue detente, worsening of relations is the last thing they wanted.

    Well, Robert Gates also says it's true... (none / 0) (#67)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:21:12 AM EST
    As stated by the former director of the CIA and current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in his memoirs From the Shadows, the American intelligence services began to aid the rebel factions in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet deployment. On July 3, 1978, US President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the communist regime. [wikipedia]

    Detente to the face and a knife to the back. Did Carter think the Soviets wouldn't notice.


    Tell me something, Steve... (none / 0) (#48)
    by pmj6 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:19:23 AM EST
    ...do you believe the Soviets were justified in invading Afghanistan?

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:42:45 AM EST
    Justified by what measure?  By their national interest?  I mean, the agenda of the Soviet Union was something that was so wrong in my estimation that it's hard for me to say they were justified in doing anything at all in pursuit of that agenda.

    But the thing is, when we're talking about superpowers, "justification" kinda becomes a word with no meaning.  Might doesn't make right, but it sort of makes right irrelevant.


    Sorry, I don't get the joke... (none / 0) (#64)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:06:04 AM EST
    Regarding the Soviet/Afghan war, the Soviets entered at the request of the Afghan government to help fight the Afghan mujahideen rebels who were, in fact, supported by the US well in advance of Soviet involvement.

    Carter advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski stated "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise"...American intelligence services began to aid the rebel factions in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet deployment. [Wikipedia]

    The US equipped and trained the mujahideen rebels who were joined by Afghan Arabs. Some of the latter group, used their US training and equiment to form the Taliban, and Bin Laden's al-Qaeda.

    Fast forward: voila, 9/11 and, without cause, the Iraq War. It's a small world after all.  


    pm - I couldn't answer your (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:28:58 AM EST
    post earlier re why First Gulf War was justified.  Slant drilling into Iraq by Kuwait - at one time one country - April Glaspie's remarks to Saddam Hussein -

    it's much more complex than your comment -and the sanctions - how many children suffered, died?
    As to Joe Biden and Georgia - another war.  Are we nuts?  Diplomacy now - not ratcheting up another war.  We are as responsible for a second cold war as is Russia.  We need to get out of Russia's face.  Russia is rich in minerals/gas - and Europe is the beneficiary - guess which way they'll go.  I didn't hear Biden's speech.  Was he he really bellicose?  That is really, really dangerous.  This is the Vice Presidential choice of a man who got into office on his supposed opposition to the Iraq War.  OMG.  



    The President of Georgia (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by andrys on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 03:08:28 AM EST
    is an egomaniacal little Napoleon, educated here and promised support by Bush for his 'democratic' state there and he apparently misinterpreted Bush's usual mixed(-up) messages

      Separatist Abkhazia and South Ossetia claimed independence back in 1992 and since then, 16 years ongoing, have become Russian Citizens, with ties to North Ossetia, a part of Russia, and they can go back and forth, as citizens.  When Georgia invaded, thousands fled to Russia.

      I have a Kindle subscription to Slate and really enjoyed a fascinating older set of five dispatches sent May 23 by Joshua Kucera from Tskhinvali and surrounding areas.  It's more like a travel journal and, unlike the reports and stories we read in NY Times and other papers, this one gives you an idea of everyday life as it's lived there.

      As for the political news stories, President Saakashvili was feeling his oats and, according to Condi Rice, against our government's advice (but he felt they encouraged him) he attacked South Ossetia, killing many (that's an understatement) civilians in that town.  Estimates are between a few hundred and 2,000, depending on who's counting.

      It's a DIRECT provocation of Russia and he was angry that Bush and McCAIN (whose sr. staff advisor is a lobbyist for Georgia) had not come across with REAL 'support' for him yet, meaning some kind of military help.  McCain bragged that he was in regular touch with Saakashvili and they are old friends "I know him."

      Of course, as ever, there is oil access involved in the routes in those areas.  Russia was looking for a chance or excuse to get further into those territories and take out what they felt were threats and of course they just also want more.  

      Both sides have done terrible things.  But Georgia most definitely started it and their president is an Imbecile.

      I watched him prattle on when Rice visited maybe 10 days ago and gave visible signs of MORAL support while he railed on, loving his microphone, for probably 40 minutes, repeating over and over again "NEVER EVER..." this or that.

      Biden and Bush should NEVER get us into a war with Russia over this, but now we've made an agreement with Poland during this time for defense missiles for them, installed there, supposedly as a defense against Iran, I think.

      The Russians feel very threatened and have promised to attack Poland over this.

      So it's a very bad situation.  I'm sorry to see that Biden may be a hardliner on this.  

      Now I worry about a Dem administration eager to show its own military capabilities and with an ultra compliant Congress.


    Jesse Jackson, Jr. warned Obama followers: (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Josey on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 05:31:36 AM EST
    the Dem Party is too small to win elections - and during the coming weeks Obama's proposals may make make them uneasy because he'll be appealing to Obamacans (his words) and Indys as he moves right to get their votes.

    Guess he gave up on white working class Dems?
    (maybe there's a transcript somewhere)


    That's a given - (none / 0) (#93)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:50:01 AM EST
    unless Obama's speech tonight says differently, instead of appealing to independents and wavering Republicans.  

    Besides - there's less and less work here - so exactly what will we call the new working class (black or white) besides the part-timers.


    And Jesse Jackson, Jr. should (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:56:35 AM EST
    get down on his knees and thank his father and the Democrats (black and white) who fought so that Jesse, Jr.  would be in the position he is today.  He's not a struggling working class man and more importantly, this statement is pretty revealing as to his heart. Not big enough my left earlobe - not wealthy enough - not influential enough, not educated enough.  Who the heck can afford to be educated today unless they are burdened with debt.  Look around you, Jesse, Jr. -
    I remember Father Pflaeger (I know, I know) making a speech at an antiwar march - calling for leaders to look out their windows - it's in front of you.  Jesse, Jr. - look out your windows once in awhile.

    I am going to go down to the kitchen and cool down a bit.


    He's also positioning himself (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Josey on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:15:14 AM EST
    for the governor to appoint him to Obama's senate seat.

    Or maybe the senate seat Obama will leave (none / 0) (#101)
    by stefystef on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:21:13 AM EST
    if he wins the Presidency.

    And that's a BIG IF.


    that's interesting - (none / 0) (#105)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:24:55 AM EST
    I thought it was Guiterrez - where did I hear that?  Why though - doesn't Blago have a son old enough (hey, 12 will do) he can appoint.

    interview with JJ, Jr. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Josey on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:29:10 AM EST
    Chicago Tribune, Aug. 28. 2008

    Q. You have expressed an interest in the vacancy that would be created for an Illinois Senate seat if Obama is elected president. Why?

    A. I said I wouldn't say no if I was asked. I've served in Congress almost 14 years. ... In terms of just knowing your way around Washington, I've served as a national co-chair of Barack's campaign and have defended him from one end of the country to the other. There's no African-American in the United States Senate should Barack leave it.

    Q. Should race be a consideration in what would be the governor's choice to appoint an Obama replacement?

    A. I don't think you can ignore that because we can't make progress on the one hand and then make no progress on the other. Presidents sign bills, they don't write them. So Barack needs a loyalist in the Congress who can advance his agenda.


    Thanks for information (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:37:32 AM EST
    I thought there were several loyalists in Congress/ the Senate  -  well, an argument can be made by a Hispanic as well.

    Fourteen years - I remember when he was a little boy.  Wow.  His record is good but so is G's.

    As to Obama - the people at U of C whom I know that support him are usually two professional families - I'm guessing $300,000 average salaries and well educated.  They are clueless about the economy.  Good people - yes and one of them is a fine person who occasionally calls me to vent.  But these people are isolated even if they are decent.  But, the people who also support him in lower classes - I hope he gets that.  That's what scares me.



    To russia's leaders the first cold war (none / 0) (#98)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:09:23 AM EST
    never ended. It just went underground for a while.

    I think the same can be said (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by magisterludi on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:23:43 AM EST
    of many American hawks, McCain being first and foremost in my mind.

    I don't think I've seen Mac more animated than when he's blasting Ruskies. Back to the 1950's, the Red Scare Era is right up his alley.

    Never mind that Bush has been pushing Nato expansion to their borders for years, antagonizing and provoking a re-awakening of the Bear.

    I see little difference between American Expansionism and Russian Imperialism and their disastrous results.


    I've heard McCain say, (none / 0) (#111)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:36:20 AM EST
    either on TV or the radio, that one of the biggest tools a President has is the "bully pulpit."  

    Obviously, if McCain wins, he intends to use it.  

    One thing about both Biden and McCain:  They both have kids in the armed services.  I don't know if they would be so ready to send their kids into battle if they didn't think the battle was worth it.  It's one thing to talk a good game and it's totally another to actually participate.  


    I don't like the game (none / 0) (#116)
    by magisterludi on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:50:40 AM EST
    either of them are talking. There are no clean hands here and to make it a Us vs. Them is just jingoistic and dangerous rhetoric in my book.

    Like I said, we don't need to resurrect the Cold War and take our attention off far more urgent problems, although I'm sure that is exactly what the GOP hopes.


    Ahhh, such relief (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:16:56 PM EST
    Today, I can officially become, the ornery old lady I wanted to be.  Such a relief.  

    That makes two of us (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by sleepwalker on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:18:23 PM EST
    The new party... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:26:00 PM EST
    If anyone tells me to let it go I will .......cut off body parts with my wonderful kitchen knives.  

    I'll be using (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by janarchy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:55:56 PM EST
    my razor-sharp claws. Woo hoo!

    Yes. (5.00 / 9) (#71)
    by echinopsia on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:42:09 AM EST
    It is something of a relief to see the Democratic Party officially and irrevocably divorce itself from what it has always stood for. After all the hints (to put it mildly) given during the primary.

    Now I can no longer be a Democrat.

    I think my coal miner union-organizer grandfather would understand completely why I can no longer be a member of this party. He would have disowned any descendant who abandoned the party of the working person. But this is no longer the party of the working person.

    My grandmother likewise would have disowned any descendant who denied voting rights to women. But this is no longer the party of rights for women.

    These are my examples of real Democrats. These are my touchstones, Grampa the union organizer and Gramma the suffragette.

    It causes me grief that I can no longer call myself a Democrat with enormous pride, given what they did as Democrats. The Democratic party is no longer my home.

    We are not what we used to be.  


    I find it highly depressing (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by janarchy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 02:45:13 AM EST
    that what should have been an historic moment today in terms of the nomination has left such a bad taste in many people's mouths. The sham of a roll-call never should have happened, especially amidst all the cries for Unity. If that's the new Democratic party, then count me out completely.

    I'm still debating on whether or not I want to bother with the reinactment of Triumph of the Will meets Spinal Tap tomorrow night.


    I doubt I will. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 03:06:08 AM EST
    First, it's on late in my time slot.
    Second, kids are in school, so my schedule is more cramped.

    I'll probably just check to see if Obama woos all the busunders, on the off chance that he does.  Or if he takes the Clintons' advice and remembers that he is supposed to be a Democrat.

    But Obama is consistent, so I rather expect he'll make some token gestures towards party unity and then invoke Barney, the imaginary purple mascot for warm, fuzzy postpartisanship.  More important to reach out to the evangelicals and independents than see why the busunders haven't seen the light yet and come to Obama.


    Thank you for making me smile. (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by janarchy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 03:22:13 AM EST
    But Obama is consistent, so I rather expect he'll make some token gestures towards party unity and then invoke Barney, the imaginary purple mascot for warm, fuzzy postpartisanship.  More important to reach out to the evangelicals and independents than see why the busunders haven't seen the light yet and come to Obama.

    This has now given me an evil vision of Barney singing 'I love you, you love me...' while holding hands with all the whole Unity crowd (Pelosi, Dean, etc.). Although I think Baloney The Dinosaur is probably a better fit.


    Some reviews of the Big Dog's (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by DemForever on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:34:11 PM EST
    I like how Sully just comes right out and says it (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:46:18 PM EST
    His disdain for Bill is personal but he defends his solid record in office.

    Yes, a rare quality n/t (none / 0) (#21)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:47:33 PM EST
    Sad news that (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by eleanora on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:55:46 PM EST
    Del Martin, the woman who married her partner in a groundbreaking California ceremony two months ago, died today at 87.

    "Martin died at a San Francisco hospital two weeks after a broken arm exacerbated her existing health problems.... Her partner of more than 55 years and wife of just over two months, Phyllis Lyon, was with her."

    Still, I am glad that she had (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:59:33 PM EST
    the past two months to be happy with her new spouse.

    At the very (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:00:32 AM EST
    least, she lived long enough for her and her partner to be legally married.

    I am saddened by this news.  I hope that her wife knows there are a lot of us in the GLBT community that see life long relationships like this solidify the fact that we are no different in our ability to love one another and respect one another...and to still be positive forces in the community at-large.


    Sad news (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:01:22 AM EST
    but such a nice thing that she was able to enjoy the feeling of getting married before her time came.  I'd imagine she never thought she'd see the day.

    Too young, even at 87. (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by OrangeFur on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:20:37 AM EST
    But it's wonderful that she was able to have her lifelong love officially ratified by the state.

    I've been extremely disappointed by the Democratic Party's behavior on gay marriage. National Democrats have simply failed to lead in any way. Not a single nationally prominent Democrat (other than the politically-retired Al Gore) has called for legalizing it nationally. Obama refused to have his picture taken with Gavin Newsome and hired Donnie McClurkin to campaign for him.

    So far, we have gay marriage in Massachusetts and California, both decided by 4-3 majorities in those states' Supreme Courts. In both cases, three of the four justices in the majority were appointed by Republicans.

    Could it be that after everything, that the biggest political steps towards gay marriage in this country were because of Republicans? Where is the Democratic leadership on this?


    Great point (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Prabhata on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 02:00:34 AM EST
    I'm tired of the Republicans being accused by the Democrats that their appointments is the reason to vote Democrat.  Judge Thomas should have never been approved by the senate.  Another reason not to vote for Obama/Biden.

    Quiet tonight (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 03:35:56 AM EST
    I decided to talk a little bit more about Arianna Huffington's "fearlessness."

    There's a fine film critic in San Francisco.  His name is Mick LaSalle and on his blog he wrote about what it's like being young, interested in art, literature and movies and such.  He talks about how people deal with disagreement, and I wish I remembered exactly how he put it.

    It was something like:

    I was at that age where I was certain everyone in the world agreed on everything but the world was divided up into people who had the courage to see it and those who did not.

    So if someone didn't like "Citizen Kaine" it wasn't because of a personal aesthetic preference, it wasn't because of any values that were given to them by their parents, it wasn't because of any life experiences, it was simply because this person didn't have the guts to like "Citizen Kaine".

    This is actually one of the reasons why I like Biden.  I was up early and he was on Imus back when Imus was still on and talked about what it's like in Washington, what the political climate is and Biden being Biden he wanted to take us back to the old days when people disagreed without attacking the other person personally, calling them unpatriotic, calling them cowards.  He believed that the environment -- INSIDE THE BELTWAY -- was part of the problem because it got to the point where nobody could ever discuss something rationally.

    And I felt, in my view, that he was right and that such an environment provides a huge advantage to group of politicians who have something to gain by proving that government itself is a dysfunctional enterprise, a bad idea... republicans.

    And now we see their liberal minded counterparts, the libertarians, sort of take over the party.  People like Arianna and Markos Moulitsas who literally are incapable of disagreeing with someone without calling them a coward.  And so that's how I view a book by Ariana about being Fearless.  I don't see it as empowerment but manipulation.  And I don't see it as an outside the beltway mindset, but a specifically inside the beltway mindset.

    I wanted to explain that more because it might have seemed flippant a couple nights ago.

    Coda:  As far as Mick LaSalle is concerned, I found it funny that he felt "There Will Be Blood" was over-praised because other critics were too afraid to criticize it.

    The point is, it's a very natural inclination to respond this way to disagreement.  I am absolutely certain that if one wanted to dredge up everything I've said on the internet they would find many examples of me also resorting to calling the people I disagree with cowards.  But a lot of things are very natural inclinations (farting in an elevator), and as Joseph Conrad teaches us in Heart of Darkness restraint is an admirable quality in a human being.

    Sometimes I don't see things (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 04:38:37 AM EST
    because I'm not looking for them.

    Sometimes I don't see things because they simply aren't there.

    It's hard to tell sometimes why other people see things that I don't.  Is it because I'm not looking?  Is it because they really aren't there?

    With Obama, I think that I will just have to wait and see if the things people see in him become apparent to me in time, or if they fail to materialize at all.

    My verdict on last night is that the DNC are cowards.  The vote should have been a challenge, a test of leadership, an opportunity to both celebrate our diversity yet agree on common goals.  Instead they decided that the party can't afford the luxury of dissent.  

    It was like watching the RBC meeting all over again.  Why did they do it?  To ensure the end result would not be in doubt.  Was it necessary?  No.  Did it change the most likely outcome?  No.  Did it betray the spirit of democratic representation and participation?  Yes.  

    So the message is:  
    We have the power.  We will use it.  We will not share it.  If you don't like it, tough because we will not apologize or change.  We have an election to win.

    My problem is that I think they won't win the election specifically because they won't listen.  I fully expect the DNC and the Obama campaign to do exactly what they want to do.  I expect them to ignore advice to stand for something more than Not_McCain and Not_Republican.  I expect them to turn to the issues after the GOP has done a hatchet job on Obama's image, when they should be staking the race on the issues now.

    I wonder which pundits will be shocked and surprised and which ones will not.  BTD will not be surprised.  Carville?  I haven't followed him, but I may start.  The rest, especially those that are in the tank for Obama?  I expect they'll be outraged at the GOP's horrible awful behavior, even though we've seen it all before.  (Kerry, Gore, Clinton)  Oh, the horror, the horror!

    I'm all outraged out.  I'm tired of being bullied.  I'm tired of being ignored.  I'm tired of being betrayed.


    Word. (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by janarchy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 04:57:12 AM EST
    I'm all outraged out.  I'm tired of being bullied.  I'm tired of being ignored.  I'm tired of being betrayed.

    And that's when you realise you can't keep enabling them and quietly walk away. I've got no energy to fight anymore. At this point, aside from occasional venting of frustration, I'm sitting on the sidelines and letting them all go to hell in their own special ways. Democrats, Republicans, the works.

    What's sad is I spent decades defending the Democrats, no matter what. After the RBC meeting and the roll call sham, there is no moral high ground for the Democrats. Whatever the Republicans have done to fix elections in the past pale by comparison. There was no reason for the crap today -- it only served to push away more people who had been hard working party loyalists. What's worse is they pretend to have the moral high ground as they pull it. Lower than the low.

    I am ashamed to have ever defended anyone, especially when now I'm the enemy of supposed Democrats because I am standing by the same principles I've always had. Now I see what my Republican friends were talking about 20 yrs ago. I never thought I'd see the day.


    This morning on MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:18:11 AM EST
    Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough are doing the Democrats' job.  Pat is on fire - sorry I like Pat - When it comes up - watch it.  Pat:  why haven't the Democrats brought up Guatanamo -

    Pat and Joe are talking about our soldiers, about Katrina, about bankrupting America, and saying the Dems should have hit harder last night.  

    Two Republicans Dems should listen to.

    We're not the only ones disgusted about the last 8 years - and it was sincere.


    What I'd Like to See at the GOP.... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:44:34 AM EST
    ...convention is for Mike Huckabee to "open" it by walking on stage in a toga, carrying his own "seal" that he attaches to the podium, with stagehands scurrying behind him with "columns" to place around him.... and his first words are:

    Now, aren't you glad you decided to nominate John McCain for President?

    Yeah (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:50:01 AM EST
    this whole idea stinks. However, it is producing some very good comedy. At least we can laugh our way to Nov. Too bad McCain seems to have a sense of humor whereas Obama has none.

    McCain needs to give his acceptance (none / 0) (#108)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:29:34 AM EST
    speech in a high school gym.  

    Assuming (none / 0) (#139)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:48:42 AM EST
    that he can fill one.

    Bloggers are getting "star" treatment (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by stefystef on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:58:39 AM EST
    but what will that translate to?  More votes for Obama in November?  Are the bloggers controlling the MSM or is the MSM controlling the bloggers?

    Personally, I'm tired of the coverage of the Convention.  It has been a kiss-ass fest for the entire 4 days, very little discussion of real solutions and the real problems the Bush Administration has put this country.  It has been all photo-ops and sound-bites.

    And while the dye-in-the-wool Dems will vote for Obama, I have to agree with Bob Herbert's column talking about voters saying one thing (I'll vote for Obama) and their actual actions (not voting for him).  While there may be a "bounce" in Obama's numbers after tonight, it's more a knee jerk reaction that won't last after the RNC convention.

    I felt better about the future when Hillary was a possibility.  Now, not so much.

    funny that, huh (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:18:19 AM EST
    Obama gets No bounce from Biden.  But, the Clintons will probably give him a bounce if there is a bounce to be had.

    So, now that Hillary and Bill have BOTH given the best endorsement speeches "evah" for Obama, tell me again just why it was going to be so horrible to have them speak in prime time at "Obama's" convention?  Why was there EVER a question?  Can you imagine waht this convention would have been like without those two speeches?

    Were there any OTHER speakers at this convention, including Michelle, that did MORE for Obama than the Clintons?  Would there possibly have been any other speakers who in any way COULD have done for Obama what the Clintons did if they didn't speak at the convention?

    Now let's see if Obama does the same tonight and shows the respect to the Clintons that they have both earned.  Enough of Obama trashing the Clinton administration.  And, enough of him letting people like Clyburn, Brazile and Jesse Jackson Jr OFF THE HOOK for their behavior.  It's time for Obama to "man up" in the same manner the Clintons have.


    Right on, TimNCGuy! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by stefystef on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:23:56 AM EST
    The message... (none / 0) (#113)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:40:28 AM EST
    While Obama will doubtless give "the greatest acceptance speech EVAH" tonight, I doubt that it will make much difference.   It would have been tough enough for Obama to break through the GOP's successful defining of Obama as a "rock star" at the convention hall itself -- Invesco field was a mistake, but an even bigger mistake will be the "set" -- regardless of what Obama says, what people will be seeing is a "performance".

    I find it simply amazing, given the reaction to the Britney/Paris ad, that Team Obama didn't redesign the stage to get rid of all the artifice (to the extent that decor was necessary, it should have been 'retro' -- lots of flag bunting, etc to make it look like the political conventions of days past.)

    The smartest thing that Obama could do is give a "bad" speech -- one that is completely serious and way too 'wonky'.  But the Invesco decision makes that virtually impossible -- it would just come off as more "artifice".


    The entire Obama campaign (none / 0) (#118)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:55:34 AM EST
    has been less about substance and more about showmanship.  

    There is no substance in Hope & Change.  

    I expect to hear another speech like his other great speeches; one that counts heavily on retelling "His Story" (Kenyan father, mother from Kansas, etc.), Hope and Change, a shout out to Civil Rights (because of the date), how we all need to do more work to make things right, and all that jazz.  

    I'm torn on whether he will use the phrase "the failed policies of George W. Bush" since this should be an upbeat speech.

    Oh well.  Now that I've written this, I wonder if I'll listen to it tonight?    


    I won't be watching tonight (none / 0) (#143)
    by stefystef on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:32:21 AM EST
    but thanks to TalkLeft, I'll find out what happened.

    Beware the Ides of August LOL


    CNN is creaming MSNBC (none / 0) (#3)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:07:01 PM EST
    on convention coverage.

    When CNN switches to commercials I flip over to MSNBC and invariably find Olbermann and Tweety, both uncomfortable and disgruntled as they crouch on their "set" outside a train station.  It's windy and Tweety's dyed blonde hair is disheveled, Olbermann is wincing as the unruly crowds in front of the station drown out their voices.

    Couldn't happen to a nicer pair of jerks.

    I've been watching CNN myself (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:08:44 PM EST
    For the first time in a long time, the pundits didn't make me want to throw the remote at the TV. I know that won't last.

    oh, another possible drinking game (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:13:05 PM EST
    shot at the pundits. Every time they say something stunningly stupid, take a shot. Hmm, no, I think the level of drunk you'd get in about 10 minutes could cause health problems. Scratch that.

    actually me and some others have been (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:16:04 PM EST
    playing one. Every time a pundit says something to the effect of shouldn't the Clinton's do more or the Clinton's will have to do more, we take a shot. I've already missed one day of work because of this game. I was thinking after yesterday and today, there won't be as much drinking. But sadly I'll probably be wrong. And of course if you want a really quick drunk, listen to Rachel or Stephanie. Two peas in a pod.

    I've been in and out of the car all day (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by echinopsia on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:00:42 AM EST
    the only place I listen to the radio - I don't watch cable TV news - and even though I listen only to NPR, I want to throw something at the radio.

    Maude help me if I were driving and drinking every time even NPR says something stupid.

    Tonight they said something to the effect that Bill Clinton has reparations to make for his racist remarks during the primary.

    I feel like I'm in another reality where everyone in the media is insane.

    When even NPR has abandoned reason, where can we go?


    Speaking of reparations, wonder (none / 0) (#69)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:34:23 AM EST
    if Obama may be interested in reparations.  No doubt he'll be pressured.

    He said (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 05:37:34 AM EST
    that he supported them to one group and then when it came to light he backed off his statements.

    Surprise! nt (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:58:41 AM EST
    Piffle! You were not surprised. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:26:51 AM EST
    Neither am I.

    Comparing Obama and Hillary, I wonder why women are supposed to be the "fickle" gender.


    Obama is consistently inconsistent. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:31:33 AM EST
    Coverage (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:32:04 PM EST
    I've been mostly watching the Dish Network HD feed of the DNC. A pure feed, no pundits. I love it.

    I have switched over to CNN a few times. It wasn't bad when Donna Brazile wasn't there.

    MSNBC seems to be imploding. Can anyone still take those guys seriously?

    I haven't watched Fox.. though it's always good entertainment.


    Watching Greta tonight (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:43:24 PM EST
    She had Susan Estrich on, who said what many here at TL have been saying.  She called Hillary's and Bill's speeches "two homeruns" and that "if Barack Obama doesn't win, he won't be able to blame the Clinton's for his loss".

    Thank you, Susan.

    I wouldn't normally post just to quote a TV pundit, but the anomalous nature of her comment compared to all the other coverage made it worth it.  Both Greta and Susan said they were flooded with emails after Hillary's speech saying they thought Hillary was great but still not voting for Obama.  To their credit, they agreed that that doesn't necessarily mean anything, they're waiting for the polls a few weeks from now after all settles down from the conventions.


    I didn't like FOX in the past either (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:15:01 AM EST
    then I warmed up to them when they appeared to be treating Hillary more fair than CNN was.  (I don't get MSNBC.)

    The O'Reilly interview with Hillary was so good I actually changed my opinion about him.  

    Greta is good when she covers politics.  


    O'Reilly respects Hillary who went into the den (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by andrys on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 03:15:46 AM EST
    And he seems to like her too.  It was an interesting set of interviews (2 halves, I guess, on two nights).

    FAR better than the limp one done with Olbermann.


    Fox is still horrible.... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:47:32 AM EST
    Sorry, but praising Fox is like praising the performance of George and Charlie at the Obama train wreck debate.  

    Fox may be more watchable right now than MSNBC (or the insufferable Wolf Blitzer -- every time I hear the words "tell our viewers" I cringe), but that doesn't make it worthy of praise.


    kind of like (none / 0) (#120)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:08:53 AM EST
    saying we all need to "praise" Obama just because he is a little better than McCain on SOME  issues, right?

    When in actuality, just like there isn't a great news service being provided by  Fox, MSNBC or CNN...  there also isn't a great candidate being provided by either the dems or the repugs.


    I watched Fox (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by justonevoice on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:47:15 PM EST
    and Dennis Kucinich gave Bill OReilly the what for with regard to UHC.  OReilly was bloviating about the framers of the Constitution never intended for UHC to be a right, as Kucinich espouses.

    DK smacked him down by busting out his pocket size Constitution and said, "what about the part about promoting the general welfare?"  

    BOOYAH!!!!   Long live Dennis!  And he was SOOO cool to be wearing a pin of Stephanie Tubbs-Jones' face.

    I LOVE Dennis Kucinich!!!


    Dennis Kucinich (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by litigatormom on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:05:33 AM EST
    I LOVE that he carries a pocket Constitution with him.  

    Re: CNN -- whenever I click over there, Brazile is on and my intestines start to convulse.  but after reading the comments directly above, I went back.  The LKL repeat was focused on who McSame is going to pick as a running mate.  Barf.

    Plus I hate Wolf Blitzer. I don't have intestinal convulsions when he comes on, but that big muscle knot in my neck starts to throb....

    Anyway, to escape LKL and the Republicans, I switched back to MSNBC. Maddow momentarily redeemed herself.  She mentioned that Hurricane Gustav is heading towards the Gulf Coast and there are concerns that the levees have still not be adequately repaired. It may hit Friday, which is also the day that McSame is going to announce his pick, which is also the 3d anniversary of when Katrina hit.  Buchanan admitted that Katrina was a Bush failure but then criticized people who blame the federal government for the bridge collapse in the Twin Cities.  "Do you think a bridge collapse in Minnesota is a national issue?"  "Yes," she practically screeched. "We have a third world infrastructure and people are sick of it!" The crowd cheered. Buchanan shut up.

    It probably won't last long.


    "The Daily Show" tonight (none / 0) (#17)
    by themomcat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:44:43 PM EST
    played an exchange between Joe Scarborough and David Shuster. These guys are so busy attacking each other they forgot they were on the air. Amazing.

    My favorite part of the DAily Show yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:50:07 AM EST
    was when they 'passed over' Samantha B for the AA commentator. She was wearing an orange pantsuit and gave a tongue in cheek version of Hillary's speech.

    I laughed out loud when he went back to the Obamaesk commentator, "Wow, that was a great endorsement. She really threw her weight behind you. What do you have to say?"

    The guy, with a straight face said, "I got nothing. Can I go to the Kanya West show now?"

    Perfect. Don't know if the koolaide is wearing thin with Jon but it was a great moment for me. The audience didn't seem to know whether to laugh or not. I was rolling.


    I Actually (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jane in CA on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 02:00:22 AM EST
    felt that way about CNN's coverage last night (barring just a couple exceptions). It was a pleasant surprise.

    If you haven't seen the clips (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by facta non verba on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:50:50 AM EST
    of all the bickering on MSNBC,

    here are the clips:

    The Drama in Denver is on MSNBC

    It's a hoot to watch them attack each other. Olbermann has really lost his mind.


    Watched the Shuster exchange (none / 0) (#65)
    by themomcat on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:07:54 AM EST
    on "The Daily Show" Jon Stewart's reaction...Priceless. Thanks for the link so I watch the whole things. I  occasionally watch Scarborough in the am only because he actually likes HRC. Other that that i avoid cable news.

    Yes thanks for links (none / 0) (#136)
    by DFLer on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:34:24 AM EST
    wow, KO is being such a dork that even Matthews is ticked off. Fire Brokaw? Good lord!

    I like Morning Joe. I like the Buchanan perspectives, and his "you gotta knee-cap 'em" mentality makes me laugh. I like many of the current regular guests, like Rev. Rivers, Tiki Barber, and the young black radio talk show host guy (name?) I think Joe is the most "post-racial" guy on MSNBC, having actually grown up with and gone to school his whole life with a 50-50 B-W population, unlike Tweety etc. In a sense he doesn't "see color" ala Colbert, and talks about that with other AA guests his age, and how they are able and willing to criticize a black politician like any other politician...and that is not "playing a race card." And of course I like his choice of girlfriends.


    I second that request (none / 0) (#8)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:16:31 PM EST
    (or at least a warning).  

    Is this an open thread?

    Did someone say both Hillary and Bill were leaving Denver tonight?  I thought Hillary was going to stay for the Invesco part.  Has anyone seen a report either way tonight?

    They've done enough (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by dianem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:27:54 AM EST
    Tomorrow is Obama's day. They've been preening for the cameras for days now while Obama was on the sidelines. They get to rest. This can't have been easy, and it would be ridiculous to make them continue the charade tomorrow when every camera that should be on Obama would instead be cutting over to them to see their reaction to his every word.

    Hillary was expected to be at Invesco for (none / 0) (#22)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:48:40 PM EST
    Obama's acceptance.

    Maybe she was told she needed to get out on the campaign trail and start selling.


    Hillary would say (5.00 / 7) (#61)
    by echinopsia on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:49:57 AM EST
    that no one can make you feel inferior (humiliate you) without your consent.

    Hillary does not consent.


    If she left Denver, she did so with her head held high. And rightly so. She and Bill did everything they were asked and expected to do, and I don't want to hear a f*cking word otherwise. If they decide to repair to Chappaqua and remain there for the rest of the year, that's what they are entitled to do.  


    As I was returing from DIA (none / 0) (#54)
    by echinopsia on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:30:54 AM EST
    at about 9:45 tonight, I saw a convoy of limos and buses going towards the airport escorted by black Suburbans and police.

    For what it's worth.


    Can't think of anyone else who would (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:37:24 AM EST
    justify that kind of escort, but they don't always travel together. Perhaps, though, Obama told her she wasn't needed tomorrow. Certainly, all she did (and Bill) so far should have eliminated any additional displays.

    In my opinion (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:45:06 AM EST
    the unity question is now settled once and for all - at least as between Obama and the Clintons personally - and nothing more needs to be proven.  If they did actually leave town, it's probably smart politics in that it lets the focus stay on Obama on his big night, as opposed to the camera constantly cutting to Bill and Hillary to try and catch them making a face.

    Let's give Taylor Marsh her props... (none / 0) (#20)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:47:26 PM EST
    Yesterday Taylor Marsh had a magnificent Huff post, Hillary's Show Stopper, where she said the following:

    So, let every commentator, writer and blogger who finds a crevice in which to slither forth and spew a doubting word on what Hillary said and meant, or should have done, last night finally be called by their proper name: sorcerers. Spiteful vipers who dare to find a toxic blend amidst an open heart and full throated generosity at a time when our country needed just a leader like Hillary to make a new path where the last footsteps have been taken down a road that has ended in the dirt.

    It appears that Taylor's column is now entirely gone from the HuffPo site.

    But meanwhile, speaking of "spiteful vipers", as of this hour, Nora Ephron's vile post, Hillary the Admonisher, sits at the top of the HuffPo front page, yesterday and today. Here's a snippet of her thoughts on Hillary:

    narcissism...the whole fish stinks from the head down...

    With headliners like that, does anybody, for a minute, believe that Ariana Huffington wants to see a Democratic victory in '08? And what good does Nora Ephron think she has done?

    When Harry Met Louise (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by justonevoice on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:50:16 PM EST
    should be the title of her next movie since she loves Obama so much

    Love it, very clever. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:56:57 PM EST
    This is her history (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:55:39 PM EST
    Arianna has always used the trash method. She seems to think that every negative word against Hillary is a positive one for Obama. It's her signature. I've never seen a show where Arianna was brought in to comment and her focus wasn't on the negative trashing of whoever sat across the table from the person she was there to support.

    As much as you would think she hates Hillary Clinton, she strives to be greater. Unfortunately, she doesn't realize what it is that makes Hillary so successful.


    Nothing makes Arianna happier (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:11:28 AM EST
    Than an angry personal attack on Hillary Clinton.

    When she calls Dems "Cowards" she positively glows with an inner light.


    Fox News isn't factually 'credible'... (none / 0) (#72)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:46:47 AM EST
    but it is persuasive and manipulative; much like HuffPo has become.

    Taylor Marsh remains on HuffPost site (none / 0) (#82)
    by andrys on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 03:36:53 AM EST
    I got the regular daily briefing page and they featured this column in it.

      Also, see Taylor's columns there

      Huffington does let a minority of folks post regular articles that are from a totally different slant than hers.  
    And features them.  So I give her credit for that.  But the hired censors/moderators can be too often highly-biased and it's the luck of the draw.  If one doesn't make it I wait until later for another censor's shift, if I care.


    I really like the song Sunset Grill (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:49:30 PM EST
    It's my second favorite Don Henley song.

    It seems (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:33:32 AM EST
    that the "Obama temple" is now the rage of the comics. Even McCain is getting in on it to needle Obama with. Tonight will probably play well with the under thirty crowd but I'm willing to bet it's a different story with other voters.

    He's trying to emulate JFK (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:24:16 AM EST
    JFK gave his acceptance speech at a stadium in the LA Coliseum.  (think greek columns)

    If you think back to early primary days, Obama had a publicity photo out there that had him posing identically to a photo of JFK, right down to the placement of his hands.  The campaign has been trying to do the subliminal JFK thing all along.  This acceptance speech just continues that tradition.

    If Obama doesn't watch out, he will be setting himself up for the "I knew Jack Kennedy, your no Jack Kennedy" line of attack.


    I saw (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:33:56 AM EST
    the picture of Kennedy's acceptance speech. His speech was given at the coliseum simply so more people could come. That would have been fine if had been Obama's sole reason. The whole stagecraft stuff is what is turning the Invesco field thing into a joke already. If he had nothing more than a podium it might be playing a lot better.

    maybe.... (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:44:27 AM EST
    but you know we all started commenting on  the "stadium" speech and the "arrogance" of it LONG before there was ever any mention of the stagecraft.

    Obama is giving the same reason as Kennedy, so more people can attend.  But, somehow I don't think Kennedy had installed a telephone in each person's seat so they could be turned into a free "phone bank" for the candidate while they waited for the festivities to begin.


    Whats wrong with the DEMS doing things big? (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:51:16 AM EST
    i dont get the whole field thing..  i mean a football game fills that place up...and a football game is meaningless compared to the direction of this nation.

    people are just going to gripe and moan about Obama no matter what her does pretty much.

    I have never seen anything like it.


    It's the (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:17:07 AM EST
    stagecraft that's the problem. Do you realize that people are already calling it "The Temple of Obama" and laughing at him? There's nothing wrong with doing things big but doing them stupid is another thing altogether.

    We're supposed to be making a sale that things are tough in this country and people need to vote for Dems while the nominee speaks at venue that makes him look completely unserious as a candidate and something that a broadway musical would use?


    i agree (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:27:55 AM EST
    i dont get the city of Sparta look.. i am with you on that .. but i am just saying  pepople against OBAMA will complain about it... like they do everything else he does....

    if he just had a podium  and a small hall...people would just find something else to say is so horrible.

    McCain is going to attack that because he couldnt fill a mens bathroom with his supporters.

    long as there is no fire jugglers  i am ok..


    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:44:09 AM EST
    you are wrong about the number of McCain supporters. He has just as many as Obama if not more according to some polls.

    Sure some people are going to make fun of Obama not matter what he does. But why does he keep making it easy for them?


    well, you might be (none / 0) (#131)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:48:09 AM EST
    disappointed, because instead of fire jugglers, the plan is to have fireworks at the end of the speech.  You know, kind of like the closing ceremonies of the Olympics....

    you've never seen.... (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:17:33 AM EST
    ANYTHING like it????

    Have you not been around since the early 90's?  Did you just drop in from another planet?

    When has a Clinton, either Bill or Hillary ever been able to do or say anything without taking abuse for it no matter what it was?  At first it was just the far right repugs treating them like that.  But, now members of their own party delight in nothing better.  The media has always made a "sport" out of seeing just how many "evil" interpretations they can come up with for anythign a Clinton "says" or "does".  the media reports as FACT that anything a Clinton says, by definition, has a hidden, coded meaning behind it.  When they start doing that to Obama, let me know.


    touche' (none / 0) (#123)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:24:05 AM EST
    I guess Obama is getting a taste of the Clinton-esqe hate.... it just makes me sick that ROVE and McCain and Bush are sitting in a back room somewhere calling women C*##('s  like McCain loves to do. and laughing at the democrats ...spitting on pictures of Hillary and BILL  and giggling as they send PUMA cash contributions for Hillary cause..and planting faux OBAMA SUPPORTERS everywhere to spread dissent.

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by janarchy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:40:52 AM EST
    planting faux OBAMA SUPPORTERS everywhere to spread dissent.

    Yeah, right. All the people spew hatred, vitriol and discord are faux supporters sent by the RNC. That explains all my Democratic friends who I stopped talking to who told me to my face that I was racist, low-information, stupid and clearly not a Real Democrat because I wasn't worshipping at the feet of the One like they were.

    Pull the other one, it's got bells on.


    Fuax Obama supporters... (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:45:53 AM EST
    I guess you mean that Huffington, Kos, Aravosis and the like are actually all republican "plants"?  I realize they were republicans in the past.  But, I thought they were actually dems now.  Glad you let me know that they and their blogs were "planted" by Rove.

    it may be the Lincoln Memorial - (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Josey on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:28:46 AM EST
    not a Greek temple, since tonight will be about fusing Obama with Lincoln, Kennedys, MLK's "I have a dream" speech, etc.

    Last week, after watching Pres. Johnson's address to the 1964 Dem Convention - I had even more appreciation for Hillary's remark about Johnson and King. The speech was all about pushing forward with civil rights and it sure took a lot of courage for Johnson to advocate those positions!
    And to think, Obamabots called Hillary a racist for her historical remark!


    link (none / 0) (#112)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:39:28 AM EST
    I need to see reputable links to what Obama sanctioned speaker  called Hillary a racist.

    I keep hearing Obama supporters said this..and said that... where?  Links?

    I never heard one person call Hillary a racist?


    OMG (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:03:14 AM EST
    do you mean you need to see a link where a specific person, specifically directed by Obama himself, used the literal term "racist" toward Hillary over her LBJ / MLK remark.

    How about you just come to terms with the fact that when Clinton supporters say that the Clintons were called "racist", they mean to include the fact that Obama supporters and surrogates and official memebers of Obama's campaign (if not Obama himself) charged that the Clintons were doing any of the following

    injecting race into the campaign
    trying to ghettoize Obama
    playing the race-card
    trying to turn Obama into the "black" candidate
    reminding voters that Obama is black

    For example, Michelle Obama, official member of the Obama campaign, intentionally twisted Bill Clinton's "fairytale" remark to make people believe that Clinton had implied the entire Obama campaign was a fairytale.  She did this prior to the SC primary in order to anger black voters against the Clintons and increase Obama's support in the black community.  She led the black voters to believe that Bill Clinton had said (or implied) that it was a "fairytale" to think that a black candidate could successfully run for president.

    Back to your question...  Many Obama surrogates and supporters made this same type of attack against Hillary over her historical remark about LBJ / MLK.  Did any of them say LITERALLY Hillary is a "racist", no.  Did they say literally that Clinton was "dissing" MLK, yes.

    In all of the instances that occurred during the primaries, you can use the excuse that no one literally called either Clinton a "racist".  So what, that is just terminology.  What they did do literally is charge that the Clinton's were playing the race card and injecting race into the campaign.

    But, since you like to use a "literal" standard, then please show me a link to a quote where either of the Clintons (or maybe just Hillary since the Obama camp always says Barrack never said it) ever said anything "literal" about Obama's race.  You won't find it.  So, maybe you should stop asking for literal expressions of the "racist" charge as well.


    oh my - (none / 0) (#127)
    by Josey on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:39:31 AM EST
    >>>I never heard one person call Hillary a racist?

    I don't know what you've heard.
    But race has been central to Obama's campaign - with surrogates and Obamabots choosing to pull the Race Card and accuse the Clintons of racism at every perceived opportunity, assisted by the media.

    Hillary merely remarked - it took Pres. Johnson to implement Dr. King's goals - and Obamabot race-baiters went postal! in an effort to cast the Clintons as racists.
    Obama never stepped up to denounce the faux hysteria perpetuated by his team. But instead, allowed the false charges of racism against the Clintons to continue - to date.


    not buying (none / 0) (#133)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:55:46 AM EST
    I think if someone in OBAMAS camp came and out and stated " Hillary is a racist"  Obama would have fired that person and denounced it.

    If Obama came out and DENOUNCED  innuendos or comments that some whacko Obama supporters may have said or the media who hyped it up.. it would have gave it credence

    I am surrounded daily by OBAMA supporters in great numbers and never heard anyone say she was racist....so i dont buy that with no direct quotes.


    Then perhaps (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:27:54 AM EST
    the Obama campaign should not have expected Hillary to denounce any and every thing a wacko supporter of hers said.

    Obama didn't fire anyone! (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Josey on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:34:00 AM EST
    when his campaign distributed a 4-page memo of Clinton remarks deemed as "racist."
    He was asked about the memo during a debate and he merely said he didn't have anything to do with it. He also didn't apologize for it.
    Obama stays above the frey while his attack dogs do his dirty work.

    Racially insensative vs Racism (none / 0) (#140)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:01:57 AM EST
    Racially insensative vs Racism.

    what that lady said about TIGER and being lynched was racially INSENSATIVE  not RACIST.

    It kills me how people want to defend Hillary on sexism...which is a good thing.... but Obama can't get the same?   he is race-baiting?

    I have heard Racially insensative things from the Hillary campaign... But racism is a totally different animal.

    i think the 2 terms are being blurred


    As I said somewhere upthread (none / 0) (#89)
    by janarchy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:38:32 AM EST
    Triumph of the Will meets Spinal Tap.

    Tonight (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:50:50 AM EST
    at the "Ocropolis"! Where are the dancing dwarves.

    Prosecutors seek to slash Abramoff's time! (none / 0) (#90)
    by Josey on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:42:33 AM EST
    WASHINGTON--The Justice Department on Wednesday recommended a dramatic reduction in the prison sentence of imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who became the key witness against lawmakers and congressional aides he spent years corrupting.
    Prosecutors asked federal judges in Washington and Florida to shave years of prison time off his sentence, citing his work in an FBI investigation that sent numerous powerful people to prison and contributed to the Republican Party's loss of Congress.

    Denver Post

    the pillars to emulate the Lincoln Memorial (none / 0) (#138)
    by DFLer on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:45:55 AM EST
    good call Josey....that at least makes sense as to why. They should be getting  the message out that this is a tribute to MLK?

    I'm afraid the staging will become a reason for derision...dare I say a "Dukakis Moment" Hope not.

    I think it's okay to reach out to a larger, non-delegate venue to fit more people...but like others have said here, the staging may backfire.

    backfire? (none / 0) (#141)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:07:13 AM EST
    i dont think a swing voter will be UPSET and vote McCain over  a stadium and a set

    but that just me   i can care less about such things... just wanna hear the speech

    again..people with a axe to grind with OBAMA will be pissed to no matter what he does.

    i seen people get upset when obama wasnt at the convnention..saying he wasnt respecting Hillary then FLIP and say he was upstaging BILL  and disprespecting him when he did show up.

    no win situation


    Huh? (none / 0) (#142)
    by DFLer on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:32:05 AM EST
    your response/comment has absolutely nothing to do with mine....things you have said do not respond to anything I said, except for the word "backfire."

    goodlord - axe grinding? not from me. but look out for the axes being sharpened by the GOP....my point.

    I find your posts a tad bit whiney. Why don't you choose your battles more selectively?

    i seen people get upset when obama wasnt at the convnention..saying he wasnt respecting Hillary then FLIP and say he was upstaging BILL  and disprespecting him when he did show up.
    no win situation

    You're swinging wide at the wrong target re my post. Or am I only to say positive things? No criticicm allowed? Whose the chief of the thought police that I should check with first?