Overnight Open Thread

If you missed Hillary Clinton's speech tonight, you can watch it at this C-Span link .

If you are in Denver with tickets to the Daily Show taping Wednesday, be forewarned.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome, please be civil and no personal attacks.

< Why Isn't Sen. Barack Obama in Denver? | Clinton On Why Obama Should Be President >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Wonderful job keeping the site up. Thx! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:12:44 AM EST

    I'm on my fifth viewing (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:16:21 AM EST
    of the intro and Hillary's speech.* I can't believe this opportunity was squandered. A lot of "leaders" in the Democratic Party should be ashamed of themselves.

    *I've teared up at all the right moments every time.

    I've said this earlier tonite, but... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:28:13 AM EST
    Did you see the part during the standing ovation where Bill is mouthing these words, silently, to himself: "I love you. I love you Hillary. I love you". You could clearly read his lips. It was heaven on a stick.

    I just hope MoDo and HuffPo don't lay into him for that. They HATE that Bill and Hillary are solidly together and going so very, very strong.


    That was so sweet. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:36:27 AM EST
    He radiated pride tonight.

    Chelsea was also very "stand up".


    Huffpo's site is bipolar (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by sociallybanned on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:00:58 AM EST
    Really!  One article is kind that she is recognizing Obama as the nominee now.; as if she never did since the last primary. GRRRR!  Then , they post just a few articles below by telling Hilary supporters to STFU.  Isn't that nice!

    I despise that sight as much as I despise wnd.com.  I don't see a difference with the exception one is extreme right and the other is extreme left.  Doesn't seem to have any balance in either site.


    Yeah, it was awesome. (none / 0) (#20)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:54:34 AM EST
    Yes, it was a great speech (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:28:31 AM EST
    and it called for unity. Let's move forward please. Hillary has.

    Please let us wallow in what might have been (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:31:21 AM EST
    for just a few more hours.

    It's going to be a loooooong four years.


    well, it's one thing to praise Hillary (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:39:22 AM EST
    and her speech and even to wish she were the candidate. It's another to say:

    I can't believe this opportunity was squandered. A lot of "leaders" in the Democratic Party should be ashamed of themselves.

    Maybe it's late and maybe it's just me, but I see a big difference between the two. No one needs to be ashamed. No one did anything wrong. Expressing hat it didn't work out the way you preferred is different than attacking the party for its decision.


    Do you agree with how (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:43:13 AM EST
    the process played out re: Dem leaders, primaries/caucuses, RBC mtg, and now the roll call vote?

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:55:22 AM EST
    I disagree with the process or "the rules." But the solution is to fix them, particularly the caucus problems and the absurdity of Michigan and Florida.

    To me, doing something wrong means something illegal or that wasn't allowed. The fact that in the end, the Democrats decided under their rules to select Barack Obama removes it from that category.

    Overly technical definition of "wrong." Perhaps, but rather than re-start old debates, let's do what Hillary is doing and move forward. Even if it's just to talk about 2012 or 2106. But this year is done and Hillary supports the nominee. So can't you talk about why you will or won't do that, leaving out the  accusations and recriminations?


    But if we just rollover (5.00 / 9) (#31)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:05:28 AM EST
    where do we end up? I live in a blue state, so I have options. Others don't. Every time we roll over to this crap, we lose, imo. D@mn, if the guy had experience and had been campaigning as a Dem I could deal. But sadly, he's aking me to compromise my values. And quite frankly, I'm over that one.

    In your mind (none / 0) (#127)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:23:35 AM EST
    he could break the rules if he had more experience?  I just don't follow that.  

    Hopefully, he starts campaigning hard, and as a Dem.  Then I hope you might change your mind.


    No. (none / 0) (#137)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:47:29 AM EST
    I have issues with what went on and his complete lack of experience. I have no control over whether he becomes president or not, but if he does, I could deal if he had experience and acted like a Dem.

    Even if he starts campaigning like  Dem (which he needs to do to win, imo), no guarantee that's what we'll get as a president.


    Ha! I think you hit on the problem (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Grace on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:12:13 AM EST
    Your definition of "wrong" is different from many of ours.  

    "Billy did something wrong," doesn't mean Billy did something illegal.  Billy could have done something he wasn't suppose to do, like try to wash the cat or put dinner in the refrigerator instead of the oven.  Doing something dumb is the equivalent of doing something wrong -- and doesn't have anything to do with the legality of what was done.  

    The DNC did wrong by failing to follow their own rules.  And then, I think they tried to wash the cat too.  ;-)


    But they (DNC)did (none / 0) (#36)
    by JanG on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:15:11 AM EST
    follow their own rules-they just aren't that great of rules. They need to be totally redone.

    they did NOT follow (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:01:57 AM EST
     their rules re Mich and Fla at all in that RBC meeting.  It was pointed out to them quite clearly that their own RULES did not give them the authority to strip super delegates of their votes.  But, they cut them in half anyway.

    There is certainly no rule they were following to give Obama ANY delegates from Mich when he took his name off the ballot.  there was no rule requiring any candidate to take their name off the ballot in Mich.

    Please don't try to tell us they followed their own rules.  They didn't

    Does the party have a rule that says they should IGNORE valid complaints documented and submitted about caucus irregularities just because doing an investigation might prove embarrasing to the presumptive nominee?

    Does the party have a rule that says delegates elected to support one candidate should be replaced by a delegate supporting a different candidate once there is a presumptive nominee?

    If you want people to "move on" these are the kinds of issues that need to be addressed.  Sooner, rather than later, I think.  Because i don't see that there will be much incentive to address these kinds of issues if the behavior exhibited manages to win the dems the white house, do you?

    Hasn't Howard Dean already been rewarded by an announcement that he will continue on in his position?  The only worse announcement that could be made would have been to replace him with Donna Brazile.  She needs to be rebuked in public starting with an admonishment for her reprehensible intentional misinterpretation of Bill Clinton's fairytale remark.


    Maybe I don't understand the rules, then (none / 0) (#140)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:52:26 AM EST
    To be declared the winning nominee prior to the roll call vote the candidate must have the requisite number of majority pledged delegates.

    Should no candidate have those delegates, and the roll call voting process cannot come to a majority, the Super Delegates will then be called upon to vote for the candidate they believe is most qualified and able to win the GE.

    Do I have those rules wrong? Or, whatever word doesn't mean I have it illegal?


    I think you should watch some of the caucus (5.00 / 13) (#37)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:17:18 AM EST
    intimidation videos that are being worked on now before you say no one did anything wrong.  Lambert has posted a few times the last few days.  I'll try to find links.  But I feel strongly that if the videos were of Republicans initmidating people at the GE ballot box, they would have already been discussed here.

    Taking delegates away from Clinton and giving them to Obama was wrong.  And nowhere to be found in 'the rules'.  Based on imaginary vote counts.

    Punishing the 2 of 5 states that broke the rules, the 2 states most likely to break for Clinton, but not the other 3 was wrong.  I don't care if it wasn't illegal, it was wrong.  If nothing else, it violates the principle of due process.  Almost everything about that RCB meeting was wrong.

    Standing silently by while Clinton was attacked in really the most appallingly sexist and misogynistic ways was wrong.  There was a caller into one of the blog radio shows that just about broke my heart.  She was young-sounding, maybe about 20 or so.  She said 'if they won't stand up for a former First Lady of the United States, why would they stand up for a regular girl like me?'  

    Why indeed.

    And that's not even counting the leading Democrats who engaged in it themselves.  How unvalued must young women feel that the leaders of their party and their country did not find it in themselves to say anything in the face of such vitriolic attacks based on gender.

    Those are just the things off the top of my head.

    And there's been no attempts to address any of them.  It's fine to say they should be addressed, but without evidence that they will be addressed, it's some pretty empty calories.

    It's one thing to argue that there were wrong things but we should just suck it up now (not a very effective argument, but a consistent one), it's another thing entirely to say nothing wrong happened.


    Exactly! (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by FemB4dem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:44:41 AM EST
    Remember how aghast we all were at the so-called "Brooks Brothers Riot" that shut down the vote counting in Miami-Dade County?  Are we to let off the Obama supporters (who were trained by the Obama campaign to engage in caucus warfare) who acted so outrageously during the cucuses, but continue to condemn the great theft of 2000? I, for one, cannot be that inconsistent.  

    The "cheating" or "problems" or whatever word you want to use, should have been investigated by the DNC shortly after it happened, and it should have been addresses and rectified by the super delegates.  Hillary won the popular vote.  There was no valid reason for the SDs to reward Obama for the loathsome conduct of his supporters by giving him their votes because, as a directive causitive effect of that conduct, he ended up with a few more pledged delegates than Hillary.  The Super Ds failed the party and failed the country, and if we stand back and vote for Obama just to "go along to get along," we will have failed the party, the country and ourselves.  


    Worth repeating (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:20:26 AM EST
    If the videos were of Republicans initmidating people at the GE ballot box, they would have already been discussed here.

    And doing wrong may not land you in jail, but most of us consider that a minimal moral standard.  


    Yes please (none / 0) (#43)
    by JanG on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:28:47 AM EST
    find the link. I would like to watch. I can only state from my personal experience that the caucus I attended was done with no intimidation and with great rapport between the Hillary and Obama voters. We knew that we had the ultimate goal in common.

    As for standing silently by while Hillary was attacked, the only people I heard attacking Hillary was the right wing media types. I know Barack has never attacked her, so I am baffled why he gets the blame.


    Oh come on, not that tired meme... (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:16:31 AM EST
    Barack didn't say it, Barack didn't say it.  Yeah, right.....

    Did Barack every actually say anything throughout this entire campaign?

    Did Michelle Obama intentionally misinterpret Bill's fairytale comment or not?  Yes, she did.  Was she a legitimate member of the Obama campaign?  Yes.  Is he therefore responsible for her actions?  Yes.

    Did Jesse Jackson Jr, National Co-Chair of the Obama campaign use intentional intimidation against black elected officials who were super delegates and demand that they support Obama because of their race or face the consequences in their next primaries?  Yes, he did.  Is Obama responsible for what his national co-chair does?  Yes, he is.

    Did Obama say somehting along the lines of ... periodically, when she's down, the claws come out... a very sexist attack on Hillary?  Yes, he did.  When the same linbe about "claws" was used by FOX News about Michelle, the Obama supporters complained wildly about the sexist overtones.  But, they never saw it when it came out of Obama's mouth.

    Did the Obama campaign refer to Hillary as Clinton (D -Punjab), injecting anti-India racial feelings into the campaign?  Yes, they did.

    Did Obama himself, in an attempt to belittle Clinton and her appeal to working class voters say somewthing like this....  who does she think she is acting all like Annie Oakley .....  Yes, he did.  Only because he and his supporters think it was unlikely that a father might have actually taught a "GIRL" how to handle a gun.

    GIVE ME A BREAK about constantly absolving Obama from his own personal actions that you seem to have forgotten and the actions oh his OFFICIAL campaign members.


    Funny in a bad way (none / 0) (#81)
    by Burned on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:43:29 AM EST
    the only people I heard attacking Hillary was the right wing media types. I know Barack has never attacked her, so I am baffled why he gets the blame.

    No he didn't campaign against her himself. He let his surrogates do it. You know, the "right wing media" types like dkos, Huffington Post, Keith Olbermann and the like.

    No sense in going further with you.


    umm... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:56:58 AM EST
    Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think that's the best idea with JanG. She seems genuinely curious. So... if a person is genuinely curious... perhaps she should be advised to search the archives. Another possibility is to look at another favorite site of mine... The Daily Howler here and enjoy their archives as well. I think you will find everything you need.

    Your caucus experience wasn't (none / 0) (#105)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:55:58 AM EST
    always mirrored by others who also had caucus experiences as I did in Texas. What a sham and what a waste of many hours. Hillary was attacked by Sen. Obama whether you heard it directly or not. He still has the clout within his campaign and the media and his surrogates and his followers to stop all that has been directed as, imo, vile toward Hillary and her supporters. That you haven't heard it, or acknowledged it, doesn't make it go away. Many of us have been called names we never would have thought to be called from Obama's minions. I, Dems, people, americans, countrymen/women, deserve so much better. He has so blurred the lines between dem/repub. it really doesn't matter which is elected right now.

    Here you go (none / 0) (#128)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:28:45 AM EST
    We Will Not Be Silenced

    This is only one of the films being made. There's enough material for several.


    Caucuses (none / 0) (#75)
    by daria g on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:09:15 AM EST
    See Pacific John's detailed diary at MyDD - Texas Caucus Fraud

    I was a volunteer field organizer in El Paso, Texas and investigated irregularities for three weeks after the election.

    As a Democratic Coordinated Campaign Regional Director in 1996 and as a volunteer on campaigns in the 1990s, I have the ethical obligation to report what I saw in Texas.


    Lois Capps is correct when she wrote that Sen. Obama is inspiring. However, many of the actions of his campaign that I witnessed and investigated are criminal.

    i thought that those (none / 0) (#135)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:42:46 AM EST
    caucus intimidation videos were supposed to be made into a documentary that was to be put out BEFORE the convention.....

    Ok, I acknowledge up front (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by FemB4dem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:24:06 AM EST
    that this a low blow, but come on, you sound like -- gasp -- Scalia.  

    I will never "get over" Bush v. Gore, even though that was not illegal.  But in my eyes, boy was it "wrong," particularly how Scalia convinced his cohorts to totally rewrite the law on judicial stays, and then to issue an opinion that was to apply to only one case.  UGH!  It is the biggest part of why I can never just jump on the unity pony and "get over" how this primary season was manipulated by the Dem powers that be for Obama, and how his supporters abused the caucus system.

    Was what they did illegal?  No.  Was it wrong in how I define the term?  Absolutely.


    The rules (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by daria g on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:02:06 AM EST
    It doesn't allow anywhere in the rules to make up the results of a primary (Michigan) thus awarding delegates to someone who was not on the ballot.  That is not in the rules.

    I suppose (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Emma on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:12:02 AM EST
    stealing my primary vote was just fine with the rules.  Oh, well.  Since I can't live with those rules, I can neither be a Democrat nor vote for Obama.

    It is illegal for even a private group (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:32:31 AM EST
    to violate its charter, which is a legal document filed for its incorporation, tax exemption, etc.

    The Rules and Bylaws Committee on May 31 violated the party charter (see Ickes' statement on it then).

    So I beg to differ.  The Democratic Party did act illegally, as well as immorally.


    I am from a caucus only state (none / 0) (#34)
    by JanG on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:12:29 AM EST
    I don't like the format, but it was the only way I could vote.  So thank you for not deminishing my say in the voting process. I agree we need to fix it. It was not cheating or fixed it just isn't that good of a process.

    No one did anything wrong? (5.00 / 10) (#14)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:44:20 AM EST
    This blog was one of the harshest critics of all the wrong things that were done!

    How can you say (5.00 / 8) (#21)
    by FemB4dem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:54:35 AM EST
    "no one did anything wrong?"  The caucus cheating, the Rules Committee meeting?  I know you are a long time Dem.  So am I.  But for me, voting for Obama given how the process played out, would be similar to voting for Bush after the process stole Florida for him.  Neither is an acceptable option, at least for me.  The only remaining, acceptable "fix" was for Obama to offer the VP position to Hillary.  Having failed to do that, he forfeited any right to my Democratic (and democratic) vote.

    That is part of the point I was trying to make (5.00 / 13) (#26)
    by dissenter on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:01:36 AM EST
    to Jeralyn. Most of us that have been in this a long time aren't just robots. It also isn't hurt feelings. If you have done this long enough you have lost somewhere along the way.

    What is at stake here is the party but really it is more about principle. Speaking for me only (sorry to plagiarize BTD), I put country over party (even though I am a staunch dem) and I put principle over politician. What is that worth? I think at the end of the day, that is what we are talking about.

    This isn't about hurt feelings for me. I've lost. I've gotten over it. This is different. To me, this is about tearing apart something that is sacred. It is about asking me to forget what I have fought for over all these years. It is about telling me I should just "trust" someone who I truly think is not qualified for the job.

    Like I said, I think this is a whole topic that needs to be discussed. It comes down to...what does the Dem Party represent? And Who? What is acceptable and what isn't? This isn't a sporting event. This is our country.

    Sometimes I think people on this blog are asking us to just adopt a "my country right or wrong" mentality. It is similar and I think it is wrong.

    What did I work for all these years if I am willing to just look the other way? Know what I mean?


    it wasn't cheating (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:03:11 AM EST
    The caucus rules need to be changed, in my opinion. I've argued that repeatedly. But "cheating" is an accusation and an unproven one. Obama chose to focus on the caucus states and it proved to be a winning strategy. Regardless, the superdelegates made the final call, as they can under the rules. The Democrats decided to nominate him and Hillary suspended her campaign and backed him.

    That's the outcome. It may be unfortunate in your view but it's not cheating or "wrong." In any case, as a defense site, we don't look favorably on accusations.


    Gaming the system? (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Grace on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:29:57 AM EST
    That's what Enron did.  They did things that were legal but immoral.  They used the system to increase profits for themselves.  

    So, perhaps instead of "cheating," the Dems just "gamed the system."    


    Beg pardon but we spent well over a day (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:37:56 AM EST
    (and more like 3) accusing Rielle Hunter of lying about her child's paternity, doubting her credibility because she was described as a 'party girl' in some book, and implying if not explicitly accusing her of being a moneygrubber based on no evidence whatsoever -- all based on gossip and speculation.  There were no calls for restraint on accusations then.

    I found it rather dismaying.  I have no particular attachment to Hunter (I really don't care about her one way or another) but I found it troubling that that was a fine exercise because -- I'm not sure why.  Because she's a 'homewrecker'?  Because most people admire Elizabeth Edwards and felt Hunter must be a bad person as the 'other woman'?  Because she's not a politician the site supports?


    if I had seen a comment (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:44:04 AM EST
    describing Rielle Hunter as a liar or a bad person I would have deleted it. Questioning credibility is fine. Calling someone a liar is not, and I enforce that distinction across the board. (I don't read all the comments, I can only address the ones I do see.)

    'Night all.


    Jeralyn, with all due respect, (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by BeauGrumble on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:58:35 AM EST
    regarding the term cheating, it certainly applied in my caucus.

    Gaming is one thing, however, a non-precinct voter having caucus packet 3 hours before polls closed, absolute violations of rules re admittance, machinations re attendees and percentages, collecting sheets from elderly Hillary supporters before they have finished filling them in, telling them to leave, then writing Obama in the blank space, allowing Obama supporters to sign sheets early but not attend caucus, etc., constitute cheating. Nothing less.

    You have my e-mail address. Should you wish, I will be glad to have my attorney send you a sworn deposition stating what occurred, and how it constituted cheating not gaming, if that is what it takes to convince you and others on this blog that actual, unadulterated cheating took place. What I state here is not heresay, I, my wife, and many others witnessed it and fought it.


    Sorry Jeralyn, I believe my comment (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by BeauGrumble on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:17:29 AM EST
    should have read sworn statement, as opposed to sworn deposition, unless you wished to send specific questions for me to answer re the cheating.

    I guess under those circumstances it could loosely qualify as my being deposed.

    The offer stands, and I would like to add that I am in no way trying to be argumentative.

    I am merely trying to set the record straight re the personally witnessed cheating (not gaming) that occurred in my precinct.


    Jeralyn.... (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:06:21 AM EST
    You really should go back and read some of BTDs "rules" posts.

    There was outright cheating by the DNC.  And Party leaders put enormous pressure on SDs to support Obama in a manner that can only be described as corrupt.  Then there is all the cheating that was done at the caucuses -- they weren't just 'gamed' in the sense that Obama out-organized Clinton.  


    Super-delegates' final call is tomorrow (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:35:34 AM EST
    i.e., Thursday, I thought.

    That's still in the rules, anyway.  Apparently not necessarily a rol call, though.  Too bad, as that seems to be what is needed to legitimize a nominee with those who know party traditions.  (That would include the majority of the convention delegates -- although the stats are stunning as to how many delegates apparently just discovered politics.)


    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#47)
    by JanG on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:36:26 AM EST
    I agree with you wholeheartedly.

    Jeralyn, there was cheating (none / 0) (#110)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:14:32 AM EST
    and gaming of the caucus here in Texas. I saw it firsthand. The Texas powers that be received thousands of complaints. Texas did not want to rock the boat and perhaps have to change the date of their state primary with investigations, so they chose not to investigate. That is just my story, I'm sure there are many others.

    well really (none / 0) (#129)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:28:51 AM EST
    all you can do is make the accusation and submit the documentation to the dem party.  It's then up to them to perform an investigation to determine whether cheating did or did not take place.

    There is a big difference in saying that caucuses by desugn are unfair (which they are because of voter disenfranchisement) and asserting that actual illegal activities occurred at some of the caucuses, they were documented and (if I recall correctly) were submitted to the dem party for investigation.  Are these accusations being investigated?  Or, were they dismissed out of hand?


    Okay please explain (none / 0) (#24)
    by JanG on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:58:46 AM EST
    I also am a long time dem. I feel I am quite informed but I don't know what you mean by "caucus cheating" or by the rules committee meeting would you please explain? And what did Obama have to do with either?

    Check out this (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by FemB4dem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:26:50 AM EST
    site to get a start on what I mean by caucus cheating and what Obama had to do with it.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#46)
    by JanG on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:35:31 AM EST
    I will check it out

    Thank you. I saw many of (none / 0) (#111)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:20:53 AM EST
    the infractions listed for Texas at my precinct.

    I think you are feeling the "Dem Love" (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by Grace on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:46:52 AM EST
    because you are at the convention, and I think all conventions are designed to make you feel the love.  

    I don't fault Barack for flaws in the party leadership.  I blame a lot of what has happened on Pelosi and Dean.  They couldn't get the primaries over quick enough, even before a candidate had enough delegates.  

    I used to like Nancy Pelosi a lot but this was the first time I'd ever seen her in action.  


    This part was powerful (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Grace on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:16:57 AM EST
    Democrats are used to losing, and virtually all lifelong Democrats are accustomed to making a smooth shift from one candidate to another at the end of the primaries.

    Yes we are "used to losing."  Unfortunately.  We lose all the time, we ought to be used to it by now.  

    Perhaps Hillary would do better if she ran as a Republican since they seem to win more often.  (Not really, but it sounds good.  ;-) )


    I'm jet-lagged (5.00 / 10) (#65)
    by otherlisa on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:28:18 AM EST
    and have had an awesomely crappy week...and have been absent from this forum...so I'll just start by agreeing with Palomino.

    Further, I don't believe that Obama is a Democrat. He starts from a position of compromise cloaked in a disguise of "bipartisanship." He betrayed fundamental Constitutional principles with his craven cave-in to the atrocious FISA bill. I appreciate and whole-heartedly agree with what Hillary said about supporting Democratic principles, but I can't connect Barack Obama the candidate to those principles.

    The DNC and the Democratic Party leadership were complicit in gaming the system to promote Obama's candidacy. Do I reward them for this undemocratic behavior? They enabled sexism with a nod and a wink. As a woman, can I support this?

    I was not a Hillary supporter at the beginning of this campaign. Far from it. She was close to my last choice among the primary field. But she won me over. I watched tonight's speech and like so many others here, I shake my head over what could have been. What should have been.

    If Obama had had the wisdom and balls to choose HRC as his running mate, I would have voted for him. As it stands now, I don't know how I can support him. I would never, EVER vote for a McCain. But as others here have expressed, Obama needs to win my vote. I'm not going to be bullied into giving it to him. I'm not going to fall in line because I'm told I don't have any choice.

    He has a lot of work to do.

    And frankly, it really creeps me out that he's giving his speech at a freakin' stadium. This feeds into my whole uneasiness, from the very beginning, with the evangelical, phony rock star, overly marketed aspect of his campaign.

    Obama is a brand. And to me, he's New Coke.


    Brilliant, Palomino! (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by bridget on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:39:14 AM EST
    Cause it pretty much says it in a nutshell that so much more is going on in this primary. Something one simply can and must not ignore. Something v. wrong:

    "Democrats are used to losing, and virtually all lifelong Democrats are accustomed to making a smooth shift from one candidate to another at the end of the primaries."


    Except for Bill Clinton, I, and (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:45:23 AM EST
    perhaps many others, settled, year after year, candidate(s) after candidate(s). Not this year for this Dem. I haven't heard anything from Obama except it's all about him. I imagine that his speech tomorrow will be about the country, but with him running it. I taught my kids that the world does not revolve around them, everything I've ever heard Obama say, it is with an "I" instead of a "we" attitude, with the exception of change begins from the ground up. I believe that, I don't believe his rhetoric fits his supposed message. Hillary did what she had to do last night and did it brilliantly and with style. I got her message and my country deserves better than and "I" theme.

    hehehehehehe (none / 0) (#99)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:38:59 AM EST
    Thank you. That was nice.

    Thank you for that, (none / 0) (#116)
    by camellia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:53:31 AM EST
    Palomino!  You set it all out admirably.

    I have a question which I have asked repeatedly during this interminable election ordeal -- why does the DNC want Obama as the candidate?  I don't want to seem overly paranoid, but it is difficult to look at their actions and not see their clear preference for this individual.  Why?  Why did the Kennedys come out for him so soon?  Why did Bill Richardson defect to him?  Why haven't more of the movers and shakers of the Democratic Party spoken out in condemnation of the misogyny, the illegal moves of the DNC, the extraordinary vileness displayed by Obama supporters?

    Do they feel that he is more "electable"?  If so, they should by now be re-thinking that opinion.  I just don't get it -- why was the thumb on the scale?  What is driving this?


    One word: money. (none / 0) (#132)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:35:50 AM EST
    I can move forward (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:32:14 AM EST
    When Obama makes the same sort of challenge to his supporters that Clinton makes to hers.

    I will be tuning in to see what he says and does not say during his speech.

    This isn't about Clinton telling me what to do.  This is about Obama earning my vote.


    I think it is bigger than that (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by dissenter on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:45:11 AM EST
    Something everyone should recognize. Some of us think that not uniting will save the party and ultimately move the country much farther over the long term. There are some that think it is best to take your lead. Perhaps that is a good topic in the future. I spent my life working for democratic causes. I didn't just come into this during the 08 cycle. While others are just learning about conventions and delegates, I have spent years in states across the nation working for little money for political candidates, causes and unions.

    It is a fair question - one that needs an open debate. Anyway, think about it.


    Sorry. I know we can't speak (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:56:14 AM EST
    ill of either Obama I didn't realize now that all other Democrats were off the table too. With such blanket immunity won't that limit the scope of what a crime and issue blog can write about?

    how about expressing (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:05:20 AM EST
    your opinion of why you don't support him in terms of policy, experience, etc rather than personal insults.  

    It's really really really REALLY hard (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Grace on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:24:03 AM EST
    to support him in terms of experience.  

    All you have to do is look at Joe Biden and then Barack Obama -- and then that big gulf inbetween them between being a Senator for 35+ years and being a Senator for less than 1/3 of a term.  

    There is a big experience gap between them.  How do you bridge it?      


    I wish I could bridge the gap (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Grace on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:05:28 AM EST
    between Hillary and Barack, but I just can't do it.  

    The Party is asking me to settle for the second best candidate and be happy about it.  

    I can't!  I just can't!  I don't even think a trip to Denver now would enable me to bridge the gap!  

    I want the qualified woman candidate to be our nominee for President.  I believe she can win the race between her and the equally qualified male Republican candidate.  

    I do not feel the nouveau male Democrat candidate can do any of those things.  

    Now that I think about it, we have "Art Nouveau" and now we have "Barack Nouveau."  Art Nouveau lasted for 120 years.  Let's see how long Barack Nouveau lasts.  I'm willing to bet that he won't last as long as Britney Spears.  

    If Barack Nouveau had the experience of a Clinton marble statue, I'd have no problem voting for him, but he just doesn't have the creds.  He needs a new appraisal.  He needs a new valuation based on current market values.    


    Qualified woman? (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:37:27 AM EST
    Heck, I'd be happy with qualified period.

    Obama's Margin of Victory: The Media (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by bridget on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:02:18 AM EST
    After Obama accepts the nomination on Thursday he should not forget to thank ABC, NBC, CNN et. al. who made it all possible for him.

    Obama was selected and fawned over by the media. He could do no wrong while Hillary was maligned nonstop. Not illegal? But clearly something is very wrong here. Why even bother to vote when elections turn out like that? Remember the Gore 2000 campaign?

    So Why even bother to discuss policy, experience, etc.

    The Media Research Center published a Special Report. A must read.

    Obama's Margin of Victory: The Media

    P.S. I won't even get into the sexist treatment of  a women candidate for Prez.

    Or the DNC travesties.  Illegal? Not if the DNC insists it follows all the rules and the media "disappears" all the wrong stuff. And there was enough of that to turn off a lot of potential voters.


    Unintentional comedy. (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:29:05 AM EST
    A diary at DK talking about the reason that Hillary lost and Obama won was because Hillary ran "as a woman" and Obama ran "as a person".

    I was angry when I first read that, mostly because it's not accurate at all.  Both of them deliberately avoided the strategic handicap of running under the banner of their race or gender as long as possible.  (Rev. Wright ended that for Obama.)  Now I just laugh because the real problem isn't accuracy or objectivity.  The real problem is personal bias.  The writer of that piece is unlikely to believe anything that doesn't fit their narrative, even if I provided thousands of pages of evidence to the contrary.

    I'm just never going to fit in with that crowd.  Never.  They are the Flat Earthers of politics.  You can show them the big picture.  You can explain to them how politics and campaigns work.  It doesn't matter.  They have their dogma/narratives to guide them and comfort them and that's all they need.  They don't need reality.  They don't want reality.  Reality interferes with their carefully constructed belief system.


    Media Research Center is (none / 0) (#109)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:13:56 AM EST
    a right wing organization.

    I agree with much of what everyone says but I am still skeptical of conservative research.


    Thanks for that Media Research article (none / 0) (#118)
    by andrys on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:10:44 AM EST
    Very good job they did, though even as a non-Obama supporter, I think that a lot of what the media wrote early on, while highly favorable, was wholly natural and certainly due.

      But as it goes on, well...

      I remember Howard Dean saying on April 25

    "I think the race is going to come down to the perception in  the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be.  I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote or anything else."

      And the Media Research article points out:

    "While Obama lost four of the last six primaries and collected 400,000 fewer votes than Hillary Clinton, the disappointing electoral results did not dampen the media coverage."

      The important factor was always to avoid 4 more years of Bush (or Worse, since I think McCain may be dangerous in his seeming love for a constant state of war or an idea of dominance or nothing... and his idea that "I know how to win wars.  I know how to do that!" which scares me quite a bit).  

      I felt at the time, with the polls showing what they did back in June, that people pushing Obama despite his poor primary performance in March-June had to think twice about that.  They should not blame any loss that might happen on the Clintons but I hear it more than daily right now.


    Respectfully (none / 0) (#56)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:49:31 AM EST
    (and this is easy 'cause I do respect virtually everyone who hangs out here, including the proprietors) I think it's hard, because everyone's definition of "insult" is a little different.

    (realizing also we're all tired, it's 2 AM here in Denver, etc....actually realizing I should just hang it up now)

    'Night all.  Thanks for taking the time to write.


    I'm sorry but where did I (none / 0) (#144)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:12:10 PM EST
    personally insult Barack or just plain old insulted him at all?

    No Way...No How... No McCain (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Aqua Blue on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:51:37 AM EST
    Hillary...I heard you loud and clear.

    I vote the issues and the platform. Personalities be damned.  

    Hillary...you have earned my respect and I respect your request.  


    To ajn44 (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:27:26 AM EST
    She already has countered those commercials.

    The rest of your comment was equally inaccurate.

    I just finished watching the (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:32:00 AM EST
    MSNBO rebroadcast of Hillary's speech. Interesting seeing the dif in audience shots. Mind boggling hearing the praise from the "crew". It's like they suddenly got a clue.

    I liked the C-Span broadcast better. Lots of shots of Bill proud as hell of his ladies.

    D@mn, the woman makes me proud.

    What did they say? (none / 0) (#11)
    by dissenter on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:40:22 AM EST
    Praise and nothing negative (none / 0) (#16)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:49:38 AM EST
    lol!~ very positive. Blew me away. Yes, they did hint at the negative that "could" have happened, but the initial praise was over the top for them. To the point they were going over passages of her speech.

    They're on right now.

    D@mn the woman's good. Obama now needs to serve one up. lol!~


    I wonder (none / 0) (#19)
    by dissenter on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:52:37 AM EST
    what happens if Obama doesn't hit a home run. I wonder what all these self righteous media people are going to do then.

    They'll say.... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:56:13 AM EST
    they'll say it was a home run anyway.  Obama could completely strike out, and they'd think he hit it over the fence.

    They're easily dazzled by bright lights (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:39:36 AM EST
    which is what they'll get.

    Surprising that some others here are, too, though.  But it also is easy to get caught up in a convention momentum.  I'll be interested in seeing if reality returns next week for them, after all the lights are turned off.  And the Repub 527s start to turn on the Dem nominee.


    No Unity (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:51:51 AM EST
    There won't be any unity because the way Obama treats Hillary supporters.  His last opportunity was at the convention, and he failed.  Taking away the right of the delegates to cast their vote for Hillary, the person the delegates themselves were elected to vote for is undemocratic and disrespectful of the process.  It's little things that a person does that reveal who they are. I don't trust him on so many levels.  Imo that Obama won a Phyrrhic victory using the race card against the Clintons.  They will make sure that their relationship with the AA community is repaired, but I don't see evidence that Obama is aware how much damage he inflicted to himself.

    Scorched earth (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by daria g on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:40:59 AM EST
    With the race card.  IMHO lines were crossed that cannot be uncrossed.  I know professionally a lot of people have to play nice and keep their views to themselves, I do, but personally I will not forget it nor get over it.

    Roland Martin sort of proudly said on (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by andrys on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:34:28 AM EST
    CNN's 360 that Bill Clinton will no longer be able to go into a black neighborhood or to a black church and expect a positive reception.  Anderson Cooper was puzzled by this, so Roland said yes, it would be a problem now and then went on to explain why.

      That's severe damage and I don't blame Clinton for being put out by it

      I've found Obama's campaign inordinately divisive.  Also I've worried about statements such as

      1.  Saying he passed a nuclear legislation...

         "I just did that last year"

          but it was never passed and had been watered
          down to nothing.

      2.  Saying in Berlin

    "Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don"t   have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don"t obtain a nuclear weapon."

          He's not even a member of that committee.

      3.  More things, like telling a church in Selma that
          the Selma civil rights protest caused his parents
          to get together and have a child, Barack Jr.
            Most know that story.  The Selma event happened
          three years after Barack was born.

    He has a tendency to embroider and, in the above cases, misrepresent, if it sounds better to his current audience.
    It does bother me about trust in what he says or promises.

      The FISA thing - that was a promise he made and he easily broke it.  It just happens too much.

    I'm not just carping, as I think McCain is more worrisome.
    But I'm still hoping for more and better before I vote FOR someone, despite what Hillary asks.  The ball is in Obama's court, to coin a new phrase.


    Well, Roland Martin is not welcome (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:42:06 AM EST
    in my neighborhood now, either.  I'd love to be on the non-welcoming committee.

    But I think that he's very wrong in what he says -- and so do the polls of African Americans.  Amazingly, Roland Martin just might be living in the media bubble, which would put him out of touch with most Americans, period.:-)


    Patti Solis Doyle - still usefulness to Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ding7777 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:02:45 AM EST
    Will Biden keep her as a COS?

    I am watching Mark Warner for the first (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Grace on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:04:28 AM EST
    time.  Is this the guy that supposed to save the Democratic Party?  (Didn't someone have the name "Mark Warner is God" or something like that?)

    This speech isn't bowling me over and there is something about him that doesn't set right with me.  He looks a little like a TV game show host and he seems to speak rather fast with clipped words.  

    Oh well.  I expected to be more impressed with him since everyone spoke so highly of him.  As of now, best speeches tonight go to Hillary and the Governor of Montana.  

    I wasn't impressed with him either (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:45:16 AM EST
    I expected more. First time I ever watched him as well.

    He's no Barack Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Grace on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:54:44 AM EST
    He has brilliantly white teeth however!  They look so perfectly white!  I loved how he was just clipping along in his speech then suddenly flashed a huge smile!  It was pure political theater!


    He reminds me of someone off of TV but I can't think of who...  I thought it might have been a computer generated man on a reality show, but I don't think that's it.  Maybe I'll think of it eventually.  


    M-m-max Headroom. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:03:43 AM EST
    I didn't watch the speech (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by cmugirl on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:08:55 AM EST
    Couldn't bring myself to do it, but it sounds like she was masterful. But BTD's assertion that the conservatives hate her again isn't true (oh, they still hate her, but not because of the speech). The writers on The Corner, for example said it was a great speech but that it was generic enough for her to give against any Democrat.

    Larry Kudlow said this, which I thought was interesting...

    Whew. I'm glad McCain's not running against Hillary. She gave a stemwinder. Sure, plenty of Democratic pap. I'll read the transcript for details to be rebutted. Absolutely, she gave Obama a minimal endorsement. Her speech was about her, not him. And as I wrote this afternoon, only he can make the sale for his candidacy. No one else can do it for him. But the last quarter of her speech had a lot of optimism and confidence about America's future. No hardships or obstacles can stop America. I like that a lot. Obama never does it; he's a pessimist. Sometimes John McCain borders on cranky pessimism. But Hillary gave a very strong speech, an American leadership speech, very close to an American exceptionalism speech. Dems never do that. Reagan taught us all how powerful it can be. Hillary has come a long way.

    Another one called her the "Leader of the Democratic Left" (ha!)

    Gonna be a bumpy ride until November....

    On another note, did you see that Obama will give his speech from Invesco Field, which will be set up to look like an Ancient Greek Temple (as Reuters reports)?


    I'm sorry (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:44:39 AM EST
    but that whole set up makes Obama sound comical.

    I think his platform should be in (none / 0) (#113)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:33:54 AM EST
    the middle of the arena and as he gives his speech, the podium slowly turns in a circle so his audience can see all of him. The collisium-style look is very strange.

    About the staging for Thusday.... (none / 0) (#42)
    by EL seattle on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:27:24 AM EST
    I'm sorry, but when I read (via the link)...

    Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's big speech on Thursday night will be delivered from an elaborate columned stage resembling a miniature Greek temple.
    The stage, similar to structures used for rock concerts...

    I can think of only two words.

    Spinal Tap

    I really hope they get the measurements correct for this thing.


    OMG: Icarus again. (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:45:28 AM EST
    Pathetic (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:19:30 AM EST
    Obama has already been hit effectively by McCain for his "rock star" no substance position. This will only add credibility to the criticism. I continue to wonder who is advising Obama? All this blame being thrown at Hilary supporters hurting him is baseless. His campaign is his worst enemy, not the PUMAS.

    Maybe it's me but why would they (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:27:57 AM EST
    want to do that? It's tacky and ostentatious.

    I love conventions when they're traditional and all the delegates get up and cheer. Also, those delegates spent a lot of money to get to the convention and I think it should be their celebration.

    I am trying to move on but this really bothers me.
    Question:  When JFK accepted the nomination in the LA coliseum,did he do all this staging?


    Not to worry-- (none / 0) (#49)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:43:55 AM EST
    they can always hire dancing midgets!

    I think they'd prefer to be called... (none / 0) (#58)
    by EL seattle on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:58:01 AM EST
    ..."the dancing children of Stonehenge".

    "Where the demons crawl!" (none / 0) (#68)
    by otherlisa on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:33:00 AM EST
    "Stonehenge...where the cats meow!"

    Oh god. What's next? Barack Obama and Puppet show?


    Picture of the temple (none / 0) (#95)
    by hlr on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:06:28 AM EST
    in progress. Warning: conservative site.

    Reuters' description of this (none / 0) (#123)
    by andrys on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:53:35 AM EST
    is titled "Obama speech stage resembles ancient Greek temple"
    can be read here.  Sample:
    Some 80,000 supporters will see Obama appear from between plywood columns painted off-white, reminiscent of Washington's Capitol building or even the White House, to accept the party's
    nomination for president.

    He will stride out to a raised platform to a podium that can be raised from beneath the floor.

    The Seal (none / 0) (#141)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:10:05 AM EST
    will the Seal of Obama reappear for this?

    Ahhh, Spinal Tap (none / 0) (#143)
    by abfabdem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:15:38 AM EST
    Perhaps that is what I need to watch again to help with my depression over this election!!

    The Clinton bashers are already (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:04:41 AM EST
    OUT. See here. The writer says,

    "But did she mean it? And would it matter? True, her challenges Tuesday night were impossibly high, perhaps mutually exclusive. She had to both promote her political future and unify her party. Clinton had to somehow convince people that she honestly thought Obama was ready for the presidency. But something stood in her way: Her words."

    These people are beneath contempt.

    They are beneath contempt. (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by Grace on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:30:46 AM EST
    They expected her to grovel at his feet and she didn't do it.  She gave an inspiring speech.  She said to "Vote for the Democrat because Democrats are best."  

    She didn't say "Obama is ready to lead.  Obama is tremendously experienced."  How could she say those things if she didn't feel them?  It's not her fault Obama is not experienced.  It's HIS fault!  


    Here is why she could not do (5.00 / 14) (#70)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:42:36 AM EST
    what the critics are calling for her to have done.

    The speech they wanted to hear would have been a typical Clinton campaign speech that most of us have heard -- one with specific examples of experience, of a record of legislative accomplishment, etc.

    They wanted her to give that speech about Obama, but how?  Okay, ater every point in the speech, and there were several, when she called for voting for Obama, insert an accomplishment of his.  Try it:

    "And I will vote for Barack Obama because -- he was a community organizer."

    "And I call on you to vote for Barack Obama because -- his name got on some bills in the Illinois state senate."

    Okay, not impressive.  There was no Obama Bill, and we know how he got his name on other bills.  How about his voting record there:

    "I ask you to vote for Barack Obama because -- he voted present seven times on bills about women's reproductive rights and was the only vote against. . . ."

    Oops.  Okay, let's move on to Congress:

    "We must vote for Barack Obama because -- he said he would have voted against the war."

    Oops.  Doesn't work, since he voted to fund it every time.  Okay, how about:

    "I call on you to vote for Barack Obama because -- he stood for filibustering against the FISA bill."

    Oh oh.  We know how that turned out.  Okay, let's get a little vague again but still speak to his record in Congress in general:

    "I will vote for Barack Obama because -- of his stalwart record of service in the Senate."

    Oops again.  There is that poor attendance for floor votes and that committee he chaired but never even called to meet. . . .

    Enough.  This is the problem.  How could she provide the specifics, the record, the experience that her critics clearly wanted to hear from such a wonk -- when there are none?  The alternative, then, is to talk about his promises for the future.

    But that's Obama's speech.  So then she would be criticized for stealing his thunder.  So it is what it is.  His resume is what it is.  And what the DNC wanted.  If they wanted her to have better material, they might have thought about that years ago, when they picked this candidate and set up this outcome.  Their problem, not hers.

    She did great with what she had to work with.:-)


    Cream City... (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:42:12 AM EST
    That was very nicely done. If you ever run for public office... you have my vote.

    Thanks, but no thanks. I have done (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:44:26 AM EST
    my time as a speechwriter, though, like others here whose comments are so to the point on this.  So we know what she was up against in trying to thread this needle.  Of course, the Clintons are brilliant at that.

    And thus, when you see Bill not threading that needle, it's even more telling.:-)


    It's still all about Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:54:24 AM EST
    I went to daily kos and it is still All About Obama.  Hillary?  Oh, she's okay, so long as she props Obama up.  What part of her message did they pounce on?  Not-McCain!  Oh, h3lls.  

    If at the end of the convention, the Presidential Democratic Ticket is still about Not-McCain, November will be in doubt.  


    On morning Joe some jerk just said... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:43:34 AM EST
    "I know one Hillary supporter that's going to vote for John McCain--Hillary Clinton."

    So yeah, I hope everyone enjoyed the good words for Hillary last night cause that's all we're going to get.


    ann price mills (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Little Fish on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:31:00 AM EST
    I just saw Hillary's speech. Amazing. She's become an amazing speaker and its been so wonderful to watch her grow over the last year. ♥

    The delegate CNN interviewed, Ann Price Mills, is my delegate! WA-09. I voted for her in my legislative district caucus (wa 33rd dems) and was so pleased to see her represent my Congressional District and go on to Denver. I wish you could have seen her speech at the district conventions, it was amazing. She said that after the 2000 elections she decided to go back to school and get her degree. She recently graduated from the University of Washington (with a degree in poli sci I think?). Her family is from Arkansas and she knows what the Clintons did for Arkansas and for AAs. She was BY FAR my favorite delegate. And after I went up to her and thanked her for her support because it was stronger than anyone else I had seen and I knew it must be hard. She said she LOVED Hillary and couldn't imagine supporting anyone else.

    She was so incredibly POWERFUL!!! (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Grace on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:52:13 AM EST
    I watched her on TV on CNN and I could not turn away from the interview!  She was so powerful!  She said everything I would have wanted to say if I had been there!

    She's my favorite delegate too!  

    People here were concerned that she might get kicked out of the convention since they appear to only want people who will vote for Obama.  If she gets kicked out, and you find out about it, please let us knkow!!!

    She got very high praise here!!  She ought to come post with us!   We love her!!!      


    I'm really tired of people assuming that voting (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Grace on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:40:02 AM EST
    is an automatic thing.  

    Just because we are Democrats doesn't mean that we have to vote for the Democrat candidate if we aren't sold on that person.  

    Obama needs to do some selling!  He is failing to sell to a lot of us!  

    I'm sorry if he thinks it's easier to sell to folks in Montana and those in Kansas City.  There are a ton of Democrats in really blue states who aren't sold on Obama.  He needs to sell to us too!  

    I'm in Los Angeles.  There are over 15 million people in Southern California.  Is Obama going to ignore all of us?  I don't see him making any trips out here!  Hillary hit a taco stand in a bad part of town -- can't Obama do the same?

    From what I've seen, Obama is a lazy candidate.  He thinks California is in the bag so he doesn't come out here unless it's for fundraisers with his wealthy supporters.  I can't say that he's wrong  -- yet.  In December I might be able to.  

    I'm really tired of the people who feel (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Grace on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:52:51 AM EST
    that Hillary hasn't done enough.  She's done more than enough.  The only thing she could do more, at this point, is to take each voter individually into the booth and force them to vote for the people she picks.  

    She's really done more than she needs to and more than she owes the party and more than anyone has done before her.  

    At some point, Barack Obama needs to take over leadership of the party.  He can't continue to rely on Hillary to lead the party faithful.  He needs to assume leadership and he needs to create the unity he desires.  She just can't do everything for him.  He needs to work too, and this part is hard work.  He needs to convince those who don't really like him that he is likeable enough.  

    He's got a lot of work to do.  He needs to get crackin!  

    Jeralyn, thank you for TL. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by prittfumes on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:57:57 AM EST
    You guys are the greatest.


    Oh lordie, here comes Clyborn ..... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:50:46 AM EST
    ....on Morning Joe. They just showed a shot of him getting his make up put on. LOL. Normally I would change the channel when jerks like him come on the tube, but I am so over how ridiculous these people are, I think I can actually listen and laugh.

    Yesterday I realized that in spite of everything that may or may not be considered their "failings," Bill and Hillary Clinton (and also Chelsea) are in a category all their own. As people, they transcend all these clowns.

    It's bad enough you enjoy those people (none / 0) (#142)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:13:58 AM EST
    must you share them with us? I don't watch because I really, really don't want to give them an audience of any kind. I want those programs to have to fight for survival.

    I may have wrtiten (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:16:28 AM EST
    my daily kos GBCW comment.

    Someone really wanted to know why a Hillary supporter wouldn't do like Hillary said in her speech and vote for Obama.  So I said I wanted a Big D Democrat that wasn't afraid to stand for progressive principles and fight for them.

    I also said that a Not-McCain ticket wasn't enough and would be shredded by the GOP.  

    I may be reduced to reading only poll watching posts on TalkLeft if Obama refuses to "Democrat up".  Why do I feel like I'm asking for so much for the Democrat Presumptive to act like a da__ed Democrat?

    Three questions about this week in Denver: (none / 0) (#13)
    by EL seattle on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:44:05 AM EST
    1.) What time is sunset on Thursday?  Weather permitting, will there be some nice scenics visible from the stadium before Obama's speech?

    2.) Were the protesters like the "re-create '68" crowd less (or more) active on Tuesday compared to Monday?

    3.) What sort of tech crew do you have keeping the site(s) up and going and healty?  Will you do a special big splashy page just for them at the end of this thing?  Like the credits in a big-time Hollywood movie?  I think they'll have more than earned it.

    Great job!

    Sunset @ 7:30. Clear skies (none / 0) (#17)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:51:03 AM EST
    86 for the high. But this is monsoon season and there have been scattered afternoon showers all week, so anything's possible.

    No way. No how. No McCain. (none / 0) (#35)
    by ding7777 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:13:17 AM EST
    If you hear the dogs, keep going.

    If you see the torches in the woods, keep going.

    If they're shouting after you, keep going.

    Don't ever stop. Keep going.

    If you want a taste of freedom, keep going.

    I'll keep thinking of this until November and hopefully be able to vote for Obama.

    Those were such powerful words from (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Grace on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:34:09 AM EST
    Hillary.  I loved that part of her speech.  

    "If you want a taste of freedom, keep going."  


    Just remember (none / 0) (#38)
    by Faust on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:19:49 AM EST
    you don't have to vote for Obama. Just against McCain. I've been mostly voting against the lesser of two evils since I started voting. I don't see why the strategy has to change now.

    The strategy is very important (none / 0) (#114)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:39:12 AM EST
    this year because the world is very volatile right now. Voting the lesser of two evils is not enough this year, imo. Our country deserves so much better. Perhaps divided government will keep the country from swaying too far in either direction.

    That makes no sense to me. (none / 0) (#139)
    by Faust on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:41:58 AM EST
    It's already swayed really far in one "direction."

    I'm not a fan of the way the democrats have been conducting themselves. But they were better than the Republicans in 2k, better in 2004, and they are better now.

    Just watch the Hillary Clinton speech over and over if you have to, but she's giving good advice.


    Thanks everybody. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:53:53 AM EST
    I'll catch Hillary's speech sometime, but in a way it doesn't really matter.  She did what she had to do, she did it superbly and now her job is done.

    No single speech will carry this campaign, no matter whether it is Hillary's, Biden's or Obama's.  The key is consistency and leadership.

    We shall see.

    It DOES matter (none / 0) (#76)
    by Grace on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:16:45 AM EST
    It was a fabulous speech.  If you really like Hillary, you should listen/see the speech.  She was wonderful.  Better than ever!!!!!  

    I mean, yeah, of course! (none / 0) (#82)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:46:37 AM EST
    She's Hillary Clinton.  You can always depend on her, that's what makes it so disheartening.  

    I can depend on Hillary.  What about Reid?  What about Pelosi?  What about Biden?  What about Obama?

    It would be so much easier if one of those names was "Hillary Clinton" instead.  Any one of those names.  Hillary I trust.  The others?  Not so much given their track records.  Bill will give another great speech tonight talking about Democratic values but Bill isn't part of the official power structure either.

    It's about the leadership of the party.  That's the problem and no number of motivational speakers can change that.  It always come back to who has the power to make a difference and what they choose to do with that power.  

    I attended a Gore lecture this year.  He said that the power of politicians is over rated.  Even as a Senator, even as the Vice President, he couldn't convince legislators to support the original Kyoto treaty.  It wasn't popular enough with the voters.   Real, lasting change always comes from the voters, the constituents, the people.  Even Republicans will support "entitlement" programs if their constituents lean on them hard enough.

    So I'm not planning on abdicating my power as a citizen or a voter.  I plan on supporting progressive principles, no matter who stands for them.  And if you don't stand for them, don't bother asking for my support because the answer is "No.".


    this, from (none / 0) (#84)
    by cpinva on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:02:08 AM EST
    "the rude pundit", to explain why obama did not pick sen. clinton, as veep:

    So the Obama people went to Hillary Clinton and said, "We need a complete financial disclosure, including Bill's foundation," and Bill said, "You can kiss my hairy a*ss," and thus the whole thing was over for Hillary. It's that simple.

    asterisk is mine.

    oddly, i've not read or heard this story anywhere else. this would make sense, since it's unlikely to have actually happened. the clinton are probably the single most vetted couple in the entire free world, certainly more so than the obamas.

    and yet, the those suffering CDS just can't seem to help themselves.

    Regarding the Georgia/Russia crisis (none / 0) (#87)
    by Grace on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:38:12 AM EST
    I live in an area with many Armenians so we get the Armenian newspaper.  This is a big issue with them.  

    This comes from the local Armenian newspaper:

    "In recent days, the US-trained Georgian forces have been defeated and since fled from the superior Russian armed forces."

    "Javakheti-Armenians insist that this is not their war, just as they did not relate to the 1991-92 Georgian-South Ossetian war and the 1992-93 Georgian Abkhazian war, after which Tbilisi lost control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, both of which enjoyed Russian support.  Georgia has now tried and failed to reverse by military force it's painful loss of South Ossetia."

    I think Russia is probably going to claim these territories since we have no troops to send to Georgia.  (South Ossetia)

    Lost Opportunities (none / 0) (#88)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:38:27 AM EST
    I do respect and applaud Jeralyn for insisting that people base their opinions on policy rather than personality. Hilary brought up issues tonight that I agree are more important than the person. As much as I question Obama's ability and committment to Democratic Party values, at least there is a chance that people in Congress (such as Russ Feingold, Hilary Clinton and Barney Franks just to mention a few) will be there to push the agenda. With a McCain in the WH we wouldn't have that chance.

    I'd like to see all the progressive blogs put down their poison pens, take off their rose colored glasses and get back to fighting for progressive causes.

    I concede that as a liberal, the choice is poor at best. But then it always has been. I can only hope that blogs and MSM media will hold Obama 's feet to the fire as much as they would have Hilary's.

    I second that... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Aqua Blue on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:02:02 AM EST
    You may not like the individual, but holding the office means power for the issues.

    Obama's feet will be held to the fire.

    McCain equals privitization of Social Security.

    McCain equals tax breaks for the wealthy on the backs of middle class.

    McCain equals no health care for all citizens.

    No Way   No How   No McCain


    Here's my (5.00 / 6) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:54:01 AM EST
    problem: So far none of Obama's supporters have held his feet to the fire. Obama has NOT been responsive to voters so I have no faith that he'll be responsive if he makes it into office. FISA would be the main example of that.

    I agree with you however (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:39:19 AM EST
    we have not heard much of that from Obama.  I am under the impression that he wants new not old, bi partisan, no Republican, no Democrat and is gong to go to the middle on almost everything.

    I don't hear Obama talk about issues that concern Democrats. Now Michelle did and HIllary did and most of the speakers did but what about him? Biden too. I want to hear what they have to say.


    Supporting Hillary Means Supporting Obama (none / 0) (#91)
    by john horse on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:56:13 AM EST
    I think Hillary said it best.
    I want you -- I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me, or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him?

    Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids?

    Were you in it for that young boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage?

    Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

    . . . We need to elect Barack Obama

    The only way that McCain can defeat us is if we allow him (and his trolls) to divide us.  If you believe in what Hillary fought for then the choice is clear, Obama.  

    No, it's more than just ugly. (none / 0) (#108)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:03:57 AM EST
    It's an attempt to slap her down and put her in her place. I can see now why Bill looks so angry and torn by his wife's position.

    O.K, it wasn't cheating..... (none / 0) (#117)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:54:33 AM EST
    ...."but he's better than McCain" isn't exactly the battle cry so many of us long time true, to our bones, blue Democrats were hoping for this Fall. At what could be the most critical time for the future of our country, we have been deceived once again. First, it was the Republicans and their "Southern Strategy" which gave them power for most of the last thirty years. Watching them destroy every last vestige of what was good and decent and hopeful in America, even the most hardened rednecks started wondering WTF was going on? Then, when "we the people," not the politicians, couldn't take any more, we sent a mandate to Washington; Stop WTF you're doing, turn this ship around NOW, and we don't mean maybe! So what did the Pelosi/Reid Democratic Congress do? Every G*d D*mn thing George Bush told them to do, that's what. Then finally........finally, as my mensa, atheist neighbor said, "the good Lord sent us the ONLY politician in America who "had it all" to lead us out of this mess. And as surely as Lucy pulls the football away from Linus every Fall, we chose a chameleon instead.
    I would just like to ask the Judas' in the Democratic "Leadership" one simple question; "Can you look your children in their eyes and tell them you truly believe they will be safer having Barack Obama sitting across the negotiating table from Vladimer Putin then Hillary Clinton?"
    I rest my case.  

    I thought this article was hillarious (none / 0) (#122)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:44:27 AM EST
    Lighten the mood is always a good thing

    I think I did that link thing right?

    Haven't seen much of the convention... (none / 0) (#138)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:54:21 AM EST
    any speakers bring up the drug war?  the prison population?  


    No way, no how, no drug war...Nader it is I guess.