Overnight Open Thread

I'm home. What a spectacular event at Invesco Field. I have a ton of pictures and video (not of the speeches, you can see those on TV) but they will have to wait until tomorrow or the weekend.

Denver really came through for the Democrats. It's a very proud moment for those of us who live here.

If you somehow missed the speeches this week, they will replay on Cnn.com/Live -- the schedule is below. click on the thumbnail images under the "Happening Now" column.

This is an open thread.

*9a: OBAMA SPEECH (in entirety)

*10a: DNC MONDAY NIGHT - Caroline Kennedy/Kennedy Tribute/Ted Kennedy/Michelle Obama

*10:45a: DNC TUESDAY NIGHT - Kucinich/ Warner/ Schwetzer/ Hillary Clinton

  • 12p: DNC WEDNESDAY NIGHT - Hillary Clinton Suspends/Bill Clinton Speech/Pelosi Accepts Nomination/Beau Biden/Joe Biden/Obama’s Surprise
  • 1p: DNC THURSDAY NIGHT – Gore/Kaine/Richardson/Biden/Obama

< Too Liberal For the WSJ | Blogging the Convention >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm proud. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:38:19 AM EST
    Proud to be an American, and proud to be a Democrat.

    Thanks, Jeralyn, for all your hard work.

    Thank You God (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by dissenter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:44:26 AM EST
    I almost missed the best news for Denver today. Capt Joe is gonna play for one more year. Go Avs!

    Thanks Jeralyn... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by OrangeFur on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:06:38 AM EST
    for everything you do for TalkLeft.

    Out of respect for your wishes, and for my own sanity, I'm planning on greatly curtailing my posting here. For better or for worse, I can't change my support of Hillary Clinton and my opinions about things that happened in the primary season, but I don't like how negative and cynical my postings have become of late, and I doubt I'm helping anyone or anything by writing them. The people who know me in real life would probably be surprised to see the change. After all, we all got into politics because we believe that politics at its best can make a real positive difference to people, and I've gotten away from that. I apologize to those I've rubbed the wrong way.

    I'll just say that I hope that the Democratic Party, whether with Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or anyone else as its forefront, soon makes itself worthy of the heartfelt and ardent support it has received from so many people. In the end, for all my doubts and disappointment, I want to believe like I used to.

    Thanks again to the people here who make TalkLeft such a great discussion forum.

    Oh, come on! (1.00 / 1) (#10)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:42:15 AM EST
    Dont stop, thinking about tomorrow,
    Dont stop, itll soon be here,
    Itll be, better than before,
    Yesterdays gone, yesterdays gone.

    Go to sleep (2.00 / 0) (#11)
    by dissenter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 02:45:34 AM EST
    You have like 50 posts today! Give it a rest.

    Why should I give it a rest? (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:08:06 AM EST
    It's too important to me. People are dying. People are suffering.  Do you think I have any interest in your comments? I don't. Do you think I have any need to please you? I don't. You go to sleep, and leave me to do whatever I feel I need to do. And right now, I need to do whatever I can think of to get Obama elected because No Way, No How, No McCain. Because.

    Great (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:30:09 AM EST
    The fact that Obama has better ideas than McCain doesn't give you the excuse to act like a horses patootie everywhere you go.

    Someday Obama supporters will realize that.

    No.  They won't.

    You are the reason why I won't vote for Obama.  And yes, it's irrational, call it what you want, but when you change your attitude, shut up and/or both, then I'll vote for Obama.  Not before then.

    Given all the killing in this world, surely you could keep your crap together and stop ticking people off long enough to help make the world a better place.


    so (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MrPope on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:07:41 AM EST
    so u wont vote for OBAMA  and allow McCain to finish the obliteration of this country because of a few rabid Obama supporters.

    I guess Payback is all that matters to some people

    burn the village to cinders to save it huh?

    hope u dont have to lose a love one in the coming McCain wars if he wins.


    Kind of what I'm saying (none / 0) (#35)
    by Claw on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:13:57 AM EST
    That's a hell of a way to pay yourself and your country back.

    You too (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:21:30 AM EST
    Why do you side with the rabid Obama supporter who turns off other voters by being obnoxious and rude?

    Instead of telling me I'm wrong, why don't you tell the person I responded to that they're wrong and that it will be their responsibility if Obama loses?

    I think I know why.  Because the Obama movement is halfway made up of rude obnoxious people and you know the only way Obama can win is if I ignore the behavior of Obama supporters.

    Well.   I won't.

    It's Obama's and your job to tell them they're wrong.  Not my job to get used to it.

    I think you know that.


    Your (none / 0) (#59)
    by Claw on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:43:45 AM EST
    Vote is your own.  Not voting for someone because you don't like someone who likes that candidate is just silly.  If you don't like Obama, fine.  Don't vote for him.  

    Silly Obama (none / 0) (#21)
    by Claw on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:19:10 AM EST
    Supporters are legion.  Refusing to vote for the right candidate is silly and irresponsible.  If people like this Obama nut are the reason you won't vote for Obama, people like you are the reason GWB is President.  

    Not at all (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:33:35 AM EST
    I didn't say it was rational.  It's the nut who's to blame.

    My request that he stop being a nut is a reasonable one.  And if he can't then the consequences of his actions are on him.

    Your conclusion about who is to blame for Obama losing is telling.


    Do you mean Kerry? Gore? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Claw on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:12:30 AM EST
    Obama is leading in polls and, by the vagaries of our electoral system, will be prevented from losing until Nov. 4th.  Also, since you are not a nut, the consequences of your own actions will be on you...not some guy on the internet.

    Great (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:15:59 AM EST
    You don't hold people responsible for behaving like that.  Awesome.

    I'm beginning to see the benefits of acting like an Obama supporter.

    You're never responsible for how you behave.  

    What a wonderful world to live in.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Claw on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:24:33 AM EST
    You talked about Obama's loss.  He hasn't lost.....unless you're from the future....(yes.  I am making fun of you).  Because I won't take responsibility for something that hasn't happened yet.

    That's not the point (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:29:04 AM EST
    Who's to blame if Obama loses.  His supporters who behave inappropriately or the people who get turned off because of his supporters who behave inappropriately?

    How much longer are you going excuse inappropriate behavior?


    Edgar... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:07:41 AM EST
    you're holding Obama responsible for how some knucklehead on a blog behaves.

    Whatever floats your boat my brother, but you might wanna re-think that one.

    Disclaimer...I consider myself a knucklehead commenting on a blog as well...please don't hold it against Ralph Nader:)


    Perhaps Obama is not the right candidate (none / 0) (#24)
    by stefystef on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:33:51 AM EST
    While I do not support McCain, I don't ignore the fact that this man has been in the Congress for over 20 years and has built a solid political career for decades, unlike Obama who spent a few years using political connections to catapult himself to where he is today.

    Attacks against those who say they can't support Obama will not make people change their minds... instead the anti-Obama movement will become invisible and while people SAY they support Obama, when election day comes, the privacy of voting will tell the true tale in November.


    Perhaps (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:57:58 AM EST
    people like you would be better off trying to persuade the above poster to change his behavior rather than blaming someone else.

    The question remains in my mind as to why does Obama attract these kind of people? It's the same question I have had about Bush for years.


    Not irrational (none / 0) (#48)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:28:20 AM EST

    Don't let them smear you. It's not irrational to not want to be associated with a party that includes many intolerant, abusive, sexist, unjust, bigoted people plus those who are silently complicit or condone those types of actions and words. After all, it's why we're not in the republican party - not just because of republican leaders but because we see what republican party members stand for and condone. Party membership and support has to do with both the leaders and the members, the latter supposedly people who share many of your views and ideals. That's not irrational, and don't let them keep insulting you with that or any other word. There are many good, rational reasons to not want to be aligned with ObamaNation or the Democratic Party after all we've witnessed, despite those who want to disappear the evidence or force comformity here on this blog.

    Think Green Party or some other alternative if you feel the way that you do. Despite this blog now turning into a DK-like place for abusive Obama commenters, there are other alternatives babe. Don't let them get you down.


    I know (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:29:46 AM EST
    I still just want to know how much longer they're going to excuse inappropriate behavior.

    We know that answer now: (none / 0) (#60)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:46:12 AM EST

    Here is a tip (none / 0) (#14)
    by dissenter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:28:12 AM EST
    Stop getting in everyone's face. It is like you beating some of us over the head. We will either move toward Obama or we won't. But, you are not helping his case at this point.

    Do you actually read the replies to your posts? And when you expressly tell people you don't care what they think, and then stay in their face, then you should expect other to view you with annoyance.

    And yes, we know people are suffering and dying..including some of my friends from health ailments here in the US and hideous deaths in a war zone. I don't need a lecture, thanks.

    And now I am going to bed.


    How to crib your propaganda.... (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Oje on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:57:05 AM EST
    I noted in a previous thread that I liked Obama's speech, so this is not directed at Obama.

    It is hard to fathom that A-listers are not reading Anglachel, though thoughtful discussion of her writings seems hard to come by on the Obamablogs:

    Hillary and Bill can deliver these kinds of speeches that go hammer and tongs after the Republicans, speeches that resonate with the core of the party, because they don't feel the need to capitualte on being Democrats. There is no nod to bipartisanship just for its own sake. Struggles in Washington are not always bad if what you are fighting is the pillaging of the nation and an assualt on our basic liberties. They are as partisan as the moment will allow, and now is the time to go all out. What the anti-Clinton faction can't figure out (or won't cop to) is that Bill and Hillary have moved on from the embattled times of the Movement Conservative ascendency and are pushing a significantly more hard-nosed and tough approach to politics than you hear form the rest of the party, which is seems stuck in a timewarp from 14 years ago, Hillary even more than Bill.

    After her sharp critique of the weak points in Obama's speech and a celebration of the Clintons' aggressive partisan ethic by Anglachel at 9:30, two formerly A-list bloggers suddenly have the same thought (at 10:30pm, provided the timestamps are correct) as Anglachel's most insightful point about the Clintons' speeches at the convention. However, our intrepid Obama bloggers attribute the Clintons' accomplishments to Obama. Entirely coincidental, I suppose, but an interesting tear in the time-space continuum of a progressive and two CDS afflicted bloggers.

    For me, it is classic agitprop strategy to claim the accomplishments of despised opponents. As a further rebuttal to Jeralyn's friend's letter and the new policy of talkleft, political discourse struggles to remain novel, vital, and useable when agitprop becomes the standard intellectual fare.

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:22:55 AM EST
    For writing that.

    Thanks!!! (none / 0) (#2)
    by Redshoes on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:38:36 AM EST

    Denver (none / 0) (#3)
    by dissenter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:40:11 AM EST
    While I might not have been to psyched on the convention this year I have to say, our fair city did an outstanding job. I am really proud of everyone and I hope the effort leads to many more big events....

    I thought Hickenlooper and Ritter were great. They did us proud.

    And YOU TOO! (none / 0) (#4)
    by dissenter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:41:05 AM EST
    Indeed... (none / 0) (#69)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:43:30 AM EST
    ...a few minor hiccups here and there, but overall, a great job by everyone involved!  

    I was not at all inconvienced once during the entire week and I think most people who attended enjoyed their stay in the Queen City of the Plains.

    Now it's on to the Taste of Colorado and the Mile Hi Showdown.    


    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#5)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:41:56 AM EST
    I'm glad you had such a great time!  We want to hear lots and lots of details.  Please feel free to dish at length.

    What is with your governor, by the way?  Someone get that man a glass of water!

    Warm honey lemon water is what (none / 0) (#7)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:51:25 AM EST
    he needed. I bet his voice was taxed from just a week of "socializing"  :)  Those politicians, they never learn, lol!~

    Obama needs to have Hil write (none / 0) (#8)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:59:41 AM EST
    his emails to supporters. And also program the mass emails to insert everyone's name. Even though it's a mass email, it's weird how much more personal it seems when it's addressed to you personally. My emails from Clinton, Clark and others have my name in the greeting and it adds a lot, imo.

    From Obama tonight:

    Friend --
    This night could not have happened 40 years ago -- or even 4 years ago.
    And it could not have happened without you.
    You believed, against the odds, that change was possible. I felt your passion here tonight, and I know it was shared by millions of Americans who are building this movement all across the country.
    Tonight is your night. But tonight is just the beginning.
    The general election is going to be faster and tougher than anything we've faced so far. And our opponents will do everything they can to tear us down.
    I need your support more than ever.
    Make a donation of $25 or more right now:
    Our party is united. Our purpose is clear. And our goal is in sight.
    Thank you for everything you've done,

    Kinda leaves me cold. I've been comparing emails of candidates and I think this is one area the Obama camp could gain some ground if they hit the right tone.

    For posterity ... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 04:05:46 AM EST
    I think there's something that needs to be said.

    Remember all that hoopla about Super Delegates during the primaries?  Well, in the end, only one Super Delegate mattered.  Her name was Hillary Clinton.

    The whole argument about revolts at the convention was a straw horse. Had Clinton convinced enough Supers, Obama would have done what Hillary did, or his future in Democratic Party politics would have been over.

    We need to remember this if, heaven forbid, we ever find ourselves in this situation again.  And we could.

    Sure, maybe even without the spurious "will of the people" arguments, and suggestions of revolts, Clinton still wouldn't have been able to convince enough Supers.  But we'll never know.

    I will be voting for and supporting the Obama/Biden ticket.  But I think we forget these facts, made crystal clear this week, at our peril.

    that damn spurious (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 05:41:25 AM EST
    Will of the people thing, when will we ever learn.

    To clarify ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:17:07 AM EST
    I meant the argument made by some Obama supporters that his delegate lead demonstrated a "will of the people," while a lead in popular vote did not.

    Anyway, I just wanted to make this one point, before we move on from the Democratic Party process and fully into the general.


    Oprah weeping like a baby (none / 0) (#20)
    by stefystef on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:18:58 AM EST
    On ABC (or course) they showed Oprah, up in a VIP box in the stadium, crying and fussing.  You would have thought Obama was HER husband, not Michelle Obama.

    I knew there was a reason I couldn't stand Oprah.  Since she was the first to make Obama out to be a deity, a living god among us, I would have to say I'm done with her.

    Oprah (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by bigbay on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:06:11 AM EST
    is all about Oprah.

    Who else puts themself on the cover of a magazine every month ?

    Sanctimonious to the extreme.


    I can't stand (none / 0) (#22)
    by Claw on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:23:12 AM EST
    Oprah either, but c'mon.  Plenty of people never thought they'd live to see an AA accept a major party's nomination.  I know I didn't.

    I never thought I'd live to see (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:04:12 AM EST
    A woman accept a major party's nomination.


    I was right.


    I knew a black person would get this far (none / 0) (#26)
    by stefystef on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:41:45 AM EST
    I mean, honestly, it ain't 1808 or 1908.

    This country has evolved A LOT in a short period of time considering all world history.  What I'm saying is that this deification of Obama will going to be dangers of making the man bigger than the plan.


    Someone will try to say I'm (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:11:54 AM EST
    de-valuing the plight of AAs in America, but the bottom line remains.

    You can put Clinton on the cover of a magazine in a dominatrix outfit, and you can't do something equally offensive to Obama.

    This is an incontrivertible fact.

    I always sort of knew a black person would be president before a woman.  I mean, Sisko came before Janeway.  It's a cultural thing.  Woman presidents depicted in popular media are Gina Davis in a sitcom.  Black presidents depicted in the media are Morgan Freeman and Dennis Haysbert in more dramatic fare, saving the country from terrorists and comets.


    Lord (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Claw on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:19:04 AM EST
    "You can put Clinton on the cover of a magazine in a dominatrix outfit, and you can't do something equally offensive to Obama."
    I know!  And you can't even draw a caricature of Obama sitting on a porch eating watermelon and fried chicken without someone raising a stink.  This country is SO unfair!

    You too (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:26:14 AM EST
    I think it's a good thing you can't do that with respect to AAs.

    And yet you complained about it (none / 0) (#50)
    by Claw on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:29:38 AM EST
    No (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:30:26 AM EST
    I complained about something different.

    Something you chose to ignore because you probably think it's OK.


    No (none / 0) (#55)
    by Claw on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:37:27 AM EST
    You complained about the fact that you couldn't do something equally offensive to Obama.  Read your own post.  I just chose something I thought would be equally offensive.  Make up your own if you like.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:40:25 AM EST
    That's not what I said.

    You are focussing on the wrong part because it never occured to you that portraying an ambitious woman in a dominatrix outfit was EQUALLY F-ING WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!.



    No (none / 0) (#61)
    by Claw on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:48:56 AM EST
    I think portraying Clinton in a dominatrix outfit would be incredibly offensive.  If you wish to cease being called out for saying silly things, cease saying silly things.

    I never said a silly thing (none / 0) (#64)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:51:53 AM EST
    I said in this society you can get away with portraying an ambitious woman in a dominatrix outfit and that's a bad thing.

    But in this society you can not get away with portraying an AA in an equally offensive manner and that's a good thing.

    Your INCORRECT interpretation of what I said is silly, and that's what you are getting called on.


    WHAT THE? (none / 0) (#42)
    by MrPope on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:21:50 AM EST
    <<You can put Clinton on the cover of a magazine in a dominatrix outfit, and you can't do something equally offensive to Obama.>>

    please tell me u didnt post this and was not jokin... i will just assume u was joking...because noone outside of the Klan would say something that racist.


    YOu didn't understand (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:24:28 AM EST
    I know why.

    I'm not saying you should be able to be offensive to Obama or AAs.  That's not what I'm saying.

    I think it's a good thing that we've evolved that far as far as race is concerned.

    Keep pretending you don't understand.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:52:37 AM EST
    I'm sorry you can't figure out what the point is.

    and (none / 0) (#32)
    by MrPope on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:11:50 AM EST
    so all the people weeping for hillary was ok... but someone weeping for obama is wrong to u

    what is up with some of u guys   i mean really

    Oprah isnt human?  I am sure Oprah experienced the horrors of racial injustice growing  and never thought she sould see this day happen

    she cant weep or be joyful over obama  because it offends stefystef ?


    The (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:21:19 AM EST
    thing with Oprah is that it reinforces the celebrity stuff about Obama. Now, your unfamous AA in the audience wouldn't cause this kind of reaction imo. Yeah, I saw AA's excited and that was great. Oprah---another story altogether.

    oprah (none / 0) (#46)
    by MrPope on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:25:59 AM EST
    <,Oprah---another story altogether.

    explain why oprah cant get excited and weep?  is she a robot?   was she not forced to sit on the back of the bus growing up  

    so if you are a black celebrity..according to Ga6thDem  you have to be quiet..show no emotion...or clap or anything like that for Obama  because if will upset Ga6thDem

    u gotta be kidding me...no one possible can think like that.


    You don't (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:30:38 AM EST
    get it do you? It's about celebrity not race. Why is everything framed regarding race. It hurts Obama. If a white celebrity was doing it, it would also be bad. It's the celebrity meme and obviously many of you DO NOT get it.

    then again (3.00 / 2) (#54)
    by MrPope on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:36:30 AM EST
    if i see a celeb weeping over McCain  it will be a first.   or anyone weeping over McCain for that matter

    the GOP convention will be a dry eyed affair...are u attending?


    Obama (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:40:34 AM EST
    supporters like you certainly are a great help to the GOP and McCain.

    BTW, word on the nets is that he's chosen Sarah Palin for VP. If that's true then Obama has lost the election anyway.


    PALIN? (none / 0) (#71)
    by MrPope on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:56:14 AM EST
    oh i get it...because PALIN is a woman...people will vote McCain....issues and policies be damned..just because his VP is a woman

    i think to highly of Hillary to think she got all this support just because she is a woman.

    she is a great leader   regardless of gender to me...


    u wonder (none / 0) (#36)
    by MrPope on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:15:06 AM EST
    u wonder sometimes what motivates people to villify obama and anyone who supports him non stop all the time...i seen people crying  during obamas speech of all colors.  it was beautiful

    i am glad jeralyn laid down the law.


    Palin will be VP (none / 0) (#39)
    by bigbay on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:20:01 AM EST
    a plane picked her up in Alaska overnight. Pawlenty is at a state fair in MN today.

    Oh (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:21:57 AM EST
    geez. McCain may have just won the election if that's the case.

    Very smart ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:42:42 AM EST
    if true.  

    And will definitely look like surprise.  She was my prediction some time back, but she seemed out of the running in the last few weeks.


    I knew it (none / 0) (#68)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:37:05 AM EST
    The republicans will be the first party to nominate a woman to VP or P. What an embarrassment to democrats. And they deserve it too.

    And I'll tell you another thing:  republican men will not smear her in the way that democratic men smeared hillary.

    Bizarro world, huh?


    What are you talking about?!? (none / 0) (#70)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:52:11 AM EST
    Two words--Geraldine Ferraro.  Ring any bells?  



    Dr Molly (none / 0) (#73)
    by MrPope on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:01:59 AM EST
    that quickly  Dr Molly lost all credibility.

    she wants a woman elected... dont matter who.

    then to compound it ...what woman could forget  or not know about the historic nomination for VP of Ferarro by the dems in 84

    simply amazing

    i am in awe


    Even I knew that... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 09:42:22 AM EST
    and I was 7 at the time...and have that dastardly y chromosome:)

    wow (none / 0) (#72)
    by MrPope on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:58:58 AM EST
    u are so blinded by hate of OBAMA

    and blind loyalty to any woman who is running or will run...even if u have no clue who she is  or what she it about....  

    that u forgot about  Ferraro?

    an embarrassment to the DEMS?   Dems already nominated a woman VP

    is anyone home in that skull of yours?