Bill Clinton to Speak at Democratic Convention Weds. Night

Bill Clinton will speak at the Democratic Convention in Denver Wednesday night, before the VP candidate. Wednesday night is also when the balloting takes place.

Sen. Barack Obama is off to Hawaii tomorrow on vacation. That means no VP pick until next week, less than 3 weeks out from the Convention.

There's still no resolution as to whether there will be a roll-coll vote at the convention or whether Hillary will ask for her name to be placed in nomination. Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, in Catharsis in Denver? today writes [More...]:

The most likely outcome is that Hillary will not sign the document that is necessary under party rules for her name to be placed in nomination. The Obama forces aren't dumb enough to permit it, and Hillary, unlike Bill, has to work with these people after the election if Obama wins. But the rules do allow for all delegates to vote for whomever they want. So Hillary's delegates will naturally vote for their candidate even if there are no nominating and seconding speeches for her.

Memo to Dems: Stop Dragging My Heart Around (Stevie Nicks and Tom Petty together version.)Hat tip to commenter Sleepingdogs for the song tip.

< Hamdan Eligible For Release in 5 Months | Late Night Open Thread: Oprah's Back >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I just deleted my post on this (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:15:36 PM EST
    My thoughts

    The Obama campaign did a terrific job today pushing back on the Clinton-Obama rift. Obama spoke forcefully in a press availability on the campaign plane, insisting that the supposed rift was a Media creation. Similarly, David Axelrod took the same tack this morning on Morning Joe.

    By having President Clinton speak on Wednesday night, Obama and his team are doing the right thing. It is clear he is not going to pick her as VP but he and his team are shrewdly letting people know that President Clinton is part of the greater Democratic legacy, that Hillary Clinton is an important part of the Democratic leadership and that in fact, he does not want to cut off the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party.

    This is a terrific move and I think Barack Obama himself made the call, slapping down the foolish part of his team who has been whispering nonsense in Chuck Todd's ear. Good job.

    By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only


    Absolutely the right thing to do (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:21:09 PM EST
    for all possible reasons.

    Glad to see the adults are in charge.

    Chuck Todd?  You got punk'd.


    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:26:09 PM EST
    BREAKING!!! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:45:03 PM EST
    Jeez (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by RalphB on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:55:52 PM EST
    geek should really bite it.  what a maroon!

    Obaa must be doing (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:59:22 PM EST
    worse than we thought.

    ma...ma... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:00:00 PM EST

    lol!~ :) (none / 0) (#37)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:00:53 PM EST
    That's really special. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Burned on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:01:27 PM EST
    And again (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:01:30 PM EST
    I'm grateful there is TalkLeft.

    Nothing like reading commenters that just talk past each other or use any excuse to get in each others' faces.

    I'm beginning to think that the net roots blew it big this year.  You almost need a minesweeper and an asbestos body suit to navigate the average blog these days.  I don't think that encourages participation or readership.


    Amazing (4.00 / 4) (#129)
    by TruthSayer on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:30:34 PM EST
    that more than a few here think it is a good idea for Bill to speak before the VP.

    I find it ironic. Here we have 18+ million people who would probably like to see Hillary as VP and Obama is going to send her husband on stage just before? Some would take that as another Obama 'In Your Face'!

    It's insulting really. I can only hope for two things. One, that the Clinton delegates start chanting Hillary! Hillary! while Bill is up there. And two, Bill being no fool knows just like I do that him going up on stage just preceding the VP is pretty sensational and will take the opportunity for him, Bill, to be Bill, and speak of his wife even if it is off script. He isn't going up in that spot to behave himself IMO.

    Of course the mega long shot is that Hillary will be the VP which would make Bill's slot so very appropriate (and the crowd goes wild!). But I don't think anyone is laying down bets on that happening.

    So let's hear it...

    Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!....


    Where would you put Bill (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by waldenpond on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:53:48 PM EST
    Hillary is on the night of a historic event.  The former President is going to speak at the convention.  So where would you put him?  It's very appropriate for the Pres to bring in the VP and then the VP brings in the Pres nominee.  I think it's a good line up.

    What's the point? (4.25 / 4) (#202)
    by fctchekr on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:13:07 PM EST
    I see this similarily. It's like the only way BO can get approval for his VP choice other than Hillary is to have Bill present. This reminds me of a twisted pyschological who dun it. Who killed off Hillary's VEEP chances with a wink and a southern drawl? Her own husband of course. And she in fact precedes him in order to provide the proper appearance for appearances sake. Revulsion!

    ches! (none / 0) (#163)
    by jedimom on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:48:09 PM EST
    Hill a ree!
    Hill a ree!
    Hill a ree!!

    I am always glad to listen to Big Dawg. Love him, love his legacy. The Clintons are the heart of our party IMO.


    Not just Todd... (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:32:46 PM EST
    the entire MSNBC talking ego jerks....Maddow played the same crap today and then get this: some young  women (from the Independent Women's Forum) was on with Joan Walsh (who was smartly downplaying the rift, and telling people they really need to lay off the Clinton bashing) and a few others.  Anyway at the end this woman, I think her name is Michelle Benard and the IWF is supposedly non-partisan, ends her turn with these words: Someone needs to tell Hillary shes needs to "keep Bill on the reservation."  
    I find that phrase insulting for many reasons but no one blinked an eye.

    IWF (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Miri on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:36:28 PM EST
    Are you kidding? That organization is financed by Richard Melon Scaife. Ann Coulter is part of that crowd.

    Really? All I've seen on CNN for hours (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:48:48 PM EST
    today is the rift, the rift, the rift.  No announcement like this about Bill speaking -- only reports that it is unresolved.  Much Bill bashing.

    And even more Hillary bashing.  The Clintons are conniving, they hope Obama loses, blah blah blah.  Obama can do nothing about it, showed him on the airplane looking noncommital, blah blah blah.

    Glad I came here for a break from it and, gasp, news.  What is with CNN utterly ignoring this announcement?


    Egg meet (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:56:02 PM EST
    Media face.

    No. (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:58:37 PM EST
    The media never suffer for their sensationalism.

    As long as they get ratings, it's all good.


    I have to amend my comment (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:07:00 PM EST

    I don't watch the news much anymore, so I don't have to listen to people like Jonathan Alter.

    Why in the world would I care what he says?

    Hot, polluted air.  There's enough of it out there.  Not safe to breathe.


    I chuckled at this from Alter (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by TruthSayer on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:34:57 PM EST
    "and Hillary, unlike Bill, has to work with these people after the election if Obama wins."

    Well I think he has it backward. Obama has to work with Hillary and the rest of congress, not vis versa. Any dummy knows that. It's like alter never ever watched an episode of the West Wing - lol.


    Jonathan Alter (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Miri on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:40:25 PM EST
    He is an Obama groupie.

    I can just see him drinking the cool aide and committing suicide if Obama loses.


    Unfortunately, there are still people (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:47:10 PM EST
    who give these trashy garbage analysts enough of a viewing audience to keep this stuff dominating what people watch for their political information.

    I'm with you...won't watch it now, and won't watch it after the election. Those guys need to be put out of business.

    MSNBC is trying to work their own campaign strategy. They don't care if they interfere, they want to see the impact they have so their ego gets its daily feeding.


    My guess (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by joanneleon on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:10:12 PM EST
    is that it's all coordinated.  The media bashes the Clintons and paints them as disloyal, undeserving, etc. while the Obama campaign defends them.

    This is all about justifying why the Obama campaign did not pick Hillary as a running mate.  

    The media does the dirty work while the Obama campaign appears to take the high road.  It's all going along just as it is supposed to.


    Jake Tapper gets it (5.00 / 8) (#94)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:54:59 PM EST
    Tapper just lays it out:
    Sen. Barack Obama's campaign appears reluctant to have any sort of roll call vote at the Democratic convention this month. Why? They have no interest in highlighting the narrowness of his victory.

    This would mean the first Democratic convention without a roll call vote since President Lyndon Johnson ran unopposed for reelection in 1964.

    Ironically (5.00 / 8) (#123)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:25:21 PM EST
    thanks to the media, it will probably get more attention if there is no vote than if there is one.  Who wants a week-long narrative of "Obama is afraid to have a vote"?

    Imagine having a vote like they always do.  Someone gets up from each state and says "the great state of such-and-such casts X votes for Barack Obama (lots of applause) and Y votes for Hillary Clinton (lots of applause)."

    After all the states have gone, they announce Obama is the winner, maybe Hillary says something nice about him or vice versa, big round of applause for her and 99% of the people go away happy, or at least happier than they were before, about supporting the Democratic ticket.

    Why would anyone, except maybe John McCain, be unhappy about this scenario?  Let alone be scared of it?  There's something I'm not getting.


    Yep - Hillary is nudging her way in (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:57:54 PM EST
    because Obama left her a gaping wide opening.

    Could we BLAST FAX (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:55:11 PM EST
    this to every single person in the media?  

    Why don't they try to get their history straight?  Oh.... I forgot... it's more fun to stomp on the Clintons.  My bad.


    So glad all my TV news channels still (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by bridget on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:31:57 PM EST
    remain off limits to me

    I haven't seen any of these annoying news people and gossipy pundits for months and months now. And that includes all the shows as well, i.e. MTP, Daily Show, Colbert ... and whatever else there is.

    Life is so much better that way.


    It's all a creation of the media? (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Prabhata on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:21:47 PM EST
    It's not Hillary and Obama that have a rift, but the chasm is between her supporters and Obama and his camp.  There is no bridge long enough to bring them together, not the way the Obama camp has treated Hillary. One must look at the polls to see it.  He and Hillary can sweet talk all they want, but it won't matter because it's not about Hillary, it's about the material Obama is made of.  Many are not buying the shiny object.

    No difference (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Miri on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:39:35 PM EST
    None of this makes any difference for me. I am not voting for Obama. I don't want him as president.

    I think they (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by Jgarza on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:14:45 PM EST
    are correct.  They keep taking that one little clip of Bill out of context.  It was clear he hadn't been prepped.  If you listen to what he said.  he basically said there is no such thing as presidential experience unless you have been president.  

    He sounds petty in the one clip, but if you listen to the entire thing you can tell he wasn't being petty.


    WOW! The Obama campaign must have been (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by bridget on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:22:55 PM EST
    really terrified Bill Clinton would not speak at the convention after all - which would have been a disaster for Obama and his chances for November - ... and then later he would tell the Dem voters WHY! They saw a huge disaster train coming at them... and it had Bill's name on it.  

    And Please! As if Bill Clinton needs Obama et al to know that he is THE most imp. part of the Dem party legacy and that Hillary with 18 Mill votes in the primaries the Dem's top leader right now.

    The Clinton-Obama rift may be a riproaring media creation (what else is new when it concerns the Clintons) but both Clintons know that it is Obama alone who caused the rift.

    It's only politics. And since Obama NEEDS Bill to speak at the convention he better had to get his act together and speak out. Not that I heard any of it but I take your word for it that he did so.  I find it hard to believe Obama speaks forcefully about anything, however.

    So starting with Morning Joe today the Obama campaign tried to push back in order to please the Clintons. As if MSNBC and the rest of the media would care. They also know why Axelrod does what he does on TV.

    just saying ...  


    Too late, IMO (5.00 / 5) (#126)
    by pmj6 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:28:42 PM EST
    Team Obama did not invent the Clinton Derangement Syndrome, they merely exploit it and "improved" on the GOP version a little (the GOP would not dream of implying either of the Clintons was a racist--Team Obama had no such compunctions). Now they are trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. It will not work, for two reasons.

    One, all too many of Obama's supporters who have no intention of playing nice with the Clintons. No matter what Team Obama says (even assuming they mean it), they will still continue to spread the anti-Clinton message. If you don't believe me, browse the Daily Kos a little.

    Two, all too many of Clinton's supporters (including me) simply will not forgive Team Obama for what they did. Running "Harry and Louise"--style ads against the Clinton health plan is beyond the pale. Race-baiting is beyond the pale. The sheer amount of misogyny is beyond the pale. I am not the only one who feels this way, if Obama's sinking poll numbers (which were never all that strong against McCain to begin with) are anything to go by.

    So, it doesn't matter what Team Obama does at this stage, short of offering Clinton the VP slot. Which, of course, they will not do. All else are empty words and gestures.


    VP slot (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Miri on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:43:30 PM EST
    It would make no difference.

    For me this is not about Hillary.

    This is about Obama. I don't want him president. I will not vote for him.

    All this will be forgotten pretty quickly. Right after the Dem convention there will be GOP convention and it will drawn out all the hype.


    How about the gay baiting? (5.00 / 3) (#211)
    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:17:05 PM EST
    Obama says he opposes Prop 8 because it's "divisive".  How about he believes in equal citizenship, non discrimination, and doesn't believe the constitution should be a tool to regulate personal behavior?  

    A lot of Indian American voters still remember the "Hillary Clinton, D-Punjab" comments.  I know some liberal Indian Americans who are contemplating voting for McCain as a result.


    Not quite good enough to be VP (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by dianem on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:37:22 PM EST
    ... but they'll find a role for her.  She can once again be "the woman behind the great man".  She's good at that role. And if she's really good, then they might just let her pass a bill or two that improves the reputation that she spent a lifetime building and Obama tore down in a few months.

    The foolish part of his team (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by joanneleon on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:18:38 PM EST
    is doing just what they are supposed to be doing, IMHO.  I think you're missing a big part of why the media is playing up the rift and bashing on the Clintons again.  They are doing it because that's what the Obama campaign wants them to do right now, in preparation for him announcing his VP choice.  

    He needs to justify why he didn't choose Hillary as a running mate, and he can't be truthful about the real reasons.  So the media does their part by painting the Clintons as troublemakers, disloyal, untrustworthy and undeserving of the position.  

    A lot of people are going to be asking the question of why he didn't make the smartest and most fair decision by choosing Hillary.  They'd be unbeatable.

    So the media does the dirty work and Axelrod and Obama appear to defend the Clintons and take the high road.  All according to plan.


    You think Barack (none / 0) (#31)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:56:24 PM EST
    made the call?  Whatever.

    Now if he could only convince me to vote for him.


    Obama is looking for the opportunity (5.00 / 6) (#167)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:52:52 PM EST
    to show some Clinton class, but Hillary keeps upstaging him.

    MO this morning on GMA gave an interview and said how gracious HRC has been in giving her parenting advice for children in the public eye (code: President's off-spring), and that she's been so grateful. She was either bending the truth this morning, or a couple of months ago when she said HRC couldn't keep her own house in order, so shouldn't be trusted with our WH.

    The Obama's never needed to trash the Clinton legacy, or Hillary in the multiple ways they did. They took the character attacks into forbidden territory and they showed the country who THEY are. We already know who the Clintons are.


    Um, it's a great move? (none / 0) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:05:50 PM EST
    It would have been a great move if it had been announced weeks ago and Bill didn't have to have a couple of temper tantrums on TV to get Obama's attention.  Sheesh.

    I agree it's a better move than not doing it at all, but...


    Dollars to donuts (none / 0) (#159)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:45:59 PM EST
    that someone had a 'come to Jesus' meetup with Obama/Axelrod re the Clintons.

    My bet is it was David Gergen.


    Howard Dean (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:55:41 PM EST
    is more likely than David Gergen.

    Howard played a huge role in orchestrating the outcome of the primary. I'm thinking he isn't interested in continuing the Clinton bashing when it appears it will prevent Obama from a win.

    Howard will have some major explaining to do to the leaders and elected democrats if his tactic fails them and McCain wins.


    David Gergen??? (none / 0) (#165)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:52:20 PM EST
    Isn't he supposed to be an UNBIASED media analyst?

    Somebody's whispering in David Shuster's ear also. (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by imhotep on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:22:16 PM EST
    He was on that bloviator, Ed Schultz, show. Both of them trying to work up a story that HRC is not giving up; replaying the speech at Unity NH as if it were yesterday.  "HRC will not want to go back to the Senate to work with those Senators who supported BO."  Shuster said HRC would be his lead story today.  These guys at MSNBC just won't quit.

    It's the same drill at CNN (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:34:37 PM EST
    Jack Cafferty, Campbell Brown, Candy Crowley were all framing the story as "Hillary Clinton just won't stop...she doesn't want Obama to win.. yada, yada."

    Only Paul Begala would point out that historically other candidates have had their names placed in nomination (Ted Kennedy and Gary Hart) and that Clinton deserves the same courtesy.  

    Everyone else was pointing fingers at her and tut-tutting.  

    So what else is new?


    Obama has a history (5.00 / 14) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:38:32 PM EST
    of trying to and often succeeding at removing competitors.  Others' convention participants from past years don't have Obama's problem with competitors.

    Too bad he can't get rid of McCain (4.00 / 4) (#150)
    by dianem on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:41:28 PM EST
    Can he challenge the nominating process in enough states to disqualify him? Maybe he can convince people that being born in the Panama Canal Zone doesn't really qualify as being a "natural" citizen.

    Kennedy? Don't think so (1.40 / 5) (#73)
    by slr51 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:36:44 PM EST
    Here's the video of him withdrawing his name from consideration at the convention:



    But wasn't that AFTER (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:41:08 PM EST
    he was nominated?

    My lord (5.00 / 8) (#81)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:42:17 PM EST
    Are they even teaching history any more?

    That was after his attempt (5.00 / 8) (#107)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:06:26 PM EST
    to get Carter's delegates failed. He staged a motion for "open rule" to release all the delegates to vote as they pleased but it didn't pass. Think Hillary will try a parliamentary coup?

    Have they missed the fact that she's (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:41:12 PM EST
    ALREADY BACK AT WORK?! It's been kinda hard to miss . . . .

    Hey! Judas repented (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:04:13 PM EST
    in the end.

    We'll see if anyone on those list will.  Given the whole "Misogyny?  Well, perhaps there was some - but not here, not us!" routine, I highly doubt it.  


    Im not sure (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Chisoxy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:32:16 PM EST
    if that is THE Judas, I figured it was Bill Richardson.

    But Judas.... (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:13:52 PM EST
    meant well.

    Sorry, he's just not in the same league as Donna Brazile.  She has a whole new level of hell opening up for her.


    When he figured out he didn't even (none / 0) (#175)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:57:37 PM EST
    make it to the long list for VP?

    They really won't (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:24:19 PM EST
    I mean these MSNBC reporters remind me of the male sex offenders on Law and Order: Special Victims Unit.  

    No choice now (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:27:36 PM EST
    Obama slapped them around.

    Obama did great today.


    48% said too much Obama (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:00:13 PM EST
    How many people do you think know he did anything, let alone something worthy?

    I'm thinking there aren't many voters paying attention right now. They're on vacation, the convention is just around the corner, and they can wait.


    Yes, I might change the order (none / 0) (#142)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:37:39 PM EST
    but I have to agree on the list.....but 10 would not be enough.

    That's a good move (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by blogtopus on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:23:46 PM EST
    Let the Delegates do what they want... Hillary will be able to claim 'I know Not-ting!' /schultzy

    As usual, very shrewd. Shows she respects the Obama campaign but well, hey, she can't control people's minds can she?! I'm getting more and more sure that she taught Bill everything he knows about walking the razor's edge, and that she's a much better practitioner.

    Of course, there will be some people who will be hoping, in their heart of hearts, that Bill will be introducing his wife as VP... I'm one of them. I know it isn't realistic, but there might be a letdown for those of us who want her to be part of this team, and having Bill speak will only remind us of all the things Obama did to her and Bill during the campaign... and how much better a campaign it would be with her as part of it.

    They were speaking out (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:33:56 PM EST
    both sides of their mouths, just as they always do.

    No surprise.

    And... (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:35:38 PM EST
    it's another inkblot.  Those who think Hillary's the devil incarnate have license to continue believing so.  Those who don't have "permission" per the Obama campaign to think he did the right thing.

    It's the typical story.


    CNN certainly interprets it (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:50:31 PM EST
    -- the Obama comments on the plane, etc. -- in his favor and against the Clintons, over and over.

    I'm switching to Fox.  It's all that's left.


    Football! (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:52:04 PM EST
    screw da news!

    Sad, isn't it? (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by lmv on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:59:21 PM EST
    I switched after Bill-O's terrific interview with HRC.  

    What has the world come to?  Praising Bill-O?  Watching Fox?  And, I read the WSJ, too.

    What has happened to the Left?  


    Fox? Really? (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by mbuchel on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:20:55 PM EST
    I think there's a reason that Fox viewers went 87-8 Bush over Kerry, right?  Maybe it's because it's a network geared towards all things Republican.
    It's not what happened to the Left...

    Did you watch CNN today? (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:34:02 PM EST
    See above.  I did.  CNN doesn't even report the news if it means having to be "fair and balanced."  It reported untruths for hours today.

    I gave up, I switched to Fox, and lo and behold -- they were reporting this story that CNN somehow missed.

    But then Dick Morris started talking.  Ugh.  Even so, he was called out for untruths.  On Fox!


    Don't feel badly about reading the WSJ (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:30:07 PM EST
    When you take out the opinion page the paper is very good -- some of the best business and international reporting there is. I used to read it everyday at lunch when I was in music school. My cohorts thought that was funny but hey, I learned about the importance of melodic minor and about Carl Icahn and Texas Air, all in the same year.

    The Obama's waited too long (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:06:09 PM EST
    people aren't interested right now. They've had their fill of Obama Nightly News, they want to enjoy summer before the conventions and the GE begin, and the campaign's credibility was solidly established during the primary.

    The republicans have their prized strategist working for them, again.


    Reminds me of the RFK assassination flap (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by RalphB on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:59:04 PM EST
    Obama and Axelrod play "terrific" while the campaign does the dirty work.  What's so "terrific" here?  They became better at not getting caught?

    Having Bill speak is a great move (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:38:32 PM EST
    Glad the Obama camp finally faced reality.

    But -- "speaking for me only" -- it may remind people of how good the 90's were, and of what an articulate, charismatic leader really looks and sounds like. In sum, it will be more bittersweet than energizing for me to witness that Wednesday night highlight.

    If she does Tuesday Night (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:42:40 PM EST
    We have Clinton/Clinton, then the VP, then Obama, lol!~

    lol! (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Little Fish on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:15:33 PM EST
    I felt bad for the potential VP when they were sandwiched in between Hillary and Obama, But throw the other Clinton in there and it's just kind of cruel to the veep!  

    Can't see how (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Lil on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:52:50 PM EST
    the three of them pull this off when half the party thinks Hillary is the most qualified. Why is everybody so sure he's not picking her? I keep thinking he will.

    Maybe they'll get Chelsea to (none / 0) (#166)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:52:27 PM EST
    slide in on Tuesday night and then Bill intro's Hillary for VP? lol!~

    in 04 (none / 0) (#195)
    by Little Fish on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:09:48 PM EST
    They had Cate introduce Elizabeth who introduced John.  Maybe Bill could introduce Chelsea and she could introduce her mom. Okay, I'm getting a little too hopeful now.

    What if the VP is a relative newb to the national stage?  Speaking after Bill Clinton (on a night when Hillary is NOT made VP) is no pressure, no none at all...


    If the pick is a relative newb (none / 0) (#222)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:25:11 PM EST
    they damn well better be working on their speech as we are sitting here commenting and better be able to deliver. Obama stood out partly because he could deliver that night. The 2 speeches I remember from that convention were his and Bill's. They gave me "hope" for Kerry winning. Now that we've all been subjected to O's speeches for months, that has worn off (but we still have Bill!). So now we have an energized Hillary + base and Bill. Oy. Pity the pick, lol!~

    I confess (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:44:02 PM EST
    I never even thought about a scenario where Bill Clinton wouldn't be speaking at the convention.  That would have been pretty weird.

    Ditto. I was stunned at reports today (5.00 / 10) (#26)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:52:15 PM EST
    that there was any question.  Really?  The Obama camp wasn't going to accord respect to the previous Dem president?  I couldn't believe that they weren't getting over it.  Glad to know this was fixed . . . but too late for Dems for anyone watching CNN today.  The party looks like it's in chaos under Obama.

    Really? Nothing surprises me with this (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:09:34 PM EST
    campaign. I half expect a tribute to Ronald Reagan in Obama's speech.

    How could Bill ... (5.00 / 10) (#21)
    by OrangeFur on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:48:29 PM EST
    ... not speak? He's still hugely popular among most Democrats. Shutting him out would be stupid beyond belief.

    Also, I don't understand why everyone is so afraid of having Hillary's name put forward. What's the big deal?

    And don't forget (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:32:22 PM EST
    Bill is the last successful two-term Democratic President of the United States.  That there was even a question of whether or not they'd make room for him shows how petty and irresponsible they are.

    Some may think I'm petty.  But Bill's not a racist!!! I don't get over stuff like that.


    And that's why the likes of (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:41:10 PM EST
    Dean and Kerry hate Clinton and suffer from the same CDS as the wingnuts.   They KNOW damn well they cannot hold a candle to Bill or Hillary when it comes to actual democratic voters.  They along with Brazile and a few others (Daschle) resent the Clintons popuarity and brilliance.

    Media CDS (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:03:32 PM EST
    It's amazing how the media will blow up anything with the name "Clinton" in it.

    These people need counseling.

    There was never any question that both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton would act as anything but classy team players at the convention, and that everything would be coordinated.

    They are still strangely obsessed (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:34:14 PM EST
    with the Clenis.
    Can't get enough of it.

    Devil's advocate time -- (5.00 / 10) (#42)
    by FemB4dem on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:05:27 PM EST
    I think this is bad news for Obama.  Tuesday will be Hillary's night.  She wil be incredible and many will wish she was going to be the nominee.  Wednesday will be Bill's night.  Whoever the VP is (unless by some miracle it's Hillary) will pale in comparison to him.  Thursday -- all the Hillary voters will tune out, and Obama will be speaking only to the already converted.  The reality here is, nothing either Hillary or Bill say can make me or others like me vote for Obama.  They will only make him look even worse than he normally does even while praising him.  Only Obama can convince me to vote for him.  So far, he has failed at that task so miserably that I now turn him off with the remote as quickly as I turn off Dubya. Throw in the abominable "free speech zones," and I no longer feel welcome in my long-time party.  Good luck Dems, you are going to need it.  

    Could care less if it's bad for Obama (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by RalphB on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:14:55 PM EST
    but it's good for me.  I'll get to listen to Hillary and Bill without worrying about an Obama appearance.  Him I just can't watch.

    Yep, I'll tune in to hear (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by FemB4dem on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:29:19 PM EST
    the Clintons -- it's the "power off" button for Obama.  I was trying to make a neutral comment, though, about whether this is good or bad news for Obama.  From what I am hearing from women who normally vote Dem, things are so bad now that for certain segments of the Hillary voters only making her VP will bring them around to support Obama.  (Let me be clear, even that would not convince me to vote for Obama).  Once he does not -- once it's clear that Hillary will have no real role, IMO, Obama will consistently start to trail McCain in the polls.  This will be the 2008 version of the 2004 swift boats, but this time it will be a Dem self-inflicted wound.  

    Just read this on WP (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:39:06 PM EST
    in reference to the scheduled speeches at the convention:

    As to those avid Clinton supporters who still haven't warmed up to him and may even resent him, Obama said, "We're not talking to those people, we're talking directly to the Clinton campaign people and staff."

    So as to being one of "those people", he's not talking to you anyway.  :-)


    Good thing (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by RalphB on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:55:25 PM EST
    or else he may as well be talking to himself  :-)

    those people??? (5.00 / 8) (#101)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:00:08 PM EST
    I thought "those people" was a coded phrase.

    Yes it is (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:09:42 PM EST
    when will the media (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:20:14 PM EST
    start reporting Obama's use of 'code' phrases?  You know all too well if a Clinton had called Obama supporters "those people" all hell would break lose.  Obama can probably call people arrogant and presumptuous too without anyone saying a thing.

    ooooh, good one. :-) (none / 0) (#105)
    by RalphB on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:05:01 PM EST
    It'll be sad for me, listening to the best (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by WillBFair on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:09:24 PM EST
    speachifier there is and having to look forward to years of Obama's canned cliches. Oh how I'll miss the Clintons' simple, precise, and elegant discourse.
    But it was inevitable. The American people never made the connection between brains and results. They're still being duped by the media's childish smear campaign.
    Even if Bill tones it down (don't want to outshine the announted one), it'll be great listening to him. Personnally I think he should pull out all the stops and let the dingbat crowd know what they'll be missing.

    What? (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:12:53 PM EST
    The American people never made the connection between brains and results.

    Hillary won the popular vote.  People definitely got it this time.


    The made it, just a little late. (none / 0) (#52)
    by RalphB on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:15:55 PM EST
    I know. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:23:29 PM EST
    Caucuses suck.

    That mistake won't happen again.


    Wat to bet? (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:30:40 PM EST
    The party establishment got exactly what they wanted from the caucuses.  They won.  Certainly they will happen again...and again.

    Not if they lose this time :-) (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by RalphB on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:44:37 PM EST
    Caucuses won't go away (mores the pity) (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:01:45 PM EST
    but the small red state strategy could only work once.

    You have a point. But still, the vast majority, (none / 0) (#60)
    by WillBFair on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:28:15 PM EST
    Obama's worshipers and the republicans, far outnumber us.

    the polls say different. (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:07:22 PM EST
    Not getting (none / 0) (#72)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:36:44 PM EST
    your point here.

    How could Bill not outshine Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:24:54 PM EST
    that's why having Bill speak was under negotiation.

    Was thinking the other day -- you know 50 is the new 40?  And 40 is the new 30?  Well that makes 20 the new 10 -- so can we please, please take the vote away from all these teenagers and let the grownups take the country back?


    I think it's ugly (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:11:27 PM EST
    This could have been determined weeks ago but nnooooo...they had to let reach an ugly verbal crescendo.

    Obama was forced to do this.  Does that make him wise? No it makes him look scared.

    It's ugly because if Hillary Clinton is not the VP nominee, then she had to negotiate for a speech and even one for a former president of the country. When has this ever happened that a candidate, who was almost even with the nominee, had to negotiate for a place?  When was a former president not considered for a place at a national convention?
    What fools run this party.

    On the other hand, it is certainly a credit to her skills in getting something.  Sure gives a glimpse
    into what she may have done as President.


    Better to get a clue late than not at all (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by BrianJ on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:57:15 PM EST
    As you point out, the real travesty and tragedy here is the treatment of Bill Clinton.  The Democrats' only two-term President in the last 60 years is being mode an unperson, for what?

    Think Obama wouldn't like to have a chance in Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia-  all states where Clinton won twice and Obama is getting obliterated?  Think vulnerable Representatives and Senators wouldn't like a little support in difficult races?  Instead, the party is more dependent than ever on the Northeast and La-La Land.

    This will be the Clintons' party in 89 days, whether Obama loses (obviously) or wins (someone's got to come up with the ideas around here).


    Really want Dean and that crew OUT! (none / 0) (#103)
    by RalphB on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:03:23 PM EST
    These people could screw up a one car parade.  A lawsuit exposes rift between gays and blacks at the DNC.

    Austin American Statesman

    This can't be good for any Democrat and it looks like it'll blow open before November.


    Me too (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:31:10 PM EST
    They're the real cause of my committed nonsupport of Obama.  I hardly care about Obama -- if we wins he may not be the worst president we've ever had (I'm including all of U.S. history in that statement, not using the one that just began in 2006).

    Look at it this way (none / 0) (#169)
    by Miri on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:53:53 PM EST
    After the November electon Obama will join McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry and have just as little influence.

    Hillary will be able to say I told you so.

    Four years later we will have great candidates, Hillary, Gore, Webb.


    BTW, (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:22:11 PM EST
    The most likely outcome is that Hillary will not sign the document that is necessary under party rules for her name to be placed in nomination.

    Has any viable candidate's name not been placed in nomination at the democratic convention before?

    Even an unviable one?

    Dems make history again (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:44:03 PM EST
    and against women again.  The cyclical theory of history is supported.  Oh, goodie.

    Yup (2.00 / 1) (#88)
    by slr51 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:48:39 PM EST
    Kennedy withdrew his name from consideration and was not placed in nomination (see #73 above))

    Well, then (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:10:33 PM EST
    there's 79, 81, and 107.

    Apparently, we don't (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by RalphB on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:17:03 PM EST
    teach history anymore in the US.

    Even if (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:27:03 PM EST
    People were interested in American political history, I doubt they would have remembered that.

    Chappaquiddick was his albatross anyway.


    my memory may not be the greatest, but (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:29:03 PM EST
    as I recall from conventions past, they always do a roll call vote with all  the candidates who actually earned any delegates.  Then after the roll call is finished, someone pipes up and makes a motion to make it unanimous and everyone agrees and they take all the delegates away from all but the nominee.

    Maybe it is that last part of the tradition they are afraid of.  Maybe they think the motion wouldn't pass?  Or, that if it did, it would bring up chants of Michigan , Michigan.    LOL


    Well, if if did, (none / 0) (#221)
    by RalphB on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:24:42 PM EST
    those chants would be richly deserved.

    Here's my whack-a-doodle theory (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by dws3665 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:23:05 PM EST
    (and yes, I realize it's seriously whack-a-doodle) -- Bill speaks before the VP nominee, who is Hillary, and essentially introduces her.

    . . . that's just (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:30:56 PM EST
    whack-a-doodle-y enough to work!

    Not whack-a-doodle! (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Little Fish on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:39:56 PM EST
    the whack-a-doodle theory is the one I just read where Bill is set to introduce the non-Hillary VP candidate, but introduces Hillary as the VP instead and BAM Hillary is VP!  Clinton stealth takedown!

    I hope your theory pans out, that would be teh awesome.


    Let's start an internet (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:49:16 PM EST

    "Hillary will be VP", says unidentified source.


    Great idea (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Lou Grinzo on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:03:34 PM EST
    I was just about to post the same thing.  Imagine if they keep the VP pick a mystery right up to the moment Bill says, "...the next Vice President of the United States... Hillary Clinton."

    Not even Obama could afford to buy the level of coverage they would get for days after that.

    Are we all being punked by Obama and both Clintons, even as I type this?  Honestly, I thing it's a very, very long shot.  But I won't totally discount it right up to the second the VP announcement is made.


    But the signs! (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:39:31 PM EST
    How will they ever get all the signs and napkins and doorprize keychains made up ahead of time if they don't announce until Weds?

    Maybe they can just print up thousands of Obama/TBD signs and pass those out.


    Well, talk about energizing... (none / 0) (#58)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:24:31 PM EST

    Was thinking the same thing (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by otherlisa on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:31:07 PM EST
    and if Obama wants to win, this is what he needs to do.

    Glad you said it (none / 0) (#69)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:35:21 PM EST
    I've been thinking the same thing.

    Yes, sorta wackadoodle (none / 0) (#71)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:36:42 PM EST
    but a very interesting analysis! You made me sit up and pay attention.



    Glad you had the guts to say this (none / 0) (#97)
    by Lil on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:56:28 PM EST
    I had the same thought last weekend, and when it was announced about Bill speaking on Wednesday, I thought wow, half my fantasy cam true.

    There are rools (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Prabhata on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:25:01 PM EST
    And delegates can ask to nominate anyone, but I believe the rules state that a minimum of 300 delegates must make the motion with notarized signatures.  There may be enough delegates for Hillary who will do just that to demand a nomination on the floor at the convention.  It's not what the Obama camp wants, but sometimes stuff happens.

    So... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:37:36 PM EST
    probably not Kucinich or Edwards.

    I wonder if the delegates will be given any "instruction" on how to carry out their duties.  

    Once upon a time, I thought "Rulz are Rulz.".  Then the DNC proved that assertion false.


    I respectfully disagree... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by weltec2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:44:39 PM EST
    "The most likely outcome is that Hillary will not sign the document that is necessary under party rules for her name to be placed in nomination."

    I understand the reasoning especially with all the irrational Hillary hatred out there. But I think this sets a very bad precedent.

    It seems to me that (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:46:47 PM EST
    the Obama campaign could do a much better job of controlling the message by:

    1. stop letting people like Todd get backdoor information about the "feeling in Chicago".  Then they wouldn't have anything to misrepresent.

    2. stop dragging out all these decisions about the convention.  They must know that the media is going to continue to ask the Clintons and everyone questions about this and other convention details.  If they would make up their minds and put the info out there, the media wouldn't have anythign but accurate information to "speculate" about.  Of course it still wouldn't stop the pundits from analyzing the real info to lookfor as much controversy as they could gin up.

    and, I guess it shouldn't have to be said that the above assumes that the Obama camp didn't really want Chuck Todd and the rest ofthe media to do exactly what they did.

    I don't believe it's backdoor (5.00 / 6) (#111)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:09:34 PM EST
    information. I think that Obama, just like Bush, sends out contradictory messages via different outlets. Obama wants to be seen as above the fray, but he also wants to keep the knife Hillary's back.

    Re dragging out decisions (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:40:44 PM EST
    about the convention...

    it's all they got.  It's called 'building the drama' for a decidedly undramatic convention.

    How else are they gonna keep the media or the public interested and curious?


    maybe (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:45:24 PM EST
    by not going on vacation and stay on the campaign trail and talk about ISSUES that might get some coverage

    Yes (none / 0) (#219)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:22:03 PM EST
    despite many, many attempts otherwise, only building up faux tensions with or castigating a Clinton seems to be able to bring excitement into the campaign.



    look since obama's first victory lap, the (5.00 / 4) (#210)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:16:34 PM EST
    campaign has made one mistake after the other. the constant clinton bashing, the victory lap to europe, the race baiting. people are tired of obama. the polls say so. a generic democrat should have mccain already handled. i'd say just the opposite is happening. when you start downhill it is even harder to turn it around.

    Clinton invited to speak, MSNBC/Newsweek proganda (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by S on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:14:27 PM EST
    finally, something positive from the Obama camp for the whole Dem party to appreciate...

    how can anyone believe one word that comes from either MSNBC or NEWSWEEK...it is so obvious they will do anything, anytime to embarrass or marginalize and hurt the Clintons...

    btw...whose bright idea was it to put Mike Barnacle back on MSNBC as a commentator and substitute host?  He is absolutely AWFUL...and will take any cheap shot he can squeeze in to attack the Clintons...

    ...as if anyone cares what that plagerist thinks...MSNBC and NEWSWEEK are just one combined coordinated Clinton attack machine

    You know how it works (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:42:44 PM EST
    don't you?

    You get pardoned, arrested, plagiarize and fired, suck toes and get fired, have a famous parent, etc.

    Qualifications must include one of the above and salary is excellent. Wonderful opportunity for those who lack integrity.


    He's the standard fill-in (none / 0) (#135)
    by kredwyn on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:33:38 PM EST
    for Chris Matthews.

    They are pals.... (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:42:00 PM EST
    for all the obvious reasons.

    which are well documented (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:00:19 PM EST
    by Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler who has made a study of eastern urban Catholics...he is one himself...and their Clinton derangement syndrome.

    So... (5.00 / 8) (#139)
    by kredwyn on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:35:54 PM EST
    whoever the VP candidate is gets to speak after Bill Clinton.

    That's like having the Rolling Stones as your opening act.

    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:43:18 PM EST
    lol!~ Thanks for that one! :) (none / 0) (#179)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:59:28 PM EST
    For such a great orator (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:03:56 PM EST
    he sure does seem to have hoof in mouth disease. That's almost as offensive as when Brazile said the DNC didn't need white working class or latinos.

    I sure hope he gets around to speaking to half the Dem electorate(which is what Clinton supporters amount to)sometime before November or his campaign is an exercise in futility.

    Since no one has mentioned it (5.00 / 2) (#226)
    by Makarov on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:47:47 PM EST
    I will. I don't believe it will happen, but somewhere in a parallel universe:

    Obama comes back from vacation and a week passes before the campaign says the VP will be announced at the convention, making the press salivate for it all the more. Axelrod and Gibbs play up the "out of left field" angle again.

    Hillary delivers an incredible speech Tuesday night, bringing down the house.

    Bill begins to speak Wednesday, and after 15 minutes it becomes clear he is introducing the VP nominee - Hillary.

    Press is completed floored, and can't do anything but talk about it for the next 10 days, right through the Republican Convention.

    Barack and Hillary ride matching Unity Ponies into the White House.

    The End

    Bush/Obama (5.00 / 3) (#227)
    by Miri on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:53:54 PM EST
    Obama reminds of of Bush.

    Sorry, I have not gotten over the 2000 coup and never will.

    Bush was a totally unqualified guy, lost without a teleprompter, no accomplishments, giant ego, delusions of grandeur, messianic visions.

    The media trashed the qualified candidate Al Gore non stop and put Bush on a pedestal.

    I watched a deja vu during the primaries this year.

    I look at Obama and see Bush. Another unqualified guy with a massive ego.

    If Obama had been a republican you guys would all be agreeing with me. You would all be making fun of him and outraged that someone with so little accomplishment can get the nomination.

    He has never been tested in any job. He gets a job. Before he accomplishes anything moves on to the next job so that people never get a chance to judge how he has performed.

    Like I said another Bush.

    I suspect (4.91 / 12) (#4)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:23:08 PM EST
    that there are a million classy ways for Hillary's delegates to be recognized, whether or not there's some concern about having a formal nomination vote.  I frankly don't understand the reason for the concern, but whatever.

    I think a lot of Clinton supporters would take great pride in seeing a tangible manifestation of the history-making 18 million votes she received, and that's really what it's about.  I've never seen such hand-wringing over what ought to be a feel-good moment for everyone.

    I look forward to seeing Bill speak.  I thought he had the best speech at the 2004 convention.  I think that Obama guy had a pretty decent speech too, come to think of it.

    What are they afraid of? (5.00 / 9) (#27)
    by lmv on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:55:07 PM EST
    I'm with you on this.  Let it happen.  

    The more the Obama campaign pushes back on this, the more it looks like they're afraid Hillary might be nominated.  

    But, it's a nominating convention.  Obama isn't the nominee but the presumptive nominee.  If Hillary is nominated, so be it.  

    I don't buy the "split party" excuse.  Hillary's voters need validation.  So, what is Obama afraid of?  If he has this sown up, let Hillary and her supporters have their moment and move on.

    About Bill, he's the master.  It should be superb.


    On second thought, maybe Todd just misunderstood (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:25:23 PM EST
    Maybe the whisperer told him they were going to take the high road regarding the Clintons, meaning they were going to treat them respectfully.

    I'm more willing to give the Obama campaign the benefit of the doubt than I am Todd at this point.

    Believing, as I do, that where one hand giveth (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:42:11 PM EST
    the other hand taketh away....

    I am preparing for a Sebelius VP selection.

    If she follows Bill (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Coldblue on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:46:22 PM EST
    the networks will go to commercial for the duration of the evening.

    No. What will happen (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by weltec2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:54:05 PM EST
    is that TV pundits will talk over her speech the whole time, trashing her while showing her speaking in a little box on the screen. We won't be able to hear what she says because the far more important and accomplished pundits will be telling everyone what a manipulative witch she is. The only way we will be able to hear the speech will be on YouTube the next day.

    C-Span? (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:02:41 PM EST
    they'll be covering it right? You just reminded me that I need to find "safe" coverage for the parts of the convention I want to see. Gawd, to have to listen to some of these A-holes after the Clinton speeches would prob [finally] be the death of my TeeVee.

    I doubt that they would (none / 0) (#177)
    by weltec2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:57:59 PM EST
    do that to Bill though I do expect them to do a lot of groaning and complaining in the background about what a boring speaker he is. They've done that in the past. I would not be surprised if they blotted out Hillary's speech in the way I described.

    Remind me (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:06:24 PM EST
    Are conventions broadcast by just one network, or any networks that wants?

    In other words, is it like the Superbowl were one net gets the contract, or more like a natural disaster, where whoever shows up get to cover it?

    (this is a serious question, I just can't remember.  Because if it's on cspan, that's the channel I'm watching so I can avoid the insipid/vapid/other adjective idiots commenting).


    in recent years (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:15:16 PM EST
    the networks have chosen to only cover a couple of hours of the convention each night in prime time because they claim they aren't really conventions anymore, but rather staged week-long commercials.

    Cable channels will run the whole convention all day every day.

    But, I have a feeling that the networks may cover MORE of the dem convention this year just because of the extra STAGING going on with the Clintons and the stadium being used for Obama.  The problem for them will be if they cover more of the dem convention, they will have to do the same for the repugs or cries of bias will be heard loudly.


    Ha! But the campaign can spin it that (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:50:13 PM EST
    anyone seems boring after Bill!

    i hope it is. and that will insure defeat! (none / 0) (#196)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:09:55 PM EST
    they have had so many chances to do it right that by now i think there is something of a fatal flaw in this campaign that makes them run for the nearest cliff.

    This is guaranteed good press (none / 0) (#17)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:43:39 PM EST
    for Obama and Clinton.

    Both will have to find something nice to say about each other.

    Sounds like it will be (none / 0) (#43)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:06:48 PM EST
    an interesting convention to say the least. I've seen Bill Clinton in person once and only in passing, so I think I might be interested in going to the convention.

    Personally, though, I've had it up to my neck with the divisiveness, the distortions, and the outright lying/stupidity/hatred on all sides. If Americans are ready to let this country go down the tubes, then let them. There's a reason why I'm learning Chinese.

    Good grief. (none / 0) (#45)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:08:50 PM EST
    If Americans are ready to let this country go down the tubes, then let them.

    It's times like this that I regret the internet was invented.  

    All is lost.  We're doomed!


    Huh. (none / 0) (#50)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:15:27 PM EST
    My belief is that there are so many people who are committed to arguing about non-issues than try to look at the big picture. We are doomed if Americans make a collectively bad decision a third time. We've done it twice, and it seems as if we're on the same track towards doing it again.

    There's pessimism, there's cynicism, and then there's reality.


    Ya know, (none / 0) (#63)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:30:25 PM EST
    even with Bush, I said we'd survive, and we have.

    We're a young country in a big world, and what we're going through is not much different than what others have gone through before us.

    We will survive.  The Bush years were a sharp detour, however, in many ways.

    Time for some course adjustments.  It will happen, no matter who wins in November.



    I think we 've just barely survived (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:40:11 PM EST
    the Bush years. And the ramifications of every crime he and Cheney and the DOJ have committed may not be known for some time.

    I think I'd rather be dead than have to live through this again. Really.


    Growing pains. (none / 0) (#83)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:44:03 PM EST
    It's never going to get better, as technology improves.

    But for every action, there's a reaction.

    Life goes on.


    What you mean "we"? (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:02:47 PM EST
    You may have survived Bush, but a lot of people's lives in this country were destroyed, and tens of thousands or more were killed and who knows how many maimed in Iraq.  Not something to be glib about.  (Sorry to be cranky.)

    Yes, we've survived, (none / 0) (#80)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:42:11 PM EST
    and I realize that. I don't disagree. We've survived worse. We've survived for a long time. We're going through what others have gone through before us. Other countries have survived much worse, and are still power-players today. But those other countries have also hit very low, almost breaking-point times, worse than ours in the past, because we are such a young nation. I submit to you that our luck/so-far-survival may run out and we may hit some hard times.

    I'd rather that Americans recognize the possibility of that happening than Americans arguing over non-issues and not paying attention. Yes, we've survived the Bush years, but there is a real precipice that we're standing at right now. It didn't exist four years ago. It exists now.

    Sorry for the long statement and any confusion it may induce, but this is my opinion, and I'm speaking for myself only.


    Everyone is entitled (none / 0) (#89)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:48:59 PM EST
    to their opinion and I don't dismiss yours out of hand. However, I must vociferously disagree with the statement that we have survived worse. I do not believe Americans have ever survived a worse presidential administration. I don't care so much about us remaining the number one power player in the world. What I'm exceedingly concerned about is the survival of our democracy.

    But I'm going way off topic. To be continued on some other thread...


    I read your comment a second time (none / 0) (#92)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:52:16 PM EST
    and realized we are actually more in agreement than not. I had misread part of what you wrote. Please excuse my jumping the gun. (When it comes to the fall-out of the Bush years, I'm a hot potato.)

    The Civil War was a rather bad time (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by RalphB on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:57:38 PM EST
    for the country.  I really think some of the hyperbole gets in the way.

    Like I said, (none / 0) (#114)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:12:23 PM EST
    we've survived worse, but it is not hyperbole to view the position that we currently stand in as a fork. We've collectively chosen the wrong side of the fork to follow, and with the various and disappointing types of discourse that goes on about this presidential election, we're well on our way towards following that same fork.

    "Three generations of imbeciles is enough."


    Do you understand where that phrase comes (5.00 / 0) (#198)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:10:47 PM EST

    I probably wouldn't be slinging it around, but to each his own.


    I know exactly where that phrase comes from. (none / 0) (#204)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:13:34 PM EST
    I used it deliberately, but then again, some may call me cynical.

    I agree with you. (none / 0) (#96)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:55:51 PM EST
    But Americans aren't getting shrewder, except those who benefit from... I've got mine, eff you.

    I've seen that mindset among my friends/relatives who are very comfortable.  

    I'm sure it's a coincidence that they're republicans.


    That is exactly (none / 0) (#110)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:09:32 PM EST
    what I'm talking about. Americans not being shrewd.

    Look, (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:20:47 PM EST
    if you could convince people that they would be better off, it would be great.  

    We were better off under Clinton.  I remember the Reagan years, and I wasn't even following politics then.  Our money bought less.

    Of course, the republicans made it about Whitewater and morals, and those who lived in shanty glass houses decided Clinton was the reason for their troubles.

    There's not much more I can say about this, as someone who lived it and raised children.

    We did okay.  Many Americans did, btw, despite those on the internet who proclaim otherwise.


    that is an under statement. (none / 0) (#200)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:11:49 PM EST
    But which is the "bad decision?" (none / 0) (#70)
    by FemB4dem on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:35:24 PM EST
    That's reality -- while there should be a simple answer to this question, there isn't one.

    I'm not so concerned with (none / 0) (#87)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:46:49 PM EST
    who people eventually see as the bad decision, but more so with how people come to those conclusions: honest research and logical  thought-processes, or biased narrow-thinking and anger/outright hatred. The good decision is the former, and the bad decision is the latter.

    Speaking for myself only.


    Decisions (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by sumac on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:26:54 PM EST
    I agree that the selection of our next President should not be made out of anger and hatred. And I am sure there are some people who will not vote for Obama for those paltry reasons.

    Speaking for myself only, I have never hated Obama. I have hated some of the things his campaign has done, and some of the actions of the DNC and some of his more vitriolic supporters' behavior... but I have never hated Obama. I just do not believe he will be a good president - I don't think McCain will either. So I will not vote for either one of them. I live in Texas so, my vote rarely matters anyway.

    If Obama wins, I will just have to hope I am proven very, very wrong and he is the transformative leader we need. If McCain wins, it is my hope that the Democrats (and I am no longer calling myself one after the RBC performance) get their act together (that means booting Dean and Brazille and Pelosi and all the other players in this year's most interesting reality show) and put forth a strong, progressive candidate in 2012... and, yes I think that could be Hillary.

    Just my non-reactionary two cents...


    And you sound (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:40:26 PM EST
    level-headed enough to come to that conclusion based on the facts as you see them and your logical processes.

    Unfortunately, there won't be many like you who think that way. I've seen enough rabid hatred of all three candidates (not just Obama) that I wonder how these people can type with all of the foam coming out of their mouths and messing up the keyboard.

    It is my personal opinion that Obama is the better choice for president and I've come to that conclusion based on the facts and logical-thought processes. I don't hate McCain or H. Clinton (Bush is an entirely different matter). In fact, on the onset of the primaries, when there was a plethora of democratic candidates, I honestly couldn't decide who to choose, they all seemed like great choices (although Obama wasn't my first choice in the beginning). I was mainly trying to decide between Biden, Richardson, and Edwards. When it came down to Clinton and Obama, I chose the latter based on my processes and conclusion, not based on the media or the insane and questionable rantings of anonymous bloggers. I feel, however, that many people (regardless of preferred candidate/party) were and are participating in that particular form of discourse and weren't/aren't paying attention to reality.

    We're all entitled to our opinions and our choices, but choosing the president is too important to not make an informed decision, which is what I'm afraid that many Americans are necessarily going to do.

    My four cents (I know I'm long-winded).


    A hard choice (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by sumac on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:00:24 PM EST
    This will be the first time I have not voted for the Democratic candidate in my voting life and it pains me greatly, but the reasoning is this:

    Bush has done so much damage to this country it will take an enormous amount of work to remedy even some of the wounds to our economy and civil liberties and stature in the world. Whichever candidate, Republican or Democrat earns (or steals) the Presidency has a very tough road ahead of him for the next 4 years. And the Democrat can't fail or we risk anther 12-16 years of Republican rule, because that's how Republicans role - blame the Dems for not being able to clean up after their (the Repubs') actions.

    I was not a gung-ho Hillary supporter until after I really started listening to her talk about the issues. I was more than a little impressed by her "wonkyness." I want the geeky, straight-A, president of the chess club candidate, because we need that level of dedication to get to work fixing this country's problems, the person who will stay up all night researching and studying. Instead, I feel like we got the home coming king. Not to say that the home coming king can't be extremely intelligent... I just am not impressed with fandom and the primaries seemed like a big popularity contest and since they ended I still have not seen anything that makes me think Obama can do the job the way it needs to be done (FISA).

    So, I am making my choice based on a long-term view...as I am sure you are as well. Let's meet back here in 4 or so years and see who gets to gloat more (or cry harder). :)

    My 6 cents...I can be long-winded too.


    I appreciate that (none / 0) (#199)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:11:36 PM EST
    you came to your decision in that way, and it opens up legitimate grounds for discussion, debate, and so on.

    I personally didn't really care about him being popular. I don't quite see him as the homecoming king, I perhaps see him as the guy that I agree with on most issues and makes alot of sense, and who happens to be popular. I regret that some saw it as a popularity contest and I regret that some treated it as a popularity contest. In the beginning and throughout, despite some hard feelings and missteps, to me, Obama and Clinton were, for the most part,  interchangeable. They presented some different paths to come to the same end, and the only reason that I chose Obama is because I agreed more with a few of his paths than Clinton's. But in the end, they were interchangeable and both of their plans were debatable, revisable, and do-able.

    I'm not sure if I want to imagine what it would be like in America in a about four years or so. The good part, though, as that I'll be married then :).

    We should start our own long-winded club and charge each member 10 cents for every piece that they write that is under 100 words.


    this is not american idol! (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:13:43 PM EST
    we are throwing a not even one term senator who has no real history but made one good speech at the white house in harsh time. that says on the wrong road to no where to me.

    I agree. This is not American Idol. (none / 0) (#216)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:18:48 PM EST
    This is a time, however, when performance (decisions, etc.), intelligence, experience, and plausibility determines our decisions (speaking for myself only, I guess), not just one factor.

    Hatred? (3.66 / 3) (#178)
    by Miri on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:58:05 PM EST
    It has nothing to do with hatred.

    I will not vote for Obama because I don't want him as president. I honestly believe he would make a disastrous president.

    The country will be better off with President McCain.


    Miri (1.50 / 2) (#218)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:20:49 PM EST
    Be sure and sign up at the McCain website. They will give you McCain reward points for posts like that on a liberal blog. Not sure what you can win, but you are certainly eligible for bonus points... Perhaps a front row seat next year at Sturgis for the pickle licking contest.

    Well, if you (none / 0) (#185)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:02:40 PM EST
    don't subscribe to blind hatred, then I'm not referring to you. But one cannot deny that there are those who blindly hate Obama just as there are those who blindly hate the Clintons, just as there are those who blindly hate McCain.

    I'm sure there are people who believe that Clinton and/or McCain would make disastrous presidents. Some of them come to those conclusions logically. Alot of them do not.


    false equivalency (5.00 / 4) (#214)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:18:27 PM EST
    Most people did not even know who the heck Obama was before this campaign.  Their dislike of him is from his performance over the last few months.  Heck, I used to like him before the cr*p started in Jan/Feb.

    CDS is not only of longstanding, but it's a conglomeration of some deeply frightening biases, against women, against 'average' folks, against anyone who doesn't just shut up and accept that the DNC's moralizing faction knows best.

    The fact that both sides have people at the extremes falsely makes it seem like they're equivalent.  Well, try being a Clinton supporter anywhere besides TL and a handful of other sites.  Or even a not sufficiently rah-rah Obama supporter elsewhere.  Not equivalent at all.


    I don't dispute that he was an unknown. (none / 0) (#223)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:29:44 PM EST
    I don't intend to make it seem that there was some sort of equivalency, but it is in my opinion that there wasn't a majority hate faction of the primaries. I believe that there was nastiness on both sides, and both sides are at fault, neither is more at fault than the other.

    The same could be said of Obama supporters getting the automatic-troll treatment on a handful of pro-Clinton sites. Honestly, since I don't quite like being subjected to that I kind of treatment, I usually refrained from visiting and/or commenting on those sites like many Clinton-supporters usually did the same. The only problem with that, though, is that I would be opening myself up to the kind of bias that gets stronger and stronger when one continually spends time with only people who share their views. This is how the rabid hate (on all sides) happens.

    Even more honestly, I didn't visit any of the sites too often during the primaries because I really didn't feel compelled to base my decision on anonymous internet rabid dogs. If I wanted an opposing opinion, I'd usually go to someone in whose opinion I trusted and debated with them. Now that things have calmed a bit, I visit TL every so often to see the other side of the coin without being attacked.


    What would those be? (none / 0) (#156)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:43:58 PM EST
    It is my personal opinion that Obama is the better choice for president and I've come to that conclusion based on the facts and logical-thought processes.

    Please don't say new politics.

    I'll have to slap you.


    Haha! (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:56:37 PM EST
    I'm not going to say new politics, but I must warn you that I am officially a black belt in Tae Kwon Do and am quite capable of defending myself in case of such slap attacks.

    Seriously though, it is in my opinion that when it came down to the wire, I felt that he (for the most part) handled himself well, was quite intelligent, and he wasn't running as the "black candidate" (Unlike some people. I really have a huge problem with that). I liked his positions (which were nearly identical to H. Clinton's) and I felt that he ran a well-executed campaign (let it be known that I am acknowledging the vastly complex political environment that all the candidates were in). I felt that he didn't insult my intelligence or me personally. I really feel that he has the ability to reach across the board and doesn't try to pander to one category or another.

    Now that it is (presumptively) Obama vs. McCain, I definitely feel that he is the better choice because of the aforementioned things and I just think that McCain is not on the right train right now. It seems that McCain intends to continue mostly what we've been doing for the last 7+ years. We simply cannot afford it. I honestly don't want the repo-man China to come knocking on our door to collect. The sooner we stop the war, the better. The vast majority of our money goes towards it and whether or not we have succeeded or failed, and regardless of whether or not the country will implode if we leave, we must do just that: leave. I don't think McCain shares my view on this, and I also think that


    (continued) (4.00 / 1) (#180)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:59:33 PM EST
    he believes in the good ol' "trickle-down" theory of economics since he wants to make those tax cuts permanent. Honestly, I don't think America can afford to keep on doing what we've been doing. We can't afford it in money, lives, or dignity.

    Anyway, those are my opinions and that is how I came to my conclusion(s). Again, I am only speaking for myself, and I reserve the right to sound naive or not.


    Greed. (none / 0) (#108)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:06:31 PM EST
    One of the seven deadly sins, no?  :)

    The fault in your logic is that 'we've' (none / 0) (#138)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:35:45 PM EST
    already made that bad decision.  Pretending otherwise doesn't reduce the division.  It just wallpapers over the water leak.  And then one day, boom!  the whole wall falls down.  Oops.

    We haven't made it yet. (none / 0) (#153)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:42:54 PM EST
    No one has been elected to the presidency. There's still a competition going on. If enough people are committed to their cause than they can make a difference. Not optimism, just citing history.

    Good grief! (none / 0) (#160)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:47:03 PM EST
    If enough people are committed to their cause than they can make a difference.

    You can't get that based on celebrity.  Not after Bush.

    I can't stress that enough.  I'm shocked that you guys don't get it.


    Celebrity? (none / 0) (#208)
    by shoulin4 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:15:55 PM EST
    I'm not exactly sure what you mean or if you gleaned from my statement what I wanted you to glean, but: if there are people who really feel that this country (and presidential election) is off-track, then there is power in numbers and they can really make a statement if they wanted to.

    Okay, I'm a little confused (none / 0) (#75)
    by caseyOR on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:38:20 PM EST
    When is the keynote address? Is it Hillary on Tuesday or Bill on Wednesday, or is there another, to be named later, speaker?

    Heh. Maybe Bill Richardson (none / 0) (#82)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:43:04 PM EST
    will wow the crowd with a rousing, inspiring keynote speech.



    Bill Richardson. (none / 0) (#128)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:30:01 PM EST
    Now there's a name I haven't heard lately.

    So when will they let Kerry and Edwards speak? (none / 0) (#143)
    by bridget on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:37:49 PM EST
    The Pres. candidates from 2004 and again 2008?



    Convention (none / 0) (#134)
    by Miri on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:32:49 PM EST
    I just don't understand the hype about the conventions and the VP picks.

    Looking back at previous elections it never makes any difference.

    Nobody remembers the conventions, the speakers, the VP picks, none of it makes any difference.

    In November people vote for the top of the ticket. They vote for the person they want to see as president. The rest is just hype.

    It wouldn't matter if Obama's camp (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:47:30 PM EST
    wasn't using this as a powerplay to put the Clinton's in their place, or another opportunity to cast the blame on Hillary for dividing the party.

    This is how I know they're amateurs and not pros at the PR thing.  Here's a golden opportunity to appear like gracious, confident and generous winners.  But they can't break out of grind-an-opponent-into-dust mode.

    It really comes across as peevishness toward the Clintons for them not being grateful for the opportunity to grovel at Obama's feet.

    How ironic that the convention begins right after the Olympics.  Ever notice how most of the truly great athletes compliment their competitors after a win?  Real or fake, doesn't that go over a whole lot better than 'Yeah, he s&cks, man, I can't believe he dared get in the pool with me....'


    I can't help but think (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:12:42 PM EST
    there are at the very least 130, 140 super-delegates watching all of this with a gnawing, rumbling, sickening sense of nausea in their stomachs as they realize that maybe, just maybe, they've backed the wrong horse and may need to buy back their spines from The One -- I suspect they can just offer back the thirty pieces of silver they accepted in the first place -- and nominate the one who can actually win.

    Obama seems to be cavalierly burning a whole lot of bridges with little thought of the consequences or of the future.  He's not the ONLY politician running this year and what he does and how he does it reflects on the Party as a whole.

    Of course, in his mind, it's All About Barack.


    they sold their souls in my view to run with (none / 0) (#212)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:18:10 PM EST
    the lemmings. when they get blown out of the water by the voters, i say good riddance.

    polls out yesterday (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:50:21 PM EST
    reported that this year 30% of voters say that the VP pick will be very important to their decision for BOTH candidates.  That is twice as many who said that 4 years ago.

    I think the convention controversy means more this time too just because of the closeness of the primary with Clinton.

    Obama's team should be handling this better than they are.  They certainly are aware that the media is TRYING to create as much controversy between him and the Clintons as possible.  So, he should be doing what is necessary to stop it before the media has the chance to do it.  He sure should not be giving the media the fodder to work with like he is.


    Nonsense (none / 0) (#187)
    by Miri on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:02:44 PM EST
    " 30% of voters say that the VP pick will be very important to their decision for BOTH candidates."

    They say that every election.

    They also say they don't like negative ads but they vote for the candidate running negative ads.

    People tell pollsters the politically correct answers.

    History shows the VP pick makes little difference.

    Bush Sr had a landslide victory with an albatross VP pick.


    what? Nonsense??? (none / 0) (#192)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:08:14 PM EST
    did you raed what I posted and just think I made it up?  Tis year the poll said 30%.  4 years ago the poll said 15%.  That's the part where I said it was twice as many this year.

    So, that means they DON'T say that every election.

    See how that works?  It's math.  Twice as many this time.


    Poll (none / 0) (#203)
    by Miri on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:13:21 PM EST
    What they say and what they do are totally different things.

    that's not really the point (none / 0) (#213)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:18:19 PM EST
    if last time 15% said it was important, but it was really only important to 8%, then ectrapolate that to the results for this year as 30% say it and 16% mean it.  It still ends up being MORE important this year than in 2004.  The only way for it to not be MORE important is if you believe they are ALL lying.

    I think this 'may' be the one year (none / 0) (#209)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:16:06 PM EST
    VP really counts. Obama = No experience
    McCain = Older and iirc only running for 1 term

    IMO, Obama screwed himself with the "new politics" thing because it makes it hard for him to get experience on the ticket. Seems McCain has more freedom in his pick.

    I thought earlier that Obama might go for Clark, but now, nope.


    MSNBC (none / 0) (#193)
    by Miri on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:09:22 PM EST
    In case you had any doubts;

    http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politics/shock_poll_which_cable_viewing_audience_favors_which_ca ndidate_91093.asp

    Shock Poll: Which Cable Viewing Audience Favors Which Candidate?
    Rasmussen has released the results of their newest poll focused on the likely voting habits of cable TV viewers. Strangely, Fox News viewers support Sen. Barack Obama and MSNBC viewers are behind Sen. John McCain.

    Just kidding. Supporting the conventional wisdom, the poll found 87% of FNC viewers as "likely to vote," for McCain, while 65% of CNN viewers and 63% of MSNBc viewers favor Obama.

    You're going to get deleted (none / 0) (#217)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:19:24 PM EST

    Miri: I reposted your Link.  

    You need to learn how to post links, or use www.tinyurl.com - Jeralyn will delete your post because those long links mess up the site.



    BTW (none / 0) (#206)
    by Miri on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:14:25 PM EST
    I hated Lieberman but still voted for Gore.

    I like Hillary but even if she is the VP pick I am voting for McCain.

    I don't like the idea at all (none / 0) (#224)
    by joanneleon on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:32:21 PM EST
    I think it's great that Bill will be speaking at the convention.  But introducing the VP just seems like too much of a slap in the face to him, like they are purposely making humiliate himself.

    I think it would be a much better idea if he spoke the first night, or even the last night at the stadium, when he could pass the mantle to both the new Pres and Vice Pres candidates.

    JavaCityPal (none / 0) (#225)
    by Miri on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:46:46 PM EST
    Sorry I didn't know about the rule for the links.

    re weltec2 (none / 0) (#228)
    by jjsmoof on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 07:43:32 AM EST
    "by weltec2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:44:39 PM EST
    "The most likely outcome is that Hillary will not sign the document that is necessary under party rules for her name to be placed in nomination."

    I understand the reasoning especially with all the irrational Hillary hatred out there. But I think this sets a very bad precedent."

    I wondering why she wouldn't sign.  Why is she falling line.  I thought she was waiting for oblahblah to implode some more before signing but if she doesn't sign.....

    Call me crazy (none / 0) (#229)
    by alexaii on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:37:45 AM EST
    but I can't imagine that Bill would agree to speak Wednesday unless he knew that Hillary was going to be the VP.