home

Saturday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:08:18 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm still in meetings in Florida learning about new developments for LexisNexis and Martindale Hubbell.

Here's a picture I took last night at the boat marina.

This is an open thread.

< Broadcasters in Saudia Arabia Warned of Death Penalty For Showing Soap Operas | The Polls >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Saturday Open Thread | 83 comments (83 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Polls all show the same trend of a MOE lead... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by jeffhas on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:35:02 AM EST
    For McCain.

    Every day that goes by that this is true, it just solidifies.

    This seems to be no longer a bounce, but concrete.

    Since McCains lead is now no longer news, seems the focus moves to the new 'do-nothing' congress, that only has a 3% advantage over Repubs.

    I guess it can all be blamed on Palin, and how she allowed Repubs to be viewed through a new and fresher lens.

    I hope Pelosi/Dean/Brazille are looking at all this go down - because I think there will be many, many Dems (or at least those not-so NEW Dems) that are going to hold them accountable.  I will settle for nothing less than their heads.

    Oh, wait a minute... that's right, Obama has a superior ground game, and the youth vote is completely motivated - and you know - pollsters always miss the cellphone based crowd.  Nothing to see here... move along...

    Paraphrasing Carville: (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:39:41 AM EST
    We have a name for candidates that depend on the youth vote. It's called losers.

    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:52:46 AM EST
    That's a political axiom that you can pretty much take to the bank.

    And with Obama campaigning like Dewey, I don't know how this is supposed to work.

    Parent

    yep (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:41:19 AM EST
    it's looking like they ALL need to go. Hopefully, heads will roll at the DNC. Good grief, you don't use a Presidential race to put forth some untested egghead theory.

    Parent
    Leadership (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:01:28 PM EST
    I'm still amazed that he chose Daschelle, Brazille, Dean and Kerry as advisors. They're all losers. And the loses they had were of their own making. Why would anyone respect their judgement?

    To me the strength of leadership comes from surrounding yourself with quality proven people.

    Parent

    I gather they chose Obama, not (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:46:59 PM EST
    the other way around.

    Parent
    Don't panic (none / 0) (#10)
    by badguppy on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:42:03 AM EST
    It's still a ways till the election, the RNC was just last week, the Dems still have a lot of advantages this year. But, yes, it will be another tight election.

    Parent
    For (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:43:44 AM EST
    some reason, Obama can't seem to take advantage of those positives. Of course, his campaign has been pretty crappy for six months now. Can he change course? Those "hard hitting" ads that he released were beyond pathetic.

    Parent
    Democrats on Capitol Hill fear Obama fallout (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by fercryingoutloud on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:04:40 PM EST
    Democrats on Capitol Hill fear Obama fallout
    By Andrew Ward in Washington (Financial Times)

    Democratic jitters about the US presidential race have spread to Capitol Hill, where some members of Congress are worried that Barack Obama's faltering campaign could hurt their chances of re-election.

    Party leaders have been hoping to strengthen Democratic control of the House and Senate in November, but John McCain's jump in the polls has stoked fears of a Republican resurgence.

    A Democratic fundraiser for Congressional candidates said some planned to distance themselves from Mr Obama and not attack Mr McCain.

    "If people are voting for McCain it could help Republicans all the way down the ticket, even in a year when the Democrats should be sweeping all before us," said the fundraiser, a former Hillary Clinton supporter.

    "There is a growing sense of doom among Democrats I have spoken to . . . People are going crazy, telling the campaign `you've got to do something'."

    Concern was greatest among first-term representatives who won seats in traditionally Republican districts in the landslide of 2006. "Several of them face a real fight to hold on to those seats," the fundraiser said.
    ...


    [emphasis added]

    Financail Times Article

    I hate to be an "I Told You So' (well no I'm don't) but I have to chuckle at all the blog posters over the last year bragging on Obama's Loooong Coattails in 50 states (which he has abandoned) and flaming me for saying it was not going to happen. Well the Coattail are short and unraveling and some Democrats are saying 'Everyman for himself'.

    It looks like some of the Super Delegates who backed him are now having second thoughts because many of the people this article are talking about are Super Delegates. They have no one to blame for themselves.

    This is just the beginning of the mutiny and the honeymoon of the new leader of the Party was short lived. Wasn't it just two weeks ago this guy was on a pedestal? Stand back folks they are headed for the fire escapes.

    Parent

    I guess time will tell (none / 0) (#39)
    by badguppy on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:32:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Time to put it in high gear (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:11:27 PM EST
    I've read a lot of comments lately saying that the election was always going to be a close one.

    That's not what the polls were saying at the beginning of the year. Republican's were retiring left and right because they didn't like the idea of being the minority for years to come. Now the latest poll shows the Dems have even lost the double digit advantage they had on the down ticket.

    Between Obama's nuancing and two years of alllowing the minority party to still dictate policy the Democrat's are looking very weak.

    Justified Criticism (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:46:37 PM EST
    I don't believe there are many McCain supporters that frequent this site. I think most of the commenters here are critical of the direction the party leadership has chosen. (Or the way they're executing the campaign).

    I am a Democrat because I want:

    The war ended, not just shifted
    UHC  We can't compete in global economy without it
    Adherence to the Constitution (No FISA)

    These issues were front and center in the progressive community throughout the primaries. Now, I'm supposed to abandon them? I will vote Democratic in November but I'm not going to stop being critical and join the cult.  

    Thank you!... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by jeffhas on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:13:18 PM EST
    I'll even go one further... I will vote Democratic as I have in EVERY election I've ever voted in for over 25 years... just not at the top of the ticket this time.

    As another poster yesterday pointed out by referring to a news article I had not heard before... Hillary asked to be considered for the VP job, and he told her she would not be offered it.  Then he toyed with 'Hillary would be on anyone's short list', etc...

    I'm ticked.  The gal gets 18 million votes.  The guy acts like he won the primary in a landslide and needs no one else.  Fine... do it without me.

    I have vacillated with Obama and even contemplated McCain (because I do not think he is Bush)... but when I read that article, and found out he KNEW he wasn't going to ask her from the last day of the primary, I knew every fear of mine about what kind of person Obama is was true.  There is no way in good conscience I could vote for him.... I'd like to think I could've been swayed, but I do not see it now.

    Parent

    How long have ... (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:10:44 PM EST
    been a Democrat?

    We eat our own.  Part of the process.

    We except the best from our candidates.  And why shouldn't we?

    Self-Critique is Healthy (none / 0) (#61)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:34:03 PM EST
    Suicide is, by definition, not.

    But that may be neither here nor there.  Maybe what some people really want is to be able to say THEY were right.  For the GOP to win so they can feel vindicated.  "O if he had run these Ads, if he had picked this Veep, if he had worn this tie.  If he has listened to me because I am such a great strategist."  

    Lot of that going on here, it seems.

    Parent

    I like to think of this (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by badguppy on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:39:14 PM EST
    as practice for canvassing. Most people here are at worst undecided. Actual McCain voters are rare. For the most part, trollish comments are deleted. It's just a different ethos here. Plus, remember it's only a blog.

    what I'll remember (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Chisoxy on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 02:06:32 PM EST
    Is that Obama never earned the vote. Obama can influence this race far more than people on a blog. Our criticisms are helpful. That is, as long as you're not afraid to think, and willing to question dear leader and his merry men.

    chicoxy is limited to four comments a day (none / 0) (#77)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:50:03 PM EST
    expressing opposition to the Democratic ticket. Same rule for everyone.

    Parent
    I am not (none / 0) (#87)
    by Chisoxy on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 10:12:05 PM EST
    I was defending this site. But have it how you will, Lately you consider anything as opposing it. McCain would make a horrible and disasterous president. Obama has made mistakes this campaign, there is nothing wrong in pointing that out.

    Parent
    The Boston Herald reports (3.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Don in Seattle on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:29:39 AM EST
    allegations that under Mayor Palin, Wasilla charged victims for rape kits.

    I strongly oppose Palin. Still, I hope these allegations are untrue.

    Beyond "this is an outrageous, scurrilous charge," does anyone here have any real evidence, one way or the other?

    Yeh, ya really don't wanna go there (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Cream City on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:11:11 PM EST
    with this nonstory, since there were no rapes in Wasilla in her tenure, and Alaska has led the way in changing the law -- want her to get some credit for that?

    Worse, want Obama to be asked why Illinois still, after his years in the state senate, is one of the laggard states that charges rape victims to this day?

    Didn't think so.  Also don't think it's wise to buy wholesale all the nonsensical chain letters on such stuff about Palin that others of us are getting, too -- but checking first before furthering them.

    Best to lissen up to BTD:  McCain is the opponent.

    Parent

    Here's what Obama and Biden did (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by CoralGables on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:36:10 PM EST
    From USAToday

    Nationally, victims' advocates have for years reported scattered instances of rape victims being required to pay for their forensic tests, says Ilse Knecht of the National Center for Victims of Crime in Washington. Those complaints have subsided somewhat after Congress in 2005 passed a law requiring states to provide rape exams free of charge or reimburse victims for the costs, says Knecht, whose group supported the provision.

    "The reason we passed the legislation was that we saw it was prevalent enough to be a pretty considerable problem," Knecht says. "There are no other victims of crime that end up being billed for evidence collection."

    The Senate version of the legislation that included the rape-exam provision was sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the Democratic vice presidential nominee. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama was one of 58 co-sponsors; Republican presidential nominee John McCain was not.



    Parent
    Illinois Seems Pretty Progressive to Me (4.00 / 1) (#56)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:15:51 PM EST
    in their approach to relating to the victims of sexual violence. (See my post above).

    I don't pretend for a moment to have done an exhaustive search for data or be any kind of expert on places where rape victims are billed for the cost of their rape kits. This is a stunning eyeopener for me, actually. I'd never heard of such a thing and would like to see it stopped EVERYWHERE. It's an atrocity.

    Wasilla, AK is mentioned in an Anchorage AK newspaper as being the only place in AK where this was done. But from what I saw looking for info about Illinois, there are apparently other places around the country where this may be so--North Carolina was one I saw mentioned as a possibility.

    Parent

    'No rapes in Wasilla in her tenure': False. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Don in Seattle on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:29:49 PM EST
    See above.

    Parent
    Q: 'Alaska has led the way in changing the law -- (none / 0) (#50)
    by Don in Seattle on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:01:11 PM EST
    want her to get some credit for that?'

    A: I don't know. Are you saying Palin deserves some credit for that law change? What role did she play?

    I cited a legitimate press source for this story, not a chain letter. Other reliable sources have since been cited. But not, I am forced to note, by you.

    Parent

    The sources were cited here yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Cream City on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:02:59 PM EST
    when we went through this already, and we are not to repeat what already can be found in archives.

    Parent
    Gee, that's too bad. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Don in Seattle on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 05:07:35 PM EST
    When I Google 'Palin Wasilla rape kit' in the domain http://www.talkleft.com , I get only one hit, from two days ago, a post by ItsGreg in the thread titled "McCain Holds Small Lead In Polls".

    ItsGreg mentioned the allegation, without naming a source. The topic was dropped. I assume you must be referring to some other thread, that isn't Googleable yet. That, or you simply read it somewhere else, perhaps in a chain letter. (I would never accuse you of simply making stuff up. Like your demonstrably false claim that "there were no rapes in Wasilla in her tenure" -- I'm sure you misremembered that somehow.)

    Wasilla was one of the few Alaska towns that practiced this policy. This policy was publicly supported in 2000, on the grounds of keeping taxes low, by Palin's handpicked Chief of Police, Charlie Fannon.

    But you think Palin deserves credit -- or rather, "some credit" -- for changing the law. I find this claim -- how can I put this? -- highly surprising.

    Cream City, I don't want to get you in trouble, but I don't suppose you could supply a link to the TL archive where these highly surprising (and I'm sure, unimpeachable) sources were cited?

    Parent

    Fannon said they tried to bill health insurance (none / 0) (#8)
    by jawbone on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:40:36 AM EST
    companies for the kits, which is done elsewhere I read recently, but did Wasilla charge women who had no insurance directly for such kits?

    That's not clear from the quote or the article.

    Would be pretty bad to do so--was asked earlier, iirc, whether any police depts charge for finger printing, etc., kits.

    Parent

    The actual quote from Fannon (none / 0) (#72)
    by rennies on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 02:22:53 PM EST
    suggests otherwise:"In the past, we've charged the cost of exams to victim's insurance companies when possible," former chief Charlie Fannon told the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman in 2000."http://scoffery.com/?p=1538

    This part of the story is not being reported.

    Many of the KOS and lefty sites are touting Obama's co-sponsorship of legislation on this issue.
    However, even their own posts show that Obama sponsored a "Reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses" plan, but the the State of Illinois still bills a victims insurance company or their public aid account.

    The Illinois Department of Public Aid will reimburse the costs of ER treatment if you do not have public aid or private medical insurance.
    Which is oddly exactly what the Police Chief of Wasilla said was done there, and like Illinois, advocated for criminal restution to pay for those tests.

    Parent

    Here's a good story (none / 0) (#13)
    by badguppy on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:47:39 AM EST
    on this subject from USA Today. Plus according to this blog, it has been done elsewhere too.

    Parent
    And (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:58:00 AM EST
    From 1995 until 2000 not one rape was reported in Wasilla. (1 was reported in 2000).

    Link

    Parent

    Another dry bone (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:05:50 PM EST
    How many times does the media think they can throw these meatless bones? So far they haven't managed to hit on anything that ended up true. They are dangerously close to finding that no one is listening to them anymore.
     

    Parent
    It depends on how the media is used (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by badguppy on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:11:56 PM EST
    It took me all of 5 minutes to find out it was a complicated story.

    Parent
    your link (none / 0) (#35)
    by CoralGables on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:22:54 PM EST
    I understand you trying to play defense but your link gives no stats for 1996-1997-1998-1999.

    Alaska passed a law in 2000 to ban the practice of charging rape victims, and Wasilla argued against it saying it wasn't fair to the residents of the town because it could lead to increased taxes. This has been reported by papers in Boston, Los Angeles, Anchorage, and USAToday to name just a few.

    Parent

    Your link (none / 0) (#36)
    by Don in Seattle on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:25:54 PM EST
    has no numbers at all for 1996, 1997, 1998 or 1999, so it does not support your specific statistical claim.

    Your link also shows 2 reported rapes for 2001, and 2 more for 2002. Palin was mayor from 1996 through 2002, right?

    Wasilla's population in those years was less than 6,000, again according to your link. An average of one or two reported rapes per year, in a population that small, is hardly negligible.

    Even if there had been no reported rapes in Wasilla during Palin's mayoralty, it wouldn't justify the policy. And, of course, it wouldn't mean that no rapes occurred. I believe most rapes still go unreported, and this policy would tend to have this effect.

    Parent

    Yes, 'Sexual Assaults' Were Reported In Wasilla (none / 0) (#43)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:40:27 PM EST
    Between 1995-2000.

    Whether they were 'rapes' or required a rape kit is not clear because that's the term that is used:

    Sexual Assaults

    Parent

    You are right (none / 0) (#45)
    by CoralGables on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:46:24 PM EST
    The Wasilla Chief of Police, in arguing against the new law banning the practice of charging victims, said the kits cost between $300 and $1200 and would cost the town up to $14,000 a year so I suspect yes they did have rapes in Wasilla.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:58:34 AM EST
    it's apparently still being done in Illinois

    Parent
    Evidence, please? n/t (none / 0) (#38)
    by Don in Seattle on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:31:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Here you go (none / 0) (#66)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:41:07 PM EST
    Link

    From February 21, 2008

    Turns out experts on sexual assault are all too familiar with the issue. "It's been a problem for a long time," says Ilse Knecht, deputy director of public policy at the National Center for Victims of Crime. "We've heard so many stories of victims paying for their exams, or not being able to and then creditors coming after them." In order to qualify for federal grants under the Violence Against Women Act, states have to assume the full out-of-pocket costs for forensic medical exams, as the rape kits are called. But according to a 2004 bulletin published by the NCVC, "[F]eedback from the field indicates that sexual assault victims are still being billed." Knecht says she's recently heard from caseworkers in Illinois, Georgia, and Arkansas reporting that rape victims continue to be charged for their forensic exams.


    Parent
    It Is Not Being Done in Illinois (none / 0) (#52)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:07:31 PM EST
    In fact, thanks to State Senator Obama, a co-sponsor in the Illinois State Senate of House Bill 1814 (HB1814) the Crime Victims Compensation Act in 2001 was amended so that victims of sexual violence were afforded even better access to care and benefits:

    According to the University of Chicago's web site on sexual violence:

    "According to the Sexual Assault Emergency Treatment Act, the Illinois Department of Public Aid will reimburse the costs of ER treatment if you do not have public aid or private medical insurance.

    Under the Illinois Crime Victim's Compensation Act, if you report the assault to the police within 72 hours of the crime and if you file a claim application within two years of the date of the crime, you can be reimbursed for out-of-pocket medical expenses, loss of earnings, psychological counseling, and loss of support income due to the crime. Reimbursement can be up to $27,000."

    GirlZero who blogged about this at Daily Kos provided this information.

    Parent

    So they ARE being charged (none / 0) (#67)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:41:42 PM EST
    and then being reimbursed.

    Thanks for making my point.

    Parent

    They are being reimbursed, by the state, (none / 0) (#70)
    by Don in Seattle on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 02:04:53 PM EST
    for expenses the state never charged them for in the first place -- for things like "out-of-pocket medical expenses, loss of earnings, psychological counseling, and loss of support income due to the crime."

    This was hardly Wasilla's policy. If you know of specific localities in Illinois, Arkansas and Georgia, that still bill victims for the cost of their rape kits, you could do the cause of victim's rights some good by naming them.

    Parent

    Show Me (none / 0) (#74)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 02:37:35 PM EST
    Where it explicitly says here or anywhere that Illinois victims of sexual violence are being charged for the evidence gathering kits that law enforcement uses to investigate the crime?

    Really. I'm not saying they don't except I've found no evidence of that, and you've provided none yet either.

    On the same U of Chicago web site, I mentioned above there's a link for 'Rape Kit' but it only described the importance of letting one be used to secure evidence.

    Parent

    Never Mind (none / 0) (#75)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 02:41:48 PM EST
    I just re-read the passage in your post and caught the line "forensic medical exams, as the rape kits are called.".

    Parent
    See my post above: (none / 0) (#73)
    by rennies on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 02:26:00 PM EST
    Obama sponsored a "Reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses" plan, but the the State of Illinois still bills a victims insurance company or their public aid account.

    The Illinois Department of Public Aid will reimburse the costs of ER treatment if you do not have public aid or private medical insurance.

    Parent

    It would be too much to believe (none / 0) (#19)
    by Don in Seattle on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:56:39 AM EST
    that Wasilla was the only community where this was going on. Still it's pretty outrageous, imo, if true.

    Parent
    Haven't Found Other Places in Alaska Yet (none / 0) (#47)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:48:46 PM EST
    and this McClatchy site featured Anchorage Daily News story repeats the charge that Wasilla was the only place in Alaska this was the practice.

    Anchorage Daily News

    "A May 23, 2000, article in Wasilla's newspaper, The Frontiersman, noted that Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies regularly pay for such exams, which cost between $300 and $1,200 apiece.

    "(But) the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests," the newspaper reported.

    "It also quoted Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon objecting to the law. Fannon was appointed to his position by Palin after her dismissal of the previous police chief. He said it would cost Wasilla $5,000 to $14,000 a year if the city had to foot the bill for rape exams.

    ""In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims' insurance company when possible," Fannon told the newspaper. "I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer.""

    Parent

    White herron... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Richard in Jax on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:10:41 AM EST
    Pretty birds

    We Have Blue Herons (none / 0) (#58)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:19:19 PM EST
    here in upstate New York.

    What a treat it is sometimes to be driving up the interstate in this fairly densely urban area along side a marshy pond between the Mohawk and Hudson rivers and see them.

    Parent

    It must be heron day (none / 0) (#62)
    by rghojai on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:36:41 PM EST
    I saw a heron today... in Kuwait.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#65)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:39:50 PM EST
    Thanks for sharing that.

    I confess I think of Kuwait as this desert and herons as waterfowl and I'm having trouble connecting the two images in my mind.

    Better update my sense of Kuwait.

    Parent

    Y'all may want to update the Yglesias link. (none / 0) (#2)
    by 1jpb on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:25:28 AM EST
    Think Progress

    I like this... (none / 0) (#3)
    by badguppy on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:28:53 AM EST
    Obama is being specific on his tax plans in this vid. I think he is hearing people who are asking that he discuss policy more.
    As a bonus, it is a bold promise.

    A little reality to perhaps really worry about? (none / 0) (#5)
    by jawbone on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:33:17 AM EST
    Lauren Rozen at warandpiece links to this WaPo article about the AQ Khan nuclear weapons dissemination ring:

    By Joby Warrick
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Saturday, September 13, 2008; Page A11

    The nuclear smuggling ring headed by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan possessed a broader range of secret nuclear designs than was previously known and shared them electronically among members of the network, a U.N. watchdog group said yesterday.

    A report by the International Atomic Energy Agency also acknowledged large gaps in investigators' understanding of the smuggling ring, raising concerns that Khan's nuclear black market may have had additional customers whose identities remain unknown. (My emphasis)

    Let's see: BushCo outed a leading CIA counter-nuke weapon dissemination spy and her entire ring of contacts.

    Then, this year it's reported BushCo pressured the Swiss government to destroy electronic documents relating to the Khan network and a Swiss supplier.... News which had been reported by The Guardian in late May.

    Whassup with that? CIA connections? Sibel Edmonds had also been warning about this.

    They could be that stupid. Or...they could be deliberately sowing chaos in the world to further their objectives??

    Dangerous games. Who all is playing?


    ABC edited Palin interview? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:46:54 AM EST
    Newsbusters is claiming that ABC edited parts of Palin interview where she talks about foreign policy, which resulted in a misleading presentation of her positions on Russia and war.

    I'm wondering if there is anything McCain can gain from this by continuing the media push back.

    Push backs against ... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:13:45 PM EST
    the media always work.  They can probably get a few nibbles out of this one.

    Pretty standard push back.  The interview was edited.  Most are.  But if I was the McCain camp, I'd run with it.  Can't hurt.

    Of course, the argument against this is if she wanted a live interview she should have chosen one.  THIS WEEK, MEET THE PRESS, FACE THE NATION all have live shows and would have been happy to have her.

    Parent

    I'll be surprised (none / 0) (#34)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:18:11 PM EST
    To see her make any appearances on Sunday Talk Shows.  But then, she might.  What is there to be scared of.  After all, McCain goes on them and lies routinely, and gets away with it, and still the media call him honorable.  

    Parent
    Heck, every speaker at the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:49:47 PM EST
    called McCain honorable, brave, patriot, etc.

    Parent
    I Know they did (none / 0) (#81)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 04:22:06 PM EST
    'Twas too bad.  Unless lying and smearing are now honorable.

    Parent
    But do those edits (none / 0) (#18)
    by badguppy on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:55:00 AM EST
    necessarily bias the presentation if they were done due to time constraints? Hopefully ABC will make the unedited video available on it's site for those who are interested.

    Parent
    good morning all (none / 0) (#14)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:48:30 AM EST
    hurricane ike's outer bands have arrived here where i live.  kinda strong winds and rain.  we always need the rain.

    was reading the wires this morning.  i think for the most part galveston dodged a bullet.  

    My Hilary idea maybe not so wild after all (none / 0) (#15)
    by Saul on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:48:48 AM EST
           

    Previously I posted (The What If Scenario) that if things keep getting worse for Obama, then the only desperate solution was to have Biden bow out with the condition that Hilary would replace him on the ticket.  Of course they would have to have a legitimate excuse for Biden leaving rather than the obvious one that Obama really needs Hilary to win.  Many commenters's thought this was absurd and said it would never happen, however lately I am hearing this idea more and more on the radio talk shows.  Even the right wing talk shows are saying that there is a distinct possibility that this will happen.  They point out on what Biden said the other day about Hilary:

      Make no mistake about this," Biden responded. "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let's get that straight. She's a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she's easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. But she's first rate, I mean that sincerely, she's first rate, so let's get that straight."

    They felt this was the prelude to what is going to happen.  

    The other question is would Hilary accept to be on the ticket?  

    What say you?

    Frankly (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:51:25 AM EST
    at this late date I don't know that she would be able to help. Voters largely seem to have a problem with Obama.

    Parent
    I think the opposite (none / 0) (#57)
    by waldenpond on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:17:56 PM EST
    It would absolutely knock McCain/Palin out of the news.  I think some money would come in.  I have seen a couple of Dems on teebee discussing this.  They thought it would work (one adamantly) but were very firm it would not happen.

    Parent
    this what say me (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:57:51 AM EST
    no no and no.  the obama ship has sailed with dean, pelosi and brazile steering the ship.

    there was a mutinty against clinton.  let the pirates take obama all the way to the finish line without her.  

    Obama's made his choices and so have his handlers.  Clinton couldn't fix this even if she wanted to.

    Parent

    That isn't going to happen. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Don in Seattle on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:01:34 PM EST
    (And byw, there are two L's in 'Hillary'.)

    Parent
    Would it help? (none / 0) (#20)
    by badguppy on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:57:49 AM EST
    How much overlap is there between Clinton and Palin voters?

    Parent
    There are technical ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:07:41 PM EST
    problems with this.  Not quite sure how it would work, because the convention is over.

    You would probably have to elect Biden, have him resign, then appoint Hillary.

    But it's not going to happen anyway.

    Parent

    yes, its sound. (none / 0) (#83)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 04:53:07 PM EST
    I agree with this but if he's going to do it, it should be soon.

    He can argue, "I'm not like W, I'm not afraid to change strategy and staying a course that isnt working isnt my style"

    Then Hillary comes out strong with comments bashing McCain. Things like, "Senator McCain, I remember well when you insulted my daughter and though I forgave I didnt forget.  You want to talk about women's issues? Let's do it".


    Parent

    The Idea of Voter Accountability (none / 0) (#33)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:15:01 PM EST
    It's really furstrating to me that people are looking everywhere but at us, the voters, in terms of accountability for this election.

    We get a choice here.  A choice we wish were better, but a choice nonetheless.  McCain camp has explicitly acknowledged it cannot win, and thus isn't even bothering to run, in the arena of ideas.  It is 100% lies, smear, and lots of use of the word Maverick, but without being abke to make a single solitary important differentiation from the rank and file GOP.

    Shall the voter let the GOP get away with such outright cynicism and contempt for the American voter?  That is the only question worth asking.  If McCain wins, it won't be the Clintons' fault and it won't be the fault of the people who don't like the Clintons.  It won't be Howard Dean's fault.  It won't be Obama's fault.  It won't be because the bloggers got upset at McCain's shameless play to the Culture War with Palin, and thus allowed the Media to construct a damselle in distress narrative.

    It will be all of our faults.  Because we, the American people, let McCain, and the GOP, spit in our faces, and we rewarded them for it.  Let them tell us to our face, "we don't even need the pretense of acknowledging you.  All we need to do is play on your own petty cultural divisions and, as a bonus, we needed to scare you.  Now watch this drive."

    Now watch this drive indeed.

    It is important in any election (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by tootired on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:36:16 PM EST
    that a candidate ask a constituent for his or her vote. A candidate telling you to vote for him is different than asking you to. Obama doesn't get this. Nor do many of his surrogates or supporters. I have been told that if I don't vote for Obama the world is coming to an end, I'm a racist, or I would be voting out of nasty spite. None of those things are true. But Obama has yet to say, "Please vote for me because I will do X, Y, and Z for you." That's not pandering. When Hillary said that she would fight for all of us, when Palin says that she would go to Washington as a "servant", they are showing that they know how to ask for votes. Those of us planning to vote for Obama already need to encourage him to invite more people to vote for him, too, not bully them.

    Parent
    And look what is happening in Canada (none / 0) (#44)
    by badguppy on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:44:44 PM EST
    when the left becomes a house divided:
    link

    They are even going to go into a deficit!

    Parent

    With all due respect (none / 0) (#48)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:49:55 PM EST
    But Obama has yet to say, "Please vote for me because I will do X, Y, and Z for you."

    Vote for me, Obama has said, and I will:

    1)Stop the corporate tax breaks for moving jobs overseas;
    2)Push Congress to rearrange the tax code so that the middle and working class get tax breaks, but the top 2% goes back to Clinton levels;
    3)Appoint reasonable human beings to the Courts;
    4)Make diplomacy something the United States does again, and does well;
    5)Strive to loosen the Culture War's chokehold on our politics;
    6)Emphasize Green Economy, and address the Energy Crisis on a multivalent front (as opposed to drill baby drill)

    These are important things that he speaks of daily.  Do you listen.  Does anybody here actually listen to the man.

    Is he progressive enough?  Not by a long sight.  I thought Hill was to his Left and still do think that, and that's why I supported her in the Primary.  That's the only reason.  But then, she's not THAT far to his left.  Not THAt progressive.  I mean let's not paint a picture that she herself would reject.  If it were up to me our Banner Carrier would be Feingold or aomeone with Feingold's views.  

    But as Jeralyn recently asked us to remember, you don't always get what you want.

    Obama has given voters lots of reasons to vote for him.  

    Take those reasons, combine them with the Obvious GOP incompetence (Katrina &c), cynicism (this campaign is not about issues), bellicosity (we're all georgians today and Russia was unprovoked and let's bomb bomb bomb Iran), duplicity (Obama wants to raise working class taxes and Obama wants to teach 5 year olds about masturbatiuon &c.), and Culture War ramppage (evidence really needed)?

    Mix it all together and the choice is pretty obvious.    

    Parent

    If you visit blogs or associate with (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by tootired on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:15:04 PM EST
    people who have been Democrats all of their lives, but are not voting for Obama, the thing you hear most is that Obama has never asked them for their votes, says he can win without them, and has offered them no reason to vote for him. Obviously, his message isn't reaching them. Their votes are the path to the White House for him more than any others. These people are part of the Democratic base. It would seem to me that it would be worth a little effort to figure out how to get these people on board. I'm already there mostly, but not enough of us moved over. And with all due respect, you felt you had to preach to me when I'm in the choir. The choice isn't obvious to the people who are still outside the church. What might make it so? I'm not sure that "McCain =Bush" or "I'm not McCain" will work. Obama needs an "I need you and this what I'm willing to do" speech. Tip O'Neill style. Bill Clinton style. 'Cause Obama style isn't working.

    Parent
    What happens in discussion (none / 0) (#64)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:39:44 PM EST
    You said he had made no appeal to voters who say they are Dems and want to here real persuasion?  Were you sincere?  Assuming you were, I posted some examples of REAL appeals he has made.

    Boing over your response.  You ignored my examples and repeated, with stylistic variation, what you said before.  

    Are you saying that the examples I listed are made up?  That he has not made these appeals?  What does it mean, the appeal hasn't reached them?  If they are interested, if they are listening, then it is there if they want it.  Maybe they don't want it, but only want to say they want it.  Hmmmm.  Soon we are launched into infinite regress.

    If people ignore his appeals and then say "ey, why isn't he asking for my vote?"  If there really are such people.  Then I ask you.  what does that say about them?  

    For heavens' sake, at what point are we, the voters, accountable for our elections?

    Parent

    I'm sincere (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by tootired on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:59:53 PM EST
    But they don't want to hear it from me. They want to hear it from Obama. I'm a teacher. I can talk at my students, or I can talk with my students. Which way do you think my students learn more from me? Obama has not engaged many long time Democrats in the conversation. His supporters dismiss these people saying that these Democrats were really always Republicans anyway. These Democrats are about to oblige them and vote for a Republican for the first time in their lives. Surely it must be worth Obama's time and energy to get their votes. Sending Hillary instead only strengthens the impression that Obama doesn't care enough to do it himself. Why can't he admit that he needs their votes? He doesn't have to grovel. Just ask. Get up in front of the people of West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and all of the rest of Appalachia and say, "I need you to vote for me." Don't tell them that the skies will open and they will have an epiphany that tells them to vote for Barack. Get just a little humility. It would go a long way. Make it about them instead of him.

    Parent
    Where we are disconnecting (none / 0) (#79)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 04:18:12 PM EST
    I am, and have been, arguing that the things you are saying he ought to do, are in fact what he has been and what he is doing.  He constantly tells voters that the race is about them.  He constantly sells his issues.  He talks the economy to death.  I hope that you are right that they do not expect him to grovel; but I'm really not all that sure what it is they want from him.

    BTW: If he has ignored anybody, it has been the same people Hill and all other Mainstream Dems always ignore.  The Nader voters.  Whose dissension, unlike the mythic PUMAS, is a dissension grouded in issues.  And whose votes he could get if he'd go after them.  IMO.

    Parent

    Between McCain and Palin (none / 0) (#42)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:38:21 PM EST
    Their own words.  We can conservatively estimate that this country, in the event of a GOP victory.  Over the next four years:  

    1)Will be at war with Iran and with Russia
    2)Will see Roe overturned
    3)Will see a continuation of the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing fetish
    4)Will see more tax cuts for the top 1% of the economic hierarchy, and increased Media Consolidation
    5)Will see degrees of anti-intellectualism and anti-science that will make the Bush Administration seem, to borrow from Bill Clinton, "intellectually curious."

    Maybe.  Just maybe.  Some could stop trying to make this still about Obama versus Clinton, about the Primaries, about Obama not picking her, and about getting Hill back in 2012.  

    Time that certain contributers stop saying things like "now is not the time for recriminations" regarding Obama's choice of Biden.  For God's same. On a supposedly liberal-leaning blog.  

    Time to recognize the real enemy for what it is.

    I feel your frustration, (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by badguppy on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:56:18 PM EST
    But this blog isn't an echo chamber and I've learned to value it for that. If I want to get juiced about the election I go elsewhere. This is a good place to bounce ideas off of people who disagree with you - which is actually kind of rare in the blog world, left or right.

    Parent
    FWIW, re: #5 (none / 0) (#84)
    by NJDem on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 05:00:10 PM EST
    Have you seen this web ad of Jmc's, called:  Stem Cell

    I found the timing of it's release interesting...

    Parent

    I'm listening to live broadcast of (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 04:19:18 PM EST
    Last Night at the Proms, Royal Albert Hall.  Bryn Terfel, the amazing Welsh bass-baritone, just sang Rule, Brittania, with BBC Symphony Orchestra, and the audience and a large choral group joining in on the chorus.  Quite rousing.  

    Obama needs such a stirring front man/woman!

    You keep saying this out of ignorance (none / 0) (#86)
    by tree on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 05:13:37 PM EST
    and it isn't true. You've been commenting here since 9-2 and don't know what you are talking about. Most of the posters here are Democrats and have been on this site commenting for a lot longer than you have. You'd know that if you had been around here longer. Just because they don't agree with your take on things doesn't make them Republicans. There are a few new commenters, and some of them may be Republicans but so what?  You want an echo chamber to make you feel good? Utilize them to get an alternate viewpoint and to find out what kind of argument appeals to them. Clue for you. Calling Democrats "young republicans skipping classes" doesn't make for a winning argument, nor does it gain you any cred when you finally try to make a reasoned argument.  

    Saturday Open Thread | 83 comments (83 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment