Friday Open Thread

Big Tent Democrat has a brief due and will be off-line most (if not all) weekend.

Crooks and Liars has Jon Stewart's take on the Hannity-Palin interview, it's great.

Also: Markos' take on how Sarah Palin is going to drag down the Republican ticket and law prof Patricia Williams comparing the Palin effect to an Andy Warhol soup can project.

Here's an open thread to get you started on the weekend. Keep it civil please, and I'll check back in later.

< TrooperGate Probe to Finish On Time, Polls Show Palin Peaking | Palin Costing McCain Support in Florida >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The last few days have given voters a real look (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by barryluda on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 05:58:26 PM EST
    at how both candidates would respond in a crisis.  Maybe I'm just too biased, but it seems clear that Obama won the week hands down.  But maybe it's just wishful thinking and it's just the "bounce" coming back to earth.

    I think it is both (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by bjorn on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:12:24 PM EST
    Obama needs to keep it up and stay focused on the economy.  I remember every time he got a lead in the primary it seemed like he got a little cocky. For example, right after Iowa before NH.  He needs to avoid that at all costs now.  I think coming off as arrogant is the only thing that can beat him now...McCain seems like a withering candidate.

    While I adamantly (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:17:13 PM EST
    believe that Obama will win this election handily I am also VERY certain that sometime next week the Obama backlash will come around.

    He'll say something that will be viewed as arrogant, mean, elitist, etc.  

    It will cause a slight drop in the polls and he will be hovering around a 5 point lead after peaking at 7 or 8 early next week.


    After the corp. media's recent turn on McCain (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by magster on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:41:24 PM EST
    for sleazing it up, I think Obama has a higher gaffe threshold now than he ever did before.  Lipstick on a pig won't knock Obama off.  McCain needs something of Rev. Wright proportions to turn this around.  

    nope. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Faust on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:05:30 PM EST
    The media is a homeostatic system. If Obama clears 50% they will find a way to bring him back down. It's "their job."

    At this point I don't even believe it's about bias. They want the race to be as close as possible. They can't help themselves.


    Check out fivethirtyeight's post on today's polls (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by magster on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:29:29 PM EST
    Obama soared.  That puts a little perk in my step as I go-a-canvassing.

    Live by the tracking polls, die by (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:40:43 PM EST
    the tracking polls.

    I do it too.

    Problem is: Obama still has a map problem. There are several "could win" states to put him over the top, but no real "I'm pretty sure he's going to win" states. Florida and Ohio don't look great--still, so we're down to Colorado and Virginia.


    Ohio's unemployment rate is up. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by liminal on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:18:50 PM EST
    to 7.4% - just announced, and that is before the huge loss of jobs at DHL, to come at the end of this month/beginning of next.  If Democrats can't win Ohio...

    For better or worse, (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:21:38 PM EST
    Obama is not "Democrats."

    Truer words were never spoken (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:34:10 PM EST
    100% agreement

    6.1% nationwide... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:54:44 PM EST
    ...at a 5 year high.  Washington State is at the highest rate in 4 years and in Colorado it rose for the 4th straight month to 5.4%.

    Lots of financial services people getting laid-off here this week too, so I think it is going to be falling anytime soon.  


    Andgarden = buzzkill (none / 0) (#15)
    by magster on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:48:35 PM EST
    (Kidding of course)

    Today was the first day since Palin's speech since I last was more optimistic than not.

    You're right about the states, but I think more important than the map is the feel of the race -- the momentum, the body language, the messaging, the media's turn on McCain. It seems like the distraction politics won't cut it for McCain for a while.


    Yes and no (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:50:28 PM EST
    All the momentum in the world didn't win the Texas primary for Obama. That one is really instructive here, I think.

    Heh. (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Fabian on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:55:04 PM EST
    Listened to PBS this evening.  After showing a clip where McCain castigates Obama for taking money from Freddie and Fannie employees, the narrator added that McCain not only accepted a nice bundle of cash from upper management types at Fannie and Freddie, plus their lobbyists, but that JMc received substantially MORE than Obama.

    Hypocrisy - ya gotta love the consistency of the GOP.


    Our problem is (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:00:57 PM EST
    That democrats supported Freddie and Fannie giving more money to people who couldn't really afford those loans.  They thought it would help minority home ownership.  A good motivation that didn't always work out so well.  

     The other problem is that Obama took far more in political contributions from them than did McCain.  That makes it more difficult for Obama to criticize McCain or Fannie and Freddie.  


    Which is it. (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by JoeA on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:14:35 PM EST
    Did Obama or McCain get more in contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives?

    Seems to be some confusion on that point.

    Its predictable that it's the McCain/GOP/Rupert Murdoch line that somehow the whole crisis isnt the fault of GOP deregulation and corporate greed feeding into ridiculously lax lending standards . . . no no, its Democrats forcing those nice mortgage companies to lend money to the poor and the ethnic minorities who couldnt afford it.

    Glad to see you are buying into that frame.


    I'd like to know the answer too (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:41:42 PM EST
    Out of curiosity, which of the candidates took more $ from Fannie and Freddie? from lobbyists? from Wall Street groups now running for cover? Etc. I did hear the PBS voiceover as well--but, there are more questions within that statement than not. I suspect that there is little purity on either side here. The most interesting aspect, to me, is the $ involvement of Sen. Chris Dodd (and, is his committee the Banking Committee.) The debate dealing with economics ought to be interesting.

    Dodd No 1 (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:54:15 PM EST
    Obama No 2

    Interesting website (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:02:25 PM EST
    On where the money is coming from for the campaigns.  

    Show me da money


    You are right (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:14:01 PM EST
    Dodd is number one with Freddie and Fannie and Barack is number two. :(  

    The proof


    Following the money (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:38:36 PM EST
    There are reputible sources that make the democrats look pretty bad on these issues. I always find myself surprised by my disappointment this election cycle. I've believed so strongly in the democrats my entire life that I don't know what to think right now.

    Do what I did in '68 (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 06:33:43 PM EST
    Walk away from them. You don't have to support such people.

    That's exactly what I heard today too (none / 0) (#86)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:55:41 PM EST
    But can we be sure that is true?  

    It can be checked at various websites (none / 0) (#82)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:48:59 PM EST
    I'll see what I can find.  Generally, Fannie and Freddie have been supported by democrats, beginning with Clinton.  

    Information (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:54:58 PM EST
    On financial companies and their contributions to Obama and McCain:

    Both get money but Obama has taken more from finance companies.  

    Why is the Obama campaign refusing requests for information on where his money is coming from?  I really do not like that.  Reminds me too much of Bush and Cheney.  


    It doesn't matter who got more from (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:08:49 PM EST
    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack.

    What Obama can criticitize is the GOP's entire, long-standing, and ongoing, PHILOSOPHY about the role of government and the economy.

    This includes: the GOP desire for total market deregulation; the GOP theory of trickle-down-economics; and the GOP plan to privatize state-run entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.

    All of these GOP initiatives are now in a catastrophic state that demonstrates their inherent folly. The GOP dream of deregulated business has brought us to the brink of depression-era ruin; and trickle down economics has benefited the top 1% while decimating the middle class and lower socio-economic groups.

    NOW is the time to make the case, once and for all: these corporate entities must not be allowed to put their filthy, greedy paws on government programs that still work. In fact a Democratic Administration must go 'back to the future' and rehabilitate all the other agencies that used to work for the people: like FEMA, the EPA, the Dept of Education, etc.


    It matters if Obama claims (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:16:57 PM EST
    That he doesn't get money from lobbyists and then we see this:
    Freddie and Fannie money contributions

    Obama can admit he has (none / 0) (#96)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:26:00 PM EST
    made some serious mistakes in accepting funds from Fannie and Freddie. He can say that while also making the point that the GOP's entire economic agenda is an unmitigated disaster - past, present, and future.

    Brass Tacks (none / 0) (#97)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:26:08 PM EST
    you are a new user here and have 25 comments today. New Users are limited to ten comments in 24 hours. Also, if you oppose Obama or support McCain/Palin, you are limited to four comments a day attacking Obama or praising McCain/Palin.

    Please come back another day. Thanks.


    J, thank you for that. (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:32:23 PM EST
    So much parsing left to do and so little time.

    Facts be facts and hetre are some facts. (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 06:43:37 PM EST
    Shall we do something that the MSM can't seem to do? Use Google?

    The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

    Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

    The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

    The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

    And before you say, "About time Bush did something," that was 9/11/2003.

    Well, the Demos shot it down.

    ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

    Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

    ''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.


    Caution. This link not respectful to Pelosi, Obama or Democrats. Use at own risk.


    andgarden, what is Research 2000 doing (none / 0) (#17)
    by Teresa on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:50:58 PM EST
    differently in their polls than the others? They had Obama ahead (I think) even when the rest had McCain up four or five.

    R2K actually looks ok to me (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:54:09 PM EST
    I think they're probably about 2 points too optimistic, though.

    I think that sounds about right, too. I just don't (none / 0) (#25)
    by Teresa on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:12:50 PM EST
    know why it's always a little higher. At least the others seem to jump around a little. I'm not accusing Kos of having any bias in it, I just don't know what they are doing that's different, if anything.

    Well, one never really knows (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:15:47 PM EST
    Even pollsters that claim to be transparent never tell you exactly what they do. (Except for SUSA)

    R2000/Kos has higher D weights for D-R-I (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:22:42 PM EST
    than the other polls.  They believe their model is correct, based on 2008 updated voter registration info.

    Gallup doesn't weight at all, and Ras has been lowering his D weight since the conventions based on that newfound Palin enthusiasm.

    That's why the truth is probably an average of the 3 polls.


    R2K has been cagey about whether (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:26:19 PM EST
    they weight for party or not.

    My position is that no credible pollster ever should.


    R2K/Kos gives, the internals every day (none / 0) (#36)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:36:13 PM EST
    and they straightforwardly say they use D+9.

    Ras is down to D+5.


    Well, in my opinion neither (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:42:37 PM EST
    should be doing that. They are both assuming part of what they are supposed to be measuring.

    In any case, they demographic crosstabs for R2K look about right to me.


    I agree that party weighting is kind of fishy (none / 0) (#43)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:55:49 PM EST
    but sometimes age-weighting is appropriate.

    I have found that many of the screwy polls have just totally bizarre age distributions, especially a very low % of the 18-29 group.

    I'm not saying that group should be over-weighted (I wish!), but it should get at least close to the 2004 exit polls.  Some summer polls had that group at 1/2 of their 2004 percentage.  I think everyone was at the beach!


    They should absolutely weight to the Census (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:59:57 PM EST
    or the ACS 2006/7. The best methodology is to oversample and then weight by demographics.

    Sure they should (none / 0) (#61)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:02:26 PM EST
    If there are a higher percentage of democrats in the country then they should poll a higher percentage of democrats.  

    A Democrat is a person who says (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:10:24 PM EST
    he is a Democrat. In other words: it's an attitude, not a category.

    Florida and Ohio look good? (none / 0) (#57)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 08:54:53 PM EST
    I hope you're right but I'm not seeing that.

    Electoral college map

    Another electoral map.

    Which polls is he missing?  What am I missing?  


    Read again (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:00:24 PM EST
    Read what again? (none / 0) (#62)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:03:55 PM EST
    I know I'm being dumb, but you could help me to see it?  



    OOPS. My mistake (none / 0) (#63)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:05:25 PM EST
    I see it now.  Thank you.  

    ya (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:57:17 PM EST
    Obama won on points.  He had style, was on-message, was funny, and he delivered a flurry of stinging jabs to McCain.  This melt-down has muted his run as obviously the campaigns are getting pushed from the front pages for a bit.

    No doubt he won the week.  Another good week and he can enter the debate with points to burn.


    What Obama said vs what he needs to say... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 08:16:04 PM EST
    What Obama said about the economy:

    [W]e cannot only have a plan for Wall Street. We must also help Main Street as well. I'm glad that our government is moving so quickly in addressing the crisis that threatens some of our biggest banks and corporations. But a similar crisis has threatened families, workers and homeowners for months and months and Washington has done far too little to help.

    What he needs to say:

    The Bush Administration has always put Wall Street before Main Street. First they lavished permanent tax breaks on the richest of the rich. But that wasn't enough. When GW Bush took office, there were still a few regulations that put some reasonable limits on the greed of Wall Street. So the Bush Administration eliminated those regulations and made it possible for Wall Street to go directly into the homes of the working folks on Main Street. Once inside, the Wall Street fat cats robbed the working people blind, in full daylight; they picked people's pockets clean, and they took their houses out from under them.

    We thought it couldn't get any worse. But now business and government are robbing working people again: using taxpayer dollars to rescue, and reward, the same people who already robbed us of our jobs, our savings, our health care and our homes.

    A Democratic Administration has to be willing to renew its promise to the people and say this is the end of unregulated corporate greed and corporate welfare. Business can be free to make a profit, but it must be an HONEST PROFIT; and that means going back to Main Street values and putting people first. Where do we start? We start with HOLC; but that isn't the end, it's just the beginning of what Democrats need to do to make this right...etc.

    ya (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 08:23:10 PM EST
    Yeah, he can certainly sharpen the points on this one.  I think McCain and Obama are both a little at sea, as are we all, on this issue.

    We dont even know what the plan will be exactly yet and Obama mentioned that he wanted his economy team to hold their fire until we see what this is all about.  McCain has many vulnerabilities here and I expect he will hammer him and the GOP.

    But earlier in the week Obama had McCain on the ropes.


    Wow (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:28:35 PM EST
    I have a feeling Obama could win the presidency in Clinton 96 Reagan 84 style landlsinde and Halperin would call the week for the GOP.

    This blog has been wonderful (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by coolit on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:07:52 PM EST
    It just seems to be looking closer to Americablog than ever.  I don't see the type of variety of opinion that attracted me in the first place.

    I'm not saying that I want to attack Obama at all.  On the contrary, I am much more pro-Obama than the other candidate.  However, the democrats are using tactics this election that i just cannot support with a clean conscience.

    I don't know if I will ever be back.  I would like to thank the moderators and the bloggers for being a wonderful community of ideas during this election.  I don't feel like this is still the case and I bid you all goodbye.  

    I'm sure I will still read, but if it continues on the same path, I wont be commenting anymore.

    Good luck in life and in your party.  That is, if your party still exists as we knew it after november....

    Bye, Coolit (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:15:33 PM EST
    Thank you for reading and commenting when you did agree with us.  And for your polite and thoughtful adieu.

    I'm sorry to see you refer to the Dems as "your party" instead of "our party."

    You are correct, this blog supports our party, the Democrats. It always has.


    Didn't this site (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by pelgal on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 08:03:30 PM EST
    used to be a refuge from DKos and now he is being linked and quoted?  Is no one held accountable for past horrid behavior--we're just supposed to hop onto this bandwagon and forget past insults?  Move On was originally started to keep us from forgetting Republicans behaving badly (and costing us an election of course), but the Democratic blogger viciousness is somehow different so it's OK to move on from theirs?  I just don't get it.

    pelgal- you are so right (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by kenosharick on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:11:53 PM EST
    about kos. I see the word and it turns my stomach.I am not so quick to forgive all the vicious, nasty lies that they spread on a daily basis for months about the Clintons.

    No it wasn't (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:32:30 PM EST
    Markos is a good friend and has been since 2002 when we both began our blogs. In fact, he designed the original TalkLeft for me. BTD used to be a front-pager at DKos. He too remains friends with Markos. McJoan at Dkos is a friend of both of our's.

    If people came here because they no longer liked DKos, it had nothing to do with this site's views of DKos. I have always quoted DKos and Markos. Nor have I criticized them.

    DKos and TL have different comment moderation policies in that TL does not allow profanity, name-calling or personal attacks on commenters. That brought some new readers here during the primaries who felt unwelcome at Dkos if they supported Hillary. In no way should that be taken as a sign that TalkLeft is critical of Dkos or believes Dkos has anything to apologize for.


    That is.... (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Oje on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:42:09 PM EST
    a very, very modest reading of the value and the difference that TL brought to the blogosphere during the primaries.

    DKos and TL have different comment moderation policies in that TL does not allow profanity, name-calling or personal attacks on commenters. That brought some new readers here during the primaries who felt unwelcome at Dkos if they supported Hillary.

    pelgal (none / 0) (#78)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:39:36 PM EST
    you have over 200 comments here under the name abdemfem. Please post only as that user. If you lost the password, email me and I'll send it to you.

    Good bye cruel world (1.00 / 3) (#5)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:14:55 PM EST
    perhaps you will be able to find a party of your own.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#10)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:20:19 PM EST
    I will bet my house that BTD won't be working (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Teresa on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:10:44 PM EST
    at 3:30 tomorrow. Gators kick off the SEC at Tennessee tomorrow. I wish I thought my Vols had a chance. Maybe it's a good thing BTD is busy. :)

    Attack on reproductive rights and health (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by caseyOR on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:15:33 PM EST
    Final comments on proposed changes to HHS rules that would allow health care professionals to refuse to perform a number of procedures if it violates their "conscience" are due Sept. 26.

    This rule is the one that redefines many forms contraception as abortion, and lets health care workers opt of providing treatment, information and drugs. For example, it could negate any state laws that mandate that a rape victim be offered the morning after pill.

    It is a very broad rewriting of the rules. A doctor, a nurse, a pharmacist could refuse to prescribe or fill a prescription for birth control; could conceivably refuse to treat a patient because the patient has HIV/AIDS(perceived to be gay or drug addict) or because the patient is gay or lesbian ( and, for instance, wants fertility services). All the health care worker has to do is assert that a particular practice violates their conscience.

    Any hospital or clinic that does not follow the new rules could lose federal funding.

    This is a big deal. The possible ramifications are mind-boggling.  The only members of Congress actively fighting this change are Senators Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray. There are other members of Congress who signed a letter to HHS Sec. Leavitt, but only Hillary and Patty are fighting.

    Please contact your senators and congresscritter and urge them to fight this now. There isn't much time left, and if these rules go into effect they will be very hard for the next administration to undo.

    Hillary's NYTimes Op-ed about HHS (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 08:34:39 PM EST
    LINK: Blocking Care for Women
    Published: September 18, 2008.


    Many circumstances unrelated to reproductive health could also fall under the umbrella of "other medical procedures." Could physicians object to helping patients whose sexual orientation they find objectionable? Could a receptionist refuse to book an appointment for an H.I.V. test? What about an emergency room doctor who wishes to deny emergency contraception to a rape victim? Or a pharmacist who prefers not to refill a birth control prescription?

    Where the H*LL is Obama on this? (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 08:55:25 PM EST
    Wasn't he at a Obama for Women event yesterday (today?)? Did he bring this up an hammer it home? Is he solidly behind this and vowing to do something about it? He wants to expand faith based and this will be an issue . . .

    I'm beginnig to wonder ... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Inky on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 10:30:52 AM EST
    Why wasn't Patty Murray's name ever brought up as a possible vice presidential running mate for Obama? I never paid much attention to her before (my east coast ignorance is showing) but now that I've been reading up on her, she seems like the one female candidate that I, as a Hillary supporter, wouldn't have felt demoralized by. And she also would have helped with Obama's "go west" strategy, as far as I can tell.

    At that time, I think it was... (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by EL seattle on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 10:55:30 AM EST
    ...considered more important to select a VP candidate that had more years of experience to balance against the impresssion of inexperience that is the natural result of Obama's relative youth.  Patty's not old enough and she hasn't served in the senate for enough decades to have the sort of visible gravitas they were looking for, I think.  

    Murray might also have too many strong connections to the Clintons' faction of the dem party for some folks as well. (But that's just a guess.)


    Sixteen years in the Senate seems like (none / 0) (#128)
    by Inky on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 11:16:08 AM EST
    a long time to me (and 34 years in the Senate, a la Biden, has its set of own problems). Especially given that the names Sebelius, McCaskell, and Napolitano were bandied about, although each of them has a much shorter record of public service, I'm not sure I buy into that line of reasoning.

    Your second explanation makes more sense to me. Also, I suspect that Murray was probably perceived as being too "of the left" for Obama's ticket-balancing purposes.


    I agree that 16 years is a long time... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by EL seattle on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 01:42:43 PM EST
    ... when compared to Palin's zippo years.  But if Obama (>6 years in senate) had chosen Murray (16 years), McCain (22 years) could have chosen, say, someone with Biden's 20+ years of experience.  Then  the gravitas imbalance would have been pretty pronounced, especially in the foreign policy area.  

    Events like the bombing in Pakistan today will bring that make that sort of experience tally more important to voters, I think.  At least for a few days.

    (Also, I think Murray originally ran for the senate as a "soccer-mom".  Why would any presidential candidate ever want a "soccer-mom" -- or anything like that -- on their ticket?)  <sigh>


    The final series (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:17:37 PM EST
    Welp, first pitch just went out for the final series at Yankee Stadium. {sigh} Who knew I would be emotional about a freakin' baseball stadium?! Was there Wed night. Took a friend for her birthday. Saw ARod break a Ruth record, got shots of a couple of HR swings, Griffey Jr and some of my favorite Yankee players. 20yrs of good times. They're having an open house on Sunday. I may go out. Pics from the field and Monument Park would rock!

    Monday night I go to my last game at the old Shea stadium. Birthday present from my friend who I took to Yankee Stadium, lol!~

    I'm gonna miss old Shea.... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:39:56 PM EST
    the place is a dump, but it was our dump:)  Lots of memories...hopefully a few more to be made this postseason.  A World Series victory as the fans tear the mutha down would be beyond words...euphoria.

    Jose Reyes hits a lead off homer as I type!

    And the Marlins are leading the Phils in the 1st...is there anything better than a tight pennant race?  


    I wouldn't know... (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:04:43 PM EST
    ...since there is no close pennant race here.  Sigh.  And, I have to tell you, I'll be rooting for the Cubs should they play the Metropolitans.

    I still haven't totally forgiven them for beating my O's in '69 either.  


    Hey, your Buffalos are 3-0. Be happy! (none / 0) (#26)
    by Teresa on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:14:33 PM EST
    I'm actually a Rockies fan too. Todd Helton is from my town and he's a great guy. We just don't get to see them too often here.

    I'm happy that... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:20:34 PM EST
    ...my Hawkeyes are 3-0.  Not really a big Buffs fan--though I guess they're the Big 12 team I would root for.  

    Sadly, I think Todd is reaching the end of the line.  I kind of hope he goes to a good team and has a chance at a ring before he retires.  Would have been nice if the Rox would have won it for him last year.  

    I'll definately be rooting for the Vols tomorrow.  :)


    I forgot you're an Iowa fan, despite your (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Teresa on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:26:33 PM EST
    user name! Iowa is the Big 10 team I root for.

    I also think Todd is getting used up. I wanted them to win so bad for him last year.

    Don't put any money on the Vols. We either beat Florida (not often lately) or lose in a blowout usually. I don't no anyone here giving them a chance. I won't tell BTD on you. :)


    Yep... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:42:04 PM EST
    ...Boulder is a nice place, but I wouldn't trade my time in Iowa City for anything.

    I think Todd can DH for a couple of years yet, so look for him at an American League park soon.

    I learned a long time ago that I have no business betting on football.  It is stressful enough just watching it sometimes.  But I do like a good upset--say UT over FLA...


    Don't "know" anyone either. Sorry (none / 0) (#34)
    by Teresa on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:29:00 PM EST
    about that.

    LET'S GO METS!!! (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:33:42 PM EST
    yes, I'm yelling! Reyes just whacked in another run! Heh, maybe I'll get in more than 1 last game at Shea :) I love this time of year with a team going for the post and football heating up.

    I think I'm def going to the open house at the stadium. I'll have to see if the Shea is doing the same.


    Back in first place!.... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by kdog on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 10:46:04 AM EST
    For today anyway...the Mets bullpen is giving me gray hairs...never easy.  

    Be careful at the open house, they've got more undercover fuzz on duty.  God forbid anybody take home a piece of their stadium.


    Great, lets talk about sports, (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by honora on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:48:57 PM EST
    no one will be banned.

    Tony Blair and Jon Stewart, (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:08:43 PM EST
    were interesting to watch last night.  While I have not read any reviews of this interview, it was, from my perspective, one of Jon Stewart's best.  Tony Blair was not the usual cock-sure politician, but rather, came across as being fearful of the interview's direction and outcome. The word that came to Jon's mind regarding Blair's poodle role, was "inexplicable".  Blair simply responded that he "liked" Bush and terrorism is a threat.  Overall, Blair seemed beaten down by his own history, but was visibly relieved to have gotten through it all.  I do not know why he was there--no book to push, only to announce his teaching job at Yale on religion and globalization.  

    Kind of hard for me to... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 08:04:01 PM EST
    ...feel bad for Tony.  He knew what he was getting into.  He could have chosen to be a voice of reason and decided not to be.  

    Unfortunately, "beaten down by his own history" is probably the most justice we'll get for him and his gang of thugs.  


    I saw a few minutes of it (none / 0) (#112)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 12:07:46 AM EST
    tonight. Blair seemed very subdued. Stewart asked him what their was to like about Bush, and he said, well if you agreed with his position on Iraq, which he did, there's that, but he couldn't name anything else. He seemed wary, like he was expecting Stewart to spring a trap on him. I didn't see the whole thing and also wondered why he was on.

    I watched the entire segment and (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 01:31:53 AM EST
    wished Jon Stewart was the one asking our candidates questions.  

    Prediction (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:45:42 PM EST
    The Republicans will try to get a bounce out of the financial mess.

    No, seriously.  Stop laughing.  Really.

    I'm convinced they'll spin it as, "Look!  This HUMONGOUS problem cropped up that NO ONE could have seen coming, and WE FIXED IT!"  

    Yes, I know, that's so absurd it will make heads on Team Blue (including mine) explode, but McCain is in danger of starting a precipitous slide in the polls because of this mess, so his only real alternative is to play the chutzpah card.

    It won't help either side (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 07:52:51 PM EST
    They are both up to their eyeballs in advisors and lobbyist money.

    The only dispute is over who has more.


    na (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 08:03:50 PM EST
    A generation of anti-regulatory fever will not help the republicans on this issue.  Their childish faith in magical market forces has just been exposed as a fairy tale..... again.

    Modern economies require regulation.  


    Except that it didn't work (2.00 / 0) (#71)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:16:00 PM EST
    With Fannie and Freddie, both government supported institutions.  

    Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal to provide liquidity to the mortgage market. For the next 30 years, Fannie Mae held a virtual monopoly on the secondary mortgage market in the United States.

    In 1968, to remove the activity of Fannie Mae from the annual balance sheet of the federal budget, it was converted into a private corporation. Fannie Mae ceased to be the guarantor of government-issued mortgages, and that responsibility was transferred to the new Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae).

    Fannie Mae was put under a conservatorship of the U.S. Federal government on Sunday, 2008-09-07: Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    Health Care--Just like Banking! (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 08:21:27 PM EST
    Krugman found this in an article McCain "wrote" this month about his health care plan:

    Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

    Oh yeah!  If you liked what we did to the Finacial Industry, just give us a shot at Health Care!

    ouch. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 08:24:53 PM EST
    That is wicked.  That's an ad waiting to be made.

    Kevin Phillips up next on Bill Moyers' Journal; (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jawbone on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 08:49:41 PM EST
    Floyd Norris and Gretchen Morgenstern discussing the effects of Atrios's Big $h*t Pile right now. Web site has video.

    Norris is worried--Morgenstern is worried. What would they ask prez candidates? What does McCain mean when he talks about reforming Wall Street. Norris as well; wants to hear what both McCain and Obama actually mean and what/how would they "reform."

    Suggestions for what new prez can do to prove he's serious? Morgenstern--name really, really tough cop to regulate industry. Fears we
    re lurching from bailout to bailout, etc.  Norris--too many people in charge of government agencies who didn't believe in the efficacy of govt agencies. Need smart people, who can stand up to powerful wealthy people.

    Lots of interesting comments on the economy and the "fix" over at The Agonist. Sean-Paul recommends downsizing your cost of living now, before being forced to do so under duress. agonist.org

    Bernhard does not think even this huge infusion of money will fix things either. moonofalabama.org

    Bad Money by Kevin Phillips--Moyers stronly rec's (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jawbone on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:12:58 PM EST
    reading to understand what's going on.

    Wrote that these crises us'ly come to fruition in September and October. Hhhmm. Phillips feels this will be a real problem. Result of 25 year debt buildup. Oooffff. Bubble no longer sustainable.

    Whoof--says Greenspan was Mr. Turn On the Spigot--but blames Clinton as well (Rubin and signing the Glass-Seagel (sp?) repeal (didn't mention it was the Repubs controlling Congress for that, but, hey).

    Finance is 23-25% of our economy and most of that is built on debt. He points out that it always got govt assitance, which mfring never got. Oooff, again.

    Phillips says newest proposal is to keep credit flowing and also to support the dollar. Seems to be hair of the dog. The arsonists are now coming around as the firemen (while pumping more gasoline on the fire).

    Phillips' recent books are dense--and speak of dire times. How bad will it get? Pointed out real estate hit nadir during Great Depression in 1935-36. Says Paulson doing the Hoover happy talk. Obama? Never has much specific to say, and he's going with Rubin, hedge fund types, and U of Chi types. Okaaaay. Moyers noted that Obama's inspirational sounding talk deserts him when he talks about economics (so boooooooo-ring).

    What will happen? Sees painful adjustment process. Fears we're approaching couple decades of great difficulty for most.

    Phillips does not see Dems acting like FDR and taking on the financial sector! They're getting most of the financial sector money right now. Thinks the indebtedness is going to eat FDR social programs for lunch--"the new soul of the Dem Party wears a pin striped suit." (OMG--my worst inchoate fears about the hostile takeover of the Dem Party expounded upon!)


    Obama presidency? Doesn't expect either of them to (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by jawbone on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:16:42 PM EST
    level with the American voters. Obama told Phillips he'd read some of his books.

    McCain might have less sycophany toward Wall St (due to coming up in a long time military family, but he's Repub).

    Well this is an unsettling program so far tonight. Alas.


    Watching Moyers (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:23:56 PM EST
    and Phillips was really unsettling. Phillips says that the bail out will most likely not work.  The first to go will be social programs and then social security. Morganstan and some other econ person said  it doesn't look good and have no idea what will happen.

    Phillips is dire. Yikes.

    Read today where Schumer and Dodd were astonished and stunned when they met with Bernake and heard how bad it is. Said he gulped and couldn't speak.Why don't they know how bad it is? Lord, I wouldn't admit it if I were them.

    This is definitely scary.


    The first thing Harry Reid did in response (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by tigercourse on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:43:20 PM EST
    to the crisis was come out and say that the Senate wouldn't hold any meetings because the Senators didn't really know what to do. The responses of the majority of polititians to this issue was very unsettling.

    geez (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 01:20:56 AM EST
    Thanks alot, I was already scared.

    Better that than magical thinking. (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by Fabian on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 06:02:41 AM EST
    I'd rather get the "adult" talk than the "Don't worry, the Government will make everything all better!" BS from the politicians.  

    If you look how long this disaster was in the making and how wide and deep the taint is, our choices are to institutionalize these bad practices or spend a decade or more rooting them all out.


    Dipping in to NPR Sat morning--the reporting on (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by jawbone on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 10:32:57 AM EST
    the financial meltdown really seemed to be right out of Paulson's mouth--restrained happy talk.

    I may have missed the contrary views as I was only dipping today.

    Re: Reid's comment--Chuck Schumer's was almost as bad. He's a NYC guy, sr. senator from NY, one would think he's picked up some Wall St. acumen, contacts, and current Street talk about what's going on. Yet, he came out of the meeting with Paulson and Bernanke sounding like some rube who'd never glommed onto the idea that there was a Big $h*t Pile and there just could be a 21st C collapse and even depression. It was almost like he was playing the role of Common Citizen and letting the public know Something Very Bad Was Going On.

    It seemed out of character for his role as senator. So, why'd he do it?


    Yes, I just was picking up (none / 0) (#129)
    by Cream City on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 12:31:42 PM EST
    my pile of New Yorker magazines, glancing through to see what I may have missed, and again came across a July article in it that predicts exactly what has happened in the past week.

    I would think that Schumer would get the New Yorker -- or at least have his staff read it.  Maybe skipping the Hertzberg pieces out of sympathy for the decline of a once-good writer.


    Listened to the PBS lineup (none / 0) (#121)
    by Fabian on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 05:57:53 AM EST
    Fri night.  Gosh.  Why don't they put reruns of that on instead of Matthews et al?  The _ Hour was fun because at the mention of Wall Street everyone began to shout over each other, very emotionally.  I was like "H3lls, they are really, really wound about this!".

    Cream City... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Thanin on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:08:53 PM EST
    as per my previous post to you, do we have a truce to stop belittling each other and stop the snark, as everyone here should have?  Id much rather have a respectful discourse than a snide one.

    Since this is an open thread (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by eric on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:40:23 PM EST
    I'll take the opportunity to tell everyone that we here in Minneapolis have a new bridge across the Mississippi.  As you will recall, the last one fell down in August of 2007, after years of neglect by Republican governors of our state.  Like so many things with these people, it took a crisis to really buck up and spend some money, and the we got the bridge replaced in record time.  However, if the Republican's weren't so busy trying to starve government and neglect the infrastructure, it may have saved lives and prevented injury.

    With that being said, here's the new bridge:


    Congrats! (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:29:42 PM EST
    I was surprised when I saw the news footage of the overnight open. Surprised that it only took a year!!! Looks like they did a nice job and I heard they have sensors implanted in the bridge to monitor settling and aging etc. Sad that it took a collapse though :(

    Whats' up? (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by Semanticleo on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 04:46:40 AM EST
    Why are so many former Hillary supporters going out of their way to make public statements of, not only support for McCain, but dislike of Obama.

    I am suspicious of this activity.............

    the problem with (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by cpinva on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 05:35:54 AM EST
    sean hannity is that he's intellectual low-hanging fruit. i've had the misfortune to actually listen to him on the radio (in my defense, i was driving long-distance, and rolling the dial!), read his stuff on-line and seen him on tv. never once have i heard him say anything remotely intelligent, ever. hell, even limbaugh slips once in a while!

    he looks and sounds like one of those annoying, smarmy kids that got beat up a lot in high school.

    so jon stewart just sort of phoned this in. lol

    Live in DC?... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Lora on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 08:53:33 AM EST
    Do you want your vote to count?

    Live in DC?

    Vote on a Sequoia machine?

    Or ANY electronic machine?

    Or have your paper ballot COUNTED electronically?

    Good Luck With That:

    Firm Subpoenaed in Vote Tally
    Errors Add to Election Board's Concerns About November

    Obama lost me today (4.25 / 4) (#54)
    by kenosharick on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 08:41:19 PM EST
    In an interview he flip-flopped on the homophobic "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. He now says he will "seek consensus." That is like when you ask for icecream as a child and your Mom says "We'll see." You know it really means forget it. Obama just threw the gay community (I take this very personally) under the bus.

    well (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:06:23 PM EST
    "Don't ask, don't tell" certainly beats Palin's church's "pray away the gay" philosophy.  And while Obama may or may not deal with the military's policies it has been reported by multiple named sources that Palin wanted gay themed library books removed from a public library.

    Would you rather things got worse for gays? Or possibly better?  You can bet McCain-Palin won't be big on any sort of gay rights.  McCain would owe the evangelicals quite a bit of leverage.


    If Palin or McCain have supported (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:12:14 PM EST
    Anti gay legislation, we need to find that and talk about it.  But I don't think McCain has ever been anti gay.  

    I don't think talking about what Palin's church supports is a winner for us because of Wright.  


    I didn't say a word about palin (none / 0) (#73)
    by kenosharick on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:18:50 PM EST
    I'm not voting for them either. Why the hell do I have to settle? Obama,from what I have seen, will mostly ignore gay issues- things will not "get better." mccain will probably mostly ignore gay issues as well. So the choice for us gays is a do nothing Dem president or a do nothing repub president. I will leave that slot blank or write in someone else.

    What the heck happened? (2.00 / 1) (#99)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:30:52 PM EST
    I thought Obama supported gays and supported changing 'don't ask'.  Now it sounds like he'll just pass that buck to the military and let them decide what to do.  

    This is outrageous, imo.


    We can decorate (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by LatinoVoter on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:30:55 PM EST
    the underside of the bus and make it the coolest place to be and charge the next group busundered an arm and a leg to live there.

    But if you think that was bad;


    The Christian Broadcasting Network is reporting that the Obama campaign next week will kick off "Barack Obama: Faith, Family, and Values Tour," designed to woo the votes of left-leaning Catholics, progressive Evangelicals, and some conservative mainline Protestants. If LGBT people find the tour eerily reminiscent of the South Carolina gospel tour the campaign arranged last year with antigay "ex-gay" gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, their instincts may not be far off.

    CBN names Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec as one of the religious surrogates who will hit the road stumping for Obama. Kmiec wrote a June 13 op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle supporting California's Proposition 8, the ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage, titled "On Same-Sex Marriage: Should California Amend Its Constitution? Say 'No' to the Brave New World."



    Well, this goes with his rollout (none / 0) (#111)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:47:40 PM EST
    of religious merchandise.

    Where does Prop 8 stand now (sorry, out of the loop!)?

    {makes room for all my CA buds under the bus. June, can ya bring my "famous" red prom dress?!}


    Do you have a link to this? (3.50 / 2) (#70)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:15:09 PM EST
    Because it's significant.  I can't believe we have a nominee who doesn't support gay rights.  You are absolutely right that ''consensus" is the kiss of death.  Of course they will never reach "consensus".   He may as well just shrug his shoulders and walk away.  

    Remind me again of who Obama really cares about because it certainly isn't women or gays.  


    It was an Associated Press story (3.50 / 2) (#75)
    by kenosharick on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:24:35 PM EST
    I found by doing a google news search of "Obama" and "don't ask, don't tell." Easy to find. Sorry I am fairly illiterate on the computer and have no idea how to put the link here directly. BTW- to answer your question, besides getting himself elected and some vague notion of "change" I haven't a clue what he cares about.

    I founf this (4.25 / 4) (#87)
    by NJDem on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:59:12 PM EST

    from the Philadelphia Inquirer, and this is the one from AP

    Not sure what it means, but it doesn't sounds that good...(IMHO)


    Total BS! (3.50 / 2) (#98)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:29:13 PM EST
    As IF a bunch of military guys are going to want to change this!   The consensus of those leading the military will be something along the lines of "we don't want gays anywhere near our Army/Navy/Marines"!  

    I still can't believe Obama said this.  It's madding, and WRONG.  


    He seemed to me to be saying (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 12:10:31 AM EST
    he'd ask them how they want to effect the change, not whether they want to effect it or that they could prevent the change.

    On DOMA, he said he wouldn't do it like Bush does, with executive signing statements that contradict the law. He'd rather Congress changed the law.


    Exactly. (none / 0) (#134)
    by Realleft on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 05:56:44 PM EST
    Chill out people.

    And I bet that all of these (1.00 / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:52:33 PM EST
    were life long Repubs before becoming undecideds..


    Obama/Biden need new surge statement (none / 0) (#56)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 08:53:38 PM EST
    LINK: "Satellite images show ethnic cleanout in Iraq":

    (Reuters) - Satellite images taken at night show heavily Sunni Arab neighborhoods of Baghdad began emptying before a U.S. troop surge in 2007, graphic evidence of ethnic cleansing that preceded a drop in violence, according to a report published on Friday.

    The images support the view of international refugee organizations and Iraq experts that a major population shift was a key factor in the decline in sectarian violence, particularly in the Iraqi capital, the epicenter of the bloodletting in which hundreds of thousands were killed.

    It's time for Obama/Biden to get on top of the story. Hammer home the point that new evidence shows the SURGE is as big a FAILURE as the rest of the entire war. In other words, this provides a rationale to stop agreeing with what McCain says about the damn surge already. CONTRAST! CONTRAST! CONTRAST!

    But Obama said just last week (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:20:30 PM EST
    That the surge has worked beyond his wildest dreams!  He can't say one week later that it is a failure.  He'll sound like he doesn't know what he's talking about.  He'll be hounded with flip-floppers.  

    Can I rate both of your posts a 5? (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Oje on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:46:04 PM EST
    Or does that defeat the purpose?

    If Obama can't contrast with McCain on Iraq without looking like he is flip-flopping, then Houston has a problem.


    Oje, i'm saying the NEW data gives (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:19:07 PM EST
    Obama an incentive, and a perfect justification, for rethinking his recently stated opinion that the surge is working.

    It's sort of like what Hillary did with her AUMF position. Only a fool (maybe McCain) wouldn't rethink the war, and the surge, in view of "what we now know".


    I understand (none / 0) (#101)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:32:53 PM EST
    But I don't think he can change his mind in a week.  No matter how good the new information, he will look like a flip flopper.

    BT, Jeralyn just cut you off... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:50:10 PM EST
    You are a newcomer here and, for the time being, you might want to be a little more gracious and a lot more thorough about your facts. i.e. you've made authoritative, but erroneous, statements about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    Don't get me wrong, we've all been wrong...just take it easy.


    I am with you.... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Oje on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:20:08 PM EST
    Now, if the violence escalates, then we are back to the cyclical violence that signifies a regrouping by Iraqi militants, then I see the opening you are pointing to.

    But until that is clearly the case, I think the clip of "wildly successful" followed immediately by "failure" would be damaging to Obama. I think he overplayed that comment for Fox viewers and he is stuck with it for now. Then he might say, it was all a dream.


    Compare and contrast..... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Oje on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:07:19 PM EST
    LA Times (title as of 8PM):

    Obama votes 'Present' on new economic rescue plan for now

    WaPo (title as of 8PM):

    On Economy, Obama Offers Plan, McCain Blames Rival

    NY  Times:

    For Rivals, Finance Crisis Is Posing on-the-Fly Tests

    Note: The NY Times picture seems intent on making Obama look small in this crisis. How much of the media has to stay on Obama's side for BTD's calculus to hold true?

    Another day, another Zogby Interactive (none / 0) (#114)
    by andgarden on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 01:05:21 AM EST

    This time he wanted to know about Sarah Palin's Yahoo email account. . .

    An interesting article (none / 0) (#117)
    by Manuel on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 01:52:05 AM EST
    I like this article about McCain not because I agree with it (I don't).  I like it because it raises the level of discussion by examining meaningful diffrences between the candidates.  This is the kind of conversation I would like to see instead of the caricatures being thrown around by the campaigns.

    Will Obama be as protectionist as this author claims?  I have my doubts based on the Canada NAFTA flap in the primaries.

    Will health care costs rise under Obama's (or Clinton's) health care plan?  Would a tax on health care benefits really reduce costs?  If so, does it make sense as part of an eventual health care plan?

    MO on Paula's Party, BC on The View and McCains on (none / 0) (#118)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 02:08:36 AM EST
    Rachael Ray. Yup, for your viewing pleasure, da TeeVee lineup!

    Saturday Night 9/20 MO is on Paula's Party on the Food Network. Check you listings for times

    Monday 9/22 The McCain's will be on Rachael Ray on the ABC network (NYC area 10AM channel 7)

    Monday 9/22 President Bill Clinton "live" on The View on ANC (NYC area 11AM channel 7 following the McCains on Rach, lol!~)

    Dbl check your local listings on all this, working off of memory from having the TeeVee on in the background while working and putzing  :) Clinton on the View could be fun and MO and the McCains on cooking/talk shows?! Yeah, baby!

    Bill will be (none / 0) (#133)
    by Amiss on Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 12:16:34 AM EST
    on Larry king Live next week, cant remember the day tho.  MO helped cook fried shrimp and french fries, it showed a softer Michelle than I am used to seeing.