Tuesday Morning Open Thread

A personal note --I am not comfortable with writing about this election right now. I am not comfortable with the behavior of some Democrats and Left blogs regarding Sarah Palin. Of course everyone is entitled to their own views on this and I respect that. But I am entitled to mine as well. I am going to take a break and see how I feel next week.

I want to add that I believe the Obama/Biden campaign has handled the Palin matter with considerable decency and political aplomb. I applaud their behavior.

One last thing, I recommend Bob Herbert's column today.

I speak for me only of course.

This is an Open Thread.

< Late Night: American Storm | Tonight's Convention Agenda >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Just one question.......... (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:45:14 AM EST
    Why now? Certainly the things commented on about Sen. Clinton were as bad....or worse.

    Just overload, the final straw?

    Here's what I find frustrating... (5.00 / 22) (#31)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:22:52 AM EST
    SUDDENLY women like Andrea Mitchell, Mika B are talking about how "personally offended" they are by the sexism on the blogs, on the air.


    Where were their sensitive selves when Shuster was accusing Clinton of "pimping" he daughter?   Why were they not personally offended when the likes of Rhodes were trashing Clinton and Ferarro with sexist insults?  

    As much as I despise the stupidity of people using "personal" family stuff to attack, I find the "media's sudden sensitivity" to attacking personally to be a bit on the phony side considering how much they snickered and sneered and joined in the personal trashing of the Clintons.
    To pretend that the press (whether on the blogs or on television) is above personal attacks is laughable.  I am seeing the same old, same old....sexism, politics of personal destruction that I saw for the last year in the primaries....that I saw directed at Al Gore; that I saw all through the 90s directed at the First Family.  AND NOW, I am supposed to believe these press people are "personally offended?"  

    Give me a break.


    They're seizing an opportunity... (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by goldberry on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:42:47 AM EST
    ...to crush the blogs as competition in the realm of  "journalism".  The blogs are self-destructing and the Mitchells of the world are just speeding it along.  They got rid of Hillary, now they will get rid of Markos.  It's a twofer.  

    You didn't get the memo? (4.83 / 12) (#106)
    by Claw on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:56:44 AM EST
    ANYTHING goes when you're talking about Sen. Clinton.  I think we should leave the Palin thing alone.  Not only is it morally right, but this is a huge political landmine.  All we need is Palin pleading with democrats to stop attacking her daughter.  

    If they are so offended now (4.81 / 11) (#89)
    by Cards In 4 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:41:11 AM EST
    they can start proving it by calling out Mathews and Olberman on the air.  Does anyone want to bet on them doing so?

    They blew it. (4.80 / 5) (#47)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:40:14 AM EST
    They committed it, supported it or pretended not to notice it.
    At the risk of invoking Godwin...
    See: The Nasty Girl

    Amen (4.50 / 2) (#65)
    by cpa1 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:06:52 AM EST
    and well said!

    Pretty much (4.72 / 11) (#4)
    by JAB on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:49:39 AM EST
    It was bad during the primaries, but the screeching all weekend about Sarah Palin.  I'm no fan, but this just tells me she makes "progressives" (and I use the term loosely) nervous.

    Disgusting behavior all the way around.


    what have they been saying? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by borisbor on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:52:18 AM EST
    I don't really read the other blogs

    Its more like What have they not said? (4.50 / 6) (#15)
    by Serene1 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:03:34 AM EST
    They have accused Palin of literally everything. The kind of accusations that were hurled at her family by leftist bloggers to justify their rumour mongering was something altogether. It is as if nothing is sacred anymore.

    Here's what offends me (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by nalo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:33:52 AM EST
    Those things you mention on liberal blogs (some of which are troll plants ).

    But I'm also offended...

    When Sarah Palin laughs and gushes over talk radio hosts that just called her Republican rival "b__"  

    When Palin's primary national profile has been due Rush Limbaugh consistently promoting her because (unlike someone else) Palin would be someone he would like to see age in office.  In fact, outside of this prurient interest from Republican fratboy idiots, she would be a first term governor from a small state, who had no national prominence.  

    Her positions on the issues are in direct opposition to McCain's only real "maverick" credentials (she's pro-earmarks, denies climate change).  She lied about being a reformer with the Bridge to Nowhere in her first speech.  I'm glad you're holding liberals accountable for sexism.  I'm with you there.  In addition, I would like to also hold conservatives accountable for their sexism and criticize McCain/Palin on the issues I disagree with.


    New Democratic doctrine (4.71 / 14) (#43)
    by lizpolaris on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:35:11 AM EST
    Nothing is sacred and women are profane.

    Who are these "Leftists" (2.40 / 5) (#184)
    by Richard in Jax on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:33:07 AM EST
    Oh stop it now. Palin did this to herself ( and McCain) when she accepted the nomination with full knowledge of all the baggage she bears. Palin knows the motto of the AIP: " I am an Alaskan and not an American I have no use for America or its stupid institutions"..yet having been a former member of that crew she accepted the nomination. " Leftists" were not involved. Palin knew about her support for the 'Bridge' yet lied about it in her acceptance speech. The record, not "Leftists" brought out this reckless and arrogant act. Palin's kid? She knows of America's thirst for such dirt (all she had to do was call Monica or Craig) and yet she drug it right into McCain's back pockets. She options to fix that one and didn't even bother! For crying out loud it was not a "Leftist" that posted that crap on that kid's FaceBook page (her daughters future husband and ex-husband I am sure)...but a bunch of GOP'ers failed to get it off before someone looked.
    The abuses of power..where's the "Leftist"? We can go on with this but you cannot cast "blame" on anyone but Palin and her BFF, McCain.  

    Not "nervous". Nervous is too tame... (4.57 / 7) (#11)
    by cosbo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:58:12 AM EST
    Quaking in FEAR is more like it.

    LOL (3.25 / 4) (#142)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:14:02 AM EST
    quaking in fear? You crypto-conservatives are hilarious. This liberal is delighted with the Palin pick. It is going to continue to be a problem for McCain. However I can see why many liberals recoil in outrage over Sarah Palin. She is a hard core conservative that has beliefs that are in direct conflict with what any rational liberal believes.

    Thanks BTD for being (5.00 / 20) (#3)
    by Serene1 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:48:58 AM EST
    one of the saner voices of the left. The biggest disappointment this election season was witnessing the transformation of many liberals into the Bush cheney republicans (during their heydays). Karl Rove has become their personal guru as they go about tearing down their opponents like rabid dogs with no regard to decency, humanity or anything.


    Thanks BTD for being a voice (5.00 / 12) (#7)
    by zfran on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:52:42 AM EST
    of reason. I look forward to your return to help keep us honest. I, too, have taken a break from here of sorts. These last few days, "I don't think we're in Kansas anymore."

    Why don't you have your own blog? (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:53:43 AM EST

    Good idea. (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:11:52 AM EST
    I want to blog here (5.00 / 12) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:15:32 AM EST
    Despite my disagreements with Jeralyn on this, she is a very good and loyal friend.

    If I blog, it will be here, unless she asks me to step aside.


    OK (5.00 / 15) (#36)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:26:55 AM EST
    Just don't stop blogging.

    What she said... (5.00 / 7) (#118)
    by kredwyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:03:47 AM EST
    I'm a BTD groupie :-P

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by blogtopus on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:34:51 AM EST
    Jeralyn's a complete trooper, no snark. She's had this blog for years, and it has opened a lot of eyes wrt prisoner rights and defendant's rights. TChris is a great addition as well.

    I can see J wanting to return to focus on that when the election is over (actually, she probably wants it NOW, but what can you do with this kind of election in the works?). It would be a breath of fresh air for her (and it would clear the comment boards of all the venom, too, I'm sure).

    Have a good vay-cay, BTD. I hear Tahoe's good this time of year.


    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by NWC80 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:40:57 AM EST
    I am sure there are other lurkers like myself who stumbled upon this site just a short time back and have appreciated your take on the current state of the campaign. Wish we had known about it earlier!

    What has kept me coming back here is the diversity of opinions and the level of civility not found elsewhere.

    Passions flare when those committed to the political process have honest disagreements, yet you have shown a willingness to listen and offer some much needed perspective.

    Hopefully, you will be ready to jump back in after a few days, because your voice is needed during the stretch run. Personally, I will miss your take on the Republican convention, but will await your analysis of events, tactics and strategy in the coming months!


    I can't disagree. (5.00 / 10) (#9)
    by cosbo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:54:52 AM EST
    It's a complete freakshow. My instincts tell me that the left very very threatened and is likely seeing a coming GE loss on the wall. And if that happens they have no else to blame other than Obama for not closing the door on this path by McCain, which he would have done if he'd pick Hillary has his VP.

    Now it's another race between "firsts".

    or agreed to run as hillary's vp (5.00 / 10) (#32)
    by sancho on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:23:59 AM EST
    and gained some needed, uh, experience. but the dnc put him up to it. if they lose, it is the party leadership's fault b/c obama's been an open book since he did in alice palmer. i too am appalled by what's been unleashed. but as a few here are saying, the dem nastiness all began with hillary. and now they think they can do it again with palin, but the republicans, unlike the democrats, generally stand up for their own.

    It's always been a freak show.... (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:39:58 AM EST
    I think more people are noticing how much of a pro wrestling freak show it all is this year, with women and black men at the forefront for a change.

    It's always been about slime and slinging mud and racing to the bottom...this year there are female and black faces getting mud thrown on them, which is something we are not used to.  The targets may be new, but it is the same tired tactics we are supposed to be sick of, yet we continue to vote for the a**holes who employ such tactics.


    Kudos (5.00 / 18) (#10)
    by cawaltz on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:55:48 AM EST
    for speaking up BTD. "All that evil needs to triumph is for good men to sit idly by and do nothing" seems appropos. Actually this kind of behavior is going to make my job in November that much easier. The blurring of the lines makes it clear to me that the Democratic party I knew and believed in is gone.  

    I am sad (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by sleepingdogs on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:03:13 AM EST
    I am sad to see this election is taking such a toll.  The effect seems to be massive burnout of the passionate.  Good for you, BTD, for taking a break.  I look forward to your return since you have been a voice of clarity for me.

    The voice of reason. After reading some comments (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:07:19 AM EST
    on an article at WaPo, I think that we all should take a breather. Some of those posts were disgusting.

    I find the reader commnents (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by DFLer on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:06:25 AM EST
    on most newspaper sites to be often totally outrageous. There is little oversight. One can comment under any, often changing name....etc.

    The discussion priorities are skewed. Change now! (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by ctrenta on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:09:50 AM EST
    It's time we stop talking about Sarah Palin, the nomination of McCain, or the RNC. Right now we're seeing the police state in action with the arrest and pepper spray of an award winning journalist, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!

    As Democrats we should be shocked by the St. Paul/Minneapolis police and their abuse of power and control. If we are progressives, we need to stop focusing on electing Dems, criticizing Republicans, or even criticizing Obama (which Talk Left is known for) and focus on this more pressing issue. In the bigger picture, it's more important than winning elections.

    Where's the outrage and what can we do at Talk Left to raise awareness?

    I think anyone who loyally... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:47:08 AM EST
    reads talkleft knows all about the police state issue and the silent war declared on civil liberty...it is one of our favorite topics that we've discussed countless times in the 6 years I've been hanging around.  No need to raise awareness about it here..everybody knows this is nowehere.

    I just don't know what we can do about it...we're up against the entity with all the lawyers, guns, and money.

    Actually I know what we can do...refuse to vote for police state supporting Democrats and Republicans, but nobody wants to do that for some reason...apparently that is crazy talk.


    asdf (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by ctrenta on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:49:21 AM EST

    I know Talk Left has been supportive of police state issues in the past. My point is we really need to switch the direction of the conversation NOW because a prominent journalist was arrested. I think this is more important than covering Palin or the RNC convention, a dog and pony show essentially. We've seen conventions before. How often do we see the police state in action? I'm calling for making the number one issue of discussion here at Talk Left. NOT the election.... not now anyway.

    Oh, she's also "prominent"... (3.25 / 4) (#148)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:17:09 AM EST
    outrage is fine, but a few facts to accompany it would be even finer. "Award winning...."Goodman, entitles her to interfere with police in the line of their duty? Pepper spray? Even she didn't claim that, but o.k.you're angry and someone has to be held accountable.

    The cops were there to protect the delegates and the general population, not to act as As Amy Goodman's personal information booth.

    Or maybe you haven't seen the videos of the marauding mobs of  troublemakers.

    They're cops. Stay away from them when they tell you to. Besides protecting dumb asses that shriek hysterically at the first call from the Wacko Leftist Loonies, they would also like to stay alive long enough to at least see their kids through school.
    Over ten thousand marched and protested, and everybody was safe and they were heard.. This bunch, that Mz Goodman stuck her face into were well on their way to real destruction.

    Or are the cops clairvoyant? They're supposed to know on a second's notice who's "an award winning journalist" and who has a .38 caliber bullet with his name on it.

    Their mistake was, they didn't realize she was "prominent."


    Just as a side-note, Andrea (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by zfran on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:10:56 AM EST
    Mitchell just said on Morning Joe, that Palin was properly vetted. That the only thing that wasn't done was going to Alaska to check local paper stories because then it would have been a tip-off. So much for Wapo and Huffington. Why can't we just have the media find out what they need to and report it before jumping the gun.

    Palin was mentioned as a long shot (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by JoeA on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:52:02 AM EST
    VP candidate some time ago.  If she was being vetted from the start (as McCain seems to imply),  then doing proper background checking would not have raised any flags.

    I'm sorry if I take the insistence that there was a full vetting with a small pinch of salt.  There are quotes from operatives within the McCain campaign suggesting that the vetting amounted to not much more than "Googling" Palin,  which if true seems amazingly risky.  


    Agreed: re vetting - not so much (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by DFLer on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:13:04 AM EST
    according to Alalaskan sources in this article from McClatchy news.

    It may have been a tip off (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:12:03 AM EST
    but that is hardly proper vetting.

    Palin Vetting (5.00 / 0) (#202)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:40:30 AM EST
    NY Times this AM has another story about how much and when Palin was vetted with a whole bunch of 'unnamed Republicans close to the campaign' or whatever, weighing in.

    It seems incredible if it is accurate that McCain might have made this decision on the fly last week when he came to fully accept he couldn't have Lieberman or Ridge. If true, it llustrates something about his leadership style and judgment that makes me even more uneasy.


    thanks (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by rise hillary rise on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:11:06 AM EST
    my thoughts exactly. what I want to know:  "Is there ANY woman good enough for you people?"

    Right (1.00 / 2) (#98)
    by glanton on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:49:40 AM EST
    Because if you supported neither Hillary Clinton nor Sarah Palin for President, that means there is "no woman good enough for you."  What garbage?  Who in their right mind would look at that and say, that's an argument that makes sense?

    As somebody who cheerfully supported Hillary Clinton during the Primary (I would have rather had a true progressive like Feingold or Paul Wellstone's ghost, but given the choices, I preferred her, argued for her, voted for her), I am truly embarrassed by people like you.  

    More importantly, as a human being I am sickened to see this crowd shilling sympathetic for nutjobs like McCain and Palin.  When the bombs fall and when the justices don their robes, hopefully it will feel as good then, as it does now.


    Who's shilling..... (5.00 / 11) (#105)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:55:55 AM EST
    ...that's one of the things that has annoyed me the most about this election cycle. I like to speak my mind and I do so without regard to which candidate I think it "helps." I do not now or will ever support John McCain for president, his choice of a running mate wasn't going to make a difference to me one way or another. But I see sexism where I see it. I am not shilling and neither are most of the feminists on this site.

    Speaking Out Against Sexism (1.66 / 3) (#167)
    by glanton on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:26:21 AM EST
    and writing this:

    my thoughts exactly. what I want to know:  "Is there ANY woman good enough for you people?"

    is not the same, at all.  That is a self-evident truth.  The second literally suggests that if you supported neither Clinton nor Palin, then you are against the idea of a woman president.  This is just simply as ignorant as it gets.  Any reasonable person could see this, couldn't they?

    You know, there is nothin sexist about the outrage many of us feel (not enough!!!!!) at the absurd spectacle of McCain choosing an extreme social con as his running mate, and then the two of them, and the GOP Party writ large, playing it up as some sort of victory for women.

    And yes, several "Hillary supporters" on this site are indeed shilling.  They are parsing Palin's politics, arguing that what she stands for isn't so bad as all that.  And they are doing it because she is a woman.  Sad.


    So do you think I'm shilling? (none / 0) (#195)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:36:21 AM EST
    Because I commented on this? Just curious.

    I believe only if she is a (none / 0) (#22)
    by zfran on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:12:32 AM EST
    liberal democrat. Anyone else apparently is unacceptable.

    That's not exactly right.... (5.00 / 20) (#25)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:15:15 AM EST
    ...its more like if she's a liberal democrat and no male liberal democrat also wants the job.

    BINGO! (5.00 / 26) (#34)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:26:29 AM EST
    Women are allowed to compete as long as they don't cause a man to lose.  It's a tenet of pseudo feminism.  

    You support women, but...
    they can't make men look bad.
    they have to put their children's needs ahead of their needs.  (no exceptions!)
    they have to be there for their partner/spouse - no matter what.

    In other words, pseudo feminism says that women can do whatever they want, as long as they take care of everything else too.  Pseudo feminists cheer women after they accomplish something, but offer no substantial support while they are struggling.


    Fabian, right again! (4.71 / 7) (#37)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:28:31 AM EST
    You guys are getting ridiculous (3.00 / 2) (#126)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:08:17 AM EST
    So now Jeralyn is not willing to support a woman candidate? Did you completely forget the past 8 months? Obviously some of you feel that Palin's gender is more important than her politics. Most of us view her politics as more important than her gender, or her family for that matter.

    who said anything about Jeralyn? (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:16:10 AM EST
    I assumed we were talking about the people who said they would support a woman, just not this woman about Hillary Clinton. Not people who supported Hillary and now support Obama, like Jeralyn

    I don't think (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:29:48 AM EST
    there are any such people here at TalkLeft. While I'm sure there are sexists that oppose Sarah Palin it seems to me that the VAST majority of people attacking her are attacking her because of her noxious political views.

    The "right" liberal democrat (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:17:46 AM EST
    whatever that means...

    You got THAT right!! I'm not sure any woman could (5.00 / 11) (#35)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:26:43 AM EST
    get elected POTUS in this environment. We haven't evolved as much as other Western countries when the subject is equality for women.

    Well yeah (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:06:09 AM EST
    the site's called TalkLEFT. Why would people here, much less the owner of the site, want to support who was NOT a liberal?

    Is this especially because of Jeralyn's (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by robrecht on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:14:46 AM EST
    approach to the Sarah Palin nomination?  I noted your disassociation of yourself from her last post about the poll on when Palin will drop out. Of course, Jeralyn has been much more reserved than what I imagine is going on elsewhere.

    It is a general thing (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:16:38 AM EST
    Have a good break (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by robrecht on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:17:56 AM EST
    I look forward to your return.  I have not always agreed but usually end up realizing you were right.  Usually.

    BTD is straight forward (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:31:35 AM EST
    and consistent.  That's a rare thing now, especially in blogs.

    As Much As It Pains Me To Say It... (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Strick on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:20:12 AM EST
    You've been thoughtful and respectful throughout all this. Respect is due you in turn.

    Stay cool. ;)

    BTD (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Redshoes on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:25:50 AM EST
    Enjoy the break, I think it's a good idea to step back.  From what I can tell it's not just the blogs but corporate media that seem to be hyperventilating.  Breathe....

    I understand the feeling as (5.00 / 7) (#38)
    by delacarpa on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:30:01 AM EST
    It was sorrowful to see talkleft on one blog talking about the pool started on this blog. I too think this is way over the pail, also because it will only drive the women further to McCain. It is just wrong, wrong wrong.

    Withya, BTD (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by trillian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:30:30 AM EST
    This witch hunt has become unseemly and  counterproductive.

    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by glanton on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:41:15 AM EST
    The personal attacks on Palin this weekend were beyond the pale, but that is not what Jeralyn or what most of us were guilty of.

    McCain picked a die-hard social con for his Veep at a moment when the culture wars could have been toned down.  Also, with the Ads he ran during the Dem convention, and with the both of them referencing Hillat Clinton, they are treating us like we are too stupid to understand that ideas are what is at stake.  Not repeating what Bush was wrought is at stake.

    For all of this, strong political attacks on both of them are not only defensible, but necessary.  It seems like because she is a woman you would have her off limits politically as well, and let McCain off the hook for choosing a social con.  I bet you'd have a different attitude if McCain had selected Santorum or Coburn.

    It remains sad, what is going on in these comments.  

    Our grievance isn't with political attacks. (5.00 / 18) (#54)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:52:23 AM EST
    It's with any other kind of attack.

    Sarah Palin was picked to appeal to conservative women and social conservative women and men - not democrats.

    Sarah Palin was picked to reinforce McCain's Maverick-ness.

    Sarah Palin was picked to pander to the Media's hunger for something shiny and new...and historic.

    Sarah Palin was picked because she highlights the way the Dems treated and continue to treat women.  Obama left himself completely open on that.


    I ran into some gossip mongers (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by kredwyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:08:17 AM EST
    in Cooperstown yesterday.

    When I pointed out all of the different actual issues on the table that need to be addressed, I got the ol' "Well...of all the nerve..." and tsk'd at.


    If McCain had selected Santorum or Coburn (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Manuel on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:22:54 AM EST
    we'd be talking issues and not experience or scandals or how small tows are.

    Not Sure About That (5.00 / 2) (#222)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:48:39 AM EST
    Both of them have made some pretty extravagant and provocative comments in the past. So, we'd probably be re-hashing those.

    I was kind of steeling myself for McCain choosing Romney and allll the Mormon conversations again--and his money and his dog on the roof of the car.

    Palin being a woman centers the conversation in certain areas that aren't fair--her family, for example. But what passes for political discourse in this country has long been too focused on the personal, and on trivial sensationalism. It got esp. feverish in the Clinton years with the vendettas against him (them) and it has never receded.


    The Vast Majority of Us (2.00 / 2) (#185)
    by glanton on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:33:22 AM EST
    Are talking issues when it comes to Palin, as with McCain!!!

    Don't let those who are more interested in titillation than anything else, become an emblem for where progressives stand in this election.

    And by the friggin' way. The spectacle of "Hillary supporters" circling the wagons around her ideological opposite, after what this country has been through over the last eight years of GOP rule, is far more sickening than anything Daily Kos or Andrew Sullivan did over the weekend, not to mention far worse than anytbing the media did to Clinton during the Primary.


    You will be missed (5.00 / 7) (#52)
    by Coral on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:51:23 AM EST
    Take a break and return refreshed. You are one of the most sane voices on politics out there -- in blogosphere and regular media.

    Thanks for helping me get through the last few months without throwing my computer out the window!

    I understand, BTD (5.00 / 18) (#57)
    by ccpup on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:54:20 AM EST
    Jeralyn has surprised me with her anti-Palin threads and, even as a clear-eyed partisan, I find it all a bit boneheaded and unseemly.  As much as I've enjoyed it around here, it becomes more and more difficult to visit when faced with another one of her insistent diatribes.  But I do respect that it is her site, so ...

    I think what I'm trying to wrap my mind around is the simple fact that the hatred, sexism, misogyny and over-eager politics of personal destruction we see with some Comments are all coming from supposed Democrats!  I guess I stupidly assumed we were somehow better than Republicans and the realization that we AREN'T still isn't sitting well with me.

    A break will do you good, BTD.  And I look forward to checking into TL occasionally to read your thoughts on Polls.  You seem to have a real talent with that.

    Bingo! (5.00 / 13) (#62)
    by trillian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:01:47 AM EST
    "I guess I stupidly assumed we were somehow better than Republicans and the realization that we AREN'T still isn't sitting well with me."

    My eyes have really been opened this election cycle.


    Agree with this completely! (5.00 / 11) (#188)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:33:53 AM EST
    The hysteria over Sarah Palin is ridiculous.  I never expected to like or agree with or give a second look to anyone McCain picked to run with him - in the end, he was going to pick someone who could appeal to the base and to disaffected and dispirited Republicans who were thinking they might just sit this one out.  What a big surprise.  If she's so terrible, and such a lightweight and borderline incompetent, that should be regarded as a gift to the Democrats, not a threat.

    I've been completely turned off by the rather rabid reaction from Jeralyn and disappointed in her willingness to turn to sources we found lacking in objectivity and credibility during the primary season.  Why all of a sudden HuffPo and MoDo are worth quoting, and TPM and the network pundits now are founts of truth is beyond me.

    I will be sorry to not see you here, BTD, but agree that some time off will bring you back with fresh perspectives and new insights; I suspect more than a few of us may take the opportunity to step back, just because it is increasingly hard not to set off the hair-trigger of Jeralyn's things-which-must-not-be-discussed; the constant walking on eggshells is tiring and tiresome.


    Insistant Diatribes??? (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by robrecht on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:50:27 AM EST
    Perhaps I have not read all of Jeralyn's threads this weekend but I doubt any of them were "insistant diatribes."  I see her as gathering well sourced information, opposing policy positions, defending her presumption of innocence, and constantly warning coomenters not to make personal attacks.

    Headline to love or hate in USA Today (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:56:19 AM EST
    Palin Pick Highlights Clinton's Importance to Obama

    Just what the bots want to see, I'm sure.

    I have been uncomfortable (5.00 / 11) (#60)
    by standingup on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:59:18 AM EST
    with the behavior of many of the Left Blogs and Democrats for some time.  Talkleft was always a notch above which is why I have chose to read and comment.  I hope TL does not change since I am finding fewer and fewer places on the internet worth my time.  

    I am truly saddened with the 2008 election at this time.  I had high hopes for what it could do for our country.  Instead, we have seen the bar lowered.

    Taking a Break (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Rover1 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:01:10 AM EST
    I too applaud the Obama campaign for handling  this sideshow with grace and dignity and I am also concerned that other Dems are taking the low road with respect to candidates personal lives. However, I also recall that in the past two Presidential races the Republicans have smeared good people including veterans and Gold Star mothers. Before that they were not so understanding of "personal mistakes" (i.e. Bill Clinton). Low tactics and hypocrisy won them eight years in the White House. I know that the Dems have no choice but to hold the line on decency but I am very afraid, as are many others, that once again  incompetent people will win for the wrong reasons. Instead of backing away from the discussion entirely how about figuring out a way to call the Republicans on their glaring hypocrisy without resorting to personal attacks.  

    Dems/progressives not getting it yet? (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by pluege on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:37:06 AM EST
    Yes, Obama needs to take the high road, but that doesn't mean everyone else should, and that Palin and the republican hypocrisy isn't legitimate fodder. Would the republicans lay off of the situation if it were reversed? How many democrats have been smeared over the years, many of them illegitimately? Have the republicans not proved without doubt the past 28 years that the politics of character assassination works with the American electorate? Is it not the core reason democrats have lost so much at huge cost to humanity over the years precisely because they didn't play politics as hard as the republicans do? Has not democratic decency not been manifestly turned into a liability for democrats - and the cost has been republicans gaining power and inflicting massive suffering, destruction, and ruination on the US and humanity.  

    Obama must win at all cost. The successful American political play book calls for Obama to be on the high road while all the surrogates slam republicans anyway they can at every opportunity.


    It's the must win at all costs (5.00 / 15) (#137)
    by Emma on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:12:53 AM EST
    mindset that led to the witchhunts for Bill and Hillary Clinton and got us to where we are today.  I won't participate in the same perversion and corruption of the process coming from "my side."

    Also, I don't agree that Obama must win at all costs.


    At all cost (5.00 / 9) (#143)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:14:26 AM EST
    I guess that just about sums it up.

    "Obama must win at all cost" (5.00 / 13) (#164)
    by sj on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:25:35 AM EST
    uh-uh.  No way.  No one must win at all cost.  Or costs, either.

    Adopt the tactics of "the enemy" and become the enemy.  The D's should win because we're better than that.  Although I've seen precious little of that over the last 8 months.

    The "cost" of a win should never be integrity.


    the same (5.00 / 7) (#173)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:29:10 AM EST
    at all costs defense was used after the end of the primary when Obama started his flip flops to the right.

    Then it was don't worry, Obama HAS TO move to the right now for the general election.  But, he'll govern to the left....


    and this is different from (5.00 / 9) (#174)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:29:41 AM EST
    say or do anything to win, how?

    just so. n/t (5.00 / 5) (#227)
    by sj on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:50:20 AM EST
    Why do so many people think she was a (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by tigercourse on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:18:35 AM EST
    Mayor right before being Governor? Why do so many people forget about the ethics commission?

    either stupidity (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by ccpup on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:30:08 AM EST
    or it's simply convenient to forget anything that helps to beef up her resume.

    How does that (none / 0) (#113)
    by domerdem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:01:03 AM EST
    make a significant difference?  

    Bob Herbert this AM (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Coral on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:21:09 AM EST
    Here's the deal: Palin is the latest G.O.P. distraction. She's meant to shift attention away from the real issue of this campaign -- the awful state of the nation after eight years of Republican rule

    Read the whole thing.

    Also of interest on the subject of Republican misrule: The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank. The Leftcoaster has a review.

    democrats, progressives should be energized (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by pluege on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:21:45 AM EST
    coming off the the resounding success of the democratic convention last week. Democrats achieve everything they needed and then some. The headline speeches: Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Gore, and Obama were all exceptional. There were a number of others that were also very good. There is nothing republicans could do this week to come close to it - just the same old fear and whining about the disadvantaged.

    They politics of contrast will be in full regalia as republicans trot out the same old tired sloganism railing against everything everyday Americans do and offering nothing to ease their troubles except the usual lies and deceptions. And Sarah Palin as VP candidate is just more evidence of today's republicans' inability to do anything correctly.

    I think we need to separate ... (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by eustiscg on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:27:23 AM EST
    ... two responses to the Palin pick.  One is glee at a political situation that is unravelling so quickly precisely because it represents the cynical and reckless decision-making that some progressives have always suspected lay behind the "straight talk veneer."  I.e., sometimes "maverick" simply means "an erratic, arrogant twit with a nice smile."

    The other is no-holds-barred character assassination, desperate catch-at-anything hate-spewing, prejudice against women/Christians/etc.  I applaud Jeralyn for taking a stand against the latter.

    But I see no moral or political problem with taking glee in the former.

    You are assuming, of course (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by JAB on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:34:13 AM EST
    that it actually IS unraveling.  The Republicans LOVE her and she's raised tons of money in the last 3 days for the party.  It only appears to be unraveling if you look at the histrionics taking place on left-leaning blog sites, which only proves to me that the LEFT is unraveling a bit.

    That being said,

    During August, the number of Americans who consider themselves to be Republicans increased two percentage points to 33.2% while the number of Democrats was little changed at 38.9%.


    However, the Democrats still enjoy a much bigger advantage today than they did when votes were cast in Election 2004 and an advantage almost identical to their edge in January. In fact, other than the past six months, the current 5.7 percentage point advantage is one of the biggest on record (see history from January 2004 to present).

    These new results have very little to do with recent news events such as the Democratic National Convention or selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be John McCain's running mate. Interviews are conducted throughout the month and the vast majority were completed before these events dominated the news cycle.

    These will be the numbers to watch in the coming months.


    Promising Obama Polls Today (5.00 / 0) (#236)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:07:46 AM EST

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows Barack Obama attracting 48% of the vote while John McCain earns 43%. When "leaners" are included, it's Obama 51%, McCain 45%. This is the highest level of support enjoyed by Obama at any point in Election 2008 (see recent daily results).


    This one is at Time magazine site and is just these numbers--no explanatory text or tabs.

    Obama 48, McCain 39.  Date conducted: August 29-31.

    Obama led previous poll 44-40.


    No, no, no (none / 0) (#93)
    by eustiscg on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:46:50 AM EST
    The hubbub has trickled up to the MSM.  Take a look, for instance, at today's NYTimes, 1st column above the fold.  

    Also, watch any of the network or cable news shows.  George Stephanopoulos's question seems to be echoing through their coverage: "What else don't we know about Sarah Palin?"  The media, whose initial, well-hidden reaction seemed to be "Sarah who?  Oh well, say something noncommittal," will not refrain from dominating the airwaves with this stuff once they've got their ducks in a row.  This is the high-drama they've been waiting for, from the McCain camp--something even comparable in juiciness to the "Dem Party is Divided" storyline that they hammered us with for weeks.

    As to your other points:
    a) What good is fundraising ability when public-financing spending caps go in place in a few days??
    b) Do you think Palin shores up moderate Repubs (i.e., those who could account for a rise in party identification)?  For all of the moderate Repubs in my circle and my family, Palin was, in fact, the last straw.


    Moderate Republicans were never the target. (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Rover1 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:10:47 AM EST
    As Jeralyn pointed out last week Mc Cain's motivation in choosing Palin was to raise money and to solidify the far right. It was cynical self serving politics at its worst and it worked. Now Palin and family get the honor of placing the abortion issue ahead of war, economy and health care and the rest of us are supposed to sit back and cower in fear that our comments may offend. Maybe Obama must remain above the fray but the rest of his supporters should take on the fight. Looking precious, and weak will not serve the Democrats well. I say if McCain wants to put a gun toting, anti choice individual in the spotlight, one whose personal life is an advertisement for all of her hard right beliefs, then we all take her to task.

    You are needed BTD. Very much so. (5.00 / 9) (#80)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:28:28 AM EST
    Every team needs a Devil's Advocate. That is you BTD. Maybe you did not ask for this responsibility, but we are groups of vast different opinions gathered together voicing our thoughts.  When there is no voice of reason then there is chaos. When there is no question of actions and words, then there is mob rule. When there is mob rule we cease to be level headed individuals.

    After the excitement of the Democratic convention, Democrats want and can see the Presidency in sight and now they do not want anything to get in the way. In fact, many tend to feel superior and act like Republicans. This is frightening because I always thought 'we' were better than that. I always thought DKos was better than that. Now after the primary and convention, the worse side of Democrats has emerged. I don't want to be like the GOP. So although your spirit is down right now, please do not silence your voice of reason. Mob Rule is not an option. Heh.

    If so, how did it make rec list? (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:39:33 AM EST

    The truth is that the community (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:06:10 AM EST
    moderation system is out-moded now that the site has grown so large.  The on slaught of 60,000 to 70,000 new users many of whom have no interest in following the rules and some of whom are probably operatives from the campaigns (or fancy themselves as such) has totally changed the quality of the site's content.  There is also a stunning lack of oversight on the part of the admins these days as well.  It is just a train wreck now.  Some people think a "smite this diary" button would help, but they don't understand that they are out numbered now by a combination of fools and trolls whose recommends would send those same diaries right to the top of the list regardless of whether or not a small group started pressing a smite button.

    A lot of people read things that please them - a story that appeals on whatever level - and the questions of taste, veracity and accuracy go completely out the window and they enthusiastically hit recommend!  It is human nature to cherry-pick stories that reinforce one's world view.  On dkos there's the added benefit of a recommend button to further reaffirm a belief system.


    well, if Markos has NO WAY (5.00 / 6) (#133)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:10:56 AM EST
    of controlling that stuff, or chooses NOT TO when he could, people should RIGHTLY assume he agrees with the sentiments.

    The admins deleted the diary in (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:22:36 AM EST
    question - but it was WAY too late by that time.

    They've been too lax in policing content since.

    To be clear - I am not making excuses.  Just saying what I think has happened.


    apparently (5.00 / 6) (#179)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:32:31 AM EST
    they left it out there long enough for it to have the desire effect.  They they deleted it so they could claim to be above it all.

    It sounds like most politicians who do the same with their surrogates.


    They are still talking about it on Morning Joe... (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:40:41 AM EST
    ...Joe Scarborough is trying to blame the media for picking up on a story from KOS and being gleeful about it. The reporters ont he show are vacillating between defending themselves and acting like they disapprove of the story. But I sense that by tomorrow they will be blaming lefty bloggers for the whole thing.

    i saw about 5 mins of Morning Joe (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:46:56 AM EST
    this morning.  And at that point they were attacking some Obama campaign member for calling Palin a Nazi for her past support of Pat Buchanan.

    I haven't heard any more about that yet as to what has happened to that member of the Obama campaign.


    I believe you give them way too (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:44:56 AM EST
    much credit.  I don't think they are that clever - nor do I believe that they are paying very close attention.  I say this because there have been some really embarassing things that would serve no greater political purpose at all other than total embarassment for the site itself that have been able to rise and stay on that rec list.  

    I think the problem is not the policing (5.00 / 9) (#196)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:36:56 AM EST
    or lack thereof. I can believe you that they site administrators are trying to make things better, although I will never go there again on principle to find out.

    The problem is the actual mindset and thinking of the progressive blogosphere, which has been exposed as completely vile and disgusting. You just can't put that genie back in the bottle.

    What I've learned from reading the comments (not the front pagers) of the main progressive blogs such as DK, TLC, Hullabaloo, is that progressives are just as much in the gutter as republicans. Those commenter are a representative slide of progressives in this country. And I can't unlearn what I learned from reading them. Nothing will make that fact go away, no site policing or anything else. They are just as sexist, bigoted, vile, and intolerant as the right.


    Probably even the trusted user thing is shot... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:13:29 AM EST
    ...now too since you can get enough people to agree with you no matter what you say.

    TU means nothing anymore. (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:29:48 AM EST
    I have no idea why I've never lost it - I often take a minority POV - especially over the course of the primaries and I wasn't racking up many recs at all during that time.  If I still have TU - I can only imagine that there are probably far too many people who have that status based on nothing more than a few well placed "Go Obama!" posts.  In any case, there's something wrong with the formula they are using given the site growth - and they are lacking in the general oversight department.

    Have a good week off (5.00 / 6) (#90)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:42:25 AM EST
    but please come back.  

    With friends like that! (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:43:12 AM EST
    As BTD has pointed out here, some of Obama's biggest sipporters are his worst enemies. In their efforts to promote him they've done him, the Democratic Party and most of all the progressive movement a disservice. Last night's episode of Larry King only reenforced my opinion.

    Obama has run his campaign from the start as the candidate of hope, vision and new politics. Now isn't the time to change that. There was never anything in his program about experience. And the dismissive attitude the Alaska doesn't count, Palin is a token, or the personal attacks can only hurt the Democrat's in November. There will be a backlash.

    As you have suggested (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:48:19 AM EST
    The Obama campaign itself must be staying on message and handling the Palin roll out quite well. Today's national polls look good for the Dems. (at least for today)

    Rasmussen Tracking +6
    USA Today/Gallup    +7
    CBS News              +8
    Hotline-FD              +9

    I like those numbers (5.00 / 3) (#221)
    by blogtopus on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:47:54 AM EST
    Not sure what accuracy can be ascribed to them, when election day comes I hope they are 100%!

    I didn't really support Obama until this Palin thing came around. Her views just reminded me how much worse it could be under a GOP admin.

    As much as I am COMPLETELY DISGUSTED with the O campaign, last week was a great one, and I finally decided that I'd rather deal with Obama. The last few days of 'pre-emptive arrests' in StP/Minn have convinced me that no matter how bad I consider the dems (cages at the convention??), the GOP always manages to one-up them.

    FWIW, Palin was a BRILLIANT move for McCain, and perhaps a necessary one for the Dems, too. How else to show how completely hypocritical the DNC is?


    newsflash (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:51:49 AM EST
    Palin is not dropping out.

    Yet. (none / 0) (#172)
    by JoeA on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:29:09 AM EST
    A long way to go.

    The fact that Intrade have started a market on whether Palin will be withdrawn,  and that it is up 8.9 points on the day (to 11.9) suggests that the conventional wisdom is that there is approximately a 12% chance of her withdrawing/being withdrawn.

    Of course the Conventional Wisdom is frequently wrong,  but I don't think you can make a judgement one way or the other at this stage.  If she knocks her speech at the convention out of the park or the media scrutiny cools of then chances are McCain will stick with his pick.  It would obviously be hugely humiliating to pick a new VP so things would have to be beyond dire for that to happen . . . and it would really REALLY annoy the Religious Right who have just got excited about getting one of their own on the ticket.


    trust me (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:32:00 AM EST
    she is not stepping down.  I would bet you my next paycheck.

    in fact (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:32:51 AM EST
    we know McCain knew this when he picked her.
    I said months ago that McCain was a smart tough old geezer.
    I think its possible he was HOPING for this.

    IF McCain knew about all of this, (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by JoeA on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:39:29 AM EST
    which I really really doubt (and I'm not about to take the McCain campaigns word as Gospel here),  then it just goes to confirm his Gambler Personality.  He decided to roll the dice and see what happens.  I'm not sure if his bet will pay off,  I doubt it and I certainly hope it doesn't, but I don't think it bodes well for the US if he gets into the White House.  Having a high stakes Craps Player who routinely bets thousands of dollars each time on the roll of the dice,  and has demonstrated that he is taking the same approach to his campaign,  seems to me to be very worrying.

    I believe he knew it (5.00 / 5) (#217)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:45:20 AM EST
    not because anyone said it but because it makes perfect sense to me.  he knew exactly what the left would do.
    it was yet another trap that the left did not walk but JUMPED into.

    Joe, we've had this discussion (5.00 / 4) (#225)
    by zfran on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:50:17 AM EST
    before. McCain knew what he was doing. He may not have known to what extent all this has been taken, but he knew how it would be taken and that it would grow. Seems the nation is pretty much ready to wait and see. When Biden was selected, Rasumussen (who I heard this morning) had a 39% approval as the right choice. Sarah Palin today has a 39% right choice. He said she also had a 52% approval rating right now. Pretty good for someone you had not heard of before, altho' I had (don't know if you did). And, so, again, it's Tuesday and we're still talking about her.

    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by samsguy18 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:59:57 AM EST
    So disheartening

    BTD (5.00 / 8) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:02:04 AM EST
    I am very sad that you have had it.  but I totally understand.  I was only on the internet briefly over the weekend and I was ashamed of what was coming from the left.
    not just because of the nastiness of it but the stupidity of it.

    BTD, have a nice break! (5.00 / 7) (#116)
    by Yotin on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:02:19 AM EST
    As Rudyard Kipling said, "you kept your head up high when all about you are losing theirs...".

    You deserve your break and enjoy!

    this is so incredibly stupid. (5.00 / 12) (#120)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:06:09 AM EST
    every family (that has teenagers and is honest) in america can relate to this.
    and they will be horrified by what went on at DKos over the weekend.  

    I predict (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Faust on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:08:02 AM EST
    BTD will be back in short order. The convention of rich white oligarchs is just warming up. I'm sure there will be something to talk about besides Sarah Palin.

    Like George Bush! (none / 0) (#153)
    by steviez314 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:20:01 AM EST
    He just said that Hurricane Gustav is a reason we need more offshore drilling.

    ummm (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Faust on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:35:34 AM EST
    for real?

    Oh why couldn't he have spoken at the convention!


    I miss you already... (5.00 / 5) (#130)
    by kredwyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:09:51 AM EST
    I am a confirmed fan o' Armando.

    I'll keep checking back to see when you return.

    Enjoy your break (5.00 / 6) (#131)
    by chrisvee on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:09:59 AM EST
    but please come back. Frankly, we need your voice desperately.

    How about that SEC?! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:11:30 AM EST

    Here we go again (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:17:18 AM EST
    Kaine was in no way being vilified.  His inexperience was sometimes brought up.

    Palin has been vilified.

    The difference between the two is exactly the point for a great many of us.

    I think its more (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:21:42 AM EST
    I think she is being vilified, at least in part, because they know how much of a threat she is.

    enjoy your vacation, BTD! (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Josey on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:18:55 AM EST
    A whole week??  please hurry back, we need you.

    I watched the first few minutes (5.00 / 5) (#161)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:24:45 AM EST
    of Bill Mahers show last night.  he started his screed against Palin by saying the only elected office she ever had before this was the mayor of a tiny town.
    honest to god.  do people think outright lying is going to help? do they think people are really that stupid?

    Have a nice break (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by AF on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:25:26 AM EST
    You're a great blogger and I'll look forward to your return.

    If I may make a suggestion, stop reading the liberal blogs that are annoying you so much and in particular stop reading the comments.  You don't need 'em.  The only comments section I read is talkleft, due to your and Jeralyn's Herculean efforts to keep it civil and on point.  


    The resuscitation of "Karl Rove" as dem (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by Yotin on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:26:28 AM EST
    What we're seeing is devoid of any human sensibilities. A bunch of Karl Roves have sprung up among the "progressive" community.

    We saw what they did to Hillary and Ferraro (when Ferraro opened her mouth).

    The personal details that have come out from Palin even made her more embody the experiences of several American families all on her own. She's in touch with the regular American and lives its values. And no one is perfect.

    Palin's thrust into national politics has exposed the agendas and bias in the media that can no longer be denied as when they did the same on Hillary.

    The American sympathy to a fellow being is slowly being eroded by the right wing and left wing communties.

    heh (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:34:07 AM EST

    I voted Hillary and now support Obama but I watched the Hillary/Obama jihads from the sidelines and found both sides offensive. I couldnt figure out where the vitriol came from but I saw it spraying around from both sides.

    By personal experience of Palin do you mean her efforts to fire her brother in law or her possible illegal efforts to aquire employment records?  I fail to see the everyman quality to that.


    Great! What sites have you been reading to miss it (none / 0) (#226)
    by Yotin on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:50:17 AM EST
    Firing an employee as a gov't official hardly qualifies as personal and private.

    And when you speak of firing the boss of her trooper bro-in-law, I actually found that admirable, nonetheless a misuse of office if true. She has more balls than most men and caribou bulls in Alaska. My admiration is she did it on the assumption that the trooper was cheating on her sister causing the messy divorce.

    But let's not be too hasty on this till we hear the investigation's report.

    On the other hand, officials commit ethical violation that impoverish public treasure and advance their political careers. Some sense of priorities is needed here.

    I'm, however, waiting to see if she has any Rezko-type deal in her past. Now, that's a legitimate issue to investigate.


    I said I was delighted (5.00 / 0) (#193)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:35:34 AM EST
    I'm pretty sure I know my how sentiments.

    Maybe they will feel sympathy for her because she got a DWI?  Or the fact that she was a member of a secessionist political party?  Or maybe they will have sympathy for her because she is virulently anti-choice and anti-gay rights?  

    This is only the beginning.  Wait till she starts giving interviews.  IMO, Sarah Palin has been given an almost impossible task.  She is expected to handle the intense national scrutiny of a Presidential election with almost no exposure prior.  

    I don't believe (5.00 / 11) (#208)
    by JAB on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:41:19 AM EST
    She got a DWI - her husband did - in 1984.

    Again, this is the kind of nonsense. we've only experienced from Republicans until this year. I expected better from us, but I am sorely disappointed.


    My mistake (none / 0) (#220)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:47:16 AM EST
    I misread the story.

    BTD--the sooner you come back, the better (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Pol C on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:37:57 AM EST
    You've done a great job of policing the bad actors on the Democratic side of things. You may be the Obama supporter Obama supporters love to hate, but you're one of the best friends that campaign has. Many of us have been taken aback by the ugliness and wrongheadedness of the response to Palin, whether it's the VPILF crap, the obnoxious speculations about her family (kudos to Obama for yelling boo on that), or even those expressing their dismay that Palin's views aren't the same as Lincoln Chafee's. We have to do our best to keep our house in order, even if we're among the Democrats who have decided to sit this election out.


    but.. (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:48:53 AM EST
    So Palin was right to pursue a vendetta against him and his boss as governor?  It was the boss who actually got fired.

    And custody disputes are full of ugly allegations. I wouldnt wade into one from fourth hand accounts and pick sides.  Unless demonizing the trooper is suddenly kosher? Wouldnt that be sexist, or racist or some kind of -ist?

    The other issue is the records.  There is an implication that team Palin had access to the troopers records while making their case to his boss.  That would be illegal access and is currently being investigated.  IIRC the right made a big stink about Hillary's access to FBI files in the 90s.

    Unless the standards have changed...which we all know they have. lol.

    Sarah Palin brings so many topics relevant to (5.00 / 7) (#231)
    by carmel on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:57:24 AM EST
    mothers and working mothers in America today. Troopergate is really about domestic violence and it is a huge issue for American women. The most dangerous time for a woman and her children is when they are trying to get out of a violent marriage. Why isn't the liberal left outraged that a police officer used his taser on his 10 year old stepson and WASN"T fired for it? The same police officer also said he was going to kill his wife and Sarah Palin's father. Any women who has ever experienced domestic violence understands those threats are serious. The scandal is not that Sarah Palin tried to get him fired, the scandal is the "old boys network" trying to protect him and let him keep his job. The lectures from the judge to the mother are just icing on the cake.

    Platforms. Policies, and Performance (5.00 / 2) (#232)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:01:37 AM EST
    I don't want to get into the personal side of Palin but as a feminist it is also a given to me that the personal is political. That has a whole lot of ramifications but also gives us the opportunity to talk about how a politicians actions and stated beliefs affect constituents daily lives.

    As progressives, we on TL are quite aware of how the laws affect individuals and our freedoms and rights.

    Right now the R's are having their convention - and the contrast between their platform and ours is stark, even where we might be disappointed in ours.

    We can focus on that, on the failures of the Bushies and highlight the effect on the people and our economy, our lives etc. We don't need to abdicate to the R framework or talking points - just repeatedly point out how their positions do not benefit 99% of the people.

    Me Too (5.00 / 6) (#234)
    by waldenpond on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:04:06 AM EST
    I can't take reading this stuff.  A week off sounds good.  The comments are so over the top, the site rules have disappeared and civility is down the toilet.  

    Trash the candidates and eachother.  Call each other Repub, right-wing, trolls, maggot, fool, ass, moron, dope, stupid.. link to sites about enemas and pictures of dead animals...

    have at it.  Party on!  woohoo!

    (P.S... no profanity, I will clean that up each day)

    Can we limit the Palin post to one per week please (5.00 / 1) (#238)
    by Saul on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:11:29 AM EST
    I thought the tote bag poll idea was just ridiculous. I think that was the straw the broke the camel's back for BTD's vacation.  Can't say that I blame him for taking a rest.

    agree (5.00 / 6) (#241)
    by jedimom on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:46:21 AM EST
    thank you BTD I feel equally upset by the behavior of liberal or pro0gressive blogs

    everyone on both sides of the aisle has spoken about how wonderful it was for Obama to get to this position as a man of color..regardless of his positions or his experience..

    why is it not equally wonderful for a woman to get to this position regardless of views?

    I think we are revealing an elitism in comments about her going to state schools, a sexism in any comments about her children or raising them, Biden was widowed and had two small children, no questions about how he would raise them..

    it is shameful IMO and is creating an unbelievable backlash we will be feeling in November IMHO.

    take the high road (5.00 / 5) (#242)
    by indie in CA on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:52:23 AM EST
    I took a break from writing/posting about the election yesterday, too. The attacks on Palin by people who think they are helping the Obama ticket have just reached the tipping point of vileness, misogyny and absurdity.

    Democrats should stick to the issues and the distinct policy differences between the parties. Not only because this current ugliness may harm the Democratic Party's chance of success in November but because it is the right thing to do.

    BTD, you're a good man.... (4.88 / 9) (#18)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:10:24 AM EST
    ...you are incredibly sane and we will miss you while you're gone. You really "get it" but sometimes that is a lonely place to be. Enjoy your break.

    Another edition of What Marcia Said (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:35:09 AM EST
    I think I seriously misjudged this place (4.87 / 8) (#12)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:00:55 AM EST
    for something other than it really is - likely due to an accident of timing when I came here.

    I wish you would have your own blog.

    BTD (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by JAB on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:02:33 AM EST
    and Paul Lukasik (sorry if I spelled it wrong).

    That would be a cool blog - all about polls and such!


    I've missed a lot of the blog coverage (4.81 / 11) (#5)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:50:53 AM EST
    dealing with my own family crisis over the weekend.  I'm still traveling but will take stock of things at the end of the week. I suppose that blogs sticking to issues would be about as popular as the McNeal-Lehrer News Hour, so I understand why personality-based issues get more play.  But I'll never be supportive of treating any candidate, male of female,  the way Hillary Clinton has been treated for the last 30 years.

    Ruffian, hope things are okay for you. (4.66 / 3) (#23)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:14:12 AM EST
    ...and as usual, I agree with you.

    Thanks - it is OK (5.00 / 11) (#40)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:31:06 AM EST
    My father's wife passed on after a very long illness.  Really a blessing for her, but hard on him emotionally nonetheless of course.  He was a caregiver for the last 2 years, and now finds himself at loose ends.  He is 80, and not in the best health himself, so there are also a lot of practical things that I couldn't help with from 1000 miles away, and as usual the almighty did not consult my personal schedule to make sure I had nothing else going on. ;-)  My sister and I have had some bonding time though, and I've gotten to spend a lot of time with my wonderful teenage niece and nephew, so I have been enjoying it in between cleaning the garage and basement.

    He wants to drive in to Chicago today to see his commemorative brick at Wrigley Field - tough thing will be convincing him to let me drive - not sure the kids are ready for a hair-raising adventure with Grandpa behind the wheel!  I know I'm not anyway.  I'm steeling myself for the experience.


    Aww..... (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:35:36 AM EST
    ..I hope the Cubs can give him a little comfort. They better not blow it! My best wishes to you and your family.

    Thank you so much (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:41:14 AM EST
    I hate to rely on the Cubs for providing comfort, but we all think that since this is the 100th anniversary of the last year they won the series, it must be their year.  Or else it will be another heartbreak of such monumental proportions it will take Dad's mind off things. ;-)  Either way, we do love those guys!

    I feel a little guilty (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Lil on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:43:25 AM EST
    now about being a Mets fan. I usually pull for the Cubs when the Mrts are out. Now I will think of you during the playoffs. Good luck with Wrigly trip.

    how about this (4.81 / 16) (#82)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:29:48 AM EST
    do not discuss her looks, her makeup, the way she dresses, the fact that she participated in beauty contests.  Do not discuss her childrean at all in any context.  Do not discuss her husband unless he starts campaigning for her.  then he is fair game in the same manner that Michelle Obama is.

    Also, when you do discuss Palin's policies and positions try not to do it using sexist metaphors like "Katherine Harris with better makeup".  Trying to be funny isn't going to help.

    Then, I would also stay away from discussion of her "lack of experience".  It only reinforces Obama's lack of experience.  You may think being an ineffective part-time state senator in ILL is light years ahead of being a small town mayor with executive responsibilities.  But, many people don't.  You may think being a governor for 18 months is less important that being a senator who began running for president his  first year in office, but many people don't.  If Obama's experience level was considered adequate, Biden wouldn't be on the ticket with him.

    And, all Palin has to do to respond to the "experience" charge is to say that in the unlikely event of McCain's death in office, she will aelect Joe Biden as her VP.  It fixed Obama's experience problems, so I guess it would fix hers too.  

    Sounds to me that you and pennypacker (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by domerdem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:00:12 AM EST
    are both right.  As Obama has said, the personal family stuff has no place in the discussion, nor do the items you raise, and Jeralyn has enforced this point.  On the other hand, I do not see how raising the following issues is inappropriate, which is a separate questions from whether it is politically wise to do so, particularly in light of her attempt to describe herself as a reformer:

    --  the accuracy of her bridge to nowhere story

    -- her lack of candor when asked about what role she, her family and her staff had in troopergate (which is separate from whether the trooper should have been fired rather than suspended)

    -- her involvement with a fringe political party

    -- her position as director of a pro-Stevens 527

    -- in response to attacks on Obama's experience, questions about her preparedness for becoming President


    What a great response to the (none / 0) (#151)
    by ding7777 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:19:21 AM EST
    "heartbeat away" question.  

    Yes, send them to the McCain camp stat (none / 0) (#171)
    by AF on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:28:38 AM EST
    They need some help.

    Have a nice break! (4.70 / 10) (#1)
    by JAB on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:43:48 AM EST
    I'm with you BTD - after reading some of the posts and comments here this week, I find its so-called "progressives" who are much worse than anything the Republicans have thrown out.  Some of these comments have been down right disgusting and cheap. I thought we were better than that, but I guess I was wrong - there is no difference.

    Bob Herbert ?!?! (4.83 / 6) (#214)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:44:27 AM EST
    I agree with JAB and BTD that much of this Palin stuff has been waaaay over the top, but citing a Bob Herbert column?!?!?  "Taking the high road"?  From someone who threw the race-baiter card at Hillary Clinton all through the primary (plus, the ridiulous RFK assassination accusation)?

    When Ann Coulter writes a column about the need for civility in public discourse, it will be only slightly less credible.


    Let us not be so quick to call them progressives. (4.62 / 8) (#63)
    by cpa1 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:04:21 AM EST
    These are the same animals from the DailyKos who ran everyone but Obama zealots off that site.

    These are the same animals who knew better about Ralph Nader in 2000 and one these jerks had the audacity to say to me that if the Demcrats lose in 2000, because of Nader, they deserve it.

    Unfortunately, these animals chose the 2008 presidential candidate and Obama knew just how to suck up to them.

    I am very glad Obama thinks family members are off limits after his first attacks were on Bill Clinton, first by saying he was no Reagan and then lumping him with George W. Bush and second by calling him a racist.  He was the kindling that fueled that hate on the DailyKos and the news media.

    He is the immaculate campaigner, pumping up his irrational supporters then pretending he's so clean, just like he was an immaculate conception being born 5 years before he was conceived.  Unfortunately, there is nobody else to vote for.  I pray evewry day for a Bloomberg/Clark third party ticket.


    cpa1........'People' not 'animals'... (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by vml68 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:10:20 AM EST
    I agree with your post but seriously object to the phrase 'these animals'. Only people behave like this, animals are actually much more "civilized"!

    I am not so sure, (4.40 / 5) (#76)
    by cpa1 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:24:24 AM EST
    I bet if my sheepdog got an account on the DailyKos he would become just as bad as the rest of those "people" left there because like most of them, he has no real knowlegde of what it is like to live in the real world, have a career, have a family and own a business.  He just sits there and waits to be played with and he would play with anyone, even the hate mongers on the DailyKos.  Soon, in a attempt to be one of them, he'd be saying the same kinds of things they say, just to be petted.

    Lol...... :-)! (4.33 / 3) (#119)
    by vml68 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:04:47 AM EST
    In his defense (and for all my dogs too)I will say that atleast with them there is no malice and no hypocrisy.

    Holy faulty analogy batman! (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by AF on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:00:13 AM EST
    Bill Clinton was out campaigning for Hillary every day, and she was running in part on his record.  It's absurd to suggest Bill was off limits.  

    you're right (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:03:22 AM EST
    it's just as absurd for Obama to claim Michelle is off limits as she has been campaigning for him.  But, Obama did try to claim she was off limits as well.

    Anything she says on the campaign trail (1.00 / 1) (#129)
    by AF on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:09:44 AM EST
    is fair game, but since Obama is not running on Michelle's career, her background and personal life is pretty irrelevant to his campaign and would be off limits in a perfect world.

    Obviously, that is not going to happen, and Obama knows this -- he's just protecting his wife.  


    You cant do that anymore... (2.33 / 3) (#145)
    by Richard in Jax on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:15:59 AM EST
    When did Obama call Clinton a racist? I remember him specifically stating HE DID NOT THINK CLINTON a racist? You cannot do this anymore. I voted for Clinton in the Florida primaries...now I will vote for Obama. You cannot do this anymore. Your own candidate has repudiated the Rovian garbage you spew here.

    Obama implied nonstop that the Clintons were (5.00 / 7) (#183)
    by WillBFair on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:32:59 AM EST
    racists. Even in his glorious race speech he wove in a supposed racial gaff by an unamed Clinton staffer, one of the sleaziest uses of low rhetoric I ever saw. And his surrogates and worshippers screamed the accusation from every blog, newspaper, and cable outlet in the land. Where were you?
    I'll certainly vote for him, only because he swiped the Clinton policy agenda, which is all that's important to me. But in my world, we call people on their abuses or they only get worse.

    His campaign (5.00 / 11) (#198)
    by BernieO on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:38:05 AM EST
    played the reverse race card in SC when they pushed the stories about Clinton being "racially insensitive" during that primary. His people made a point of combing through anything Bill, Hillary or her surrogates said that could be spun as such. For example, if you listen to the entire "fairy tale" statement Clinton was clearly talking only about Obama's claim to have been consistent in his anti-war statements but the Obama people spun it to say that Bill had called Obama's seeking the presidency a "fairy tale" and called it racist.
    In one debate Obama admitted to Tim Russert that his campaign had shopped this and many other stories to the media . (Russert actually had the list and it was long.) Obama said it was wrong but he did not deny knowing about this slimy tactic.
    To imply either Clinton is racist is the worst kind of politics. Both have worked their entire adult lives for civil rights and fighting for policies that would benefit the AA community. It is a big reason many Clinton Democrats have a hard time supporting Obama.  

    uh oh, the Obama didn't say it (4.55 / 9) (#166)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:26:04 AM EST
     himself defense.  Or, the Obama or his campaign didn't use the "exact" term racist defense.

    You know or should know by now that when this is said, the commenter is referring to the Clinton's being called for any of the following:

    playing the race card
    inserting race into the campaign
    trying to "ghettoize" Obama
    trying to remind voters Obama is black

    It is also widely assumed that if an Obama surrogate or member of the Obama campaign said it, it can be attributed to Obama himself as he is in charge of his campaign.

    It amazed me throughout the primary that anything either Clinton said or any surrogate said was immediately parsed to find the worst possible negative meaning.  But, the first and fastest defense ever used for Obama was always along the lines of Barack didn't say those exact words.


    I don't think they are worse (3.50 / 2) (#124)
    by Manuel on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:07:37 AM EST
    but certainy they have been no better.  It is human nature, I guess.  After their triumph in the 1996 elections, the Republicans betrayed all their conservative principles.  The Democrats are so close, they can taste it.  Will they hold on to their principles?  I worry about what this means for accountability.  I agree with BTD that for the most part the Obama campaign has handled this well.  Maybe we should be wondering how Obama can/will hold his supporters accountable.

    When Obama removes his ads from their sites... (4.60 / 5) (#200)
    by goldberry on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:40:15 AM EST
    ...then I will believe that he behaved honorably.  When he stops paying the blogger boyz to spread nasty stuff, then he'll be decent.  Until the payments and ads stop, he might as well be joining them.  

    It seems like you (3.00 / 3) (#66)
    by pennypacker on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:08:59 AM EST
    have never had a problem with all the irrational, and hateful things said about Obama on this website. I have seen countless unfounded rumours about OBama discussed on this website. Seems strange that now you are uncomforatable...especially when 90 percent of the stuff dealing with Palin are legitimate issues.

    ha (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:13:23 AM EST
    Exactly.  I'm sorry, I don't do mea culpa for all the 9/11 conspiracy nuts either.  The internet is full of people I don't agree with.  That doesn't magically make Palin a good potential president.

    well (1.50 / 2) (#233)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:03:15 AM EST
    Thanks to the McCain camp for stopping by,

    But um, isnt this basically a "she was justified in breaking the law" defense?  Sort of like Ollie North or G Gordon Liddy?  I'm sure she can get a show on FOX with credentials like that, especially if they can convict her on the records thing, but are FOX news resumes really kosher for national office?

    eh (1.00 / 3) (#45)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:38:04 AM EST
    This woman does have a lot of baggage.  What a single blogger said about her private life doesnt really interest me.  I know, as a fact, that this woman is a weak candidate.  Ive read her comments and find her to be the female George Bush, or Katherine Harris with better cosmetics.

    You can't let the usual right-wing cries of persecution (which they love so dearly) deny you the right to speak truth about their candidates.  That's exactly what they want.

    Yes (5.00 / 20) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:52:40 AM EST
    Truths like "Katherine Harris with better cosmetics."

    Thanks for reaffirming me in my views on this.

    Sexism with the blithe assurance that no one will call you on it.

    Sorry, I retire from the arena for now because this is the mindset that pervades this election.

    It is disgusting.


    "mindset that pervades this election" (5.00 / 7) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:53:58 AM EST
    I would add its the mindset that is going to assure loss of this election.
    the left has miscalculated this one by astronomical proportions.

    Capt, once again ... (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:25:43 AM EST
    you're a voice of sanity in this sea of hypocrisy.

    sometimes I wish (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:34:49 AM EST
    we did not seem so much like cryers in the wilderness though.

    the voters McCain (5.00 / 7) (#239)
    by ccpup on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:13:41 AM EST
    is targeting with Palin on the campaign trail will not be influenced or affected by anything anyone on the blogs or in the media says.

    The blue collar, rural and independent voters she'll meet on-the-stump could really care less about the bloviators on MSNBC or whatever.  What they'll see is an intelligent, feisty woman who isn't afraid to be charming while still speaking her mind, who is a lot like their next door neighbor and, whereas the other side offers Hope and Change, she and McCain are able to answer their concerns with specifics.

    I don't think McCain is caring what the "Liberal Media" says or does with respect to Palin.  Most discount and/or ignore what the media says anyway.  McCain-Palin's focus is entirely on those voting groups in the Swing States which will help decide this election.  

    And, in that, she IS a major, major threat.


    um, excuse me? (none / 0) (#64)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:06:16 AM EST
    Hey BTD,

    Is selective misquoting really all you bring to the table on this issue? I compared her to both a female GWB or katherine harris. The implictation clearly being a dim bulb. You selectively misquoted me to reinforce your pity party for her.

    That's fine, do as you see fit.  Just please dont mangle and selectively misquote me to work out your personal demons.


    I thought your analogy... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:21:24 AM EST
    was spot on, fwiw.

    Don't let the pc police get ya down, some of us still look at the context.


    yeah, those pc police (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:29:24 AM EST
    really do suck the air out of the room.  I sure would hate to have our candidates criticized in non-gendered, non-racist ways.  

    If I said "like a sexy Katharine Harris," would you think it was sexist?  


    Depends.... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:44:06 AM EST
    give me the rest.

    Palin is an empty suit, like a sexy Katherine Harris.  Not sexist.

    Palin is unfit to lead because she doesn't have a y chromosome, like a sexy Katherine Harris. That's sexist.


    you mean this would be OK with you... (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:47:59 AM EST
    Obama is a very inspiring speaker, like a black JFK.

    Why oh why do you feel the need to put "sexy" in the comment at all?

    Why can't you just say Palin is an empty suit, like Katherine Harris.


    That's fine with me.... (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:11:34 AM EST
    why the need to deny obvious truths?  

    Obama is an inspiring speaker, like an able-bodied FDR.

    Obama is an inspiring speaker, like a clean-shaven Abe Lincoln.

    Palin is an empty suit, like an Alaskan George W.

    Palin is an empty suit, like a better spelling Dan Quayle.

    Have I offended the physically challenged, the clean shaven, Alaskans, and good spellers?

    Maybe you look at every human being as a sexless grey-skinned being, but I find I am able to see and celebrate sex and race and still judge based on content of character.


    I am a little mystified (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:15:20 AM EST
    by your assessment  of Gov Palin.  I dont really know where it comes from if you have ever actually seen her speak in public but I can assure you that is not the view of a majority of the voting public.

    Hey Capt.... (none / 0) (#224)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:49:58 AM EST
    very few of my views seem to jive with the voting public at large:)

    I caught her speech when McCain introduced her, and read a little about her here..color me unimpressed...I see the same old-sh*t, except it's not an old white dude shoveling it this time.  


    I don't see what distinction you are seeing. (5.00 / 7) (#107)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:56:50 AM EST
    Both sentences unnecessarily bring sex into a political equation.  Why are you throwing in sex at all?  Sexual value has nothing to do with political competency.  

    There weren't a lot of comments on the sexual qualities of our presidential candidates between the exit of Hillary and the entrance of Palin. Wonder why that was.


    Of course... (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:19:36 AM EST
    gender has no bearing on political competency.

    I think I bang heads with people on political correctness because I refuse to let bigots and sexists handcuff the language for me....I like descriptive poetic language, not bland scientific language.  Their hang-ups and mental deficincies are not mine.


    Too often people use ... (5.00 / 13) (#97)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:49:22 AM EST
    attacks against "political correctness" as a "politically correct" way of defending racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia.

    If you think sexist, racist, homophobic or xenophobic attacks are okay ... just say that.

    Don't hide behind the shield of some mythical "police" you're fighting.


    Exactamente (5.00 / 11) (#101)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:53:08 AM EST
    Whenever I hear snide comments like 'the PC police are here', the translation for me is 'stop making us stop our racist and sexist commentary that we feel privileged to make'.

    honestly (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:55:12 AM EST
    people should watch something besides MSNBC.
    this pregnancy thing is not going to hurt Palin or the ticket.
    the right loves it.

    To give kdog his due (none / 0) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:55:19 AM EST
    He has been consistent on this issue since I have known him.

    This is not a conversion.

    I disagree with him of course but he is being principled in this.


    the left has made (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:59:45 AM EST
    a serious and likely fatal miscalculation on Palin.
    make my words.

    MARK my words (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:00:19 AM EST
    and it would be easier to do that if I could type them.

    Constinency is no defense ... (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:13:58 AM EST
    against being wrong.

    I like Kdog's independent voice and spirit.  And I often agree with him.

    But he's wrong about this.  I abhor the use of phrases like "pc police" as a way to disguise what you're really defending.

    Replace the phrase "pc police" with an appropriate synonym and his statement is untenable.  In fact, it would probably violate the comment rules of this site.


    quite apart from the fact that it is sort of vile (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:17:03 AM EST
    it seems to me a no brainer that it is going to help the McCain Palin ticket.

    Yes ... (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:32:57 AM EST
    with every hypocritical attack on Palin, I can feel her power and prominence grown and McCain's by association.

    I attempt to disguise nothing... (none / 0) (#213)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:44:22 AM EST
    Robot.  I'm for the exchange of ideas...brilliant ones and abhorent ones. I'm for evolving past the hang-ups of the past.

    I never agreed with the thinking we should all be color and gender blind...we can see, discuss, acknowledge, and celebrate our differences and still have liberty and justice for all.

    Back to the original comment for a sec...I have no reason to believe ct yank's aims are not true.  I have no reason to believe he discriminates against women.  And I agree that Palin is like Katherine Harris with better make-up.  

    Maybe you're right and I'm wrong...all I know is that I don't know d*ck...but that's how I feel, think of me what you will.


    Sure.... (none / 0) (#160)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:24:13 AM EST
    some people who complain about pc police just wanna be free to tell their bigoted and sexist jokes at the country club.  But that is not why I complain...I worry that too many of the pc police would side for the people in "The People vs. Larry Flynt"....I'm with Larry Flynt and free speech 110%.

    Taking to an extreme pc police would ban the adjective and the analogy alltogether I'm afraid.


    I am the first to bash the PC police (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:27:14 AM EST
    anyone who reads my comments here knows that.
    its not about that for me.  its about strategy.
    I think it is very bad strategy to say these things about an obviously smart accomplished competent woman who has a rather amazing record of fighting corruption.
    she is something of a superhero in her state.

    The "pc police" ... (5.00 / 4) (#205)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:40:41 AM EST
    is a mythical entity.

    "The people" (i.e. the state) in the case against Larry Flynt were not.

    There is a difference.


    Mythical entity? (none / 0) (#230)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:56:41 AM EST
    Honestly Robot, you don't think political correctness exists and has eager defenders?

    That honest debate has not been supressed to some degree?

    Fair enough, I disagree.  


    What about your exact phrasing (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:24:36 AM EST
    was a misquote, exactly?  

    Oh, dim bulb? (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:08:31 AM EST
    Well, that's SO much better.  Who could complain about that?

    I am really starting to look forward (5.00 / 5) (#138)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:13:02 AM EST
    to  her acceptance speech.  I have feeling she may take this stuff head on.
    she doesnt seem like the type to take a lot of crap from anyone.  I have a feeling it could turn out to be something to see.

    I imagine with all this hoopla, the (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by zfran on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:21:54 AM EST
    tv audience is going to be huge!!! That's one thing all of this has accomplished.

    exactly (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:33:42 AM EST
    caused to things interest and sympathy.

    You should have stopped with Harris. (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:32:41 AM EST
    See, there was no need to add better cosmetics. That was the rub. The message was that she is like them and not like Biden or Hillary. As long as people use feminine adjectives or snark words, and especially things they would not say about a man, then it is sexist.  

    Please leave the sexist remarks (5.00 / 7) (#56)
    by zfran on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:53:04 AM EST
    out. Would you have said the same about Kaine? I didn't know he wore make-up? This is part of the problem!

    Blowback for Dems/Obama will be worse (5.00 / 8) (#237)
    by Ellie on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:11:00 AM EST
    This "vetting" non-issue (presumably nudge-wink speak proving that whole Crazy John-POW McCain slam) is the sneering of one team of campaigners at another team's alleged ineptitude.

    This is deflection and has nothing to do with leadership, nothing to do with Obama's cred or experience, and nothing to do with McCain's.

    Just as with the bombshell announcement of Palin blew up so many of the Dems/Obama unexploded cluster bomblets when they and the media they encouraged strafed Sen Clinton AKA The Clintons with, this ordnance will continue going off during the GE.

    The vetting issue? Keep it up, Dems/Obama. The Rethuggernaut hasn't even begun to relive the John Edwards saga.

    They'll drag out Wright again too and (I predict) make it an issue of why it took 20yrs for Obama's judgment to kick in before disavowing his mentor. [/Ayers, Resko yadda yadda]

    Obama needs affirmatively to ask voters for their votes, and to show himself as a leader by example: His statement on Palin's daughter, and his own teenage mom was impressive, measured and sensitive. It lived up to his Politics of Change mantra. He looked more like someone I'd actively support, which was where I neutrally was before the Clinton-Obama civil wars.

    Showcase Obama's personal attributes and real talents (rather than pre-emptively pesterbotting a non-existent swiftboating) and Obama will win. (Clue: being a good fund-raiser and speech reader backslaps campaign staff; doesn't speak to leadership cred.)

    But make the campaign about his smug, irritating, self-congratulating campaigners and that's the Obama personality people will see.


    Surprisingly (none / 0) (#177)
    by nell on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:31:46 AM EST
    The Republicans have not been defending her as strongly as I would have expected...they seem almost caught off-guard at the hatred the media would spew towards Palin...

    I do not agree. All they have to (5.00 / 6) (#212)
    by zfran on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:44:17 AM EST
    do is sit back and the left will do all the work for them! Heard someone on tv today say, well Barack Obama works, Michelle Obama works, and no one is questioning their ability to take care of their family. I'm telling you, leave this one alone!!!

    You may have a problem with the MSM, (none / 0) (#207)
    by eustiscg on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:41:17 AM EST
    but it's still the MSM, and it's how millions get their political information.  It doesn't do you any good to condescend to it.

    When did the voters "prove" they don't listen to the MSM?  I got the impression they were pretty lemming-like this time around.  They supported Clinton in droves when she was "inevitable" and they moved to Obama when the MSM made a big show of eating their humble pie.  They avoided McCain when his campaign was bottoming out last summer and they moved to him when the media starting beating the drum of his surprise comeback.  Heck, when the MSM said "Three cheers for Fred Thompson" the median public said, "Yes sir, how loud?"  Were you thinking of a particular incident other than these?

    I'm thinking (5.00 / 3) (#216)
    by JAB on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:45:13 AM EST
    The more the press slammed on Clinton and loved Obama, the more they voted for Clinton.

    There was even a poll out a few weeks ago where almost half the people felt the media was in the bag for Obama.


    Have a nice break! (none / 0) (#218)
    by CST on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:45:48 AM EST
    Well deserved.  I had mine this weekend and missed all the hoopla.  Which I think I'm glad about.  We need to tread lightly here, continue to campaign against John McCain and republican policies, keep the V.P.s out of it. Obama can beat McCain, I think that speech went pretty well.
    If people don't lay off Palin there will be a backlash though.

    A lurid smear is not (none / 0) (#235)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:04:26 AM EST
    an ISSUE. It doesn't matter who agreed with it-it shouldn't have been there long enough for so many to comment on. The actual issues you mentioned are diminished in importance by the smear. Who will care about actual issues if they are raised by gossipmongers? It is hard to fathom that the diarist thought such a thing would help Obama or the credibility of DKos. Perhaps he thought the opposite.

    Unwise, unkind and, maybe, understandable. (none / 0) (#240)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:21:59 AM EST
    The range of criticism of Governor Palin seems politically unwise, and as BTD and many commenters here believe, the best approach is to downplay, if not ignore, the vice presidential pick--reclaim the discussion of issues and continue to make Bush the real running mate; some of the comments by some of the bloggers are over-the-top, and just plain unkind.  Having said that, some of the reactions may be understandable given the pent-up frustrations with Republican tactics and Democratic timidity over the years. Senator Eagelton was subjected to a despicable attack that drove him from the ticket and set back mental health issues for years. The result: McGovern replaced him with Shriver--so much for that.  President Clinton's relationship did not stop with its revelation, but continued with every salacious detail in Starr's public report. Gore's kiss of his wife was too long, on and on.. Senator Kerry wounded himself for a purple heart...Senator Clinton is evil incarnate...Senator Obama is a secret Muslim. Governor  Palin's record should not be immune from scrutiny and if their is hypocrisy in the reasons for her attraction to "mavericks" or the Dobson's of the world, it may be a fair issue. Just as Senator Larry Craig's bout with 'restroom leg syndrome" was a private issue, the hypocrisy of his anti-gay stances is what needs to be considered.

    Avoiding Palin is daft (none / 0) (#245)
    by pluege on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:52:12 AM EST
    we have, and have had psychotic republicans in positions of power running amok all over the place including bush with his finger on the nuclear trigger, and mccinsane - worse than bush looking to takeover that role. And the list is endless including cheney, rice, gonzalez, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, feith, etc. and there's limbaugh, dobson, robertson, and a host of other psychos with exceptional influence over them. And why do we have this condition...because the true psychotic nature of these people and their associations was suppressed - the information was not available in a timely manner to the voting public.

    Not publicly vetting Palin in aspects of her life  is not only daft, but it would be to continue the suicidal masochistic dalliance Americans have been on since reagun.

    And no, publicly vetting is not partaking of republican-style character assassination where lies and exaggerations are made up to defame. Lies and exaggerations are not necessary because republicans are in fact as extreme and psychotic as feared because of the things they actually do. Nor is engaging in sexism or any other "ism" necessary. But getting the truth fully disclosed in a timely manner is absolutely essential. (You would have thought everyone would have learned that lesson.)

    Slo-Mo Train Wreck (none / 0) (#246)
    by limama1956 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:27:09 PM EST
    When your opponent is hitting himself on the head, why stop him?

    McCain-Palin are doing as good a job as any in showing why this team is more about "Me First" than "America First".

    Now I know why McCain considered Palin a "soulmate" when they first met. Their ambitions exceeded their common sense.

    As for the MSM, truly, I think they're trying to play catch up after being asleep at the John Edwards wheel.

    The Palin situation is just too sad. (none / 0) (#247)
    by BronxFem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:05:27 PM EST

    I just heard (none / 0) (#248)
    by Bluesage on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:49:00 PM EST
    I was listening to CNN while chopping for my potato soup tonight and Sally Quinn came on to give her take on the Gov. Palin situation.  I am appalled at the ignorance of this dilentante.  Her views are an embarrassment to all women everywhere.  I'm certainly no fan of McCain or Palin and disagree with them on almost everything but this ridiculous woman needs to STFU.  She thinks that her daughters situation is a needed conversation because she is to appeal to conservative/religious women and they are, of course, going to think Palin has not been there for her children and not a good mother if this could happen.  Conservative/religious women also believe, according to Sally, that they must be subservient and available for their husbands so this job will just be too much for her.  She thinks because she has 5 children and one with Down's that she has too much on her plate and cannot handle a job this important.  She thinks the husband in a situation like this is pretty much worthless because raising of the children is woman's work.  This woman needs to go back to her worthless Ben and Nantucket and stay out of the public spotlight.  What a moron!  Being a woman who always worked and raised a child and a grandchild I wanted to climb into the TV and strangle this idiot.  

    Oops! (none / 0) (#249)
    by Bluesage on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:02:30 PM EST
    That would be "dilettante".  

    BTD. (none / 0) (#250)
    by canadian gal on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 09:50:34 PM EST
    im a fan.  that is all.