Saturday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 12:53:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Big Tent Democrat is working on a brief this weekend. I'm heading out for the afternoon, here's an open thread for you. Please be civil.

For those of you who are new readers, keep in mind TalkLeft is not a neutral site. It is an advocacy site. With less than 45 days to the election, we will do our part to promote the candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama and Joe Biden as well as Democrats running down-ticket.

I'm not interested in fostering debate on the candidates. We oppose McCain-Palin. That doesn't mean we won't have criticism or suggestions for Obama-Biden or the media. We will. We'll call the polls, news events and upcoming debates as we see them. [More...]

But comments opposing/attacking Obama and supporting McCain-Palin are limited to four a day per commenter, and they must comply with all the other comment rules.

As always, we will continue to present our disagreement on policy, issues, campaign strategy, media coverage and the like. We're not in lock-step with any candidate's campaign. But we are trying to win an election.

Once Obama-Biden are in the White House, I'm sure there will be plenty of criticism on TalkLeft as TChris and I return to advocating for reforms on criminal justice issues and Big Tent Democrat continues to present his own unique take on things.

If you don't like the coverage or focus here, the Internet is a vast and wide place, I'm sure you can find a place that is compatible with your views.

Again, this is an open thread.

< Bush Submits $700 Billion Bailout Proposal to Congress | Alaska Paper Calls Out Palin for Allowing McCain to Take Over TrooperGate >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Saturday Open Thread | 58 comments (58 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Go Gators!!!! (5.00 / 0) (#3)
by Amiss on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 01:14:03 PM EST

For BTD today. :)

That's a troll worthy statement :) (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Teresa on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 01:30:43 PM EST

Are there football trolls? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by EL seattle on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 01:51:34 PM EST

And if no, why not?

And does any sports team have a troll as their mascot? Ya may not like 'em, but trolls are sure hard to defeat.


Syracuse used to have 'Egnaro the Troll' (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by steviez314 on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 01:54:22 PM EST

as a mascot for a few years in the 80s.


What happened (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by NYShooter on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 03:25:51 PM EST

to the "Oranges?"


: Oranges came after the troll (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by steviez314 on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 03:55:25 PM EST

I know of.... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by CoralGables on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 02:06:50 PM EST

no trolls, but Scottsdale Community College are "The Fighting Artichokes".


What has 200 Feet and 70 Teeth? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Socraticsilence on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 02:05:42 PM EST

The first row at Neyland Stadum. Go Gators!


Ohio and Florida (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by WS on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 01:48:05 PM EST

I'm really heartened by the new Ohio and Florida numbers. Once thought to be leaning McCain, these states now have toss up status.

I think Obama should do some Ohio specific and Florida specific proposals to get some positive news for those states.

For Ohio, one idea is to propose a public works project like the Ohio Hub, a High Speed Rail initiative to connect Ohio's major cities/metro areas. This should be in conjunction with a wider Midwestern rail network.

Private investment is slow in Ohio and an announcement of public investment in the state can bring attention, investment, jobs, and help connect job opportunities for more areas of the state. Private investment can follow suit especially in downtown areas that rail can help spur.

Where would the money come from? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by nycstray on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 02:05:20 PM EST

Through bonds, silly (none / 0) (#19)
by WS on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 02:51:30 PM EST

Normal transportation funds that highways regularly gets 80% from federal sources and 20% from state and local sources.

Governing is about priorities and I think this should be one. Return on investment in these areas would more than make up for the expense of building the rail network.

For the federal budget, rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the top 5%, the estate tax, and capital gains tax will restore revenues somewhat. Plus, ending the Iraq War will help to remove a huge liability.

Certainly, belt tightening needs to occur and some of that can be from the military budget (like during the Clinton years). But that doesn't mean we can't pick and choose what to invest in. Investing in infrastructure and health care are good bets.


Like to add (none / 0) (#20)
by WS on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 02:52:42 PM EST

that rail should get the same funding mix as highways (80% federal, 20% state and local).


Bonds, silly? Bonds borrow money (none / 0) (#21)
by Cream City on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 02:54:56 PM EST

and you may have read that there is a bit of a problem now about finding lenders, at least on this side of the Pacific Ocean. But what the heck, we've been borrowing so much from Asian investors that maybe they'd like to buy Ohio, too!


Its not just (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by WS on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 03:00:14 PM EST

for Ohio. Rail networks can be built for other parts of the US. California has an HSR initiative that will hopefully pass.

That's why we need a Democrat in the White House to bring back fiscal responsibility. We had it during the Clinton years and we can have it again under Democratic leadership.

Besides, don't you agree with Hillary that we need to invest more in mass transit?


Sure, but the question remains (none / 0) (#26)
by Cream City on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 03:05:12 PM EST

where are you going to borrow the money for any state -- at least for what looks like some time now, until we figure out what we still own here and what it's worth here? Now, if this is a public works project that would employ many while not padding the pockets of a few, as too many of these projects have tended to do, you might have a deal. We even could call it Another New Deal.


: Certainly (5.00 / 3) (#27)
by WS on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 03:09:36 PM EST

we need to get back to fiscal responsibility. Infrastructure can be paid for in bite sized pieces year after year to reduce the sticker shock. The important thing is to start now.

Great Lakes Restoration (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Politalkix on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 02:55:30 PM EST

The Obama-Biden plan to invest money to jump start Great Lakes restoration projects should help the regional economy in northern Ohio. I hope this is just the start of some bold new proposals to help the ailing economy of the rustbelt states.


Good point, and living near one (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Cream City on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 03:03:10 PM EST

of the lovely lakes, I was glad to see it. Yes, there is dire need for "sewage treatment improvements, rehabilitation of toxic sites and wetlands restoration." But to the suggestion of yet more roads projects and the like, an industry already represented by some of the most successful lobbyists around the lakes -- please, please, no more paving of our paradise and creating yet more runoff problems. Or putting rail projects through it without anticipating consequences.

On this one, I hope Obama has learned a lot by being in one of the worst cities for reshaping the environment -- Chicago, which even reversed the direction of a river to dump its sewage problems into the Great Lakes for the rest of us. And still pours green dye into it annually, to the joy of the Irishers.:-)


Rail would (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by WS on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 03:48:11 PM EST

help alleviate traffic congestions, highway expansions, and pollution from cars by reducing the need for people to use their cars. People can have more of a transportation options to get from A to B when road, rail, and flight work in tandem.

It can certainly take up a niche of the "too far to drive, too short to fly" segment of the US transportation network.


But rail has been shown (none / 0) (#49)
by Cream City on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 06:13:37 PM EST

to also act, like roads, to increase urban sprawl.

And urban sprawl has been one of the factors so bad for the Great Lakes. And I am not sanguine about good planning, from what I've seen. So if the planning would not be kowtowing to the roadbuilders and other transportation lobbies that run my state on the Great Lakes, I might hold hope. But light rail has been such a political football here that I'm not hopeful about it anytime soon. And there are the more important improvements noted above in the Obama/Biden proposal that cannot wait any longer, with the invasive species and dropping lake levels.


Light Rail in Denver... (none / 0) (#51)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 07:19:41 PM EST

...is exceeding most everyone's expectations. My only disappointment is that the planned expansion is being scaled back due to decreased funding and soaring fuel prices.

It is a shame that it has become a political football in places that are really struggling with public tranportation issues--like Seatlle. But at least after years of bickering and studying, they're going to have a light rail line open one day soon. One more piece of the puzzle, along with heavy commuter rail.

As to the increase in urban sprawl, I've seen in-fill/redevelopment of existing urban areas around the mass transit hubs and nothing that I would consider sprawl. Certainly better planned and designed neighborhoods than before.


Light Rail (none / 0) (#52)
by WS on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 07:30:42 PM EST

does help to make places denser through Transit Oriented Development (TOD) whether in the city or the suburbs.

Of course, we don't want light rail to go too far out into pristine undeveloped areas but certainly, light rail can go to already built up areas that have a built in population.

For cities, streetcars would be advisable as it reduces the need for a car for city dwellers and also makes the place even more pedestrian oriented and less automobile oriented.

HSR would be considered heavy rail. Their purpose is for environmentally friendly, efficient, and quick way to travel in between urban areas. An example would be the Acela in the Northeast. Ticket prices would not be the same as streetcar, light rail, or bus fares because its not meant to be used as day to day commuting but to ease travel in between areas and connect metros economically.


One of the biggest transportation... (none / 0) (#56)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 10:07:34 PM EST

...issues in Colorado right now is figuring how to move people from the Front Range to the ski areas/mountain communities and reduce the traffic congestion on I-70.

Heavy rail to cost prohibitive due to the terrain, as is widening the highway--which would include drilling more bores in the Eisenhower tunnels. Maglev and monorail are being looked at, but also fairly expensive.

Heavy commuter rail would be great for connecting the communities along the Front Range--from Pueblo to Fort Collins. Or even going as far as from Santa Fe to Wyoming.


: I'm not all that Familiar (none / 0) (#58)
by WS on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 08:23:11 AM EST

with that area. Does Amtrak cover that area? I know Amtrak isn't all that reliable in the Mountain West and that's something the government need to work towards improving.
Those places are not as dense as other parts of the US. Correct? I do think denser places need to get higher priority but if the funding is there then go for it. Most likely, funding is going to be a problem though but we need to take it on a step b step basis.
Rail has been underfunded for so long that most parts of the US need funding to get started or to upgrade. Lets hope Obama wins and gets the ball rolling.

In other news... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by EL seattle on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 05:11:08 PM EST

Good news! (At least, hopefully.)

Cheney shouldn't go on a DELETE Bender.

The Cubs make the playoffs! (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by caseyOR on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 05:33:25 PM EST

The Cubs beat the hated Cardinals today and clinched the division title. Oh, please, let a World Series title be ours this year.

: Go, Cubbies! (5.00 / 2) (#46)
by tootired on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 05:58:42 PM EST

The Internet is not really vast and wide (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by MikeDitto on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 05:48:37 PM EST

It's more like a series of tubes.

Or so Sarah Palin's Incredible Hulk tie-wearing friend told me.

Down Ticket Dems Post, Please? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by kredwyn on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 06:00:45 PM EST

There are a lot of Dem candidates running in addition to the national campaign. And we have a lot of posters here who are volunteering for those candidates.

Is it possible to get some posts that promote those candidates?

Please?

how about if you write (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 06:08:02 PM EST

some diaries about them? I'll promote them in an evening open thread.


: I would love a diary promotion post every (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Teresa on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 06:54:10 PM EST

now and then. We've had some good ones that barely get noticed. I think we just forget they are there. Plus, those diarists might write more often if they had more response. By the time I remember to check, it's too late to recommend them.

: I wrote one a couple days ago... (none / 0) (#54)
by kredwyn on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 08:32:46 PM EST

re: the back and forth between the nominee and the Congressional leadership...pointing out two different seats that are new (2006) Dem seats in the House that could use some support.

Obama hits 50% in 2 tracking polls (none / 0) (#1)
by magster on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 01:01:08 PM EST

R2k and Gallup.

and a commenter at Open Left says Diageo/Hotline adjusted their partisan ID numbers more favorably to McCain, explaining the tightening of that poll.

its good news (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 01:35:41 PM EST

If he can keep a 6 point lead (or expand it) before the debate, he'll have some cushion. That puts him in a position to really put this one away if the debate goes for Obama.


: You can get a migraine (none / 0) (#30)
by NYShooter on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 03:30:38 PM EST

So what does this mean?
Real Clear Politics Poll of electoral votes
No toss up states....Obama/Biden +8, Counting toss ups...McCain/Palin +14

Question - maybe you know (none / 0) (#2)
by Pianobuff on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 01:12:43 PM EST

The party id split for the last 4 weeks or so with Gallup. There some to be some inconsistencies with overall vs. internals and I'm wondering if those have been modified too.... Any info on that one?


Gallup tracking doesn't weight by party ID (none / 0) (#5)
by steviez314 on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 01:28:06 PM EST

or anything else. They just get their 1,000 registered voters.


Surely they weight by demographics (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 01:32:58 PM EST

Though it would be nice if they were more transparent.

I don't know what the pollsters think they gain by using "special sauce" methodology.


: I stand corrected. They weight by the census. (none / 0) (#12)
by steviez314 on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 01:51:45 PM EST

: Is it me? (none / 0) (#14)
by Pianobuff on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 01:54:27 PM EST

Or when you look at the internals over the last month they don't seem to match the overall? For instance the Republican bump post-convention seems to be exaggerated and conversely last week's breakdown doesn't match the top line. It's hard making sense out of this.

We still have a long way to go (none / 0) (#4)
by CoralGables on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 01:25:19 PM EST

This may help explain why Obama is only up by a few instead of by 10

WASHINGTON - Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks -- many calling them "lazy," "violent" or responsible for their own troubles.

more here

That is really problematic methodology (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Cream City on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 01:37:13 PM EST

used in that survey. No wonder it's "unique"!

It would be somewhat more useful if this was reported by states, especially swing states, and if it also had tested misgivings about gender -- again, especially in swing states. That would give a better sense of how much biases may matter in this election.

That they exist in this society has been more than evident in this election season, already -- and before this year, based on many surveys that use more proven methodology. So this is sadly not news, unless it is made useful as an election projection.


Yeah, (none / 0) (#18)
by frankly0 on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 02:41:29 PM EST

when you read some of the questions they use to uncover hidden "racism" or "racial misgivings" or however they choose to describe it, it starts to look more and more as if the single-minded goal of the methodology is to attach those labels as broadly as possible so that they can declare the problem to be as deep-seated and as important as possible.

This seems to be the latest trick to try to extend the life and scope of "racism" charges, however poorly based. Even as society genuinely changes, and people become in general far more accepting of others from different races and backgrounds (and I don't know how any fair person could deny that absolutely major strides have been made over the decades), many on the left who seem to base their entire ideology on the existence and perniciousness of such biases must find new ways to "expose" their existence in people who mostly have, in fact, become infinitely more tolerant.

I'm sure, for example, that a great number of the people who supposedly, according to this methodology, won't vote for Obama because they have "racial misgivings", would gladly vote for someone like Colin Powell, because they identify him with a different set of values, far more akin to their own. If this is so (and I'll admit it's somewhat speculative, short of conducting a careful survey), in what important sense might they be "racists", or harbor "racial misgivings"? Surely in any meaningful and useful sense of those terms, Colin Powell should likewise present major difficulties for them. But I'd be astonished if, for most of them anyway, Powell's race would present any kind of real obstacle.

Now I have little doubt that 40 years ago, a figure like Colin Powell, simply because of his race, would have no realistic chance of being a major political figure on the national scene who might enjoy serious prospects. That would be, and was, real and pernicious racism.

Now the point here is not that there aren't real cases of unregenerate racists in our midst. Certainly there are. I won't pretend to know their number, and I don't know who could. But what I also very much believe is that there tens of millions fewer today than there were 40 years ago -- and perhaps millions fewer today than even 10 years ago.

Any methodology that starts to drum up "racism" in stupendous numbers by lowering the bar to a point of near absurdity, and fails to acknowledge and account for the undeniable vast movement in societal attitudes over the decades, is a methodology to be deplored as a transparent ideological tool.


"Transparent ideological tools" (none / 0) (#23)
by Cream City on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 02:57:06 PM EST

are all too easy to find these days, huh? Good phrasing after a well-written analysis of even part of the methodological problems; thanks. I was looking more at the skewing of the selection process, which is problematic enough even before the questions asked of those somewhat self-selecting themselves -- and online, yet. Ugh.


You're certainly right (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by frankly0 on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 03:19:15 PM EST

that the selection process itself seems to be inherently and deeply flawed. How can these "scientists" really demonstrate that the subset of people they can entice to respond online isn't skewed in some important way?

And I have to say I was truly disgusted by this remark:

"There are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean there's only a few bigots," said Stanford political scientist Paul Sniderman who helped analyze the exhaustive survey.

Just to show how viciously unfair that remark is, consider the following point, also raised in the article:

Among white Democrats, one-third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama.

What are the implications of this fact? If 58% of those presumed "bigots" still are voting for Obama, then what does "bigotry" even mean anymore?

Any sensible person would say that the willingness of so many voters to vote for a black man despite being counted as a "racist" or harboring "racial misgivings" by a given measure would be a knockdown argument that that measure was deeply defective.

But, apparently, for the likes of this idiot political scientist, and some of the other perpetrators of this survey, it just makes perfect sense that such people would still vote for a black man.


C'mon that's ridiculous ... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Robot Porter on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 03:55:06 PM EST

any form of prejudice is problematic for society.

Racial identity should have no bearing on how you view a person. Be it positive or negative.

Ignoring personal "racial misgivings" and voting for a candidate doesn't obliterate those racial misgivings.

It merely suggests that those attitudes are not a determinative factor in one small area of these individual's lives.

And, from where I sit, that seems like a fairly true measure of where our society currently is.


Who's being ridiculous here? (none / 0) (#37)
by frankly0 on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 04:05:20 PM EST

The notion that the toxic pejoratives of "bigot" and "racist" might be applied to people who consciously choose a black man is over a white man in the current circumstances is simply contemptible.

As I said, what it really shows is just how far some ideologues on the left are willing to go to hurl the accusation of "racism" and "bigotry" as broadly as possible.

If one's "bigotry" against blacks is so shallow, and of so little significance in one's personal choices, that one chooses a black man like Obama over a white man like McCain, then what do these terms mean anymore?

What the authors of this study really seem to be trying to do is to find some way -- any way -- that they can to smear opponents with understandably toxic labels like "bigot" without those terms meaning anything like their original meaning.


You're saying ... (none / 0) (#39)
by Robot Porter on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 04:26:19 PM EST

choosing a black man over a white man for a job proves you're not a bigot.

That's idiotic on its face.

In fact, role acceptance has always been an element of racial and ethnic prejudice. And there's a real argument as to whether the shifting or expanding of role acceptance is actually way to eliminate prejudice, or merely a way to continue it in another form.

This study seems to suggest the latter.


: Look, (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by frankly0 on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 04:42:24 PM EST

please don't throw meaningless terms like "role acceptance" around as if they truly denote something important in the current political context, OK? Gobbledygook like that may mean a lot to you, but it doesn't to most people.
Why don't we go to the bottom line in this "study"?
I think it is to be found in the statement I quoted above:

"There are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean there's only a few bigots," said Stanford political scientist Paul Sniderman who helped analyze the exhaustive survey.
The entire point of this study is to be able to call a large segment of those who won't vote for Obama "bigots". If it weren't for the understandably toxic significance of that term, who would care about being called one? Yet what is that toxicity based on? It's based on a long history of genuine racism and bigotry that led to people being lynched, being relegated to a secondary role in a segregated society, to being denied jobs, etc. The notion that that same term might be applied to people who, in the current circumstances, choose a black man like Obama for President over a white man like McCain, borders on the obscene.
Yes, I should say that if someone is a "bigot" and yet chooses Obama over McCain, then being a "bigot" is hardly determinative of one's choice. In fact, it's not even meaningful. And again, it's fully 58% -- a very nice majority -- of white Democrats who are termed "bigots" on this measure who are in this category.
Really, are you going to say that these 58% are voting for Obama over McCain really deserve the moral opprobrium of the term "bigot", simply because these pieces of work at Stanford who designed this study have declared they must be, because they answered certain questions in the way they did?

Let the debates begin (none / 0) (#31)
by Politalkix on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 03:35:16 PM EST

The New York Times reports on the debates

I am furious today (none / 0) (#32)
by ruffian on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 03:44:36 PM EST

Will someone please explain to me how we can run a campaign based on Republican/Bush mismanagement of the economy, and then embrace his bailout solution?

Dems better have a better idea this week.

well (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 04:12:41 PM EST

Democrats cant argue with the president's men when they say we are on the verge of disaster. These are issues for specialists and I've yet to hear a specialist say we aren't in big trouble.


We all agree we are in bug trouble (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by ruffian on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 04:46:54 PM EST

but the argument needs to be that we can't trust Republicans to get us out of it. You don't make that argument by endorsing Republican solutions.


Ha - I meant big trouble (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by ruffian on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 04:47:38 PM EST

Bug trouble as well here in Florida.


: Love-bug trouble (none / 0) (#53)
by Amiss on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 08:06:45 PM EST

Indeed! We are in deep ca-ca too on the financial front as well.

It's idiotic ... (none / 0) (#36)
by Robot Porter on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 03:57:07 PM EST

and demonstrates that many politicians on our side haven't thought deeply about this.


"not a neutral site" (none / 0) (#55)
by diogenes on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 10:05:57 PM EST

If this is an advocacy site then you're preaching to the choir and are not testing your premises in open debate. Don't candidates sharpen themselves for debates by practicing against people who imitate the other candidate (much like debating the proverbial troll on a website)?
At least do what Kos does and tell the choir which candidates to give money to. Otherwise, pure advocacy by Obama supporter to Obama supporters will siphon away emotional energy that might be better spent working for the candidates (or moonlighting at McDonalds and giving Obama the money).

: Well (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by flyerhawk on Sat Sep 20, 2008 at 11:35:16 PM EST

the problem is that there are a lot of people pretending to be something they are not.
Additionally there is a difference between defending McCain and advocating for McCain.
I am a long time poster at RedState. But I don't post there now because there is simply no way I could be objective or reasonable with them, and vice versa.
I suspect that Jeralyn would give an open McCain supporter quite a bit of latitude in what they can or cannot post here. But when you have countless posters who professed to be life long Democrats but who find McCain compelling and offering the right solutions, you clearly have to do something to limit divisive rhetoric.