Halperin: McCain Wins The Week

Demonstrating what how foolish he can be, Mark Halperin gives last week to McCain.

A few more "winning" weeks like that, and McCain will be in McGovern territory.

This is an Open Thread.

< Dodd's Answer To Paulsen's Blank Check Plan | Dems Should Urge Bush To Quickly Pass Their Main Street Plan >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Ladies and Gentlemen, (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by dk on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 12:51:43 PM EST
    McClurkin, part deux.

    Nice (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 12:54:37 PM EST
    real nice.

    but but . . he's got granite worktops (none / 0) (#12)
    by JoeA on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:08:24 PM EST
    in the kitchen!!!

    ignore that comment, wires totally crossed. (none / 0) (#13)
    by JoeA on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:08:58 PM EST
    Don't see the issue. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by JoeA on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:17:56 PM EST
    Kmiec supports Obama despite Obama's opposition to prop 8 or Obama's pro choice views and policies.

    I would echo the comment at Pams House Blend here.


    That viewpoint adds up only if one (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Joelarama on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:25:09 PM EST
    accepts that equal rights for gays do not have the same value as equal rights for women, African Americans and other minorities.

    This is another anti-gay religious figure featured in an Obama event.

    Try putting someone who has spoken against interracial marriage on a stage for Obama.  It won't happen.

    Nice, to quote Andgarden.


    Honestly, McClurkin etc. is already (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:29:43 PM EST
    factored into my support for Obama. The train has left the station, and I'm not jumping off into a McCain Presidency.

    But what really upsets me is when people try to defend stuff like this with the same nonsense arguments that we've been hearing for almost a year. No, it's not acceptable, and it will never be acceptable.


    I have to say I'm torn. (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by indy in sc on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:49:18 PM EST
    I felt one way when I first saw the post, but in reading your comments and the comments of some of the other posters, I'm gaining new perspective on the matter.  I'm going to keep pondering the points and see where I come out.

    Thank you for your comments here--they have been most enlightening.  This is greyer than I first thought (I recognize that for you it's black and white, but it was for me too and now it's grey and possibly darkening in your direction). Hmmm.


    I'm saying the same thing now (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:55:01 PM EST
    that I was saying last October.

    Suppose you were a Muslim and Obama had put someone on stage who proceed to say that 'God delivered me from Islam'?

    This is a really sore subject for some of us.

    Really, this is why it's almost impossible for me to be anything other than a very tepid Obama supporter.


    Well, I'm Jewish and 30% of the Republican Party (2.00 / 1) (#56)
    by steviez314 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:58:08 PM EST
    thinks I need to be saved or I'm going to hell.

    I'll pass on that, thanks!


    No question (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:59:23 PM EST
    But an election should not be a hate contest.

    You're being unrealistic. (3.50 / 2) (#30)
    by JoeA on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:31:38 PM EST
    If you want to be that pure then neither Hillary or Obama deserve your vote. Maybe you should sit on your hands or vote for Cynthia McKinney.

    There's a wide gap (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:40:55 PM EST
    between not "being pure" and simply throwing it in someone's face. The McClurkin fiasco will not be forgotten by a lot of people. Having this guy appear with Obama is just throwing salt on a wound. It's a bad move. If Obama is really opposed to Prop 8 he needs to show some guts.

    How many votes is he going to win by appearing with this guy that he otherwise would not win?

    I'll venture to say... none.


    The only thing worse than having $h*t thrown (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:42:51 PM EST
    in your face is having other people tell you variously that a) it's not actually happening; b) it's good for you; c) deal with it. Sometimes all in the same comment!

    Exactly. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:51:49 PM EST
    Where did I say I'm not voting for Obama? (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Joelarama on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:20:34 PM EST
    I am.  But he continues to disappoint on this issue.

    And, this is not a question of purity.  Obama opposes legalized gay marriage (apparently), but also opposes this Proposition.

    This is a constitutional amendment to overturn the marriage rights of millions of Californians.  

    Really, this attitude that I ought to vote for McKinney if I dare to criticize the nominee reminds me very much of the crap we saw from Obama supporters in the primary.  And I'm not going back there, but I'm also not going to "love it or leave it" when it comes to my progressive beliefs not being represented by the nominee, particularly on a core issue of civil rights.


    I certainly never suggested voting for McKinney (none / 0) (#96)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:45:34 PM EST
    The very idea of voting for McKinney is offensive to me.

    My comment was a reply to JoeA, (none / 0) (#103)
    by Joelarama on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:57:20 PM EST
    who suggested might as well sit on my hands or vote for McKinney if I criticize Obama on this issue.

    Add this to Obama's flip flop (none / 0) (#119)
    by kenosharick on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:31:40 PM EST
    on "don't ask, don't tell" and sorry I am NOT voting for the"lesser of two evils" this time. This crap is a dealbreaker for me. Time to draw the line.

    Nice framing, but wrong (none / 0) (#128)
    by jccleaver on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 06:45:29 PM EST
    That viewpoint adds up only if one accepts that equal rights for gays do not have the same value as equal rights for women, African Americans and other minorities.

    Simply put, America didn't fight a bloody Civil War with 100,000+ dead soldiers over homosexual marriage. Homosexuals attempting to 'marry' were not barred from the voting booth on a systemic basis for 75 years afterward. A 55 year movement working state by state to give voting rights to homosexuals attempting to marry wasn't necessary, and it didn't result in the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Homosexual's attempting to marry were not afforded "3/5 of a person" status in the US Constitution.

    Equating all social issues to the history of racial relations and status is a favorite tactic of the modern progressive movement, but it is intellectually and morally wrong -- there is NO comparison.

    Blacks didn't have the virtue of the ballot box on a consistent basis until the mid 1960's (except for the immediate Reconstruction Era) and civil rights amendments to the Constitution. Women pushed for a Constitutional Amendment to guarantee their voting rights on a National level (as opposed to the state-by-state basis that existed till then). Loving v. Virginia was based out of that history of racial discrimination and inability to adequately push their own interests at the ballot box due to institutional interference.

    Neither of those cases are present today with the (relatively young) push to expand marriage to include homosexual couples. No one is keep pro-gay marriage advocates from expressing themselves or their viewpoints and arguments, or from placing their changes up for debate, or from voting themselves.

    If same-sex marriage isn't approved by the voters, it's because its proponents have failed to convince them. If the right to vote and the right to be free had to be enacted via Amendment, perhaps the most fundamental rights of ALL in a democracy or republic, there's no reason the 'right' to same-sex marriage should be considered worthy of bypassing the democratic process.


    Ridiculous. (none / 0) (#130)
    by dk on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 07:06:35 PM EST
    Your argument would be fine if it were against someone who said that gay people have suffered as much as/the same as African Americans.  But no one is saying that here.  I see this as two issues

    1.  Do gay people deserve the civil rights that heterosexual people have.  Yes or no?

    2.  Is bigotry of any sort to be legitimized in any fashion (for example, by knowingly capitalizing on the support base of bigots through known bigoted surrogates while saying you are doing so to reach out to people with "values") simply because those who are practicing such bigotry rationalize their bigotry with religious arguments.  Yes or no?

    Not quite rediculous (none / 0) (#139)
    by jccleaver on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:13:53 AM EST
    1. Do gay people deserve the civil rights that heterosexual people have.  Yes or no?

    Absolutely. If men could marry both men and/or women, while women could only marry men, this would be a clear-cut case of sexism. If heterosexuals could marry any other individual while homosexuals could marry only men, or could only marry someone of their same gender (etc), this would a case of "unequal rights".

    As it stands now (except in MA/CA), any person (gay or straight) may marry any person of the opposite gender. That's the same across the board, and that's the same way it's been for nigh 1000 years of American and English common law. (Magna Carta or Norman Conquest, take your pick)

    What same-sex marriage proponents want is 1000 years of tradition changed. That's fine, but arguing that that's the "hidden meaning" of our civil rights legislation (and therefore should be done by judicial fiat instead of a proactive decision of the electorate or their representatives) is silly.

    Is bigotry of any sort to be legitimized in any fashion (for example, by knowingly capitalizing on the support base of bigots through known bigoted surrogates while saying you are doing so to reach out to people with "values") simply because those who are practicing such bigotry rationalize their bigotry with religious arguments.

    Nice straw man.

    bigotry = intolerance, being a bigot. (bigot = One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.)

    a) "bigotry of any sort" is too vague. I'm intolerant of child molestors. Is that bigotry? Maybe, maybe not, but it's definitely me being "intolerant" of "those who differ".

    Given (a) then the answer is yes: At least some bigotry is legitimized by society. Society has norms, and codifies those norms into laws.

    If you reject that, then you should reject the premise you implied... that opposition to same-sex marriage is prima facie bigotry. It's not.

    Again, there are two close, yet distinct arguments being made. 1) That same-sex marriage is a Right already, given either by the Constitution(s) or by pre-existing law or because it's Good Thing, and judges simply need to understand that, declare that, and enforce that. Or 2) That same-sex marriage is something that society should make a choice to allow.

    I'm morally opposed to argument #1. I'm open to discussion on #2. Same-sex marriage advocates are aware that America does not accept argument #2 on the merits at this point (if it did, Obama and the Democratic party would be in favor of it at least for political purposes). Rather than wait until #2 is accepted, they're trying to force the issue with #1.

    I hope they fail. Not because I'm anti- same-sex marriage (I am, but not strongly), but on the principle of not rewarding a disingenuous end-run around Democracy.

    And because I'm tired of people implying that I'm a bigot.


    Hum (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jgarza on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 12:59:10 PM EST
    That seems to have a lot to Mark Halprin?

    I read so you don't have to: (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    This is an Open Thread

    Obama does it again (none / 0) (#11)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:07:52 PM EST
    Everytime I finally decide I have to be behind Obama, he goes and pulls some stupid stunt like this. How can the Democratic leader go out campaigning with someone who wants to continue the wedge of hate and descrimination? I have enough trouble with all the religion that continually gets thrown in this campaign, but this just adds insult to injury.

    What's the problem? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by JoeA on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:13:47 PM EST
    Obama has to decline the support of anyone who disagrees with him on any issue?

    Obama opposes prop 8.

    Obama is pro choice.

    So Douglas Kmiec is stumping for Obama as part of this tour.  He is hardly an "anti gay" polemicist in the same vein as McClurkin.  In fact Kmiec has already paid a price for supporting Obama in that he was denied communion at his local church.

    I think it's unfair to draw an equivalence here imho.  He is not Donnie McClurkin.


    The problem is that older and wiser voters (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:27:53 PM EST
    know well to judge by actions more than words -- and especially by the company that people keep.

    Kmiec (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:38:22 PM EST
    has bascially been ex-communicated from the Catholic church for supporting Obama....A little acknowledgement from Obama is appropriate.

    I live in California--and prop 8 will go down to defeat....

    Obama has been clear on prop 8 and Roe.  It is called a big tent for a reason....


    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:49:50 PM EST
    Getting turned away from communion by your local reactionary priest is hardly in the same ballpark as excommunication.

    Kmiec said that is how he felt (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:52:23 PM EST
    For a very sincere and Catholic guy, it is a big deal....

    Is it not? (none / 0) (#62)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:02:01 PM EST
    Isn't that, in fact, the communion that's being denied by excommunication?  I understand that Father Ripper may be greatly exceeding his authority in personally deciding the issue, but isn't that what happens in a Papal excommunication as well?

    Honest question.


    Didn't Kerry get denied communion? He (none / 0) (#66)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:05:07 PM EST
    wasn't excommunicated. Did I dream that?

    I think virtually no one. . . (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:08:28 PM EST
    is officially excommunicated these days.  But if denial of communion is the sanction on which excommunication is based I would imagine that a believing Catholic would feel just as cut off from the faith if a freelance excommunicator prevents him from participating.

    Excommunication is rare, (none / 0) (#124)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 05:29:35 PM EST
    even Adolph Hitler was never excommunicated.  If an RC priest leaves to accept a ministry in another denomination, say Greek Orthodox, such an individual would be excommunicated via his ordinary, the bishop. Denial of sacraments, such as communion, is more common, but is not excommunication--released from the communion of believers.

    Catholics who have been (none / 0) (#135)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:25:35 PM EST
    divorced will be denied communion when/if they "remarry". The church doesn't recognize divorce. Kerry would have fallen in that category.

    Well (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:10:37 PM EST
    a priest can take it upon himself to deny communication but only a Pope or perhaps an Archbishop can excommunicate as I understand it.

    Women can be denied communion for taking birth control pills in the Catholic Church.


    Again (none / 0) (#81)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:22:25 PM EST
    It's one priest.

    Still, it's got to be tough if you have (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by JoeA on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:44:12 PM EST
    been attending that particular church for a long time and are suddenly rejected like that.  Read his account of it here.

    Seems to me like it was a pretty traumatic experience to him, and felt like a big deal.


    I'm sure it's traumatic for him (none / 0) (#97)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:47:02 PM EST
    I just think "basically excommunicated" is ridiculously over the top.

    Kmiec's priest (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:44:27 PM EST
    One with authority over Kmiec.  For a believing Catholic like Kmiec, the authority of the Church is important.

    Sure there are many, many cafeteria Catholics who do not pay attention to edicts from the Vatican--but one's own priest or Bishop....that makes a difference....

    And this has become a trend....Certain Catholic clergy are after not only Pelosi but Biden for being politically incorrect...


    True (none / 0) (#136)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:28:15 PM EST
    didn't the Pope insist that Catholics needed to vote for Bush in 2004 because of Kerry's pro-choice belief?

    First time I remember the Vatican speaking out on US politics.


    JoeA- the problem (none / 0) (#120)
    by kenosharick on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:37:43 PM EST
    is that as a gay man I am tired of being spit on by our culture, told I am less than others and do not deserve EQUAL rights, getting and watching friends be physically assaulted and then having our candidate for president stand on stage with a person who condones these attitudes and behaviors.

    And (none / 0) (#122)
    by Jgarza on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:54:57 PM EST
    voting for McCain will fix that for you!

    See above, Rick's comment re lesser evils (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 05:43:06 PM EST
    are still evil.  You need to persuade people to vote for Obama, not just against McCain, and you need to do so on each voter's priority issues.  

    Listen to Bill Clinton on The View today on this, if it turns up on Youtube.  As usual, he nails it.  We vote for our aspirations and dreams, and it never works to knock a voter's issues.


    I NEVER watch the View, (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by tootired on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 06:01:02 PM EST
    but a friend called and told me to put in on immediately this morning. The Big Dawg was wonderful. I especially enjoyed his comments on how people vote and how we need to respect that process. His comment about not having to demonize someone just because you don't want to vote for him showed political maturity. Bill Clinton seems to have found his voice as President Emeritus. I also think that he is sincere about wanting to leave politics behind and get on with the work of his foundation. It was a good show, but I'm still not watching it tomorrow. Or the next day either.

    Hey, TooT -- here's a bit of a subthread (none / 0) (#133)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 08:12:08 PM EST
    on it, if you missed this.  You and I both were impressed by the same part.  I only wish I had taped it all, too -- but as you say, only for a day.

    I heard CNN promote that the Big Buy will be on Larry King this week, too -- Wednesday, I think.


    So I should be excited (none / 0) (#137)
    by kenosharick on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:37:26 PM EST
    for do nothing, say nothing Obama? If you think Obama will "fix" much of anything, you are terribly naive.

    Ick (none / 0) (#74)
    by coigue on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:10:03 PM EST
    Ick Ick Ick.

    We have got to sell our values better so the when elections roll around we don't have to pander to the jerks of the country.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CST on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 12:53:21 PM EST
    At least he gave Obama the economy.

    What he doesn't realize is the economy was the only thing on his list that actually mattered last week.

    Halperin (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:14:25 PM EST
    doesn't have a button on The Page to email him, nor does The Page take comments.

    He's probably giving Sarah Palin lessons in how to avoid hard questions.


    So much (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:05:03 PM EST
    for the "media darling" theory huh? The media never likes Dems when they go up against Republicans.

    Ga6th- I usually agree with your comments, but (none / 0) (#117)
    by kenosharick on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:22:58 PM EST
    one commentator hardly means the entire media has turned on Obama. He is still a media darling who gets a free pass most of the time.

    I just saw CNN bits of Bill C. on The View (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:49:45 PM EST
    and my goddess, but it's great to see again the guy who is so smart that he makes me feel smarter, too, just listening to him.:-)  His one-minute analysis of why we vote the way we do, why the economy matters only to allow us all to vote for other reasons, of our values as defined as our dreams for our children . . . marvelous.

    And his analysis of why he predicted McCain would be the GOP pick and why Obama could win is good, too -- based on more than the economy.  But Bill Clinton says it will be about the debates, and the Dems have to hope that Obama speaks to us in the debates the way that Bill did -- and still does.  I hope CNN puts up more from The View.

    To clarify from my sorta run-on sentence. (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:26:11 PM EST
    Bill C. says it will be about the debates.  I'm the one, not him, who sez that Obama just has to deliver it the way that the former First and Still Best Dawg did.  Short, sweet, straight to the heart and the pocketbook in memorable soundbytes that make you feel like we'll get through this because he feels our pain and cares.

    If Obama can do that, too, the Dems will win.


    I just watched it and he was terrific as (none / 0) (#126)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 05:55:40 PM EST
    usual. I especially liked the part about what is going on today. I wish BTD would see it because he discussed that Act that was repealed that he (BTD) has written about. I couldn't understand if he said it did or didn't contribute to the current situation. He pretty honestly looked back to see what he could have done differently to prevent this.

    All I've seen and read about his appearance is that he didn't give Obama an "emotional" endorsement, just an analytical one. Poor Bill can't win.

    He endorsed Hillary's plan to fix this by helping the people with the mortgages. He said if we help them rather than just Wall Street, we would all benefit and possibly be better off in the long run. He predicts that by Friday, both candidates will endorse helping the homeowner (which seems to be happening today by Democrats in Congress).


    Oh, you reminded me. I taped it and forgot (none / 0) (#113)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:00:10 PM EST
    all about it.

    I wonder how much $ (none / 0) (#3)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 12:54:15 PM EST
    the McCain campaign is paying Halperin. Because only a fool or someone on the payroll could make such a claim.

    And I don't think last night's 60 Minutes interview did McCain any favors. He came of as a very nasty old f*rt, lacking even a semblance of a clue.

    I'm not so sure (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:10:15 PM EST
    The McCain portions of the segment seemed like they had been produced earlier and that the Obama portions were added on later. There was a lot of time where he was able to look genial and temperate.  The questions at the beginning about "faith" were designed to help him blather on about stuff to appeal to the base.

    His answers about de-regulation (I don't regret it because it helped the economy grow) and Palin's readiness to be president (absolutely) were not followed up, and he was permitted, without challenge, to tick off the ways in which he is supposedly "different" than Bush.

    I don't think the McCain segment would have scared off any undecided or McCain-leaning voters already inclined to like him.

    Obama's segment was shorter, and Obama spent a lot of time sounding professorial.  He needs to learn to speak in accurate yet punchy soundbites like Bill Clinton does.


    Once again, the obvious is stated (none / 0) (#19)
    by kmblue on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:13:26 PM EST
    " He needs to learn to speak in accurate yet punchy soundbites like Bill Clinton does. "  litagatormom

    When, oh when, will Obama get this?

    The professorial posture ain't working.  And I'm voting for Obama.  


    good news out of Virginia from SUSA (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 12:54:58 PM EST

    Ralph Nader's.... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    I told you so.

    Too bad so few of us had the sense to vote for the guy.  

    Nader - are you kidding? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by noholib on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:07:21 PM EST
    Yeah, right, if only fewer people had voted for Nader in 2000, maybe Al Gore would have been President.  

    And President Gore.... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:47:02 PM EST
    would be at the helm of an economic meltdown, big whoop.  You think Saint Al was gonna stand up to Wall St.?  Please.

    Now if Al hadn't "stolen" all of Nader's votes, maybe this mess could have been dealt with 8 years ago:)


    That's ridiculous. (none / 0) (#40)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:49:08 PM EST
    It is.... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:31:36 PM EST
    but no more ridiculous than to say Gore somehow deserved all the votes Nader earned.  They all need to earn 'em all.

    there wasn't a significant difference between Bush and Gore in 2000, you have been in some distant zone, well beyond not paying attention.

    It's not about whether Gore "deserved" the votes that went to Nader. It's about whether the country really deserved these eight years of epic misrule, and about Nader's and your continuing refusal to accept any grain of responsibility for the Bush fiasco. Please, please, grow up.


    I Voted For Nader in 2000 in New York (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 10:04:55 AM EST
    where it meant not a whit of difference to Gore but it might have helped earn the Green Party a permanent place on the ballot so that they wouldn't have to keep getting petitions signed every year to get there.

    If I'd been in Florida, I would have voted Gore. But as we now know many people intended to vote for Gore (like all those butterfly victims who ended up voting for Buchanan and the many AAs illegally prevented from voting) and chicanery and ineptitude got in their way.

    There are so many ways Gore might have won in 2000 except for strategic mistakes he made before (running from WJC) and after (not asserting a more aggressive post election position as to vote recounts).

    It's convenient targeting people who voted for the person whose ideas they respected more instead of looking at the whole picture, and the way the candidate him/her self runs his/her campaign.

    What's funny is now here we are again: Is there a difference between McCain and Obama? To me, it's obvious. Why don't people just come around and vote for Obama instead of insisting he needs to 'earn' their ballot? Because it is THEIR ballot and it's up to the campaigns to factor that into how they strategize a win--after a certain point some voters are simply not persuadable so you find your votes elsewhere.


    consequential than voting for Nader in Florida. I can see the distinction, and I appreciate that you would have voted for Gore if you thought your vote would have mattered.

    One of the key differences between Nader and Buchanan is that Buchanan targeted his efforts toward solidly Red or Blue states, where it was 'safe' to cast a third-party protest vote. Nader, on the other hand, focused on swing states, and clearly relished his role as a spoiler.

    It seems to me that most people here think that winning the popular vote (and how much you win by) means something important, even if the Presidency is determined by the electoral college. If you agree with that, then I'd say voting for Nader over Gore in 2000, even in New York, still had negative consequences.


    I Think We're Missing Each Other Here (none / 0) (#143)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 02:37:23 PM EST
    Buchanan won more votes in Florida than he actually earned--especially from Gore voters--because the butterfly ballot confused people who punched the wrong hole. That's why I made the reference to Buchanan.

    I do wish that more people voted for Gore in 2000--or, actually, I wish that more of Gore's actual votes were counted then--because he would have won.

    My other point is that, ultimately, the campaigns should know how many people are going for 3rd party candidates and rather than waste time or resources castigating people for rejecting the Dem, it makes more sense to me to redouble efforts to win them (or others more winnable) to our side.


    You type that lacking even and iota of (none / 0) (#14)
    by JoeA on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:09:54 PM EST
    self awareness.

    Yeah right (none / 0) (#18)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:11:34 PM EST
    That would have definitely helped in the recount.

    If the Nader votes in FL had not happened (none / 0) (#31)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:33:34 PM EST
    the GOP in Jeb Bush's state would have invented them.  Look what they did to the Buchanan votes.

    And that plus Ohio in 2004 is what ought to give us pause this time, too.  I keep watching the state-by-state polls just to try to figure out which state will be the focus of GOP dirty tricks this time -- because dirty tricks at the polls, there will be.  And I worry that, from many signs in the polls and from our AG, it may be my state.

    The only thing that may be worrying the GOP is that the Dems have a Chicago streetfighter this time.  But whether that works beyond Chicago and beyond the primaries is not clear, as it looks like Chicago's reach to Indiana that almost worked in the primaries is not nearly enough now.

    We oughta run a contest on which state will be the Florida or Ohio of 2008.


    The game will be won (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:44:42 PM EST
    in Virginia or Colorado....and the Republicans still don't get it....I doubt that they will try dirty tricks there...

    Ohio, Michigan and Penn would be better bets....But they sent Palin to Florida so maybe they are worried they could lose that state.


    I keep looking at Virginia, too (none / 0) (#45)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:50:16 PM EST
    and thinking about all the overseas military ballots it must have and how they muddled the Florida mess.  VA has half again as many more EC votes, too, and the DC insiders must know its workings much better than those so far away in CO.

    Thus, because we're looking at those states, it probably will be some other state. :-)


    The enlisted troops (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:56:08 PM EST
    are not too far beyond Obama's grasp....The officers maybe a different story....But there are many more enlisted folks and the economy would matter more to them....

    A Colin Powell endorsement would help....


    I think hispanics will be the swing vote in Co (none / 0) (#57)
    by Exeter on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:58:12 PM EST
    And in VA, I'm encouraged by the numbers, but the NoVa is a weird place. Their is a strong Bradley effect there, so it will be interesting to see if Obama votes really materialize.

    Good quote from that Nader link (none / 0) (#70)
    by votermom on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:07:44 PM EST

    "The Republicans are going through ideological schizophrenia," he said, noting that many conservatives continue to support government-backed bank bailouts even though "they're supposed to be capitalists."

    When you write: (none / 0) (#9)
    by scribe on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:06:26 PM EST
    A few more "winning" weeks like that, and McCain will be in McGovern territory.

    All I have to say is "from your keyboard to God's screen."

    i have bookmark folders (none / 0) (#16)
    by Turkana on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:10:34 PM EST
    of sites i read every day and sites i read every week, plus folders on various broad subjects, including one for politics and one for news- sites i want to check in on just now and then. halperin was once a daily read, then i moved him to weekly. now, i don't have him bookmarked at all...

    I don't think I've ever read him (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:20:40 PM EST
    except for when I've seen him linked from somewhere else.

    Good poll news (none / 0) (#17)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:11:19 PM EST
    And this is the man the Dem's are afraid of confronting!

    A new American Research Group poll found that just 19% of Americans approve of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president and 76% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 17% approve and 78% disapprove.

    Bush's overall approval rating of 19% is tied for Bush's lowest in ARG monthly polling since Bush took office.

    Back to Spain (none / 0) (#23)
    by indy in sc on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:19:26 PM EST
    You'll be happy to know that Obama did not equivocate on meeting with Zapatero when speaking to the same interviewer that McCain spoke to last week.

    Obama is definitely toast now! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by JoeA on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:33:53 PM EST
    He's going to meet Ahmedninadinadinejad, Kim Jong Il, Castro,  and that Spanish/Mexican Zapatisto dude.  That's what I call naive.  

    SUSA - has Obama up 6 in Virginia (none / 0) (#26)
    by JoeA on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:27:02 PM EST
    51% to 45% and from the Best Pollster in the world ever too.

    If that holds up then McCain has serious problems as I cannot see how McCain wins while losing Virginia..

    He would have to pick off Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:30:30 PM EST
    Unlikely, but possible.

    With only (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:49:02 PM EST
    86% of the African American vote....

    It still seems a bit of an outlier....  It is clear from all polling that Virginia is very very close, and GOTV efforts will tell the tale....


    It's consistent with SUSA's last poll showing (none / 0) (#49)
    by JoeA on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:53:12 PM EST
    Obama +4 before McCain had his bestest week ever according to Mark Halperin.

    Mason Dixon Va. poll (none / 0) (#46)
    by WS on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:51:08 PM EST
    will be out Wednesday.  Sending good vibes to Mason Dixon to confirm the Va. O trend.  

    By (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:06:23 PM EST
    picking up MI. You have to remember that Obama is fighting to keep some Kerry states too.

    Help! Anyone here ever taken Lyrica? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:45:20 PM EST
    I just started it for nerve pain in my back and shoulder. Holy cow, it's making me drunk. I have to drive 30 miles to work and I did fine going since I took the Lyrica on the way out the door.

    After a couple of hours, it was like someone put beer in my Diet Coke. I was a hazard driving home. I hope this goes away soon.

    A quick google (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:50:04 PM EST
    suggests that severe drowsiness is a common side effect. If that's right, then your doctor probably should have warned you.

    /not a doctor. not your doctor.


    This isn't severe drowsiness. It's wobbly (none / 0) (#54)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:56:12 PM EST
    walking drunk. I think kdog might like to have some of this. :)

    Ugh. I was put on something once (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:59:53 PM EST
    that did that to me.  Luckily, I wasn't driving that first day.  So on the second day, I called the doc and said I simply was not going to take another one, and we found an alternative.  Sad that as this is a first med for some conditions, so there may not be an alternative.  But I still would call the doc and be firm, to get her/him to be creative about adjusting the dose or whatever.

    I think that's my problem. They start you on (none / 0) (#73)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:09:55 PM EST
    a night only dose and work up to three a day. This was my first day dose so I was probably sleeping through this floaty feeling until today. I'm not sleepy, I just feel like I've been drinking.

    I was gonna reply... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:33:40 PM EST
    before even scrolling down to the replies asking if you had a few to spare:)

    Beat me to it T...enjoy the buzz, but stay off the road!


    I'll mail them to you if I have to quit taking (none / 0) (#91)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:40:48 PM EST
    them. :)  I have to drive. I have to go to work tomorrow. I'm going to take them with me and wait until 11 or so to take it. I leave at 1:30 so maybe I won't be quite as drunk.

    Gracious offer... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:55:39 PM EST
    but I cannot accept...its probably a federal crime with a mandatory minimum...and I like you too much to put you at risk.

    I learned to always look at fda.gov (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:55:40 PM EST
    and see there this sleepiness is a common side effect -- and yes, you ought to have been warned (in addition to reading that requisite handout in the tiny print:-).

    With both myself and my daughter having chronic conditions, mine requiring intermittent meds and hers requiring daily meds when she was young, I found it necessary and useful to go to fda.gov -- and found the Mayo site good and reliable, too.  For one thing, I found that I often learned more than our doctors knew about side effects.  I also was able to find alternative meds for my daughter when her doc still didn't know what the Internet was.

    Btw, you also might want to know that Lyrica is new and was approved after testing on only 1,800 people.  From my experience, that could mean more side effects are possible that did not surface yet.  That said, if you're taking this for fibromyalgia, my sympathies -- and anything has to be better.  Maybe your doc can adjust the dose.


    No fibromyalgia that I know if. I think it's just (none / 0) (#61)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:01:38 PM EST
    "accountant neck" and I have four degenerated discs (which runs in my family starting in the early 30's). I have two MRI's Thursday. One on my neck and one on my back. I've never had one before and I dread having to be still that long.

    1800 people? That's an awfully small sample. I hope it doesn't turn out to be a Vioxx type problem. At this point, he could have given me strong pain pills and I wouldn't be this out of it.


    Doctors are afraid to give people pain pills (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:03:40 PM EST
    because the DEA might come after them. Personally, narcotics make me feel icky, but they work for some people.

    How does ibuprofen work for you?


    Ibuprofen, Alleve, etc.... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:36:35 PM EST
    I thought that stuff was for infants:)

    Took some in a pinch when the street-corner pharmacist was unreachable...didn't do a damn thing...if it wasn't for others telling me they work I would swear they are placebos.


    Helps not at all. Prescription Aleve (none / 0) (#68)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:06:47 PM EST
    (Naproxen) helps better.

    All the while destroying your stomach (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:08:47 PM EST
    (well, all NSAIDs do. . .) Tylenol, on the other hand, will destroy your liver.

    Pain management is tricky.


    Yeah. I think actual pain medication has (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:16:33 PM EST
    the least harmful side effects (if you ignore addiction). If you read all the possible side effects, you'd be scared of almost any medicine. I think pain clinics are about the only way to get pain medicines around here and I don't want to go that route. It stinks to have a back condition that they tell you up front you have to learn to live with it.

    Have you tried reefer T?.... (none / 0) (#107)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:05:22 PM EST
    I've heard good things regarding pinched nerves and such.

    lol, I thought, what is "reefer T?" (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:34:14 PM EST
    when I first read that. Not in years kdog. I think one of the guys who works for my husband keeps a plentiful supply. I can just see the look on my husband's face if I ask him to bring me some home. :)

    In Tennessee, they still throw you in jail for that so I guess I'll have to pass. I think I'm just a light weight. Even pot affected me way more than anyone else in the room.


    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:55:06 PM EST
    they will throw in jail for all kinds of crazy reasons, all over the country...the world even.

    Human nature I guess.


    Mexican Tea, (none / 0) (#112)
    by Salo on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:56:22 PM EST
    This stuff? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:09:10 PM EST
    mexican tea

    It sounds like it's for stomach problems?


    Also, yes, meds that had similar effect (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:57:54 PM EST
    on my daughter, with sleepiness at the start, had fewer such side effects after her body adjusted to them.  We learned to just plan on her having to take naps and warning teachers of the effect in the first weeks, as she so often had to switch meds when she became immune to them -- or, worse, when they became toxic to her.

    So more reading at the fda.gov site, the manufacturer's site, etc., might give you an idea of whether this is a temporary effect and how long it takes for your body to adjust to it.


    It should have been on the bottle (none / 0) (#140)
    by Amiss on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 02:42:56 AM EST
    Took it for a while for diabetic neuropathy, another side effect is swelling in legs and hands. I believe there was even a warning about operating machinery on my bottle. Was great for the neuropathy, but the swelling it caused made me have to discontinue it. The other side effects of the drunken/drowsy wear off after a while.

    SUSA is the Best Pollster in the world ever too? (none / 0) (#42)
    by ks on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:49:33 PM EST
    I guess they all are depending on whether they tell us what we want to hear.  : ) Anyway, that SUSA VA poll seems off but I'll wait for others to come out to see if it's rather large shift is in line or not.

    BTD refers to SUSA in terms along those (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by JoeA on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:54:30 PM EST
    lines.  Not sure if it's ironic,  but afaik they are considered one of the most consistently reliable pollsters.

    It's genuine (none / 0) (#58)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:58:21 PM EST
    The problem is that SUSA has a really hard time picking up minority voters. That might actually mean that Obama is even further ahead in Virginia than this poll suggests.

    Yeah and that's the problem I have... (none / 0) (#77)
    by ks on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:18:22 PM EST
    I think this SUSA one has Obama getting only 86% of the AA vote which should be more like 95%.  That might add a couple of points to his "lead" and would then make it +8 Obama and I would have a very hard time believing Obama's up +8 in VA right now.  +6 is pushing is as it is.  

    Obama can take 90-95% of the AA vote (none / 0) (#80)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:21:09 PM EST
    to the bank.

    The white vote probably is as SUSA says it is.

    If Obama gets an unexpected landslide anywhere, it will be in Virginia.


    McCain: West Coast Offense not the problem (none / 0) (#69)
    by Exeter on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:07:37 PM EST
    McCain is really going hard after Bush. He did last night on 60 minutes and he is on the attack today. Hopefully the Obama camp will pick up on it, b/c if McCain can make the argument that the problem is not the west coast offense the football "team" is playing, but rather, its the bad coaching (Bushco), then he can break loose from Bush, but still keep people committed to GOP polices.  It's also why I think its important that Obama stop triangulating / pivoting off of Dems and start using Democratic talking points.

    Very strong comments (none / 0) (#78)
    by frankly0 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:19:54 PM EST
    from the McCain camp on NYTimes:

    Steve Schmidt, a McCain campaign senior adviser, declared on a conference call with reporters Monday that The New York Times "is not a journalistic organization."

    "Whatever The New York Times once was, it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization," Schmidt said. "It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day impugns the McCain campaign, attacks Sen. McCain, attacks Gov. [Sarah] Palin. It excuse Sen. Obama. ...

    "Everything that is read in The New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective -- that it is an organization that has made a decision to deemphasize its journalistic integrity and tradition, to advocate for the defeat of one candidate -- in this case, John McCain -- and to advocate for the election of the other candidate, Barack Obama."

    On Monday, the paper published an article on page A18 tying McCain campaign manager Rick Davis to lobbying group set up by troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    When CNN's Dana Bash asked about the article, Schmidt unloaded.

    "Let me first say: We are First Amendment absolutists on this campaign," he began. "The press, and anybody who wishes to cover this race from the blogosphere perspective or from a media perspective, ... of course is constitutionally protected with regard to writing ... whatever they want to write. But let's be clear and be honest with each other about something fundamental to this race."


    "There is no level of public vetting with Senator Obama's record, his background, his past statements. There's no level of outrage directed at his deceitful ads. This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150 percent in tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be. But let's not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is."

    I have to say, I see Schmidt's comments as mostly being on target here. I've never seen a clearer case of bias against one candidate and for another in the NYTimes, or in any other purportedly non-partisan mainstream news organization that pretends to journalistic objectivity (not counting Fox, of course).

    I suppose (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:27:06 PM EST
    that you are the target audience for this little diversionary temper tantrum, which was designed to distract attention from the fact that the NYT accurately reported that McCain's campaign manager was paid over $2 million to lobby for less regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    When the law and facts aren't on your side, pound on the table.  Now, you may be correct that McCain's table-pounding makes a perfectly resonant thumping sound, but personally I'm not going to go for the distraction.  $2 million to lobby for less regulation!  What a story.


    Perhaps this is (none / 0) (#90)
    by frankly0 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:39:58 PM EST
    just a diversionary tactic, in part.

    But it most certainly gets at an important truth: a rather contemptible bias in the NY Times.

    What you're not getting is what the McCain camp is doing here -- and what Republicans have been doing very successfully over the decades: discrediting media sources as being hopelessly biased against them.

    Anyone who has followed the NYTimes and who has an ounce of objectivity in their bones knows the justice of Schmidt's remarks.

    Turning media organs like the NY Times into a utterly biased source in the minds of the public is a far more important development than a particular story that happens to be damaging to McCain. If the public buys into that bias, then the facts of the story -- even in cases when they tell against McCain -- are dismissed by the public.

    The open attack on the Times by the McCain camp is quite likely to resonate with the public, given the amount of evidence that supports it. Who can seriously claim that the Times vetted Obama in anything like the manner they vetted even Palin? Where is there any evidence that the Times went after Obama before they were shamed into it by other organizations who made stories like Wright's sermons already inescapable news?

    So-called progressives are always wondering why Republicans get away with telling "lies" as they do. They never seem to understand that it comes from the success in Republicans' attacks on the credibility of the media, and that those attacks gain their credibility in large measure from genuine deviations from unbiased reporting in the media.

    McCain may lose the battle on this particular story -- or not. But he's very likely to win the battle on who is considered a credible source by the public.


    I agree with you on the Palin part. I've never (none / 0) (#95)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:44:31 PM EST
    seen anyone get that much scrutiny. The others have been on the national scene longer so that is part of it. I don't think they "vetted" Obama very much for someone who had only been a national figure for two years when he started running and who seems to have few records of his past.

    And just one other point (none / 0) (#98)
    by frankly0 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:50:18 PM EST
    If you really imagine that an attack on the media is not important, and only diversionary, try to remember what happened when, finally, Hillary attacked the bias of the media.

    Obama encountered the worst several weeks of his entire campaign, because the media was finally shamed into trying to be even-handed.

    Who won that particular battle?

    The only difference is that I see McCain and the Republicans as being far more effective. The media is scared witless about being cast as totally biased along partisan lines. It's one thing to favor one Democrat over another, but quite another to be cast -- and justly so -- as being totally in the tank for one party over another. That's the sort of thing that damages the credibility -- and the customer base -- of an organization over a long period of time. The NYTimes knows that it won't suffer much if it just attacks a Clinton. It knows it will if it is seen as unfairly attacking Republicans across the board.


    Shrug (none / 0) (#100)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:53:38 PM EST
    Any comments on the merits of the NYT's reporting concerning McCain's campaign manager?

    I won't enable McCain's diversionary tactic by analyzing the NYT's bias to death.  No one asked my opinion when the exact same newspaper was trumping up Whitewater, savaging Gore in 2000, or shilling for the Iraq war.


    Does it not occur to (none / 0) (#105)
    by frankly0 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:03:06 PM EST
    you why the Times can get away with Whitewater, and savaging Gore, and shilling for the Iraq war?

    Because each of these is an example of it going after a Democrat -- and the NY Times is desperate to prove that it is not biased against Republicans.

    But when it so obviously is biased against Republicans as it is in this election, do you really believe that's not going to have consequences if the Republican candidate starts to trumpet that fact?

    How is the Times going to respond if, say, McCain himself starts to attack it in the debates, as did Hillary? What leg will it have to stand on? It will simply have to lie and distort about its own behavior.

    I expect of course outraged comments by the Editorial board of the Times over the remarks of the McCain campaign, protesting that they have fairly covered the campaign.

    Trust me, though, those remarks are going to hit home hard, precisely because they are so obviously true.


    Feh. (none / 0) (#108)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:09:35 PM EST
    The McCain campaign attempted an attack on Obama for his association with Fannie/Freddie.  But the McCain campaign is substantially more closely associated with those institutions.

    The Times caught them out in their hypocrisy and published a factual article about it.

    That seems to offend you.  The McCain camp, of course, isn't really offended -- they're just playing defense to cover up as much of their screw-up as possible.  But you seem genuinely offended that the mean, nasty New York Times is publishing the truth about McCain's dishonest attack.


    You see only the (none / 0) (#116)
    by frankly0 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:22:35 PM EST
    small picture of this particular story. You imagine that this is a losing argument for McCain. You probably think so because what you imagine is the real "truth" has been published in the Times. (And how is it the "truth" to pretend that Obama, who has all kinds of connections to Freddie and Fannie, including direct contributions into his campaign, is somehow far less connected to them than McCain? Any honest person understands that Democrats had every bit as much to do with the misbehavior of Freddie and Fannie as the Republicans, because that misbehavior gave easy access to credit for lower middle class constituents of Democrats.)

    But it is never a losing argument for Republicans to damage the credibility of the media in the eyes of the public -- never.

    Again, progressives will find themselves wondering once again, I'm sure, how it is that polls show that the public doesn't believe certain "facts" that the media has reported again and again. Well,  let me repeat: it's because the public simply doesn't believe the word or the reportage of a media that seems hopelessly biased.

    That is the far bigger and more consequential story here.


    It's interesting to me on (none / 0) (#129)
    by Salo on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 06:50:23 PM EST
    another level. The NYT was in teh Bush Admin's pocket until 2006.  

    Why the sudden switch to having a few pops at teh GOP leadership?


    It always comes down I (none / 0) (#132)
    by frankly0 on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 08:05:11 PM EST
    think to the same point: Obama makes a tingle go up their leg.

    Obama may underperform by every other measure as a politician, but he will never make these media sorts -- who can't get over their attraction to certain kinds of politicians (such as Bradley in the past) -- find it in their hearts to be critical or think critically about him.

    They're in the tank. They've drunk the KoolAid. There is for them no world outside the tank or the KoolAid.

    They are children lost in the choppy sea of their primitive desires.


    If you want to have an. . . (none / 0) (#134)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 08:45:48 PM EST
    epistemological discussion of how much of the "truth" is being published, I'd be happy to oblige you after the election (or you can just look up David Duchovney).  Of course, limited as I am to only a tiny part of the story, I can't be expected to have a vision as expansive as yours, but perhaps I'll be able to hold my own.

    The story here is that you guys got caught out lying and the campaign brass flipped out when they couldn't put one over on the New York Times.

    But it is never a losing argument for Republicans to damage the credibility of the media in the eyes of the public -- never.

    Since you seem to want nothing more than to damage the credibility of the media, I assume you're talking from direct personal experience here.  I don't have a huge amount of fondness for the media.  But in this particular case they seem to be on the job.  You guys got caught, you got tagged, and it may you cry.  The only difference is that media seems less inclined to respond to the crying than they have in the past.

    Please avoid the word "progressive".  While it is pretty meaningless and can be stretched pretty far, it cannot be stretched far enough to cover McCain supporters.


    Did he personally receive the 2mil? (none / 0) (#92)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:41:20 PM EST
    or was it paid to his firm for services?

    According to the NYT (none / 0) (#99)
    by Steve M on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:51:44 PM EST
    he was president of the group, which was paid over $2 million for lobbying services between 2000 and 2005.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#106)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:03:56 PM EST
    Puts it in perspective a bit. 2 mil over a 5 yr period paid to a firm/group for lobbying services. Unfortunately Obama has Axelrod, which could go down a similar path.

    He was in charge of the team (none / 0) (#121)
    by JoeA on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:44:36 PM EST
    lobbying for Fannie Mae and Mac, and his company was paid over $30,000 a month over several years.

    Interesting analysis on crossover voters (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:25:19 PM EST
    at pollster.com today.  Low estimate of impact of Clinton crossover voters -- and notes that there has been an average of 10 to 11 percent of "Dems" crossing over to vote Repub since 1992.  

    I had not realized the Dem crossover was that high historically (and as an average, even higher in some years).  It will come down to which states, and as ever for Dems, to turnout in those states.  So it's a good move for Obama to move the SD workers to states to the east, MN and WI.  Probably ought to have been done sooner, and probably ought to mean pulling out of some other states to focus effort in MI, PA, OH, etc., too.

    Crowd Turnout (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by WS on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:39:41 PM EST
    is interesting.  As a Hillary supporter, I remember when crowd turnout was waved around by Obama supporters but then she wound up winning the primary (see NH, Texas, PA, California).

    Wisconsin will go blue.    


    Yes, if it's the economy, economy, economy (none / 0) (#110)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 03:37:47 PM EST
    and if Obama stays forceful on the issue, as he sounded today.  That is, he has to stay forceful on it in Congress, not just on the campaign tour.

    But then, I have been wrong about my state before, complex as it is.  If the NRA starts attack ads on his gun policies -- this is a state where even Feingold is against gun control! -- and if other 527s start attacks on other issues on which Obama has more vulnerability here, and if there's a GOP October surprise . . . all together, it's all too soon to predict the state this time that was the closest state last time and second-closest the time before.

    We still don't have sufficient polling to tell us, for example, the political tendencies of the more than 300,000 new Wisconsinites since 2000, according to the census bureau's new numbers.  The red counties around Milwaukee really have boomed, as have the red counties in "Up North."


    Speaking of turnout: 6,000 turn out for Obama (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:34:37 PM EST
    today in Green Bay, per the local press, which (as did others) reported McCain-Palin turnout a few days ago at the same venue as at its capacity of twice that.  (But Monday is not a day that workers and students skip work and class here, except in hunting season.:-)

    Turnout was 1,800 for the other Obama in Wisconsin in her first stop today in Madison.  Hard to say what to expect in her second stop, in Wausau and nearby Paper Valley.  Watch for turnout in Milwaukee (a bordering burb that is more Milwaukee than many parts of the city:-)at the end of the day -- although local press still does not have a time for the start.  Weird.


    Stupid question here (none / 0) (#84)
    by votermom on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:31:11 PM EST
    How do I change my password on this site? I can't find the place to do it.

    Password Change (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:56:02 PM EST
    It looks like you go to the place on the TL Home Page in the far right column near the top where, under your user name there's a list:

          ♦ Review Hidden Comments
          ♦ Your Info
          ♦ Your Comments
          ♦ Your Preferences
          ♦ Logout

    You click on the link for Your Preferences, and then under that, you click on the link at the top of that page for email and password and that page has the place for changing your password.


    Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <eom> (none / 0) (#104)
    by votermom on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 02:59:58 PM EST
    McCain's new Motto: (none / 0) (#115)
    by candideinnc on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:10:10 PM EST
    EXPERIENCE--In Failure.

    ya (none / 0) (#138)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:59:53 PM EST
    When both the WSJ and George Will call the republican nominee "unpresidential",  he didnt have a good week.