home

Saturday Night Open Thread


In honor of yesterday's announcement that the unemployment rate is at a 5 year high (6.1 percent, not counting those who are so frustrated that they've quit looking for jobs and those who are underemployed), this open thread is brought to you by the Randy Newman song "Mr. President (Have Pity on the Working Man)."

< Obama's Palin Plan | Rep. McCollum to Examine Police Misconduct in St. Paul >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I have a serious question (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by coolit on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:21:12 PM EST
    I am not a republican. I will not vote republican.  

    However, I have finally decided that after the events of this campaign season, I cannot vote for our presidential ticket.... even if it means Obama wont win.  

    So for everyone who roots and cheers for Obama, do you feel that it is worth it?  All the excitement and winning elections and hope and change?  Is it worth completely fracturing the democratic party and losing the easiest election we've had in modern history?  Would you do it the same way over again if it meant the devastating scenario I just described?

    Life isn't perfect (2.00 / 0) (#10)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:41:24 AM EST
    and neither are humans. I can accept that. We all make mistakes.

    I'm voting for Obama because I believe in Democratic principles. I don't care who the leader of the party is, I just like the world and my life alot better when Democrats are in charge. I liked it when Clinton was president. I hated it when Bush was. I remember Clinton at the memorial service in Oklahoma City. I remember the people suffering in New Orleans and Bush trying to tell everyone everything was okay.

    I'd never sit home and allow a Republican vote to get counted without providing mine to nullify it. Never. I care too much about too many things that will be destroyed if another Republican gets into office. Oh, and by the way, I don't give a hoot about soccer.

    Parent

    you are limited to 4 comments a day (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:31:57 PM EST
    readers who oppose the democratic ticket are limited to four comments a day.

    Parent
    i think the (none / 0) (#4)
    by coolit on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:42:00 PM EST
    party is in trouble.  some of us are feeling completely alienated.  and you want to limit debate?  ok.  sorry for going over the limit, i will obey the rules.

    Parent
    Fighter (none / 0) (#13)
    by WS on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:15:13 AM EST
    Hillary is a fighter and rolls with the punches.  I know she can become President in 2016 if she can get some of O's coalition especially African Americans, and a non-fractured Dem Party (as in Obama winning) will help in achieving that objective.    

    Parent
    I've always been curious... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by EL seattle on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:35:19 AM EST
    ... about the phrase "those who are so frustrated that they've quit looking for jobs".  I definitely understand what that refers to, but... does anyone ever track how long these people actually stay in a "quit looking" state?

    I'm sure that most of the people who were so depressed by the sad conditions of the job market three months ago (or one year ago, or two years ago) that they quit looking for a job at that time later became active in looking again.

    But how long, on average, does that "so frustrated" state last for those people who've ever fallen into that category, I wonder?

    It's not just being frustrated (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:50:58 AM EST
    it's loss of self-esteem, value, self-worth. Insecurities. Shame. Humiliation. Lack of belief in oneself.

    Parent
    New polls (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by JAB on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:32:47 AM EST
    Ras has the race tied today at 46 a piece.  Even when you include the leaners, it's 48-48.

    Link

    These are the first polls conducted after Palin's acceptance speech, but not after McCain's speech.

    Non-election related (none / 0) (#3)
    by mg7505 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:36:16 PM EST
    Not that anyone's interested in discussing this, but since it's the subject of this open thread -- did anyone read the actual news release on the employment situation? I was shocked by the major job losses in manufacturing, retail and employment services. Yet,

    Health care added 27,000 jobs in August, about in line with its average growth in the prior 12 months (31,000).  Mining employment rose by 12,000 in August, with increases in all the component industries.  Job growth has been especially strong in support activities and in oil and gas extraction over the past 12 months.

    Makes me think we need to get more people working in healthcare and mining.

    There were also lots of other interesting trends -- like the fact that those who lost their jobs last month were disproportionately younger folks ages 16-24 (may bode well for Obama...). Or the fact that people with college degrees were far less likely to lose their job.

    My niece is working on healthcare (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by nycstray on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:15:03 AM EST
    currently taking courses to become a nurse. She's done eldercare and childcare, so she's coming at it from a good space vs it will be a job because that's where they are hiring. She's mid-20's and although the homecare for the elderly was hard, she learned a lot and got a sense of meds and nurse care and what nursing would be like.

    Healthcare isn't for everyone. I don't think I could do it. I'm better at education.

    Degreed employees losing their jobs in lower numbers may be because many have already lost their jobs. We've had 8 yrs of job losses and consolidation etc. And many may be off the radar now. Those who went off on their own etc, won't show up on the reports. Just like when you look at numbers of those receiving unemployment. Those maxed out don't register.

    Parent

    Any UFC fans here? (none / 0) (#5)
    by skuld1 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:54:17 PM EST
    No spoilers, but my jaw hit the floor when I saw the end of the main event...

    UFC? What's that? (none / 0) (#7)
    by nycstray on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:16:07 AM EST
    It's... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by CoralGables on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:21:26 AM EST
    similar to politics but not quite as dirty

    Parent
    Link (none / 0) (#9)
    by skuld1 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:27:05 AM EST
    Here's their site

    I love boxing as well, but that sport has been in a long decline :(    This is a nice alternative.

    Parent

    It's Good. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Fabian on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:15:19 AM EST
    Someone I can agree with on Palin.  (Besides BTD, that is!)

    Willie Brown writes:

    If she can answer questions like she handled herself at the convention, Palin will turn out to be the most interesting person in all of politics, and the press will treat her like they treated Obama when he was first discovered.

    And remember, the Palin bandwagon needs to roll for only two months.

    There's more and you can read Anglachel's take on this column too.  The column is short and to the point - Palin is a threat to the Democrats, but it's not her ideology.  It's the Media fascination with her.

    BTD said Obama's advantage was his Media Darling status.  The question that hung in the air for the longest time was "What happens to Obama if he loses that status?".  No one seemed to capable of taking that status away from him.  McCain for all his maverickness could not do it.  Not enough charisma, too much old news, not enough new news.

    And then along came Palin...
    Those of us who were less involved said "This changes the media game!" because we could see the control of news cycles slipping away.  You NEED those news cycles to keep your message in front of the public.  You need the media to carry your water for you.  It sounds so crass, but it is true.  That's why the Media Darling status is so important.  

    There's only two things to do about Palin.  Find something substantial, irrefutable and career ending about her.  Not gossip.  Not witch hunting.  (Which, BTW, are not useful in this short time line.  If we had six months, maybe.)  Like what?  Taking bribes would do or some other evidence of blatant corruption.  Impeachable offenses.

    The other thing to do is to deprive Palin of news cycles.  That means not talking about her unless you have something that will really resonate with the public or something that will turn her base against her.  It also means providing as much competing news events as possible.  That's up to Obama/Biden.

    The game was already changing (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by BrianJ on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:38:14 AM EST
    McCain erased Obama's lead before the convention not because he did anything to take away Obama's status as Media Darling, but because he cleverly found a way to do two things at once with commercials like "The One":

    Debase the value of being a Media Darling (the media loves Paris Hilton and Britney Spears!)
    Find a way to make Obama react illogically (by questioning his credentials as a Serious Person)

    Then he appointed Sarah Palin as VP.  And you're right-  she became a Media Darling, and the Democrats' spastic attacks on her only made her case stronger.

    Now Obama's in severe trouble.  He failed to establish anything to fall back on when Media Darling status faded-  serious policy proposals, a story as compelling as McCain, even simple partisan opposition to McCain/Palin.  It's probably not too late for him to do this last, but can he put his own ego aside and act like an average Democrat, using a non-personality-based strategy that literally any Democrat could execute?

    Parent