Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Considering the source, this is one of the more amusing pieces you will read today. One commenter captures the hilarity:

People might remember a few of us scratching our heads over how so many others drank the kool aid and believed Obama would have mystical powers [. . .] And one of the principal kool aid makers - who was willing to lie in support of Obama over complete bullsh*t nonsense like Clinton rigging the polls in Nevada - is now making a joke about it.

As I said before, I never waste a chance to republish this post:

As citizens and activists, our allegiances have to be to the issues we believe in. I am a partisan Democrat it is true. But the reason I am is because I know who we can pressure to do the right thing some of the times. Republicans aren't them. But that does not mean we accept the failings of our Democrats. There is nothing more important that we can do, as citizens, activists or bloggers than fight to pressure DEMOCRATS to do the right thing on OUR issues.

And this is true in every context I think. Be it pressing the Speaker or the Senate majority leader, or the new hope running for President. There is nothing more important we can do. Nothing. It's more important BY FAR than "fighting" for your favorite pol because your favorite pol will ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS, disappoint you.

In the middle of primary fights, citizens, activists and bloggers like to think their guy or woman is different. They are going to change the way politics works. They are going to not disappoint. In short, they are not going to be pols. That is, in a word, idiotic.

Yes, they are all pols. And they do what they do. Do not fight for pols. Fight for the issues you care about. That often means fighting for a pol of course. But remember, you are fighting for the issues. Not the pols.

Speaking for me only of course.

This is an Open Thread.

< The Camel's Nose Barely Sneaks Under The Tent In The Health Insurance Premium Assistance Bill | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • And their defense comes down to (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by lilburro on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:05:37 AM EST
    "If Obama can't do it, nobody can."  Glad they're so blithe about being total jack@sses.

    Incorrect (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:07:07 AM EST
    What they are saying is if Obama does not TRY to do it, then it could not be done.

    Yeah (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by lilburro on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:14:03 AM EST
    no real change of character there.  Which is probably why Obama will win most of them over again in 2012 - all he has to do is throw a bone, or pretend to.

    What Obama has done so far on pretty much every issue is shockingly conservative to me.  I really did not think it would be this bad.


    You may not be familiar with TINS (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:15:51 AM EST
    but he was one of the nastiest, the lyingest, the most kool aid drinkingest ObamaBot you could find during the primaries.

    The humor to me is to see him adopt the Impotent President angle.


    Though I must give the commenters in thread (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:27:01 AM EST
    a lot of credit. They are owning him lock, stock and barrel.

    Never got into Kos... (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by lilburro on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:29:38 AM EST
    there was some jerk there called Armando, he was unbearable...

    Indeed (4.57 / 14) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:31:13 AM EST
    The funny thing is that my departure was going to make the place of model of civility.

    How'd that turn out?

    Hell, the only one who got civil was me, because Jeralyn made me.


    I stopped (none / 0) (#100)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:19:47 PM EST
    reading DailyKos not too long after you left, BTD.  It just got too boring.  There certainly was continued sniping and incivility, but there were also plenty of "comment police" who were all too ready to jump on anyone who did not march in lockstep with the "revealed wisdom"  (okay, maybe I'm exaggerating and being too harsh, but the site just ceased to interest me much).

    Don't worry, Zorba. (none / 0) (#130)
    by prittfumes on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:07:30 PM EST
    IMO your comments are spot on. There's no such thing as exaggerating and being too harsh when the subject is orange.

    I like this comment: (none / 0) (#19)
    by lilburro on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:31:36 AM EST

    Funny stuff. (6+ / 0-)
    Where are all those kossacks who loudly insisted the WH was waiting until the perfect time to weigh-in on the HCR debate?

    Perhaps they weighed in when Harry Reid went, hat in hand, to ask for help rounding up votes for the public option and got no response.

    ::links available upon request::

    Ordell Robbie: Is that what I think it is? Jackie Brown: What do you think it is?

    by dclawyer06 on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 06:01:39 AM PST
    [ Parent ]

    I dunno (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:36:53 AM EST
    If those same people are now arguing what TINs is arguing, I could see the point.

    But TINS is a special case of hypocrisy and lying.


    Well (none / 0) (#44)
    by lilburro on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 10:03:31 AM EST
    TINS looks like a good candidate for the AAYP:  

    Now that young voters are turning out in record numbers for Democrats, it only makes sense to assume that those voters will continue to vote Democratic for the rest of their lives.  The minor inconvenience of being forced by mandate to purchase outrageously expensive insurance from private companies will be a more than acceptable sacrifice for the greater of good of salvaging the Medicare system, thereby reducing the deficit so that Ben Bernanke can continue to prop up the banking system.

    Anyway, Kos was not my HQ during the primaries so I am not familiar with TINS' Obama stuff.  All I want to see is people pressing Obama to actually lead on health care and other issues, instead of believing in the Impotent President or 11 dimensional chess or whatever.  If that is what TINS is doing then that is a good thing.  Maybe I am missing the point.


    TINS suffers from a serious disconnect. (none / 0) (#81)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:37:41 AM EST
    One day he's apoplectic that the Dems are on a suicide mission with this bill that the President apparently will support and sign; and the next he's making the claim that the so-called "Head of the Party" should be held harmless for the massive failure he was bemoaning just 24-48 hours earlier.  It is pretty weird.

    it's good that he's getting angry (none / 0) (#126)
    by Turkana on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:02:14 PM EST
    he still needs to learn where to direct it.

    He may or may not be capable of (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 02:17:46 PM EST
    that.  My sense is that he isn't a big picture kind of guy.  You need to be able to make an honest and objective assessment of the connections between all of the moving parts in order to identify the weak links.  He won't acknowledge that Obama is connected to anything that is going wrong.

    No We Can't (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 10:17:00 AM EST
    Boy, that didn't take long, did it?

    Thank dog no Hillbotery (none / 0) (#94)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:15:29 PM EST
    was ever countenanced at this site back then.

    Someone has to have some standards.


    You're right (4.33 / 6) (#30)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:40:17 AM EST
    the most frustrating thing is the unshakable belief that whatever Obama accomplishes, it was necessarily the most progressive outcome that was politically possible.  If he didn't try, that just means it was obviously a non-starter.

    What makes this theory extra frustrating is that while it is obviously a ludicrous thing to believe about any politician, it is completely unfalsifiable!


    Politics is unfalsifiable (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:43:16 AM EST
    We're all just wanking anyway.

    In fairness to them (none / 0) (#99)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:19:40 PM EST
    the last 40 years of American History would seem to suggest that Dems can't get their Domestic Agenda through- Health Care just destroys us every time. Heck Truman in the Wake of WW2 but before Korea crippled him couldn't pass it, neither could FDR during the depression.

    From that perspective (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:53:53 PM EST
    maybe this diary is more your speed.

    Presumably all of us who thought healthcare was a big issue in the primary - which is how the overwhelming majority of Dems feel - didn't agree that it was simply impossible to get anything passed.  Is it hard?  Of course it's hard.  But it doesn't follow that whatever bill passes is the greatest bill that ever could have been passed.


    I think marginal change is possilbe (none / 0) (#149)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:28:56 PM EST
    Especially with the co-opting of the primary actors- its the reason that one could very easily argue that Healthcare Reform bills in 1997 and 2003 were passed while almost all previous bills went down in defeat (getting the AMA and AARP on board)- however there is a major problem with this theory- the emergence of the filibuster- we can't co-opt a big enough GOP base group to prevent a filibuster (which is what AARP supporter did in 2003) I mean who are we going to take?

    As far as bills go- right now among the actually passable bills The Baucus bill (S. 1796) is by far the best piece of legislation- its allowance of state public options for those from 133%-200% of FPL with 85% Federal backing looks positively progressive in comparison to the Reid approach (then again I always like the Baucus bill more than the supposed savior bill- HR 676 was a freaking non-starter- If we want comprehensive reform we need to mirror Switzerland unfortunately our governmental structure is just to consrvative and republican--little "r" not the GOP-- to get things done).


    Apparently (none / 0) (#140)
    by cal1942 on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:25:11 PM EST
    You've forgotten Medicare.

    You mean (none / 0) (#155)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:32:38 PM EST
    the system established in the middle of 1965? Nope I didn't forget Medicare or Medicaid.

    well, Bill Clinton failed (none / 0) (#181)
    by lilburro on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:52:43 PM EST
    I'm not aware of any particular efforts Jimmy Carter made on that front (see here).  And LBJ passed Medicare and Medicaid.  

    Plus, as the Nixon example proves, health care fails for different reasons each time.  So the "it's hard" argument just strikes me as meh.


    Well (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:14:40 AM EST
    the people that had the temper tantrum over "must have Obama" as nominee have turned themselves largely into jokes. The people are why the party is in such bad shape too IMO. When you pick a leader who has no ability to lead then this is what you get.

    I'm still steamed over the Obamamyth that he (5.00 / 15) (#12)
    by kempis on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:24:58 AM EST
    would somehow unite us all and lift the politics of this country above partisanship. During the primaries, I heard again and again that Obama's unique gift was his ability to appeal to people across the spectrum. I wondered then how on earth anyone who has observed politics in this country for any amount of time could think such a thing.

    And now some of those same characters are pissed off because Obama makes every effort to appeal to the right. Apparently, their delusion was even worse than I thought. They must have believed that Obama could appeal to conservatives while leading the country in a progressive direction. And yet the steadfast maintain now that they "never thought he had a magic wand!" so they aren't disappointed. No, they just follow their leader whither he goest and forget the roadmap they touted only months ago as he finds it politically expedient to change the cadence that they march to.

    I'm as disgusted with them as I was with the Bushies.


    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:28:25 AM EST
    I do not think you should hate people for being wrong.

    Distaste for dishonesty now, like from TINS, well I am all for that.


    You know (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:35:40 AM EST
    what? I think if they admitted they were wrong then it would be one thing. Instead of facing the facts of the situation, they continue to have fantasies of Obama that are not based in reality and probably never were.

    The whole thing about the "Obama movement" that creeped me out were these people acted just like the Bush supporters. Criticizing Obama was akin to hating Jesus. It was the same creepy Messiah thing that Bush had.


    Some, not all (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:40:10 AM EST
    You must admit a lot of people have seen that all is not what they thought it would be.

    As I wrote below in another comment, TINS is a very special case because of his behavior during the primaries.

    I would put Kid Oakland in that group as well. And Hilzoy (who shrewdly retired from blogging considering all the crow she would have to eat).

    You are probably thinking of Josh Marshall and folks like that right?


    True (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:53:27 AM EST
    some have seen the light but I don't know how they missed it even before the election last year with the FISA vote. I can understand that some of them were so desperate to elect a Dem that they went along with some of the things but it's a useless thing unless they've learned their lesson in the end. Electing a Dem by default really isn't much of a win.

    The thing is they themselves set it up for Obama to treat them the way he has. They never held him accoutable during the primaries for any of the lies he told so why wouldn't Obama treat them like chumps? They're acting like abused wives who keep going back for more.


    He treated the Clintons like chumps (5.00 / 9) (#63)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 10:59:25 AM EST
    Seems to me over the years, that kind of beyond-the-pale trashing is a pretty reliable clue to the character of the pol and the political integrity with which he/she will govern if in office.  My rage about it now and at the time isn't just that it was unfair to the Clintons, it's what it said about Obama's core values.

    The only other high-profile Dem I can think of who did something similar was Bill Bradley's disgusting attempt to pin the Willie Horton smear on Al Gore.


    Core values (1.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:52:39 PM EST
    like renting out the Lincoln bedroom and sharing a cigar with a starstruck intern.

    "Core values". Who are you Ralph Reed? People with strong core values dont go into politics.


    1) Two Separate People and B) No Hummers ... (5.00 / 7) (#135)
    by Ellie on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:16:24 PM EST
    ... isn't a core Dem value so much as, say, collective bargaining. Sen Clinton has a political record in her own right despite having b00bies. I know ... shocks almighty!

    Jeez Louise, someone got head in the WH. Get the f*ck over it already.


    The subject (1.00 / 1) (#145)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:27:31 PM EST
    introduced by someone else, was the more generic "core values", not core Dem values.

    Personally, I think Naomi Klein and Julia Butterfly Hill have a record AND boobies. Hillary just has boobies -- probobly enhanced with some of that 100k a pop, ghostwritten, speaker fee money.


    What's it to you that she gets speaker fees? (5.00 / 6) (#166)
    by Ellie on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:36:29 PM EST
    Or that people want to buy her book?

    "Enhanced"? Man, you've got CDS baaaad.

    Are you holding Obama to the same, arbitrary standard not to publish? Mmm-hmmm, he "wrote" that himself, except for the massive parts that were cribbed and plagiarized.


    That I think that they're (none / 0) (#196)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 02:06:33 PM EST
    more than a tad overrated by a few frequenters of this site for dosnt mean I hold them responsible for all the evils in the world like some AM talk radio host.

    The enhanced was over-the-top hyperbole; the speaker fee comment was refering to Bill.


    That was actually one of my primary (none / 0) (#160)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:34:44 PM EST
    objections to Hillary in '08, the "political record" where she in effect took credit for the positive accomplishments of the Clinton Admin, while distancing herself from the less positive things- good times.

    Apart from being a legitimate health-care activist (5.00 / 5) (#189)
    by Ellie on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    ... and stating her bona fides there, she didn't tout anything beyond the (unelected) FLOTUS role.

    The mob and pitchforks did all the blurring, jumping back and forth as if the Clintons were some two headed monster. Well, to them and the ravening media, maybe.

    As for the Obama remorseful, they bought him, he owns them.

    At some point the Palin Derangement Syndrome among diehards will run its ridiculous course too -- they're down to criticizing her hats -- and the post punking hangover will set in.

    Like I said, I've got no dog in this fight.


    Except for implying that (1.33 / 3) (#205)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 02:14:05 PM EST
    it's based in sexism; which is little like those others who continually squawking about racism during the primaries.

    Make that a legitimate health care activist with a warchest full of insurence industry dough. But hey, I woulda' voted for her over McCain, even if I do think she should get her biscuits in the oven and her buns in bed.


    You know what? (3.66 / 3) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:44:06 PM EST
    I've decided there are only two people in this political world: the sanctimonous crotch sniffers like you and the fundamentalist Republicans who are every bit as condescending as you are. You got what you wanted but know he's abusing you too so are you going to continue to take it? I guess you are by your continual Obamapologia.

    Hillary de Arc is another (none / 0) (#121)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:55:52 PM EST
    story though; she healed my bunions from a distance.

    Oh for god's sake (none / 0) (#111)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:41:55 PM EST
    he was running against Hillary for the Presidency of the United States what was he supposed to do, stand by and let the frontrunner win?  I mean I do see how offering someone the job of Secretary of State is a huge sign of disrespect and all but c'mon.

    I have standards of (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:48:14 PM EST
    behavior and honesty, even if you don't.

    That a pol is willing to do something so vile is a big, fat, red warning flag about his/her behavior in office, and one that I think has been abundantly proven already in this case.

    The fact that he then turned around and made HRC SoS rather goes to prove my point.


    It was a nasty primary from both sides (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by coigue on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:06:50 PM EST
    the idea that the Clintons are racist is absurd,

    but the 3am ad was a very low blow, reminiscent of Rovian politics.

    Comparing the two, the racism charge is much worse, considering it created a wedge in the party that still is there.


    Yeah (2.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:31:48 PM EST
    implying Obama would fail in a Crisis but McCain wouldn't was totally smooth. Or running a campaign aimed at what basically ended up being the Tea Party folks (white, low education, low end of the income scale, etc.)

    "tea party folks" (5.00 / 10) (#174)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:43:57 PM EST
    See, this is what's so putridly rotten at the core of much of the "progressive" so-called movement, and particularly loathesome about so many of the Obamabots.

    Working class and the poor, both white and black and every other color, used to be what the Democratic Party was all about.  Those disgusting white low-income low-education trolls you despise so much have been the mainstay of the Democratic Party for a long, long time.

    Yes, God forbid a Democrat should campaign for them, advocate for their needs and actually enjoy their support, now that we've reached the nirvana of a truly purified largely white suburban party that wants no truck with those dirty people who use their hands to earn a living.  We'll put up with the black folks -- for now -- because they agree with us in this particular case, but they better watch out.

    I wonder if you really understand the implications of what you just said.


    That's not what I meant (none / 0) (#197)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 02:07:08 PM EST
    I had no problem with appealing to the working class and championing there issues, what I objected to was the intentional fragmenting that occured- she wasn't appealing to the men and women building America when she talked about "hard working white folks" she was running the same sort of "welfare queens driving cadillacs" crap that pisses me off whenever I read Reagan's speeches. She was painting Obama, and those who supported him as somehow less than American- and frankly, by that point I had heard enough of that- I'm sorry but we aren't any less American than you are- we may live in cities, we may go to college (usually by taking out huge federally backed loans), we may not work with our hands but we're every bit as American. I apologize if you took what I said the wrong way but I was personally a bit disgusted that somehow only one canidate supposedly spoke for the base of the party when in reality both spoke for important segments of the base.

    Oh wow -- you have to suspend disbelief off a tall (5.00 / 8) (#212)
    by Ellie on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 02:22:34 PM EST
    ... bridge with a bungee cord to take Reagan's imagined welfare queen straw (wo)man from that, particularly when OBAMA was the big, sloppy Reagan worshipper.

    Presumably, (Sen) Clinton's "failure" was not to hate hard-working low income white people more explicitly and often enough.

    It's over. Obama spent his political capital vaingloriously and he can't do the job. Enjoy his reign.  


    Saying someone is untested is a crisis (5.00 / 5) (#179)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:50:03 PM EST
    is a valid point. And there are plenty of Democrats who are "white, low education, low end of the income scale, etc." Are you not supposed to try to win them over during a primary season or general election?

    gyrfalcon, they all do it (none / 0) (#137)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:22:25 PM EST
    Bill executed Ricky Ray Rector.  JFK wasn't so nice....LBJ found votes in South Texas to win his first senate race....

    Nice guys, or gals, don't become President.


    The fundmental problem... (none / 0) (#141)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:25:42 PM EST
    with our republic....

    Nice guys, or gals, don't become President.

    Like Vonnegut said, only a psychopath would want the job...its an issue to say the least.


    I would take a look at Sotomayor (none / 0) (#136)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:19:11 PM EST
    She has already drawn the fire of Clarenece Thomas....and I don't believe she will be such a law and order vote after all.

    I doubt that Palin or McCain would have nominated Sotomayor....

    Obama is in the middle of a predictable downturn in how he is viewed.  The economy has not yet turned around, but is beginning to, and there is no health bill.  I think there is a good chance both things will turn around soon.

    The chief danger for Obama is Afghanistan.  If it deteriorates into a mess, that will be his undoing.

    By 2012, the economy should be fine.  Afghanistan may not be.


    Ah, memories (5.00 / 6) (#76)
    by lambert on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:25:20 AM EST
    Kid Oakland was the author of my all-time favorite OFB fluff piece, "casual poetry". The seeds of the 40% of Dems who are "unlikely to vote at this point in time, or have already made the firm decision to remove themselves from the 2010 electorate pool"  were very evidently planted -- for those who could see at the time -- exactly by the OFB's "poetry."

    Oh the humanity! (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by Spamlet on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:34:20 PM EST
    My knuckles hurt from rapping on doorjambs. I've been on my knees all day shoving lit under doors, I've been stuck outside security trellises squinting into homes at faces I can't see. . . . "Nobody's done ground like this in a California Presidential primary since Bobby Kennedy. You're part of that."

    Yeah, I remember Obama's ground game in California. Obama lost by, what, 10 points?


    In fairness (none / 0) (#206)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 02:16:45 PM EST
    Comparing Obama to Bobby Kennedy is a bit unfair to Obama- after all even with his failures on Civil Liberties he hasn't as far as we know pushed for the surveilance of Civil Rights leaders.  

    (This is a bit of a joke, but the Kennedy Haigography has always annoyed me- Historically, JFK and RFK pale in comparison to say LBJ, or Ted, I mean we don't like to think of it now but JFK won in large part by scaremongering wrongly about the "missle gap" - guy is easily the most overrated president in American History but was blessed with a brilliant VP who after his death pushed through the most progressive agenda since FDR. - Seriously, if you're looking at things through the lense of History JFK was overshadowed by basically every immediate contemporary-Truman,Ike,LBJ with the possible exception of Nixon-- though Nixon may have been more progressive.


    Funny, I was chuckling to myself about that (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:41:32 PM EST
    stirring video someone created with the speeches, and the guitar player. Was it Usher? Can't remember now.

    I realize some people can't understand how those of us with a different mindset find such artistic, emotional paeans to politicians a bit, well, over the top.


    And by "a different mindset"... (none / 0) (#195)
    by lambert on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 02:04:54 PM EST
    ... you mean "a mindset."

    Just pointing out the hidden assumption here. Heh.


    heh - yeah, I do make assumptions, don't I? (none / 0) (#201)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 02:10:59 PM EST
    It was worse! (none / 0) (#31)
    by talesoftwokitties on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:40:17 AM EST
    I was pissed at the Clinton supporters (none / 0) (#87)
    by magster on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:52:06 AM EST
    for criticizing Obama after it was clear that he'd be the nominee after crushing in WI and MD (?), thinking that she was dividing the party and sabotaging the general election.  Turns out that couldn't have been further from the truth as the Obama-Clinton wars dominated the news, marginalized McCain and made Obama almost the assured winner after Clinton endorsed him.

    So, I was WRONG, but my tantrums towards Clinton weren't about Obama being Jesus, and I don't think the Obama supporters who are now wholly disillusioned (like me) ever thought he was the second coming.  Who knows if Clinton would have been any better, but we all know Obama should have been better than he's been.


    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:32:25 AM EST
    Greenwald had it right when he talked about how they really aren't any different than the Bushies or the Palinists. They are all about a follow the leader cult, nothing more nothing less and no matter how much conservative BS obama shoves out they will either excuse it, apologize for it or explain how this really is "progressive." IMO, they've managed to turn the word "progressive" into a joke that means nothing more than "what Obama wants."

    They were idiots for buying his BS for the most part. However, Obama did go around during the primaries telling everybody what they wanted to hear so which time was he lying? It was hard to tell and so I guess you could play "pick the truthful" statement in your own mind.


    that was a great essay by Greenwald n/t (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by kempis on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:13:04 AM EST
    Its kind of like (2.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:26:08 PM EST
    pretending Welfare reform, DOMA, and DADT weren't massive fails in the 90s, or that Carter wasn't a bit of a bumbler in the 70s- while the jury's still out on Obama we've had exactly 1 great domestic policy Dem in the last 60 years- LBJ.

    And he was an a$$hole. (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by coigue on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:10:01 PM EST
    So....I guess voting in the nice guy wasn't the best option.

    You're (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:54:27 PM EST
    kidding on welfare reform aren't you? That was a huge monkey on the back of the party that I'm glad is gone. DOMA and DADT were the best that we could get at the time. Much more can be done now but we know Obama wont because of who he's beholden to and afraid of.

    Welfare Reform may have been a good idea (2.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 02:09:01 PM EST
    but to pretend it wasn't just the sort of
    "moderatism" that you would crucify Obama for attempting is an act of self-deception.

    Segue: Pres. Carter. (none / 0) (#114)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:45:38 PM EST
    According to Huff Po, his grandson is running for public office.

    And (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by cal1942 on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:29:33 PM EST
    It was all very plain (the leadership thing) before the primaries.

    Only low information voters were able to see that 12,000 pound elephant in the room.


    Yeah it was totally (2.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:24:16 PM EST
    temper tantrum I mean remember when Obama supporters established a splinter group and whined about how they wouldn't support the nominee, I mean whoa it sure is a good thing one side was totally mature and didn't go off the deep end. Please, the primaries featured whackadoo behavior on both sides as you are quite obviously aware.

    Now c'mon (5.00 / 9) (#142)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:25:49 PM EST
    It was Obama supporters who first declared that they would not support Clinton if she was the nominee, going so far as to predict riots at the convention. Donna Brazile, just for one.

    As Ruffian points out, there was quite (5.00 / 8) (#152)
    by tigercourse on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:30:33 PM EST
    alot of talk from Obama supporters early in the primary about not supporting Clinton if she won. The various claims they made about African Americans rioting were both ridiculous, hysterical (in both senses) and not a little bit racist.

    PUMA's only really showed up AFTER the various debacles of the primaries and caucuses.


    You (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:56:50 PM EST
    must have not been around then. There were plenty of threats to not support Hilary should she be the nominee and I'm sure they would have been carried out in the end.

    Nice to see (none / 0) (#165)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:36:23 PM EST
    someone's going through and downrating these posts because they point out things like a two-way street.

    When you have a patronage system (none / 0) (#102)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:23:33 PM EST
    in place, the idea that you'll ever get a "leader" is a fatuous fantasy.

    Unless by leader you're talking about a symbolic figure with just the right kind of appealing emotional resonance and little else of substance.


    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:59:55 PM EST
    has never showed leadership qualities on any issue his entire life. Everytime a conflict comes up he runs and hides. He's the most conflict avoidant personality I think I've ever seen in the White House. His is a personality flaw that cannot be corrected and has nothing to do with the political patronage system.

    have ever made you happy, you've been harping on the guy for nearly 2 years now are you ever going to overcome your ODS?

    Why would any genuine leaders (none / 0) (#106)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:26:17 PM EST
    gravitate to American politics in the first place?

    I have been very happy with Obama (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 10:05:40 AM EST
    But I always saw he was more "conservative" or practical then other people thought.  If you read his books, listened to him- he is doing what he said he was going to do (I just re-read the Audacity of Hope- hw is amazingly consistent- that is not good or bad it just is).  I think one of the amazing things (an unfortunate) to happen with the primaries was that the people heard what they wanted to hear, and that is translated into disappointment.  

    I like my politics slow and steady.  I have felt that he has done what I wanted (at least in the direction of what I wanted), but not gone quite far enough for my taste.  But if you add it up I am generally pretty happy.

    I agree with you on that point Sam (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 10:14:38 AM EST
    No one who read 'The Audacity of Hope' should have any doubts about the way Obama planned to govern. He is sticking with that model. The problem I have is with people who thought he was a secret radical liberal and did not believe what he wrote in that book.

    I don't really have a problem with (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:45:57 AM EST
    the people who thought he was a secret liberal.  I have a problem with the people who insisted that he was a secret liberal even though they knew that was hardly the truth.  There were more of those than I think a lot of people realized - especially over at dkos.

    Now we have the crew that pulls into every diary that criticizes Obama and swarms the threads with all kinds of attacks on the diarists.  Kos is getting a full on taste of their strategy in his post about the DNC email that went out last night claiming that Obama "won't back down."  lol  An email that kos correctly called BS on imo.


    I'd say (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by CST on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 10:17:12 AM EST
    it's a mixed bag.  Which is pretty much what I'd expect anytime the person I vote for wins.  As opposed to an empty bag, which is what you get when the other party wins.

    The character problem here, Sam (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:02:48 AM EST
    is that Obama not only didn't discourage that reading of him, he actively encouraged it.

    That is true (none / 0) (#71)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:17:17 AM EST
    Do you really see that as a character flaw?  I guess my follow up question is, is wanting to the President of the US a character flaw?  Seems insane to me.  

    I just re-read that (none / 0) (#72)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:20:05 AM EST
    I was not calling you insane.  I was saying wanting to be the President of the US is insane.  Look at how grey he has become.  

    THAT would be interesting to know. Has the job made him grey, is that dye, was he grey before and just hiding it?  These are the important questions we need to know.  Senator Lieberman needs to get on this like right now.


    No offense taken (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:50:00 AM EST
    I understood what you meant.

    All presidents age dramatically in office.  Can't think of a single one that hasn't gone gray, if they weren't gray already, except for Reagan, who died his hair.

    Yes, you're right, wanting to be president is by definition pretty insane.  Being willing to take the huge gamble of deliberately deceiving your supporters about your agenda just in order to get there and be able to turn around and betray them is unusually insane.

    There are degrees, is all I'm saying.


    Reagan (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by cal1942 on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:35:06 PM EST
    I guess that Reagan either dyed his hair or napped through the whole thing.

    It's not a character flaw (none / 0) (#82)
    by Manuel on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:41:24 AM EST
    It is a trait of all pols.  This too was evident at the time.  Politics is a contact sport.

    It's actually not a trait (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:44:10 AM EST
    of all pols to anywhere near this extent.  Obama is the most skilled at this I've ever seen in 50 years as a politics junkie.  And his whole campaign was based on exactly this deception, quite cynically, from its very beginning.

    Sure, styrofoam pillars propping up a pol (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by Cream City on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:12:17 PM EST
    probably were not a first on a convention stage.

    But that Obama's spine is made of styrofoam, too -- did you expect that?


    Nice parroting GOP (2.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 02:18:22 PM EST
    talking points, good times- remember how Obama was doomed to lose and couldn't get it done in the electoral college- ah the memories.

    It was unrealistic to expect (none / 0) (#158)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:34:00 PM EST
    Obama to be any more Progressive than he is.  Obama is about as far left as a President can realistically be....Perhaps, though, the Overton window can be pulled futher left...

    Any change is hard--especially at the national level. To get any movement at all requires huge effort and idealism.....Perhaps the entire goal had not been achieved, but the direction is still left of what we had.

    And, change nowadays must be instaneous or it is nonexistant.  A close review of Obama as community organizer would have shown that he believed in incremental change--which is really the only kind of change that is possible without a major catastrophe.  

    FDR was able to implement massive change because of the twin massive devastations of the Great Depression and WWII.  The Bush economic collapse was horrid, but because the banking system was saved, it did not equal the Great Depression.  So, people are less desperate for change.

    Shoot for the stars....and just make it over the next hill:  not bad at all.    


    Are you trying to prove (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:41:38 PM EST
    my comment #30 correct?!?

    I have to admit (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by coigue on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:45:12 PM EST
    I had hoped that his unity schtick would be about perception, and used politically to demonize Repubs (in the public eye) when they were obstructionist.

    I did NOT think that it would mean that it would be such a values compromise.

    I think the reason this happened is because so much of the resistance is from within the Democratic party.

    (as an aside, I am amused about how many kossacks are surprised the Lieberman is pro choice and pro gay...they have lathered themselves up that the senator is the same as Orrin Hatch, or someone comparable)


    <Incremental> Change you can believe in (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 02:01:59 PM EST
    Obama: As Progressive as you can realistically be.

    Amazing how I heard none of this during the campaign. All I heard was the criticism of the other primary candidates for being 'Bush Lite', and not representing "real" change.

    Of course it takes effort and idealism to move things in a progressive direction. It also takes a willingness to try without compromising the ideals before the battle even starts. When are we going to see this shooting for the stars of which you speak?


    I don't (none / 0) (#193)
    by cal1942 on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 02:01:54 PM EST
    know if it's a syrofoam spine as much as a lack of conviction or a conviction to lack conviction.

    The HCR mess and how it came about was really foretold as early as The Audacity of Hope,  Obama's "book" of self revelation.


    As the Obama Administration unveils it global AIDS (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 10:14:06 AM EST
    plan, AIDs advocates are complaining that they have been betrayed, according to a report in today's NYT. One long-time AIDs campaigner said that he was holding his breath as he says this, but he misses Bush on this issue. Apparently, the new thrust is shifted to prevention and to diseases that cost less to fight, such as pneumonia, diarrhea and malaria--all worthy fights, but concern is for taking one side of the pie for the other. A dispute on priorities seems to exist between Dr. Eric Goosby AIDS coordinator and chief of Pepfar and Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of Rahm). Moreover, the plan is silent on controversial issues like abstinence, condoms, support for clinics that also perform abortions, and, of course, that pesky issue of admonishing countries like Uganda where gays are hung( proposed, and no pun intended) and others not reporting knowledge of gays within 24 hours are sent to prison for three years.  Goosby was previously quoted as saying we do not get involved in the legislative affairs of other countries, so we are neutral on this, I guess.

    I'm not sure I see the connection (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:15:57 PM EST
    between disregarding someone's pov because her dad says that person had second thoughts about a decision she made 25+ years ago as a 17 or 18 y/o.

    There apparently is a lot of racism in Hawaii, back forth. She, purportedly, didn't dig living within it.

    Also, there are those who would characterize your words "I refuse to be lectured...by a...white-wing bimbo" as bigoted, racist and sexist.

    Not me, of course.

    Except you were speaking specifically about (5.00 / 4) (#204)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 02:13:49 PM EST
    And FYI, the term "bimbo" has historically been a non-gender-specific perjorative.

    a woman. Wasn't it just days ago you declared yourself an "unrepentant feminist"? There were many other less disrespectful ways your could have made your point.


    Dozens and dozens.

    Here's but one.:

    Ass Why Hod, Bruddah: Racism in Hawaii

    By Kalikiano Kalei


    Even among long-time haole residents on the islands, these racial antagonisms are a very real concern in schools as readily identifiable haole school children and adolescents mix together with the darker colored offspring of Hawaiian, Japanese-Hawaiian, Chinese-Hawaiian, and Filipino-Hawaiians in the educational process...quite often with unhappy results. The antagonism seems to be especially pronounced among the younger people, despite the fact that perhaps some of that is a 'normal' part of the immature growth phase among all children.

    Always heavily criticized for its limited successes in addressing learning difficulties, the Hawaiian public school system perennially verges on near-total dysfunction in terms of failing to meet generalized mainland academic standards of proficiency. It wouldn't be completely unfair to say that incidents in which haole kids are set upon or otherwise harassed at school by locals occur with predictable frequency these days; haole teachers imported from the mainland to teach predominantly non-haole Hawaiian adolescents regularly resign and return to the mainland, disappointed and severely disillusioned by their experiences with this uglier side of Hawaiian culture, after only a short exposure.

    In short, racially polar antagonisms now exist quite near the surface, almost as a daily fact of Hawaiian life, even in many of the more heavily urbanised parts of the islands. While the situation is not anywhere as bad as it is in certain parts of larger mainland cities, where gang affiliations exert unhealthy influence on the ability of residents to circulate freely (and unharassed), there are distinctly delineated parts of all major Hawaiian urban areas where it is ill-advised to be a haole out alone, at certain times of the evening, night, or even day. [...]

    Racism exists in Hawaii just like it does everywhere else...


    Is It Just Me? (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by CDN Ctzn on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:42:07 PM EST
    I cannot recall a time during the previous 8 years when the Republicans brought legislation to the floor that they had to cave in to so many demands from the opposition or within their own party and modify the bill to appease the opposition, especially to the point where it no longer resembled what was originally campaigned upon. I can't recall them saying that while we didn't get what we were after, we got better than we expected. Yet, that's all we seem to be hearing these past 8 months. Any agenda that is presented to Congress that were issues during the election and that, one could argue, Congress recieved a mandate from the people on, is compromised away until the Corporate Interests benefit, and "We the People" come away on the short end of the stick.
    As I said it here before, the Republicans have got to laughing their asses off at how a party that was "dead in the water" politically is currently watching the Dems. cave to all their wishes.

    Immigration Reform and Social Security (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 02:23:21 PM EST
    The Bush Admin got destroy by their own on the former and by Dems on the latter-- both proposals had strong corporate support.

    Funny that (5.00 / 5) (#215)
    by hookfan on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 03:02:37 PM EST
    Maybe it's because a large portion of national Democrats actually agree with the republicans but put on a theatre show to con the people at home? It may also be true that Obama isn't weak. He's very strong in the sense of effective in obtaining exactly what he wants. Try on "Obama is a corporate republican" as a premise and behold all he has accomplished. In fact, viewed this way there is a good possibility that he has accomplished much more than any other republican could. It also explains where all the moderate republicans reside. They are the Democratic Party. It's no wonder that Olympia Snow is so well received.
       It will be interesting to see how well social security fairs under this President and this congress. . .

    Bear in mind (5.00 / 5) (#122)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:57:13 PM EST
    that Palin apparently was soooo uncomfortable around native peoples and other minorities that she soon married into a whole family of 'em.

    This is really pretty silly.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:10:28 PM EST
    and obviously Pat Buchanan has nothing against immigrants because the Irish were immigrants.

    Not even close to parallel (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:50:36 PM EST
    Kinda is (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:58:02 PM EST
    I'm not saying I buy this latest piece of gossip about Sarah Palin, but there's plenty of people who feel differently about folks who look brown as opposed to folks who look white.  Even if they're both technically "natives" or "immigrants" or whatever.

    Oh boy.... (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    what till nycstray gets a load of this one...shame shame shame on Wells Fargo.  First for foreclosing on an animal shelter and barring the owner from caring for the animals, and second for not caring for the animals since barring the owner.

    Hopefully a judge will void the loan and give the shelter back like previous cases of erroneous bank conduct.

    Justicie Sotomayor (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:08:43 AM EST
    Er, *Justice (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:08:57 AM EST
    Man (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:14:30 AM EST
    Talk about sticking the new girl with the crap job.

    What a boring subject - when is an order immediately appealable? Now I understand that breach of the attorney/client privilege is a big deal and without reading the opinion, I a m pretty sure I think I disagree with Sotomayor's result, but that is a rather amazing case to see before the SCOTUS.


    I think I disagree too (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:19:16 AM EST
    You can't unscramble that omelet. And footnotes 2 and 4 give me heartburn.

    As I continue reading (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:23:29 AM EST
    it gets worse. What a terrible decision.

    I'm curious now to read the concurrences to see if they make some distinctions that might limit this case.


    As I read, only Thomas writes separately, (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:31:33 AM EST
    apparently to say that Congress gets to make this call, not the courts. . .

    Well duh (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:35:45 AM EST
    Bottom line (none / 0) (#23)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:35:58 AM EST
    Federal policy concerning piecemeal appeals is not what we might like it to be.  But for better or worse, the test is not simply "can the omelet be unscrambled."  Imagine there's a ruling at trial that implicates the privilege.  Does the trial really have to be put on pause, and the jurors told to come back in 2 years and not read anything about the case, just so an immediate appeal can be taken?

    I would not be so quick to assume that I understand the collateral order doctrine better than all 9 justices of the Supreme Court.


    No such rulings would come at trial Steve (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:37:57 AM EST
    Limine motions are mostly decided before trial, at least in the civil context.

    To breach this kind of privilege? Yes, (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:38:55 AM EST
    I think so.

    Well (none / 0) (#33)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:41:41 AM EST
    maybe you can be the first Hindu Justice someday.

    Hindu? (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:42:39 AM EST
    I don't follow.

    I could have sworn (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:49:28 AM EST
    I heard the mooing of your sacred cow.

    Rimshot (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:53:31 AM EST
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 10:37:24 AM EST
    Impressive... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:24:25 AM EST
    this guy hits even when he misses...good luck with those felony charges bro!

    Stupid (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:30:56 AM EST
    What a jacka$$.  It is never acceptable to throw things at people when you disagree with them politically and philosophically. I'm glad he hit a cop - I hope they can make the "Assaulting a police officer" charges stick.

    Can always count on you jb... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:36:28 AM EST
    obviously I disagree...I firmly support the age old tradition of tomato-tossing as political speech.  Besides...they are softer than shoes:)

    I was just gonna say (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:51:22 AM EST
    at least tomatoes won't give you a black eye like Dana sported after the shoe-throwing incident.

    Probably won't even stain if you take care of it soon enough.

    I hit my head harder yesterday when I walked into scaffolding than a tomato could ever do...

    Tomato throwing is much more about showing disrespect than harming someone (especially if it's ripe).


    Exactly... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:57:03 AM EST
    and also favorable compared to eggs...took quite a few of those off the dome on halloween growing up and that sh*t hurts.

    Would never dream of making a felony case out of it though.


    No (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 10:12:50 AM EST
    You could really hurt someone.  And besides - what is this?  5th grade?

    With a tomato? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by CST on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 10:23:24 AM EST
    Hurt their pride maybe.

    Last I checked, immaturity was not a criminal offense.

    I will say this - metal scaffolding hurts.  And I encourage all those reading to pay attention when crossing the street, not just to the potential cars, but also to the potential barriers on the other sidewalk.  That - and ipods are a distracting danger to all pedestrians.


    No (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 10:44:31 AM EST
    More like bruising, breaking a facial bone, acid in the eye, etc.  Maybe you'd change your tune if you got hit with a tomato in the face thrown at full speed (think a frozen snowball).

    It's not just immature - throwing something at someone the intent of causing them harm is a crime. It is assault - just as if I deliberately hit you with my car as you were crossing aforementioned street.


    unless (none / 0) (#60)
    by CST on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 10:52:57 AM EST
    it's a frozen tomato, I don't see the relation to a frozen snowball.  The key part of the snowball pain being the frozen.  Also, I have been hit with snowballs, and I don't really think snowball throwing should be illegal.

    Now, I can see where getting juice in the eye might be a problem - and I would encourage all those who are having tomatoes thrown at them to blink.  Also, if you are cutting a tomato and juice squirts in your eye - that's another good time to blink.

    Look, I realize it's illegal - technically so is jaywalking (glad no one saw me).  I'm just saying I'm not gonna sleep any better tonight knowing a tomato thrower has been taken off the streets.

    And I would hardly compare it to being hit by a car (or even a frozen snowball).


    See, the problem is (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:05:16 AM EST
    You're trying to compare the amount of pain involved in being hit by a tomato ("no big deal") to being hit by a car and saying if it doesn't jurt much, then it's not a problem.  That's not how it works.  I could slap you across the face with all my might - no big deal, right?  It'll hurt for a little bit, but you'll get over it. But the point is - you aren't allowed to do either - it is a crime.

    And on another point - we all complain about the lack of civil discourse in this country, especially when it comes to politics.  We wring our hands about soundbites, and nasty comments, and attack ads.  How does this help in any way to throw something at a politician? Frankly - who the hell does this jacka$$ think he is that he gets to go to a book signing and do this? And the fact is - he hit someone with whom he had no political belief, as far as we know.  Do we as a society say, "Oh well. I didn't mean it to hit you, so I should suffer no punishment."

    Oh, and I can guaran-dam-tee you that if someone threw a tomato (no big deal, right?) and hit Obama in the face, the Secret Service would certainly consider it a big deal, even if Obama wasn't hurt.  And I can also guarantee that many around here would be upset and call for the tomato thrower's head.


    And my point is (none / 0) (#74)
    by CST on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:23:39 AM EST
    you are trying to say it's all the same.  That if I hit you with a tomato, it's just as bad as being hit with a car.  I'm saying, let's take it for what it is - a tomato, and not act like he tried to shoot someone.

    Yes I realize it's a crime, and he'll probably do time for it.  A lot of things are crimes, not all of them as serious as others (such as jaywalking).

    Personally, I complain more about the lack of HONEST discourse than the lack of civil discourse in politics.  There are some people I don't know if I would be able to be personally civil to (Dick Cheney comes to mind) because the things they do are so abhorrent they don't deserve civility.  And the actions politicians take affect people in ways that are much bigger than the soundbites they attribute to them.

    If someone threw a tomato at Obama, I would probably have a similar reaction - although I might wonder how they got close enough to hit him with said tomato.  And yes, I realize they would probably do time for it.  Although my guess is the Secret Service are a lot more concerned about all the people trying to kill him than the ones who might throw tomatoes.  And there are people trying to kill him.


    And (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:31:34 AM EST
    There were people trying to kill Bush, and Clinton, and Bush I, and Reagan (someone actually tried, remember)? and Carter,and Ford (again, people actually tried), and Nixon, etc.

    And jaywalking is a silly comparison because when you jaywalk, you aren't trying to deliberately hurt anyone.

    I guess it all comes down to manners - or lack thereof.

    And do I think this guy should be put away for life?  No, but I think he should get more than a slap on the wrist and small fine (because as we all know, THAT theory has proved to be so effective in stopping people from repeat boorish and criminal behavior like this).


    If I was trying to deliberately hurt someone (none / 0) (#101)
    by CST on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:21:29 PM EST
    I would not throw a tomato.  

    My point about jaywalking is you keep repeating how this is a crime.  As if the fact that he would break "the law" is the real problem here, rather than the throwing of the tomato.  When in fact, most of us occasionally break the law.

    Yes I know people try to kill presidents, that was my point - apples to apples (or tomatoes, whatever).  As far as I know, no one has tried to kill the former Gov. of Alaska.

    Again, lack of manners (or boorish behavior), while you may not like it, is not a crime (yet).  And throwing a tomato, does not seem to me like it indicates a pattern of criminal behavior.  I will not sleep better knowing he is sitting in a cell somewhere and we are all safer from flying tomatoes (or pomegranites).


    Sure, being hit with a ripe, (none / 0) (#115)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:45:49 PM EST
    just-from-the-garden tomato probably wouldn't be that bad, but getting hit in the face with one from the local supermarket would not be a whole lot different than being hit by a baseball.

    And I kind of doubt you would find being hit in the face with a baseball to be no big deal.

    My only amusement is coming from seeing that kdog baited the hook and once again, he got some bites.


    Not really (none / 0) (#134)
    by CST on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:11:29 PM EST
    I think some of you need to re-take physics.

    Even a crappy tomato is not a baseball, or a snowball, or any other kind of hard object.  Unless I'm mistaken and it was a frozen tomato.  

    Baseballs don't squish when they hit your face, thus releasing energy out away from the bone structure, rather than in, potentially crushing the bone and certainly bruising you.

    Well jb "I never met a law/punishment I didn't like" (unless it's an authority figure who broke the law) was sure to bite.  But yea, I guess I'm somewhat surprised I got into it this far.


    Would you be willing to take the chance (none / 0) (#138)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:23:47 PM EST
    that one of those feels-like-a-rock tomatoes from the supermarket would not exact some damage to your face?

    No?  Well, imagine if you didn't get to choose.

    Sure, the satisfaction of throwing a tomato is finding the ripest, closest-to-rotten one you can, for maximum splatter, but is that really what this argument is about?

    My position on this is as it has always been: those who want the freedom to act as they wish must accept that their freedom does not extend to determining what the consequences are.


    I can't argue (none / 0) (#163)
    by CST on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:35:34 PM EST
    with that last point, I pretty much agree with it.

    I never expected the guy to get off scott free.

    That being said, I'm also a "punishment should fit the crime" type of person, and while I wouldn't expect to be able to determine my own punishment were I the one to have thrown the tomato, I am also not gonna call for someone else's head if they throw the tomato.

    I certainly don't think we should pretend that throwing a tomato is equivalent to throwing a baseball or hitting someone with a car.

    And yes, I find a slight urge to laugh at the whole thing.


    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:26:14 AM EST
    only a 5th grader could think a felony assault charge is the proper response to a tomato toss...if that is the mature response color me happily and eternally immature.

    Please keep us updated as this (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:26:11 PM EST
    fascinating story ripens.  I can't do everything, you know, what with Polanski et al.

    I really think (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:33:20 PM EST
    this issue is a fruitful topic for discussion, particularly in light of Nix v. Hedden.

    fruitful (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by CST on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:40:51 PM EST

    you guys are great.

    P.S. I just noticed I misspelled pome"granite" - which would surely cause some serious damage.


    I will do my best.... (none / 0) (#169)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:41:06 PM EST
    If the poor guy ends up getting his salad tossed over this political theater, I give up on the lot of you:)

    Speaking of which, new DOJ prison figures are out for 2008...1.6 million, another new record.  Though some good news...prison populations actually down in 20 states, including mine.

    Pennsylvania had the biggest increase of the states.  


    Seriously (none / 0) (#26)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:37:45 AM EST
    if you're going to risk jail time, you need to have better aim than that.  How embarrassing.  Maybe if he beats the rap the Mets will sign him to a contract.

    The guy who threw the shoe at Bush may have been tortured in an Iraqi prison... but at least no one makes jokes about his aim!


    Poetic Justice (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 10:12:12 AM EST
    The guy who threw the shoes at Bush got shoes thrown at him recently

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 10:20:03 AM EST
    that the torture was probably sufficient punishment, but yeah, serves him right!

    "alleged" torture (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 10:45:13 AM EST
    True (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:07:20 AM EST
    also, alleged tomato!!!

    Nope (none / 0) (#73)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:23:14 AM EST
    I beleive there is video!  Shoe thrower dude is alleging torture, which had yet to be verified.

    an (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:24:25 AM EST
    "alleged" video

    OK (none / 0) (#79)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:35:21 AM EST
    Real witnesses

    Real witnesses (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:52:07 AM EST
    who are allegedly telling the truth!  Besides, science has proven that it is impossible for the human eye to distinguish a flying tomato from a pomegranate at a distance of greater than 30 yards.

    Now you've devolved (none / 0) (#96)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:16:18 PM EST
    to silliness.

    Not a new development. (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:50:35 PM EST
    Pomegranate'll poke your eye out. (none / 0) (#98)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:19:30 PM EST
    tastes better (none / 0) (#103)
    by CST on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:23:56 PM EST
    running down your face though.

    In my personal opinion.


    Still all alleged until it is (none / 0) (#89)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:56:07 AM EST
    proven in a court of law.

    Right (none / 0) (#97)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:16:50 PM EST
    We don't know if he was tortured.  Exactly my point.

    Misdemeanor. (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:41:43 PM EST
    WH beer summit. (none / 0) (#146)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:28:14 PM EST
    You sure? (none / 0) (#147)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:28:20 PM EST
    Assaulting an officer is only a misdemeanor?

    This guy is pissing me off... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:41:04 AM EST
    Terry Watanabe is a disgrace to degenerate gamblers everywhere...what a grade A piker.  You make a wager and lose you pay...whats so hard to understand about that?  Intoxication is no excuse....would he give drunken winnings back?

    Now if I ever make the big score and become a whale Harrahs might not be willing to be of assistance in scoring good dope for me...its an outrage!

    "disgrace to degenerate gamblers" (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:42:17 AM EST
    That's a keeper.

    As a former degenerate gambler myself, it made me chuckle.


    Without reading, intoxication does sound (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:43:32 AM EST
    like a potentially plausible excuse.

    Maybe if Harrahs... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 09:58:33 AM EST
    waterboarded him with vodka he'd have a point....but if he bent the elbow its on him...its all on him.

    So after you voluntarily become intoxicated, (none / 0) (#58)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 10:50:14 AM EST
    you become responsible for anything you do thereafter? I might agree in most circumstances, but that's not the only reasonable position to take.

    Yep... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 10:57:44 AM EST
    you get f*cked up, you are responsible for the consequences of your getting f*cked up...it is the only reasonable position for somebody who desires greater freedom to get intoxicated to take:)

    You be right (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:00:10 PM EST
    Didn't your contracts casebook include (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 10:51:33 AM EST
    the case about "high as a Georgia pine"?  

    Not that I can recall, (none / 0) (#108)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:39:06 PM EST
    but I think as a general principle, you have to be in a position to agree to be bound in order to be bound. I don't know how much intoxication (if any) would be enough to get you out of that.

    The fellow who was higher than a Georgia (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:40:39 PM EST
    pine was bound by the contract.

    Here you go: (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:42:34 PM EST
    Oh yes, I do remember that case (none / 0) (#119)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:53:53 PM EST
    But it does not stand for the principle that, whatever your mental condition, you can be bound by a contract that is reasonable. The question, if the two parties believe something different about an alleged agreement, is whether the defendant's conduct can reasonably have only one objective meaning. If so, the defendant is bound.

    "Once And For All!" (none / 0) (#46)
    by Fabian on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 10:10:43 AM EST
    I didn't read it because until I got to those particular words, I thought he might have a point.

    No special interest group ever goes quietly into the good night, especially after all the political hay they made on the HRC bills!  

    More wishful thinking.

    It's all Bill Clinton's fault: (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 10:56:25 AM EST
    Bill Clinton spelled this out for us at Netroots Nation. I think it was Joan who pointed out his hypocrisy when in the same breath he complained that we didn't make a big enough stink about DADT when he implemented it. Didn't get his back, as it were. But still told us to STFU about HCR...that anything was better than nothing.

     [Comment to TINS diary.]

    Bill : just another late twentieth (none / 0) (#91)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:09:18 PM EST
    century, big donor beholden, lesser of two evils.

    Not the cause of everything wrong in the country and not the idealized, revisionist rebirth of Jefferson either.


    Wow. Markos lowers the boom on the DNC (none / 0) (#69)
    by kempis on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:16:28 AM EST
    And half of DK falls on the fainting couch.


    Technically no one's lying here (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by Ellie on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:57:19 PM EST
    Obama to Lord Cheetoh:

    So I have a message for them, from all of us: Not this time. We have come too far. We will not turn back. We will not back down.

    Back down from what? The Obama family Holiday Gift Catalogue photo-shoots? I think you actually have to hold firmly to a position before vowing not to "turn back" ... and, demonstrably, multiple times before pulling "this time" ex rectum.

    This is comedy gold, though.

    If this is how the Obama camp thinks we can energize the base -- by promising them a health care pony for $5 to the same Democratic Party that is home to the likes of Baucus, Nelson, Lincoln, Lieberman, and the rest of the obstructionist gang -- then we're in for a world of hurt in 2010.

    Yeah, yeah, I know ... enough with the freudenfreuden already. It does go a long way to making up for some of the other Netroots Nation- sponsored candidates who did not, as promised, hang tough with the D's once the check cleared.


    more like 25% (none / 0) (#144)
    by coigue on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:26:42 PM EST
    people are pissed.

    Obama can never fail. He can only be failed. (none / 0) (#70)
    by lambert on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:16:29 AM EST
    Now, where have I heard that before?

    * * *

    Big thumbs up on "they do what they do," BTD. Awesome. Why not get that into the TL sidebar as a 2010 and 2012 prophylactic?

    People, listen, this is the key (none / 0) (#80)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:36:11 AM EST
    This is funny: Subcommittee votes (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:44:36 AM EST
    for college football playoffs:  AP

    Polanski update: oral argument (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 11:56:25 AM EST
    today in state court of appeal re whether Polanski must be present before trial court rulez on the merits of his motion to dismiss.  LAT

    Note to steve m:  LAT discusses "fugitive disentitlement" doctrine and its history.

    Prediction, now that Polanski is under home detention as a result of LA County's warrant and request for extradition, DCA will send case back to trial court with instructions to consider the merits of the motion to dismiss.

    Anyone see Barbara Walters (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:11:40 PM EST
    on Letterman unsolicited advice to Tiger Woods?  Sweet irony.

    All I wanna know is.... (none / 0) (#125)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:01:10 PM EST
    what the hell was the janitors problem?  It wasn't like class was in session.


    Yeah, that Janitor is certaily pretty different (none / 0) (#128)
    by tigercourse on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    from any of the pot smoking slackers I remember from my highschool. They would have told everybody BUT the administration.

    Curious... (none / 0) (#159)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:34:39 PM EST
    why would you compare a janitor to a pot smoking slacker?  

    I know the propaganda is pot smoking slackers can only hope to land a janitor job livin' in moms basement...I just didn't think anyone actually believed it.

    Not that there is anything wrong with the custodial arts...honest, important work...certainly more honest and important than a long list of jobs that pay a lot more money.


    Perhaps (none / 0) (#173)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:43:51 PM EST
    he wasn't in the mood to join in, or perhaps he thought he could boost the economy by helping the local newspapers sell more copies of today's edition.  Lord knows the Daily News didn't exactly give this one the soft sell.

    Or perhaps... (none / 0) (#182)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:53:35 PM EST
    his request to join in was denied...yeah, that  explains it.

    Hell wrath no fury like a janitor denied a cliched male fantasy:)


    All I know (none / 0) (#192)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 02:01:15 PM EST
    is that this is like the ultimate NY tabloid story.  It's like their moon landing or something.

    I'm trying to figure out how the papers would have played it if the teachers were both guys instead.


    Very differently I'm sure... (none / 0) (#202)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 02:11:16 PM EST
    it would probably be very different if they weren't two attractive young ladies, for that matter.

    Well..we needed a break from Tiger, and the important thing is no student was involved this time!  Much to the dismay to some of these ladies' students I'm sure:)


    Tell me (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:09:50 PM EST
    do you actually believe that two Palin hating reporters would have sat on her Father's supposed outing of her for 18 months? All through the election?

    Hello from San Antonio (none / 0) (#139)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:24:54 PM EST
    Did you really just hook me up to a spoon diary on my phone that is smarter than I am?  Josh is in surgery this moment and in such light spoon's diary REALLY isn't funny.

    MT, I hope his surgery goes well. (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by coigue on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:28:56 PM EST
    I think that the FP Markos post "Idiocy" is a bit more palatable.



    I think Josh will do well (none / 0) (#161)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:34:52 PM EST
    This is a lengthening of his rods controlling his scoliosis.  Easier than some things he must do.  Links appreciated, thx

    My mother has severe scoli. (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by coigue on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:37:35 PM EST
    She's got the rods. Difficlut disease. Will his surgery be a long one?

    This should be quick (none / 0) (#186)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:55:57 PM EST
    Next year though he will be staying here for a few months while they halo him for his neck.

    Hope it all goes well... (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:30:25 PM EST
    I'm sure it will...spoil him rottener than normal for awhile once the tough little guy gets through this hurdle.

    You should have heard (none / 0) (#170)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:41:16 PM EST
    Him with his doctor as they talked about how his dad has gone over to the darkside.  This was followed with darth impressions, "Josh, I am your father."  He's never boring.

    Doc sounds cool... (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:55:40 PM EST
    too many forget the bedside manner...its key, especially with the kids.

    ditto (none / 0) (#203)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 02:11:52 PM EST
    Thoughts are with you and yours. (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:31:36 PM EST
    Thank you (none / 0) (#175)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:44:05 PM EST
    So far so good.  He's probably close to being done.  Sitting in this waiting room really puts the healthcare crisis in a certain light.

    How old is he? (none / 0) (#178)
    by coigue on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:46:35 PM EST
    Thoughts and prayers. (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:33:59 PM EST
    Best wishes MT!!! (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 01:35:34 PM EST
    All the best MT and Josh (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 02:09:31 PM EST
    Sounds like the little guy is in good hands.

    Palin is a non-issue (none / 0) (#191)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 02:00:49 PM EST
    She's not a governor, VP or POTUS, but this part of the article sure caught my eye:

    In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

    Yeah skipping (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 02:22:08 PM EST
    Copenhagen would send a message about America's belief in science- just not the one she thinks.