home

Friday Morning Open Thread

To get this out of the way, I do not know how Hillary Clinton would have handled health care reform if she had become President. I DO know Barack Obama had much more of a mandate than Bill Clinton (or George W. Bush, Ezra) ever had. There was a reason I was talking him up as a potential FDR for our time (something I do not believe Hillary could have been, the Media hated her too much.)

So now, back to the actual reality we are living, Obama has done a poor job of playing a strong political hand so far. Let's all of us (ObamaBots, PUMAs and the rest of us) hope that changes.

This is an Open Thread.

< Robert Reich Does Not Know the President Is Impotent | Teamsters Cave On Public Option >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    time to end the discussion for now, (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 09:52:34 AM EST
    drive to The Loveliest Village on the Plains,

    and get ready for some football. Might be the only game I see this year, except for television.

    think y'all have a chance BTD? 73 point favorites, might just be a squesker!

    IT is a bit embarrassing that the game is being (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 09:57:58 AM EST
    played. Though it is a nice paycheck for the opponent.

    Parent
    Fans who didn't buy seasin tickets (none / 0) (#7)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:01:14 AM EST
    will probably get a chance to see the game, since a lot of the season ticket buyers will either give them away or sell them for less than face value.

    It's a full contact scrimmage. How many series will Tebow play? One? Do you think Meyer might keep him in for the first half to develop some Heisman numbers?

    Parent

    Season... I'll put my glasses on to type... (none / 0) (#8)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:01:38 AM EST
    I think they will use it (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:06:26 AM EST
    to groom Tebow's NFL QB style skills.

    So I suspect he will play half of the game.

    Parent

    Hey, do you think he will play QB in the NFL? (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:39:44 AM EST
    I was with family last weekend who think he will be an end instead. Seems crazy to me that a guy that wins at least 2 college championships as QB would not be a QB when he got to the NFL. What's up with that?

    Parent
    Whats up with that is... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:51:54 AM EST
    NFL scouts have a habit of falling in love with height/weight/40 time/bench press instead of falling in love with football players...why I don't know.  

    Parent
    OK, that's probably it then (none / 0) (#117)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:28:16 PM EST
    I guess it makes sense that being able to beat the best players when they are distributed throughout all the colleges is not the same as being able to beat them concentrated on a few NFL teams.

    Parent
    Physical prowess should be considered... (none / 0) (#149)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:34:35 PM EST
    but not to the extent that it is...the hall of fame is full of guys scouts said we're too small or too slow, and many a physical specimen high draft pick turned out to not be able to play worth a lick...the Jets top pick last year comes to mind, Vernon Gholston.  A physical freak who doesn't appear to know how to play football, or have the desire to play football.

    As for QB, I'll take a Doug Flutie or Jeff Garcia over a Ryan Leaf or Dan McGwire anyday.

    Parent

    kdog, I was thinking of Bobby Layne. (none / 0) (#163)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:00:08 PM EST
    Said about Layne, "He's not equipped to do anything... but win."

    Parent
    I do not (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:26:37 AM EST
    uhh, 'squeaker.' Not sure what a squesker is... (none / 0) (#5)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 09:58:54 AM EST
    maybe a subspecies of geoduck?

    Parent
    My local geoducks don't squeek... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by oldpro on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:09:26 AM EST
    they squirt!

    Parent
    friday dog video (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 09:53:03 AM EST
    In other canine news... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Fabian on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:42:33 AM EST
    A classic experiment on the effect of social interaction and cognition was tried on dogs.

    Dogs made the same "error" that ten month old infants do.  Wolves (raised by humans) didn't.  Dogs are apparently primed to be responsive to humans, wolves aren't.

    I'd love to see them try this with the livestock guardian breeds, who are among the least responsive of domestic dogs.  I'd bet money that they'd score as wolves, not dogs.  Now I wish I'd paid more attention to this incident.

    Cuchulainn had disnterred one of his bones and wanted to lie down and have a good chew.  The boxer from next door kept trying to literally snatch it from his jaws.  Annoyed, irritated and just wanting Joe Boxer (his real name) to go away, Cuchulainn went to the fence and dug a hole, buried the bone and covered it over again.  Then he left.  Joe Boxer looked around, stunned at his good luck and started digging.  Cuchulainn was on the other side of the fence, digging under it.  Being a much better digger, he got to the prize first and carried it off.  I so busy laughing that I don't remember what Joe Boxer's reaction was.  When did he realize the bone was gone?

    LGDs are not known for being responsive or trainable, but they are known for being problem solvers.

    Parent

    I think Huskies (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:59:56 AM EST
    would probably score like wolves too.  and its not because they are less intelligent.  if fact, I think its because they are more intelligent.

    a vet told me after I got Ghost that Huskies are bred to be independent and be able to make up their own minds about things.  

    he said, suppose you are mushing along the ice in a snowstorm and in front of you, where you are telling the dogs to go, there is a hole in the ice.
    they need to know to ignore you.

    I can tell you after years of experience with Huskies now, they are very good at ignoring you.
    and it is clear it is not because they are dumb.


    Parent

    The smarter breeds (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:42:53 PM EST
    usually attempt to train you rather than the other way around. The dog we have is smart enough to open doors but would have me believe he is not smart enough to understand that the bottom bunk is my son's, not his.

    Parent
    as I enjoy telling my sister (none / 0) (#158)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:53:23 PM EST
    when she complains about her uncontrollable dogs.

    in order to train a dog you have to be smarter than the dog.


    Parent

    He was 1/4 Malamute (none / 0) (#106)
    by Fabian on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:08:05 PM EST
    and with his other breeds (Akita, Great Pyrenees) he was not at all keen on water.  Wading, yes.  Swimming, no.  Bathing, argh! If he went out on ice, you knew it was solid.

    Fell into the river exactly once - lost his footing on the embankment, came scrambling up a minute later.  Never went in again - which is good because that river is not for amateurs.  

    It's amazing what you can selectively breed into an animal.  LGDs are apparently the only dogs that are utterly fascinated by babies - something that freaked a few parents when my big white dog stuck his nose right into strollers to do a close inspection of their baby.  Not adults, not kids, not toddlers - just babies.  Here's post about kuvaszok who proved this - carrying off kittens, jumping into a stall with a draft mare and her new foal (who didn't stomp them into jelly!).

    Parent

    my dogs also do not like water (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:09:38 PM EST
    at least as far as bathing.   I had Ghost for more than a year before I gave up and took him to a groomer.  people would say stuff like, oh you keep him so clean and beautiful.
    nope, he does that himself. and I took him to the groomer mostly because of the bales of dog hair coming off him not because he was particularly dirty.

    I cant get either of my dogs even IN the bathroom. let alone in the bathtub.


    Parent

    on the other hand (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:12:17 PM EST
    the golden I used to have LOVED water.  if you live in NYC you can appreciate this.
    I was walking him down on the docks below the village like lots of people do in the summer and I heard someone scream and turned around just in time to see Dokken sailing off the pier into the Hudson.
    it took about an hour and help from a half a dozen concerned bystanders to get him out of the river and back on dry land.  which was about 15 feet above the water.


    Parent
    funny (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:20:08 PM EST
    I was just reading about Huskies.  (slow day)  you would think I would have done this long ago right?
    some interesting quotes:

    The Siberian Husky is a comparatively easy dog to care for. He is by nature fastidiously clean and is typically free from body odor and parasites. Siberian s clean themselves like cats. In fact, a Siberian that becomes soiled with mud will clean himself up.

    Twice a year, Siberians "blow" their undercoats, that is, they shed their undercoats completely. It is a very intense shedding period that can last three weeks or more from start to finish. The good news is that this only happens twice a year.

    I've heard Siberians are dumb. Is that true?

        No! Siberian Huskies are extremely intelligent working dogs. People often mistake the fact that they can be difficult to train as a sign of stupidity. A Siberian will probably know what you want him to do, he just may not want to do it!



    Parent
    Hmmmm. (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:37:08 PM EST
    Sounds like a cat.  Except for the heavy shedding.

    Parent
    thats funny (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:50:05 PM EST
    I have a friend who is always saying stuff like that.
    that dog is more like a cat than a dog!
    are you sure thats not some kind of cat?

    for a long time he would not necessarily come when I called.  for a long time I thought that was because he was a stray and just not used to being called.
    nope.
    he comes if he feels like it.


    Parent

    Yeti! (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 09:55:29 AM EST
    Yeti experts are heading to Poland after a Warsaw man filmed a "monstrous,
    hairy creature" while on holiday in the Tatra mountains.  Piotr Kowalski, 27, was on a walking
    holiday when he saw a mountain goat on one of the slopes. As he started filming, his attention was grabbed by the Yeti creature emerging from behind some rocks.  "I saw this huge ape-like form hiding
    behind the rocks. When I saw it, it was like
    being struck by a thunderbolt," he told the
    daily Super Express.  "Coming from Warsaw, I never really believed the local stories of a wild
    mountain ape-man roaming the slopes.  But, now I do."

    The film has been handed over to the
    Nautilus Foundation, which deals with
    unexplained phenomena.  "The film clearly shows `something' that moves on two legs and is bigger than a normal man," says Foundation President Robert Bernatowicz.  Since then new footage has surfaced apparently showing one of the beasts stalking 19-year old student Justyna Folger in the same area.

    -via the New Poland Express (no link)

    Could it be a real life Yeti or just a combination of high altitude and strong Polish vodka?  Time will tell...

    I will see your Yeti and raise you (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 09:59:15 AM EST
    an alien abduction:

    Move over Michelle, watch your backs, Carla and Sarah. There's a new kid on the first lady block, and she looks like upstaging the lot of you.

    Miyuki Hatoyama, wife of Japan's Prime Minister-elect, Yukio Hatoyama, is a lifestyle guru, a macrobiotics enthusiast, an author of cookery books, a retired actress
    , a divorcee, and a fearless clothes horse for garments of her own creation, including a skirt made from Hawaiian coffee sacks. But there is more, much more. She has travelled to the planet Venus. And she was once abducted by aliens.

    Parent

    With dreams like that, (none / 0) (#11)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:04:19 AM EST
    Japan's  gotta change to a macrobiotic Diet.

    Parent
    C'mon, folks...japanese parliament (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:01:52 PM EST
    the Diet?

    That was worth at least an insulting comment! After 4 hours I need to explain? C'mon!

    Parent

    clearly the unfortunate hair style (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:04:41 AM EST
    must somehow be the result her harrowing experience.

    no other explanation.


    Parent

    it was Star-Trek-esque (none / 0) (#14)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:06:06 AM EST
    Oh, you mean HER hairstyle? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:45:15 AM EST
    I can't say much for the do of the pm-elect, either.

    Btw, I do believe . . . that Tom Cruise used to be Japanese.  It's one explanation -- although it's still not a sufficient explanation.  I think that he used to be a lot of other things, too.

    Parent

    yeah (none / 0) (#146)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:31:55 PM EST
    I was going to comment on his as well but I forgot.

    Parent
    Here's (none / 0) (#13)
    by eric on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:05:33 AM EST
    a LINK, and the VIDEO.

    Apparently, the Yeti was spotted in another video, as well.

    Parent

    BAhaha (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:10:59 AM EST
    first rule of effects...
    shake the camera.

    Parent
    omg (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:11:59 AM EST
    second rule of really bad effects.

    photograph it from as far away as possible.

    Parent

    Thank eric! n/t (none / 0) (#16)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:06:26 AM EST
    Man... (none / 0) (#23)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:15:32 AM EST
    ...that website is full of win!  

    Here's a story that relates back to a discussion from the other day...

    A man in Sweden is attempting to make history by becoming the first man to breastfeed his children.

    26 year old Ragnar Bengtsson from Stockholm has begun stimulating his breasts with a pump in an effort to produce breast milk. Bengtsson uses the pump every three hours, even whilst studying at college.




    Parent
    I wish him luck! (none / 0) (#26)
    by Fabian on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:21:19 AM EST
    And I want to know what his reaction to the hormones are.  My friend had problems nursing (baby was early) and tried hormones to help restart lactation and gave up after three days.  She said the mood swings were horrible.

    Parent
    actually, (none / 0) (#95)
    by cpinva on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:46:23 AM EST
    it was probably just my roommate, from my sophomore year in college. he was a really, really hairy guy!

    Parent
    School is off to a good start. (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Fabian on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:02:36 AM EST
    The kindergarten kid is doing well in his tiny classroom with his tiny class of three, showing more patience than he has previously.  I did suggest to his teacher when she noted that he seemed to know most of his alphabet that she go straight to sight words.  Her next message was that he did very well with his sight words.

    I think the key to him is to find the most challenging activities so he won't get bored.  Kid has known his alphabet for years!  Borrrrrring.

    Older kid got his Learning Center schedule changed so he can be in the mainstream classroom for math.  Kid loves his math!

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Spamlet on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:03:29 AM EST
    To get this out of the way, I do not know how Hillary Clinton would have handled health care reform if she had become President. I DO know Barack Obama had much more of a mandate than Bill Clinton . . .

    And it's Barack Obama who, like it or not, is the president, and therefore the person who has presidential power whether or not he chooses to wield it (pace, Obots), and whether or not some refuse all negotiation with him (pace, PUMAs).

    If you are going to comment on a movement (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:43:52 AM EST
    at least take the time to understand its people.

    And for the record, Hillary Clinton supporters were at the darn negotiating table all the way up until the roll call vote. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that the delegates reflect the actual will of the electorate. Apparently, the party leadership felt differently. For me(someone who donned a uniform with the belief it gave the people a right to have a voice in their government), it was inexcusable in my mind(and a point I found non negotiable). I'm not going to apologize for my belief system. We all have a value system that allows us to decide which principles are negotiable and which are not.

    Parent

    A movement (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:26:33 PM EST
    I assume your talking about Obama supporters right because PUMA had about the same significance as Larouche and Nader in 2008 it was all noise and no punch and was largely a media creation. I mean c'mon when you have as people like a freaking Rothechild denoucnign someong for "elitism" its more performance art than a coherent political coalition.

    Parent
    I have my disagreements (5.00 / 5) (#126)
    by Spamlet on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:46:00 PM EST
    on strategy with the PUMAs, but PUMA was definitely NOT a media creation. It was also not a creation of Republicans, contrary to what some of the Obama fan base want to believe.

    Parent
    Uh no (none / 0) (#127)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:46:21 PM EST
    and is this the part where you revise history and pretend that the progressive party won the first time it tried to have an impact?

    I love a good fairytale.

    Parent

    As I told you yesterday, (5.00 / 6) (#125)
    by Spamlet on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:44:37 PM EST
    I agree with you on everything that happened during the primaries and during that sham of a "nominating" convention.

    I was also troubled to come here and see BTD (tepidly and strategically) supporting Barack Obama because he thought the media would give Obama a free ride. I thought there was more than "a dime's worth of difference" on policy between Hillary Clinton and Obama. I thought Obama would benefit from being vice president, as preparation for his later presidency.

    The Democratic Party literally trashed a large bloc of longtime loyal Democrats and did its best to distance the party from its FDR heritage. And the primaries were rife with sexism, outright misogyny, and false accusations of racism. I was deeply offended by all of it.

    I voted for Clinton in my state's primary, and I left my presidential ballot blank. I also changed my registration from Democratic to DTS (decline to state, or independent).

    I think I understand quite well where the PUMAs are coming from, and I think it will be really interesting to see what happens in 2010 and 2012. Apparently we disagree on the importance of keeping our focus on current political reality--however we got here--while health care reform and other issues are burning.

    I don't think "I told you so" is a useful political slogan. And, for the record, you can't tell me so. I already knew.

    Parent

    Read my earlier post to goldberry (none / 0) (#130)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:50:29 PM EST
    at 10:31 and tell me where exactly I say that PUMAs shouldn't be focusing on the here and now?

    You're preaching to the wrong choir.


    Parent

    I'm not preaching to anyone (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Spamlet on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:01:13 PM EST
    and I said nothing about the "here and now" and I was not referring to your "post" to goldberry at 10:31, which I'll pass on rereading, thank you very much.

    Parent
    This was your comment in regards to my comment (none / 0) (#182)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:21:13 PM EST
    " Apparently we disagree on the importance of keeping our focus on current political reality--however we got here--while health care reform and other issues are burning."

    Apparently according to my 1031 post we DO NOT disagree on focusing on the political reality since I make it quite clear that PUMAs should, for the sake of the uninsured throw ourselves full force into the issues we care so much about like health care.

    Parent

    I was commenting (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Spamlet on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:22:46 PM EST
    on this:

    If you are going to comment on a movement at least take the time to understand its people.

    For me, that involves the willingness to engage in realpolitik. Another commenter here expressed that idea very succinctly last week:

    You [another commenter] are thinking about when [Obama] and Hillary were duking it out. . . . I don't live in the primaries. He's President. He promised me certain things to get there. Now he isn't delivering.

    I think we can agree that Obama is not delivering. The political response to that, imo, is to put the pressure on Obama, since he is the president. But when I visit the PUMA sites, what I usually see is posters and commenters making insulting remarks about Obama and the people who voted for him.

    And the last few days, you and goldberry have been here to say, "I told you so," over and over. To me, that's a fundamentally apolitical waste of time. It's what used to be called "horizontal hostility"--directing one's frustration at potential allies instead of directing it vertically at the people who actually wield institutional political power.

    It's not unlike what the Obots were doing when they used to infiltrate the comment sections of PUMA sites during the primaries, though at least they had a clear objective. If you think the comparison is unfair, I'll trade you this post, in which a PUMA flatters himself by noting "an interesting parallel between the situation of anti-Obama Democrats and that of the members of the resistance in post-WWII France." In his grandiose hallucinations.

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:08:21 AM EST
    the media thing is useless. So what if the media hated Clinton? They hated Bill and he beat them time and again and left office with high approval ratings. I think that the acutal media loving Obama thing is a net negative.

    I have no idea whether this would've been better or worse overall with Hillary. The thing I do know is that she was not clueless as to what the GOP was capable of and certainly didnt want to hold hands with these losers like Obama does. She knew that conservatism and the GOP in general is like a vampire and until you stick a stake in the heart of it and kill it completely there will be no moving forward.

    Most of all if she was president I dont think we'd be using the description milquetoast.

    I thought she could have been elected despite (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:35:34 AM EST
    the media, though yes, Obama had an easier time with the media.

    And if she had been elected, I thought she would do a better job than he would at actually governing, which we needed so much after 8 years of mismanagement.

    He may very well prove to be good enough, but I thought/think we need better.

    Parent

    Totally agree (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by SGITR on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:36:30 AM EST
    with you assessment. I would add that Hillary had very good reasons to succeed in health care given her past failure at the hands of the GOP and some in her own party. She knew the ropes. Obama failed to recognize and learn from her battle and walked right into the same juggernaut without a clue (or so we are to believe).

    But if there is a glaring difference between Clinton and Obama it is Clinton's Ted Kennedyesque Never Say Quit attitude. That is something Obama just does not have. It's not part of his DNA and it is not even something that he had to learn the hard way in life. He just doesn't have that. And that is where his supporters erred by not recognizing that important trait. Combine that fact with his over the top willingness to want to hold hands (read: cede power) with the enemy and my 10 year old niece could see he could not be an effective leader of a divided country.

    Parent

    Did WJC deliver on health care? (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:25:49 PM EST
    He basically institutionalized co-opting, granted watering down, of GOP positions in the Democratic Party.  Obama apparently is continuing on this path.

    Obama does not need to do this given his mandate, which he may well have already squandered.  

    It's not like HRC did not have the opportunity to provide healthcare reform.

    Parent

    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#194)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:17:30 PM EST
    but Obama seems to be on the right of Clinton. His tax policy is dependent on tax cuts which Clinton was not. Obama is much more of a supply sider than Clinton ever was on economic issues and I'm sure that SCHIP would never have passed under Obama.

    Have you ever considered the fact that Hillary failed on health care that it might acutally have been a plus? I mean there's a lot of things that can be learned in failure.

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:14:11 AM EST
    As one who has insisted on focusing on the now, I here invited the rehashing of 2008.

    My views were fully expressed in that year. you know what I think on the matter.

    Parent

    Yes. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:17:37 AM EST
    I understand. The fact of the matter is that Obama is president but to what good? A supreme court justice perhaps? Perhaps you feel differently but I'm not seeing a whole lot else.

    Parent
    Do you really want a list (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:15:42 PM EST
    I mean because I can provide a list, I'll admit that Obama hasn't delivered entirely, but c'mon to say that Sotomayor is the only thing he's done differently than say John McCain would have done simply ignores objective reality.

    Parent
    In toto (none / 0) (#116)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:27:35 PM EST
    no bills have been signed.  I'm not suggesting Obama is weak, but let's be clear about the facts.

    Parent
    No bills have been signed (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:30:46 PM EST
    really, none at all? Because I'm pretty sure some bills have been signed, or are we only counting healthcare?

    Parent
    The Mandate! (none / 0) (#122)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:43:23 PM EST
    1.  Healthcare
    2.  Climate change
    3.  Equal rights for GLBT
    4.  Tax code change
    What's been signed?
    Now, let me be clear, I think Obama saved the world from an economic abysss.  (OK, maybe a little hyperbole on my part with that statement.)  I think Obama's aganda is a proto-typical Democratic agenda.  I also think Bill Clinton's agenda was a proto-typical Democratic agenda.  Bill didn't have the Congress or MANDATE Obama has.  What bills has he signed to move forward the Democratic agenda and fulfill his MANDATE?

    Parent
    Here's (5.00 / 7) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:46:39 PM EST
    the problem: He didnt have an issues mandate because he didnt campaign FOR any of those things. The whole campaign was about him mostly and not issues. So even though he won with a solid majority if you dont advocate for anything other than "not GOP" then you really dont have much of a mandate.

    Parent
    He campaigned for Change (none / 0) (#150)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:34:44 PM EST
    ...whatever the hell that was supposed to mean.

    Parent
    The empty slate (none / 0) (#167)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:18:58 PM EST
    Just waiting for everyone else to project their ideas onto...he had no vision of his own.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:43:44 PM EST
    you've delivered that list before and it's not impressive. It's mostly things that were already done just waiting for a signature. I'm sorry but I dont think ceding things as important as the stimulus and health care to GOP senators is a positive.

    Parent
    The Big Picture on the Media that you missed (5.00 / 9) (#20)
    by goldberry on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:13:06 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton was winning primaries right up to the very end, BTD.   She was doing so in spite of the most intense media firestorm I have ever seen.  People wanted her, had faith in her, trusted her.  There were many well educated suburban Republican women who would have turned out for her in droves.  I know because I talked to them on the phone while phone banking.  
    That was the opportunity of a lifetime that the DNC squandered because if Hillary had fought and prevailed, and I think the economy would have helped her as much as it did Obama, the media would have been neutralized. Voters weren't buying the intense media hatred of Hillary during the primaries.  The media wouldn't have let up during the general but it couldn't have gotten any worse.  And if Clinton had picked Obama as her VP, as I'm pretty sure she would have done as a savvy political operator, it would have been the most killer ticket in US history.  
    What you endorsed is letting the media pick our candidates.  And this is what we ended up with.  Some things are worth fighting for, BTD.  Fighting against the media and taking them down was worth fighting for.  It could have changed politics for a long time.  Instead, the party got scared and went with what they thought was a sure thing without bothering to monkeywrench the media.  Now, there's nothing that Obama can do that won't bring on a feeding frenzy.  He owes them.    

    My views were expressed in 2008 (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:15:44 AM EST
    It is impossible to test the hypothetical.

    But I did invite this discussion so your comments on the subject are welcome.

    For the record, I expect that we will be able to judge a Hillary Clinton Presidency in the years 2016-2024.

    Parent

    2008 was all about hypothetical (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by goldberry on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:29:34 AM EST
    Anyone who voted for Obama took a HUGE leap of faith.  There was no THERE there.  He didn't have a voting record.  He was the ultimate Invisible Man that everyone projected their hopes and dreams on.  A perfect tofu candidate.  Takes on the flavor of whatever political persuasion you happen to like.  Everyone speculated hypothetically on how he would have voted for the war but curiously, every time there was the least controversial vote on any topic, he was absent or voted present.  It wasn't until he thought he had the nomination sewn up that we saw what he would do about FISA.  And Clinton, who had no reason to please lefties at that point, voted against it.  
    Time and time again, Democrats had data presented to them that was not hypothetical and they chose to disregard or disbelieve it.  Time and time again, they had NO data on Obama and they made things up in their minds to fill in the empty spaces.  Am I the only one who has considered that this was part of Obama's plan?  To remain so elusive and insubstantial that no one could pin him down on anything?  
    There is a reason why I keep bringing it up.  It's because we need to learn from this experience.  Our side always prided itself on being reality based and rational.  But when the time came, the masters of propaganda, illusion and image were able to do to us what they do to Republicans 30%ers all of the time.  They reached right down into our psyches and found the human shadow archetypes and played our emotions to a deafening crescendo so that we could barely think of anything else.  
    That's really dangerous.  What we needed was people like you who knew what was going on to vigorously object to it, not to capitulate to it.  Coming here became depressing after awhile because you seemed resigned to your fate instead of struggling against it.  That was very sad to watch.  

    Parent
    Part of his plan? (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:39:12 AM EST
    Oh, come on.  That was the absolute core of the plan.  Seriously.  And when David Axelrod writes his inevitable memoirs, he'll brag about it.

    Parent
    Excellent Post (none / 0) (#50)
    by SGITR on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:49:11 AM EST
    The only thing I disagree with is this:

    It's because we need to learn from this experience.

    I agree we should. I just don't agree we ever will. In the primaries the Left always gets it wrong. Which is why we have a long history of losing the general.

    For example look at McGovern. That was totally emotion on display, as was Obama. Yeah Obama won and McGovern didn't. But are we winning? We all know the answer there. Obama is GOP-Lite. So as a result we might not end up with true health care reform because the Left didn't want a Liberal Hawk. Heck I am reading that Big Tent who describes himself as Liberal Hawk didn't even want a Liberal Hawk. You see the Left in the primaries thinks with their hearts and not their minds.

    Parent

    Really (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:18:32 PM EST
    you can't think of one time the primaries got it right? Who should have been the Dem Canidate in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, etc. in your view?

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#160)
    by SGITR on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:55:49 PM EST
    I should have not said:

    "always get it wrong".

    I should have said: often get it wrong.

    But the fact remains that we still have a dismal record of winning the general. That says something about our candidates and our party infrastructure which includes us.

    Parent

    Um what period of history (none / 0) (#173)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:31:52 PM EST
    are you using- I mean sure from 1968-2008 you only have 12 years of Democratic Presidents, but if you extend it back to say 1928, then you have rough parity, that taken with the overwhelming congressional dominance of the Democratic Party makes it hard to read too much into the Presidential drought, given the sample size it could simply be a statistical anomaly-- its like trying to analyze a baseball player based on only a single series, you simply don't get a representative sample.

    Parent
    1968-2008 (none / 0) (#174)
    by SGITR on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:41:31 PM EST
    Well we "won" this time (none / 0) (#72)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:17:04 AM EST
    but in the big picture is that "win" going to mean much? So far all the win has meant is banks got a ton of money, car companies got a ton of money and little else.

    I wish they'd at least make the pretense they care about something other than the corporate overlords.

    Parent

    Well don't forget (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by SGITR on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:26:29 AM EST
    that the bank money was not a giveaway and is being paid back with interest. And the help the car companies got is also repayable. And just as important both actions save real jobs now and for the future.

    Parent
    The bank money didn't save jobs (none / 0) (#97)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:48:12 AM EST
    it went for bonuses to the people who screwed up to begin with.

    I suspect that there are some accounting games being played. No, I take that back I KNOW there have been some accounting games being played. Some of them changed their fiscal years so they could pretend their writedowns didn't count. AIG payouts(because double dipping is fun) were treated like they were profits and I still am not convinced that housing has been addressed sufficiently(especially with an almost 10% unemployment rate).

    I have little more sympathy for the car companies. Their bailout was a drop in the bucket compared to the bank bailout. Although, from what I understand the folks who were retired and operated for years under the impression that their contract meant something were told to pack sand. Which I take to mean that only execs deserve golden parachute packages, not people who toil for 20 odd years.

    Parent

    Yep, GM screwed my aunt (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by goldberry on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:03:18 PM EST
    She's a widow.  Her husband worked for a division of GM and was covered by the retirement bennies.  Recently, she was notified that those bennies are being cut.  My aunt is working class and not at all well off.  She can't afford a cut.  
    Contrast this with the bankers who are walking away with more in bonuses than I will make in 5 years.  It's obscene and nauseating.  
    But, that's the Obama administration for ya'.

    Parent
    You make it sound (none / 0) (#157)
    by SGITR on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:50:10 PM EST
    like all the money the banks got went for bonuses. That just is not true. A fraction of what they received went for bonuses and you forget that they made profits so it is just as likely that the bonuses were paid from the profits. Of course the money being comingled we can never know.

    You also ignore what I tried to make very clear and that is that the money they BORROWED is repayable with interest. In fact some has already been paid back. And that which has not yet been paid back has been accumulating interest or has been paying quarterly dividends in the millions.

    The fact that these were loans with no restrictions says that they were free to do with the money as they please as long as they pay it back. All indicators show that all of it will be paid back.

    As for accounting games, they only push forward reality. If you lose money in a quarter and mess with the numbers to not show that loss eventually it will show up in another quarter. The trick for them is to make it show up in a very profitable quarter so it ends up just being not as profitable of a quarter but saved them from showing it earlier as a losing quarter. There is nothing wrong with accounting like that.

    AIG payouts was insurance collected. That is why you buy insurance. Collecting on insurance is not double dipping. It is getting paid for a loss that you paid premiums to be covered for those potential losses.

    And yes with the auto companies some people got screwed. Of course more would have got screwed in one way or another had the government not stepped in and saved those industries because the companies would not exist today and be employing people.

    You buy into a lot of the popular propaganda while ignoring inconvenient facts.

    Parent

    Inconvenient facts: (5.00 / 4) (#183)
    by NYShooter on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:30:43 PM EST
    1. The billions given (lent) to the banks staved off certain insolvency, defaults, and bankruptcy for the majors, including Goldman Sachs.

    2. This action was sold to the American public as providing these banks with the needed liquidity to stimulate loans to businesses in order to kick-start the economy & to help slow down foreclosures.

    3. Besides these billions, many hundreds of billions more were provided by the F.D.I.C. & The Fed through lines of credit and loan guarantees.

    The banks used the funds to:
    a. Lend Zero (0) to anyone

    b. Consolidate their power by buying up lesser institutions.

    c. Triple the size of their enforcement & foreclosure activity.

    And you don't find there's anything morally repugnant that these banksters, who would have been bankrupt and unemployed, used the largess of the taxpaying public to reward themselves for blowing up the world by paying themselves huge, multi billion dollar bonuses?

    O.K.


    Parent

    AIG insurance (none / 0) (#178)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:02:27 PM EST
    was paid with a taxpayer bailout. It was double dipping.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:57:14 AM EST
    that just makes me laugh.

    Parent
    Yep. (none / 0) (#64)
    by goldberry on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:08:46 AM EST
    I know exactly what you mean.  
    That consolation prize isn't coming and it's no consolation.  
    He's totally clueless about how deeply damaged the party and our lives are.  

    Parent
    How do we clue him in? (none / 0) (#74)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:20:55 AM EST
    How do we get past a bunch of people who insist on seeing us as widgets and wallets?

    Parent
    oh, how so? (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by cpinva on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:56:44 AM EST
    For the record, I expect that we will be able to judge a Hillary Clinton Presidency in the years 2016-2024.

    assuming (and right now that's a huge assumption) obama is re-elected in 2012, what makes you think secty. of state clinton will have any interest in running in 2016?

    she'll be nearly 70, most likely a grandmother (now i'm assuming, that chelsea will be married w/children by then), and probably (rightfully so) tired of all the crap. what else would she have to prove?

    my feeling now (as it was during the primaries) is that she'd have made a much better, tougher president than obama is proving to be. of course, his history and decided lack of experience in the field of real political combat foretold this.

    that said, i doubt we'll ever get to find out for real.

    Parent

    What on earth (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:18:22 PM EST
    do grandchildren have to do with it?

    Don't you realize how appallingly sexist your whole comment is?  What male politician would be considered finished because he has grandchildren?

    Parent

    Will you if and when appropriate (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:37:23 AM EST
    admit you regret publicly supporting Obama in the primaries?

    Parent
    No need for that (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by goldberry on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:44:18 AM EST
    He was at best a very tepid supporter.  The problem is, what has anyone learned from this?  For example, is it ever a good idea to dehumanize half of your base by essentially calling them losers and dumping their votes in the circular file?  How can we do a better job vetting our candidates without losing our heads over how unique and historical they are?  How do we effectively educate voters to disregard the media memes?  What is the overall picture of where the country is heading with this election.  (I have a feeling I know and it's very unsettling.)
    These are the things we need to figure out and articulate before 2012.  
    Oh, and BTW, I don't think Hillary will ever be president if it's not in 2012.  She will be past her prime by 2016 and we all know it.  Her opportunity was squashed by whoever took over the party in 2008.  She isn't going to run in 2016 and I sure as heck don't want Obama to have four more years after this term is up.

    Parent
    If history repeats itself (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:59:12 AM EST
    we'll have a new "Ronald Reagan" in 2012.

    Parent
    And (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:00:04 AM EST
    we'll continue with Republican rule for at least another 12 years, because Obama is proving that Democratic presidents are pretty inept.

    Parent
    Democratic presidents IMO are only (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:48:11 AM EST
    inept when they pass Republican legislation. What we need is a Democratic president who negotiates like a Republican to pass Democratic legislation. Wishful thinking - I know.

    Parent
    I was thinking more along the lines (none / 0) (#119)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:31:38 PM EST
    of a new Bob Dole.

    Parent
    I just love this counterfactual (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:20:45 PM EST
    Where only one half of the parties voters were ridiculed and the other half wasn't called naive, or dumb- I mean is the sky still blue in your magical world?

    Parent
    It might have been okay (5.00 / 7) (#156)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:47:59 PM EST
    if dumb was where it was left. People were calling people racist and we aren't just talking random over the top supporters either.

    Furthermore, if you weren't an Obama supporter you were purged and silenced.

    I don't recall any Obama supporters being told to leave their collective internet homes because their opinion was no longer welcome.

    Parent

    Again (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:57:09 PM EST
    People were also accused of misogyny and sexism.

    Parent
    You mean (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:05:11 PM EST
    for insinuating things like the only diplomacy experience Hillary had was "tea parties" or when she was accused of being the Psycho stalker ex girlfriend because she chose to continue a campaign she was entitled to continue by rights.

    No, misogyny there right?

    (extreme snark)

    Parent

    We must get rid of the caucus (5.00 / 5) (#139)
    by hairspray on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:22:37 PM EST
    system.  Hillary won big in one vote systems with large populations. Obama won big in low vote Gop leaning caucus systems.  That is the Democratic party for you and the reason I no longer support the party.  Individuals like Joe Sestak yes, the party machine,NO.

    Parent
    She will not be past her prime (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 05:53:36 PM EST
    But the media, blogs, youth, and elderly Congresspersons will say she is.

    Parent
    We can't get back (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:31:05 AM EST
    opportunities lost. All we can do is plug on forward. The PUMAs I know are very issue oriented people and it does us no good to create the perception we are sitting on the sidelines(which seems to be the perception some folks have). I understand that it's painful to look back at some of the treatment but WE could mean the difference between millions of people getting quality health care. Working with people doesn't have to mean that we agree with them 100% of the time. It just means we work together when we have common interests.  

    For the record, I agree with you on primary tactics. I think the media is/was a problem and they rubberstamped the person they felt would be least problematic. Which, of course, doesn't change a darn thing with what we are stuck dealing with now.

    Parent

    Actually, the PUMAs are evolving (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by goldberry on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:47:45 AM EST
    PUMA was very effective for the election year.  But since it was a loose coalition to begin with, it was inevitable that relationships would breakdown and PUMAs would go their own way.  
    We need something that is stronger and longer lasting than PUMAs.  A voting block based on core Democratic principles that vets and supports its own candidates for office.  
    I call it the unParty for now but who knows?  It's time to organize.  

    Parent
    I look forward to the evolution (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:05:34 AM EST
    Core values are what attracted me to the unparty. I know the group has had some bumpy spots but I suspect if it was able to rally and put its collective force to work that it could move mountains.

    Parent
    The Progressive Block (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:11:18 AM EST
    would be a nice group to adopt.

    There is even a certain symmetry in that the Progressive Block is standing up to President Obama.

    Parent

    The Progressive Block (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:06:28 PM EST
    will be a nice group to adopt if in the end they stand firm against the pressure that I fear will be coming from the WH.

    While being very impressed with their stand now, I do not know if they will be able to go to the limit if threats of no party support come election time and accusations of damaging the party and the president come from party leadership. IMO a lot of pressure will be put on them to accept something much less than a robust public option. While always hopeful, only time will tell if they will be able to withstand the pressure.

    Parent

    The most bothersome (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:44:00 PM EST
    part for me is that despite it all I am not convinced that the majority of the progressive block is prepared to leave the bargaining table if necessary. I'm more inclined to believe they'll continue sitting at that table forevermore in hopes of a scrap or two. That and I'm not certain they won't revert back to calling those of us who wish to leave the table names simply because we disagree.

    Parent
    You do realize (none / 0) (#138)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:21:18 PM EST
    that the Progressive Caucus isn't sitting at the bargaining table now and never was?  I think you're thinking of other Dems.

    Parent
    They've been at the table (none / 0) (#159)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:54:16 PM EST
    since before the election. Thus far they have gotten little to show for everything they have given(and I'd argue that half a block of voters was a pretty hefty price).

    Parent
    There are a lot of good people there (none / 0) (#70)
    by goldberry on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:15:03 AM EST
    But we have to think out of the box if we want to make a statement in 2010.  It's not too late for that.  

    Parent
    Well, keep us posted. (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by oldpro on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:44:28 AM EST
    I no longer have the time or energy for any leadership roles but what's left isn't going to the Democratic Party for the rest of my lifetime.

    Parent
    The media did not rubber-stamp (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:52:10 AM EST
    Obama for the reason that you give, that he would be least problematic.  As if the media could care about that; they love the problematic, the conflict.

    The media like celebrities, youth (i.e., not so much the candidates as the younger media users), celebrities, easy palliatives to complexities like race in this country, youth, pols with lots of bucks to spend on media ads, which is why they lik youth . . . etc.  Oh, and the media don't like women in power.  And they never liked this powerful woman, because they never liked the Clintons.

    Parent

    All the more reason to push back (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by goldberry on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:05:26 AM EST
    So, the media doesn't like women in power.  Does that mean that women should just resign themselves to the fact that they will never be in power?  Because women candidates like Hillary Clinton are incredibly rare.  In fact, I can't think of a single one that had all of her strengths that's coming up in the foreseeable future.  I will probably go to my grave waiting for a female president.  
    But what's worse is that last year's election made it even harder for women in the future because the media demanded that Michelle take a back seat to her husband.  She has adopted the style of first lady that Republican presidents favor.  It doesn't matter what she does behind the scenes.  The public face is one of housewife and mother.  That's incredibly damaging and a direct hit on the kind of woman Hillary is and the women who identify with her.  
    We have been taken back to the Mad Men era where Michelle is no better than a decorative Betty Draper, never supposed to raise her voice or give her opinion.  She's decorative.  
    I don't know about you, but I HATE that and I'm very angry with the guys on the Democratic side of the blogosphere for allowing it to happen.  That kind of $%^* trickles down and makes all of our lives more difficult and less powerful.  

    Parent
    More than Michelle (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:09:37 AM EST
    They used reproductive issues as a flippin' bargaining chip. How sad is it that Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership were willing to sell low income women out and not even gain anything from it? It doesn't say much that they didn't even bother to try to explain how providing low cost birth control would help control costs in social programs in the long run. Nope, let's just sell women down the river. Business as usual on the ol' Hill.

    Parent
    We saw that coming (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by goldberry on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:25:20 AM EST
    The observables on reproductive health were all over  the ActBlue web pages for the Democratic candidates.  Most of the webpages I scanned looking for pols to endorse had nothing on abortion or reproductive health.  This was at the same time that the Obama blog trolls were screaming that young women were going to die if they didn't have access to abortion.  They made a big vocal deal about abortion and feminism but there was no evidence that they wanted average Joe's stumbling on support of that stuff on their campaign web pages?  
    ARGGHH!  It was all. right. there. in front of everyone's faces and they didn't want to believe it.  The man was an illusion, a vapor.  He didn't even like to refer to himself as a Democrat.  But everytime we tried to warn people, we were called racists.  
    Being right doesn't make it any easier, unfortunately.  

    Parent
    Of course, some of us do not yield (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:34:12 AM EST
    that power to the media, just because the media don't like women in power.  That's a different point . . . and others who are here more often would tell you that you don't want me to get started on that. :-)

    Parent
    Keep an eye out for (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:36:25 AM EST
    Martha Coakley in Mass., the AG now, making a run for Teddy's Senate seat.  She's not my ideal candidate, but she's smart and tough and fairly personable and has mostly very good liberal values, as far as I've heard.  Her husband is a cop, which doesn't hurt.  As far as I've seen at any rate, the media hasn't been able to lay a sexist glove on her, and hasn't tried to.

    Parent
    Her interviews during (none / 0) (#88)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:39:25 AM EST
    the nanny trial years ago just make it impossible for me to want her in the Senate.


    Parent
    I sympathize with that (none / 0) (#133)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:09:19 PM EST
    I hated that whole thing.  But I knew a guy on her legal team at the time, and he and they fervently, fervently believed in what Children's Hospital was telling them about the medical evidence and believed they had a genuine baby killer on their hands.

    Parent
    I know, and that's why I can't shake (none / 0) (#172)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:28:53 PM EST
    it off. I fervently, fervently believed otherwise because of what I heard in the courtroom from all the expert witnesses. I would hate to see her give the benefit of the doubt to the executives of big pharma and hospital administration because she thinks they are the experts in what the people need and/or can have.


    Parent
    Inspector G (none / 0) (#186)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:45:23 PM EST
    those two things aren't even remotely parallel.

    Parent
    I think running another Mass. Senator, (none / 0) (#175)
    by tigercourse on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:42:18 PM EST
    particularly a woman, is a non starter.

    Parent
    Hey! (none / 0) (#176)
    by CST on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:49:41 PM EST
    They don't all have horse-in-face disease.

    Besides, is it that much worse than a woman senator from NY?

    Or a black senator from Chicago?

    Or the gov. of VT?

    I mean, they will always make fun of "liberals" no matter what.  That doesn't mean we can't win.  John Kerry was a terrible candidate in his own right.  That had very little to do with his being from MA.

    Parent

    Yes, the Betty Draper (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:49:48 PM EST
    role assigned to "Mrs. Barack Obama" seems right on, but with a dash of Nancy Reagan's designer clothes obligations and devoted gazing during her husband's speeches.  The "mom-in-chief" role, as she has been referred, does not tell the entire story of this Princeton and Harvard Law graduate or the effect she might have on both young women and men.

    Parent
    Get rid of the Democratic caucuses. (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by hairspray on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:27:50 PM EST
    The rank and file voted for Hillary.  They were not misled.  The party bosses were. And the caucuses made it all happen. Just google Caucses and Primaries of 2008 and read the data.

    Parent
    obama's hand (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Turkana on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:21:33 AM EST
    is already weakened. and it's his own fault. and now we'll see how he plays a weaker hand.

    Black Crowes tonight... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:27:20 AM EST
    Hoegaarden's on ice, spliffs rolled, lets get Labor Day started right!

    One of the many highlights of a Crowes show is what cover(s)they do...last two shows I saw it was The Who's "The Seeker" & The Band's "Ain't No More Cane on the Brazos"...can't wait for whats in store tonight!  One of the best live bands in the business.

    Lucky dog! (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:46:25 AM EST
    The line-up at the Taste of Colorado is like getting stuck in Mr. Peabody's Way Back Machine...

    Grand Funk Railroad, Foghat, Poco, The Spinners, Cherry Poppin' Daddies and the Robert Cray Band.

    At least it's a free trip to the past.

    Parent

    No concert like a free concert... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:57:20 AM EST
    sounds like a good time to me brother, enjoy...some harsh critics have said the Crowes are stuck in a time machine, but f*ck them, good rock-n-roll is good rock-n-roll...I've never seen 'em put on anything less than a rocking kick-arse show....and loud as a motherf8cker, just like I like it:)

    Parent
    Big Musical Weekend in Seattle (none / 0) (#87)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:37:46 AM EST
    Chris Isaak in concert tonight at Ste Michelle Winery, then BUMBERSHOOT starts tomorrow.

    Parent
    Any truth to the rumor (none / 0) (#91)
    by addy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:41:02 AM EST
    that Steely Dan is coming here for a couple of days?
    I heard it on the radio yesterday, but not confirmed.

    Parent
    In October (none / 0) (#100)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:58:50 AM EST
    it appears

    Jimmy Buffet was supposed to come here next month, but cancelled his west coast tour. Thank goodness!! He was planning to use Key Arena.

    Parent

    Oooh thanks! (none / 0) (#112)
    by addy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:19:06 PM EST
    I might buy tickets to this one.

    Parent
    Amen to that (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Lil on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:27:45 AM EST
    I have wondered lately if HRC would have just rammed it through. Even though she was hated by many she had already "been there, done that" hate thing. I think she would have just forged ahead no matter who said what about her. I mean jeez they already trashed the hell out of her for the better half of 2 decades.  I think Obama wants to do the right thing but he is way too worried about image. Before some of you start slamming me, I admit this is all speculation and not based in any kind of fact, just my opinion.

    HRC (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Coral on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:38:43 AM EST
    I was for her til the end. However, watching the current debacle on health care, I'm glad I don't have to listen to (or read) the attacks she would have garnered from the "progressives" if she found herself in Obama's place today.

    My guess is that if she could have "rammed" health reform through Congress, it would have been a better overall package than anything Obama is likely to pass (if he can get something through). She would have demonstrated a lot more toughness with GOP & folks like Baucus.

    My guess is also that she could not have gotten health care through this Congress. The attacks from the right would have started a lot sooner and would have been much more vicious. Major portions of the left hated her (and still do). Obama is only being mildly criticized by a portion of the progressive community.

    So...I'm sorry Obama didn't play his hand more skillfully. He is a lousy poker player.

    Parent

    Lousy manager too, I think (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:02:30 AM EST
    So, what do we do now?  We cannot afford to have the President drift for four years. Is it just inexperience and he's going to improve at both poker and management? Or is he just not up for this job--a nice guy, a conciliator, when that's not what the job calls for? I know he's only been in office nine months, but the results so far have been very discouraging.

    Parent
    What's even worse to consider (none / 0) (#83)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:32:49 AM EST
    is what happens after we finish "drifting"?

    Without some positive impact on policy by the liberals, there is an increasing chance we end up with the GOP at the helm and drift rightward again. We're almost careened off a cliff as it was when they were in charge and they weaned a lot of the more reasonable ones out of the party.

    Parent

    The problem HRC would have had ... (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:44:33 PM EST
    ... is that she's too much of a hawk for the progressives, and too progressive for the Bush Dogs.  So she'd have been attacked from the left for somethings and attacked from the right for others.  

    I very much doubt she'd have been attacked from the left on health care or the economy, though.  

    I disagree that the attacks from the right would have been more vicious.  I think they'd have been as  vicious.  How much more vicious can it get than calling Obama a Kenyan-born muslim socialist communist terrorist nazi far-left grandmother killer, then taking your assault rife and poster of Obama-as-Hitler to a town hall meeting?  

    (I know - shooting someone while you are there.  Wait for it ... )

    Parent

    i agee they wouldnt be more vicious (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by Lil on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 05:22:40 PM EST
    my point was I don't think HRC would give a crap; she'd just try to get the job done. Obama wants bipartisanship or to be liked or something. Hillary knows half the country will never like her and just goes forward from there.

    Parent
    At a minimum, I think there would not (5.00 / 11) (#61)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:02:44 AM EST
    be so many people saying, "I don't understand - what IS this public option thing?" or who think they know but don't, really, because there are a bunch of versions of it.

    I absolutely believe that single-payer would have been a big part of the conversation, with advocates not having to protest their exclusion from meetings and hearings, but being welcomed in.

    I think there would have been serious consideration of Medicare for All that would begin with allowing younger age groups to buy in and transitioning to a true public, single-payer option.

    Finally: leadership.  Hillary would have had an actual plan, and she would have worked like a dog with Congress to get it done, and would not be trickling out specifics-that-are-not-specific some eight months later.

    Parent

    Agreed Anne- (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by NJDem on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:20:51 AM EST
    at the very least (and it's not small thing) there would not be this confusion and GOP-domination of the issue.  

    And FWIW, HRC is "the only member of the administration to have a positive job rating"

    link

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#92)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:42:49 AM EST
    foreign policy is the only area with a positive rating...

    Parent
    Those ratings are pathetic... (none / 0) (#104)
    by oldpro on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:05:53 PM EST
    And what they say about the American people's ability to pay attention...well, look at the 'don't know enough numbers' ... sheesh...

    Parent
    If it ain't tragedy, it's farce <n/t> (none / 0) (#187)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:47:31 PM EST
    Negotiating (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by waldenpond on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:59:40 AM EST
    The White House is not just negotiating public option v no public option.  Obama wants money for Afghanistan, he needs the Republicans for that.  If he doesn't cave on HC he has to fight Republicans for WAR money?!

    Parent
    Oh, come on (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:24:20 PM EST
    The Republicans will vote against funding a war when hell freezes over.

    Parent
    Somehow I'm not that sure about that my (none / 0) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:31:43 PM EST
    friend.  They would pose balking on that as a matter of balancing this crazy out of control budget.  They don't really need to vote against anything with the bunch kowtowing legislative pacifists we have running everything anyhow.  I don't think they are going to be giving Obama any blank checks for his war though.  He will be called to justify every nickel, the war funding favor will not be returned.

    Parent
    I'd be willing to play chicken with them (none / 0) (#161)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:56:53 PM EST
    on it. Especially after all the hand wringing they did to force Dems hands on the funding of Iraq. They would look like a bunch of political hypocrites.

    Parent
    You'll play chicken with them (none / 0) (#179)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:04:42 PM EST
    But if Obama does for plentiful war money and doesn't for healthcare, what sort of a hypocrite does that make him?  What is that going to further do to his base as well?

    Parent
    Obama is (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:11:06 PM EST
    all over the board on just about any policy. I daresay he cares whether or not anyone thinks he's a hypocrite and it doesn't appear that he overly cares much about what the base of the party thinks at this point either. He seems more interested in listening to the opposition and the corporate coffer fillers.

    Perhaps half of us should change our names to corporate entities and the other half should pose as Republicans so he might actually pay attention to what we have to say.

    Parent

    Clinton v Obama management style (5.00 / 9) (#30)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:27:54 AM EST
    To me, one of the most important differences between them came down to this:

    Obama:
     "But I'm not an operating officer. Some in this debate around experience seem to think the job of the president is to go in and run some bureaucracy. Well, that's not my job. My job is to set a vision of 'here's where the bureaucracy needs to go.'"

    Clinton:

     "You've got to take on this government, you've got to run this government, you can't leave it to others."

    I think her management style would have been a lot more effective in this health care reform process. In fact, there is no doubt in my mind.

    One of my biggest problems with him (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:53:51 AM EST
    is when I wasn't worried about what he was saying(Reagan, health care, economic policy) and who he was surrounded by I was troubled by how many times it appeared he took the easy route and voted present(on issues like choice) or he changed his position . That coupled with his position on being conciliatory towards the opposition party really left me wondering if we could see liberal policy placement under him.  

    Parent
    That is and was a damning comparison <n/t> (none / 0) (#188)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:49:45 PM EST
    Excited about lunch today (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by CST on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:34:38 AM EST
    whoever decided (the Chileans?) that putting green beans on a sandwhich was a good idea is my hero.

    Beef, cheese, beans, and avocado with spicy sauce between two slices of heaven.

    Then tommorow I'm off to battle traffic on my way to the beach for the weekend.  It will be worth it as soon as I bite into that lobster roll while waiting for the ferry.

    I'm really hungry now...

    I may have to make you my personal (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:37:20 AM EST
    food guide. Sounds really good!

    Parent
    Supposed to have lovely weather... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:39:00 AM EST
    here on the east coast too, or so I hear...wish it was a tad bit warmer though, but at least it ain't raining.

    Enjoy CST...lunch and the trip!

    Parent

    I hope so! (none / 0) (#46)
    by CST on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:45:41 AM EST
    The water will be warm(ish), which is half the battle up here.  This whole summer has been pretty cold as far as summers go, so yea, I'm just glad it will be sunny.

    Have fun at the concert, sounds like a blast.

    Parent

    You know I could really begin (none / 0) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:12:38 PM EST
    to dislike you.

    Great food and a weekend at the beach that is only a short drive away. So enviious.

    Parent

    I'ts only a short drive (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:25:32 PM EST
    in the middle of the night in January.

    Parent
    A short drive to the ocean is (none / 0) (#148)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:34:19 PM EST
    somewhere in the neighborhod of ten hours under the best conditions for me. You are talking traffic. I am talking distance.


    Parent
    At least you have... (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:44:44 PM EST
    ...the Ozarks nearby.  A ten hour drive won't even get me anywhere near a large body of water--even Lake Powell.

    Maybe that will change when the West Coast fracks off into the ocean and Utah becomes the new coast...

     

    Parent

    Went through Utah a couple of (none / 0) (#171)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:27:22 PM EST
    years ago. There was a large body of water in the Flaming Gorge Recreation Area. It looked to be comparable in size to the Lake of the Ozarks. That whole area was spectacular. Don't know how close it is to you. Even though I love the Ozarks, there is no way the Lake of the Ozarks compares to the beauty of those cliffs etc.

    Parent
    Utah may be (none / 0) (#193)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:56:21 PM EST
    the most beautiful state of all when you add it all up.  And I say that as a passionately partisan Vermonter...

    Parent
    to be even meaner (none / 0) (#151)
    by CST on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:36:49 PM EST
    I walk past the ocean most days on my way home from work.  Of course, I wouldn't swim in it, but it's there.

    Parent
    That is really cruel. (none / 0) (#155)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:45:08 PM EST
    I'm more of a beach walker than a swimmer anyway. A walk on the beach does great things for my well being. Can leave MO all tied up in knots and after a half hour walk on the beach, I'm somehow back in balance.

    Parent
    you know what they say (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by CST on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:57:22 PM EST
    If you can't beat em, join em!

    Although I'm not sure I'd recommend moving right now to anyone with a job.  But hey, at least we have Mass health.

    I know what you mean, it's the long way home, but I take it more often than not.  Especially after a day in the office it's nice to spend an hour unwinding.  Of course, it helps to not have obligations (kids) at home either.

    I spent 4 years living in a landlocked state.  That was enough for me to know I didn't want to spend any more.

    Parent

    Personally (none / 0) (#192)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:54:23 PM EST
    I'd rather a straight 10-hour drive than the normal 6 or so crawl that it takes to get from anywhere near Boston to the Cape on a summer weekend.

    But then, since I moved to the country a few years ago, I freak out at the 5-minute crawl getting through the center of Middlebury with its solitary traffic light.

    Parent

    Hard to imagine HRC saying this-- (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by lambert on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:14:07 AM EST
    For example:
    "It's so important to get a deal," a White House official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to be candid about strategy. "He will do almost anything it takes to get one."

    Even allowing for 11-dimensional chess, that's a little bit much.

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:22:25 AM EST
    I can imagine anonymous aides in a Clinton White House saying all kinds of crappy stuff.

    One of the worst features of Bill Clinton's White House, which was mirrored in the Hillary Clinton campaign, was the total lack of message discipline.

    For all the Clintons' ability to inspire fierce loyalty in their close associates, they sure have a hard time running a tight ship.

    Parent

    Not as crappy as that (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by lambert on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:28:35 AM EST
    "He will do almost anything it takes to get one."

    Are you kidding me?

    After all, the whole story from Obama Fans during the primaries was that the Clinton's were polarizing figures.

    Parent

    Unfortunately, I think that if Clinton... (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by EL seattle on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:38:52 PM EST
    ... had stayed in the Senate (for any reason),  anything she said or did on health care issues this year would be met with a spin from many in the media, etc. of "doesn't she understand that the primaries are over?"

    Parent
    If anything... (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by lambert on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 05:18:15 PM EST
    ... a major positive of an HRC victory would have been to completely discredit the press.

    Parent
    Discredit The Press (none / 0) (#199)
    by daring grace on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 06:33:32 PM EST
    You mean the way their collective genuflection during the reign of Bush-Cheney did?

    To some of us, the MSM has already long been discredited.

    And to those who still place stock in them, not even HRC's election would prove anything.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#200)
    by lambert on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 06:37:43 PM EST
    Because she would have gotten elected in spite of them.

    Parent
    "He will do (none / 0) (#90)
    by NYShooter on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:40:53 AM EST
    almost anything it takes to get one."

    including taking Hillary out of the Senate, where, had she stayed, would be ramming HCR home, just like she did in all the big, major States during the primaries.

    Parent

    I love the what ifs...let me play: (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:23:38 AM EST
    If Hillary is the nominee, she doesn't win Virginia or Indiana.  Lower turnout among youth and AAs gives her a smaller 51-48 win.

    Norm Coleman beats Al Franken.  Gordon Smith wins.  Since he's not number 60, Specter stays put.

    Now there are only 55+2 Dems in the Senate.  Prabably 10 fewer Dems in the House.

    Now someone tell me how something even MORE progressive getts through.

    Wow, that was fun--just making up alternate history.

    You go with the 51 and reconcile, of course (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by lambert on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:26:11 AM EST
    More is not necessarily better. Sometimes smaller and more cohesive is better.

    Parent
    Because getting a bill through the Congress (5.00 / 7) (#86)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:37:05 AM EST
    isn't just a function of having extra votes. (Obviously not, or this adminisration would have done it.) It's also a function of being willing to knock heads when they need to be knocked. Even with the administration's strong starting position, heads have to be knocked, and the President has shown a distressing willingness to knock the wrong ones.

    I think President Obama has shown (so far) that he is incapable of using a strong position to further his stated policy goals. Heaven help us when he has to work from a weak position.

    Parent

    Obama can knock heads (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:23:48 PM EST
    when he chooses to do so.

       Greenwald
        When it comes to defiant progressive members of Congress -- as opposed to supposedly defiant Blue Dogs and "centrists" -- the Obama White House has proven itself extremely adept at compelling compliance with the President's agenda.  Consider what happened when progressive House members dared to oppose the war supplemental bill which Obama wanted passed:

        The White House is playing hardball with Democrats who intend to vote against the supplemental war spending bill, threatening freshmen who oppose it that they won't get help with reelection and will be cut off from the White House, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said Friday.

    Unfortunately, so far he has only chosen to knock progressive heads.

    Parent

    By next year (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:39:15 PM EST
    'being cut off from the white house' might not be a bad thing in liberal or even moderate districts.

    Parent
    Try this alternate history (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by NYShooter on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:10:35 PM EST
    Why did we lose in Viet Nam?
    Because you cannot defeat an enemy who will not be defeated.

    Or, 1939
    Poland has more troops, more tanks, more planes, more artillery
    Germany runs over Poland in a week

    Karate masters, when looking at young trainees, don't look for size, strength, or speed; they look for "the look."
    Viet Nam had "the look"
    Germany had "the look"
    Hillary has "the look"

    How I long to hear her laughter/cackle, as the Republican smear machine mounts it's assault, while Hillary, missing not a beat, and with flawless cadence, flicks them off her shoulder like errant specks of dandruff.

    What could have been...IMO only, of course


    Parent

    Bad news on the H1N1 front. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Fabian on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:13:37 AM EST
    Local woman dies of H1N1 after giving birth to a healthy baby girl.  She was hospitalized with fever and pneumonia and the baby was delivered via C-section at 32 weeks gestation.  (Translation: At the very least, the infant was at risk.)

    The stats listed are that pregnant women make up 1% of the population, but made up 6% of the fatalities.  

    Well this fully explains yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:55:14 PM EST
    then.  I wasn't aware that we even had an H1N1 vaccine yet.  Daughter went to regular OB checkup yesterday and while she was there I guess some H1N1 vaccine had arrived.  They walked in the room with a paper for her read and sign and they stuck her before much was discussed at all.  Daughter said she felt like they were not inviting discussion about whether or not expecting mothers wanted the vaccine.  I asked her if she was sure she had received an H1N1 vaccination and she said yes, I couldn't help asking again that if she was really really sure and she got ticked at me, "Yes mom, I had to read and sign the paper mom!"  She is at around 32 weeks.

    Parent
    Perhaps she became part of a trial run? (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:30:02 PM EST
    CDC guy repeated today that mid-Oct was the timing.

    Parent
    Could be, and they are pretty certain (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:33:42 PM EST
    that this area is being hit with a wave of H1N1.

    Parent
    I'd double check that. (none / 0) (#137)
    by Fabian on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:19:43 PM EST
    This morning's radio report [podcast] said that Ob Gyns were "strongly encouraged" to give/make available both the regular flu vaccine and the H1N1 vaccine to all pregnant women.  Unless her Ob Gyn practice managed to get a batch weeks ahead of the expected release date?

    Checked the CDC site - no info on vaccine releases yet.  It's still an unspecified October date.  

    At any rate, you can tell her that she should be given BOTH the seasonal and the H1N1 vaccines and to make sure she does get both, for her health and her baby's health.

    Parent

    Hey, I checked the news too (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:24:50 PM EST
    and nothing was out there.  She isn't home, or I'd ask to see the paper she signed.  But she is the first to feel better from whatever bug has us all and she went out for the day.  She swore it was H1N1.  Would they send out vaccine for expecting women first before announcing any kind of vaccine availability?  Because we know that many out there are so afraid of this virus they are going to be very demanding about getting their vaccination first.

    Parent
    Glad folks are feeling better. (none / 0) (#154)
    by Fabian on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:44:59 PM EST
    One of the kids on the wheelchair lift bus has been out for days.  That school houses the medically fragile classroom, so it's probably a good idea if he stays home until he's completely well.  

    We have the Health Gestapo in our schools.  If your kid is sick, they WILL go home.  Even the bus drivers know the policies.

    Parent

    The way Josh came down with it (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:03:28 PM EST
    I never had to find out what sort of policies his school was deciding on.  At the end of the school year, they did ask parents to not send any child even slightly ill to school.  I suspect they are asking the same.  With the phone calling though wanting to know specifically if Joshua's symptoms are flulike, and the fact that all absent children were phoned.....I think the school is attempting to do a bit of tracking of some kind.  It was very strange though when he got sick because it hit very very fast.  There wasn't much warning....just boom.  What was even more odd though was that in the space of that afternoon and evening I came down with it and so did daughter.  Were we all exposed at the same time?  I was trying to figure out where all three of us had been together eating or something along those lines about a week to ten days ago.  We had lunch with Joshua at school :)

    Parent
    Characteristic of flu (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:50:08 PM EST
    Close to diagnostic of flu, actually.  It comes on very fast, and you're flat on your back within hours of starting to feel a little funky.

    Yes, the three of you were clearly all exposed at the same time.  It does have an incubation period of several days to a week, so if you got sick within hours of each other, you all got it from the same source.

    All it takes is for somebody with flu to not wash their hands, handle something you then handle, and boom.

    Parent

    That was what I thought too if we were (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:54:21 PM EST
    all coming down with it within hours of each other.

    Parent
    They were probably (none / 0) (#169)
    by Fabian on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:20:53 PM EST
    trying to backtrack as well - determine if it was a particular child or family.

    Not to point the finger or otherwise target anyone!  If it turns out to be a new pathogen (like H1N1 was last year), the CDC will be very interested exactly how, when and where it originated.

    If I come down with something, it's almost inevitable that I got it from the kids, who got it from school.  Last year the worst bug wasn't H1N1 - it was what I called The Nasty Virus, or the Hit By A Truck virus.  That preceded H1N1 and its trademark was two days of fever, a little vomiting and days of lethargy.  It was good for a solid week of being out of school/work.  Fortunately, that didn't affect the adults  as much so it was something we had already been exposed to.

    Parent

    pink flamingos (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:53:00 AM EST
    those of us with better breeding were alarmed when we got to work this morning to find this.

    turns it is some kind of anniversary celebration.

    What I hope the renewed interest in the 1979 Bascom Hill stunt does is inspire a Madison alder to propose recognizing the plastic pink flamingo as Madison's official bird.

    If the campaign began this week, a resolution might even be in place by the 30th anniversary Sept. 4.

    darn.  I was looking forward to coming in next week to find plastic sunflower windmills.


    You do not know what Hillary could have been. (none / 0) (#68)
    by masslib on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:13:21 AM EST
    You have no flippin clue.

    No, we don't (5.00 / 6) (#77)
    by lambert on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:25:13 AM EST
    The differences would have been marginal, but as I kept saying in the primaries, marginal does not mean insignificant.

    I don't think, for example, that we'd see the banksters having a lot less power under any administration, so the fundamentals would be the same. Ditto the other elephant in the room, the empire, which would also be sucking as much of our blood as before.

    That said, it's hard to see HRC outright dissing single payer advocates; we would likely have been in a better starting point on health care, because Hillary's mandate was universal from the get go; and her position on housing, HOLC, was and is far far better than Obama's bankster-friendly mortgage mod approach.

    Also, when in doubt, vote the base, and it's clear from the demography that Hillary's portion of the Democratic base was and is far more likely to need a government that actually functions than Obama.

    But it's all blood under the bridge, and there's every reason to think we'd have just as many [pounds forehead on desk] moments with an HRC administration, just different ones; after all, the current administration is filled with old hands from the Clinton era.

    Finally, I think she was very smart to get out from under the falling safe that's going to land on President Hoover. So far, Obama's performing even worse than I imagined, and I imagined he'd perform pretty badly.


    Parent

    Agreed... (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by masslib on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:03:07 PM EST
    But the idea that she could not have been FDR because she was not a media sweetheart of today's MSM is effing dumb.  Indeed, I would argue no one this media loves could possibly be FDR.

    Parent
    more terminal cutness (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:15:19 AM EST
    The Tiny Deer Named Rupert

    with a sad ending unfortunately.
    but they tried.


    everythings big in Texas (none / 0) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:40:15 AM EST
    BIG Paychecks to Ex-Cons who (none / 0) (#94)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:45:28 AM EST
    should never have gone to prison to begin with in Texas.

    Spread your love, people (none / 0) (#98)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:55:10 AM EST
    one more by BRMC (none / 0) (#102)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:59:45 AM EST
    Excellent post, Armando! (none / 0) (#108)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:11:10 PM EST
    While most TL participants are clear about your thoughts on the issues you bring up in this open thread, a diary addressing these issues specifically would have been illuminating.