Wednesday Night Open Thread

Lindsay Lohan has court tomorrow. According to TMZ, Lindsay's lawyer and the DA met with the judge today and no deal was reached. If you haven't been following along, Lindsay has been charged with stealing a necklace from a Beverly Hills store, and violating her seemingly never-ending probation.

At tomorrow's hearing the judge will set a preliminary hearing on the necklace charge. If bound over for trial, TMZ and others report Lindsay's probation may be revoked immediately, causing her to remain in jail pending trial.

On TV tonight: American Idol, Survivor, America's Next Top Model and Justified. The one not to miss: Justified. It's even better this year than last, ratings are up and even the critics are loving it. There's also a new character:

Added to the mix was Mags Bennett (veteran character actress Margo Martindale, getting a fine showcase here), a backwoods big-time pot grower now looking to take over Bo’s market for meth dealing. Mags is as ruthless as her son Dickie (Jeremy Davies – Lost’s Daniel Faraday) is gimpy. Mags has two more sons who are dumber but no less mean than their mama.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Loughner Arraigned, Judge Releases Search Warrant Documents | Fighting Dems >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Face it, .... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 08:21:52 PM EST
    Face it, with respect to gop options in Wisconsin, it was either this or burn down the reichstag and blame it on those smelly demonstrators.

    this is not over (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 08:19:22 AM EST
    like whats happening in the arab world this was just the beginning.  recalls are already started.  
    the people in Michigan must be looking at this with complete horror so they probably will not let them take over there now.

    this is not over and its not going to end well for the republicans.  


    from the corner (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 08:33:57 AM EST
    Madison Syndrome
    March 9, 2011 11:52 P.M.
    By Daniel Foster    

    As great a thing as I think the Wisconsin vote is for the taxpayers of the state, I have to admit I'm a little bummed right now. Why? For one thing I worry that something will happen in advance of the assembly vote tomorrow, or between the assembly vote and the signing, or in the courts in the months and years ahead.


    But you wouldn't know that to look at Madison. You wouldn't know it to read the news either. You'd think that Scott Walker and the state's elected Republicans -- men and women who have day jobs, and who I'm sure could do with fewer death threats in their lives -- are heartless monsters.

    Consider this Reuters headline (via AllahPundit), that has since been changed:

    (Wisconsin Senate passes public-sector union banthe headline?)  

    HotAir headline (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 08:36:16 AM EST
    The real mob: Tea partiers or Wisconsin protesters?

    heres the thing.  the teabaggers and the republican party is going to rue the day they made this sh!t socially acceptable with their "summer of manufactured rage" during the HCR debate.


    when stuff like this starts happening (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 08:43:46 AM EST
    and they get a look at real non astro turf rage:

    U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner shut down Monday night's town hall meeting in Wauwatosa early because the overflow crowd was more interested in talking about the state budget bills with Republican host state Sen. Leah Vukmir, attendees said.

    "It is unfortunate that the same respect given at Congressman Sensenbrenner's Town Hall Meeting in Brookfield Sunday evening wasn't experienced last night, and individuals who were patiently waiting to ask a question, receive help with casework or share their concern were unable to do so at the meeting," she said. "Congressman Sensenbrenner invites those individuals to call his office or send him and email and he will get a response to them."

    I know (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:02:13 AM EST
    because I got in a debate with a winger on FB about this very same thing. He had fallen for the lie about $7 million dollars worth of damage in Madison. I showed him a WSJ article that debunked the whole thing, told him that the tea baggers here in GA threw trash all over the place because I happened to go downtown the day after they had a rally. I told him exactly what the tea party trash here at the capital was up to with their bills and then guess what? He had no comment and deleted the whole conversation.

    and from the arab world (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 08:38:54 AM EST
    I hope (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:04:01 AM EST
    you are right that the middle class is finally sick of bearing the brunt of these policies.

    The tea party movement has really fizzled really fast. When it started, I saw them as comparable to the anti-vietnam war protesters in the 60's and 70's. Once the war was over, the whole thing kind of fizzled too.


    from what has happened there (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:07:36 AM EST
    over the last weeks I think if there is one thing we can be absolutely sure of its that those people are not simply going shrug and go "ok" and go home.

    I think so too. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:11:27 AM EST
    My actual thought is it's more like the conservative movement in the 70's and 80's.

    the recriminations (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:51:10 AM EST
    and finger pointing have already begun:

    It's rare to find a segment where Sean Hannity is having a hard time getting a word in, but Ann Coulter made it tough for him tonight as she railed against, of all people, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker for, among other things, failing to be on television "every night" and getting prank-called by a fake David Koch. While her general line of attack was "Chris Christie would have done it differently," Coulter cited polls showing Walker's popularity dropping significantly since the union wars.

    "If he were Chris Christie, he would be on TV every night," Coulter argued about Gov. Walker, "the lieutenant governor would be here every night- I don't even know who the lieutenant governor is." Hannity tried to correct her by pointing out that the lieutenant governor had been a guest several times on Hannity, but he "wasn't here last night," so that wasn't good enough for her. "MSNBC last night for five hours," she began, clearly about to say they covered the union protests, but was cut off by a deadpan "yeah but who cares?" from Hannity, who tried to veer the conversation to friendlier waters, like the NPR scandal.

    heh (none / 0) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:52:07 AM EST
    About 40 people are occupying a hallway outside the offices of the Assembly speaker and majority leader, and they don't plan to leave until they are removed by law enforcement.

    Rachel Cohen, a UW-Madison freshman, said the demonstrators are trying to block a vote on the budget repair bill.

    "There are those here who plan on staying and are prepared to get arrested," she said.

    Justified sure gets some great (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:45:56 PM EST
    character actors. Each more sceevy than the last.

    Love this show!

    They caught a suspect (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 11:44:10 PM EST
    in the failed Spokane MLK parade bombing attempt, and it turns out he may have been White Supremicist nut, and there is no mention of his possibly being an Islamicist terrorist:

    Federal officials have arrested a suspect in a bombing attempt that targeted a Martin Luther King Jr. Day march in Spokane, Wash.

    Kevin William Harpham, 36, of Colville, Wash., was arrested Wednesday on suspicion of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and possession of an unregistered explosive device. If convicted, Harpham faces life in prison.

    Officials released few details on what Frank Harrill, special agent in charge of the FBI's Spokane office, described as a "very active" investigation. U.S. Atty. Michael Ormsby said agents searched Harpham's 10-acre property in rural Stevens County, north of Spokane, on Wednesday. Neither he nor Harrill would say whether more arrests were expected.

    The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit that tracks hate groups, identified Harpham as a onetime member of the white supremacist National Alliance. Representatives of the National Alliance did not respond to a request for comment. Authorities declined to say whether Harpham had ties to white supremacist groups.

    Click or LAT Me

    Is Wisconsin Bill Illegal Or Is Walker A Liar (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by john horse on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 05:54:17 AM EST
    I thought these comments from TPM were right on target:

    It's not just the budget bill needs a quorum -- the big issue is that any bill with fiscal implications is supposed to have a quorum in the Wisconsin state Senate. So there are two choices here:
    1. Collective bargaining has fiscal implications, and so the bill will be blocked in the courts and ruled unconstitutional.

    2. Collective bargaining DOES NOT have direct fiscal implications, and Gov. Walker has been lying this entire time by making the case that it's fiscally necessary.

    So either the state R's just passed an illegal bill, or Walker has been lying this entire time and really is just interested in union-busting.

    The actions of the Wisconsin Republicans to end collective bargaining rights were both disgusting and disgraceful.

    May I recommend (none / 0) (#2)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 08:25:49 PM EST
    tomorrow - Oprah has a rerun of her interview with Tyler Perry in which he speaks of unspeakable abuse; to me he seems to have survived by sheer force of character.

    I think I (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 08:26:53 PM EST
    can put Lindsay Lohan in the same file with Charlie Sheen: overexposed and I don't care.

    At this point (none / 0) (#17)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 11:00:22 PM EST

    sadly it seems a question of which will O.D. first.  Charlie looks to have the lead.

    Michael Moore on Rachel Maddow now (none / 0) (#7)
    by byteb on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 08:47:29 PM EST
    talking about Wisconsin.

    Something they failed to discuss (1.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 11:12:53 PM EST
    Milwaukee Public Schools teacher Megan Sampson was laid off less than one week after being named Outstanding First Year Teacher by the Wisconsin Council of English Teachers. She lost her job because the collective bargaining agreement requires layoffs to be made based on seniority rather than merit.

    Informed that her union had rejected a lower-cost health care plan, that still would have required zero contribution from teachers, Sampson said, "Given the opportunity, of course I would switch to a different plan to save my job, or the jobs of 10 other teachers."

    Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 6/14/10

    Ah. I googled and found (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Towanda on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 11:37:17 PM EST
    yoru source, your story all over the rightie blogs.

    Too bad they didn't update you.  That was just a layoff notice, required to be handed out to hundreds because of the fool (non-union) schools superintendent booted out then.  She and hundreds of others kept their job under the new guy.

    Now, go find more on your rightie blogs for us and come on back now, bless your heart.


    Old Fake News, Abdul (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 08:48:31 AM EST
    American Idol (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 08:55:00 PM EST
    James Durbin is this year's Adam Lambert. He should win the whole thing.

    I can't figure out why they are pushing the "Paul" guy. He can't sing. They just like his looks and mannerisms. Really a waste of a wildcard vote on him, I would rather they had picked Brett Lowenstern or even Robbie.

    I still think the action is with the male's this year. The women seem blah and unoriginal.

    wow this yodeler (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 08:56:52 PM EST
    named Haley who is on now is awful.

    I haven't seen any shows after they picked (none / 0) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:47:04 PM EST
    the final 24 but I thought Jacob Lusk looked like a solid winner.

    End run in WI (none / 0) (#10)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:07:15 PM EST
    Apparently the new collective bargaining rules had no fiscal implications after all, so did not need a quorum. Passed 18-1 without Senate Dems.

    Who was (none / 0) (#11)
    by Zorba on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:11:19 PM EST
    the rogue Republican who voted "no"?  And will he/she be taken out and flogged in the public square by the other Republicans?

    political suicide (none / 0) (#12)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:31:37 PM EST
    He just committed political suicide. Anyone with any semblance of personal ethics, intelligence or integrity has no future with those swine.

    It was the one that was trying to work (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:43:49 PM EST
    a compromise with the Dems over the weekend.

    Yeah, dead man walking.


    Maybe he should (none / 0) (#16)
    by Zorba on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 09:57:04 PM EST
    switch parties.

    He's firmly a moderate Republican (none / 0) (#19)
    by Towanda on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 11:06:20 PM EST
    and former majority leader, so I doubt it.  

    I don't doubt that Schultz will be the target of recalls, but by his own party.  However, I'm reading that the Dem recall efforts are organizing to help him, too, in fighting off recalls by his Republicans!

    Hmmmm.  I wonder if the birthplace of the Republican Party will be the birthplace of its replacement now.  Anything seems possible in Wisconsin.  (And that party was born in Ripon, which must be near Schultz's hometown.  I know it's in the same part of the state, near the Illinois border.)


    There used to be (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 07:52:20 AM EST
    many moderate Republicans, also progressive Republicans.  Heck, the great Wisconsin progressive Robert M. La Follette, Jr. was a Republican, except for the dozen years or so that he was a Progressive (the Wisconsin Progressive Party).  He must be rolling over in his grave at what is happening to his state.  (On the other hand, there used to be quite a number of elected liberal Democrats, too.  Where are they now?  Both parties have made hard right turns.)

    Senator Dale Schultz (none / 0) (#18)
    by Towanda on Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 11:02:37 PM EST
    who is the former majority leader.  He is sickened by what has become of his party.  There are some fascinating tweet sites and live-streams telling all about this now, by the minute, so I just got to read his first statement since the vote, and since the Senators had to be escorted by law officers out of the Capitol for the vote.

    He is a firm proponent of collective bargaining rights. I know about him from friends there, where his wife was a teacher and is a principal in their hometown -- a town with one of the dozens of University of Wisconsin campuses.  

    He sponsored the first bill for collective bargaining rights for University of Wisconsin faculty, the only group banned by law from such rights for decades in that state.  They finally got the right a little more than a year ago, but most campuses were still waiting for their turn to vote to unionize.  Now it's too late.  But it looks like their unionized teaching assistants are going out, at least on the Madison campus, because so many of them are staying in the Capitol.

    When the lower house returns to the Capitol tomorrow morning to rubber-stamp the vote, too, won't that be an interesting scene?  


    What Happened to Walker's Deal ? (none / 0) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 08:50:45 AM EST
    Was he lying, he just got punked by his own, or his little scheme was nothing but a show.

    I'm sure it was the latter (none / 0) (#90)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:16:47 AM EST
    Remember he told 'fake Koch' that they had plans to trick the Dems into coming back. I'm sure there were many schemes going on.

    Justified Rocks! (none / 0) (#23)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:07:20 AM EST
    I first became aware of Timothy Olyphant in the 2007 film "Hitman."  He was great.

    I don't and can't keep of with TV because I travel a lot, but I do download shows that I am interested in like "Smallville and Downton Abbey."

    I found out about "Justified" when the season was essentially finished, with about 1 show to go.  I downloaded the earlier ones and loved them.

    Where I was raised as a kid, we had some legends about US Marshals.  One true one was that all the cops in the local city were stymied because there was a very vicious black drug dealer holed up in a big frame house with some of his relatives and friends.  He was a dangerous man.  The city cops, and the State police were all milling around behind cars and barricades while the elected officials were working on plans to keep the expected carnage down to as few dead bodies as possible.  This was a southern town and they knew that if they killed a lot of blacks then they would get a lot of bad publicity. They were worried about new industry shying away from a place where the NAACP and the ACLU, etc. were picketing and marching.

    Anyway, they called the nearby FBI for advice and the FBI called the Marshals.  2 came and after finding out what was going on, the Marshals walked up on the porch, and one waited while the other a big black Marshall with a large long barreled 44 caliber revolver walked up to the door, kicked it down, waved back all the people in the house with the revolver and found the "suspect" hiding in a bathroom, laid that big barrel across his head once knocking him silly and then dragged him out the house.  Once he came out the door the other Marshall grabbed the suspect and dragged him to the street to resounding cheers from the onlookers.

    Us kids were mightily impressed!!

    It really does rock. (none / 0) (#98)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:25:12 AM EST
    I've been watching since the start. If you like Olyphant and Justified you would probably like him in the old HBO show 'Deadwood' too. Rent those DVDs if you get a chance. There were 3 seasons. Fantastic show. I like seeing some of the actors show up in Justified. Jim Beaver, who played the office worker in the robbery last night, was a regular on Deadwood - played a great character there. Ohters have made appearances too. I would love to see John Hawkes, but now that he is an Oscar nominees (Winter's Bone) he may not be doing TV roles much!

    Interesting personal story as well. I heard a US Marshal was killed one day this week by a suspect he was trying to apprehend. Dangerous work.


    Controversy clouds... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 07:57:37 AM EST
    St. Johns victory over Rutgers in the Big East tourney...refs really did sh*t the bed, I must say.  20 minutes a half fellas, not 19:58.3:)  

    But it was class all around, Big East officials addmitted the two big errors, & Rutgers Coach Rice gave an uber-classy press conference.

    Mistakes happen, "it is what it is"...Johnnies v Orangemen today at 2 in the Quarterfinals...Go St. Johns!!!  No more brain-farts!

    Questions (none / 0) (#27)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 08:05:27 AM EST
    Long discussion yesterday on the 2008 primaries and it got heated so I'd like to ask 3 questions to see if I can gauge why seemingly everyone here believes as they do.  It seems to be a mix of PUMA types, people who never liked Obama's politics and those who (depressingly) fall into some unfortunate stereotypical traps (at least IMHO).  So here goes:

    1. The DNC rules agreed to at the outset say that only 50% of the delegates from FL would be counted.  Given that formula, does Hillary win the nomination if the original DNC rules are followed?

    2. Were both Obama and Hillary advocating for a change in the agreed upon DNC rules allocating the delegates on a 50% formula?

    3. Given 1 and 2, can the eventual agreed upon allocation, approved by both candidates, be viewed as a theft of votes by the DNC somehow or the DNC's unfair changing of the rules?

    My answers to the above are no, yes, no.

    I think that is a very logical and supportable position for any democrat to take.  You were in a position where any outcome was going to be unfair to someone. If the seating of 50% of the delegates in FL and MI had changed the picture, I think I would have a completely different take, but it would not have.  Obama was going to win if no delegates were counted and he was going to win if 50% of the delegates were counted.  The only "Hillary Wins" scenario is one in which the DNC rules are broken in the other direction and ALL the votes are counted.

    In the discussions on this topic, I've been told that if I read more about the issue, etc., I'd believe that the evil Howard Dean, Pelosi and their henchmen screwed the voters of FL and MI (and Hillary) and robbed the nomination from her far more deserving hands.

    But given my position above, I hope those here can understand why such talk rubs a real nerve, especially in a world where many PUMAs decided to vote for McCain rather than Obama, Tea Partiers question the man's birth certificate and the common meme (even here) is that he's a liar who is really a closet republican and that even a republican POTUS would be better than him.

    The bottom line of it all is a massive distrust or Obama, refusal to see him as legitimate, both as president and as the party leader, and a general attempt to make him into a force for evil every bit as dastardly as Bush.

    It's really depressing to see that kind of thing from folks I generally agree with on most issues. The negativity towards him by certain corners of the liberal blogosphere is highly unusual I think and something you just wouldn't see on the right, even from those conservatives who disagree with their party leaders.

    There is fair criticism of policy and then there is this weird "he's not one of us" meme that seems to me to be completely unjustified.  When DADT repeal legislation was passed and many tried to do  whatever they could to deny Obama any credit, it said a lot. On the conservative side, even if Bush didn't deserve 100% credit for pushing some conservative initiative, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a material segment of republicans actively trying to DENY him any credit.  It was just weird.  And when I look for reasons for why it happens, the reasons I come up with are likely those tied up with what I call Obama Legitimacy Denial Syndrome.

    It's present in the birthers but even more frustrating in Dems.

    "Long discussion . . . (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 08:28:48 AM EST
    . . . yesterday on the 2008 primaries. . "

    so sorry I missed it.  
    no offense.


    ha! (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CST on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:35:37 AM EST
    My goodness.  Where was ABG during the actual primaries here?  Or for that matter the health care debate?  Talk about screaming into the wilderness.

    Some of us just learned to pick our battles.  And no, I'm not gonna defend tax cuts.

    I think ABG also mistakes policy criticism with personal criticism.  That's not to say there isn't a ton of personal criticism here.  It is possible to distinguish between the two though.  I prefer to just ignore the personal stuff, and respond to the policy stuff.  But ABG seems to do the opposite.


    Lots of the same old arguments (none / 0) (#38)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:00:01 AM EST
    but folks still get pretty heated about it and when they go down certain roads, I do too.

    Wish we could put it behind us, but there is a group of dems that are angry at Obama right now and "if only the DNC/Obama hadn't cheated/stolen/disenfranshised" theme is a comforting one.

    I want Obama to win a second term in large part because I want his legitimacy confirmed.

    Silly reason, I know, but yeah.  I don't want the asterisk after his name that some would want placed in the history books and a second term is the surest way to guaranty that doesn't happen.

    I also think he's doing a good job, but there is a selfish "shut them up" part of it too.


    I agree with most all of that (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:05:08 AM EST
    except the reason I want him reelected.  I dont give squat about his legitimacy but I think he is light years better than any republican.

    it will never be over.  they will never forgive.  they will never forget.  but I suspect most of them didnt vote for him the first time and he can get reelected without them.

    I dont rate him as highly as you but I think he is doing ok.  what I really like is the effect he seems to be having on the rest of the world.  he is an honest to god hero to many of those people leading the demonstrations across the arab world.  if someone had told me an american president could do that I would not have believed it.


    Judging (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:10:30 AM EST
    by ABG's reaction, I seem to think that he thinks that Obama can't get reelected without all the votes. Granted it just isn't the people on this board that Obama has problems with.

    It's hard to get people motivated to vote against the GOP that Obama sees no problem with and caves too. Foreign policy probably isn't going to be a factor in 2012 because of the continued economic problems.


    well (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:12:45 AM EST
    I was not speaking electorally necessarily but I am not sure I agree.  I think foreign policy is very important to much of the middle that he needs to get.

    he is going to have a second term.  I would bet my next paycheck no it.
    it will be close.  as it always is these days.  but he will win.


    I don't know (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:21:50 AM EST
    There's a lot of people motivated to vote against Obama and a lot of people demoralized by his performance. To me, one day it looks like he will win because the GOP is just that bad but then the next day I read about Romney 3.0 who is going to talk about jobs, jobs, jobs and not press the social fundamentalist issues so I think the GOP might win.

    Obama does not have the advantages he had in 2008. I do agree it will be close but that does not necessarily mean a win for Obama nor does it mean a win for the GOP. Unless the job situation changes dramatically, I don't see Obama winning.


    I don't see how (none / 0) (#54)
    by CST on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:43:08 AM EST
    Mitt Romney gets through the primary.

    One word: Romneycare

    You think they're gonna let that slide?

    And frankly, even if he did win the primary, somehow, I have a hard time seeing a slick CEO ken doll being able to relate to people on economic issues.

    Maybe it's just my reaction to him, which I grant you is the opposite of unbiased, but he just has zero personal appeal.

    Let's also not forget, it's the social fundamentalist issues that motivate the GOP base to turn out en masse.


    I agree (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:47:30 AM EST
    I dont know who it is but I dont think it will be Romney.  I think Huckabee is better positioned for the primaries by far.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:49:08 AM EST
    but they are changing the order of the primaries apparently and that plays to his advantage. It's not like he's going to win in the south but they seem to be taking the south's advantage in the primaries away.

    I can understand. I have the same reaction to him but don't underestimate the ability of the fundamentalists to get in line. I don't see Palin if she runs or Gingrich as being able to get out of the primaries. Gingrich has NO constituency to speak of and even the Republicans I talk to here don't want Palin to run.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:50:36 AM EST
    but Obama can't relate to people on economic issues either.

    that's one of his weaknesses (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:00:24 AM EST
    that the GOP will have to exploit to win.  The "I wanna have a beer with" factor.  I don't see Mitt Romney being able to do that.

    He's the Republican version of John Kerry.


    Well, (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:08:24 AM EST
    Obama has the same "have a beer with problem" too. That's why I think Romney perhaps might be able to squeak past Obama in an election simply because his weaknesses are the same ones that Obama has and if people are looking for "change" then all those issues become a wash.

    Huckabee has that "I feel your pain" thing going on but I don't know if his crazy social beliefs will pass the smell test in a general election.

    Man, 2012 looks to be a really sucky election for everybody at this point.


    I guess it comes down to this (none / 0) (#70)
    by CST on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:20:15 AM EST
    for me - what are Mitt Romney's actual strengths?

    I don't see a single one.  And I think whether people want "change" or not, you have to give them something to vote FOR.  Because if you don't, they will just stick with the status quo.

    And I recognize that while many people here don't consider Obama to have many "strengths" either, I disagree, but beyond that, he has the built-in advantage of being an incumbent.  People are used to him.

    It's hard to say where we will be when the election comes around.  But for most of 2004, GW's approval rating was right around where Obama's is now.  And a lot of people really didn't like him, things were starting to go sour in Iraq, Abu Ghraib had just happened, etc... etc...  But John Kerry just offered nothing.


    All they (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:44:24 AM EST
    have to vote for is the same "amorphous" change that Obama was offering in 2008. Obama won by default and the GOP could do the same. It's not like either one is really offering anything to the middle class.

    The thing that really makes me doubt Obama's reelection is that he is not good at politics. In 2008 he had the wind at his back. His only competitive race he's ever ran he lost.

    There's a movement afoot and Obama is sitting on the sidelines waiting for someone else to do the work. A smart politician would be able to harness some of this and use it but Obama can't seem to get it together enough to do that. He just seems rudderless and without a belief system at all.

    I don't know what's going to happen but I'm not writing off the GOP after last November. I had thought that Bush had killed them off for good but then I also didn't think that Obama would go to lengths that he has to resurrect them either.

    The advantage that Bush had in 204 is that he gave his base some things to reward him for. What has Obama done that the base is pleased with? Supreme Court justices and DADT are about all that I can come up with. I don't know if that's enough.


    Obama is actually better (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:17:16 AM EST
    at campaigning than governing, from what we've seen so far.  Being on the stump and delivering some platitudes for the base in his rather lively likable way -- he's in his element apparently.  Working for bold policy initiatives and standing up firmly for progressive principles as president -- not his style.

    So, I wouldn't underestimate his re-elect chances, especially if official UE figures can continue, somehow, to drift downward and if otherwise the economy doesn't melt down again.

    As for Bush 2004, his great advantage -- and he was a much more polarizing and despised political figure than O -- was that he and his party controlled the election machinery in OH and FL.  That plus he got an opponent who, while a good debater, failed to rouse much enthusiasm and who ran a lousy campaign outside of the debates.  Still, in an honest system, it was probably enough had all the people who'd wanted to vote for him been allowed to vote or have their votes counted.


    He was campaigning (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:43:06 AM EST
    with no record in 2008. In 2012 it's going to be a different story. If the economy is good it will all work in his favor but it's not looking to be good in 2012 and most economists are predicting it will be 2014 before things turn around to any extent.

    The R's will control the election machinery in how many states in 2012? MI where Obama is apparently in trouble. OH, VA and NC all had Dem governors in 2008 did they not? FL has a different kind of governor now that would mess with the election machinery. I'm sure that Obama would carry the Kerry states less MI for sure in 2012 and maybe add AZ but past that I'm not sure. Probably not VA or NC this time.


    mmm (none / 0) (#93)
    by CST on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:19:08 AM EST
    I think you underestimate Obama's appeal in 2008.  Mitt Romney will not be able to make that "amorphous" change argument.

    Bush's support hit absolute rock-bottom in 2008.  Obama is waaaay more popular than Bush was at that point.  So that argument just won't go as far.

    And like it or not, Obama was interesting, cool, he was different from other candidates, at least on the surface.  Whether you bought into personally it or not, you have to admit a lot of people did and were excited about him.  Who's excited about Mitt Romney?

    It's ironic that you bring up Bush's "red meat" since IMO that was mostly gay bashing.  All those bans on gay marriage on the ballot really helped him.  So we will see if the opposite of that is enough to help Obama.  The tide is certainly turning on that issue, this may show us just how far.


    Why not? (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:35:32 AM EST
    The change argument is something that the opposition always makes. People may or may not buy it.

    People were excited about Obama in 2008 but he doesn't create that excitement anymore. He now has a record of putting forth pretty bad policy and like I said before he's only run one competitive race in his entire political career and he lost that one. And 2012 is going to be a lot more competitive for him than 2008 was.

    Obama is going to have to run on "stay the course" and if the economy doesn't get a whole lot better then he's not going to win. I kind of see him as a parallel to Bush Sr. in a lot of ways.


    I agree that (none / 0) (#109)
    by CST on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:50:37 AM EST
    Obama in 2012 is not Obama in 2008.  But that wasn't what I was saying.  What I'm saying is, there's no way Mitt Romney is Obama in 2008 either.

    I see this as more of a 2004 situation.

    Bush Sr. was running against Bill Clinton.  Mitt Romney is no Bill Clinton either.  He's not feeling anyone's pain.


    I agree that it (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:30:02 PM EST
    is like 2004 but I just see Obama's situation in more of the situation Bush Sr. was in---foreign policy successes but economic failure at home, a dispirited base etc.

    You're kind of arguing though that someone like Huckabee might have a chance at winning the election if it's personality based.


    Someone like Huckabee (none / 0) (#125)
    by CST on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    makes me a lot more nervous than someone like Romney.  I'll say that much.

    That being said, I'm not sure Huck is the guy to do it either.  Something about him just stirkes me as too... weird to win.  I think someone "like" Huckabee would have a better chance than Huckabee himself.  But if it comes down to Huckabee, Palin, Gingrich, and Romney, he'd be the one I'm most nervous about.

    As for the lesser-known candidates, I don't really know enough about them to have an opinion.  So there could theoretically be a dark horse in there somewhere.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:33:56 PM EST
    about Huckabee.  He's outwardly affable and folksy.  I think he's far, far more dangerous than Palin because he's much smarter.
    That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain

    Hamlet, Act 1, Scene V

    Gingrich isn't going anywhere- he has too many negatives (can you imagine what the Republicans would be saying about a Democrat on the national scene with Gingrich's marital merry-go-round?)  I think that Romney is seen by many Republicans as too "liberal' (not that he is, but that's what they think) and the Mormonism will hurt him with the Evangelicals.


    I think (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:35:53 PM EST
    in 2008 the mormomism hurt him with the evangelicals but don't count on it working in 2012. They seem to have come to terms with this issue and the fact that he's trying to "downplay" social issues could work in his favor.

    Not sure that I agree (none / 0) (#145)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:56:32 PM EST
    The Mormonism may not be as big an issue, but the fact that he is perceived as "too liberal" for a Republican will be.  He can't erase his record as Massachusetts governor, and his opponents in the Republican Primary will certainly make an issue of this.

    I don't know if he'll win (none / 0) (#148)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 03:05:09 PM EST
    But as we've been discussing here - the party pooh bahs can manipulate things to get the desired outcome.  The question comes down to this - can the Republican nominee get the independent voters in a general?  If it starts to look like Romney can beat Obama, then he will be the nominee.

    yea but the party poo-bahs (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by CST on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 03:10:31 PM EST
    might be wrong.  Honestly, the more I think about it, the more this reminds me of '04.  The "Dean scream" eliminated the only viable lefty candidate, and so the party settled on John Kerry, who was the ultimate "safe" pick that was supposed to be able to pick up all the indies.

    The problem with that is, you pick someone with "mass appeal" and what you end up with is someone no one likes.


    Yeah, (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 03:16:53 PM EST
    well, after Bush and Obama, I don't know if people are really going to care if they "like" them or not. It seems this last election put some pretty unlikable characters in office.

    In the end, I think it's going to depend on those unemployment numbers. If they don't get below 7%, it won't matter who the GOP runs.


    wanna bet? (none / 0) (#154)
    by CST on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 03:24:21 PM EST
    "If they don't get below 7%, it won't matter who the GOP runs."

    IMO, it's not going to get below 7%, and Obama will still win.

    Only time will tell which one of us is right, but it's gonna be me :)

    This last election put some "characters" in office for sure.  But frankly, likable or no, that's also kind of my point.  Mitt Romney is not a character.  He's wonderbread.


    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 03:28:33 PM EST
    You think the voters are going to reward Obama for high unemployment? It's not like he can blame the GOP because he so far has signed all their legislation and hasn't really fought for anything to help the middle class.

    If he is reelected with high unemployment, he'll be the first one since FDR to have done that and FDR cut unemployment in half and actually had programs that helped the middle class.


    yup (none / 0) (#158)
    by CST on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 04:05:15 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 04:43:56 PM EST
    if he had done what FDR did I might agree with you but I think i'm going to look up unemployment numbers for election years and see what happened.

    Okay. (none / 0) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 04:55:02 PM EST
    Since 1960 the only time that the party in power having low unemployment lost was 1968 due to the split in the D party and Nixon won. All the other times the party in power lost if unemployment was over 7.2% Reagan had 7.2% when he won reelection in 1984.

    In 1976 Carter beat Ford with an unemployment rate of 7.8% and that was a close one. That's kind of what I see possibly happening in 2012 because conservatism is in decline (despite Obama's efforts to resurrect it). So history only backs up what you are saying if the GOP has a holy war which really is not impossible.


    I'll take that bet (none / 0) (#157)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 03:30:38 PM EST
    If unemployment is still high and the Republicans can manage not to nominate one of the real freaks, Obama loses.

    Jobs. That's the ball game.


    Sure (none / 0) (#152)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 03:14:40 PM EST
    But of the current crop they have out there - Ginrich can't win, Palin definitely can't win, Huckabee can't win. I don't think Pawlenty can win.

    Unless there's a dark horse that we don't know about yet, Romney and Daniels would seem to have the most appeal to independents and those in the middle who may be disinclined to vote for Obama.


    Actually (none / 0) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 03:14:02 PM EST
    I agree that his "liberal" record might be a problem in the primaries but from what I'm reading they are rearranging the problems and that "liberal" record really isn't going to hurt him with NE Republicans and west coast republicans. I fully admit the guy will probably have huge problems in the south but the only candidate that i see with great southern appeal is Huckabee. A lot of all this depends on how strong the disapproval of Obama is.

    Palin is a non-starter (none / 0) (#140)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:49:36 PM EST
    Her numbers keep dropping.  She's been dead in the water since the Tuscon shooting,  If she runs, she won't even get get double digits in Iowa.  Stick a fork in her.

    I'll agree with this (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:58:36 PM EST
    She will never get the nomination.  The Republicans will use her to "stir up the base," but that's it.

    Huckabee is such a flat out liar (none / 0) (#126)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:12:48 PM EST
    and dog-whistler? He really is disturbing. Did you hear him on the radio saying Obama grew up in Kenya? As Stephen Colbert pointed out, it was all to be able to say 'Obama" and Mau-Mau" in the same sentence five times. Just a jerk.

    But yes, I think someone who was really like the Huckabee he pretends to be on mainstream shows would have a shot.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:17:04 PM EST
    I heard about that but didnt' see it. Very Bushian I thought with the dog whistles.

    Huck can be very charming (none / 0) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:17:45 PM EST
    and seem very moderate.  he is neither.

    OTOH... (none / 0) (#138)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:48:24 PM EST
    he plays bass...there must be good in him somewheres.  

    And I admired the way he defended pardons when a guy he helped uncage as AR gov went on to commit a heinous crime...stating he would do it again.

    That being said, I'm voting for one of the also-rans...matters little who, any monkeywrench will do.  The ultimate power of our votes, if any, is breaking this two-party oligarchal monopoly.


    you know who I'm really looking forward to (none / 0) (#141)
    by CST on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:55:31 PM EST
    getting in on this mess?


    At the very least he'll make things interesting.

    Huckabee just strikes me as being kind of unhinged.  Pick your battles man.  I'll give you a hint, picking on a best actress winner because she's only engaged to her baby-dady and not married is not a great start.  Wasn't Bristol Palin a hero of the right for keeping her baby?  And flat-out lying about the president in a way that not even your wacked-out base believes is hardly an improvement.


    Just caught the Portman.. (none / 0) (#142)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:03:55 PM EST
    slam in todays gossip page...definitely unsavory, shades of Qualye/Murphy Brown.

    I guess I can see a shred of decency in the man, for a pol...Romney rubs me so wrong it is hard to find a shred.  Another thing I kinda like about Huck is his frequent appearances on Bill Maher...he is very civil.


    Same reason people voted for George Bush (none / 0) (#143)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:06:09 PM EST
    He was a guy you could "have a beer with" (well, not actually, since he is a recovering alcoholic).

    They are all bad news of course... (none / 0) (#144)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 02:18:25 PM EST
    sh*t even the D's are all bad news, except maybe the self-loathing D's like Kuch.

    If forced at gunpoint to pick the next GOP pres, the Huckster would be my choice....no actually Ron Paul would be my choice, but he doesn't count (no-chance self-loathing R, aka Bizarro Kuch).


    Romney's strength (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:27:41 AM EST
    Proven businessman, political lineage, saved the Olympics, articulate, executive experience, appeal in both the West and Midwest, Scary Mormon theme is so 2008....

    Just for starters.

    I think the whole "Romney care" thing won't hurt him as much as you think.  It's all being played out now, so when the actual primary voting starts, it will be a little bit of noise, but it will be old news by then.

    And while their tried and true faithful may want a Huckabee or Palin, the party poo-bahs still want to put up someone who can beat Obama.  It's all going to come down to the economy, and if it's still bad, I think Romney (or Daniels) could beat Obama.  Huckabee cannot.


    ugh (none / 0) (#75)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:38:36 AM EST
    this is true

    It's hard to say where we will be when the election comes around.  But for most of 2004, GW's approval rating was right around where Obama's is now.  And a lot of people really didn't like him, things were starting to go sour in Iraq, Abu Ghraib had just happened, etc... etc...  But John Kerry just offered nothing.

    Comparing the Mittster to (none / 0) (#99)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:25:36 AM EST
    John Kerry -- not bad.  

    I was gonna say that Multiple Choice Mitt is just a slicker, more articulate version of Poppy Bush.  Smart, but has had that early moderate political profile to have to overcome with his party's base, and some of the later flip-flopping and shape-shifting has been spectacularly clumsy in the execution.  Lots of political baggage to overcome still, to go with a corp executive personality that usually doesn't resonate well with white working class folks, especially these days.


    Very true. (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:36:32 AM EST
    I said neither one of the candidates would have working class appeal if it was Romney vs. Obama.

    As a black man (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by StephenAG on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:20:41 AM EST
    I am very disappointed. I don't give Obama a pass when he doesn't push for policies that will better my life. I am tired of seeing him capitulate to the Right at just about every opportunity.

    Let's try this: show me how his policies advance the New Deal. Show me how they advance liberalism. Show me how they advanced the Democratic agenda. From my point of view, Nixon advanced liberalism far more than Obama. And that just stinks too me.

    Talk to you later (maybe). Gotta go to work.


    StephenAG (none / 0) (#63)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:57:35 AM EST
    I've repeated them here many times. He's done an incredible amount to promote the liberal agenda, but those accomplishments are ignored because they don't go far enough.  He gets healthcare reform, but it has a large private component so the fact that children can stay on their parents plans or that the preexisting condition denials were eliminated or the fact that it is the first step towards a public option are irrelevant.

    Obama has his AG say that DOMA is unconstitutional and does what he can to stop supporting the opposition position, but because he is not pushing for a full repeal that he knows will fails, his actions aren't worth counting.

    Etc. We live in a country where there are more self identified conservatives and where he was forced to deal with conservative dems. In that world, the real world, Obama's liberal accomplishments are undeniable.

    Unless your standards are unrealistic, and when I hear people talk about getting a better tax deal now, for example, I know they are unrealistic.


    The problem (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:59:49 AM EST
    isn't that people around here have unrealistic expectations but that you have extremely low expectations for Obama. Your expectations are so rock bottom for him that anything else looks unrealistic.

    I know what I have (none / 0) (#80)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:51:17 AM EST
    My expectations are very high for him.  And given what he is facing, he's doing well.

    Whether expectations are high or low is completely subjective.

    The difference between you and I, again, is that I acknowledge they are subjective.  You view your standard as definitive.


    You seem (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:55:29 AM EST
    to have no problem with him breaking the majority of his campaign promises but then the campaign promises seemed to change every week so I guess that's okay with you. Whatever.

    If you had the high standards you say you do, you would be criticizing him for not putting the public option in the health care reform, on caving on tax cuts for the wealthy etc.

    and the things that you think are so great about HCR, the one or two things, could have been done all by themselves.


    Well (none / 0) (#83)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:04:01 AM EST
    I don't believe he's broken the majority of his campaign promises, so I don't know how to respond to that.

    What promises has he kept? (none / 0) (#84)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:05:14 AM EST
    Ok, here is what I don't understand (none / 0) (#68)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:06:39 AM EST
    He gets healthcare reform, but it has a large private component so the fact that children can stay on their parents plans or that the preexisting condition denials were eliminated or the fact that it is the first step towards a public option are irrelevant.

    On what planet is that a "fact"?  You can lay out a plan if you like for how you see the ACA is going to lead to a public option in the future but that's certainly not part of the legislation whatsoever.

    IMO, even most grumpy Dems are pleased with Obama's decision to no longer defend DOMA.


    It's not (none / 0) (#73)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:29:46 AM EST
    in the legislation obviously, but the groundwork laid is the first step.  Our country, with its fear of dreaded "socialism" was never going to a public option as a first step.  There had to be some bridge to it.  This was it.

    see i think part of the problem is (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by CST on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:35:44 AM EST
    you say things like "never" or "impossible" with no backup what-so-ever.

    The public option was popular in this country.

    "Just under 60 percent of those surveyed said they would like a public option as part of any final healthcare reform legislation, which Republicans and a few Democrats oppose."  Link


    Most people favored a public option (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:40:16 AM EST
    Our country, with its fear of dreaded "socialism" was never going to a public option as a first step.

    Based on what?

    By numbers as high as 77%, for example.  Of course, if Obama truly believed a public option was impossible, perhaps he shouldn't have promised one.


    Based (none / 0) (#85)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:08:08 AM EST
    on the fact that opposition to such a concept is so fundamental to the ideology of the minority party.  I don't believe the 77% number.  It's probably more in the 60s, but for something like that to pass, we need 75-80%.

    It's like gay marriage. It polls well and then when the rubber hits the road, the support is often missing to get things done to push it.

    In any event, from a realistic perspective, there were no available votes in th senate on a plan favoring th public option.  What blue dog was going to stay on board with a public option.  I can't think of one.  There was a hard political reality there.


    So the answer to my question is ... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:59:28 AM EST
    ... your "gut" and an arbitrary level of support that you feel would make it possible for a public option to be realized, as opposed to any actual ..... you know ...

    ... facts.

    For a guy who complains about "struggling to determine the best way to argue in an environment where facts don't count", you sure don't have any trouble dismissing facts supported by evidence, while simultaneously just making stuff up out of whole cloth.

    BTW - Maybe Obama should put little asterisks over every statement he makes.  Like, "Any plan I sign must include a public option*..." (*if I have 75-80% public support for it).


    There never was going to be a public option (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:01:20 AM EST
    not because of a fear of socialism but because Obama negotiated away the public option to win over the support of insurers and hospitals in the summer of 2009.

    The bridge contained in the current insurance legislation is the equivalent to the famous "Bridge to Nowhere."


    ABG (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:15:14 AM EST
    there isn't a bridge.  You can't invent amendments to the legislation.  I think I can guess your argument (correct me if I'm wrong) - the concept of government guaranteeing you health insurance will lead to an acceptance of the idea of the government providing health care.  But that's not written in the bill and that's not a necessary outcome.  And when is this public option going to happen?  And how much money do I have to throw away to insurance companies before it does?  You don't have the answers to those questions.

    What irritates me is that huge Obama boosters like Booman for example put a lot of time and effort into convincing us that Obama had a strategy to pass healthcare with a public option.  That was the definition of success.  So at some point, Obama the strategist failed.  OR, people like Booman were wrong, wrong about the strategy, and wrong about telling people to STFU and trust Obama.

    I think the ACA is an okay bill and hope it leads to better things...but how the public option debate went down I have a big problem with.


    The perfect (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:20:03 AM EST
    is the enemy of the good here.

    That is my real argument.  You wanted a public option and feel that Obama didn't get it for you.


    But the bill that passed is a liberal triumph in its own right.

    No one here seems to agree with me on that, but I think history will vindicate me.  It is too early for anyone to say they know for certain.


    Ok... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:56:36 AM EST
    You wanted a public option and feel that Obama didn't get it for you.

    No, I don't feel that I didn't get a public option.  THERE IS NO PUBLIC OPTION.

    What irritates me is that people like yourself, and Booman, ignore the actual policy now, despite what you may've said in the past.  So if you gave cared about the public option you would be pissed now that it's not in the bill.  That's logical.  If you didn't care about it, then you wouldn't view its absence as a failure.  

    Just admit that you don't care about it!  But don't tell me that "the groundwork has been laid" when in fact it hasn't, and when you can't tell me when the public option will be added to the legislation and when I'll stop throwing money at insurance companies.

    Part of the value of the PO was that it was to be a trojan horse for single payer.  If you can make a real argument that the ACA is a trojan horse for the PO which is then a trojan horse for single payer go ahead.  But I think most of those arguments are based on the idea that the free market won't work for healthcare.  And that is the very idea the ACA is based upon.  A public option implies the ACA's failure.


    You still haven't (none / 0) (#95)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:21:31 AM EST
    Articulated all those campaign promises he kept.

    regarding this: (none / 0) (#97)
    by CST on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:25:07 AM EST
    "No one here seems to agree with me on that"

    That's not true.  I agree with you, I'm pretty sure Capt. Howdy agrees with you, christinep agrees with you, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were others here who agree with you as well.

    There was a lot of discussion here on this issue at the time of it's passage, and frankly, some of us are just done with it.


    Health insurance legislation history (none / 0) (#115)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:05:13 PM EST
    And indeed, this is exactly the case. Obama's plan closely mirrors three proposals that have attracted the support of Republicans who reside within their party's mainstream: The first is the 1993 Senate Republican health plan, which is compared with Obama's plan here, with the similarity endorsed by former Republican Senator Dave Durenberger here. The second is the Bipartisan Policy Center plan, endorsed by Bob Dole, Howard baker, George Mitchell and Tom Daschle, which is compared to Obama's plan here. And the third, of course, is Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan, which was crafted by the same economist who helped create Obama's plan, and which is rhetorically indistinguishable from Obama's. (The main difference are that Obama's plan cuts Medicare and imposes numerous other cost-saving measures -- which is to say, attempting to craft a national version of Romney's plan would result in something substantially more liberal than Obama's proposal.) link



    "Answers" (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:06:00 AM EST
    I use quotation marks because it's clear your "questions" are not really interrogatories.


    The DNC rules agreed to at the outset say that only 50% of the delegates from FL would be counted.

    Close, ... but no cigar.  The "original DNC rules" did set forth a proposed penalty for states which moved their primaries/caucuses earlier than the DNC calendar, but the penalty for doing so was entirely discretionary, as demonstrated by the special treatment given to New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina - not to mention the 100% penalty the Rules Committee chose to apply to Florida and Michigan.  Each one of those states moved up their primary/caucus ahead of the DNC calendar in violation of the DNC calendar rule, yet the DNC permitted this without any sanction to the first three states.  In fact, on the very same day that the DNC Rules Committee stripped Michigan of its delegates, it granted waivers to New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina.

    As BTD put it, "In short, rules are rules, except when they are not."

    BTW - Nice try at switching focus from your "Four States Pledge" argument, where you claimed that the candidates agreed to "disregard the Florida and Michigan votes as everyone agreed".

    1.  See Number 1, above.

    2.  See number 1.

    The rest of your PUMA trash talk doesn't merit a response.

    DADT happened on his watch (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:07:11 AM EST
    He gets credit. Reality is he didn't put ANY effort into getting it repealed and would've been fine sacrificing that population's equality for something other b.s.

    The only syndrome I have a bout Obama is that he is a terrible POLITICIAN who stinks at using the bully pulpit to get GOOD policies passed.  He has no problem compromising everything for sh*tty policies, but at this point he is OBVIOUSLY not what everyone who believed in his schtick thought he was.

    Now that you have identified a syndrome for those you think wrong, what would you call any syndrome you have surrounding Obama?  "Irrational Hope Syndrome?"  "The President For Whom More Excuses are Made Than Any Prez in History Syndrome?"

    I have a child, my friend, I have no desire for Obama to go down in flames or to be the disaster he has been so far, I'd prefer my son have a future.  But I honestly cannot countenance this constant delusions about who Obama is and what he will do.  It is clear who he is (a quite conservative personality) and what he will do (nothing that requires him to go out on any limb or risk ANYthing politically).  He is, IMO, and always has been, about GETTING the job, not DOING the job once he got it.


    Example No.1 (none / 0) (#79)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:49:13 AM EST
    Obama and DADT:

    "He gets credit."

    Very next sentence:

    "Reality is he didn't put ANY effort into getting it repealed and would've been fine sacrificing that population's equality for something other b.s."

    If that is credit, what does it look like when you criticize him?


    He gets credit (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:18:58 AM EST
    Because the repeal was on his watch.  But he didn't do anything to affirmatively work for it's repeal, and was only led there after he started seeing donations from the LGBT crowd start to dry up.  Which also explains his long-time-in-coming push on DOMA. (That's actually a misnomer - he spoke through his AG, and didn't himself forcefully push for it).

    As long as we're making lists, here's mine: (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:51:03 AM EST
    1.    Lose the PUMA label; it's quite possible the most divisive term you could throw out there, especially when it comes with the assumption that anyone who doesn't agree with Obama's policies and actions is simply some dead-ending, sore loser (another term you seriously ought to consider dropping) lighting candles on the altar of Hillary Clinton.  

    2.    Ditto on the racist label; more divisive language directed at a group of people who are - with extremely few exceptions - anything but.  As offended as we all are by racism and racist thinking, it is much more offensive to have that accusation hurled as a last resort to avoid confronting the specific and legitimate policy disagreements people have with Obama.  

    3.    We are not Tea Partiers, or birthers; most of us are long-time, liberal Democrats who know conservative policy when we see it, and know that we are seeing a lot of it from Obama AND from many more within the Democratic caucus.  This is no longer the party we recognize or understand and I can assure you that if this were happening with a John Kerry or a Hillary Clinton or anyone else of any color or gender, we would be just as disturbed.

    4.    The negativity is not personal; it is about policy.  It is issues, not personalities.  It may feel personal, but it isn't.  

    5.    People's votes are their business, not yours - or mine - and there is little patience with lectures about how people should or should not vote, or what their "duty" is to the Democratic Party; no one here that I am aware of takes their right to vote, or casts their votes, lightly, so you vote according to what you think is best and we will do the same.

    6.    The "he's not one of us" I hope refers to his policy choices, and not more racist BS; those of us who have been liberals and Democrats probably longer than you have been alive know what liberal is, and Obama does not fall into that category.  That Republicans call him a liberal doesn't make him one; the real test is policies and actions.  He's not doing too well in that regard.

    7.    As soon as you say that it didn't matter about the disenfranchising of the voters, you lose both credibility and respect; I'm pretty sure if it had been your vote that wasn't allowed to count for the person you voted for, you'd feel differently about how much it matters and what's fair.  And I'm pretty sure you'd be apoplectic if the decisions of the DNC had not, ultimately, benefited the candidate you supported.  Most of us just wanted it to be fair, and were willing to accept the results of a truly fair process.

    Finally, this is a tough crowd; if you're going to make arguments, you'd better know your stuff, or you will be exposed faster than you can hit the "Post" button; no one minds a spirited debate or a difference of opinion, but there is little tolerance for manipulation of the facts as support for those arguments.


    Absolutely spot on, Anne (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:52:24 AM EST
    I wish I could give you more than one "5."

    Anne (2.00 / 2) (#78)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:45:58 AM EST
    1. If you are someone who believes that Obama and the DNC stole the election, you share the core PUMA belief. You provide another short hand that quickly labels people who feel that way and I'll use it.

    2. Ever notice how no one who is making statements that are tinged with racism never actually believes that they are and how they always attack the person bringing up the possibility?  But OK.  Let's pretend that if Hillary had exactly the same track record as Obama that she'd be getting the same treatment.  I can play along.

    3. I don't think so honestly. See 2 above.  Why don't I think so? Because the Clinton's invented triangulation. They sold out the entire welfare system. They gave us DADT and DOMA. They gave us the easing of the banking regulations.  They did everything for 8 years that people here claim to hate.

    And you know what you call them: a great success.

    So no. When I hear those here blast the Clinton legacy of concession and anti-gay legistlation and deregulation, then I'll take those kinds of statements seriously.  Clinton would have been worse than Obama from a liberal perspective.

    1. I understand.  It feels pretty personal though.

    2. There is an undercurrent of telling Obama's supporters that they voted wrongly or were duped or what have you.  I think that happens regularly.

    3. I hope that is the case. Sometimes, given the way that the criticisms are framed, I don't know.  Especially when Obama is viewed as a republican and the Clintons are viewed as some liberal paradigm. There is a huge disconnect between the two views that begs explanation and there is one that, for every black guy, leaps to the forefront.

    4. I'd care if my vote were disenfranchised if it mattered. But in this case, people knew going in that there vote was in danger. One reason I think the FL situation is BS is that I would not have gone to vote for Obama if I lived there.  I'd have followed his statements and stayed at home.  I am sure there were many just like me.  How on earth can th results from a state like that be legitimate?  And more importantly, people knew it going in.

    I know my stuff. The issue is that most of these topics are things subject to interpretation.  That's why I continually caveat my assertions with "assuming X and Y facts". I don't think flat pronouncements of positions with no caveats for obvious qualifiers or conditions makes you sound very knowledgable.  It makes it clear to me that your certainty of your own position clouds you to see the flaws in that position.

    Everything I say here is full of flaws and holes and logical inconsistencies.  Everything we discuss here is complex and subject to zillions of different factors.

    If this is a room full of opinions, the only people you know are wrong for certain are those who claim without reservation that their opinions are right.

    And there is a lot of that.  When I see it, I call you on it. Nothing personal. I'll gladly be a one man army.    


    ABG, in response to your points: (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:46:39 AM EST
     1.    How about if you just try to respond to what people are actually saying, instead of trying to classify them with a label you think delegitimizes their arguments and opinions?

    2.    I try to take people at their word, and not impute things to them just because I don't like what they're saying.  Just as you can criticize Hillary's  actions on the basis of those actions, and not on the basis of her gender, others can approach Obama - or any person of color - the same way.

    3.    I'm guessing that you were pretty young during the Clinton presidency, or else you don't have any interest in understanding how we ended up with DOMA and DADT - something you seem to omit quite regularly.  That being said, you will not find me saying either that Clinton was the greatest president ever OR that either Clinton is a bastion of liberalism.  However, I don't know how any sentient being, knowing the level of scrutiny to which Hillary Clinton has been subjected, could state with a straight face that she wouldn't be subject to the same feet-to-the-fire treatment and criticism as Obama has been.  Speaking only for myself, I think it is when we fail to hold our leaders' feet to the fire, and treat them as if they should be exempt from criticism from within their own party, that we lose our way.

    That being said, Hillary has a vastly more liberal domestic track record, especially on issues of women and children, and while I had every expectation that she would not have lost her hawkish approach to foreign policy, I feel pretty comfortable saying that she would have been true to herself on domestic issues and been far more liberal than Obama has proven to be.

    5.    Here?  I don't think so.  I think there has been some inability to understand what holding one's nose and voting for someone - anyone, mind you - that doesn't seem to represent one's best interests accomplishes, but I don't think anyone here makes a practice of telling others they "shouldn't have" voted for any particular candidate.

    6.    Who views the Clintons as a liberal paradigm?  No one here that I'm aware of.  And, really, is the only reason you want to label the Clintons as you do so that you can make Obama look better?  Why not hold Obama accountable for his policies in light of these times and these situations?  Wouldn't that be more valuable than constantly trying to make him "better than" Clinton? I mean, how does that help anything?

    7.    But why wouldn't you care even going in that your vote wouldn't matter?  If it was as unimportant and irrelevant, why did so many people come out to vote?  Because it mattered to the people whose votes were at issue.  That should never have happened, never - and regardless of whether it was states that chose to ignore the rules and put their residents' votes at risk, or a political party's rules committee cherry-picking the rules that had the same result, it was wrong.  Period.

    I know you would like more of these issues to be open to interpretation, but there isn't as much room on many of them as you think.  When it is constantly pointed out to you that the bare facts of a situation or event or issue are conflict with what you have claimed them to be, it calls what you say into question.


    I acknowledge (none / 0) (#121)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:45:03 PM EST
    your point Anne, but I just disagree.  The fact that I disagree doesn't mean that I don't have equally strong facts or logic.  There are simply situations in which the same facts can be interpreted differently.

    The reason I reference the Clintons is that we need some standard of reference or base level with which to compare.

    If you are going to be angry at the Obama for compromising and not putting up an absolute knock down drag out fight for tax cuts, for example, I want to see the same pointed criticism of Clinton vetoing and fighting DOMA. Core principles were at stake in each situation. The same with welfare reform.

    Personally, I love the Clintons and would have been just fine with a Hillary Presidency.  I think there brand of pragmatic, realistic politics is exactly what is needed in this environment.

    Further, my take is that a Clinton Presidency would have looked strikingly like an Obama presidency except that Clinton would have caved on healthcare due to her past experiences and there would be more fantastic women in the White House.

    That is really at the core of my frustration with the "we made the wrong decision" meme. The decision was between two candidates with very similar dispositions and world views. The hypothetical candidate that I think you want was named Russ Feingold and unfortunately he didn't run and wouldn't have won even if he did.


    Over two years after the primaries, and (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:22:05 PM EST
    over a decade since Bill Clinton left office, and the only one - here - who seems to keep wanting to keep the Clintons front-and-center is you.

    It makes no sense to me at all why criticism of the current president must be accompanied by criticism of the last Democratic president - and why are you limiting it to Clinton?  Shouldn't you want criticism of every Democratic president we've ever had?

    Does bringing up DOMA from the Clinton administration offset the fact that for over two years, Obama and his DOJ have been defending it?  Does that make Clinton look worse because it happened on his watch or better because Obama did nothing about it for two years, and more important: what does what Clinton did or didn't do have to do with what is happening now?  

    Personally, I'm not convinced that you love the Clintons, but what's love got to do with any of this?  

    Hillary cave on health care?  Would she also have agreed to use women's health as a bargaining chip?  Take single-payer off the table?  Get behind the Bob Dole plan?

    Holy moly.

    On behalf of what I suspect are many of my fellow commenters, I would like to welcome you to 2011, and remind you that the 2008 primaries are over.  Obama won, and he has to stand up and take responsibility for what he does; the sooner you hold him accountable and stop checking to see how he measures up to Bill Clinton, the better.

    And please, if you don't mind, don't presume to tell me what hypothetical - or actual, for that matter - candidate I want or wanted.


    If you want the truth (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:31:49 PM EST
    of comparison: compared to Bill Clinton, Obama has failed miserably. I'm not talking one issue or two i'm talking the big picture here. Obama's healthcare is what Bill Clinton could have had in 1993 if he had had caved into the GOP. Bill Clinton had low unemployment. Obama has high unemployment. Obama has handed over the country to the wealthy and powerful as much as Bush did. Obama has continued the majority of Bush policies. This is really unfortunate because Obama had 60 senators to work with which Clinton never had.

    So there's your comparison for you. But in the end, the people who are suffering the most for Obama's failures are the people who voted for him and that's a darn shame.


    As an actual FL voter I will respond to your #7 (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:17:15 PM EST
    Millions of people voted. An election was held and they went to the polls. Most people thought the party would work out whatever the problem was - which most people barely understood at the time of the primary. So they voted, Dem and Rep alike.

    You are telling me that if you knew your candidate was on a ballot in your state, you would sit home because you had faith they would NOT work it out?


    My Candidate (none / 0) (#131)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:26:47 PM EST
    said the following immediately before the primary:

    "Florida, whose primary was scheduled for January 29th, is just like Michigan - the DNC applied full sanctions for setting an early primary date and there are no delegates are at stake.  As with Michigan, all of the Democratic presidential candidates signed a pledge to not campaign in Florida. Although Senator Obama did not remove his name from the Florida Primary ballot because Florida law did not allow him to do so, Senator Obama is firm in his commitment to neither participate nor campaign in the Florida Primary and its outcome has no bearing on the nomination contest."

    The point is that if both of the candidates have stated before hand that the state's votes won't be counted, then they should never have been counted.  if even one voter stays home as a result of being told by all of the parties that Florida did not count, it should have invalidate all of the FL results.  

    That is the only fair way to treat the situation. I am sorry that some voted but I would have stayed home and if it suddenly turned out that all of the votes in FL meant something, I'd be furious.  Way more furious than if I had voted, known before hand that my vote may be subject to some negotiatio/termination, and then voted anyway.


    Hilarious (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:32:38 PM EST
    You may want to check out what your candidate said (while technically campaigning - against the rules -  in Florida) regarding the same.

    Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.

    Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.

    Obama and others have pledged not to campaign in Florida until the Jan. 29 primary except for fundraising, which is what he was doing in Tampa.

    But after the fundraiser at the Hyde Park home of Tom and Linda Scarritt, Obama crossed the street to take half a dozen questions from reporters waiting there.

    The pledge covers anything referred to in Democratic National Committee rules as "campaigning," and those include "holding news conferences."

    Obama seemed unaware the pledge he signed prohibits news conferences. Asked whether he was violating it, he said, "I was just doing you guys a favor. ... If that's the case, then we won't do it again."

    Frank Sanchez, a Tampa Obama supporter who helped organize the fundraiser, said the encounter illustrates the awkward situation the candidates have been put in by the controversy over the state's Jan. 29 presidential primary.

    That date - earlier than allowed by rules of both major political parties - has led to a threat of sanctions against both Florida Republicans and Democrats, and to the Democrats' boycott pledge.

    "This wasn't planned," Sanchez said of the brief press availability. "He was going to the car, and he just went across the street for a moment."

    According to Sanchez and Tom Scarritt, Obama was asked during the event about making sure Floridians have a role in the nomination, despite the DNC sanctions and the pledge. Scarritt said Obama responded that he'll "do what's right by Florida voters."

    not counting votes (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by dandelion on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:41:35 PM EST
    How is not counting votes democracy?

    How can a party call itself the Democratic Party and then tell two states full of millions upon millions of voters that their votes will not count?

    How is that not disenfranchisement; how is that not against everything we are supposed to hold dear?  How can you even say with a straight face that it's all right to resort to "rules" to justify disenfranchisement?  Especially given the history of disenfranchisement in this country; especially given the arbitrary and select nature in which the rules are enforced, in which rules have been enforced historically.

    If the Democratic Party wants to return to the days of the smoke-filled back room nominating process, then fine, they're allowed to do that, and let them do that in a fully straightforward fashion without forcing states, state voters and volunteers to devote money and energy toward elections.

    But they cannot call themelves Democratic, conduct national elections and national campaigns, soliciting donations nationwide, and then also tell the voters of two states their votes do not count.

    Who might be disenfranchised next, under this rubric of Democratic party democracy?  


    Maybe it's just me, but I continue to (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 03:28:45 PM EST
    be floored by your logic and rationalization as to why it was perfectly okay for millions of people to not have their votes counted or to have them taken away from the candidate for whom they voted and given to someone else - who wasn't even on the ballot, by choice.

    And pardon me if I don't appreciate candidates agreeing on whether someone's vote will or won't count; it's not up to them.  And it shouldn't be up to the DNC or the Rules Committee if neither of these bodies can apply its rules and regulations equally.

    In a country where freedom is supposed to ring, we have an embarrassingly low number of eligible voters even register to vote, and a low number of registered voters who exercise that right.  The last message we should be sending, or seeming to send, is that there is no guarantee that one's votes will count; it is bad enough that so many of us already feel that our votes don't matter, but to actually have them not count, or be able to be given to someone else at the discretion of some political body, is only going to discourage people from making the effort.

    As a woman, who cannot forget that members of my gender were once treated like property and had to fight for the right to vote, it isn't something I take lightly; and, in all candor, for you, as a black man whose people fought and died for the right to vote, to so easily dismiss the disenfranchisement of any eligible voter and use "but the candidates said..." as your rationale is just appalling.

    Forget about who the candidates were: how can the political fortunes of any person be so important they would allow you to close your eyes to what the Democratic Party engineered in the 2008 primaries?

    It just defies understanding.


    And yet, millions of people ignored such (none / 0) (#147)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 03:03:14 PM EST
    statements from both Dem and Rep candidates. Democracy will have its day.

    I know there was no solution that was going to make everyone happy. The DNC should not have allowed it to happen. I just want to make sure it does not happen again.


    Don't hold your breath on that one. (none / 0) (#149)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 03:05:42 PM EST
    Stop the lies (none / 0) (#161)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 11, 2011 at 08:38:11 AM EST
    The point is that if both of the candidates have stated before hand that the state's votes won't be counted, then they should never have been counted.

    Both candidates did not say that Florida's votes would "not be counted".  They signed a pledge whereby the agreed to not campaign in any state which did not adhere to the DNC schedule.  The candidates would have to be complete idiots to publicly endorse the disenfranchisement of millions of voters they would need in the general election.


    Obama's statement was released ... (none / 0) (#162)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 11, 2011 at 08:48:37 AM EST
    ... in an attempt to invalidate Clinton's victory on the day of the Michigan primary.  He gratuitously threw in the Florida references to try the same thing for Florida, where polls showed Clinton with an insurmountable lead.  Of course, this statement was directly contradicted by statements Obama made both prior to and after the release of that memo.

    As is the case with most things Obama, his position depends on the crowd he's speaking to and whether he thinks he can get their vote.


    Glad you brought it up again (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:16:55 PM EST
    if it is truly in the spirit of understanding.  I think you probably answered the 3 questions correctly, as far as they went. What is missing is that the DNC rules committee had the power to interpret their rules however they chose. If they had decided to count all of the FL delegates, instead of the 50%, it would not have been a
    "scenario is one in which the DNC rules are broken in the other direction and ALL the votes are counted."
    It would have been the DNC interpreting their own rules and backing off their own penalty. The candidates' opinion of DNC rules was supposedly irrelevant. The DNC chose not to do that - their right to do so. By doing it, however, even if it might not have mattered to the overall outcome, they clearly showed us the machinations beneath the surface.

    Between that and the use of free agent Superdelegates, what became clear to me was that the DNC and Dem powers that be have the power to tilt the nomination however they want. I never called that Obama "stealing" the nomination. I called it running a good, hardball campaign and a great job convincing the superdelegates he was the guy to get behind.

    I also remember that Donna Brazile and others promised rioting at the convention if the superdelegates had "taken away" the nomination from Obama. That would have been as much of a distortion as saying Obama 'stole' the nomination.

    My frustration with Obama is that he seemed to lose all of his political skills after the election. But I have come to realize that maybe his goals just are not mine, and he is doing just fine according to his own goals.

    So go ahead and try to categorize me however you see fit. Many have tried and many have failed.

    BTW, I voted for Obama.


    Question for you: (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:34:32 PM EST
    If the unpledged superdelegates had voted en masse for Clinton, thus giving her the nomination, would you be more or less angry than you are now?

    More angry (none / 0) (#122)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:47:23 PM EST
    Well, now you understand (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:59:48 PM EST
    some of the residual anger.

    The Party puts us through the 9 months of debates and primaries and caucuses (not to mention take our money) to give us the idea it is a democratic process, but if the result is even close to a tie, they have the tie breaking power in their hands. It's their party, and they will select their candidate. That's the way it works.


    Not to mention (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:02:49 PM EST
    - and this goes to my point yesterday - they let the FL Republicans, as despicable a group of people you ever want to meet, influence their candidate selection.

    Will they do it again? Most assuredly.


    Quit Trying to Revive Old Posts (none / 0) (#36)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 08:52:50 AM EST
    He lost the arguement once, why do you insist on digging even deeper, let it be already.

    I lost nothing (none / 0) (#39)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:02:07 AM EST
    Outside of this universe, most dems think the arguments set forth yesterday were lunacy.

    But in a room of people wearing green shirts, the guy wearing the orange one is always going to look wrong.

    I get that I'm in the minority, but let's not mistake numbers on each side for winning anything.


    You were (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:13:55 AM EST
    taken to the woodshed by BTD on your supposed "Facts" hence you lost the argument because you just simply made things up.

    For me, personally (none / 0) (#52)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:23:14 AM EST
    the primaries are over and I didn't really follow the discussion about them too closely yesterday.  I voted for Clinton in the primary and then went out and donated/canvassed for Obama in the general.

    The negativity towards him by certain corners of the liberal blogosphere is highly unusual I think and something you just wouldn't see on the right, even from those conservatives who disagree with their party leaders.

    For the most part, I'd say this is the "hardest on the ones you love" type of mentality.  IMO, people should have expectations of Obama policy-wise, esp. those who supported him.  It seems to me that a lot of Obama primary supporters hated Bill Clinton passionately.  Now some Democrats are holding Obama up to the same kind of standard.  It seems natural.  Why are Democrats this way?  I don't know but it seems built into the party.  C'est la vie.

    God forbid liberals suffer from the unique kind of amnesia that conservatives do.  IMO liberals and conservatives are not equivalent.

    I don't think anyone with enough brain cells to write a history book will look back on Obama as illegitimate.  


    illigitimate? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:53:35 AM EST
    Odd choice of words. I think history will look back on him the same way I look at him now: As the greatest of American historical ironies -- an African-American elected with a mandate for sweeping change (or at least a mandate to fight hard and passionately and unsparingly for it) who then governed in a style more akin to a Republican.  And Bill Clinton, hell, he started this b.s. corporate dem sh*t in the first place, and his administration will always be shamed by their marginalizing and disposing of Brooksley Born, so he gets no pass from me either.  But Obama?  As uniquely a phucked-up American phenomenon as you'll ever witness.

    I was responding (none / 0) (#66)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:01:05 AM EST
    to ABG's comments and concerns above.  Read the thread.

    Wish we could put it behind us, but there is a group of dems that are angry at Obama right now and "if only the DNC/Obama hadn't cheated/stolen/disenfranshised" theme is a comforting one.

    I want Obama to win a second term in large part because I want his legitimacy confirmed.

    Silly reason, I know, but yeah.  I don't want the asterisk after his name that some would want placed in the history books and a second term is the surest way

    horses (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 08:55:59 AM EST
    more musings (none / 0) (#62)
    by CST on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 09:56:11 AM EST
    from the middle east.

    "A senior Saudi prince questioned the need for a ban on women driving on Wednesday and said lifting it would be a quick first step to reduce the Islamic kingdom's dependence on millions of foreign workers."


    Ahhh, there's something ironic to me about using the fear of immigrants to implement social reforms.  But... it is what it is I guess, it might actually work.

    "Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a nephew of King Abdullah and advocate of his reforms, said the kingdom could send some 750,000 foreign drivers home if women could drive.

    "A lot of Saudi women want to drive their car in line with strict regulations and wearing a headscarf. But now they need a driver ... This is an additional burden on households," he said.
    "The Saudi society wants fewer foreign labourers ... so why the hesitation, why this hesitation (with women driving cars)? I want answers," he said."

    the sauds (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:02:03 AM EST
    are afraid of their shadows now.  what fun to watch.

    "here you want some money?  you want better housing?  how about driving, you like to drive, right?"


    LOL... (none / 0) (#87)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:10:55 AM EST
    if they start a hash-dole I might have to relocate.

    My question is where are our bribes?  House of Saud giving out bones like hotcakes and we get a war on unions and proposed cuts to home heating assistance.    


    haha (none / 0) (#96)
    by CST on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:22:09 AM EST
    this is hilariously awesome to watch.

    Unfortunately, we have too many people and not enough oil for bribes.  It's also a lot easier to bribe "people" when you only consider a portion of your actual population "people".


    Touche... (none / 0) (#102)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:34:32 AM EST
    even with the bribes we're still better off...but its not the landslide it used to be...especially if the Saudi ladies get them some driving rights, maybe freedom of dress and movement and the lot of it to follow...give people a morsel of freedom and they want a bite, then they want the whole enchilada.

    Source says (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 10:21:36 AM EST
    Looks like Clint (none / 0) (#86)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:09:40 AM EST
    Eastwood is going to make a biopic about J. Edgar Hoover.  Might be interesting, and it appears he's not going to completely omit the gay angle.

    I'll also be interested to see how he handles the Hoover vs RFK matter (and the actor to play RFK is unfamiliar to me).  Most people get the actual history wrong, and Eastwood doesn't strike me as a careful scholarly type, but we'll see.  

    Lenny DiCaprio as J. Edgar, while making sense in a certain way, is perhaps a little too flattering to Edgar, though likely the make-up dept will be working overtime to come up with a reasonable approximation of that famous bulldog face.  

    RFK (none / 0) (#89)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:16:15 AM EST
    Will be played by Jeffrey Donovan - also known as Michael Weston on "Burn Notice".

    Awesome show and a great pick to play Bobby.


    Never heard of (none / 0) (#103)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:34:46 AM EST
    him, and I think his show is on a cable network I rarely if ever watch.

    Best RFK depictions I've seen would be Charlie Sheen's dad in the 1974 live tv movie, The Missiles of October, and the actor (whose name escapes me) who played him in the Costner 2001 movie Thirteen Days.


    Steven Culp, (none / 0) (#110)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:51:44 AM EST
    that's the actor's name from the Costner movie.  Well played, neither over- nor under-done as to the accent and personality.  Martin Sheen 25 yrs earlier also turned in a great one, particularly if it was done live.

    Jeffrey Donovan (none / 0) (#113)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:57:34 AM EST
    Does many accents on the shows he's on.

    And you should watch USA shows - they are pretty good.  Not always serious, but entertaining.  And Burn Notice has car chases and explosions every week.


    He really is a good actor (none / 0) (#119)
    by sj on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:40:57 PM EST
    Now that I know him from Burn Notice, I see him in episodes of things like Law and Order and [something else that I can't recall].  Completely different characters.

    But now that I know him from Burn Notice, that's the only way I can picture him (even though he plays other characters on Burn Notice).  Even so, he'll probably draw me into the theatre.  Even though DeCaprio is the star, I've missed lots of his movies.


    looks like (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:27:07 AM EST
    a senate shutdown is coming.  Link

    "The Senate rejected a Republican-backed House budget with its deep spending cuts yesterday as well as a Democratic alternative with milder reductions amid warnings that a compromise may elude America's leaders, despite their repeated pledges to work together."

    "The large class of 87 freshman House Republicans, many of whom were empowered by the conservative Tea Party movement, find "it's morally corrupt to compromise'' on a core item such as spending cuts, he said.

    That fundamental approach has hardened the rhetoric of Republicans and could shackle their negotiators. Democrats, too, have been put on notice that any compromise leading to more cuts would hurt the most vulnerable people in their districts and cost them at the ballot box.  If the standoff is not resolved, a government shutdown would spawn unpredictable political consequences, according to specialists."

    You would think (none / 0) (#120)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 12:43:39 PM EST
    if it was morally corrupt that a Republican would do it.

    heh (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:31:27 AM EST
    more (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 11:40:29 AM EST
    Saudi police (none / 0) (#137)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:43:06 PM EST
    360 view of (none / 0) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 01:48:31 PM EST