Friday Morning Open Thread

Travel day for me.

Another exciting day at the track in lower Manhattan expected.

Open Thread.

< Reports: West Memphis 3 to Be Released | West Memphis 3: Alford Pleas for Freedom, Release >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 08:29:46 AM EST
    article on why the tea party doesn't like Rick Perry.

    Frankly, I don't know which candidate is going to pass their 75 litmus tests they have for every candidate.

    Odd how there are no ... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 09:32:03 AM EST
    traditional Republicans running this year.  Other than Obama, of course.

    You'd think the game was rigged, or something.  But that's just crazy talk.


    Don't they consider Romney a traditional repub? (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 09:40:51 AM EST
    I guess I don't find him as weird as others do.

    Puh-leeze! (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 09:52:51 AM EST
    He was Governor of Massachusetts!  Sure, he's tried to buff his righty image by saying "Reagan" a lot.  But, again, Obama's ahead him even on that score.

    MA (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CST on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 12:20:24 PM EST
    actually had a string of Republican Governers.  Mitt Romney was just the last one.  That should tell you something.

    But before Romney we had Jane Swift, Paul Celucci and Bill Weld.  So it's not that far fetched at all for MA to have a republican governor.  It's been almost a "traditional" balancing act because the state legislature is so overwhelmingly democrat.

    Mitt Romney is the reason we now have a Democrat in that office.


    And not a one of the them ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 12:24:41 PM EST
    would qualify as a Republican south of the Mason-Dixon line or west of the Mississippi.

    not even (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by CST on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:43:08 PM EST
    in California?

    In all seriousness though, they are only remotely liberal when it comes to social issues.  MA Republicans are like Libertarians, when it comes to economic issues, all they want to do is starve the beast.

    They just haven't been able to be very effective at that in MA due to the power of the rest of the state government.

    So yea, they aren't gun-toting bible thumpers, because that $hit just doesn't fly around here, but they are also the exact opposite of what we need right now.


    I think down the road (none / 0) (#67)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:53:48 PM EST
    R's are going to have to be more than remotely liberal on social issues if they want to play in states like Mass and CA/NY.

    Even if that were true .... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:05:17 PM EST
    and it isn't, it still does nothing to the argument that there aren't any traditional Republicans in the Presidential race.  Other than Obama, of course.

    In all honesty (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:07:36 PM EST
    what exactly is a "traditional republican"? The country clubbers? The evangelicals? I don't think the GOP even knows what it is anymore.

    And what exactly is ... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:12:51 PM EST
    the meaning of time?

    Sorry, I won't fall into that old debating trick.

    But points for trying, Ga.


    I'm (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 03:00:43 PM EST
    not trying to debate that with you. Traditional republican probably is like family values. You can attach any meaning to it you want.

    Anywhooo ... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 03:38:52 PM EST

    How about Huntsman? (none / 0) (#78)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:21:00 PM EST
    Nice GOP state of Utah! And a belief in science seems to me traditional GOP.

    Oh, never mind....wrong flavor of Christian...


    He's the closest (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 09:43:15 AM EST
    thing they have it seems. Of course, that could be a big negative in the primaries but we shall see.

    He's Mormon (none / 0) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 09:50:45 AM EST
    To me, the right will never nominate a non-Christian.  Traditional R's are christian first and foremost.

    Pretty Sure... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 03:55:39 PM EST
    ... that pesky fact is irrelevant to the republican primary.  In these parts Mormons aren't real christians, and Catholics are hanging by a thread.

    hardcore fundamentalists (none / 0) (#109)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 04:05:44 PM EST
    of which there are many, generally don't consider Mormons 'real' christians, and they've been taking swipes at the 'works' and 'idolatry practicing' (ie, Mary and the Saints) catholics for years.

    Honestly (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 09:54:38 AM EST
    though with all their litmus tests I don't know that being a Mormon is any worse than supporting Al Gore for President like Perry did in '88 in their minds.

    These people are nuts.


    Romney voted for ... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 09:59:22 AM EST
    Paul Tsongas in the '92 primary!

    Don't kid a kidder.


    Ahem. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Towanda on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 11:50:50 AM EST
    Mormons are Christians.

    Weird, perhaps, but there are a lot of weird Christians.

    Weirdest of all, to me, are those who think that they are the only Christians.


    They did. (none / 0) (#76)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:17:35 PM EST
    mirroring, with an irony they will no doubt fail to notice, the bible's authority being based only on the contentions of its all too human writers.

    Someone on my Facebook (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 09:27:29 AM EST
    yesterday was spouting BS that Obama is ripping everyone off so badly that he single handedly inspired and caused the formation of the tea party.  Then the person immediately displayed that they genuinely have no idea how we got into this economic situation, nor do they know what will get us out of this situation, they just hate Obama and everything bad has happened because of him.  I'm so tired of stoopid from almost everyone out there.  Everyone is full blown knee jerk idiot rhetoric, and they have very few truths...some don't even have one.

    Suddenly the need to justify spanking children is very important on Facebook too.  Why?  Because chit flows downhill or something?  The big people are angry and upset and too "busy" to figure out how we got here so they are going to bust on some little kids now?  If I read one more post about how someone got their butt busted and they survived therefore we must all support a little person butt busting movement I think I will scream!


    Yeah, pretty (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 09:42:16 AM EST
    much a bunch of knee jerk flailing around is what I see too.

    Saying you survived spanking as a reasoning is stupid. That's like saying it's okay to practice incest because the person survived that too.


    As a kid who survived a lot of adult rage... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 10:09:25 AM EST
    ...those people are certifiably addled.  Physically strike an adult, go to jail.  Physically strike a child, all good.  Always been something very twisted about that.  And now, with all the research showing the ill effects of hitting children as punishment, you'd think we'd get a larger clue.  Not large enough yet, apparently.  Sad and inexplicable.

    Link them to my story about it (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 10:12:15 AM EST
    I have read some work (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 04:43:48 PM EST
    done on violence against children in our past and how it was often affiliated with rage filled parents experiencing extreme economic strain.

    We know better than this in this time, but I suppose emotionally the lizard gets to take charge at first.  And because most people do not understand what really happened to our economy and they have also been culturally programmed for years and years to believe that anyone who was poor or struggling did something to deserve it...they are filled with self loathing that must be visited upon the children now it looks like to me.

    I was openly fighting with people....imagine that :)  Someone told me that I needed to respect cultural differences too and that Christian culture will be beating its children at this time.  It was stunning to me, just stunning to me...how many people want to prearrange hitting children right now.  It isn't that nobody around here ever got a swat, but I'll be god damned if I'm going to make extensive plans to get to do it and ritualize it.  In my mind, when adults do that they are only trying to create a way to deal with their own inner frustrations and there are many frustrations right now.  I think we are going to be seeing a big increase in child abuse during this economic plight.


    Sadly, I think you're right (none / 0) (#112)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 05:45:08 PM EST
    We're going to see alot of things I bet we thought we never would again.  

    Dontcha Know (none / 0) (#17)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 10:14:16 AM EST
    Stupid is in vogue, has been for some time.

    This reminds me SNL's second hand new corespondent, Anthony Crispino. Here.


    Ron Paul started the Tea Party ... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 10:28:57 AM EST
    but neither party wants to admit that.  Even wikipedia soft pedals his involvement.

    essentially it was a place (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 03:20:44 PM EST
    for hard-righters to hide out and dissociate themselves from that radioactive Bush approval rating..

    All that "outrage over TARP" is malarky IMHO; if another Bush had been elected, all the media jackdaws who hyped the Tea Party would've been out front every day telling all those angry white men that we couldn't afford anymore disunity and unrest in such a time of economic instability.


    It's all malarky ... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 03:56:57 PM EST
    but I wish they'd get the history straight.

    I know it's hard to break up the intricately constructed fantasy we live in here in the U.S..

    But every lie we just let slip by bolsters its hold.


    J.P. Morgan is (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 08:49:04 AM EST
    cutting its global growth forecasts by a full percentage point for 2011 and 2012.

    What we are entering, J.P. Morgan says, is a "policy-induced slowdown."

    In other words: Growth is weak and policymakers are hurting rather than helping. The debt-ceiling debate hurt. The dithering response to the euro zone's debt crisis hurt. And the expected austerity in both the United States and Europe is going to hurt even more. J.P. Morgan notes that one reason they think the United States might tip back into recession is that in the first quarter of 2012, there will be "an automatic tightening fiscal policy if, as our US team currently assumes, this year's fiscal stimulus measures will expire."

    IOW the austerity that our government is pushing full steam ahead is going to hurt the economy not help it. Hecka of job Obama and the Dems.  

    The only solutions they are willing to (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 09:18:46 AM EST
    entertain are ones where hopefully the rich feel more confident and then sheer magic happens.

    Read something a day or two ago (none / 0) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 09:34:59 AM EST
    where some poor rich person was debating whether or not to purchase a very expensive watch since the stock market was reacting poorly. {Sob, my heart bleeds for them} Man do they have it rough.

    Meanwhile, back on Main St.:

    There has been a "significant decline" in economic well-being for low-income children and families over the past decade as the official child poverty rate grew by 18 percent and poverty levels for families with children increased in 38 states, according to a new study.
    In the United States as a whole, nearly 15 million children (20 percent) live in poverty. A broader definition of economic straits - $43,512 a year, or twice the federal poverty line for a family of four, "a minimum needed for most families to make ends meet," as Speer puts it - includes 31 million children, or 42 percent of the total. link

    Why (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:18:26 PM EST
    Why do people here argue with 29%'ers....makes me sad.

    It's more interesting (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:20:31 PM EST
    than working on a Friday?  :)

    so Warren has now (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by CST on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:53:02 PM EST
    formed an exploratory committee, which means she's running.

    The GOP is already on the offensive.  I just love this.  They are trying to brand her as an out-of-touch liberal elitist who is not a "true" Massachusan(?) since she is originally from Oklahomah.

    This is hilarious.  First of all, "out-of-touch liberal elitists carpetbagger" is usually what the GOP uses to describe anyone from MA who tries to run for office elsewhere.  Now they are trying to use it for someone who came to MA... from Oklahomah.

    I don't know how to say this without it coming out wrong, but - the general perception in MA of someone from Oklahomah is not "out-of-touch liberal elitist", no matter how many years they taught at Harvard.  And education is kind of what we do here.

    Now, she may not "drive a truck" - I don't know.  And she may not be able to beat Scott Brown.  But this direction from the GOP just feels completely tone deaf.

    Really funny considering (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:03:06 PM EST
    Neither of the George Bushes were from Texas. Arnold was not from California. Reagan was not from California. etc.

    And then there's the Mittster (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:56:09 PM EST
    who had hardly set foot in Mass., except for a brief interlude for his disterous attempt to beat Teddy Kennedy, before he decided to run for governor.

    And Warren is sooooo "ivory tower," she actually did the brutally hard work of setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    It's really quite silly.  She's engaging and good-natured, doesn't talk down to people, and can't be effectively painted as an out-of-touch academic elitist.  The fact that she comes from Oklahoma originally I think actually helps to mitigate the elite Harvard taint.

    Whether she can beat Scott Brown I don't know, but she'll give him a much better run for his money than the rather aloof Martha Coakley.  She knows how to work a rubber chicken dinner and a rope line.


    If I were advising her campaign (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:57:35 PM EST
    I'd get an old beat-up pick-up truck and have her drive to events in it as a goof on Brown.

    I liked her response (none / 0) (#101)
    by CST on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 03:06:58 PM EST
    the other day.  Something along the lines of "he's very good looking" and "he seems like a very nice human being, I just completely disagree with his political positions"

    Those aren't exact quotes, but that was the gist, very diplomatic, pointing out the important differences, and showing a bit of humor.


    I think he's going to have a hard time (none / 0) (#136)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 11:59:56 PM EST
    campaigning effectively against her, frankly.  She's just too good-natured.

    Sure would love to see her in her own pick-up, though...


    I was 29 in '89 when I left my home state of MA. (none / 0) (#130)
    by seabos84 on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 09:43:04 PM EST
    and moved to Seattle.

    I think the okie gets to harvard is a PLUS.

    people in MA. know what harvard is and they know where it is.  fear and loathing in the bay state.

    There are 3 groups in the Democratic Party of MA. There are the in-bred went to grammar school together townies making sure their drunken uncle keeps his job with the trash dept. There are the ivy'd up 13th generation old money and their ivy'd up toadies, and they take care of each other.

    Then there is everyone else trying to make a difference in their little corner, getting used and abused by the bandits of the first 2 groups.

    Who knows what a successful fighter for us everyone elses will get for support?

    There are plenty of choices for supporting some tribe of townies who will take care of themselves, and there are plenty of choices when it comes to supporting some faction of ivy'd up sell outs who'll be elbowing for space on that yacht with Jackie, Walter, Teddy & barack on the vineyard.

    A plague on 98% of those townie and ivy'd houses.




    Pining for Hillary (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 12:00:03 PM EST
    I am glad that the push back has begun in earnest.  It was getting a little ridiculous.  Traister, Hillary supporter, in a good NYT piece:

    "Rather than reveling in these flights of reverse political fancy, I find myself wanting the revisionist Hillary fantasists -- Clintonites and reformed Obamamaniacs alike -- to just shut up already. . .

    If Clinton had been elected president, those characterizations would have become only uglier, especially as her tenure was compared with an unrealized and thus unblemished Obama administration. Alternate-universe President Hillary Clinton would have been competing with a dream. But in a funny way, Obama is, too. . . .

    If she had won her party's nomination and then the general election, Hillary Clinton's presidency would probably not have looked so different from Obama's. She was, after all, a senator who, for a variety of structural and strategic reasons, often crossed party lines to co-sponsor legislation with Republicans, who voted to go to war in Iraq, who moved to the center on everything from Israel to violent video games. You think Obama's advisers are bad? Hillary Clinton hired, and then took far too long to get rid of, Mark Penn. And her economic team probably would have looked an awful lot like Obama's. . . .

    There simply was never going to be a liberal messiah whose powers could transcend the limits set by a democracy this packed with regressive obstructionists. That doesn't mean we can't hope for, seek and demand better from politicians and presidents. But we can't spend our time focused on alternate realities in which our country, its systems and its climate are not what they are. With advance apologies for returning to one of 2008's most infelicitous phrases, it's time to let go of the fairy tales.


    I think (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 12:04:34 PM EST
    the point of all those articles is that Hillary would have never let the GOP run things like Obama has not that she would have been some "messiah". I mean Obama is begging the GOP to let him have his 10% and even then he ends up with only 2% according to what he says.

    What you are quoting is pretty much a pathetic straw man argument.

    Obama has been such a disaster that a lot of people are apologizing for the way they didn't listen to what she said three years ago.


    Straw Man Argument (none / 0) (#34)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 12:21:23 PM EST
    That is the definition of the Pining for Hllary position IMHO.  You have a person whose history, and the Presidency of her husband, hinged on triangulation and exactly the type of concessions that Obama is blasted for doing.  Hillary was, by most objective measures, to the right of Obama.

    And if you think the right hates Obama, are we really to believe that a Clinton in the WH would have more traction.

    Bottom line: It is silly that a significant chunk of people are still living in 2008.  We have no idea what would have happened if Edwards or Clinton were POTUS, and arguments revolving around the concept are the ultimate straw man.

    How on earth does one purport to know definitively what would have happened in a nonexistent alternative universe?

    It's all very stupid.


    That's rich---calling a response to (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by observed on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 12:30:36 PM EST
    a fantasy article a straw man argument.
    The MOST important point is that rules for democratic process were broken to anoint Obama.
    If he had won fair and square, p;eople wouldn't be complaining so much. It's much the way people had extra ire about Bush, since he stole one( and possibly two) elections.

    This is completely (1.00 / 2) (#43)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 12:53:38 PM EST

    No rules were broken.

    Obama's win is valid.

    Hillary lost.

    Have to draw a hard line on the revisionist history.


    Speaking of revisionist history (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:06:29 PM EST
    Please tell that to my mother and father and the other approximately 81,000 voters in Michigan who affirmatively cast votes for Hillary Clinton, only to see those votes go to Obama because he, against the DNC Rules, had to be given 4 delegates.

    Kinda like the school field days where everybody gets a ribbon, even if they don't win.


    Your mother and the 81,000 (none / 0) (#80)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:24:48 PM EST
    voters in Michigan who cast votes were told ahead of time that their votes would not count if their primaries were moved and that they should work to convince their leadership to cease doing things that would nullify their votes.

    On December 1, 2007, the Democratic National Committee stripped Michigan of all of their delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

    When your grandmother went to vote in the primaries, she was well aware that her vote would not count.

    The real issue with what you propose is that it is completely unfair to all of the Obama voters who would have liked to have voted for him in the primary.

    Barack Obama got 0% of the vote in Michigan.

    Let me say that again.

    In your world, Hillary getting 56% and Obama getting 0% is fair and accurate and should have been the way it worked.

    Thankfully, we don't live in your world and Hillary Clinton agrees with me.


    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:32:37 PM EST
    Barack Obama conspired with John Edwards to remove his name from the ballot, taking a risk that the DNC really wouldn't count the votes, which was stupid, because the DNC even said they would eventually include those votes.  There was no way they were not REALLY going to count the votes of two of the most important electoral states - anyone who thought that was an idiot. Therefore, because he knowingly and voluntarily removed his name from the ballot, he deserved exactly 0 votes. This is has been written about to death at this blog - look it up.

    And if the case was they weren't going to count, then Obama should not have gotten those votes either, right?

    More revisionist history from ABG.....


    Give me (1.00 / 1) (#117)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 07:44:35 PM EST
    A mainstream media source that corroborates this version of the story.  

    It's horse pucky.  They pulled their names to support the DNC position and present a united front.


    Oh Please, not this again... (none / 0) (#145)
    by elizab1949 on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 01:37:25 AM EST
    Weeks before the primaries we ALL knew that the votes in MI and FL would NOT count.  Hillary herself said it was a 'beauty contest, the votes do not count' but she would NOT take her name off the ballot as Obama and Edwards did because she knew very well what amassing ALL those votes would mean to people like you who would not accept that they did not count,and would continue to shout that Hillary won those primary contests and therefore had more popular votes than Obama.  Again, those state primaries that, in fact, did not count.
     The DNC was punishing the two states for disregarding the election rules - It was very clear that, in the end, those delegates be assigned to and given the vote at the convention.

    This Obama did not win the candidacy is as much of a fantasy as your belief that Hillary would be so different in governing than Obama.


    and were those the ONLY states which (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by observed on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 02:00:33 AM EST
    disregarded the primary rules??
    Were punishments handed out equitably? No.
    Was it fair to give Obama delegates from a state where he was not even on the ballot?
    Maybe if you like candidates who get 110% of the vote, but not if you care about due process.

    If it wasn't going to count, it shouldn't have (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 09:38:55 AM EST
    then counted for anyone - no delegates should have been given to anyone; that would have rendered it like a pre-season football game, where there's a score, but the win or the loss doesn't have any effect on the regular season record.

    But, you know, as the primary season wore on, and Hillary kept winning, well, it got harder for those with the power to make and break and manipulate and fiddle with the rules to live by their original decision.

    Your comment is a mass of conflicting statements - we all knew it wouldn't count, we all knew in the end it would - and full of the tortured logic required to justify the decisions made that showed thousands of people that those in power could take the votes they afirmatively cast for one candidate and give them to the candidate they did not vote for.  There is nothing the least bit democratic about doing that - nothing.

    And it was not the only irregularity in the process.

    I wonder if people like you ever ask yourselves why you were so content to accept and so determined to fight for and justify the way the process was manipulated, and so afraid to just let people vote, count those votes, and let the chips fall where they may.

    For all we know, the result would have been the same, but the difference is that millions of people would not still be feeling that the fix was in.

    I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think the precedent serves us well, nor does it do anything positive for the integrity of the democracy itself.


    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 08:23:44 AM EST
    The DNC was punishing the two states for disregarding the election rules - It was very clear that, in the end, those delegates be assigned to and given the vote at the convention.

    The DNC was punishing Democratic voters for the Republican-controlled legislatures moving the primary dates in Florida and Michigan?  Yet they chose to allow other states to move up their dates prior to Feb. 5 without any sanction?



    no that's not the case (none / 0) (#192)
    by elizab1949 on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:28:44 PM EST
    Iowa and New Hampshire get the first primary and caucuses each year - it has been moved up considerably in the past few elections.  This is a traditional schedule, IA and NH always go first.  Nevada and South Carolina asked for, and received permission to move their primaries to before Feb 5th - to provide some regional and ethnic balance to the primaries.  NV and SC received permission from the DNC (and RNC) to move their primaries.
    Florida, wanting to have more relevance in the primary process and Michigan, both moved their primaries to Jan - against the rules that all primaries except for IA and NH must be held before Feb 5th.  FL and MI did NOT get permission from their respective party national commissions to hold their primaries in Jan and were told that in so doing, their votes would not count (the republicans elected to give the delegates in those states 1/2 the vote).  
    Everyone knew the primary schedule and that FL and MI votes did not count for the delegate count.  So its really rather silly to think that you could tell the votes of those states that their votes would not count, but go ahead and vote anyway.  The DNC asked that the candidates remove their names from the ballot - Edwards and Obama did, Hillary did not.  
    I really doubt that you can call it fair when you add votes for anyone that actually don't count - that would totally change the mind-set of voters and what their ultimate choice is.
    THroughout the primary season, the question was 'what to do with the MI and FL delegates (although the Republicans had already decided to give the delegates 1/2 weight for the Republican convention vote in Aug) - and rumor had it that, in the end, some delegates would probably be awarded to MI and FL, to be determined before or after the convention.  That's what happened.
    Tell me why this is not fair?  Whether the rules are not fair is not the issue - everyone knew what they were, so you have to believe the process is going to go according to plan.  Changing minds later on has nothing to do with how the process went at the time.
    Why is it so difficult to get this?  If the situation had been different (ie., Obama getting more votes and then losing them) would you be complaining?   I think not.

    Yes, it IS the case (none / 0) (#193)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 09:24:23 PM EST
    It's a little difficult to decipher your post, but see here for a detailed explanation:

    Nevada and South Carolina asked for, and received permission to move their primaries to before Feb 5th - to provide some regional and ethnic balance to the primaries.

    No - they asked for waivers which were granted after they had already moved their primaries.

    FL and MI did NOT get permission from their respective party national commissions to hold their primaries in Jan

    Wait - you mean that the Republican-controlled legislatures did not receive permission did not receive permission from the DNC to move their primary?  Wow.  You think that's the first thing they would have done, don't you?  So strange.

    Everyone knew the primary schedule and that FL and MI votes did not count for the delegate count.  So its really rather silly to think that you could tell the votes of those states that their votes would not count, but go ahead and vote anyway.

    Really?  Did "everyone" know that?  Did the voters of Florida and Michigan know that when they went to the polls?  That's so strange ... Over 2 million people going to vote when they "knew" they're votes wouldn't count.  Not to mention the fact that their votes were, in fact, counted .... just after they would actually make a difference.  Did "everyone know" that the DNC would award Obama 4 more delegates than he actually would have won, even assuming every uncommitted voter in Michigan intended to vote for him?


    Why is it so difficult to get this?  If the situation had been different (ie., Obama getting more votes and then losing them) would you be complaining?   I think not.


    Save the mind-reading for someone who: a) believes it, and b) gives a $hit what you think.


    Nice comment Yman... (none / 0) (#194)
    by elizab1949 on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 03:12:18 AM EST
    Yeah, the FL and MI voters were told their votes on primary day would not be going to the convention delegates.  They knew.  Go back and read about it -

    Already did (none / 0) (#195)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 22, 2011 at 06:48:13 AM EST
    Which is why I thought it was so strange that 2.3 million Democrats would waste their time by voting in primaries that "everyone knew" wouldn't count.  I also thought it was strange that Florida and Michigan were singled out for disenfranchisement when South Carolina, New Hampshire and Iowa each broke Rule 11 by holding early primaries.  So strange that you have no problem disenfranchising 2.3 million Democrats for actions taken by Republicans and the double standard apllied to the other states.

    Or maybe it's not so strange ...

    BTW - "Nice comment"? - Was my comment "nicer" than you telling people they "need to get out of the basement once in a while"?


    And I draw the line at Orwell. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by observed on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:08:38 PM EST
    you are partly correct (none / 0) (#49)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:12:26 PM EST
    Obama most definitely did win

    but rules most definitely were broken

    in 2008 the Democratic Party returned to the backroom deals of the era preceding the reforms that followed in the wake of 1968, but this time with hot air rather than smoke filling the rooms & with TV offering a glimpse into the sausage factory

    Obama's undeniable win (& Hillary's undeniable loss) must be viewed & understood in that context


    As it turned out The Rules were (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 08:33:31 PM EST
    flexible enough to accomodate whatever pre-ordained outcome the Rules Committee wanted to obtain.  The super-delegates had decided Obama would be the nominee, so all the committee had to do was find a way to paper things over without affecting that outcome.

    It was all according to rules, but, as you say, very un-democratic and back to the back room policies of old. The people that really got screwed were the voters who thought they had a say in the matter.


    Addams Family (none / 0) (#81)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:29:33 PM EST

    How should the delegates have been allocated in a way that did not unfairly benefit Clinton.

    Or maybe yo believe that 0% of democratic voters in Michigan would have voted for Obama if a true election was held.

    That's the part I don't understand.  Either Obama was going to get screwed by unfairly counting Hillary's votes or Hillary was going to get screwed by counting none of the votes (I disagree with this but let's go with it as true).

    The decision was made not to screw the guy who was going to be the winner at the end in order to keep the party from imploding and Hillary, being the person that she is, agreed to do the right thing for the sake of the greater good.

    That's basically what happened. Everyone got screwed because GOP legislatures tried to muck up the situation, the Dem rules forbid the changes and hillary and obama had to negotiate a fair resolution to the mess that was left.


    Again (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:34:30 PM EST
    Obama made a choice about removing his name.  Turn it around - why should he be rewarded for making a tactical campaign error?

    It was not an error (none / 0) (#118)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 07:46:25 PM EST
    He was reacting to the stated rule of the party. There was no rule on the books that said ignore the first rule we will change all of this later.

    The idea that Hillary somehow "earned" her votes against no competition by the other two candidates is a joke,  who on earth would even want her to win that way.


    He was? (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:58:58 AM EST
    He was reacting to the stated rule of the party. There was no rule on the books that said ignore the first rule we will change all of this later.

    Was that the same rule that permitted them to allocate Michigan's votes when it would no longer matter?  Was it the same rules that allowed other states to violate the primary calendar and still have their votes counted?

    Good one.


    nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:41:10 PM EST
    this & this

    have a nice day

    or a field day, whatever


    Letter (1.00 / 1) (#119)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 07:48:42 PM EST
    From the angry folks in Michigan and BTDs analysis.

    Yup, that is rock solid support for your point. You go boy.


    "boy"? (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 08:41:37 PM EST
    something tells me if anyone else here used that term you would call them a racist . . .

    I attended the Rules, bylaws hearing in DC (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Madeline on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 01:33:00 AM EST
    May 31, 2008. My take on that hearing is that the vote split was not the issue. The issue was that the committee had made up their mind that Barack Obama was going to be President.

    That hearing was so one sided and hateful that I am surprised I still call myself a Democrat. I lost any belief I had that Democrats, particularly on that panel, were the party of fair and tolerant discussion. That they could hear an argument with out snickering, rolling their eyes or being dismissive. I think that 70% of the panel, mostly women, were in the zone of the new party idea and they were not going to allow another Clinton in the White House.

    My opinion and observations only.


    it was a watershed moment (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 01:51:10 AM EST
    for many longtime Democrats

    OFA trolls like to imagine they can simply shout this reality down


    The undecided (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:47:27 PM EST
    votes could have been divided between Edwards and Obama since they voluntarily took their names off the ballot. The problem was that they took delegates away from Hillary that she earned.

    Obama didn't "win" the primary. He didn't secure the delegates through voting only through the super delegates picking him. 2008 was a screaming example of why our primaries need reform. Obama's campaign promised people like me that if we voted for him, he would reform the primary system. Of course, we all know Obama's promises are worth a warm bucket of spit at this point. He's not going to reform the primaries.


    Here (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 12:35:14 PM EST
    we go again. You have to drag Bill down because you either 1. don't know history or 2. have to make Obama look good.

    BTD has done numerous posts comparing how Bill handled things in '95 during the shut down and how Obama has handled things. There really isn't much comparison there. Obama has shown himself time and again to be on the right of Clinton policy wise.

    You apparently were bamboozled into thinking that somehow the GOP wouldn't act the way they do with Obama. I never had that delusion. I knew that they were going to be just as mean to him as they were going to be to anybody. The difference is that Hillary after having dealt with them snooping through her underwear drawers had no delusions that you could "bargain in good faith" like Obama does.

    Most of the people writing the articles that you are purporting to criticize are saying that Obama's 3:00 a.m. phone call came in during the debt ceiling debate and he ran away from a ringing phone.


    Bill Clinton's (none / 0) (#77)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:18:43 PM EST
    Presidency was about more than the shut down.  It was about welfare reform and DADT and DOMA and relaxation of finance regulations and a whole bunch of other stuff that people who claim Clinton wasn't a moderate don't ever mention.

    It was also about tax increases and prosperity and a bunch of liberal initiatives as well.

    That's why its dumb to make sweeping generalizations about our democratic presidents.  For the most part they are all moderate when the entirety of their time in office is reviewed.


    Difference is (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:42:58 PM EST
    a lot of stuff like DADT and DOMA were forced on BC after he fought like hell and lost.

    It's simply ahistorical nonsense to compare Obama's strategy of capitulation in advance of negotiations with BC's record.


    Compare what was bargained away: (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:49:37 PM EST
    Clinton bargained away the rights of a small minority.  In capitulation on SS/Medicare and the public option, Obama has traded away the rights of everybody.

    Whose rights did he bargain away? (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 12:07:46 AM EST
    Not getting what you mean.

    If you're talking about DADT and DOMA, he most definitely and absolutely did not "bargain them away."  There was no bargain involved, except bargaining for lesser discrimination in the face of a growing momentum for total discrimination.

    If Clinton hadn't signed DOMA, we'd have a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage today.  Do you doubt that would have passed three quarters of the state legislatures in record time back then?

    Similar story with DADT because the GOPers were all het up to flat-out ban gays in the military.

    Were you around at the time, or are you just repeating stuff you've read in ignorant blog comments somewhere?


    What's that sound? (none / 0) (#165)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 10:10:29 AM EST
    "There was no bargain involved, except bargaining for lesser discrimination"

    What's that sound?  Your argument falling into the toilet.


    OK, so you're just repeating (none / 0) (#176)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 01:35:32 PM EST
    ignorant nonsense you read somewhere.  Glad that's settled.

    Your own words, birdboy: (none / 0) (#182)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 03:31:25 PM EST
    "There was no bargain involved, except bargaining for lesser discrimination in the face of blah blah blah."

    Yeah where ARE Bob Rubin (none / 0) (#100)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 03:06:28 PM EST
    and Greenspan now that we need them again?

    I love it: 2/3 of the people here are still in late-summer-of-08-mode; still arguing about which center-right chump, held tightly by the short 'n curlies by Goldman Sachs and Citigroup; planting economic timebombs for the future, and essentially telling the poor and working class to take a flying eff at the moon, is the REAL "liberal".


    Good grief. (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:51:36 PM EST
    Bill Clinton CAMPAIGNED on welfare reform. 90% of Americans wanted welfare reform. Workfare was a huge success because my ex-sister in law was under it.

    Bill Clinton fought like heck for things and didn't always get what he wanted. To compare him with a guy who literally begs the GOP for his 10% is pathetic.

    I never claimed that Clinton wasn't a "moderate" only that he was to the LEFT of Obama. I would call Clinton center to center left and Obama center right.

    If you think that Clinton was a Rockefeller Republican for example you have to say that Obama is a full blown Reaganite.


    Triangulation (none / 0) (#143)
    by Madeline on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 01:12:13 AM EST
    She's just much better doing it than he is and cooler about it.  You got to admire that!

    "We told you so" must be terribly annoying  especially since , well, we told you so.

    To be honest ABG, I still not all right with how Clinton was vilified by including the very people who are sick of hearing WTUS, so I don't really care.

    Back to Hillary; Yes she would have been supportive of the military, would have triangulated, made some concessions. She' has spent too much her life trying to protect, and empower, women and children.  I do not believe  she would have abandoned people.

    But a woman warrior we do not have. I suspect we may never in this country. We need to try to survive with what we have, fight to change it or forever blog about it until we are charged with incitement.

    And in the meantime, may the universe protect the United States of America.


    OK so let's hear it: (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by smott on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 12:37:50 PM EST
    You said:
    Hillary Clinton's presidency would probably not have looked so different from Obama's.

    Do you believe for example that:

    HRC would have caved on the Bush Tax Cuts?
    That we'd be discussing cutting social safety nets now because HRC put them on the table?
    Heck, that HRC would have created a Cat Food Commission 1? Or 2? After Congress wouldn't?
    That she would have caved on the size of the stimulus?
    That she would have gone Reaganist and made the stimulus nearly 40% (USELESS) tax cuts?
    That we'd be at 9-10% Unemployment 2+ years in to her term?

    Please be specific about why you think things would "not look so different" under HRC.


    I believe she would (none / 0) (#120)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 07:50:08 PM EST
    Have done what Obama did on all of those things. He'll her husband stood next to the president and said it was the right thing to do.

    If that isn't the best evidence we have you will never be convinced.


    There ya go again . . . n/t (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 08:47:34 PM EST
    Believe whatever you have to (5.00 / 6) (#131)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 10:37:29 PM EST
    to make it all okay - that's pretty much what Traister's doing, which is the reason her op-ed struck a chord with you.

    Maybe in your world the little woman just accepts as her own whatever thoughts and opinions go scrolling across your brain, but that you think one of the most accomplished and intelligent women of a generation is just a dupe for whatever her husband thinks?  Guess that's just you letting your feminist side out for a little air, eh?

    Sometimes you really just reek of phony.


    the Traister piece is silly (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:03:17 PM EST
    analysis here:

    Obama's failure is undeniable (not only from a leftist pov, but simply as an effective leader). Is she saying it's illegitimate to declare that, and/or to describe where and how he has failed? If so, then her piece is nothing but the rankest kind of excuse-mongering and/or fatalism. If not, if she's okay with criticizing his myriad mistakes, then all she's really saying is, "It's impossible to say for certain that Hillary wouldn't have made the same or equal mistakes." Well, duh. But that's a silly strawman.

    Seriously bad thinking (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by caseyOR on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:24:51 PM EST
    from the usually intelligent Traister. And the writing is not all that good, either.

    You also forgot (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:09:09 PM EST
    She also actually had a track record of a) charming her fierecest opponents into working with her and actually compromising because b) she also had a record of taking them on head-to-head on issues and crushing them.

    So yes, I would say it's not a far-fetched idea to say that a tenure of an HRC presidency would look very different than the one we have now....


    What brought this on, I wonder? (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:30:59 PM EST
    Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed today? Is the wife mad at you? Did you lose a few more bucks in the stock market?

    Is spewing venom over HRC your fallback position whenever you're having a bad day?



    What's Your Point ? (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:52:08 PM EST
    Hillary would have been as bad Obama has been ?

    Sorry, but I don't buy it, but more importantly, what is the point, Hillary is not in charge, Obama is.  No one cares how bad the pro-Obamars think her presidency would have been.

    I am going to call this 'The Straw Man with a Name and a Face' argument.  Which is a pro-Obama projection of a different future under a specific someone other than Obama.  It is used to deflect Obama's epic failures and prove that he powerless to do anything by showing all others he would be just as bad.

    Maybe next week you can do one of these posts about McCain, and how Obama is doing a better job than the other 'Straw Man with a Name and a Face'.  The name is real, the person exists, but the premise of the arguement is all straw.

    Or better yet, using the Multiverse Theory (infinite parallel universes), within at least one of those universes, Obama is kicking A.


    I think (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:58:53 PM EST
    people like ABG live in terror that she's going to run against him in a primary in '12 hence these kinds of things.

    The irony of these kind of posts by ABG don't help Obama at all. All they do is remind people of the primary.


    I love thinking of the primary (none / 0) (#121)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 07:51:03 PM EST
    Great times.

    The world of those that hated that time is small.


    The primaries were GREAT (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by observed on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 11:28:03 PM EST
    Obama got his A$$ kicked in the primaries, in case you didn't recall.

    I think (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 04:57:05 AM EST
    you're like the conservatives are with Reagan--oh, those imaginary "glory days".

    I think the only one engaging in any (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:12:07 PM EST
    fairy-tale telling is Traister, who, given Obama's abysmal performance, finds that she needs to console herself by imagining a Hillary Clinton presidency that would have been no better.

    It's nothing more than the flip side of the Hillary-would-have-been-better fantasies.

    No one knows what her presidency would have looked like, or who she would have nominated to Cabinet positions, or who her advisors would be; Traister invoking Mark Penn's name as proof that she would have made terrible decisions is just silly.

    But Hillary at least had a long record of public service.  And to leave out Hillary's distinguished record of work for women and children's issues, education, health care, micro-lending, is the equivalent of Traister sticking her head in the sand because she knows she can't make the "would have been the same as" argument based on what Obama's done in those areas.  And please, don't bother to raise the ACA as proof of Obama's wonderful specialness, or to remind us that he did something Hillary couldn't - because we've already had that conversation a thousand times.

    Traister's op-ed reminds me of someone who keeps trying to convince herself that she married the right man, and the one who somehow got away probably wouldn't have been any better in the end; whether she realizes it or not, Traister's trying to get to the "acceptance" stage of grief, but she won't fully be able to accept that Obama's as crappy as she feared until she can let go of the fairy tale that Hillary would have been just as crappy.

    There's a lot of that going around.


    Awesome (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 04:01:49 PM EST
    I think you are are to something...

    (ABG is) trying to get to the "acceptance" stage of grief, but (he) won't fully be able to accept that Obama's as crappy as (he) feared until (he) can let go of the fairy tale that Hillary would have been just as crappy.

    what??? (1.00 / 1) (#148)
    by elizab1949 on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 01:56:02 AM EST
    Why do you people get so upset with ABG??  Would Hillary have made policy the same as Obama? Its a moot point. Hillarys' fans are as worshipful as Obamabots ever were!
    This is such over the top vitriol over one person's opinion -
    I only come here occassionaly, but seriously, such angry people.  You really need to get out of the basement once in a while.

    You're missing the point, which is that (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by observed on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 02:02:44 AM EST
    the fantasy piece ABG links to is worthless.
    The fact he even brings up Clinton means he's PO'ed at BO, but won't say it.

    the fact that he brings up the Traister piece (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 02:04:25 AM EST
    means that he is behaving like a troll, as usual

    & unfortunately i am not the only one who took the bait


    The only reason I believe he's not (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by observed on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 02:06:55 AM EST
    paid for this tripe is that he's so bad at it.
    Which is not to say that I believe his eponymous biography in the least.

    i believe (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 02:09:36 AM EST
    that he is one angry guy

    The irony is (none / 0) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:46:14 PM EST
    that Traister was an ardent and articulate HRC supporter in the primaries.

    the only way (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:29:57 PM EST
    it can make any small amount of sense at all to conjecture about Hillary Clinton's contrafactual presidency is to imagine how she might have won the nomination

    after the May 31 "deliberations" <cough>, the only way Clinton could have won the nomination would have been to take the fight to the convention floor & peel off some of the superdelegates previously pledged to Obama

    & then her entire presidency would have been a four-year, red-faced, neck-vein-bulging howlfest from the white misogynist fauxgressive contingent - in other words, a replay of what we saw in the 2008 primaries whenever Clinton won some big blue-state primary election & threatened to "steal" the nomination from Teh One


    Better a fight than... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:51:33 PM EST
    ... the roll over submissive puppy dog act presidency we've got now.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:39:21 PM EST
    You might want to cast an eye over some of the hundreds of comments to that opinion piece, a very large percentage of which are former Obama supporters who deeply regret their votes now that they've learned who he really is.

    Gee have too many people been talking (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:43:42 PM EST
    about Obama's policies? Do you feel the need for something to distract from how bad the economy is and need to fall back on look over there - Hillary?



    Awaiting (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:45:22 PM EST
    The comments about how scary Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry are - ooh!  Look over there!

    Oh I see (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 03:15:49 PM EST
    The most read headline is

    Liberals complain about Obama; will it cost votes?

    Chris Matthews on TV recommending a march on D.C. to push Obama to do something about jobs. Rumbling in all kinds of places about his performance......

    Time to pull out the but, but Hillary distraction card.


    He is doing something about jobs - (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 08:41:37 PM EST
    - he's moving to legalize all the employed illegals, and if the history of intended consequences is any guide, those jobs will be showing up as new employment statistics by election time.  (Don't cross-question me on whether this is possible.  Can't sue me for being cynical.)

    There is going to be (none / 0) (#146)
    by Madeline on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 01:39:09 AM EST
    a march in October. It sounds pretty determined and serious to the point of no surrender.

    Yeah well what if Ditka was her VP? (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 08:28:10 PM EST
    Really, this debate has gotten almost that pointless.

    I thought you said Hillary had no experience? (none / 0) (#33)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 12:20:43 PM EST
    Are you sure you aren't mixing her up with her husband?

    I never said (none / 0) (#35)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 12:23:39 PM EST
    Hillary had no experience.

    I said that Hillary's experience was not so much greater than Obama's as to justify her claims of superiority on the issue.

    Hillary would have made a superb president.  No question.

    She just wouldn't be the liberal crusader that many seem to believe she would be. And if she were president and the inevitable move to the center occurred, do you really think Obama's fans wouldn't be saying the same things being said now, but louder?


    You said her experience was that (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 12:28:14 PM EST
    of her husband's. I'm sure I'm not the only one that remembers the comment judging by the responses I saw to it.

    Actually (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 12:38:21 PM EST
    Hillary had way more experience than Obama had. There's no question about that. Obama didn't even finish a full term in the senate before running for President.

    Write down that belief (none / 0) (#183)
    by Politalkix on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 03:37:25 PM EST
    Write down the belief tht "Hillary had way more experience than Obama had" in little pieces of paper and put them inside millions of fortune cookies that are served in Chinese restaurants across the country. It will be a fun way to spread your belief!

    Facts (none / 0) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 03:40:47 PM EST
    are facts: Hillary had 8 years in the senate and Obama had four. Or less than four even. What ever.

    I guess you don't realize that 8 > 4 huh?


    What inevitable move to the center???? (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by observed on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 06:32:23 PM EST
    Obama has moved right of Bush on issue after issue, dude! There are some exceptions, but in the areas of human rights, surveillance state, tax policy, Obama is Bush plus.

    Surveillance state? (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 08:44:01 PM EST
    At Martha's Vineyard yesterday, the Prez was seen buying a new copy of Brave New World.  It and 1984 are the "Elements of Style" for a modern president.

    "Liberal crusader"?!? (none / 0) (#189)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 07:50:28 AM EST
    Who the he// said that?!?

    OTOH, she did have more experience, she didn't allow herself to be sold as a progressive only to backtrack on her promises, and she has a clue how to fight.  

    Just like Carville said ...


    Indeed (none / 0) (#155)
    by sj on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 03:17:47 AM EST
    it's time to let go of the fairy tales.

    Such as "hope and change"


    Kevin Drum: 'depressing beyond words' (none / 0) (#7)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 09:35:09 AM EST
    Maybe that's why they call it a Depression.

    "Watching the world slide slowly back into recession without a fight, even though we know perfectly well how to prevent it, is just depressing beyond words. ..."


    A Must Read From Thatcherite (none / 0) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 10:54:12 AM EST
    I came across this article via a German Newspaper, reading on Chrome you get gorgeous translations.  Charles Moore writes for the Daily Telegraph, a conservative paper.  A Thatcherite to the core.  

    On July 22nd, before the riots, he wrote this I'm Starting to think the Left was right

    I am curious if any of our conservative thinkers--giggle, giggle- would ever, ever make this kind of about face, or consider the outcomes of their neo- liberal market economics.

    It seems that income disparity in Germany and Scandinavia is also mirroring the American disparities.  This is just not a global financial crisis, it's social, political and cultural.  

    Link Fail (none / 0) (#20)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 10:54:48 AM EST
    Third try (none / 0) (#21)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 10:56:12 AM EST
    I found (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 11:37:38 AM EST
    that article interesting in the fact that conservatives here in American seem h*ll bent on punishing Obama for their own mistake of nominating and reelecting George W. Bush. He pretty much is making the case that conservatism is dying on the vine due to their own corruption at the hands of people like Rupert Murdoch.

    We can only hope... (none / 0) (#186)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 04:16:05 PM EST
    The counterargument?  "There's a sucker born every minute."

    Feingold (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 10:59:28 AM EST
    Not running for anything in 2012.

    Prepping for a 2016 run?

    Maybe (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 11:27:37 AM EST
    he's going to run for governor of WI. I think that would be a better option for him right now.

    No. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Towanda on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 11:55:09 AM EST
    See the link.

    He likes being a professor (with hardly any classes, because he wisely opted to not work for the state public system), writing a book, etc.  

    In other words, having a life.

    I often have seen this before, when longterm pols get away from politics for a while and realize that most people consider it a truly crazy life.


    Okay (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 11:59:57 AM EST
    so that answers the question about 2016 then too. I guess he's out of politics for good.

    What Obama should learn from Wisconsin (none / 0) (#25)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 11:47:26 AM EST
    Joe Conason:

    With Wisconsin's epic state Senate recall battle now over, the results carry a clear message that ought to resonate all the way to Washington--and especially the Obama White House. The essence of politics in America today, for Democrats at least, is to understand and communicate the political nature of the opposition.

    Nope, that wouldn't work for Obama (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Towanda on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 12:00:55 PM EST
    there is only one way to instill such fear among Republicans, in Wisconsin or Washington: By demonstrating the will to push back, as hard as necessary, on behalf of the principles Democrats have always promised to uphold.

    That is what the Republicans do with great consistency on behalf of their own ideology, however extreme or unpopular. That is what inspired the Democrats who have fought them to a standstill in Wisconsin. And that is what could still save Obama's presidency.

    The writer apparently has not been paying attention to what Obama has been saying.  For him to now speak and act "as hard as necessary on behalf of the principles Democrats have always promised to uphold" would require Obama to flip-flop on all of his many Reaganesque stands and statements.

    Not gonna happen.  The guy does not believe in those core Dem principles, that is clear -- or, probably more to the point, he does not believe that those will get him re-elected by his base.

    The problem being, of course, his base.  They do not believe in core Dem principles, either.


    if by "his base" (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:30:34 PM EST
    you mean the white fauxgressives, i agree

    but his base also includes a large majority of African Americans, who do tend to believe in core Democratic principles but are subordinating them for now to their desire to support the first African American president

    Bruce Dixon addresses that mind-set here:

    Only the most foolish among us -- and those whose careers and boat payments depend on it -- are still concerned with "saving" the Obama presidency, or obsessing about how adorable the First Family looks. Not to worry. Michelle, Sasha, and whatshername will be just fine. Barack will do OK too, even if he doesn't get a second term. And like they say, some grown folks just don't want to be saved. Obama should be working on how to save us from endless war, climate change and joblessness. He isn't. And he won't. It's time for us to love our own families, our own children and elders as much or more than we love his, and get busy.

    Sad (1.00 / 2) (#116)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 07:41:08 PM EST
    That I am the only one to mention this but that's a fairly racist statement that assumes that your beliefs and knowledge are superior to blacks'.  As if blacks do not have the capability of examining a situation and forming a logically supportable conclusion.

    The sick part is that a"liberal" is saying it and a a bunch of "liberal" commenters are letting it slide.

    I won't. That's an appalling racist statement.


    Ohhh (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 10:38:34 AM EST
    he pulls out the racism card from a post linking to the BLACK Agenda Report web site.  People, please ignore this guy so he will go away.

    Please, please, please.


    seriously (none / 0) (#169)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 11:36:53 AM EST
    i will not be feeding this troll in the future

    Jeralyn & others who are rightly put off by my intemperate response to the troll (below), i do apologize for my unconsidered activation of the "post" button

    my response to the troll was certainly the one that the troll's charge of racism deserved, & i don't regret either syllable of it - but i do understand that its expression in this venue was not in keeping with the desired level of decorum

    mea culpa


    Logic? You're so predictable, ABG, (none / 0) (#123)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 08:33:14 PM EST
    I suggest Glen Ford's blog.  He's not a bad writer, fond of the purifying power of polemic.  He  is a bona fide lefty, but calls himself neither liberal nor progressive.  Why?  Because no one describing his or her polyglot political positions with either of those single words is capable of serious thought.

    Wow (none / 0) (#138)
    by ScottW714 on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 12:23:29 AM EST
    Offensive, and the defense, over the top.

    Opinion should not be confused with fact, especially when that opinion is not yours.


    If you've got a point, spit it out. (none / 0) (#166)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 10:17:26 AM EST
    Save the mumbled imprecations for the suckers.

    yes, Black Agenda Report (none / 0) (#139)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 12:27:08 AM EST
    the very same blog for which Bruce Dixon writes

    i am sure that Bruce Dixon will be grieved to discover that AngryGuy thinks he is a ray-cist

    & i guess that makes Maxine Waters is a ray-cist, too, since she just made essentially the same point to an audience of largely African American voters in Detroit:

    We don't put pressure on the president. Let me tell you why. We don't put pressure on the president because y'all love the president. You love the president. You're very proud . . . to have a black man [in the White House] . . . First time in the history of the United States of America. If we go after the president too hard, you're going after us. . . . When you tell us it's all right and you unleash us, and you tell us you're ready for us to have this conversation, we're ready to have the conversation. . . . All I'm saying to you is, we're politicians. We're elected officials. We are trying to do the right thing and the best thing. When you let us know it is time to let go, we'll let go.

    the link is to the Washington Post column of that other notorious ray-cist, Jonathan Capehart:

    Because of the deep affection for the first black president, as Waters noted, constituents didn't want to hear anything that remotely came close to criticizing Obama or his administration. It's an emotional response, to be sure, especially when you recognize that those same folks agree with every knock on the president and the administration on policy grounds. But to criticize Obama was to ask for a beat-down. (Trust me, that threat extends to African American pundits who dare to say something negative.) This, in turn, caused black members of Congress to pull their punches or go mute on important issues for fear of riling up the folks back home who would view them as disloyal. Or as a friend put it to me yesterday, the relationship between Obama, black members of Congress and their constituents is like that of children of divorced parents. Congress is the mom. Their constituents are the kids. And Obama is the father who's seen only once in a while. Mom won't say anything bad about the father in front of the children because they'll shout back: "Don't talk bad about my father!"

    ABG: F*ck you (none / 0) (#134)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 11:47:00 PM EST
    Calm down, please, Addams. (none / 0) (#168)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 11:33:42 AM EST
    If you want to get mad at someone, get mad at the new head of the DNC, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who's spearheading yet another attempt to curtail our freedom of speech.  The usual reasons apply.  No one is to be accorded any more rights or given any more trust than the lowest common denominators, i.e., Terrrrrrrrrrrrrrorists and Kiddie fiddlers.  Therefor, all Internet Service Providers shall retain a one year record of all user activities, which for all practical purposes means a log for all time.  

    Hey - she's a democrat!

    According to Glenn Greenwald that freedom of expression will be ancient history much sooner than we imagine.


    thanks for the free advice, Mr. N (none / 0) (#170)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 11:41:08 AM EST
    i am not surprised by the news that you relay here

    i am one of those left-leaning independents who has not been a registered Democrat since some years before the last presidential election

    therefore, nothing done by anyone associated with the Democratic Party has the power to shock me


    The joys of Netflix instant viewing. (none / 0) (#39)
    by observed on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 12:31:20 PM EST
    That isn't available outside the 50 states. I'm catching up on Dr. Who today.

    Maybe that will be my next viewing project (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:23:31 PM EST
    I saw a preview of the new season, and it does seem like a good show.

    Today in Norway (none / 0) (#44)
    by Nemi on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 12:54:46 PM EST
    families of the 69 killed in the massacre at Utøya, was allowed to visit the island where their loved ones were killed 4 weeks ago. About 600 people representing 50 families participated, each family being assigned their own personal hosts: representatives from Red Cross and the police. Priests, Imams and psychologist were ready to step in if/when needed, boats at the ready to transport the visitors back whenever they chose. Everything had been carefully planned, every eventuality taken into account as far as possible, the wellbeing of the families and dignity being at the forefront.

    Tomorrow survivors and their families will be going back to Utøya and Sunday will be marked as National Day of Mourning.

    Meanwhile in Oslo the imprisonment in isolation of killer Anders Behring Breivik was prolonged for 4 more weeks. Breivik who according to his defense lawyer Geir Lippestad finds isolation much harder than he had anticipated and who had insisted on being present in court himself to explain this, called isolation "sadistic torture" (sic!).

    Breivik's wish to appear in white tie and tails - as to, in his own words, show respect for the court - had been denied as had his wish before the first court meeting to appear in his self "composed" uniform. Instead he wore a black suit, white shirt and "shining blue tie". He is very much concerned with appearance.

    Psychologists as well as Lippestad characterize Breivik as not in possession of empathy in the sense most of us know it. In everything he says and in every act he seems to quite literal be 'out of this world'.

    Why Rick Perry will not be the nomiee (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:21:41 PM EST
    Even prominent Republicans don't like him.

    Former Treasury official Bruce Bartlett labeled newly-minted Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry "an idiot" Friday.

    Bartlett, who served at Treasury under former President George H.W. Bush and as a domestic policy adviser to the late President Ronald Reagan, delivered the choice words to the Texas Gov. in reference to his recent comments about Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

    "Rick Perry's an idiot, and I don't think anyone would disagree with that," Bartlett said Friday on CNN's "American Morning."

    I don't know how much sway Bartlett (none / 0) (#57)
    by tigercourse on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:32:28 PM EST
    has with the "good" voters of Iowa and South Carolina.

    It's Super Tuesday that matters (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:37:53 PM EST
    Bachmann and Perry will split the fascist wing of the party - one of them will make it to Super Tuesday and after that, one of them will bow out to "spend more time with their family."

    Then when it comes to Romney and/or Bachmann or Perry, my guess is that the support will be quiet and behind the scenes for Romney - unless by some miracle, unemployment drops to 5%.  Then the remaining Bachmann/Perry candidate will be hoisted like a sacrificial lamb.


    But so (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:42:28 PM EST
    far Perry has been taking away from Bachmann not splitting the vote with her.

    A lot of it depends upon the GOP primary schedule. It could be rearranged to be more amenable to a candidate like Romney. I would imagine western states and northern state primaries will be voting for him.


    So far (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:46:56 PM EST
    Perry is the newest, shiniest toy on the block.  Polls and the horse race don't mean anything right now.

    The only thing Iowa and SC (and NH) do is weed out the people who really, REALLY don't stand a chance.  Some dark horse gets momentum in one of those states, but Romney is not going to drop out after Iowa.  Perry and Bachmann appeal to the same audience - Romney appeals more to the fiscal conservatives and those with college degrees, while Bachmann/Perry appeal to those without degrees and those who are more about social issues.


    Here's the (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:53:43 PM EST
    thing though: Conservatives don't like women in leadership positions so expect Perry to take the majority of Bachmann's voters now that they have a man they can vote for.

    You know, I don't think that's (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:51:08 PM EST
    really true.  Example A would be Nikki Haley.  Example B would be New Mexico's new governor, Susana somethingorother.  Palin's another.  How long has it been since Dems. had a female VP nominee?

    What GOPers generally don't support are policies that support low-income women.  They're more than happy to have high-status women in leadership positions.


    They loved Sarah Palin (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:00:24 PM EST
    Not (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:01:43 PM EST
    enough and she was only the VP, a subservient position.

    - a "submissive" position (none / 0) (#99)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 03:02:29 PM EST
    I'd put my money on Perry taking most (none / 0) (#63)
    by tigercourse on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:47:16 PM EST
    of Bachman's voters away from her.

    Historically (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:38:57 PM EST
    the "elite" have had a lot of sway with the primary voters in SC. They have usually gone and voted for who they were told to vote for. Don't know about Iowa though.

    Big O's Modest Proposa- Modest modifications to SS (none / 0) (#107)
    by jawbone on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 03:57:16 PM EST
    Well, this should make the Dem base enthusiastic....for a different Dem presidential candidate. Right now, we have Obama as our "condidate."

    Jon Walker at FDL writes about Obama saying in Illinois on Wednesday he will push the Committee of the Twelve Caesars for "modifications" to SocSec and Medicare -- to bring down costs. No details, as usual from this stealth candidiate.

    From the WH transcripts:

    When folks [fingernails on blackboard, hearing that word from this president] tell you that we've got a choice between jobs now or dealing with our debt crisis, they're wrong. They're wrong. We can't afford to just do one or the other. We've got to do both. And the way to do it is to make some -- reform the tax code, close loopholes, make some modest modifications in programs like Medicare and Social Security so they're there for the next generation, stabilize those systems. And you could actually save so much money that you could actually pay for some of the things. (My emphasis)

    Great: Joe Lieberman wants to cut SS/MM to pay for the Wars on Terra; now Obama is trying to get us to believe that cuts to SS/MM will mean money for jobs programs!

    Ah, yes, Obama's very own Modest Proposal.  When Jonathan Swift wrote his, he proposed the Irish eat their children in order to survive.  Obama should do the same, but instead have Americans eat their elderly.  Time for Soylent Green, "folks." In order to have jobs, produce low-cost protein foods, and do away with our problem of caring and paying for the needs of our seniors....

    C'mon, Barry, man up. Face it that your proposed changes to SocSec and M/M will cause unnecessary deaths and much misery.  At least let these deaths be put to good use for the protein requirements of our increasingly large numbers of poor and unemployed.

    Deliver legislation to Congress immediately requiring Soylent Green manufacturing centers and Obama Self-Selection Intake Centers (OSSIC or just SSIC --pronounced "sick"-- if Obama doesn't want his name on his greatest legacy) where seniors --or anyone, with those under 18 required to supply signed parental permission slips-- can make that last great sacrifice for their compatriots and lay down their lives...for food, some organ harvesting, paying down the deficit, and, also, a much lower carbon footprint. Finally, a way for the elderly --and the unwanted, the unemployed, anyone so inclined-- to truly contribute to the betterment of the nation and the world!

    Vote Obama! Get SSIC!
    Vote Obama! Get Green--Soylent Green!

    Obama is going (none / 0) (#110)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 04:25:06 PM EST
    you could actually save so much money that you could actually pay for some of the things

    like reducing the tax rate on corporations and the top bracket from 35% to 23% and eliminate taxes on corporate off shore profits.



    The sociology of space and size (none / 0) (#115)
    by observed on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 07:19:53 PM EST
    is something I've been thinking about recently.
    I'm currently staying with my sister and brother-in-law. They have a very homey, comfortable house of probably 1500 sq. ft or so.
    My brother-in-law was mentioning that friends can't believe they have stayed in such a small house.
    Is the desire to have something bigger which you don't need American, or is it universable---somethig about showing social status by having a bigger house or car or whatever?

    Remember when big cell phones were  a status symbol?

    I think it is very American. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by caseyOR on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 11:38:01 PM EST
    Yes, the rich, no matter where they are, usually have the biggest and the best of whatever. In other countries, though, people seem to be okay with smaller homes, smaller cars, etc.

    Homes in Europe, for example, are not usually as big as so many homes here in the States. And the cars are certainly smaller. Home lots are modest in size. I don't see evidence of people demanding a big back yard and a three car garage.

    We are hardly the only materialistic people in the world, but we do seem to think that bigger is always better, and that we are entitled to the biggest and the best, no matter what.


    I LIKE smaller places with (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by observed on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 11:48:43 PM EST
    efficient use of space.

    The advantage of a really large house (none / 0) (#187)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 04:20:40 PM EST
    is that, there's more to chop up and toss in the fireplace to keep warm.  i.e., leave nothing for the banksters.

    Gotta keep up (none / 0) (#129)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 08:57:55 PM EST
    I think to some extent (none / 0) (#140)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 12:39:48 AM EST
    because our country is so incredibly big, we have this ingrained sense that we always need more room.

    I like to live in a place where I have several choices of where to sit down and read my book, or whatever, depending on how I feel.

    My house is ostensibly 1,300, but some hundreds of that are an unheated unfinished big store room at the back of the house.  It's just about right for me.

    But the previous owners of 50 years were a couple who raised three children here-- one smallish bath room (on 1st floor), two very small kids' bedrooms on 2nd, slightly larger "master" bedroom.

    Couldn't sell this house to a family these days.


    My dream living situation would (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by observed on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 01:01:11 AM EST
    be the house of a Chinese upper class man from past centuries, with a beautiful garden, exquisite but not gaudy furniture, a special room for tea and another room for my calligraphy, etc.
    But short of that, or having about $500,000 to spend on the kind of American or European furniture I really like, then a tasteful small house or condo with Ikea will work:)

    I don't need a whole lot (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by caseyOR on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 02:14:58 AM EST
    of space, but more than I currently have would be nice. My apartment is approximately 300 sq. ft. I find that to be too small. I often feel crowded and hemmed in, but I've adjusted because the rent is reasonable, especially for this part of town. And, unless I win the lottery, I can't afford anything else.

    My dream is a nice little bungalow, two bedrooms/one bath, with a sunny backyard. Not a giant 1/2 acre yard, just enough for a small vegetable garden and some flowers.

    I doubt I will ever have that bungalow, but a girl can dream. :-)


    Know what you mean (none / 0) (#175)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 01:33:48 PM EST
    I lived most of my adult life in a 400-sf apartment.  It did have four small rooms, though, so it met my basic criterion of having different spots with different ambience, but it did get pretty claustrophobic at times (1st floor apt in very dense, urban-like suburb, windows right on the street, so front windowshades down most of the time, ugh)

    Yes, you're definitely right about that, but (none / 0) (#142)
    by observed on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 01:03:39 AM EST
    one look at "Atlanta" flying over should convince anyone that's a bad idea.

    Copenhagen cab driver sd. (none / 0) (#156)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 03:33:18 AM EST
    his family of four's apartnebt us typical: 1000 sq. ft.

    It's Denmark silly (none / 0) (#157)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 04:09:26 AM EST
    Neat freak Interior decorating Minimalists :)

    Some rumors that President Obama (none / 0) (#158)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 04:14:00 AM EST
    out there tonight that President Obama is on this vacation trying to decide if he should really run again with Jimmy Carterish numbers. One stating that in Hillary's speech on Syria she was looking very Presidential and perhaps it is a sign....sigh

    Would Hillary be able to get us out of this horrible economic disaster?  She has so many of the exact same friends.


    Where (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 06:48:17 AM EST
    is this being discussed?

    As far as the "friends" thing well, the problem isn't the advisors with Obama, the problem is Obama. Remember W had the same advisors as his father did for foreign policy and how did that work out?


    Rumors coming from some (none / 0) (#171)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 12:23:51 PM EST
    folks having to hang out in D.C. right now.  What is the rumor mill like there, is it like everywhere else?  I don't know.  I know they drink like fish.

    I just saw a clip of Obama though (none / 0) (#172)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 12:47:51 PM EST
    explaining that the American people are impatient about his inability to straighten out the economy. Nothing about people hurting, homeless, core inflation up...what he said made him sound like an a-hole.

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 01:08:10 PM EST
    is a cold fish. Always has been. It's just not in his nature to have compassion for the less fortunate or people struggling to make ends meet. He's always been a "take your medicine" or "eat your peas" type not a feel your pain kind of guy.

    He's very much like the "daddy" presidents that the GOP puts forth who think Americans need to be punished like children.


    Then I wish he would put an R (none / 0) (#177)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 01:56:21 PM EST
    behind his name and be a compassionate one.  But then there is the "black" problem, unless he's willing to be a token they don't want him.  Why would a man embrace ideology that was abusing people like him?

    because (none / 0) (#179)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 02:16:58 PM EST
    if you read about how he treated his own African American constituents in Chicago you would not be one bit surprised. He could care less about the plight of African Americans in this country. He's never done really anything to help African Americans policy wise that I've seen and has actually hurt them with his policies.

    Never having been from the middle class and pretty much always being in the upper middle class Obama has never really experienced struggling so he really just can't relate.


    It's possible (none / 0) (#173)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 01:04:20 PM EST
    Someone who Obama trusts like Joe Biden could have told Obama that he's not going to win reelection with his current numbers and that while no one is going to tell him he can't run he needs to think about whether he wants to run and loose or just not run at all. Obama's chances of winning are dependent on the roulette wheel of the GOP nominating someone like Michele Bachmann.

    When you are losing in states like PA your odds are looking pretty slim.

    Hillary's name would come up in this scenario simply because there's no one else in the party who has the constituency to start this late in the game.


    They said she looked Presidential (none / 0) (#178)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 02:06:34 PM EST
    during her Assad speech.  But people demanding dictators stepping down always look Presidential to some :)  Within the 50 states we are wiping out hard, and some have the wherewithall to be able to focus on and critique Clinton's Assad speech.  That's impressive, I think maybe they might be in a bubble of some kind though.

    What happens with the markets on Monday?  J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs have all released dismal figures on our future.  S&P downgraded our future too :) Some say that the masters of the universe are doing this on purpose to cause a sell off in the markets.  Jackson Hole is next week, and if the Fed is going to make a decision about QE3 in our near future they will do it then. So it is also rumored that the masters of the universe are literally forcing a sell off so that QE3 will begin next week, they make huge bank during quantitative easing. They have to survive on more honest wages without QE and they don't know how to settle for that anymore.


    I read (none / 0) (#180)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 02:19:23 PM EST
    where Bank of America is going to have layoffs so I guess that's where some of their money savings is going to come from.

    This keeps up, sooner or later the CEO's aren't going to have anyone to buy their products or borrow their money. Maybe one day their abysmal policies will catch up with THEM.


    All we have left are their abysmal (none / 0) (#181)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 02:44:17 PM EST
    policies. If it all catches up, it crashes almost everyone's pensions, it munches everything.  They have all that so over leveraged though there isn't anything left to happen but crash.  In the meantime they will play us all for QE3 and make hay while the sun briefly shines.  In reading around though I see that many are predicting that Bernanke and the Fed WILL NOT unleash QE3 because of where core inflation is.  So they will attempt to force his hand.

    "looking" presidential? (none / 0) (#185)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 03:42:49 PM EST
    Isn't anybody dismayed by this phrase and the implicit superficiality, that we care only if a pol can play the part - whether they can be the part being irrelevant?

    Take a look at my country (none / 0) (#188)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 05:21:34 PM EST
    The rich are filthy and deserve it, the poor are filthy and deserve it.  I'm not sure many of us are good at spotting superficiality these days.

    oops....typos :) (none / 0) (#159)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 04:15:23 AM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 04:49:23 AM EST
    he needs to decide soon because the primaries start in what six months?

    The media hate Hillary (none / 0) (#164)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 09:45:06 AM EST
    Thus, the media would be questioning her every move.  And besides that, every once in awhile she'd likely throw us a bone to make us feel better.  All of this is unlike our current white house moron.  So yeah, she'd be better.