Sunday Night TV and Open Thread

Update: Shaun White makes the history books. On his third run, when he already had the Gold, he steps up his game and gets the first ever perfect score of 100 from the Judges. Really amazing runs, and considering two days ago he was hobbled by an ankle injury, truly a feat. He is just incredible.


Shaun White hurt his ankle Thursday but still qualified in first place and will compete tonight in the Men's SuperPipe finals at the X Games in Aspen. He's great, no question, but I'm rooting for Louie Vito. Big changes for Louie this year, no drinking and he's signed with Red Bull. Here are the finalists. You can watch live at 9pm ET on ESPN, TV or online. [More..]

Other TV tonight: HBO is re-playing the pilot for its new series "Luck", with Dustin Hoffman. There are also new episodes of "Shameless" and "The Good Wife."

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Is Panetta Helping or Sealing the Fate of the CIA's Pakistani Accomplice? | MegaUpload Data to Remain For At least Two Weeks >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I love ABC once upon a time (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by loveed on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:42:09 PM EST
     A whole different spend on fairy tale's

    Bill Moyers is back (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by desertswine on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:54:00 PM EST
    TV for thinking adults.

    I liked (none / 0) (#7)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 09:00:21 PM EST
    Moyer's programs on PBS - but I wonder if he ever came to terms with having been Lyndon's pitchman for the war in Vietnam.

    hnge of plans again... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 08:47:42 PM EST
    Head back to Colombia on Tuesday, not Romania. Issues, issues. I still need to be in the states for a month, just not this month.

    Ugh, but joy.

    Best wishes. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 09:02:48 PM EST
    You'll get to see your son. (none / 0) (#9)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 09:06:37 PM EST
    That'll be nice. Is this just a detour on the way to Romania or a complete change of plans?

    I think it's a change, but not a complete change (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 09:24:56 PM EST
    I was going to be in Romania until May, then Colombia in August. Might be moving to Colombia a lot sooner. Gotta pick up my son and come to the states for a short time, then back to Colombia.

    Wishing you the best, my friend (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Dadler on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 10:02:46 PM EST
    Travel safely.  And breathe deeply.  Peace.

    I read (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:25:47 AM EST
    an article in this week's time while I was in the waiting room this morning about Obama. The thing that struck me was that Obama says he appears aloof because he doesn't attend Washington cocktail parties. WTF??? He comes off as aloof because of his personality and because of his policies. How many voters actually attend Washington cocktail parties to make that assessment? Very few I would imagine.

    i took that as meaning (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:33:41 AM EST
    "appears aloof" to those who do attend the Washington cocktail parties, i.e., Beltway/media insiders

    i think this is also touched on in the new book about the Obamas


    Most of the (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 12:08:40 PM EST
    article seemed to be about foreign policy but that one little snippet kind of struck me but Obama does appear aloof to voters to to.

    there is a fascinating article in current (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by DFLer on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 12:52:26 PM EST
    New Yorker mag, written by Ryan Lizza...many pages long.

    I don't know QUITE what to make of it...lots of inside info re staff memos, the President's responses to them, the compromises to get votes and/or public popularity, the difficulties faced by the team.....etc.

    I'd be interested in a discussion by those who have read the whole thing, esp. comments by our resident political guru, BTD.


    I haven't (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:15:44 PM EST
    read the whole thing but Obama comes out looking like an empty suit, a mere figurehead with no ideological core in the first few pages.

    yes at first, but read the whole thing (none / 0) (#48)
    by DFLer on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:21:24 PM EST
    The (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:44:40 PM EST
    main thing that I took away from it is that my instincts were right about Obama back in 2008. He did not have enough experience to understand what was going to happen when he took office and cluelessly believed that his "awesomeness" would make the GOP go along with what he wanted. At the end of the day, he has realized that Hillary was right about the GOP. It wasn't the 90's and Bill Clinton that were the problems after all it seems.

    yep (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:57:47 PM EST
    necessary correction to the disinformation served up earlier

    I disagree with that assessment (none / 0) (#62)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:03:43 PM EST
    It's not a "rehash" (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:47:24 PM EST
    To discuss actual history when someone claims that it is only up to the voters to pick a primary nominee.   2008 is very instructive in that it proves that simply isn't true.  

    This has nothing to do with pining for Hillary or whatever it is you are dreaming up now.

    Every single person in America could vote for Newt in every primary, and if the party decided they didn't want him as the nominee, then those votes would mean nothing.  THOSE are the facts.

    But I know you think facts are icky things.

    If every single person voted for Newt (none / 0) (#76)
    by CST on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:52:42 PM EST
    in every primary, he would be the nominee.

    I know that you think 2008 disproves this, but you are ignoring a key fact.  Hillary did not have the support of every person in every primary.  She had about half.  You might even say slightly more than half.  But if she had them all, she would've been the nominee.


    It's (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:56:56 PM EST
    kind of like FL in 2000--close enough for someone else to pick the winner other than the voters.

    exactly (none / 0) (#79)
    by CST on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 03:00:31 PM EST
    I'm not saying they don't have a role, but if it was a blowout in the voting booth we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    It's why some people are still mad about Nader voters.


    I give up (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 04:13:16 PM EST
    Trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't even know basic facts (kinda like climate change deniers) and can't acknowledge their ignorance, even when given the tools to find out for themselves, is useless and pointless.

    You're right MKS.  I don't like what Obama has done to the country or the Democratic Party, therefore I should be silent because anything I say is through a lens of pining for Hillary.

    Interesting, though, is that in another thread you talk about civility.  Hilarious. Maybe you should consider that as well.

    Too bad I will not stop commenting here.  We will all have to learn to live with your disapproval, I guess.

    Good day to you sir.

    i once heard (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 05:30:41 PM EST
    a psychologist define emotional maturity as the acceptance of conflict

    he didn't mean that it's necessary to accept another person's conflicting point of view

    he meant that if one can accept that a conflict does or did exist, & if one can accept that the conflict may have consequences, then one is not continuously compelled to deny the conflict or tell others to "get over it"


    It is the next step, Addams (none / 0) (#86)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 05:40:28 PM EST
    Conceding that the conflict colors one's views--a step that many here absolutely refuse to take.

    Sure, the conflict exists, and no one is denying that....

    It is the cascade of I hate-Obama-but-I-am- unbiased posts that seem so out of sync.


    for me, it is the cascade of (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by DFLer on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 09:27:26 PM EST
    implications that if anyone is critical of the President's actions or policies, then they therefore "hate" him, and are, no doubt, haters because of grudges, vintage 2008.

    What a projectionist :) (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 08:11:50 AM EST
    Dustin Hoffman AND Nick Noltie (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 08:25:04 PM EST
    But, aren't we supposed to be watching SAG awards to see if movies of the future will be silent?

    The future of Hollywood (none / 0) (#13)
    by lilburro on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 10:37:53 PM EST
    is silent vampire movies.

    I am so excited that Luck is on air, now to find a way to watch the damn show.  Should be able to subscribe to HBO next month, maybe.  If you are watching Luck and you need more, go watch Deadwood.   There are no words for how good that show is.  A great cast there, too.


    Another Luck perk: (none / 0) (#14)
    by lilburro on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 10:39:37 PM EST
    could help us understand BTD's gambling gibberish.  I think there's some crossover in horsetrack gambling and other sports gambling.

    I'm afraid you're outta luck... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:52:45 AM EST
    (pun semi-intended;), the ponies and sports betting are apples and oranges.

    But a sports betting sub-plot could surface, we already know one of the track bum degens who hit the pick-six has a leak at the poker tables...maybe they'll be betting on football at some point.

    I'm gonna dig this show!


    Shows what I know! (none / 0) (#107)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 09:54:25 AM EST
    Thanks kdog :)

    I missed it (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 04:16:39 AM EST
    Was it good?

    Just watched some kid wipe out... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 08:45:48 PM EST
    ...on a snowmobile, and it looks like he's got a broken arm or dislocated elbow or both.  Ugh.

    UN inspectors (none / 0) (#6)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 08:57:45 PM EST
    will begin an investigation in Iran to determine if its nuclear program is peaceful as they state it is.

    I certainly hope this is diffused. I sense that the US and other interested parties are looking for another outlet for their commitment to unending war - now that Iraq and possibly Afghanistan might be winding down. North Korea comes and goes as a possible source of diversion, but Iran is a bit tastier.

    And speaking of taste - I was greatly interested to read that one of our aircraft carriers in the Gulf was the "USS John C. Stennis". Can you believe that we are deploying a battleship named for an obnoxious segregationist - who also liked to endorse torture, including flogging, as a means of extracting confessions from folks accused of a crime.

    I'm GONE!

    Donald... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 05:14:40 AM EST
    I don't think I can quite believe what you have written.

    What's next? The USS Hitler?

    But the issue here for me is Stennis, not Kamehameha.
    A loathsome fellow. A segregationist. A torturer.
    He didn't unite anyone.
    He brutalized people.
    He isn't responsible for anything amounting to uniting anything or anybody or maintaining anybody's independence.

    We have many folks in the US who are good people.
    Scholars. Musicians. Writers.
    The naming of a battleship for Stennis is an insult to black people and the white people who were killed in the movement to try to assure equal rights to all Americans.

    Comparing this guy to Kamehameha is a different subject entirely imo.


    Frankly, (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 10:03:59 AM EST
    I was unaware of this travesty 17 years ago.
    I would have thought that it would have been raised as an issue by anyone who knew what kind of character Stennis was - and the pernicious evil he represented. But it seems as if America was already getting numb by the time Clinton was in office.

    But honestly, I don't feel this is small stuff.
    It does mean something to me and perhaps to others that this man, Stennis, who stood for segregation and flogging is parading around in international waters representing the US of A.

    I know what you mean about trying not to worry about things I can't do anything about. I have felt that way about what my country has been doing ever since the Vietnam war era. I had to try to shut out reality as my country was bombing Iraq - slaughtering innocent people for no reason whatsoever except the bloated ego of a demented president - and I have to shut out the reality of our present president as he presides over the further erosion of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    But I do feel things nevertheless.
    And commenting here allows me to make contact with others who might experience things in a way that is similar to the way I do.

    But - to get back to Stennis - can you imagine Germany deploying a battleship - the "Rudolf Hess"?

    Nobody gives a damn.
    That's the fact.


    I am not a Newt supporter (none / 0) (#16)
    by loveed on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 03:21:24 AM EST
    but I hope he wins.
     Both Newt & Mitt are flawed. Neither can beat Obama.
     The reason I want him to win? To slap down the media. To stop the buying of election.
      Mitt & his pac's spent 15mil in Florida. Mostly all negative attack ads against Newt. No ad's for job creation, or how to fix the housing crisis, no fix for social security. Unemployment 9.2%.
     The primaries should be about issues. And the media should be informing the people about where the candidate stand on the issues. Instead their treating the primary like it's the superbowl, with a point spread.
     Polling should be outlawed. They influence the out come of elections.

    The primaries (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 07:39:18 AM EST
    Are about picking the candidate who has the best chance of winning.

    If that was true (none / 0) (#22)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 10:29:56 AM EST
    Gallup could pick the candidates. No need to let people vote for the candidate of their choice.

    The party ultimately picks the candidate (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 10:48:10 AM EST
    You cherry picked (none / 0) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 10:56:33 AM EST
    one reason. Some vote their wallet. Some vote for who is most like them. Some vote who looks the sexiest on their television. Some vote for who a radio or TV host tells them to vote for. Some vote for who they want to have a beer with. Some vote for what sex the candidate happens to be. Some vote for Mickey Mouse. And yes, some vote for who they think is most likely to win, and some of them just so they can say they voted for the winner. And then of course, some don't vote so they can say "don't blame me".

    Your sole reason is way too simplistic to describe the voting public.


    I'm cherry picking nothing (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:49:45 AM EST
    People vote.  But votes can be maniuplated.  Rules can be changed to count votes whatever way the party wants them to be.  This is a private election run by a private group - they can do that.

    Your view that it's the "voting public" that ultimately picks a nominee is naive.


    IANAL (none / 0) (#31)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 12:05:16 PM EST
    but you are, so i'm asking you

    if, as you say, a primary is a private election run by a private group, what are the legal (not political) implications if it's discovered that a campaign has committed vote fraud in a primary or a caucus?

    would that be legally actionable?

    & would the party be legally constrained from nominating the candidate of a campaign that was discovered to have engaged in vote fraud?


    i am not an election expert (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 12:33:13 PM EST
    But I should clarify.  The voting process is run by the state, but it is the party who decides a) who gets to participate and b) how votes are going to be counted, unlike in a regular election.  Voting fraud is voting fraud, so my guess is that yes, you could be prosecuted for "stuffing the ballot box".

    But as to a legal constraint of a nomination by the party on fraudulent votes - I don't know but I highly doubt it. The party would probably not count any votes they coud prove or at least suspect were fraudulent, but then again, the delegates are also free to vote at the convention for the candidate of their choice (depending on state election law).  So realky, the votes aren't what ultimately determine the nominee anyways.


    Minor clarification (none / 0) (#90)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 05:53:25 PM EST
    to jbindc is that no, the party does not decide how votes are going to be "counted," in the usual sense of that term in an election.  The party decides how the primary results -- the votes counted by the state -- are going to determine apportionment of delegates to the party convention.

    Not being a lawyer, but:  I do suspect that, as parties file charters with state and federal governments, they can be sued for fraud -- and certainly have been sued for financial fraud.  And businesses can be sued for "stuffing ballot boxes" in elections at shareholders' meetings, as I have seen such suits.  The burden of evidence, though, is extreme, the legal costs extended, and so I just cannot imagine what this would take to do so against a state or national party.


    Michigan Dems did sue (none / 0) (#88)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 05:46:08 PM EST
    the national party, as I recall, for its actions taken against its own rules, charter, etc.  

    So that suggests (and I recall other instances) that there can be legal action taken -- at least in states that have primaries run by the states, so those are not private elections -- against the parties, which are private entities.  

    That is, your question confuses a lot of the ownership of who does what.  That suit was not about what the state did or didn't do, as the states do not apportion the delegates; states just hold the primary elections, and then the parties determine apportionment of delegates from the results of the state primary elections.

    The vote at a party convention is, of course, a private election, but that's later in the timeframe -- and your question on whether a party could be legally "constrained" from nominating a candidate discovered to have engaged in vote fraud is moot, as the nomination would have occurred.  Nor did the agenda before the Dems' rules committee at the infamous meeting of May 2008 deal with vote fraud, as that is defined.  It was more, well, delegate suppression, as that term is used to delineate different ways in elections of messing with the will of the people.

    Now, none of this deals wiht caucuses.  States do not run caucuses; state parties do.  I certainly can see grounds for suits against state parties for some caucus practices, such as violations of ADA, too, but I'm not recalling such suits.

    Btw vs. an implication in a comment above, the May 2008 meeting of the national Dems' rules committee was sought by Obama's forces as much as those of other candidates -- at the time, it was said, because the outcome of the suit did not look good for Obama, and because the chair of the rules committee, Brazile, was among Obama's forces.  (Yes, the path was laid for years, with smart strategy such as that internal tactic.)

    And that the result of the rules committee was wrong vs. the charge of the committee, the intent of the rules as passed by the party delegates at party conventions, etc., is a different question from whether the result was illegal.  

    Whew.  Longer than I intended to write, but that whole mess still intrigues me as one who has served as a rules committee chair (of other sorts of organizations), a parliamentarian, etc.  One thing that I have learned, again and again, is that actions that may be "legal" but that were wrong in violating their own rules will haunt organizations for years to come, as we can see.


    thank you for this, Towanda (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 06:52:05 PM EST
    i appreciate your effort & clarifications

    i have always understood that the decision of the Rules and Bylaws Commmittee was both legal and in direct violation of the committee's own rules & the Democratic Party's charter

    that very discrepancy & the consequent high-handedness of the ruling accounted for much of the anger at the time & continue to account for much of the bad feeling that persists

    if i ever "get over" that, maybe i'll have time to "pine for Hillary" lol


    Once you convene a committee (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 07:11:15 PM EST
    on such a subject, the outcome will be messy.

    The basic framework was that Michigan should not have had any delegates at all.  It is hard to challenge the validity of that position. The arguments were about basic fairness and how enforcing the existing rules would alienate Florida and Michigan voters during the general election.  The rules were clear and known and agreed to in advance by everyone.....There was no real issue about Michigan and Florida delegates not having a right to be seated.

    To try and unwind that decision during the middle of the process or at the end the process was going to create even more controversary.

    Re-doing the results was unfair to Obama and his supporters who had played by the rules.  The Committee work was an attempt at compromise.

    What I remember from that committee vote is the primal scream from a Hillary suppoter about "an inadequate black male."


    And I find your view (none / 0) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 12:07:56 PM EST
    that the nominee is picked by a select few sitting somewhere on a grassy knoll to be cynical.

    2008, for starters (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 12:23:04 PM EST
    You're right (none / 0) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 12:29:22 PM EST
    obviously no one voted and McCain and Obama were chosen by Dr Evil.

    I'm actually thinking of (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 12:34:58 PM EST
    The votes counted of people not registered in certain states and 81,000 votes being taken from one candudate and given to another.



    Oy (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 12:41:29 PM EST
    Your conspiracy theory (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 12:46:10 PM EST
    is probably accurate. My vote for Hillary in Florida was discounted due to a decision by the Florida GOP legislature, who were in in cahoots with Howard Dean as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, to squelch my vote.

    "conspiracy theory"? LOL (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 12:58:30 PM EST
    It was well documented that in Michigan, where Obama made a tactical campaign decision to remove his name from the ballot, the RBC broke it's own rules and awarded him 4 delegates that they took from Hillary Clinton that he did not earn, which equated to 81,000 votes.  It's been discussed here ad nauseum, so I don't need to rehash them and will allow you to do your own research, so if you and MKs choose to ignore little things like facts, then I guess that is your perorgative.

    even worse (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:11:53 PM EST
    was the assignment of all Michigan's "uncommitted" votes to Obama - the uncommitted delegates could & should have gone to the convention uncommitted, again according to the party's own rules

    then again, Obama's convention feared & suppressed the traditional role call vote, to which the Clinton delegates were entitled, notwithstanding their candidate's assent to that short-circuiting of the process

    thus the RBC's Michigan farce can now be seen, in retrospect, as the bald-faced & cowardly power play that it was


    Neither the Florida nor the Michigan (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:46:51 PM EST
    should have seated any delegates.....because that is what Hillary supporter Ickes, among others, voted for when Hillary was up by 20 points.

    Hillary Clinton and Harold Ickes (none / 0) (#59)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:56:38 PM EST
    don't determine the party's rules

    as i said, the Clinton delegates were entitled to a roll call vote, regardless of what Hillary Clinton had assented to

    clearly she had her own deal with Obama & is now SoS, & a good one, & that's very nice

    but it has nothing to do with the unprecedented suppression of the role call vote in 2008, & i disagreed with her decision on that at the time

    i think that for a Democrat (you are a Democrat?), "Get over it" is not the best response to factual, on-the-record information about an electoral injustice


    There was a roll call vote (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:02:43 PM EST
    And, let's be clear about who is raising 2008--again.

    The party rules said the Michigan and Florida delegations would not be seated because they leapfrogged the schedule.

    That decision was made months in advance.  Ickes was one of the people who sat on the committee that made that decision--in advance.  No one protested that decision until after the fact.

    This was very similar to HHH's complaint in 1972 that the winner-take-all California that McGovern won was unfair.  McGovern's response was that you don't change the rules during the middle of the game.

    That is the long and short of it.


    i haven't complained about anyone raising 2008 (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:11:17 PM EST
    jb raised it this time, & you were right there salivating, just the way you are whenever anybody raises it

    i have also observed that you frequently raise 2008 yourself, sometimes in a passive-aggressive manner intended to conceal what you are doing

    i sometimes respond when others raise 2008, to agree with a point or to correct what i perceive as misinformation, disinformation & outright lies

    you often accuse others of wanting to "relitigate" the 2008 primaries, when actually that appears to be your own wet dream

    the 2008 primary season was very divisive, & comment threads like this one are evidence of its enduring effects

    i accept that the 2008 primaries were divisive

    it seems that you do not


    It was divisive (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:16:21 PM EST
    and the results do linger. It cost Obama 2 million votes in 2008 and those votes probably won't be coming back in 2012 considering Obama's record. It is something that has never really been resolved and has been simmering underneath the surface for a while now. You can't just sweep things like this under the rug and hope they go away. Those 2 million voters might be enough to cost Obama reelection in 2012.

    Ga6thDem, I agree (none / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:27:25 PM EST
    that its effects linger--and here too.

    The standard refrain, however, is that it has no effect at all on the anti-Obama views that have been expressed.  

    That the views here come untainted by 2008 and represent complete objectivity is not at all the case....


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:55:47 PM EST
    I can't speak for others but Obama had a chance to change my mind. He has done very little to change my mind about him regardless of what went on in 2008. I would be saying much the same thing about him even if Hillary did not run. The only thing that I'm glad he's done that's different than I thought he would be was foreign policy but that was not my big thing. My thing always has been insurance and the economy which he has not done a good job on.

    Ga6th, just curious (none / 0) (#104)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 05:05:07 PM EST
    2 million sounds about right as a raw total of Democrats who voted for HRC in the primaries & did not vote for Obama in the general

    but how many of those 2 million were voting in the swing states? & how many of them voted for McCain in the swing states?

    i think it's accurate to say that the primaries cost Obama support within his own party (& caused a number of people to leave the party)

    not sure it's accurate to say that the primaries cost Obama 2 million votes unless 2 million Democrats who would have voted for another Democrat in the general voted for McCain instead & voted for McCain in the swing states


    Troll worthy comment (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:22:10 PM EST
    "Salivating," "Passive aggressive," "conceal" and "wet dream."

    Can you stop with the personal insults and discuss this intelligently?

    My point has been that many here reflexively oppose Obama because of 2008.  I would hope to never see a post about 2008 again....

    But you prove my point with your post that many here are not past 2008.


    Here is the video of the whole (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:06:24 PM EST
    cut short (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:12:45 PM EST
    with the agreement of Senator Clinton, in violation of her delegates' right to be heard on the convention floor

    pressing the "ignore you" button now with respect to this topic


    You and jb raised this topic (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:17:27 PM EST
    I think that this misses something though (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:15:46 PM EST
    which is that while there is no doubt the DNC/RNC can influence these things, at the end of the day they need enough voters to do so.

    In other words, they didn't give those delegates to John Edwards.

    There is more than just one piece to the puzzle.


    John Edwards (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:30:45 PM EST
    Was not in the race at that time.

    because he didn't get enough votes (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by CST on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:38:13 PM EST
    from actual voters.

    Which is kind of my point.


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:41:36 PM EST
    He also voluntarily withdrew frim Michigan and should have been awarded nothing as well.

    Which was my point.


    what I'm getting at (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:50:48 PM EST
    is that while the RNC and DNC can tip the scales they can't step on them.

    You need to have enough votes from actual voters to be in the hunt - for them to make up the difference.  I'm not talking about anything specific to Edwards so much as using him as an example of that.

    If Obama hadn't won a ton of his own delegates in actual primaries, the few that he got from Michigan wouldn't have made any difference.

    So yes, the DNC and RNC have a say, but they are not the only voice.  Without significant voter support, you cannot be the nominee.  "Significant voter support" describes the candidacy of both Obama and Hillary, not Edwards.  Obama would not have been the eventual nominee without it.  And yes, he also got some help from the DNC.


    No, no one should have been awarded (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 03:26:25 PM EST
    anything from Michigan.  

    The seating of the Michigan delegation was the result of a messy compromise.  No compromise, meant no Michigan delegates at all.


    Newt (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:17:55 AM EST
    winning is not going to stop the "buying of the election". Newt has an individual giving him millions of dollars. He is just as bad on this account as Romney

    I took that stupid bubble quiz (none / 0) (#27)
    by CST on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:30:46 AM EST
    11 out of 20.  Although I might have cheated on the neighbor question since I didn't actually go around asking them.  One of my best friends was a waitress at applebees for a while and a lot of them smoke cigs.  So take that nascar!  Finally, I'm not sure I know a single evangelical christian.  Catholics, Mormons, and Jehova's Witnesses don't count, right?

    The question (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 12:09:51 PM EST
    was do you have evangelical Christians as friends I think. I put no because I don't think I have any "friends" that fall into that category though I actually know a lot of them they aren't who I choose to spend a lot of time with.

    right (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:11:02 PM EST
    but when I was thinking about that question I realized I just don't know any.  So I have no idea if I'd be their friend or not.  I have religious friends.  1 or 2 of them are even protestant.  But I think they are the wrong kind of protestant.  To be honest I'm not 100% sure I know the meaning of "evangelical".  Although I'm fairly certain being pro-choice disqualifies all the protestants I know.  And from reading TL I figured the other Christian brands don't count.

    What a load of crock.  I guess I automatically lose points for not being married.  Twice as many chances to get it right!  No, my spouse has never purchased a pick-up truck.  But my grandmother has owned 3 or 4.


    complete crock (none / 0) (#49)
    by DFLer on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:23:49 PM EST
    they should have asked if you've eaten at McDonald's for example.

    Nascar is the only sport outside the bubble? stupid question

    Crock pot...where was the in the demos?


    where was that in the demos (none / 0) (#50)
    by DFLer on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:24:24 PM EST

    It is (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:24:36 PM EST
    a load of crock. It's chock full of stereotypes about what constitutes "flyover" country. And on top of that, I see that poll as extremely condescending.

    I don't know if you have any "big box" churches in MA, but that's where most of the evangelicals attend church around here. They are these kind of generic corporate looking churches. I've been to a few here and there and I guess they certainly have their appeal to a lot of people but they don't do anything for me.


    we don't have much (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:37:11 PM EST
    big box anything.  At least not in the city.  There just isn't any space for it.  There are a ton of churches.  It's funny too since a lot of them have gone through multiple denominational changes.  A mosque that was once a catholic church that was once a temple.  Or sometimes they turn into night clubs.  Somehow I doubt old south church counts as a big box though.

    The reason I know this is crock is that I got 11 out of 20, and I'm 99% sure I'm exactly the type of person they are trying to bubble since I'm a liberal from MA.


    Chuckie Schumer Strikes Again... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    today's authoritarian idea...spend 140 million to develop roadside drug tests for cops.

    Heaven help us...

    In case you missed it (none / 0) (#69)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:24:54 PM EST
    U.S. Catholic bishops and priests across the country read out letters at Mass on Sunday protesting plans by President Barack Obama's administration to force religiously-affiliated nonprofit groups to offer birth-control coverage to women employees.

    NY Times Link

    And that contrasts with the assertion (none / 0) (#96)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 07:45:14 PM EST
    here that Obama has sold out women on reproductive rights.

    Someone needs to sit MKS (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:28:17 PM EST
    down and drill him on the post-08 rules at this site: when to wax permanently outraged and endlessly embittered, and when to keep one's mouth closed until instructed otherwise by Hillary's Furies.

    Short version: (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:31:15 PM EST
    They can raise 2008 at will, but I can't--and 2008 has nothing to do with their views of Obama today.

    And when they raise 2008, it is not permitted to respond or point out that they are less than objective because of 2008.


    -40!!!! woohooo (none / 0) (#95)
    by observed on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 07:35:24 PM EST
    actually the windchill is -50 C.
    I'll be going outside in a little while to take a short walk to the gym in my complex.
    That should be fun.

    Pin you ears back (none / 0) (#99)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 08:27:07 PM EST
    literally..or lose them :)

    A local was telling me a strange tale, (none / 0) (#101)
    by observed on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 11:02:17 PM EST
    saying that if you go outside without headgear in these temperatures, you can get some brain infection and die.
    Of course, I'm all bundled up, but any idea what this warning could refer to?

    No idea (none / 0) (#105)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 11:13:09 PM EST
    on the infection.

    I was in Wisconsin once in 17 below and when I said my ears were freezing a teenage girl told me pin em or lose em. I needed an explanation of course, and she said frostbite happens fast on exposed ears in this kind of weather and that's why you always see girls with headbands pinning their ears to the side of the their head.

    No idea if she was BS'ing me but it sounded logical and I've never forgotten.


    A doctor friend explained it to me. (none / 0) (#106)
    by observed on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 07:30:14 AM EST
    Exposure to very cold temperatures does lower resistance to meningitis, but it's not a significant risk.

    I didn't think the Flying Tomato's run... (none / 0) (#103)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 01:16:01 PM EST
    was perfect.  Very good yes, but certainly not without flaws.  For instance, a couple of landings were less than dead-on.  

    I think there was some sympathy/idolation factor involved in that perfect score.