DNC Tuesday Night: Michelle Obama

First Lady Michelle Obama speaks tonight from the Democratic convention. (Added: If you missed it, you can watch here.)

Big Tent Democrat sent along some photos, here's one of the convention hall earlier today.

I'm just getting online today, and haven't caught up with the news, so this is an open thread, all convention related things welcome. [More....]

The only station playing the convention instead of talking heads seems to be C-Span. I can't watch the others.

Ted Stricklin is on now and says Mitt Romney is lying and he's hiding his tax information.

Update: Things picked up after Strickland. I thought Kathleen Sebelius was terrific on Medicare. "That's what change looks like." Rahm Emannuel was much better than I would have expected. On repealing DOMA, saving the auto industry, health care and ending the War in Iraq (he promised change and he delivered.)

Obama's sister and Michelle's brother were impressive as well. His sister focused on what he's done for women.

The best so far was Lilly Ledbetter on Obama signing the bill with her name, the equal pay for women. You can watch her speech here.

There was an actor/comic who wasn't great. Deval Patrick is on now, giving a passionate speech but it's filled with the the generalities I expected to hear from all the speakers. He isn't moving me. Nothing special here, despite his passion, although he picked up a bit towards the end.

This convention seems very energized. I hope they continue to feature fresh voices every night, rather than the retreads they usually bring out at these events who are so predictable and revisionist they mean nothing. Tonight's group had some personality.

Watching the convention on C-Span, without the constant interruptions and noise of network anchors and pundits is so much more satisfying.

Update: I like the twin brothers from San Antonio -- (Mayor Julian Castro and his brother Joaquin who is running for Congress.) I had no idea San Antonio was the 7th largest city in the country. (I love visiting San Antonio, with its Riverwalk.) And it's really good to hear Castro and some of the others promote the Dream Act. Loved that the camera panned on his daughter, she is so cute. His speech was terrific, filled with personality.

The biggest difference between this convention and that of the Republicans is immediately apparent when the camera pans on the audience: No sea of mayonnaise here. They are diverse, and representative of the country as a whole.

I think Michelle Obama will be great. I'm looking forward to hearing her.

Update: The Michelle video sucks. Whoever made this boring, old-fashioned mess should be fired. It's draining all the positive energy that we've seen the past few hours.

After a schmaltzy and forgettable introduction, Michelle comes out. She looks stunning. I don't think I've ever seen her look better. She's also speaking with emotion and expression -- and not shouting. It's like she's just talking to a few people.

Good line: "Being President doesn't change who you are, it reveals who you are."

I wonder if everyone will start calling Obama "Barack" after tonight.

Standing ovation line:

"He believes when you've worked hard and done well and walked through that doorway of opportunity, you don't not slam it shut behind you--No, you reach back and give other folks the same chances that helped you succeed.

"Success isn't about how much money you make, it's about the difference you make in people's lives."

The reason we should re-elect Obama: "We have so much more to do." Loud chants of "Four more years."

Describing Barack: "Patience, wisdom, courage and grace."

She is so much more genuine that Ann Romney. Even when she says things that are slightly cheesy, like how her first job is still Mom in Chief, at least she means it. With Ann Romney you got pretense -- like when she claimed to know what it's like for women who can't afford to fill their tank at the gas pump. She probably hasn't driven herself anywhere in years.

Update: Michelle Obama was good but hands down, the star of the night was Julian Castro.

Surprisingly, there is a sea of difference between the candidates this election. What a disaster it will be for everyone if people stay home and let Romney and the Republicans win this election.

Register to vote by October 4. Don't risk waking up on November 7th and wondering if your vote might have made a difference. It does. If you are a Democrat and don't care yourself who wins, please care for the rest of us. We need your vote.

< Daily Kos Radio at the DNC | Obama Acceptance Speech Moved Indoors >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Deval Patrick (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 08:57:02 PM EST
    is tearing the place up. (Mass. gov.)  I'm totally shocked.  I had no idea he could do this.

    not listening, but (none / 0) (#5)
    by the capstan on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:12:49 PM EST
    wasn't he the fellow Obama supposedly cribbed from during the last convention?

    I'd forgotten that (none / 0) (#7)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:17:21 PM EST
    But what he cribbed wasn't particularly particularly forceful, as I remember, more in the lyrical/soaring line of speechmaking.

    I moved from Mass. before the Patrick campaign, but I sure never heard from friends or news reports that he had this kind of rip-roaring speech in him.  I honestly haven't heard this kind of speech at a Dem. convention since Teddy Kennedy.


    From my seat (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:21:41 PM EST
    every speaker has been clicking on all cylinders tonight. Some better than others but all good. It has been a really good night with just Michelle left to go.

    Is it my imagination or (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:24:07 PM EST
    has this had wayyy more energy than the GOPer convention?  And wayyy more energy than Dem. conventions in recent years, for that matter?

    I was thinking the same thing (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:26:15 PM EST
    Seems well organized but free wheeling at the same time.

    A great choice (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:29:19 PM EST
    with Julian Castro too and I have no doubt Michelle is about to hit it out of the park.

    Castro is stealing my heart (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:16:33 PM EST
    You can't be pro business without being pro education.

    Yeah, he is someone to watch (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:24:58 PM EST
    Great speech, and what a charmer. That smile!

    Agree, he's very special (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:29:22 PM EST
    and I loved listening to him. His daughter is just the cutest.

    saw a tweet that Jan Brewer... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by magster on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 12:03:37 AM EST
    .... was demanding to see that girl's papers.

    Good thing that PBS Hawaii is ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:34:17 PM EST
    ... broadcasting the convention on 5-hour delayed basis, because it's only 4:30 p.m. out here and I'm still at work. The cablebabble networks are showing it live. I look forward to seeing Mayor Castro and the First Lady later this evening.

    As cute as Piper Palin? Was that her name? (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 11:48:42 PM EST
    Every bit! (none / 0) (#97)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:01:26 AM EST
    He looked very impressive (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by brodie on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:33:15 PM EST
    Let's hope he stays faithful, unlike that last dynamic young Latino mayor of SA.  

    Even (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 05:33:39 AM EST
    Fox news did a positive story on him!

    You watched it all on Fox? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 06:53:08 AM EST
    You are brave.  My husband wanted to, but when I felt like they were cutting in on my speechifiers in order to chatter like wind up teeth among themselves, we ended up arguing about it and we changed it to MSNBC until Michelle.  I know my husband is right.  If I'm going to fight the Republican party I can't hide away from them, but damn it they were stepping on my convention experience.

    No (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:43:10 AM EST
    actually what I did is see a clip that was posted from Fox. I'm going to have to watch everything on you tube because I was so tired last night I went to bed shortly after 8:00 and promptly fell asleep.

    I have to record tonight (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:48:42 AM EST
    Because I have a wine tasting to go to and it is some of my favorites, the undisciplined Argentina and Chile.  I can enjoy the convention later, if I miss the tasting though can't be done later.  I'm sitting here thinking, "Am I really missing Bill Clinton tonight for wine"?  And the answer is yes.  I must not squander wine learning moments once I find them around here.

    Just got an email from the United We Dream (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:31:23 PM EST
    Network, praising Julian Castro, which included this:

    Now, as both parties have officially begun the race for the White House, we ask our families and community to be engaged, and on Nov. 6,  take our struggle, our voices and our future into the polls.  We ask for those who can vote to register to vote before Oct. 4th, 2012 and to not give into apathy and fight against voter suppression.  We ask you to vote for champions on immigration and to not be fooled by campaign ads, but rather judge the candidates on the fullness of their records. DREAMers have shown that progress can be made when we come together, organize and build the political power we need to win.  Together, we won the new deferred action policy and together we can win a permanent victory for our entire community.

    LOL! "No sea of mayonnaise here." (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:40:58 PM EST
    That's hands-down the best snarky line of the afternoon and evening, Jeralyn. I bow down in your presence, and hereby proclaim that I am not worthy.

    Amanda Marcotte tweeted earlier: (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:43:12 PM EST
    "Lilly Ledbetter seems to reject Ann Romney's belief that the only appropriate response to injustice is sighing."

    I agree Michelle in person is a lot better (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:55:15 PM EST
    than the video. She is really tying it all together and doing a great job.

    I just watched her speech. Very (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 12:21:59 AM EST
    moving, concise, forceful.  Great job.  

    Josh and I ended up snuggled up (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:15:05 PM EST
    together on the couch. He'll be 13 soon, I hardly ever get this anymore.  But there will be no bounce :)

    Msnbc showed a very cute picture of (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:22:22 PM EST
    Barack and the girls watching the speech in the WH, snuggling like you and Josh!

    I saw it too (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:25:41 PM EST
    I switched quickly from Fox after seeing that Rove was so lightheaded from hyperventilating he was about to fall out of his chair.

    For those that didn't see it (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 11:29:40 PM EST
    I can't believe (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by indy in sc on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:15:12 AM EST
    how much they've grown!  I remember two little girls on that cold January morning in DC at the inauguration.

    Rove has not (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 01:22:47 AM EST
    looked happy this evening.  He's a cynical pro, not an ideological fanatic wearing blinders, and he knows when his side has been outclassed.

    I wonder if Romney ever had (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:09:36 PM EST
    this thought:

    "He believes when you've worked hard and done well and walked through that doorway of opportunity, you don't not slam it shut behind you--No, you reach back and give other folks the same chances that helped you succeed.

    Sure Romney Has (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by bmaz on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 12:37:40 AM EST
    That is what his ultra secret tithing (and quite possibly the paranoia about release of his tax returns is, at least partially, about).  But that hand reaching back, is only for a few for Mitt.

    Like the Paul Ryans (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 01:24:09 AM EST
    of the world-- bright, energetic young privileged types of the right class.

    That's not Romney's hand.... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 02:26:05 AM EST
    it's his fist.

    Agree, choosing who gets to join the oligarchy (none / 0) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:10:48 AM EST
    is a careful process done in quiet rooms.

    So good because except when she said his name (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:10:01 PM EST
    it was so relatable to most of our families and loved ones. She really made a connection there, and it was effortless because it was real.

    Watched Michelle on Fox just to see (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:18:19 PM EST
    what would go down.  Karl Rove can barely breathe.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Politalkix on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:25:21 PM EST
    This is just the first night. We still have President Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and the President to come....

    EW is speaking?! (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:30:01 PM EST

    Elizabeth (none / 0) (#38)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:32:45 PM EST
    is on the schedule for tomorrow night

    Thanks! (none / 0) (#39)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:35:27 PM EST
    No access until Thurs night. So relying on internet :) Like that she is speaking, will make sure folks I know watch. She speaks good english.

    Wednesday night (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:36:06 AM EST
    Just like Tuesday they come rapid fire from start to finish with 8-10 speakers an hour starting at 5ET (until they get to the final hour) but these are probably the ones that are favored to grab the headlines before the night starts.

    Nancy Pelosi
    Tom Vilsack

    Barney Frank
    Gov John Hickenlooper

    Sandra Fluke
    Rep. Chris Van Hollen (who I suspect will go after Paul Ryan)

    Elizabeth Warren
    Bill Clinton


    The actual lineup (none / 0) (#40)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:43:47 PM EST
    with times should come out in the morning as it did today. If they line up the next two nights as smoothly as they did tonight it will look like pros against amateurs compared to Tampa.

    Bill Clinton is tomorrow too. Bill Clinton like Clint Eastwood will go onstage with an unvetted speech. I'm thinking Bill's will be a bit better than the chair speech.


    Clint Clinton or Bill Eastwood? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:53:11 PM EST
    The "they" people keep trying to equate him with going rogue Eastwood. Why?  Why are they hell bent on the craziest $hit right now?  Do they think they'll psych Bill out and he'll start talking to himself up there?  He faced them all down many times.  I don't think this is when he cracks and cracks up for their viewing pleasure.  Are they sticking pins into Voodoo dolls?

    I can't even imagine how bad their teams are (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 11:00:00 PM EST
    if they think BC won't hit it out of the park. And off the cuff ta boot :)

    Reeks of desperation if they do . . .  just sayin'


    Clinton derangement syndrome (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 01:32:59 AM EST
    will never die.  And it's gotten a jolt of adrenaline from Ryan Lizza's New Yorker piece this week.

    I'd SO let BC go unvetted (none / 0) (#44)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:55:24 PM EST
    especially after Eastwooding. No Brainer ;)

    BTW, you do know how much I appreciated your Olympic links don't you? Those first BBC links kept me so happy :D


    Awesome! (none / 0) (#49)
    by Amiss on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 11:46:26 PM EST
    I really really like her. Was pleased with most of the speakers. Seems like they all pretty much reminded us of why we voted for Obama in 08.

    It's (none / 0) (#69)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 04:16:38 AM EST
    telling that we would have to be reminded.

    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 01:25:38 AM EST
    I just said more or less the same above before getting to your comment.  He doesn't realize the way the barometer shows on his face.

    Michelle is a charmer ... (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 02:04:12 PM EST
    and that's probably all she needed to be.  And all that will be remembered.  But the speech had a few lines that I'm sure clanged outside the hall.

    This one really jumped out at me:

    I have seen firsthand that being president doesn't change who you are -- it reveals who you are.

    It sure revealed who Obama is. And it ain't good.

    I also found the positioning of the First Lady completely retrograde. The speech presented her almost exclusively as a daughter, wife and mother. No mention of her being a lawyer. Or having a job of any kind.

    And not only is this not a good message to women and girls.  But it just played as disingenuous.


    I Don't Usually Find (none / 0) (#138)
    by Jane in CA on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 06:56:01 PM EST
    Michelle Obama particularly likable. But, I'd sure as heck vote for her over her husband. Everything I've seen of her tells me she is a person of conviction and integrity. While such people may not always appear to be likable, my experience is that they can be counted on to do the right thing when the chips are down.

    What are the Fox people saying... (none / 0) (#37)
    by magster on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:31:23 PM EST
    can't find a livestream, and MSNBC is of course heaping praise.

    Kos has posted some funny tweets, including, "she's the kind of woman who says "dude, the dog is riding in the car!" and "I can vote for anyone who earned her love."


    They didn't interrupt her speech (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:48:20 PM EST
    thankfully, they had interrupted Sebelius so we switched back to MSNBC until it was time for Michelle.  When Michelle really had you, about 15 minutes in, they really started running their ticker.  It was cracking my husband up.  Dem platform calls for nuclear weapon reduction and is fully supporting Israel but does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  We were trying not to giggle and give our full attention to Michelle.

    At the end of her speech, they knew if they blatantly attacked her they'd pay dearly for it.  You could feel their struggle with words.  I really only wanted to hear what Rove had to say, he was out of breathe.  I'd bet anything he was somewhat psychologically distressed  But he couldn't openly attack her so what he said was, "She gave testament to what sort of husband and father he is but she is no testament to what sort of politician he is." He was freaking just a hair though, probably a culmination of the whole night and Michelle tipped the dirty dog completely over exposing anxiety or something like that.


    Karl had a bad night (none / 0) (#62)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 01:34:08 AM EST
    I forgot about the "gay" thing (none / 0) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:15:57 AM EST
    My husband just reminded me that on the ticker they also put up that NC had voted against gay marriage but 400 something (some such number) openly gay Democrat delegates had arrived in Charlotte.  That was another time I had to hush him because he was really hooting then, "Look...look, Charlotte is being gay invaded!"

    Indeed (none / 0) (#60)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 01:31:24 AM EST
    I just said more or less the same above before getting to your comment.  He doesn't realize the way the barometer shows on his face.

    Steve Schmidt and Chuck Todd (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by brodie on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:20:29 PM EST
    give high marks to Dems first nite and to MO and the way she connected emotionally with the audience.

    She looked great too -- nicely toned upper body, nice hairdo.  Get her out of the WH and on the stump often.

    yeah, telling my story (5.00 / 8) (#52)
    by womanwarrior on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 12:20:19 AM EST
    My grand parents came to this country as immigrants.  They were all about education.  My parents came up during the great depression.  They didn't get to go to college.  We were never wealthy.  But we had enough.  And my brothers and sister and I did go to college:  ROTC scholarship, West Point and merit scholarships.  Stanford let me in and nurtured me, just like it took in Julian and Joaquin Castro.  And I went on to be a lawyer.  And like Michelle, my daughters have been the most important task in my life.  These Democrats are speaking my language and telling my story.  Pass on the baton in the relay, not slam the door after you walked through it.  Keep investing in our shared prosperity, not send it to off shore banks to hoard.  

    All in All (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by bmaz on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 12:41:40 AM EST
    I thought Michelle Obama did a very nice job. There is a hell of a difference between her independent self assuredness and the clingy Donna Reed projection of Ann Romney.

    Heck, I would vote for Michelle over Barack for POTUS if I had the opportunity.

    But, let us be honest, speeches of the First Ladies of the Ballot move about no one ultimately in the election.

    how about (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 01:48:46 AM EST
    Barbara Billingsly, the mother on Leave it To Beaver. "With her skirts, high heels and pearls, Billingsley was the perfect '50s mom on "Leave It to Beaver"."

    aka June Cleaver (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 01:50:10 AM EST
    I should have added

    Yeah, Donna Reed! (none / 0) (#64)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 01:37:56 AM EST
    That's who she kept reminding me of, a mean-spirited Donna Reed, but I couldn't put my finger on it.  Thanks!

    Mean-spirited? (none / 0) (#139)
    by Jane in CA on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:00:25 PM EST
    Why? I'm not being snarky, really, just honestly wondering what she said/did to get that label.

    The (none / 0) (#83)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:51:28 AM EST
    spouses of the male candidates are invariably more palatable than the candidates themselves.

    It's easier to be (none / 0) (#86)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:57:16 AM EST
    When you haven't been out there for over a year attacking each other and lying about each other.

    Bill Clinton attended (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by kmblue on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 04:04:27 AM EST
    a Campaign meeting yesterday.  He said 2 things that are brilliant.

    "Clinton's first dicta is simple, and its impetus was the lack of "how," of explanation in Governor Romney's acceptance speech. "When people are afraid, explanation beats eloquence any day."

    Clinton's second phrase was directed at President Obama. What Obama must do, according to Clinton is something he's not very good at. He must "explain in plain language how the United States came to its present pass and how he plans to set the country on a path to growth and jobs again. That in turn will explain why a second term would differ from the first."

    In short, he has to (in Clinton's words) "put the corn where the hogs can get to it."

    In other words, communicate simply, honestly and clearly.

    Oh please Bill, make Barack do this.

    "put the corn... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by sj on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:24:14 AM EST
    ...where the hogs can get it."  BO is extraordinarily bad at that.  He's better at lecturing about why they can't have it (or can have only some of it later) because some of the hogs have behaved very, very badly.  And anyway it must be saved for the farmer.

    Also, I don't think that the road to jobs is a road that O is interested in taking.

    BO will just have to find another way if he wants to win, I think.


    He also said about the Debt (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:00:38 AM EST
    in conjunction with an audience member, "They built that!" which was brilliant.

    I hope Liz hits hard... (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:52:00 AM EST
    on the Bain vulture capitalist model...the Dems should talk about little else between now and November if they wanna win.

    All Romney has got is this faux reputation as Mr. Big Time Business Man Job Maker...the truth is he is nothing of the sort.  he's a job killing debt saddling scam artist.  Man never built nothing like his father of the old school REpublican industrialists did...he just torches sh*t.  The media ain't gonna call him out, the Dems have to.  

    But can they when they're in bed with the same vultures and have embraced this economic model since at least the Clinton years?

    To use the Bill Clinton phrase (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:05:45 AM EST
    I think Liz Warren is extraordinarily gifted at "putting the corn where the hogs can get to it." She will spell it all out.

    She is... (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:41:57 AM EST
    but nobody breaks it down in laymens terms like Matt Taibbi.  I wish he was speaking, but he'd probably acknowledge the Dems role in creating our ruthless economy of grift and pain, being a real journalist and all...can't have that in the infomercial!

    lol, yeah, can't expect that level (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 12:14:14 PM EST
    of soul-baring at a convention!

    I think she will do a fine job though, judging from her appearances on various shows.


    Except (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:56:06 AM EST
    The best so far was Lilly Ledbetter on Obama signing the bill with her name, the equal pay for women

    The Lilly Ledbetter Act is not about  equal pay for women.  It is about extending the the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination.  Now, this is a good thing, because a 180 day filing period is not really long enough to figure out if you are being discriminated agains and can and has helped some women, but it has nothing to do with granting "equal pay for equal work". All it does is reset the clock so someone who suspects they are being shorted can have more time to file a lawsuit.

    And the "A woman makes 77 cents for every dollar a man makes for the same work" line has to go.  I realize that it packs a powerful punch, but since it has been shown over and over that this statement is a complete exaggeration, why don't they use this time to highlight real problems women face? Or talk about jobs and unemployment that affects us all?

    Continually putting out this kind of information just ends up hurting the very cause they are trying to help because if they aren't going to be truthful about this, what else are they lying about?

    Not a complete exaggeration. (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by caseyOR on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:17:13 AM EST
    You are right. The number is not 77 cents. Women make 80 cents for every dollar a man makes. So, yea! we are 3 cents better off than we thought.

    The wage gap is real. It holds up when adjusting for women taking maternity leave, working less hours, using flex time. The gap is exacerbated by bosses who give bigger raises to men even though the women are just as qualified and hard-working. And let's not go to the old trope that women lack the boldness and self-assurance to ask for a raise. Women do indeed ask, and they are turned down with much greater frequency than men.

    IMO, institutionalized sexism plays a very big role in this.


    BS (1.00 / 5) (#96)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:53:53 AM EST

    The so called "wage gap" exists by comparing different jobs and by comparing full time jobs to part time jobs.  Not by comparing the same jobs.

    Most of the greedy corporate CEO's I have seen would be firing men left and right if they could get the same work done for eighty cents on the dollar.  



    Do you realize (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by Towanda on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:05:25 AM EST
    that you only are revealing that you have not read the wage-gap studies, which control for those variables?

    Or perhaps you do not care that you are admitting to being uninformed.


    The 80% figure ignores those studies. (1.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 12:41:45 PM EST
    In 2010 the median income of FTYR workers was $42,800 for men, compared to $34,700 for women. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.81, slightly higher than the 2008 ratio.[2] The female-to-male earnings ratio of 0.81 means that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 19% less than male FTYR workers. The statistic does not take into account differences in experience, skill, occupation, education or hours worked, as long as it qualifies as full-time work.

    Try again (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 12:59:34 PM EST
    So is it the 80% figure you are claiming is "BS"?  because that would be entirely different than your first claim, which was that the gender gap as a whole was BS based on failing to control for variables which were, in reality, controlled.

    Your quote from wikipedia notwithstanding, the 80% figure (and the link) from caseyOR was referencing a quantitative analysis of the numerous peer-reviewed studies on this subject, which controlled for these (and other) variables.

    BTW - Your non-linked quote cut off at an interesting point.  The very next sentence pointed out:

    However, in 2010, an economist testified to the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee that studies "always find that some portion of the wage gap is unexplained" even after controlling for measurable factors that are assumed to influence earnings. The unexplained portion of the wage gap is attributed to gender discrimination.

    Of course its the 80% thats BS (1.00 / 4) (#119)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 01:26:24 PM EST

    In some occupations women make more than men, and in some they make less.  No one seems to be able to explain why pervasive discrimination would allow for any occupation to have women making more than men.

    The usual trick is to simply presume any difference "unexplained" by selected variables must be discrimination.  That same methodology will also show that the difference is due to sunspots.  



    No one, including you, seems to be ... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 01:35:45 PM EST
    ... able to explain the hundreds of studies that clearly show a gender gap, even after controlling for all of the other variables, including the two obvious variables you claimed were responsible for the gap.

    So if you're really just claiming the 80% figure is bogus (as opposed to your original claim that the entire gender gap was bogus), I guess we just need to establish what you think the real percentage is.

    Links to actual studies (or at least a summary of the studies) would be a nice change, though ...


    BS (none / 0) (#143)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 07:55:07 AM EST
    "controlling for all of the other variables"

    All!?  Total BS.  If you don't think so, go ahead and list all of the other variables to income used by whatever study you claim makes that fantastic assertion.

    The trick is that the effects of every variable that impacts income that was overlooked becomes arbitrarily assigned to discrimination.  Or if you wanted to "prove" the gap was due to sunspots the same methodology works just fine.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 08:04:56 AM EST
    I have the studies to prove it.  Would you like to compare actual evidence, or do you actually believe that just saying "BS!" is evidence?

    BTW - Good luck with your "sunspots" theory.  Get back to me when you can explain how sunspots result in women being paid less than men in the same job, same experience, same education level, etc., etc.


    Productivity for one. (1.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 08:37:24 AM EST
    It is interesting that you choose to not to disclose what you claim to be all the variables.

    The link is to a study that indicates that productivity is an often overlooked variable thus inflating the presumed discrimination conclusion of studies that do not control for productivity.

    "Where productivity in principle is unambiguous, it is rare that researchers have access to records thereof."

    And in examining some of those rare records:

    "There is thus evidence for the claim that family obligations impose a productivity penalty on female workers."



    "Productivity" differences (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:24:22 AM EST
    Interesting theory, but "productivity" differences are often controlled in the studies.  Even when they aren't/can't be controlled, the sub-variables that account for productivity differences are usually controlled in the studies, such as job experience, time at work/on the job, etc.  Probably why the very study you link to found the following:

    "It found that family obligations may impose a productivity penalty for women.  If such is the case, this penalty does not amount to much, 1-2 percentage points at the most, and may moreover likely be removed by a more equal distribution of work in the family."
    (this data was from 22-42 years ago)

    Also note that the study found that, even when looking at data that stacked the deck in favor of a male productivity advantage, any such difference was negligible:

    "We have studies blue-collar work, the setting where women stereotypically, with some exceptions, have been seen to suffer their greatest productivity disadvantages, thus stacking the case in favor of men.  But only negligible male advantage was found."

    Want to try again?

    Once again, would you like to compare actual studies/evidence, or is all you have to offer more of the same "I don't have any actual evidence, but it could be productivity differences, sunspots, men are just braver..." etc.


    I wouldn't want to either, if I were you ...


    Explain the Descrepancy (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 01:26:44 PM EST
    Where in life are men getting the edge on "differences in experience, skill, occupation, education or hours worked".  Did it ever occur to you they didn't track that because there are roughly as men as women in the world, ditto for education, if anything less women drop out and more attend college.  

    You are saying it's one of those factors and I am asking you to explain how men, who actually live shorter lives than women, get more of the things you listed than women.

    I don't get where you think it's not about the money because it has to be about something, and for me, the only thing I don't know about my co-workers, is the money.  I know who went to what school, where they worked, and what time they leave.  And over the entire population, that has to be very similar amongst all of us.  For it not to be, there has to be an obvious reason for a 20% pay discrepancy.

    I suspect the reason is the most obvious, some idiots convince themselves that women just aren't as good, and the other idiots convince themselves is based on something other than gender.


    Occupation (1.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 08:06:19 AM EST

    I suspect the reason is the most obvious, some idiots convince themselves that women just aren't as good, and the other idiots convince themselves is based on something other than gender.

    Men are killed on the job about 10 times more frequently than women.  Men are far more willing than women to take riskier and higher paying jobs than women.  Where is the army of women that have been turned down as coal miners or crab fishers.

    Pay is not the only measure of job satisfaction or job selection.  


    "We men are just braver!" theory (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 08:14:01 AM EST

    Too bad the studies on the gender gap control for occupations.


    BTW - Maybe women are just smarter (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 08:29:48 AM EST
    Rather than choosing one of the high-risk, often short-duration jobs that you cite, maybe they enter other professions that can pay just as well but offer lower risk and a longer career to boot (i.e. nursing, teaching, etc.).

    Or, maybe the men that take high-pay/high-risk jobs don't have many other options.  It'd be interesting to take a poll of crab fisherman to see if they would want their sons to follow in their footsteps or go to college.


    control for occupations (none / 0) (#149)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 08:45:53 AM EST

    A control for occupations means comparing those with like occupation, not comparing unlike occupations.  Do you even know what "control" means in this context?

    To illustrate, if there were only two occupations in the world, cab drivers (all women) and coal miners (all men) the pay differential between them would be impossible to accurately attribute to either sex or occupation.


    Wow - thank you so much ... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:29:02 AM EST
    ... for explaining the definition of "control".


    To illustrate, if there were only two occupations in the world, cab drivers (all women) and coal miners (all men) the pay differential between them would be impossible to accurately attribute to either sex or occupation.

    Uhhhhmmmm, ... yeah.  Probably why the studies on the gender gap don't focus on female/male coal miners.

    Keep swinging!


    Two questions for you: (3.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:28:30 AM EST
    (1)  Was there ever a gender wage gap?

    (2)  If so, when did it close?

    We shall await your response.


    Answers (1.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 03:57:58 PM EST


    1. There always has been as far back as records go.

    2. Probably never, as men's and women's preference priorities among pay, total hours, flexibility of hours, travel, riskiness, ease of entry, ease of reentry, etc., etc., are not the same and not likely to be the same any time soon.

    So, this is just another one of these (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 07:17:36 PM EST
    how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin exercises for you, one that gets mired in percentage points rather than addressing the problem.

    Whether a woman is being paid 95 cents for every dollar a man is paid, or 77 cents for every dollar, isn't the issue: it's that she is being paid less than her male counterpart.

    No one's asking men to decide how much less they would have to be paid before it mattered, before it was worth doing something about, but there have been more than a couple men here who seem to think that as long as it's close to being equal, it's not a big deal.  And they want to define what "close" is.  Of course.

    Well, how about if you left it up to us women to decide how much less we think YOU should be paid - what do you say, gals - how much less should this gentlemen be paid?  Shall we start the bidding at 5 cents, or go big and all the way to 23 cents? - let's do 23 cents less, and see how that goes.  We'll futz around with statistics and controls and the other numbers, and maybe we can convince Abdul that it's not really 23 cents, it's probably really more like 9 cents.  

    Maybe that will allow you to appreciate how offensive the arguments you and others have been making on this issue.  But I'm not holding my breath on that one.


    Unlike you (1.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 09:28:49 PM EST

    I don't think someone working 48 hours a week making more money than someone working 40 hours is a problem that needs to be solved.

    You just keep making sh*t up (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 10:59:39 PM EST
    to derail the initial argument (a typical tactic of conservatives). Try sticking to the subject matter, which is women making less than men for the same work, instead of floating your newest straw man b.s. about someone making more money by working a greater number of hours.

    23 cents (none / 0) (#163)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Sep 08, 2012 at 09:45:39 AM EST

    The number Anne mentioned is not as you know full well "same work." That kind of difference is due to doing different kinds of work and different amounts of work with different quality of education and different productivity performed for different employers in different parts of the country.

    Is men on average making more per week than women doing the same piece work at the same piece rate a gender equity problem to be solved or a reality to be ignored?



    Neither (none / 0) (#165)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 08, 2012 at 10:28:22 AM EST
    It's a fantasy to be ignored.

    Straw, straw and more straw (none / 0) (#164)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 08, 2012 at 10:26:45 AM EST
    That's not the reason for the gender gap.  Hours worked are a basic control in the studies.



    Utter BS (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:07:18 AM EST
    The numerous studies that have proven the gap control for these obvious (and other) variables.

    Your statement is true ONLY if (none / 0) (#127)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 02:28:43 PM EST
    You are comparing ALL women's wages against ALL men's wages.  However, my statement, and the one often used by the Democrats is that women make "77 cents for every dollar a man makes for doing the same job".

    This is simply not true.  The real wage gap of employees doing the same job is about 95 cents.

    A recent report prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor analyzed the gender wage gap using Current Population Survey (CPS) data for 2007.3 The report takes into account differences between men and women in educational attainment, work  experience, occupation, career interruptions, part-time status and overtime worked. The result is striking--these factors explain approximately three-fourths of the 2007 raw gender hourly wage gap of 20.4 percent. The adjusted 2007 gender hourly wage gap is roughly 5 percent.

    To better match women and men with similar characteristics relevant in a job market, another study used the very detailed National Survey of College Graduates 1993 (NSCG), which provides information not only on the highest degree attained, but also on major field of study and labor force experience. To explore racial differences in the gender wage gap, the  study compared women of various ethnicities with white men who had similar education, work experience and academic major and who spoke English at home. The study reports a wage gap of 9 percent for white women, 13 percent for black women, 2 percent for Asian women and 0.4 percent for Hispanic women. When the analysis was restricted to unmarried, childless women only, the wage gap shrunk to 7 percent for white women, 9 percent for black women and to virtually zero for Asian and Hispanic women.


    Even the Department of Labor acknowledges that the overall wage gap is due to much more than comparing "all women's incomes" vs. "all men's incomes" and they even acknowledge that when all the variables are taken into account, the adjusted (real) wage gap is somewhere between 4.8 and 7.1 cents on the dollar.

    However, despite these gains the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap. The purpose of this report is to identify the reasons that explain the wage gap in order to more fully inform policymakers and the public.

    The following report prepared by CONSAD Research Corporation presents the results of a detailed statistical analysis of the attributes that contribute to the wage gap and a synopsis of the economic research that has been conducted on the issue. The major findings are:

    There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent.

    Also from the Department of Labor: (5.00 / 6) (#129)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 02:47:13 PM EST

    REALITY:  The size of the pay gap depends on how you measure it. The most common estimate is based on differences in annual earnings (currently about 23 cents difference per dollar). Another approach uses weekly earnings data (closer to an18 or 19 cents difference). Analyzing the weekly figures can be more precise in certain ways, like accounting for work hours that vary over the course of the year, and less accurate in others, like certain forms of compensation that don't get paid as weekly wages. No matter which number you start with, the differences in pay for women and men really add up. According to one analysis by the Department of Labor's Chief Economist, a typical 25-year-old woman working full time would have already earned $5,000 less over the course of her working career than a typical 25-year old man. If that earnings gap is not corrected, by age 65, she will have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars over her working lifetime. We also know that women earn less than men in every state and region of the country, and that once you factor in race, the pay gap for women of color is even larger.


    REALITY: Decades of research shows a gender gap in pay even after factors like the kind of work performed and qualifications (education and experience) are taken into account. These studies consistently conclude that discrimination is the best explanation of the remaining difference in pay. Economists generally attribute about 40% of the pay gap to discrimination - making about 60% explained by differences between workers or their jobs. However, even the "explained" differences between men and women might be more complicated. For example: If high school girls are discouraged from taking the math and science classes that lead to high-paying STEM jobs, shouldn't we in some way count that as a lost equal earnings opportunity? As one commentator put it recently, "I don't think that simply saying we have 9 cents of discrimination and then 14 cents of life choices is very satisfying." In other words, no matter how you slice the data, pay discrimination is a real and persistent problem that continues to shortchange American women and their families.


    REALITY: The pay gap for women with advanced degrees, corporate positions, and high paying, high skill jobs is just as real as the gap for workers overall. In a recent study of newly trained doctors, even after considering the effects of specialty, practice setting, work hours and other factors, the gender pay gap was nearly $17,000 in 2008. Catalyst reviewed 2011 government data showing a gender pay gap for women lawyers, and that data confirms that the gap exists for a range of professional and technical occupations. In fact, according to a study by the Institute for Women's Policy Research that used information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women earn less than men even within the same occupations. Despite differences in the types of jobs women and men typically perform, women earn less than men in male dominated occupations (such as managers, software developers and CEO's) and in those jobs commonly filled by women (like teachers, nurses and receptionists). In a recent review of 2010 Census data, Bloomberg found only one of 285 major occupations where women's median pay was higher than that of men - personal care and service workers. Because the data showed a particularly large pay gap in the financial sector, Bloomberg suggested that for women on Wall Street, shining shoes was the best way to earn more than the men.


    REALITY: Putting aside whether it's right to ask women (or men) to sacrifice financially in order to work and have a family, those kinds of choices aren't enough to explain away the gender pay gap. The gender gap in pay exists for women working full time. Taking time off for children also doesn't explain gaps at the start of a career. And although researchers have addressed various ways that work hours or schedule might or might not explain some portion of the wage gap, there may be a "motherhood penalty." This is based on nothing more than the expectation that mothers will work less. Researchers have found that merely the status of being a mother can lead to perceptions of lowered competence and commitment and lower salary offers.

    and, finally:

    REALITY: It has been nearly fifty years since Congress mandated equal pay for women, and we still have a pay gap. There is evidence that our initial progress in closing the gap has slowed. We can't sit back and wait decades more. Just this year the Department of Labor launched an app challenge, working to give women the tools they need to know their worth. My office continues to increase its enforcement of requirements that federal contractors pay workers without discriminating on the basis of race or gender. And we are teaming up with other members of the National Equal Pay Task Force to ensure a coordinated federal response to equal pay enforcement. You can read more about our work on equal pay here.

    Now, I don't have any problem with not referencing some specific percentage of wage gap in a speech, because the numbers vary depending on the factors analyzed, but I do have a problem with pretending the gap doesn't exist, and with arguments like yours that seem to be more about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin than on the very real problem of gender-based wage discrimination.  If you're going to be all dog-with-a-bone about this, could you at least be that way about the actual problem and not about what the right number is?


    Regarding the speech, (none / 0) (#130)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 03:00:15 PM EST
    Obama's grandmother only had a HS diploma (and was the first female VP the bank ever had). Michelle said O's gma hit "the glass ceiling" due to her gender, is it possible that the men who moved above her on the bank's corporate ladder had college degrees?

    Anything's possible, and that could (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 03:17:33 PM EST
    have been a factor, but I think you also have to look at when this was taking place - I don't recall what years Mrs. Dunham was working, but I think that matters, too.

    My mother graduated from college in 1952, and it wasn't until I went to college, I think, that I realized that she was really on the cusp, probably, of women beginning to see college as just as much an option for them as it was for men.

    But I can also still remember my dad once expressing that women in the workplace were taking jobs from men who needed them to support their families...he came around, eventually, but it took him a while to get there - fortunately, it was well before I went to college and entered the work force.

    We have come a long way, but there is progress still to be made.


    Yah, fair enough. I believe O's gma (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 03:25:02 PM EST
    started at the bank in 1960, was made VP in 1970, and retired in 1986.

    My mom graduated in the mid-40's, with a degree in physics. Talk about breaking gender roles!


    Good for her! (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:05:51 PM EST
    That was a very rare thing back then, especially in such a field. I would consider that pioneering on her part.

    My grandma never made it past 10th grade, but ended up running a large textile company in 1960. She was a role model for the rest of the family.


    My mother-in-law (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:18:59 PM EST
    got her bachelor's degree in the late 1930's, and later her PhD in the early 1960's.  She did pharmacological and physiological research, in cardiology.  Also speaking of breaking gender roles.  When she retired, she was a full professor of physiology at a a medical school.

    It's not an exaggeration at all. (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:53:01 AM EST
    The other day, I posted a link to and quite a bit of the narrative from a Department of Labor treatise on myths about the wage gap; that DOL piece was also loaded with links.

    What really hurts the cause is people continuing to push the myth that there is no gap worth worrying ourselves about; like so many things - not just gender issues - as soon as we stop making them an issue, progress stops.

    Here's the link to the comment I mentioned.


    Y'all are braver than me (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 12:02:02 PM EST
    Can't watch a second of it anymore. I cannot escape the strong feeling I have that we are a nation committing suicide, incapable of genuinely addressing the biggest problem the country faces: that an inanimate object of our own creation, and over which we have complete control, enslaves almost the entirety of our population, and even the most "progressive" pols offered up don't really seem to get it. In short, we are living in a state of absolute delusional absurdity. When we talk about the economy, both parties, it is  literally as if we are afraid of being murdered by Santa Claus.

    It is definitely the economy, stupid. T only problem is we really don't have any clue exactly how stupid we all are.  We have just been through the single biggest period of financial criminality in the nation's history, and nothing has been done about it. Zero.  And our Democratic President is the one who made the choice. BTW, when his Justice Department said they couldn't charge Goldman, they were lying like rugs, a choice had been made long ago. They were simply being the bought and paid for shills they are. And they are serving under a DEMOCRAT. (Go read up on Goldman, there's plenty out there, plenty of evidence of obvious and shameless fraud...but, boo hoo, there's just nothing we can do. Bullsh*t there isn't. All the regulatory capture in the world can't cover their thieving tracks.)

    I'm still waiting to hear a real idea of creative import from my party. I am still waiting for money to be talked about like the pieces of sh*t it is, and for humans to be lifted above it. But it's still all about what offerings we must give to the almighty economic god. We just can't get out of our deadly financial paradigm of wizardry and magic and fairies. We need to hire people en masse, but all we can do is refer them to a palm reader. Again, this is LITERALLY how we are talking about the economy and money. As if it is some spirt that needs to be appeased. The right wing has truly defined how the economy can and can't be talked about. And we buy into it, afraid of being called socialist or communist, or whatever would require us to be more creative and imaginative to counter. But we ain't got those chops anywhere near power. Not even close. Artists and novelists are elected in other places, not here. Sadly.

    So I am off to hike it out, then maybe write something beautiful. Had writer's block for months (thirty five years of manic depression don't help either, but still...)  Peace, y'all.

    thank you (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by dandelion on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 04:56:07 PM EST
    I truly truly wish progressives would read up on Modern Monetary Theory.  We are sacrificing a great swath of the populace to appease these debt vigilantes when even Greenspan and Bernanke have admitted it's functionally impossible for the US to become Greece, to go bankrupt.  The debt the govt owes is a private sector asset.  Our inability to see that the govt does not at all operate like a household is consigning millions of people to poverty.  And every time we focus on debt and the deficit as problems we only empower the Tea Party and the Randians.  

    We not debt-constrained.  We are inflation-constrained.  But that's not a problem until capacity greatly increases, and in actuality we're skirting the edges of deflation and the event-horizon of deflationary spiral -- all because of this ridiculous fear of debt.

    It's wonderful that the Democrats are taking displaying a commitment to social justice.  But social justice is not sustainable without economic justice. (And we won't even talk about civil rights.)


    Deval to the Disappointed Left (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 01:39:26 PM EST
    "Let's all start by standing up for President Barack Obama. This is the president who delivered the security of affordable health care to every single American in every corner of this country after 90 years of trying. This is the president who brought Osama bin Laden to justice, who ended the war in Iraq, and is ending the war in Afghanistan. This is the president who ended "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" so that love of country, not love of another, determines fitness for service. Who made equal pay for equal work the law of the land. This is the president who saved the American auto industry from extinction, the American financial industry from self-destruction, the American economy from full-blown depression. Who added 4.5 million private sector jobs in the last two-and-a-half years, more than in George Bush's eight years in office.

    The list of accomplishments is long, impressive and barely told--and even more impressive when you consider that congressional Republicans have made obstruction itself the centerpiece of their governing strategy. With a record like that and a vision that hopeful and powerful, I for one will not stand by and let him be bullied out of office--and neither should you."

    Kevin Drum summarizes:

    It's true: by ordinary human standards, as opposed to the weird celestial standards some liberals measure him by, Obama has had a damn impressive presidency. Frankly, Republicans whose heads have exploded over Obama's supposed radicalism are probably closer to the truth than disaffected liberals who think it's all been a bunch of meh and that a second term will just be more meh. . .
    If DADT repeal, passage of ACA, financial reform, killing Osama, saving the auto industry, and all the rest aren't enough to get liberals excited -- and if they're still not enough in the face of what a Romney presidency would almost certainly bring us -- then I'm stumped. You're living in some fantasy world of wishes and ponies that I'm not familiar with. Here in the real world, that's a helluva record and a helluva contrast."


    Drum - heh (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 01:48:46 PM EST
    He is the expert in fantasy worlds ...

    Yman (none / 0) (#125)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 02:02:46 PM EST
    Did he say anything incorrect?  Of course not.  Easier to attack the messenger than the (unfortunate for those who've spent the last few years pretending that Obama was a conservative) message.

    The bottom line is that if you said in November 2008 that O would have accomplished the things listed (and stuff like the supreme court appointments, coming out in favor of gay marriage, etc.) and was in a death match to get a second term that would continue the same pattern, everyone would have been thrilled.  The majority of big ticket items on the to do list have been addressed in some material way.  people will always point to Gitmo or the public option or things like that that were not accomplished to pretend that the mountain of accomplishments doesn't exist, but that only works for people who were never going to be satisfied with anything.

    Drum is completely correct in asserting that a section of the left set a threshold that was impossible to satisfy with a GOP holding filibuster power and later one house of congress.  

    I think that any argument otherwise can't stand any real, objective scrutiny.


    What about (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 02:32:54 PM EST
    Drum is completely correct in asserting that a section of the left set a threshold that was impossible to satisfy with a GOP holding filibuster power and later one house of congress.

    The first 2 years?


    ABG and "real, objective scrutiny" - heh (5.00 / 8) (#133)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 03:30:46 PM EST
    Even funnier than Drum lecturing about imaginary fairy worlds.

    Did he say anything incorrect?  Of course not.

    Of course he did.  Beyond his bare recitation of facts, all of it was wrong.  Drum is correct that ACA and financial reform was passed, DADT was repealed, Osama was killed, and the auto industry was saved.  Congrats to Kevin.  From there, he's just wrong - many liberals who "aren't excited" enough for you are disappointed precisely because of Obama's promises and how they fail to measure up to what he himself promised:

    Osama?  Yep, it's a good thing.  So what?
    Dodd-Frank? - The one that doesn't address the basic "too-big-to-fail" issue?  BFD.  As SEC Commissioner Roberta Karmel (and many others have noted), it's incredibly weak.
    DADT? - As if there was another option when 70-80%+ of people (including a majority of Republicans) wanted it ended.  It's a good thing.  BFD.
    "Saving" the auto industry? - Do you mean the first bailout (where Bush approved the use of TARP funds) or the second bailout of GM and Chrysler after they filed for bankruptcy?  I agreed with both of them, but Drum credits Obama with "saving the auto industry".
    ACA - "This is the President who delivered the security of affordable health care to every single American in every corner of this country after 90 years of trying".  The best one of all.  Affordable health care for every American? Hahahahahahahahaha .... You mean all we had to do to get affordable health care for every American was adopt the Republican plan of 1994?


    BTW - The real reason so many liberals aren't excited by Obama's candidacy isn't because they're holding him to some fairy tale standard in a fantasy world ... it's because they're holding Obama to his own standard that he created in the real world.  The one he created when he promised real healthcare reform - a government option ... public hearings ... no backroom deals ... affordable imported drugs.  Not to mention closing Guantanamo, repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, prevent drug companies from blocking generic prescription drugs, FISA reform, NAFTA renegotiation, comprehensive immigration reform, etc., etc., etc.

    You and Drum may be impressed by what Obama's accomplished, but that hardly means that those that are unimpressed are living in a "fantasy world".  We just don't like wearing rose-colored glasses ...


    Getting a wee bit older as I am.... (none / 0) (#166)
    by christinep on Sat Sep 08, 2012 at 04:02:34 PM EST
    One advantage is seeing how some other Presidents in my lifetime acted....From what I see, President Obama's accomplishments in less than four (4) years are substantial, both in absolute & comparative mearnings.  

    Forget K.Drum.  Gov. Devall's statement & examples are strong; ABG restates them to underscore their strength. Real accomplishments for real people from a--surprisingly against all odds & obstacles--a genuinely effective President.  

    The principal fault with the WH in the past months, IMO, has been the inability or feebleness in communicating/explaining the ever-expanding beneficial actions started, pursued, and/or completed with Obama at the helm. In view of the unceasing Repub opposition ab initio, the results are remarkable.  Today...I join with so many others in calling for betowing the permanent additional title of "Explainer of Everything" on the incomparable former President William Jefferson Clinton.  What a truly "dynamic duo" they would make!


    "bestowing" (none / 0) (#167)
    by christinep on Sat Sep 08, 2012 at 04:05:42 PM EST
    It's not just his messaging (none / 0) (#169)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 08, 2012 at 05:33:15 PM EST
    It's the standard he himself established, then failed to meet.  As far as the "Republican opposition ab initio", that's a given for any Democratic POTUS since Clinton.

    Obama's done some positive things, but his record has been mediocre - your/Drum's/ABG's opinions notwithstanding.


    Yep. (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 04:39:15 PM EST
    It's those leftists.
    Those foolish "professional leftists" dragging us down.
    Those folks who shrieked for the same health care as the Canadians. Idealistic fools with their heads in the clouds. How does Kevin put it... living in a fantasy world of wishes and ponies. That's where those liberals live. In a fantasy world with ponies. Lot's of ponies.

    And - as Kevin says, what liberal wouldn't get excited about the killing of Osama. Or, for that matter, of Anwar al-Aulaqi. And those Pakistanis. What liberal couldn't cosy up to drones?

    And what liberal wouldn't be thrilled at the indefinite detention of Bradley Manning?

    And who wouldn't get excited about finally having an attorney general with the guts to definitively promise that Bush and Cheney will never have to suffer the humiliation of a prosecution for their courageous and creative stretching of the constitution.

    I'm excited.
    I'm psyched.
    Four more years.


    A thought, lentinel (none / 0) (#168)
    by christinep on Sat Sep 08, 2012 at 04:20:45 PM EST
    And--during the hard economic times then & now--how many jobs would we have saved, how many people would we have fed, how many more youth would have been helped to get an education, and (yes) how much more $$$ could we have put into any cause that calls out for that assistance in order to give vent to our sense of betrayal & anger at Bush/Cheney for their actions?!?

    When Nixon pulled the $h#% he did, I & so many of my friends wanted to see his face behind bars--not just the ones who aided & abetted, but him--and when Ford pardoned him, we were furious.  That furor lasted for awhaile...and, somewhere, it seemed to make more sense that the ever-ambivalent memory of his misdeeds will mar his legacy will be there...it seemed to make more sense to let go of my anger or desire for getting-even, justice, or just plain bloodlust.  Dragging everyone through another national agony after Watergate & the bombings in Cambodia, etc. would not change a thing...it would only derail the country from moving again.  One of the best examples of someone who determined to let go of past injustice to move his country forward was Nelson Mandela after 20 years of what could-rightly-be-called false imprisonment...what a lesson for me.  In many ways, that is how I've come to feel about Bush/Cheney...they caused us to regress enough as a nation & we didn't need to do it again (especially with the mess needing to be cleaned up that they left us.) At least, that is my feeling....


    Good line. (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 04:03:00 PM EST
    Being President doesn't change who you are, it reveals who you are.

    Cool video (1.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:29:31 AM EST

    "The government is the only thing we all belong to."

    Pretty sums up how this convention views the citizens, or rather make that the property of the state.


    Oh please (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:41:56 AM EST
    having not even seen the video I don't understand why it's so difficult to accept the idea that we create our government and we all belong to it.  Give me a break.  If you want to go through your whole life receiving services, paying taxes, and enjoying your rights while pretending government has NOTHING to do with it, well have fun on that mindtrip.  Even the Amish vote and pay taxes.  Gawd.

    Though it should be said.... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:50:38 AM EST
    that we have criminalized so many things unnecessarily that ya can't blame some people for looking at the state as the enemy.

    Hard to remember the good the state does sitting in prison for a non-crime, for example.  Or jumping through hoops for state assistance only to find out you're poor but not poor enough with our ridiculous poverty levels.  


    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 12:31:53 PM EST
    I agree with that.  But the idea that we do not belong to our government and vice versa is just silly.  The coins jangling in your pocket don't have your face on them.  Many of us probably traveled today on highways.  We are all clearly agitated by the national election that we are having.  At times the GOP thinks it is unpatriotic to not say we are all one nation, then they sh*t on the very concept when it's convenient.  It is tiresome.

    The Problem... (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 12:52:34 PM EST
    ...the part of government yuou describe, is the part they really like, along with the war monger faction of government.  They only hate, and AAA is one of them, the part that actually helps people.  From regulation to social programs to.

    So while I understand and agree with what you are saying, it's not even close to the context in which AAA is trying to use it.

    And of course the simple fact that roughly half the government is made up of the party that supposedly hates it.  That some how they think they aren't part of it, that it's all liberals doing and the only reason they bother, is to keep in under control, right after they start trillion dollar wars, fund the DoD to have more dollars then the rest of the entire planet combined, and enact a bunch of religiously based laws that invariably get tossed out in court.

    But they hate government.


    I wouldn't make such a sharp (none / 0) (#110)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 12:01:26 PM EST
    dichotomy between the State and the People.

    The people, or many, many of them, pushed for decades for Prohibition after all..

    Our citizenry is still at a loss as to how to deal with the "social order" and "social breakdown" phenomenon..


    I am beyond amused that paraphrasing the (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by Farmboy on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 01:37:47 PM EST
    preamble to this document:

    We the People  of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    has the righties all in a lather because, well, socialism.


    Is this all you've got? (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 12:02:14 PM EST
    Even better night than it seemed.

    You speak for the convention, now? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:53:04 AM EST
    The DNC OKed its showing. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:06:40 AM EST

    If you think that any video shown at either convention did not pass muster with the respective DNC or RNC or the respective presidential campaigns you are naive, misinformed, or willfully ignorant.  

    Who paid and produced is a distraction from who scheduled and approved for national viewing.


    Like I said ... stupid quote (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:09:53 AM EST
    Not as stupid as the wingers trying to spin it, but ...

    BTW - Not tht I even care who approved it, but I have no idea (or evidence) of who did.  Of course, ...

    ... neither do you.


    The DNC (none / 0) (#94)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:46:08 AM EST

    scheduled and approved every video.

    So what if they did (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:04:19 AM EST
    Although you still (as always) have no evidence, so what if they did?

    When wingers like you try to spin this into a claim that he DNC believes that citizens are "the property of the state", it takes "naive, misinformed, or willfully ignorant" to an entirely new level.


    Of course most of that meme (none / 0) (#105)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:33:06 AM EST
    is grounded in rampant paranoia that mainly has it's emotional roots in the 18 and 1960s..

    Gubmint humiliatin' the Great Lost Cause..


    And (3.00 / 2) (#95)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:53:46 AM EST
    it was a fantastic first night. Far better done than any of the three that took place in Tampa.

    Absent a big mistake... (none / 0) (#1)
    by magster on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 08:08:48 PM EST
    ... I expect the convention to put Obama way out in front.

    The Kennedy video left a mark. Whiner Priebus couldn't stay silent about it, thereby drawing more attention to it.

    His name is not Whiner. (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 08:15:41 PM EST
    It's Reince. And if you don't stop being mean to him, he's going to run home and tattle to his mom on you, and then she's going to call your mom, and then boy, oh boy, are you ever going to get it when your father gets home!

    I feel shame... (none / 0) (#4)
    by magster on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:05:15 PM EST
    sorry Prince, I mean Runce err...Renis.

    One thing where I think Michelle (none / 0) (#18)
    by brodie on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:36:09 PM EST
    Obama should have drawn the line with Jimmy Kimmel was the sack race.  She just looks ridiculous.  Otherwise most of the other stuff was ok.

    Gotta say no sometimes.

    Sorry I missed Jared Polis (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 09:48:31 PM EST
    From his remarks:

    "Now is our chance to tell the dividers no, tell the special interests and cynical Washington insiders no, tell the lobbyists and PACs no...And tell our fellow countrymen and women, gay and straight, Christians, Jews, Mormons, Muslims and nonbelievers, rich and poor, black and white, Latino and Asian, east and west, north and south."

    Cute and subtle to list Mormons (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:21:04 PM EST
    separately from Christians.

    Interested to see how... (none / 0) (#41)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:44:07 PM EST
    J-Hick does tomorrow.  Will he totally jettison the independent image he's worked so hard to cultivate or try to walk a fine line?

    He's already said he won't speak ill of Romney or the GOP.


    So....Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:13:46 PM EST
    Did she teach Barack everything she knows about speechifying or what?

    Good thing he does not have to follow immediately! (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:18:15 PM EST
    They just showed a photo (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:21:08 PM EST
    of the Obama girls with their dad watching mom, wow they are growing and growing up so fast.

    Aren't they gorgeous? (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 01:36:15 AM EST
    I'm one of those people who isn't a big fan of President Obama, but I really, really like the guy as a human being. And just like with Chelsea and the Clintons, the manner those girls have and the utter ease they have with both parents tells me something about the humanity of the parents.

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 05:43:55 AM EST
    I don't think anyone would question the fact of how much Obama loves his girls.

    Link to MO's speech? (none / 0) (#35)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 10:28:50 PM EST
    Would be nice up top, as I was talking to Mom and she was distracted because she was watching speech. (Mom's a R CA style). So, I'd like to see what she saw :)

    Here is a link to Michelle's speech. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by caseyOR on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 11:11:33 PM EST
    It is already on YouTube.

    I have found everything I missed today, like the Teddy Kennedy tribute, already posted to YouTube.


    Thank you!!! :) n/t (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 11:15:13 PM EST
    I appreciate BTD sending a photo. But I (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 12:24:00 AM EST
    really wish he and Jeralyn were live-blogging the convention.  

    There is no way I could have live blogged (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:00:08 AM EST
    last night, could you?  It was too everything wonderful about being a Democrat or a Liberal or a Progressive after the bitterness and nastiness that has had to be the tone of everything if we mean to take the impossible and heinous Republican party on.  I need some good endorphins, I can't be the only one.  Maybe the radio will be FABULOUS this morning.

    I just can't listen to this particular radio (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:16:40 AM EST
    broadcast.  Too frustrating to strain to catch what anyone is saying.  

    You are my favorite audiophile (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:19:33 AM EST
    Honestly, my trusted measure of quality sound is the oculus scale :)

    Well, given my hearing, I'm not a very good (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 12:12:10 PM EST
    role model on this particular issue.  

    Fingernails on blackboards don't even (none / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:20:43 AM EST
    register for me :)

    I was surprised by how good Rahm was too (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:49:36 AM EST

    Yes, and Jimmy Carter (none / 0) (#93)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:18:30 AM EST
    was good, too.  

    Competence (none / 0) (#77)
    by vicndabx on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:12:04 AM EST
    On display last night.  Cheesey at times, but it's a convention and to be expected.  As long as cheesey ain't the focus in the next day's news cycle, all is well.

    Dems (none / 0) (#135)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 04:25:20 PM EST
    This actually disgusts me (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 07:13:17 PM EST
    and proves how craven Obama and the Democrats really are.

    From the article:

    CBS News has confirmed that President Obama personally intervened to have the platform language changed.

    They're such unrelenting chickensh*ts!!! And how dishonest, to amend the platform to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel when we have our own embassy in Tel Aviv. And all this "Gawd-given" nonsense just irks to me to no end.


    I'm fine with this (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 10:17:15 AM EST
    I believe if people want a God they should be able to have one, just don't tell me what mine is supposed to be.  They had a floor fight about it too hooray!  We have a party leader, and voting too.  That is as it should be.  And it was done to make it obvious that Romney is not the leader of the Republican party.  He has a different abortion standard than his party, he did not demand a platform change and there was no floor fight.  This was all done for that reason, and nobody can say we are bunch of atheists bordering on Satan worshippers, because I don't think the majority of us are atheists.  We are a mixed ragtag bunch when it comes to God. It also sucks the life out of the fires the Republicans are trying to build to inspire their party.  Get er done.  Fox News is screaming this morning about the military vote, they are trying to say some kind of soldier voter suppression must be taking place because the numbers calling for ballots from their home states is at an all time low.  I'm thinking someone's base in the military is suffering a distinct lack of enthusiasm.  Oh Well, it isn't Obama's base because Bin Laden is dead and he's dragging his feet on military downsizing because it is almost the only money for jobs he can get his hands on and he can't afford for the economy to tank.  Nope, not thinking its Obama's military base suffering much right now.

    I abhor the inclusion of (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by shoephone on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 12:01:59 PM EST
    religion in the platform. It has no place there AT ALL. The platform is a document about party policies, and when the party deems that we only exist and thrive because of the great magical skydaddy, they are excluding Dems who practice no religion (and there are many). It is cloying, craven, and controlling.

    As for the brouhaha over Jerusalem, WTF are we doing talking about some other country's geographical capital in our party platform??? It's insanity to think there is ANY merit to this a$$-kissing of AIPAC.



    I don't believe in a skydaddy (none / 0) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 12:29:31 PM EST
    But others do.  Do you think a majority of us believe in some kind of skydaddy I guess is the bit question for me?  And do they respect my right to not have a skydaddy or have policies that require skydaddy?

    I think a majority say they believe in it (none / 0) (#156)
    by shoephone on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 12:50:52 PM EST
    even if they don't. Athiesm and Agnosticism are not well-received in many regions of the country. And belief in non-Judeo-Christian religions is still viewed with suspicion and outright hostility. So, I also think that a lot of those who do believe in Christianity do not think you should have the same rights as them. Contrary to its stated aims, organized religion often breeds contempt for others. And the Dems courting of -- and cowtowing to -- that group of woman-hating conservatives is really inappropriate, even dangerous.

    Yes (none / 0) (#157)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 02:06:38 PM EST
    Uhhhh...well yeah, I live in that part of the country where being athiest or agnostic is a sin :)  Every now and then they try to save to me, and that requires violating my personal space and my messages.  I do know of what you speak.  I acknowledge, there are dangers with this plank reasoning.

    I'm selling out just a bit so that the Repubes don't have any extra stupid irrational rabid leveraging between now and early November.

    My husband was buying Leadership books on Amazon yesterday.  I almost bought this one for me, but it would likely only make me more NUTS.

    You made me look at it again, so I just bought it.  What's a little more NUTS in the grand scheme?

    Perhaps I could come to understand the essence of and what drives being really really nuts.


    It's what happens when people (none / 0) (#159)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 04:40:05 PM EST
    don't know anything about Leaves of Grass, Bach, or Miles Davis..

    We get Blakes "old Nobodaddy" (He sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake..)