home

Thursday Morning Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:47:18 AM EST
Tags: Guantanamo, detainees (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Things have been a whirlwind online the past two days, between Hillary's win in West Virginia and John Edwards' endorsement of Barack Obama in Michigan.

There are other things going on in the world, such as, the Pentagon is trying to keep the five charged Gitmo Detainees from preparing for their military commission trial with their lawyers. The ACLU has the details.

The American Civil Liberties Union expressed outrage today at the Pentagon's announcement of a June 5 date for the arraignment of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other detainees accused of crimes related to September 11 before all of the defendants have met with their prospective lawyers.

[More...]

According to the Military Commissions Act, defendants must go before the military commission within 30 days of the formal filing of charges. The Pentagon just announced charges against the five detainees yesterday.

Private defense lawyers have signed on and are ready to go. But the Pentagon is delaying their security clearances. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero says,

It is extremely disturbing — though not surprising — that the government is brazenly disregarding the rights of the accused without any consideration for due process. This approach will only add to the illegitimacy of the military commissions, which are inherently unfair, fundamentally flawed and make a mockery of our Constitution and American values. Moreover, the government's failure to provide the necessary clearances to lawyers seeking to represent the Guantánamo detainees prior to arraignment is, predictably enough, another example of its attempt to subvert justice and tip the scales in its favor."

Now what's going on in your neck of the woods? This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Comments now closed.

< Obama, Medical Marijuana and the RNC | The Unity Ticket - The Hard Way >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Thursday Morning Open Thread | 271 comments (271 topical)
    Justice Irrelevant (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by HenryFTP on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:28:00 AM EST
    We're way beyond "procedural technicalities" and the similar litany of radical right complaints over the past 40 years about "coddling criminals". Bush and Cheney and their minions are running pure "show trials" for the 2008 campaign cycle -- it's pretty clear that they don't care at all whether any "convictions" obtained get overturned on appeal, because in all likelihood no appeal will even be heard until after Election Day.

    There is of course no urgency whatsoever to these trials, as we have held the defendants for years and it's highly unlikely that any useful evidence against them has been adduced recently. And it's not as if the Administration has previously paid any attention at all to any notions of the need to give any of these defendants a "speedy trial" in the interests of justice.

    So these trials are entirely theatrical, with a view to scaring the ill-informed more independently minded voters. The Republican base would be perfectly content if the defendants were simply "disappeared" Argentine-style, but Cheney thinks he can scare everybody again with some photo ops of scary-looking Muslims accused of doing scary things. After all, he doesn't need to secure a conviction that sticks, anyway -- he has retained the right to detain the defendants even if they are acquitted.

    If a regular elected prosecutor tried to pull this stunt, he or she would be crucified by the voters at the next election. But Cheney is obviously confident that the tame and complicit media won't point out what he's doing, and likewise confident that the Left will phrase (or have rephrased) its complaints in terms of "civil rights for terrorists" instead of "swift and effective justice to protect us from terrorists".

    Could someone explain to me who are the Republicans to whom we are now supposed to "reach out"? Show me one of their elected officials who has done anything one-tenth as effective as Morris Davis or Keith Allred or Alberto Mora to stand up against this outrageously unAmerican behavior, and maybe I'll reconsider.

    The Idea of America (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:29:03 AM EST
    we grew up with is dead.

    If it were still alive, the people would be in the streets, making their voices heard,

    The democratic pols aren't much better, are they? I love to watch them bluster on the floor and then, roll over for the sake of "bi-partisanship".

    I don't think our problems will be solved with elections, either.

    Where's the outrage?

    Parent

    Outrage got trampled (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:34:01 AM EST
    by the two party system.

    I'm nobody's "base".  Perhaps it is time for me to go officially Independent and Undecided.  I'd do it just to mess with the pollsters and of course, the RNC and the DNC.

    Oh won´t you sign up your name
    We´d like to feel you´re
    Acceptable, respectable, oh presentable, a vegetable!


    Parent
    Yo Fabian (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:37:40 AM EST
    It's me.

    You echo my sentiments, except I'm planning to stay Dem.

    Over the past few months, I've toyed with the idea of going Independent, but I can't quite do it, not yet.

    What I do know is that the supporters have demonstrated to me quite clearly there is no place in their party for me. I fit none of the conveniently narrow categories, nor am I comfortable with an association.

    That said, this isn't such a sea change for me. I was very detached from politics before the invasion of Iraq for a number of reasons - not necessarily apathetic, but detached. Couldn't relate.

    For now, the only person I'm backing is Andrew Rice in Oklahoma, who I think is a simply splendid Dem. As for what I'll do in November, I dunno. And all threats will do is solidify me in my indecision.

    Glad to see you, Fabian!

    Parent

    Hey, a-f-k-a-cookiebear! (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:46:42 AM EST
    I thought you had dropped out, well you did for a while.

    I can barely stand going to the orange place anymore.  Especially after WV, they are busy bashing  the entire population of that state.  At least Ohio was only "racist" and PA was "racist" and "bitter" but WVa is a whole slew of derogatory adjectives.  Once upon a time, I would have tried to defend the state and squelch the memes - but forget it now.  They've shat in their sandbox and I'm not cleaning it up for them.

    Hope Spring is kind to you.  It's good here - got our first tornado siren Sunday.  It must be spring!

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:53:16 AM EST
    that screaming of racism and blaming the voters is going to work real well in Nov. isn't it?

    When are these people going to deal with the reality that being black is the least of Obama's problems?

    Parent

    This place may be biased (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:00:33 AM EST
    but the Great Orange is a hermetically sealed echo chamber.  There's a huge difference.

    There are people (at the GO) who say that Obama did make a mistake, that he should have campaigned there, that he should have reached out - for the sake of symbolism, if not votes.  But alas, they are the minority.  The rest are more than happy to get Obama's back with whatever excuses they can come up with.

    It's great in terms of rallying the troops, but it sucks when it comes to winning the GE.

    Parent

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:48:37 AM EST
    and BTD are biased w/r/t to Democrats to be sure, however, I see more realism here than a lot of other places. BTD at least admits Obama has some huge problems and is one of the few bloggers who realize that the sexism is over the top.

    Parent
    Bias - yes. (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:10:50 AM EST
    Fingers in the ears, singing lalalalala - no.

    I have nothing against bias.  I have something against putting the blinders on and I've never seen BTD or Jeralyn do that.  

    Parent

    I'm outta dKos (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:56:28 AM EST
    I like reading over there sometimes because they're just so freakin' loony!

    But Asinum Asinus Fricat (or is that Asinus Asinum ... ?), Kate and I started an eating blog - http://www.politicook.net - we've snagged that smartypants Translator, and maracatu (or is that maracutu???) will be there as soon as his schedule clears up (he just got tenure track, I believe) and we've snagged others along the way. We're not in competition - we just prefer talking about food and farming and TEOTWAWKI.

    I was glad to find Armando over here - always enjoyed reading him.

    I got to go now - I should have left for work 15 minutes ago, and my hair's wet and I haven't even dressed yet. Thank god we're between semesters!

    More later ...

    Parent

    I bookmarked it. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:05:54 AM EST
    Always loved the food/farming diaries.

    Now when I talk f/f at dk, I have to oh-so-patiently explain the realities of agriculture and fuel prices and so on to those who think that with a wave of the Political Will wand, we can Feed The World.  (I've learned to steer clear of contraception and birth control with the Poli Emo crowd.)

    Parent

    Hey hon... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:48:59 AM EST
    Hugs...

    Parent
    Cookiebear (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:52:04 AM EST
    It's great to see you again. For once it's great to be in a deep red state. My vote won't matter one way or another.

    Parent
    omigosh (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:57:47 AM EST
    How many Kossians are over here?

    I'm psyched to see you, too!

    I got to go to work now, but I'll be back late tonight ...

    Parent

    Many (none / 0) (#51)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:16:16 AM EST
    A lot more than you think. I use to lurk here when Armando came over but early February I actually voiced a opinion, good or bad. I said the other day that I actually get to read all the diaries and comments here where as it got to be, read a diary and first few comments over at the Big Orange. And then it became the Big Obama lovefest too and they did not want to hear anything against Obama. There was only 'one' candidate and he was crowned. I liked him at first too when I was for Edwards, but his supporters, even if not him, made me look at Hillary and I liked what I saw. I also looked at Obama more and did not like what I saw. Anyway, you will see familiar names just like I said, "I remember Cookie Bear." Heh.

    Parent
    Outrage today (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:08:07 AM EST
    is mostly typed in neat little white squares on a blog.

    Real interest is for boob implants, Viagra prescriptions, insults for people that don't agree with you, what Stacy and Clinton think you ought not to wear, who is winning on Dancing with the Stars, American Idol or the Indy 500.

    People being held for years without any concern for their rights? Yawn. American "Justice" having become a travesty? Yawn. Americans torturing prisoners? Yawn.

    And here I am protesting by typing in a neat little white square on a blog.

    I marched and protested back in the day. I fought for civil rights and human rights and for what? I am too old and too tired of losing to fight anymore. And not at all convinced that any of it makes any difference in the long run.  

    Parent

    I agree that things appear to be at a nadir today (1.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jericho4119 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:16:14 AM EST
    Millions of us - and I bet you were one - went to the streets to protest this war in Iraq.  You saw as I did how the media ignored us and instead ran endless series of interviews with military "experts", who were revealed six-years later to be on the payroll of the Department of Defense and were there to parrot presidential talking points.

    All of them: every major TV network, every newspaper, every radio broadcaster was snookered by those pushing for this war and the much larger body of Americans pushing against it were shut out of the discussion.

    And this continues through to today, for the most part.

    But we are continuing to organize.  We are using the tools we have in front of us - even just little white boxes on a blog - to spread our messages as a counterpart to the drums of war.  And we are winning.

    I say we are winning because they are running scared.  Today, Republicans are losing elections in gerrymandered districts in which it should be impossible for them to ever face defeat.  Remember Henry Hyde, the former Nixon press aide and lead prosecutor in the impeachment of Bill Clinton (as if there was no Nixonian retribution in his actions)?  His seat is now a Democratic one.  And in the Democratic primary, each of the candidates who voted for this war has been run out of the race (Biden, Edwards, Dodd) one by one and the only one left is Senator Clinton.  She has garnered enough votes to shape the Democratic Party convention plank, but she has not garnered the support of a majority of voters.

    She will not be able to continue this war she voted to start and she will not be able to start a war against Iran, regardless of her Senate vote to call a portion of the Iranian government - the Revolutionary Guards - a terrorist organization.

    Sanity is returning to our politics at the same time - and because of - the actions of an electorate that will not simply bow our heads in silence, in deference to those who profess leadership and demonstrate it not.

    Parent

    Bull (5.00 / 0) (#247)
    by Mrwirez on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:21:18 AM EST
    Caucuses in RED states do not show any clear winner. Obama will lose, and the activist, extreme left will be responsible for us MODERATE Democrats misery... AGAIN, for not running the strongest candidate.  The winner of CA, NY, NJ, PA, OH, WV, TX, FL, MI, IN, AZ, NV, NM, (in spite of Judas), KY, AR, TN, OK, NH.... Thats the math that counts, 300 + in electoral college delegates. If I was a bettin' man I'd take her map hands down!!

    It is pretty clear racial nadir is a two way street. 92% of AA's voting for Obama? .....nothing racist there huh?? The Democrats can not win a presidential campaign with AA's, bloggers, and web designers. Your argument does not hold water. Also the NY Senator was covering all her bases according to the twisted data presented by the CIA and the Republican leadership, especially after 9-11 in NY. Clinton, after all, did not order the troops into Iraq.

    Remember Al Gore and the most votes?? Same results and you will be saying whaaa happened??? How did this happen again, but all that hope and the change? why. why. why.. Then Mrs Clinton will run again in 2012 and win after another McBush term.
    -Just say No to McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry.....Just say no to Obama!!

    After all the votes are in, Mrs. Clinton will have MORE total votes in the end.

    Parent

    Good people I know are dropping out and taking up (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by BGP on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:17:39 AM EST
    subsistence farming, working on developing local economic units. They've given up on national politics.

    I had hopes that Hillary, because she is a policy wonk, would initiate things, get things done, maybe not all to the good but at least to break this awful stasis we seem to be in.

    I'm not so sure about Obama. He doesn't really seem to be a do-er and I can't believe that he's going to move Mitch McConnell through inspiration. I see four more years of drifting with him but I hope I'm wrong.

    BTW, I am from Kentucky and didn't get here in time to say in the earlier threads that both Lexington and Louisville are college towns and liberal enclaves in an otherwise conservative state. Lexington even has an openly gay state senator. However I have seen very few signs around for either Hillary or Obama. Don't know what that means.

    Maybe low turnout, though we have a state senate race going on, too. But nobody's gonna beat McConnell so people may not be too fired up about that.

    Our AG (Republican but a good guy I think) said turnout maybe 20%, which would be 10% higher than last election.

    The Cincinnati suburbs are, well, basically nutcase country. That's the congressional district that elected Geoff Davis of the infamous "boy" statement. The creation museum is up there.

    Parent

    thanks for the KY update (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Kathy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:29:44 AM EST
    Isn't school out now, though?  (I mean college/university).  What about Ft Knox and the military folks--any idea which way they are leaning?  Can't see Tank Schoolers going for Obama.

    From my recollection of KY, other than that Lexington is beautiful and has a great college radio station, they are private folk, so I'm not surprised about the lack of yard signs.  Or, could be neighborhood restrictions?  I'm fairly certain that the Wright thing won't play well there, and it seems really, really stupid for Obama's folks to be sending out a flier that reminds anyone of his religion.  I know he is trying to counter the idiotic muslim rumor, but I'm not sure who thought it was wise to open up a conversation, yet again, about Obama's choice of pastor.

    I think your AG is one of the ones who signed on against the Siegelman prosecution, so he can't be that bad.

    Parent

    Fort Knox (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by BGP on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:41:19 AM EST
    is out of my sphere -- I'm pretty much Central, Northern in territory -- but I can say that the further west you get in the state, the redder it gets with the exception of Louisville, which is big enough to have its own voting district. And even Louisville had a Republican Congresswoman for many years. Her name slips my mind right now.

    The Democrat who seems set to win the senatorial primary isn't much better than Mitch in politics and would have a lot less power. Mitch brings home the bacon and that translates to votes. Not mine. Just sayin'

    Parent

    another anti-gay, anti-choice dem? (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Kathy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:49:00 AM EST
    Please tell me no.  I'm not sure why we are enlisting folks who are democrat in name only.  I know it helps get our folks in leadership positions, but what's the point of having leadership who can't count on dems voting for dem projects?  We've got dem leaders in the senate and cogress now who can't get a dang thing done.

    I just don't recognize the dem party anymore.  I had a brief lift when Rahm Emanuel spoke out against Kennedy's stupid and sexist Clinton smear, but that was ages ago in the scheme of things.

    I have been phone banking in KY since WVA, and there seem to be fewer people who answer the phone, but the majority of them I have spoken to say they are voting Clinton.  No one has mentioned Edwards' endorsement and I haven't asked.

    Parent

    Oh, yes, school is out (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by BGP on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:45:19 AM EST
    students mostly gone home.

    Parent
    And (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by koshembos on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:07:15 AM EST
    then you have China and Burma, renewed civil war in Lebanon, the Iraq massacre continues and more.

    Obama was a done deal way back and even huge victories for Hillary in Oregon and other states couldn't change the party's narrative. The party that gave Bush everything he wished for is incapable of resisting Obama's mental violence.

    Obama is a very dangerous candidate; I am worried for the country. The party is by now accustomed to body blows and is hobbling along.

    Edwards was like a decent composer who cannot play the piano worth a leak. His political agenda was excellent, but his communicating it was lousy. that's the reason he had no following. Just a smiling Kucinich. His something like there is one man who can create a one America and he is Obama is right. It's Obama way or the highway.

    I'm really starting to feel (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by Grace on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:57:22 AM EST
    like I didn't leave the Democrat party but the party left me.  

    I don't like the direction the presidential race is going.  I want something concrete, not "hope" and "change."  

    Unfortunately, this race is started to make me feel like I was cheated out of something that I wanted.  "Accept no substitutions" yet they are offering me a generic president, one created out of synthetic 21st Century materials designed to look and feel like the real thing yet destined to leave a funky aftertaste and be less filling.    

    Parent

    Same here, I didn't leave the Dems, (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:08:51 AM EST
    they threw me under the bus. And road rash isn't the way to get my vote, it really isn't! I want a party that cares about and works for the same things I do, not one that is willing to back the newest, shiniest, least qualified candidate just because it makes THEM feel better about themselves. They aren't supposed to be about themselves, they are supposed to be about US. They aren't anymore, and that's why they lost me. I am going to write in Hillary if she doesn't get the nomination. Then I am going to register as an Independent. If the Democrats want my vote, they are going to have to prove they are worthy of it. Since Bill Clinton ran, they haven't.

    Parent
    Dangerous (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:36:26 AM EST
    The danger that is Obama is that poeple, people that I thought had some critical thinking skills, abdicate that thinking into the vessel that is Obama.  They attribute virtues in him that he does not posses, then they abdicate their duties as citizens and critical thinkers.  

    It sort of goes like this:  Obama looks and talks like what I think is virtues.  Obama must be virtues.  Everything Obama does is virtues. Therefore, everything he does and will do is virtuous.  Therefore, I can sit back and not think and just let him take care of everything.  

    This is the danger that is Obama, combined with the power he is amassing and the MSM support.  


    Parent

    But we're building a religion, and making a brand (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ellie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:09:52 AM EST
    Comfort Eagle Politics.

    Can't attribute the orig. poster of this link about the Obama campaign (set to Comfort Eagle by Cake.)

    Parent

    What makes Obama a dangerous candidate? (none / 0) (#60)
    by jericho4119 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:21:18 AM EST
    Is it is opposition to launching wars of indeterminate cost and length in search of unspecified goals and absent the presence of a threat?

    Or is it his unwillingness to partake in the senseless name-calling that occurs through resolutions declaring this country or that one a terrorist nation?

    Or maybe it is because of his preference for diplomacy and dialogue over antagonism and attacks?

    Parent

    Ha1 and double Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:26:09 AM EST
    Or maybe it is because of his preference for diplomacy and dialogue over antagonism and attacks?

    You mean pandering and monologues maybe?

    And now he's got "sweetie" to add to "bitter...clinging".

    (Calling people "cute" names...must. resist. Bush. comparison.)

    Parent

    Diplomacy and dialogue? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:29:47 AM EST
    Well, we've really seen that in this campaign, haven't we, sweetie?

    Parent
    That's an evil thought. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:42:28 AM EST
    Address every reply to a troll: "Hey, Sweetie".

    I'm sure they'll take it as a term implying the utmost respect and deference.

    Parent

    So I am a troll here? (none / 0) (#125)
    by jericho4119 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:00:08 AM EST
    Simply because I support Obama?

    Parent
    Well, he certainly doesn't mind (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:20:37 AM EST
    voting to fund
    wars of indeterminate cost and length
    . And he wasn't in the Senate to vote when the war started, and he probably would have been as fooled by the doctored intelligence reports as the rest of Congress was. He thinks the war is wrong, but doesn't mind voting to fund it, with borrowed money. And his idea of diplomacy is ridiculous. No world leader is going to take him seriously, he simply doesn't understand, or care about, the protocols of diplomatic communication. And those protocols are important to other people, whether Obama cares about them or not. Blowing them off won't earn him any points with the governments of other nations. And Obama seems to forget, like Bush has forgotten, that the President doesn't do the deal, Congress does. All the President, and the State Dept., do is handle the negotiations. And negotiations are done on lots of levels, not just the top level. So if Obama thinks he is going to sit down and talk to heads of state or heads of movements without any involvement by others, he should think again. He can talk all he wants, but in the end it not in his purview to make the deal. That is up to Congress. And after a few months of drivel oozing out of the White House, I doubt Congress will be in a mood to accommodate him.

    Parent
    You do realize that Obama had been for (none / 0) (#62)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:23:48 AM EST
    calling Hamas a terrorist organization before he was against it, right?

    Parent
    Fox News reports a Hamas endorsement . . . (none / 0) (#129)
    by jericho4119 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:02:37 AM EST
    . . . and the liberal blogosphere goes wild?

    But in a larger sense: should we not talk to Hamas?

    Are they not the elected leaders of the Gaza Strip - which is just celebrating it's 60th year as a "refugee camp".

    Warning: the above positions are my own and in no way represent the positions of Barack Hussein Obama.

    Parent

    imagine if they endorsed (none / 0) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:07:37 AM EST
    Hillary.


    Parent
    Yes, re Obama's Hamas as terrorist organization (none / 0) (#185)
    by andrys on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:36:39 AM EST
    I read that The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, which Obama co-sponsored on April 24, 2007, states that:
    "The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism)."


    Parent
    Bomb Pakistan = Diplomacy And Dialogue? n/t (none / 0) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:50:41 AM EST


    Parent
    Ssh! I don't think we're supposed to remember that (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by kempis on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:30:46 AM EST
    The bombing Pakistan thing doesn't fit the narrative of Obama as Gandhi Jr.

    Just like his attacks on Hillary ("WalMart board," "anything to win," etc) don't fit the narrative of Obama as the practitioner of a new politics that "uplifts" rather than "tears down."

    Just like his cluelessness about what his pastor believed negates the story that he's a devoted churchgoer--and his pastor's rants contradict the narrative that Obama is a "post-racial" candidate.

    Just like his smirk last night when his crowd booed Hillary as Edwards praised her contradicts the line that he's rising above petty, partisan bickering. This is no Gandhi, no MLK, no JFK, no RFK. Without a teleprompter, he's increasingly GWB, without a nap.

    Obama's narrative is lovely but his reality is all over the map. It's going to get worse as the GE gets under way and more and more people see that he's not who their projections made them think he was.

    What is he? An old time, snake oil selling, Chicago machine-backed politician who will say anything, do anything, to get elected. He's Hillary without the mental toughness, the policy wonkishness, and the depth of executive experience--and I might add without the honesty; Hillary at least does not pretend not to associate with lobbyists or play hardball. I have no sense of what this guy's core values are. I know what he says they are, but those are vague buzzwords, and his actions seems to contradict even those.

    And he's stupidly left himself open to  some attacks on the right ( Wright, Ayers) because of his associations while he climbed the political ladder in Chicago. His hamartia is his "vaulting ambition" and I think it's about to "o'erleap itself."

    Parent

    So we are not supposed to attack people who . . . (none / 0) (#132)
    by jericho4119 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:04:12 AM EST
    . . . have attacked us?

    UBL is going to walk away from the scene of the crime, directly because our national media bought the spin that a war in Iraq was a better use of our lives, our money and our time.

    How is that one working out?

    Parent

    Mark Dann, OH AG resigns (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:26:42 AM EST
    under threat of impeachment.

    Yay, OHIO!  Go Buckeye Legislators!

    Jeralyn, can I have an official comment please?

    This is BIG to me.  Years of abuse from the Bush administration.  Years of total bullcr@p from AG Alberto Gonzales.  And what do we get?  One belated resignation of the AG, a trickle of other resignations and still, practically no accountability.

    Ohio has a scandal break, and boom! in mere weeks, the Governor and Legislator force the AG out under the threat of impeachment.  That's accountability.  I'm sure the elections had something to do with it - but...Rummy didn't get shown the door until after the 2006 elections, the Ohio GOP never took action even as scandal after scandal broke.  That cost them.

    Put this state on a pedestal!  I'm going to send a message of congratulations to Strickland and a snide reminder to Nancy Pelosi.  You want to see leadership, Nancy?  Come to Ohio, because D.C is fresh out.

    Still unresolved:
    Who will be appointed to fill the AG slot?
    Will the investigation continue?

    Links (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:38:10 AM EST
    Wikipedia(always amazing how fast wiki get updated)

    Toledo Blade
    Ever since Noe, T-Blade has been my Ohio e-link of choice.  Good website too.

    Parent

    Now if we could get Kwame to go! (n/t) (none / 0) (#121)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:57:52 AM EST


    Parent
    Hillary did an interview (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Iris on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:27:03 AM EST
    with Fox News, and it can be viewed here.

    You know.... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Mrwirez on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:16:26 AM EST
    this whole John Edwards endorsement is like Obama, all fluff and no substance. Bill press discussed this early this morning on his radio show. "It again shows John Edwards has no backbone." It would have meant more in March or even February when it would have mattered. He chose the "safe" choice. Did anyone notice Elizabeth Edwards was not there?? She voted for Clinton..... lol. Bill Press also said if Obama would choose Edwards as a running mate it would be political suicide... I'm paraphrasing, in the end his endorsement probably does not mean too much.

    Imo, I just hate wimps and opportunists, John Edwards is anything but tough or a champion of labor. He did not even carry his birth state SC, or his Senatorial state of NC for John Kerry.

     Having slept on all the events of the last couple of days....I was considering not voting in November, but that is not cool, the down ballot candidates need our support, and I just can't vote for McCain or Nader. I am actually considering Ron Paul if he is on the ballot in November. I am a tad pissed at Obama for even running this cycle. I am not sure I would vote for BO even if he would ask HRC to be his running mate. My work buddies feel the same, but I think many of them are leaning McCain

    I don't know about down-ticket Dems (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by honora on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:06:28 AM EST
    This is becoming so hard, but what if we refused to vote for any Dem this year.  If we give the Dems the House and Senate, that means that Pelosi, Kerry and Kennedy get what they want.  I am thinking that tough love is the way I will go this year.  I think that the Dems need 'shock' therapy or they will never take women and our contributions seriously.

    Parent
    The Problem..... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Mrwirez on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:41:38 AM EST
    Is I don't think Obama can win, as bad as times are, I think WV showed certain states will not vote for him. PA, OH, FL imo will go McCain. I don't know where you are from but here in PA people are afraid of Obama for many reasons here are a few I hear in PA.

    1- Other than NC with 33% AA voters, Obama has not won a state since Reverend Wright made a greatest hits tape.

    2-He does not seem overly Labor friendly, I think there is a real   disconnect here.

    3-That Hamas "endorsement" is very bad

    4-Bittergate and God had a huge effect

    5-I hate to say it but his race does play in

    Parent

    The race effect (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:05:18 AM EST
    is largely intransigent.  The same for the gender effect for Clinton.  So strike those voters out.

    The rest of the factors are in play.  Obama can reinvent himself, he can focus on the issues, he can figure out ways to neutralize some problems.

    Will he?
    Obama thus far has proven to be stubborn, not flexible.  He's a champion panderer, but he panders to one group at the expense of others, sometimes blatantly.

    None of Obama's strategic weaknesses are fatal by themselves, but they make him vulnerable.  It would be one thing if Obama's strengths were more than a match for his flaws, but I don't see that.  I think Obama is dying for Clinton to drop out because her strengths are in stark contrast to his weakneeses.

    Hillary can reach out to and connect with voters.  Obama can't.
    Hillary does issues well.  Obama avoids them.
    Hillary shows a firm grasp of policy and details.  Obama?  Let's not go there.

    In other words, Obama looks so much better when he's not standing next to Clinton.  It's one reason I think that he'll be resistant offering her the VP.

    Parent

    funny (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:25:40 AM EST
    because 47.6% of the voters must have felt something reaching out to them, or was that a wayward doctor?

    Parent
    2000 & 2004 showed that emo voters (none / 0) (#71)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:28:52 AM EST
    make up a significant voting block.

    Obama reinforces the idea.

    Parent

    Im fine with letting the Obama campaign (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:58:14 AM EST
    make it on their own.
    but we need the congress.  we can always get rid of Pelosi and the other losers but I agree with the other poster that Obama is toast and the congress is the only fire wall we are going to have.
    if we dont have that we are truly screwed.
    not that the democrats in congress have been profiles in courage or anything the last few years.
    but I think the ONLY good thing about an Obama candidacy is that hopefully he will bring out enough voters for us to do well in the congressional elections in many places we might not other wise.

    Parent
    The key (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:01:36 AM EST
    here is how successfully these candidates separate themselves from Obama though. Perhaps if they all throw Obama under the bus they will have a better chance of winning and picking up votes like Childers did.

    Parent
    That's going to be hard to do (none / 0) (#258)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:31:45 AM EST
    after they give him their votes as SDs, don't you think?? "Yes, we voted to give you an incompetent President, yes, we campaigned for him, yes, we gobbled up his cash for our campaigns, but now we disown him because the voters don't like that we did that." Oh yeah, that'll fly..snicker.

    Parent
    Congress (none / 0) (#42)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:09:26 AM EST
    will not end the war in Iraq.  If McCain is elected the war will go on.

    Parent
    it will go on if (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:11:11 AM EST
    Obama is elected also.

    Parent
    It would be a miracle if Obama won (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by andrys on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:42:54 AM EST
    I will vote the lower ticket to help in controls on McCain.

    Parent
    exactly (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:46:54 AM EST
    its not that miracles dont happen.  just not good to count on them in an important election.

    Parent
    Press was funny this morning (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:15:05 AM EST
    I don't usually find him so outspoken (or amusing), but he said Edwards as VP candidate would be a catastrophic mistake, or words to that effect.  I'd have to agree.  It would be almost like re-running the 2004 election, except with a candidate who can nudge the AA and youth turnout up a tad. That's not my idea of expanding the electorate.

    Parent
    I thought Kerry was a terrible candidate (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:20:58 AM EST
    and I think ultimately Obama will be worse.  in terms of states won.
    it would be like running the 04 campaign again without the war hero stuff to fall back on.


    Parent
    Yup, that too (none / 0) (#204)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:51:33 AM EST
    Bad idea on all levels.  why would we want any reminder of 2004 on the ticket?

    Parent
    Why is it that the Edwards endorsement of Obama (2.00 / 0) (#65)
    by jericho4119 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:24:45 AM EST
    Is being treated as a non-issue, when had he endorsed Clinton, it would have been portrayed as yet one more key Democrat who rejects the Obama nomination?

    Edwards is just a politician who made a decision; no more and no less.

    The fact that he is choosing to line up with the prospective nominee and not fight a dangerous and bloody nomination battle, says positive things about party unity, no?

    Parent

    The only part of the Edwards endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Anne on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:32:02 AM EST
    that's a big deal is that there is a pretty significant disconnect between Obama's positions on health care, energy and consumer issues.  Ideologically, Edwards is more in tune with Clinton, and yet he chose to endorse Obama.

    I sent Edwards an e-mail message, before I opted out of receiving any more e-mails from him, that expressed my disappointment with his endorsement, in light of the disconnect mentioned above, and closed that e-mail by saying that I was glad to know what a mailing list was going for these days.

    Had he endorsed Clinton, I would not expect it to have much effect on the race, but I think it would have been a more principled choice; choosing principle over political expediency is an admirable trait deserving of respect - an action that may have done more to raise Edwards' credibility in this process than anything else.  Edwards did not, in my opinion, elevate his stature by endorsing Obama; it looked desperate on Obama's part and craven on Edwards'.

    C'est la vie, though.  My Edwards bumper sticker came off the car this morning - can't stand the idea that people would think it now means that I support Obama.  Which I most emphatically do not.


    Parent

    She has not lost yet (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by barryluda on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:08:03 AM EST
    iago states (in a prior, closed thread):

    There are no reasonable mathematics which give her the nomination.

    You're wrong iago.  As I explain in my prior post, it's a long shot but Clinton still has a real chance.

    In terms of the mathematics, it's even easier:  Every Super Delegate -- for whatever reason -- decides to switch their vote to Clinton.  If that happens (and it can happen at any time up to the convention) then Clinton wins.

    Now, when we start to talk about Obama's chances to win the GE, every idiotic comment by Obama's "friends" makes it just a little more difficult for Obama to beat McCain (should Obama go on from here to win the nomination).  So I really wish my fellow Obama supporters on here would grow up.

    I'm much more interested in beating McCain in November than whether it's Clinton or Obama (or both) who do it.

    Obama's effort to make it look (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Iris on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:18:32 AM EST
    like he's 'moving on' to the general election is part of the fake-out.  All Hillary needs to do is hang in there and keep pressing her case.  In the meantime, we should probably be reminding as many people as we can that Obama slid by the question of 'experience' and that the party leaders and elected oficials (i.e. superdelegates) need to be asking themselves who is the best choice to be not just the nominee, but the next President and the de facto leader of the Democratic Party.

    Parent
    no one is trying to push Hillary out of the race (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Josey on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:59:21 AM EST
    they're trying to humiliate her out.
    Disgusting!


    Parent
    fortunately (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:10:45 AM EST
    attempts to humiliate the Clintons have been made by professionals.

    Parent
    Yeah, but the Clintons are used to that (5.00 / 0) (#262)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:37:06 AM EST
    and the GOP was much better at it than the Dems are and the Clintons survived that just fine. Compared to Obama, the Clintons are bullet-proof. Heh.

    Parent
    They sound (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:53:56 AM EST
    just like Karl Rove and his rantings about the math. Well, right now the math says that Obama will lose the general election.

    Parent
    I love his response to the electoral map (none / 0) (#197)
    by andrys on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:47:29 AM EST
    When it shows to be not very likely that he will beat McCain but that Hillary would have a much easier time of it, he then decides to create a "new map" for his "new politics" and his logic is to say that he did well with some Dems in unrepresentative caucuses (but not so well in their beauty contest primaries that had triple the participation) and he can pull many Repubs and Independents over in a General Election.  This is vapid and suicidal.  Especially post-Wright/Rezko/Ayers/Young et al.

    Parent
    Senator Obama has discovered. . . (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by NotThatStupid on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:03:14 AM EST
    ... the thing that a long string of similar, and similarly unelectable, candidates - Stevenson, McGovern, Kennedy, Dukakis, Kerry - 'learned' from their defeats:

    The elites don't need a better message, the party needs better voters.

    The only difference is that, this time, they've got the party leaders buying into that rubbish even before they lose the election.

    (BTW: I'm still interested in knowing if anyone here thinks there would be a case for a class action suit - on behalf of the elderly, infirm, military and other out-of-state people, two-job parents, etc. - against the national and state parties that run caucus primaries, on the grounds that they are discriminatory. Not to correct this election, but to fix the problem for future elections.)

    Should Be Pursued (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by Athena on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:20:17 AM EST
    I raised this issue here some months ago - whether the caucuses are ADA-compliant.  Seems that the physical venue may meet ADA norms, but that should not end the inquiry.

    The format of the event makes it physically impossible for every willing voter to participate - it is certainly not in the SPIRIT of the ADA - and that should remove caucuses as part of the Dem nominating process.

    It is definitely worth pursuing.  No doubt that caucuses disadvantaged some of Hillary's strongest demographics - i.e., elderly.

    2008 should be the last year for caucuses.

    Parent

    I'm no lawyer, but I think that's a great idea. (none / 0) (#45)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:11:07 AM EST


    Parent
    Kerry Obama (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:24:03 AM EST
    I have met Senator Kerry and Obama, Mr. Obama is no Mr. Kerry. Do you know how to tell the difference? Close your eyes and listen to each of them speak. When you wake up several hours later, that was the Kerry tape. when you get excited or pissed in 10 minutes, that would be Obama.

    Parent
    You (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:40:47 AM EST
    haven't seen his town halls where he drones on then. Obama can give a better speech than Kerry but that's about it.

    Parent
    sure i have (2.00 / 0) (#103)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:44:44 AM EST
    cspan runs 24 hours and sometimes i do too. You have not watched Hillary in town hall meetings, I have never been able to stay awake through an entire Hillary town hall. Guess that you and I have different tastes in speeches, imagine that.

    Parent
    It's the (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:50:37 AM EST
    ums and the stuttering from Obama that I can't stand. I guess it doesn't bother you.

    Parent
    Since Obama voted for CAFA (none / 0) (#210)
    by andrys on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:56:15 AM EST
    No, successful consumer class action suits are quite improbable now, as he was driven to 'reform' the process so there would not be so much "abuse" of corporations etc.  He tends to vote in unexpected ways.

    Parent
    KY make or break for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:18:20 AM EST
    Now that Obama has Edwards on his side, there is no excuse for not closing the gap in KY. If Obama has any hope in the GE, he will work hard to close the gap, with Edwards by his side every daay, and he will bring it down to under a 10 point gap. If he can't, my feeling is that there is no hope whatsoever that he can win in November.
    Edwards could have helped him get 7% more (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by andrys on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:57:15 AM EST
    in West Virginia.  So he would have lost there by only 67 to 33 instead of 67-26.


    Parent
    Kind of like (5.00 / 2) (#228)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:09:55 AM EST
    Bush dumping Rummy after the 2006 elections were over instead of months before, when it could have saved some GOP butt.

    It's like
    "Oh, would you look at that!  Edwards didn't campaign and didn't advertise and he still got 7%.  Quick, let's get him on board now that he's proven a valuable political commodity!".

    Like I said: capitalist relativism.

    Parent

    I would disagree (none / 0) (#276)
    by interestedcanuck on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:35:02 PM EST
    I think a big chunk of that 7% would have gone to Senator Clinton.

    They were protest votes againt Senator Obama not votes for John Edwards

    Parent

    Yes, (none / 0) (#57)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:20:45 AM EST
    if he doesn't get a twenty point bump from the endorsement of a failed candidate with a whole week to campaign...

    Parent
    still make or break (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:28:19 AM EST
    I agree it's not much time. And it's a bit much to ask perhaps. But if Obama can't show some progress with his problem, then he's toast in the GE.

    Parent
    OK, John (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Athena on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:21:56 AM EST
    Since Edwards stomped on Hillary's WV victory, let him deliver KY for Obama.

    Otherwise - why did he suddenly show up?

    Parent

    There is absolutely no margin . . . (none / 0) (#88)
    by jericho4119 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:39:14 AM EST
    For the presumed presidential nominee to lose a primary election in KY will be portrayed by the media and by Clinton partisans as just one more reason why Obama should not be the nominee - regardless of whether it is by 10-points or by 40-points.

    Look at what has happened just this week?  WV has been put forward as a sign that working-class, white voters will not support Obama - which must be news to those coastal elites in Wisconsin and Missouri and Iowa.  

    How is it that Kennedy is said to have won Wisconsin because of the Catholic voters, but Obama is said not to be able to relate to Catholic voters - even though he won that state 58% to 41%.?

    Obama skipped WV because it would have been more embarrassing to have attempted to compete and still lost big - which was bound to happen with the short time period he had to introduce himself to voters - something the former First Lady does not have to do.  And while he may spend more time in KY than he did in WV, he should focus on OR as that will put him over the top with the majority of the pledged delegates.

    At this stage of the nomination process, he can do no more than capture that - FWIW.

    Parent

    50 state what? (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:47:16 AM EST
    Aren't we down to 47 states now?

    No FL
    No Mi
    No WV - although I'm sure the media was glad to take his money.

    Parent

    What ever happened to . . . (2.00 / 0) (#136)
    by jericho4119 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:06:05 AM EST
    . . . you can't win 'em all?

    Michigan and Florida made their bed; why should they not lie in it?

    A rule that has no penalty does not exist.

    Parent

    What did West Virginia do? (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:14:11 AM EST
    Obama acted like the entire state was off his radar.

    Parent
    This is embarassingly wrong (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by angie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:08:00 AM EST
    You wrote:
    Obama skipped WV because it would have been more embarrassing to have attempted to compete and still lost big - which was bound to happen with the short time period he had to introduce himself to voters

    Um, no -- he is running for President of the United States of America -- that included WV -- no matter how huge the obstacle, he should have tried.  That is what I expect from a President -- trying his best despite the odds of success. How am I supposed to trust him to handle urgent & precarious world affairs if he is going to not try because there "isn't enough time to introduce himself."
    Furthermore, the meme that he blew WV off is bs -- he poured a lot of $ & resources in that state, and still got his clocked clean.
    Under either scenario, WV was an embarrassing failure for Obama.

    Parent

    That is a lie (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:09:22 AM EST
    He did not "skip the state," he outspent Clinton 2-to-1, adn still got his a** handed to him. Don't spread lies here.

    Parent
    So on the one hand . . . (1.00 / 0) (#159)
    by jericho4119 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:17:53 AM EST
    . . . he is condemned for not making as many visits to the state - WV - as Clinton did and on the other hand, he is condemned for spending more money in the state than Clinton did.

    Hmmm.

    Anyway . . . HRC took off the entire month of February and more or less stated that those 11 contests did not count as they were "red" states.  I have seen posters here on this thread today comment that "Obama is not going to win those red states" in the general election.

    So - just so I understand the rules - let me sum up:

    1.  Only states that HRC wins should count for determining the nominee.

    2.  Any state that holds a caucus is inherent biased against HRC-voters and pro-Obama voters, so all caucus results should be ignored.

    3.  Primary results should be ignored too - if they include "too many" African American voters.

    Are there more, or does that capture everything?

    Parent
    I'm still waiting for an answer (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by angie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:29:19 AM EST
    Please, tell me how I am supposed to trust him to be President when he runs away from difficult situations? Isn't the entire job of the President to face up to difficult situations?

    Parent
    Oregon, not Kentucky, (none / 0) (#133)
    by riddlerandy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:04:33 AM EST
    will be the story.  Along with all the supers that have come over to Obama since WV

    Parent
    One poll I would like to see. Just curious (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Saul on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:19:29 AM EST
    I do not think Obama would be the front runner today if all the controversial information on Obama, or what we know now about Obama had come out in December of 07.

    These controversies came too late to help Hilary but they are a realty and the voting, especially the white vote would be totally  different today than it was in December, January and February and I believe if the voting was re done today Hilary would be the front runner.  

    The supers should consider this since the controversies will play a significant role in the GE.

    Maybe Maybe not (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:21:14 AM EST
    but it surprises me that he stayed the front runner after what i felt were less convincing debate appearances. Rev Wright controversy is a flippin joke, losing more debates than winning should be more of a litmus test.

    Parent
    I wish we could redo February (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:27:26 AM EST
    It is his caucus victories in red states in Feb that have put him in the lead. Nothing more than that.  The SDs have to ask themselves if that warrants giving someone the nomination.  It is rank insanity, IMHO.

    Parent
    Hillarys campaign (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:31:30 AM EST
    made a huge mistake by assuming that the press would do their job on the Wright issue.  the press ignored it as long as they possibly could.  I believe they ignored it BECAUSE they knew the earlier it came out the more it could change things.
    the campaign should have gotten it out themselves whatever it took around the time I started getting emails about it which was three or four months before the media took it up.

    Parent
    Hillary could not take on an (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:35:05 AM EST
    african american preacher. She had no choice but to lay up on that. That was a big no win for her.

    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:36:13 AM EST
    of course hindsight is 20-20 but what did it gain them by waiting.  they are losing and she was blamed for it anyway.
    they should have done it.  
    Bill would have.


    Parent
    Hillary's mistake was the caucus (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:40:02 AM EST
    states.  Big and simple.  They fell asleep at the wheel.  Her team is to blame.  But I guess no one will make that mistake again.  Obama's advantage was playing the race card and locking in the AA vote for those faux big wins in southern states.  He only could have locked it in if he made Hillary a racist.  That is why I am convinced, the Obama campaign strategy was that all along.  Just listen to the radio and the left right now, they are repeating such drivel.  

    Parent
    I don't want a commander in chief (1.00 / 0) (#94)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:42:24 AM EST
    whose staff is asleep at the wheel

    Parent
    we have had that for 8 years (none / 0) (#96)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:42:37 AM EST


    Parent
    Bush ran 2 flawless campaigns (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:48:49 AM EST
    It was not indicative at all of how he ran the country.  Totally different skill set involved.

    Parent
    Anyone who needs "handlers" (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:02:54 AM EST
    is probably not a good choice.

    Parent
    So Obama played the "race card" (1.00 / 0) (#143)
    by jericho4119 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:09:43 AM EST
    . . . by getting Billy Shaheen to pull comments about past drug use from Obama's autobiography in NH?

    . . . by getting Bob Johnson to do the same in SC?

    . . . by getting Bill Clinton to wave dismissively at SC because, "Jesse won here too"?

    . . . and by getting GF to say that Obama was just "lucky to be born black"?

    Any campaign that can put all of those words in the mouths of its opposition is a good campaign.

    Parent

    the Obama campaign has played the race (5.00 / 0) (#186)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:38:09 AM EST
    card at every opportunity and I expect them to try to continue.  the problem they are going to have is that the voters in the general are not nearly as susceptible to guilt as democratic primary voters.
    every instance you site, every single one, were true statements.  just wait till the republicans get started.  they wont bother with truth and they wont be guilt tripped.
    btw
    which of those statements were not true?

    Parent
    I should say (none / 0) (#188)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:39:39 AM EST
    which of the statements that you completely misrepresented, in true Obaman form, is not true.

    Parent
    Whatever! (5.00 / 0) (#275)
    by felizarte on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:10:29 AM EST
    If Hillary is not the nominee, it is McCain for me.  Obama is not as experienced as McCain and McCain is at least honest with his views.  And I am sure that McCain loves this country and will do what is right.  His life experiences, his sense of honor appeals to me.  Those are the same personal qualities I find in Clinton.  Obama dioesn't even come close to these two other than being a democrat.

    So the day that Clinton does not get the nomination, I have resolved to be independent and so will be my family.  People like us are Obama's problem. Big Time.  

    Parent

    Not going to work here (none / 0) (#165)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:23:03 AM EST
    you'll never convince some people.

    Parent
    that was another (none / 0) (#162)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:21:39 AM EST


    Parent
    Not worth it (none / 0) (#90)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:40:46 AM EST
    not a big enough issue, and not worth the backlash. She was the overwhelming favorite going into this thing and her campaign was crapola the first few months. To be losing to a freshman senator who performed poorly in most debates is demonstrative of a poorly run campaign.

    Parent
    I will agree with you there (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:44:12 AM EST
    They made huge mistakes at the beginning, and the country will pay the price unless the SDs grow a spine.

    Parent
    no (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:14:39 AM EST
    the campaign has not been great but what it is demonstrative of is a MSM who hates the Clintons and will do anything to defeat them.
    Obamas campaign has been as bad or worse but he media has deflected and defended him at every turn.

    Parent
    that may be correct (2.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:28:54 AM EST
    but the popular vote he is winning irrespective of how Clinton tries to take everything from a state where no one was supposed to be on the ballot. Shameful i tell ya.

    Parent
    No, just her share of 4 names on the ballot (5.00 / 0) (#217)
    by andrys on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:02:48 AM EST
    Others on the ballot were Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel, none of whom are 'unprincipled' and there was no need to remove one's name which Obama did.  I love that they say "his name wasn't on the ballot' -- yes, because being 20 points behind he removed it and then had the nerve to 'participate' by telling voters to vote for Uncommitted rather than for the 4 people on the ballot.

      Here's a newspaper story at that time, describing how he tried to "lead" a movement to do this and why.  It was strategic - you might say, Old Politics.

     

    Parent

    Take everything? (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:32:42 AM EST
    No, just the portion allocated according to the number of people that voted for her.  Nobody said Obama had to take his name off the ballot.  He did it to win votes in Iowa, and it helped him there.  All of the uncommited MI delegates can vote for him if they want.

    Parent
    even with the other portion (none / 0) (#78)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:33:57 AM EST
    going to Obama then, he is still winning the pop vote. Tell me, who has the better job creation plan and why?

    Parent
    Actually I think they are about even (none / 0) (#93)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:42:15 AM EST
    on that issue.  They both want investment in new energy related jobs, and infrastructure.

    I think Hillary's health care plan is better for small business job creation because workers can get the gov employee health care plan and businesses can quit being in the health insurance provider business.  So I'll give her that edge, though I'm sure you know somehting about Obama's plan I don't that may offset that.

    Regarding poular vote, they are going to end up close to even once all the votes are counted. Hillary is projected to get a slight edge after Puerto Rico. So I don't think that is going to be a deciding factor.

    My point is that obama is the front runner because of his large lead in pledged delegates, wihch were mostly gained in the Feb caucuses in many red states.  Over to the SDs to decide the importance of that.  My opinion doesn't seem to matter to them much.

    Parent

    perhaps you should read them then (none / 0) (#128)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:01:50 AM EST
    Hillary's job creation plan is based on bond sales to americans. Obamas is based on higher taxes on the upper percentile and withdrawal from Iraq. Issues or no?

    Parent
    Hillary is also rasing taxes on the (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:14:04 AM EST
    upper percentile, and withdrawing from Iraq.

    One of the big things I disagree with Obama about is his saying that we should spend the money we save by withdrawing from Iraq. That is bad policy and a bad message for the GE. I think we should not be borrowing that money from China in the first place.  That is what Hillary's bond sales are replacing.  Fine with me.

    Parent

    CA (none / 0) (#92)
    by thentro on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:40:55 AM EST
    I cant find the SUSA original, but this poll leans towards a CA Obama win that if the primary where today instead of Feb. 5th.
    http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/politics&id=6129995


    Parent
    Didn't the polls pre-Feb 5th (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by hlr on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:53:55 AM EST
    predict a solid Obama win in CA?

    Parent
    Poll of polls (none / 0) (#251)
    by thentro on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:25:01 AM EST
    No. Some did but most had Clinton winning. Pollster.com has a poll-of-polls here:
    http://www.pollster.com/08-CA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

    C:43.8
    O:37.8
    E:10.7

    Parent

    of course.. (none / 0) (#253)
    by thentro on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:26:47 AM EST
    of course, to add to that the new SUSA poll I have above is just one as well, so it could be as wrong as any other. SUSA does have a good record going for it this year though.

    Parent
    Early balloting (none / 0) (#168)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:25:21 AM EST
    Won it for Clinton in CA.  He consistantly polls better than her there since Feb.

    Parent
    Edwards' endorsement (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:19:38 AM EST
    Sorry if someone already said this but.. Here is why it is meaningless. It comes only after Hillary has all but lost mathematically. It comes only after nearly every media outlet has ordained Obama the candidate even though the race is not over. "Endorsements" should be a result of a stronger belief in one candidate over the other, not as a result of trying to unify the party. I have always loved John Edwards and would have voted for him before Hillary or Obama as I love his populist platform. That said, this endorsement to me is shallow.

    exactly! (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Josey on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:32:18 AM EST
    >>>"Endorsements" should be a result of a stronger belief in one candidate over the other, not as a result of trying to unify the party

    But "unifying the party" is now code for "Hillary GET OUT!"

    Obama first began calling for Hillary to GET OUT on Feb. 20.

    Parent

    I think Obama should (none / 0) (#86)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:38:23 AM EST
    tell her to get out, and she should continue telling him to get out. What i love about both candidates is they both believe they are the better person for the job. They are both extremely capable and Hillary knows that "anything can happen" in a month. I think it is highly unlikely but then again Dukakis said, "follow me, you will be bored". It was an empty endorsement and he said very little other than unification as to why he supports Obama. Party unity is important AFTER all the voting.

    Parent
    Gary Hart said that (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by jericho4119 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:42:55 AM EST
    Dukakis was brought down by his weak response during a debate to a question on: "what if your wife was raped and killed?  would you still be against the death penalty then?"

    Just an example of the hard-hitting questions we have in our future.

    Parent

    I believe it was Willie Horton (none / 0) (#120)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:56:52 AM EST
    and not the question and Donna Rice but I will agree to disagree.

    Parent
    True - I overlooked Willie (none / 0) (#147)
    by jericho4119 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:11:47 AM EST
    I try to wipe that memory from my mind.

    Parent
    Would love to hear Elizabeth say (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by Saul on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:43:14 AM EST
    I am endorsing Hilary

    IMO this would dilute the Edward endorsement

    Parent

    me too (none / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:44:09 AM EST
    but it wont happen.
    but I do think she may find some other more passive aggressive ways to make her preference known.

    Parent
    me too (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:44:15 AM EST
    but it wont happen.
    but I do think she may find some other more passive aggressive ways to make her preference known.

    Parent
    Why not just ask her (none / 0) (#113)
    by Saul on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:51:27 AM EST
    while the cameras are running.

    The question could be

    Are you and your husband mutually endorsing Obama?

    If she says no then there is the answer you were looking for.

    Parent

    I think his endorsement is a feint... (none / 0) (#87)
    by cosbo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:39:05 AM EST
    I just don't think his endorsement is what it appears to be. But we'll see.

    Parent
    how do you mean (none / 0) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:43:27 AM EST
    serious question.

    Parent
    I wrote this comment in one of the threads... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by cosbo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:47:42 AM EST
    last night.

    If Edwards endorsement of Obama was tepid, then there might be another game afoot.

    My guess is that Clinton might end up winning the nomination based on her very strong argument of battleground states strength. That would probably create an uproar of some sort, I would think. If that pans out, I seriously doubt that Obama would accept the VP spot from Hillary. To unify the party, the next best thing would be to get a high profiler who endorsed Obama as her VP. Maybe he'd do it for the good of his country.

    My gut tells this endorsement is not what it seems to be.

    Today, I'm also thinking that it might be a test to see if Obama improves on his numbers in KY with WWVs. If Obama still loses by more than 20 points then it's probably going to give the dems are real pause.

    Parent

    interesting thoughts (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:49:04 AM EST
    I hope you are right.

    Parent
    It would certainly shake things up...lol. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by cosbo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:52:38 AM EST
    But I imagine that Edwards knows that Obama is likely going to lose the GE. He himself said that he reached out to McCain with his poverty plans. He's no fool.

    Parent
    I'm coming (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:00:17 AM EST
    to the same conclusion. If Edwards can't move Obama's numbers then it's beyond obvious to everyone, who so far has stuck their head in the sand, that Obama can't win the general election. Of course, it might not make a difference in the end because maybe the party really doesn't want to win the general election.

    Parent
    28 pt poll (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:20:33 AM EST
    Obama will use the worst poll of 28 pts and say 'see I told you, it was just 'those people' in WV.  He projected a 14 pt loss in KY but the media won't report that, they will just keep propping up their shiny new toy.  Look he was down 28 blah, blah, blah

    Parent
    under the bus pattern (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:23:59 AM EST
    Anyone else notice how WV and all the people of that state have been thrown under the bus by the Obama team? The vitriol and venom I'm hearing from surrogates  in MSM, great orange, etc., etc. is stunning. These are great americans we're talking about. Is it that it's a poor state that makes it OK to make fun of it.

    What's really disturbing is this pattern of throwing anything under the bus that is against putting the new great communicator (NGC) in the white house. That includes Hillary, Edwards (before), WV, PA, OH, FL&MI, Wright, Grandma, and oh yes, all white working class Americans. It all sounds kind of funny, but there is a real disdain for people that comes through.

    Just remember kids, Donna Brazile doesn't want you in her new party (NDP). You're fired. Tossed under the bus.

    its not just bloggers (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:28:12 AM EST
    they were making fun of WV this morning on the Obama  network.
    it is really sort of stunning.  saying no democrat has won the WH without WV since 1916 and in the same sentence making jokes about them because they didnt vote for the chosen one.


    Parent
    MSNBC is going to the dogs (5.00 / 0) (#216)
    by stefystef on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:01:34 AM EST
    and the ratings are showing it.

    For all their Obama myth-making, they are still in the rating basement against CNN and FoxNews.

    When Obama loses in November (and he will), heads will roll at MSNBC and I hope and pray it's Olbermann because that big-headed $%&( has burned most of his bridges in the network world.

    And to think, I used to admire Olbermann.  Well, that's a thing of the past too.

    Parent

    didn't Zucker of NBC- the Mothership (none / 0) (#257)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:31:01 AM EST
    make some comment on how his objective is to reel in the masses and then lull them into complacency? Something chilling, to that effect.

    Anybody got the quote?

    Parent

    They weren't joking about it in 2000 (none / 0) (#265)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:41:28 AM EST
    when everyone was wandering around asking "How'd we lose WV?"

    Parent
    Oh, yeah. (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:35:09 AM EST
    It's made my forays into the Great O very brief.  Otherwise I'd be gently but firmly pointing out the errors of their assumptions - and then I'd be there all day trying to re-educate the "high information" voters.

    I'm beginning to really question who the "high" and "low" information voters really are.  

    Parent

    beginning to? (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:45:33 AM EST
    I am in the late stages.

    Parent
    still waiting for the job creation (none / 0) (#123)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:59:40 AM EST
    explanation. Let's see a high information voter explain to me the difference between Obama and Hillary job creation plans.

    Parent
    "difference between Obama and Hillary" (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:23:15 AM EST
    trust?

    Parent
    Issues, please issues (none / 0) (#171)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:26:17 AM EST
    and not the ones that have created your anger, you must go to drphilpleasehelp dot com for those. The candidate with the "hard working americans, white americans" job plan, and the elitist snob job plan. After all, isn't the complaint issues?

    Parent
    Amen to that (none / 0) (#173)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:26:57 AM EST
    only the other way 'round.

    Parent
    ok, let's talk about job plan (none / 0) (#174)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:28:37 AM EST
    what is Hillary's do you know? What is Obamas, do you know?

    Parent
    the point is (none / 0) (#182)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:32:36 AM EST
    what difference does a plan make if you dont trust the person to implement it?


    Parent
    the point is (none / 0) (#184)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:36:13 AM EST
    you don't seem to know it.

    Parent
    no (none / 0) (#192)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:42:00 AM EST
    the point is I am not interested in a back and forth with you.
    it is less than pointless.

    Parent
    yet you continue to do so (none / 0) (#200)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:48:57 AM EST
    You don't know the plans and are more intent on trying to sound witty. you are not informed, not witty and certainly angry. Lol. are you clinging to your guns and religion right now?

    Parent
    What they don't realize is that KY (5.00 / 0) (#274)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:05:49 AM EST
    is where all the cousins of the southern WVirginian's live. And the counties in WV that border KY are the ones where Obama lost by 80+%. Do the pundits really think that they are doing him any good at all by insulting WV's sister state?? I look for Hillary to pull off another blow-out, same sort of numbers as she got in WV. The Obama people just keep handing her votes, by the handful. Keep it up, guys!!! With your help, Hillary can win the nomination and the election. Heh.

    Parent
    When 22% of the voters admit (none / 0) (#77)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:32:56 AM EST
    that race was part of their voting decision, I believe ridicule is too kind. Of course that only happens with Sunni and Shia and they are not races but who is paying attention. Lots of poor people in Illinois also. Lots of poor folks in Nebraska. Lots of poor folks in NC, VA, FL, IN, KS, AL, KY, TN, ok every state actually. West Virginia has no monopoly on poor. If West Virginia wants to continue its slide into poverty, they can vote McCain. If they would like to see a jobs program that does not rely on Americans buying bonds, they can vote Obama. If they want to encourage every american to buy bonds so that we can continue to have a war in Iraq and create jobs with the bonds money, they can vote Hillary.

    Parent
    Thanks for that. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:37:37 AM EST
    I'll now put your comments on my "Ignore on sight" list.

    "I believe ridicule is too kind."

    Parent

    o darn, i was so enjoying (1.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:55:12 AM EST
    your objectivity. I have no tolerance for those who make race or gender an issue, on either side of the fence. I will concede that i find it odd that the voters seem more ready to vote for a black man before any woman which of course is equally frustrating. Hillary is an excellent candidate and would make a good president, and I am certain there is a good potion of idiot voters that cannot vote for a woman. Clearly demonstrating that "the great ole usa" still has some deepseeded issues.

    Parent
    The President represents everyone (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:12:54 AM EST
    the bigots
    the sexists
    the racists
    the uneducated

    The only President to claim otherwise was GWB.

    So any candidate really does need to buckle down and go talk to everyone, even and especially the people who won't vote for them.  McCain realizes that the Elitism charge hurts any candidate, even Republicans.

    Why deliberately court charges of Elitism by ignoring voters, an entire STATE of voters?

    Dumb, dumb, dumb!
    Obama needs to find an advisor to tell him that an election is not about HIM, it's about the voters.  It doesn't matter if Obama feels rejected and hurt, it matters if the VOTERS do.

    He can talk the talk, all right.  But he does NOT walk the walk.

    Parent

    I am sorry (none / 0) (#158)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:16:26 AM EST
    when did Obama say that WV voters were irrelevant, please send me a link. I must have missed that. I am not running for Pres, ergo I do not have to care for racists, sexists, elitists, idiot posters etc. So I am free to express my opinion on whether or not a group of peoples, 22% to be exact who need to be brought into this century. When you provide me the link which shows Obama insulting WV, I will be happy to concede.

    Parent
    He didn't campaign there. (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:30:41 AM EST
    I think that was obvious enough for any voter to understand.  

    I don't care enough about you OR your votes to come in person and talk to you.

    That's the message.  For someone who has already had Elitism thrown at him, that's a bad move.  He pounded the pavement next door in Pennsylvania.  He was all over Indiana.  West Virginia?  Sorry, no thanks, better things to do, more important states to visit.

    You know how symbolism is important?  That is a 24 carat example of it.  McCain has already been in Ohio, in the Rust Belt, asking for votes.  It's not a Red region, far from it, yet there he was.  Why?  Symbolism.  

    Parent

    Obama is only PRETENDING this election is about (none / 0) (#227)
    by stefystef on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:09:44 AM EST
    the people.  It's all about him.
    You can see it in his attitude.  You can see it when he dismisses reporters now that he's the assumed Democratic nominee (oh yeah, I would love the press reaction if Hillary said "Hold one minute, buddy).

    His "act" is to give the impression that he is a man of the people and his Presidency would expect Americans to be directly involved.

    I heard this in 2000 too.  And we got Bush.

    Parent

    really (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:38:05 AM EST


    Parent
    Did those voters (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:59:47 AM EST
    Say how race affected their voting decision?

    Parent
    ferchrissake (5.00 / 1) (#266)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:42:24 AM EST
    what if they ARE RACIST? What will Obama do about it?

    By the way - even if 22% are racists - that means 78% aren't. Why didn't they vote for Obama?

    [cricket cricket cricket]

    Obama doesn't get regular people who have to work for a living. That's why we won't vote for him.

    End of story.

    Parent

    you have this all figured out dont you. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:37:48 AM EST


    Parent
    There's a county (none / 0) (#271)
    by liminal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:54:59 AM EST
    in the coalfields of West Virginia that has voted for every Democratic presidential candidate since 1960.  Yes, including McGovern, including Kerry, including Gore, including Mondale in '84 and Carter in 1980.  The rest of the coalfield counties have voted for every Democratic presidential candidate (including Gore and Kerry!!!) except McGovern since 1960.  

    I've no idea about the data before 1960, as I couldn't find the county data for presidential elections easily online.  

    Oh, and in '84 and '88 significantly more West Virginians supported Jackson than did Nebraskans or Californians or Washingtonians.  While there are certainly racists in West Virginia, West Virginians are not by and large racists, and the hive mind frenzy of elites (yes, elites, not elitists) online and in the media to paint West Virginians as racists will do absolutely nothing to improve race relations in West Virginia.  If anything, I think, it tends to close minds rather than open them.  Believe it or not, people in WV have televisions, cable, newspapers, and teh intarwebs.

    I'm starting to think that classism is going to be to early 21st century politics what racism was to early 20th century politics.  

    Parent

    Dear Senator Obama Welcome to the RNC (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:16:12 AM EST
    smear machine.  Not out of the gate yet or maybe not out of the gate and they have started

    Does not take much for them to get going.  Now, tell us again how Hillary's campaign tactics were dirty?  

    Wow, Muuuuderrr most foul (none / 0) (#172)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:26:33 AM EST
    they went for broke right out of the gate.

    Parent
    I didn't watch the vids. (none / 0) (#189)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:39:44 AM EST
    Is this CT territory or credible?

    Feels CTish to me.

    Parent

    TOTAL CT. (5.00 / 1) (#259)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:33:33 AM EST
    But then again, so were the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." They were debunked again and again.

    And of course, millions of people still believe Obama is a secret Muslim.

    Truth doesn't matter to the Republicans. They are being let off their leashes because they believe Obama will be the nominee.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#273)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:00:34 AM EST
    Trumped up just like Hillary's so-called baggage.  

    Let's see how Obama handles it. I'm done doing his heavy lifting for him against my Republican co-workers, after he has not lifted a finger to defend Hillary against fake charges and misogyny.

    Parent

    What is CT? (none / 0) (#207)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:53:02 AM EST
    I found the link from Real Politics.  

    Parent
    Conspiracy Theory (none / 0) (#219)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:04:01 AM EST
    Where inconvenient facts are ignored and gaps are filled in by conjecture and wishful thinking.

    Sounds familiar....

    Parent

    Whatever...it's gonna go out there (none / 0) (#222)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:06:19 AM EST
    remember Jennifer Flowers?  was she the first?  The Republicans start like that, spread rumors.  I just want Obama and his supporters to watch what real RNC attacks are like.  

    Parent
    What gets mmy attention is (5.00 / 1) (#239)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:19:00 AM EST
    "murdered gay man"

    We've had those here too.
    Should probably Google for news reports.

    Parent

    Does it matter? (none / 0) (#229)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:11:05 AM EST
    You don't think this kind of thing will run come the fall? John Kerry was swiftboated - those were all lies - did it matter?

    Although, as much as I don't want to see McCain in the WH, I don't want to see Obama there either, so I'm just going to sit back and make some popcorn and enjoy the show.

    Heads will explode all over Obamaland when this stuff starts.

    Parent

    Well, if it was about Clinton. (none / 0) (#246)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:21:17 AM EST
    But whatever skeletons Obama has is his problem and his supporters problem.

    I'll pretend I never heard of him.  Obama who?  Is that some new soft drink?

    Parent

    GUTSY Elizabeth Edwards Not Part of Endorsement (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by SunnyLC on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:26:05 AM EST
    http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/

    "GUTSY Elizabeth Edwards Not Part of Endorsement-Outshines Husband in "Courage of Convictions" Department (only a week after couple tells "People" they won't endorse)"

    More on the endorsement and the People magazine interview...

    Love that woman (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:29:17 AM EST
    How about a Hillary/Elizabeth write-in campaign?

    Parent
    Really (5.00 / 1) (#238)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:17:43 AM EST
    Elizabeth is the one with the most integrity of the three (the three being Obama, Clinton, Elizabeth).  Maybe I'll write her in!

    Parent
    McCain 08! Hillary '12! (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by JoeCHI on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:03:06 AM EST
    I CAN'T WAIT to do everything I can to see that Obama is defeated in the fall!

    Me too (none / 0) (#231)
    by Serene1 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:11:58 AM EST


    Parent
    At least no one here (none / 0) (#252)
    by riddlerandy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:26:40 AM EST
    is bitter

    Parent
    what are you doing at a site called TalkLeft? (none / 0) (#264)
    by seesdifferent on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:39:13 AM EST
    or is this place going to be renamed and rededicated?

    Parent
    What makes Obama a dangerous candidate? (5.00 / 1) (#254)
    by delacarpa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:28:32 AM EST
    Not being able to be the unifier he say he will be, the finger to cheek, turning his back, brushing in cheek, and brushing the dirt from his shoes. Me personally, worse than, well you know who. Being divided will carry on.

    Pew Research Findings on Nomination (5.00 / 1) (#270)
    by allpeopleunite on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:53:15 AM EST
    72% of Americans would not like to see the media crowning the Democratic nominee.

    http://pewresearch.org/pubs/839/news-media-declare-obama-winner

    Every time I see that video... (none / 0) (#2)
    by reynwrap582 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:07:00 AM EST
    I have nightmares about radiator leaks.

    Creative Class? (none / 0) (#28)
    by thentro on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:39:34 AM EST
    (sorry for the repost, just looking for more response not so late)
    Here is a question for everyone. It has been said here many times here that "demographics are destiny" and thus Hillary will be able to win in the general because of the greater strength of her demographic. But isn't Hillary in danger of losing as many "creative class" voters, and black voters, come November? Or at least not getting the kind of turnout numbers from them that she needs to win?

    It's the catch-22 of this race I think. Some kind of truce will be key.

    Bonus question. Can some one describe "creative class"  and why it became a cuss word? It is starting to sound more like "red neck" every day.

    Thanks

    "Elitists" (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:52:48 AM EST
    is the subtext of "Creative Class".

    The Creative Class is very self centered.  They define everything almost solely as it pertains to themselves and their interests.  So the Boomers are the "then" generation that is holding the Democrats back - except when a Boomer endorses Obama.  Then that particular Boomer is no longer an old has-been who is liability, but an asset of great relevance and importance.  It's not moral relativism, mostly because the CCers don't seem all that moral to me.  It's not even ethical relativism, for the same reason.  It's capitalist relativism - you are valuable for as long as you are an asset.  The minute you cease to be an asset, you're out.  Clap louder - or else.

    Parent

    "creative class" (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:57:37 AM EST
    are mostly concentrated in states like OR and WA and AA's are mostly in the south.

    She would have to fight, imo, to keep OR perhaps but Obama has no chance in rust belt states or border states. He won't win those states he took in caucuses. Frankly, I just don't see how he wins the general election with the Dukakis coalition. The way Obama keeps going he's going to do worse than Kerry with women.

    Parent

    concentrated (none / 0) (#110)
    by thentro on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:49:14 AM EST
    I would argue, after looking at the wiki page, that there are "creative class" people in large numbers in every state. We are talking about doctors, teachers, designers, programers, any kind of artist, lawyers, and on and on. People who don't "make stuff" but are invaluable. With out their support, what is she relying on to win? Organized labor? The Democratic party wins when you have alliances between all of these demographics. Obama can't win with out rural/worker support, Hillary can't win with out urban/creative support. It is a conflict that must be resolved.

    Parent
    x (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:05:50 AM EST
    We are talking about doctors, teachers, designers, programers, any kind of artist, lawyers, and on and on. People who don't "make stuff" but are invaluable.

    You would also be talking about teachers, nurses, police officers, firefighters, etc - they also don't "make stuff" and guess what?  They support Hillary.

    Parent

    Let (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:07:31 AM EST
    me put it to you this way: Kerry got all these votes in 2004 and it wasn't enough. The GOP never gets these votes and continues to win elections. How important are creative class votes? Remember too that the "creative class" brought Bush into the WH because they voted for Nader.

    Parent
    Always some new mythical group Dems pander to (none / 0) (#187)
    by Ellie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:39:29 AM EST
    ... ill-defined, difficult to track, not belonging to any other group ever, no actual scientific statistics ...

    All we know is that the party leaders swear that if this group isn't appeased, it will be doom for the Dems!

    DOOM!

    You know what happened last time when NASCAR Dad wasn't mollified! I mean, we went to the nebulous ill-defined feet of that powerful bloc with a solemn promise to tear apart women's reproductive rights, same sex marriage, ambient brown people, the anti-war folks, hell, the whole Constitution.

    WE STILL LOST.

    Now TeamObama's surging forward with the confidence of the all-powerful Creative Class (???), who, at the cost of voters drawn from most of the population apparently must be appeased or it will be DOOM.

    BTW, what did Obama actually do, politically, while serving in state or federal office, to make his anti-war voice heard? He's been eating an awful lot of lunch as the anti-war candidate, though gives it his thumbs up by voting to keep funding it. What did he do to oppose other than fantasize retroactively that he would have?


    Parent

    Hillary gets 'creative class' voters too (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:55:23 AM EST
    It is a myth that she does poorly with those voters.  Look at California, New York, NJ, etc. Lots of the creative class are women over 30 - her base.

    We jsut don't like to call ourselves that because the term has been hijacked by the young male elitists.

    I would bet Hillary gets more creative class voters than Obama gets rural/blue collar voters.

    Parent

    Summary (none / 0) (#164)
    by thentro on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:22:28 AM EST
    Self centered
    Young
    Immoral
    From the corners of America
    Don't make stuff and don't have a service job
    voted for Nader
    voted for Obama

    Parent
    Yes, that danger is real (none / 0) (#201)
    by andrys on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:49:36 AM EST
    But she would not be coy about or insulting about considering the joint ticket, as he and his supporters are, if she were to head it.

      The two of them would bring their mutual constituencies although drawing the passive Republican base out at the same time.  But many Republicans I know have been wanting to vote for Clinton.

    Parent

    RCP shows Obama national + 4.4% (none / 0) (#30)
    by K Lynne on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:44:53 AM EST
    and up 5% in PA.  IIRC, these numbers have actually gone up recently.

    I was wondering if anyone has taken the time to parse those numbers.  All of the discussions here seem very reasoned as to why Obama can't win in the GE, but the RCP numbers seem to tell a somewhat different story.  

    If that's (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:59:29 AM EST
    all he's got BEFORE the GOP starts on him then he's likely to lose. A poster on another site who worked for the Dukakis campaign in 1988 said that once the GOP ran the Willie Horton ad, the numbers dropped 10-15%.

    Parent
    this is exactly right (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:18:52 AM EST
    the idea of touting a 4 point (I am not saying the poster was doing that but I have seen it done) lead by Obama in this political climate at this time is bordering on delusional.
    not only because national polls are less than meaningless but the republican attack machine is warming up in the wings and will do nothing until they are sure they will not give the nomination Hillary who they fear.
    they are absolutely salivating to run against Obama.
    they cant wait.
    and to tell you the horrible honest truth, I am starting to look forward to it.


    Parent
    agree (none / 0) (#122)
    by jjsmoof on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:58:54 AM EST
    This may sound elementary but its something I can't understand.  The blogosphere (lefties anyway) have throughout the whole bush admin complained about the partisan slant (better term shilling) of the media.      why on earth would you think its a good thing the media is pulling for him based on their prior deeds.  You called it.  They are afraid of HRC and propping up O so Mccain can beat him handily.  my .02

    Parent
    Those Numbers Might Be Great If The GE (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:11:55 AM EST
    was decided by popular vote but it is not. The GE is decided by Electoral Votes.  The Electoral Maps currently show Obama losing to McCain and Clinton beating McCain.

    At this point in time, it is CW that Obama will be the Dem nominee.  IMO it is not a good sign that someone who has been determined by the MSM as dead in the water is beating McCain on a state by state basis and the candidate who has this all wrapped is losing.

    Can Obama turn this around?  Maybe, but he will have to actually find ways to win over certain demographic groups rather than make excuses why they won't vote for him.  
     

    Parent

    But will we believe him? (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:51:37 AM EST
    That is the problem now. He has exposed himself so much now that no matter what he says, we already know his true feelings. He can't say, forget what I said last month and believe me now on this pitch. And he seems all tuckered out too. Being a President is hard work. Being a Presidential candidate is hard work. Even Edwards did not seem that excited to be there. It was more for party unity. And he gets to speak at the convention.

    Parent
    Didn't Obama win in MO? (none / 0) (#115)
    by jericho4119 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:52:29 AM EST
    And which demographic are you saying he cannot win?

    Sure, he did not win PA - but that does mean he cannot win PA in the GE?  

    Why?  Democratic registration in PA just crossed over 4M - more than a million ahead of Republicans; are you really saying that more than a million Democrats will stay home instead of vote for the party they chose on their own?

    What if Ed Rendell is on the ticket?

    Or what if Strickland is on the ticket, would that help in OH?

    And what if Kathleen Seebelius was on the ticket?  Would that bring back the over 50 women voters, who have supported HRC?

    Is there more to the "Obama cannot win the GE" meme than "I don't like him"?

    Parent

    Governor Sebelius (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:13:36 AM EST
    on the ticket will lose you women over 50. If you think that we are simply "gender voters", you don't know us very well.  

    Parent
    Sebelius on the ticket is an insult (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:15:02 AM EST
    Women are not interchangeable parts.

    Parent
    Again true, but (none / 0) (#177)
    by brodie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:29:43 AM EST
    it's even more insulting to this HRC backer to see her in a subservient position to a much younger and less experienced guy helped into office by a dishonest and biased press corps.  

    And apparently neither O nor his spouse like her.  That would make for an awfully awkward P-VP working relationship.  I also fear that HRC would draw constant gratuitous negative media coverage, which a less hated VP might not bring.

    I prefer the clean-slate Sibelius alternative.

    But I'd even prefer Edwards for another go as VP rather than Hillary in that spot.  Though it's unlikely JRE would want to take on this role yet again, and he would risk making history as the first two-time loser in the VP slot.

    Parent

    I don't see the VP (none / 0) (#191)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:40:10 AM EST
    as a subservient position.  I think Hillary would be great in that role, as she has been in any role she has ever had. That's why I'm pretty sure Obama will never offer it to her.  

    JRE has said he does not want VP, but he also said he would not endorse, so who knows what he really thinks?

    Obama needs a 'weightier' running mate than Sebelius. I still haven't come up with a good one.


    Parent

    Hillary has already done (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by brodie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:52:23 AM EST
    8 yrs serving her hubby as his First Advisor, probably more influential than Bill's actual VP.

    With Obama, she wouldn't even have First Advisor power.  That would be his wife.

    She'd be giving up her independence as a major senator to take another supporting role for a guy where, unlike with Bill, she wouldn't be able to fully trust that the P would play fair and honor the relationship by calling on her counsel.

    Sorry, but it wouldn't work because there hasn't been established any sense of mutual trust.  Not as bad as Kennedy-Johnson turned out, but something along those lines would be the result in the WH.  A disaster in the making.

    Parent

    "Women are not interchangeable parts" (none / 0) (#242)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:20:00 AM EST
    for some reason I expect him to pick a woman.
    another woman, I mean.

    Parent
    Strickland repeated yesterday (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:23:11 AM EST
    that he will not be on the ticket.

    Sebelius is not going to get him one extra vote. Those of us who are supporting him just because we want to defeat McCain will still do so, those of us so disillusioned and angered by the way he has run his campaign that we won't support him at all are not going to be appeased by Sebelius, a very pale imitation of Hillary Clinton.

    MO was a virtual tie.

    I love Ed Rendell, but I can't see him as VP.  Maybe he would help in PA, I don't know.

    The Obama cannot win the GE meme is a realistic assessment of his chances in OH, PA, FL, and other swing states.  You have not convinced me he has a credible plan to win those states.

    Parent

    If Sebelius is the VP nominee, (none / 0) (#183)
    by Anne on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:34:36 AM EST
    she can give a speech to the nation every day at noon and we can take a collective nap.

    Ugh.

    Parent

    Her low-energy SOTU Response (none / 0) (#194)
    by brodie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:45:22 AM EST
    has been wildly overblown in importance.  It was her first go at making a televised speech before a large nat'l audience, so some shortcomings were to be expected.  She might have been nervous, understandably, and tried to counteract it by slowing down.  Whatever, no biggie.  She didn't embarrass herself.

    She's intelligent and articulate and experienced.  

    Not quite at Hillary's level, for sure, but a not unreasonable alternative for #2 if HRC can't make it to the top.

    Parent

    I understand (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:47:37 AM EST
    but the fact that we are still laughing about it 5 months later tells me she did embarrass herself.

    I will give her another chance to win me over if she is the VP nominee.

    Parent

    Oh, come on - they didn't just pluck her (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by Anne on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:01:12 AM EST
    out of the SOTU gallery and put her on the spot - she's the Governor of Kansas, for crying out loud.  She has to have given speeches before large crowds, been in front of a TV camera, hundreds of times in her career.

    I don't doubt that she's smart and articulate - reading her response will tell you that - but at a time when we needed Red Bull, she gave us Lunesta - I started wondering where the butterfly was.

    And again - women are not interchangeable, and Sebelius will not be an adequate substitute for Clinton.

    Parent

    If we harshly judged Dems by one (none / 0) (#235)
    by brodie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:16:18 AM EST
    prior speech, Bill Clinton never would have made it far in the 92 primaries after his disastrous 88 convention speech.  And that one was truly embarrassing.  

    Sibelius merely didn't deliver enough energy.  

    But then Kansans are hardly known for delivering high-octane rhetoric.  

    She'll improve.  But it truly was a first for her, and prior speech making in KS just doesn't quite prepare you for doing same on a huge nat'l stage.  

    Sibelius is about the best alternative out there if HRC can't pull off a miracle.  

    And nearly all Dems will consider her SOTU speech as trivial and irrelevant come August.

    Parent

    Washington's governor (none / 0) (#250)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:22:35 AM EST
    Gary Locke did the SOTU response once.  A couple of years later, he didn't run for re-election.

    Just because you're governor, it doesn't mean you're popular.

    Parent

    Apparently Sibelius is (none / 0) (#260)
    by brodie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:33:52 AM EST
    popular in KS, and was recently re-elected.  She's also been a key player in getting Repub pols there to switch over to the Dems, including a former head of the KS GOP.  Not bad.

    She's attractive and comes from political stock, and her family's ties to OH (her father being gov there years ago) might come in handy in the GE.

    Parent

    OMG Yes (none / 0) (#195)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:45:40 AM EST
    She can revive the fireside chat idea and put me to sleep at night too.

    Parent
    Won By 10,000 And Lost All But The Typical (5.00 / 4) (#190)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:39:50 AM EST
    Democratic strongholds by a large margin. Obama cannot win MO without the small town and rural conservative Dems. They wouldn't vote for him in the primary and they won't vote for him in the GE.

    Strickland is anti-choice and would make it even less likely I'd vote for Obama than I am now. Bottom line, Obama will have to win me over all by himself. While there may be VP choices that would make me less likely to vote for him (Strickland, Casey etc.) , there is no VP candidate that make me vote for Obama.

    Reasons that I don't want Obama to be the nominee are numerous and here are a few:

    Obama put Social Security on the table.
    Obama ran a "poison pill", "Harry and Louis" against Universal Health Care that not only distorted the facts but will make it more difficult to pass any Universal Plan.
    Obama has played the race card repeatedly to demonize both the Clintons and voters throughout the country.
    Obama has praised Reagan and demonized Clinton.
    Obama has stated that he plans to adopt the foreign policies of Reagan and BushI.
    Obama has state that he is considering Republicans for Sec. of Defense and State.
    Obama had a "cure the gays" minister campaign for him and refused to have his picture taken with Gavin Newson.
    Obama and his surrogates have put down small town rural folks and dismissed them as irrelevant.
    Obama has put down people for clinging to their religion while he trouts his own.
    Obama has proven by his words and actions that he doesn't respect woman.
    Obama was willing to put his grandmother up for public display as a racist to save his political @ss.
    Obama has appeared extremely weak on choice and women's issues.
    Obama does not have the experience to do the job.
    Obama's "Unity Shtick" is either a fraud or naive.  
    I don't trust Obama as far as I could throw him.

    Those are just a few of the reasons why I don't  want Obama as the nominee. Given a few more minute and more bandwidth I could expand that list even further.

    Parent

    Yes, he won MO (none / 0) (#145)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:10:01 AM EST
    In a squeaker (but they tied in delegates). But Clinton won 110 of the 116 counties - you can't win in a GE on that.

    Parent
    They both trail (none / 0) (#202)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:50:00 AM EST
    McCain in MO.

    Parent
    "Didn't Obama win in MO?" (none / 0) (#169)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:25:33 AM EST
    not really.  he won St Louis and Kansas City.
    we will see if that works in the general.

    Parent
    go to Pollster.com (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Josey on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:22:25 AM EST
    middle of page - see the head to head polls for states.
    Hillary is more electable.
    But the Washington and media establishment ran Obama.

    Parent
    I think a better gauge of the (none / 0) (#48)
    by Anne on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:12:00 AM EST
    general election race is in the state-by-state numbers, for the simple reason that it's all about electoral votes, and those reside in the states.

    Parent
    That's why the post started with a state number (none / 0) (#54)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:18:57 AM EST
    Obama or Hillary would receive a bump everywhere once the other drops out.  You'll probably see that soon.

    Parent
    It's about post-convention vetting by 527s (none / 0) (#205)
    by andrys on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:51:39 AM EST
    A lot will be done, easily illustrated in the way only Repub 527s can do, and they don't even need to make things up as they did with Kerry.  He's a terribly weak candidate with his Chicago background.  No Dem will draw laser-like attention to those weaknesses.  But we have a different animal come the GE.

    But how soon we forget?

    Parent

    any news on the ground from KY? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Josey on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:55:38 AM EST


    this is despicable, Exeter (none / 0) (#127)
    by dem08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:01:37 AM EST
    I think you should be ashamed and Jeralyn should eliminate this link.

    Being pro-Hillary should not mean trafficing in this garbage.

    My take was that he was "posing"... (none / 0) (#213)
    by Exeter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:59:43 AM EST
    ...for the press corps. And, franky, being kind of a weirdo.

    Parent
    I deleted it (none / 0) (#263)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:38:24 AM EST
    Exeter, no personal attacks please. Thanks.

    Parent
    Sorry -- my (and others) take on it (none / 0) (#269)
    by Exeter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:49:12 AM EST
    is that that he realized what the women were laughing about, came into the aisle, turned himself around, put his leg up, ect. and was generally posing.  If Hillary was wearing a see-through blouse or not wearing a bra and then posing for some male reporters, I'm sure it would be headline news.  

    Parent
    Unity ticket theory (none / 0) (#135)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:05:54 AM EST
    Interesting theory
    Does Hillary Clinton want to be the Democrats vice presidential candidate? Probably. Could she get on the ticket by dropping out before the last states vote on June 3rd? Definitely not. Does Barack Obama want her on the ticket? Absolutely not. Can he stop her if she wants it? Probably not. Why not? Super delegates are why not.
    anyone see Olberman rant last night (none / 0) (#137)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:07:17 AM EST
    Very strong words, just wondering if anyone thinks he crossed a line.

    Olbermann (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:05:57 AM EST
    Sounds very angry.

    Parent
    shut the hell up (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:08:54 AM EST
    to a POTUS is beyond angry. While I might agree with the tenets of some of his rant, it reeked of ratings desperation. I wish we had a civil liberal voice on the telly that addressed these issues.

    Parent
    I am surprised you are so agitated (none / 0) (#233)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:14:25 AM EST
    maybe you are internalizing.
    it must be something you hear quite a bit.
    (now, feel free to take the last word)


    Parent
    ah, passive aggressive also (1.00 / 1) (#256)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:29:43 AM EST
    so if I take the "last word" I am bitter, if I do not I am weak? Let's have a discussion on the issues. You seem to want to run from that, is that a product of your anger, closed mindedness or weakness as a human being? I am not agitated, I really enjoy discourse, it makes me think and challenge my assumptions and opinions. I am never intimidated nor do I "ignore" when someone makes silly attacks. I think you are used to insulting and watching the person run away, from the Edgar school of debate. What I like is passion, anger filled or not, passion is fun. People who are all riled up about the issues are the most fun people to have dialogue with irrespective of the symmetry of our positions. People that I am in agreement with are boring. Who needs an echo chamber? Which is probably why I love my wife so dearly. Her support of Hillary has been unwavering and she argues "positions" passionately. She doesn't get caught up in the cry-baby tactics that are so prevalent here. Agitated? Never. Don't know you, you seem to bark a lot but don't have much bite. You seem to brag about your knowledge on positions, yet do not debate them. You seem to take great pride in your one liners yet do not put much work into them to make them amusing. But I do like your passion and think if you got up to speed on the issues, you would be fun to debate with. As for Edgar, hyperbole is histrionic and cheapens the discourse. When we finally debated an issue, to which you provided little if any data to support your positions, you were actually likable for short spell. But alas, dialogue and debate require reasoned discourse which you seem to be incapable of.

    Parent
    Bitter people (none / 0) (#236)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:16:40 AM EST
    Cling to last words.


    Parent
    who cares (none / 0) (#141)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:08:31 AM EST


    Parent
    I do (none / 0) (#146)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:11:02 AM EST
    Let's have a group hug Howdy, you sound angry. Perhaps some deep breathing exercises. It does a body good.

    Parent
    why? (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:15:53 AM EST
    Olberman crossing the line is like a fish swimming.
    hardly a headline.
    and thanks but I like my anger.

    Parent
    good luck with that (none / 0) (#160)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:18:07 AM EST
    I hear angry people lead in heart attacks by nearly a 10-1 margin. Group hugs are better than chest grabbers.

    Parent
    Huh? Concern trolls from Vienna? (none / 0) (#203)
    by Ellie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:51:04 AM EST
    "you sound angry"

    Yeesh. They're like little marching cocktail sausages, all offering the same psycho-caca for people who doubt Obama.

    Could your pa-Troll leader send a bitter / cling one instead?

    Parent

    they did that upthread (none / 0) (#212)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:59:26 AM EST


    Parent
    you gonna bark all day little doggie (none / 0) (#224)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:06:49 AM EST
    or are you gonna bite?

    Parent
    perhaps you could use a hug also (none / 0) (#220)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:05:40 AM EST
    come here, I'll hug ya. Hugs not slugs makes for a better happy blog.

    Parent
    Doesn't he always? (none / 0) (#148)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:11:59 AM EST


    Parent
    cross a line or rant (none / 0) (#150)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:13:28 AM EST
    I don't watch him, caught the last 2 minutes when he said that the POTUS should "shut the hell up".

    Parent
    Many of us stopped watching (5.00 / 3) (#209)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:54:09 AM EST
    Olberman when he did a major rant directed at Hillary.  Obama's supporters cheered him on, and Obama himself said nothing.  What Olberman says from now on is like a tree falling in the woods.  It might make a sound, but I don't hear it.

    Parent
    While I am no fan of Bush or the war, (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by Buckeye on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:06:32 AM EST
    Olberman's rant was yet another distortion and an obvious attempt to use our troops as political footballs in an election year.  The point Bush was trying to convey is that he did not think the families of our troops serving in Iraq would appreciate seeing the CinC of the military they are serving enjoying golf outtings while they sit at home worried about their sons and daughters.  We may not care much for Bush but that is an appropriate way for him to behave regarding this.  Olberman was reaching deep into his sphincter to twist Bush's point into that he was comparing his sacrifice of not golfing to a family's sacrifice when a soldier dies.

    This was similar to what he did to Bill and Hillary Clinton on the race issue.  Olberman was one of those pundits twisting Bill Clinton's statemtn that BO's anti-war position a fairy tale into Bill Clinton believing it is a fairy tale that an AA can win the nomination and be President.  Olberman's rant at Hillary did something very similar to Ferraro.

    Poor journalism at its best.

    Parent

    He always does both. (none / 0) (#199)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:47:53 AM EST


    Parent
    film to watch for (none / 0) (#178)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:29:46 AM EST
    this looks really interesting:

    Waltz with Bashir

    I'm having problems w/ comments layout -- (none / 0) (#230)
    by jawbone on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:11:55 AM EST
    Comments used to come up nested, now they come up flat -- and they'll revert to flat with posting a comment or for seemingly no reason.  

    I select nested, click set, and it changes to nested. But -- it does not always stay in nested form. Again, sometimes with a new post or refresh; most often if I leave the post, then come back.

    When comments are closed, they seem to freeze in the flat layout, making them almost unreadable as the references seem to get lost.

    I looked at Preferences and couldn't find a way to permanently set my choices for comments layout.

    Does anyone know what to do? And is anyone else having this problem?

    Have been waiting for open thread (still open when I found it) to try to get answers. Help apprecicated!

    it seems that (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:16:08 AM EST
    after 200 they always come up flat.  at least for me.
    you have to set the little drop down thingie to nested and then hit set and the will be nested again.
    at least that is my workaround.

    Parent
    I did not have this problem prior to a short while (none / 0) (#240)
    by jawbone on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:19:03 AM EST
    ago.

    Now, I just posted my comment to expand on my description, and everything came out flat again.

    When things load slowly, resetting can take a looooong time.

    Parent

    yeah (none / 0) (#249)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:22:08 AM EST
    I only do this at work with a T1 line.

    Parent
    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#243)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:20:24 AM EST
    Yes same problem now. Mine go flat after lots of comments. Not sure what makes it switch from the nesting to the flat. Somewhere in the 200 range my nesting now disappears.

    Parent
    Just happened again: Refreshed, comments flat (none / 0) (#237)
    by jawbone on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:16:41 AM EST
    Also, TL has been loading slowly, extremely slowly at times.  Is it me or is it overload because more and more people are looking for a non-Obamamania site?

    The comments layout problems began, I think, with the last server upgrade or thereabouts. But that could just be my memory playing tricks and my mind trying to make sense of something it can't explain.

    Parent

    go to your user preferences (none / 0) (#267)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:43:36 AM EST
    and set the overflow comments to nested or threaded.

    Parent
    Also having this problem (none / 0) (#272)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:58:43 AM EST
    Seems like after so many comments are posted, it goes flat.  Been this way all week.

    Parent
    THIS ONE IS FOR BTD (none / 0) (#255)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:29:16 AM EST
    I will probably link to this more than once today, because I find this interesting.

    If Clinton Wants VP, Obama Can't Stop HerBy Bob Beckel

    [Now imagine its June 4th and Clinton calls again. Clinton, "I know Obama has enough votes to win, but I wanted you to know Hillary has decided to run for vice president at the convention. You know there are two roll call votes at the convention: first president then for vice president. I know you are voting for Obama for president. Fine, but I want your commitment to vote for Hillary for vice president."]

    You imagine being on the floor in Denver. Hillary's delegates, NEARLY HALF THE DELEGATES, are demanding she be on the ticket.

    [Then it occurs to you; if the roles were reversed and Obama came close to winning and wanted to be the vice presidential candidate, could you imagine the convention saying no?[

    [Are you going to tell the former president of the United States no again? Anyway you convince yourself it's a great ticket and will help Obama in those big swing states. "I'm with you Mr. President". Clinton," I knew I could count on you". You want to bet there aren't 20% of the super delegates who would buy this deal? We're talking super delegates here, not profiles in courage.]

    Like I said, this one's for BTD

    United Steelworkers endorse Obama (none / 0) (#261)
    by seesdifferent on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:36:27 AM EST
    "Today, by virtue of a unanimous vote of our International Executive Board, we find ourselves once again in agreement with Senator Edwards, this time with his decision last evening to endorse Senator Barack Obama.  And thus today, the United Steelworkers enthusiastically endorses Senator Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States."

    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#268)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:45:03 AM EST


    John Edwards: priceless !!! (none / 0) (#277)
    by Andy08 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:16:15 PM EST
    Have you seen this video? It's incredible...

    Watch (it's short): how
    could he be so obsessive with his hair?

    Thursday Morning Open Thread | 271 comments (271 topical)