home

Friday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:46:30 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Jeralyn is off to Aspen for the NORML Conference and I do not know a thing about criminal law.

Let's hope TChris comes along and gives us some of his great posts because otherwise it is just me and my yammering about politics.

You can yammer here about anything you want to talk about.

< Obama's VP Dilemma | About That Meeting >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Friday Morning Open Thread | 136 comments (136 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    RBC violations of DNC "sunshine" rules (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:55:52 AM EST
    I just did a piece on the violations of DNC Charter's open meeting provisions that occurred on Saturday over at Confluence if anyone is interested

    This is a great write-up. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:23:21 AM EST
    I tried to leave a comment twice, but it wouldn't take it. Anyway, I hope you've sent this to eyes that would be interested in reading it, altho' it's probably pretty well-known. You did an excellent job on this and someday, perhaps, all this will come forward in the light of day. Thank you again.

    Parent
    Send to the history channel (none / 0) (#68)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:38:02 AM EST
    For when they do their 'What went wrong' segment.

    Parent
    Obama Flips On Foreign Policy Again (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Mlb1 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:58:05 AM EST
    Geesh! The Obama Campaign flipped yet again on Israeli-Palstinian Foreign Policy.  Yesterday his campaign backtracked on Wednesday's call for an Undivided Jerusalem that sparked outrage throughour the Middle East and pitted his foreign policy directly against the 40 year policy of the US and the international community that does not recognized Israel's undivided claim to Jerusalem.  Another great article on how in 3 days Obama has single handedly set back the Middle East Peace Process in his constantly shifting positions and pandering.
    Obama Flips On Jerusalem, Again!

    It also completely amazes me that the US press is so in infatuated with Obama's "nomination" that this story is only being reported overseas.

    This story has been big in the (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:22:12 AM EST
    media in Israel and surrounding areas.  

    I think it's funny, just reading how his advisors have to try and squirm through yet another "gaffe" (I guess that is what they are calling them these days).  "Undivided Jerusalem."  Well, yes.  He meant undivided by barbed wire and stuff like that.  "We will never allow them to lay landmines to divide the city." <sarcasm>  

    People really trust this guy to go and talk to our enemies?  

    Parent

    Of course! (none / 0) (#61)
    by NWHiker on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:33:23 AM EST
    Our enemies will be wowed by his talk of Hope! Change! Unity!

    /sarcasm

    Parent

    Israeli press read here by Jews (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:44:04 AM EST
    in the U.S., as I know from my spouse.  Any goodwill that Clinton got him at the AIPAC meeting may be compromised now.  Let him eat that waffling. :-)

    Parent
    said it yesterday (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:06:43 AM EST
    he will flip on withdrawing from Iraq before the election.
    lets see if they notice that.

    Parent
    RE (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Mlb1 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:14:11 AM EST
    He already has begun to flip on Iraq.

    Parent
    Yep, so I sent that CNN interview (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:50:46 AM EST
    with his Bushian comments about withdrawal from Iraq to the Obamans who have been emailing me constantly about Clinton being the warmonger and Obama being the only hope for immediate withdrawal.  

    The response has been, predictably, <crickets>.  I gotta say that the guy is gonna give me months of fun and sweet revenge as I get to send email after email showing the Obamans how they were bought off.

    But they bought the flim-flam man, they broke the party.  Let them fix it.  We who retain sanity knew this was coming.  Clinton said she had a 60-day plan to get withdrawal going, while Obama's foreign advisor said it wouldn't start for 16 months, minimum.  (I still think that advisor had to be thrown under the bus for that slip, even before a so-called foreign relations expert called a former First Lady, respected worldwide, a "monster.")

    Parent

    So is it a choice between McSame and (none / 0) (#127)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:51:36 PM EST
    O'Same?

    Parent
    Iraq (3.00 / 2) (#50)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:27:55 AM EST
    He stated on CNN yesterday to Candy Crowley that he would not set any time table for leaving Iraq. It would depend on conditions on the ground and the safety of the withdrawal. Now where have I heard that song before? Oh yeah GWB.

    Parent
    hate this browser didn't mean to troll (none / 0) (#65)
    by Rhouse on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:36:54 AM EST
    rate this comment, I'm verry sorry.

    Parent
    OK (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:48:21 AM EST
    Apology accepted! I wondered where I had gone astray. I try to be as thoughtful and factual as I can without belittling anyone else's opinion.  

    Parent
    Try rating it again (none / 0) (#74)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:41:03 AM EST
    Sometimes that will work. Change it to a 5 and rate all. Worth a try.

    Parent
    You can change the rating (none / 0) (#77)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:44:01 AM EST
    by just clicking the rating you want and clicking the rate all button again.  

    Parent
    I must be getting used to him (none / 0) (#76)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:42:48 AM EST
    because I can almost write his script:

    Ver. 1:  "We will immediately withdraw from Iraq"

    Ver. 2:  "We'll start pulling the troops out in a month or two."

    Ver. 3:  "We'll probably start pulling troops out in the first year."

    Ver. 4:  "We'll have to assess the conditions on the ground but I think we'll have troops out in the first couple of years."

    Ver. 5:  "We can't pull them out all at once.  It will be a gradual withdrawal stretching out over three or four years."

    Ver. 6:  "Unfortunately, due to our commitments in the area, we'll probably have to stay in Iraq for five or ten years."

    Ver. 7:  "I made a boneheaded statement then.  We'll have troops in Iraq for at least the next 50 years."  

    Parent

    Finally it'll end with (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by janarchy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:27:18 AM EST
    "This isn't the Iraq I know."

    Parent
    Someone on another blog (none / 0) (#132)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:05:33 PM EST
    suggested that we make Teeshirts with the slogan:

    This isn't the <insert noun> that I knew!
                           --Barack Obama.

    Parent

    My other favorite script of his (none / 0) (#80)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:47:19 AM EST
    His standard statement about almost anything:

    "My (insert topic) is better than John McCain's plan which is four more years of George Bush's failed policies."

    Parent

    Hee! (none / 0) (#102)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:12:07 AM EST
    This works equally well as multiple choice.

    Parent
    Not gonna happen (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:12:16 AM EST


    Parent
    He already did it in the (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:14:57 AM EST
    campaign with he sent his rep. to canada and she said his position on Iraq will change once he's president. Every vote he cast to keep the war going was a change from positions he gave.

    Parent
    betcha (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:19:08 AM EST
    it will be cloaked in some kind of bipartisan statesman doo doo but he will do it when McCain starts hitting him over the head with the consequences of a hasty withdrawal.


    Parent
    Here is another post (none / 0) (#114)
    by facta non verba on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:33:27 AM EST
    on that subject:

    Obama on Jerusalem: How Long Before He Sets Off Riots?

    Parent

    Snakes on a Plane (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Lahdee on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:58:47 AM EST
    From The New York Times
    Mr. Obama, who was scheduled to fly back to Chicago tonight following a rally in northern Virginia, stayed behind in Washington to meet with his former rival. He shed his campaign plane -- and the traveling press corps and entourage -- to see Mrs. Clinton.
    Emphasis provided.

    I'll bet there was either great gnashing of teeth or lots of sleeping by the corporate media on that flight to Chicago. The sleep part wouldn't surprise me. Relax, catch up on the zees. Why sweat a deadline when you are so good at pumping out pablum you can do it in your sleep? I can't imagine what the gnashing of teeth would be all about unless there were asps aboard.

    Fun Weekend At The Obama House (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Mlb1 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:16:40 AM EST
    Here's the funny thing about Obama going home to relax this weekend.  Imagine this, it's a peaceful afternoon, Barack, Michelle and the kids go out on the back porch.  As Barack & Michelle sit on the deck watching the children play, all they can think about is the kids are playing in Rezko's yard.  Ha! Ha! Ha!

    Parent
    This comment will get me through today (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:21:29 AM EST


    Parent
    LOL! good one (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by bjorn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:26:10 AM EST


    Parent
    deep thought for today (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:00:20 AM EST

    Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather wild uncontrolled  skid in sideways, frozen margarita in one hand, spliff in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "HOT DAMN, WHAT A RIDE !! "

    Keith Richards is one of the only (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:13:53 AM EST
    people I know of who still hasn't chickened out and backed off that ride.

    He vacations from time to time where I used to live.  He would be in the bar bright and early at 8am drinking his vodka and charming the waitresses while the tourists were eating their breakfast and drinking coffee - some who did not recognize him would pull their children just a little closer to keep them away from the scary madman at the bar.  lol

    Parent

    he is my hero (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:20:19 AM EST


    Parent
    Mine too.... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:54:45 AM EST
    This calls for some words of wisdom from the Human Riff.

    If you're going to kick authority in the teeth, you might as well use two feet.

    I never had a problem with drugs, only with policemen.



    Parent
    One of mine too...a real survivor (none / 0) (#92)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:02:16 AM EST
    I was talking to a young friend of mine who is a Stones fan, and she said that she thought he wasn't that good looking. I told her she should have seen him at 22, he looked like he had been dead and buried for three days. Compared to that, he looks great now!! And he is the subject of my all-time favorite Rock and Roll Rumor..that he went to Switzerland and got his blood replaced every year because he did so much drinking and drugs that his liver and kidneys couldn't clean out all the toxins and he had to have his blood replaced or die. I just loved that story.. LOL It isn't true, but it's a great one, nonetheless. Several things in this campaign have reminded me of it, come to think of it. Heh.

    Parent
    That's my feeling..... (none / 0) (#103)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:13:44 AM EST
    If I died attractive and well-preserved, I'd feel like I left too much on the table.  You only get one vessel, and I plan on using and abusing the sh*t out of mine:)

    Parent
    I just want to say (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:00:24 AM EST
    that I love you guys at TalkLeft.  I am a strong Hillary supporter who probably will not vote for Obama in the GE, but I trust you to keep it real and  challenge Obama on his BS.  

    I'm stuck at home today, waiting for Verizon. Our phone service goes out every time it rains.  In other news, my husband has had the flu for 4 days and is now convinced that he has liver failure, thanks to my daughter (another hypochondriac) doing "research" on med boards.  

    A man may work from sun to sun, but women's work is never done.

    Go, Hillary!

    I sympathize with you (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by frankly0 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:14:26 AM EST
    over your family issues raised by the med boards.

    Really, sometimes I think the Internet was invented to punish people for their OCD.

    You name the obsession, there's a group out there on the web ready to hyperventilate over it, and convince all comers that they're doomed -- doomed!

    Parent

    I know what you mean (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:31:19 AM EST
    My daughter used to order weird vitamin supplements from e-vitamin, for some self-diagnosed disease.  I guess it runs in the family.  My husband at one point convinced himself that he had a spinal-cord tumor.  This was about 10 years ago and he's still alive and kicking.  My son and I seem to be immune to the hypochondria, fortunately.  

    Parent
    I have an uncle (none / 0) (#133)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:12:16 PM EST
    who is convinced that raw food and enzymes will cure, even the most incurable diseases.

    I have finally resorted to putting his email in my junk folder.  I told him to call me if he needs me, since I don't check email much (yeah right).

    Parent

    From out of the past: (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:03:29 AM EST
    news REPORTERS of my lifetime--

    Gabriel Heatter, "There's good news tonight..."

    Edward R. Murrow, "From London...."

    Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, "Good night, Chet."  "Goodnight, David."

    (also Walter Winchell, "Good evening Mr. and Mrs. North and South America and all the ships at sea. Let's go to press."  But as a gossip columnist, he fits the current mold best.)

    Freudian forgetfulness: (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:08:56 AM EST
    H. V. Kaltenborn, who called first called the race for Dewey. From Kaltenborn, a small piece of wisdom: "We can all be human with Truman. Beware of that man in power who has no sense of humor."  (Response to learning of Truman's poking fun at the bad call.)

    Parent
    I miss Cronkite (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:17:34 AM EST
    "And that's the way it is"

    Parent
    Never heard of Gabriel Heatter, (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:23:58 AM EST
    but certainly Murrow, H&B and Cronkite were solid reporters, so unlike some of the shouting partisan bloviators we see on teevee today who fancy themselves reporters.  Not that I think that the media era of the 50s/60s can't be overvalued in rosy hindsight.

    Anyone hear old enough to remember ABC's Lisa Howard?  One of the first female reporters at a major network.  Also did some interesting reporting in Cuba in the early 60s, and reported back on her findings about Fidel to JFK, who wanted to explore a thawing of relations.

    Parent

    What is wrong with the media in America? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kenosharick on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:06:00 AM EST
    Every other story is STILL Hillary-bashing. They will not stop. I hope she goes back to the senate, and when Obama loses HUGE, she can start the 2012 race. And she really must remember who was with her this year and who betrayed her and our chances at winning he WH.

    No, they will not stop (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:09:34 AM EST
    She will be used as a punch line or example of every political sin forever.  It is a reflex with them.

    Parent
    There's an article by Howard Kurtz (none / 0) (#55)
    by Rhouse on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:30:15 AM EST
    over at WaPo.Co about how the media wants the Clinton gone, yet at the same time wants them to hang arround so they have something to write about. Link:
    http://tinyurl.com/62a62a


    Parent
    As they say in showbiz.... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:13:23 AM EST
    there is no such thing as bad publicity.

    Imagine how Gravel, Kucinich, Paul and anybody the media doesn't deem worthy of attention feels...anyone of them would have killed for the coverage Hillary has gotten this campaign season.

    Parent

    Possibly (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:15:55 AM EST
    Their staffs may have objected to being called a "eunich chorus" however.

    Parent
    The MSM's Hillary Hating (none / 0) (#26)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:13:48 AM EST
    is one of the better arguments for her not being on the O ticket.  O/C would give the corp media an excuse for pivoting away from their Obama worship and towards full-out cheerleading for McCain.  

    As another smart poster put it elsewhere, the coverage would be one huge Soap Opera that focused like a laser on Hillary with every move and utterance by her and Bill reported in the worst possible light.

    And O knows this of course.

    Though my candidate didn't prevail, at this point I still have hope that with an O/non-HRC ticket, our side will at least get somewhat even treatment in the press.

    I like our chances in this Dem Year.  Especially with 2 months and more to repair party wounds.

    Parent

    I'm coming around to that POV (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:18:32 AM EST
    It is back to how I felt before she even announced she was running. As much as I liked her and though she would be a good president,  I kind of wished she wouldn't.


    Parent
    In case you've not noticed - (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by liminal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:34:58 AM EST
    - HRC doesn't need the media.  She fought Obama to a tie in spite of the shrill and overwhelming chorus of Hillary Hate.  I would prefer that the ticket include someone who doesn't need to shrieking, handwringing, idiotic bloviators to make her case.

    Parent
    I'd still like her to run in 2012 (none / 0) (#62)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:34:15 AM EST
    The only problem I see with that is that young new Republican Bobby Jindal.  I've seen him on TV a few times now and I really like him.  If he turns out to be a great governor for Louisianna, he'll be tough to beat if he runs for President.

    I read a little about his background somewhere yesterday.  He's got a double degree in biology and public policy (or something like that).  He was accepted into Medical School and Law School but decided to become a Rhodes Scholar instead.  He's 36.  He's got huge potential to be the "Next Great Thing."  

    I don't think I'd want to see her run against him, but I'd really have to think about that.  

    Parent

    If Clinton does run in 2012 it would be (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:38:15 AM EST
    against an incumbent McCain or his VP (I really doubt McCain would give up after 4 years) not against Jindal (who, I agree, could be a very serious opponent. He's Obama with alot more accomplishments already)

    Parent
    Our society is much kinder to older men than to (none / 0) (#79)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:45:09 AM EST
    older women--I think the remarks about her age would be deafening.

    I am sorry to say it, but I think that was her shot, with 2012 a distant second. No way 2016.

    I do NOT think this is the way things should be--but it the way things are in our society.

    Parent

    If Jindal turns out to be a competent leader (none / 0) (#93)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:03:11 AM EST
    he's someone I could vote for.  I was reading about some of his economic moves in LA and was impressed with his grasp of economic issues.  

    He's a social conservative unfortunately.  That's the one thing I don't like.  

    Parent

    Saw Jindal floated for VP the other day (none / 0) (#106)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:19:55 AM EST
    What do people think about that?  He's very young for VP, but then that could offset McCain's perceived age disadvantage.  He's got some screen presence and would blow back any race-baiting.  I think he could be trouble for the Democrats, but have no idea whether the Republicans would consider him seriously.

    Strategically, if he were VP and a McCain presidency was tanking, it would take him out of the race for 2012, which would be an advantage for Clinton.


    Parent

    Jindal for VP is probably (none / 0) (#108)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:24:50 AM EST
    not serious.  He's so young that he would make McCain look even older by stark contrast.  Not the sort of jarring contrast that campaign would be seeking, I suspect.

    And they don't need someone from an already locked up Red state, unless that VP pick really is able to go after disaffected mod Dems and indies.  How does Jindal do that?

    Parent

    Also, (none / 0) (#111)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:30:41 AM EST
    I've seen Jindal on TV a couple of times saying he wasn't interested in VP.  He says that he has the job he wants.  He's really interested in rebuilding LA after Hurricane Katrina and he sees this as an important time in the history of the state -- a time to fix things that were wrong in the past.  

    Having said that, he'd probably make a great VP.  I just don't believe he wants it.  

    Parent

    The margin is so close (none / 0) (#116)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:35:34 AM EST
    that they wouldn't need to go after the disaffected moderates and indies.  If he's economically conservative, that would appeal to a lot of the people in the middle.

    Even if not serious, though, seems to me that Jindal introducing McCain for his big speech the other night (not that it turned out to be so big, but that wasn't on Jindal), plus vaguely floating his name for VP means they're looking down the road for their own Obama.  Maybe not until 2016, true.  But the Republicans seem to be willing to look further down the road than the Democrats.  Put him into apprentice mode now, so he can be a threat later.

    Which is what the Dems should have done with Obama.  Then we could have had 8 years of Clinton AND of Obama, and everyone could have been happy.

    Parent

    they're hooked on Hillary-hatred (none / 0) (#87)
    by mary kate on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:56:50 AM EST
    What kills me are the diarists at certain sites, who are still (still!) cranking out posts with titles like, "My Open Letter to Hillary" and "Why I'm Divorcing Billary."  I mean, I dunno, maybe they're expecting Senator Clinton to personally respond to each and every epistle? or in some cases, perhaps, they're holding out for some sort of legal acknowledgment that the divorce papers have been duly received?  For sure, it's a bizarre obsession.

    Parent
    Actually, it is a very common thing (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:16:11 AM EST
    among not only bloggers, but the media types too. I have noticed it in just about every area of the news and commentary. Hillary Clinton is a very accomplished woman, she is formidable and capable in many areas of endeavor. To take her down seems to make the writers, of news and commentary, feel superior to her. To feel superior to a woman of her caliber is a heady thing. It's no wonder so many of them do it. They love the high.

    I have found in life that small people love to take down the accomplished people in the world since it makes them feel like big people. That is simplistic, but, sadly, very true. So as long as she continues to be the woman she is, she will be attacked by people who want to feel better about themselves. Weird, but true.

    See what happens when a society puts more emphasis on how someone feels about themselves than on actual accomplishment?? We get tons of morons commenting unfavorably on the people who actually got off their @ss and did something. I guess it makes them feel like they did something too. Sigh.

    Parent

    Hillary hate-ism (none / 0) (#134)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:13:01 PM EST
    is really amazing for ratings.

    Parent
    Feh! (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by NWHiker on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:07:19 AM EST
    My congressional rep (Jay Inslee, normally a great guy) just flipped. I won't be voting for him in the November, I guess. He had no reason to switch, we all know there will be a show of freaking unity at the stupid convention, flipping now is just flat out disgusting. He was good for so long, why now, when Obama supporters don't care and all he did was piss off, I'm sure, Clinton supporters.

    At this point, my Dem votes are dwindling! They're all acting like idiots and I won't vote for them.

    OTOH, my dh will be on the ballot (Precinct Committee Officer, second time, though he's been doing the work for longer), so I will be voting for someone. He hesitated a long time, not feeling too good about the Dem party right now, but ended up deciding to re-run because he'll have to work for the state party anyhow this fall and being PCO  for the next four years means he'll hopefully be in place to help when Clinton runs in 2012.

    I'm still stunned at how angry I feel, and how totally at odds with the Dem party. I wasn't happy in 04 when they nominated Kerry vs Dean (ugh, how could I ever have supported him?), but did not feel this total level of... being irrelevant that I do now. This process just never felt fair.

    Randomness here....

    Everyone's flipping now. (none / 0) (#75)
    by liminal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:41:18 AM EST
    Once HRC gave the signal, Ed Rendell and Ted Strickland and everyone.   Your guy waited until she flashed the okay, didn't he?  If that's the case, I think you should be able to vote for him.

    Me, I'm going to continue my tradition of not voting for Nick Joe Rahall and expand it to include not voting for Jay Rockefeller, both as a protest against his FISA position and 'cos I'm annoyed about the early Obama endorsements.    (Note: If they were in trouble from a wingnut challenger, I would suck it up, but since they aren't, screw 'em.)

    Parent

    I wrote Patty Murray (none / 0) (#135)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:19:00 PM EST
    and Maria Cantwell and thanked them for holding out.

    I told them I'd be issuing a protest vote for president, wouldn't be voting for Gregoire (because she was a SERIOUS koolaid drinker --ugh!) and would be considering behavior toward Hillary when casting my votes in the future.

    Darcy Burner, the Dem candidate in my CD DIDN'T endorse.  Her husband is a Hillary delegate and her young son (7 yo?) likes Obama.  I'm proud of her for not endorsing and told her so.  Anyway, I'll be able to vote for her.

    But yeah, Obama's going to have some serious and negative coattails for me this time.

    Parent

    I wrote them too, (none / 0) (#140)
    by NWHiker on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:43:01 PM EST
    but didn't point out I would not be voting for Obama in the fall.

    I"m finally going to take a deep breath and not vote for Ron Sims. His policies have effed us over so many times, but we've always voted for him... this time... not. I doubt I'll vote R, but abstaining will hurt him.

    Are you in city, or uninc KC? We're in uninc KC. Ugh.

    Darcy Burner is pretty cool, says my dh. He goes to the 45th district Dems meetings, and the 45 is in both CDs, the 1st -mine, with Insless- and the 8th, where I do hope Darcy pulls out a win. He said that she's really pulled things together since last time, is sounding much much better... and Reichert barely won last time, so we might finally flip the 8th... :-)

    Parent

    I bet.... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:09:01 AM EST
    this guy has some explaing to do to his surfer buddies.  What was he thinking?  They coulda had one hell of a bonfire beach party with that score.

    Bad form dude, bad form.

    I'm not surprised... (none / 0) (#49)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:27:54 AM EST
    ...it is San Diego after all.  

    Parent
    So what does that say about him.... (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:15:05 AM EST
    ...that he kept his mouth shut about such reprehensible and heinous tactics? I guess there's still good money to be made in bashing Clinton by these congress critters, even after she's out of the race.

    Andrews? heh (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:15:05 AM EST
    Andrews said at his campaign headquarters in Cherry Hill Tuesday night after he lost his bid for the U.S. Senate nomination.
     Lautenberg throttled him, and now he's. . .bitter.

    I don't get why he even tried to take (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:22:49 AM EST
    Lautenberg on. He had to know it was a real long shot. And then to go negative on him... that has to damage his political future.

    Parent
    And possibly (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:30:16 AM EST
    launching a trial balloon for a place in the Obama administration.  

    Parent
    RFK (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Athena on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:21:25 AM EST
    Today is the 40th anniversary of RFK's death.  

    Has his party really decided that the people of Appalachia no longer matter?

    RFK never got to Chicago, as he promised.  Hillary will go to Denver, as she deserves.

    This makes no sense. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:24:26 AM EST
    He supported Clinton and now he's "supporting" her some more?

    I don't know what the point of telling these sorts of stories is.  Who was Andrews talking to?  Was he talking to someone who really was an official member of the campaign or some high profile politico who thought they were doing Clinton a favor? What specifically did they say anyway?  These are the kinds of stories that are just irritating and unproductive.

    In a way, it's very New Jersey (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:28:10 AM EST


    Parent
    The sharks (none / 0) (#96)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:03:50 AM EST
    will be in a feeding frenzy, after the fact. They won't be able to jump ship fast enough.

    Parent
    More troubling to me is that based on (none / 0) (#115)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:35:16 AM EST
    what I've seen of the Obama core supporters responses to this kind of person, he'll be the kind of guy who gets embraced when really he is clearly not the kind of "friend" that any pol should want to have very close to them at all.

    The fact that Donna Brazile suddenly became some sort of netroots heroine to the Obama crowd over the weekend was an example of what I'm talking about.  Just because she's hitched her wagon to the Obama train doesn't mean she is going to be any better than she was before last Saturday - which imo wasn't great on the netroots/grassroots front - and just because some really excellent Dems were Clinton supporters doesn't mean they are bad Dems.  It is not that simple and never will be.

    Parent

    Hm (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by chrisvee on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:24:32 AM EST
    How surprising that his sense of integrity didn't compel him to reveal this information before Obama became the presumptive nominee & before his own primary run.  Now that he got beaten, though, I guess it makes it even more urgent for him to dish some dirt in order to establish himself with the Obama campaign.

    Gotta love politics.

    No Lobby money in the DNC? (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:28:28 AM EST
    I knew something was missing from the coverage in the media on this one... the ban on lobby money for the DNC only refers to active lobbyists.

    [Still, Obama's campaign has gone to great lengths not to accept contributions from active lobbyists.]

    [22 Clinton fundraisers out of 322 are lobbying or have lobbied in the past. Thirteen of those are still active now] [Fourteen of Obama's campaign fundraisers have lobbied in the past, according to Public Citizen.]

    I believe Obama can survive without Clinton's mone from active lobbyists. Why?  [Clinton has accepted more than $888,000 from lobbyists or employees of firms]

    What about employees of lobbying firms?:
    [Harris said a colleague of his was surprised to find an online donation he made to the Obama campaign returned. Why? He was a registered lobbyist, unbeknownst to him, because his company had registered him as such even though he never lobbies.]

    So, what to do, what to do.....well, as an employee of a lobbying firm:
    [terminate any lobbying registrations]

    K Street

    For some reason this reminds me of ethics legis. that requires people to stand up to eat.  Har!

    DNC Sent out Notification Emails yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:27:21 AM EST
    on this new stand.

    It appeared to work for Obama.

    This system opens them up for more donations.

    PAC limits are smaller than what the candidates can achieve by refusing the PAC donations and encouraging the executives and their spouses to each contribute to their allowable limit. They quickly exceed the $5000 limit the PAC has in supporting a candidate or organization.

    Parent

    Democrats: Experts In Losing (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by flashman on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:35:19 AM EST
    The convoluted system the Democrats set up to pick a presidential candidate is a bad abomination.  However, they allowd theirselves a "security valve" that being the 800 or so Superdelegates.  The purpose of having this contingent was to use the political savy of professional politicians and the research power of thousands of staffers, supporters, political scientists, etc. to insure the eventual choice is a winning one, if they were needed to help out.  Instead of exercising their wisdom, they caved in to the latest political "fad" candidate.  They have almost sealed their reputation as losers, once again.

    In a terrific article on Taylor Marsh, the upcomming election is analyzed by non-political scientists, and their conclusions is that if the election were held today, Hillary would beat John McCain, but Obama would lose.  The method is baised on a model which has successfully predicted the winner of contests in 49 out of 50 tries.  It uses historical data from the 2004 election, and determines which states will swing.  The results are as follows:

    Obama: Picks up Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico, but loses previously Democratic states Michigan and New Hampshire.  Result: 252 electoral votes.

    Clinton: Picks up Florida, New Mexico, Ohio and Nevada, but loses New Hampshire and Wisconsin.  Result: She wins 295 electroal votes.

    To review, it takes 270 electoral votes to win.  Clinton wins by a comfortable margin, if the election was held today.

    DNC doesn't care about winning (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:40:57 AM EST
    they care about money, and banning the Clintons from the party.  

    Parent
    Levin's Opening Remarks at the Rules ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by santarita on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:01:55 AM EST
    Committee hearing were instructive.  They labored long and hard to come up with a primary process that didn't give Iowa and New Hampshire permanent locks on early voting and then undid all that work by granting NH a waiver.  They come up with rules and then act contrary to them for what seems right in the heat of the battle - precisely when they should abide by the spirit if not the letter of the rules.  

    To a casual observer, as most of the electorate is, the Dem primary process seems undemocratic.  And it is in part because the process isn't designed only to find a candidate for the Presidency but also to find the leader of the Party. who, because of the huge sums of money involved, becomes also the equivalent of a Mafia don.  Does the winner of the popular vote matter as much as winner of the secret contest to see who can bring in the most money?

    Parent

    Your Comment Reminds Me (none / 0) (#125)
    by flashman on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:42:45 PM EST
    of something I read along the campaign road:

    Democrats have rules that override rules, so that any rule can be re-ruled with another rule.

    Parent

    Dude, get over it (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:37:05 AM EST
    She's out tomorrow.  Move on to the GE already.

    Suck it up man.... move on.

    Dude, the more talk like that, and the (none / 0) (#85)
    by NJDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:55:13 AM EST
    larger the loss for Obama in November.  

    Haven't you been listening to BTD?  You kinda NEED us in order to win...

    Parent

    Obama supporters need to get over it (none / 0) (#95)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:03:39 AM EST
    Not Clinton people.  That was funny!  I'm telling Obama supporters to quit slamming Clinton.... because they need us Clinton supporters it the fall.  

    Parent
    A lot of Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:16:43 AM EST
    don't seem to believe they need us because they are still slamming us around the internet.  

    That makes no sense to me.  

    Some of them need to learn how to become gracious winners.  

    Parent

    Oh I think some of them need a much (none / 0) (#118)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:38:23 AM EST
    more basic course in getting along with other humans than that.  Winning graciously is an advanced course you take after you learn not to throw sand in someone's eye in the sand box without understanding that they might be provoked to throw it right back.

    Parent
    I thought this NYT's Op-Ed was interesting..... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Annie M on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:52:23 AM EST
    By the Numbers
    By NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON

    IT appears that Hillary Clinton is going to suspend her presidential campaign this weekend, at the urging of Democratic Party leaders and superdelegates. Before that happens, Mrs. Clinton and the superdelegates might want to know this: if the general election were held today, Barack Obama would lose to John McCain, while Mr. McCain would lose to Mrs. Clinton.

    Link is here:
    Our MCM-a day late and a dollar short in reporting (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:57:57 AM EST
    reality. Ha.

    Where were these reports when it could affect primary outcomes? Are they beginning their turn against Obama?

    Keep watching the tea leaves and news leavings.

    Parent

    Last night Pat Buchanan (none / 0) (#98)
    by DJ on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:04:59 AM EST
    said something about MSNBC being "campaign headquarters" for Obama.  I had one of those laugh attacks that went on for twenty minutes.  Of course I was very tired, and on medication, and....

    Parent
    Laughter is supposed to be very healthy for you, (none / 0) (#141)
    by jawbone on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:52:48 PM EST
    even if it comes from Buchanan getting in a dig at the MessBoyz.

    Parent
    I'm just glad someone is calling them out. (none / 0) (#142)
    by DJ on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:19:15 PM EST


    Parent
    They all know it... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by NWHiker on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:08:06 AM EST
    They just don't seem to care... Of course she'd beat McCain in a heartbeat... but they don't care. Either they want to lose, or they are delusional and I"m not sure which it is.

    And just because... I adore Neil deGrasse Tyson. My sig quote on various fora is from him: The perimeter of ignorance: a boundary where scientists face a choice: invoke a deity or continue the quest for knowledge.

    Parent

    Democratic Leadership = Heads in Sand (none / 0) (#112)
    by dwmorris on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:33:01 AM EST
    Another quote:

    If the general election were held today, Mr. Obama would win 252 electoral votes as the Democratic nominee, while Mrs. Clinton would win 295. In other words, Barack Obama is losing to John McCain, and Hillary Clinton is beating him.

    He goes on to note that this is the probable outcome if the election were held today, predicted using the best known methodology -- but that the predicted results will change by November.

    The Obama camp audaciously hopes that the numbers will get better. They won't (barring some unforseen meltdown on the McCain side). These numbers most likely represent Obama's high water mark.

    Under a steady barrage of fire from Republican 527's, unrestrained by our Democratic sensitivities about racism, honesty, fairness, etc., Obama's numbers will almost certainly collapse.

    The main question. from my perspective. is whether the magnitude of Obama's loss will be more in line with McGovern or Dukakis if he is the ultimate nominee.

    Parent

    Go Celtics! (none / 0) (#1)
    by CST on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:47:50 AM EST
    BTD I just logged on and saw your comment from yesterday about the lakers winning.  It made me smile :)

    Told you the Celtics would win. :) (none / 0) (#2)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:48:33 AM EST


    Unity ticket (none / 0) (#4)
    by CST on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:56:08 AM EST
    I thought you might like this BTD

    unity ticket

    It isn't yammering, it's polite gentel (none / 0) (#7)
    by Rhouse on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:58:52 AM EST
    conversation on things of varrious interest.  Go Phillies ( from a last night thread.)  Oh and as a Sixers fan, much as I hate them, Go Celtics.

    Great 1st Decisions by Obama (none / 0) (#8)
    by Media Browski on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:00:16 AM EST
    Consolidating power with the DNC while cutting off some lobbyist money (and keeping a campaign promise) was as great 1st splash.  Here's to good decisions!

    Sorry, there is fine (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by dk on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:02:35 AM EST
    print on Obama's lobbyist ban.  Family members of lobbyists can still contribute.  So, intead of Ms. Lobbyist contributing, she transfers some funds into her husband's account and he contributes.

    Change you can believe in!!  

    Parent

    As a registered lobbyist I can assure you (none / 0) (#53)
    by Media Browski on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:29:49 AM EST
    it's not that easy.  My husband couldn't contribute to his campaign either.

    Parent
    Somehow there's a difference between (none / 0) (#89)
    by badger on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:59:49 AM EST
    "As your doctor, I can assure you ..." or "As your attorney, I can assure you ..." and "As a registered lobbyist, I can assure you ...".

    Parent
    Considering that your lobbyist probably (none / 0) (#94)
    by Media Browski on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:03:19 AM EST
    is an attorney, I don't know about that ;)

    Parent
    Good PR anyway (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:06:00 AM EST
    The DNC only got about 3% of their money from PAC money last year, according to Potus '08 on XM this morning.

    Parent
    That's why I said "some" :) (none / 0) (#57)
    by Media Browski on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:30:36 AM EST
    It's not everything, but it's a start, and darn good PR.

    Parent
    Obama also said he would have (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:08:58 AM EST
    no pre-conditions meeting with various leaders, however to meet with Hillary, he had a pre-condition: she cannot discuss the vp position. What does that say about his leadership.

    Parent
    he also said he would debate Bush/McCain (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by NJDem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:27:01 AM EST
    anytime, anywhere.  A debate with Hillary?  Um, not so much...

    Who is he more scared of?  And why be scared at all?

    Parent

    I think (3.00 / 2) (#54)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:29:55 AM EST
    Accusing Obama of not wanting to debate Clinton is a little silly considering how many debates they did have.

    Also considering that the final debates seemed to trend more toward petty and meaningless things, I'm not necessarily surprised they quit having them.

    Parent

    PUH-LEASE let go of the (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by angie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:37:01 AM EST
    "too much democracy killing democracy" meme. They had 4 debates when it was just the 2 of them & this was the closest race EVAH. The only reason he didn't want to debate was because he is NO GOOD at them (no teleprompters allowed) and he was scared to face her -- just the quality I look for in a president -- retreating in the face of danger.

    Parent
    pandering at its finest (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by angie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:09:20 AM EST
    I've never disputed that Obama was the best panderer in this race.

    Parent
    Pandering to whom? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Media Browski on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:32:04 AM EST
    By doing something more ethical, even at the margin, he's still doing more for campaign finance reform than any other candidate.  Seems like a good start.

    Parent
    Pandering to nitwits, that's who (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by angie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:38:55 AM EST
    you know, the ones that think saying you don't take money from lobbyists means you don't take money from lobbyists, 'cause that is exactly what Obama does through spouses, etc. You obviously believe that the "appearance of ethics" = "ethics." I don't.

    Parent
    Wow, calling the American People Nitwits . . . (none / 0) (#97)
    by Media Browski on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:04:37 AM EST
    that's a great way to win Democratic Voters.

    It's a start on ethics, and a brave one considering that McCain won't follow suit.  You do remember McCain don't you? He's who we're running against.

    Parent

    Maybe you misunderstood me (none / 0) (#126)
    by angie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:51:09 PM EST
    I'm not trying to win ANY Democratic voters -- the Democrats proved they are the opposite of democratic.

    Parent
    I'm sorry you feel that way. (none / 0) (#128)
    by Media Browski on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:39:59 PM EST
    It's been a tough primary for everyone; I was mad at the Clintons for many perceived slights, but now I'm working to get past it because I realize we're all on the same side, even though we disagree on the details.  

    When I see the number of maimed veterans in my hometown in Indiana,, the homeless on the streets of DC (many of them new, there's been a startling upturn in homeless families on the street), I remember that the Republicans will turn a blind eye to those things, and still find a way to complain that the rich aren't rich enough.

    So when faced with a choice between still fighting a primary that's over, and fighting the general election that our country's future truly depends on, I'm looking to the future.

    Parent

    I'm sorry, I'm a woman first, (none / 0) (#129)
    by angie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:43:55 PM EST
    an American second, and party affiliation comes in a distant third. I've voted straight Dem. for 20 years because I always vote my conscience. This year, my conscience will not allow me to vote for the Democratic Party because to do so will violate my principles as a woman and as an American. If you truly want to save your country, you have to realize that some thing are bigger then party affiliation.

    Parent
    Oh, forgot to add (none / 0) (#130)
    by angie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:45:36 PM EST
    Stop patronizing me.

    Parent
    You responded, (none / 0) (#131)
    by Media Browski on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:50:52 PM EST
    so I thought you wanted a dialogue.  My mistake.

    For me it's citizen of the world first, American second, party affiliation third. Race and gender really aren't considerations I take into account when making political decisions.

    Parent

    That is ludicrious (none / 0) (#137)
    by angie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:27:03 PM EST
    you don't take into account race & gender when making political decisions? Good thing LBJ did when he pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress, not to mention the people behind the 13th, 14th & 19th amendments. You REALLY need a better talking point then that.

    Parent
    It would have helped (none / 0) (#136)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:26:08 PM EST
    to nominate an electable Democrat.  As it stands, you've earned us 4 years of McCain.  Thanks!

    Parent
    NPR said DNC wasn't getting lobbyist money anyway! (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:40:27 AM EST
    DNC has $4M on hand; RNC has $40M. Did I hear right?

    This article by Chris Cillizza has different figures (still bad) and essentially puts the blame on Howard Dean.

    From January through September, the Republican National Committee raised $81.5 million, with $34 million remaining in the bank. The Democratic National Committee, by contrast, showed $42 million raised and $6.8 million in the bank.
    SNIP
    As some see it, Dean's larger problem is with the care and feeding of wealthy contributors, people capable of giving the maximum $26,700 allowed annually under federal law. Bob Farmer, a past DNC finance chairman, said that "where the chairman can make an impact is with the big donors and the big fundraisers."

    Dean does not enjoy long relationships with these people and remains uncomfortable asking for a significant contribution after just meeting a donor, said party operatives familiar with his style. One high-dollar donor in the Washington area said the outreach by Dean has been woeful: "The only explanation I can fathom for the virtual total lack of quality communications is they are still in the process of figuring things out in terms of who their major donor list is."

    A discussion on WNYC just now had some expert saying that Obama asking donors to only donate through him was affecting donations to DNC. (Takeover?)

    I believe the Senate and House Dem committees are doing much better than the R committees. Right?

    Parent

    Draining the coffers (none / 0) (#90)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:00:50 AM EST
    Maybe that's why the DNC wanted the primaries to end. They were being left out of the money. They see Obama as a potental ATM for themselves. Time will tell. Can he use his money to "help" SD's in their election bids?

    Parent
    Not if he loses in November (none / 0) (#107)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:23:17 AM EST
    I think all the $ signs in the DNC's eyes have blinded them to the risk they've taken.

    But I think Lady Luck's a b*tch, and she voted for Clinton.

    Parent

    Yeah, and after he loses the GE (none / 0) (#119)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:39:52 AM EST
    and is not inclined to fundraise for them, they will ask the Clintons, who have raised more money for Dems than anyone in history, to step in and help them out. Hillary will step up, she is a trouper. But I can see her smile now when she says she can't speak for her husband. He will have to speak for himself. And I hope Bill makes them beg, on bended knee, in public, for him to go on the fundraising trail for them. They deserve no less.

    Parent
    I seriously doubt he will (none / 0) (#139)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:28:39 PM EST
    He said the other day that this may be the last campaign he does (speaking of his wives).

    I don't think he's going to feel sorry for them.  Shoot, after all, he's a "racist" (snark).

    Parent

    When they lose in November (none / 0) (#138)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 02:27:20 PM EST
    I'm printing that on a tee-shirt.

    Parent
    Why did his campaign contributions, (none / 0) (#101)
    by santarita on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:09:18 AM EST
    especially at the beginning, seem to come from groups of individuals with ties to specific industries and specific companies?

    There is still too much money coming in from special interest groups.  To say nothing of services rendered "gratis".  

    It is a small first step.  Maybe Sen. Obama can be more forthright about how small a step it is in curing the maladies caused by huge sums of money floating in front of the noses of our elected and non-elected officials.

    Parent

    Go Lakers! (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:02:52 AM EST
    I have to hold up the end for the Lakers fan base until the west coast wakes up.

    Looks like another great Lakers-Celtics series. I lived in SoCal in the 80s and lived for those games. Only thing that got me through the Reagan administration.

    Obama and the Lobbyists (none / 0) (#117)
    by facta non verba on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:38:03 AM EST
    Please Use the Back Door

    Obama to Lobbyists: Use the Back Door Please

    Try Wikipedia. n/t (none / 0) (#120)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:47:23 AM EST


    Ungrateful wretches (none / 0) (#121)
    by Madison Guy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:47:47 AM EST
    Iraqis not wild about keeping Forever War going forever. What's wrong with those people?


    Big Brown..... (none / 0) (#122)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:51:08 AM EST
    running towards history tomorrow, I'll be rooting for him, but at 2-5 or worse I won't be betting on him...I'm going 20 across the board on the #4, Denis of Cork.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#123)
    by cmugirl on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:54:01 AM EST
    WARNING:  This takes you to The Corner, but it's an interesting read and a preview of things to come.

    LINK

    "Obama has required a vocabulary of needed ostracism, as he insidiously sheds most of his prior life and environment of the last twenty years. Wright, Moss, Pfleger, Ayers, Rezo, etc. are all figures that have to be "disavowed" or, better, Trostkyized in some fashion. The method apparently is to suggest that they, not Obama, have suddenly changed (when, in truth, they, not Obama, have remained entirely consistent) and are now out to hurt or embarrass Obama (when, again, they are surprised that their longtime predictable behavior is suddenly producing different results)."

    Ooh, (none / 0) (#124)
    by tek on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 12:33:03 PM EST
    beautiful time of year to be in Aspen.  Used to go to dance camps there in the summer.

    Friday Morning Open Thread | 136 comments (136 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment