home

More Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat

More thread.

(Comments now closed.)

< Weds. Night Open Thread | Client # 6 and Kristen Revealed >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • We have gotten so involved in our petty (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:32:32 PM EST
    fights that we forgotten our children are dying overseas for a lie.

    I haven't (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:36:52 PM EST
    The media seems to have. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:37:45 PM EST
    i like the spitzer story on yahoo frontpage (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by TheRefugee on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:37:40 PM EST
    promiscuity linked to prehistoric....

    I wasn't aware that a hidden caveman gene caused adultery.  Why is that even a part of a discussion.

    A better headline would be...Adultery tied to stupid decision making.

    even better headline (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:47:16 PM EST
    "Man to blame for his own actions."

    It's called personal responsibility.  I know we haven't heard much about it, but it starts with admitting you are not controlled by some evil, secret gene.

    I mean, really, cavemen used to rape and pillage and live in caves and poo in the woods.  Are we going to excuse that behavior next?  How far back into the primordial ooze must we go before someone admits the guy is a self-righteous a-hole who paid a woman in her twenties to submit to whatever craven sexual fantasy he had?  When do we admit that he devastated his wife and children, that he dishonored their marriage and his family in an inexcusable and disgusting way?  And when, finally, are we going to admit that he gave money-quite a bit, actually-to fund the exploitation of women?  Do you really think those girls were getting even half of that money?  How would you feel if he was paying your sister to submit to him?

    I mean, come on.  He is not a victim.

    Parent

    Speaking of early man ... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:55:54 PM EST
    having you ever heard of the "aquatic ape hypothesis?"

    It used to be a fringe theory, but it's gaining greater credence.

    It argues that early in our evolution our proto-human ancestors spent inordinate amounts of time in water, and survived primarily on fish and seafood.

    This explains the rapid growth of the size of our brains, since Omega-3s are one of the few agents which can increase brain size.  And Omega-3s are primarily found in fish and seafood.

    But it also explains why we lost most of the hair on our bodies, but not our heads, how we gained erect carriage, why our backs don't properly support us, why certain aspects of human births are only found in sea mammals, and a number of other mysteries of evolution.

    Parent

    I'm more of a Pinker gal myself (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:01:11 PM EST
    on the nature/nurture thing.  And you don't want to get me started on the God Gene.

    Robot, did you see that dolphin they found that had the remnants of feet?  Or the one whose front flippers made it possible to "walk" out of the ocean?  How about those chimps who are hunting with spears and taking shelter in caves?

    Fascinating stuff.

    Parent

    Yeah, I love stuff like that ... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:02:27 PM EST
    all very cool.

    Parent
    Now that you mention remnant of feet (none / 0) (#39)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:04:00 PM EST
    and in a tie in with what Robot said did they go into the water or did some related species come out of the water. Dolphins and whales I mean.

    Parent
    IMO, there wasn't much land (none / 0) (#50)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:10:33 PM EST
    so there was no need for them to get out of the water.  When there was more land, and food grew on the land, then they got out and said, "hey, you gonna eat that?"  And then something else got out and ate them.

    My favorite animal behavioral sciences story is about a dolphin at Sea World in San Diego.  They put him in a tank with a mirror, and every day, he would stare at the mirror for hours, and they thought, "does he know he is staring at himself or does he think he is looking at another dolphin?"  So, to see what was happening, they sent him to a holding tank and put a plastic ring around his tail, then sent him back into the tank with the mirror.  He swam right up to the mirror, turned sideways and shook his tail so he could see the ring.

    Which is to say, when the dolphins learn to walk on land, we're gonna need some big mirrors to hold up to stop them.

    Parent

    Supposedly ... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:11:58 PM EST
    dolphins evolved from a species that moved from water to land, then it moved back to water and became dolphins, whales, etc..

    Parent
    Why they returned to the water ... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:16:08 PM EST
    is anyone's guess.

    Maybe they got a taste of early mammal politics and decided it wasn't for them.

    ;)

    Parent

    That's plausible (none / 0) (#65)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:17:29 PM EST
    Yeah but you know a lot of those supposedly (none / 0) (#58)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:15:21 PM EST
    are sometimes misreading of our very limited fossil data.  I guess it would be hard to figure out the exact process but no arguing it did occur and maybe more than once.

    Parent
    I said "supposedly" ... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:18:14 PM EST
    but they have similarities to land mammals up to a certain level, then they diverge ... that's one of the things supporting the theory, in addition to fossils.

    Parent
    That is true one of my pet theory (none / 0) (#73)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:20:17 PM EST
    is that as you said on that other comment they didn't like what they found.

    Parent
    Ah, somebody has been reading Heller (none / 0) (#64)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:17:23 PM EST
    I dunno, I've always thought of the dolphins as smart enough to know better.  They do have those pesky patches of hair, though...

    Did you see the sea lions in SF who are attacking people on the docks?  I think they are getting tired of all those sewage "accidents" that keep dumping poo into their ocean.

    Parent

    Something like Hitchcock's the Birds (none / 0) (#67)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:18:17 PM EST
    Even sea lions ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:20:10 PM EST
    will only put up with so much sh*t.  

    Democrats on the other hand, we seem to have an endless ...

    I can't even finish that sentence.

    Parent

    Being an emigre from HuffPo... (none / 0) (#93)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:38:49 PM EST
    ...I'm not used to this caliber of intellect ;)

    Parent
    I emigrated from huffpo (none / 0) (#95)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:40:07 PM EST
    I hear there are ... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:45:18 PM EST
    some nice duty free shops on the way out.

    Parent
    Yeah I got me some nice Rum (none / 0) (#102)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:47:07 PM EST
    ethnic cleansing... (none / 0) (#108)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:50:25 PM EST
    ...even the last little ghetto of Hillary supporters has been largely run out of town...

    Parent
    Talk about intellect -- (none / 0) (#204)
    by mg7505 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:54:43 PM EST
    I emigrated from Kos!

    Parent
    Actually if you look hard enough (none / 0) (#23)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:52:54 PM EST
    you could probably find a gene for every behavior we have.  After all who's to argue.

    Parent
    You're exactly right (none / 0) (#28)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:55:14 PM EST
    Every action has roots in nature and nurture.  That explains it; it doesn't excuse it.

    Parent
    I am more of a Nurture type (none / 0) (#31)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:57:48 PM EST
    meaning that I am not a great believer on hard wired behavior.

    Parent
    What makes humans human... (none / 0) (#91)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:36:57 PM EST
    ...is the ability to override instinct

    Parent
    Read Matt Ridley's (none / 0) (#197)
    by mg7505 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:51:19 PM EST
    Nature Via Nurture for a good analysis of this subject. The two forces play off each other and are intertwined to an extent that we can't really quantify the role each plays -- this argument rests on a lot of research in evolutionary biology and related fields.

    Apropos to Spitzer, why does The Media feel compelled to publish bogus pseudo-science and armchair psychoanalysis since this happened? Leave the guy, his family, and his escort alone! Lord knows they're all suffering enough without every mediocre MSM journalist and talking head chiming in. How does all the "reporting" help anyone?

    Parent

    Only in America would people pretend to wonder (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ellie on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:11:17 PM EST
    ... why anyone would want gratuitous hot (YMMV) sex and then move on.

    A costly date for Spitzer, but not so surprising, scientists say By Faye Flam, Inquirer Staff Writer

    Why would someone as rich and powerful as Eliot Spitzer put his family, his job, and his promising future on the line for an alleged $4,000 date with a prostitute?

    Is this pathological or inherent in human nature?

    Scientists says it's more likely to be the latter. They attribute this kind of behavior to natural promiscuity combined with opportunity - along with a risk-taking personality common to men such as Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy.

    Run for the hills gals, it's them sexed-up Democrats spillin out of their genes again!!!

    It's what makes them seek office and what makes us vote for them. [...]

    "Men such as those in Spitzer's position do not so much pay for women to have sex with them; they pay for women to go away after having sex with them," said evolutionary psychologist David Buss of the University of Texas. "It's one strategy some men use for minimizing the costs, although obviously it did not work for Spitzer." (A costly date for Spitzer, but not so surprising, scientists say By Faye Flam, Philadelphia Inquirer, March 12, 2008)

    ahhhh HAHAHAHAHHA

    Yes, indeed, let's pretend no one could ever imagine why anyone else would just want an evening of companionship and sex and move on.

    Noooo, people only want sex with someone they love very very much. Sexuality outside that is so rare and so undesirable, it's a pathology ... that most of the population indulges in overtly or in transferred activities.


    Parent

    LOL! (none / 0) (#57)
    by tek on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:13:29 PM EST
    Hahahaha. (none / 0) (#78)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:24:51 PM EST
    That article is amazing.

    I can't wait until science is so good that we're able to prove how idiotically simplistic all these articles are.

    Come on brave new world!

    Parent

    The stupidity (none / 0) (#55)
    by tek on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:12:08 PM EST
    of Spitzer's actions actually cause one to wonder if he's mentally ill.

    Parent
    Maybe he wanted to avoid (none / 0) (#112)
    by ding7777 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:53:34 PM EST
    a Monica-type problem

    Parent
    This is the Hillary I know and love (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:46:15 PM EST
    Her biggest apology came in response to a question about comments by her husband, Bill Clinton, after the South Carolina primary, which Obama won handily. Bill Clinton said Jesse Jackson also won South Carolina when he ran for president in 1984 and 1988, a comment many viewed as belittling Obama's success.
    "I want to put that in context. You know I am sorry if anyone was offended. It was certainly not meant in any way to be offensive," Hillary Clinton said. "We can be proud of both Jesse Jackson and Senator Obama."

    "Anyone who has followed my husband's public life or my public life know very well where we have stood and what we have stood for and who we have stood with," she said, acknowledging that whoever wins the nomination will have to heal the wounds of a bruising, historic contest.
    "Once one of us has the nomination there will be a great effort to unify the Democratic party and we will do so, because, remember I have a lot of supporters who have voted for me in very large numbers and I would expect them to support Senator Obama if he were the nominee," she said.

    Pitch perfect.


    Yep n/t (none / 0) (#18)
    by Coldblue on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:48:51 PM EST
    It would be amazing (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:53:23 PM EST
    To hear something like that from Obama.

    But I think the real truth of Obama is that he couldn't say the last paragraph without fibbing.

    Would Obama expect everyone who has voted for him to vote for Clinton???

    I don't think so.

    One can say I'm wrong if they want.


    Parent

    Actually he has said the opposite (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Virginian on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:00:27 PM EST
    Something to the effect that many of his supporters would NOT vote for HRC...

    Michelle Obama carried that note on GMA or Today a number of weeks back too...

    I think it is clear at this point that he is not about the party, but is about the end goal (party be damned).

    Parent

    If (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by tek on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:10:16 PM EST
    Barack Obama thinks he's crafting an appealing image by attacking elderly white women in an attempt to discredit Hillary, I think he needs a new adviser.  It's so interesting to me that Geraldine Ferraro will not back down from her comments and insists to everyone who interviews her that her comments were taken out of context by Obama and she has received mountains of vicious mail and calls from his staffers.

    It appears the Obama camp went trolling for something to fling at Clinton because their Powers went overboard.

    I was watching Ferraro with Diane Sawyer.  She slapped Sawyer around but good.

    Parent

    Hang In Gerry (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Athena on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:19:16 PM EST
    Ferraro is a tough veteran of NYC politics, and she won't go away.  Good for her.

    Parent
    My first vote was for Ferraro (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:21:28 PM EST
    my birthday fell in the right timeframe so I got to vote for her when I was seventeen.  This was when you had to punch out the holes (hanging chads!).  My hand shook I was so excited.  I still get excited when I see her.  She made me consider the possibility...

    Parent
    Me, too (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:32:19 PM EST
    Mondale/Ferraro were my first presidential vote. I felt so proud, voting for a women for vice-president. I know it's sexist. I knew even then that they didn't stand a chance against Reagan, but she made me feel like women had a chance, like we were equal. I've learned a lot since then. I hadn't realized how much she meant to me until a couple of years ago, when she was interviewed in one of those "joke" interview segments on The Daily Show. She wasn't in on the joke, and they humiliated her. I was furious. I stopped watching the show for a long time, and I still don't watch their stupid interviews. I was so angry. Do not mess with Ferraro. She is an elder "statesman" to women of my generation. She doesn't deserve this. If they disagree with her, say so, but they should treat her with the respect she deserves.

    Parent
    I was living in PR and couldn't vote. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:50:03 PM EST
    But since I had Voted for Carter in 80 I guess even though I was a Republican I would have voted for them.  Never did like Reagan

    Parent
    These statements above about Ferraro (none / 0) (#147)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:22:29 PM EST
    are just beautiful.  You said it all, I need not say more.  Thank you.

    Except to agree wholeheartedly that the imagery of Obama kicking around old ladies is not a good one.  I wonder if Alice Palmer is watching Gerry Ferraro?

    Parent

    They were taken out of context (5.00 / 6) (#79)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:24:51 PM EST
    Actually, they were distorted beyond recognition. I've heard people say that she said he was "lucky" to be black, that a black man couldn't be president without "affirmative action", and that she denied that he had any positive qualifications for the presidency. All she said was that a person with as little experience as Obama would not have a chance if he were white or a woman. She didn't say the only reason he was a Presidential candidate was that he is black - she said that it was what is putting him over the top right now.

    And she is 100% right. Barack Obama has a lot of talent and brains, and I think he could have been a presidential contender in a few years no matter what shade his skin is. But I can't think of any person in recent history who has become president with as light a political resume as Obama. We've had a lot of governors, military leaders, Congressional leaders. Obama is a first-term Congressman. There is no reason that he should have gotten as far as he has. Charisma is good, but this isn't American Idol. This is the man who might have to lead America out of one of the worst financial crises in history... the man who has to find a way to get us out of Iraq without destabilizing the middle east... the man who might have to respond to another terrorist attack at any time. Good public speaking skills are not going to pull us out of the mess we are in.

    Parent

    Well said... (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Rainsong on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:18:03 PM EST
    I've been collecting sayings like this from scrapbook:

    Charisma is good, but this isn't American Idol.

    I originally supported Edwards, but when he dropped out I turned to next-best, Clinton - because its the economy, stupid. Its health care, stupid. Its experience in large-scale politics, administration and governance, stupid. Its standing for the core principles of the Democratic Party, stupid. No matter how bitter the primaries can be in some election years, usually the 'also-rans' still end up with some respect and dignity, for having run as Democrats, even if they trail right through to the end of the season with no chance at all.  

    So, before the Super-Tuesday aftermath I would have still voted for Obama like a good Democrat if he'd won, but when I saw the race-card played, (against the Clintons??) I asked more questions about him.

    I could even overlook his lack of experience, but when I looked at his closest advisors who might end up in his Cabinet, I became frightened of the guy. At the very least, I could see myself protesting against him within a year.

    Then I checked the detail on his health plan, and his Illinois and Senate records, and my warning radar started beeping very loudly - I don't agree with his politics on almost everything, he's just too far to the right. Sorry, Obama supporters.

    everything else about him - his tactics, the flip-flopping vague waffle, the same rhetoric repeated over-and-over, the mysogyny, threatening women voters with Roe vs Wade dog-whistles, bullying blackmail coded into every MSM, the Gomer Pyle gaffes on foreign policy etc, (the list goes on) just reinforced the radar beeps off the scale.

    Parent

    The sad thing is that (none / 0) (#152)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:25:15 PM EST
    some of the hard Obama supporters here don't see Obama's own playing of his rather huge race card;  they seem to absolutely stay away from/don't want to read Sean Wilentz's excellent article about how he's played the race card all along and blamed the Clintons (something that some of us lowly bloggers have noticed since the beginning).

    Parent
    Readiness... (none / 0) (#106)
    by faux facsimile on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:49:48 PM EST
    I seem to recall that in 1992, we elected a 46-year old Democrat with no experience in federal politics to the presidency. Guy by the name of Clinton. Oddly, his predecessor had 8 years in the White House and 6 years at the CIA. In spite of that, Mr. Reagan.V.P still lost his reelection campaign, and history says, it was to a better candidate.

    So why is this 46-year old Democrat any less ready?

    Parent

    Experience (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:53:01 PM EST
    The man had 8 years of executive experience as a Gov to start with. There are lots of agencies to run even in Arkansas. And then there is the fact we are in TWO wars at the moment with about 200,000 Americans, plus contractors in harms way. The times are a bit different wouldn't you say?

    Parent
    10 years actually ... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:57:08 PM EST
    he served 2 years, was defeated, came back two years later and was re-elected, then served for another eight years.

    Parent
    A lot of presidents were governors (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:55:27 PM EST
    Bill Clinton ran Arkansas for 14 years. I'll grant that it was just running a state, but a lot of President's started in Governor's mansion's. It's all just a matter of scale. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but I believe more President's were former governor's than were former Congressmen.

    So... what has Obama run? What leadership roles has he filled that will provide the kind of experience we need in a President?

    Parent

    Yes, Bush was a governor, so he had (none / 0) (#151)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:25:01 PM EST
    more executive experience than Obama.

    Is this really where the Obamans want to go?

    "He's almost as experienced as Bush was" is not a winning slogan.

    Parent

    Experience does not ensure competence (none / 0) (#176)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:38:51 PM EST
    I'll grant you that. But being president is not an on-the-job learning opportunity. He has to know how to set up an office, how to pick the right people to run it, how to get the kind of information he is going to need on the fly. It's possible to not have all of that even if you have executive experience. I don't see how it is possible to have it if you don't.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:02:15 PM EST
    I know he has said the opposite.

    He doesn't want to upset his voters who have spent the last 15 years hating Clintons and would rather hold onto that hate than do what's right for the country.


    Parent

    Wants to take advantage of (none / 0) (#77)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:24:23 PM EST
    is probably more accurate.

    When someone really comes up with a new approach to politics that works, that will signal that we have evolved into different species.

    For the moment we are stuck in the human version of politics that none of us either individually or collectively can avoid.

    Parent

    This is going to keep me awake (none / 0) (#139)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:16:02 PM EST
    tonight, thinking.  What a provocative statement!

    Parent
    You say that, yet it is not he who (none / 0) (#41)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:04:34 PM EST
    continues to attack and disparage the other candidate in the face of nearly insurmountable odds.

    If the person who cannot overcome a delegate lead stays in the race, maybe it's not the leader who is only concerned for themselves.

    Parent

    The popular vote (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:06:28 PM EST
    Is well within reach.

    Parent
    Myth... (none / 0) (#84)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:32:02 PM EST
    ...of course his delegate lead is surmountable.  Obama's myth that superdelegates are a rubber stamp doesn't reflect on reality.  And, as stated, his popular vote lead is far from insurmountable given that 5 million voters are yet to weigh in...

    Parent
    You don't give up (none / 0) (#87)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:34:27 PM EST
    That's a basic tenet in the American psyche. You don't give up when you have a decent chance of success. I'll admit that Clinton is a longshot, but longshots do sometimes pull through. You do not pull your horse out of the race because it isn't the favorite.

    Parent
    And she knows that for posterity (none / 0) (#144)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:19:43 PM EST
    she stays in as long as she can.  The children are watching.  The next generation can go farther only if the generation before goes as far as it can.

    Seriously.  I have listened to Clinton for many years, and she has a sense of history -- and especially knows women's history.  She knows that even if we don't win today, it is only by trying as hard as we can today can we ever win tomorrow.

    She will not go down in history as the woman who gave up too soon.  If the guys going after her to quit would get this simple truth, they would save themselves time and save us from stupid stories.

    Parent

    Ferraro. Pelosi. Clinton. (none / 0) (#183)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:42:17 PM EST
    There are more, I know. They are weakening the glass ceiling. Someday our children's daughters may break through entirely. Most developed nations have had female leaders. For some reason we can't quite pull it off. But classy performances like this help. It was like when Jesse Jackson ran a few years back. I'm not a big Jackson fan. He is too much of a self-promoter for me. But he ran a clean campaign, and I gained respect for him.

    Parent
    The obvious... (none / 0) (#185)
    by mg7505 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:43:18 PM EST
    Obama didn't pull out back in winter when he was WAY behind Clinton in polls, $$, name recognition, media coverage... let's not expect Clinton to give up on odds that are way better than Obama's ever were. People who just brush her aside (the "just let Obama win already!" types) are the same ones who brush aside actually thinking about who should win this election.

    Parent
    He said they wouldn't (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:01:37 PM EST
    He said that one advantage to voting for him was that his supporters wouldn't vote for Clinton, while hers would vote for him. His wife wouldn't even commit to voting for Clinton if she won the nomination.

    Parent
    I know (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:02:56 PM EST
    It's very disheartening.

    Parent
    It was wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:10:41 PM EST
    It can still be made (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:12:01 PM EST
    Right.


    Parent
    Not for me (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:15:45 PM EST
    I will never vote for him now. I would have several weeks ago even with my reservations.

    My very first vote for president was Mondale/Ferraro. There are a lot of women that remember what she put up with when she ran. This is just a replay.

    I don't trust Obama. I don't think he is a Democrat and there is almost nothing or any amount of whiskey that could get me to change my mind.

    Parent

    I hope you will reconsider (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:27:30 PM EST
    your position.  I don't like either, but I will vote for "The Democrat" in this election no matter what - and I will deal with their issues as we go along - I know that will be better than anything that McCain would offer.

    Parent
    The problem is (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:32:37 PM EST
    I don't think he is a Democrat. I also have a perspective here that might differ from a lot of people on the blog. I spend year in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This guy simplifies things to the point of absurdity. He has no clue how hard it is going to be to get out or even what needs to be done.

    Don't get me wrong, we need to get out but it isn't as simple as driving a tank back down the road. We have jeopardized the lives of tens of thousands of locals. What do we do about that now. Leave them to be slaughtered? It is this kind of simplicity that sends me over the edge. We need thoughtfulness and planning. He gives speeches about things he knows nothing about. Hell, I have more foreign policy experience than he does. His advisers are running around the world making stupid comments, undermining US policies and he isn't even the Dem nominee.

    Plus, I can't go with him on social security, increasing payroll taxes, I hate his health plan, etc. There really is no there, there for me. There is nothing to vote for when I add it all up

    Parent

    I'm 100% with you on this. (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:39:47 PM EST
    He scares me with so little experience.  To me, he's the equivalent of Bush and I do not want another of those, ever.


    Parent
    I'm routinely scoffed at... (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:48:11 PM EST
    ...when I point out that Obama is to the right of Clinton.  No mandate for universal healthcare.  Refusal to cap mortgage interest rates or stall foreclosures.  Economic advisers with long histories of espousing free markets and semi-private retirement plans.  Watered down 'present' votes on choice legislation.

    But bring this up and you'll get smacked with a single vote from Clinton in 2002 which instantly makes her the neo-con poster girl

    Parent

    You can still vote down ticket for Dems (none / 0) (#154)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:25:52 PM EST
    if he would gain the nomination, larger margins in the Senate are needed to move a Dem agenda and also not provide a rationale for not moving one as well, like the FISA Telecom immunity many Dems like McCaskill crossed over, unfortunately.

    Parent
    That's my strategy (none / 0) (#189)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:44:17 PM EST
    If we can give him a Congress that is Democratic enough, we can mitigate the damange either he or McCain would do to our nation. I'm supporting a downticket Dem who has a decent shot at a pickup, but the race will be competitive. Charlie Brown is our man.

    Parent
    Those of us who remember (none / 0) (#157)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:28:09 PM EST
    how the Vietnam War ended are with you on this -- on a withdrawal that does not leave those who worked with us in desperate straits to almost certain death.

    And thank you for your service.  I hope all is well.

    Parent

    Thank You (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:40:48 PM EST
    I'm okay. Thinking about the people left behind keeps me up at night though. My brother is a combat medic. He just got home today. We are the lucky ones and we never forget that. I am glad there are people here that do think about those that worked for us and put their lives on the line. They are going to need a lobby soon enough. I will count you in.

    Parent
    I trust him even less (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:28:03 PM EST
    since he's been getting away with political murder with all of the sexism and crying racism (of having his surrogates crying racism).  I don't know why Americans are putting up with this at all, or why they're swallowing it up whole, as the Clintons have decades upon decades of civil rights activism behind them.

    Parent
    Collective guilt (none / 0) (#193)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:47:49 PM EST
    We recognize racist tendencies in each of us. We all have them. The more self-aware people see them, and control them. Those less aware give all of us a bad name. People want to prove that they can elect a black president. Obama is a good candidate. He has everything going for him, except that one big flaw (inexperience) which could easily be fixed. But they don't want to wait. Who knows what could happen in 8 years while he's getting experience? For one thing, that experience will require making decisions which will be used against him. Better to lean in the safe direction and let him have it now. It's not like he won't be able to learn on the job. Even Bush did that. Of course, look how things turned out.

    Parent
    At least Hillary (none / 0) (#72)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:20:12 PM EST
    Has gone on record to say you're wrong to think or feel this way.

    BTW, I agree with you and not her on this issue.


    Parent

    I interned at Silver Cup Studios ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:31:15 PM EST
    and one day I was dressing a set for commercial.  We were told a very important person was going to be in this commercial, and we'd all have to leave the set during shooting.

    I didn't find out till some weeks later that it was Geraldine Ferraro doing that Diet Pepsi Ad with her daughters.

    Parent

    absolutely (none / 0) (#75)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:21:47 PM EST
    dianem (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:04:11 PM EST
    to be fair, MO said she'd have to hear Clinton's "tone" before she made the decision.  She didn't rule it out completely.  Fingers crossed!

    Parent
    What's her alternative? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:35:23 PM EST
    I don't think it's tenable for any high profile Democrat to express reservations about voting for the party nominee in a general election.

    Parent
    Completely delusional (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:56:17 PM EST
    This is worthy of the Bushie's self-created reality.

    Obama-Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by chemoelectric on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:13:51 PM EST
    I've made a little Obama-Clinton banner for my LiveJournal. I don't like Hillary Clinton anymore, as in I don't want to go out for coffee with her, but we really could use her on the ticket IMO.

    (The banner is copylefted.)

    I have little doubt that Obama will be the nominee, so I think I have the order right. No?

    Simply picking her as a VP (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:20:07 PM EST
    Won't make me want to vote for him.


    Parent
    And why would she accept (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:22:43 PM EST
    It is laughable. She should go for majority leader in that scenario. A lot more powerful, and meaningful.

    Parent
    The only way I could imagine it (none / 0) (#158)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:28:16 PM EST
    Is if they gave her the kind of power Cheney now has in the Bush white house.

    You know like setting policy and running things while Obama makes all the nice speeches.

    I could see that.  Even then it's just another man taking credit for a woman's work.  On a national scale.  But that's what would be best for the country if it came down to it.

    If they were just bringing her along to get Clinton voters, and not to give her any real power in the administration then she's associating her name with a potential nightmare of incompetence.

    So really it depends on what kind of deal they struck.

    Parent

    Nah (none / 0) (#164)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:32:10 PM EST
    Can't you see Hillary at the barricades holding up the horrible judicial appointments. It kinda makes me smile. She can do way more in the Senate and set herself up for 2012 if that is what she wants.

    Being Obama's lap dog is not in the cards. I just can't see it.

    Parent

    For some reason (none / 0) (#167)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:32:57 PM EST
    I just got this image of Clinton out hunting with a friend...I think it's the Cheney thing.

    Parent
    Ditto. (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:31:45 PM EST
    And I see that the blog's picked up some other fellow LiveJournallers (I've been courting the more sound writers to come take a peek, so forgive me if any of the new ones misbehave)...cool.

    But yeah, I don't know about the VP slot for Clinton.  Her talents would be wasted in that slot.  Obama's would be honed in that spot.  Clinton/Obama would be unbeatable, IMHO.  Obama/Clinton...notsomuch.

    Parent

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:29:23 PM EST
    The more experienced woman as VP on the ticket with the less experienced man as P is just going to piss a lot of women off.

    Sounds good to you.  Not to me.

    Parent

    actually... (none / 0) (#173)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:36:37 PM EST
    ignoring gender issues (which are large and almost impossible to ignore)...

    The P/VP inexperience/experience factor is exactly what we have in place now with Bush/Cheney.

    So in theory, she might be a very powerful Vice-President, following Cheney's footsteps and just guessing that Obama might be the kind of President that would benefit from an experienced VP.

    On the other hand...there seems to be no way that he would ask her, little likelihood of her accepting. I think that they would take a long look and see what the likelihood of Obama winning the general election and it just seems impossible, with or without Hillary on the ticket.

    Parent

    Either Way (none / 0) (#211)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:59:45 PM EST
    Works for me. Allows for lots of face saving.

    Parent
    Warped - again (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:15:10 PM EST
    "Their plan was to get the support of voters who were hesitant to vote for a black man by making race an issue"

    This is just nonsense.  In the weeks leading up to the South Carolina primary - where the population is 50% black - charges of race-baiting mysteriously emerged.  At the time Clinton polled quite well among African-Americans and those racist white folks weren't going to vote for Obama anyway.

    So...who stands to gain when the Clintons are suggested to be disparaging African-Americans?  Certainly not Clinton.  She loses blacks and gains... the whites who would've already voted for her?

    Ask yourself who gains and then ask who's most likely to have pushed the meme.

    It's the simplest rule in politics ... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:25:24 PM EST
    who stood to gain?

    Obama.

    So who is likely to have done it?

    Obama.

    Is there evidence of his involvement?

    Yes.

    So he did it.

    Only those who've placed their critical reasoning faculties in a blind trust, would see it otherwise.

    Parent

    When has Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by miriam on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:28:20 PM EST
    ever dissed black voters?  You are, in effect, accusing her of being stupid as well as racist.  She was not the one who alienated black voters, far from it.  But Obama needed the African-American votes and, by making the Clintons look racist, he got them.  (Remember the 4-page memo?) Which to me was a particularly despicable tactic.    

    Looking back at looking forward... (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Oje on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:40:47 PM EST
    Here is a good illustration at some of the differences that define Obama supporters and Clinton supporters. The expectations Rorschach...

    TPM looks back at an article with the views of Jesse Jackson and Geraldine Ferraro on the 2006 race between an African-American and a woman--and comes up with the snarky conclusion that "[Ferraro Was] For Reason Before She Was Against It?"

    When I look back at that article from 2006--in which both Jackson and Ferraro express the idea that a woman will have it easier than an African-American in the election--I realize just how much I did not expect the openness of the progressive media and voters to sexist and misogynistic discourses, regardless of whether that discourse is overt or cloaked in Clinton Derangement Syndrome.  

    --and thanks Foxhole, for the compliment.

    correction... (none / 0) (#181)
    by Oje on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:42:00 PM EST
    ... looks back at a 2006 article.... on the 2008 race..."

    Parent
    You're awfully quiet. Good night and I'll be (none / 0) (#1)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:30:22 PM EST
    pulling for you tomorrow. Maybe we'll get lucky and both be playing Sunday at 1:00.

    When it gets close to 200 comments (none / 0) (#6)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:36:53 PM EST
    my screen goes haywire with cryptic data and most of the comments aren't all there. Does that happen to everyone? Any point of interest left over from the previous thread?

    i'm a newbie (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by TheRefugee on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:41:16 PM EST
    but apparently talkleft has some sort of limitation on comments---200 being the cutoff which is why you see all 'comments closed' notations as 200 comments is approached or exceeded.  don't know about why your screen gets mixed up...but that might be the cause.

    Parent
    Look At Your User Perferences (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:49:20 PM EST
    For comments. Change overflow mode to nested.

    That may help.

    Parent

    Squeaky, thanks for tech tip. (none / 0) (#27)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:54:50 PM EST
    The dollar vs euro (none / 0) (#9)
    by Coldblue on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:39:43 PM EST
    My US (Virginia) made vacuum tube power amplifier uses Russian made vacuum tubes. After eight years of constant use, the amp needed new tubes.

    $329.

    Yikes (none / 0) (#10)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:41:09 PM EST
    At least the russians will put your money to good use! :)

    Parent
    OUCH (none / 0) (#11)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:41:13 PM EST
    Thats a lot of Vodka (none / 0) (#13)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:41:46 PM EST
    guitar amp? (none / 0) (#19)
    by TheRefugee on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:49:05 PM EST
    mine has 16 tubes...12 relatively cheap at 20 bucks per...4 which are 100 bucks per

    Parent
    HiFi (none / 0) (#22)
    by Coldblue on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:52:22 PM EST
    2 channel.

    I'm an analog guy living in a digital world; and loving it.

    Parent

    There is a certain moodiness to (none / 0) (#25)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:54:05 PM EST
    analogue sound

    Parent
    I'm an audio guy (none / 0) (#29)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:55:46 PM EST
    And I love solid state, cuz its cheap! :)

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#44)
    by Coldblue on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:08:21 PM EST
    but it sounds so bad (most of the time). And I don't have an iPod either :-)

    Parent
    It's like comparing pixels and brush strokes (none / 0) (#49)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:10:17 PM EST
    Go analog! (none / 0) (#47)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:10:00 PM EST
    Here's a gadget to give your digital world that analog flavor.

    I've been wanting one of these for months.  But I can't convince myself it's worth the price.

    It's a nifty little amp though.

    Parent

    I am new to blogging and commenting... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Oje on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:44:25 PM EST
    so I just wanted to follow up on a discussion from the last open thread.

    Obama may be willing to alienate Clinton's voters right now because the statistical evidence suggests that Democratic women seem to stick with the party. From the featured article at Corrente that I linked to in the previous thread:

    "The expansion of the gender gap is due almost entirely to changes in how men vote. Only a few more women (1.6%, comprising 0.9% of all voters) prefer Clinton when matched with McCain than when Obama is matched with McCain--women pretty much stick with the Democrat regardless of whether its Clinton or Obama."

    I should not have tried to surmise why that is... My interest in the last thread was to think through Obama's strategy, not guess why American women vote the way they do. My bad. Mea culpa. My apologies for the single-issue reductionism.


    Depends on the poll (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:52:09 PM EST
    In a recent Pew (i think) poll, more than twice as many Clinton voters would not vote for Obama than the other way around.  That may have been not from an opinion survey but from exit polling, I don't really remember.  If it's exit data, I would think it was better in any case.


    Parent
    Keep seeing the same stuff (none / 0) (#63)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:16:40 PM EST
    Clinton's supporters are becoming dug in and they are growing.  I feel Obama is taking the vote for granted and so is the party.  I know Obama's youth vote is strong.  They better hope there are more of them than what might stay home.

    Parent
    I'm sick of the Dems' misogyny rules (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Ellie on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:24:09 PM EST
    It's ALWAYS womens' fault. Once again, criticizing HRC for "being" divisive, a passive, borne quality that holds her responsible for the extremism and actions of her fanatical haters is OVERT SEXISM that the media and enablers condone, excuse and even enshrine as a virtue.

    Roe v. Wade is always the top "special interest" the Dems bash and blame for their own troubles and  shortcomings. It's not why they can't kick the right wing in the teeth but it's always the go-to excuse for, eg, courting those SOB Blue Dogs.

    Because actually affirmatively guaranteeing women constitutional protection is hard!

    Could you imagine the uproar that would occur if some moralizing pharmacist cited personal morality for not selling a man his Viagra because he might use it outside the pharmacist's personal notions of morality?

    And of course, not only is it NEVER womens' "turn", that posture wouldn't be tolerated for a nanosecond.

    If HRC is unfairly stomped out of a fair win, I'm writing in a Prezzie ticket and Obama won't be on it.

    Oh, and SHAME ON HIM.

    Parent

    I have argued for years that we need (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:35:05 PM EST
    to set up separate clinics, outside of hospitals, for prostate surgery.

    So we can picket them and harass the men there.

    Your Viagra analogy is right on -- has any pharmacist claimed his "conscience" prevents him from filling a Viagra prescription?  Yet some in my city have refused to fill prescriptions for birth control for women, married women and mothers of many children who with their husbands decided to have no more so they could raise well those they already have.

    Oh, and while I'm at it, I also want condoms to be only by prescription, necessitating costly trips to physicians.  Sanger had to make that compromise almost a century ago, and it's time that it stopped.  Let's get over-the-counter birth control for both genders -- or neither.

    Parent

    One of the flaws... (none / 0) (#96)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:41:06 PM EST
    ...of a campaign built on rhetoric and emotion is that you start buying your own spin.  One of the more frustrating characteristics of Obama supporters is the persistence in creating their own version of reality.  

    Parent
    Bushies have been creating their own reality (none / 0) (#109)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:52:59 PM EST
    for over 7 years now.  Guess it works for them but it sure screws the rest of us.


    Parent
    that is my only beef (none / 0) (#140)
    by TheRefugee on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:16:33 PM EST
    with the Obama crowd.  They are running a divisive GOP-like campaign where they are the only good guys and everyone else is bad.

    Other than that I don't mind Obama.  I wish he would have waited till 12 or 16 to run but I'm sure he thinks this is his window of opportunity.  I don't think he'd be a bad president.  But if he is on the ticket for the first time I will walk into a voting booth without passion for the dem candidate.  And it really has less to do with his abilities than it does with his campaign and his more vocal hate-spewing supporters.

    Parent

    You don't think he'd (none / 0) (#215)
    by mg7505 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:03:05 AM EST
    be a bad President? I have no idea what qualifies him to be a good one. His resume is unbelievably thin for a career politician without any enemies. I can't think of a single issue I trust him on with regards to actually creating the laws that rule us all. The American public has lost it (granted they never quite had it in the first place) -- there is so much Clinton-hate and desire for "something different" that any guy whom the Media likes for whatever reason becomes magically endowed with the ability to lead the free world. I hope the residents of Pennsylvania give her a landslide victory, just like their Ohio brethren (and sistren!).

    Parent
    Not this one (none / 0) (#45)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:09:09 PM EST
    Obama's campaign keeps doing things to get me really angry. Every time I calm down a bit and start to think that maybe I will be able to support him, he/his campaign do something else to anger me. I haven't been this angry this often since ... well, ever. I don't do anger very well. Ferraro is a personal hero of mine. She doesn't deserve this. I think they could have handled this better. Obama coming out today saying that what she said wasn't racist helped a bit, but it's too little, too late. His people started the "racist" meme, damaging the reputation of a good woman. How often does he expect us to bounce back?

    Parent
    About as often (none / 0) (#120)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:58:39 PM EST
    as Hillary expects the Obama supporters to bounce back.

    This is hand to hand combat at this point.  It isn't going to be pretty and the winner may very well be too bloody to much against McCain if this continues.

    Parent

    This is what I don't understand (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:10:43 PM EST
    Clinton has, imo, stayed between the lines. She has attacked Obama repeatedly on his major vulnerability - his inexperience. She has attacked the weaknesses of his plans. She has passed up some very promising opportunities to point out sexist attacks on her by his supporters, campaign manager's, and advisor's. What has she said about Obama that get's his supporters so angry? I can point to specific things he has done that seem more like personal attacks than appropriate political strategy. What has she done that crosses that line?

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#149)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:23:07 PM EST
    There are several things I think she completely crossed the line on.  You probably wouldn't agree because you find those attacks fair.  

    I find many of the things the Clinton supporters get upset over are no big deal.  

    Amazing how we can rationalize things to fit our biases and desires.

    Parent

    In other words ... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:27:12 PM EST
    you can't name anything.

    Parent
    ok (none / 0) (#177)
    by BethanyAnne on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:38:56 PM EST
    "John McCain has crossed the C-in-C threshold.  I believe I have crossed that threshold.  Obama... has a speech he gave in 2002"

    Is that within the lines?


    Parent

    That isn't a correct quote (none / 0) (#198)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:51:25 PM EST
    Get one of the correct quotes, and then I'll comment.

    Parent
    Could you please provide examples (none / 0) (#166)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:32:53 PM EST
    If I don't have examples, then it's difficult for me to determine if I agree or disagree with your assessment.

    Parent
    I would (none / 0) (#184)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:43:14 PM EST
    except it becomes frustrating to bring up examples because when I do I can usually count on a gang of Hillary supporters to come over and tell me how utterly wrong I am for having my opinion.

    But why not?  It's not like I will be surprised by the attacks.

    Clinton praising McCain over Obama.  To me that is a cardinal sin.  

    Clinton attempting to portray Obama as being against Universal health care.

    Clinton Republican fear ads against Obama.

    Clinton telling women voters they should vote for her because she is a woman.  

    Clinton and her campaign suggesting that Obama is a Republican.

    Clinton campaign sending out a mailer in New Hampshire questioning Obama's pro-choice support.

    Those are a few things that have bothered me.  And of those the first one is by far the worst, in my opinion.

    Parent

    I don't think you are utterly wrong (none / 0) (#214)
    by dianem on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:01:18 AM EST
    In comparing her experience to McCain's, Clinton is setting herself up in the general election, using an attack that is already going to be used against Obama, so it does him no harm. It's good that she is thinking ahead. The right doesn't dare criticize her for suggesting that she is as qualified as McCain right now, because that would help Obama. They'll deal with Clinton later, but she'll be in a better position.

    He health plan is not universal health care, and he has stronly criticized plans that are. He also used "Harry and Louise" style ads to fight Clinton's plan, which is inexcusable in the eyes of many who saw those ads as part of the attack machine that stopped health care in it's tracks.

    The "fear" ads are not wrong. She is saying that you should vote for her because she is more experienced. That's not exactlty an inappropriate argument in apolical campaign. It's not as if she suggested that there was more likely to be a terrorist attack if Obama were elected. And, btw, Obama has also used fear. He has suggested that Clitnon is sure to lose the campaign for us, while he will win over right-wingers. ]

    I missed where they suggested he was a Republican.  There was some general criticism when Obama talked about admiring Ronald Reagain, which was reckless at best. Few older Democrats liked RR, and it left him very open to attacks. He has also bragged about howhe is attracting people from the right, which puts his liberal credentials on the balance.

    Clinton telling women they should vote for her becuase she is a woman is the same as Obama telling people they should vote for him because he's black. I expect both candidates to make arguments to vote for them for whatever reason. I do not expect them to then suggest that it makes no difference in the race. Their use of race and gender put them on the table. Racism and sexism are out - but discussions of the impacts of race and gender should be accepted.

    The abortion mailer was not as bad as it was spun to be. A lot of people in that area stronly disagreed with what Obama did and felt that he was avoiding conflict by voting the way he did. Clinton's people chose to listen to them and not those who said that he did the right thing. Sort of like Obama's people quoting Irish leaders who say that Clinton had nothing to do with the peace proces instead of fully quoting people who say that she was invaluable. It's spin, but it's honest spin.

    Parent

    Not with you on that list... (none / 0) (#217)
    by Rainsong on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:22:21 AM EST
    Clinton praising McCain over Obama.  

    I read that not as praise, but as stating comparative relative experience and the resumes of the people, supported by years of government records.

    Clinton attempting to portray Obama as being against Universal health care.

    He is against it, his plan does not have the necessary dual mandates (ie for consumers and industry).

    Clinton Republican fear ads against Obama.
    Real scarey. Obama recycled Republican fear ads on health care, after saying he wouldn't, he went ahead and did it anyway.

    Clinton telling women voters they should vote for her because she is a woman.  
    Clinton hasn't "told" anyone to vote for her. Some of her ads are designed to "appeal" to her base. She hasn't even bothered with counter-attacks on the sexism from Obama, his surrogates or the media. Obama has been appealing to an A-A base - whats the difference?

    Clinton and her campaign suggesting that Obama is a Republican.
    After checking his public record, I've made that suggestion too. Obama's campaign implied that Bill Clinton was akin to Nixon, and the list goes on and on.

    Clinton campaign sending out a mailer in New Hampshire questioning Obama's pro-choice support.

    Questioning is good democracy to me (but then I'm weird). I'd like to see him questioned on that too, amongst many other points. He may not have much of a record for his years in Illinois, but he does have a public voting record of being conservative on women's issues, including being the only Democrat in Illinios to vote against state Democrat sponsored legislation on it.

    We have a right to "question" our candidates on their records, especially on core Democratic Party principles for which he is on public government record as being ambivalent at best, or non-supportive, at worst.  

    Parent

    Oje, your posts have been great. (none / 0) (#124)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:04:19 PM EST
    So, I can't quite tell why you say "mea culpa". I really appreciate that you're generating your own theories and presenting them in an expansive way. I'd like to see even more of that at TL.

    Parent
    How can these statistics be accurate? (none / 0) (#142)
    by miriam on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:17:15 PM EST
    We've never before had a situation where a woman became a serious candidate for president.  And where the opportunity for vicious mysogyny was so available.  I doubt anyone can say with certainty what women will do come November.  I'm hearing a lot say they will NOT vote for O but will work and vote only for congressional candidates.  The reasoning being that a Democratic House and Senate will effectively ham-string President McCain on Supreme Court appointments and legislation.  

    Parent
    no race-baiting comments here (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:44:33 PM EST
    I just deleted one and the reply to it.

    Difference between race-baiting and race-card? (none / 0) (#26)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:54:14 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------
    I semi-recall reading somewhere lately that "playing the race card" means falsely, knowingly, accusing somebody of racism. And the tactic of playing the race card is "race-baiting"?

    An analogy: one could falsely, knowingly, accuse somebody of being a communist. And that tactic would be "red-baiting".

    Anybody know if that's accurate?

    Parent

    this site does not allow (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:58:41 PM EST
    anyone to refer to anyone else as a racist. Whether it's a candidate or another commenter. Or to imply that segments of the population are bigoted or racist.

    Do that at other sites, but not here. I have a very low tolerance for anything that smacks of it. If I interpret a comment as suggesting that, it's deleted.

    Parent

    You run a tight ship (none / 0) (#59)
    by Coldblue on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:15:25 PM EST
    I had a comment deleted (not about race) that was mild, but I do appreciate your vigilance.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, That's understood and appreciated. (none / 0) (#101)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:46:59 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------
    Under TL guidelines would it be permissible to say that a given entity is playing the race card or race-baiting? (Is there a distinction between the two terms.)

    Could one parse Orlando Patterson's interpretation of the 3am ad without using those terms?


    Parent

    No you can't say that (none / 0) (#206)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:55:27 PM EST
    Four comments to go and this thread is closing. Also, could you not put a line of dashes in your comments? Thanks!

    Parent
    Obama & Clinton Need to Support Revotes (none / 0) (#42)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:06:08 PM EST
    What is the consensus here as to the damage Obama or Clinton does to the party if either fights against revotes in Florida and Michigan?

    Obviously there has been more vocal opposition from the Obama side but I feel it necessary to list both of them here at least until Florida puts forth their revote plan tomorrow and both candidates voice their opinion.

    As this drama continues, polls in both Michigan and Florida show McCain beating either Clinton or Obama. The result of disenfranchising a state (or in this case two states) looks to serve up 44 electoral votes solidly into the GOP column.

    I still think there is plenty of time to fix this electoral problem if both candidates get behind revotes and move forward to count every vote.

    I Don't know about Michigan (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:09:12 PM EST
    I am now convinced that a revote will hurt Clinton, and I'll just have to move on from that at some point.

    Hopefully I'll be wrong.

    What does the party have to lose in Florida by simply certifying the existing vote?

    What does it have to gain?


    Parent

    Why? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:12:43 PM EST
    I am now convinced that a revote will hurt Clinton


    Parent
    Because While Obama is stalling for time (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:16:15 PM EST
    He's deploying his ground game, will be able to focus all of his resources on one state for one vote (instead of divying them up amongst other states), and because the racial element of this campaign has now taken hold in the media in a way it did not back when the original vote happened.

    A number of factors.

    If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.  But when i get this nagging feeling in my gut, I'm rarely wrong.


    Parent

    I get having a ground game (none / 0) (#69)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:19:20 PM EST
    in private is good strategy but his public strategy is going to wipe that out.

    Parent
    I guess we are going to see (none / 0) (#76)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:21:56 PM EST
    what happens.


    Parent
    don't get disheartened (none / 0) (#70)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:19:38 PM EST
    Clinton has people on the ground in Florida, too, and she's got a lot of the local politicians working really hard for her.

    Lookit, I keep saying this: she is not giving up so we should not give up.  It is a lot harder for her out there on the front lines every day and she still keeps fighting the good fight.  Onwards!

    Parent

    He outspent Clinton... (none / 0) (#98)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:43:28 PM EST
    ...by at least 2 to 1 in Ohio and still gets trounced.  His ground game is effective for caucuses where you can actually effect the outcome by chartering a dozen buses to bring in college kids.  Not so in a primary which brings nearly 2 million to the polls.

    Parent
    Got it (none / 0) (#146)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:22:00 PM EST
    I hear the counter-argument.

    Parent
    Thanks to kerdwyn from the last thread (none / 0) (#83)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:31:58 PM EST
    for reminding me about Top Chef.

    Florida Resident, upstream: Nature/Nurture (none / 0) (#88)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:35:09 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------
    I'm with you on the matter of nature vs. nurture; biological determinism vs. behaviorism (socialization); the low view of human nature vs. the high view.

    Seems it's always been a political issue.

    Historically, progressives (like us) have tended to believe that nurture determines most, if not all, behavior. While conservatives have tended to believe that it's a matter of nature. They're looking at such things as perceived differences between men and women, gays and straights, caucasians and people of color, the rich and the poor, the 'first world' and the 'third world' etc.

    Conservatives have preferred the nature explanation because, allegedly, "you can't fight nature". It's a neat tactic of stereotyping and keeping people in their 'proper' place.

    Conservatives are using it now against Senator Clinton ('narcissistic, shrill, hysterical female') and they will step up their use of it against Obama if he becomes the nominee.

     

    Parent

    Mendell was a Monk (none / 0) (#92)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:38:13 PM EST
    Florida Res, which Mendell was a monk? (none / 0) (#186)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:43:27 PM EST
    "You can't fight nature" actually is (none / 0) (#195)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:49:22 PM EST
    a very convenient argument to avoid having to change one's ways.  Conservatives don't like change.  But they like themselves the way they are -- the way, so they say, they were born with beliefs so innate that they cannot be challenged or changed.  Nice how that works.

    Parent
    I know there was a poll showing (none / 0) (#90)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:35:29 PM EST
    something about who keeps the most of the other's voters and it was Clinton, but there is reason to doubt that.

    One, Rasmussen points out that they both lose voters to McCain, which is why both are currently tied in GE polls.

    In MS, where the turnout was about 50-50 black/white, 58% said they'd be happy if Clinton topped the ticket, compared with 69% for Obama. That actually speaks better for her. She only won 40%, so 30% (18/60) of his supporters said yes to her (assuming 100% of her own voters said yes). For him, he won 60%, so 25% (9/40) of her supporters said yes to him. Pretty divisive on both sides, really. I actually think that pretty much is what the other poll found.

    As for why he said what he said about his voters (not that he should have--he shouldn't): the Dallas Morning News had a story after their primary showing that more of Obama's supporters tended to skip the rest of the ballot.  Both Senators saw their voters do this, and there really is no way to prove it was all his voters, but places where he won big had more ballots with only one race voted on.

    Obama's point was that he has brought in so many people who only follow him; Clinton does have more support among those who are always Democrat. That is not a reason to deny him the nomination, at least in my mind. If he brings people out who otherwise won't vote, that is good for the party, not bad.

    He should be clear that he will support Sen. Clinton if she wins. I don't think it will matter as much. Someone else pointed out that Clinton's voters (women in that comment) are just more loyal to the party, period. That's not a reason to deny her the nomination; it's just not a reason to give it to her, either.

    Rude surprise coming in Nov for Obama campaign (none / 0) (#99)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:43:48 PM EST
    Naw. (none / 0) (#117)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:56:27 PM EST
    Once President and Senator Clinton join the campaign, it'll be just like President Clinton said: "unstoppable force." And that will be without her as VP.

    Parent
    Somehow (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:00:37 PM EST
    I think hell will freeze over first. You don't call the Big Dawg a racist and then expect him to campaign for you. He just has the tact to not say that publicly at this moment.

    An nobody but a delusional obamabot would expect otherwise. Oh, I forgot. He is the devil. They don't want him. I guess Kerry will have to do.

    Parent

    Sounds like a delusional Clintonista (none / 0) (#123)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:04:05 PM EST
    would think Bill Clinton will sit aside and watch another four years of the GOP dismantling the Constitution, fighting a pointless war, and refusing to serve the poor.

    If he did, his legacy would only go down. He is far too shrewd a politician to do that. He may cuss Axelrod or even Obama out, but he'll do right by the party he's helped resurrect.

    Parent

    Doubt it (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:10:03 PM EST
    When you call Bill and Hillary Clinton racists, stand by while your adviser calls Hillary a Monster and totally bag on Bill's accomplishment's as president, they aren't going out on the campaign trail to help you.

    Obama will get knocked off in a landslide and the Clintons will sit back and say - I told you so. BO is about BO. Not the democratic party. That is where your miscalculation starts and ends.

    If anything, it will make his legacy look even better.

    Parent

    If I knew who you were, we'd place a bet (none / 0) (#169)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:34:44 PM EST
    and I'd take your money.

    Bill stumps for Obama; otherwise, he looks more racist than he did in SC.

    Get with the program. Politics is politics.

    Parent

    I'm still laughiing at you (none / 0) (#174)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:36:38 PM EST
    Boy are you in for a rude awakening. See ya in Nov.

    Parent
    Blackmail now? What next with Obama? (none / 0) (#202)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:54:28 PM EST
    Bill MUST campaign for him, or Bill looks more racist than he did when we first smeared him and tried to destroy his legacy?  

    You bet politics is politics.  And Bill is the best at it.  And it is Obama who has ensured that no Clinton can campaign for him, because anything they say will be the headline instead of what Obama says.

    Fer sure, Obama wouldn't be able to grab the headlines again by saying that those on the campaign trail for him were being racist.  See how it works?

    Parent

    You live in an alternate reality. Stay there. (none / 0) (#128)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:07:57 PM EST
    I normally avoid you, b/c I think you're a bit (none / 0) (#168)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:33:33 PM EST
    unhinged. Now I know I was right.

    I hear banjos when you're near, dude.

    Stay away from me.

    Parent

    Not to mention that he is telling the truth (none / 0) (#125)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:05:29 PM EST
    when he says he's waited his whole life to vote for a black man for president. The first black president helping to elect the first African-American president? He ain't passin' on that. If you think so, you don't know Bill.

    Parent
    I think that was assuming (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:16:48 PM EST
    The black man he would be voting for wouldn't have spent the last a whole year tearing him apart.


    Parent
    This man won't get my vote, even (none / 0) (#134)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:10:50 PM EST
    if Bill drops by my house and asks in person.


    Parent
    Ditto, bro (none / 0) (#136)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:12:06 PM EST
    Ya, I do. (none / 0) (#135)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:11:03 PM EST
    I worked on his campaign. You are delusional

    Parent
    We'll see, big shot. (none / 0) (#162)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:30:57 PM EST
    Hillary's already apologizing to black folks. They gonna come around.

    Parent
    you make me laugh (none / 0) (#171)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:35:30 PM EST
    When you don't have an argument with facts we head straight to personal insults. That's ok. I have tough skin and it is exactly what I expect from Obamabots

    Parent
    Acknowledgng that you're a big shot (none / 0) (#182)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:42:09 PM EST
    hurt your feelings? Man, imagine if I had thin skin being called an obamabot, on more than one occasion.

    And for the record, it was you who avoided the point. Bill cannot avoid the fall without looking racist. It's a political reality.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#191)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:45:53 PM EST
    I think I have outlined in this thread very well why he won't do it and why nobody will expect him to.

    Trust me son, you are nothing. I have been shot at, mortared, rocketed and lost more friends than you will ever know in a war zone. Your dribble is just comedy.

    On that note, I am going to bed.

    Parent

    Thank you for ending the convo (none / 0) (#207)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:55:54 PM EST
    on a name-calling high note.

    Your Col. Jessup is quite good.

    Nite.

    Parent

    Wait a second (none / 0) (#199)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:51:36 PM EST
    you called him delusional.

    How is big shot an insult?

    Parent

    He has been clear about that (none / 0) (#104)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:47:34 PM EST
    It was in a debate.  They all said "Yes."

    We're talking about how each candidate regards they're supporters.

    It's like this.

    Please consider this.

    If I go to Hillary Clinton and say "You are the best, I love you, here's the last 200 dollars to my name, and that Obama is crap, I'll never vote for him in the General Election," I figure she'd thank me for me for my support but then also urge me to reconsider that second statement I made in the above statement.

    Now.

    If I go to Obama and say "You are the best, I love you, here's the last 200 dollars to my name, and that Clinton is crap, I'll never vote for her in the General Election," I figure he'd thank me for my support.

    Do you get me?

    Parent

    I get you. (none / 0) (#113)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:54:08 PM EST
    I just disagree. Obama is more of a gentleman than that. He'll campaign for Hillary if she pulls this out. I know she will too. It's really not about the candidates. It's about supporters, and Obama has more supporters who simply don't care about politics otherwise. That shouldn't be held against him.

    Parent
    I know that (none / 0) (#131)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:10:14 PM EST
    Will Obama ever tell one of his supporters they wrong to say they won't support Clinton in the General Election?

    Clinton has made such statements.


    Parent

    I guess we'll find out if (none / 0) (#175)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:37:10 PM EST
    she wins this thing.

    On that note, though, I say if Obama holds on the Clintons hit the stump with him if he asks. You think they would thumb their noses at him?

    Parent

    Yes, and he wouldn't even know it (none / 0) (#210)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:59:21 PM EST
    because they are that good at it.

    Parent
    Is Geffen (none / 0) (#97)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:42:04 PM EST
    Rank and File?

    And the pendulum swings (none / 0) (#114)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:54:38 PM EST
    last week Obama supporters were talking about how Hillary had thrown the kitchen sink at him and hit below the belt.  Now the Hillary supporters are saying the same thing about Obama.

    I just hope it doesn't get worse but I fear it will.

    They have six weeks to do nothing but (none / 0) (#121)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:59:59 PM EST
    sling mud at one another. Thank God March Madness will break up the monotony.

    And it's not the two of them so much. If either could get a grip on their supporters, it wouldn't be nearly as bad. I mean, you expect Williams and Wolfson to go at it with Axelrod and Plouffe, but when it starts spiraling outward, it gets ugly. Surrogates should only talk about how good their candidate is. Nothing else. I think Chelsea does that. She should be the example of a surrogate.

    Talk to voters, not reporters. Talk about the candidate, not the opponent. Smile. Say bye.

    Parent

    I think we forget that (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:08:24 PM EST
    the surrogates are even more emotionally involved than the rank and file supporters and they have a tendency to speak from emotion because of that.

    Samantha Power's comment was born of anger at Hillary for she thought was underhanded actions, rightfully or not.

    Geraldine Ferraro's comment was born of anger at what she perceives to be the unfair treatment that Hillary receives regarding racial issues.  

    Ferraro isn't a racist.  She just said something dumb and unfortunately in Presidential politics the press is looking for anything.  That's why an obscure interview in a small town newspaper or  Scottish newspaper, gets front page coverage almost immediately.

    And as the outragemeter goes up the more people get angry over smaller and smaller things.  We are all susceptible to it.

    Parent

    this race is driven by media (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:32:22 PM EST
    and their narrative.

    Ferraro spoke what she believed. It wasn't a big deal.

    Samantha Power reduced it to name calling - it wasn't befitting of her role.

    If you feel that the media doesn't drive this campaign then you are in for a big shock because the media is going to drive McCain to a big victory over Obama if he actually holds on and fights off Hillary.

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#172)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:36:19 PM EST
    I'm not going to bother arguing the point.  You believe what you believe.  Not much is going to change that.

    Parent
    I have a question for you. (none / 0) (#178)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:39:50 PM EST
    I know you're another Obama supporter who just gets written off here, but you seem to be a sensible person.

    Do you think the Clintons will stump for Obama in the fall if he hangs on to the nomination?


    Parent

    I think that either (none / 0) (#192)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:47:44 PM EST
    campaign will stump for the other without question.  It is utterly ridiculous to think that either candidate would allow a grudge to trump party loyalty and neither would allow themselves to be portrayed as the person who allowed John McCain to win, if that were to happen.

    Parent
    Well, watch for some dissenters (none / 0) (#209)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:57:32 PM EST
    to attack you on that note. I agree completely, but there are at least two hardcore Clinton folks who say no way in h-e-ll Bill stumps for Obama.

    Parent
    Geraldine was not a surrogate ... (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:43:41 PM EST
    and the statement was made at an event which was not connected with the campaign in any way.

    The Obama campaign plucked this statement from an obscure source, then started acting as if it was an engineered action of the Clinton campaign.

    This isn't about Ferraro it's about the Obama how the Obama campaign operates.

    Parent

    Of course Ferraro is a surrogate (none / 0) (#194)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:49:05 PM EST
    she isn't part of the campaign but she is actively politicking for Hillary.  

    Do you have a link showing that the Obama campaign started this?

    Parent

    Give me an itinerary of her ... (none / 0) (#213)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:00:13 AM EST
    duties as a surrogate.  List any appearances she's made on cable news speaking on Clinton's behalf prior to this incident.

    Don't be loose with language.  Surrogate is a very specific role.  It doesn't simply mean supporter.

    Then argue how this "important surrogate" gave an answer to a question at an private event, which appeared without her knowledge in a small newspaper, and explain how that is somehow the nefarious action of the Clinton campaign?

    This isn't about Ferraro or Clinton.  This is about the Obama campaign.

    Defend their actions and argument.

    Parent

    CNN Disagrees (none / 0) (#203)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:54:40 PM EST
    Former congresswoman Ferraro is the latest Clinton surrogate to launch a firestorm with comments relating to Obama's heritage or ethnicity.

    CNN

    Parent

    Night Folks (none / 0) (#119)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:57:48 PM EST
    I leave you with these thoughts "Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the Past are bound to repeat them"

    Can you point to a specific statement... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Shawn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:06:42 PM EST
    by Clinton or the Clinton campaign in which it was said that Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado, New Mexico (which she won, btw) and North Carolina "don't count"?

    uh of course... (none / 0) (#133)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:10:47 PM EST
    ...Samantha Power was speaking on her own behalf but Ferraro - a very minor player in the Clinton campaign - was part of an orchestrated PR effort.

    And of course Candice Tolliver - Obama's South Carolina press secretary - wrote up a "race memo" about Clinton but never meant for it to be leaked to the press and Obama not only didn't know about it but thought it was totally inappropriate.

    This notion is part and parcel of the warped world of the Obama campaign.  The words of even the most distant of Clinton surrogates may as well have come straight from Hillary's mouth, while Obama's supporters are just out there like stray dogs nipping at passers by and - when busted - Obama just shrugs and says 'not my dog'

    Misstatements abound (none / 0) (#190)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:45:50 PM EST
    in your comment, and you get called on that here.

    You don't just get to tell, you've got to show and tell here.  You are stating arguments and leaping to conclusions with no evidence in between.  Provide quotations to support, for example, your statement that Senator Clinton "disses voters now."

    As for your statements that her advisors are "stupid," "insensitive," and "arrogant," again provide evidence.  And as for your statements that you know what Senator Clinton thinks, you simply cannot support those -- so don't state them.

    See how it is done here?  Don't do this again here.

    ok dokey (none / 0) (#216)
    by BethanyAnne on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:07:42 AM EST
    Hillary here
    "It's not a factor," was how Clinton dismissed Obama victories in Maine, Nebraska, Louisiana, Virgin Islands and Washington state in an interview with WJLA and Politico on Monday.
    "We had a great night on Super Tuesday. We're winning the states that we have to win. The big states that are really going to determine whether the Democrats win," she said during the televised discussion.
    Clinton has laughed out loud when asked about her losses in red state bastions such as Kansas and other caucus states, backhanding them as products of her own party "activists" and not real voters.
    More dismissiveness cited here . So, saying that Red State Dems are not "real voters" is respectful how?

    Parent
    Florida Revote Proposal (none / 0) (#196)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:49:35 PM EST
    For those of us that are revote geeks at this point, and it's safe to say I would have to classify myself in that category...here is the initial proposal for a revote to be presented tomorrow to the DNC from the Florida Democratic Party.

    It's a pdf file.

    http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2008/03/12/15/3-12-08_Memo_to_Congressionals.source.prod_affilia te.56.pdf

    Enjoy your bedtime reading.

    Right away... (none / 0) (#200)
    by Oje on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:51:40 PM EST
    I will predict that Obama supporters go ballistic over the fact that Hillary Clinton leads the list of recipients....

    Parent
    Let's see how the Clinton camp (none / 0) (#212)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:59:58 PM EST
    responds to a April 30th deadline for registering as  a Democrat.  

    Seems like a pretty decent plan to me.  But I know very little about these sorts of things.

    Parent

    Obama's plan... (none / 0) (#201)
    by Oje on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:54:25 PM EST
    nixed by DNC as against the rules, no 50/50 split.

    Parent
    When in doubt (none / 0) (#205)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:55:17 PM EST
    In you can't list by strength of title (both senators) go alphabetical

    Comments Now Closing (none / 0) (#208)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:57:09 PM EST
    Thanks everyone.