home

Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:41:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

What do you think of Roger Clemens? Sorry, I got nuthin.

This is an Open Thread. Remember the comments rules. I am just deleting now for all nonconforming comments that I see.

< How Hillary Now Sees the Path to the Nomination | A Good MoDo Column, Really >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Open Thread | 123 comments (123 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Clemens (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:43:39 PM EST
    I think anybody who thought Clemens could keep throwing that kind of heat at his age without being on something is, well, on something.

    I heard "Hacksaw" Hamilton (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:59:51 PM EST
    discussing the amazing stats. of Clemens after a not so amazing period.  But, Clemens and his counsel have already approached the super delegates, so, no harm, no foul, as we say in baseball.

    Parent
    Hacksaw Hamilton (none / 0) (#23)
    by white n az on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:08:41 PM EST
    He still in San Diego?

    He still completely insufferable?

    Parent

    yes,he is... (none / 0) (#42)
    by nic danger on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:27:58 PM EST
    and yes,he is

    Parent
    Amazingly enough, where I hear him (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:43:35 PM EST
    is on These Days on KPBS radio, my local NPR station.

    Parent
    Why should the Gov't care (none / 0) (#45)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:30:57 PM EST
    Frankly, with so much urgent business, should we really be worried about what some guys do in a private business? I would rather they had hearings with the subprime lenders, the rating companies and realtors who fueled the real estate crisis. When it comes to sports I guess I am a free marketeer, let them self regulate.

    Parent
    Why should the government care? (none / 0) (#85)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:07:05 PM EST
    Do you realize how much those autographs he signed this week will be worth when he gets in the Hall of Fame?

    Parent
    All I know is (none / 0) (#99)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:15:30 PM EST
    if this is proven, then he should go to jail just like Marion Jones had to.  And he should lose his money, just like she did.

    Of course, I won't hold my breath.  When there is an example to be made, it is always a woman who is punished, whether it's Leona Helmsley or Martha Stewart.  Add Marion to the list now.

    Parent

    Oh boy.... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:44:10 AM EST
    in the name of equality we must cage more athletes.

    Nice.  


    Parent

    Dosnt anyone give a sh*t (none / 0) (#145)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:31:37 PM EST
    about the rules anymore?! Mark it zero.

    Parent
    Freaks (none / 0) (#104)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:18:42 PM EST
    All athletes are freaks now a days. Not much difference between Wrestling and all the others. Tour De France should just be eliminated or let them all drug themselves till they all explode.

    Parent
    We have no inalienable right.... (none / 0) (#141)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:46:07 AM EST
    to drug-free sports.  If you hate dope, don't watch sports where the players take dope.

    I believe we do have an inalienable right to eat/drink/smoke/inject whatever the hell we want...regardless of what the government says.

    Parent

    They're all elected (none / 0) (#98)
    by badger on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:15:07 PM EST
    Take WA State, where I live. 200,000 people showed up for the caucuses - about 14% of the 1.5 million who voted Democratic in the last Presidential election. Those 14% elected pledged delegates.

    Those pledged delegates, eventually, will elect the DNC reps from WA State, who will be superdelegates.

    The other superdelegates are Senators, Governor, Reps - all of whom got a lot more votes than any or all of the pledged delegates.

    So it seems to me everybody in this process, under the pre-established rules, represents the "will of the people" in one way or another. They are all elected representatives, and we live in a representative democracy.

    Just not all of them represent the will of Obama supporters, which, amazing as it may seem, is not the same thing as the will of the people.


    Parent

    I just got a DFA email (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by katiebird on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:49:23 PM EST
    I just got a message from DFA asking me to sign a petition calling the super-delegates to "let the voters decide the nominee"

    Of course, I want voters to choose the nominee -- but what would this petition have them do?  Renounce candidates that they've already endorsed?

    How is that fair?  

    Is that at all likely to happen?

    What's the deal with all these rule issues?

    Did they say which voters (none / 0) (#7)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:54:34 PM EST
    the SDs should listen to?  Or mention the fact that SDs are, themselves, voters too?

    What a mess.  This whole system is absolutely crazy.

    Parent

    I'm afraid to follow the link until I calm down (none / 0) (#14)
    by katiebird on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:02:01 PM EST
    Why isn't DFA standing up for FL & MI voters if we're going to start throwing our weight around?

    I'm afraid to follow the link until I calm down.  I've been a DFA person since it stood for DEAN for America.  I've never felt on the outside with them.

    Until now.

    That quote was on the link-button.   And nothing in the letter was very specific:

    This is an unprecedented year. Thirty-seven states and U.S. territories have already voted and we don't have a clear nominee. Senators Clinton and Obama are in a delegate race to the nomination.

    There are a lot of ways that delegates get assigned to a specific candidate, but almost all of the allocated delegates are directly tied and bound by the actual votes in each primary or caucus -- all of them that is, except super-delegates.

    Super-delegates are a contingent of almost 900 elected officials, party insiders, and current DNC members and they aren't required to follow the voters. In fact, after every Democrat has voted and the last allocated delegates are assigned, super-delegates have the power to overturn the popular vote and crown a different winner.

    That's right, if super-delegates don't like who you choose to be our nominee, they can overturn your vote. We can't let that happen. Our nominee must be chosen by Democratic voters, not by back room deals of the party elite. Sign our petition now to let the voters decide:

    link

    We must respect the 20 million Democrats who have already voted and the millions more who will vote before the convention. It's up to us to make sure the almost 900 super-delegates do the right thing.

    Sign the petition today and we'll deliver all of the signatures directly to super-delegates.

    And this is just the beginning of our campaign to let the voters decide. The longer it takes to win, the more we'll escalate the campaign. We'll write letters, make calls, and hold media events. Because when it comes to protecting the will of Democratic primary voters, DFA members know exactly where we stand.

    I think it's pretty weird that the super-delegates are as big a % of the convention as they are.  But, I didn't write the rules.  

    For heaven's sake -- we can't seat FL & MI because it would break the rules -- but we can deny the voting rights of the super-delegates?

    What a weird election -- how did I land on the side of supporting super-delegates?  I didn't even support Hillary until a couple of weeks ago.  So it's not for love of her.

    Parent

    They aren't being consistent. They mention (none / 0) (#26)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:10:09 PM EST
    delegate counts first but then say the superdelegates have the power to overturn the popular vote.

    Parent
    This election is so fluid it feels like... (none / 0) (#29)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:11:30 PM EST
    and earthquake.

    One hand claiming super delegates shouln't decide the nomination, but not seat regular delegates that voters voted as their representatives?

    It's schizophrenic.

    Do they want Florida to turn over to the Republicans? When voters get mad with a party they switch -- look what happen in 1980. They haven't switched back since!

    Parent

    Texas... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:38:26 PM EST
    Way too much psychodrama, hard to figure it out. And that is all we are getting a glimpse. No way to see what will happen. Hillary I know will do the right thing for the party, but I truly wonder about Obama.

    Parent
    give your advice to Obama who has been (none / 0) (#73)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:01:42 PM EST
    attacking her and her husband for weeks now...

    Parent
    Stealing? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:04:42 PM EST
    As far as I know they are free agents. Rules are rules.

    Parent
    So, (none / 0) (#90)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:09:15 PM EST
    Kennedy and Kerry et al vote the voices of their people?

    Parent
    I would love smoke filled rooms (none / 0) (#105)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:22:13 PM EST
    I love political wheeling and dealing. This primary charade, right now feels like a waste of money, energy and goodwill. Political parties are private entities. They make the rules, they wheel and deal. May the better politician come out ahead. You think pulling the Kennedy passing the torch story was not political? If all was fair, the Kennedy people should have stayed out of it. It's politics. Let them duke it out.

    Parent
    It's not a General Election (none / 0) (#113)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:54:06 PM EST
    It's a primary to pick the nominee for a party. Political parties are about alliances and friendships. Sorry, that is how it works. The problem is that Obama has not been long enough to build alliances. But these people will also do what is politically expedient for them. It could go either way.

    Parent
    Ah... (none / 0) (#121)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:22:39 PM EST
    The Dem nominee can just shoot that one back and get a direct hit on McInsane!

    The establishment want's McCain. The voters are mixed based on idealogy. I can't vote for him, and won't. If Obama gets the Dem nomination, I'm writing in for Buchanan.

    Parent

    lolololol (none / 0) (#114)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:59:36 PM EST
    How will he lead? Like George Bush (being managed by others due to incompetence)?

    Seriously.

    He's only a couple years older than me, for Christ's sake! I couldn't trust a guy who is so new, he's still considered a junior senator, as president -- not as a CiC...now way!

    Parent

    Delegates silence the voices of millions (none / 0) (#122)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:56:08 PM EST
    and Obama with the DNC silence the voices of millions in Fl and Mi.

    Parent
    And Obama is doing it (none / 0) (#80)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:05:54 PM EST
    for the good of the country? Well I beg to differ.

    Parent
    Huck is running as a voice (none / 0) (#115)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:03:17 PM EST
    for the disenfranchised on the conservative side.

    It's a wake up call to McInsane to know he better watch his step on policies.

    The Religious Right aren't going to go away. They waited 30 years to get where they are, and if it takes another 30 years, they'll patiently wait.

    This is why no one in politics should be smug. What's passed today can be undone tomorrow.

    Why I don't pay any attention to the "change" message -- as change will happen, and not what folks like in the end.

    Parent

    What's Good for the Goose... (none / 0) (#127)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:14:20 PM EST
    Obama attacked Hillary when she was the presumptive nominee.

    It's amazing, when Hillary was inevitable, that was undemocratic and we should wait for the vote.  The minute Obama takes the lead, then we should stop voting and call the election.

    Clinton probably has a 40% chance of becoming the nominee.  Why should she drop out in February.  If it gets to the point where she can't win, she should drop out.

    And, btw, if Obama collapses because of that wimpy little "debate" ad attack, then he has no shot against McCain anyway and he should end his run to the nomination.  

    Geesh, I'd feel a lot more confident in Obama's chances if his supporters didn't act like any little criticism was some unprecedented attack.  You wait, if he's the nominee, you'll have plenty to yell about.  These little smacks from Hillary will look like love bites after the GOP gets through with him.  

    Parent

    I don't have a dog in this fight. (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:05:50 PM EST
    But if the super delegates are just supposed to vote the way the "popular" vote has gone, why have them at all?

    It would seem that the Democratic Party established them for a reason.

    What was that reason?

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:26:10 PM EST
    I didn't know that the Repubs were secretly controlling the Demos, but that joshing of your paranoia aside, I can see why the establishment would want to have a say in a process that lets caucuses select delegates because that process is so blatantly unfair.

    Parent
    Not Mondale (none / 0) (#128)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:20:59 PM EST
    I believe, it goes back at least to George McGovern.  The kids took the party over, ran up the vote for McGovern and gave him the nomination.  The party elders were appalled.  They also had no way to stop him from getting the nomination.  He went down in flames against the spectacularly unlikable Richard Nixon in the middle of a spectacularly unpopular war.  Not that I'm paranoid about history repeating itself or anything.

    Anyway, since then a lot of rules have been changed so that basically every delegate can change his or her mind and we have all these super delegates - it's designed to save the party from self-destructing.

    But, I don't think we're anywhere near that.

    I really do think we've become incredibly impatient as a nation.  It's February.  We still have a lot of states who haven't voted.  The convention isn't until August.  It won't kill us or the eventual nominee if we see this out longer.  What's the point of scheduling primaries until June if you don't want the votes to count for anything?  

    Let the people vote.  If we get a presumptive nominee before June, great.  If not, we'll see where things stand after everyone's voted.  But running around demanding people do X, Y, and Z based not on what has happened, but on predictions of what will happen seems crazy to me.

    And, honestly, as nominating battles go, this thing is a lovefest.  Clinton and Tsongas were running out-right negative ads against each other in NH.   These two throw an elbow here and there and that's about it.  

    Parent

    I came here just as soon as I saw that Email (none / 0) (#49)
    by blogtopus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:34:47 PM EST
    DFA: Democracy for America, used to be Dean for America, right?

    Haven't we been talking about Dean's potential bias against the Clintons?

    "Letting the voters decide". Well, what happens if Hillary wins the popular vote? I'm sure the Obama rules will make it so that the Popular vote is really wrong, too.

    Nice how this email comes out AFTER Obama starts being ahead in the popular vote.

    Jeebus Crispy, is ANYONE paying attention to how much the establishment HATES the Clintons? I really... I really can't fathom where all this is coming from. This is so underhanded and Calvin-ballish that I'm just pinching myself to make sure this isn't some fever dream.

    Let's tell DFA this: Get rid of ALL delegates, have only primaries. Those states that haven't had primaries have to have them, period. To quote their email: LET THE VOTERS DECIDE!

    Parent

    And now we an official (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:42:09 PM EST
    "Superdelegate Transparency Project" to track every single delegate to see if they vote the way their district voted. The popular vote in a state doesn't matter at all I guess. Not to mention there is no rule that they are breaking or bound to.

    Chris Bowers

    Parent

    It's evocative of his (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:05:28 PM EST
    "no residual troops" nonsense. Missing the forest for the trees.

    Parent
    My Letter to Jim Dean (none / 0) (#66)
    by blogtopus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:57:39 PM EST
    This is a message for that appalling email you just sent out regarding the Super Delegates.

    Instead of trying to change the rules IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PRIMARY, how about you bite the bullet and deal with the consequences of something that apparently didn't bother you in the several upcoming months, or the several years before the primary.

    If you want the voters to be heard, then get rid of ALL delegates. End the caucus system: It is a dead system that is for a completely antiquated view of America's voters.

    Hold PRIMARIES in every state. That's the ONLY way that all the voters will be heard, and that's the only way we can be sure that a person has a right to their own say, with no bullying or otherwise malevolent press-ganging hovering over them. It's a private vote, and nobody gets to tell them boo about it.

    Jim, I wish you could see just how contorted and twisted the logic of some progressives has become over the past few months, all because they believe so much in one candidate that to deny that candidate what is 'rightfully theirs', they are willing to forget facts, figures, records, and now their own rules to get that win they want. I wish you could see it, but unfortunately, you are a part of the problem. Please don't use what should be an unbiased organization, DFA, as a bully pulpit for a candidate that only half of us want.

    Changing the rules in Mid-Game is wrong, unethical and plain stupid. If we can't count on you guys to not rewrite the rulebook, then who CAN we count on?

    If you continue with this message of 'change', then you can take me off your mailing list.

    Parent

    And make the primaries (none / 0) (#117)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:11:58 PM EST
    OPEN.

    I like it in GA, no one is tied to a party vote (and you don't even need to register your party affliation). So I can vote for one candidate in one party for nomination, another in another party in the GE.

    Protest votes and all work g-r-e-a-t in such a system. Piss off a voter, and they can go any which way -- including write in a candidate.

    Parties take voters too much for granted. The Religious Right is but the latest victim for Republicans, and no telling which group in the Democrat Party will be hung up to dry next.

    Parent

    Um (none / 0) (#132)
    by zyx on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:51:14 PM EST
    I have a little trouble with open primaries.

    If you're not a member of the NRA, do you get to vote in the NRA?

    If you're not a member of the Society for Ethnomusicology, should you be able to vote for their board members?

    I know it's a little different, but I do think there is a reason to declare party affiliation.  You need to step up and declare your own beliefs and what you want from and of your party.  I come from an "Open Primary" state, where I lived for most of my adult life.  People who were mostly to the right of Joe McCarthy were always telling me they were "Independents".  Gimme a break!  "Independents".  Sounds so strong and like you don't need adult diapers, but come ON.  They AREN'T.

    Parent

    I think the definition of a troll (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:18:31 PM EST
    is anyone who habitually uses multiple exclamation marks.

    and how long have you had this problem?!?! (none / 0) (#123)
    by La Politica on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:02:05 PM EST
    :-/

    Parent
    I really wish Congress would devote as much (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:39:32 PM EST
    time, attention, and conscience to protecting my privacy.

    And folks (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:46:34 PM EST
    please do not feed the trolls.

    I will be deleting the troll comments. Please ignore them.

    No more denigrating candidate supporters (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:09:56 PM EST
    I am deleting all that too.

    Parent
    Thanks... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:48:49 PM EST
    Man, people have to be always supervised.

    This looks like a (none / 0) (#13)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:01:13 PM EST
    a SAFE subject.

    Both Clemmons and McNamee are singing that song..."That's my story and I'm sticking to it!"

    4 and a half hours only to come out as a draw. Seems to be the way things are going now days...hint! Hint!

    So now we have the spin from each side. Not much more.

    At least you (none / 0) (#25)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:10:08 PM EST
    people should mention Clemmons and McNamee in your posts..

    Ok .. Clemmons = Clinton and Obama = McNamee

    Of couse you COULD spend the next 50 posts arguing over who should be Obama and who should be Clinton.

    Parent

    Tweety continues misreporting -- (none / 0) (#15)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:02:39 PM EST
    and I've seen comments here that are a clue that people are still watching MSNBC for facts.  Not to be found there!

    I just had to hear several minutes of Mathews and his commenters du jour moaning that the Clinton campaign is not doing anything in Wisconsin, that she has given up on Wisconsin, that she is not doing more than a brief stop in Wisconsin. . . .

    Not what we see and hear here!  See my past comments re events, to avoid redundancy in this thread.  And just don't trust even the simplest stuff from MSNBS.  And no, that's not a typo.

    easy solution (none / 0) (#27)
    by white n az on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:10:41 PM EST
    stop watching MSNBC...I have

    Parent
    the 'Rocket' (none / 0) (#16)
    by white n az on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:02:54 PM EST
    ugly scene from which he didn't benefit. Not only is no longer a certainty to not make the Hall of Fame on first ballot, he's not likely to make it the second year or third year and he needs to rethink his position because it didn't play well on television and anyone who watched, won't soon forget.

    Not that I hold Josh Marshall up as supreme arbiter of analysis...this pretty much summarizes what I saw too.

    The solution... (none / 0) (#37)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:21:04 PM EST
    If Pete Rose can't get in the Hall of Fame over betting, Clemmons (and all of the other cheats if found) should not, either.

    Apply the rules evenly and stick with them.

    Have to send a message out there to management and athletes: baseball is a national pasttime. Anything that smears the game, is like attacking America.

    Parent

    Are you proposing a retroactive ban with (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:57:06 PM EST
    massive exhumations?

    Parent
    Come on (none / 0) (#119)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:17:03 PM EST
    Just look at Clemmons. Anyone who knows about steroids knows what it does to your body. You don't get to be massive like that without help -- especially in areas that isn't helped by weight training.

    You know what you put in your body (especially in shot form), I know the same. Claiming innocence now is hogwash.

    Clemmons knows he's been abusing the junk (just like the Cali governor, who's coy about it).

    Parent

    I have no problem with this logic (none / 0) (#81)
    by white n az on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:05:55 PM EST
    though I believe Pete and Rocket both belong in the HOF

    Parent
    Yes they do..... (none / 0) (#139)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:03:41 AM EST
    Pete hands down, without a doubt.  He's got the most hits ever for Stengel's Sake!

    Roger belongs as well...as much as I can't stand him, he's one of the best pitchers of my generation.

    I think Pete will get in after he dies...the league won't give him the satisfaction of getting in while alive.  As for Roger...we'll have to wait and see how all this plays out.

    Parent

    More from Obama (none / 0) (#18)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:04:26 PM EST
    "We are not standing on the brink of recession due to forces beyond our control," Obama said in excerpts of a speech at a General Motors plant in Janesville, Wis. "The fallout from the housing crisis that's cost jobs and wiped out savings was not an inevitable part of the business cycle. It was a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington."

    I guess Obama is forgetting he was in the senate while this was going on.

    Wasn't 9-11 owing to a failure of imagination, too?

    LINK

    Kathy (none / 0) (#32)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:14:02 PM EST
    Did  Obama  vote  FOR  that  atrocious  Bankruptcy Bill  in   2005?

    If  he  did,  he's part of  the problem.  

    Parent

    I'm pretty sure he didn't (none / 0) (#33)
    by Shawn on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:16:05 PM EST
    Neither did, from what I recall.

    Parent
    Shawn (none / 0) (#34)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:18:01 PM EST
    Ok,  I  wasn't  sure.   Thanks!

    Parent
    He voted against (none / 0) (#36)
    by echinopsia on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:19:41 PM EST
    freezing credit card interest rates at 30%.

    Parent
    that was in the debate (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:27:15 PM EST
    where Edwards jaw dropped: "you voted against any cap cause you thought the cap was too high". I will never forget Edward's face.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:30:18 PM EST
    He was like "come on, Barack, who do you think you're kidding with that one."

    Parent
    Righteous outrage (none / 0) (#46)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:31:53 PM EST
    it was nice to see.

    If he endorses Clinton, I hope he goes out and stumps for her, too.

    Of course then they'll say he's only doing it for the VP slot...

    Parent

    Doubt he will endorse Obama (none / 0) (#47)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:32:56 PM EST
    That and a couple of other incidents I doubt Edwards will endorse Obama. My dream : Hillary wins and get Edwards to put together the health care program.

    Parent
    If she can get Edwards as VP... (none / 0) (#133)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:52:53 PM EST
    She can bleed that white vote from Obama.

    White male voters will just feel more comfortable with another White male, as Blacks feel comfortable with Obama.

    It'll also help to put down the image that she's a man hater, too.

    Edwards really does need to be a VP, he's suited for that job -- and they share the same demographics.

    Parent

    now they are up to 35% (none / 0) (#38)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:24:51 PM EST
    That's change!

    Parent
    We know his name, you don't have to put (none / 0) (#19)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:04:32 PM EST
    the middle one in. Also, if we exclude everyone who took any drugs at all in college, our pool of candidates will start shrinking fast. My mother once told me that a person who has made mistakes and learns from them is a much stronger person that one who never made one.

    Axelrod? (none / 0) (#20)
    by white n az on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:06:51 PM EST
    I think you are giving Axelrod entirely too much credit. Yes, the organization of the youth has been masterful but it wouldn't have gotten out of the box without the orator that delivered.

    When things are going good, everyone looks like a genius and things are going good.

    I give a much heartier share of the credit to Barack for tapping the mood of the country.

    New rules on race card (none / 0) (#56)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:46:03 PM EST
    Axelrod I also think masterfully did a double reverse on the race card to frame the Clintons as racist. When that was the accepted contortion, it became impossible for any "liberal" or "progressive" to want to be associated with them. Forget the endorsements from the Black Caucus etc. What this did is I think hurt many of the members of the Black caucus, made them look like fools in their communities. But trust me this will be studied as one of the most devious political tricks of our lifetime, well at least mine and some of the others.

    Parent
    What is the evidence (none / 0) (#89)
    by AF on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:08:32 PM EST
    That Axelrod was behind the race issue?  Did black radio announcers -- and their callers -- get a secret memo that they were supposed to feign outrage?  Was James Clyburn part of the plot?  

    I'll stipulate that Hillary's MLK comments were innocuous and her supporters' slip-ups were uncoordinated.  But the idea that this was a "devious" plot engineered by Axelrod is offensive.

    Parent

    We will see... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:10:02 PM EST
    he played it like a violin.

    Parent
    No Bill played it like a violin (none / 0) (#125)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:41:03 PM EST
    For the two weeks prior to the Jackson comment, right wing radio hosts were speculating this was a Clinton attempt to discredit the eventual loss in SC.  Bill knew every comment he was making was being scrutinzed for racial overtones.  He knew this but said it anyway.  It was like Rush had handed him a script.  Too bad it only worked in TN.

    Parent
    there is a memo, actually (none / 0) (#118)
    by echinopsia on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:14:35 PM EST
    that was "leaked" by the Obama campaign, encouraging surrogates to be offended by Clinton comments that were not remotely racist.

    Parent
    Regardless of our differences (none / 0) (#21)
    by magster on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:07:47 PM EST
    on who the best Democratic nominee go, I think we can all agree that Obama wins the battle of the bands.

    About Super-Delegates and stuff.... (none / 0) (#22)
    by sweetthings on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:07:55 PM EST
    Personally, I think Supers a throwback to a time before the Information Age, and that they are more of a liability than an asset to the Democratic Party in our brave new digital landscape.

    That said, they are part of the process and they will have their say. But I don't think that Hillary can rely on that part to swing her way. Remember that if push comes to shove, the Supers will do what they think is best for the Democratic Party. A 'pledge' from a Super is fairly meaningless...they can and will reverse their pledges at any time if they perceive it to be in the best interests of the party. If that means throwing either Hillary or Obama under the bus...well, they'll do it in a heartbeat. Preventing a brokered convention is far more important than loyalty to any particular candidate. This is one instance where the big Mo really does matter. The Supers won't go against that. They can't.

    As someone who will happily vote for either candidate, I have to say that the math looks bad for Hillary at this point. (or at least, my math does) This is politics, so anything can and will happen, but I think at this point Hillary is going to run a very tight ship and catch a few lucky breaks if she's going to emerge victorious. Unfortunately, most of the news I can find coming out of her campaign points to an organization in turmoil. That may just be MSM bias, but when your own campaign is putting out literature comparing you to Mondale...well...that's not a great sign.

    Silence voices of millions (none / 0) (#87)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:08:00 PM EST
    Axelrod does it again. This has spread like wild fire. Radio, tv, newspapers.

    Parent
    No kidding (none / 0) (#95)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:12:54 PM EST
    It's amazing how Obama's talking points get mimicked to quickly.  

    We should make a list every morning and do a treasure hunt.  Whoever spots the most that day...wins...?

    Parent

    I swear (none / 0) (#100)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:16:04 PM EST
    we should. It's amazing. I don't know if people are tracking. But it starts like wildfire and gets repeated and repeated.

    Parent
    I would liken it more (none / 0) (#110)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:37:21 PM EST
    to syphilis, but that's just how I am.

    I wonder why folks are calling for Clinton to drop out based on polls and her having fewer delegates?  Because, when Obama was polling bad and had fewer delegates, no one was saying the race is over.

    As for this "tearing the party apart" crap, I think you should have to prove that you've been in the party for more than a year before you can speak to the history of said party.  This is democracy in action, folks.  All the votes must be counted.  All the rules must be followed.  Both of our candidates are lawyers.  They know how to work the system.  To relegate Clinton to spoiler status because she is a handful of delegates behind is insulting, especially considering we haven't heard from all the states yet.

    You can't say, "I'm ahead, stop counting the votes!" in the general election.  (Well, not anymore)

    Parent

    I guess you are a troll (none / 0) (#120)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:21:22 PM EST
    otherwise, you would be making sense and using facts to back up your statements.

    Sorry, I can't play when the rules keep changing.

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:31:23 PM EST
    (1)All the rules must be followed.  

    (2)You can't say, "I'm ahead, stop counting the votes!" in the general election.  (Well, not anymore)

    If you believe 1, then you can do 2.

    Parent

    "Living a lie"? That seems harsh. (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:09:28 PM EST
    Deluded, maybe.

    Parent
    Bonds better be a first ballot HOF'er now. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:13:12 PM EST
    Considering that he was going up against juiced pitchers.

    Also, Mark McGwire should probably stop being singled out and should be let in too.

    And Rog should avoid cameras and microphones--as well as baseball diamonds and syringes--for the next few years.

    clemens almost always lost the big ones (none / 0) (#31)
    by Turkana on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:13:24 PM EST
    and was always a jerk. none of this surprises me.

    Got to give him credit for pitching a (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:04:23 PM EST
    perfect game.  That list in the Hall of Fame isn't very long.

    Parent
    hmm. (none / 0) (#124)
    by Turkana on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:38:13 PM EST
    i commented earlier, but it seems to have been deleted (and i didn't say anything bad- hadn't know about that rule, until yesterday)- clemens never pitched a perfect game.

    Parent
    I'll vouch for you. And I admitted (none / 0) (#137)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:32:01 AM EST
    earlier that I goofed.  I was thinking of David Wells.

    Parent
    Axelrod and the web: Brilliant (none / 0) (#39)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:25:19 PM EST
    I think he has masterfully used the "viral" qualities of the web to spread the message. Within minutes you would see the same, almost to the exact word, talking points appear everywhere. Then you heard it on the radio and MSM. In the street you would hear random people, repeating over and over again the simple mantras: 1. Change. 2. He was against the war. 3. Inspiration. 4. The Obama story. 5. He can lure the Indie/electability. 6. Clintons are racist, warmongering liars. I am not saying all these stories had merit, but if you repeat them enough times they catch on. Everything else, policy etc, was baggage for the rest of us to argue about. I want to see how they will sustain that in the GE if he wins. Clinton was geared for a great traditional democratic campaign with some web stuff, but did not catch on.

    Stellaaa (none / 0) (#44)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:30:42 PM EST
    You are exactly right, and though I won't mention names, some very "respected" mainstream bloggers picked up on it and made it run like stewed prunes through my grandma.

    I also think that the music videos have been highly instrumental with the "youth" vote.  All the repeated images of greatness, all the repeated soundbytes--it's mesmeric.

    There was an article in Wired magazine a while back that had a great quote.  Can't remember the context or the people involved, but it was an interview, and the speaker said something like, "Everyone was worried about Hal in 2001 [Space Odyssey], and how spooky it was for a computer to act like a human, when in fact the really scary thing is when humans act like computers: taking in data, processing it at lightning speeds, spitting it back out, looking for the next bit to process, working like a search engine with only a few keywords to go on."

    I think that sums up what we are seeing here very nicely.

    Parent

    It all started with the (none / 0) (#50)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:36:04 PM EST
    1984 Apple/ Hillary commercial. Gee, it turned out it was not the Obama campaign, but it was someone who worked for one of the contractors. Yeah...right.

    Parent
    Cream? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:25:44 PM EST
    Can you tell us more about Joe Wilson, please?  What's he been saying, how is he being received?  Is he doing media or just events?  What is the temperature like there (and I don't mean literal, because I know the answer to that is c-c-c-cold!)

    Kathy, he (none / 0) (#116)
    by katiebird on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:06:29 PM EST
    Joe Wilson has a post on Huffington Post today (my sister just sent it too me), Battle-Tested -- and it's already got 1016 comments.

    I was so impressed, I read the whole thing to my husband (and listen to this....)

    Parent

    Puffington Host (none / 0) (#129)
    by blogtopus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:21:41 PM EST
    Just wandered through the comments, and it is always: "I was hoping I could read this and still respect Joe Wilson, HOWEVER--"

    Wow. There was more contorting than at Cirque Du Soleil. And it was vastly more entertaining too.

    Parent

    This quote is illuminating... (none / 0) (#134)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:03:43 PM EST
    How will Mr. Obama respond to charges made by the Kenyan government that his campaigning activities in Kenya in support of his distant cousin running for president there made him "a stooge" and constituted interference in the politics of an important and besieged ally in the war on terror?

    You know, I wonder why there was rioting in Kenya over it's recent election, too. One of the most stable African countries, and the timing of campaigning and civil strife???? When was the last time they rioted so awful? Sure wasn't in a decade at least.

    Something isn't right in all of this. The rioting over that. The Russian flyover incident (a eye opener for McInsane?).

    Parent

    Clemens (none / 0) (#48)
    by mjames on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:33:26 PM EST
    I guess it's OK to sign autographs for Congressional personnel investigating you before you testify - if you're a Republican.
    This is not a he said - he said. There is evidence corroborating Pettitte's statements (including Pettitte's contemporaneous statements to his wife). And Pettitte supports McNamee's testimony. Roger's got nothing, except a statement he got from the nanny (which really doesn't do a whole lot for him, since she doesn't remember much). Oh, and he's a Republican. That's what he's got going for him. Pettitte must hate the guy's guts by now - utterly sickening.

    Roger Clemens (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruthinor on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:38:58 PM EST
    I say thank heavens for Roger C.  The news media , for at least a little while, could stop its coronation of  the empty suit that is Barack Obama and concentrate on something else.  What's amazing to me is how Repubs and Dems can't even agree on who's telling the truth here (at least for the most part).  Is there anything more heinous than Dan Burton??  I was pleasantly surprised by Souder , a Repub. from Indiana as well, who was interviewed on ESPN after the hearing and pretty much stuck it to Roger.  It seems clear to me that Clemens is lying...but boy he does it with a straight face.  Makes you wonder what kind of guy he really is.  

    If a major league pitcher can't lie with (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:48:50 PM EST
    a straight face, he'd be a poor pitcher.  Attitude.

    Parent
    Question to Clinton supporters (none / 0) (#57)
    by magster on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:46:03 PM EST
    If Obama sweeps to 3/4/08 and then wins either TX or OH, should Hillary drop out?

    I would like to see the delegate (not superD) (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:49:55 PM EST
    and popular vote counts before I offer her my advice.

    Parent
    Me too. If she's ahead in the popular vote by a (none / 0) (#64)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:56:49 PM EST
    decent amoount, I think she should stay in. If she's behind in both it would probably be better for us in November if she drops out. I hope it stays close enough that the people in PA get a chance to decide but it is starting to get a little tiresome.

    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:53:04 PM EST


    Parent
    You answering for Clinton supporters now? ;-) (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:06:10 PM EST


    Parent
    We "low information" voters need lots (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:13:52 PM EST
    of help.

    Parent
    I thought it was a general question (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:16:46 PM EST
    Heck, Hillary will decide not any of us.

    Parent
    Are you taking a hands off approach (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:01:19 PM EST
    to the campaign memo J posted?

    Parent
    I guess (none / 0) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:17:23 PM EST
    Seems pretty obvious to me.

    Parent
    Only if there's no way she can win the primary (none / 0) (#63)
    by blogtopus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:55:09 PM EST
    Gotta stick to the rules, you know. If she can win with super delegates voting for her, then I'm for it.

    Look: If you believe that Caucuses are representative of the state they come from, then you have to believe that the soops are just as representative of the party they come from. Caucuses don't have to reflect the exact popular vote. Super Del's votes don't have to represent the exact caucus count, either. There's an annoying lack of logic in both halves of this system.

    So why get rid of one half of this system? Get rid of the whole thing or don't bother. Let's have primaries EVERYWHERE.

    Parent

    She needs to be ahead in the popular vote (none / 0) (#67)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:58:18 PM EST
    to justify it though.

    Parent
    yep (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:08:15 PM EST
    The popular vote will mean more.

    Did y'all see the diary at MyDD where Obama is now touting policies that Clinton created almost a year ago?

    Parent

    Hilary is here just around (none / 0) (#58)
    by Saul on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:46:49 PM EST
    the corner where I live in San Antonio Tx.  She is walking  the streets on the west side saying hello to everyone.  Got to meet her and shook her hand.  She is going to talk at my  Alama Mater St. Mary's University tonight.

    Maybe not. The Archbishop was not (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:59:52 PM EST
    consulted.  I like the free publicity for HRC's stance in support of Roe v. Wade.  About time.

    ARCHBISHOP PROTESTS

    Parent

    She will definitely (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Saul on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:27:56 PM EST
    talk at St. Mary's University no doubt about it.  The archbishop protest is small potatoes does not control who speaks at the University.  

    Parent
    TPM /Obama ads (none / 0) (#61)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:52:33 PM EST
    I keep telling myself will not look, But now they are plastered with banner and boxed Obama adds. They look like an official Obama page.

    I think we need to find a CIA agent that took HGH (none / 0) (#69)
    by dannyinla on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:59:18 PM EST
    then the Senate could really ask some tough questions.

    video link (none / 0) (#74)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:02:24 PM EST
    a walk down Tweety etl al lane.

    Link

    Ya know, watching it just riles me up all over again.

    See how short the list is? (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:11:30 PM EST
    I was thinking of David Wells, another aging pitcher.  

    My favorite is (none / 0) (#111)
    by badger on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:37:55 PM EST
    Harvey Haddix, who pitched 12 perfect innings and still lost the game in the 13th on an error and a home run that was ruled invalid because Adcock, who hit the homer, passed Aaron, who was on base, on the basepath (but the winning run still scored).

    Boy, am I vindicated on Obama and SS!!! (none / 0) (#126)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:08:24 PM EST
    He's ALREADY proposed back door privatization:
    Obama's  personal accounts

    Yet another MSM negative (none / 0) (#130)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:22:09 PM EST
    They just can't get enough...

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080214/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_voters

    Then folks wonder why Americans are turned off of the elections, it's this stuff -- especially the headlines they CHOOSE. >:(

    And again... (none / 0) (#131)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:27:23 PM EST
    The cheap shots get even worse. The box caption on this article is worse than the content...

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/on_deadline_clinton

    Hillary needs help in the PR department, to counter this stuff, seriously. Someone kick it up to her that she needs more media exposure, and positive exposure at that -- but not the cheesy type.

    Time to also run right through the Obama express and derail it off it's tracks -- and I mean derail it off a cliff.

    Parent

    How can you not know how to post links yet? (none / 0) (#142)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:50:35 AM EST


    Parent
    Sigh... (none / 0) (#144)
    by SandyK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:38:38 PM EST
    Because I learned long ago to post long links so folks can SEE where they're going with the link. Hovering isn't peachy when it's long and is cut off in their browser.

    And using the backlink type, isn't worth it for blog comments -- and it showed, as I sure didn't come here by links from the search engine. Buried links in blog comments don't rise to the top of the search heap.

    Wish these blogs and forums had safe XHTML. Makes formating much better. Not used to using depreciated HTML tags anymore, either (use only Strict DOCTYPE/CSS2 formatting now).

    Parent

    FIRED from CNN for BLOGGING (none / 0) (#138)
    by Aaron on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:46:28 AM EST
    Chez Pazienza a producer for CNN's American Morning was apparently fired the other day because of his blog Deus Ex Malcontent.

    More details can be found here Blogger loses day job with CNN over blogging.

    I imagine he had some kind of contractual agreement barring him from running a blog, and they were probably within their legal rights to do what they did, and that Chez understood the risk he was taking.  But we need to think about all the people who work for all the news organizations across this country, who find themselves virtually gagged by their employment agreements, stripped of their ability to voice their own personal opinions without fear of reprisal, and someone taking away their livelihood.

    I remember a time when I had much greater respect for CNN then I do today, a long time ago, back when I was young and naïve. But these days I find it hard to trust them or any other of the major mainstream media providers, and my skepticism has come about as a direct result of my participation in the blogging world, which has opened my eyes in many ways.

    Open Thread | 123 comments (123 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment