home

Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:02:33 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

This Open Thread comes with an admonition, please stick to the topic discussed in posts. I for one have been writing very tight and focused posts to avoid acrimony today. You must respect my choices in my posts please. Jeralyn has the same policy for her posts.

Of course all the other rules regarding civility apply and and no personal attacks on the candidates or each other please.

This is an Open Thread. All topics welcome.

< The Will Of The People: Caucuses Vs. Primaries | Will Obama Fight For The Democratic Party? >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Open Thread | 90 comments (90 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Personally, (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:50:36 AM EST
      I've stopped reading the campaign threads here. Weeks back it reached the point where I realized I was just that much older and that much "stupider" after reading them. It's hard to top the inanity of the site posts but the  comments often manage the trick.

      I'm hoping that once the race is over, the site will revert to being what it once was -- a decent legal blog with a liberal perspective -- and stop being an amateur hour HRC organ.

    Inanity (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:50:37 AM EST
    As long as we are critiquing each other Decon, it is harder to imagine you writing "much stupider" comments.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:03:37 PM EST
    Inane maybe.

    Accurate. For sure.

    Parent

    The Jim endorsement (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:05:21 PM EST
    Much coveted in some circles.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:57:47 PM EST
    Excuse an old man remembering more pleasant days.

    Parent
    More pleasant days (none / 0) (#85)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:52:31 PM EST
    In which we all inexplicably assisted you in hijacking threads?

     

    Parent

    Then join the many threads (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:53:52 PM EST
    available to you.

    Parent
    We just had our (none / 0) (#43)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:40:06 PM EST
    annual agreement, Jim.

    Happy anniversery.

    Parent

    Leave it to BTD..... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:51:57 PM EST
    to bring jondee and PPJ together.

    He's a uniter, not a divider:)

    Parent

    My old fan club (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:15:04 PM EST
    Folks feeling a bit overwhelmed now I know.

    This too shall pass, as will I into that good night.

    November will come soon fellas. Take heart.

    Parent

    sure (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jen M on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:27:38 PM EST
    but the next day they start scamming... I mean running for the next election.

    Parent
    Now that's funny! (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:52:54 PM EST


    Parent
    I can't resist this (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:58:56 PM EST
    Who brought the US and the Soviet Union together??

    okay okay my nasty and my apologies

    Parent

    The year is 2008 (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:02:55 PM EST
    Tailgunner Joe.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:12:17 PM EST
    I thought it was 1972.

    And your grasp of history is unremarkable.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Who knew?? (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:13:37 PM EST


    Parent
    They are a trip Decon...... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:57:29 AM EST
    after reading some of them it's no wonder so many Americans are apolitical.  It's worse than professional wrestling.

    Parent
    kdog I'm lol (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:19:38 PM EST
    I missed this earlier.

    You are ready for the big time.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Ohio v Wisconsin (none / 0) (#2)
    by Athena on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:10:47 AM EST
    Any thoughts on how a closed primary in Ohio could end up with different results than the very open Wisconsin primary (both open and same-day reg)?

    Wisconsin: 30-40% of the voters in the Dem primary yesterday were Inds and Reps.

    The result - I'm wondering about true Democratic turnout in November - open primaries allow for some gaming of the process to select the nominee of a party you don't belong to.

    Ohio is an open primary (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:18:49 AM EST


    Parent
    Ohhhh, no -- expect the same again (none / 0) (#11)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:34:09 AM EST
    as in my Wisconsin.  No way so many Dems for a day here yesterday will be with us in November or even in April.  Will we get more wins in Congress, where we need a stronger hold on the Senate, at least?  

    I also wonder what will happen to our Dem platform, with its support for women and gays.  I think that and more will be gone -- and then, so will I.  How many of those voters yesterday even know what is in our platform?  There is so little talk about our principles as a party.  Then we might as well not have principles or even be a party.

    Parent

    Maybe people just want.... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:23:21 AM EST
    somebody worth voting for regardless of party.

    I'm an anti-republican who would have voted for Ron Paul in my state's primary if the rules allowed it, not to game the Republican party, but to have somebody worth voting come November.

    Parent

    I see in greater (none / 0) (#3)
    by Saul on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:13:06 AM EST
    light today the importance of having these two candidates together on one ticket.  Because of the extreme passion demonstrated by the supporters of either Obama and Hilary I can see a fiasco in the general election that could make the democrats loose it to McCain.  If Hilary is nominated many extremist Obama supporters will say screw it I will not vote for Hilary and vice versa.  If that happens you will never win the popular vote needed to win the electoral votes which is the only way you can win the general.  A combine ticket of Obama and Hilary or vice versa will make winning the election in 08 a slam dunk.

    Okay (none / 0) (#4)
    by hvs on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:14:09 AM EST
    trying to actually get my work done today and not obsess about this nomination campaign season, so let me throw some one-off observations:

    1. I was totally wrong about WI; I thought she'd win. I supposed Green Bay and LaCrosse and Oshkosh and Eau Claire and Milwuakee suburbs would deliver it for her. That they didn't should be a matter of deep concern for Hillary folks. That's not gloating, we can all agree about that, probably

    2. I wonder if someday we'll learn the depths of how screwed up internally the HRC campaign has been in the past few weeks. That's not a knock on Hillary--I think she's incredibly intelligent. But you've got to think she's getting terrible advice.

    3. I suppose her "Barack is too afraid to debate me" ad was a huge waste of time.

    4. Do you know where sexism really hits Hillary? It's in the fact that we imagine she can't run for president again. It's totally unfair that Barack could run again and aging would only benefit him, where we suppose a 65- or 69-year-old woman wouldn't stand a chance. Or am I wrong about that? I wish I were, but I don't think so. (On the other hand, we're actually talking seriously about having an African American president, which I hardly thought possible 15 years ago!)

    5. I dared to imagine having an African American president this morning...and it was a beautiful thing!


    as Cruella DeVille (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Miss Devore on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:00:54 AM EST
    perhaps.

    Parent
    Something superdelegates could do... (none / 0) (#6)
    by magster on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:21:25 AM EST
    ...let Sen. Clinton know that if she wants any chance of getting their vote, she has to win by not unfairly tearing Obama down and staying positive.  I'm not saying she has been unfair so far, but now that her back is against the wall, she will be tempted to drive up Obama's negatives big time, and there are stories that her supporters are forming a 527 to attack Obama.  If the superdelegates are in place to act in the best interest of the party, they need to act to protect the image of the likely nominee.

    Yeah! Open thread! (none / 0) (#7)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:22:21 AM EST
    I'd like to discuss how Obama can defeat McCain, and per BTD's suggestion pitfalls along the way.  McCain two main tactics are likely to based aroung experience and liberalism.  Hillary has shown us that experience gets trumped when the country is in the mood for change.  The liberal label may be harder to shake.
    I think a way around this may to wedge McCain away from his republican base.  The immigration flip flop will work well here. Enviromental issues are a good bet.  McCain accepts global warming where most conservatives think it's a socialist scam.  He's never going to out green a Democrat and the more he talks about it the more he turns off his base.

    I think Michelle Obama needs to come correct on her pride statements quickly, though a lot of that damage is done.

    The war is another thorny issue overall.  60% of Americans want out, but there has been a reduction in violence.  McCain will sell that  as "my surge idea".  Care needs to taken to properly respect the families of the soldiers we have lost.

    It's looking pretty good right now.

    Oh and the answer (none / 0) (#10)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:30:18 AM EST
    to the question "What has he ever done?" is the FFAT Act of 2006.  No one should be allowed in front of a camera with out being drilled on how to answer and explain what it is.  It easy to understand and no one is going to be against it.  

    Parent
    I've seen some pretty damning video (none / 0) (#14)
    by magster on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:37:18 AM EST
    at ThinkProgress about McCain saying the invasion would be easy.  He's flip flopped on making tax cuts permanent, torture, campaign finance, immigration. He has a horrible mean streak (Chelsea's father is Janet Reno joke).  McCain snuggling with Bush photo, bomb Iran, parody video of McCain. If the Michelle Obama story stays strong, Ms. McCain has a lot of baggage.  Three marriages.

    March 4 can't happen soon enough.

    Parent

    Because of his past (none / 0) (#52)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:57:03 PM EST
    Obama can actually compliment him and tear him down at the same time.

    "I admire his courage in spearheading the Republican contingent of the Gang of 14".


    Parent

    stop deleting my comments! (none / 0) (#15)
    by Miss Devore on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:46:04 AM EST
    if only people could know how innocuous they are.

    is this site in lockdown for Hillary?

    I did not delete your comments (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:12:17 AM EST
    unless you are also Goodbye Hillary.

    Parent
    I deleted your first comment (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:13:15 PM EST


    Parent
    What Michelle Obama Meant, (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:27:28 AM EST
    as explained by Barack Obama:

    OBAMA INTERVIEW

    I'm suggesting a new tagline for TL (none / 0) (#21)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:27:31 AM EST
      "The crime of politics"

    Politics desconstructed (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:32:19 AM EST


    Parent
    I had an email from Jason Leopold this morning... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:56:32 AM EST
    Jason, as most of you know, has been a reporter and editor for Truthout for some time, and is now moving on.

    I know he won't mind me reproducing his email here, and I hope Jeralyn won't mind either.

    Dear Friends,

        I have decided to leave Truthout after three years in the trenches to start my own web-based, non-profit political magazine to be called BackgroundBriefing.org. The website is currently in production and I hope to launch a beta version in mid-March with a full rollout in June.

        I have been committed to independent journalism for nearly a decade and will continue to report on the most pressing issues this country faces and will continue to face long after Bush is out of office.

        In the meantime, I will continue to dig for the truth and will report sporadically on the issues while setting up my new venture. I greatly appreciate the support you all have given me over the years and hope you will all become readers of BackgroundBriefing.org

        Please feel free to contact me at jasonleopold@hotmail.com

        Stay tuned.

        Jason Leopold
        Editor-in-Chief
        BackgroundBriefing.org
        10100 Santa Monica Blvd.
        Suite 950
        Los Angeles, CA 90067
        (213) 270-4334
        IM: JasLeopold

    Jason Leopold is the author of the bestselling memoir NEWS JUNKIE. Visit www.newsjunkiebook.com for a preview.

    He has registered the name BackgroundBriefing.org, and has a placeholder online now. Watch it grow over the next month or so... I may help him build it and may contribute to it if I can as well.

    Jeralyn likes Leopold (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:04:45 PM EST
    Me, not so much.

    Parent
    Yeah, well (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:23:59 PM EST
    You don't like anybody! Heh! ;-)

    (kidding, kidding!)

    Parent

    Is he going to live blog (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:05:00 PM EST
    Rove's sentencing????

    ;-)

    Parent

    Along with Tweety and Billo.... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:25:03 PM EST


    Parent
    I didn't know (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:59:47 PM EST
    he had said either were going to be charged..

    Parent
    Jason Leopold (none / 0) (#31)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:08:51 PM EST
    Has he ever explained how his sources burned him so badly on the Karl Rove indictment?  I never understood why he protected them. It would seem that they lost their right to anonymity after screwing him so badly. I  do believe someone told him that Rove was indicted - he couldn't have just made them up, could he?

    Parent
    Even the best get lied to (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:22:41 PM EST
    and set up sometimes, to discredit them. Just look at the attempted smearing of Obama lately, for example.

    It's in the past... Where it belongs.

    Parent

    It is and it isn't... (none / 0) (#37)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:25:14 PM EST
    ...it reflects poorly on the credibility and skill of the journalist in question.  Leopold owed nothing to his sources who lied to him.  They broke the deal - that is, if that's what really happened. But by protecting them for no good reason, he damaged his own credibility enormously.

    Why on earth why I believe his reporting now?

    Parent

    In the past. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:28:11 PM EST


    Parent
    So you'll trust him now? (none / 0) (#41)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:33:47 PM EST
    You're right, it's in the past, and the things that people did in the past shape how we feel about them today. Jason Leopold lost his credibility with that story, and didn't take the necessary steps (outing his lying sources) to repair it.  The fact that he didn't do that only damaged his credibility further.

    So again, it's in the past.  What difference that makes I'm not sure.

    Parent

    I always have. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:04:43 PM EST
    Jason only lost his credibility with you because you believed the MSM and Rove's smear campaign.

    You're aiming your distrust at the wrong guy, my friend.

    Parent

    Look (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:10:22 PM EST
    If Jason was lied to by his source, or even if his source merely made a mistake, it directly affected Jason himself.

    He should have named his source if for no other reason than to protect his own reputation. Failure to do so leaves the impression that he can be lied to again, or that he can/will use another bad source.

    Parent

    We know you're with the liars, ppj. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:14:27 PM EST
    We've known that for years.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:15:30 PM EST
    everybody lies except you and yours.

    Of course the last time you actually stepped up and made the claim I proved you 100% wrong. After which you did the honorable thing and wrote:

    Edger (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 10:14:11 AM EST
    So, you call me a liar and when proven wrong you don't apologize, you just make an excuse...
    ----------------
    Whatever, Jim (none / 0) (#130)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 10:19:08 AM EST
    You having fun getting all this attention? ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    Jim (none / 0) (#70)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:33:36 PM EST
    Your entire life is a lie.

    You're a real sweet heart, Edger. Your problem is, you can't help defining yourself time after time after time.

    Parent

    What can I say, ppj? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:49:25 AM EST
    It's really tough when your heroes lie to you and all your fantasies crumble into dust, isn't it?

    You must be 935 times as upset with Bush and Rove as you are with me. It must be torture for you.

    I say arrest and indict them both, but treat them better than they've treated the prisoners and the children they've been torturing.

    I'm sure you'd agree.

    Have they apologized to you for treating you like an idiot sucker yet? I haven't heard them apologize to the country, or to anyone else.

    Parent

    hehe (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:56:44 PM EST
    It isn't my heroes I worry about.

    It is people, such as yourself, who won't admit when they have been caught out, apologize and  just move on.

    It is the pathology that bothers me.

    Parent

    Can or won't face and answer the questions, huh... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:59:02 AM EST
    Nothing new. No surprise.

    Parent
    What will Hillary Clinton do? (none / 0) (#25)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:56:41 AM EST
    I think it's fair to say that the momentum. delegate/popular vote math, and, after Wisconsin, money (I just don't see her raising another 15 million before Texas) are all working strongly against Hillary Clinton now. I expect that Obama will win Texas and probably Ohio.  Even if he misses Ohio and Pennsylvania - and even Texas -  it's hard to imagine a scenario where Clinton wins decisively enough to make up the difference, even with superdelegates counted. It seems all she can hope for is a major slip-up from Obama.

    My question is:  will she concede gracefully if she loses Texas or Ohio? For if she loses either one, it really is over.  And will she then energetically endorse Obama, as Romney did for McCain, and - after some much needed time off -  do everything she can to rally her supporters behind him? I think her legacy depends on playing the role of the "good Democrat". I expect she will - I don't buy this "she'll destroy the party" line.  But I'm not sure.  She's worked pretty hard for this nomination, which I think she thought she had in the bag last December. It may be hard to let go.

    Of course, the same question could be asked of Obama, even if that outcome is increasingly less likely.  My sense is that Obama, who could easily run again in 2012 or 2016, would have less trouble getting behind Clinton than Clinton could Obama. This is, in many ways, Clinton's shot - I don't see how she could run again in 2012.

    But what do I know?

    What will she do..... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:26:17 PM EST
    Beats me, I just hope it doesn't include running to retain her Senate seat.  I'd like a New Yorker to represent me in the Senate for a change.  Preferably one who values liberty more than Clinton does.

    Maybe Wal-Mart will take her back?

    Parent

    imo, if she were smart, (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:41:57 PM EST
    she'd be eyeing the VP slot.

    In the not so terribly distant future all that will matter is her name in the history books.

    Will it be as the first US woman VP in history and also, previously, a first lady? Or, absent the VP spot, merely one more dead president's wife?

    Parent

    Theres always the speaker (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:55:03 PM EST
    circuit at 50k a pop, and the obligatory hefty advance for a ghost written memoir -- rivaling the chinese water torture for radical tediousness -- entitled "Years of Something or Other."

    Somehow, some way, I think the poor woman will manage.

    Parent

    Not US Primaries but (none / 0) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:01:24 PM EST
    Interesting 'scandal" in Germany.  Involves lots of questions on data, privacy, ethics, taxes.  Reads like a spy novel.  
    Germany hunts tax haven cheats
    It has all the ingredients of a novel: a secret informant, a spy agency and a computer disc reputed to contain incriminating banking data.
    The hero (or villain) is Germany's taxman who, armed with the disc, is going after the wealthy who use a neighbouring country to avoid taxes.

    Germany's spy agency paid a reported 5m euros (£3.75m; $7.3m) for the data.

    The probe has led to the arrest of the ex-Deutsche Post boss Klaus Zumwinkel, accused of evading 1m euros in tax.

    Mr Zumwinkel, whose home and office were raided last week, is accused of using banks in nearby Liechtenstein to avoid paying tax. He resigned soon afterwards.


    BBC

    Do they have the phone no. of (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:13:02 PM EST
    Wesley Snipes's attorney?

    Parent
    ha... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:55:16 PM EST
    This guy was a real government big wig.  I love it when they get caught.  

    Parent
    I like the quotes on scandal..... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:32:27 PM EST
    good call.  People dodge taxes....Shockingly scandalous!

    Wouldn't it be cheaper for Germany to just lower taxes, then they don't have to pay 7 mill for data to catch tax cheats?

    Parent

    But they will (none / 0) (#48)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:54:37 PM EST
    collect over 300 million in taxes.  I frankly think it's clever.  But filled with issues.  

    Parent
    I guess you could call it.... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:14:17 PM EST
    tyrannically clever, yeah.  It's the issues you mention that worry me....

    Parent
    Smart move.... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:34:51 PM EST
    Fox/CNN/MSNBC were never a place for real news, just news-based entertainment and faux controversy.  Nice to see so many people waking up to that fact.

    When I watch, it is strictly for the unintentional comedy, which can be riotously funny at times.

    ARG Poll in Texas - Obama up, 48-42 (none / 0) (#45)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:45:16 PM EST
    Of course, ARG is not the most reliable pollster - and were very erratic before Wisconsin (although there last poll came closest, I think).

    Maybe this is good news for Clinton seeing how they've been off before, but my sense is that it's a harbinger of a series of new polls that show Clinton slipping in both Texas and Ohio.

    Poll might be from February 15... (none / 0) (#49)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:54:52 PM EST
    ...that ARG poll. I thought I saw it a date of February 20 next to it.

    Sorry if I got this wrong.

    Parent

    Young people and the Wisconsin primary (none / 0) (#53)
    by Madison Guy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    Talking to a different kind of exit pollster after casting my vote in the Wisconsin primary. The young woman who interviewed me on a cold Wisconsin night was an Iraq War vet. She wasn't conducting a survey for the media but about the media.

    Attack of the Drones.... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:52:00 PM EST
    Keep an eye on the sky Miami, the man is rolling out the drones.  Link

    Hope they are within slingshot range:)

    It's good to be Obama..... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:01:18 PM EST
    "I'll do whatever he says to do," actress Halle Berry said to the Philadelphia Daily News. "I'll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear."

    I'd be lying if I said I wasn't jealous:)  

    And they say Bill Clinton is the charmer...he ain't got nothing on Obama.  

    I wonder if Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:18:17 PM EST
    has said anything today that will be juicy come October??

    Parent
    Ya never know.... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:39:36 PM EST
    I'll keep my ears open for the language police whistle.

    Ya can't say that, it's sexist.

    Ya can't say this, it's racist.

    Ya can't say the other thing, it's unpatriotic.

    I mean, you don't expect them to think for a minute to figure out what somebody actually means, do you?  Heaven forbid, we might come to an understanding!

    Parent

    I've come to believe that racism (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:48:47 PM EST
    will not go away, because there are several groups who's perception is that their power, such as it is, depends on it's existence.

    And these are groups from both sides of the debate.

    Parent

    Very true.... (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:01:43 AM EST
    in laymen's terms....people have too many hang-ups for racism/sexism to ever fully be thrown on the scrap heap of history.

    I was starting to wonder if it's a generational thing....since I wasn't around for the civil rights era, and was fortunate enough to grow up amongst every race under the sun, me and my generation don't have the hang-ups left over from a more racist/sexist era.

    Parent

    I'm with you, although I was a very young kid (none / 0) (#81)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:40:55 AM EST
    in the 60's. (Born in '62)

    In my experience, many people who "came of age" in the 60's seem to be hyper-sensitive about racism/sexism (yet, ironically, also quite accepting of ageism).

    Their constant vigilance may well have been the catalyst behind the reforms of the 60's but I wonder if that same hypersensitivity in today's world merely makes sure we have no choice but to always and forever see race and gender.

    I think some may be well-intentioned but misguided in their almost messianic focus on race and gender, but it's clear some others perpetuate these conflicts by demanding that race and gender never be allowed to just "be" because they are empowered by the continuation of the conflicts.

    Sad, really.

    Parent

    There's truth behind that view, but... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:02:48 PM EST
      it's incomplete.

      (First a digression, I'm roughly your age and always felt those of us born, say from 1955-65, don't really identify with any "labeled generation." We're really too young for "the 60s" to have shaped our world view even if we are included as "baby boomers,"  but too old for to Gen X or whatever demographic.)

      By the time we "came of age" the advances of the civil rights movement seemed not only settled but indidputably correct--- in the "world" in which I live, anyway. But,  that world is not the world in which everyone lives. I was raised in and continue to exist in an upper middle class, suburban/professional world, and I'm white.

      My job sometimes though brings me into contact with people who, though physically living only a few miles away, exist in different worlds.

       The perceived and real  impact of racism  is much different when viewed from the perspective of poor, minority individuals and groups and the existence of racism is much different both in terms of frequency and willingness to allow it to affect behavior in poor, white communities.

      "We" might have moved past racism but the fact that the leaders who focus on race (and I mean those who exploit racial issues from both sides)  continue to find receptive audiences of significant size and passion is due to something more than these leaders being persuasive sellers of racial politics.

     

    Parent

    yeah man.... (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:17:51 PM EST
    No doubt, black people still get a raw deal in a lot of ways, same for women.  Not as raw a deal as 1955 of course, but still raw.  

    That is what drives me batty about all this racism/sexism discussion lately, nobody is talking about the raw deals, we're arguing about what the a**hole on the tv meant when he said "x".  Mind boggling to me.

    Parent

    Yep, we're the same demo, good points. (none / 0) (#84)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:39:10 PM EST
    Waaay back in the day, when I was about 17, a couple guys had this convo in the restaurant I worked in:

    Dishwasher #1 to his good friend and fellow worker, dishwasher #2, in a question that defined the contrast in personalities between the two: "Man, why are you always so happy?"

    Dishwasher #2: "Hey man, I may be black but you're Puerto Rican."

    I don't for a second believe that racial/gender animus is solely the result of the different groups' respective cheerleaders, but I'm also not sure this cheerleading is having the positive effect today that it apparently did in the '60s.

    Although, now that I think more about it, I wonder if although the '60s raised consciousness about these issues and produced laws that reduced institutionalized racism & sexism, overall, today, is there a reduction in the underlying animus that causes racism and sexism?

    I tend to think constant harping on these types of issues ultimately merely irritates many of those who are already on board with the message while at the same time is ignored and/or identified as a useful weapon by many of those who reject the message.

    And it also empowers the cheerleaders. Hey, we all like to feel we have some positive effect on our world, I think...

    Parent

    Certainly, (none / 0) (#86)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:59:45 PM EST
      there is less racism today than in 1963. I'd agree that is true of "institutional racism" and the prevalence of "racial animus" among individuals. A couple of observations or questions, though.

      How much of the decrease in racial animus is due, directly or indirectly, to the laws (e.g., CRA, VRA, FHA, EEOA, etc.) that placed federal institutions firmly in opposition to racist behavior and forbid state institutions from acting on racial impulses? I think those laws played a huge role and that the "natural devolution" (for lack of a better term) of racism would not have brought near as much progress in a nation where those laws were never enacted.

      Also, just because fewer minorities are now disadvanatged by the existence of racism to the same degree as in the past, does not change the reality for those who are today disadvantaged to some degree by racism and it is understandable that they want more progress.

      I won't argue that some laws or actions have a backlash effect (school busing being the seminal example and "quota AA" to a lesser extent) but even accounting for that I think the laws have had a far more  positive impact than negative.

      Which leads to my ultimate opinion that it would be a mistake to repeal or enact eviscerating amendments to the major civil rights statutes on the premise that they have outlived their usefulness and now do more harm than good.

    Parent

    It's weird having these convos, (none / 0) (#87)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:35:09 PM EST
    for me anyway, in that I sometimes get responses that, to my mind, have nothing to do with what I wrote and put me in a position to either defend or disavow something that I never said, never thought, nor even imagined in the first place.

    I gave it a pass in your first response, but now it's getting annoying.

    You don't want to repeal civil rights laws? Good to hear. Who in the heck ever suggested we do that? Who in the heck ever suggested they've "outlived their usefulness and now do more harm than good?" Put more simply, wtf?

    If you got that from what I wrote, well, despite our similar demographics, we don't communicate very well.

    fwiw, by "constant harping" I'm specifically referring to people like the author of all of the recent TL threads on this subject.

    For cripe's sake.

    Parent

    I think you misinterpreted (none / 0) (#88)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:35:56 PM EST
    what I meant, which may be my fault for not expressing it clearly. I was not suggesting that I think YOU want to repeal or amend civil rights statutes but that at least some of the "constant harping" on minority rights issues is motivated by the fact there are indeed people who do advocate such things and there are also many people who are basicaly just disinterested  in the whole subject.

       

    Parent

    All good. (none / 0) (#89)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:59:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Her comment was deliberate (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:22:29 PM EST
    stated, not just thrown out there.

    If she didn't mean it.... she shouldn't have said it.

    Parent

    A deliberate comment... (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:44:58 AM EST
    can still be badly worded, and because of the wording misunderstood.  

    I'm willing and able to look past her choice of words and phrasing to try and get the meaning...which I'm inclined to think was "this is the first time Mrs. O is proud of the American political process".

    Parent

    And it took her (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:04:58 PM EST
    two days to issue an "explanation."

    Look. She was playing the crowd. In my mind that makes it worse than if she actually believes it.

    Parent

    Unless it's the one (none / 0) (#96)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:46:06 PM EST
    support playing to the crowd.

    What a crock.

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#90)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 03:54:51 PM EST
    is this the same jim that used to link to Coulter and O'Reilly before it became too obvious what a liability they were to one's credibility?

    Why dont you stick with the bit about Obama not holding his hand directly over his heart during the pledge? At least that has some (unintentional)entertainment value.

    Parent

    jondee (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:03:05 PM EST
    Speaking of creditability, please show us the links you refer to.

    Parent
    I know you're (none / 0) (#97)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:49:37 PM EST
    constitutionally incapable of admiting error, Jim and that you admire that trait in a candidate; anything else would be a sign of weakness. I get it.

    Parent
    Super Delegate count (none / 0) (#60)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:07:24 PM EST
    Post Feb 5

    Obama +18
    Clinton -4

    Open Thread | 90 comments (90 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment