Saturday Reading and Open Thread (Mostly)

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:42:55 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Avedon Carol on Eric Boehlert's and Jamison Foser's Media Matters column. Check out all three.

I'm trying to follow the Iowa county assembly votes today. Here are the January caucus results so you can compare when today's numbers become available. Nieman at Daily Kos may be keeping track.

This is an open thread, with a caveat. We are not commenting (and neither should you) about a candidate and his pastor. Any comments about it will be deleted. People have shown they can't discuss it rationally, and what's okay to one person is insulting to another. My decision, with the full support of Big Tent Democrat, is that it will not be on this site.

As to other topics, the floor is your's.

< Cable News Ratings | Fighting For Obama? >

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

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2024. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Saturday Reading and Open Thread (Mostly) | 170 comments (170 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

My PA State Senator, Vince Fumo (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:57:10 PM EST

was indicted last year, and suffered a heart attack last month. As a result, he has decided not to stand for reelection. The primary is in April.

The best funded candidate today is (barely) Democrat John Dougherty, who two years ago gave substantial logistical support to Rick Santorum through his union. That makes Dougherty unacceptable to me.

The other candidates include an anti-casino advocate who will likely pick up the "wine track votes" and a lawyer who almost won a state house primary last year. I will have to decide which of these two to support, keeping in mind that there will be no runoff.

Ugh.

Ther is problems (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:57:34 PM EST

in Kosland.. seems writers that support Hillary are tired of the wild comments... They went on strike

Alegre writes..

This is a strike - a walkout over unfair writing conditions at DailyKos. It does not mean that if conditions get better I won't "work" at DailyKos again. As a regular contributor to the discourse in our community, I would certainly hope to take part in the conversation at DailyKos again some day if we ever get to the point where we're engaging each other in discussion rather than facing off in shouting matches. But not now. Writers need a safe place to reach out and exchange ideas, to communicate and challenge one another. DailyKos should be that place, but its tone, its essence has evolved into something ugly and destructive. Good writers can't survive in that kind of atmosphere. Democrats shouldn't have to put up with that from fellow Democrats.

A list of others hacve joined the writers strike.

Sad news that they have been driven out of a blog after so many years of contributions.

No surprise (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Lou Grinzo on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:16:20 PM EST

While I almost never diaried over there, I was a very frequent contributor in comments, had TU status, etc. The rabid crowds became far too much for me to take.

I now come here, and very seldom stray over to That Other Place.

Parent

I would say (none / 0) (#20)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:19:06 PM EST

on a worse worser and worst scale they are about the middle.

Parent

: LOL (none / 0) (#25)
by cymro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:25:31 PM EST

I like your scale!

Parent
: I don't know (none / 0) (#29)
by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:31:41 PM EST

If comparing Clinton supporters UNFAVORABLY to the Ebola virus is the middle of the worse scale, I'd hate to see the Worst.

Parent

Same at Eschaton but less so... (5.00 / 3) (#37)
by Tacitus Voltaire on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:38:02 PM EST

I had to opt myself out of the Eschaton blog for the duration of the uglyness because I get too upset over the constant Hillary hating drumbeat. It has gotten to where some weeks it is not possible to watch news on TV, listen to left wing talk radio, or read a blog without hearing Hillary getting bashed. If I hear yet another comment from a supposedly impartial or progressive person describing why such and such a remark proves definitively that she is an immoral person I will scream. After having heard the same thing constantly from the right wing since 1992, I feel like a number of the Eschatonians, Big Ed on Air America, Chris Matthews, and now Keith Olberman, have been been demonically possessed by Rush Limbaugh.

The fact that Hillary won in Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texas and retains about half of Democratic support under these conditions says something about her enduring appeal. She is warm and funny on TV, and a lot of democrats still do want to see her as the next president.

Parent

Heh (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:40:47 PM EST

I have never, ever read the comments at Atrios. Haloscan is just too darn annoying. Impossible to follow a conversation and it's in that tiny little browser window.

Parent

Seriously (none / 0) (#44)
by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:43:00 PM EST

Parent

I actually comment a lot (none / 0) (#57)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:02:17 PM EST

at atrios.
I rarely disagree with Duncan and the comments, while fast and furious and ruff and tumble, can also be fun and funny as hell.
also a lot of "names" show up there who I also mostly agree with.
its just hands down cool to find your self in a back and forth with Noam Chompsky.

Parent

and (none / 0) (#58)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:03:30 PM EST

while there is an certain Hillary drumbeat, it is not the life blood of the blog.
unlike some other places.
it is more like and equal opportunity bashing place.

Parent

Lately, I try to stick to this place ... (none / 0) (#59)
by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:09:41 PM EST

or C-Span. Too much hysteria in the other places.

And when even that's too much, it's back to DVDs and books.

Luckily, I'm rather swamped with work, so there's only so much time I can devote to any of it.

Parent

I only do this at work (none / 0) (#62)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:11:59 PM EST

great work if you can get it, eh?
I work with computers and like almost everyone who works with computer imaging I spend a lot of time waiting for things to happen.
it can be a slippery slope though if you are easily sucked in.
and I am.

Parent

Luckily ... (none / 0) (#71)
by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:22:46 PM EST

I find my work more interesting than this most days.

Parent

I do as well (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:27:48 PM EST

except in campaign season.
which, come to think of it, is pretty much all the time these days.
when did this campaign season start? I cant even remember.

Parent

: Didn't It Start The Day After The Final Results (none / 0) (#89)
by MO Blue on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:48:22 PM EST

were in on the 06 elections? Or maybe, it seems that way.

Parent

true, (none / 0) (#63)
by Tacitus Voltaire on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:13:21 PM EST

since a number of the senior posters have tried with some success to tamp down the bitterness. It is the closest thing to real time conversation that I have ever experienced, and the people are generally well educated.

Parent

Yeah.. (5.00 / 3) (#60)
by Rainsong on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:10:19 PM EST

It is sooo overwhelming, I am constantly stunned that Hillary gets as much support as she does.

A dozen or more major national and regional TV networks, 100 gazillion newspapers, half-dozen or more daily tracking opinion polls, and 1,789,438 websites & blogs just Can't Be Wrong, when they are all saying the same message that: Obama is the proven winner, Hillary is evil, racist, immoral, constantly, disgracefully negative and Rovian, a deeply divisive monster tearing the Democratic Party apart, etcetera, etcetera.

I thought back at Super-Tuesday that she would never be able to stand in the rolling tsunamis of such overwhelming negative press from TV, radio, paper etc, down to the net blogosphere. Yet millions of people keep stupidly, stubbornly voting for her. Go figure?

Reminds me of back in the 90s too - it often made me chuckle when the Clinton approval ratings often went up in defiance of the negative press.

Parent

: stupidly, stubbornly? (none / 0) (#139)
by echinopsia on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:01:13 PM EST

Yet millions of people keep stupidly, stubbornly voting for her.
Some people are actually smart enough not to let the media choose their candidate for them. Lots of them, in fact.

Parent

Haven't spent much time at DK... (5.00 / 3) (#41)
by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:42:04 PM EST

...however I used to spend a fair amount of time on HuffPo. Up until the Iowa caucus, it was a pretty even-keeled and civil place. Quite honestly, once the voting started and it looked like Obama was picking up steam, things got pretty nasty. Long story short, the editorial choices over there are intentionally provocative and Obama supporters seem to be satisfied with nothing less than abusing Clinton's corpse.

On a more pleasant note, here in FL I've noticed some Hillary supporters waving signs on the highway demanding to seat the delegates. Honk if ya see 'em...

Parent

*chuckle* - you've made my week with (5.00 / 2) (#117)
by Rainsong on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:41:13 PM EST

...seem to be satisfied with nothing less than abusing Clinton's corpse.

bwahahahahahaha

I thought that too, it wasn't so much they wanted their candidate to win, (which is fine), but that they want the other candidate to lose, and lose badly. To me, it became like watching the mobs at a blood sport, like the blood-lust in the ancient Roman imperial arenas. As you say, nothing less would satisfy them.

Parent

: Ironic (5.00 / 2) (#122)
by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:05:02 PM EST

Considering the candidate they support stands on the platform of unity, new politics, civility, one America....
Except for Hillary and their supporters. :)

Parent

I think thats great (none / 0) (#10)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:05:36 PM EST

and long overdue

Parent

It was the only one I looked at today over there (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by BarnBabe on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:36:54 PM EST

The odd thing was that they actually closed the comments at 1250 or so and they are not available. Then Bob wants to Boycott Jerome Armstrong, etc. The only thing that worried me was when the writer said they would spend more time on MyDD and here. That is good as long as the same smear team does not follow them over just to disrupt. Time will tell. I am glad that comments are controlled over here. It keeps the peace and I appreciate that.

Parent

here is a proud member (5.00 / 1) (#134)
by ghost2 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:45:55 PM EST

of the striking bloggers at dkos. I said I wasn't going back. By the way, The Confluence, Marc Ambinder, and Taylor Marsh have covered the strike.

Parent

disabled comments are diarist's choice. (none / 0) (#42)
by Fabian on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:42:29 PM EST

Not many people know that the diarist can do that at daily kos. I got someone booted there because he was playing games - disabling comments and enabling them long just enough to post his own comments.

I think the disabled comments is a valid choice when comment threads really should be spun out into other posts.

Parent

CT did it (none / 0) (#48)
by BarnBabe on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:45:01 PM EST

I was under the impression that he is the PC guy there. He closed the comments and they were no longer there.

Parent

: I cannot imagine Allegre closing comments (none / 0) (#171)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:01:19 AM EST

so I appreciate the explanation of who did this -- I was shocked to see it, though, when I went to read the diary. I have been reading there for many years and never have seen that before.

Parent

I'm also glad (none / 0) (#47)
by lilburro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:44:52 PM EST

comments are limited to more or less 200. It means sometimes I miss threads I wish I could comment on (#$%! work!) but really, at that point, most is said.

Parent

: re "most is said" (at least 20 times) (none / 0) (#68)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:18:16 PM EST

Parent

I read comments on the reporting (none / 0) (#31)
by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:32:34 PM EST

of the strike story, and they have managed to blame Clinton for the strike, and see it as proof that she is divisive and should quit the race to preserve the sanctity of America.

I'm not kidding.

Parent

if there is a late spring (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:37:34 PM EST

it will be Hillarys fault.

Parent

The narrative regins supreme! (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Fabian on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:39:27 PM EST

I haven't checked responses to my one comment over there pointing that out - but I expect the usual response:

There wouldn't be a narrative if it weren't true, blah, blah, blah.

Someone also complains about the moderation at talkleft. I point out that the rules are up front and people who have restraint and discipline do just fine.

Parent

: Not to mention (none / 0) (#49)
by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:45:14 PM EST

that when BTD goes over the line... he gets the same treatment. Everyone goes by the rules.

Parent

The American Experience (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by magster on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:10:20 PM EST

The MS primary prompted a diary by Meteor Blades at Kos about how far MS had come since the days of the freedom writers (of which he was one), and one commenter posted a youtube clip on the PBS documentary "The American Experience". Here's part 1 of episode 1. I've been watching that show all week on youtube, and ordered the missing episodes at the library to supplement what was on youtube.

If you start watching these, you won't stop. It adds good perspective too on all the recent racial stuff in the primaries.

: <psst: to be clear and not confuse> (none / 0) (#172)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:04:59 AM EST

American Experience is the extraordinary PBS series of many years now, many different topics. You are writing about one of the great old ones, the Eyes on the Prize. And I think you mean the Freedom Riders?
Go to the American Experience website on PBS for the list of dozens and dozens of other great documentaries in the series -- and many, like Eyes on the Prize, are in (probably your) public libraries.

Parent

For the record (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:31:10 PM EST

I do not support a boycott of daily kos. In fact, I read it every day.

It is what it is.

I do support solidarity with Talk Left by reading and commenting at this site.

it is difficult (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:36:27 PM EST

to "support" a site, that one or any other, where you are regularly and dependably called names and worse.
having my opinions questioned is one thing having my motives, heritage and sanity questioned is another.
I swear, one more instance of being called tackey, low brow, white trailer trash and I would reach right into the screen and drag them out by the throat.

Parent

Stay out of the candidate and meta diaries (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by magster on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:41:14 PM EST

There's something worth reading on all the big blogs at least once a day.

Parent

true (none / 0) (#45)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:43:20 PM EST

if only to keep up on the new definition of "nuts"

Parent

The occasional times I do ... (none / 0) (#69)
by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:20:42 PM EST

comment on Dkos these days (and that's very, very rarely) I take a humorous, sometime even dadaist approach.

The commenters get confused and don't know quite what to do.

But even that is only entertaining for so long.

Frankly, even before this election, I never trusted the progressive creds of that community. They've always gotten worked up over things that don't really matter.

Parent

My fave approach... (none / 0) (#74)
by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:27:11 PM EST

...is to simply lob a crazed 'Clinton-hater' post and watch them sniff it out trying to tell if it's sarcasm or not.

What's telling is that it's become really hard to tell which posts are intentionally over-the-top and sarcastic ('I hear she eats the hearts of dead babies!') and which are sincere.

Parent

: I thought it was me for a while (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:33:48 PM EST

but it is definitely getting harder and harder to tell the satire from the purely deranged.
more than once recently I have responded to what I thought was satire to find out it was deadly serious and completely without humor.

Parent

Well (5.00 / 4) (#43)
by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:42:30 PM EST

It's easy to boycott a site when you can hardly bear to read it any more.

The hardest thing about this primary season has been watching the Clintons get called racists.

The second hardest thing is watching the media brazenly attempt to choose our nominee.

I'm normally not one to get exercised over a contested primary. But some things are hard to ignore.

Parent

Kos's Statement is Perfect (none / 0) (#53)
by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:52:06 PM EST

I agree with it 100%.

"First, these people should read up on the definition of 'strike.' What they're doing is a 'boycott.' But whatever they call it, I think it's great. It's a big Internet, so I hope they find what they're looking for."

Parent

: Of course, this also demostrates ... (none / 0) (#98)
by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:02:15 PM EST

why writing for free isn't a great idea.
If the diarists advocating a "strike" were employees of Kos, then it would have more meaning.

Parent
: are you sarcastic? (none / 0) (#136)
by ghost2 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:50:56 PM EST

Parent

The stay and (none / 0) (#56)
by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:01:40 PM EST

fight might work for awhile... sounds to me like they are trying to CHANGE THE SYSTEM.

I still read Kos...but I choose to only at times where I can emotionally detach.... when the comments and language get to bad... I leave.

Parent

I don't like fighting. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:30:41 PM EST

That's not to say that I have enough restraint to stay out of a fight once one is started, but I feel like I can say most things that i want to say here and anything that isn't allowed here I probably shouldn't be saying anyway. I think that DKos would be alright if they just got a handle on people ganging up on the minority, which happens to be Hillary supporters. I don't read all the gushy Obama candidate diaries, since I don't support his candidacy at this time I figure they aren't for me. But most pro-hillary diaries were promptly overtaken by hijackers. You would see unrecommended pro-Hillary diaries with hundreds of posts. If they were so worthless or lame, why so many posts. Why not just let them disappear on their own? I also didn't appreciate that every single really nasty diary about Hillary also made the rec list in light speed.

Parent

: I've long posited... (none / 0) (#164)
by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:18:55 PM EST

...that Obama supporters haven't quite gotten over their insecurities and inferiority complex from back when Clinton was 'inevitable'...
Just as you said, if Clinton is such an inherently unattractive candidate, why the overeagerness to beat on anyone with anything positive to say about her? With some of them, it's all about 'will of the people' but if your will is with Hillary, we're gonna give you the beat down.
Quite honestly, a large part of my disillusionment with Obama is entirely due to the tactics of his supporters. Unfortunately Obama himself has set such a tone - do as I say, not as I do... and, thou shalt not attack me, but I reserve the right to attack you.

Parent

I read the front page every day (none / 0) (#156)
by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:41:32 PM EST

of Daily Kos. I think the world of Markos. And McJoan. I don't read the diaries there unless someone calls my attention to a specific one.

Parent

Do you envision Markos strongly (none / 0) (#157)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:50:01 PM EST

supporting and urging others to strongly support HRC if she is the nominee?

Parent

I think Markos will (none / 0) (#159)
by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:58:12 PM EST

I don't think he controls the other contributors or diarists or commenters on his site. But he will support whoever is the Dem. nominee.

Parent

No Doubt (none / 0) (#161)
by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:59:32 PM EST

Parent

Where's the smiley face? (none / 0) (#163)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:14:28 PM EST

Parent

No Smiley Face (none / 0) (#166)
by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:25:12 PM EST

And even if there was I could never bring myself to type one. Too cute for me, or something.

Parent

Me too. Just checking. (none / 0) (#168)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:39:49 PM EST

If Markos can pull off unqualified support of HRC as Dem. candidate, I'll really be impressed.

Parent

Clinton has the support of a lot (none / 0) (#173)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:09:01 AM EST

of what Markos disses as the "women's studies set," those terrifying feminists, so his support would be tepid at best -- and I still can't see it, as he would lose a lot of what is left of the audience that supports him through his site's advertising.

Parent

You Must Be Joking (none / 0) (#176)
by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:25:29 AM EST

so his support would be tepid at best

What do you think he is going to shill for McCain?

Sell all his bandwith to the GOP?

I cannot imagine that he will do anything but go full steam to support HRC if she is the nominee, as will his supporters.

Parent

Not joking at all (none / 0) (#177)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:30:47 AM EST

as add also that Markos was a Republican, was in the military, and attacks those who think that reproductive rights ought to remain a priority for the Dems -- a lot of cognitive dissonance to overcome for him to support Clinton.

How many years have you been reading his stuff? Were you there for his attacks on feminists, for his support of anti-abortion candidates?

Parent

: Never A Dkoser (none / 0) (#190)
by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:06:01 PM EST

I followed the site for a while, and read FP stuff. Rarely got involved in the comments. I did like Armando, what ever happened to him... just kidding.
And if Markos switched from GOP he can easily switch to supporting HRC, imo.

Parent

I plan to continue following the Rezko (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:03:12 PM EST

trial and I'll be the Chicago newspapers will also.

This is pretty good: (5.00 / 1) (#143)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:13:04 PM EST

Basically, in the modern political campaign, there is no room for remarks of any sort on any subject which could be interpreted as giving offense to anyone, and that covers just about every subject there is. Therefore, my campaign will enter a cone of silence from now until I am sworn in as president next January. And I call upon my distinguished opponent and her campaign to do the same. The stakes in this election are much too high for anyone to say anything.

Excerpt from a piece by Micahel Kinsey

Best laugh (none / 0) (#152)
by Foxx on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:26:26 PM EST

I've had in a very long time.

Parent

: I think the whole piece is at Washington Post (none / 0) (#154)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:34:17 PM EST

but parts are unmentionable here.

Parent

Hmm (none / 0) (#1)
by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:50:20 PM EST

This blogger reports what looks like a massive shift of Edwards delegates into the Obama column in Marshall County. If that result plays out statewide, it could have an impact on the national narrative.

In other news, the Wayne County Prosecutor has apparently made a decision regarding whether the Mayor of Detroit will be indicted. I hope this blog will be keeping tabs on that story.

Well There Goes My Theory (none / 0) (#9)
by MO Blue on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:05:13 PM EST

regarding a wait an see attitude by delegates.

Parent

I still say wait and see (none / 0) (#12)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:07:03 PM EST

a day is a month and a week is a lifetime in politics.
things continue to unfold.

Parent

This is caucus delegates in Iowa (none / 0) (#131)
by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:33:26 PM EST

not Superdelegates.

A few Edwards delegates defected to Obama and Clinton leaving the rest "non-viable" so they had to choose a side also. It looks like they have broken decisively for Obama.

According to Marc Ambinder Obama's camp is now claiming that out of the 2nd state of the caucus they are now netting a minimum of 5 delegates, possibly up to 7. This compares to a 1 delegate advantage compared to Clinton from the night of the caucus.

Parent

: Latest figures show Obama picking up (none / 0) (#135)
by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:46:44 PM EST

just under 15% of Edwards support, and Clinton picking up just under 2%.
15.64% still sticking with Edwards just now, though I think if that drops below 15% then he wouldn't get any statewide delegates?

Parent

something is going on here that .... (none / 0) (#84)
by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:36:40 PM EST

...I don't understand. maybe it is generational. I don't think there is anything that Obama can do to lose this nomination. The GE, that remains to be seen.

Parent

I disagree (none / 0) (#85)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:41:12 PM EST

I think events unfolding right now could lose it for him.
the super delegates, who are for the most part not stupid and who's sole purpose is to save us from another McGovern episode, are watching and will continue to watch them with growing horror.

Parent

: however (none / 0) (#86)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:42:00 PM EST

I completely agree about the general.
he will not be president.

Parent

The only thing sleazy . . . (none / 0) (#2)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:57:00 PM EST

. . . about the episode was the type of journalism being used to concoct a Clinton slur.

-Eric Boehlert

my absolute favorite so far was the vile Peggy Noonan on Scarboro putting one gnarled digit to her nipped and tucked chin, rolling her eyes to the ceiling and saying "not that I knoooooow of".
I literally had to toss out my shredded wheat because I couldnt finish it.
let me repeat. I believe there is an argument to be made that not only has the MSM piling on not been entirely hurtful to Hillary I think it has, at least in some ways and in some places, helped her.
and I cant remember having as much fun doing anything (with my clothes on) as watching the mighty media worm turn the last few days.

: Noonan... (none / 0) (#50)
by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:47:19 PM EST

...don't get me started. The only thing she has going for her is a vocabulary and a degree from the William F. Buckley school of speech affectations. Beyond that, she's rarely on target re: much of anything...

Parent

Which joint Dem ticket vs McCain? (none / 0) (#5)
by cymro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:57:57 PM EST

I know this may be moot if the Obama campaign implodes after the recent scandals, or for for a variety of other reasons.

However, has anyone seen any polls comparing Clinton/Obama and Obama/Clinton as the Democratic ticket vs. McCain? The candidates or their most ardent supporters may not want this, but I think a lot of voters do.

that ship (none / 0) (#6)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:01:53 PM EST

has sailed
IMHO

Parent

I thought so too (none / 0) (#15)
by Manuel on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:11:42 PM EST

but them I was reading somewhere (Brownstein?) and I was reminded of Kennedy/Johnson and Reagan/Bush.

Parent

Good point (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Lou Grinzo on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:21:42 PM EST

I keep reminding people that this is politics we're talking about, and a joint ticket is entirely possible right up the moment when another ticket has been formed and it's too late to change.

Obama and Clinton are politicians, first and foremost. I know a lot of people, particularly in the US, use that as a pejorative term, but I don't. I think that the longer this race continues to be so incredibly close (and it's about to get closer, especially if FL re-votes), the more likely it is that the only winning ticket will include both of those candidates.

How will they sell it to the public? Simple: "We had a long, very personal meeting and rediscovered that we have far more common ground than differences. We also agreed on the importance of taking this country in a new direction, and we'll work together to do whatever is necessary to achieve that goal."

Parent

: Exactly what I was thinking (none / 0) (#33)
by cymro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:36:08 PM EST

There's a saying that when you're up to your neck in alligators it's hard to remember that the objective was to drain the swamp.
We should not get so caught up in taking sides during the primary that we forget the ultimate goal of fielding the best ticket in the GE. And since Clinton and Obama have shown that they draw their support from different segments of the Democratic electorate, a joint ticket makes a lot of sense.

Parent

yeah (none / 0) (#17)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:16:17 PM EST

I was around for both of those and I dont remember either getting to this point. and its not over.
I dont think we have reached the bottom.

Parent

Your opinion does not count ... (none / 0) (#21)
by cymro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:21:37 PM EST

... if you are reading this blog. Nothing personal. Neither does mine.

I am interested in the opinions of the vast majority of voters out there who do not follow events as closely, who are not ardent supporters of either candidate, and who believe that a ticket comprising both candidates would be best for the party.

Parent

: I am quite used to my opinion (none / 0) (#26)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:25:47 PM EST

not mattering.
but I would put money on no fusion ticket at this point.
I dont think he would need her and I dont think he would take it.
for that matter I am not even sure it would be such a great thing. I thought so once. not so sure any more.
but anything is possible.

Parent

Jeralyn (none / 0) (#7)
by Andy08 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:02:30 PM EST

I respect you decison of not having a shouting match of comments on the one issue you and BTD have decided to censure here.

But out of the respect that many of us have for you,
I would at least expect you to address the issue. It is a fundamental one, not a personal one.

Would you write a post with no comments allowed if you want.

We need to know what is your take, your voice on this. Because not addressing the issue sends in itself a message to your readers.

they are correct (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:04:53 PM EST

about the issue bringing out the worst in all sides.
look around you.

Parent

I don't want (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Andy08 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:11:15 PM EST

to hear the comments. I want to hear their analysis and what is Jeralyn and BTD have to say and what's their view of this.

It is a public and fundamental issue relevant to the elections. Not a personal one on faith.

Not to address it by them (no comment allowed) sends in itself a message.

Parent

not a bad idea actually (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:13:28 PM EST

Parent

In my book (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:24:03 PM EST

the only relevant issue is what the political reaction will be, which is a "wait and see" kind of thing. Nobody really knows.

The Clinton campaign is stepping way back and letting the thing play out, which is a cue we should take ourselves, IMO.

Parent

: yep (none / 0) (#27)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:26:18 PM EST

Parent

New use of live, duel-blogging software. (none / 0) (#130)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:31:09 PM EST

Parent

I must have missed the thread (none / 0) (#19)
by vj on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:18:12 PM EST

where people discussed this and behaved badly.

Parent

they know us better than we do (5.00 / 2) (#65)
by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:14:11 PM EST

ie: we are not the ones we have been waiting for.

Parent

If we were, why are we still waiting? (5.00 / 3) (#70)
by RalphB on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:21:28 PM EST

Parent

: You've successfully... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:33:43 PM EST

...captured the paradox.

Parent

we have met the enemy (5.00 / 3) (#73)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:24:24 PM EST

and he is us.

has that EVER been truer?

Parent

It wasn't one thread (none / 0) (#155)
by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:39:06 PM EST

it was infecting all of them.

I don't think my opinion on this matters. I'm not even following it. So at this time, I won't be writing about it.

I don't like to post and disable comments. I think I've done it once in six years...yesterday, and it was not a post about elections.

Big Tent did one today, and I've suggested that he not to do any more of them.

Parent

I'll say this: (none / 0) (#91)
by zyx on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:51:28 PM EST

I feel about as badly as I have felt in this entire campaign right now.

I don't care for Obama. But I am as yellow a dog as ever marks a ballot. And I believe, because of what I have seen in the past news cycle, that Obama's followers have bought us this guy on a wave of rock-star enthusiasm and that we will have a President McCain in 2009 because of Main Street voters and what THEY have seen in this past news cycle.

Parent

: the nominating process it not over (none / 0) (#92)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:54:27 PM EST

and thank god for that
Hillary by 25 points in Pennsylvania and onward from there.

Parent
: It's not just Obama's followers (none / 0) (#151)
by Foxx on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:18:40 PM EST

it is Kennedy and Kerry and the rest of the dem establishment who are backing him.
And are they not doing that because they hate the Clintons as upstarts who should never have been president?
And is that hate obscuring their judgment?

Parent

What if Superdelegates follow their constituents? (none / 0) (#11)
by cymro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:05:39 PM EST

Two days ago, I commented:

This has led me to wonder, since there has been so much spin from the Obama camp about the SD's "respecting the will of the people," if anyone has done the following analysis of the superdelegates:
What if every superdelegate who is an elected representative (and I know there are others who do not fit in this category, but let's ignore them for the moment) cast their vote in accordance with the public vote in their constituency? How would those SD votes turn out. After all, if SD's are really going to "respect" the public's opinion, the voters they should respect are their own constituents, and not any national totals, whether total votes or total delegates.

Has anyone seen such an analysis?

Excellent question (none / 0) (#24)
by Lou Grinzo on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:24:37 PM EST

I would love to see how this breaks down, as this is exactly what I've said all along would be the mode democratic approach. Governors and Senators follow their state, Representatives follow their CD's, etc.

I have a nagging suspicion that it would wind up splitting those SD's almost 50/50, putting even more power into the hands of the non-geographically-identifiable SD's.

Parent

: You may be right, but ... (none / 0) (#46)
by cymro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:44:48 PM EST

... I'd like to see the analysis, because there have been some wildly uneven geographical splits in many states. For example, look at the maps of the results by county in Texas and Ohio.

Parent

No, but, according to Huff Post, even (none / 0) (#75)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:27:35 PM EST

now Obama is working on NY Gov. Patterson.

Parent

: Not gonna happen (none / 0) (#141)
by echinopsia on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:06:21 PM EST

Asked if there were any scenario in which he would switch his support to Obama before the Democratic presidential nomination is decided, Paterson said, "Absolutely not. When I sign up to support a candidate, it's to the end.
Source

Parent

What do we think (none / 0) (#55)
by lilburro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:57:16 PM EST

of the Barack Obama register to vote video posted on Koppelman's war room at Salon?

Making I and R into D in PA

I don't really think it will lead to him winning, or if after all it will really work - I'm not sure people think about voting that far ahead of the day the primary actually happens. But to what degree is I&R involvement in Obama's campaign good for Dems? Now that the "new JFK" phase has passed, is this working for him as well as it used to?

Do people who register as Dems begin to participate in our party at a local level? Is their reregistration just a "necessary evil" or something else?

Is this the kind of party people only go to because it has free beer?

Re the I & R involvement (none / 0) (#78)
by smott on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:27:52 PM EST

...on BO's campaign...how do we simultaneously see the meme that BO's "coat-tails" are longer than HRC's?

It would seem to me that if a lot of your supporters are I or even R, they'd be much less likely to vote straight Dem on the ticket...so I'd think HRC is more of a help to down-ticket Blues than BO...

Or have I missed something?

Parent

: It's an argument I've never understood ... (none / 0) (#102)
by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:08:50 PM EST

and, frankly, I don't think there is an argument as such.
It's just assertion as argument.

Parent

there's a post about it (none / 0) (#160)
by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:59:09 PM EST

now up here.

Parent

Has Talk Left addressed this (none / 0) (#81)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:32:26 PM EST

remark by John McCain?

REUTERS

McCain speculates al Queda in Iraq may increase activity just before the GE to tip the election to the Dems.

: They Can Arrange (none / 0) (#158)
by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:08:51 PM EST

A surge in violence at any time. I think that it will backfire, Iraq is better off on the back burner for the GOP.
On the other hand an attack on Iran (or by Iran cough cough) would probably hand McCain the election.

Parent

Hillary's favorability problem (none / 0) (#87)
by fuzzyone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:42:29 PM EST

It was asserted on a thread the other day that "poll after poll show that Obama and Clinton are tied in negatives. I did a little research and discovered they are actually tied in one poll. Every other poll I found had Obama with far higher positives and lower negatives. The post was kind of buried so I thought I would revive it here and see what people think. Seems to me this support BTD's view, which I agree with, that Obama has far more potential to be a map changer. Clinton is lucky if she can manage 50 + 1. Here is what I found(all numbers are favorable first, all registered voters)

Rassumssen
Obama 50 - 49
Clinton 47 - 51

Gallup
Obama 58 - 34
Clinton's 48 - 49

All the rest are from this page (I stopped when I got to results that were pre february)
Newsweek
Obama 61 - 28
Clinton 56 - 40

LA Times
Obama 61 - 27
Clinton 51 - 42

USA Today
Obama 61 - 32
Clinton 48 - 48

CBS/NYT
Obama 45 - 23
Clinton 35 - 43

lets see what those numbers (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:47:21 PM EST

say in a couple of weeks.

Parent

I have no ability to predict the future (none / 0) (#94)
by fuzzyone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:55:05 PM EST

but if you try the gallup link the trend for Hillary is unfavorable moving up while Obama has the favorables moving up.

The NBC WaPo was last done in January. Since then Obama's favorable number has gone from 47 to 51 Clinton has, from a statistical standpoint, no movement.

The other interesting thing is that Obama tends to have more neutral or undecided, suggesting again more upside (and downside) potential, as BTD has said.

Parent

I don't think... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:59:09 PM EST

...we should be concerned about the percentages of far right Republicans who hate Clinton. As posted below, her unfavorables among Dems is not more than 15% - about even with Obama at least in the Newsweek poll where both appear.

Too many dynamics at play here for this to be a reasonable predictor of a general election. I don't really care if Repubs like Obama if they plan to vote for McCain.

Parent

Its amazing to me the way people pretend (none / 0) (#101)
by fuzzyone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:07:36 PM EST

independents and moderate republcans don't exist. As I said, I think either Clinton or Obama wins in November. The point is that Obama has map changing potential while Clinton has Kerry or Gore repeat potential. The world is not divided between dems and far right replublicans (who I doubt are the ones saying they view Obama favorably and certainly are not all of the 50% of voters who some polls show view Clinton unfavorably). There are a bunch of people who can go either way. Reagan proved it. There have been plenty of lopsided elections in American history. (And no this does not mean I liked Reagan, I hated him and worked against his election.)

Parent

Maybe it looked like ... (none / 0) (#104)
by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:11:48 PM EST

he had a map-changing potential at one time. I think that's gone now.

Unless reducing the number of states Dems carry in the GE is the kind of map changing you're talking about.

Parent

I don't disagree... (none / 0) (#106)
by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:12:37 PM EST

...that a higher favorable rating is almost always a good thing. But it doesn't necessarily portend general election results and you're speaking of a candidate who has been a public figure all of a year vs. Clinton and McCain with decades in the public eye.

Check this out:

Bush Favorability

During the 2000 election, Bush had no more than 20% negative ratings because he had virtually no record on which to run. He now has 55% negative ratings.

Parent

Not sure I follow (none / 0) (#110)
by fuzzyone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:20:39 PM EST

Obama won't be running for president 8 years from now.

Parent

Well what exactly is your point? (none / 0) (#118)
by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:42:44 PM EST

You say both candidates can win so why is Obama's lower negative rating of any consequence?

My read between the lines is that you're presuming more effective governance from a more broadly popular President...? To which I responded that he's a fairly immature figure in public life and a lot can change during an administration.

Parent

: A lot can change (none / 0) (#132)
by fuzzyone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:40:49 PM EST

His numbers could go up or down. But we are where we are and I think that, with what we know now Obama is a) more likely to win, b) more likely to get more dems elected, c) more likely to be able to govern effectively.
The fact that Hillary starts with such a high baseline number of people who dislike her is pretty troubling if you care about her ability to win and govern if she does.

Parent

I think you are (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:12:03 PM EST

ignoring current events

Parent

Woops (none / 0) (#90)
by fuzzyone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:50:11 PM EST

Pressed post instead of preview and left off the most recent one (from that same last page)

NBC/WaPo
Obama - 51 - 28
Clinton - 45 - 43

Those are newest first by the way.

Obviously this seems like a real problem for her and confirms what I had always though, i.e. most people just don't like her.

Parent

Well... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
by OrangeFur on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:11:14 PM EST

... first of all, 43% is not most people.

Also, I guarantee you that if Obama is the nominee, his unfavorables will be pretty high by November after the GOP has had their say.

Parent

: Than one can only imagine (none / 0) (#111)
by fuzzyone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:21:18 PM EST

what Hillary's will look like. Yikes.

Parent

What's interesting... (none / 0) (#93)
by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:54:38 PM EST

...is that when you poll only Democrats, her favorable numbers generally beat Obama:

Newsweek:
Clinton - 83/14
Obama - 79/14

Time/CNN
Clinton - 72/16
Obama - no result

This is relevant, because despite having a 'favorable' view of Obama, most Republicans are unlikely to cross over for him if they also hold a favorable view of McCain.

Parent

That single result (none / 0) (#97)
by fuzzyone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:01:10 PM EST

is a much narrower gap, with much lower negatives and all the difference in the undecideds. I think the last couple of elections have established the difficulty of winning relying just on dems. Its not about republicans who like him. Its about the independents who like him and not her. The fact that its only dems that like her is exactly whey she a) is not map changing and b) is, in my view, less likely to win (though I think either one wins).

weird that the Time CNN only has it for her. Do you have a link for that one?

Parent

Time/CNN poll... (none / 0) (#108)
by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:15:31 PM EST

...is from your link to pollingreport.com - for whatever reason there is no Time/CNN poll result for Obama. As I pointed out, prior to a year ago, nobody was polling his favorability because he was a largely unknown midwestern Senator.

Parent

Ah, I had not gone all the way back to 2003 (none / 0) (#113)
by fuzzyone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:28:01 PM EST

Parent

: Didn't even notice... (none / 0) (#119)
by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:45:03 PM EST

...it was from 2003... scratch that one

Parent

not to mention (none / 0) (#100)
by Capt Howdy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:04:27 PM EST

that "favorable" is mostly a result of media coverage which, to say the least, has not been exactly "balanced" up until now.
and as mentioned above the media worm is now turning. big time. and unfortunately for Obama, largely as a result of the fauning media coverage heretofore, he has absolutely no experience dealing with a firestorm. which is not coming it is here.

Parent

: I've seen no evidence of a firestorm (none / 0) (#112)
by fuzzyone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:23:53 PM EST

and he managed to turn the Chicago Tribune around as noted below. The assumption that Obama will fold when faced with attacks is based on the wishful thinking of Clinton supporters who have no other hope.
The really sad thing is that Clinton can only hope to raise Obama's negatives. She appears to have no way to lower her own.

Parent

Obama cleared of Rezko issues (none / 0) (#96)
by MKS on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:59:42 PM EST

The Chicago Tribune has cleared Obama of any wrongdoing in Rezko-related issues:

The most remarkable facet of Obama's 92-minute discussion was that, at the outset, he pledged to answer every question the three dozen Tribune journalists crammed into the room would put to him. And he did.

All the questions that the most informed people had to ask were answered....

Some people will not let go:

We fully expect the Clinton campaign, given its current desperation, to do whatever it must in order to keep the Rezko tin can tied to Obama's bumper

The bottom line:

Might we all be surprised by some future disclosure? Obama's critics have waited 16 months for some new and cataclysmic Rezko moment to implicate and doom Obama. It hasn't happened.
...
Less protection, less control, would have meant less hassle for his campaign. That said, Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That's a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.

It is time to let go of this issue.

Move along, nothing to see here, ... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
by cymro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:36:33 PM EST

... echoing your many previous posts on this subject in the last 24 hours. It might just lead readers to wonder why are you so keen to suppress any discussion of this issue.

Parent

: Those who know the most (none / 0) (#145)
by MKS on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:34:57 PM EST

about Rezko, say he answered all their questions....
One would think Hillary supporters would understand that beating to death an investigation with shards of speculation is unfair.....

Parent

Cleared of Rezko issues? (5.00 / 3) (#123)
by Anne on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:10:28 PM EST

Are you kidding me? You think a Chicago Tribune editorial clears him? The same Chicago Tribune that endorsed him earlier this year and which probably doesn't want to have to rescind its endorsement? Sorry, not buying it - this in no way clears Obama of anything.

The entire editorial was laughable. The board says that Obama has provided "uncommon detail" - and says his critics have waited 16 months for some cataclysmic detail, but neglects to mention that the reason they've been waiting is because he has been stonewalling the Chicago media and refusing to answer questions. As for that "uncommon detail" and the candor the board thinks other campaigns should strive to emulate - give me a break.

The Tribune's board is so far in the tank for Obama as to render itself without credibility.

My mouth dropped open when I read that Obama claimed it was just a coincidence that the Rezkos bought the adjoining lot on the same day the Obamas bought the house - does he really expect people to believe that?

And therein lies the problem with Obama - his inability to just tell the people the whole story. If it is all as above-board as he claims it is, why has he dragged his feet for so long to answer the questions?

There will be more. Right now, I would venture to guess that Obama and Rezko are operating under a Mutually Assured Destruction agreement...with Rezko on trial, and Obama running for the nomination, neither can afford for the other to start talking too much.

Parent

I found that part stunning too (none / 0) (#125)
by tree on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:17:14 PM EST

For those who follow news about Obama's Rezko connection in granular detail: Obama said Friday that his "smaller lapse of judgment" was inviting Rezko to help him evaluate the house before he purchased it. Obama insists, though, that the Rezkos' simultaneous purchase of the abutting lot was entirely independent of his house purchase--not a choreography of transactions, but a blur of dealings among the sellers' and buyers' real estate brokers and attorneys.

Just a coincidence. Pull the other one!

Parent

Phew so glad (5.00 / 1) (#128)
by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:29:11 PM EST

I was waiting for the Chicago Tribune to tell me what to think, now it's done.

Parent

Rezko going broke (none / 0) (#147)
by MKS on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:38:53 PM EST

So what? Developers go broke all the time....so much innuendo.....

Parent

Darn thing is though (none / 0) (#153)
by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:53:51 PM EST

They don't rip off 5 million from local and state government when they are doing that. Funny, how developers who risk public funds are not the kind of people I like or Obama should like.

Parent

Developers who risk (none / 0) (#179)
by MKS on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:02:08 AM EST

public funds....There are a lot of those....Developers are in the business of risking other people's money....and they go under often....

I would hope people would step back and remember how the Clintons were hounded about the failure of the Madison S&L, and the use of public money for the bail-out.....Most Hillary supporters would say that was unfair.....

Parent

Really? (none / 0) (#183)
by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:40:20 AM EST

Dude, you really need to brush up on Rezko before you keep defending him like this.

Rezko was getting guaranteed government loans for his development projects. If they went bust, he walks away and taxpayers pick up the tab (while he still collects his management fee).

Between 1989 and 1998 Rezko projects were given "more than $100 million from the city, state and federal governments and bank loans to rehabilitate 30 buildings in Chicago" and his company, Rezmar, was paid more than $6.9 million in development fees.

And here's the clinker: Taxpayers have lost $5.7 million in grants and loans on Rezko projects.

In other words, taxpayers lost $5.7M and Rezko made $6.9M.

Parent

You might need to step back and remember (none / 0) (#187)
by tree on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:04:21 AM EST

as well.

Whitewater was a money losing land deal between the Clinton's and MacDougal that happened 4 years BEFORE Madison S & L was even created by MacDougal, and nine years before it failed and was bailed out.To think that the Clinton's should have foreseen the future nearly a decade ahead before going into a land deal, is to enter a whole 'nother plane of unreality.

But thinking that a politician should foresee that entering into a lucrative real eastate transaction with a fundraiser who's already lost millions of federal dollars and is concurrently under federal investigation for corruption would be at minimum a major "bonedheaded" move, that's pretty understandable and logical.

Parent

: Affordable Housing (none / 0) (#188)
by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:11:28 AM EST

A little history. Affordable housing from the 1930's till the 1960's was predominantly built, owned and managed by local housing authorities. In the early 70's programs started emerging that involved for profit and non profit developers. From the neighborhood activism of the 1970's, Alinsky included, and as a response to Urban Renewal policies of the 60's, neighborhood based non profit corporations emerged. These CDCs, have grown to be major affordable housing developers. They develop and manage thousands of projects throughout America. This sector, that creates this affordable housing has an impecable record of development and management. We, who struggled to create this kind of asset building for low income communities are very careful how public resources are used. We are very concerned with preserving each unit created, because we know that the resources to create those units are always disappearing. So the code of ethics among community organizers and community developers, is making sure to not lose units, affordable units.
This is not any kind of development. This is Obama, a man who portrays himself as someone who is of the community activism that created the current affordable housing inventory. So, Obama not knowing or not caring to know how Rezko did not manage his buildings from 1997, when he got his first donation, to me is the indication that Obama is a sell out.
Rezko, created Rezmar , a for profit development corporation that entered into developing affordable housing. He developed political connections and got funding with little or no development experience.
Typically, developers derive fees from projects. In cities where affordable housing projects are financed with the community in mind and not profit for a political bag man, the developer is required to hold the fees in reserve to guarrantee the operations and the debt service of the project.
Rezko, basically, took all the fees out of the projects, 5 million. These are funds from local govt loans and from proceeds of tax equity contributions from Limited Partnerships. The affordable housing units are lost. I don't give a darn about the Federal case, I care that these affordable units were lost to the people of those low income neighborhoods. Obama did not care. From 97 till 2008, he claims he did not know about Rezko's failures with these projects.
If you find that comforting, then fine. I don't.

Parent
: Your point (none / 0) (#189)
by MKS on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:13:12 PM EST

is that it is unfair to blame the Clintons for the failure of Madison. But their close friend James McDougal was responsible....And if the Clintons are not responsible for, and it was unfair to attack them based on, what their close friend did, then should not that same standard apply to Obama?
No one has even suggested that Obama was in any way personally responsible for any failure of Rezko's projects.....
The same standard should be applied. Obama did nothing wrong.....

Parent

The side lot (none / 0) (#148)
by MKS on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:45:31 PM EST

doesn't matter.....The two lots were separately listed.....The issue was whether Obama paid less than fair market value for his house....There is no evidence to suggest that.....He was the only person making offers....

Didn't Rezko sell the side lot....That would be evidence of what the fair market value was of that lot.....

Rezko did a walk through of the house....Buying the lot next door could have made sense for any number of reasons.....Hillary supporters assume the worst.....

Show proof that Obama paid less than fair market value for his house.....If you can't, then the issue is over.....

Parent

Read the interview... (none / 0) (#167)
by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:36:45 PM EST

None of this makes much sense. Obama, in a prior interview, claims that there was already "an offer for $625,000 and that therefore the Rezkos could not have offered or purchased that lot for less."

So why did Rezko buy it and why did he get it for the exact same price as the standing offer?

Yes, Obama later bought 1/6th of the lot for $104,500 despite the fact that it appraised for $40,500.

Is it just a coincidence if you take the delta between the price Obama paid for 1/6th of the lot and the appraised value ($64K) and you multiply by 6 to get an estimate of the appraised value of the entire lot, you get $384K which is $241K less than Rezko paid.

So what kind of savvy investor pays $241K over appraised value for a lot, while the guy buying the house next door got a $300K break on the listing price?

Parent

that's all been answered before (none / 0) (#169)
by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:41:41 PM EST

the appraisal of that one portion of the lot was not representive of the whole lot.

There's nothing about the numbers or Obama's explanation that doesn't add up numericlaly.

the owners would only sell the house with the lot Obama could afford one but not both. Mrs. Rezko bought the lot on the same day using $125k cash and a $500k loan from Muthal Bank of Harvey.That allowed Obama to buy the house.

Again, the question is not did Obama do something wrong, he didn't. It's that he exercised poor judgment but doing the deal with a man under investigation who was a large fundraiser for him and who was himself involved in politics. Even Obama says those are his mistakes.

Parent

and on the sales price of the house (none / 0) (#170)
by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:42:41 PM EST

The Obamas put in three offers, going up each time. The sellers took their third offer, saying it was the best one they got. Nothing wrong there.

Parent

: I don't dispute... (none / 0) (#185)
by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:04:41 AM EST

...any impropriety in the selling price of the house. At issue is the reason why Rezko just happened to purchase the adjoining lot.
Occam's Razor, right? Obama buys house, political patron buys adjacent lot - on the same day no less from same seller who (by the way) was very eager to sell both lot and home together. Not more than a year later, Obama decides he wants a bigger yard and - lo and behold - political patron is nice enough to subdivide for him. How much yard ya want Barack? No problem.
It's not illegal. But clearly Rezko made Obama's life a whole lot easier. But I'm sure Obama never asked and Rezko never requested a favor in return.

Parent

So you don't buy it as a coincidence (none / 0) (#174)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:21:12 AM EST

that the Rezkos bought the side lot at the same time that the Obamas bought their house, or that it was a coincidence that the Rezkos then sold a piece of the lot to the Obamas.

If you don't buy this story, then does it add up that Obama dismisses it as simply "simultaneous"?

Parent

At issue... (none / 0) (#184)
by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:51:12 AM EST

...is not just judgment, but candor. Obama has continually hedged on the degree to which Rezko was involved and - I won't belabor this - but Obama himself claims the lot had a $625K offer on it already. Then why did Rezko step in?

Presidential candidates have been grilled over better stories.

Parent

Cracks me up... (none / 0) (#109)
by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:17:27 PM EST

...so if Rezko goes down, we're only talking about a candidate who has a decades long friendship, hundreds of thousands in campaign contributions, and a collaboration on real estate deal with a guy who allegedly defrauded the state of IL out of hundreds of millions.

But of course Obama is cleared of any wrongdoing.

Parent

Do the Clintons really want to go with (none / 0) (#114)
by fuzzyone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:30:00 PM EST

an argument that being associated with people convicted of crimes is disqualifying. Really?

Parent

Who said disqualifying? (none / 0) (#120)
by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:47:22 PM EST

...but you're upthread pointing out Clinton's negatives (you know, the woman associated with all those criminals) why glowing over Obama's positives.

This is the way of the world. You run for the most visible office in the country and all the skeletons get dumped from the closet. Obama is just now confronting his past.

Parent

...whereas... (none / 0) (#121)
by smott on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:56:34 PM EST

Yup.
Whereas HRC has been vetted for 16 yrs and is still here.

Right now she seems less risky to me, if only because her negatives are known and fairly stable.

Parent

There is a lot of (none / 0) (#146)
by MKS on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:37:38 PM EST

post 1998 stuff about the Clintons yet to come out.....Bill has pulled in hundreds of millions from Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan.....And, of course, no favors come with the hundreds of millions.....

Rezko is chump change--bupkis....

Parent

: Are you nuts? (none / 0) (#180)
by echinopsia on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:22:45 AM EST

After Whitewater and Monica, after troopergate and travelgate and trashing the WHgate and all the other RW-manufactured -gates, after being impeached but not removed from office, after being EXONERATED from all wrongdoing other than a BJ for Bill - after all is said and done and millions spent results in the most investigated and as a result probably the least corrupt admin in presidential history - are you seriously saying brilliant people like the Clintons did anything at all questionable since he left office and she became a Senator? You seriously think you're going to see any real dirt dug up about them NOW?
Hillary and Bill have the cleanest closets in the world. They have to have clean closets.
Pull the other one. It's got bells on.

Parent

no one said he did anything wrong (none / 0) (#162)
by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:04:46 PM EST

Rezko calls into question his judgment. He didn't need to be cleared of wrongdoing, he was never accused of any. He says he made multiple mistakes in engaging in personal business transactions with Rezko because Rezko was (1) a contributor (2) involved in politics and (3) under investigation. Those are his words. It's fair to consider whether there would be more misjudgments would occur again if president.

Parent

I just saw Nancy Pelosi (none / 0) (#124)
by lilburro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:10:33 PM EST

say "take it from me. there will be NO ticket" referring to the 'dream ticket' on CNN. Her smug smile after saying that was mindblowing.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH HER

(I realize this statement has been reported before)

This was posted on openleft (none / 0) (#129)
by lilburro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:30:35 PM EST

by johnalive.

"Re-doing primaries is 'just not realistic'"

Obama on MI and FL

: So much for (none / 0) (#133)
by tree on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:41:55 PM EST

"Yes We Can"

Parent
: I Will Stay Home In November If The Dems Do Not (none / 0) (#142)
by MO Blue on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:06:47 PM EST

accurately count the votes in MI and FL. Either use the original primaries or conduct a revote but no 50/50 distribution. Giving Obama 50% of votes he did not win is in effect disenfranchises the voters in both states. I will not support a candidate or a party that does not honor the voters' right to have their votes counted.

Parent

I agree with all of that (none / 0) (#140)
by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:01:29 PM EST

And my approval of Kos's statement does not exist in contradiction to any of it.

the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#165)
by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:23:43 PM EST

was deleted for a personal attack on Markos. No name-calling and no personal attacks here.

Parent

: ok (none / 0) (#182)
by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:34:49 AM EST

I know the rules.
But I finally figured out a comment I had about that. I feel, my impression is that it's kind of like running a comedy club and telling all the acts: "Personally insulting Don Rickles is not allowed."
It's a good rule.

Parent

I live in Denver (none / 0) (#144)
by echinopsia on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:22:18 PM EST

Less than a mile from the Pepsi Center and downtown where the convention will take place.

I have a very small house but a big yard.

If anyone wants to come to Denver and camp out in my yard in order to protest at the convention, I'll consider having them.

I even have two tents.

Thanks! I actually started thinking (none / 0) (#175)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:25:25 AM EST

just in the last few days about heading out there -- after all, the convention's second day will be Women's Equality Day, the annual anniversary celebrated nationwide (by presidential proclamation and more) of the 19th Amendment.

I think that might be a nice day for a march in your fine town -- maybe another Million Woman March. . . .

Parent

Cream City, come on out! (none / 0) (#178)
by echinopsia on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:59:04 AM EST

I'll give you the spare bedroom.

From reading your comments for the past two months, I think we'd have a blast.

I am an alternate for Hillary at the state Dem Con in May, and I volunteered for the convention last summer as well, so I'm high on the list. Colorado Dem HQ is six blocks from my house.

One way or the other I may get to be inside to see the first woman president accept her party's nomination, but I think it would be just as great to be part of a million woman march outside. It's not too soon to start organizing for that.

Serious. Email me: echinopsia at yahoo.com

Parent

I should have mentioned (5.00 / 0) (#181)
by echinopsia on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:31:32 AM EST

only supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton are invited.

Parent

: Damn.... (none / 0) (#186)
by kdog on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:54:42 AM EST

I was gonna ask if I could come with a pitchfork and a torch and go all '68 on the Democratic Occupation/Imprisoner Party.
Down with Obama, down with Clinton, down with McCain....Up with America! None of the above in '08!

Parent

Saturday Reading and Open Thread (Mostly) | 170 comments (170 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment