home

Friday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:45:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I've got court this morning so it's up to you to keep each other informed. What's of interest in the news and what's on your mind today?

I'll be back late this afternoon.

Bumped by BTD.

By BTD Apropos to nothing, here's one of my favorite artists singing a song by one of the greatest, if not the greatest, songwriters:

NOTE - Comments closed. New Open Thread.

< Double Standards | The Crying Wolf Syndrome >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Friday Open Thread | 175 comments (175 topical)
    Oh, thank GOD (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:48:42 AM EST
    I have a conspiracy I want to float out!

    Northern Trust No 10209 is the name of the trust the Obama set up to buy their home.

    10209...1 20 9

    Jan 20, 2009...

    J'accuse!

    funny :-) (none / 0) (#9)
    by Klio on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:05:46 AM EST
    but maybe it's the house address?

    [I agree, you're way is funnier]

    Parent

    That is not the house address. (none / 0) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:51:44 AM EST
    TL does not want it to be given out on her site.

    But, if you want, WSJ online has a video of one of their reporters doing some "investigation" into the whole thing, and he clearly and loudly gives the address to his taxi driver. You can also go to google maps street view and look around in his neighborhood 'till you find his house.

    Parent

    HA HA (none / 0) (#10)
    by coigue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:05:50 AM EST
    Hee Hee.

    Parent
    Excellent..... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:41:06 PM EST


    Parent
    Samantha Power (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by dk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:51:06 AM EST
    AP reports that Samantha Power resigned from the Obama campaign.

    Samantha Power resigns post with Obama (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:53:22 AM EST
    per CNN. Maybe she'll actually start teaching.

    Power said Obama's Iraq Pullout Plan Not Sincere (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by catfish on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:40:14 AM EST
    From The Page:
    Foreign policy confidant and TIME contributor tells yet another overseas interviewer that troop withdrawals might not come as fast as promised: "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator."

    "You can't make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009. . . . So to think - it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, `Well, I said it, therefore I'm going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'"



    Parent
    Transcript from Politico (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:35:38 PM EST
    The host, Stephen Sackur, challenged her:"So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out in 16 months isn't a commitment isn't it?"

    "You can't make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009," she said. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan - an operational plan - that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn't have daily access now, as a result of not being the president. So to think - it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I'm going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'"

    "It's a best-case scenario," she said again.

    No Creds left these folks surrounding Obama are sinking him, now I understand that ultimately his fault but if Dems loose in Nov we still need margins in the Senate.

    Parent

    So, I guess that means (none / 0) (#16)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:09:17 AM EST
    she'll be spending more time with her family...

    Parent
    And, uh, do consulting (nt) (none / 0) (#24)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:16:23 AM EST


    Parent
    What does a community organizer do? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by katiebird on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:00:37 AM EST
    I honestly don't know.

    organize people (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by coigue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:08:23 AM EST
    locally toward desired ends. For instance, I do some of that in my hometown on sustainability issues. We have had a sustainability forum to educate policy makers, and we gather voices to be heard at city councils, etc.

    I am sure Obama's involvement was more in-depth, I don't remember my facts on this though

    Parent

    No one does ... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:08:59 AM EST
    that's why Obama keeps saying it.

    Parent
    My Dad was a community organizer. (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:40:16 PM EST
    I can tell you what he did. He worked in Chicago for an entity called The Cardinal's Committee for the Spanish Speaking. (Long time ago he started in the late 50s). As such he was tasked with easing the transition of newly arrived Latinos, primarily from Puerto Rico which is where we were from. The newcomers (won't call them immigrants cause Puerto Ricans are citizens) were mostly young men, many who had left their families behind and came to Chicago looking for work...much as my dad himself did.

    My father did a variety of things ranging from helping them find jobs and housing to orgazining social activities and events to bailing the unlucky ones who got arrested out of jail in the middle of the night (and once we even fostered kids of a widowed man who was arrested and spent a year in jail). He also worked on community organizing around housing issues. Meeting of the original Woodlawn Organization (TW0) were often held in our house and I remember Sol Olinsky and Nicholas van Hoffman as people who often had lots of loose spare change in their pockets which my brothers and I would hunt for under the cushions when they left.

    I could say more but that's probably more than you wanted to hear. ;-)

    Parent

    Saul Alinsky? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by desertswine on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:00:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes Saul, sorry and thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:32:08 PM EST
    I didn't even notice I mispelled it. Wish I could remember more about him than just the pocket change thing. That's what mattered most to me at the time.

    Parent
    You (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by tek on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:23:08 PM EST
    should write a memoir.  That's a great story.

    Parent
    No not too much -- it's interesting (none / 0) (#85)
    by katiebird on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:58:25 PM EST
    I don't know why it suddenly dawned on me that I didn't have any idea what Obama meant by the phrase.  

    Parent
    What did you think (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by GDKitty on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:02:15 AM EST
    of some of the responses to the original story about the "Monster" remark?  I was floored by all of the "Power was finally telling the truth about Hillary" remarks (e.g. politico, huffpo, TPM).  

    I guess I still surprise too easily :(  Still can't believe that TPM allows commenters to use the "C" word.  What's going on over there?!

    Depressed in Canada,
    GDK

    Not surprising (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:05:54 AM EST
    the Obama campaign has to be very, very careful to make sure that the bulk of the electorate doesn't get too much of a glimpse of the severe Clinton hatred that goes on in a portion (not a huge one, to be clear, but a loud one) of its supporters, IMO. It's very ugly.

    Parent
    I don't go over there (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:09:09 AM EST
    Do you mean the real "C" word that is so disgraceful to a woman? And who were they using it on? Not Hillary, I hope.

    I have already said to a friend that I can just hear what will be said about either when in the WH. Everything will be the B or N word. Just like we always call Bush that idiot. Oh wait, he is.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by GDKitty on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:18:59 AM EST
    For e.g. this comment.

    I can't read that without feeling a sharp sock to the gut :(

    Parent

    Hillary can use this to her advantage (none / 0) (#41)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:40:04 AM EST
    The original meaning of that "c" word was "one who possesses magical powers"

    You may write your own ad now.

    Parent

    As Matt Stoller says (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:13:16 AM EST
    the tone comes from the top.

    There is no chance that Obama staffers talk about Clinton publicly in terms less respectful than what they say privately.  We all know that's not how it works.

    How well I remember the Las Vegas debate where Obama acknowledged his responsibility for the tone of his campaign and apologized for the memo from his SC press secretary about the Clintons' supposedly racial remarks.  Two days later, when an Obama-supporting union started running ads on Spanish-language radio saying "Hillary doesn't respect our people," and the Obama campaign was asked to denounce it, they firmly declined.  The tone was set a long time ago.

    Parent

    Worse, Obama's Spanish-language ad (none / 0) (#44)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:42:28 AM EST
    in Nevada that went under the radar of the English-language press but not Latinas -- as he called Clinton a term that translates colloquially to "f**king whore."

    Parent
    Isn't TPM The Blog That Wrote A Post On (none / 0) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:13:50 PM EST
    a Clinton supporter who was racist? Can we expect them to expose their own commentators  who are  bigots and hate women and what their candidate preference is?

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by rooge04 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:05:34 AM EST
    perhaps now he won't have someone that think it's appropriate to call a Senator and a Presidential candidate from the same Party as a monster. Oh and you know...wondering if it's "good for the Jews."

    and.. (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:05:10 PM EST
    and having to ask like, eight questions about her.

    Parent
    What a horrific meltdown. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:14:25 AM EST
    Or is it that Obama's advisers have been  running off at the mouth and the press only just started reporting it?

    Good questions, these are all non US Press (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:29:13 AM EST


    Parent
    A subtle shift in the coverage (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Camorrista on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:52:25 PM EST
    Normally, I wouldn't cite David Brooks, but since he's a weather vane for the direction of the conventional press, take a look at today's column....

     http://xil.in/brooks/  

    In essence, he says that once Obama goes on the attack, he'll become just another pol, a one-term senator, running for president on a light resume.

    This is how Brooks closes:

    "In short, a candidate should never betray the core theory of his campaign, or head down a road that leads to that betrayal. Barack Obama doesn’t have an impressive record of experience or a unique policy profile. New politics is all he’s got. He loses that, and he loses everything. Every day that he looks conventional is a bad day for him.

    "Besides, the real softness of the campaign is not that Obama is a wimp. It’s that he has never explained how this new politics would actually produce bread-and-butter benefits to people in places like Youngstown and Altoona.

    "If he can’t explain that, he’s going to lose at some point anyway."

    Unless I've overlooked something, I don't believe a column like this would have appeared even a month ago.

    Parent

    Hillary coming to Scranton Monday night (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:58:55 PM EST
    I was checking the weather out in NEPA where I live. I see the announcement that Hillary will be at Scranton High School Monday night at 6PM. Tickets being given out at 4PM. I was born in Scranton but do not live there. BUT, I am close enough to try and get there to give her support and drag along a few of my Hillary friends. Now, I have to get off work early. I work in a very Republican office but actually told the owner yesterday that I had made my decicion to support Hillary. There goes my annual raise. Ha. No, he understands. Well. I know he will vote for McCain. Gawd, I love these closed primaries. Does anyone know if they sell T-Shirts there before I go and buy them on line?  

    Right song at the right time, thanks (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:16:21 PM EST


    i wanna to live with (none / 0) (#100)
    by hue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:26:40 PM EST
    a cinnamon girl

    Parent
    Hey! (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:56:17 PM EST
    How come it is when Obama's advisor says that Clinton and Obama aren't prepared for the 3am call, that's honesty, but when Clinton says that she and McCain are ready, that's not?

    Or is it so honest that it hurts?

    In Hal Hartly movies a line is repeated (none / 0) (#117)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:01:52 PM EST
    "An honest man is always in trouble."

    When has Obama ever been in trouble?

    Parent

    Uh, 'cuz honestly none of the 3 (none / 0) (#119)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:03:36 PM EST
    have ever been in that position, which was the point the adviser actually made, and it's true. Only a president or vice president or other higher ups could claim that preparation. All 3 of the remaining candidates are Senators without executive experience. Remember, Sen. Clinton did not hold security clearance, so she wasn't even in the room--legally--when President Clinton answered that phone.

     Clinton cut a promo for the GOP candidate, which ain't good.

    That's honest.

    Parent

    Yep. (none / 0) (#128)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:15:32 PM EST


    Parent
    FYI (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:24:17 PM EST
    The BBC (my favorite channel) will air the Samantha Power interview that contains the wink-wink on Iraq tonight at 7:00pmPT.

    Link

    Do I get this right? (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:24:22 PM EST
    "Progressive" bloggers and "liberal" talkshow hosts are whining about the fact that not enough Republicans voted for Obama this time?

    How about the fact that Obama is unable to appeal to DEMOCRATS to win many of these states?

    Moreover, there is no real evidence that Rush & Co. really had an influence in TX. Check this from the Houston Chronicles:

    "CROSSOVER VOTE?

    Some Republicans had been urged by radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh to vote in the Democratic primary for Hillary Rodham Clinton to keep the race alive. But there was not evidence of that occurring on a large scale. Network exit polls showed about 9 percent of the Democratic primary turnout was self-identified Republicans, who cast 52 percent of their ballots for Obama."

    Jeralyn, (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by ghost2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:25:10 PM EST
    I just want to thank you and BTD for keeping a civil environment AND enforcing it in this blog.  Even in this heated primary battle, this blog (knock on wood) has maintained its tone and quality.  

    Thanks and Well done!

    Obama rejecting VP slot (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:34:08 PM EST
    Since Hillary is poisoning the well by saying that McCain is better qualified to be CINC, making it impossible for Obama to run against McCain in the general, Obama should up the ante by saying that he would never, ever be her VP.

    Hillary has been hinting if people vote for her, they get Obama too--a very subtle way to undermine Obama.  And she could always change her mind about VP and get her preferred milquetoast, Bland Bayh.

    To respond, Obama should issue a statement saying that under no circumstances would he accept a VP slot....If offered it, he would reject it....So, voters, it is Obama or Hillary, not both....That would poison Hillary' s chances against McCain, just the way Hillary is poisoning Obama's.  Let Hillary think about a nomination where half the convention walks out and she loses forever the AA community, and Bill is no longer the first black President....

    For Obama, it would be President or bust, or actually Governor of Illinois....The Superdelegates would have to factor in to their decision making that the only way to get Obama on the ticket is in first position....

    That's hardball...It would be interesting to see it play out that way.

    Axelrod should call Wolfson (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:37:06 PM EST
    and tell him to knock off the CINC stuff, or Obama issues his Shermanesque statement about VP.

    Parent
    Actually Hillary didn't say Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:50:46 PM EST
    not qualified to be CIC---she left that up to Obama.
    Are you saying that simply asking the question convinces people that Obama is not qualified? raises eyebrow

    Parent
    That Is Absurd (none / 0) (#143)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:40:21 PM EST
    Both Obama and Hillary will serve the better interests of their party, not your fainting spell.

    Parent
    True--with respect (1.00 / 0) (#147)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:45:21 PM EST
    to Obama--he probably wouldn't do it....Hillary, on the other hand, has no problem going there.

    Parent
    Moreover, (1.00 / 0) (#151)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:50:42 PM EST
    Obama could say Hillary could not in good conscience offer him VP because everyone acknowledges that VP has to be qualified to be CINC.  So, she obviously is not really sincere in her suggestions to the contrary anyway....

    That would really rock her back on her heels....

    Parent

    Good Thing (none / 0) (#161)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:11:01 PM EST
    The two Democratic candidates are not functioning anywhere near the lowest common denominator of their supporters.

    Both would accept the VP slot. Both are almost identical in their ability to beat McCain or any GOP candidate at this point. So give your divide and conquer strategy a rest. Leave it to the GOP, that is unless you are GOP.

    Parent

    Better yet, leak (none / 0) (#170)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:32:28 PM EST
    it out to the media as an anonymous source from a very high campaign official....That way Obama can't be blamed for it.....

    Don't worry, it won't happen, Obama does have the best interests of his country at heart.  

    Parent

    I don't see how that could work (none / 0) (#144)
    by Polkan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:40:36 PM EST
    except for creating the following perception for Obama:

    1. Selfish
    2. Dividing the party

    I'm sure Clinton wouldn't do anything like that at all. If Obama does this, what does he win for the price of hurting himself so much?

    Parent
    Hillary is already doing that (1.00 / 0) (#148)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:46:00 PM EST
    with her CINC comments....

    Parent
    For BO it's all about ME..ME..and ME. Grow up (none / 0) (#149)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:47:51 PM EST
    already.  If he were to do this he would show the world that it IS all about him and not the party and not the country.  

    Parent
    Same can be said about (1.00 / 0) (#153)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:52:56 PM EST
    Hillary....

    And, if Obama is such a bad guy, so inexperienced, why should Hillary or her supporters care if he says no to VP?  It would expose Hillary's CINC talk about Obama as b.s.

    But, you are right, Obama probably would not do it.....

    Parent

    No, it can't. You have not been paying (none / 0) (#154)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:55:41 PM EST
    attention.  She has said repeatedly that the Democratic Party will be united in the general election.  I have yet to hear that from BO.  In fact, MO said she wasn't sure whether or not she would support Hillary if she were the nominee.  

    Parent
    CINC? (none / 0) (#177)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:45:07 PM EST
    McCain can be CINC but Obama can't?

    Parent
    I'm (none / 0) (#168)
    by tek on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:30:44 PM EST
    sure Hillary could find a very acceptable VP without Obama.  His people are saying they'll bolt the party if he isn't the nominee anyway.  Lots of them aren't Democrats to begin with.

    Parent
    Cool, if she doesn't need him (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:44:08 PM EST
    He is personally better off as Governor of Illinois, assuming Hillary wins the nomination....The danger for him is if he is perceived as selfish...If she doesn't offer him the VP slot in the event she wins the nomination, it would probably be a great relief to him.

    She does stand, however, a much better chance of winning with Obama than without.  She would need his seal of approval if she wins because any win would be with fewer pledged delegates than Obama....

    Parent

    The legalize cocaine thread.... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:49:50 AM EST
    reminded me again of the theory floating around that Moses was likely tripping when he came up with the ten comandments and saw the burning bush, etc.

    Good thing the tribe of Israel didn't prohibit the use of drugs, eh?  He might have been stoned to death instead of leading the Israelites out of slavery:)

    Most Likely A Grain Of Truth (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:21:19 AM EST
    A hasidic friend of mine claims there is documentation that Rebbies in the old times carried around a pouch of 'shrooms. Every day they took a small amount.

    That certainly jibes with the fact that spiritual leaders of many cultures depend on Shamans to guide them. The Shamans get insight from drug use.

    Parent

    I'd say more than likely..... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:38:35 AM EST
    I mean how else do explain talking burning bushes that aren't consumed by the fire?  Booming voices from the sky?

    It's gotta be drugs:)

    Parent

    hehe (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:12:55 PM EST
    Sooner or later we shall know

    ....one way or another.

    ;-)

    Parent

    The researcher claims it was most likely (none / 0) (#89)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:05:31 PM EST
    the acacia tree, not 'shrooms.

    The idea that Moses was high was clear to me even before I got high, but was cemented once I did.

    You gotta be on drugs to come up with that kind of stuff!!

    ;o)

    Parent

    Imagine (none / 0) (#171)
    by tek on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:33:18 PM EST
    if they had banned drugs?  We never would have had all those vicious religious wars in Europe, never would have had Oliver Cromwell in England, never would have had the religious right in the U. S.  Oh well, one can dream, right?

    Parent
    Perhaps.... (none / 0) (#178)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:53:07 PM EST
    the world could have been saved from religion and drug-induced mysticism...by totalitarianism.

    You can keep that alternate dimension friend.

    Parent

    Unfortunate to see Power resign (none / 0) (#7)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:04:06 AM EST
    She'll probably be replaced with some standard fare person who won't deviate from our status quo policy one bit.

    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:12:53 AM EST
    Was she that unique? If he thinks her views are valid and important, he'll find someone else that reflects those views.

    She didn't resign because people looked at her foreign policy views and say 'OMG, that's nuts.'  She resigned because she made a mistake and said a pretty outrageous thing about the opponent, and so her staying would hurt the Obama campaign. Nothing to do with her foreign policy views, which can still be adopted by Obama if he so chooses.

    Parent

    Not sure about that (none / 0) (#23)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:15:39 AM EST
    I think when people start looking at her foreign policy ideas....nuts is definitely going to enter the picture.

    Parent
    Could be (none / 0) (#27)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:18:35 AM EST
    I don't know what her foreign policy views specifically are, but am only familiar with her work regarding genocide.


    Parent
    Don't worry (none / 0) (#30)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:23:05 AM EST
    dissenter doesn't know either.

    Parent
    her policies aren't gonna go down (none / 0) (#31)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:24:02 AM EST
    in middle america or Florida. I can see Lou Dobbs having a field day with this woman. As I understand it, she backs a North American Union - uniting US, Canada and Mexico (like the EU). Some of the comments she has made about the middle east will piss off jews in large numbers. Frankly, there are lots of things. If I have time today I will look for a link (her articles) for you.

    Parent
    The fact that (none / 0) (#47)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:44:16 AM EST
    here comments will piss people off does not make her policy ideas bad.  

    Parent
    Her purpose in life (1.00 / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:24:57 PM EST
    was to help Obama get elected.

    Her policy statements clearly made her a HUGE liability.

    As a McCain guy I hated to see her go.

    Parent

    Power admitting that ethnic cleansing (none / 0) (#50)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:46:13 AM EST
    is essentially what Obama plans in Iraq is a bad policy idea, I would hope that even you agree.

    Parent
    Link? (none / 0) (#53)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:47:33 AM EST
    you got a link for that?

    Parent
    It's easily findable on the 'Net (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:50:59 AM EST
    and I no longer am playing your games. I know what you'd do next with it.

    Parent
    That is not what she said. (none / 0) (#95)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:17:58 PM EST
    She did mention "moving potentially people from mixed neighborhoods to homogenous neighborhoods." (italics mine)

    She immediately lamented it was "tragic that it's the equivalent of facilitating ethnic cleansing, butwhich is terrible but if that is the choice of people there..." (emphasis added.

    Her extended remarks can be found here.

    1. She said it was a potential idea.
    2. She acknowledged such a move would be tragic
    3. She called it a terrible result [of the sectarian strife in Iraq]
    4. She made it clear such a move would be the choice of the people there, not the president here.


    Parent
    Powers resignation is a big coup (none / 0) (#12)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:07:05 AM EST
    for Hillary's camp.
    Where is Obama's momentum going to come from now?
    Will he call another news conference and demand that Hillary release her tax returns?

    Rasmussen daily polling (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:12:55 AM EST
    5 days ago, Hillary and Obama were tied.
    Today Hillary is ahead 6 points.
    Obama followers with buyers' remorse?


    Parent
    it's called a hangover (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:10:13 PM EST
    drunk on hope...there always is a morning after...

    (with a nod to NoQuarter)

    Parent

    This is past Obama this is a Party Disaster (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:27:00 AM EST
    it wont help Senator Clinton this issue is a massive black eye to the supposed I'll end the war Congress and Party, this Iraq nod and wink speaking for Obama has far reaching consequences its not just his campaign that's down the toilet now, but the Party's integrity and that of the Dem Congress, shot, absolutely shot as not being truthful or really intending to get us out and save our soldiers.  Confirmation we are being strung along that it isn't about Dem margins in Congress.  This is an outrage, an absolute outrage a fiasco for the Party in 2008 this came from Obama closest adviser.  

    Where is Move On I want to hear from them on this today hopefully?


    Parent

    What is with the tax returns? (none / 0) (#20)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:12:57 AM EST
    I don't get that one. Like they are going to blow the whole thing wide open and she will be nailed to the wall. Thank goodness there is NO ONE in the Obama campaign who ever fudged on those contributions to charity deductions. Like the chipped vases and stained coat or faded breadspread. Maybe EVERYONE should have their tax returns published.  It just gets old. Apparently she makes more money than BHO.  

    Parent
    It's humorous (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:16:50 AM EST
    Obviously every single tax return the Clintons have filed since Bill left office has been submitted with the expectation that the day would come when they have to disclose it again.  It's hard to imagine there could be any smoking guns in there, although I'm sure Daily Kos will find something to rant about.

    It's all a game where they let the Obama campaign work themselves into a lather demanding the documents, only to look foolish when nothing comes of it.  It's a very standard political gambit.  We're not talking about documents created back before Hillary ever thought about running for President.

    Parent

    So Are You Saying (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:26:00 AM EST
    That the Clintons are not claiming ill gotten gains because their tax returns are sure to be looked at. Isn't that tax fraud? Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

    Snark alert....

    Parent

    Hee hee (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:42:52 AM EST
    I'm a lawyer.  What you call fraud I call "sanitizing."

    Parent
    hahahaa (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:47:10 AM EST
    Good one. Maybe it is time for me to get a good lawyer like you to help me with my tax returns...  I have always had a problem with the kind of math that those forms require.

    Parent
    On the subject of tax returns, (none / 0) (#123)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:09:19 PM EST
    I'm not rich, but take until April 14th every year before I file my taxes. Hundreds and thousands of people do.

    The Clintons are worth millions and, unlike me, might need every minute to provide documentation to their accountants before their accountants file.

    Obama doesn't have as much money so he filed early.

    He has no right to make this an issue, or demand that she files her returns early, just because he says so.

     

    Parent

    Jonathan Chait (none / 0) (#26)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:18:13 AM EST
    sums up my views on the current Hillary strategy pretty well.

    She doesn't care about the Party. She only cares about winning.  

    Do you honestly believe (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:29:01 AM EST
    all the race baiting Obama has used is good for the party?

    Or does Obama use it to win?

    Parent

    Its not and its not good (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:41:52 AM EST
    it not victimless it exploits pain how did it help Katrina victims to hear from a prominent Representative that Senator Clinton did not cry for them or work for their community did not care about their pain their suffering, sure it was a lie, but did that not also harm them it did me, this stuff re victimizes people through exploitation like when Ann Coulter attacked the 911 widows this has to stop, same thing with the Miss attack Ad again intended to imply Clinton is lording it over them, this Obama she says, We, it hurts people it not hopeful it inflames passion which is the intention I suppose no honor in it though.

    Parent
    It makes him unelectable in NOV. (none / 0) (#36)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:33:05 AM EST


    Parent
    Have you thrown away (none / 0) (#40)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:39:34 AM EST
    any vestige of objectivity that you once had?

    You think that Barack Obama has been running on his race?  

    Parent

    I believe that his biggest victories (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:42:57 AM EST
    were achieved through use of the racism card.
    In fact, many of his supporters would agree with me.


    Parent
    If you mean the use of the racism card (1.00 / 0) (#97)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:22:12 PM EST
    by the Clintons, then yes, I agree. They brought it up and made it an issue in South Carolina and subsequently cost themselves a lot of votes.

    Please link to one comment where Barack Obama brought up his race as a factor.

    Parent

    Believe what you want (none / 0) (#49)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:46:13 AM EST
    I'm sure his victories in Iowa, Wisconsin, Washington, Maine, and Vermont were all because of the race card.

    Oh that's right.  They aren't the "big" victories.

    Amazing what you can convince yourself of.

    Parent

    Obama lost the primary in WA (none / 0) (#66)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:11:36 PM EST
    btw... just so you know.

    Parent
    Um, no (none / 0) (#79)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:08:29 PM EST
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Democratic_primary,_2008

    Parent
    BTW, not only did he win the primary, (none / 0) (#98)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:23:59 PM EST
    which was just a beauty contest, but he won the caucus, which did determine the delegate apportionment.

    Parent
    Yes. If very cleverly. (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:45:06 AM EST


    Parent
    Spoken (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:46:58 AM EST
    like a true Republican.

    Parent
    Games from you again. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:51:52 AM EST
    Stop it here.

    Parent
    Uh no (none / 0) (#60)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:57:13 AM EST
    You seem to think that you can say whatever you want about Obama because you have the home crowd on your side.  

    I have no reason to support that.

    Clever use of race?  Give me a break.

    Parent

    I think Obama's race baiting (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:05:04 PM EST
    was designed to get the AA vote to abandon Hillary and if also got some white sympathy/guilt votes all to the better.

    Parent
    I think that (none / 0) (#63)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:08:35 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton is in fact an alien.  

    Just a matter of opinion.

    Parent

    Sorry, I didn't realize you had nothing to say (none / 0) (#67)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Yet says it over and over again (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:18:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Whereas (none / 0) (#71)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:27:51 PM EST
    all you say is "Hillary is great. Obama is bad".

    Very insightful stuff.

    Parent

    I thought (none / 0) (#70)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:27:18 PM EST
    we were just throwing out random opinion based on nothing.  At least that was the clear implication of your comment.

    Parent
    Well I'm sure it feels better.... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:53:22 PM EST
    ...to get it off your chest. But be careful or someone might accuse you of alien bating. ;-)

    Parent
    Honestly (none / 0) (#38)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:37:01 AM EST
    I'm tired of hearing from Clinton supporters that Obama has been race baiting.  Obama is not NBC.  He is not CNN.  And he is not DailyKos.  If they are race baiting then take it up with them.

    The MLK/LBJ comment was a minor gaffe by Hillary that the press made a big deal out of.

    Bill's comment about South Carolina and Jesse Jackson was just plain stupid.  

    Jesse Jackson's comment was blown out of proportion.

    Any other accusations of race baiting by the Obama campaign amount to nothing except in the eyes of people that really really really want to see it.

    Parent

    You forgot (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:49:44 PM EST
    the exploitation of the fairy tale comment....race baiting.

    Parent
    Obama is race baiting (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by sancho on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:01:11 PM EST
    Other than his inexperience card (I used to be an anti-war community organizer), and his "charisma" appeal, it is his best card. It is also why he is likely to lose the GE, if he gets there. He'd win as VP though, if he does not destroy the Dem brand this cylce first.

    Parent
    Bill's comment about Jesse Jackson (none / 0) (#54)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:49:38 AM EST
    was nothing.  Even Jesse Jackson said this about it:

    According to a January 28 post on The New York Times blog The Caucus, Jackson himself has said that he does not "read anything negative into Clinton's observation."

    The post also quoted Jackson saying: "Bill has done so much for race relations and inclusion, I would tend not to read a negative scenario into his comments."

    And this is an Obama supporter, so can we PLEASE stop using this to say the Clintons were race baiting (especially when the Obama camp put out a 4-page memo in SC  about capitalizing on the Clintons' so-called race baiting

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html

    Parent

    I don't care (none / 0) (#65)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:10:14 PM EST
    one way or the other about Bill Clinton's comment.  It was stupid.  And whether the Jesse Jackson thinks that Bill Clinton is the bees knees makes not one bit of difference.

    Barack Obama's campaign didn't say a thing about the comment.  The media did.  

    Parent

    Obama's (none / 0) (#68)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:14:29 PM EST
    SC Press Secretary was circulating a 4-page memo on alledged anti-racists comments - that is part of Obama's campaign  

    Parent
    Bothered (none / 0) (#172)
    by tek on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:35:22 PM EST
    to look at what the DNC is doing since this election cycle started?  There are the people who don't care about the Party, don't care about the country, only care about their own power.  And Obama is their personal creation.

    Parent
    APAIC Trial Coming UP (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:35:43 AM EST
    Sort of. It is true that AIPAC distanced themselves from Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman as soon as they found out that they were caught. Hard to believe that it is not business as usual.

    Two former senior analysts for Aipac, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, are charged with violating the World War I-era Espionage Act when they told colleagues, journalists and Israeli Embassy officials information about Iran and Iraq they had learned from talking to high-level United States policymakers.

    Unless the government suddenly backs down, the courtroom will become the stage for an extraordinary parade of top officials being forced to testify about some of the unseen ways American foreign policy is made.

    NYT

    Business as usual.... (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:50:12 PM EST
    what other foreign nations have lobbies working on their behalf in Washington?

    Could explain why our best interest, namely peace, is so foreign to our foreign policy.

    Parent

    None (none / 0) (#127)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:12:32 PM EST
    Israel has a unique status. We are working for them and they are working us. And I am sure that the case will be dropped, greymail will shut it down.

    Parent
    buyer's remorse.... (none / 0) (#58)
    by fperkins on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:53:19 AM EST
    I just checked on my "thank you for your contribution" emails and I'm thinking I might have gotten a teeny bit carried away in my enthusiasm/fervour for my candidate.  As the fundraising efforts and results escalate into the stratosphere I can't help but wonder if many of us are going to be paying credit card interest rates on  our donations for a little while.  And while I'll probably continue to be drawn in by some of those fundraising appeals, I'm a little uncomfortable with the knowledge that the MSM are going to benefit so much.  But then again, at least I am going to have a nice new blue cap pretty soon.

    What will be will be.... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:06:39 PM EST
    save your couple hundred bucks (I hope it's not more than that!), if I'm correct there is a world of economic hurt on the horizon, regardless of who wins of the 3 stooges in the race.

    Hillary or Obama will only waste your money on deli platters and high-priced yet pretty useless consultants.  If you feel the urge to give, find a noble charity.

    Parent

    Great advice (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:17:32 PM EST
    but they won't take it.

    Parent
    Everybody wants to be a part.... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:40:36 PM EST
    of a the "team" it seems.  My feeling, they'd spit on ya as soon as look at ya, but they'd gladly take your check.

    Get your snake oil!  Get your snake oil here!

    Parent

    That's true (1.00 / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:30:21 PM EST
    of many things.

    BTW - You been back to Tall Cotton? Trying to get some poker talk going. Had a nice west coast trip.

    Parent

    After all (none / 0) (#173)
    by tek on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:37:23 PM EST
    we gave John Kerry hundreds of dollars the last time around only to see it go down the drain, and hundreds of dollars to Rod Blogo only to find out he's a crook, I've been a lot more careful this year.

    Parent
    Does anyone know (none / 0) (#59)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:56:25 AM EST
    the FACTS about the Canadian deal?
    I know the Canadian goverment is investigating.
    Hillary has denied (3 times) that (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:09:21 PM EST
    anyone from her camp talked to Ian Brodie.

    So far Brodie hasn't named the Hillary contact.

    Parent

    You will not get the facts (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:48:28 PM EST
    from either side of the border.  This is just as much a political situation in Canada as it is here.  The liberals in Canada are trying to prove that the conservative government tried to monkey with the US elections, and the conservatives are trying to prove their innocence.  There are not really any objective sources we can look to.

    We have corroborating evidence of the Obama contact.  We have nothing regarding the alleged Clinton contact.  The facts of those contacts are murky and will likely remain so.

    Parent

    OK - thanks (none / 0) (#83)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:36:53 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama has been negative (none / 0) (#72)
    by g8grl on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:32:30 PM EST
    and employing the politics of personal destruction for awhile now and yet his followers are in denial.  It's like they don't consider it negative when he called Hillary a liar by saying she'd "say anything" or "do anything".  It's the clearest example of Obama supporters denying reality.

    Powers (none / 0) (#75)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:43:01 PM EST
    Probably not fired for Hillary comment, but a possible anti Israel perception by Obama supporters or fear of AIPAC.  Oh, well.  I have no idea of her positions but from the stuff that people were attributing to her.  

    NAFT & Canada (none / 0) (#86)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:58:32 PM EST
    Okya, I'm a Sen Clinton supporter. I wnated to gt that out of the way now.

    CBS is running a story that Ian Brodie had a converstion with some one from Sen Clinton's campaign... but no memo like the case for Sen Obama's campaign

    Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff said someone in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign gave Canada back-channel assurances that her harsh words about the North American Free Trade Agreement were for political show, according to a report by the Canadian Press.

    I have not been able to find anything else on this one. Is this just another smear... or is there some truth to this one?

    no idea (none / 0) (#94)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:17:11 PM EST
    I'd like a name if that's the truth.  Clinton has granted anyone blanket immunity if they want to reveal the name of the contact.  Why they won't reveal it is interesting.

    At this point, though, a "Clinton did it, too!" response practically puts me to sleep.  Know what I mean?

    Parent

    Unknown (none / 0) (#96)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:20:27 PM EST
    Clinton's camp has flatly denied it and, unlike with the Obama story, no evidence at all has been produced to back it up.

    Some Obama supporters have been pretending that this story is the gospel truth as part of a tit-for-tat thing, but there's no actual reason to assume so.

    Parent

    Why is that Iraq comment so controversial? (none / 0) (#88)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:01:44 PM EST
    Do you honestly think Sen. Clinton doesn't reserve the right to assess the situation post-inauguration? Would she still begin withdrawal in 60 days if we were under intense attack? If we were on the verge of political reconciliation? If we were close to "winning"?

    I personally find it more refreshing that a candidate's team would admit what we all know is true: these people are talking about what they would do under current conditions, if they were president.

    Clinton has said all along (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:08:11 PM EST
    that on her first day in the oval office, she would demand an immediate plan for the safest troop withdrawal.  She got a lot of crap for that in the beginning, but I see now that Obama is pulling another, "What Hillary said!" it's an honest and thoughtful appraisal.


    Parent
    Oh, so now the Obama did it so it's okay (none / 0) (#103)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:31:07 PM EST
    is valid on that side of the debate, but justifying negativity based on Clinton's negativity is still off-limits to this side?

    I disagree with both sides criticisms of honesty, myself.

    Parent

    Halstoon, I think you're missing the real thing... (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Polkan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:39:34 PM EST
    The point is not who will do exactly what they said.

    The point is this:

    - Obama is competing on judgement. Clinton is competing on experience.

    It's more damaging for Obama to watch this kind of mistake because it undermines his central premise - ability to make the right judgement, but creating the impression that he may change his mind.

    Clinton is always careful to insert careful words like "withdraw responsibly", "ask for the plan", etc, etc. She's been there and been burned.

    Parent

    Yep and she gets bashed.... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:42:10 PM EST
    ...for not being more definitive in her statements too.

    Parent
    Campaign (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:02:51 PM EST
    Obama is also campaigning on 'new' politics.  Clinton is criticized for having done healthcare behind closed doors and not being open and transparent.  It is not effective when Obama is seen doing the old politics of not being upfront with the American people.

    Parent
    This was not a secret, IMO. (none / 0) (#122)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:07:05 PM EST
    You're assuming the American people don't know that Iraq will have to be evaluated in 2009 before any concrete plan is implemented. I think they understand that without having to be explicitly told. Also, the comment was on the record and available to the public.

    Parent
    I think it is rather good judgment-- (none / 0) (#116)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:00:29 PM EST
    on both sides--to admit that the situation post-inauguration will have to be evaluated, so I don't see that the original statement is a mistake at all.

    I also pointed out that the policies being put forth demonstrate their judgment if they were in GWB's shoes or facing the exact same situation in 2009.

    And pointing out that Hillary is better at the nuance and wiggly naure of politics is unconvincing to me. I prefer someone not as polished, hence the idea of really changing how things are done.

    But thanks for your ideas! ;o)

    Parent

    The problem is that Obama keep lying (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:24:28 PM EST
    about his stance like these tasty quotes:

        Sen. Obama: Sen. Clinton 'hasn't given a firm timetable in terms of executing the withdrawal, and I think that's a problem.' "And in--there is a difference, though, between myself and Senator Clinton on a couple of these issues. Number one, she hasn't given a firm timetable in terms of executing the withdrawal, and I think that's a problem. I think we have to provide certainty to the Iraqi leadership, so that they know that we are serious about changing course." [NBC Meet the Press, 11/11/07]

        Sen. Obama: 'Senator Clinton continues to not provide a clear timetable for how she would pull our troops out' of Iraq. "Where Senator Clinton continues to not provide a clear timetable for how she would pull our troops out, so those are all differences we will continue to talk about." [Obama Press Conference Transcript, 11/9/07]

        Sen. Obama: `I do think it's important for us to set a date.' When asked if he could make a commitment for a withdrawal date, Obama said, "I do think it is important for us to set a date. And the reason I think it is important is because if we are going to send a signal to the Iraqis that we are serious, and prompt the Shia, the Sunni and the Kurds to actually come together and negotiate, they have to have clarity about how serious we are. It can't be muddy, it can't be fuzzy. They've got to know that we are serious about this process." [CNN debate, 1/31/08]


    Parent

    BINGO (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:39:36 PM EST
    and on the heels of the NAFTA just kidding memo, this could not have come at a worst time for Obama and this one clearly points a finger at the 2006 elected Congress and their inability to extract our troops from Iraq.  Not to mention that it is not now an issue that could be leverage against McCain in the GE for an Obama as nominee the response sure nod nod wink wink ad would start with,

    The host, Stephen Sackur, challenged her:"So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out in 16 months isn't a commitment isn't it?"

    "You can't make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009," she said. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. .....

    all talk?

    Parent

    all talk and no action :-) (none / 0) (#146)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:44:36 PM EST
    I think I've heard that before.

    Parent
    OMG. This is unreal. (none / 0) (#129)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:16:49 PM EST
    "And pointing out that Hillary is better at the nuance and wiggly naure of politics is unconvincing to me. I prefer someone not as polished, hence the idea of really changing how things are done."

    Hey buddy, we've had 8 YEARS of "someone not as polished, hence the idea of really changing how things are done."  

    I prefer someone who knows HOW to get things done, not someone who wants on-the-job training.  Good grief.  

    Parent

    Well, if you want someone who knows how to (none / 0) (#160)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:08:24 PM EST
    get things done by playing the old game of politics, you've certainly chosen a good candidate.

    Bush's problem was not lack of experience, it was lack of a clue. He had the most experienced Cabinet--or one of them--in the history of the nation. Their problem was they believed the executive branch was the only branch that mattered and didn't really give a rip about what Congress thought. They also had no problem misleading people and being secretive.

    Hold on. Misleading. Secretive? Like refusing to release documents from the archives? Like refusing to release tax returns until the last minute? Like getting your husband to pardon people who paid your brother hundreds of thousands of dollars? Or getting your husband to pardon a bunch of FALN members to up your support from NY's huge Puerto Rican constituency? Like that??

    I would argue you are supporting the Bush-like candidate.

    Jeez!

    Parent

    EJ Dionne today in WaPo (none / 0) (#101)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:28:52 PM EST
    Clinton has shown that she is willing to say anything necessary about Obama to bring him down, which is why Limbaugh is so happy.

    Sometimes I really wish that this was true... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:47:08 PM EST
    ...cause if she really felt free to let loose, I think she could come up with better stuff than what she's being bashed for. It's all been very lame and tame if you ask me. You've got to parse it nine ways to eleven in order to extract the insult.

    Parent
    Maria (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:55:10 PM EST
    you are so right.  Just about every single one of the last five debates, she got this look on her face like, "must...not...kill..."  You just saw her restraint, and you knew she could've taken him out with a single swipe, but didn't because that's not how to win.

    Parent
    LOL Kathy (none / 0) (#121)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:05:23 PM EST
    And I'm the first to admit that I would not be capable of such restraint.

    Parent
    Clinton criticizes Obama (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:00:01 PM EST
    Olbermann looks at Rachel, smile spreading across Rachel's face. Olbermann reads statement by Clinton (x) and says "Isn't it safe to say Clinton just said y.

    Where x / y

    And Rachel now with big grin.  "Yes, that's exactly what she said."

    Parent

    I can't think of that Dylan song... (none / 0) (#105)
    by mike in dc on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:37:41 PM EST
    ...as a Dylan song anymore, because Hendrix' version just took total ownership of it.  Probably one of the best composed pieces to ever hit the top 20.

    Oh Big Sigh.... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:59:40 PM EST
    Firedoglake has joined the Obama blogroll, if their current front page is any indication. My options are slowly closing in around me.

    I just made the mistake (none / 0) (#126)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:12:31 PM EST
    of reading the comments over at Digby's.

    Sigh.

    Parent

    Do not read the comments at dkos, Josh, (none / 0) (#130)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:18:18 PM EST
    Firedog, or HuffPo.  It is toxic over there...

    Parent
    Clinton strategy, so far? (none / 0) (#125)
    by Polkan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:09:27 PM EST
    It seems that Sen. Clinton essentially returned to her pre-Iowa strategy of Economy + National Security + Experience.

    Clearly she had made a bad miscalculation about "inevitability", and how to best counter "change + hope" narrative. Then, two weeks before Ohio, something happened and her campaign seems focused again, and no longer trying everything to see what works.

    My prediction on her strategy:

    1. Continue to use national security to position herself against McCain and simultaneously undermine Obama.

    Doing it specifically in Texas was a smart move, tactically. Winning Texas, she has also defined herself nationally as strong on defense for use in GE. This is all before McCain had a chance to define it for her. At minum, it will be harder for Republicans to use their classic National Security attack.

    2. Once the national security is established as a competitive theme, then bring up economy and turn the entire GE debate to budget, housing crisis, jobs, etc. Depending on who McCain picks as VP, this might be more or less difficult.

    This is I think how she plans to win GE: neutralize McCain on national security, then destroy him on economy.  

    Agree/disagree?

    National security/CIC is a gaping (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:27:29 PM EST
    weakness for Obama. If Obama turns this around by saying it's unfair, then he loses the argument.
    Having Susan rice admit that Obama is not ready for the 3 am call did not help.

    Parent
    Agree with one small caveat (none / 0) (#145)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:41:27 PM EST
    It seems now that her rhetoric is slightly different.  It yields a reaction of her being in the race, not for herself, but for others.  It's always important in the end for voters to believe the election is about them, not the candidate.


    Parent
    Disagree because (none / 0) (#155)
    by dem08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:56:49 PM EST
    no matter what Big Tent or anyone says, there is too much Bad Will in the Democratic Fight. Let us assume that all the Blogs and Comments that attack Hillary are sexist or unfair; there is still a tremendous story building that Hillary is saying "It is me or else I (Hillary) want to see my good friend John McCain win."

    That perception is expressed even by Moderate web Sites like The Moderate Voice.

    The way this week since Texas has gone, and I am one who thinks short term Hillary has delivered a mortal wound to the Obama campaign but long term the wound is on her campaign, the Election in November will follow a Summer of 1968 rerun in Denver, and McCain could beat either Hillary or Obama because either the Baby-Boom/Old Feminists stay home (Obama the candidate) or the African and young vote stays home (Hillary the candidate).

    I am for Hillary but I find her campaign tactics this weak Phyrric. Full Disclosure: I don't want McCain as our next President under ANY circumstances. I think he is too angry to be C-i-C.

    Parent

    Just want to say (none / 0) (#131)
    by jen on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:19:17 PM EST
    couldn't agree more on the video you posted, BTD! We were so blessed to have grown up in those times.

    I assume you were very (none / 0) (#132)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:19:56 PM EST
    young in the 90's or weren't paying attention.  $70 million dollars were spent investigating the Clintons pertaining to Whitewater and the rest.  All that was found was a blue dress.

    I seriously think people will be so tired of these old dragged through the mud "scandals" that they won't care...except the hard-core once-Republican Obama supporters who just can't let it go.

    Yes Good Advice (none / 0) (#141)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:37:57 PM EST
    The lesson is that DEM fishing expeditions serve only the GOP. Time to drop the Rezko business, let's leave that to Fitz and the GOP.

    Parent
    There's a trial going on now (none / 0) (#150)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:48:18 PM EST
    It's not going to go away no matter who talks about it.


    Parent
    So May As Well Help The GOP (none / 0) (#159)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:05:48 PM EST
    Since they are going to trash Obama anyway...

    Sheesh.

    So much for lessons learned.

    Parent

    It's a numbers game. (none / 0) (#167)
    by Ytterbius on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:30:05 PM EST
    Many have made up their mind already, others will fall victim.  The percentages of voter that these ready attacks take out of the Democratic side could very well make the difference between a Hillary or a McCain.  

    Parent
    Imagine (none / 0) (#137)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:25:53 PM EST
    instead of spending 1 trillion dollars on an unnecessary war, our government could be investing a half trillion on infrastructure projects.  Which of course would create jobs which feed back into the tax base, help people who overextended themselves (before you go pointing the finger at them, realize that your gov't has been settting that example overextending itself to pay for the war), help a sagging economy, and perhaps even build some new schools.

    Instead, we will watch the economy spiral, hundreds of thousands will lose their jobs (63,000 this month alone) and the gov't will send them each 300 bucks to help stimulate themselves.

    Where are leaders when we need them most?

    The extent of the damage of George Bush will be felt for many years to come.  Sad really, hard working americans losing their jobs with no safety net because of an ill begotten war.  Although i guess it is apropos since most supported the war.  Too bad though because they were never told it would deplete our reserves and leave us horribly unprepared financially.  Had they known that, they might have thought through their support a bit differently...

    Jl, this one I just don't understand. (none / 0) (#162)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:14:27 PM EST
    How does gvt military spending, in contrast to gvt non-military spending, hurt the economy?

    How is spending a bunch of money on hiring US workers & creating jobs to build tanks, for example, bad for our economy, but non-military spending that creates jobs is not?

    Granted, WW2 comprised almost 40% of our GNP and Iraq/Afghan wars comprise much less, say 7%, but still, shouldn't that gvt spending be helping, not hurting?

    I ask these questions after doing a bunch of googling that indicates the actual effects of war spending is hotly debated among economists.

    Parent

    Sorry third para should read: (none / 0) (#163)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:16:11 PM EST
    Isn't one of the classical claims that the military spending of WW2 helped get us out of the Great Depression? Granted, WW2 comprised almost 40% of our GNP and Iraq/Afghan wars comprise much less, say 7%, but still, shouldn't that gvt spending be helping, not hurting?

    Parent
    A Patriot's Handbook (none / 0) (#157)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:02:52 PM EST
    I've been listening to A Patriot's Handbook with my kids.  Last night I heard RFK's Day of Affirmation speech for the first time.  If you've never heard it, you should.

    Wish (none / 0) (#174)
    by tek on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:40:21 PM EST
    this guy could be VP.  We saw him live last week and haven't been so blown away by a speaker since we first listened to Bill Clinton in 1992.  He really knows his stuff and he's also hilarious.

    Parent
    FISA (none / 0) (#158)
    by NJDem on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:03:53 PM EST
    [Apologies if this has been discussed in previous threads, but I believe this is a new article since we last talked about FISA].  

    One of Obama's advisers on intelligence and foreign policy "strongly" supports telecomm immunity. John Brennan is a former CIA official and the current chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance.

    In a new National Journal interview, Brennan makes it clear that he agrees with the Bush administration on the issue of immunity: LINK

    We all (none / 0) (#164)
    by tek on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:20:24 PM EST
    have to write Howard Dean and tell him No Caucus in MI or FL.  We should cut and paste that piece that someone put up yesterday about the man who met with Dem leaders and they were brainstorming how to push Hillary out of the race.

    Who is this? (none / 0) (#166)
    by jcsf on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:24:52 PM EST
    Doing a bad version of Jimi Hendrix, right?  

    Looks like he's about to keel over, trying to do cool guitar stuff.

    There was talk before about an (none / 0) (#169)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:32:05 PM EST
    Obama radio ad in MS in which former MS Gov. Ray Mabus takes Sen. Clinton to task for asking, "How can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi?" when she found out neither state has ever elected a female governor or congressperson.

    Well, this morning Sen. Clinton "tried to backpedal" on that comment.

    In her backpedal, Clinton made the claim the quote was "not exactly what I said" even though she was clearly quoted by the Iowa paper interviewing her. Don't we get onto Sen. Obama for the "what Barack really meant" excuse??

    Anyway, she goes on to say that she really said she had learned that "neither Iowa or Mississippi had ever elected a woman statewide and I referenced the fact that I was the first woman elected statewide in New York..."

    Well, no. What she did was react with feigned (or actual) disbelief: "How can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi?"

    Translation: She's not really surprised about Mississippi, but Iowa? She then went on to praise Iowa, never saying she refused to believe Mississippians had refused to send a woman to Congress or the governor's mansion.

    That, combined with at least one surrogate's belief that MS represents "second-class delegates" due to their living in a red states is not likely to help her on Tuesday.

    Well, since they have a primary instead of a caucus, I suppose TeamClinton could claim they don't qualify as second-class, but the primary is open, so that's no good, either. Aw, to heck with it, she's gonna lose anyway, right? Too many black folks...

    Friday Open Thread | 175 comments (175 topical)