home

Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:48:32 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Your turn again. But I have bashed enough bloggers today for all of us. Let's leave that out of this Open Thread. Anything but that. Deal? If not, your comments might be deleted.

Have a good evening. Hasta luego, as we pesky Latinos say.

< Post Of The Day | Comparing Electability >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Open Thread | 105 comments (105 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Hey BTD! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:49:36 PM EST
    I am officially a Democrat now.  

    What is the sense behind Puerto Rico (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:16:08 PM EST
    holding a primary for POTUS, but not participating in our GE for POTUS?

    Probably because (none / 0) (#8)
    by Coral Gables on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:19:09 PM EST
    Tradition on the first part, illegal on the second part.

    Parent
    Yeah but DC is not a state either. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:22:47 PM EST


    Parent
    It's status is different (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:33:50 PM EST
    Puerto Rico is a "commonwealth" that gets certain breaks for its residents (tax breaks, mostly), but has no vote in national elections, even though its residents are natural born US citizens.

    Of course, Puerto Ricans can vote for President if they move to the mainland.  

    On a somewhat related note, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund ("PRLDEF") has commenced a lawsuit against the U.S. for delays in the naturalization process that will have the effect of denying the vote this fall to thousands of Latinos and other citizenship applicants.  I'm sure it is entirely a coincidence that most of these citizenship applicants (whose applications have in many instances been pending for YEARS) are believed by the Administration to lean Democratic.

    Parent

    first although (none / 0) (#23)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:41:57 PM EST
    Puerto Rico is a "commonwealth"

    is basically a misstatement by both the Pro-status quo people and the American Goverment.  Puerto Rico is a Colony  also even if your not Puertorican if your official residence is Puerto Rico you can not vote for the President of the US.  That is what happened to my parents when they moved to Puerto Rico.  

    Parent

    I don't think that makes Puerto Rico (none / 0) (#67)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:57:42 PM EST
    a "colony," although I understand others may have a different view.

    First, the US didn't colonize Puerto Rico, the Spanish did.

    Second, Puerto Rico's status as a commonwealth (and its relative autonomy over internal affairs) is different than that of "territories" like Guam, American Somoa or the U.S. Virgin Islands. Being a commonwealth, of course, is not the same as being a state (or being the District of Columbia, which labors under lesser but still significant restrictions on its residents' voting power).

    Third, I don't have a view on statehood vs. status quo vs. independence.  Some of my family do -- especially my dad (statehood), who spent most of his childhood in Puerto Rico -- but never having lived there my views are entirely academic.

    Parent

    No law passed in PR wether local or (none / 0) (#68)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:06:22 PM EST
    not is exempt from Congressional approval or revocation.  I a matter of fact what is usually referred to as the Constitution of Puerto Rico is really a Law passed by Congress.  If that's not colonial I don't know what you call it.  Also the FBI Federal Courts and Attorney General have jurisdiction on PR and if you are not satisfied with a PR Supreme Court Decision even on Local Matters you can take it to SCOTUS.  All this without the benefit of proper representation and/or power to vote for the President you get your Social Security and Medicare taxes and if you get a Federal Check such as when your employed by the Federal Gov. you do pay Federal Taxes.  Sounds Colonial enough.

    Parent
    Viva Filiberto!! (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:32:56 PM EST


    Parent
    heh (1.00 / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:15:13 AM EST
    I'm all for PR becoming a country. Having said that,
    Social Security and Medicare deductions are to provide certain specific services, and not a FIT to "run" the country.

    Parent
    when you are subject to federal pay deduction (none / 0) (#96)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:35:56 PM EST
    they be beneficial or not and you had no say in wether you get them or not they are being imposed.  The reason I mentioned them is because a lot of time people use the money that goes to Puerto Rico to pay for these is sometimes lumped in with some-kind of largesse by the Gov. when in reality it is something they paid for.  Irregardless of wether SS and Medicare are good programs or not they are impositions since PR residents had no input in the decision through either vote or representation.

    Parent
    Nonsense (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:43:19 PM EST
    No "lumped money" goes to PR to pay for Medicare or Social Security. These are strictly individual accounts.


    Parent
    By the way this is about the only think (none / 0) (#69)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:09:20 PM EST
    Pro-statehood and Pro-independence followers agree on, that PR is a Colony.  A cage even if its bars are made of Gold is still a Cage.

    Parent
    That is something you have to understand (none / 0) (#11)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:21:38 PM EST
    primaries are to get $$$$$$$$$ the GE is about rights.  When the parties give the people in PR the sense that their vote is really worth something.  Reality, is that when I worked for Bush the Father's campaign in PR I was more busy raising Funds than getting peoples votes.

    Parent
    Sounds like a pretty straight answer. Thanks. (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:23:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Caucus vs Primary , votes per delegate (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by K Lynne on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:30:29 PM EST
    Let's see if I can make this work.

    I found a great article on relative 'power' of a vote in a caucus vs. primary, and voters per delegate in the GE in various states.

    A lot of it is some pretty deep calculations, but a couple of interesting points from the article:

    • Changing the rules can change the outcome (DUH!) - if the Dem contest were winner-take-all like the Reps are, Hillary would be winning.

    • The number of votes per delegate can vary greatly - in the 2004 race, for example, Maine has one delegate for every 16,500 Kerry voters. Nebraska has one for every 10,500 Kerry voters.

    • The caucus bias:  For instance, for every one pledged Obama delegate from Minnesota, there are 2,862 pro-Obama caucus-goers. For every one pledged Obama delegate from Wisconsin, there are 15,381 Obama primary voters.


    Why aren't my links working? (none / 0) (#20)
    by K Lynne on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:32:46 PM EST
    Can I just post the URL without the link?

    http://tinyurl.com/32ld97

    Feeling very dense this afternoon...

    Parent

    A Canadian nobody waves hello (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by anniethena on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:19:23 PM EST
    I'm rooting for Hillary and it's nice to find a place where civil discussions are taking place.
    Keep up the good work!
    (I've been commenting on lefty American blogs for almost three years - I've watched the comments here grow a lot in just the past week  so I'll probably just keep reading and learning.)

    Obama won TX (1.00 / 2) (#32)
    by 1jane on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:59:44 PM EST
    Mudslinging has become a popular sport on this and many other blogs. Issues? Unsubstantiated rumors? Calling each other stupid? The implosion of the Democratic Party is the new blood sport for Republican's watching. Keep giving them a good show, they're loving it. Pass the popcorn.

    Link? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:24:18 PM EST
    How do you know this? The state Secretary of State is reporting fewer than 40% of the results yet. So you really ought to tell us your source. And how do you think the super-delegates of Texas ought to go?

    Parent
    We are not (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:04:41 PM EST
    allowd to calll each other "stupid"! Comments like that get deleted..... AND I really DO NOT beleive any one posting IS actually stupid. We do have some passionate supporters for Sen Clinton and Sen Obama.

    I enjoy the challenges to.... think things through, see others insights and have discussions. That is what I like about LT.

    Parent

    Here's a blogger to praise (none / 0) (#2)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:55:52 PM EST
    The Obama and Clinton cases from the candidates in dialogue.

    Florida primary (none / 0) (#3)
    by Coral Gables on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:07:29 PM EST
    A solution to the growing controversy over Florida's disputed Democratic primary may now be in the works. Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson tells NEWSWEEK he has spoken to the Florida Democratic Party about launching a soft-money fund-raising campaign for the benefit of a new mail-in primary, which would supercede the controversial Jan. 29 vote.
    -----------------

    Don't remember what thread but do believe I called this last Tuesday evening.

    estimated $10 million needed. (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:12:05 PM EST


    Parent
    I think that's way low for Fla (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:18:40 PM EST
    I've heard that number for MI.  They were using 18 million for Fl but AP has Alcee Hastings saying 22-24.

    Parent
    Consider my source: am radio (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:21:38 PM EST
    $10 mil. for mail in primary in FL.

    Parent
    Cost (none / 0) (#10)
    by Coral Gables on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:21:35 PM EST
    Florida cost 18 million for Jan 29th vote. It would be somewhat less in a regular primary with just Dems. Closer to 5-6 million for a mail in which is in the planning stages.

    Parent
    Mail-in? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:55:30 PM EST
    You mean someone high up is using their brain? Do you have a link for that?

    Parent
    An example of why we need those tax returns (none / 0) (#5)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:13:48 PM EST
    From the Chicago Tribune

    The idea that Hillary has been vetted and Obama has not is absurd.  We really don't know what Bill has been up to of late.  But if she is the nominee we certainly will.  Not sure we will like it much.

    Oh, and it turns out that some guy named Wolfson criticized Rick Lazio for taking so long to release his tax returns when he was running against Hillary.  Go figure. (Just to anticipate - the fact that it was the generally is utterly irrelevant.  Given her harping on Rezco she can't claim that its okay to wait till its to late to find out what's going on.)

    I'm happy for the Obama ... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:20:50 PM EST
    campaign to waste their time on this hoary old strategy.

    I wonder who was the first politician to try this one.  Pericles?

    Parent

    I think Dino the dinosaur (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:21:51 PM EST
    tried it on Fred once.

    Parent
    Whistling past the graveyard? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:51:04 PM EST
    Hmmm. 35 years of experience but she can't seem to find her tax returns? How much did Bill get for that oil deal?

    Parent
    No, please (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:58:28 PM EST
    keep pursuing this. While you're at it, can you have Obama spend $10 million in advertising to get people wondering if water is wet?

    People associate the word corruption with the Clintons. They also don't care, as we've seen from past popularity numbers.

    But hopefully Obama will not remember that.

    Parent

    It will have the opposite effect IMO (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Ellie on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:23:44 PM EST
    fmr President Clinton was popular and his performance in office had a high approval rating. Afterwards she handily won a seat in the Senate in what her enemies guaranteed was a doomed effort.

    This will do nothing more than make people wonder where Obama's head is at. THIS is his New Politics?

    People weren't pleased that the hard right spent millions poring over the Clintons' papers looking for wrongdoing.

    What they're steamed about is the Repugs' corruption and croneyism that has been bladly evident, on the public record and still unchallenged.

    Hell, if Obama isn't using that breath and effort AT THIS VERY SECOND to call out Cheney & Cronies on their taxes, his campaign is cooked. (Noticed elsewhere that TeamO boosters are criticizing HRC for dissing some states, about as useful a would-be scandal as the tax thing.)

    At this point, if they don't find out that she shot a man in Reno just to watch him die -- or the equivalent -- they'd better stick to the revival tent stuff OR wrangle future support by turning these pop-guns on the Rethugs.

    Parent

    I thought (none / 0) (#63)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:31:16 PM EST
    she shot a man in Reno because he was snoring too loud, no?

    Parent
    Great (none / 0) (#36)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:08:44 PM EST
    No we are counting on people not caring about corruption.  Super strategy.  I'm sure the republicans won't bring it up.

    Parent
    Sigh (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by cdalygo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:14:57 PM EST
    If you really care, why don't you look at the extensive declarations she has filled out for the Senate over the last several years.

    Oh, right. You are looking for a gotcha.

    Given the complaints the Obama folks raise about Hillary using Republican tactics, they sure don't mind using them themselves. Fortunately for Hillary, it's all the unsuccessful ones.

    Parent

    $31.3 million. (none / 0) (#42)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:13:05 PM EST
    Link.

    Parent
    The money was for charity, not (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:38:00 PM EST
    to line Bill's pockets.
    If you don't like fighting AIDS, too bad. I'm glad he got the money.

    Parent
    For most Americans, you attack Bill Clinton ... (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:40:36 PM EST
    and they say to themselves, I've got a good job because of that dude, what have you done for me?

    Parent
    Fighting AIDS is great. (none / 0) (#91)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:38:17 AM EST
    Getting the money by circumventing an official US position in foreign policy and endorsing a totalitarian dictator is not particularly appealing, though.

    But you do point out a clear example of the Clintons' support. People who think corruption is okay so long as some good work is done.

    You also can't show that there wasn't another deposit, say $3.7 million--to make it a nice $35 mil--deposited into a Swiss account.

    Parent

    I Would Have Done The Same (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:19:36 PM EST
    1% is chump change when you wind up making 3.1 billion on a deal. Nothing wrong with a relatively small tip.

    Parent
    Oh, sure. On a purely greedy (none / 0) (#92)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:39:25 AM EST
    level, there is nothing to criticize here. In presidential politics, it's a bit more tricky.

    Parent
    1% Is Hardly Greedy (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:45:52 PM EST
    Besides the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative has nothing to criticize either, presidential politics or not.

    Frank Giustra and Carlos Slim Helú. Giustra, a Canadian businessman, has pledged a minimum of $100 million to the effort, as well as one half of all of his future earnings from his work in the natural resources sector.

    How is this bad?

    Parent

    You miss the point. (none / 0) (#98)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:01:27 PM EST
    The work being done with the money is not what stinks. It's the favor Clinton did for Giustra just prior to getting said donation that doesn't pass the smell test.

    Clinton accompanied Giustra to meet with "Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent." Link.

    The story continuues:

    Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader's bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton's public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan's poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton's wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

    So here we have a former US President supporting a man who has quashed political dissent in his own country to oversee elections in others, contrary to official US positions.

    Do you still see nothing wrong? Clinton's support of the dictator led to a contract for a company with no reputation in the field it was competing in, which in turn led to Clinton receiving a big "tip" as you call it.

    If that is all acceptable to you, then we just disagree.


    Parent

    Clinton Supported Repression? (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:57:29 PM EST
    More like making lemonade out of lemons. Did clinton pocket the money? No.  I would rather see the money go to Clinton's foundation than lining the pockets of mining magnates.

    And as far as US official positions, it is no surprise that Bush and Cheney love the guy. His country sits on huge oil reserves and he is corrupt. Match made in heaven.

    His government has banned or refused to register opposition parties, closed newspapers and harassed advocacy groups. Two opposition leaders were found dead of gunshots in disputed circumstances.

    But the Bush administration considers Nazarbayev a friendly, stable moderate in a region of harsher, sometimes hostile dictators and has been hopeful he will open up and cleanse his government. The Kazakh government under Nazarbayev recently embarked on an anti-corruption campaign that has resulted in arrests of mid-level officials.

    "I really do think he has learned how to be clean," said Martha Brill Olcott, a Kazakhstan specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "He has learned a lot more about how you can promote to some degree divestiture [of assets]. Most of his holdings are, I wouldn't say transparent, but they're more so."

    WaPo

    Do you still see nothing wrong? Clinton's support of the dictator led to a contract for a company with no reputation in the field it was competing in, which in turn led to Clinton receiving a big "tip" as you call it.

    First off Clinton did not support Nazarbayev he supported his reforms and move toward democracy? You are willfully misrepresenting this point. Second you also are wrong to claim that Mr. Mr. Giustra had no reputation in the mining business:

    Mr. Giustra made his fortune in mining ventures as a broker on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, raising billions of dollars and developing a loyal following of investors. Just as the mining sector collapsed, Mr. Giustra, a lifelong film buff, founded the Lion's Gate Entertainment Corporation in 1997. But he sold the studio in 2003 and returned to mining.

    Mr. Giustra foresaw a bull market in gold and began investing in mines in Argentina, Australia and Mexico. He turned a $20 million shell company into a powerhouse that, after a $2.4 billion merger with Goldcorp Inc., became Canada's second-largest gold company.

    With a net worth estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars, Mr. Giustra began looking for ways to put his wealth to good use. Meeting Mr. Clinton, and learning about the work his foundation was doing on issues like AIDS treatment in poor countries, "changed my life," Mr. Giustra told The Vancouver Sun.

    NYT

    And finally do you adhere to Bush's laughably hypocritical position that we do not talk to 'dictators'? Do you think that taking over the country like we did in Iraq would be a better way to insure democracy in Kazakhstan?  Do you think that it is the job of America to enforce our system on other countries?

    As far as I can tell good things came of this deal. And HRC maintained her negative position regarding Kazakhstan. Seems to me that is a good thing, she is not swayed by her husband's dealings.

    Parent

    I do not think we should support someone (none / 0) (#100)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:22:50 PM EST
    who has quashed dissent in his own country to head the OSCE.

    Mr. Giustra was not a known entity in Kazakhstan: Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections.

    Funny you mention talking to dictators, since Sen. Clinton has repeatedly called Sen. Obama naive for saying he would in fact talk to Cuba, Iran, and North Korea.

    The deal Giustra got was with a state owned entity. I did not misrepresent the fact that he got said deal after Clinton supported the Kazakhs heading OSCE.

    Since Sen. Clinton is clearly running based on her partnership with President Clinton--even taking credit for his administration--it is a problem to have the two sides of her mouth to be saying different things.

    Parent

    Obama Fever (none / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:25:20 PM EST
    You are the one who criticized Bill Clinton for meeting with dictators and are now talking out of both sides of your mouth.  I am aware of HRC's position, which apes Bush regarding Cuba et al, and think it is stupid. The fact that Bill Clinton and HRC have different opinions does not equal to HRC being a hypocrite no matter how long you threaten to hold your breath. To the contrary, it shows that HRC has her own agenda apart from WJC. That is a good thing.  

    The state owned entity was going to be sold anyway. Good that charitable work came from Giustra's relationship with WJC.

    And your nonsense of allegations regarding shady quid pro quo dealings is unfounded. Here is the list of Chairs of the OSCE and no one from Kazakhstan has ever headed it. An OSCE center was built in Astana and their mission (among other things) is:

    The Centre in Astana supports a variety of awareness-raising and educational activities on human rights. It works closely with governmental and non-governmental actors to promote a constructive dialogue on human rights issues, and continuously monitors the human rights situation in Kazakhstan, conducting trial monitoring and maintaining contacts with local partners in the country's regions.

    Sounds like a good thing to me.

    Your loss of objectivity is clearly due to Obamafever. I hope you recover after the nomination.

    Parent

    Kazakhstan will head the OSCE in 2010. (none / 0) (#102)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:32:49 PM EST
    Link.

    It is your infatuation with President Clinton and/or his wife that has blinded you. I hope you regain your vision soon.

    But bravo for you for actually criticizing her position on Cuba. I give you credit for that.

    If you think the Clintons are less than a cohesive team, you really have lost perspective. She may wear the pant suits, but he will influence her presidency. My gawd have you not heard of two for one?

    Psst. Wake up. The Clintons are not perfect. The '90s didn't last, and now we need to turn the page.

    Parent

    Dude (none / 0) (#104)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:55:23 PM EST
    You are delusional. I am not a Clinton junki, never have been, and unlike you have never shilled for either one of them. Neither are great in my book but they are both tremendous compared to any GOPer.

    I have no illusions about either of the candidates and plenty of complaints against both of them. But I am against sliming either candidate with marginal BS claims, or any claims that support GOP talking points.

    Parent

    Oh, so we both agree that Sen. Clinton (none / 0) (#105)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:08:43 PM EST
    has embarrassed herself by promoting McCain's qualifieds vs. Obama's.

    You probably also agree with me that Clinton's "not as far as I know" comment about Obama being a Muslim was a needless hedge?

    And you would also support my assertion that for Clinton's campaign to blow up the NAFTA story--knowing the memo made clear Obama was interested in discussing labor and environment--was dirty.

    What about their pursuit of the Rezko deal, with Clinton bring it up in a debate, even though Obama has never been accused of any illegalities, and his 5 hours of billing at a law firm hardly represented an entrenched involvement there? Especially considering Clinton's own donor issues, including Hsu and Peter Paul?

    I'm glad we agree that the Clinton campaign was wrong for all that.

    Parent

    Shill (none / 0) (#106)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:14:25 PM EST
    The problem with blindly supporting one Democrat while trashing another Democratic candidate is that you lose all credibility.

    Many others here do it as well and it is repulsive in all cases. The funny thing is that you are not convincing any one of anything.

    Parent

    Shill? (none / 0) (#107)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:31:17 PM EST
    So, now defending the person you support is a shill? Are you even a Democrat?

    Do you have an opinion? Do you refute anything I said? Or have you simply become frustrated at losing and resort to ad hominem attacks?

    It was fun debating you. Better luck next time.

    I will appease you by listing some grievances I have with Obama:

    He won't forcefully support full civil rights for gays, though neither will Hillary and her husband signed the DOMA.

    He won't support de-criminalizing marijuana as a presidential candidate even though he has previously.

    He allows Sen. Clinton to control the tone and direction of the debate lately, instead of hitting back.

    He's not forceful enough in his "contrasts", ie, attacks on her.

    He stupidly tried to avoid the NAFTA-gate instead of just saying that Goolsbee had in fact reiterated his point-of-view to the Canadians.

    He won't talk about Rezko openly and then challenge the Clintons to discuss the pardons, museum funding, etc.

    There. Now you know how I think Obama could improve.
    Happy?


    Parent

    digby Says (none / 0) (#109)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:28:24 PM EST
    It best:

    Update from digby: Comments not working right now so I'll put this here.

    I have not defended Hillary's ad, nor do I have any problem denouncing it or any other right wing frames. I do not like it, never have. In fact, I have been denouncing the use of right wing frames by Democrats for years on this blog. You can all take it on faith that I reject, disavow and repudiate all uses such frames across the board, no matter who does it.

    I'm no longer interested in writing about the day to day hysteria in this primary and have not been commenting about the use of right wing talking points and the back and forth between the candidates in general since January, preferring to let the food fight unfold without my superfluous input. (There are many bloggers who will happily accommodate you.) But I certainly do not defend or condone either of the candidates deploying right wing frames, which both of them have done to great effect for months now. Perhaps I will write about that someday when we all return to sanity.

    I agree


    Parent

    OK. (none / 0) (#110)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:34:28 PM EST
    I'll accept that.

    Look forward to engaging you down the road.

    Cheers.

    Parent

    Later (none / 0) (#111)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:38:00 PM EST
    Cheers.

    Parent
    Oh, and the Kazakhs just voted. (none / 0) (#103)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:36:25 PM EST
    Nazarbayev's party won 90%. Does that sound like Democracy to you?

    It didn't to the OSCE. They noted progress, but "the vote failed to meet a number of international standards of fairness."

    Parent

    And Deval Patrick did give his when demanded in (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:26:21 PM EST
    Mass its a stunt no more.

    Parent
    sorry not give his (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:26:37 PM EST


    Parent
    On KRXA 540 Monterey (none / 0) (#22)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:41:35 PM EST
    Peter B. Collins reported that 20 or 21 counties in Texas reported NO Republican votes. How does that happen?

    were they in the rio grande valley? (none / 0) (#30)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:57:32 PM EST
    never mind, it wouldn't matter.  this would just be more circular ...


    Parent
    Have you ever been to south Chicago? (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:17:28 AM EST


    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#25)
    by Coral Gables on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:50:39 PM EST
    And while we are at it, eliminate delegates in favor of the popular vote. Oh wait that will never work. They wouldn't be able to party it up at a convention because there would be no need for one.

    Why should FL and MI have all the fun? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Manuel on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:54:43 PM EST
    No one would argue that the process so far has been far from ideal.  After we finish with the all the scheduled primaries, if no candidate has claimed a substantial lead, let's have a winner take all national mail vote only primary.  This would take the decision out of the hands of the superdelegates and place it squarely in the hands of the voters.

    Given the candidates fundraising prowess, it should not be too hard to raise the money to do this.

    BTW The loser of the national primary would be offered the VP slot (which they could reject).

    I wonder if the DNC and the candidates would go for something like this.

    There was talk before about an (none / 0) (#33)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:02:52 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? "How can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi?" 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...

    Obama's "Monster" Comment (none / 0) (#34)
    by reedsanchez on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:03:25 PM EST
    Did anyone else get the ridiculous email from the Hillary campaign (email can be found here) that said that by donating money to her campaign, Obama will be stopped from ever doing it again?

    It seems like a fairly simplistic claim for the Hillary people to be making - but not surprising given that the response to everything that has happened to the Hillary campaign has been cited as a reason to make a donation.

    More about this here.

    well (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:07:39 PM EST
    if he loses he probably will be stopped from doing it.
    no?

    Parent
    Thanks I needed a good laugh (none / 0) (#44)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:17:17 PM EST
    Don't know why, but I found the response very well put.

    Parent
    I get emails daily from the campaign (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:20:40 PM EST
    and no, I didn't get it.  So I find this suspect -- I can create something that looks like an email from anyone.

    Parent
    You know what I didn't get that e-mail either. (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by phat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:06:04 PM EST
    I got this from Obama, though, yesterday:

    Senator Clinton has decided to use her resources to wage a negative, throw-everything-including-the-kitchen-sink campaign. John McCain has clinched the Republican nomination and is attacking us daily. But I will continue to vigorously defend my record and make the case for change that will improve the lives of all Americans.

    phat

    Parent

    Nope (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:21:02 PM EST
    Me neither, and I get e-mails often.

    Parent
    yep, haven't gotten it here. (none / 0) (#87)
    by kangeroo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:35:47 PM EST


    Parent
    You're kidding me (none / 0) (#37)
    by phat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:08:52 PM EST
    Nobody's ever used an attack as a fundraising tool?

    phat

    Parent

    Obama surrogates (none / 0) (#38)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:10:46 PM EST
    I don't support retroactive immunity for telecoms so I was annoyed to see McCaskill (potential Obama AG?) and Obama advisor John Brennan are strong advocates.  I thought Obama was against retroactive immunity.  I guess I should stay away from the computer for awhile.

    Do all of either candidates surorgates (none / 0) (#41)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:11:57 PM EST
    agree with ever single position they hold.  I doubt it.  This sort of silly gotcha stuff is a waste of time.

    Parent
    Doesn't it concern you (none / 0) (#45)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:17:51 PM EST
    though if McCaskill could be the AG nominee?

    Parent
    actually it is quite important. (none / 0) (#75)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:56:30 PM EST
    how close did we look at ms rice our current secretary of state? how close did we look at cheney? apparently not close enough! it required research and thinking. dang, avoid that at all cost.

    Parent
    Caucuses are stupid part ? (none / 0) (#39)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:11:01 PM EST
    I know, who needs another reason.  But if you do, it turns out Iowa ain't over either.

    Exactly. No caucus numbers are known (none / 0) (#50)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:27:08 PM EST
    yet, in any caucus states, because they only took the first steps so far, and they can change their votes . . . just like super-delegates . . . into the summer.

    So a candidate who won a lot of caucuses does not have a solid delegate count yet.  All we have are media guesses of what it's going to be.  Pffft.

    Parent

    Never over (none / 0) (#51)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:27:22 PM EST
    None of these are over technically.  I was reading Craig Crawford.  He stated that delegates are pledged not 'bound.'  I know I read a piece that Obama's camp was replacing some delegates with those they felt would have unwavering support on Politico.

    Parent
    Powers Monster commet vs her Iraq comment (none / 0) (#47)
    by Saul on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:22:18 PM EST
    I think the Monster comment is not as big as her comment on Iraq. She's on tape talking abroad and stated that Obama's real strategy to get troops home is 16 months as the best case scenario not anything he is saying on the campaign that it will be very soon.

    Suggested campaign message - role of government (none / 0) (#52)
    by Munibond on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:29:05 PM EST
    I would like to hear more from both the Clinton and Obama campaigns on their visions of the role of government.  Something to counter those who want to drown it in a bathtub.  We've got major economic and other domestic problems brewing, and from my vantage point it seems that the federal government is doing next to nothing to solve them.  It would be great to hear more about plans/hopes for a better regulatory framework, infrastructure investment, return to revenue sharing with state and local government, and so on, and less about who can best answer the call at 3 a.m or who is the most bipartisan.  

    Just curious (none / 0) (#53)
    by Lil on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:31:12 PM EST
    Does anybody have any idea what to expect in Wy. tomorrow? I haven't seen to much about it. Is Obama there or Clinton? So far today I've heard a lot about Pa but nothing about Wy. It seems like Clinton needs to try to pick up every delegate. Is there any there there?

    Both candidates were there today (none / 0) (#55)
    by vj on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:35:10 PM EST
    I don't know what to expect though.

    Parent
    Newspapers (none / 0) (#60)
    by Lil on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:08:18 PM EST
    I just checked out some Wy. newspapers and it seems pretty pro Obama anecdotally, but Clinton had her support. Saw a little clip of Native Americans for Hillary.  What I could not find is what time this starts and what time it ends

    Parent
    WY is a caucus (none / 0) (#57)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:58:55 PM EST
    the head of the dem party hates both Clinton and Obama.

    There hasn't been any polling.  No one really knows what will happen, though because it's a caucus and Obama usually wins caucuses, he is expected to take it.  

    Parent

    Kathy (none / 0) (#58)
    by Lil on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:02:57 PM EST
    Is this like Nevada? It seemed like it was over fairly quickly compared to primaries. Will she get some delegates?

    Parent
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#59)
    by phat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:04:00 PM EST
    How do you know this about the head of the Dem. party in WY?

    I find that little piece of information entertaining.

    phat

    Parent

    woops--just hates Clinton (none / 0) (#72)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:32:29 PM EST
    The Democratic Party chairman in Wyoming is predicting that Democratic candidates throughout the Rocky Mountain region will be damaged if his party selects Hillary Clinton for president.

    LINK

    It's the Dem governor who hates them both:

    Meanwhile, the state's top Democrat, Gov. Dave Freudenthal, has said he doesn't like any of the candidates, Republican or Democratic, because they haven't spoken enough about Western issues. He hasn't endorsed anyone and will not say who, as a superdelegate, he will vote for at the national convention.

    LINK

    The latter link is interesting because it talks more about the caucuses, although you have to get through a lot of Obamapraise before you get to the facts.  No public polling has been done, though one would guess that a caucus would benefit Obama.

    I'm gonna go against the grain here and call it for Clinton, based on my own gut feeling, which has been right at least 50% of the time!

    Parent

    ps: (none / 0) (#73)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:33:35 PM EST
    12 delegates at stake

    Parent
    Thanks. (none / 0) (#78)
    by phat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:02:41 PM EST
    I think I kind of like this Freudenthal guy.

    phat

    Parent

    Curmudgeons are cute (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:10:23 PM EST
    in a kind of perverse way.  As they say there, he is prized for his "horse sense."

    But yes, see the delegate total -- there are more horses than humans in Wyoming.  But pretty country.

    Parent

    Why (none / 0) (#65)
    by tek on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:52:53 PM EST
    do you say the head of the Dem Party hates both candidates.  Howard Dean is determined to get Obama elected.

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#66)
    by tek on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:53:39 PM EST
    WY Dems, sorry.

    Parent
    The donkiphant in the living room (none / 0) (#61)
    by Lora on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:09:22 PM EST
    Lots of talk about elections but not much about voting.  Find out which are the best and worst states to vote in according to Black Box Voting:

    Black Box Voting has mapped out the state of the union, election-wise, using overlays of a number of factors that indicate just how much trust the vote-counting deserves. Among the factors we examined:

    • Are the votes counted in public or in secret?

    • Is it even possible for anyone to check on the accuracy of the machines with a hand count?

    • Is vote counting widely distributed through a generous allotment of polling places, or is power over the count centralized?

    • How many votes go through the additional chain of custody complications of mail-in voting?

    • Is citizen observation allowed after polls close? Are citizens allowed to observe EVERYTHING?

    • Are citizens allowed to capture evidence with video, photos, and tape recordings of what goes on after polls close?

    • What procedures are in place to compare machine counted votes with hand counted votes, how public are they, how extensive are they and what procedures protect against data or ballot substitution?

    • Does the state follow good procedures to implement Freedom of Information principles?

    How does your state measure up?  Will your vote count?  How will you know?

    So Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#62)
    by lilburro on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:19:17 PM EST
    what does everyone think Obama will have to do?  Clinton?  I think the demographics favor Clinton ...I can certainly see her sweeping "Pennsyltucky" (lots of moderate/conservative Dems).  Thoughts?

    I think moderate and conservative Dems have been hiding in the shadows for much of this race.  Independents and Dem-today Republicans are getting the spotlight.  But what do we think of Dems who are not necessarily the most progressive, but at least have supported the party and have registered as Dems?  Why kowtow to independents who as a group believe in God knows what, when there are plenty of Dems ...?  There are a lot of Dems out there for instance who would oppose Obama's approach to diplomacy (rather aggressively I would think) with kneejerk feelings about America's image.  I know this isn't completely empirical, but these people are out there.  Public opinion IMO tends to be conservative.

    Apparently, 10% of voters faced with Clinton, and 20% faced with Obama, could flee to McCain during the GE.  What do we do about this?  How do we press their buttons and keep them on our side?

    actually the democratic party (none / 0) (#77)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:01:15 PM EST
    seems to me to be chasing off voters as fast as they change. 20% against obama? that would cost them the election. i signed a petition tonight asking dr dean to resign. dang it i liked the man, but i just can't go along to get along. frankly that is what i think he had done.

    Parent
    Ruh Ro (none / 0) (#64)
    by tek on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:51:39 PM EST
    The New Republic has Obama on the cover and they've made him look more AFRICAN than he really is.  The Obama image police will have to fine them and demand an apology.

    if obama gets the nomination, (none / 0) (#76)
    by hellothere on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:58:45 PM EST
    they'll have to work 24/7 complaining. in fact there won't be enough hours in the day to respond to republicans. the fact is republicans would laugh at them. i bet they won't like that.

    Parent
    More on the Obama coalition... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Oje on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:54:54 PM EST
    Related to the previous thread, on the brink of being closed, Jerome Armstrong weighs in... and picks "those pesky Latinos" over the Obamacans!

    Clinton's Experience (none / 0) (#85)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:03:55 PM EST
    I don't go to TPM much, but Josh Marshall is going after Clinton on the experience issue.  I'm not looking forward to the early editions on RCP.  CNN has started doing 'fact checks' to nibble at this also.  Obama questioned, I expect the media to run with it.

    Pollster.com has decided... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Oje on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:53:59 PM EST
    it does not want to play the poll of polls game any longer.

    The most recent data are from 2-26, over one week ago. In that time, the (questionable) Gallup tracking shows a reversal of fortunes: Clinton 48%, Obama 44%. At the same time, Rasmussen's national tracking poll shows Clinton extending her lead to 6 percentage points in the 5 days since 3/2/2008 (when the poll showed a tie).

    There must be some national polls in the works. I wonder who the media will say has "teh momentum" on Monday...

    Did anyone notice this photo? (none / 0) (#89)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:56:37 PM EST
    Seen here from Reuters.

    Someone has a wicked sense of composition.

    Just saw "The War Room" it was GREAT (none / 0) (#90)
    by CentristDemocrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:36:56 AM EST
    Has anyone here watched the "War Room" about the 92' Clinton campaign??? It's great. James Carville stars in it... the dude may be the ugleist person in the world, but I like his attitude and drawl !

    I wonder what Hillary's War room looks like.... it must have been pretty weak in the beginning, or disorganized. It looks like they may eb putting stuff together now.

    Sidley-Austin (none / 0) (#93)
    by facta non verba on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:00:15 AM EST
    Michelle Obama's former firm is Sidley-Austin. So this was on onegoodmove.org

    Well, Michelle Obama's ties do have deep pockets. This via The Corporate Crime Reporter:

        Well, let's take the law firm of Sidley & Austin. Sidley & Austin is a registered federal lobbyist. It cannot by law give money to federal candidates. But the lawyers who control the firm and profit from the firm's lobbying activities can give to Obama. Some of those individual lawyers are registered lobbyists. Some are not. Guess who gives to Obama? Right. The ones who are not registered lobbyists. But they still control and profit from the lobbying activities of the firm. So, technically, Obama is not taking money from federal lobbyists. But only in the narrowest sense.

        Sidley Austin, Skadden, Arps, Jenner & Block, Kirkland & Ellis, and Wilmerhale are all registered lobbyists. Lawyers at these registered lobbying firms have given Obama's campaign $813,459 through February 1, 2008.

        "Is it possible that Senator Obama does not know that corporate law firms are also frequently registered lobbyists?" asks Pam Martens, writing in the current print edition of Counterpunch. ("The Obama Money Cartel," by Pam Martens, Counterpunch). . . That thesis seems disingenuous when many of these individual donors own these law firms as equity partners or shareholders and share in the profits generated from lobbying."

    I love this question: Is it possible that Senator Obama does not know that corporate law firms are also frequently registered lobbyists?" asks Pam Martens.

    Nah, it is only his wife's former employer, Sidley-Austin LLP. How could they know? And who keeps in touch with their former employer and former co-workers?

    Open Thread | 105 comments (105 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment