home

CNN Faith Forum With Dem CandidatesTonight

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:46:52 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

CNN:

The Democrats will discuss faith, politics and policy tonight on CNN at a forum co-sponsored by Faith in Public Life. The event will air beginning at 8 p.m. ET

Campbell Brown will moderate along with Newsweek's Jon Meacham. Jeralyn and I will live blog this event.

Let's make this an Open Thread.

< "He's Not Running for Sociologist In Chief" | CNN Faith Forum Live Blog >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    CNN Faith Forum With Dem CandidatesTonight | 109 comments (109 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I have the distinct sense (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:48:12 PM EST
    that this "forum" will suck to high heaven.

    The hosts inspire negative confidence.

    Isn't John Adams or the Tudors (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:52:48 PM EST
    coming on HBO at that time?  I'm kicking myself offline because I know somebody among these rocket scientists of journalism is going ask some sort of spite inducing "leading" question and I'll blow a gasket or something.  Better if I read about the stupidity tomorrow.

    Parent
    John Adams and the Tudors (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:20:34 PM EST
    at 9, Desperate Housewives at 9, too.  All fired up and ready to Tivo!

    Parent
    That combo is mind-boggling (none / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:22:29 PM EST
    and I would need a break between.  A long break. :-)

    As for me, it's the Adams family.  I've been rereading the most recent bio of Abigail (after rereading McCulloch's Adams before the series), and despite the occasional inaccuracy for the sake of compressing the story yadda yadda . . . I am in awe of the sheer beauty of this show at some points as well as the excellence of it throughout.

    But I don't think I'll be able to watch Giamatti when Abby dies.

    Parent

    SHE DIES?! (none / 0) (#86)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:30:32 PM EST
    Thanks for ruining the ending!

    I tell ya what, this movie has made me fall in love with Laura Linney all over again.  She is fabulous, isn't she?

    And I'm not sure how I feel about Cokie Roberts right now, but she's got a book out about first ladies and the impact they've had on the nation.  Adams gets high praise for obvious reasons.

    Parent

    Roberts' book is okay (none / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:50:36 PM EST
    as a rehash and roundup, but there have been good ones before.  (I actually was asked to teach a course once to the public on First Ladies, so I looked at a lot of the literature.)

    But no original research that I could see.  I like a book that doesn't waste trees and brings something new, and I like my history with footnotes, real discussant ones -- I find those as fascinating as the text, much of the time.  And in-depth, not a quick skim over someone as significant and influential as Abigail Smith Adams amid a collection of quick skims.  So I'm weird and have read every massive volume of Wiesen Cook on ER, too.  And every note, natch.:-)

    Btw, the recent one on Smith Adams is by Levin.  But maybe the most incredible read on a First Fem and how the media and then historians mistreat them is by Jean Baker on Mary Todd Lincoln.  And interesting to me was to hear Clinton talking, years ago, about many of these women in a way that made me think that she's read a lot of these bios, too.  Everything about ER, for sure.

    Parent

    Oh, and yes (none / 0) (#109)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:58:29 PM EST
    Laura Linney is amazing in this.  Makes me want another miniseries on Abigail!  And more accurate, as this one does muddle some things together for the purposes of moving along such a long story.  And I'd like to see the evidence that she was the one to make him sign the Alien and Sedition Acts -- that was just too Hollywood-blame-it-on-the-woman for me.  

    I have not seen evidence in McCulloch or other sources for that, and it really didn't accord with the image of Adams in this.  So for the most significant legislation he signed, and some of the most controversial legislation in our history to this day -- for the first time, he is so indecisive?  And especially in an episode in which he is so decisive on all else?  But -- a minor flaw in a major accomplishment, this miniseries.

    Anyway, ahem, so much of the casting is stunning.  How did they find someone so perfect for Jefferson?  And I still can't get over the casting of Washington, after seeing that actor on not-so-great tv.

    Oh, and take heart -- Abby lives.  Every time we say "Remember the ladies!"  We seem to have to say it so often of late that she must be looking down and tsk-tsking at what we have made of her vision.

    Parent

    There's an aleternative if it really does suck (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:00:13 PM EST
    Yankees/Red Sox! 8:05 ET ESPN  :-D

    Parent
    Yankee Derangement Syndrome (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ellie on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:10:14 PM EST
    Since this is an open thread, I'm co-opting the bandwidth for this anecdote.

    I look after my nephews a weekend a month so my sister and bro-in-law can catch their breath while juggling Sister's return to the workforce and their shared mayhem of looking after a new baby and settling into a new home.

    The penultimate nephew, who's years apart in age from his older adolescent brothers and who'll be going to school in the fall, is in a lonely place. He's been clinging to me as if I'm a life raft.

    It's become worse since the start of baseball season. Well, this weekend at the first sight of pinstripes and the news that his uncle in the Bronx has promised to take us all to a Yankees game in the summer so we can see them take a drubbing at the hands of our Beloved Home Team, out burst the waterworks.

    It's not just ordinary, ambient whimpering in search of a reason, either, but red-faced torrential crying.

    It turns out he'd been told he was traded to the Yankees ... for the new baby!

    My spouse and the two older nephews continue to be Jesus-eyed on the subject and unified in having no idea where the kid got such an idea.

    Parent

    lol!~ (none / 0) (#78)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:19:15 PM EST
    boys will be boys, no matter the age.  ;)

    has the lil' guy been convinced he's safe at home yet? Hopefully the the games this summer will make him forget, but not forgive for now. He'll prob enjoy a "return of the favor" when he gets older and punks them!  :)

    Parent

    Giamatti: Baseball was designed 2 break your heart (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ellie on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:32:52 PM EST
    Safe at home is good! I'll be sure to play that up during Pee Wee Ball when he's on 3b.

    (And have a private little talk with the other three "kids".)

    Parent

    Uh, from experience here . . . (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:24:43 PM EST
    check to make sure he doesn't also think that he's adopted.

    Found out only a few years ago that one of mine had been told so by the older sib . . . and believed it for most of her life.  And, therefore, believing him more than her parents, she disbelieved too much else of what I we told her.

    Sigh.

    Parent

    OMFG -- how do siblings ever survive each other (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ellie on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:47:23 PM EST
    The Yankees trade was amateur hour compared to what my sisters and I pulled on each other but we eventually declared a truce based on borrowing separates.

    Parent
    OMG (none / 0) (#107)
    by zyx on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:14:10 PM EST
    My older son told the younger one that he was adopted when he was barely old enough to know what adoption WAS.  Where does that come from?

    Parent
    Meacham, Brown (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:46:51 PM EST
    and politicians talking about religion and 'values'.  Ordinarily I would avoid this like the plague, but given recent events I'll watch it.  I'll need a big glass of wine and TalkLeft to get through it though.

    I'll have to cleanse my mind with 'John Adams' afterward. Or dirty it up real good with 'The Tudors'.  I'll see how it goes.

    Parent

    The Tudors (none / 0) (#42)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:48:42 PM EST
    Prettiest soft porn on TV now that L-Word is off.  And Tell Me You Love Me, which my dad watches, which freaks me the heck out.

    Parent
    Ha! (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:53:44 PM EST
    Yeah, I watched a few episodes of Tell Me That You Love Me.  More realism than I need.  I prefer my soft porn with some literal bodice ripping, a la The Tudors.

    Parent
    Equal Time (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Athena on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:53:17 PM EST
    When do the atheists get a 2-hour forum on CNN?  I'm tired of the homage to faith and religion in our politics.

    Parent
    Me too (none / 0) (#62)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:00:27 PM EST


    Parent
    Third to that (none / 0) (#94)
    by mulletov cocktails on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:21:04 PM EST
    Does the motion carry?

    Parent
    I second that plea (none / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:59:27 PM EST
    For the love of god I hope she shuts up about it unless asked directly. Let's hope no one prepped her with any "jokes".

    Parent
    cmon (none / 0) (#66)
    by TheRefugee on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:03:23 PM EST
    as an atheist I feel very strongly that my candidate's faith is of utmost importance to running a country that professes to have a separation of church and state.

    Now for the policies?  I'm interested to hear what Obama is going to believe on this particular day.

    Parent

    I predict (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:07:37 PM EST
    That no matter what happens, the Boiz will hit the comment sections throughout Left Blogistan to proclaim that Obama blew Hillary away.

    "He was masterful, magnificent and most excellent!  Hillary was shrill, shrieking and super old-looking."

    Anyone want to bet?

    We have to do a quantifiable bet. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:25:07 PM EST
    How about the number of times that racist/bigot is used explicitly and implied(count separately) as the reason for Obama's poor showing in PA.  To be counted on April 23.

    Also how many "What's wrong with PA?" diaries.

    Parent

    And if Obama wins Pennsylvania? (none / 0) (#79)
    by diplomatic on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:19:28 PM EST
    Then the voters just "got to know him" and they were only supporting Hillary because of name recognition and clinging to those old traditions.  But they changed!

    Parent
    No Bet. (none / 0) (#9)
    by blogtopus on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:15:17 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    The fresh scent of SANITY! (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:20:56 PM EST
    Sorry.  Been at the great orange again where people are busy spinning and making excuses for why Obama did nothing wrong and why no one should be offended and it won't really matter and why isn't Hillary getting the horrible media treatment that Obama is.  
    Oh, and Obama isn't elitist, but if he is that's a good thing and it's all Hillary's fault for calling him that.  There's a FP review of Greenwald's book wherein he talks about how the Right consistently portrays Democrats as out of touch elitists.  Those of us who put two and two together over there are not very popular.

    So anyway, does anyone else feel like staying out fo the blogs until next Wednesday?  The only thing whackier than the days leading up to a primary date is the day after it.  I just tend to find the day after far more amusing.

    Is there a poll tracking site that has the polls with the best track record re: the Dem primaries?

    Thanks.

    I haven't been over there since NH (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:25:51 PM EST
    when Clinton was vilified for having the gaul to win.

    Same with HuffPo, which I used to like (and even got a post posted once, and was so proud...now, not so much).  I go here, No Quarter, Taylor Marsh and I Can Has Cheezburger.  Oh, and of course, MonkeyNews every morning, but that's because I like to keep track of them.

    Parent

    I should probably just stay away (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:31:50 PM EST
    until the next -gate hits.

    I wish there was a way to quantify the echo chamber effect.  The reaction I keep having is:  Is it me, or does it seem like it's constantly getting worse?  

    People were touting very recent polls as showing that Cling-gate had no effect.  Whatever makes them feel better....there's over a week until the 22nd.  News takes time to sink in.

    Parent

    uh oh (none / 0) (#25)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:33:47 PM EST
    No Quarter has Wright blasting Fox and calling out Hannity and O'Idiot by name.  That's good, rev...poke that hornet's nest.

    Parent
    At somebody's funeral, no less (none / 0) (#98)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:50:16 PM EST
    In his inimitable peaceful style of oratory...


    Parent
    I can haz sanity? (none / 0) (#19)
    by blogtopus on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:30:54 PM EST
    Love that site. For anyone not familiar.

    Parent
    What's the count of "I'm bitter" diaries (none / 0) (#22)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:32:26 PM EST
    at now? Is it more than "It's Clinton's fault"?

    Parent
    Are You Bitter Off? (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Athena on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:56:01 PM EST
    Are you bitter off than you were 4 years ago?

    Parent
    "I'm bitter BUT I don't turn to guns, (none / 0) (#34)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:43:42 PM EST
    religion and bigotry.  Instead I turn to Obama!"

    If you want to be instantly popular there - write a diary about:
    Coming to Obama and turning away from Hillary.
    Coming to Obama and turning away from Republicans.
    Coming to Obama and turning away from bitterness.

    You get the idea.

    Parent

    Yeah i get it.... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:50:55 PM EST
    ..it's a fansite!

    Parent
    There's some hideous stuff on Orange State (none / 0) (#100)
    by Xeno on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:55:57 PM EST
    I've only been to diaries linked by others since I don't read GOS anymore, but what I read was horrifying and illuminating. It's as if they're all hell-bent on proving that Obama and his supporters really are out-of-touch elitists who disdain ordinary Americans.

    Take this recommended diary, for example:


    I live in western Pennsylvania, and I can tell you, people here are bitter and angry. Poverty is prevalent. People hunt squirrels and eat them, along with racoon stew. People also hunt deer here, not for sport, but so they can put meat in their freezer so they can feed their families. They cut wood in the forests and heat their homes with wood stoves because they can't afford to pay the gas bill. I know a guy who goes to old landfills to dig up old milk and beer bottles to sell on eBay. He uses the proceeds to buy clothes for his family at the Salvation Army (and to pay for his dial-up connection).

    Racism and prejudice are ever-present here. A friend of mine is part-owner of bar in a small rural town south of where I live. I meet up with him there occasionally and watch as down-and-out people come in with their disability and welfare check money and drink it away. It's a pretty depressing place, but it does serve as the social center for a town that has seen its few industries shut down and the local people's jobs eliminated or shipped off elsewhere....

    [snip]

    Prejudice, racism and fear do run rampant in areas like this. People are poor. They are in bad health, overweight from a deep-fried diet, and toothless from the lack of dental care. They are unemployed. They are uneducated. They do cling to their hunting rifles and to their religious beliefs. For many, it is about all that they have. The towns around here are full of decaying, boarded up buildings. People live in rundown old trailers with abandoned cars in the front yard. I have seen people using an old car as a stable, with their goat tied to and living in it. I could drive you by a least three old houses that have Conderate flags in the windows.

    (Emphasis mine.)

    Please read the whole thing. The disgust, the utter contempt of the writer for his neighbors, fairly drips from every word. It's like verbal poison. And it will seep into the public perception of the Democratic Party once again if Obama and his sycophants keep driveling on in this vein.

    Parent

    A faith-off? Who will decide the winner? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by jerry on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:28:37 PM EST
    I advise atheists to stay indoors tonight, and keep your doors locked!

    Oh, glee! (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:46:55 PM EST
    Tonight's forum isn't just religion--it's going to include abortion talk!

    LINK

    I hope Obama brought worked out his pandering muscles this morning!

    Thoughts on Obama (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:46:56 PM EST
    What most gets me about his remarks at the SF fundraiser is that they tie into his campaign's insistence that they are not just a campaign, but some kind of nebulous moral American renewal.  They haven't tied that renewal into something concrete enough to fall back upon - economics, healthcare policies, etc. (Obama I noticed has a bit of disdain for discussing talking points).  His campaign has created its own set of values.  Obama values.  Not just Dem values.  It doesn't necessarily seem to be a big tent - the attitude is not "think what you think and we'll try to get stuff done."  It's "believe in us.  we can all agree upon this."  Yet it is not concretely tied with economic populism.
    Obama's SF comments present such a problem because a lot of his campaign has directed energy to places where IMO it should not have gone; making generalizations about America, finding out exactly what Obama's opinion is on everything, even if it has nothing to do with any issue or anything that could possibly translate into legislation.  His emphasis on judgment has turned his campaign into one scrambling to give him moral authority over far too many things.  He is setting himself up in the GE to be practically a lifestyle, or a mindset.  People will vote against him, and it will be a more complicated vote in some cases than just racism.  Obama's weighing in on social ills has gone beyond our previous metrics and not always in a good way (as the SF comments demonstrate).  He seems to be becoming harder to understand.  
    Of course nobody believes politicians verbatim.  But people measure a politican's will to work and motivations by a few things, I think.  1 - # and depth of campaign promises.  (This is why I think Clinton will do better with healthcare).  2 - Depth of personality/conviction.  

    Obama's campaign kind of has him out on a limb with #2 in terms of the way (and some of it was necessary, for instance with Wright he had to put himself out there) he's had to make his campaign very personal.  I guess they're expecting to go hard on policy when they're running against McCain.  But so far they really have emphasized personality (which includes the concilitory political approach)...and going too far with that is risky.  I mean, how long does Obama really think his newfound Republican friends (and I mean, big name, Sen/Rep friends) are going to stick around?  They will be the first to desert and when they do it will probably look bad.  Imagine Hagel saying, no, I would not accept a position in Obama's cabinet, for instance.  At some point that could be good politics for him and the Repubs - to turn the Repubs on Obama's side against him.

    Anyway those are just some thoughts.  I probably didn't make myself as clear as I should've, apologies.

    Do you think (none / 0) (#87)
    by phillhrrll on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:31:05 PM EST
    Obama's instant success, has him out of his depth. He really hasn't accomplished much as a legislator, and his supposed oratorical skill has harmed him. I think he lacks substance and foreign leaders would steamroll him.

    Parent
    Moral authority (none / 0) (#101)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:56:00 PM EST
    "His emphasis on judgment has turned his campaign into one scrambling to give him moral authority over far too many things."

    I think you're right on this.  I don't think he'll change much in the general, though.  His whole thing is designed to be as nebulous as possible in order to avoid giving anybody any reason to vote against him.


    Parent

    Open thread scream: (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:53:55 PM EST
    Huffingtonpost and TPM have gone completely 'round the bend!  Both blogs are pimping so hard for their candidate that they are becoming Orange around the gills!

    Everytime Obama has the faintest slip-up, they redouble their efforts to showcase anti-Clinton smears.  

    It's become truly pathetic.

    Ten days and counting... (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:58:56 PM EST
    It's only going to get worse this week.

    I've GOT to stay away.  I must, must, must NOT go there.  If I want to watch crazy people, I can always tune into Jerry Springer.

    Parent

    First question already stinks.... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:04:12 PM EST
    ...Meechem asks what's wrong with what Obama said in a way that makes it seem like Hillary is a hypocritical nitpicker.

    BTD is live blogging up above. New thread. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Teresa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:08:33 PM EST


    Parent
    I agree; it will suck (none / 0) (#2)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:50:56 PM EST
    in the meantime, (I feel like terrible posting this)but there is a new audio from Wright today.

    Also the Scranton newspaper endorsed Obama.

    what's the audio? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:22:15 PM EST
    I keep waiting for the one about Natalie Holloway to get more spin, where he says she got herself into trouble for going with those boys in the first place, and thus deserved what happened.

    I suppose because she is a woman, no one gives a crap about that statement, but it's the kind of sexist "she asked for it" bullsh*t that makes me absolutely furious.  Yet another denigration of women that Obama, Michelle and their two girls sat through.

    Parent

    paper (none / 0) (#6)
    by nell on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:02:52 PM EST
    scranton paper is owned by the same groub as the chicago trib and la times. I believe all papers owned by this group endorsed barack. same for the allentown paper, I think.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#8)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:09:37 PM EST
    I should have checked.

    I was disappointed but your comment helps.

    Parent

    Opinion awards dinner (none / 0) (#4)
    by TalkRight on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:54:55 PM EST
    on cspan.. interesting [repeat of Tuesday] in case you missed

    This sites comments are about the best (none / 0) (#10)
    by phillhrrll on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:18:02 PM EST
    stating that I'm assuming an open thread is just that so....
     I'm a conservative(not a republican) and I'm a painting contractor outside of Cincinnati, I specialize in new homes, my livelihood has slowly evaporated since 2001. My income increased 5x from 92-01 and is now back at 1992 levels with 2008 prices. I would love to regain my income but the new home market is changed forever due to market forces, not government mismanagement.

    Myriad unforseen circumstances have caused this, however does that leave me resentful and embittered towards immigrants or hostile towards someone different seeking office ? NO!!!  It's ludicrous to propose that and extremely insulting to paint me(pun unintended)as such. It is depressing and I'm bummed being financially strapped.

    I should be a surefire Democratic voter this fall, but I'm one of the 44% that'll probably not vote for Clinton(many reasons) and their frontrunner has insulted me twice (typical white guy.)  For the first time in my life change was intruiging, after 4 months of listening to Obama, he's proven to me that the status quo may have to suffice.

    Hello to truck driving school, just what I wanted to do at 45, after becoming highly skilled and well paid in my trade.

    I'm furious at the Democratic party for not offering me an alternative that I wholeheartedly could support. Being angry at ineptness doesn't equate to being bitter, I'm disappointed that these 3 candidates are the best we can offer, that just sucks.

    Can Hillary improve my/our economic outlook, It's possibe I can be persuaded.

    My ideal candidate is Gore. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:40:50 PM EST
    So I'm in my nominal Democrat mode.  I've never been much of an Obama supporter and reading this site has eroded what little positive feeling I had for him.  His supporters eroded most of it before I got here, so TalkLeft isn't really guilty.

    The worst part is that Obama keeps on reminding me of right wing memes - Bush 1 & 2 and Reagan.  Maybe if I was a Republican, I would find that comforting.   But every time I hear "Yes we can!", I hear echoes of "Morning in America" and "A Thousand Points of Light".  I know it's good to have a short, catchy phrase - but I'd prefer one less generic and more meaningful.

    Parent

    Not a fan of Al (none / 0) (#65)
    by phillhrrll on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:02:46 PM EST
    Obama seems distinctly disconnected from the pulse of America and seems like a wimp. I sort of liked Biden, he had idea's, how good they were was debatable and he lost.

    Parent
    Phil (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Arcadianwind on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:05:29 PM EST
    Have you checked into recent advances in green building tech, low VOC paints and coatings, etc. It is beginning to take-off.

    Parent
    A builder (none / 0) (#80)
    by phillhrrll on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:21:31 PM EST
    buddy(currently in title only) just returned from being qualified to rate other homebuilders as being green. It's really cool and not much more expensive than current code. He swears within 10 yrs green will be standard. I believe him, in the long run it's a more economical house, without giving anything on aesthetic's.

    Parent
    Standards will be happening (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Arcadianwind on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:58:51 PM EST
    even faster as people come to understand the negative health effects of current practices. VOCs and out-gassing from composite materials are a serious problem today. When the "health care" establishment gets off their complacency platform and start making waves--that will accelerate the move as well.

    The environmental costs are also coming to bear on this... I'll post a couple links/websites for green building if you like.  

    Parent

    I'd very (none / 0) (#102)
    by phillhrrll on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:57:20 PM EST
    much like that, thank you. If's my understanding that solvent/alkyd paints will be phased out by 2015.

    Parent
    here are some to check out. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Arcadianwind on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:44:18 PM EST
    http://sustainablog.org/
    http://www.greenhomebuilding.com/index.htm
    http://www.usgbc.org/
    http://www.greenbuilding.com/
    http://greenoptions.com/tag/green-building

    Haven't heard that, about the phase-out.
    It wouldn't surprise me though.

    Parent

    I think a reason you should support (4.33 / 3) (#37)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:45:44 PM EST
    Hillary is that she understands the importance of government regulation of the financial sector---something which Obama pooh-poohs.
    This definitely has bearing on your career.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by phillhrrll on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:57:44 PM EST
    lending 200k to people making 10 bucks an hour caused a lot of the housing/construction depression, besides being stone cold cruel.

    My company is a joke, I employed 8 ppl year round until 02, last year I worked a 1000 hrs, less than half of my normal workload, no employees, no new homes are being built.

    Parent

    Oh absolutely (none / 0) (#17)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:26:14 PM EST
    It is up to the gov't to increase regulation.  I myself am looking for a gov't that will make all of my decisions for me from cradle to grave.  Hopefully the hardest decision I will have the rest of my life is what size tv to buy.  I should not be allowed to try anything and fail.  I demand the gov't step in and save me from all of my errors.  

    Parent
    You're teasing (none / 0) (#21)
    by phillhrrll on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:32:24 PM EST

    All I hear from either one are tax increases, and since I've paid for healthcare to this point in my life, I'm against government mandated care.

    Parent

    Ignore the Coyote (none / 0) (#26)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:35:47 PM EST
    He's what we call a troll, somebody who posts irritating comments just to be annoying.

    If your health care needs are all set, then mandates won't apply to you anyway, so don't worry about it.  It's the rest of us who don't have access to affordable insurance who need help, and Clinton's plan is the only one that will make a significant difference for the, what is it now, 40 million uninsured in this country.

    Parent

    Was wondering (none / 0) (#33)
    by phillhrrll on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:43:38 PM EST

    if he was a troll, from lurking I've seen this site runs a tight ship. I only have major medical and some years, I've spent 10% of my income on healthcare.

    Would her plan help me ? I don't want to pass my costs onto another taxpayer though. I'll check her site later......Thanks

    Parent

    If we really do get (none / 0) (#95)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:35:57 PM EST
    universal coverage, or close to it, it should mean your premiums will start to come down eventually, or at least stop going up so much.  The point of mandates is to get all those healthy 20 and 30-somethings who don't think they need insurance into the covered pool so that costs are spread out around all of us.

    Parent
    If I (none / 0) (#105)
    by phillhrrll on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:15:08 PM EST
    were them I'd get the minimum, I had 2 high 4 figure years spread over 22 years. It averaged out to 1500-1800 per year.

    Parent
    Your (none / 0) (#110)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:37:54 AM EST
    definition of a troll is someone who does not agree with you.  IOW you do not know the definition.  I've been posting on here for three plus years.  I'd been kicked off sooner if I was trolling.  

    Parent
    I don't think (none / 0) (#24)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:32:54 PM EST
    anybody can improve the economic outlook in the short term or probably even long term.  It took Bush eight years to get us here and it will take time to get us out.

    Economics are not my strong suit, but so maybe others will chip in. Ending the war and getting the country's finances under control will help.  Major government investment in green energy research and jobs will help. Canceling the income tax cuts for the very rich will help with the budget.

    Extending the war, extending the rich tax cuts, extending the deficits, etc., will make it worse.

    I think both Clinton and Obama will try to do the right things, but I think Clinton has a better idea of how to get it done, what things she can do with executive power alone right away, and more determination and doggedness than Obama.

    There simply aren't major policy differences between the two.  The difference is in character and fighting spirit and pretty intimate knowledge of where the levers of power are and how to use them.  I think she is less afraid than Obama to do the right thing.  He will more likely wait for consensus or bipartisan agreement, or as he's said repeatedly, for things to "bubble up" from the public.  IOW, even if he ends up doing the right thigns, it will take him a lot longer to get there.

    Parent

    Makes sense (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by phillhrrll on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:37:03 PM EST
    Hillary is tough, she's recieved more grief than any politician, including the President.

    Parent
    A big policy difference for me (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:38:49 PM EST
    is the mercenaries that we are paying to kill Iraqis (and in some cases, Americans).  Clinton will stop that.  Obama says he needs to think about it.

    This is the crux of my argument in favor of voting Clinton to folks on the fence: no matter what you think about her as a person, you know that she will get things done.  She knows where the closets are buried in Washington.  She is owed favors.  She knows the alliances--who is weak, who is strong, who the leaders of different sects are.  The "Ready to lead on day one" slogan is trite to even me now (and I love the lady) but it's so true.  People are scared of her, they won't f*ck with her, and she will be a strong leader.

    Obama has none of this.  We are in serious trouble as a nation.  If you're worried about universal healthcare, then you should know that by the time it makes its way through Congress, you'll already have the money to pay for it because the economy will be back on track, new jobs will be created and folks like you, who are literally in charge of maintaining the backbone of America's financial infrastructure, will be the first to feel the relief.

    Parent

    Please don't take this personally (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:51:09 PM EST
    Obama but....

    I think Hillary is a Player.
    I think Obama is likely to get Played.

    I think that's why people are schmoozing for Obama so hard.  Hillary knows people, Bill knows people, Obama will have to trust people that he doesn't know that well.  

    Who will be easier to influence?

    Parent

    Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by phillhrrll on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:13:16 PM EST
    strikes me as way tougher than Obama, McCain I don't know. I still think Hillary will get the nomination, Obama hasn't any substance and seems very weak when pressed.

    Parent
    I admire (none / 0) (#47)
    by phillhrrll on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:50:43 PM EST
    her grit. The war really isn't an issue to me, her plan for the economy seems to raise taxes.

    I really made money under her husband and wound up appreciating his leadership regarding the economy. I'll have to really peruse her site.

    Parent

    You probably paid more taxes (4.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:57:52 PM EST
    under the first Clinton, as a percentage of your income, yet you also were making a lot more money to offset it.

    Funny thing--the most taxed countries in the world tend to be the wealthiest (per person) and the happiest (on the happiness index).

    But, if it's between Obama and Clinton, what makes you lean Obama?  Do you trust him more to put money in your pocket?

    I'm one of those folks who benefits greatly from Bush's tax cuts.  It doesn't matter much if gas is $4 a gallon and milk is about the same.  I pay less tax, but that pocket change is eaten up by the cost of living.


    Parent

    I despise (none / 0) (#71)
    by phillhrrll on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:08:35 PM EST
    Obama, he's done nothing but insult me, a surefire way not woo voters.

    Percentage wise my rate stayed the same, boy how I'd love to dread April 15th like it was 1996. Do the Scandanavians actually have more wealth than us ? if so post a link please

    Parent

    Their wealth (none / 0) (#85)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:28:33 PM EST
    is more shared.  Not in a socialist way, but there isn't the chasm between the poor and the middle class and the wealthy (or the poor and the wealthy, to put it in US terms).

    They also have almost non existent native adoption because the social safety net is so secure that people do not give up their children.  They have less strict drug laws and fewer users (they register users, too, to make sure what they get is pure-or at least they did when I was there).  Women are certainly, in my own personal experience, not as hindered by society as they are here in the US.  Finland's president is a woman, half the cabinet is comprised of women and more than half the representatives in the country are women.  They have one of the lowest crime rates of any western nation.  And of course, like most of the rest of the western world, they have a lower infant mortality rate and a higher life expectancy, and get better medical care.

    I don't have links--this is just from personal experience traveling there and living there.  Investigoogle the "happiness index" and you'll find a lot of interesting statistics.

    Parent

    If you're making more than $200K a year (none / 0) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:41:30 PM EST
    which is where she'll eliminate the Bush tax cuts, then I don't think you really need her or anybody else to help you.

    If you make less than that and somebody's told you she'll raise your taxes, they're lying.

    Parent

    not (none / 0) (#104)
    by phillhrrll on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:07:28 PM EST
    remotely close any more. Up till 01 I made roughly half that and turned down more work than we performed. Seems like a different life.

    Parent
    also (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:49:54 PM EST
    Clinton wants to majorly invest in and improve infrastructure.  That's construction and engineering jobs across the country plus the ancillary benefits of better roads, bridges, trains, et al.

    Parent
    Must (none / 0) (#76)
    by phillhrrll on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:15:33 PM EST
    really read her site, sorry to be so ignorant, but it's only in the past 10 days I began to think she'll prevail.

    Parent
    Don't aplogize! (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:45:38 PM EST
    You've wandered into a virtual bar full of politics junkies.  You'll find stuff you like and stuff you don't like in her policies.  So do most of us.  But on balance, we're convinced that she is genuinely committed to get to work and fix the stuff that's gone bust in this country since Bush, and that she knows how to do it and has the courage to tackle it honestly.  Can't ask for much more than that in a politician, I don't think.

    Parent
    Two sons in the construction industry (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:43:59 PM EST
    and one not far from you, btw -- they're one of the many reasons we're voting for Clinton.

    They also did well from 1992 to 2001 with another Clinton, and the Clintons share an approach to economic change that gave them (and us) a good life before.  

    I'm curious -- do you think that a president's economic philosophy and how the economy does are coincidental?  

    Parent

    Up to a point (none / 0) (#99)
    by phillhrrll on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:54:57 PM EST
    The set the tone, and by leading and dealing like Reagan did, one man can be the impetus behind a chain of action (beyond my understanding), leading to extended prosperity.

    I think Clinton was in the right place at the right time, and more of steward (very successful imo) than the originator of good times.

    I started my business in late 91, and the slogan was "it's the economy, stupid" for the 92 election and I was already exceeding my 3 year goal in 6 months. Bush had the economy humming for Clinton, in my experience.

    Parent

    Faith off? It's a toss up. (none / 0) (#23)
    by blogtopus on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:32:50 PM EST
    Obama could win if we consider his faith in mass hysteria and Teh Math.

    Hillary would win if we consider her faith in humanity, logic and reason.

    I'm betting on Obama, tho.

    hmmm.... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Alec82 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:39:13 PM EST

    Clinton has told interviewers that she has felt the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions, and that she believes the resurrection of Christ is a historical fact; Obama regularly mentions his faith in his stump speech, and has made religion a major element of his appeal in many states.

     Is this true?  I may dimly recall something about the Holy Spirit, but I don't remember her commenting on the resurrection.  

    And who cares? I dont'. (none / 0) (#30)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:40:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Alec82 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:44:14 PM EST
    ...thos rural voters that Senator Obama supposedly hates probably do, right?  

    Parent
    Are you attacking Hillary for making the (none / 0) (#38)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:46:19 PM EST
    comment?!

    Parent
    Jesus... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Alec82 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:52:12 PM EST
    ...the topic is the CNN Faith Forum and you have criticized Senator Obama for his SF fundraising remarks.  Getting touchy over this is a little unreal.

    Parent
    I'm not touchy. I honestly have no (none / 0) (#55)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:54:18 PM EST
    idea what point you are trying to make.
    It's not important, anyway.

    Parent
    Faith is a very personal, private issue. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:44:34 PM EST
    And I like it best when it is kept that way.

    Parent
    I think a lot of us... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Alec82 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:48:51 PM EST
    ...would prefer it that way, but this being America post-Bush, I wouldn't count on an Eisenhower moment anytime soon.

     

    Parent

    Amen (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:50:36 PM EST


    Parent
    This is how he does (none / 0) (#32)
    by TalkRight on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:41:52 PM EST
    subtle deception

    Obama's new Robo Call

    Unlike his opponents, who have been part of the Washington establishment that are out of touch with us, Barack Obama will change Washington.  It is policies that hurt us. He will take on the special interests and fight for us.

    Interesting twist..There's no mention of clinging to religion or guns; and if he's able to define the controversy this way, he's on more solid political ground... but again that would be deception at its best.

    They are trying to re-frame the debate. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ajain on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:50:59 PM EST
    Because Hillary attacked him with the `bitter` comment. And that happens to be the most defensible part of his comment.

    Lets see what happens. Depends on what she says at tonight`s forum. She is going to come up first, she chose to do that. So, she is gonna try to frame the debate for him to answer.

    Parent

    That's a good robo call (none / 0) (#83)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:24:09 PM EST
    except I don't like it when he uses the term "my opponents."  Pick McCain, or pick Hillary.  Don't lump them together.  It isn't right.

    Parent
    Campbell Brown??? (none / 0) (#44)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:48:56 PM EST
    Why would CNN let her moderate anything? She has been an unmitigated disaster every time.

    I am curious as to what depth she has on Religion And Public Policy, or on anything?

    Fearless Prediction (none / 0) (#61)
    by daryl herbert on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:59:30 PM EST
    CNN will ask Sen. Obama the first question, and it will be about his comments in SF, and the question will be worded like an Obama press release.  It will not include the full text of the offensive remarks, even though they're only a single sentence.

    My understanding is (none / 0) (#64)
    by stillife on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:02:36 PM EST
    it's not a debate.  Each candidate will talk for 20 minutes.  

    Parent
    Guns, God and Gays (none / 0) (#63)
    by phat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:01:52 PM EST
    He pretty much stepped in that before the Republicans even had a chance to get their mailers to the printers.

    Geez...

    shame on you (none / 0) (#69)
    by TalkRight on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:06:01 PM EST
    Clinton.. that's what Campbell tells Hillary [suggested by Obama]

    Oh oh, bloggers are fact checking that story.... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:12:46 PM EST
    ...as we speak.

    Parent
    I am sure Senator Obama is taking notes of (none / 0) (#72)
    by TalkRight on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:10:08 PM EST
    what Senator Clinton is answering so that he could answer the same.. with just a little twist!

    well what... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Alec82 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:16:30 PM EST
    ...differences do you think there would be? They're both religious, they're both liberals and on the "values" issues they have the same policies.  If they didn't I would be concerned.

    Parent
    I can say that for Clinton (none / 0) (#82)
    by TalkRight on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:24:00 PM EST
    because I know her for a long long time.. but for Obama.. I just can't say or for that matter trust what he says.. because I really don't know much about him.. so if he says 'X" not sure if that has been his view all along or just evolved or still evolving on that.. [as his campaign so fondly tells us]

    Parent
    My words are clumsy (none / 0) (#91)
    by TalkRight on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:54:30 PM EST
    good way to defend!!

    Would work only for Obama.. never for Clinton.

    Ahhhhh, weren't they just (none / 0) (#103)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:58:34 PM EST
    lecturing us not so long ago about how much words matter?

    Parent
    Life begins (none / 0) (#93)
    by stillife on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:01:17 PM EST
    when you accept Obama as your personal savior.

    CNN Faith Forum With Dem CandidatesTonight | 109 comments (109 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment