home

Tuesday Open Thread

I'm working today and will return for the results from West Virginia's primary.

Some things to read today:

  • The Washington Post's continuing series, Careless Detention by Dana Priest and Amy Goldstein on the merciless and inadequate health care provided to immigrant detainees. Today's segment is on errors in psychiatric diagnoses and the drugs administered, and how gaps in the system resulted in suicides.
  • Baze v. Rees, Fearing Too Much Justice, by Elisabeth Semel, director of the Death Penalty Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Lis and I co-chaired the NACDL Legislative Committee together for years in the '90's and she is one of the smartest and most committed people I know.

More...

  • Pajamas Media has a thread with continually updated MSM articles on todays West Virginia primary. And, if you are an Instapundit reader as I am, update your bookmarks. His blog has now moved to PJM.

All topics welcome and please be civil.

< Hillary's Memo on Why West Virginia Matters | On The Malign Acceptance of Sexism >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Do We All Still Love Hillary? Yes We Do!! (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:44:45 PM EST
    Go Hillary.....beat obama by 50 points in WVA please

    Hecka YES. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:45:51 PM EST
    Don't you get it? (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:46:32 PM EST
    It won't make news unless she beats him by 150 points..... ;)

    Parent
    and wins 80% of the vote! LOL (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:53:56 PM EST
    Well played.

    Parent
    Money and the DNC (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:45:22 PM EST
    They are so overwhelmed by the potential Obama demographic, all that money coming into their coffers.  The DNC is now on a march towards greed.  It stands for no core values, but it wants the money of that "creative class" with money.  They think they have an inevitable win, cause the country is so dissatisfied with Bush.  

    I have received numerous bundler letters with special packages on behalf on Nancy Pelosi.  100,000 buys me a real first class seat at the convention.  Of course this always happens, but at this point, they have thrown overboard all the core values and issues of the party for the money.  

    It is so blatant.  

    I really, really hope that Bill and Hillary start a new populist party.  I don't want a Green third party, I don't want a libertarian, I want a populist third party.  

    This Says It All...."The Love Of Money Is The (none / 0) (#7)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:54:49 PM EST
    root of all evil."  It is very sad what has become of our party.  There are so many disillusioned democrats this campaign; mostly because we have found out we aren't considered necessary to the democratic process.  

    Many on this site have said they have registered as independents.  I am considering it, but what would be the benefit?

    Parent

    that is the question... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    I was thinking that "women voters" vote, volunteer and give small donations.  They do not have to pander to them, they want the guys with the big money, the plutocrats, that is the only word I can use to describe them.  Hate to disagree with Donna, but the baby got thrown out with the water.  

    Parent
    Women are 49% of Clinton's donors (none / 0) (#29)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:20:35 PM EST
    per a story I saw on the changing landscape of women as political donors (thank you, EMILY's List, for working for that).  And women are 42% of Obama's donors.  

    And a lot of them are big donors now.

    So the Dem party leaders are doing themselves in badly -- and deservedly -- by dissing women as potential donors, too, based on outdated data.

    Parent

    It sends a message (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by samanthasmom on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:04:22 PM EST
    to the DNC. It lets them know that we aren't "happy" with them. You're still free to vote for Democratic candidates.  In my state I can vote in either primary as an independent so it makes little difference to me personally, but cutting up my card and mailing it back to them was pure visceral pleasure. You can also ignore the rants about "if you're really a Democrat. . ." because you no longer are. It makes the ranter have to adjust the rant to solicit your "independent vote".  Just a few reasons. I'm sure other people have their own.

    Parent
    Thanks Samsmom....Certainly Something To (none / 0) (#27)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:16:52 PM EST
    think about.  I will have to check out the rules for NV...don't know the rules and regulations here.  

    Parent
    Why can't (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:35:01 PM EST
    Obama win in places like PA or OH if money means everything.

    Money isn't going to help much with Nov. Obama can outspend McCain 2 to 1 but he'll still lose. One effective ad from a GOP 527 is all it'll take for him to lose.

    Democratic party=a party perpetually stuck on stupid.

    Parent

    Dem Party site (none / 0) (#48)
    by Josey on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:19:17 PM EST
    See the bright pic of Obama supporters and the dull pic of Hillary supporters. And very few non-whites in either pic!
    See - the new Obamacrat Party really does include Whites.

    http://tinyurl.com/4w7dwg


    Parent

    No more combines then? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:49:02 PM EST
    That's a big death in the art world.

    Yes. Huge. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oldpro on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:58:04 PM EST
    Tears.  Saying goodbye to Bob.  Didn't realize his passing would hit this hard.

    Time to call a painter pal who knew Bob better than I did...so many years ago...and commisserate.  And remember.

    Parent

    Very interesting obituary and life. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:59:29 PM EST
    I was unaware he designed sets and costumes for modern dance.  Credit the GI bill for giving this artist such opportunity.

    Parent
    I once say Merce Cunningham (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:09:40 PM EST
    with sets by Rauschenberg and music by John Cage.
    it was memorable.

    Parent
    I need to do some research, as I go to (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:13:35 PM EST
    lots of modern dance concerts.

    Parent
    long ago when I was young and thin (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:17:52 PM EST
    I thought I wanted to be a dancer.
    that was before I found out that even the successful ones dont make any money.
    always been a capitalist sellout.

    Parent
    Tell me about it (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:24:16 PM EST
    as one of my offspring works soooo hard for so little finanical reward.

    Wiki article on Rauschenberg has some interesting quotes, including:

    "You have to have the time to feel sorry for yourself in order to be a good abstract expressionist."


    Parent
    its really sad (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:53:57 PM EST
    they work harder than anyone.  seriously.
    you cant imagine how hard these people work.  and they dont do it for money.
    but I congratulate you.  dancers have been some of the most focused, determined, centered, self aware people I have every had the pleasure of knowing.
    quite the exact opposite of actors.
    no offense to any reading actors, its just my experience.

    Parent
    Thanks. I enjoy her work immensely. (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:02:18 PM EST
    Never envied any performance (none / 0) (#66)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:45:21 PM EST
    artist.

    Started with the vocal music major I met in college.  She had a cold, and was very concerned about it.  "A cold?  So what?".  It's everything if you can't sing.  Same thing with dancers.  An injury is an inconvenience to us, but it can end a career for a dancer.

    Although I don't share your opinion of actors.  I know stage actors and they work pretty hard.  A real actor is expected to be able to do their own hair, makeup, sing, dance and do stunts.  It's a lot more than learning lines and delivering them.

    Parent

    NYT Is A Better Obit (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:03:05 PM EST
    By a mile, even though I am not fond of Kimmelman his obit is in an entirely different league than the LA Times obit. Much more info and more depth.   My favorite bits:

    The process -- an improvisatory, counterintuitive way of doing things -- was always what mattered most to him. "Screwing things up is a virtue," he said when he was 74. "Being correct is never the point. I have an almost fanatically correct assistant, and by the time she re-spells my words and corrects my punctuation, I can't read what I wrote. Being right can stop all the momentum of a very interesting idea."

    [snip]

    ... the title "scatole contemplative," or thought boxes. They were shown in Florence, where an outraged critic suggested that Mr. Rauschenberg toss them in the river. The artist thought that sounded like a good idea. So, saving a few scatole for himself and friends, he found a secluded spot on the Arno. "`I took your advice,'' he wrote to the critic.

    NYT


    Parent

    4 minutes and 33 seconds (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:57:18 PM EST
    A suggested requiem for a truly great artist.

    Almost.... goes without saying.

    You are a class act Edgar08. (none / 0) (#18)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:07:53 PM EST
    Hillary Rosen - God Bless her! (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:57:52 PM EST
    She is saying SDs are taking pause with Clinton's momentum and because of the states she is winning.  She disappeared for a while, nice to see her back!

    She put out an excellent memo here. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:00:31 PM EST
    Outspent by Obama campaign, more staffers, more offices in state.  But, of course, he didn't "campaign" there.

    Parent
    The SD's Need To Stop Dead In Their Tracks (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:14:08 PM EST
    until after PR.  Those who insist on declaring right now may have to eat crow later.  If they are truly in the fight for what is best for America and their party, then they need to think long and hard before choosing.

    Parent
    Curious (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by phat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:02:14 PM EST
    What happens when the numbers in today's Nebraska primary today look a lot different than the numbers from our caucus?

    Voting does not matter... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:03:12 PM EST
    remember?

    Parent
    Please explain... (none / 0) (#53)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:55:08 PM EST
    ... there's a presidential preference on today's Nebraska primary? I thought it was just downticket races.

    Parent
    She answers the question (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by KevinMc on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:16:01 PM EST
    This is a good post I found on VOX.  It's short, simple, and to the point.  The author gives her personal answer to the question...

    Why would you want to vote for Clinton?

    My favorite line from the post:

    Hillary has strength of a man and compassion of a woman. Nothing beats such a combination.

    I would have to agree.

    Ahem. The strength of a woman (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:33:01 PM EST
    would impress me more than the stereotype stated in that post, no matter how well intentioned.

    Try childbirth!  Try childrearing, still the task mainly of women.  Try supporting a family, still the task of too many single moms, while making a lot less on average than men do.  Try standing up to gender discrimination in the workplace, as few men ever have to do.  Try standing up for daughters as well as sons, as too few men do.

    The strength of women is sufficient for me.

    Parent

    I apologize (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by KevinMc on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:01:12 PM EST
    I apologize if I offended you by posting that.  I didn't take it as being demeaning.  The strongest human being I have ever known happens to be my own mom.  

    Once again I apologize and

    I told myself (earlir this week) the next time I make a comment anywhere on the net and if it immediately gets taken out of context in the spirit it was made, I would be done.  So just like with the media boycott, I leave the world of blogs with this closing comment.

    I liked the post that I posted the link to. I thought the authors observations were kind, simple, and to the point.  A clear reasoning of why Hillary Clinton's life experience has better prepared her for the job of  POTUS.  That's all.  

    The line about "the strength of a man" I liked it because that is one of the reasons Hillary is right for the job.  She has proven through example that women are just as capable, if not more capable, of exhibiting and balancing fortitude, strength, compassion, and wisdom.  She is battling societies perception of what the role of women is and she is winning that battle.  Regardless of what happens in the primaries, Hillary Clinton is an agent of change that we all can look up to.  I admire her so very much.

    That being said.  I'm done with the blogs and comments.  Advocates for both Obama and Clinton seem to have lost all reason and look for things that are not there.  The spirit of netroots has been forever changed.

    I'm sorry that I offended you.    

    Parent

    Gosh (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:11:25 PM EST
    Been a while since I saw a GBCW comment.

    Parent
    You didn't write it, so you didn't offend me (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:19:14 PM EST
    -- nor did the link offend me; as I said, it was well-intentioned.

    At least, I wasn't offended until your implicit suggestion that we are not allowed to comment on your posts and links unless they are favorable; we are not allowed to question stereotypes, even in a thread about them, etc.  With that stance, yes, you probably would do better to leave blogs.  

    Parent

    May 31 meeting is pre-determined (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Kensdad on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:48:06 PM EST
    the rules and bylaws committee will not decide FL and MI in any way that gives hillary an advantage.  i heard this from a good friend who spoke with a committee insider (an undecided SD, not Donna B.)  basically, the committee and uncommitted SD's are afraid to upset the common wisdom or jilt obama's chances regardless of whether they believe him to be the most electable or not...  this is sad, but true.  they are all looking to get out of this mess by quietly endorsing the "presumptive nominee" in order to avoid the spotlight.

    of course, these are the same cowards (in large part) who were elected in the '06 mid-terms to end the war in iraq (and didn't because they were afraid, and because they wanted to preserve their electability in 2008), so it should come as no surprise that they are cowards.

    MI/FL: presumptive nominee (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Davidson on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:06:51 PM EST
    Because the Democratic party decided to play kingmaker, with regards to MI/Fl, is the reason why Obama is considered the "presumptive nominee."  So basically he/she is saying, "We're sticking with the disaster we intentionally created."

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:02:40 PM EST
    then we deserve to lose in Nov. Do you think they'll finally learn?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#68)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:57:04 PM EST
    Obama and Lieberman (4.75 / 4) (#17)
    by jerry on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:04:53 PM EST
    I posted this in last nights open thread, but apparently some of you slackers didn't get that far down, didn't search explicitly for my posts, or perhaps just didn't realize how game changing this is....

    So with apologies to all, I'm going to repost it and give you folks a second chance.

    ---

    Yesterday on CNN and then later on MSNBC I heard a claim that Joe
    Lieberman would speak at the Republican Convention if he were invited.
    And yet, I am surprised that no one in the blogosphere() seems to be
    talking about that.

    I had heard that Obama considered Lieberman a DNC mentor or something
    like that.  And the first google hit for Lieberman Obama is Obama
    Endorses Lieberman for Senate a TalkLeft post....  (My poor googling
    seems to suggest that Clinton didn't endorse either Lieberman or
    Lamont, but I don't know for sure what she eventually did.)

    I have been told that we can never forgive Clinton for her vote on
    Iraq.  Well, imagine what the Senate would have been like the past two
    years if we had had Lamont in there!

    I think it should be more than just embarrassing for Obama if he wins
    the nomination and he has to face Lieberman endorsing McCain and
    stumping for McCain.  I think it's a mark of his
    "nonpartisan/bipartisan" approach.  And an omen of what's to come.

    () it's been very odd how my blogosphere used to consist of dozens of blogs, but now it's shrunk down to three and FARK.

    This Is An Interesting Point. I Saw Something (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:11:57 PM EST
    about this a bit ago, but didn't see any follow-up...just another example of a free pass for obama.  No accountability for anything is obama's mantra...think lieberman, rezko, wright, ayers, aichi, and the list goes on.

    Parent
    "Change You Deserve" (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:08:00 PM EST
    BushCo policies got you down? Well now there is relief: more BushCO policies with McSame. It is no coincidence that their new slogan is the registered advertising slogan of Effexor. Vote GOP and you get a years free samples.
    Effexor, also known as Venlafaxine, is approved for the treatment "of depression, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder in adults." Its common side effects are very much in keeping with the world the House Republicans have striven to build: nausea, apathy, constipation, fatigue, vertigo, sexual dysfunction, sweating, memory loss, and - and I swear I am not making this up - "electric shock-like sensations also called 'brain zaps.'"

    HuffPo via War & Piece

    McCain has been taking too much! (none / 0) (#22)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:10:29 PM EST
    "electric shock-like sensations also called 'brain zaps.'"

    That explains his difficulty with concepts like "Al Qaeda is Sunni, not Shi'a."

    Parent

    wow (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:08:17 PM EST
    Rauschenberg.  another great one bites the dust.

    John McSame (none / 0) (#31)
    by flashman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:32:12 PM EST
    I didn't get a chance to finish this discussion earlier.  For those who don't see any reason to vote Democratic, consider McCain's policy; two points:  He wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, and he wants to make Bush's tax cuts premanent.  The rest of his agenda can be extrapolated from those positions.

    The 100 years (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:42:00 PM EST
    thing isn't really going to work. He said it's like staying in Korea or Germany etc. The only one who could really eviscerate McCain on this kind of statement is someone like Ron Paul who is taking an anti imperialism tack. That's an effective counter to the stay in Iraq not the "we're going leave tens of thousands of troops there" like Hillary and Obama.

    Bush tax cuts expire. And expire is exactly what will happen to them.

    Really if this is the tack that we're going to follow in Nov. then we are going to lose.

    Parent

    Well, It Works For Me (none / 0) (#38)
    by flashman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:50:16 PM EST
    but of course, I was able to determine that the Iraq invasion/occupation was the worst foreign policy disaster in our history, imposed on the American people through lies and manipulation, draining the country of our resources and energy, diverting us from exploring new sources of energy, destabilizing the region, causing unnessary suffering...well I can go on and on.  Maybe Iraq isn't in the news so much these days, but it is no less important.  The tax cuts won't expire if they are made permanent.  McCain wants to continue both failed policies.  We cannot afford to stay on the wrong path.  Either Democrat is light years better than he.

    Parent
    They (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:59:27 PM EST
    are set to expire. With a dem congress and senate they go nowhere. End of story on that one.

    Sorry but I see both Obama and McCain driving the country into a ditch. It only matters do you want to take A1A or Route 66?

    Parent

    They don't expire (none / 0) (#47)
    by flashman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:15:31 PM EST
    till 2011, and they don't have to be made permanent wholesale.  The right will pressure congress to make any part permanent, and will sale the lie that not doing that is "raising" taxes.  McCain will have the bully pulpit to get that message out.  He will veto any proposals to restore sanity to the tax system, any attempt to fund alternative energy policy.  He wants to leave it up to the market to reduce carbon emissions.  I'd rather have good policy and a president who can work with congress for essential progress the country needs.

    Parent
    The right (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:22:04 PM EST
    will sell the lie that it's raising taxes no matter who is President.

    Let me be honest: I have no faith in Obama's ability. He has shown no leadership in congress nor in his 28 months in the IL legislature. He caved into the pressure to vote for cheeney's energy bill and that says more to me than anything he says in his plans. He's the handmaiden for coal and energy. He won't do anything for the environment any more than McCain will.

    Parent

    Taking away McCain (none / 0) (#51)
    by flashman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:33:43 PM EST
    takes away their mouthpiece.  That makes the sale more difficult.  We need better policy than the Republicans offer, and McCain is no longer the maveric he once was.  I used to like him as a Senator, and I still like him personally.  But he offers nothing more than Bush III.  At least with Democrats, there is more incentive to do something about the economy, deficits, energy and Iraq.  Those are the important issues for me.  I don't see McCain offering me anything to hang my hat on.

    Parent
    I'm not (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:56:06 PM EST
    advocating for McCain, I'm just saying that I don't see Obama as a good president. Obama's the worst candidate we've put up in 20 years.

    I think it's all pretty much a moot point at this juncture. Obama is not likely to win the general election vs. McCain.

    Parent

    Never Said You Were (none / 0) (#57)
    by flashman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:05:56 PM EST
    advocating.  My first and only purpose is to answer all the questions posed here about "why vote for the eventual democrat."  I see differences between McCain and either of the Dem candidates.  Hillary Clinton siad that the difference between McCain and either of the dems is far greater then the difference between her and Obama.  

    I'm a Democrat,and for good reason.  Bush I and II have been a disaster, and bush III will be no better.  I still think there is a chance whichever democrat will win.  Bush's rating is at the freezing point, and that usually bodes poorly for the party.  We may not put up our strongest candiate, but the opposition ( from my point of view ) is weaker.

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:10:00 PM EST
    see I don't agree. I think that we will blow a historic opportunity with an Obama nomination. With all the bad news for the GOP, McCain is still beating Obama in the EC.

    You have to remember that we have a war going on. People are more reluctant to change during that time. Also people don't trust Obama to lead the military.

    Parent

    People want the war to end. (none / 0) (#61)
    by flashman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:14:00 PM EST
    That's the whole point.  McCain is out of touch with sentiment IRW the war.  This is a "change" election.  Either Dem will have a good chance of winning, if we can hold the party together.

    Parent
    You are (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:35:02 PM EST
    assuming that there are a ton of single issue anti war voters out there. Do you know that in 1972 only 80% of voters approved of the War in Vietnam? And yet Nixon won in a landslide? Do you want to know why? Because McGovern only had upper income whites and blacks voting for him just like Obama. The white working class voters abandoned him by the droves. McGovern got 38% of the vote against a president as hated as Nixon.

    Parent
    Who's Making That Assumption? (none / 0) (#65)
    by flashman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:44:50 PM EST
    Who wrote this?

    You have to remember that we have a war going on. People are more reluctant to change during that time. Also people don't trust Obama to lead the military

    Seems you were the first to suggest the election hinges on the single issue of war.  I've written in the thread about war, economy, taxes, energy, etc.  These are all important issues, and the current administration is losing support on all of them.

    Do you know that in 1972 only 80% of voters approved of the War in Vietnam?

    And I think 80% support for the war in 1972 is about 50% more than the support for war in 2008.

    Parent

    Some of us don't (none / 0) (#71)
    by samanthasmom on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:29:13 PM EST
    trust Obama with anything on your list. He wants to raise the capital gains tax and the payroll tax. He has shown he can be swayed by the nuclear power companies, and we have no idea how he intends to deal with a recession.  He has no credibility on women's issues and given the sexism in his campaign, we don't expect much. Whether we're for the war or against, many of us still don't see Obama as CIC.

    Parent
    To That, I Can Only Quote (none / 0) (#72)
    by flashman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:39:48 PM EST
    HRC when she said that the differences between McCain and either of the Dems is far greater than the difference between the two dems.  BTW, I supported her policy on each and every of these issues, and I would vote for her, no question about it.  But I will do whatever it takes to not let another warmongering, bush-like mini-me into the Whitehouse.

    Parent
    It's silly (none / 0) (#45)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:06:59 PM EST
    saying that we'll stay for 100 years once a state of peaceful stability is achieved is a clever way of changing the subject from the fact that there is no apparent pathway to peaceful stability in Iraq.

    People are not curious in the least how long we will stay in Iraq once the mythical state of peaceful stability is achieved.  You can bet that the guy who confronted McCain at that town hall was not looking for that particular dodge.  I do not see how McCain is offering anything different from "stay the course."

    Parent

    Thanks, (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:25:27 PM EST
    at least you are giving a coherent counter. The screeching from Obama supporters about "100 years in Iraq" just sounds like anti war hysteria.

    One thing people forget is Afghanistan. There's still some military operations going on there. I think this creates a huge problem for Obama because he couldn't even be bothered to hold a meeting.

    Parent

    Anti-War Hysteria? (none / 0) (#52)
    by flashman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:54:12 PM EST
    Ok, let's piss away another 3 trillion dollars in a war we can't win.  Let's kill another 4,000+ Americans, and 100K or so Iraqis.  Let's create another few hundres thousand terrists.  Let's displace another few million people.

    Then tell me about hysteria.

    BTW, you make a very bad assumption about who's supporters are 'screeching'

    Parent

    I'm (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:01:20 PM EST
    sorry but Obama's supporters with their self righteous preening aren't doing him any good.

    The reason that terrorists are there is because of our presence. Obama plans to leave hundreds of thousands of troops there according to his advisors. He plans to continue to use soldiers for hire. He plans to dump plenty of money in Iraq. He apparently lied when he said he would leave. His advisors are saying that we're going to stay. I don't really think that Obama makes much of a coherent argument w/r/t Iraq.

    If the war was such a concern to him why couldn't he even convene a meeting on Afghaminstan? I think that he really doesn't care much about this issue. He gave a speech? So what? He's done nothing since being in the senate. He'll do whatever he's paid to do by his money men.

    Parent

    I Haven't Made Any Arguments For Obama's Supporter (none / 0) (#60)
    by flashman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:11:42 PM EST
    I'm talking about war and the economy.  I said you're making a bad assumption about who is "screeching" about 100 years in Iraq.  ( you're words, not mine )  None of Obama's people said he'll leave "hundreds of thousands" of troops in Iraq.  There will be a drawdown, and eventually, we'll be out, with any luck.  The difference is McCain wants to stay in Iraq, and appears to be spoiling for a fight with Iran.  He can't keep his enimy's straight, constantly refering to Shia militants as "Al Quaeda."  He wants to scare up support for expanding the war into the greater region.  We can't go down that path.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:39:37 PM EST
    they have. Samantha Powers told the BBC that he would leave about 100,000 soldiers in Iraq did she not?

    As far as the Shia and the Sunni, it's a mistake to use that. It makes Obama sound elitist. Lots of people get them confused because the names are so close.

    Iran? Heck, that might even start before the election. Have you thought about that?

    Maybe Obama could beat McCain in the war area if he would make a coherent foreign policy argument. He isn't and any time the fact that we live in a dangerous world is brought up he starts yelling "fearmongering." That seems out of touch. We do live in a dangerous world and the fact that he isn't offering any solutions doesn't help him make his case.

    Parent

    That's Just Wrong. (none / 0) (#67)
    by flashman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:55:13 PM EST
    Power didn't say that.  McCain's failure to keep Al Quaeda and Shia straight is a serious problem.  It's not eletist to want to be accurate about who our enemys are.  Americans are much smarter than you give them credit for.

    The idea here is to avoid expanding war.  To say it's OK to support a warmonger because there is a chance that his mentor will start the war first is not a very moving argument.  Thee risks are tremendous, and even if Bush did attack Iraq, that would not move me to vote for McCain.  Using incompetance to gain support for incompentance isn't much of a plan.

    Yes, we live in a dangerous world, but war isn't the answer.  It is fearmongering to constantly bring up terror as a wedge issue.  We need a better policy, not more of the same.

    Parent

    Ps Attack Iraq (none / 0) (#70)
    by flashman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:18:58 PM EST
    should be "Attack Iran."  Too late in the day; too many typos.  Signing off for the day.

    Good think I'm not running for pres.

    Parent

    You are (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:22:40 PM EST
    showing why we constantly lose elections. Strong and wrong always beats weak and right. If talking about the dangers out there is fearmongering then the electorate will never trust us because we are acknowleding that we don't think that there ARE dangers out there. Obama is running the classic losing Democratic campaign. Ignore national security, focus on the economy and hope it pulls in enough voters.

    Parent
    There Is A Huge Gulf (none / 0) (#75)
    by flashman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:18:41 AM EST
    between ignoring National Security and warmongering.  How do you like the Republican was machine so far?  Do you like spending billions to kill people while need go unfunded at home?  Do you enjoy sending our young people to die in foreign lands?  What about those WMD?  Where are they?  Don't you think it's immoral to attack a nation who did not and could not threaten us?  I'm not buying it.  Strong and wrong is wrong for America.  We need to be the messagners, not follow along like a herd of sheep to the slaughter.

    Parent
    Childers (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:42:59 PM EST
    threw Obama under the bus so I don't know how much we're gonna be able to tell.

    A funny for mid-day (none / 0) (#43)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:02:55 PM EST
    NACDL (none / 0) (#46)
    by Saul on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:09:25 PM EST
    Jeralyn, my sister sits  on the board of directors for the NACDL