home

Overnight Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:30:33 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm watching the repeat of Recount. TalkLeft was just a website and not a blog in 2000, but I tracked the events daily and when it was over, made a compendium page. It's accessible here and if you're fuzzy on the chronology of events, it may provide some information. The links to the AP articles are no longer valid, but most of those to other news sources still work.

As for Indiana Jones, don't ask. Aside from the fire alarms going off in the 15 theater movie plex, requiring evacuation of all of them about 20 minutes after the movie started, and then having to watch all the previews and first 20 minutes again, it just wasn't very good or memorable. I did enjoy Karen Allen, but the plot strained credulity and there was too much of the 1950's in it for my taste.

If anyone's still up and online and has something to say, here's the spot.

Comments now closed

< Recount Open Thread | Krugman On Unity >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Overnight Open Thread | 218 comments (218 topical)
    Spouse saw Indy Jones yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:42:03 AM EST
    and said almost exactly the same thing, Jeralyn.  But c'mon, isn't it still worth it, looking at Harrison Ford for hours? :-)

    Reaction to the movie might be generational.  Son and friends in their late 20s liked it fine.  Then again, maybe they still think fire alarms are fun, too.

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Steve M on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:51:16 AM EST
    I saw Harrison Ford being interviewed on one of those movie review shows the other night.  He looked like a very, very old man.  About the only person who could be cast as his father at this point would be John McCain.

    Parent
    Sean Connery still gets away with it. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:52:37 AM EST


    Parent
    I resent this (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by nellre on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:21:52 AM EST
    Mr. Ford is only a couple of years older than I am. I don't even qualify for senior discounts most places! :-)

    Parent
    Yes, but that one would have to be called. . , (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:23:43 AM EST
    the only person who could be cast as his father at this point would be John McCain

    Indiana Jones and the Campaign of Doom.

    Parent

    I never Liked Harrison Ford (none / 0) (#184)
    by Mrwirez on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:24:43 AM EST
    I always thought he over-acted. I was 12 when the first Star Wars came out, and loved it, but not for Harrison Ford. I never really liked the Indiana Jones movies either, I much preferred the Bruce Willis, Die Hard flicks. You give me a good cop and bad guy movie and I am hooked. Btw, isn't he a tad too old to be saving people with a whip, its like McCain running for president.....

    Parent
    what do you think of Obama's address (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by wrkn129 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:08:51 AM EST
    to the graduating class of Wesleyan University?

    To me, it sounded like he made it about him instead of about them. And he campaigned...saying what he would do as president on a few issues. As far as I am concerned, a commencement should be about the graduates, not about the speaker.

    sermon (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by nellre on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:08:33 AM EST
    Preachy


    Parent
    fwiw (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Turkana on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:09:48 AM EST
    i had the same reaction to the first indy, but i was being too much of a literalist. it was later pointed out to me that the movie was designed around '50s serials, and you could even break it down into 15 or 20 minute segments (i forget which), as if it had been shot to be a serial series. credulity was never intended. it was just comic book fun. i hope to take that attitude into this one, although i'm feeling ornery, of late...

    The "Millennials" Are Coming (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by nycstray on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:12:28 AM EST
    anybody catch this on 60 Minutes?

    Millenials (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by formerhoosier on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:21:04 AM EST
    Brief synopsis?  Do not do network sites, too many images and flash that take forever to load.  Understand if not easily summarized.

    Parent
    OOPS, I messed up. The reply is below and (none / 0) (#49)
    by nycstray on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:29:54 AM EST
    called here's the intro :)

    Parent
    nycstray- I saw that report and thought (none / 0) (#168)
    by kenosharick on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:07:01 AM EST
    that it was over the top and a bit hysterical. I think they found a few examples of Ivy-league educated rich kids and extrapolated that in a bizarre manner.

    Parent
    They'll make up anything (none / 0) (#192)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:38:48 AM EST
    to give consultants a new mission to use for flooding the market.

    Same topic was on Dateline. They showed the surge of management training being done for how the baby boomers need to change their expectations, AND manners classes for the Millen... kids (i.e., how to eat with the proper utensils taught by a former WH chef).

    I have one of those kids. He's had a job since he was 15, he's now 26. He never missed a day of school (including his college courses), and he's never missed a day of work. When he should have, and I said so, he explained that if he didn't show up someone else would have to do his work. He isn't much different than all his friends. I suppose the working class kids don't fall too far from the tree.

    It seemed like a problem the upper middle class created. I sure remember the endless flow of trophies for nothing, but workplace rewards and incentives have been around for a couple decades now, too, and I sure don't understand those, either. I want my thanks in the paycheck.


    Parent

    Here's the intro to it (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by nycstray on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:28:03 AM EST
    It's about the latest generation entering college and the workforce:

    It's graduation time and once again we say "Stand back all bosses!" A new breed of American worker is about to attack everything you hold sacred: from giving orders, to your starched white shirt and tie. They are called, among other things, "millennials." There are about 80 million of them, born between 1980 and 1995, and they're rapidly taking over from the baby boomers who are now pushing 60.

    They were raised by doting parents who told them they are special, played in little leagues with no winners or losers, or all winners. They are laden with trophies just for participating and they think your business-as-usual ethic is for the birds. And if you persist in the belief you can, take your job and shove it.

    As correspondent Morley Safer first reported last November, corporate America is so unnerved by all this that companies like Merrill Lynch, Ernst & Young, and scores of others are hiring consultants to teach them how to deal with this generation that only takes "yes" for an answer.

    the site isn't too bad as far as network sites go and you can watch the video of the segment. I tend to stay away from the overdone network sites also  :)

    Hehe! (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:31:53 AM EST
    I had to raise my kids with these parents and I used to go nuts.  I call the parents the "meritocrats" they have done everything to keep their gains through merits for their children.  So, they rigged the system.  Because I did not push and shove teachers and coaches I used to feel like I was failing my children.  

    By the way, and if the child was not a high achiever, they pushed to have the child diagnosed with something.  

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Steve M on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:38:12 AM EST
    Are these the parents who sued the school because their kid got a B in math?

    Parent
    I saw a lot of that (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by stillife on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:46:41 AM EST
    when my kids were in school, at public school gifted programs and later private school (so you know those parents were the worst of the worst).  Seems to me that learning disabilities are vastly overdiagnosed.  One of my friends, a teacher (she knew how to work the system) got her son diagnosed with a learning disability so that he got unlimited time to take tests.  

    When my daughter was in junior high (at a private school) a fair percentage of the boys were diagnosed with ADHD and prescribed Ritalin.  She told me they'd wait for the nurse to come around with their lunchtime dose, banging their spoons on the tables and yelling, "We want Ritalin!"  

    If I weren't a "bad mom", I probably could have gotten my son some kind of diagnosis when he was younger.  He was in the gifted program, but struggled with reading.  Somehow he survived and grew out of it.  He graduated college last year and is working as a financial analyst.  

    I think for boys in particular in the lower grades, school is not a good match.  Not to gender stereotype, but my son and his friends were like puppies.  Lots of excess energy and needing to run around and get their ya-yas out.  In the olden days, they called it "frogs and snails and puppy-dog tails."  Today, they call it ADHD.

    Parent

    I had a preview of this back (4.00 / 4) (#62)
    by nycstray on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:43:36 AM EST
    when I was teaching college in SF. A 'entitled' student who never showed up for my class, but needed it to graduate, had her daddy call my dept head. Heh, I made her earn it  ;) Apparently they just hand the cell phone to the teachers now. Oy.

    I'm thinking us 'older' workers are going to start looking a heck of a lot more appealing in some job markets. I generally worked with freelancers and then would pick the ones I wanted to bring on. Body language was generally a good indicator of their work ethic. That and how quickly they plugged themselves into all their gadgets and the internet (creative field). They usually didn't last long with me. I have no patience for BS attitudes and me, me, me. I also have deadlines!  ;)

    Parent

    My daughter who is of that generation (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:50:00 AM EST
    used to get so angry at Professors who let people say stuff that was not relevant to the subject.  She said it was because in younger grades, "participation" was a bid deal.   She thought the professors needed to nip it in the bud.  

    Parent
    participation is important (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by nycstray on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:01:18 AM EST
    and especially so for some that may hang back. But it needs to be relevant. I do think focus is lacking with the text/cell phone generation. And it obviously started before they were texting.

    Parent
    I was known throughout the district (none / 0) (#195)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:44:47 AM EST
    trying to get a high IQ, right brained, funny, physically big (ended up 6'6') boy through public school. What the public schools do to these kids is child abuse, IMHO.

    Parent
    Didn't see it (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:42:40 AM EST
    but I wish I had.  I'm reading The Dumbest Generation right now and it sounds like it sounds a lot of the same themes.  TDG isn't just about Millenials though, it's about most people under 30.

    Basically, it's entertainment all the time, raised to resent any sort of guidance from adults or attempts to get them to learn lit, history, etc because it stifles their 'inner creativity' and 'athenticity.'  Losing the ability to retain and analyze information because so much info is readily available on the web (basically, they're all cache, no hard drive), and all the social networking just reinforces the teen culture instead of making them part of both a 'horizontal' and 'vertical' culture with their parents and family.  Learning, facts, history -- all that stuff is a big drag.

    The author backs up his stuff with a lot of research, so it's not just one of those trend books about trends.

    Parent

    "all cache, no hard drive" (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by nycstray on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:51:17 AM EST
    thank god I didn't have anything in my mouth!!! WAY too funny! {says the person with 6 external and a massive internal ;) }

    Check the link in my original comment, you can read or watch the segment. They do touch on the age and mention that adulthood gets pushed back to the late 20's to 30. My niece is of this generation, but she's a hard luck kid. She's got work ethic beyond belief and if it takes three jobs to survive, she gets 3 jobs. She's going to try and go to college or a career school, as she would like to have "a path".

    I may check out that book. Afraid it might freak me out though . . .

    Parent

    Critical thinking (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by formerhoosier on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:54:24 AM EST
    Seems critical thinking has been replaced with rote memory.  So many have difficuly transitioning from high school to college because they never had to critique what they read.  It seems some colleges are also in this mind set, which is deplorable.  Plane Geometry might be good if you are focusing on applied mathematics but Euclidean Geometry is needed for theoretical math and logic.  Seems very few have an understanding of basic statistics.

    Parent
    I've been thinking of going back to college (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by nycstray on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:10:05 AM EST
    and am aware I haven't used my 'study' brain for awhile, so I'm a tad concerned. Research brain is there, but it's been quite some time since I did the school thing. It will be interesting to see the difference in the students and teaching since I studied and then taught.

    Parent
    I returned to college in my mid-40s. (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:29:26 AM EST
    I'm close to getting a Ph.D. now.  Younger people have quicker reaction time, but there are a lot of advantages to being an older student.  You have a lot more basic information stored away that you can connect with what you are learning in courses.  This is a big help in studying and doing well on tests.  

    I was also much more motivated when I went back to school than I was at 17-18 when I first went to college.  I was so thrilled to be learning again that loved every minute of it and was grateful to have a second chance.  You also have opportunities to be a kind of mentor for younger students.

    Parent

    Well you'll probably kick a$$ (none / 0) (#83)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:19:13 AM EST
    with just a bit of work, rusty study skills or no, if the research in TDG is valid.

    Parent
    Heh, I hope so! (none / 0) (#91)
    by nycstray on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:36:21 AM EST
    The research I do now is mostly for personal use and I adapt it into what I'm working on. It becomes part of what I do and I just keep evolving on. I need to move it back to classroom use, if that makes sense. For instance, I studied canine behavior quite a bit and did volunteer work in shelters/canine behavior depts for hands on. I can work with and train dogs with behavior problems, but to break it down on paper, pass a written exam, EEP! And I was a damn good test taker back in the day. I just need to readjust my brain, I think.

    I'll def pick up the book. It may come in handy for what I'm going back to school for. Education. Hope to work in Special Ed, but may start out in mainstream.

    Parent

    You will do well (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:29:13 AM EST
    I went back at 30, then life happened, and I didn't finish until I was 40.  Just keep in mind that you're going to be 40, anyway; that bit of advice I came across at the start kept me going.:-)

    It was weird in some classes, surrounded by those much younger than me without worries of raising kids and much else that happened to me -- deaths, divorce, natural disasters (seriously, a tornado that killed a neighbor and caused a lot of damage) as well as juggling several jobs, etc.  But I felt sorry for them, not having that purpose in life that I had, coming home to my kids.

    There are advantages and disadvantages, as the brain does work differently from the late 20s on.  Before that, it's better at rote memory work; after that, it's better at synthesis.  So I tended to not do as well on some forms of tests as the younger students -- I had been a good test-taker, too -- but I was way ahead in the work that is more crucial at upper levels and grad level.

    A tip: Among the most difficult adaptations for me, after a decade in the business world and in management, was relearning to raise my hand in class.  I went into it like brainstorming meetings, which was quite unsettling to my profs being treated by me as peers -- and many were younger than me.  So remember the power imbalance, remember to raise your hand -- and have fun.

    Parent

    Do go back (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by mikeyleigh on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:00:12 AM EST
    if you have the time, money, and desire.  My wife loves having older students in her medieval literature classes.  Not only are they better prepared, but they are, without exception, much more interested in learning.

    Parent
    Heh, way past 40 :) (none / 0) (#103)
    by nycstray on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:21:29 AM EST
    but I have taken a few courses and continuing Ed over the years. But because of what I do, most are more interactive than study based (Commercial and Fine Arts). I'm actually going back to what I originally started out to do. Special Ed/ECE.

    I figure I'll take just one class first to adjust my brain and start morphing my work with transitioning to having student time. Thanks for the raising the hand tip! lol!~ I used to be afraid to raise my hand, but in business, speaking up doesn't seem to be a problem. Brainstorm girl here! I think it will help that I'll be going back to something that I know a bit about, but have a big learning curve now. If it was a program that had anything to do with what I've been doing for over 20yrs . . . raising my hand wouldn't be my first reaction :) I'm a pain in da butt :D

    Parent

    Where to sit? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:49:58 AM EST
    The young folks pay big bucks for front row concert tickets, but the back rows fill up first in the classroom.  Freak them out and take the front and center seat.  A good prof will smile to see you there, pay attention to your body language, and probably anticipate that you have something to say before you even get a chance to raise that hand.  Expect to be resented a little by the little kids in the class because you'll be raising the expectation bar. Many education classes are being offered online these days. The idea is not only for you to be able to fit a class into your busy schedule but also for you to become familiar enough with online teaching and learning methods to consider teaching that way yourself.  Many special ed students do very well in an online learning environment although few are encouraged to try it. I hope you have a great time!

    Parent
    So true! There is a direct correlation (none / 0) (#222)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:53:13 AM EST
    from front-row seating, often filled with my "gray haired women like me," and final grades of A.  And yes, many courses even at "traditional" campuses are online these days or hybrids, half online and half "f2f."  And many, many more courses use online tools these days that are great for the youngsters so familiar with computers but can be problematic for some oldsters -- so those who can combine computer familiarity with better brain power and ye olde experience do fantastically well.  Plus, they don't spend class time and beyond worrying about whether they'll get a date on Friday night. :-)

    Parent
    nycstray- I went back to get my BA at 43 (none / 0) (#177)
    by kenosharick on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:13:25 AM EST
    and am half way though my MA at 45. There are quite a few "non-traditonal" students in school these days. My hardest part was the technology- There were NO pcs when I started school and I have to learn the technology that everyone else already knows.

    Parent
    FYI (none / 0) (#115)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:49:58 AM EST
    Special Ed is glutted I think.  Do some research before you go that direction unless it is a real passion in which case follow your passion.I am sure you will find that college is much easier this time around and with a bit of effort you will get straight A's.  It is what all of us who went back experienced.
    Have fun, you are going to be a prize student and will find it so much easier and more fun this time.

    Parent
    I am back in school (none / 0) (#237)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:15:26 PM EST
    After 20+ years as a lawyer, I have returned to graduate school to study psychology.  The work has been challenging, but enormously interesting, and I have done exceedingly well.  I think there are several reasons for this -- motivation; study skills picked up in law school (I outline all of my psych subjects to extent I can each week); mental discipline -- part based on law study & practice and part based on willingness to work hard.  

    There's a most interesting article on point in today's NY Times; I do not have linke, but article is called "Older Brain May Really be a Wiser Brain" by Sara Reistad-Long.  

    Parent

    The book talks about this (4.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:08:42 AM EST
    only it points to a problem with eliminating most rote memory exercises and going straight to developing kids analytical skills.  The problem, though, is that without a basic grasp of the facts in the first place, personal opinion replaces analysis yet is still validated as if it were real analysis.

    Not that I'm defending rote memorization in situtations where facts and information could be (truly) acquired some other, more interesting way.  But one of the things I keep observing about some of the younger folks I work with is that "they think their opinion is important just because they have it."  It drives me a bit crazy.

    Parent

    nothing wrong with rote memorization (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:44:18 AM EST
    it is a boomer failing that we decided memorization was a bad thing.  Most kids would be better off if they learned to memorize stuff they could bring to the surface to give them a fact base.... like the multiplication tables for instance and a basic idea of history and when things happened.  And it is good brain exercise, kind of like lifting weights for the brain.
    I think we have become way to obsessed with "critical thinking" as if it was a skill that could be taught separate from being a person who knows something.

    Parent
    Exactly. There is need for a framework (none / 0) (#224)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:01:19 PM EST
    of dates, events, etc., in history, for example, before analysis is possible.  Causation is a crucial concept, and if students don't know that the Civil War was in the 1860s (some don't, they really don't), they fail entirely at grasping the era of Reconstruction, the spread of the Industrial Revolution beyond the East, etc.

    Even numbering the wars in the last century, i.e., WWI and WWII, doesn't seem to help some. :-)  It's so sad when they get to college and still lack what they ought to have learned in elementary school.  But from what I saw of it with my own progeny, their teachers spent too much time getting students in touch with their feelings and not hurting those feelings by actually grading down, oh, bad spelling and grammar.  

    I had many teachers tell me not to correct my little darlings when they spoke and wrote poorly.  Both of their parents are writers, so we ignored that bad advice.  (It often came from teachers who, for example, spelled "alot" as one word.)

    Parent

    Memorization Skills (none / 0) (#82)
    by formerhoosier on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:18:56 AM EST
    NOt an educator and my limited exposure to ECE was many years ago, but my recollection is elementary school is where this should be emphasized since children do not have the capacity to think abstracts until late elementary or middle school.  If that is mistaken, am sure some educators/child psychologists could correct.  My objection is to the continuation into high school, the 'factual' basis for introductory subjects should already be known.  Not really getting into the sciences and advanced mathematics since there are still some basics to be applied.  That is more a factor of knowing which theorem or principle to apply rather than memorizing the specific formulas.

    Parent
    I had the experience (none / 0) (#132)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:09:39 AM EST
    of grading essays for our state's competency test. At the middle school level the test is a persuasive essay.  The kids are given a writing prompt about a topic that they should have an opinion about. School uniforms, mandatory bicycle helmets, etc. Each essay gets two grades - one for style and the other for grammar, spelling, and punctuation. The kids are allowed to use a dictionary. You can tell that the kids are being prepped because the vast majority of the essays are five paragraphs long, and each paragraph has five sentences- a topic sentence, three sentences that support the topic, and a "clinching" sentence.  Each paragraph begins with a "connecting word or phrase" that bridges it to the preceding  paragraph like "however" or "next".  Many of the last paragraphs start with "In conclusion". We were not allowed to grade on content which is where some of these essays get really funny.  Having very little factual knowledge at their fingertips, the kids make up all kinds of statistics to support their position and write outrageous anecdotes about "things that really happened". As part of some research that I was doing, I took the writing competency test that the state makes new teachers take.  I used the same template for writing the essay that is being taught to the kids, (My facts, however, were true) and scored 99/100 on the test. I know some of you are teaching at the college level.  Have any of you noticed your students writing this way?

    Parent
    I have discovered... (none / 0) (#136)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:20:55 AM EST
    that we have tutors on campus who're encouraging students to write "In this essay, I will argue X." or something to that effect.

    I brought it up with one of the students who told me that's what the tutor is advising they do.

    ::sigh::

    But your example is the standard formatting for a 5 paragraph theme essay. Some of our faculty use the same sort of template for the developmental classes.

    Parent

    Memorization is important, not for the (none / 0) (#190)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:33:51 AM EST
    things that the kid memorizes, but for training the mind to retain and recall information. When I was a child memorizing poetry and nursery rhymes was a family activity. So was reciting them. I can still recite things I memorized as a child. And as a result of that training, I remember what I read, where I read it and what part of the book I read it in. When I go down my bookmarks on the browser, I can remember why I bookmarked it and what basic information is at that bookmark. I also think television is a great enabler of the scatter-brained mind. Television does not require extended attention spans. Everything is in 15 minute, or shorter, increments. The mind is not required to maintain attention for longer than that for a great deal of the child's formative years. It makes a difference, a huge difference.

    When I was growing up, we were mostly overseas, ergo no TV. When the kiddies started their "Mom, there's nothing to DO!!" whine, my parents standard answer was "Go read a book." Now they just plop the kid in front of a TV. Books are brain food, TV, for the most part, isn't. The reason that most kids today are scatterbrains is that their brains have never been trained to be anything else. And when the electricity goes off, the only people who will be able to remember enough to actually get anything done are the readers. Their minds will remember the information the computer generation kept on their hard drives. And they will be able to recall and implement it.

    If there are any of us left by then.

    Parent

    In my daughter's honors geometry class.. (none / 0) (#145)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:42:00 AM EST
    ...which was about 5 years ago, but I doubt much has changed....during parent-teacher night the teacher dropped the bomshell that students wouldn't be doing proofs. The curriculum had been changed so that the teacher would do the proofs and the students would "appreciate" them. Half of the parents in the room cracked up laughing...in disbelief. We thought it was a joke. And then since this was an honors class, they expect these kids to move on to calculus by the time they finish high school. Trust me, most of them did not "appreciate" pre-calculus very much, let alone move on to calculus. And then of course you get the inevitable hand wringing---why aren't more students taking higher math classes.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#178)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:13:39 AM EST
    Well, I don't think that's so common. I was in the stupid math class in 10th grade, and we did full proofs in geometry.

    OTOH, I went to a very good high school that frankly made college seem easy.

    Parent

    ...This was a very good high school... (none / 0) (#212)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:31:16 AM EST
    ...in prosperous Montgomery County, Maryland. Possibly they have put proofs back into the curriculum by now, I don't know. All I know is that my daughter never really learned geometry, although she passed it with an A and got a "mastery" score in the MD state geometry assessment. The proof was in her SAT scores. We paid to get her score analysis after she took the SATS the first time and almost all the "easy" math questions she missed were in geometry. We got her an "old school" math tutor who focused on Geometry and her scores went way up in Math. So basically she learned in 6 weeks what she should have learned in that one class. The real problem is that some of these districts choose an instructional strategy that garners the best grades for the largest number of students, regardless of whether they actually learn or not.

    Parent
    dumbest? uh huh. i concur. (none / 0) (#100)
    by hilldemgoneindie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:29:43 AM EST
    i taught young adult students at a trade college for a year and a half. every six weeks i'd get a new bunch in. i taught english comp and speech in the paralegal program. as we'd introduce ourselves, i'd ask them to tell me their name, where they were born, and to include something interesting about themselves. as an ice-breaker, i'd begin the intro. when i told them an interesting thing about me was that i was born in the same hospital that bobby kennedy died in (which was fascinating to me at the age of 11 1/2 mostly because my mom also worked right across the street from good samaritan hospital and had since i was born), they'd look at me like i was from another planet. who's bobby kennedy? for the many times i shared that personal history, no one under thirty-five knew of whom i was referring. that is a snapshot of the lack of exposure or interest in current events or civics in the young adult generation. pathetic and imho, planned.

    Parent
    Whose fault is that?.... (none / 0) (#197)
    by kdog on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:47:21 AM EST
    You can't blame somebody born in 70's or after for not knowing who Bobby Kennedy is...that's on parents and schools.

    I was lucky to go to good schools and be born to caring parents...they covered RFK is HS History, but it took my dad to teach me about Huey Newton and Abbie Hoffman.

    We're all generalizing of course, but parents today seemed more concerned with themsleves, where generations ago people lived for their kids, and took the time to raise them instead of expecting the school system to do it.  I see it too...kids today are selfish and self-centered...and you need only look at their parents to understand why.

    Parent

    Many people under 30, not MOST (none / 0) (#200)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:49:30 AM EST
    I have 2 in their 20's. Knowing them and all their friends growing up, I have always felt this is a generation that has a lot to offer. Those I know, and those I've worked with are better than the Gen X group in the workplace, IMHO.

    Parent
    I hired one of those types (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:44:44 AM EST
    and fired him right at his 90-day probation period ended.  Real business people are not going to brook that kind of behavior.

    I sure didn't.  This may sound very discriminatory, but when I hire salespeople, (part of my job),  I prefer those over 35.  

    Parent

    I had an intern last summer.... (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:48:00 AM EST
    ...straight out of college who broke the mold. Yes he was brilliant, but he also knew that there was much to learn from elders and mentors. (That boy was exceptionally well raised. I commend his parents.) In a summer, he wrote an entire booklet on the science of learning which was reviewed by a committee of about 8 experts and required only minimal revision. And unlike other young people who have written things for me who whined and moaned about having to change one syllable of anything they wrote, he considered each comment a challenge and an opportunity for improvement. So there are gems out there, thank goodness for the world.

    Parent
    Millenial intro (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by formerhoosier on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:44:54 AM EST
    Thanks, interesting perspective.

    Ten to fifteen years ago the CW was college grads were not motivated by money but were looking for other criteria in selecting employers.  Think a lot of times too many businesses listen to consultants who have no idea what they are talking about.  Not to disparage (since we have a cross section here), but had really incompetent consultants on a project from a major consulting firm years ago.

    Parent

    My experience is (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:02:18 AM EST
    that they are interested in other things, 'lifestyle' considerations, but they also want the money.  That is, they want to not work crazy hours under crazy deadlines, but they want the same benefits as those who do work crazy hours et al.

    I don't put my experience out as scientific, and I do understand that many things outside one's control can shape one's outlook.  When I was in high school the economy was really bad, and I was extremely lucky to get a summer job at a fast food restaurant.  Lucky.  Extremely.  People under 30 haven't lived through a countrywide crashed economy, so they don't put as much importance on the economic situation the country is in now, and aren't as able to imagine how bad it could get.

    Parent

    economic situations matter (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by nycstray on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:25:48 AM EST
    I think that is partly why my niece is the way she is. She was shaped by less than desirable circumstances. She has a down to earth type of personality anyway, so she knows the job needs to get done etc. You also see the same in different 'hoods around where I live. Work means something different and the kids coming out of hardworking environments understand achievement. I live across the street from a high school that was one of the worst. Since Bloomberg has been overhauling our schools, there's been quite a difference. Kids were always pretty nice and polite etc, but now the whole feel is different. They've split the school into smaller schools and you now see a different type of student. And they are from the same 'hoods as the prior ones. They just have more opportunity now, and know it.

    Parent
    I'm glad Bloomberg (none / 0) (#131)
    by stillife on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:01:01 AM EST
    is doing something about the awful schools.  Giuliani was a disaster.  Did you read that article (I think it was in GQ of all places) a few months ago about his feuds with the various school chancellors?  I always wondered at the time about the rapid turnover.  

    As the mother of two millenials, I hesitate to make generalizations, but my son is one of a very few of his group of friends, some of whom he's known since kindergarten, others since high school and some from college, who actually graduated on time and got a job.  I can't really credit his upbringing - he's just got a highly focused personality.  He's rather conservative and more materialistic than I would like, but the materialism seems to be a motivating factor.  There was never any question that he was going to be a business major.  

    My daughter, OTOH, has her head in the clouds and wishes she'd grown up in the 1960's.  She's only 18, so hopefully she'll get more focused in the next few years of college.

    Parent

    I Saw That Segment (none / 0) (#169)
    by creeper on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:07:41 AM EST
    Part of it didn't make sense.  If we're in a recession and losing good jobs overseas, why would employers need to coddle new workers?  Let's face it...the deck is stacked firmly on the side of businesses.

    I have no doubt that the "me, now" mindset is widespread among the "millenials" but I question whether the workplace is going to accommodate them to the extent portrayed by CBS.

    Parent

    The flip side (none / 0) (#204)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:03:40 AM EST
    I read an article a while back about "Helicopter Parents"  - those who swoop in and take care of every little thing for their babies.  Some of these parents were doing things like one father went to a career fair and handed out his daughter's resume for her, and some called employers after their son/daughter got less than a stellar performance review and wanted to discuss the reason for the rating.

    I can't even imagine my parents doing something like this!!!  I'm not MUCH older than these people (I was only 11 in 1980).

    These are the same people who allow their children dictate who they vote for!

    Parent

    Phoenix has landed (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Lupin on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:31:53 AM EST
    Stunning Phoenix Mars images here. One reminded me of Stephen King's Dark Tower landscape in Vol. 1, with the Dark Tower far away in the distance.

    Food for thought: the cost of this mission = 2 days in Iraq. Iraq = two missions to Mars every week.

    Where would be today if we hadn't...? The mind boggles.

    Some if you "deadenders" (and I'd say the same to Obama fanatics) really ought to consider the stakes in November more carefully. I have no doubt that if Sen. Clinton doesn't get the nomination, she will rally behind the Dem ticket -- as indeed she said yesterday.

    Two missions to Mars every week, 104 missions a year, over 600 missions since we started... We could probably have a manned base by now. Instead, I won't see it in my lifetime.  Heartbreaking.

    Although I couldn't (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:15:58 AM EST
    agree more about traveling and exploring space, e it would behoove us to get our country's infrastructure back on track.  Certainly dedicate resources and research into our scholastic inquiries of outer space but let's get our roads, bridges and dams up to par first.

    No more Mpls mishaps.  Let's get New Orleans as close to pre-Katrina as possible.  And let's help the heartland where storms and tornadoes have wreaked havoc on minds, spirits and dwellings.

    I too would have liked to have seen a moon-station in my lifetime, but doubt it.  

    Parent

    Indeed! (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Lupin on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:26:57 AM EST
    I entirely agree, though I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. There was enough money in the Iraq War for a sensible space program AND a significant infrastructure upgrade.

    It reminds us what the stakes are in November.

    Parent

    But that's DEBT! (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Fabian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:21:19 AM EST
    It's not as if the war was 90% tax payer financed.  That's a huge problem.  If you are going to sink yourself or country into debt, it should be for solid long term gains - like moving the economy away from fossil fuels and onto long term energy solutions.

    Parent
    Since you mention misplaced priorities ... (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by dwmorris on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:26:28 AM EST
    how about this one?

    Annual budget of the National Cancer Institute is just under 5 billion = approximately 2 weeks in Iraq. The deaths from cancer in the US during any 2 week period are approximately 20,000 (you read that right ... more than 6X the number of people that died on 9/11).

    The odds are astronomically low that anyone reading these words will be killed in a terrorist attack. In contrast, about 40% of you will get cancer sometime in your life and about 20% of you will die from it.

    Good thing Bush is keeping us all secure.

    Parent

    What are my odds living in NYC? (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by nycstray on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:47:29 AM EST
    Actually, I don't worry about cancer as much as I do about Parkinson, Diabetes, (Genetic?) High Blood Pressure and Cholesterol. All run in my family. One of the reasons I'm so for Hillary. Health care and Science. I think I'm the only one of my circle of female friends here that hasn't had a tumor or cancer related female issue. Insurance issues have had my one friend at deaths door 3 times.

    I'll be leaving the 'dangers' of NYC to move back to Earthquake, Mudslide, Wildfire and Flood land in CA, lol! Still more concerned about medical though.

    Parent

    EXCELLENT (none / 0) (#90)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:33:06 AM EST
    observation.  I never would have thought of it that way (terrorism vs. cancer angle).

    Talk about a lump in my throat.  I hope that our society DOES evolve (because right now it doesn't seem to be) and moves in more practical terms to save lives.

    Parent

    Good observation and ... (none / 0) (#183)
    by BostonIndependent on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:24:02 AM EST
    One of my primary reasons I moved toward Hillary initally! After reading her web site papers on science education and healthcare -- she actually has detaile (see Hillary's plan for cancer and her Innovation Agenda had details such as:
    Increase the basic research budgets 50% over 10 years at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the Defense Department.

    and
    Increase the NIH budget by 50% over 5 years and aim to double it over 10 years.

    Now .. if you read Senator Obama's policy proposals, there are no details that are similarly spelled out. In his Obama's complete health-care plan he does not mention NIH or NCI (it does not appear in his technology paper either) and does not seem to understand very basic links between research, development and deployment. However we get more bureaucracy:

    Comparative effectiveness research. Obama will establish an independent institute to guide reviews and research on comparative effectiveness, so that Americans and their doctors will have the accurate and objective information they need to make the best decisions for their health and well-being.

    and non-specific blather like this that could come from any politician:
    As a result of biomedical research the prevention, early detection and treatment of diseases such as cancer and heart disease is better today than any other time in history. Barack Obama has consistently supported funding for the national institutes of health and the national science foundation. Obama strongly supports investments in biomedical research, as well as medical education and training in health-related fields, because it provides the foundation for new therapies and diagnostics. Obama has been a champion of research in cancer, mental health, health disparities, global health, women and children's health, and veterans' health. As president, Obama will strengthen funding for biomedical research, and better improve the efficiency of that research by improving coordination both within government and across government/private/non-profit partnerships. An Obama administration will ensure that we translate scientific progress into improved approaches to disease prevention, early detection and therapy that is available for all Americans.

    Seriously, I think anyone who has actually read the contents of their proposals -- cannot but come away with a deep appreciation for the stark differences between them. Hillary is much more knowledgeable and specific, and Obama has not studied the issues or taken positions on them. Period. The fact that the MSM has portrayed the two candidates's positions on various policy issues is "largely similar" etc. is  untruthful, ill-informed and a true example of the MSM's gross dereliction of duty in this primary campaign.

    But.. I do have a bone to pick w/ comparing medical research to terrorism. Both are problems, and both require vast funds. We need to be smart about how to have discussions about resource allocation. While it is true that cancer research will improve life expectancy for all Americans, terrorists (or Katrina -- as one of the others mentioned upthread) can wreak untargeted havoc on the entire economy (and not just the US). Also note, that while terrorism can be ameliorated (by containment among other strategies) and even eradicated (perhaps long term), health-care risks such as cancer or environmental issues require sustained and consistent funding. I believe therefore it is entirely appropriate to have increased funding for terrorism and ammunition (to pick on a gross counter-example) in times of need and war, but we cannot have downward trends in long-term research.

    Parent

    Cancer is just one of many hundreds of metrics ... (none / 0) (#221)
    by dwmorris on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:52:56 AM EST
    that could obviously be used to illustrate our grossly misplaced priorities.

    People aren't acutely aware of the economic havoc caused by these problems because it's already baked into the system ... but it is in the trillions.

    Also, I don't think it's valid to equate the monthly costs of the war in Iraq with any discussion about the validity of the war on terror. Too many strategic and tactical disconnects.

    Parent

    Oh man, there are lot of things (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:41:29 AM EST
    that I find far more heartbreaking than not having a manned base on Mars. The comment below talks about health-care for starters. Did you know Obama has talked about drastically scaling back the space program?

    "Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids, in fact it gets as cold as hell".

    So said Elton John. This VIDEO includes amazing documentary footage of the first manned mission to the moon (I think). I've seen the original moon-landing documentary, made by the astronauts, the guys had cameras on-board. They were so introspective, articulate and un-macho about the whole thing - I was moved by them more than the mission.

    Parent

    From popular mechanics (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Lupin on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:06:00 AM EST
    The three candidates on space program: hardly inspiring.

    Parent
    I'd be for a manned moonbase (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Fabian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:27:34 AM EST
    tomorrow IF GWB and Cheney were the first permanent inhabitants of it.

    Permanent off planet exile - it's expensive, but the future of democracy is worth it.

    (Outside of petty political vendettas, the best plan for any colonization involves decades of robotic missions.  Robots are just so much cheaper and better suited to the tasks.)

    Parent

    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:09:31 AM EST
    Me too!

    Parent
    As the only Robot on this ... (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by Robot Porter on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:48:05 AM EST
    blog I take offense at being called "cheap."

    ;)

    Parent

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by talktruthfully on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:46:51 AM EST
    That's too funny. I second that motion.

    Parent
    Awesome... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:33:59 AM EST


    Parent
    Beautiful pics! (none / 0) (#171)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:08:15 AM EST
    Most people have no idea what NASA does for us.  Space exploration is a small piece of the pie.  The Jet Propulsion lab is vital to national security and keeping our aviation partners on the cutting edge.  Various medical experiments are performed in zero G (certain bacteria and viruses can only be studied in zero g) and of course, two of the new antibiotics we use to treat drug-resistant strains of staph were discovered in the lab aboard the space shuttle.  And most of this was done with 1960s technology, because funding has been cut so much that they can't jump into the present,  let alone lead into the future.

    NASA also improved on many inventions, making them more accessible to users: velcro, teflon, cordless power tools, adjustable smoke detectors, barcodes, quartz clocks...  A lot of the stuff we use today was tweaked into common usage by NASA.

    Parent

    Very nice that you kept OpEd pieces (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by andrys on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:08:42 AM EST
    formatted for your page so that we could read them still!

    LOTS of great stuff there.  The headlines are so dramatic.

    Thanks!

    I remember waking up and thinking Czechoslovakia and tanks when I heard that '...stop the count' thing.  It was so shocking and depressing.

    Jeralynn: Two repeated comments from yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:24:27 AM EST
    But principles must be upheld by at least a few people, and the party will not be fixed by nominating and electing an unqualified person to the highest office.  I see too much likeness to Bush 2, and a scary and totally repelling similarity to a number of demagogues and con merchants I have observed.

    And now, I shall take myself off this thread.  When this site descends to the point of throwing words like 'despise' around, we are already broken.  That was a word 'too far.'

    Today
    So--any resolution of this? Or shall I inquire about the Clinton site a bunch of people were registering on yesterday?

    Can I get the link (none / 0) (#156)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:50:16 AM EST
    from someone to the Clinton site please? (Just in case this place descends into some silly, melodramatic soap opera...? I saw the comments from yesterday and all I can say is - give me a break.)

    Parent
    Do you recall the (none / 0) (#188)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:30:20 AM EST
    site name?  I think it belongs to someone on this site....I sure would hate to go back thru all that spewing to locate the mention.

    Parent
    here (none / 0) (#191)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:38:42 AM EST
    use this

    Parent
    Thank you! (none / 0) (#194)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:40:03 AM EST
    It's good to have another alternative to check out.

    Parent
    Is playing (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:59:40 AM EST
    the race card a constant? Sure it's fine to critique a site but the constant race baiting is why lots of people are saying that they'll never vote for Obama.

    A "racist haven"? (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:01:55 AM EST
    Ok, whatever. I wouldn't reference no quarter either, but you shouldn't throw around accusations like that.

    Have you visited the site? (none / 0) (#173)
    by talktruthfully on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:08:53 AM EST
    Seriously, have you? It's not a baseless accusation. I'm not saying everyone at No Quarter is a racist. I'm saying that they, to borrow a sullied phrase, "give aid and comfort" to such individuals. It's heartbreaking.

    Parent
    I have visited the site a number of times (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by kenosharick on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:27:10 AM EST
    and have seen NOTHING CLOSE TO RACIST!!! I am so sick of Obama campaign and supporters screaming "racism" at anyone who dares disagree or criticize "Saint Barack." They may have won a primary using this sleazy tactic, but it is a losing strategy for November.

    Parent
    GA6th (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:39:44 AM EST
    Backlash is an understatement.  Do you feel the tension in Atlanta right now?  I think it's rather rich that folks living in states with a  2-5% minority population, are flinging around that charge.  It's dangerous how they have diluted the meaning.  When real racism occurs, what will they call it?

    Don't know if anyone else has posted (5.00 / 0) (#210)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:25:54 AM EST
    this, but Oprah's ratings are going down, and it may well be due in part to her embrace of Obama:

    Her endorsement of the presidential bid of Senator Barack Obama appears to have alienated some of the middle-aged white women who make up the bulk of her television audience, many of whom support Senator Hillary Clinton.

    "Not too long ago, she was like the pope," rarely criticized by her ardent supporters, said Janice Peck, an associate professor of mass communication at the University of Colorado and the author of "The Age of Oprah," a new book on Ms. Winfrey's cultural influence.

    Since the endorsement, however, angry criticism of her political stance became a regular feature of the message boards on Oprah.com, Ms. Peck said. "There are a lot of her fans who are not Democrats or who support Hillary Clinton who feel betrayed," she added.
    My own belief is (none / 0) (#211)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:28:19 AM EST
    that Obama will end up being the Destroyer of Reputations of the same order as Bush himself has ultimately proved to be.

    Obama will use his endorsers, damage their credibility in their audiences/constituencies, and then turn around an drop them as is convenient.

    Parent

    I dropped my sub to her magazine n/t (none / 0) (#219)
    by Eleanor A on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:22:19 AM EST


    Parent
    Just in time (4.88 / 9) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:33:48 AM EST
    for me to direct everyone to Paul Krugman's latest:  

    To the extent that the general election is about the issues, Mr. Obama should have no trouble winning over former Clinton supporters, especially the white working-class voters he lost in the primaries. His health care plan is seriously deficient, but he will nonetheless be running on a far more worker-friendly platform than his opponent.

    Indeed, John McCain has shed whatever maverick tendencies he may once have had, and become almost a caricature conservative -- an advocate of lower taxes for the rich and corporations, a privatizer and shredder of the safety net.

    But elections always involve emotions as well as issues, and there are some ominous signs in the polling data.

    In Florida, in particular, the rolling estimate produced by the professionals at Pollster.com shows Mr. McCain running substantially ahead of Mr. Obama, even as he runs significantly behind Mrs. Clinton. Ohio also looks problematic, and Pennsylvania looks closer than it should. It's true that head-to-head polls five months before the general election have a poor track record. But they certainly give reason to worry.

    [. . .]

    [I]t's up to Mr. Obama to deliver the unity he has always promised -- starting with his own party.

    I am convinced, BTW, that he has been reading Talk Left.

    And while we're on Editorials, (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:00:49 AM EST
    it's time for another edition of endorsement watch!

    Today, and Philly Inquirer endorses Rep Bob Andrews for Senate over Frank Lautenberg in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in New Jersey.

    I personally have no great love for Lautenberg. His push to raise and nationalize the drinking age to 21 was, in my opinion, not good policy. I also disagree with him on a variety of issues related to censorship (he is, I think, a videogame cop). However, I don't believe that Andrews is any better on these issues, and in other respects he is running against Lautenberg from the right.

    And there is plenty to praise with Lautenberg. For example, he is primarily responsible for making all flights in the U.S. nonsmoking. He is getting old, but he is a solid liberal voice in the Senate. I disagree with the Inquirer on this endorsement, and I did several months ago when they endorsed Obama over Clinton. There is a regional factor involved I think--Andrews is from South Jersey--but I think the Inquirer does not make a good case for him on his own merits.

    Parent

    Hm (none / 0) (#34)
    by Steve M on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:13:46 AM EST
    I am new to Jersey, but it strikes me that the South Jersey thing is almost entirely what this primary is about, far moreso than the age factor.  South Jersey just doesn't seem to feel like their interests get represented sufficiently.

    Lautenberg is a bare-knuckles politician, but he is a pretty solid liberal vote, and I have a personal soft spot for WWII vets.  I expect to be voting for him.

    TL readers might be curious to view Andrews' ad targetting Lautenberg's age.  Opinions are split on whether it's a fair attack.

    Parent

    That is one nasty ad (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:18:35 AM EST
    If some other Congressman were running against Lautenberg. Say Rush Holt, I'd be inclined to vote for him. But Andrews is running against Lautenberg from the right, and in a really underhanded way. So yeah, if I lived in NJ, I'd be voting for Lautenberg.

    Parent
    Andrews is a hypocrit (none / 0) (#166)
    by themomcat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:02:00 AM EST
    In one ad he calls out Lautenberg on Lautenberg's campaign a about Millicent Fenwick's age. Then in another ad Andrews points out that Lautenberg will be 91 at the end of his term. Hypocracy, ya think?

    Parent
    Andrews ad is deliberately misleading as to when (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by jawbone on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:13:53 PM EST
    Lautenberg will be 91--he never says outright that if reelected, Lautendberg will be 91 at the end of that term; he makes it sound as if he'll be 91 in this coming Jauary.

    That has disgusted me, and I will not vote for a Dem who does that kind of word sleight of hand.

    I don't appreciate being deliberately mislead.

    So, fie on Andrews.

    Parent

    Plus, Lautenberg is a really ballsy liberal. (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by jawbone on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:14:35 PM EST
    Bless him and keep him well!

    Parent
    Hi all, NY Post story on Hillary/RFK remark: (none / 0) (#19)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:56:53 AM EST
    I have a link to the NY Post story, dated May 23, but there's no time stamp. Does anybody hereabouts know what time the NY Post put the story on their website?

    I'm researching the genesis of the story. All the MSM and the blogs claim the NY Post was the first news blog to run the story, but I can't find any direct evidence of that anywhere. Anybody know have that specific info?

    Parent

    It hit here first (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:09:45 AM EST
    at around 3 something EST.  Then the thread here started at about 4.01.  I remember cause exactly at that moment I felt the same thing with the "Jessie Jackson" story, the Bill comment.  Within a few seconds, it was everywhere with the same outrage.  

    Parent
    what was also amazing (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:13:19 AM EST
    was that the Argus video and the youtube clip appeared everywhere in an instant.  

    Parent
    Just in time for for the long weekend, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by mulletov cocktails on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:18:57 AM EST
    and enpugh filler after the Edwards endorsment fizzled and enough to try and distract from the PR vote.

    Parent
    Stella, the YouTube Video is fr. TPM (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:35:50 AM EST
    The video was posted sometime prior to the Politico story which linked to it at 3:36pm EST (May 23).

    POLITICO has a new story today, that's part apologia  and part boasting about how they were second in line with the story, after the NY Post. They're both tooting their own horn and expressing flippant contrition for making a non story into the most incendiary item of the week.

    Parent

    TPM (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:41:11 AM EST
    was at the forefront of the Jackson story.  It creeps me out cause this felt the same way, the same outrage language, word per word.  
    They tried it with that Kantor video but they got busted.  

    Parent
    What I don't get (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:52:33 AM EST
    is that she said the exact same thing about 2-3 times.  It never became a big deal, I think they had it in the repertoire, they could not find anything so they went with the distortion.  

    What is amazing is how the left, with their PC mindset, gets as manipulated as the right with their "patriotism" etc, mindset.  

    Parent

    A lil' astro-turfing perhaps? (none / 0) (#40)
    by nycstray on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:21:02 AM EST


    Parent
    I really want (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:22:25 AM EST
    them to get caught.  But at this point who cares, they have done so much damage.  Seriously, this is dangerous.

    Parent
    Well, most of the media is playing along (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by nycstray on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:34:43 AM EST
    seems like a lot of her voters are smarter than Axlerod gives them credit for. It's going to be a problem down the road I believe.

    I'd love for some reporter to just lay the whole sham out there.

    Parent

    the story morphed into such stupidly contrived (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:09:48 AM EST
    I told everyone and anyone who would listen that decent people are seeing it for what it is and it will make Hillary's legion larger.

    then they said it was like yelling fire in a theater?  WTF?  

    We've lost freedom of expression too under GWB?

    and a sense of proportion?

    Parent

    MediaMatters has to get on RFK-gate ASAP (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:07:33 AM EST
    ^
    It's the most ominous and inflammatory thing that's been pinned on Senator Clinton thus far in the campaign. I'm wondering if that level of character assassination might be subject to some legal remedy.

    Anybody know about such things?

    Frankly, I think the new POLITICO story (May 25th): Media Hype: How Small Stories Become Big Stories, is an attempt to inoculate them from blow-back, legal or otherwise.

    In this new story, they actually insist they got their May 23rd story from the NY Post - not even from the live video feed of the interview itself. But strangely, they made no mention of the NY Post when they ran that first story. So, I'm not buying any of their self-serving, exculpatory evidence. IMO, they were in on the ground floor, or they are the ground floor itself. I'm thinking it went from the lips of the Obama campaign to Politico's ears.
    ^

    Parent

    FWIW (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:20:35 AM EST
    I don't for a minute think John Harris at Politico is lying in his description of how this story developed.  It's simply not his style, nor really that of any major MSM types.  Weasel around, leave things out, refuse to say-- yes, they do do that.

    I think you'd have better results looking carefully at what he says and what he doesn't say and finding the gaps he hasn't filled in, rather than starting from the premise that he's lying about it.

    I'd want to know who tipped the NYPost.

    And I'd want to know exactly what the Argus released and when-- summary, transcript, video.  The video seems to have come after the report on the words.

    And then I'd want to know who fed it to Drudge and which pub. he linked to for it-- Post or Politico?  

    There are enough regular reporters with insane levels of CDS that it's actually possible some reporter at the Post scanned the routine release from the Argus and picked up on the RFK thing and went nuts with it.  It's no longer necessary for an Obama operative to feed these things.  The press and the blogs have turned into a howling pack of hounds trying to run her down themselves.

    It was pretty much guaranteed that once someone-- anyone-- pulled out the RFK quote, and particularly once it was fed to Drudge-- the media was going to go crazy over it.

    Parent

    Rinse, Repeat (none / 0) (#140)
    by creeper on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:31:12 AM EST
    The press and the blogs have turned into a howling pack of hounds trying to run her down themselves.


    Parent
    The Fla Tpa news friday told people to read (none / 0) (#186)
    by fly on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:27:29 AM EST
    Late Friday afternoon the Bay news 9 in Tampa told the listeners about a "new web site" political junkies should be reading daily..and they gave the Politico web site out ..on the all day Tampa news network..now understand this Obama had just been here in Tampa Wednesday..is that a coinsidence?..I highly doubt it..and then Politico has this story run in Friday late afternoon edition?????????

    I was really put off that a local news network would be giving out this web site telling people to watch it..and they made a real big deal about it..the newscaster could not have spittiled on himself more about it.
    I thought it was very odd..

    fly

    Parent

    Media Matters is useless (none / 0) (#205)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:04:01 AM EST
    They haven't said a word about the treatment the media is giving Hillary since they scolded Chris Matthews and he had to feign an apology.

    Media Matters is dedicating most of their outrage to claiming McCain is getting no negative coverage.


    Parent

    Stellaaa, do you recall (none / 0) (#97)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:13:38 AM EST
    the thread that first mentioned the RFK thing around 3pm on the 23rd?

    Parent
    It was first (none / 0) (#143)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:40:31 AM EST
    in another thread, and my original comment to the original post is gone.  But right after BTD started this thread
    You can see how all of a sudden all these Obama supporters had arrived and they started pushing, pushing really hard.  I have a couple of comments there with my dismay at what was going on.  

    Parent
    Can't say if 1st TL sighting of RFK outrage hoax (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ellie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:47:05 AM EST
    I first heard of it here on a thread called A Strange Endorsement.

    Parent
    Thanks Stellaaa and Ellie (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:08:52 PM EST
    I hadn't seen that comment from "zfran" on the "strange Endorsement" thread. I see it was made at 4:11; BTD already had the other RFK thread up by 4pm. Still musing, but not amused here.

    Parent
    Thanks for the Krugman column (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:23:50 AM EST
    Although my hair is on fire now. Krugman has always indicated that he believes Hillary is the better candidate (on the economy, health care, social security). I was hoping he would pull out the stops for her toward the end; or at least not concede to Obama before the deal is closed.

    Krugman's been right about many things. But he is in no position to presume that "white working class voters" will come to Obama in the GE. Krugman knows economics, but he's not exactly down with Appalachia. Nor, does he understand that, on the ground, the McCain brand is alive and well across a range of demographic groups.

    Krugman, seems to intimate that the voters Obama most needs to 'unite', are all those female Hillary supporters. He is certainly right on that acount, and he may know women well enough to know that ain't gonna happen.

    Parent

    I'm putting on the tin-foil hat. (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:43:46 AM EST
    The comments are really pulling a lot of these loose threads together. It was supernaturally well-orchestrated. Axelrod, doesn't ask himself WWJD, he asks WWRD (what would rove do).

    Perhaps there was a collective belief that they had hit the jackpot; what with the perverse serendipity of Obama filling in for Ted Kennedy with the Wellsley commencement speech.

    Parent

    There would have been something (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:10:04 AM EST
    this weekend, I think -- as a holiday weekend for these reasons, as I wrote earlier.  I worked in news, I worked in pr, and so I have seen the impact of exploiting the news schedule and calendar.

    I also think that there probably were (and are) many potential stories to spring about her from oppo research, but this was the one picked, possibly because she said the same things again to the Argus, but perhaps it didn't even need that new angle, as perhaps it was picked because of sympathy for Teddy Kennedy.

    I will be very interested in what you put together.  From the timing on youtube, on KO, how it exploded everywhere so fast -- yes, it looks quite orchestrated.  As do so many such incidents in this campaign against Clinton.  It's politics, it's to be expected, but this one's timing looks like advance notice made to some media (that includes blogs, best for going viral), too.

    Parent

    The whole thing (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by rnibs on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:55:38 AM EST
    is just weird.  Totally fictitious slamming of the most talented person in the race, and not a peep from any Dem other than RFK, Jr. standing up for her.  (I don't count fake standing up like Axelrove's and Obama's.)

    I don't recognize this Dem party anymore.  But then I guess it's not the Dem party anymore--it's Obama's, which I want no part of.

    The only upside for me is that I'll save money.  I wonder if the DNC has noticed that I haven't given them any money since Jan.?  I'll give money to Hillary till the end, but afte that, no more political contributions ever. (Unless Hillary is back in 2012--though I doubt it, because despite Obamite conspiracy theorys, that's not her plan.  Gotta respect the fact that she is so dedicated to the party.)  

    Parent

    "assassination" focus (none / 0) (#146)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:44:05 AM EST
    I think this whole thing, and I thought that from the first moment is targeted to the SDs.  In the AA community there is and has been talk that people did not want Obama to win cause he would get assassinated.  This is not benign issue.  This is a real hot button in the AA community.  

    Parent
    Huckabee's sick joke got less (none / 0) (#206)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:07:14 AM EST
    attention and outrage, and that was something that was in really poor taste, and did allude to an Obama assassination.


    Parent
    Wow...great point. (none / 0) (#207)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:09:00 AM EST


    Parent
    Obama didn't need to defear Huckabee! (none / 0) (#228)
    by jawbone on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    So, it was ignored by the campaign. If Huckabee is VP (which I sincerely doubt will happen), they'll be all over it. Ads, talkingpoints, etc.

    Parent
    Obama spoke in CT...Weslayan n/t (none / 0) (#116)
    by dutchfox on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:55:05 AM EST


    Parent
    Descriptions of unfolding of the story (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by andrys on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:09:35 AM EST
    ObamaCamp claims NY Post put up the story and they happened to see it.  The headline was not quite right and it seems the story in that version was removed and was modified and replaced.  Who knows?   But you might find some of the write-ups interesting if you haven't run across them.

    First, FULL clip of this portion of the interview
     This includes the portion where she cites the various years when campaign battles continued into the convention.  TV news shows don't include it, and many have asked why she didn't mention THOSE years.

    L.A. Times Blogs

    On "Face the Nation." Wolfson castigated the Obama campaign for the language in its rapid e-mail response, which said her comments were "unfortunate" and "had no place in this campaign." The e-mail was sent soon after a New York Post reporter (who was listening to the editorial board meeting via an online video link) posted a short-lived article on the paper's website that called her remarks "an odd comparison between the dead candidate and Barack Obama."

    "The Obama campaign did put out a statement almost immediately condemning the remarks," Wolfson told host Bob Schieffer. "There's no question that it was unfortunate and unnecessary, and in my opinion inflammatory, for the Obama campaign to attack Sen. Clinton on Friday for these remarks, without obviously knowing the full facts or context."

    (McAuliffe, on "Fox News Sunday," used more direct language: "Friday they were all part of this process," he told host Chris Wallace. "The press secretary came out and attacked Sen. Clinton and got it going so the story would be around for three days. It's nice to get a story going and then, you know, let it go for three days over the weekend and say, 'Oh, she didn't mean anything about it.' ")

    NY Times

    Shortly after Mrs. Clinton spoke on Friday, the Obama campaign jumped on the story, sending an e-mail message to reporters saying her comment had no place in a presidential campaign. It linked to a [sic] online report in The New York Post that said Mrs. Clinton was "making an odd comparison between the dead candidate and Barack Obama" -- a phrase the newspaper later dropped.

    On "Face the Nation" Sunday on CBS, Mr. Wolfson said, "It was unfortunate and unnecessary, and in my opinion, inflammatory, for the Obama campaign to attack Senator Clinton on Friday for these remarks, without obviously knowing the full facts or context."

    The Obama campaign had also e-mailed to reporters a transcript of a harsh critique of Mrs. Clinton on "Countdown With Keith Olbermann" on MSNBC.

    On Sunday, George Stephanopoulos, the host of "This Week" on ABC, asked David Axelrod, Mr. Obama's top strategist, about sending the transcript.

    "You say you're not trying to stir the issue up," Mr. Stephanopoulos said. "But a member of your press staff yesterday was sending around to an entire press list -- I have the e-mail here -- Keith Olbermann's searing commentary against Hillary Clinton. So that is stirring this up, isn't it?"

    Mr. Axelrod replied: "As far as we're concerned, this issue is done. It was an unfortunate statement, as we said, as she's acknowledged. She has apologized. The apology, you know, is accepted. Let's move forward." ...

    Also, this is an interesting description by a NYT reporter (K. Seelye)  of how this unfolded that day.

    Parent

    Thanks Andrys, re RFK-hoax story (none / 0) (#240)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:32:05 PM EST
    I've read all the 'official' accounts of how the story was generated. But I didn't know the bit that you included in your first paragraph:

    "Obama Camp claims NY Post put up the story and they happened to see it. The headline was not quite right and it seems the story in that version was removed and was modified and replaced."

    *If you don't mind my asking: where did you see/hear that the Obama camp claims they got it from the NY Post?

    *Did you see the NY Post's first version of the story before they modified and replaced it with the one that's now on their website? Was there a time stamp on that original story?

    *The current/modified NY Post story has no time stamp. How uncommon is that for stuff on a news website? I've never seen anything like it.

    Have you read the POLITICO story of their involvement: Media Hype: How Small Stories Become Big Ones. It's beyond preposterous.


    Parent

    in on it? (1.00 / 2) (#70)
    by manish on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:01:20 AM EST
    or maybe he was actually in on the whole thing

    yes, this makes perfect logical sense to me.  Hillary told KO that she would be saying something stupid and KO was ready with a diatribe to slam her for it.

    Parent

    Rupert Murdock (none / 0) (#158)
    by themomcat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:52:48 AM EST
    was supposed to be in the tank for HRC as per many Obama supporters. HAH! And if Obama gets the nomination, Murdock and his minions at Faux News will have a field day.

    Parent
    It's the WSJ you should worry about (none / 0) (#174)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:10:42 AM EST


    Parent
    Most NYC resident's (none / 0) (#202)
    by themomcat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:54:53 AM EST
    do not read the WSJ, no comics and too many big words. The biggest seller in NYC is the NY Post because it's cheap, gives good sports coverage, has comics and is an easy read.

    Parent
    KO Video (none / 0) (#239)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:29:02 PM EST
    I read somewhere yesterday that the Obama campaign sent copies of a video of KO's rant to news outlets.  

    Parent
    Jeralyn, I visited your Yr2000 site and (none / 0) (#109)
    by andrys on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:15:48 AM EST
    we had a similar interest at the time in chronicling this but yours is clearly carefully done by an attorney :-)

    Mine is here and starts out illustrating that presidency-losing butterfly ballot.  There's a still photo that can be enlarged, and underneath it is a link to an animated version that lets you turn the page of that ballot and encounter the weird circles that were to be punched.  You can see why so many who wanted to vote for Gore wound up voting for Buchanan.  

      The chronological news stories, latest first, are often dead links now, but surprisingly, a few of them still exist.

      The main articles near the top are pretty rich with detail and I did get permission to use them at the time.  I can't believe that awful time was 8 years ago.

      I didn't get to watch it because I don't have HBO and am looking for a way to catch a repeat somewhere.

      Will go back to peruse yours a bit more !

    Parent

    He has to scale back slowly. (none / 0) (#154)
    by talktruthfully on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:49:55 AM EST
    Remember that PK has been hitting Obama pretty hard for a while now. He's doing a very good job of scaling back. He'll eventually be full-throated in support for Obama.

    Parent
    'full-throated in support of Obama'? (none / 0) (#162)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:58:08 AM EST
    Geez, I certainly hope not. He's been one of the VERY FEW honest enough and courageous enough to critique The Sacred Enough. We've got enough sycophants already.

    Parent
    Obama is not sacred (none / 0) (#167)
    by talktruthfully on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:02:25 AM EST
    It is not fair to paint him as such. And Krugman obviously had his preference in the race to the whitehouse. But that doesn't mean he's not going to face reality when push comes to shove. McCain mustn't be allowed to win the presidency and Krugman will project his voice to ensure that come January 2009, Obama will be sworn in as the next POTUS.

    Parent
    That's ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:07:55 AM EST
    Krugman is a journalist, not a campaign surrogate. A journalist has no responsibility to ensure anything about Obama and the presidency. His job is to tell the truth and investigate the issues. And he's one of the few who actually does it anymore.

    God help us if Krugman turns into Rich or Dowd. We need a few left with integrity who are not in the tank.

    Parent

    Precisely (none / 0) (#209)
    by talktruthfully on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:25:06 AM EST
    You confirm my point not rebut it. It's about issues. And Obama's issues are more in-line with the Democratic world-view.

    Parent
    Um, no (none / 0) (#218)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:11:13 AM EST
    As Krugman himself has written about extensively, Obama's views on health care are not more in-line at all, at least not according to Krugman. Clearly, Krugman has a lot of issues with Obama's policy positions on the economy and on healthcare. So, you've rebutted yourself. I'm sure Krugman will continue to critique Obama's policies because he is one of the few honest writers out there who can focus on issues, not petty partisanship.

    Parent
    Context (none / 0) (#229)
    by talktruthfully on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:06:30 PM EST
    We were talking about Krugman in the context of the GE. He is not going to undermine Obama during the GE campaign, because however much he may prefer Hillary's healthcare positions to Obama's, he much prefers Obama's to McCain's. Can we agree on that at least?

    Parent
    No, we don't agree (none / 0) (#234)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:29:52 PM EST
    but that's OK. We can agree to disagree. I just don't see it as Krugman's job to either undermine or champion Obama. He's a journalist. And based on what I've seen of his writing, he will continue to be non-partisan and write about issues, not candidates. Just my opinion, maybe you'll be right, who knows.

    Parent
    C'mon (none / 0) (#235)
    by talktruthfully on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:34:55 PM EST
    You can't honestly say that he didn't have a preference in the primary race. He's human like you and I. Just like he prefers Hillary's issue positions to Obama's, he'll prefer Obama's to McCains'.

    Parent
    Obama Issues? (4.87 / 8) (#8)
    by formerhoosier on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:46:28 AM EST
    Not as confident as Mr Krugman is regarding ease of winning Clinton supporters.  As much as I respect Krugman, there is not any indication Senator Obama supports core Democratic principles.  They should be easy to get, if he approaches from an issues based candidacy.  But his campaign is not issues based, it is personality based and do not see him changing direction to get voters who are interested in economic issues.  

    Issues and ideals (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by nellre on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:16:35 AM EST
    I love my country and the ideals held by the founding fathers and all of us here. One of those ideals was government of the people, by the people and for the people. I don't see that ideal being respected by the DNC right now, nor by the Obama wing.

    Jettisoned by by the democratic party, marginalized by the Obama wing... how do I stick to my ideals, my principles?

    I am sooo conflicted!

    Parent

    Agree; I see no evidence (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:13:30 AM EST
    to support Krugman's off-handed assumption that the white working-class voters will just trot right back into the fold as told.  Disappointing of him, as he usually doesn't just do such assumptions.  What's up, hmmm?

    Parent
    I Don't Think Krugman Assumes That At All (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:50:48 AM EST
    Krugman IMO is saying that based on the issues Obama should win but there are other factors that may cause Obama to lose the GE. Much of his article is the same as what has been discussed here on TL for the last several weeks.

    Why does all this matter? Not for the nomination: Mr. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. But he has a problem: many grass-roots Clinton supporters feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment. And the lingering bitterness from the primary campaign could cost Mr. Obama the White House.
    ...
    But elections always involve emotions as well as issues, and there are some ominous signs in the polling data.
    ...
    Most immediately, they should realize that the continuing demonization of Mrs. Clinton serves nobody except Mr. McCain. One more trumped-up scandal won't persuade the millions of voters who stuck with Mrs. Clinton despite incessant attacks on her character that she really was evil all along. But it might incline a few more of them to stay home in November.


    Parent
    I really do think (none / 0) (#155)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:50:03 AM EST
    that this latest episode of trying to trump up Hillary hatred based on nothing (how can the Obama camp explain their complete silence when Hillary made the same remark with essentially identical language in March in Time magazine?) is really going to come back to haunt them.

    Certainly Obama's odds on favorite to win the nomination. And Obama and his camp have been talking about being "nice" to Hillary supporters in the service of their so-called unity.

    And after all that talk, we get this kind of despicable behavior out of them and sheer abuse of Hillary?

    What this reveals without question is their utter insincerity when it comes to their claims that they really do respect Hillary, or her supporters, or their point of view, or their sentiments. What we can know for sure is that, given the opportunity, they will simply take what they need from us -- enough of our votes to install their guy in the Presidency -- and then they will return to their previous abuse as soon as we've served the narcissistic purpose they had in mind for us. It is ever thus with abusers.

    But, from our point of view, what's the relevant saying?

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

    Parent

    My Personal Opinion Which Is The Same (none / 0) (#175)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:10:58 AM EST
    as Krugman's is that the current actions the Obama campaign are completely counterproductive. Can't for the life of me understand why they continue to attack churn up these ridiculous attacks on Clinton and risk further lose of support in the GE.

    Parent
    Yeah I took it that way too (none / 0) (#215)
    by kayla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:42:23 AM EST
    I thought he was saying not that the working class will go to Obama, but that they should and without some changes from the Obama camp, they may not.

    Parent
    CC, Krugman is in a NY frame of mind, (none / 0) (#98)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:22:28 AM EST
    which works fine most of the time.

    Parent
    I am so ready (4.80 / 5) (#74)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:08:40 AM EST
    for this whole business of the primary to be over.  How Hillary Clinton can stand it day after day is amazing.  I am just some little ol' commenter and I am EXHAUSTED.

    If she doesn't get the nomination, I at least will have a nice break from all things political.  I will be so de-motivated, I can probably focus on more important things anyway.

    I hope that she too, with Bill and Chelsea, will just disappear until after the elections.  There is no logical reason for her to campaign for Obama, not after all the bulloney.

    No, they will (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:32:31 AM EST
    campaign heavily for the ticket after the convention.  You and I will be bummed, and so will they, but they're pros and we're not.  This is what they do, it is their lives.  We can go back to gardening, etc., but they not only can't, they don't want to.

    They will campaign.

    Parent

    Even Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by creeper on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:40:52 AM EST
    couldn't get me to vote for Barack Obama.

    Parent
    I don't (none / 0) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:48:09 AM EST
    know that they will. I think they will go through the motions but not a whole lot. The only way I think they could strongly campaign for Obama is if he takes responsibility for the his sleazy campaign and makes a full and public apology to Clinton and her voters. Nothing less will do imo.

    Parent
    The way politics works (none / 0) (#161)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:55:33 AM EST
    They will campaign energetically because that's the way politics works.  It is the only way they can maintain any power and influence in the party. If they sulk or even just appear to sulk, they are finished.

    If Bill can become best buddies with George H.W., who derided him and called him a "bozo" during the campaign, if Hillary can have cordial relationships with and co-sponsor bills with the very people who voted to convict her husband, they will campaign for Obama.

    It is a different world from the one we live in.


    Parent

    Her Loyalty to the Party is Unquestionable (none / 0) (#241)
    by Jane in CA on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:48:03 PM EST
    I can't say the same for the party's loyalty to her.

    It is the only way they can maintain any power and influence in the party. If they sulk or even just appear to sulk, they are finished.

    I don't see them having a whole lot of power or influence in the party now. In fact, I see most of the democrats either stabbing them in the back, or ignoring the slaughter.

    It is so pervasive, that I am actually wondering if that "vast right wing conspiracy" Hillary referred to in the nineties was maybe comprised of a few dems as well.

    Parent

    Hillary doesn't have (none / 0) (#147)
    by brodie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:45:27 AM EST
    the option of not stumping for O.  She's already said she would campaign for the nominee, and moreover the media will be closely watching to ensure she does so, and will have her under the microscope to see that she does it with sufficient sincerity and enthusiasm.

    Double standards again as to the latter point.  Back in 80, Ted K hardly was enthusiastic about Jimmy, starting with the famous snub at the convention, though he did go out later to campaign for him.

    Interesting that his top advisor back then, Bob Shrum, an Obama backer today, wrote Ted a memo after his defeat recommending that he should stump, but "not too enthusiastically".

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:49:44 AM EST
    that's what they'll do: go through the motions.

    Bob Shrum is advising Obama? I'd be willing to put money down now that Obama will lose in Nov.

    Parent

    No, Shrum isn't (none / 0) (#179)
    by brodie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:17:06 AM EST
    afaik, an Obama advisor, just an O backer, and someone with a less than cozy relationship with the Clintons, going back to the 92 campaign, iirc, where the Shrumster told an off-key joke to someone about Bill's philandering, and it got back to the Large Canine.  

    He was brought in during the 2d term for some speechwriter duties, but otherwise probably felt the Clintons were freezing him out for that one unfortunate joke.

    As to how HRC will act, I'd say she'll register somewhere between very tepid public support for O and full-out enthusiasm.  The latter posture can hardly be expected, but she'll manage to do more than just act disinterested.  

    Parent

    & by disappearing (4.75 / 4) (#78)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:11:26 AM EST
    that they get a nice LONG rest/vacation and she goes back to the Senate.

    I love the Indiana Jones movie (4.50 / 4) (#6)
    by dianem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:42:16 AM EST
    Okay, I agree - the entire movie "strained credulity". But that's what the whole series is about. It's like the 1950's serials with lots of overacting (presumably intentionally), impossible stunts, purely evil villains, beautiful women, lots of violence (but only the bad guys seem to get hurt) and plot twists that could be predicted by anybody with an IQ over 60. It's not that they're trying to pass off a bad movie as good. It's more like they set out to make a movie that we could all just romp along with without having to engage our brains too much. Frankly, I do too much thinking in real life. It was kind of nice to put my brain on hold for a few hours.

    Did you notice how their shirts stayed white even after a chase through the jungle and going over a waterfall? And their hair was perfect. It's not "The African Queen".  

    that's a good analysis of it (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:51:56 AM EST
    Yes, I noticed the improbable stuff, and found them distracting becauer and don't get wet.se I was wondering how people go over waterfalls and into the wat as i was trying to follow the plot, slim as it was.

    Parent
    Any of the waterfalls would have killed them (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by dianem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:58:38 AM EST
    There is no way that they could have all gone over and survived being dashed on the rocks beneath, much less stayed in the boat for a couple of falls while still retaining hold of the important package.   It's as realistic as Buck Rogers or James Bond, and as much fun. :-)  Once I figured out that I wasn't supposed to take it seriously, I had a great time.

    Parent
    I have a hard time (none / 0) (#23)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:01:25 AM EST
    with action movies, I cannot get into them so they always look and feel fake.  I used to love old cowboy movies, etc, but these movies with all the technology and super action scenes, is like cartoons.  

    Parent
    Yes the (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by LoisInCo on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:04:28 AM EST
    digital animation craze is not a favorite with me. I miss the old sinbad movies with the molded skeletons.

    Parent
    Digital has 'chilled' various arts (none / 0) (#182)
    by Ellie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:23:45 AM EST
    I don't like digital animation either; the old cel-drawn stuff's more fun and the Ray Harryhausen Sinbads (and other legendary creature model animations) just rock. I think I have almost everything Harryhausen ever did.

    I'm not nuts about digital music either: a lot of the nuances you get on vinyl and other media get batch "normalized" into a range and it's IMO an insult to the artistry of the piece and it deprives the listener of the option of hearing it in as close to its original form.

    It's predigestion.

    Parent

    My 8 year old grandson loved it (none / 0) (#84)
    by nellre on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:20:15 AM EST
    He wanted to know whether ants really eat people like that though.
    Thank god I can tell him no... can't I?

    Parent
    It's actually partially true (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by dianem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:39:47 AM EST
    African army ants swarm and have been known to kill large vertebrates. I'm not aware of them killing humans (you'd have to hold still), but they hypothetically could. They generally eat insects, and although ants can make ladders to climb up to branches, I don't think it's likely that they would be able to have the wit to use this technique to attack a human. The dragging into nest - not gonna happen. Ants don't work that way.

    Parent
    This is an ... (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by Robot Porter on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:30:42 AM EST
    homage (i.e. rip-off) of a famous story called "Leinningen Versus the Ants" by Carl Stephenson.  

    There was a very famous radio adaptation of this story staring William Conrad, for the series ESCAPE, and the story also provided the basis for the movie NAKED JUNGLE (1954) starring Charlton Heston.

    The INDY films are full of such stuff.  Many are such wholesale lifts from old serials that it really seems as though the original filmmakers should be given credit.

    Parent

    Yes! That's one of the most (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:35:34 AM EST
    horrifying, terrifying stories I've ever read.  It's a classic and deserves to be.  Don't know why I watched the movie on TV some years ago, but I did, and thought it was a perfect (though unnecessary) visualization of the story.

    Parent
    My friend (none / 0) (#3)
    by LoisInCo on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:39:29 AM EST
    in New Orleans offered this solution. Have a run-off primary. One day, all 50 states, winner takes all. Everyone jumps on the winning team no crying foul. No more campaigning allowed except against McCain. Of course I rained on his parade by pointing out that it is impossible to do, but it certainly would solve the issue of legitimacy.

    Well, I've called for (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:41:57 AM EST
    a national primary day since last fall. It would have served essentially the same purpose.

    Instead, of course, we get stupid caucuses.

    Why we couldn't just hold a national primary on the first Tuesday in May, or whatever, is beyond me. It's a logistical nightmare, to be sure, and the states would piss and moan, but it would be fair. Not to the candidates--I don't much care about the candidates--to the voters.

    Parent

    Well, frankly having voted in Florida (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Mark Woods on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:56:02 AM EST
    any talk of canceling my vote for a run-off is a real sore spot.

    The fact is, as a life-long Democrat, Obama has never asked for my vote, and the only way he'll get it now is to add Hillary to his ticket.

    As a Floridian, to have Obama show up one day indicating by his actions that my vote 'counts', and then to have him announce from PR that the hassle over my vote was 'Hillary-contrived' goes beyond the surreal.

    He's like an abusive spouse or parent who beats us and then tells us it was our 'fault' -- this is intolerable insanity.

    He has about one week in my book to redeem himself or I will be pushed into an opposing camp for good. I will not 'coalesce' around the nominee when the nominee is a neo-sexist demagogue forced down my throat, no thanks.


    Parent

    I have been (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by LoisInCo on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:01:55 AM EST
    half-musing that Donna B. stripped all the delegates out of spite for 2000.

    Parent
    RE: LoisInCo (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by formerhoosier on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:13:23 AM EST
    Wow, never thought of it from that perspective.  That would be incredibly stupid.  Let us get back at the gaming of the 2000 vote by the Republicans by taking it out on the voters of Florida.  Strip them of their delegates, and discount their vote by an action taken by the Republican controlled legislature.  Really sounds like a mature and politically astute action.

    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#45)
    by LoisInCo on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:25:08 AM EST
    Incredibly stupid thing to do.

    Parent
    But even with FL and MI (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by NWHiker on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:15:44 AM EST
    Even with FL and MI fully seated, we're pretty much at a tie... within, in all probability, the margin of error, considering all the elections.

    The run-off would be a "it's a tie, let's all re-vote with only these two candidates and see where we go from there".

    As in, no, it couldn't happen -the logistics alone would be monumental, but it would address the issue of what we have: a tie, with some vote counting more  than others.

    Parent

    your vote (1.00 / 5) (#77)
    by manish on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:10:34 AM EST
    As a Floridian, to have Obama show up one day indicating by his actions that my vote 'counts', and then to have him announce from PR that the hassle over my vote was 'Hillary-contrived' goes beyond the surreal.

    It was Hillary's surrogates like Harold Ickes who voted to strip Florida of its delegates.  Now that Hillary finds herself behind, she has suddenly made seating the delegates her top priority.  If things were the other way, do you think that Hillary would be calling for seating the delegates?  

    Parent

    Whatever you are saying holds no weight with us (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by Mark Woods on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:23:23 AM EST
    in Florida -- all we know and care about is that we voted overwhelmingly for Hillary and she has been shouting to have our votes counted -- Obama is the obstructionist, no matter how you try to spin it.

    And Hillary won't need to tell us what to do, we know that if enough of us pull out of the Democratic Party after a bad decision on 31 May, a DNC 'civil war' will have erupted from the FL grassroots.

    And I don't care about dire warnings about RvW being reversed, etc. I have been personally offended by Obama and his rude followers, and I will only be persuaded not to vote for McCain or another opposition name if Hillary is 1/2 of the Obama ticket, end of story.

    And if one more condescending post-pubescent creep tells me I'm 'grieving' I promise to belt them.  Floridians are beyond reason on this, trust me.

    Parent

    are you part of the Obama staff? (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:20:35 AM EST
    what nonsense.  It was Donna Brazile and company who over reacted to the date change in florida and convinced everyone that they had to send a message.  She wanted to make sure SC really had a large say in the nomination, KNOWING it was a sure bet for Obama.  Harold may have made a bad choice to go along, but he was not doing it for Clinton's sake.  And the purpose of that punishment is OVER.  There is no reason to continue to strip them of their voting rights.

    Parent
    Thank you Teresa. (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Mark Woods on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:31:21 AM EST
    But a lot of the damage is done for Obama -- that's why he trashed Hillary and Florida one day after he told us we 'counted'.

    He knows Charlie Crist paired with McCain will blow him out of the water - Obama's ONLY hope in FL is Clinton on the ticket.

    Parent

    From Donna Brazile herself... (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:13:29 AM EST
    to the folks in Florida:
    "I'm going to send a message to everybody in Florida that we're going to follow the rules," committee member Donna Brazile said.

    While Ickes may have voted for it, Ms. Brazile seems to be one of the primary advocates for the new ruling. Other reports suggest that her efforts were "swift and harsh."

    And that was done without recognizing the situation that the Dems on the Florida legislature found themselves in--vote for/against a rider that would provide for a papertrail (see Recount) by the November 2008 elections.

    Why did SC get a waiver while Fla got thwacked over the head with a sledgehammer?

    Parent

    Of course, the DNC did not follow its rules of (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by jawbone on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:21:52 PM EST
    record at the time, which was to penalize a state by taking away half its delegate votes. Instead, the DNC came up with a brand new rule, which was Draconian to say the least.

    Especially since in FL the Dems had no way of defeating the Republican proposal to move the primary up -- and there were other issues which they could not afford to vote against.

    It was truly a Hobson's choice, and the Dems were damns if they did and damned if they didn't.

    So, was the Obama campaign already planning that a caucus in FL would be more to their benefit, and thus the new rule somehow dreamed up just at that time?

    Or was there some kind of madness which overcame all the members of the rules committee? It would be very interesting to know how that brand new rule got passed....

    But, as has been pointed out by Sean Willentz, the Repubs played the Dems and seem to be winning on that point at least. Amazing.

    Did no one at the DNC see this coming?

    Parent

    To hijack the party and create a new coalition (none / 0) (#181)
    by feet on earth on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:21:16 AM EST
    comprised of the creative class, AAs, and the young votes Obama enchanted into his fold.

    And to purge the party of the grass-root working class (this includes seniors, women with a history of feminism, rural and small town voters, etc.)  This because a number of them became the so called Regan's Dems when confronted with elitist Dem candidates over and over again.  Elitism and dogmatic liberalism does not fly with grass-root dem voters.

    In addition, the fact that B. Clinton was able to win their votes but (in their view) failed to win them over to the liberal dogmatic forces, has been a "8 year huge bump" in their plan. Hence, their need to demolish everything Clinton and paint everything the Clintons do as evil and infective     to the their "pure left" vision of the party.

    There is no respect for the fact that grass-roots voters are after the most basic things in life, (that others give for granted) such as food, their kids education and decent wages and benefits before they can worry about anything else.

    This is the real straggle, not Hil versus Barak, but what they represent: The internal party fight  between the whether the Dems should be the party of the people or the party of the left intelligentsia.    

    Just my 2 cents.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#9)
    by Steve M on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:47:33 AM EST
    The amount of money everyone would have to raise for a national primary day would be mind-boggling.

    Parent
    Frankly, too bad (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:50:23 AM EST
    Presidential elections cost money. What better preparation for the general election could there be than a national primary?

    Parent
    Way too glib (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Steve M on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:57:07 AM EST
    Even the amount Barack Obama raised in his best month wouldn't be close to the amount you'd need to finance a national primary.  And you'd have to raise that kind of money for several months before the voting starts, without the benefit of any early wins to help establish you as a credible candidate.

    Unless someone has a warchest like Mitt Romney's and is prepared to spend it, you might as well just skip the primary and crown the establishment frontrunner.  No one else would have a prayer of competing.

    Parent

    Well, I would settle for a lottery (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:03:18 AM EST
    of regional primaries. But frontloading a bunch of caucuses, as we did this year, seems the worst solution.

    Parent
    As An Iowan (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by creeper on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:54:37 AM EST
    I can't shake the feeling that my states owes the country an apology for starting this mess.  

    Had we known about Rev. Wright in January I suspect Mr. Obama would not have come out on top of our caucuses.

    Still, it baffles me that Iowans could compare Clinton's record with Obama's and then vote for him.

    Parent

    As a former Iowan, I am also puzzled. (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by oculus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:03:17 PM EST
    This is the book I've been waiting for.

    Parent
    Moreover (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:51:20 AM EST
    if you want serious campaign finance reform, argue for that. But don't use the fact that we don't have it to argue against a common sense reform of the primary calendar.

    Parent
    Maybe Reducing The Amount Of Money (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:12:19 AM EST
    spent on primaries would be a good thing. IMO most voters would approve of not being swamped with non stop TV political ads and having their mail boxes full of repeats of the same campaign messages.

    This primary has shown us a few things. Florida, if you eliminate the stupidity of disenfranchising voters, was a great example of true grass roots campaigns. Also, we have seen that outspending an opponent 4-1, 3-1, 2-1, does not always equate to a primary victory.

    Being forced into approaching the primaries with less money could result in better ways of campaigning.  
     

    Parent

    National primary is a bad idea.. (none / 0) (#196)
    by BostonIndependent on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:46:38 AM EST
    Consider the impact of Operation Chaos on a national scale. The other party can interfere too much.

    Also note that national primaries will skew the process toward incumbents and people w/ name recognition. It will also arguably, skew the process  toward the wealthy and well-connected, which does not necessarily serve us well.

    Parent

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#18)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:56:21 AM EST
    I just noticed the David Iglesias book on your webpage.  Have you read it?  I am SOOOO going to score that right now on Amazon.  I bet that book has some great info we didn't get to here during that imbroglio.

    This would be the same David Axlerod... (none / 0) (#31)
    by EddieInCA on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:12:40 AM EST
    ...who worked for Bill Clinton during the 1996 Presidential campaign?

    The same David Axelrod who worked for Hilary Clinton during her 2000 Senate Campaign?

    Um... Yes. It would.

    Well gosh (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by Steve M on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:14:43 AM EST
    That should certainly establish his progressive credentials!  Oh, wait, there are no progressives left to care.

    Parent
    so much (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:17:17 AM EST
    For obama being different.

    Parent
    You're right... (none / 0) (#44)
    by EddieInCA on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:24:00 AM EST
    1996 for Bill Clinton?

    2000 for Hillary Clinton?

    Hopefully, this result will be the exact same and not different.

    Parent

    What did he do (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:26:27 AM EST
    for Bill and Hillary, he was not in charge.  He was a minor player.  Anyway, we know they are horrible, they had Penn.  

    Parent
    But ... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by andrys on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:33:12 AM EST
    Obama and team are NEW politics, no ?

    Parent
    the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:26:08 AM EST
    reprinted an entire article. it's been deleted.

    Parent
    Jeralyn - (none / 0) (#55)
    by EddieInCA on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:35:11 AM EST
    Am I free to respond to the question posed in the thread, or should I just drop it. I'll not respond unless you say it's okay.

    Thanks.


    Parent

    go ahead and respond, but please (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:38:52 AM EST
    identify the article with a link rather than a reprint. Otherwise, no one will know what you are talking about. If you can't figure out how to link, use tinyurl.com

    Parent
    Hi Jeralyn (none / 0) (#214)
    by jen on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:42:03 AM EST
    The article was 2 pages. What I posted was probably 1/3 of the article.


    Parent
    you can only repost (none / 0) (#223)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:55:02 AM EST
    a few paragraphs of an article here, there are copyright issues and bandwidth issues. Full reprints (and overlong comments) also detract from the reading experience. Sorry.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, I haven't learned how to reply (none / 0) (#117)
    by andrys on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:04:36 AM EST
    to main topic posts yet!  Slow learner.

    I wrote re your florida recount page note here.

    Andrys, look at the top (none / 0) (#153)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:49:51 AM EST
    of the page.  In between the post and the start of the comments section, there's a large-type link that says, "Click here to post a comment."


    Parent
    'Recount' never mentions the overvotes (none / 0) (#120)
    by ruffian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:22:32 AM EST
    I would have been interested in seeing how that played out - why Gore never asked for those to be recounted. I guess I'll have to read Toobin's book - I have felt too wounded all these years to read it, but maybe I can now, since I have so many more fresher wounds now.  sigh. Reading about the old ones will seem like ancient history.

    I read Toobins book when it first came out (none / 0) (#121)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:51:24 AM EST
    The Dems could have used a strong dose of BTD's common sense upholding of their own standards.  They kept losing a leg to stand on because they had fudged on their own standards of practice when fighting the recount fight.  I came away from watching Recount last night with an even larger gratitude for the Democratic primary race.  I would go over to my grandmother's house every morning in 2000 to watch the various news with her during the Florida fiasco.  I remember feeling anxious and unsure because things seemed like they were such a mess and I felt like I needed some sort of instant security about who was going to be our next president.  I survived that and I got George W Bush...UGH UGH UGH!  I will never feel that overly anxious again about wanting the will of the people decided.  I'm all about letting it just be KNOWN now however long that takes.  And secondly, Democrats are notoriously such a bunch of whiners for god's sake.  They can't wait to quit the election at the first sign they're losing.  This primary is proving to us that Dems have the fight if only they'd drop being such a bunch of candy a$$e$.  The party is almost being forced to grow up as a party because of this primary.  The Republicans are going to find it much harder to take the candy from the whining baby that the Democratic party is growing from.

    Parent
    Re overvotes, iirc that (none / 0) (#187)
    by brodie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:28:25 AM EST
    was mostly a Palm Beach Cty/Butterfly Ballot issue -- voters erroneously voting both for Gore and Pitchfork Pat -- and Gore's lawyers decided, not unreasonably, that there just wasn't legal precedent to challenge -- no legal remedies would be available, such as a re-vote.

    The political context also wasn't ideal-- the ballot had been designed by a local Dem (Madame Butterfly) and local Dem election observers had signed off on it without complaint.

    I was, and am, ticked off to this day about how Gore's legal team too narrowly focused their recount efforts on just those 4 counties where he'd be expected to make gains.  It opened themselves up to charges by Baker that Gore just wanted to count Gore votes, which made Al look bad in the PR War, while at the same time they failed to go all out to ask for recounts in all counties, or as many as they could physically pull off given the ltd time, which would have been consistent with their recount theme of Count All the Votes.

    Don't get me started about that 2000 fiasco.  I like Al today and his Global Warming public education effort, but back then he made several key blunders in strategy and personnel which ensured Dems would have the election stolen.  He came unarmed wearing kid gloves to a back alley knife fight, and a few of his key people he put front and center -- Christopher, Holy Joe -- seemed all to eager to waive the white flag of surrender.

    Oh, and I still want to see Al sit down sometime and talk at length about some of his decisions made then. To my knowledge, he's not done this, and I think he owes it to Dems to be frank about it.  Maybe after this election is over?

    Parent

    Overvotes were also writing in Gore when voting (none / 0) (#233)
    by jawbone on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:28:27 PM EST
    Gore on the printed part of the ballot. When these went through the machines, there were kicked out as overvotes.

    Is my memory correct?

    Parent

    Anybody (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:23:03 AM EST
    else noticing how the media is trying to turn Obama in to a joke of a candidate? Tapper had all the quotes on his blog: Iran, FARC etc.

    yes, that is a good article (none / 0) (#134)
    by Josey on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:15:59 AM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/5zapvv

    but ABC News bamboozles like Obama - cause although they occasionally publish negative but factual info about Obama, it rarely appears on ABC TV.

    Parent

    great info! (none / 0) (#124)
    by Josey on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:27:01 AM EST
    More on the Hypocrisy and Misleading Claims by Obama
    No Quarter, May 25, 08

    http://tinyurl.com/2h433r

    49 left to go (none / 0) (#125)
    by cannondaddy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:28:40 AM EST
    I think the Obama campaign is going to try to cross the finish line before it gets reset on Saturday.  If he does, I don't see anyway the remaining Superdelegates would allow a different result after MI and FA are resolved.

    If the finish (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:46:19 AM EST
    line gets reset then he doesn't cross it. If he proclaims himself the "winner" by disenfranchising two states he will be seen as illegitimate.

    Parent
    He's not going be seen as illegitimate (none / 0) (#176)
    by talktruthfully on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:11:34 AM EST
    This whole thing with MI and FL being blamed on Obama is just plain wrong. But to put the whole thing to rest, even if MI and FL were sanctioned and counted in their entirety, he'd still win. So I don't really get what the indignation is about.

    Parent
    Comments Now Closed (none / 0) (#238)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:19:14 PM EST
    Commenter Talktruthfully is suspended for calling another site racist. Allegations of racism aren't allowed. He's also race-baiting.

    Overnight Open Thread | 218 comments (218 topical)