home

Thursday Open Thread

Here's an open thread for today while we're at work.

If you've got an opinion or news to share, you can do it here. All topics welcome.

< Reactions to Supreme Court Ruling on Gun Rights | How To Read Polls: Part . . . >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    More Q polls (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:24:54 AM EST
    here

    Time in the field is a little long for my tastes, but all around good news for Obama:

    Colorado: Obama leads McCain 49 - 44 percent, including 51 - 39 percent among independent voters;

    Michigan: Obama tops McCain 48 - 42 percent, with 46 - 38 percent among independents;

    Minnesota: Obama buries McCain 54 - 37 percent, and 54 - 33 percent with independents;

    Wisconsin: Obama leads McCain 52 - 39 percent, and 50 - 37 percent with independents.




    It appears to be in bag doesn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:30:02 AM EST
    reminds me of the summer polling in 2007.

    Parent
    From Q article (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Lahdee on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:33:00 AM EST
    "But Sen. Obama should not be picking out the drapes for the Oval Office just yet. His lead nationally, and double digits in some key states, is not hugely different from where Sen. John Kerry stood four years ago at this point in the campaign," Brown added.

    From Q article.
     

    Parent
    Yup - I can smell the inevitability in the air (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:51:00 AM EST
    Not quite (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:17:57 PM EST
    I remember 2000 and I was sure Gore would win. In 2004 it was a no brainer. Kerry would beat Bush. After that I threw out the tea leaves.

    Playing on prejudices and fear is a very strong marketing tool and the Republican's are experts at it. They haven't even begun yet.

    Parent

    You're right, of course (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:40:57 PM EST
    My sarcasm up there was a little better hidden than usual.

    Parent
    I got it! (none / 0) (#142)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:20:34 PM EST
    I'm just not convinced that the Obama people get it.

    Parent
    The Republican fear tactics will happen only after (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Aqua Blue on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:24:07 PM EST
    the Dem VP is chosen.   Repulicans do not want Hillary Clinton chosen so they are in waiting now.

    Once Obama choses someone other than Clinton the onslaught will begin.

    Parent

    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:57:56 AM EST
    Especially if you were watching Iowa polls. "Inevitability" was always a myth.

    Parent
    Isn't Colorado new? (none / 0) (#112)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    I don't remember Kerry doing well in Colorado. And Obama is tied in a recent Indiana poll.

    I really believe this year is different. The War and terror made people crazy in 2004 and now they are just sick and tired of it all.

    Parent

    Someone (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by pie on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    had better tell Congress as it debates the FISA legislation.

    Parent
    Kerry (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:08:37 PM EST
    was leading in CO in the summer of 2004. The Qpoll people state that Obama is in the exact same place Kerry was in 2004 in their polls.

    Things aren't that much different in a lot of ways. People who want divided government may switch their vote from Kerry to McCain. National security voters will vote for McCain. Some people who base their votes on the economy will vote for Obama. The GOP has already conceded that Obama is probably going to lead McCain until the fall. They roll out their Obama destruction campaign after Labor day.

    Actually, I think this election is an extreme uphill climb for Obama. He has more baggage than Kerry and less experience. And don't forget the Dem congress has had two years of screwing up. It's not like Bush is the only one with a bad approval rating.

    Parent

    In '04... (none / 0) (#185)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:47:01 PM EST
    "...George Bush defeated John Kerry by 4.7%, the fifth closest outcome of the 31 states won by the incumbent president."

    The actual result in Colorado was 47% to 52%.  

    Parent

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by DFLer on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:01:07 PM EST
    in MN, that same poll has Franken trailing Coleman in the Senate race.
    In the Minnesota U.S. Senate race, Republican incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman tops Democrat Al Franken 51 - 41 percent, including 55 - 35 percent among independent voters.

    This is bad news. Obama needs to help him out. Where are the down ticket Obama supporters for this important race?

    Parent

    Minnesota (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:21:43 PM EST
    Would be a great place to test Obama's ability to help the rest of the ticket. If he has that great of support in MN, he should be doing everything he can to help Franken.

    Parent
    I agree mmc (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by DFLer on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:34:34 PM EST
    As for the previous "moh flippier" comments about entertainers and Ventura, etc...you have no idea about Franken's substance or even about Ventura.

    To write this race off now...you have no guts, my friends. When the Obama supporters over-ran the caucuses....I was worried then because I didn't see that many dedicated Dems, willing to do the hard work of the general election, on all levels. It's much easier, I guess, to write this race off to "bad breaks", ride the dream express, and not do the hard work.

    (yes..I am ticked off about it!)

    Parent

    I'm sure... (2.00 / 0) (#102)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:49:29 PM EST
    ...my friends and family in the Land O' Lakes will no doubt be pleased to hear that they are simply clueless idiots--and that you have decided to speak for all of them.

    Parent
    what are you talking about? (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by DFLer on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:56:02 PM EST
    who said anyone was a clueless idiot?

    and that you have decided to speak for all of them.

    Then why are you speaking for Minnesotans? At least I live here.

    I am speaking up for Franken, and wondering why the Obama polling shows no down ticket strength.

    I'm outa here now. Your hostility is really a turn-off.

    Parent

    You said... (1.00 / 1) (#114)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:03:02 PM EST
    ..."you have no idea about Franken's substance or even about Ventura".  

    When in fact, I do have quite a good idea from the conversations I've had with people who-gasp-actually live there.  

    You are discounting that people may have opinions that differ from you and stating they have "no idea".  

    And it's my hostility?  OK, sure.

    Parent

    Good to see you're... (none / 0) (#160)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:37:58 PM EST
    ...back to your troll rating ways Pssst.  That 5 the other day about gave me a heart attack.

    Parent
    If I had to guess now (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:09:32 PM EST
    I'd say that Franken isn't going to pull it off. That's not Obama's fault, Franken just caught some bad breaks.

    Who knows, maybe something will change. A Coleman scandal would be helpful.

    Parent

    what would be helpful (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by DFLer on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:27:09 PM EST
    would be Obama supporters working hard for other Democrats....like Al Franken has done in this state for the past four years.

    Parent
    this is a reply to andgarden - sorry (none / 0) (#77)
    by DFLer on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:27:52 PM EST
    Actually (3.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:12:27 PM EST
    why would anyone who votes for Obama also vote for Franken? After all, Obama isn't advocating that we need democrats elected. He's all about Unity08 so a vote for Coleman is just as good as any other vote.

    It's looking like Obama may have negative coattails.

    Parent

    Or perhaps... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:16:34 PM EST
    ...after suffering through Jesse as Governor, the nice people of Minnesota are a bit leary of "entertainers" running for office.

    Parent
    Glass floor too IMO (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:20:47 PM EST
    And where are Donna Braziles ~45 million spanking new Dumpling Dems that Obama reportedly attracted.

    That's the only lump nat'l figure I've seen this past month. IIRC it was a toss-off in one of those useless "on the stump" stories so it could be a generous plant.

    Parent

    Negative coattails? (3.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Tortmaster on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:28:24 PM EST
    Ga6thDem, how do you explain the Democratic wins in heavily Repub districts in Louisana and Illinois already this year? Obama supported those candidates, and they ended up beating heavily-favored Repubs.  

    So, you can point to one poll, and I have pointed to two actual elections.  

    Parent

    Who Travis (3.50 / 2) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:13:57 PM EST
    and the guy in LA? Both of them threw Obama under the bus and ran over him. They wanted nothing to do with him and even called the GOP mentioning Obama "an attack ad." IL is Obama's home state. If he couldn't deliver something there then it's bad news.

    Parent
    And yet, in Oregon (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Newt on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:30:47 PM EST
    Barack Obama is a huge best seller, even for the Republicans.

    Parent
    And yet in Oregon (5.00 / 0) (#183)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:46:33 PM EST
    Obama's lead over McCain in a recent SUSA poll is within the margin of error, and he is still under 50%.

    Obama 48%
    McCain 45%
    Unde.     7%
    M/E       4.3%

    Parent

    OK, you got me. (none / 0) (#189)
    by Newt on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:50:38 PM EST
    But 7% undecided?  Hmm, let's see what we can do with that...

    Parent
    Well (2.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:35:41 PM EST
    Tortmaster was trying to use the MS and LA results as indicative of something it isn't.

    Parent
    In Other Years (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by daring grace on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:46:37 PM EST
    that attaching of a potentially unpopular national figure to an even unwilling local candidate (who through the national guy under the bus) could have doomed the local. Those kinds of strategies had more power than they seem to now (so far).

    So either Obama is not registering as the horrific figure the Repubs would like him to be or the electorate is just sick of that tactic. Either way it's a promising sign for the GE.

    Parent

    Sorry (5.00 / 0) (#204)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:02:38 PM EST
    but I've seen these special elections happen time and again and people say "Oh, it means this", or "oh it means that" and when nov. comes around we find out that it meant absolutely nothing towards what was going to happen in Nov. If the candidates had not thrown Obama under the bus then you would probably have a valid point that those ads dont' work. Obviously, according to their internal polling, those ads did hurt the candidates or they wouldn't have distanced themselves from Obama.

    Parent
    WOW. What if in some of these states he (none / 0) (#203)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:02:11 PM EST
    is elected by the Republican vote? What would you think if Republicans actually elect him?

    Parent
    Huh? (3.33 / 3) (#83)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:32:23 PM EST
    "Coattails" have nothing to do with endorsements.  Coattails are when you're on the ballot together.

    Your claim that the Republican candidates were "heavily favored" in both races is, as best as I can tell, just false.

    Parent

    Steve M, perhaps you've ... (2.00 / 0) (#151)
    by Tortmaster on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:28:11 PM EST
    ... heard of Denny Hastert? Before claiming that what I write is false, perhaps you should do some research. This is what Politico had to write:

    "In a race that will likely send tremors throughout the House GOP leadership, Republicans lost former House Speaker Dennis Hastert's seat Saturday in a hotly contested special election in exurban Chicago.

    Physicist Bill Foster, a Democrat running in his first political campaign, is heading to Congress after defeating Republican dairy owner Jim Oberweis in a result that was unthinkable just weeks ago.

    With all precincts reporting, Foster defeated Oberweis 53 to 47 percent."

    If you knew anything about that race, you would realize that the Republican, Oberweis, spent millions of dollars on advertising and was well-known in the State of Illinois. The district is hugely Republican and had been for-almost-ever.

    So, instead of making a baseless claim that my post is false, then providing no evidence to back up your smear -- Isn't that the definition of a troll? -- just take what I write as gospel and move along to denigrate the next Democrat, or at least stop being lazy and provide some evidence for your accusations.

    NOTE: I specifically bolded the word "tremors" in the article because I think it is relevant for Republicans.  


    Parent

    Oberweis (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:07:51 PM EST
    Your comment was dead on:

    "was well-known in the State of Illinois".

    That was his undoing. His hardline neocon attitude even scared the Republican Party of IL. They tried to stop him but the national party pushed. (Just as they did with Alan Keyes, who Obama beat) Oberweis's family which own a dairy business even ran an ad telling people that he didn't represent them. He bought his nomination. But his neocon policies scared moderstes from both parties. He was a gift to the Democrat's.

    Parent

    P.S. Steve M, did you ... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Tortmaster on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:30:11 PM EST
    ... see that Politico called the result in the "Hastert Seat" election "unthinkable"?

    Parent
    Heh (4.66 / 3) (#180)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:45:34 PM EST
    Unthinkable?  Gosh, considering Survey USA had Foster up 7 points in the polls prior to the election, do you really feel "unthinkable" is an accurate word?

    Those of us who followed the race closely knew that Foster had an excellent chance to win.  Polling was, at worst, neck and neck.  Oberweis simply was not "heavily favored" no matter how you slice it.

    I like how you assume I'm just some rube who possibly didn't even know this was Dennis Hastert's old district, while you, of course, are a savvy political observer who regards the Politico as gospel.

    Before the special election was held, the New York Times called it a "close race."  The Cook Political Report rated it a "toss-up."  Does that sound like the Republican was heavily favored to you?

    Parent

    Steve M, of course, you're ... (2.00 / 0) (#195)
    by Tortmaster on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:56:11 PM EST
    ... pointing to polls after the "Barack Bump" occurred. Funny that before Obama, this was the real picture:

    "The loss is a huge psychological blow to the Republican Party, already reeling from a slew of congressional retirements and fundraising woes. Democrats hadn't contested Hastert's seat since 1986 and, in Foster, had a political novice running in a traditionally Republican district.

    The National Republican Congressional Committee spent $1.2 million on the race -- nearly one-fifth of its entire cash on hand -- in a failed attempt to hold on to what many political observers felt would be a fairly easy seat to retain."

    Parent

    I expect Obama (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:29:50 AM EST
    will do well in MN and WI. I don't think he'll end up carrying CO in the end and MI is up in the air for him. Remember Kerry looked like he was going to carry CO until the fall in 2004.

    Parent
    yep. If Obama didn't have a lead in MN and WI (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:19:46 PM EST
    then that would be news.

    These polls will be pretty meaningless until after the conventions. When the ink is dried and the nominees are set and more Americans than just us political junkies start tuning in, then we'll have a better sense of who will win in November.

    I know it's supposed to the Democrats' year, but I will honestly be surprised if the majority of voters in this country have changed so much that they can dismiss Obama's associations with Wright, Pfleger, Ayers and Dohrn--and loosely Farrakhan. I'll be surprised if these associations don't  cause most to vote for the old, uncharismatic but "safe" guy.

    The non-political junkies haven't really started following things closely--and a lot is on their minds as they deal with more economic insecurity than we've seen since Bush I was president. In the background chatter, they hear that everyone loves Obama. But when they look up from their kitchen tables in September and October and closely look at the two men, which will they feel more confidence in?

    For many, that's determined far less by reason and more by (manipulated) intuition. Obama will have tons of money and therefore the ability to control the message. But Wright is such a potently divisive force that all the money in the world, all the ads in the world, can't convince a lot of people to entrust the White House to a guy who has had more experience sitting in Wright's church for 20 years than he has in government. This undermines Obama's claims of having superior judgment--and makes him culturally "foreign" to most Americans, like the windsurfing Kerry.

    Anyway....gonna be interesting.

    Parent

    I don't think the associations will do it (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:36:23 PM EST
    I think that Obama's achilles heel is, was, and always will be (well, for about another decade) his inexperience. He has had absolutely no meaningful leadership experience and has had a minimal time in the Senate.  The associations are nails in the coffin, but when it comes down to it only people who really want a black President, liberals who hate McCain, and kids who don't think experience matters will turn out in any numbers for Obama. The big question is whether they will have enough votes for Obama to win.

    Parent
    American history has shown that experience (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by Newt on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:09:23 PM EST
    in government isn't always as important as wisdom, judgment, empathy and compassion.  We've have some very good presidents with less experience in government than Obama, and a few of them turned out to be our greatest presidents.  

    FDR had been NY's governor for four years, a state senator for two years and Assistant Sec of the Navy for seven years.

    Teddy Roosevelt was only 42 years old when he became Prez, and his government experience was only two years as NY governor and six months as VP.

    Jackson was a governor and Congress member for a year each, and only a Senator for three years. That's only five years in government service. Obama has about twelve years.

    Woodrow Wilson was a college professor first, then he ran a college, then he was NJ's govenor for two years.  

    Heck, Abraham Lincoln, one of my favorite presidents, served only two years in the House of Reps before running and winning the presidency.  

    If Obama's our nominee, I think the best thing we can do here is help guide discourse so that he works on our issues.  (Thanks Jeralyn & BTD)  Productive criticism and communicating outside of this blog as well is the way to make that happen.


    Parent

    Not very good example (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:33:05 PM EST
    Teddy Roosavelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy, during the Spanish-American war and commanded the infamous Rough Riders. FDR ... well, obviously he had far more experience than Obama. Governor, Asst.  Secretary of the Navey - both significant leadership positions. Wilson was President of Princeton. I suppose you can accurately call that running a college. Andrew Jackson was a reknowned military leader. Abraham Lincoln, I'll grant, had similar government experience to Obama, but he was also a widely recognized and respected political figure and a man of rare intellect.

    You might notice that each of the men you mentioned was considered a great man before he was elected President, and, with the exception of Lincoln, had significant leadership experience (although even Lincoln ran his own law firm, and was leader of the Whip Party in Ilinois, which is more than Obama has done). The Presidency was a crowning achievement to years of national accomplishment. Obama's only national accomplishment has been giving a well-regarded speech at the Democratic National Convention. By any objective standards, Obama is not qualified to be President.

    Parent

    Whig... not "Whip" (none / 0) (#169)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:42:07 PM EST
    Note to self: learn to type accurately.

    Parent
    Isn't that what George had? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:38:20 PM EST
    Experience in government isn't always as important as wisdom, judgment, empathy and compassion.
    I thought he claimed all these virtues. We KNOW he did not have experience and some people just might remember that and not the ones that you mentioned.

    Parent
    Nonsense, Newt. You list many a governor (5.00 / 4) (#202)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:02:00 PM EST
    which is solid executive experience that Obama lacks -- and re the only non-governor you list, I quote the LA Times:

    Obama is not Lincoln

    Yes, Lincoln spent only two years in the House after winning election in 1846. Yet his deep involvement in state and national politics began in 1832, the same year he was elected a captain in the Illinois militia -- and 28 years before he ran for president. He then served as leader of the Illinois Whig Party and served his far-from-undistinguished term in Congress courageously leading opposition to the Mexican War.

    After returning home, he became one of the leading railroad lawyers in the country, emerged as an outspoken antislavery leader of Illinois' Republican Party -- and then, in 1858, ran unsuccessfully for the Senate and engaged with Stephen A. Douglas in the nation's most important debates over slavery before the Civil War. It behooves the champions of any candidate to think carefully when citing similarities to Lincoln's record. In this case, the comparison is absurd.

    Obama lacks Lincoln's leadership experience, period.

    Parent

    Anyone want to help make a video of this? (none / 0) (#125)
    by Newt on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:10:20 PM EST
    Thanks for the wonderful ... (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by Tortmaster on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:09:28 PM EST
    ... description of the Democratic Party, dianem:

    "[O]nly people who really want a black President, liberals who hate McCain, and kids who don't think experience matters will turn out in any numbers for Obama."

    Perhaps the people who are interested in ending the Iraqi War, protecting a Woman's right to choose, establishing education reform, taking a firm stand on corporate gouging, protecting civil rights and the environment, stopping lobbyists control over Washington (and campaigns), fairly taxing the wealthy and not unfairly taxing the middle class, legal reform, and the appointment of reasonable Justices to the Supreme Court, will also be part of the coaltion.      

    Parent

    If they do show up, (5.00 / 5) (#135)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:15:58 PM EST
    who are they going to vote for? Who is for all of those things?

    Parent
    Give me a candidate... (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:40:26 PM EST
    ...who is likely to make even a significant number of those things a priority, and I will happily vote for him (or her). Maybe the best compromise would be to dump both Obama and Clinton and put Edwards back in.

    Actually, come to think of it, we have a candidate with a history of supporting most of your list. Unfortunately, he's now running as a Republican.

    Parent

    The "kids" might come out, only if they (3.66 / 3) (#105)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:52:04 PM EST
    haven't lost interest by then.

    Parent
    I looked at the Wisconsin internals (none / 0) (#63)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:20:23 PM EST
    in this poll -- which does not often do Wisconsin, as I recall, so I'm still looking for our locals to do so.  And this one had some signs for concern not noted in the summary, such as the very high numbers for McCain in metro Milwaukee, outside the city.

    The metro area, especially very conservative Waukesha County (just west of Milwaukee, fourth reddest county in the country in 2004, very populous from white flighters, fundy Christian) that arose since the primary to force the first AA on the state supreme court off the bench.

    What I'm not finding in links to this poll is the turnout model used to get a better gauge on how well it gauges Wisconsin and especially Waukesha County.  Any tips on how to look up the Q poll turnout model for Wisconsin -- in part to see if it's really for Wisconsin or just a regional or even national model?

    Parent

    I think they don't say (none / 0) (#86)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:33:28 PM EST
    No one discloses quite like SUSA.

    Parent
    Questionable conclusions - women and DADT (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:32:40 AM EST
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/20080625/co_po/whyaremoredontaskvictimsfemale

    New in the annals of poor research. Women are drummed out of the military in far greater numbers than you would expect based on the 15% proportion of women in the military. They account for 45-50% of discharges.
    This study postulates that the reason is: that almost 1/2 the women in the military are lesbians and only a small proportion of men. But offers no proof.

    But that ignores the fact that in a military that is 85% male and a bastion of sexism, that women who 'don't put out' get targeted for rumors and accusations. On top of the suspicion about women choosing traditionally male jobs. I also will postulate that the gay men who join the military are comfortable in macho culture and thus don't 'stick out'. There are so many gay men who just blend into the scenery - for example my ex-brother-in-law who is a cop, fixes cars, hunts, and for his first several years at his barracks all the wives of fellow officers were setting him up with their friends.

    So my theory (as valid as the researchers) is that while it is possible that a larger % of female military are gay vs men it is much more likely that sexism is the cause, which the researcher apparently didn't even broach.

    Unfortunately this news was all over the place with no comments on the speculation. So now there's a meme that 50% of military females are dykes. Way to go. Way to lessen harassment of women in uniform.

    It does reek of sexism. (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:47:03 AM EST
    Frankly, I'd expect the reasoning to go like this:

    "Women are less valuable to the military and more expendable.  Plus they are more trouble when it comes to problems like sexual assault."

    Easier to ditch the people that the military culture doesn't favor than to change the culture that is the problem to begin with.

    I looked at that sentence and swapped "voters" with "people" and "Democratic Party" with "military culture".  Hmmm.

    Parent

    More evidence of women getting (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:28:02 PM EST
    the shaft. Color me shocked. Not.

    If I had a nickel for every time  man whined about women in the military(It'sSO unfair wah wah that they get more time to run orare allowed more body fat), I'd be a rich women. Dollars to Donuts the people that turned these women in were spurned men upset because they couldn't get in their panties.

    Personal sidenote, Boucher and Webb send my husband a Veteran Newsletter. Guess who doesn't get one despite the fact I spent MORE time in and outranked him? Screw the bunch of em'.

    Parent

    And Fabian, you expect .... (2.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Tortmaster on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:35:33 PM EST
    ... the Republicans to pass the Equal Rights Amendment through all the states and congress when McCain is elected? That's funny.

    McCain's already said he thought the Roe v. Wade decision was wrong. Can you imagine the kind of Supreme Court Justices who would overturn Roe? They'd be great on equal pay and sexual discrimination issues as well, I'm sure. That's your McSame future.  

    Parent

    Do you expect the Dems to do it? (4.60 / 10) (#100)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:46:37 PM EST
    Obama has not made gender issues even a minor part of his platform. He defended Roberts as a qualified candidate. Democrats refused to stand up to Congress when they appointed two ultra-conservative Justices to the courts. Even Pelosi says that sexism isn't that important to her. I can't think of a single Dem who is promoting women's rights actively.  I wouldn't expect too much action on gender rights from the current crop of Democrats, and certainly not the ERA. They would probably put in a pro-choice Justice, but I doubt they would choose one who was more than moderate on the issue.

    Parent
    There is a different way to see this. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:05:21 PM EST
    It is pretty much a given that we are going to see better majorities in congress, so a DEM president nominates say, Hillary, or Russ Feingold (just for example.) Guess what? They get confirmed.

    If McCain is elected, he will nominate Ted Olson. Weak dems cave and confirm him.

    We are much better off with a DEM president.

    Parent

    Ted Olson (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by tree on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:41:19 PM EST
    will NOT be nominated to the SC by McCain if he is elected. Olson has too much history associated with the hounding of Bill Clinton and the fiasco in Florida in 2000. Not even Bush would consider nominating him for fear of the backlash and possibility that those tow shameful episodes would be put under further public scrutiny. Every Republican knows that Ted Olson is guaranteed not to be confirmed so why bother?

    I understand you are trying to make your case for Obama. But it would help you if you wouldn't just bring up Republican "boogie-men" to scare people. Its equivalent to some right-winger bringing up Hilary Clinton as an SC nominee to scare Repubs into voting for McCain. NOT to compare Olson and Clinton as morally equivalent(eeek! no!), because Olson doesn't deserve to shine Hilary's shoes, but the likelihood of either one of them being nominated is next to zero.

    Parent

    Same outcome, different name (2.00 / 1) (#188)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:48:58 PM EST
    I am glad that I don't have lots of right wing lawyers names in the my head and he was the only example I could remember!!

    My point still holds.

    Parent

    I agree, MissBrainerd ... (2.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Tortmaster on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:15:36 PM EST
    ... to make such an argument as dianem is making is sheer foolishness if you care at all about women's issues.

    McSame will get around to women's rights, including the right to be in the kitchen, the right not to speak unless spoken to, and the right not to have control over their bodies ... after he starts the Iran War.

    Parent

    I believe it was (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:32:18 PM EST
    Obama who insisted on meeting with his wife's new boss before he allowed her to take the job.

    In the summer of 1991, Valerie Jarrett, then Mayor Richard Daley's deputy chief of staff, interviewed a young Sidley Austin attorney named Michelle Robinson. After the 90-minute conversation, Jarrett offered her a job, but Robinson called back a day later, not to say "yes" but "maybe." First, she said, her fiance wanted to meet Jarrett.

    By that time, Obama the independent-minded community activist had privately expressed his political ambitions. This job would put his wife-to-be squarely in the offices of the man whose father had perfected the Democratic machine.

    "My fiance wants to know who is going to be looking out for me and making sure that I thrive," Jarrett recalled Robinson telling her.

    So the three of them -- the prospective boss, the job applicant and the man she would marry a year later -- piled into a booth at a seafood restaurant in the Loop and got to know each other over a long dinner.

    At the end of the evening, Jarrett turned to Barack and asked, "Well, did I pass the test?" Obama smiled, put his head down, closed his eyes and said, "Yeah, you passed the test."

    Link

    Parent

    Dianem, when you wrote this: (1.50 / 2) (#174)
    by Tortmaster on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:44:06 PM EST
    "Obama has not made gender issues even a minor part of his platform."

    You lied.

    And you lied apparently because you knew that you could get away with it here, and you lied even though the truth was an internet click away.

    Here is a link to Obama's platform on women's issues:

    http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/womenissues

    For the record, the linked information comes out to 7 pages, single-spaced, including 2,983 words. The platform includes reproductive rights, equal pay, protecting Title IX, Women's health issues and many, many others.      


    Parent

    But when it comes to interacting (4.33 / 6) (#198)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:59:39 PM EST
    with women, his true self shows through, sweetie. You know that's just his cell phone in his pocket, and he'll buy your vote with a kiss. Since he'll blame any divergence from his stated position on a an aide who fouled up, what's written on his website is just words.  His actions show his disdain for women.

    Parent
    Now, that's pretty ... (2.00 / 2) (#209)
    by Tortmaster on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:07:53 PM EST
    ... sexist stuff: "You know that's just his cell phone in his pocket, and he'll buy your vote with a kiss."

    Pretty low, base and disgusting as well. I'm glad you're not a Democrat.

    Instead of spewing vulgar stereotypes, perhaps you should go here:

    http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/womenissues

    ... and then compare that with John McSame.

    Parent

    But you don't understand (3.66 / 3) (#190)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:50:39 PM EST
    People here need to have all the information about OBama already loaded into their brains because anyone who says they don't know because they have not looked for the information, will be told that they shouldn't have to go to his website to read his positions, they should just KNOW.

    They are willfully ignorant, you are right about that.

    Parent

    FISA Flip floppers and money (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:43:44 AM EST
    New report on the legislators that got paid Center for Responsive Politics
    The telecom companies clearly know a thing or two about phone bills--whether it's asking customers for money or getting their way with federal legislation. Last week 94 House Democrats who once opposed providing immunity to the telecom companies for their role in the Bush administration's controversial warrantless wiretapping program voted in support of the protection. What distinguished the 94 lawmakers who switched their vote from the 116 that remained opposed? Campaign contributions from the companies, according to an analysis by MAPLight.org.

    I would say the share holders should be impressed with the Return on Investment.  

    how do you think Obama got so much (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by thereyougo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:09:35 PM EST
    support from the likes of Claire McCaskill? Grease their palms more than Hillary.

    Forgot the agency that tracked it, but Obama gave waay more to congress critters than all the other candidates for pres.

    We get the democracy they purchase, I say this with a heavy heart. Obama is playing the Republican game that rewards loyalty, with us or against us after we buy you.

    Parent

    Definitely not a banner week (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:50:16 AM EST
    If you're a progressive. One question I have is since the SCOTUS held such a strong view of the 2nd ammend, what are the chances of the FISA bill being contested and making it's way to them?

    It'll probably be a few years (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:56:52 AM EST
    and even then I wouldn't expect a corporate stooge like Roberts to rule against Telcomms. Nope. I suggest we all get used to being spied upon or at least the next 2 decades.

    Parent
    And don't miss the fact that SCOTUS (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by riddlerandy on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:14:07 PM EST
    today struck another blow against campaign finance reform, with language suggesting that further judicial restrictions are on their way.  

    Parent
    We will never have clean campaigns (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:54:15 PM EST
    until we get an ammendment to the constitution. The courts continue to hold that money is the equilivent of free speech so we will never get full public financing with NO outside money until we ammend the constitution to exempt campaigns from the guarantee of free speech.

    There is no other option.
    All legislative fixes will go down on court challenges.

    We the people have to decide that elections are too important to be influenced by people with money. So far this year a BILLION DOLLARS has been donated for the primaries. not right, not to me.

    Parent

    Well, well, well...could this be a clue? (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:00:11 PM EST
    From the What will Hillary do department...is this a clue?

    Schumer to oppose FISA in Senate

    I hope so (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by angie on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:08:24 PM EST
    Thank God Schumer takes his oath to uphold the Constitution seriously.

    Parent
    That logic (none / 0) (#43)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:12:06 PM EST
    Didn't hold any water in Illinois! Durbin broke with the other IL Dem's that voted yes.

    Hilary is in a real bind on any of these issues right now. Even the slightest peep out of her and the Obama camp, Republicans and media would go into a feeding frenzy.

    Parent

    I would like to see her (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:21:35 PM EST
    walk into the senate and vote on the issues the way she believes is the right way.  If there's a feeding frenzy from the media or disapproval from Obama, then I'd like her to say, "I'm the junior senator from New York, and I'm here doing my job representing the people of New York." If her votes disagree with his - no problem. He'll change his mind tomorrow anyway. It's not fair to her constituents to keep her from doing what they sent her to DC to do.

    Parent
    She did that when she returned to the Senate (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:45:40 PM EST
    ... to cheers. [paraphrasing] 'I'm just going to be the best Senator I can be!' and deflecting VP talk by saying that's all Obama's decision.

    Heh. Going to be an interesting convention.

    Parent

    She ought (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Nadai on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:23:47 PM EST
    to oppose FISA vocally.  In the first place, it's the right thing to do, and in the second, they'll all go after her the next time she says anything even remotely controversial, anyway.  Unless she's planning to spend the rest of her life with her mouth shut, she might as well start ignoring the attacks now.

    Parent
    Hillary isn't afraid of speaking her mind, (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by thereyougo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:14:44 PM EST
    I'm convinced of that.

    She's in negotiations with Obama about how she'll campaign for him WITH legal council.

    If her speaking out counters with Obama's message on Monday, alls she has to do is wait and Obama's sure to change it by Friday.

    Parent

    I tis hard to see what either Hillary or (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:38:13 PM EST
    Bill Clinton will be able to say on the campaign trail except vote for Obama.

    Parent
    Greenwald (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by lilburro on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:03:23 PM EST
    has a great piece on Olbermann today.  

    Greenwald (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Lahdee on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:13:38 PM EST
    has been on fire lately.

    Parent
    Glad to know he finally dried out the (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:20:49 PM EST
    matches and wood that must have been too wet for him to start that fire say...a couple of months ago, when one would have had to have been deaf, dumb and blind not to see how hyper-partisan Olbermann was.

    I wish I could say "better late than never," but there has been so much of that since the end of primary season that I no longer see it that way.

    Parent

    Maybe Olberman (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:29:08 PM EST
    Is auditioning for Tony Snow's job as Obama's press secretary! It might be worth seeing it happen if I could watch O'Reilly's explode.

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:13:38 PM EST
    here:

    [In January] Olbermann closed by scoffing at the idea that telecom amnesty or revisions to FISA were necessary to help National Security:
    There is not a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or protecting the people from terrorism, Sir. This is a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or pretending to protect the people from terrorists. Sorry, Mr. Bush, the eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat the thwarting of which could hinge on an email or phone call that is going through Room 641 of AT&T in San Francisco
    .
    Strong and righteous words indeed. But that was five whole months ago, when George Bush was urging enactment of a law with retroactive immunity and a lessening of FISA protections. Now that Barack Obama supports a law that does the same thing -- and now that Obama justifies that support by claiming that this bill is necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists -- everything has changed.
    Last night, Olbermann invited Newsweek's Jonathan Alter onto his show to discuss Obama's support for the FISA and telecom amnesty bill [. . .] There wasn't a syllable uttered about "immunizing corporate criminals" or "textbook examples of Fascism" or the Third Reich. There wasn't a word of rational criticism of the bill either. Instead, the two media stars jointly hailed Obama's bravery and strength[.]

    What a hack he is.


    Parent

    Olbermann's really (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by lilburro on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:27:28 PM EST
    irrational belief that maybe Obama is doing this (w/FISA) so he can get elected, then will change it once he is elected, is pretty sad.  But I think the hope that Obama will return to the left once elected is commonly held by some Obama supporters.  

    I don't anticipate a great return to the left.  The solipsism of bloggers has made them ignore Obama's multiple rebuffs of their affections.  

    Fortunately, he gave up public financing, so maybe we can put the squeeze on him financially.

    Parent

    hypocrisy at its finest (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:50:47 PM EST
    it is exactly what the left hates most about O'Reilly and here is someone on the left doing the same bs.  It is refreshing though to see people on the left bashing the stances even if it is a result of his pro-obama stance that got people there.

    Parent
    Ruh roh, will Greenwald not get..... (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:20:58 PM EST
    ....a special comment? Or at the very least....WORST  PERSON IN THE WORLD.

    Parent
    Here it is (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by shoephone on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:18:33 PM EST
    link

    He gives us Olbermann's pomposity and hypocrisy in all its vain glory. And he skewers Jonathan Alter's ignoarance pretty well too.

    Greenwald is a treasure.

    Parent

    Oh, spellcheck... (none / 0) (#60)
    by shoephone on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:19:15 PM EST
    Ew, Obama is standing up to the Oppressive Left! (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by Ellie on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:33:16 PM EST
    Yep, that's the problem we've had all these years: not enough right wing loons pillaging the people's institutions.

    Parent
    I admire Greenwald (none / 0) (#62)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:20:10 PM EST
    He sticks to principles over personalities more often than about anyone else I can think of.

    Parent
    Not often enough; was he kidnapped (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:29:06 PM EST
    too for too many months?

    Parent
    What other Holes (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:04:53 PM EST
    In the dam will Bush want to plug before he leaves to make sure no one can touch him? The military Act took every off the hook on torture , Fisa takes care of illegal wiretaps. What's next?

    He needs to drum up a war (none / 0) (#38)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:08:47 PM EST
    that way he can push the McCain on National Security during this troubling time meme.

    Parent
    Anyone watching Yoo (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by pie on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:05:54 PM EST
    and Addington on CSPAN?

    Addington said Cheney was attached to the legislative branch but was not a member.  The guy questioning him asked, "Attached like a barnacle?  

    Addington was not amused.

    I know you will all be surprised (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by pie on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:10:25 PM EST
    to hear that Yoo doesn't remember a lot of what's gone on in the last few years.

    Yoo (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by standingup on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:17:56 PM EST
    must be kidding!!  

    I think McCain has a better out than his age for any memory related issues.  Many younger members of his own party seem to suffer from CRS (Can't Remember Sh*t) at an alarming rate.  I suggest we should set aside some funding for research on the quicker decline of Republican memory.  

    Parent

    Yoo must have graduated from the AG-AG (none / 0) (#140)
    by thereyougo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:19:13 PM EST
    school of how to testify before Congress and protect the CIC to ensure a plum job after graduation. Although I hear its not going too well for past graduate AG A.Gonzalez.

    Parent
    A Good Laugh (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:19:03 PM EST
    With how intense this political season has been, and the recent news of the SalmonYoga Party being used in WA State by someone who would otherwise file as an Independent, I was reminded of 1978 when an Olympia area bar owner and friends decided to run for state offices. I still have my original Voters Pamphlet and have found it available online. Be sure to scroll down and click on the pamphlet entries to the left for each of the OWL party candidates.

    Heh... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by oldpro on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:43:14 PM EST
    I remember it well.

    My favorite was "Earthquake" Ober for Commissioner of Public Lands.  He gathered momentum when he suggested (rather late in the campaign as I recall) that efficiency would be a hallmark of his office and he would begin by combining two tiny towns on the Olympic Peninsula where I live - Pyssht and Forks - into one small town...Pysshtforks, naturally.

    Red and gang...lotsa fun with the OWL Party.

    Parent

    Rereading John McPhee's (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by oldpro on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:21:22 PM EST
    'Control of Nature,' brought on by the daily news reports of failing levies on the Mississippi.  Looks like whole states in the midwest are slowly becoming new 'great lakes.'

    Nobody writes non-fiction like McPhee.

    Obama looking forward to both Clinton's (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:25:02 PM EST
    working hard for him, both during the GE and once he takes office.

    He gave some interesting points to his delight in having these two smart, and respected people on his side. Even stated that Bill had been a GREAT president.

    Yesterday he told reporters his VP choice would have to be someone who could step in and be President should anything happen to him, AND someone who could get him back on track when he isn't making good decisions.

    Now, if all those comments don't come together to describe an Obama/Clinton ticket, I have no idea who else he could possibly be talking about.


    Nope, can't put a racist on the ticket (5.00 / 7) (#87)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:34:25 PM EST
    or on the campaign trail.  Obama broke it, Obama bought it.  I hope Bill stays out of the country for some time to come, at least until Donna Brazile, Eugene Robinson, Obama campaign co-chair Jesse Jackson, Jr., Jim Clyburn, et al., apologize -- first to the Clintons and then to the voters.

    So nope, I'm not over it.  Even an apology may mean I forgive.  But I'm Irish, so I never forget.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:53:52 PM EST
    I would add that anyone, anyone at all, who has gone on record to accuse/smear bill or Hillary as race baiters and/or racists and has not yet made their own apology is someone who is clearly more interested in smearing bill and Hillary than they are in unifying the party.

    there are those who have conditioned themselves to assume the worst out of habit, if not malice, and I would like to extend to those people an olive branch if they can admit it was wrong to come to the conclusions they came to.

    Parent

    "...hard working WHITE Americans" (2.50 / 6) (#127)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:11:01 PM EST
    remind me who the race-baiters were again?

    Parent
    The race-baiters (5.00 / 9) (#130)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:14:00 PM EST
    were the people who tried to take every clumsy bit of phrasing and try to label it as racist, just as you are doing here.

    Parent
    I get (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:19:15 PM EST
    to a point where I wonder how many people want a President who constantly race baits? Do Americans want someone who is going to see every innocuous statement as some kind of racial slur?

    Parent
    Then you have never (2.00 / 3) (#139)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:19:02 PM EST
    used Obama's careless words about bitter people clinging to guns and religion? If you haven't then good for you.

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:28:03 PM EST
    You sure changed the subject from race-baiting awfully quick, didn't you?

    Parent
    But playing the race card isn't going away (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:45:12 PM EST
    obama and now sebelius trying to keep race on the front burner...warning the GOP is out to get us...
    I am not sure there has been an all-out assault or if there even will be....time will tell.

    link

    Parent

    No, you talked about using (none / 0) (#163)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:40:09 PM EST
    careless comments made by a candidate and I gave you one that Hillary supporters always use.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:48:26 PM EST
    everyone always jumps on careless comments in a political race, but in my view, it takes a special sort of scumbag to try and turn a careless comment into evidence of racism.

    I'd note, by the way, that about half of the Obama supporters take the view that the "bitter" comments were careless and therefore off limits, and the other half take the view that the "bitter" comments were flat-out true, so you might want to get your house in order.

    Parent

    What he said is true (2.00 / 1) (#199)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:00:11 PM EST
    but it isn't prudent to say it, just like it was true that many in Appalaccia were never going to vote for a black man even if it was Jesus! (who was dark-skinned if he even was) but it wasn't prudent to say that either.

    I have always wondered why people who need DEMs to help them with health care, day care, college, SS, good union jobs, fair taxation etc....seem to vote against their own interests. Because the GOP gets them riled up about banning god and guns instead. It is true but there is no way to explain it well to our stupid media.

    Parent

    Well then (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:05:06 PM EST
    if it's true and not something that was poorly phrased, on what basis do you seek to have it declared off limits?

    If McCain accidentally says "I'd love to invade at least 12 countries by the time I leave office," I certainly wouldn't say it was wrong to use it against him just because it wasn't politically prudent of him.

    Parent

    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by tree on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:58:56 PM EST
    No one mentioned careless comments until you brought up a Hilary quote and implied it was a race baiting comment. Careless comment on your part, perhaps? Care to apologize?

    Hilary apologized for her horrible phrasing in that quote. As Cream pointed out Jackson,Jr., Clyburn, Brazile et al still haven't apologized for their intentional remarks that painted the Clintons as racists.

    Parent

    Well isn't that special..... (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:26:43 PM EST
    ....you push and push and push somebody over the edge until they finally say something that you can use to justify a false accusation. Lovely.

    Parent
    WHAT? (2.00 / 1) (#172)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:42:55 PM EST
    Who pushed someone? I made ONE comment so it can't be me,so what the heck are you talking about.

    Parent
    Yep, the Associated Press (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:36:24 PM EST
    since Clinton was quoting an AP story.  But you knew that, now, didn't ya, Miss B.

    This is not a low-info blog, but you don't seem to know that yet from your comments here.

    Parent

    Oops, wandered into the swamp (1.00 / 0) (#179)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:45:30 PM EST
    of Hillary supporters.

    Leaving now....yikes!

    Parent

    She was quoting the demographic (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:44:22 PM EST
    description used in the poll, for heaven sake.

    Parent
    People React To The Wording (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by daring grace on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:07:10 PM EST
    because it's, at best, insensitive, whether it was hers or just her repeating what was said in an AP article.

    Saying white voters were voting for her and not Obama, or working class white voters were, or white voters w/o a college degree, those are all standard demographic categories everyone is used to.

    Indeed, some of her quote included that. But the precise quote had the pesky construction, "...working, hard-working Americans, white Americans..."

    I give her credit for fumbling with the point, probably not meaning it the way it sounds. But it's not surprising a lot of Obama supporters don't. He gets similarly skewered when he has obviously spoken as awkwardly.

    Parent

    THe AP? (none / 0) (#138)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:18:41 PM EST
    Just look in the mirror (none / 0) (#152)
    by RalphB on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:29:49 PM EST
    For many reasons, choosing Hillary as VP (1.66 / 3) (#98)
    by Newt on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:44:29 PM EST
    would be a mistake, not the least of which is that the impression of strong-arming her way into the VP slot feeds into our opponents' claim that Obama is weak so we need a military man to protect America.  

    Then there is Hillary's unfortunate statement about McCain passing the threshold for Commander in Chief, but not Obama.  

    The dream ticket would turn into a nightmare as McCain and 527s use Hillary's own words against an Obama/Clinton ticket.  


    Parent

    that was, afterall (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:56:58 PM EST
    not an attack obamas character but an attack on his readiness.

    Parent
    Then all Obama needs to do is show (5.00 / 6) (#122)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:09:29 PM EST
    that he does have experience -- in foreign relations committees, armed services committees, etc., for example.  Oops.  Well, then, tell me what is his relevant experience?  

    Parent
    Obama (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:17:56 PM EST
    is perceived to be weak. The only person who would make him look strong is someone who has less experience than him. All the names that have been put forth for VP nominees exacerbate Obama's gaping flaws as a candidate IMO.

    Parent
    Actually, after reading (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by NJDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:42:38 PM EST
    this

    ...I'm even more certain it won't be HRC.  I mean, the way electability was dismissed?   Thoughts?

    And where is Kathy?  Still on vacation?

    Parent

    Sounds like he's describing (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:50:15 PM EST
    his wife, for crying out loud...

    Parent
    I don't believe it will happen (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by dianem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    I think that if there was going to be an Obama/Clinton ticket he would have announced it already, in order to get the momentum of having most of the Clinton supporter's behind him. He doesn't care about Clinton's votes - he thinks he can win without her voter's. If he were to put Clinton on the ticket it would require more than just words - it would take a kind of strength of character, an ability to compromise for the common good, a confidence in his ability to hold his own in spite of Hillary and Bill Clinton's long shadows, that I don't think Obama has shown so far. He will choose a nice, innocuous governor from a Southern state. Somebody who won't be a threat or upstage him. Somebody safe, moderate, and patriotic, who can be depended on to wave the flag at rallies and otherwise keep out of the way.

    I hope I'm wrong, by the way, because I've said that I'll vote for Obama if he selects Clinton, because it will prove I have assessed him unfairly. I hate being proven wrong.

    Parent

    since the end of the primaries Obama has (5.00 / 0) (#157)
    by thereyougo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:35:19 PM EST
    TIMID written all over his postions. He's everybody's candidate but the kind nobody votes for because he's all over the place. I'm done with him.

    Parent
    How Obama is thought of as an inspiration (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by thereyougo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:25:41 PM EST
    is beyond me. He sounds insincere, wooden,in his praises of Bill Clinton.

    I mean, he can't feel good about having a lawyer present to broker the deal of how Mrs. clinton is going to campaign for him. I don't ever recall any such thing of past elections.

    It tells me he  realizes he has to (FINALLY) come out and publicly put his face forward to mend fences, like eating a slice of humble pie before Hillary's supporters. Nice start, lets see summore.

    Parent

    Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:42:06 PM EST
    and Bill are very smart to hire a lawyer to deal with Obama. He's already renged on one agreement. I certainly wouldn't trust him again after that.

    Parent
    The lawyer rather provides a big bold (5.00 / 0) (#187)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:48:51 PM EST
    underscore that Hillary and Bill are doing this only for the party, doesn't it.

    Then, he didn't gain the experience he has been lacking since he announced his candidacy. I just can't wait to see who he thinks fit the description that only suits Hillary for how he is selecting his VP.

    I think he made a big mistake stating the criteria. Now, when he does say who he's chosen, we have a description that person must fit. It's going to be a huge reflection (again) of his judgment.


    Parent

    addendum to child rape/death penalty: (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by byteb on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:31:58 PM EST
    I read several comments in the discussion thread on the Supremes' death penalty/child rape decision that used the pronoun 'she' when referring to child rape victims. It's important to acknowledge that many, many victims of child rape are very young boys (think the Catholic Church where most of the victims were boys). The disgust over this crime is not based on (as one commentor wrote) on: "a hold-over from the paternalistic and chattle treatment of a virginity as property.  A rape victim was "ruined" and no one would ever consider marrying her.  She was looked at as both and object of pity, but also as one of scorn.", but rather on the abhorrence reserved for a horrendous act of violence perpetrated on a child whether that child is male or female.

    Gallup: Obama, McCain Still Tied, Now at 44% (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Dan the Man on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:40:56 PM EST
    Still Tied - again.

    Flip Flop List (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Saul on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:49:10 PM EST
    Any body got a flip flop list since January 08 on Obama?  Curious to see how long the list is.

    In light of Obama's statements on ... (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:01:36 PM EST
    the Death Penalty case, and all of his flippery floppery in the last few weeks, what arguments do the Proggy blogs have left to support the claim that Obama is a progressive?

    And who can honestly argue now that Obama won't leave a large occupying force in Iraq?


    Has he discussed Iraq at all (none / 0) (#116)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    since Hillary suspended?

    Parent
    In the recent Rolling Stone interview ... (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:07:16 PM EST
    he specifically used the term "combat troops."

    Parent
    Was it in the same sentence (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:09:41 PM EST
    with using contracted security?

    Parent
    Yes, the next day, in a CNN interview (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:14:09 PM EST
    Obama backpedaled to no, no, I don't have any timeframe in mind, it's indefinite withdrawal, etc. -- sounding just like Bush, seriously.  The quote was on a thread here then.  But of course, it got little notice elsewhere.

    Parent
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#144)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:23:09 PM EST
    Are you asking for votes (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:10:53 PM EST
    without expecting such questions?

    Hardly (3.50 / 2) (#136)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:16:35 PM EST
    But to use the GOP meme and frame the question as "flip flops" sounds like the commenter is campaigning for McCain.

    Parent
    How about how many waffles? (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:40:15 PM EST
    Voters ought to question all candidates (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:41:40 PM EST
    don't ya think?  Even if you don't think so, you have to deal with that to win, since Dems are not a majority of voters, and independents will decide this one.

    That is, unless you think -- and I doubt that you do, from your healthy skepticism here -- that the new voters much talked about by the Obama camp really are going to be registered, loyal Dems.

    Parent

    let's discuss (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:42:54 PM EST
    are you saying obama has been consistent?

    Parent
    I'm supposed to vote (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by zyx on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:44:22 PM EST
    for the name with the (D) by it, no matter what--that's what you're saying? Empty suit, can-o-spam, mini-poodle? Just as long as it has a (D)?

    Give me sound reasons for voting for this candidate besides the (D), or that "he isn't John McCain".

    Can you?

    Parent

    "President" Bush (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:14:19 PM EST
    From my sister in Michigan:

    I believe the President's approval rating is now 22%?

    300 people paid $1000 apiece to have dinner with the President the other evening in Livonia, Michigan.  Another 110 paid $5000 to have their picture taken with him.

    The news reports seemed to indicate that the 110 having their pictures taken were DIFFERENT than the 300 having dinner.

    The real ripoff, however, was that he arrived at Metro Airport at 4:15 PM and was BACK IN THE AIR BEFORE 7!!  

    Let's see--say 1/2 an hour from the airport to venue.  Arrival at 4:45.

    To get airborne by 7 he probably left at approx 6:15.  That's 1 1/2 hours at the site.    

    If they took one picture per minute, this gala now has a negative 10 minutes for dinner.  Did they eat without him?  Did he take a carry-out?  Shake any hands?  Give a speech?  

    Oh, right, he was scheduled to give an award to a woman WHO DIDN'T LIKE HIM AND HAD NEVER VOTED FOR HIM.

    The cost is unbelievable, too (5.00 / 0) (#194)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:55:47 PM EST
    AirForce One is a 747 and he uses it like a personal limo for campaign fundraising events for his fellow Republicans....even the little representatives. The security comes in the form of state and local police PLUS their vehicles.

    When he comes to the Seattle area, it's always to Medina/Hunts Pt (the Bill Gates neighborhood). He came twice one year, jammed up traffic during rush hour, and made the community responsible for providing his security very angry.

    Twice I've been caught in his traffic deadlocks while trying to get to job interviews. And, in two different states!

    Parent

    Newsweek article (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Oje on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:43:16 PM EST
    on Clinton supporters shift to supporting Obama:

    The poll found 53 percent of the Democrats who favored Clinton for the nomination two months ago now back Obama for president. That's an improvement from April, when only 40 percent of Clinton supporters said they would back Obama over McCain.

    Kind of a ridiculous article, the quotes Newsweek cherry picks to represent the segments who now support Obama and who do not. Also, 53% is only 10MM of 18MM votes - a shortfall of 8MM votes is nothing to scoff at.

    Not that this is news to anyone, but (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by tworivers on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:03:35 PM EST
    can I just say that David Addington is an abhorrent human being?

    I only watched snippets of his testimony before Congress today, but his whole manner just oozes smug superiority and contempt.

    He clearly believes that Bush, FourthBranch, and himself are above the law.

    I would like to see BTD post an analysis of (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:41:32 PM EST
    whether between now and the general election if Hillary will be free to vote her conscience in the Senate.  Or, will she be forced to vote in tandem (or skip votes in tandem) with Obama so as not to cause him any problems to have to explain.

    Obama reverses self yet again...DC gun ban (3.66 / 3) (#8)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:31:49 AM EST
    "Inartful statement"

    And McCain's already hitting him and hitting him hard.

    Oh man (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:33:56 AM EST
    It's always an aide, isn't it?

    Parent
    No one has done more to misrepresent Obama's (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:00:10 PM EST
    positions on the issues than have his aides.

    (snark.)

    Hey, so far blaming the help is working for him.

    I've long wondered when the Democrats would have a candidate with teflon. Well, now they have one, but sadly he doesn't seem to trust his "Amen Corner" in the media to stick with him if he actually, you know, stands on principles that he once claimed to have.

    Heck, he's got Olbermann imprinted like a baby duck. Olbermann railed against telecom immunity in January in one of his hokey "have you no decency, sir" rants directed at Bush. But now that Obama says it's not such a big deal, KO is dutifully carrying water for him.

    When you have an entire cable network (MSNBC) crushed out on you, and a weekly newsmagazine (Newsweek), and even some talking heads on CNN and the network news programs, just how much courage does it take to make a principled stand in defense of our laws?

    Is this really all about money and the fear of alienating major contributors affiliated with the telecoms?

    Sigh.

    So, the Dems have a candidate with teflon and he's still scared to be a Democrat. Or maybe being a Democrat means something very different now as the party's identity shifts, according to Brazile and Dean and Pelosi....

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:04:50 PM EST
    he doesn't have teflon. The media outside of MSNBC was all over his case about his flip flop on campaign finance.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:23:29 PM EST
    That's kind of heartening to hear. Thanks. :)

    I stopped watching the news in May and figured they were all still swilling Kool-aide.

    Parent

    He wants to win NM and CO (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:39:40 AM EST
    So, no more guns are bad talk from him.

    Parent
    This may help him in Wisconsin, but (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:22:39 PM EST
    it may be canceled out by his support of the death penalty.  Then again, he'll probably flip-flop on that again, too.  We'll just have to see what he thinks, or what he says he thinks, on November 3 . . . as it apparently could differ from November 2.

    Parent
    The wacko's... (none / 0) (#89)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:35:03 PM EST
    ...who think the Democrats (no matter which one) are going to knock on their door and confiscate their firearms aren't going to vote for him anyway.

    Most people understand that there have to be reasonable restrictions placed on guns--even here in the Wild, Wild West.  

    Parent

    the ban is constitutional (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by bjorn on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:41:08 AM EST
    and Obama should stick to his guns (pun intended)!

    What is wrong with this man?  For the death penalty, for guns for anyone who wants them in D.C. restricting the right of authorities to protect citizens from overwhelming violence.  

    Disgusting.

    Parent

    To supporting... (2.00 / 0) (#22)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:49:02 AM EST
    ...habeas corpus....

     I know, right? The man is just such a...centrist! You'd think he was a Democrat running for POTUS.  

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:52:11 AM EST
    I wouldn't have a problem with him if he was a centrist. The problem is that he continually backtracks and waffles on things.

    Parent
    He doesn't know what he believes... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:07:12 PM EST
    After flipping on ABC News he goes to Fox News and Flops.

    Obama on the Fox News Channel: "Even though we have an individual right to bear arms, that right can be limited by sensible, reasonable gun laws."

    Parent

    I've (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:09:36 PM EST
    never seen a candidate with a greater ability to make a statement that means absolutely nothing. The whole statement sounds like "I am for it" but "I'm also against it." I thought they taught things like KISS in law school? Perhaps he wasn't present when that discussion was going on.

    Parent
    That's the position... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:10:15 PM EST
    ...of the Court.

     

    Parent

    Also on Fox... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:12:19 PM EST
    Also defends the tone of his campaign, saying "We've had about as positive a presidential campaign as you've seen in maybe a generation. "

    But concedes: "There's no doubt that sometimes the testosterone kicks in, and you get more combative than you need to."

    Parent

    The testosterone? (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by liminal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:15:50 PM EST
    Did he actually say that?

    Ugh.

    Parent

    Double ugh. My hostage uterus (5.00 / 8) (#74)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:25:04 PM EST
    just winced.  Then again, at my age, my testosterone is going up, too -- so my hostage uterus won't need Roe v. Wade or birth control anymore.  But talk to me about lowering costs for other prescriptions, Obama. :-)

    Parent
    Obama on Fox talking to Fox viewers (2.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Newt on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:32:32 PM EST
    There's no doubt that sometimes the testosterone kicks in, and you get more combative than you need to.

    Remember when Hillary was knocking back a few in a bar in PA?  The only difference is that many viewers here despise Obama and love Hillary.  So her pandering is viewed as reaching out to the common man, while Obama is using a bad word (testosterone).

    Take a moment and pretend you like the guy.  He's OUR candidate, on Fox trying to get votes from people different from YOU.  He defends the tone of his campaign, referring to the mostly positive tone. And then he tries to rope in some of the guys watching FOX many of whom intensely dislike Hillary Clinton.  What would have been inappropriate (and dumb) would be to Hillary-bash.  Instead, he's doing what Democrats should be supporting in our candidate - reaching out to men who could be convinced that he's too wimpy to be Commander in Chief compared to POW McCain.

    Seems like a good strategy to me, saying something they can relate to without attacking Hillary personally.  

    Parent

    So, Newt, a hormonal president is okay (5.00 / 9) (#93)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:39:21 PM EST
    if it's a man?  Nope, if he can't control his hormones, I prefer a post-menopausal woman. :-)

    Parent
    He could have left the hormones out (5.00 / 7) (#109)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:55:37 PM EST
    of it and just said, "There's no doubt that sometimes you get more combative than you need to," and left the chest-thumping to someone less evolved than he claims to be.

    Parent
    I didn't say Obama can't control his hormones (2.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Newt on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:46:07 PM EST
     and neither did he.  I said he used that word to garner votes because he was speaking to Fox viewers who are being told he's a wimp.  If you liked our nominee, you might think that was very smart of him to find a way to connect with them, find common ground and establish that he's not a wimp, all the while not bashing Hillary nor even admitting that HE was out of control.

    The fact is, the blatant sexism that deluged us was from the boyz on the blogs being jerks.  Hence:

    There's no doubt that sometimes the testosterone kicks in, and you get more combative than you need to.

    Could be an apology, could be construed as an admission of getting mad and/or stepping out of bounds of appropriate discourse, but most certainly is a way to rope in voters who otherwise would be easily misled into thinking he's not as tough as POW McCain.


    Parent

    What Anne said. (5.00 / 6) (#182)
    by liminal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:46:12 PM EST
    I didn't wince because I don't like the guy.  I winced because it was dumb and sexist.  Believe it or not, I am entirely capable of thinking for myself and don't sit around viewing everything Obama says through anti-Obama glasses.  

    He could've used another metaphor for competitiveness that did not reference the male sex hormone, particularly since his opponent was Hillary Clinton.  I can think of about five to start off with, and all would do just what you claim he was trying to do there.

    Parent

    Clinton is a drinker (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:51:16 PM EST
    I know the media spun this as pandering, and it suits some people to buy into it, but Clinton is a drinker.  Even Milbank wrote up a story about her in his book.  Clinton is known to have a drink or two with her peers.

    A little independent research would verify that Clinton likes to toss one back....

    Parent

    That hardly qualifies as "A Drinker" (5.00 / 0) (#200)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:01:30 PM EST
    So what if she has a drink or two with her peers now and then...AND ENJOYS it?! She's an adult, and is obviously with people who also like to enjoy a drink with friends.

    Dana Milbank, I'm sure, is running off rumor since I highly doubt he's part of her inner circle and most likely has never been invited to share a drink with Hillary and her friends.


    Parent

    Obama is a smoker (5.00 / 0) (#210)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:10:26 PM EST
    still sneaking some puffs, per some sources.

    So what?  That makes him human to me and not the perfect god upon this earth that his fans claim.  But by your standards for Clinton, I'm "a drinker," too -- so you're saying that Obama isn't?  He's a teetotaler?  Yikes.

    If so, Obama's about the only teetotaler in Chicago -- I mean, he's a big Bears fan, and have you ever been to or seen a Bears game?  I gotta think that he likes his brewski, too.  If not, he's an extremist, and I can't vote for that.  

    Your comment sounds like the temperance press against Lincoln.  I would have hoped we were past such nonsensical slurs more than a century ago.

    Parent

    "adrenaline" (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:27:13 PM EST
    The word he was looking for is adrenaline.  Testosterone, estrogen and adrenaline are all hormones.  Both men and women produce them.

    I know he's not a doctor, but neither am I.  Just an uneducated hick with only a high school diploma to my name.  

    Parent

    Adrenaline, as heard by Fox viewers (none / 0) (#178)
    by Newt on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:45:26 PM EST
    would imply fear.

    Parent
    Jeez, that's not an inconsistent.statement (none / 0) (#45)
    by Newt on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:12:21 PM EST
    Do you not understand the compexities?  The SC opinion just said the same thing.

    Parent
    It's inconsistent (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:14:06 PM EST
    with his own previous position, which was apparantly just an aide being 'inartful'. It is inconsistent with what he said just today on ABC News.

    Parent
    After eight years of Bush (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by pie on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:16:14 PM EST
    and his destructive policies, this election should have been a fairly easy win for a dem who appealled to the people by promising to work for them on issues they felt important and to restore America's standing in the world.

    It would not be necessary to move to the center or talk about unity if one could really make that case.

    He may hve hooked you, but his flip flops and recent statements have beena total turnoff for me.

    The longer this goes on, the worse it gets.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 7) (#69)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:22:03 PM EST
    If the fact that the guy you want to put in office will say or do ANYTHING to consolidate power doesn't bother you, I just don't know what to tell you.

    I do indeed wish principles were something that could be purchased but you either have them or you don't. Where I come from selling them out ain't a good thing. Then again,  i live in Appalachian Virginia.

    Parent

    Heh . . . . (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:12:42 PM EST
    "That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

    LOL!~

    Parent

    Perhaps (4.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:34:45 AM EST
    he's going for the world record on political flip flops?

    Parent
    Sure seems that way doesn't it? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by americanincanada on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:39:43 AM EST
    He seems to be doing it without a care in the world. Like it won't matter because we have no where else to go...

    Parent
    I am insulted all the time (3.66 / 3) (#201)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:01:46 PM EST
    but I am not going to complain to mommy.

    I'm certainly not going to be lectured (3.50 / 2) (#3)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:28:56 AM EST
    about true progressivness and genuine leftiness by the apologists i've seen around here.  It's extraordinary to have to deal with excuses from camp followers when you know they should have an opinion of their own on stuff like the DP.


    Explain? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:31:11 AM EST
    What you are saying is kind of vague.

    Parent
    When you're putting words (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:32:28 AM EST
    into other people's mouths, it pays to be vague.

    Parent
    I'm betting Salo (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:18:38 PM EST
    is talking about the cheerleading squad who seem to make excuses for Obama whenever he does anything that is the antithesis of "progressive(such as FISA)." It is rather ironic that thse same folks will run around calling anyone who says they won't be voting for Obama "Republican" when it is their savior with clay feet that seems more akin to representing values(or lack of) from the other side of the aisle.

    Salo, there isn't much that can be done at this point, except to sit back and watch the train wreck and quietly say I told you so under your breath as we watch the little proggress made in two years get flushed down the toilet(either way).

    Parent

    Many here are (3.00 / 3) (#128)
    by MissBrainerd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:12:02 PM EST
    and according to the rules, it is allowed.

    Although I think it is disgusting!

    Then find a fan blog. (5.00 / 5) (#170)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:42:09 PM EST
    In their latest polling (none / 0) (#2)
    by Lahdee on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:28:51 AM EST
    Quinnipiac says, "Minnesota: Obama buries McCain..."
    Ouch that's gotta hurt.

    Scenario: McCain has a serious health scare (none / 0) (#7)
    by sarissa on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:31:34 AM EST
    Who do the then Republicans nominate?

    Close to the election? Emergency situation? (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by samanthasmom on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:35:13 PM EST
    Condoleeza Rice.  At least that's what one psychic says is going to happen. Who knows, she may as right as anyone else could be. Hey, I spend a lot of time waiting in line at the checkout counter.

    Parent
    Oh wouldn't she love that. (none / 0) (#145)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:23:22 PM EST
    ...I think the only reason she has never run for office is because she would find it difficult to campaign. But I feel she would love to be drafted.

    Parent
    Just make Frist VP (none / 0) (#12)
    by riddlerandy on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:33:30 AM EST
    Why - so he can get back up to speed (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by scribe on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:45:33 AM EST
    in his medical practice, working on McSame (and maybe having just a little disincentive to work well)?

    Or so he can work on his Diagnosis-over-TV skills?

    Parent

    I was thinking of the former (none / 0) (#31)
    by riddlerandy on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 12:02:56 PM EST
    A song for all (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:47:40 AM EST
    This one's for all of us feeling discouraged these days.  Just gotta keep working for what we believe in.

    Indigo Girls, Hammer and a Nail

    It always gets me going, especially when it first came out at the tail end of the Reagan-Bush41 years.

    A report of HIllary Clinton's first campaign (none / 0) (#211)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:13:18 PM EST
    appearance on behalf of Barack Obama:

    Huff Post