home

Sunday Late Night Open Thread

Here's a late night open thread for those of you with something to say.

< Timing the Guantanamo Trials | $4.00 a Gallon and Rising >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Another bit of music (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:59:17 PM EST
    There must be some parrotheads and country music fans around here :)


    Parrothead here (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:20:09 PM EST
    I got my 2 year old grandson started with this one.

    Parent
    Wow!! (none / 0) (#26)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:29:37 PM EST
    THANKS for that link! I just emailed that one to my daughter. My 8 month old grandson loves music, and we're a family of parrotheads. I babysit every Tuesday night, and we need new music to dance to since Dancing with the Stars season ended.

    Last time I saw him in concert was just 3 years ago at the Cricket Pavillion in Glendale, AZ.

    People are such beautiful fools around him :)

    Parent

    My younger brother and I ditch (none / 0) (#36)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:34:42 PM EST
    the spouses and head out for the concert together every time Jimmy's in the Boston area. The concert at Fenway Park was my favorite.

    Parent
    He's touring now (none / 0) (#65)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:55:19 PM EST
    but, not coming to western Washington this year.

    I just got an email from Margaritaville with the tour dates for the rest of the year.

    Parent

    If I Were Two, Three, Four or More (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:39:36 PM EST
    I would also be wondering about the amphibian band that takes over the night in the Caribbean. Buffet's youtube seems like a perfect answer.

    Nice one.

    Parent

    On an evening in Toronto, with no wind to (none / 0) (#9)
    by chrisblask on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:17:19 PM EST
    speak of, I sailed our small boat past Ontario Place where Jimmy was playing.  It was amazing - like a private live concert to accompany my slow drift into the harbor.

    Parent
    Sounds quite lovely. (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:23:09 PM EST
    Really was. Totally unexpected and the sound was (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by chrisblask on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:35:51 PM EST
    perfect.  We had bought an old 28 footer and were living on Centre Island and I had to sail the small boat (the little scow I've had since I was 11) over from the Toronto Sailing and Canoe Club to our place on the island.  I went after work and sailed straight out for an hour so I'd have enough of a run to get a straight shot at the western gap and as the sun set what wind there was just fell off to as close to nothing as possible.  

    Jimmy lit it up as the boat crept toward Ontario Place (outdoor forum, great acoustics).  It took forever, fortunately.  The lights of the city, the lights from the show and the stars all shining on the water...  Singing along with some of it, zenning out to the rest.  

    A perfect night by every measure.

    Parent

    I would have thought I'd died and gone to (none / 0) (#28)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:31:09 PM EST
    music heaven.

    He brings out the very best in people.

    Parent

    It was. Life was just coming together after (none / 0) (#52)
    by chrisblask on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:46:35 PM EST
    a very very stressful few years.  Donna was pregnant with our first child, work was finally starting to pay off (just in time).  That night listening to Jimmy was like a final assurance that the world was a good place and everything would be fine.

    Shortly thereafter (the first day of summer, 1995) we took a water taxi at dawn across to the city, Damien was born and we were back the next morning.

    The name of the boat we lived on?  Damien's Cradle.  :-)

    We'll never get rid of it.

    Parent

    Great story (none / 0) (#76)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:02:11 AM EST
    Have you ever written to JB to tell him?

    I love watching interviews with him, rare though they are. The man has no idea why he has this cult following, but he's genuinely grateful to his fans for their loyalty.

    Funny guy. He said he learned to the play the guitar so he could pick up women.

    Is your son a parrothead?

    Parent

    Good idea. My brother has lived in Key West (none / 0) (#117)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:26:18 AM EST
    for 16 years, we go down there all the time.  Should write up the story in more detail and deliver it in person.

    Just love the guy's zest for life.  Cynicism is about as useful a world view as wearing sack cloth and ashes.  Sure, life is f'ed up sometimes, but griping about it makes no difference and just saps the joy out of the good parts.

    We aren't pure parrotheads, but you are right (and thanks to the poster above for the Kermit video!), we need to play more Jimmy around here.

    Parent

    Can't be miserable with Jimmy (none / 0) (#130)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:51:08 AM EST
    playing.

    Parent
    NORML goes to Key West (none / 0) (#136)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:58:55 AM EST
    every December, it's my favorite trip of the year despite the fact that it's incredibly arduous to fly from Denver to Key West.

    NORML always stays at the Pier House. I love the Caribbean Spa rooms.

    Here's Jimmy singing the National Anthem (no, not the real one.)

    I'm going to miss it this year because I decided after coming back from the Iowa caucuses Jan. 3 that I wasn't getting on an airplane during 2008. I'm half-way there and intend to keep my goal.

    Parent

    link fix (none / 0) (#137)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:00:24 AM EST
    Thanks, may have to plan around that (none / 0) (#150)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:30:23 AM EST
    We live in Florida now, so it`s a drive.  Very handy, that.

    Grew up in Denver (well, Woodland Park, Co. Springs and Arvada - yeah, I move a lot).  Miss the mountains here, love the sun.

    -cheers!

    -chris

    Parent

    A good friend walked down the aisle (none / 0) (#155)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:41:03 AM EST
    to that national anthem. Well, danced down the aisle.

    My daughter's husband graduated from college, hit the road until he found a place that looked like a fun place to live, and stayed 2 years in Key West. He took her there on their one year dating anniversary and gave her a ring.  I was surprised that wasn't the destination for the wedding...we all went to St Lucia for that, but Jimmy Buffett was on all the boom boxes the entire week we were there.

    That hotel looks fabulous! Is it as nice as the photos?

    Parent

    FYI: Typo in Comment Rules legaleeze (none / 0) (#189)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:27:18 AM EST
    "TalkLeft is not be"

    Parent
    As usual, (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:00:25 PM EST
    Paul Krugman is worth reading:

    [A]lthough everyone makes fun of political correctness, I'd argue that decades of pressure on public figures and the media have helped drive both overt and strongly implied racism out of our national discourse.

    [. . .]

    Unfortunately, the campaign against misogyny hasn't been equally successful.

    By the way, it was during the heyday of the baby boom generation that crude racism became unacceptable. Mr. Obama, who has been dismissive of the boomers' "psychodrama," might want to give the generation that brought about this change, fought for civil rights and protested the Vietnam War a bit more credit.

    [. . .]

    Moreover, despite Hillary Clinton's gracious, eloquent concession speech, some of her supporters may yet refuse to support the Democratic nominee.

    But if Mr. Obama does win, it will symbolize the great change that has taken place in America. Racial polarization used to be a dominating force in our politics -- but we're now a different, and better, country.



    Not sure about that last sentence, but (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:03:39 PM EST
    the remainder--yes.

    Parent
    So, if he doesn't win, it is status quo.... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:16:18 PM EST
    If obama becomes the nominee and not the selectee, we will see how this pans out.  If we find the Bradley Effect came into play, then it will tell us a thing or three.

    Parent
    Th e world hasn't become a perfect world, and it (none / 0) (#14)
    by chrisblask on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:20:18 PM EST
    won't.

    But the overarching "can't be president" question has been answered.

    Interestingly, Bobby Kennedy said - forty years ago - that things were moving so quickly that "in forty years a Negro could have the office my brother has had".

    Bright man, that Bobby...

    Parent

    Yeah! A man will be prez! (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:30:20 PM EST
    That was priceless (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:38:07 PM EST
    When will I ever learn not to drink and TL at the same time?  Fruit juice all over the keyboard...sticky.

    Parent
    Keyboard covers are great (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:51:55 PM EST
    that's experience talkin'  ;)

    Parent
    I'm fairly sure obama has not reached (none / 0) (#22)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:26:38 PM EST
    the WH yet.

    Parent
    Obama's Chances (2.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Gambit on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:34:25 PM EST
    He will if the "kiddies" like myself come out strong despite some of the legit anger. A lot of clinton supporters are right angry now, but most of them won't betray our country. SHE BARELY LOST PEOPLE its not like the whole party turned against her and all women.

    Parent
    Please do not equate not voting for (5.00 / 8) (#40)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:36:59 PM EST
    Obama with treason.  Thank you.

    Parent
    Not treason (2.33 / 3) (#53)
    by Gambit on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:47:00 PM EST
    to NOT vote for obama, but it IS traitorous for a progressive to vote for mccain. that's all i'm saying. anyone who votes for mccain at this point will be responsible for the deaths of american soldiers in iraq not to mention the innocent iraqi people. and that's not even mentioning the economic policies that are sinking the dollar and civil rights, women's rights, etc.

    Parent
    So if you're not a progressive, (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:51:45 PM EST
    it's OK to vote for McCain?

    Parent
    Samantha (1.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Gambit on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:02:24 AM EST
    now there's an a heck of an argument! lol But seriously, if you don't have progressive values, i don't begrudge you voting for mcbush. BTW its your american right to vote for whoever, but a spade is still a spade just like the media had a right to spew sexist hatred and attitudes, that doesn't make it honorable. Are we clear on that point now yall?

    Parent
    See, (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:16:34 AM EST
    if the media had spewed racist hatred and attitudes, would you say they had a right to do it?

    Parent
    Can I ask... (none / 0) (#90)
    by otherlisa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:08:40 AM EST
    How old are you? Just curious.

    Parent
    I said not voting for Obama, not voting (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:53:33 PM EST
    for McCain.  Although I could make an argument about that too.  But just because I disagree that Obama represents actual progressive values, nevermind would be a leader of them, does not make me a traitor to the cause.

    Treason, betrayal -- these are very strong words which should be used carefully.

    Parent

    Responsible For The Deaths In Iraq? (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:01:33 AM EST
    That would only apply if you believe that Obama will end the occupation of Iraq. I do not believe he will end the occupation. I believe he might reduce the troop size but U.S. troops and the mercenaries will remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future. By the same token, military and political necessity may well require any president reduce troop size in Iraq.

    Political Punch gave Obama a score of 75% and he ranked 41st on Human Rights/Civil Liberties.

    Parent

    Hmmm (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:06:36 AM EST
    We can only hope they have enough Arabic interpreters to share with Afghanistan for an extended stay.

    Parent
    I'm more worried about how he'll end it (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:12:12 AM EST
    He doesn't have enough experience just plain governing.  Withdrawal, removal, however it's termed, you don't get a second chance.  Lots more people could die during a bad withdrawal plan, I fear.

    Parent
    Don't worry he won't end it, First of all he (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by kimsaw on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:55:15 AM EST
    lacks the conviction and his courage in taking stands is questionable. He's pretty much backed off of his timetable I think by offering it will all depend on what's happening on the ground again. To be fair by 2009 who knows what will be happening. If he can't start withdrawal he can blame it on Bush or say the Iraqis are not be ready. It's his standard operating procedure anyway.  He will not be held accountable for his words or his actions, 'cause he's Obama, the one chosen. I mean literally chosen by the DNC SD's so they really won't care, they haven't taken any action in the past- what makes you think any of them will do anything in the future? It's been pandering to the left by the guy who wants republicans to play a larger role in his new party, so jumping out of Iraq in 16 months forget about it, it ain't going to happen.

    Parent
    Just Goes To Show (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:05:24 AM EST
    How far to the right our party (country) has gone.  Obama is as hawkish as Hillary and the notion that he may be slightly less hawkish is a liability.

    Parent
    My Position On Obama And Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:23:11 AM EST
    in regards to Iraq are exactly the same. I have been on record for quite some time that I didn't believe that any of the top Dem candidates would end the occupation of Iraq. Also, I don't believe that Obama is any more or any less Hawkish than Clinton. Basically the same positions except the rhetoric is somewhat different. THe one exception is that Obama has stated he would meet with foes without preconditions. IIRC he has tried to walk that statement back somewhat. I do not believe he would actually do that nor that it would be prudent to do so.

    Parent
    Agree (none / 0) (#116)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:26:03 AM EST
    Although what I am saying is that even a perception that Obama is less of a hawk, is a liability, even among Democrats.

    Go figure.

    Parent

    Disagree (5.00 / 5) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:18:30 AM EST
    The perception that Obama is less hawkish is a positive to many of the people who support him for precisely that reason. It is a wash to many people like me who really don't believe there is any real substantial difference and a negative to those who prefer what they believe is a stronger foreign policy. Different strokes for different folks. The Democratic Party has never been monolithic and it isn't on this either IMO.

    I'm going back to my original statement to try and get across the point I was trying to make. Talking points that go against what a person believes to be true are not persuasive. Gambit believes that Obama will end the occupation thus his blood on your hands comment. I do not believe that Obama will end the occupation and his argument doesn't work with me. Dems too often take the tack that everyone believes what they believe or have the same value system as they do. They lecture too much, ignore data that disproves preconceived ideas and fail to take the time to listen to what voters tell them. They keep thinking that voters will GET IT this time. IMO it is the Dems that don't GET IT.  

     

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#147)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:21:25 AM EST
    Gambit believes that Obama will end the occupation thus his blood on your hands comment.

    Have not been reading his or her comments. I did not know that was the context.

    Parent
    Your first point is well taken (none / 0) (#83)
    by Gambit on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:05:31 AM EST
    but mccain has made MORE of a guarantee and committment of not only iraq but possibly iran than either obama or clinton.

    Parent
    Gambit (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:16:07 AM EST
    you are a new user with 49 comments in 3 days. Please respect the commenting rules. New users are limited to 10 comments a day. And since you intend to promote McCain, which is a view directly opposite from TalkLeft's you are chattering. No more than 10 comments in 24 hours from you and be careful not to shill for your candidate.

    Parent
    Think you are reading the words wrong (1.00 / 0) (#149)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:22:55 AM EST
    If he or she was promoting McCain then this comment would not have been posted:

    to NOT vote for obama, but it IS traitorous for a progressive to vote for mccain. that's all i'm saying. anyone who votes for mccain at this point will be responsible for the deaths of american soldiers in iraq not to mention the innocent iraqi people. and that's not even mentioning the economic policies that are sinking the dollar and civil rights, women's rights, etc.

    Agreed that some of the users comments are pretty extreme - I would not go there - but seems to me s/he is being sincere about supporting Obama.

    Considering what passes for commentary still on TL, vigorously defending the Dem nominee should be fair comment.

    At what point will it not be OK to put forth GOP talking points against Senator Obama?  Next week?  Next month?  December...?

    Parent

    Oh good grief, PssttCmere08 (none / 0) (#156)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:44:59 AM EST
    Sure, TR every comment I make.

    Here`s another one.  TR this one as well.

    Parent

    Is Obama still open to replacing troops (none / 0) (#109)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:21:48 AM EST
    with private contrators?

    Parent
    So much for the economy (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:23:39 AM EST
    if that happens.

    Parent
    Most progressive men never were (5.00 / 5) (#120)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:30:44 AM EST
    that good on women's rights, from the start of the movement.  We usually did land well down that list, as it is here -- y'know, "women's rights, etc."  

    I remember being told that's just 'cause they were thinking alphabetically.  I'm serious.  Had we thought more about it, not have been so da*ned optimistic about men, maybe we ought to have gone with "broads' rights" to be higher on the list, huh?

    Any progress for women was won by progressive -- and other -- women.  Looks like it's still gonna be that way.  

    Parent

    well (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by boredmpa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:07:54 AM EST
    i don't want to disrespect your experience, but your ending remark is hurtful.

    I say that as an ex-member of NOW with an undergrad in gender studies (self-designed major).  I protested when I was in college, I was a GA at the national women's studies association journal, and have been a solid supporter of equal rights and respect in the workplace thoughout my life.  The only reason I'm not teaching queer studies or gender studies is because I had no concept of getting a job with such a thing when I went to school in NC.

    Regardless, being a feminist in programmer land is about as fun as being a str8 looking male at a campus NOW meeting.  The point is, I have plenty of cards I've carried in my life, but the most difficult one has been the feminist card -- it even edges out the gay boy from NC card in terms of total emotional mindf&ck.  So please don't discount the contribution of progressive men to the feminist movement...especially the third wave.  

    Parent

    I did not discount some men (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:18:51 AM EST
    which is why I said most progressive men, now, didn't I?  As I've said before, women's history is like the Marines:  All we need is a few good men, and I'm grateful for them.  But that's all we ever get.

    I repeat, and I have the historical evidence for it:  Most progressive men never did nor do they now put priority on women's rights.  And let me go farther to say that some progressive men are really against women's rights but go along with it to get worker bees in the movement and votes for . . . progressive men.

    Parent

    Sorry, I don't buy the assertion that most (1.00 / 0) (#183)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:42:10 AM EST
    progressive men do not put a priority on womens' rights.

    That is what is known as a back-handed compliment.  There is no difference imho to the classic "some black folks are OK" line.

    Parent

    You don't know progressive movement (none / 0) (#186)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:02:50 AM EST
    history, and I happen to specialize in it.  Read up and come on back when you have something to contribut on this topic.

    And you are getting a 1, yet again, for a backhanded accusion of racism.  In doing that, you really show that you don't know me at all.  You are laughable.

    Parent

    Being an expert gives you an educated opinion (none / 0) (#187)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:06:36 AM EST
    but not likely the only educated opinion.  I have yet to find an area of expertise where experts always agree.

    Your lack of control in using personal attacks does nothing to increase my respect for your professional credentials.

    As well, having just reviewed again the site rules, "abusive" and "name-calling" comments are supposedly not condoned - aside from the childishness of name-calling me "laughable".  When I do so to anyone I accept down-rating, as do you by doing so.

    Finally, your assertion that I accused you of racism is without basis.  I compared two separate types of group-attributions that in my opinion do not vary in type of validity.  There is nothing in what I wrote or intended that accuses you - back-handledly or directly - of racism, and the context of the conversation does not support your interpretation of my intent.

    Parent

    You called ma a racist (none / 0) (#194)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:07:27 PM EST
    with this:  "That is what is known as a back-handed compliment.  There is no difference imho to the classic "some black folks are OK" line."

    And so, I call you out as a race-baiter.  

    That tells me that anything else you write here is just as foolish.  I will be watching for you and your tactics.


    Parent

    OK, read it how you like, but puting intent into (none / 0) (#197)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:17:54 PM EST
    other people's words is not an exact science.

    If I wanted to accuse you of racism I would do so specifically.  What I stated was that I see no difference between assigning broad characteristics to groups of individuals regardless of which group those characteristics are being assigned to.  I have no ideas what your views are on the topic of race, and if I did believe you endorse racial bias I would not call you "a racist".  I wrote this piece The R Word on specifically that topic.

    Finally, assuming that you know my mind and can assert that "anything else (I) write here is just as foolish" does nothing to convince me of your detached academic credentials.  In my experience there are many very bright and educated people who nonetheless insert their own bias into their research, thus invalidating its objectivity.

    Parent

    subject line (none / 0) (#161)
    by boredmpa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:01:09 AM EST
    I realize you were responding to a troll and I probably should have let it pass.  Even so, I really don't like having a "now, didn't I" sent in my direction.  

    You opened with one descriptive statement (a negative with a positive allowance for some men) and ended with the opposite (only women).  Then you added on a predictive statement (a full negative toward male allies).  You effectively ended a post on male participation by discounting all men from future action on their own.  

    It's not my intent to say that's a bad idea or play PC thug with someone's rhetoric in a blog post, but it's a blog and I wanted you to be aware of the response it got from me.

    Parent

    No, I did not say all or "only women" (none / 0) (#196)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:10:52 PM EST
    I said "progressive and other women" because some Democratic women also worked hard for women's rights.  The progressives were Republicans, y'know.

    I don't know why you keep looking for evidence that I omitted all men from the women's movement.  I simply did not, so it is your problem in perception, not mine in communication.

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#181)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:05:51 AM EST
    Most progressive men never did nor do they now put priority on women's rights.

    They keep telling me that women's rights is a "niche" issue.

    51.1% of the population is a "niche."

    Oooooohkay.

    Parent

    Betray Our Country (5.00 / 9) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:44:00 PM EST
    I have heard that I betrayed my country for almost 8 years because I did not support Bush and his agenda. Now I hear that if I don't support Obama and his agenda I will betray my country. Change? Not so much.

    Parent
    Good for the Kids! (1.00 / 1) (#93)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:11:58 AM EST
    This middle-aged fart is with you.

    Its time to dump the GOP talking points from Progressive discussions.  Sure there are folks who will always feel betrayed, but already its almost down to those for whom nothing will change their minds.  The angst over this shrinking demographic is overstated.  By the wildest estimations it could be assumed to be 3M folks, much more likely a few hundred thousand, by my guess in the end five figures of folks bound and determined to vote against their own interests.

    Sad, but not a deal breaker in a time when the real opposition has nothing positive to say about their own message.  GOP.COM is nothing but an attack site (gosh, think they'd has something positive to say about their own candidate), leading Republicans are wailing about the end of times and Sean Hannity can't stop forecasting doom long enough to finish an anti-Obama sentence.

    Parent

    How many votes did Gore lose FL by? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:17:51 AM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    If the anti-voters all live in one state (none / 0) (#157)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:53:00 AM EST
    it could make a difference.

    But they don`t.

    Every vote is worth trying to get, but if someone insists on voting against someone no matter what information, policies, alternatives, etc are visible to them, there`s no point in banging you head against a wall forever.  I do not believe that Sen. Clinton`s supporters are a single monolith bloc, nor that very many will vote against their first party of choice in Nov.

    Voters aren`t puppies.  You cannot actually force them to do anything they do not want to do.  If anyone wants to vote for McCain, Nader, Barr or Chuck the Wonderdog that is a choice that no one else can make for them.

    Parent

    A Few Hundred Thousand? (none / 0) (#126)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:43:51 AM EST
    June 6th CNN Poll

    Sixty percent of her Democratic supporters would vote for Obama, 17 percent would vote for McCain, and 22 percent say they would stay at home in November and not vote for anyone.



    Parent
    sure looks like at least 7.2 million to me (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:50:59 AM EST
    and since that says supporters and not voters, that may mean more -- since that could include for example some supporters that couldn't vote then or voted for other candidates but now support her. Sure sounds like a number I'd be worrying about. But what do I know, I voted for the one candidate that can win in November.

    Parent
    For the Record - TR this (1.00 / 3) (#140)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:07:28 AM EST
    The following users believe it is appropriate to TR a young voter for voicing his or her opinion:

    echinopsia 1
    NO2WONDERBOY 1
    boredmpa 1
    PssttCmere08 1

    Your action is cowardly and weak, your intent is sordid, your ethics are beyond question only to the extent they there is no question that you don`t have any.

    I formally and publicly ask you all to kiss my shiny metal butt.  

    NOW you have something worthy of a TR.  Better yet, if you feel so strongly about public humiliation of Democratic voters, put your names where your psuedonyms are.

    Heck, gimme a call - 941 201 9277 - and explain why you think you are better people than Gambit.  

    Chris Blask

    Parent

    Gambit is violating site rules (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:21:43 AM EST
    and was warned by Jeralyn; go see.  

    Gambit also is writing untruths and is being offensive.  Actually, your comment is out of culture, too.  We all can click to see ratings.  I think you're new here, and you might lurk a bit to learn the culture of this blog.

    Parent

    I did look at Gambit`s comments after seeing (none / 0) (#154)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:39:05 AM EST
    Jeralyn`s reply to him.  Agree some of it is overboard, but I understand the frustration (if he isn`t a troll, don`t think he is).

    I have been here a while and on progressive blogs extensively, though been gone from TL since I joined so I could spend time elsewhere (love MyDD, for example).

    As far as site rules go, I get TRed here just for saying OBAMA (here they come! ;-).  My ratings are trashed because I have not said what a scumbag Sen. Obama is, which itself to date is TR-worthy with no repercusssions for the raters.

    The comment of Gambit`s I replied to got TRed to death without justification imho.  And trashing Senator and Democratic Nominee Obama gets mojo all day long.

    Still trying to `give people space to mourn`, but endless ranting against the Dem nominee for president cannot be allowed forever. Sooner of later this should (I think) be a place where we support the guy.

    Thanks for a civil response, though.  

    -chris

    Parent

    What?? (5.00 / 0) (#180)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:51:37 AM EST
    but endless ranting against the Dem nominee for president cannot be allowed forever
    Since when are you a site moderator?? Since when are you the person who defines what speech or opinions are "allowed"? Here's a news flash for you..this is a free country and we are allowed to have our own opinions. If the Democratic party didn't want their candidate to be criticized by people in the Dem party, they should have chosen a better one. They didn't. If Obama can't stand the heat, he should stay out of the kitchen. And so should you.

    Parent
    I am not a moderator, but like you I get to have (none / 0) (#182)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:33:56 AM EST
    an opinion, too.

    Maybe I don't know the rules here.  But Jeralyn just last night said to Gambit that promoting McCain (and he wasn't, however much some of his comments were over the top) was not allowed.

    GOP.COM is now using anti-Obama sites on their front page.  Many post-Clinton folks - many here - do not much more than post comments that the GOP will use verbatim against Obama.

    I put the question to Jeralyn and I'll put it to you.  When does it become an offense to specifically do the work of the GOP on talkleft.com?  Next week?  Next month?  December...?

    Parent

    The least of Obama's problems (none / 0) (#185)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:58:27 AM EST
    will be what the GOP finds about him here.  

    By the way, there are no troll-ratings here.  A "1" means something different under this site's rules.  We can see that you have only been back for a few days after an earlier drive-by, but site rules are easy to find.  And you're bordering on violating them yourself in your last paragraph.  Cheers.  

    Parent

    Well, the greatest of Obama's problems (none / 0) (#188)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:19:45 AM EST
    specifically are what is said against him by those proporting to be progressives/democrats.  I happen to believe that one person can make a difference, and the specific and aggregate accusations against him being made on progressive sites like this are in fact the singlemost used tool of the GOP.

    I did review the site rules (again) and you are right.  Unlike other progressive blogs, attacks against progressive politicians are allowed here, at least in a liberal reading of the rules.  This is not something I am intrinsically against, I have written a fair bit about the need to get more than simply a Democratic Party conversation going in the blogosphere.

    My "drive-by" early membership you can read any way you like - not my job to think for anyone - but I will state that it did not have the negative intent many have attributed to it.  I simply found other forums where it was possible to have a higher level of discourse which, while still extremely heated, did not in total sink to the abusive and name-calling treatment I received when I first came here.  Everyone is free to decide that this and everything else I say is a lie and I will not spend a significant amount of time defending myself from those accusations, such exchanges do nothing to change opinions.

    Discussing issues is my primary interest and passtime, so while it may be possible to shout me away from a forum from time to time, I will just as likely return to persue my own purposes.  Like any normal person I will from time to time also allow personal attacks to get under my skin or otherwise act in a less-than-perfect fashion and regret my words.  But being bullied into silence is not something that I believe in.

    -thanks

    -chris

    Parent

    "The greatest of Obama's problems"?! (none / 0) (#191)
    by otherlisa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:37:22 AM EST
    Oh, Chris, that is beyond absurd and well into the zone of magical thinking.

    I am not going to list what I feel is the greatest of Obama's problems because from your statement above, I doubt very much that you are receptive to hearing my opinions. But let's just say that IMO, the problems with Obama's candidacy have largely to do with Obama and no one else.

    Parent

    I may or may not be receptive, and you can (none / 0) (#192)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:49:02 AM EST
    choose to put your thoughts forward or not.  If they are the common ones heard here, then I probably won't agree with them - and I have lots of company in that - and you may not be receptive to my rebuttals - and you have lots of company in that.

    But in either case, your choice to put your thoughts forward is just that.  Pre-judging what my thoughts and responses might be overstates your understanding of me as an individual.

    Parent

    You basically equated (none / 0) (#193)
    by otherlisa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:54:38 AM EST
    criticizing Obama with betrayal of progressive principles. What am I supposed to think?

    In any case I have to go to work, so this will have to wait.

    Parent

    I try to be very specific (none / 0) (#195)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:09:41 PM EST
    If I wanted to equate "criticizing Obama with betrayal progressive principles" I would do so specifically.  

    Criticizing people and ideas is something I defend with a great deal of vigor, particularly when the criticism is unpopular.

    Also, specifically, I see the extreme criticisms (more accurately in many cases, "assertions against") of Sen. Obama being used by the GOP as a major part of their campaign. Whether such criticisms or assertions being used by the GOP is a betrayal of progressive principles is a separate issue.

    Parent

    You said (none / 0) (#199)
    by otherlisa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:46:41 PM EST
    "Well, the greatest of Obama's problems specifically are what is said against him by those proporting to be progressives/democrats. "

    I think I will just let that sit.

    Parent

    Please don't. Provide some specifics (none / 0) (#200)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:31:37 PM EST
    because I cannot read your mind and honestly do not understand your intent.

    Are you objecting to the "proporting" word?  If so, my intent was to be exceedingly careful to not accuse anyone in particular of anything, and to cast a wide enough net that would include any freepers who are bound to exist...

    Parent

    Obama's biggest problem is Obama (none / 0) (#198)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:51:43 PM EST
    not anything someone says about him on a blog on the internet. If he is such a strong and able candidate, anonymous comments should have no effect on his candidacy. And the GOP doesn't need help digging up dirt, they are expert at it. Obama's problem is that there is so much dirt to dig up, not that he is being criticized on progressive blogs. Why would anyone think that a Chicago Combine pol would promote a progressive agenda? Because he says so?? Yeah, right.

    Parent
    and at least one of Gambit's (none / 0) (#158)
    by otherlisa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:53:05 AM EST
    worst comments has been deleted.

    It was a doozy.

    Parent

    Chris (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by standingup on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:58:14 AM EST
    I am not certain of what you hope to gain here.  I do hope you are not visiting with the intention that you blogged about on your my.barackobama page.  

    We have a nice community of people here.  We don't all agree and some of the comments can get heated but we try to be respectful of each other, for the most part.  This is not the same as MyDD or Dkos.  There are rules for comments and the comments are moderated.  

    Parent

    Oh, yuck (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by otherlisa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:46:33 AM EST
    Chris, as standingup said...this is a nice community. The only reason it remains so is that it has a fairly vigorous comment moderation policy.

    I was one of the people who left Kos (no big loss, as I've thought it was pretty hopeless since the Pie Wars). I've also dropped TPM, HuffPo and a bunch of other sites from my blogroll.

    Maybe you can't see this, given that you support Obama. But those of us who have dissented from the Obama love have been driven off more sites than I could count right now.

    Too many Obama supporters have no idea how to positively advocate for their candidate. Although I have a whole list of reasons, one of the reasons that I do not support Obama is the quality of his advocates and their ham-fisted bludgeoning that passes for advocacy.

    Parent

    How nice (none / 0) (#174)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:44:57 AM EST
    Yet another group of people flinging around the word "treason" to describe their opponents.  How Rush Limbaugh-ish of you.

    Parent
    "kiddies" (none / 0) (#178)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:44:03 AM EST
    aren't enough to win an election. The "youth vote" thing is a fallacy that the Obama campaign and his supporters should disabuse themselves of. The most reliable voting group is those over the age of 60 which doesn't bode well for Obama since he does poorly with that group.

    Parent
    I'm pretty sure I agree with that too (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:05:45 PM EST
    It follows his "if," which I think is meant to apply.

    Parent
    I am sure about that last sentence, but (none / 0) (#6)
    by chrisblask on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:13:05 PM EST
    the qualifiying IF is not needed.

    A woman can be president, a person with dark skin can be president.  Regardless who won this week - regardless who wins in November - those barriers are broken.

    Parent

    Sigh (5.00 / 11) (#7)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:15:02 PM EST
    Yes, it's all just hunky dory here in post-racial, post-sexism land.  Nothing to see here folks, move it along...

    Parent
    I think it's absolutely true (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:21:54 PM EST
    that Obama's ability to come as far as he has demonstrates real change in our society.

    Parent
    I think the opposite (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:31:36 PM EST
    because the way it happened shows not much has changed.

    Parent
    Could a black man using the same tactics (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:32:50 PM EST
    ever before have secured the nomination? I doubt it.

    Parent
    I don't know (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:42:12 PM EST
    but how something happens is just as important to me as the thing happening.

    Parent
    Are you thinking of the same tactics that I am? (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:44:38 PM EST
    define "tactics".

    Parent
    What progress (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:53:50 AM EST
    Now black men as well as white men can ride a tidal wave of misogyny to victory.

    Excuse me, I think I have to lie down now.

    Parent

    it would have been real (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by kimsaw on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:05:24 AM EST
    change if he was elected as opposed to selected and identity politics didn't play into the process called his coronation or a nutcracker didn't exist.

    Parent
    I think we learned this week (5.00 / 16) (#21)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:25:52 PM EST
    that a woman can't be president. No ceiling was broken.  Hillary just got a pretty big bump on her head. 18,000,000 votes but little respect from the media, her peers,and certainly  her rival. It's a sad message to our daughters.

    Parent
    That's too cynical (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Alec82 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:34:54 PM EST
    A woman can win the presidency.  Senator Clinton came close to the nomination.  I would have been happy to vote for her in the GE.  Not as happy as I am going to be casting a vote for Obama, but happy nonetheless.

     But you know who can't be elected president yet? A Muslim, a gay person, an atheist or agnostic, and probably a Mormon.  There are many barriers to overcome.  

    Parent

    A woman (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:49:10 PM EST
    "just not this one"?

    Parent
    Hillary's (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Gambit on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:54:24 PM EST
    negatives are as high as Obama's. where have you been? and you know full well the "deranged, zombie cult" of obama would support a sebelius ticket in the same numbers if not more.

    Parent
    I'd vote for any woman... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:00:39 AM EST
    ...with a D beside her name and at least a center left stance. :-)

     In the GE, that is.  

     Look, Senator Clinton is not a candidate without a history.  It is hard to separate that history from the baseless right wing attacks, but there you have it.  

     I resent the tone. She is mostly a good candidate.  I would have gladly voted for the Democratic nominee.  This isn't about sexism.  Take that case to the media, where it belongs.

    Parent

    Obama is not a candidate (5.00 / 8) (#92)
    by ap in avl on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:11:25 AM EST
    without a history.  

    The difference is we've have had over 16 years to review that history.  I'm afraid voters are going to get a crash course in the presumptive nominee's history....

    courtesy of Republican 527's.

    Sexism, Clinton-hate, and the DNC leadership's lust for power gave us a nominee who would have been better off running 8 years from now.  We all would have been better served if Barack had been better vetted and had the time to gain enough experience to no longer be the blank slate whose story can be written by his opponents in the GE.

    Parent

    ap in avl (2.00 / 0) (#105)
    by Gambit on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:20:02 AM EST
    someone finally expressed their anger ACCURATELY without demonizing the other candidate. could you tell the clinton/obama haters to follow your lead please?

    Parent
    No, but I can tell you to take a hike (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by ap in avl on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:08:14 AM EST
    Your "massa" comment was particularly offensive.

    So thanks, I guess.....but I really don't want your endorsement.

    Parent

    Gee Whiz! (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Gambit on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:02:09 AM EST
    My "massa" comment was obviously an over the top and childish satirical response to the comment preceeding it that insinuated all obama supporters (there are some in my family and circle of friends) abuse women for kicks. I apologize for stooping to her level, but i really want people to stop demonizing each other. Also, i was trying to be nice to ap in avl. I wasn't "endorsing" you so after i take my hike you can kick rocks.

    Parent
    Gambit, you have a message (none / 0) (#111)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:22:16 AM EST
    from Jeralyn further up the thread.

    Parent
    You may have voted for her, or another (none / 0) (#108)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:21:42 AM EST
    woman with a (D) next to her name, but surely you're not claiming that you represent the entire Democratic Party?  What you would or would not do is a single data point among millions.

    Parent
    Make that an openly gay person (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Mark Woods on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:05:27 AM EST
    Lots of closeted types have held office, including the White House I'm told. The affairs of 15th President James Buchanan and William Rufus King are an unresolved scandal, but these two devoted 'bachelors' who lived together for 15 years well past the age of 35 would make the press nuts today - back then they were openly mocked y Andrew Jackson as 'nancy', a Southern code for gay.

    But you're right, an openly gay person can be an Ellen or an Elton but not an Idaho Craig (snark).

    Parent

    Well, then, let's agree that Obama (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:43:03 AM EST
    is not, if he wins, the first black president. You do know the backstory about Warren Harding, I would bet.

    Parent
    Second that (2.33 / 3) (#43)
    by Gambit on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:39:17 PM EST
    Now THAT'S a good point. I wonder if any of those groups are feeling sorry for themselves like the "victim olympics" voters.

    Parent
    "Victim's Olympics Voters"?! (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by otherlisa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:01:20 AM EST
    Oh, I do hope you have some Unity-minded explanation for that phrase. Truly I do.

    Or a pony. I still have not received my pony.

    Parent

    Victim olympics voters? (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by standingup on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:01:47 AM EST
    Would it be to much to ask you to have a little more respect.

    I happen to overlap a couple of those groups.  I am angry, ready to continue working to see things change but hardly feeling sorry for myself.  

    Parent

    I overlap two... (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:05:22 AM EST
    ...gay and agnostic.  I don't take offense to the comment.

     And I'm not angry, I'm excited.

    Parent

    standingup I meant (none / 0) (#98)
    by Gambit on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:14:41 AM EST
    no disrespect to you because you have not shown any particular hatred for a human being, only anger at the process as a whole and i agree with that. if you mean what you say, then your tag name is an apt one

    Parent
    Thank you (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by standingup on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:24:38 AM EST
    This has nothing to do with hatred.  I am old enough to know that turning the tables on not just women, but African Americans, gays and other minority groups by insinuating they are playing the "victim card" is one of the oldest and most deplorable tricks in the book.  Think about the words you choose because words do mean something.  

    Parent
    Would you please stop with (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:20:35 AM EST
    the "victim olympics" meme?

    It is not playing the victim to point out that sexism and racism exists.

    Stop trying to silence legitimate complaints of bigotry by saying the people who point it out are "playing victim."

    They aren't playing.

    It's real.

    Parent

    Mitt's a Mormon (none / 0) (#46)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:40:03 PM EST
    And it doesn't seem to me that he lost the Repub race because of it.  Agree about the others.

    Of course, I didn't follow the Republican races very closely, so maybe it did him in.  I'd prefer to think that he was just a bit too slick for some folks, though.

    Parent

    Don't think it cost him the race, but (none / 0) (#64)
    by chrisblask on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:54:38 PM EST
    not sure if he could have got past the "Not Quite Christian Enough" bit in the GE.

    Probably could have, imho.  He could have assured everyone that he Accepts Jesus As His Savior. I lived in Utah for years, most Christians don't understand how extremely Christian Mormons are.

    Being such a robot kinda guy might have been more of a problem.

    The Christian hangup is the biggest barrier that I would like to see done away with.  Belief in a theism is not at all a requisite characteristic that does us any favors.  Quite the opposite, in my opinion.

    Parent

    Me too although (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:05:39 AM EST
    I can't call all Christian beliefs equal.  It's GWB's mission-from-God mentality that everything he wants is divine right that is the big problem.

    Parent
    Christianity can be a good thing (none / 0) (#163)
    by chrisblask on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:05:40 AM EST
    but the fact that our politicians (with very few exceptions ) have to be Christians is, to me, appalling.

    For an example of a good Christian, you can look here.  Step-dad Rev. Lutze has done more good because of his faith than any blogfull of the rest of us - Selma came after he`d been working on civil rights for more than two decades.

    But the downside of Theism is the Bush or Bin Laden folks.  If you read the books the right way, the Creator of the Universe says it`s OK to kill people...

    I want to live long enough to see a President who does not subscribe to any theism at all...

    Parent

    Yes, sadly that is the real lesson -- (5.00 / 8) (#60)
    by FemB4dem on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:52:44 PM EST
    No matter how qualified the woman candidate is, no matter how unqualified her male competitor is, no matter that she wins the most votes, the nominee selected by the party will be the man.

    How is that not the lesson?

    Parent

    It's the lesson that the teenaged girls (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:56:34 PM EST
    in my life took away from the primary process.

    Parent
    My daughter in her 20s, too (5.00 / 6) (#124)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:38:43 AM EST
    and, I fear, my son as well.

    Luckily, he's a good guy.  But a lot of other guys got even more of an education in entrenched societal values against women in this campaign.  And some will see it as encouragement to emulate what they saw.

    I've seen it all before in and after the Hill-Thomas hearings.  It can't affect my career anymore, but I hope it doesn't hurt my daughter -- in her career; she certainly is hurt about Clinton, for whom she voted.  

    Won't it be interesting, though, when Obama girls hit their late 20s and early 30s and hit the glass ceiling?  Because, of course, they will.  And, actually, it just got a lot stronger, I think.

    Parent

    18 million cracks in it (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:57:56 AM EST
    but I'm willing to bet Hillary gets no credit.

    I was talking to a neighbor this afternoon and we discovered that we'd both been "the first woman" in our careers in the 70s - she in high-tech sales, me in high-tech support and service. And we both commented on how young women today have NO IDEA what it was like. We'd walk into an office - she with her briefcase, me with my toolcase - and people would come out of their offices to gawk at the woman presenting a product or the woman using a screwdriver. They'd be so bold as to demand the company send a man to do the job instead - with complete confidence that this was not an unreasonable or biased demand.

    It was only 30 years ago.

    Going by this primary, it might just as well have been yesterday. Young women are going to find themselves in the position of fighting to regain the ground they gave up by believing no one could take it away from them.

    Parent

    You're right, young women have no idea what (5.00 / 8) (#152)
    by FemB4dem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:38:04 AM EST
    came before.  I tried one day to explain to a young lawyer, and Obama girl, about how she would constantly have to deal with "the line," you know, the line somewhere between Mother Theresa and Bella Abzug that women professionals are supposed to walk, but on which the markers keep moving.  She understood the concept -- in fact had just run into it with one partner telling her she wasn't assertive enough, and another telling her not to be so aggressive, but she looked at me with such a blank stare I realized fairly quickly she had no idea who Bella Abzug was.

    Anyway, when I explained and then segued back to politics, she said (in her kool-aid induced state), "oh Obama will fix that."  I kid you not.  They are clueless.  She is one reason the Obamabot arguments that we older women "must" vote for Obama to save them from the republicans, have absolutely no sway with me.  

    Parent

    It's the lack of qualifications that gets me (5.00 / 11) (#78)
    by davnee on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:04:47 AM EST
    If Clinton had lost to a male Dem that was qualified to be president I wouldn't be so upset.  But she lost to a candidate who has nothing noteworthy on his resume.  Not a single major personal, professional, or political accomplishment.  And not even a full term of major public office under his belt.  Instead of picking a highly qualified and electable woman, the party insiders and media selected a male cipher instead.  That tells me all I need to know about the status of women in this country.

    Parent
    The lesson is that no matter how badly managed (none / 0) (#69)
    by chrisblask on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:59:33 PM EST
    a campaign you run, how badly financed, how badly strategized - being a woman doesn't stop someone from coming a close second any more than being a man.

    But folks can pursue that victim meme and ignore the words of Sen. Clinton and Ms. Steinem all they want.  It's a free country.

    Parent

    She won the most votes, (5.00 / 6) (#94)
    by FemB4dem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:12:00 AM EST
    she didn't come in second.  In fact, neither won on the pledged delegates.  Obama only "won" because the super delegates handed him the nomination.  That's hardly a close second.  In my book, that's a stolen election; stolen from the woman with the most votes, given to the man with fewer votes.  Yes, please do continue to tell me (and Al Gore) that we're just sore losers and victims, it so persuaded me in 2000, and it so persuades me now.

    Parent
    Knock it off (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by standingup on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:13:16 AM EST
    Enough with the insinuations about the "victim meme."  

    Parent
    Oh thank you (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:57:14 AM EST
    I was waiting for a man to tell me what lesson I ought to take from the events I've been watching for the last year.  How very kind of you to take time out of your busy schedule to enlighten all the little ladies.

    Parent
    hit me again (4.42 / 7) (#100)
    by sarahfdavis on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:15:27 AM EST
    another black eye please. i know i brought it on myself.
    and don't worry honey, i'll put make up over it so you don't have to be reminded of how i made you behave like a jerk.
    i'm sorry i whined and asked to be treated fairly and decently.
    i apologize for being angry that you didn't appreciate that i was smarter and more qualified by light years. how awful of me.
    can i get you some coffee. do i look ok? no more pant suits ...i know how unsexy they are for you. and i do want to keep you pleased. sugar?

    Parent
    disagree (none / 0) (#177)
    by pompmom on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:28:07 AM EST
    if a woman could win, she would have. the glass ceiling has not been broken.

    Parent
    Krugman makes excellent points ... (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:24:42 PM EST
    but he ignores the way race was used by the Obama campaign.

    First, we have the erroneous claims of racist attacks which have been discussed here many times.

    Second, Obama both directly and indirectly sent a message that excludes him from the most of America's historical racism.  By emphasizing his biracial status.  And by stressing that his father is from Africa, hence, he's not a descendant of African American slaves.

    Although these are clearly facts of Obama's life.  The way he repeated this in virtually every speech shows that Obama wanted to exclude himself from "those people" as it were.

    And this undercuts the supposed "post-racial" nature of his campaign.  It's almost as if Obama is tacitly admitting that a descendant of African American slaves could not be elected President.

    Even if that were true (and I don't think it is), it's a highly cynical notion.  

    Parent

    I don't think Krugman accepts the premise (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:31:11 PM EST
    that Obama ran a post-racial campaign. I think his point is that, no matter what kind of campaign it was that Obama ran, it really is remarkable that he was able to win nomination. I don't think anyone voting was unclear about the fact that Obama was black. At times that worked to his advantage, but in a world of polarized bloc voting, it would have eventually been his undoing. Whatever you think of how he got his support, there WERE lots of white voters willing to vote for him.

    Whether that's a coalition that can hold for November is a different question, and Krugman leaves it open.

    Parent

    First point you made (none / 0) (#32)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:32:48 PM EST
    Yes, it's not that race or racism has truly left our national consciousness in evaluating candidates, it's that its use has been flipped.

    That is progress; it's far, far better than a society where racist attacks are encouraged or allowed to pass without comment.

    That doesn't mean it's unalloyed good or that it's ok to get complacent, because now accusations of racism are being used the other way around, where there is none.  That's not a good thing.  Better than the old thing, yes, but better is a relative term.


    Parent

    this must be snark (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:27:51 PM EST
    >>>>Racial polarization used to be a dominating force in our politics -- but we're now a different, and better, country.

    "Different and better country" since Obama began condoning race-baiting.


    Parent

    For a guy who didn't want to run on race, (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:28:42 PM EST
    he didn't waste anytime exploiting that factor.

    Parent
    Well, that's a fair point (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:32:15 PM EST
    I am surprised (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:12:09 AM EST
    the Krugman did not talk about the real issue.  The permanent economic underclass that is equal parts of all races.  The new glass ceiling which is actually like a manhole cover that is keeping people poor.  This to me was the biggest catastrophe of this campaign, that issue got sidelined.  

    Parent
    I dislike this piece by Krugman. (none / 0) (#104)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:19:08 AM EST
    It's the primary all over again.  It pre-supposes if he loses, it's because America is racist.

    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by standingup on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:53:39 AM EST
    Krugman is saying Obama's securing the nomination is evidence that the country has changed for the better.  If he wins the Presidency, it will also symbolize how far we have come.  If he does not win in November, we have still nominated the first African American for a major party for President.  

    Parent
    No.... (none / 0) (#135)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:58:08 AM EST
    "But if Mr. Obama does win, it will symbolize the great change that has taken place in America."  So if he doesn't then no great change.  Why?  

    Parent
    Perhaps Jeralyn has more knowledge (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:36:58 PM EST
    of this than BTD did the other evening, but Amendement 12 to the u.s. constitution is regarding electing the pres. and v.p. Perhaps there was another amendment to this amendment adopted, however, if I'm reading this correctly (and I just may not be), we do not elect our

    Amendment 12  

    (I didn't finish) we do not elect our (none / 0) (#41)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:37:56 PM EST
    pres and vp this way.

    Parent
    We do technically elect them that way (none / 0) (#131)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:52:15 AM EST
    but in practice we go by parties and the Presidential candidate's choice of running mates.

    Wikipedia explains better than I can, but technically, if everyone voted one party for Pres and the other party for VP, we could have a split party at the top.

    Parent

    Wikipedia can say (and be (none / 0) (#184)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 09:57:15 AM EST
    changed to say)whatever it wants. But, where and when did "we" adopt to hold our processes differently from the 12th Amendment and why? We live by the constitution and its amendments. Anyway, I wrote an e-mail the Jonathan Turley and if I'm really lucky, he or someone from his staff will reply. Maybe we've been doing it incorrectly all of these years?

    Parent
    Hillary really stumped Kos (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by ajain on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:05:13 AM EST
    Does anyone else find it curious that Kos has not blogged about Sen. Clinton's concession speech?
    She stopped him in his tracks and blew him off into the wilderness.

    He will be back soon championing Obama, but I wonder what was going through his head when he heard her speak.

    He was probably so hypnotized (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:08:04 AM EST
    every time she said 'Barack Obama' that he's still in recovery.

    Parent
    He became despondent (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:03:04 AM EST
    and joined the circus.  He is making balloon animals.  

    Parent
    LMAO (none / 0) (#151)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:31:18 AM EST
    That's killer.

    Parent
    LOL, OK, my turn for a spit take n/t (none / 0) (#110)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:22:07 AM EST
    I think Kos is negotiating for .. (5.00 / 6) (#159)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:56:30 AM EST
    the VP slot.

    He's Hispanic, has a military background, and used to be a Republican.

    He's perfect.

    Parent

    Do you really think... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Alec82 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:38:14 AM EST
    ...that Senator Clinton cares about Kos, or pays attention to him?

     I somehow doubt it.

    Parent

    She did go to (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:30:52 AM EST
    YearlyKos and had Wolfson go on O'Reilly to defend KOs's community.

    Of course that was a long time ago.

    Parent

    Congratulations (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:37:48 AM EST
    you just earned the right to be ignored from here on out.

    Disgusting.

    Untransformational (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Donna Darko on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:10:29 AM EST
    Obama has done precious little in his career for men of color. He's not the transformational candidate. If you look at Clinton and Obama's Wikepedia timelines side by side, you'll find only 11 items related to men of color. He is only symbolic change.

    -Worked as a Community organizer
    -Was Director of the Developing Communities Project
    -Worked with low-income residents seeking to improve living conditions in poor neighborhoods plagued with crime and high unemployment
    -Represented community organizers
    -Worked with both Democrats & Republicans to help working families get ahead by creating programs like the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which provided over $100 million in tax cuts to families over a 3 year period
    -Pushed for an expansion of early childhood education after some inmates on death row had been found innocent
    -Worked with law enforcement officials to require videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.
    -Negotiated welfare reform
    -Member of the Congressional Black Caucus
    -Spoke before the national Press Club, defending the `New Deal' social welfare policies of F.D.R.
    -Spoke out against the government indifference to growing economic class divisions, following Hurricane Katrina

    Clinton has 38 items related to women and 42 items to children (which are women's items because most women are mothers). She's represents substantive change and real transformation.

    gambit is banned (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:31:14 AM EST


    Shouldn't Celtics be pronounced (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:06:17 PM EST
    with a hard "k" sound?

    Yep. We have to Americanize everything. (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:20:44 PM EST
    yes....unless you aren't from celticland...:) (none / 0) (#10)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:18:42 PM EST
    No (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:19:32 PM EST
    Only if you are an anthropologist, linguist, historian or other academic scholar. For sports fans the C is pronounced like sea.

    Parent
    Of course. But why? Lots of Irish (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:20:56 PM EST
    in Boston.

    Parent
    When In Rome..... (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:28:38 PM EST
    What about when you are refering to design (none / 0) (#50)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:45:29 PM EST
    jewelry, architecture, etc?

    Parent
    Don't Know (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:47:42 PM EST
    But, sea for Celtics, the b'ball team is certainly an anomaly. I would guess it is the hard k.

    Parent
    Or a Welsh speaker -- Pob hwyl i bawb! (none / 0) (#89)
    by Mark Woods on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:08:35 AM EST
    I dunno. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Marco21 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:20:13 PM EST
    Great 4th quarter though.

    Anybody else bumming that (none / 0) (#55)
    by davnee on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:48:14 PM EST
    we are down to only one more BSG episode until 2009?  I'm still smiling about the last scene of Friday's episode.  But will that be the pinnacle of their happiness?  Ron D. Moore doesn't seem to do the happiness thing.  I fear there is a big price to be paid for this grin on my face.


    I am bummed too (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:56:49 PM EST
    Especially when I have not been allowed any hot pilot!love this year (well, yeah, there's Sam/Kara, but there's no Lee/Kara and there NEEDS TO BE!). I am happy about Laura/Bill but...I needs my Pilots! (well, interim president/resurrected CAG)

    Plus knowing Skiffy, they'll force us to wait until sometime in 2009 and that's unbearable, esp when there will only be 5 episodes of Torchwood and 4 Dr Who specials all year courtesy of the BBC. My genre teevee fix is getting smaller n smaller. WAH!

    Parent

    Lee/Kara don't do it for me (none / 0) (#91)
    by davnee on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:10:49 AM EST
    I confess that I don't much care for Lee.  I love Starbuck, but Apollo leaves me cold I'm afraid.  He stands up for important principles, true, but he always seems to do so in the most self-serving and tool-like fashion possible.

    Parent
    Used to love Lee (none / 0) (#115)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:25:06 AM EST
    when he was the 'conscience' of the military/pilot group, but his political turn just bores me.  He's on his way to becoming 'St. Lee'.  Bored now.

    Parent
    I just have a thing (none / 0) (#168)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:51:41 AM EST
    for Jamie Bamber so even political Lee is alright by me. I do miss him being a pilot and I wish they'd do MORE with him now, but as long as he's still there, I'm fine. Eye candy is good.

    The funniest thing is poor Jamie doesn't want Lee to be a saint. He's said in a number of interviews over the past few years that he kept fighting with the writers to give him more flaws because he didn't want to be the Good Boy.

    Parent

    Yes! I'm bumming all 'round. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:58:17 PM EST
    I hate the long waits between seasons, or half-seasons as the case may be.  There's so little else of excellence on TV.

    We have a big pool at work going on who will be the final one.  We don't even have pools on the election, but we do on BSG.

    Parent

    I am just hoping (none / 0) (#87)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:07:31 AM EST
    our final Cylon will not be some lame choice. And I really hope it's not Kara. I do not want my Starbuck to be a Cylon. (Are you listening, Ron Moore?)

    I am going to be assuming that everyone dies in the end so if anyone likeable actually manages to survive, it'll be a pleasant surprise.

    Parent

    My money is on Zarek (none / 0) (#99)
    by davnee on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:15:14 AM EST
    I'd actually kinda love it if it was Roslin, but I think RDM won't go for one of the obvious choices.

    Parent
    Betting is heavy on Roslin at work (none / 0) (#118)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:28:50 AM EST
    Although I'm thinking it might be Gaius, despite the over-obviousness of that choice.  It's be just like Moore to do a 'Psych'! like that.  And Gaius has been talking to people in his head longer than anyone.

    I am hoping the final one is revealed in this last ep before the break, though, and the finding-earth thing is the big story for next half-season.  I'm starting to get a bit tired of speculating.  Although maybe that's because I spend so much time doing it, it's all my own fault.

    Parent

    i think it's either (none / 0) (#122)
    by boredmpa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:35:49 AM EST
    the father or the son...probably the son, since he's  the interim pres and they already have ty as a military plant.  

    Maximum drama between father and son, especially after the conversation they had a while back about "what if" their lost son/brother came back as a cylon.

    I don't think it's thrace or roslin, since that might undercut the spiritual side that needs some foundation and that RDM has been increasing.


    Parent

    what's the deal with splitting the last season (none / 0) (#107)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:20:37 AM EST
    this way. But I'm liking what I'm seeing. Any bets on the final one here. Starbuck seems too obvious, but that's my guess.

    Parent
    My understanding is it's partly so (none / 0) (#121)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:34:37 AM EST
    Moore et al can get other projects going in the interim.  I think Caprica finally got the green light from SciFi, and Eich's got some sort of production deal from NBC (despite the travesty that was Bionic Woman) for 2 or 3 shows, or something.

    Parent
    The season thing is Skiffy (none / 0) (#169)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:58:33 AM EST
    Ron Moore wanted to do 2 more seasons (4 and 5) but SciFi would only commit to one at a time. He did not want to get screwed over by them and not finish the story, so he took the 22 episode final season. 2 of those episodes became "Razor" so there was supposed to be a 20 episode long final season.

    Even before the writer's strike, SciFi then turned around after the fact and was hinting that they were going to break up the season in to 2 parts, with the 2nd half not being shown until sometime in 2009. The actors were understandably pissed (esp when they were only getting paid for one season, etc)

    Then the writers' strike happened and I believe they had just managed to get episode 11 in the can before all hell broke loose. no one was sure if they were going to be able to finish the last 9. Luckily they were. I believe they're shooting the final few episodes right now.

    There is now some serious talk about SciFi greenlighting anywhere from 1-3 additional 2 hour movies to be shot before the actors/crew go off to other projects. If they do happen, they will be prequels to whatever happens in the finale. There won't be anything after that storywise.

    I'm thinking the final is either Zarek or Felix Gaeta. It should be someone with a T. in their name seeing as we have: Tory, Tigh, Tyrol and Samuel T. Anders.

    Parent

    The mispronunciation of Celtic (none / 0) (#59)
    by phatpay on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:52:04 PM EST
    befuddles my daughter. She doesn't get it. I tried to explain the whole "Americanization" thing. But she just stated that everyone is incorrect.

    As to racism and sexism in the U.S.? I believe that we have made tremendous strides. I also believe there is a large segment of this population that will not vote for Obama, not because he played the race card, not because the MSM loves him, nor because the DNC loves him, not because he's not Hillary, there will be millions voting against him because he's a Black man. That's it. And I'm sure that we could say the same thing, only in regards to gender, if Clinton were the nominee.

    This is a society ruled by fears and paranoias. Just watch or read news from another country and examine it's amazing difference. Look how fear and paranoia allowed dubya to steamroll Congress and the public into so many things.

    Your daughter is correct -- there are no soft C's (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by FemB4dem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:00:21 AM EST
    in any Keltic language.  This old Magic Johnson fan would be happy to root for your Seltics, though, if you could explain to me how in the face of this election you can say we have made tremendous strides against sexism in the US.  I think we are sliding backwards, and if Obama wins in the fall, we might just as well give up and accept permanent second class status.

    Parent
    Not my Celtics (none / 0) (#170)
    by phatpay on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:11:42 AM EST
    hard or soft "C".
    As to the strides made "in the face of this election", well... 18 million people rallied behind a woman for president. Is there anything in our history that even begins to rival that?
    I don't believe that Hillary lost solely due to sexism. I believe that she lost because, to quote my mother, 64, "she represents good ol' boy politics". And Obama won, to quote my daughter, 11, "because he's fresh". Nor do I believe that sexism was near as dominant a factor as anti-Hillary and pro-something new.
    I am glad that Sen. Clinton stayed in til the end. I think it was the right thing to do considering the success of the first viable female presidential candidate. But I do seriously lament the division it has caused/ is causing.
    It seems that, once again, the left will have to suffer another presidential defeat. As we lack the temerity to put differences aside.
    This is what perplexes me about staunch Hillary supporters.


    Parent
    Your mother is wrong (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:25:05 AM EST
    At the very least she is wrong to think Obama is any different in that regard.

    And your daughter is 11.

    Don't be perplexxed, it was bound to happen given that Obama thinks Clinton hatred is welcome in this party.


    Parent

    So what's wrong with being 11? (none / 0) (#190)
    by phatpay on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:35:41 AM EST
    And my daughter is right as is my mother. The point is that Clinton has been on the national political scene for decades. No question that Obama is as much a political insider as well. However, he is newer to the scene. He gets to enjoy the appearance of being untainted that that entails.

    Now I haven't been on the blogosphere that much during this election season (and that's probably a good thing considering how exposed everyone's nerves are) but I don't see Obama as truly fostering hate.


    Parent

    just more bamboozlin' huh (none / 0) (#133)
    by sarahfdavis on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:55:33 AM EST
    yeah, them whities just bamboozled yah, didn't they.
    yeah,, don't trust them clintons. nosiree. hoodwinked, ya.
    didn't they. yeah, y'all no better. they rode ya like bill rode
    monika. yeah, i'm one of you and i'll look out for ya', just
    like i did in chicago when i abandoned your pleas for
    decent heating and housing. aw shucks, i got 99 problems
    and a b*tch ain't one of em. hope, man. change, dude.
    look at my big grin. i'm tha man.