home

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Your turn. Keep it civil.

This is an Open Thread.

< What Obama Can Do Now On FISA | Obama Briefly Forgets Hillary at Unity Event >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Does BO (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Lahdee on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:20:55 AM EST
    have a problem with the leadership issue? His numbers, if the poll BTD cited earlier is to be believed, are softening. Is that a product of his increased exposure or is it a concern?

    I think it's very much a concern that our (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:24:23 AM EST
    nominee seems to only lead by 2 or 3 points against a man who belongs to the same party as one of the most unpopular men in American History (he's real close to beating out Benedict Arnold).

    Apparently voters still don't like flip floppers.

    Parent

    BO has a lot of probelms, I guess. (none / 0) (#135)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:19:46 PM EST
    He went to do a fundraiser for HRC and never mentioned it in his speech - and had to go back up on stage to ask people to donate to her.

    What a guy!!!!  Just the kind you want as your POTUS!

    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Obama-Clinton-Fundraising.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=O bama+Briefly+Forgets+to+Urge+Help+for+Clinton+&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

    Parent

    With the economy in this condition... (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by stefystef on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:26:19 AM EST
    why isn't Obama polling better?  I was listening to the Bill Press Show yesterday and he had a guest host (can't remember his name) who was interviewing Bob Schieffer (who should have stayed as the CBS Evening News anchor) and Bob said something interesting.

    He said that he was surprised that Obama was only looking at 3-5% leads (statistical dead-heats) against McCain considering the low ratings of Republicans and the President.

    I wondered that too... perhaps the shiny new-ness of Obama is finally wearing off and people are seeing him for what he is... and they aren't so thrill anymore.  Perhaps buyers's remorse?

    I have no doubt (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by talex26 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:31:43 AM EST
    that Clinton would be polling higher than Obama. At least people, like her or not, knows who she is and what she stands for. That they can vote for.

    Someone who they do not know who they are or what they stand for is hard to vote for.

    Parent

    I agree completely (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by kempis on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:57:00 AM EST
    Regardless of how people feel about Hillary, her competence is not in doubt.

    During the primaries, I was disappointed to see rock-star-ness trump competence in the eyes of pundits and party leaders, mainly because I believe that this is a time when most people who care enough to cast a vote want to put someone in office who knows what the heck he or she is doing. Competence matters enormously in contrast to Bush's incompetence. Electing a knowledgeable, experienced, and capable executive would have been THE change we need.

    As it is, I find myself doubting Obama's preparedness and thus his competence. And certainly McCain 2008 is not an attractive alternative. I never in my adult life imagined that I'd contemplate sitting out a presidential election....

    Parent

    Who (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:25:31 AM EST
    would have? Our chance to finally get rid of GOP rule? 8 months ago I was so excited about our prospects in Nov. Not so much now. Frankly I don't see where winning this election is that important. I don't see the point in putting another Jimmy Carter in office. I don't see the point in voting for someone who is as clueless about the economy as McCain. I don't see the point in voting for someone who is more worried about what Republicans think of him than anything else.

    PS-I'm a moderate not a left winger. Obama's moves to the center have no appeal to me.

    Parent

    I really doubt she would be up much more (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:30:22 PM EST
    This country is so evenly divided.  It will be a very long time before a candidate wins by a huge margin.  People might not like Republicans, but democrats aren't liked that much eather.  The better of two evils will never poll by huge amounts over the first evil, I really think this is how most Americans view it.

    Parent
    Why did you rate we like that? (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:48:38 PM EST
    I just don't understnad the point?

    Parent
    Don't sweat it Sam... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:53:54 PM EST
    ...it just means you're on the right track.

    Parent
    Maybe because you called (none / 0) (#201)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:01:16 PM EST
    the Dem candidate evil?  That's Obama-bashing?

    Parent
    Divided? (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:56:28 PM EST
    With Bush's approval ratings at an all-time low, the country's outlook worse than it's been since 1992, and eight out of 10 people saying the Democrats could do a better job on virtually everything? source

    Divided? I think not.

    However, if Obama continues to try to out-conservative McCain, it will be a very close (and that means divided) election.

    If he'd start acting like a real Democrat he might be able to change that. I'm not holding my breath.

    Parent

    Buyer's Remorse (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by JimWash08 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:42:55 AM EST
    Funny you say that (and I've seen it mentioned frequently in recent days on this Web site.)

    I was having a discussion with my colleague today -- a friend whom I've never spoken politics with before, until I found out last Friday that he voted for Obama -- on the FISA debacle and he said 'buyer's remorse' too.

    I was really surprised that he, a fresh college grad at 22-years-old, said that. What's even better is he said, "Hillary definitely wouldn't have voted for it if she was the nominee, that I'm sure."

    But buyer's remorse would be significant if the product could actually be returned. I fear The Obama is here to stay and it makes me sad.

    Parent

    I agree and don't forget (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by abfabdem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:50:17 PM EST
    after March 1 or so, she got over 600,000 more votes than Obama and won 7 out of 12 primaries.  It was like, the more they did see him the less they liked him.  Which is why he ducked debates and kind of hid out until the primaries were over then let the super delegates carry him over the finish line.

    Like a sports game analogy--the guy was ahead by the fourth quarter but the opponent suddenly started playing great and was coming on strong and could have won but the guy stalled and ran out the clock to eke out a victory.  At least that's what it felt like to me.

    Parent

    Dems approval lower (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:45:46 AM EST
    This Dem led congress has lower approval than friggin' Bush.  Isn't it a record to be in single digits?  9%! What the h3ll is that?  

    Voters are less happy with the Dems than they were with the Repubs.  Repubs are giving this Dem congress the higher ratings... that means Dems/Indies are the angriest.

    Parent

    maybe because without the Clinton brand (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:46:48 AM EST
    the only other dem president people can remember wasnt so great for the economy and obama spent the primary destroying the Clinton brand.

    Anyway, if one does believe in a cause and effect relationship between such things, the stock market does not seem to be responding to obama's message for the future.

    I hear gas consumption is down.  That's great but if theres one thing I'm the most sure of its that if obama gives his version of a malaise speech and asks America to take public transportation and stop driving so much, he will get a bounce for a week or so tops and then people will start saying "what are you doing to fix this?" and his numbers will plummet.


    Parent

    Good point: Obama attacked Dem brand (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:57:19 AM EST
    but the attention went to alleged Dem attacks on Obama, could he be C in C, etc.

    But past the primaries, it's less about personalities and more about party -- and so the voters are left with the party standard-bearer who dissed the party's best years in recent memory.

    Reap, sow.

    Parent

    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:57:49 AM EST
    sorry, I meant sow, reap. :-)

    Parent
    And Dem leaders cheered him on (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by BernieO on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:10:10 AM EST
    This is what drives me crazy about the party. Obama trashed the one really successful president we have had and party leaders and the media loved it. Clinton's record, particularly on the economy was amazing - strong growth, a surplus, and millions moving out of poverty. Imagine Republican doing such a stupid thing instead of building on that legacy?

    Clinton's record is proof that Democrats, not Republicans, know how to govern and promote prosperity, not deficits. Too bad so few people are ever reminded of that. As much as I hate to see a Republican win the presidency part of me thinks that this is what it will take for the party to finally wake up. In the long run it may be worth the chance.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:59:25 AM EST
    I sure wish we had been smart enough back then to listen to all that stuff Jimmy Carter had to say, but the lesson I draw from the whole experience is that America doesn't want a Scold-in-Chief.

    I think Obama has absorbed at least some of that lesson as well.  That's why, when he wants to score points with GLBT voters, he doesn't make a speech and say "America, stop being so homophobic!"  No, instead he just goes into the black community and says "black people, stop being so homophobic!"  He gets to pin a pro-GLBT ribbon on his lapel either way, and apparently the black community (Jesse Jackson excepted) is more willing to let Obama scold them.

    Parent

    Democratic leaders let this happen (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by BernieO on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:27:17 AM EST
    All these years Republicans have been lying about how great Reagan was and what a loser Carter was in comparison. I never hear Dem leaders challenge either of these, even now when Reagan's "There is no oil shortage" garbage is coming home to roost. It should be crystal clear by now that Reagonmics does not work. It ballooned the debt and seriously worsened income inequality when he tried it in the nineties and it has done the same since Bush reinstated it. In between our economy was incredible due to Bill Clinton.  

    And no one points out that had we stayed on the road to energy independence that Carter put us on we would not have needed to get involved in either Iraq war. Let's not forget it was the fact that our troups were stationed in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War that turned Osama against us. (And, as James Baker admitted, that war was definitely about oil.)

    Parent

    Just read Bob Somerby (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by BernieO on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:32:44 AM EST
    at dailyhowler.com. His post today about the Reagan rules is the perfect example of how Democratic leaders just acquiesce to the Republican world view:
    "The "Reagan Rules" have been in place for roughly thirty years now. They're widely accepted by the DNC; by liberal journals and intellectuals; and of course, by the mainstream press."
    An example:
    "Under terms of these "Reagan Rules," Republicans and conservatives can say whatever they please, no matter how ludicrous, about major budget issues."

    And Obama is no different which is why Bush now has the power to legally spy on us, Obama and his campaign included. Nixon must be spinning in his grave.

    Parent

    Minor correction (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:29:08 AM EST
    apparently the black community (Jesse Jackson  and the Black Agenda Report excepted) is more willing to let Obama scold them.

    BAR has been writing posts strongly criticizing Obama for using the AA community and painting all black people in such a negative light. Glenn Ford has gone so far as to recommend voting for McKinney rather than Obama.

    Parent

    He comes (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:29:51 AM EST
    off as a scold and a "know better" when it comes to women imo. He seems condescending a lot of times and comes off as if he is trying to "teach" us rubes something. Those press releases are atrocious.

    Parent
    Kinda reminds me of how at (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:55:55 AM EST
    a GWB press conference and he leans foward on the podium to "teach" and "tell" us "this is what a leader does"!!

    Parent
    Personally, I LOATHE being told what (3.00 / 2) (#168)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:46:10 PM EST
    to do...and for obama to come across as knowing what I need to do is laughable.  He needs to learn to do his homework before he opens his mouth to insert his foot...Lord help us....

    Parent
    The economy (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by eric on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:54:38 AM EST
    never was his issue and although he should, he can't seem to adopt it.  He could walk away with this thing with a little economic populism.

    Can you imagine what kind of lead John Edwards would have right now?

    Parent

    I think for all the early Hoopla about Obama.... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:28:56 AM EST
    ...i.e., all the rockstar coverage, that by the time November rolls around its going to be another "hold your nose" election only its more likely than not that the Democrat will win this time.

    Parent
    The voters have no real reason to think (none / 0) (#13)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:31:11 AM EST
    that Obama would be better for the economy then McCain. He has no history on economic matters and I don't think speaks that much about the issue.

    Parent
    This is typical. (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:28:38 AM EST
    Rove ignores subpoena, refuses to testify"

    He had been scheduled to appear at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing Thursday morning. A placard with his name sat in front of an empty chair at the witness table, with a handful of protesters sitting behind it calling for Rove to be arrested.

    The dems will "consider" contempt charges.

    Pathetic.

    They will consider..... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:29:47 AM EST
    ....and then they'll do nothing.

    Parent
    I feel some more Sternly Written Letters (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:34:17 AM EST
    about to happen. Maybe, we should replace Democratic politicians with "creative writers." We could have them submit samples of their letters prior to voting on who to select.

    Parent
    Someone needs to hold a session (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:32:24 AM EST
    with Democrats in Congress and explain that "compromise" does not mean "give the other side whatever they want and politely ask if it might be possible to maybe get one or two teeny-tiny things for their side - pretty, pretty please?"

    From Think Progress:

    Democrats in Congress are negotiating a compromise on offshore oil drilling. "Democrats also want any compromise plan to include investments in clean and renewable energies, a crackdown on oil speculators and proof that the oil and gas companies are fully utilizing land that is already leased for exploration."

    They are hopeless.

    When the other side says (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by madamab on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:39:48 AM EST
    "Bipartisanship is date rape,"

    you should know what you're in for if you don't back 'em down.

    But somehow, this bunch of Democratic "Leaders" seems to think "Thank you sir, may I have another" is a good negotiating technique.

    Parent

    I want to see T Boone Pickens (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:55:16 AM EST
    plan.  He's been trotting around the teebee shows and has a commercial out saying 'we can't drill our way out of this one'  I am open to Repubs who want off oil not just foreign oil.  He's using his own money to build the largest (nation? world?) wind farm in Texas.  He thinks we need to use natural gas while we get alternatives going and stated that geographically, the US has the most wind (I have no idea if that is fact.)

    I will wait and see what his personal campaign is.  He stated he was bypassing a govt that got us to where we are and is going directly to the people and willing to use his own money.  My guess is alternatives are now profitable enough.

    Parent

    This is awesome..... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:38:35 AM EST
    Give it up for these female prison inmates battling the fires out west.  Link

    Redemption is a beautiful thing....


    funny Larry Johnson quote (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:39:15 AM EST
    on Jesses on air lip slip:

    "Man up, dude. Just admit that for you told the truth and you liked how it felt."

    LOL! (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by madamab on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:40:23 AM EST
    Good for LJ. :-)

    Parent
    Jesse must have been fuming (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by BernieO on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:21:04 AM EST
    for months. By going ballistic when Bill Clinton compared Obama's SC win to Jesse's win and acting like being compared to Jesse was equivalent to being compared to a child molester, the media and the Obama campaign were incredibly insulting to Jackson. Considering that Jackson  risked his neck as a young man by fighting for civil rights he deserves more respect from Barack and Co. even if they do not agree with everything Jesse has said or done. No wonder Jackson is fed up.

    Obama shows no respect to those who have gone before him and prepared the way for him to have a chance at the presidency. He disses the people who fought against Vietnam and for women's and civil rights in the 60's (too messy for Mr. Clean) and look at how he trashed Bill Clinton! Obama even dared to say that Clinton's administration left poor people behind just like Reagan's did when, in fact, record numbers of people moved out of poverty during the 90's. Bill is right to not "get over it". This is bad not only for his legacy but for the credibility of the party as a whole. We should all be touting Bill Clinton's record, not running from it.

    Parent

    great line (none / 0) (#41)
    by Lil on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:49:33 AM EST
    and how bout that beating Jr. gave his father yesterday?. That was something. A little family loyalty is a good thing. It actually kinda scared me how harsh he was. I thought if they can do that to Jackson Sr. nobody's safe.

    Parent
    Well, much as I despite JJ Jr. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:59:49 AM EST
    it would be understandable that he could have issues about this particular issue of fathering children out of wedlock -- as you may recall that JJ Sr. did.  That also could have made Obama's comments sting a bit for JJ Sr., too.

    Parent
    and, as usual, First Read jumps in (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by Josey on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:05:53 AM EST
    with a narrative to RESCUE Obama! - Jackson's comments help Obama because white people don't like Jackson.
    Ahh...illogical logic from the same media that shapes public opinion and chooses our nominees.


    Parent
    it also illustrates vividly (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:08:45 AM EST
    why no one pays any real attention to the MSM.
    as much as they would like us to think they do.


    Parent
    CNN took the "apology" live, (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:13:01 AM EST
    Fox and MSNBC did not. I thought that was interesting given the nature and the person apologizing. Al Sharpton said, rather calmly, that he accepts that Jackson apologized and Obama accepted. More than he did for Imus!!

    Parent
    Kyle-Lieberman redux (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:46:09 PM EST
    Rachel Maddow, substituting on MSNBC's Countdown, defended Senator Obama against McCain's charge that Mr. Obama did not vote for the Kyle-Lieberman Amendment (actually he skipped the vote, but said he was against it), since Mr. Obama supported a different bill that also labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.  I seem to remember that Mrs. Clinton's vote for Kyle-Lieberman was much criticized by the Obama campaign and was a big issue for Obama in the debates; none of this was mentioned by Ms. Maddow.

    Parent
    In reality (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:11:53 AM EST
    The "typical white person" would react to Jackson's comments not by saying "hey, I like Obama more now!" but by grabbing the popcorn.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:14:21 AM EST
    Painting with too broad a brush (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:40:22 AM EST
    Believe it or not there are actually white people who like Jesse Jackson, Sr. a whole heck of a lot more than Obama. At least he was willing to take risks to promote his beliefs. Whether you agreed with him or not, he stood for something.

    Parent
    Jesse Jackson (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:42:07 AM EST
    was not afraid to practice the politics of contrast.  He told people exactly what was wrong with Reagan and his policies, and we'd be a lot better off if all our candidates would practice that sort of bold truth-telling.  Oh, and he did it in rhyme so folks would remember.

    Parent
    As far as oratory goes (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by MsExPat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:38:41 PM EST
    Jesse Sr. runs rings around Obama. Heck, so does Al Sharpton. I thought that Sharpton's convention speech in 2004 left Obama's in the dust. It was soaring, lovely--remember the story he told about Ray Charles?

    Parent
    I also preferred Sharpton's speech in 04 n/t (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:08:28 PM EST
    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:08:55 PM EST
    That was a great speech.  "We didn't get the mule, so we decided we'd ride this donkey as far as it would take us!"

    I also thought Bill Clinton's speech from 2004 was outstanding, particularly the way he lays out the differences between Republicans and Democrats so clearly.  A textbook example of what BTD and I refer to as the politics of contrast.

    Parent

    Truly, truly creepy (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by ineedalife on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:43:14 AM EST
    JJ Jr. could have just shut up and sat this one out and everybody would have understood. You know there were internal discussions in the Obama camp on how to respond. The fact that Jr. was forced to publicly denounce his own father and further grovel to Obama indicates there is some real sick stuff going on inside there. JJ Jr. is also the scumbag that led the 'Clintons are racists' campaign.

    Parent
    I developed a whole scenario around that... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:52:00 AM EST
    ...In my scenario Jesse laid into Jr. in private for not vetting the speech and letting Obama use that line about black men acting like boys. So Jr. didn't take Dad's comment very well. LOL.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#61)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:02:30 AM EST
    Where could he have possibly gotten the idea that it's okay to throw your own family members under the bus?  Hmm....

    Parent
    Hmmmm. (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:44:52 AM EST
    Seems that Angela Merkel is not too thrilled about Obama using the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign backdrop for a speech when he visits Germany.

    ...
    Steg noted that the Brandenburg Gate has become "a place with a particular exclusivity, intensity and symbolism" in view of past speeches by sitting U.S. presidents and events such as a large rally in solidarity with the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

    As a result, he said Merkel has voiced "great skepticism as to whether it is appropriate to bring an election campaign being fought not in Germany but in the United States to the Brandenburg Gate."

    Steg said that "no German (chancellor) candidate would think of using (Washington's) National Mall or Red Square in Moscow for rallies, because it would be considered inappropriate."

    They sure have learned a lot from Bush, haven't they.

    I am starting to like her (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:47:57 AM EST
    a lot.


    Parent
    I have to agree (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:08:10 AM EST
    It's a little early for Obama to go around billing himself as a world-historical figure just yet.

    I had a similar reaction to the speech he gave after winning in Iowa.  It was a fine speech, but I was like, isn't this a bit much for winning one primary?

    On the plus side, at least he's not going to try and rub Merkel's shoulders, I assume.

    Parent

    if I needed a reason (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:46:46 AM EST
    to never watch MSNBC again I got another one this morning.  CNN and FOX carried almost all of Hillarys comments at the fundraiser.   MSNBC carried only a couple of minutes.  they had a much more important thing to cover.  walking so old fossil baseball player down memory lane.


    is not just "feeling blue" (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Salt on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:47:30 AM EST
    Obama walks the abortion minefield
    By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN  

    Those who work on the front lines of the abortion debate couldn't quite believe what they were hearing: Obama, in an interview with a Christian magazine, seemed to reject a mental health exception to the ban on late-term abortions. They feared that Obama, like Democrat John Kerry in 2004, was adopting a view favored by abortion opponents to appeal to conservatives.

    After days of examining his initial comments and a subsequent clarification that he supports a mental health exception -- as long as the woman suffers a diagnosed illness and is not just "feeling blue" -- some activists are satisfied, while others are far from it or just plain confused

    ...

    Of course this is a highly offensive statement. I am at a loss to understand why democrats specifically women would not demand a remedy.  

    Um, many are (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:55:38 AM EST
    but the remedy they're asking for is no Obama, which doesn't play very well for most (not all) media.

    Parent
    What's worse (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:09:27 AM EST
    is all the little boys on the blogs who are like "hey, Obama is totally right, you shouldn't be able to get an abortion for feeling blue!"  As if women are seeking out third-trimester abortions every day for feeling blue, and doctors are providing them.

    Parent
    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:10:50 AM EST
    I confess... (none / 0) (#133)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:17:33 PM EST
    to being both far from satisfied and totally confused.

    Besides, the clarification will not see the print pages of that Christian magazine.

    Parent

    Is it just me or is this campaign a yawner so far? (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:55:31 AM EST
    I know there's no nasty 527s out yet but I keep thinking that if Hillary were the presumptive nominee it would be a lot more exciting.  

    God yes. It's a snooze fest (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:57:40 AM EST
    watching Obama and McCain out conservative eachother.

    Parent
    it would (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:59:36 AM EST
    because they would already be unleashing the 527s.  they are not yet on Obama because they do not want to give us another reason to pick a real candidate in August.
    but fear not.  it will get much more interesting after labor day.


    Parent
    Yeah, that's my take on it. I soooo want Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:05:14 AM EST
    to be the nominee after a floor fight in August.  Or some revelation about Obama.  Wishful thinking.

    Parent
    yep (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by kempis on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:04:37 AM EST
    Obama's not living up to his hype, and McCain is downright creepy. Most days the race is too boring or awkward to follow.

    Parent
    I was wondering about (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:06:34 AM EST
    this energy independence campaign from T. Boone Pickens.
    I saw one of the commercials.  he is not kidding around.  it almost looked like a campaign commercial.
    if T. Boone pitched his stetson in the ring it could liven thing up quite a bit.


    Parent
    check it out (none / 0) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:11:33 AM EST
    Wow! (none / 0) (#178)
    by kempis on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:09:54 PM EST
    A friend called the other day to see if I'd seen this commercial. Since I've been avoiding media, no I hadn't.

    Wow.

    This is exciting. And it may take this kind of bazillionaire-outsider push for us to make any sort of progress toward energy independence.

    But do you really think he's going to run as an Independent?

    Parent

    it sure looked like a (none / 0) (#189)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:29:17 PM EST
    campaign commercial didnt it?


    Parent
    Word. (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Little Fish on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:16:19 AM EST
    I was thinking things couldn't get any more boring but there's an article today on HuffPo about Kathleen Sebelius's VP chances.  So yes yes it can.  

    The article also states that Sebelius might be "the top Obama VP candidate who doesn't urinate standing up".  Stay classy HuffPo!

    Parent

    236.com (none / 0) (#90)
    by Little Fish on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:18:25 AM EST
    *It's actually on 236.com but it comes through as HuffPo on my RSS Reader.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#62)
    by flashman on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:03:10 AM EST
    Someone wrote a day or so ago that the campaign makes one yearn for the seemingly endless primaries.

    Parent
    My take on Kos's take on Obama, Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:56:55 AM EST
    Gawd (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:21:09 AM EST
    When will they shut up about Kyl-Lieberman already?

    Do you know how many Democrats who voted for Kyl-Lieberman also voted against the IWR back in 2002?  10 of them!  Obviously there was an argument for supporting that amendment beyond "I like surrendering to the Republicans."

    Parent

    I find it hysterical because (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:23:24 AM EST
    Obama famously skipped the vote.

    Parent
    You know (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:28:25 AM EST
    I don't think he skipped the vote for political reasons, unlike the vote to condemn MoveOn.  I think he skipped the vote because he was skipping a lot of votes back then, and no one really cared about this amendment.  I think there was a total of one floor speech in favor of it and one against.  You didn't see Wes Clark at stopiranwar.com lobbying for Senators to vote against it.

    But when the vote happened and all the blogs went crazy with anti-Hillary outrage, Obama realized that hey, maybe some people on the left see this vote as a litmus test!  So he went to town with it.  Pure opportunism, that's all it was.  You never saw him say one word about it in advance, and of course, he co-sponsored a bill himself that would have labelled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

    Parent

    If Obama didn't have (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by mikeyleigh on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:45:11 AM EST
    a history of skipping potentially embarassing votes, I might be able to agree with you.  

    Parent
    If he skipped it because no one cared about it (none / 0) (#127)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:01:09 PM EST
    then his campaign should not have used it as a club to hit Clinton.

    I think he skipped it for political reasons - he would have wanted to vote the same way Clinton did, but wanted to leave some room for doubt there for the Rorshach test.

    Parent

    How To Lie With Math (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by flashman on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:01:42 AM EST
    Last week, David Brooks wrote a pretty important piece on the 'money class' and thier presence in the presidential race.  Most important was the conclusion that regardless of the outcome of the election, the eventual winner will be tied to wealthy contributors, who have different priorities than the rest of us common Democrats.  Obama's supporters went into full spin mode with a weak attempt to use a mathimatical parlor trick to discredit Brooks' conclusions.  The author of this nonsense trys to convince us readers to take the leap of faith that the only thing that matters is how many of the cited sectors contribute more to McCain than Obama, rather than more meaningful metrics, like the total amounts contributed by wealthy patrons.  Here is an analysis you won't see from any Obama supporter.

    Sector              ratio O/M    % ea sector
    Lawers                   3.6            6.2
    Securities               1.8            3.3
    Communications       5              3.2
    Medical                  2.3            2.7
    Real Estate             1.3            2.4
    Education               10             2.1
    Comm Bankers         1.3            0.8
    Hedge Funds           1.9            0.7
    Totals For High        2.8   
    Total Totals            2.7   

    In the chart above, the first line is the ratio of money contributed to Obama by sector to money contributed to McCain, and the last line is the total percentage off all money contributed to both candidates by sector.  According to the author, 5 out of the 8 sectors contributed more ot McCain as a percentage of his total contributions than to Obama.  The reasoning here is that if the number is higher than 2.7 ( in the first column ) that advantages Obama.  However, looking at the last column, we can easily see that not all sectors are created equal.  Lawers, for example, contributed 6.2 percent of all money in this campaign, and to Obama at a ratio of 3.6 to McCain.  Contrast that to McCanin's advantage from Commercial Bankers and Hedge Funds Managers, who contrubuted 0.8 and 0.7 percent respectively.

    In the final analysis, the percentage of Obama's contributions from wealthy contributors EXACTLY MATCHES that of McCains, and only 45% of Obama's contrubutions are of amounts less than $200.  Further, the millions contributed by wealthy patrons is an important metric, no matter how many mathimatical games you can play.


    Only 45% (none / 0) (#85)
    by indy in sc on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:15:07 AM EST
    only 45% of Obama's contrubutions are of amounts less than $200

    That's a pretty high percentage.  In fact, higher than I thought.  What is McCain's percentage of under $200 donors?

    Parent

    I read (none / 0) (#106)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:33:13 AM EST
    that Kerry's was about 37%?  Probably in the same article or on Rasmussen.

    Parent
    I Would Imagine (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by flashman on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:25:09 PM EST
    that many of Obama's supporters would be surprised to find that, despite all the rhetoric about Obama's army of small donors, less than half of the money has come from these small donations.  Also that the percentage of his money from wealthy donors matches McCain's.  But percentages tell only part of the story.  The narrative being pushed is that the total of all mony raised, being several times that of his opponent, lessons the impact of donations from wealthy contributors, some of which contributed 5 to 10 times more to Obama.  So, for example, 18 Million dollars contributed by lawers to Obama is less significant than 5 Million by lawers to McCain.  As though lawers, who contributed MORE to Obama expects LESS for their money.  Just doesn't wash, IMO.

    Parent
    Not Surprised (none / 0) (#200)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:58:33 PM EST
    But I am impressed by the idea of $129 million collected in amounts under $200.

    Parent
    Previous campaigns did not count (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:34:49 PM EST
    buying t-shirts or bumper stickers or posters or tickets to Obama events as "donations."  The Obama campaign did and does.  That may account for most if not all of the 8% difference.

    There was a good article early on in the primary season, describing and in awe of this brilliant new tactic to pump up the small-donor numbers to look awesome etc.  After that, I never saw discussion of the tactic again -- just media repeating the numbers provided by the Obama campaign, media comparing to past campaigns, without media reporting the reasons.

    Parent

    Yeah, 45% (none / 0) (#195)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:54:22 PM EST
    of approximately $286 million is pretty impressive to me.

    Parent
    GOP group files complaints against Obama (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Exeter on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:01:54 AM EST
    with the FEC and Senate Ethics committee over his mortgage.  I think they have a valid point.

    Really? What is the valid point? (4.00 / 3) (#139)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:36:05 PM EST
    I don't see it.  What I do see is a conservative group trying to tie his name with an ethics scandal so they can run an add in october, regardless of the facts.  What do you see?  Did you read the article?  Did you see that his lower cost morgage was lower then the average, but normal for someone with good credit, makes good money and good standing in the community?  Stop this nonsense.

    Parent
    Well, I don't like it (none / 0) (#202)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:05:57 PM EST
    I would love to get that kind of a mortgage rate. My credit is flawless. But I couldn't get below 5.87% back in 2003 when rates were low, even with a 30% downpayment. Why should Obama get a better rate than I can get?

    Parent
    How do we get Dems to stand firm, lead? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jawbone on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:05:48 AM EST
    What about an organized effort to send copies of our de-registering as Democrats to the DNC?

    "We'll come back when you start acting (voting, legislating, standing tall, or something) like Democrats," or some such motto on each.


    Dems (none / 0) (#88)
    by Josey on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:17:27 AM EST
    have been pleading with the spineless Dems for years.
    St. Obama was cast as THE ONE to lead us to the Promised Land.


    Parent
    oh (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:16:59 AM EST
    and what planet is Obama campaigning on when he riffs on how we all need to learn french and spanish.
    now, I am not arguing that this might not be a good idea "in general" but I do not think it is a good idea in a general election.
    having said that, you go O!


    What would have to happen at the convention (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by MsExPat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:18:08 AM EST
    for Hillary to come away with the nomination? I'm talking real-politik here, not wishful thinking, hopes or pipe dreams. Does anyone know the party rules well enough to do a realistic rundown? She is coming into the convention with several hundred pledged delegates--how many supers would have to peel off from the Obama side in order to pull an upset--30? 50?

    Or are the party bosses so firmly in control of the convention that this is an utterly impossible scenario?

    175. (none / 0) (#91)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:20:23 AM EST
    175 Superdelegates (none / 0) (#97)
    by MsExPat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:25:43 AM EST
    is a lot. That means you'd have to convince nearly two hundred party insiders to take an extraordinary action. That sounds like a fairly insurmountable bar to me.

    Parent
    Probably (none / 0) (#104)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:30:50 AM EST
    It would take something extremely significant for the party to switch nominees at this point.

    Parent
    Yeah, and there's the entropy factor (none / 0) (#197)
    by MsExPat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:56:20 PM EST
    Even if something extraordinary were to happen, I'm sure a lot of superdelegates would resist changing their vote because they'd think it would cause even more damage to the party's chances of winning to change nominees mid-stream

    There's a huge psychological hurdle there.

    Parent

    A heartwarming story.... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:25:17 AM EST
    of a man trying to do right by his friend.

    Humanity does have its moments....sun god bless you sir.

    New Rasmussen polls out today... (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:42:17 AM EST
    ...show NJ to be tightening and McCain gaining ground in MO.

    But what caught my eye was this, from the NJ poll:

    Women, a key voter bloc at play in the presidential campaign, continue to support the Democrat (52%) far more than his Republican opponent (28%). Fifty-three percent (53%) of female voters voiced support for Obama a month ago, but McCain has fallen significantly from 34%. Those voters have moved into the undecided column.

    Men, on the other hand, have shifted even more dramatically to McCain. Now 54% of male voters back McCain, up from 46% in early June, while 34% favor Obama, an eight percentage point decline from a month ago. Only 6% of men are undecided as opposed to 15% of women.

    So here's yet another state where men are switching from Obama to McCain, while women's support of Obama is growing. I'm surprised this widening gender gap has been pretty much ignored by the media.

    If it weren't for the women's vote, and their higher percentage of participation in voting (resulting in women being given more weight in polling), Obama would be in pretty bad straits.

    It also bodes ill if there's a depressed turnout among women in November.

    What Jesse Jackson really said: (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:09:50 PM EST
    ... I want to cut his netroots off ...


    Pure (none / 0) (#132)
    by nextgen on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:13:37 PM EST
    Funny!

    Well done...

    Parent

    Just took a look at TPM (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by frankly0 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:12:38 PM EST
    for the first time in a long time to see how they covered the FISA vote, and the fact that Obama voted for, and Hillary against.

    Here's the only post I could see on the front page:

    FISA Passes Senate

    The final vote was a rout: 69-28.

    No surprises here. Just the weight of disappointment.

    Late Update: Worth noting that Hillary voted against the bill, while Obama --as we've noted here before -- changed positions on telecom immunity and voted for the bill.

    --David Kurtz

    I mean, that's it for the front page?

    And this single post is not even authored by Josh Marshall?

    Of course, there are endless posts from Marshall bashing McCain for one thing or another.

    Problem is, the man has no credibility anymore when he criticizes anybody. Coming from his pen,the knocks mean nothing. They could be genuine substantial issues, or the most trivial, overblown of irrelevancies -- the man simply doesn't discriminate. It's simply non-stop, wall-to-wall, fill-all-space-and-time slamming.

    It's funny how seeing the likes of a Josh Marshall from an opposing side opens one's eyes to the remarkable deficiencies of such a "pundit". In that sense, the primary season has been quite a revelation.

    ok (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:22:32 PM EST
    now you are grasping.  have fun with it.
    and get used to NQ.  they aint going no where.  quite the opposite.  their numbers are growing daily.
    and you want to know why?  because in the great tradition of US business, they are giving a great many people what they are looking for and not finding anywhere else.
    and no amount of demagoging or name calling will stop them.

    in fact (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:24:28 PM EST
    I would just add that in fact the demagoging and name calling and race baiting is what drove most of their readers there in the first place.
    so, have at it.

    Parent
    What relationship? (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:26:35 PM EST
    You mean the fact that they're on the blogroll with a zillion other blogs?  Who cares.  I can't remember the last time any of the bloggers on TL linked to something at No Quarter.  Some of the more outlandish topics have been declared off-limits for discussion here.  I'm not sure why the blogroll should be such a big deal to you, it doesn't imply some kind of ongoing embrace.

    That quote about Tim Russert was obviously rude, by the way, but still pretty much true in my book.  Should this blog delink every blog that had something nasty to say about Jesse Helms this week?

    Stromfront? (1.00 / 0) (#161)
    by nextgen on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:35:20 PM EST
    Is that a genral rule or just specific to this case?

    I mean would you be ok if there was a link to Stormfront?

    How about Savagepolitics?

    Is there a line, if so where.  

    (that's a real question)

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:40:08 PM EST
    Is there a link to Stormfront?  I think not.

    Your error lies in the assumption that a link indicates an ongoing endorsement of the blog at the other end, as if Jeralyn sits there every day and considers whether any of the 100 blogs have crossed over the line and should be delinked.  If you want to bring it up with her, why not drop her an email.

    Parent

    sadly, no (5.00 / 0) (#169)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:46:51 PM EST
    it is not a real question and everyone reading this knows it.

    Parent
    That's the problem (1.00 / 0) (#174)
    by nextgen on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:00:58 PM EST
    it is a real question.  It's really a pretty simple question, what are the community standards.  I can already see that by simply asking the question I have been labeled as a troublemaker when that is not my intent.  

    I make a point to visit and read at all kinds of sites, even ones I think are vile to get a understanding of those I disagree with, even vile place like stormfront.  

    Funny thing, when I go to Noquarter and Stormfront they both have active links to theobamafile (won't link) and both encourage their readers to use the information there to defeat Obama.  It would seem NoQuarter and Stormfront are working of the same sheet of music.  

    There is MLK speech, "A time comes when silence is betrayal"...   I just decided to ask the question and not be silent.  

    Please don't try to pigeon hole me as a troublemaker because I asked the question.  

    Parent

    I would suggest (none / 0) (#183)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:46:46 PM EST
    that you email Jeralyn with your concerns, since she controls the blogroll and cut out the self-righteous preening over the oh-so-terrible fact that NoQuarter's site rank may be a blip higher because they are linked at this blog.  Quelle horreur, indeed.

    Parent
    Fair Suggestion (none / 0) (#186)
    by nextgen on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:07:01 PM EST
    though I would argue I would seem less "self-righteous" or "preening", if so many here had not been so quick to attack me for simply asking the question while defending the content at NQ.  

    Regarding the "blip" higher, it's important when it the owner of the site in question uses these connections to validate his actions and influence.  

    The last point, I asked if there was a standard because it does matter.  

    Most would be offended by a link to Stormfront, fewer to Savagpolitics and even fewer still to NQ.  I unsdrstand that I might be in the minority, that does not make me self righteous, does it?

    Parent

    No, your minority status doesn't (none / 0) (#191)
    by tree on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:42:20 PM EST
    make you self-righteous, the obvious self-righteousness of your posts do that.

      This site has criticized posts at many of the blogroll linked sites, and some of the criticisms have been intense. Yet they are still on the blogroll. Blogroll status here certainly doesn't mean endorsement of everything a site says, which you'd know if you were paying attention here.

    If you're going to get all righteous about No Quarter, are you going to do the same for the links to Daily Kos, Americablog, Oliver Willis, or Balloon Juice, to name a few sites that have indulged in smear tactics? I think not. I think your righteousness is feigned. If you REALLY have a problem with the link, email Jeralyn, its her blog and she gets to link to whomever and whatever she chooses.

    Parent

    Strage World.. (2.00 / 1) (#196)
    by nextgen on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:55:55 PM EST

    Your comparing the 99% user generated content to Kos to NQ?

    I wasn't "self-righteous" until you all started to defend NQ.  Once that happened my question was answered.    

    You think my righteousness is feinged because it dosen't exist it's a construct of your imagination.  

    I just find the hypocricy funny.  

    Defending NQ but attacking me for questioning linking to NQ.  NQ, a place where every thread becomes a commentary on Obama's race and I'm the bad guy?

    It really was a simple question, the answer is  equally simple to understand, now.

    Parent

    "I'm not sure why . . . " (none / 0) (#160)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:30:06 PM EST
    see waldenponds upthread comment.
    they nailed it.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#165)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:40:25 PM EST
    Sometimes when I don't know why, I actually do know why.

    Parent
    Obama: Make sure you child speaks Spanish (3.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Exeter on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:30:47 AM EST
    Yesterday, Obama told a town hall meeting that instead of focusing on English-only laws, instead "you need to make sure that your child can speak Spanish."

    I get and agree with the point that he was trying to make, but this set of a firestorm on the talk radio circuit yesterday.

    Lou Dobbs (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by eric on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:56:58 AM EST
    went crazy, as well.

    Parent
    I bet his head exploded! (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Exeter on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:07:35 AM EST
    ouch! (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Josey on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:59:32 AM EST
    Encouraging English speaking citizens to learn another language is one thing, but Obama was wrong to compare with immigrants...

    >>>>the Illinois Senator said that the nation's chief priority should not be for immigrants to learn English, but for American children to learn Spanish.

    "Senator Obama's idea is characteristic of an elitist mindset declaring that it is not the job of immigrants to America to learn English, but that it the job of Americans to learn the language of the immigrants," said Mauro E. Mujica, Chairman of U.S. English, Inc....Clearly, Senator Obama has spent too much time at the lectern instead of interacting with the American people."
    Recent polls have found overwhelming support for making English the official language of the United States. A 2007 Zogby poll found that 83 percent of Americans favor making English the official language, including substantial majorities of Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

    Parent

    He also said he was embarassed of (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Exeter on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:06:17 AM EST
    Americans for not knowing other languages. I'm embarassed as well, but it sounds elitist.

    Parent
    How many languages... (none / 0) (#128)
    by northeast73 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:04:14 PM EST
    ...does Obama speak?

    Parent
    2 (none / 0) (#140)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:37:07 PM EST
    Plus a small amount of spanish

    Parent
    It was a really dumb way to frame (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by MsExPat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:10:29 AM EST
    the argument. Absolutely, America needs to step up foreign language education--we need our kids to learn Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, Russian, French. Not only to be competitive, but to be able to understand the way that other people in the world think. Learning another language is as powerful as a mind-expanding drug.

    However, that has NOTHING to do with the issue of immigrants learning English. Which is, by the way, something most immigrants really want to do. We need to support programs for free English language training.

    Mostly we need to stop using the language debate as a polite stand-in for racism.

    Parent

    This is kinda funny....obama says he (1.00 / 1) (#172)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:54:49 PM EST
    studied "Irish" as a language.  According to wikipedia only a very small number of people speak it....what possible good would that do him?

    Parent
    "Irish" is not a language (none / 0) (#199)
    by MsExPat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:58:10 PM EST
    Perhaps WORM was "Gaelic"?

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#66)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:05:41 AM EST
    A 2007 Zogby poll found that 83 percent of Americans favor making English the official language

    That is sooooooooo stupid.  I'll bet a majority of them can't speak or write it correctly.

    Kids should have to learn a foreign language; it helps them understand their own a lot better.

    Parent

    Most of these rubes (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by eric on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:11:07 AM EST
    don't even know that you DO need to learn English to become a citizen.

    LINK

    Nevertheless, they go on whining, ignorant of the facts.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:01:12 AM EST
    There was nothing wrong with the sentiment, but that sound bite was an own goal.

    Parent
    Maybe he needs more rest (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Exeter on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:04:50 AM EST
    He's been particularyly gaffe-prown the last three or four months.

    Parent
    Try Chinese (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by BernieO on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:11:31 AM EST
    They will be the ones in charge.

    Parent
    I hope (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:35:53 AM EST
    it wasn't on tape. He keeps giving the GOP 527's ads by the bucket full. Anyway, it seems that anytime he gets away from a teleprompter this kind of thing happens.

    Parent
    I just don't see the mistake (none / 0) (#143)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:42:20 PM EST
    It sounds elitist because the conservative right has dumbed down this country.  I heard these pundants on fox talking about this and how awful it was, and elistis, and then someone asked if there kid was learning another language, of course they said yes.  They want their kids armed with the tools for success, but not ours.  Fight back against this nonsense.  Learning another language (I failed at doing it), should be mandatory (I wish I had been pushed harder), if only in that it has been shown that learning another language (along with playing the instruments and doing arts, etc.), wires the brain better.  

    Parent
    Because (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:04:54 PM EST
    the visceral reaction, which I'm not endorsing, is to assume that Obama is saying we need to teach our kids Spanish to adapt ourselves to the immigrants' way of life, rather than expecting the immigrants to adapt to ours.

    Like the infamous "bitter" comments, you have to kind of try and hear these things as others hear them.  It's not like I was personally offended.

    Parent

    I understand where they are coming from (none / 0) (#155)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:12:44 PM EST
    I am all for political compromise, as I do think it often brings about the best change (most of the time), but this just needs to be fought against, not because Obama is saying it, but because it is just wrong.  (and I think in your statement we are agreeing) Dumbing down our kids is a national security risk, and I say that in all seriousness.  They need to fight back on these things by noting that we have almost no one (as I have been told), that speaks arabic or persian.  We just passed this stupid FISA "fix", wouldn't it be helpful if we could understand what we are "legally" listening to?  

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#157)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:23:02 PM EST
    but that's an example of how to bring it up in a good way, a constructive way.  Obama wasn't wrong, he just gave a bad sound bite.

    Parent
    What would he do about it as president (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:39:23 PM EST
    is the question.  More lectures from him without real details from him.

    What will he do about the educational standards set by the government that do not emphasize education in foreign languages?  Schools are held to the standards set.

    What will he do about funding the public schools to teach foreign languages?  His support of vouchers will do the opposite, further strapping the budgets of too many public schools.  (We have the evidence of that in my city, the first school-voucher city.)

    Again, all these admonitory lectures without talking about what to do about what he wants, without addressing how part of his platform may do the opposite, require real reporting and analysis.

    But we won't get that.  Just these soundbytes -- on the part of Obama and on the part of the media.

    Parent

    Great point (none / 0) (#144)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:44:32 PM EST
    So much of what these candidates talk about they have no direct control over.  These are presidents within a system, not kings that make the final decision.  The media needs to do its job.

    Parent
    Apparently, these are ongoing investi- (3.00 / 2) (#180)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:23:09 PM EST
    gations.  If they are sooooo wrong, why are you sooooooooooooooooo worried?

    No offense.. (1.00 / 0) (#182)
    by nextgen on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:31:18 PM EST
    I'm not upset, worried, mad, just confused why this site would link to a known smear site.  

    It was (for the 4th time) a question based on the responses I have received and the defense of NoQuarter I now understand.  

    There is no need for further discussion, it's clear that being associated with NoQuarter does not offend the community here and that is reason enough for the link to remain.  

    Question answered.

    Parent

    Check the blogroll (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:39:27 PM EST
     - DailyKos, TPM, Oliver Willis, Pandagon, HuffPo, Buzzflash. All of whom have engaged (and still do) in similar rhetoric from the other side.

    I don't believe anyone has ever questioned this or said being associated with them should offend the community.

    So what's your problem?

    Parent

    Echinopsia.....think "gotcha"!! Maybe (1.00 / 1) (#192)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:44:43 PM EST
    a new patroller from the obama keyboard brigade.

    Parent
    Well, sure (5.00 / 0) (#193)
    by echinopsia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:49:13 PM EST
    That was me asking a question to which I pretty much already knew the answer.;-P

    Parent
    Yea.. (2.00 / 0) (#203)
    by nextgen on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:08:26 PM EST
    That's it.  Someone post a question about linking to a site that has become more and more like a full blown hate site every day, so they must be a paid blogger.  

    I mean a reasonable person could not wonder why people are staying linked to a site that has gone full out ....  Be afraid of the double secret muslim black man!

    If you go back to my original post, I say, now that NQ has jumped the shark....  Meaning it has gotten worse, much worse.  

    Then again, as I mentioned, the responses defending the behavior of NQ was all the answer I needed.  

    Non of the sites you mention is the same as NQ, day in day out, race bating but hey whatever your comfortable with.  

    Parent

    missed my point (2.00 / 1) (#167)
    by nextgen on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:44:14 PM EST
    My point, the one everyone seems to be ignoring.  

    These blogs are ranked by influence, links and hits in and out.  

    I'm just suprised this site would support NoQuarter with a link because be assured, it is a form of support.  

    That was the orgin of my question.  

    re:posting direct quotes, it was to keep from being accused of making stuff up or misrepresenting the facts.

    btw (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:51:17 PM EST
    if the topic is "influence" you probably need to see  
    this.

    but you are not going to like it.

    Parent

    No Quarter, Time to Stand Up. (1.00 / 1) (#98)
    by nextgen on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:27:08 AM EST
    Considering Noquarter has now fully "jumped the shark" into the land of...

    Thugs
    Secret Muslim
    Not born in the USA
    racism, why do you still like to them as your favorites?

    McCain won't even advertise there.  

    Her are some feature post from yesterday.  

    "In what Hospital was Obama Born"
    "White Like Us?"
    "Obama's flawed race stragegy, why the black vote won't be enough"
    "The Adulation of a Leader a Cautionary Tale" - (A post that makes Allusions to Hitler)

    Isn't it time to sever ties with Noquarter?

    sever all you like (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:29:02 AM EST
    its become my favorite blog

    Parent
    nextgen is new (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:19:17 PM EST
    actually this is nextgen's very first comment.  I have noticed new people are coming jumping right in by criticizing this site.  My guess is certain people are having trouble shutting up and shutting down noquarter and are trying to have an impact by using and bashing other sites that have the audacity to link to or reference them.

    Parent
    bingo (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:52:59 PM EST
    Really (1.00 / 0) (#109)
    by nextgen on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:35:24 AM EST
    You think that kind of stuff is how we move the country forward?

    It's like a planned cycle.

    Day 1 Repost- Scary Associate
    Day 2 Repost- Question of "Americanism"
    Day 3 Repost- Scary refrence to AA's
    Day 4 Repost- Hitler (anything)
    Day 5 <see day 2)<br> Day 6 <see day 1>
    Day 7 Post policy issue

    Repeat...

    That can't be the way we move forward, can it?


    Parent

    what they are doing (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:39:31 AM EST
    is showing you the tiniest tip of the republican iceberg the Obamatanic is headed for.

    Parent
    Oh, the old (2.00 / 0) (#119)
    by nextgen on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:42:36 AM EST
    kill the patient to cure the patient theory?

    Too much overt racisim for me to see it as a noble calling, whatever their stated motivation.

    Every and I do mean every front page article reverts to racial attacks within the first 10 post.  

    Parent

    thats bull (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:44:54 AM EST
    Go check... (2.00 / 0) (#124)
    by nextgen on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:47:29 AM EST
    There are people who even time how long it takes from original post to first ....race post.  

    Parent
    I am sure there are (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:50:39 AM EST
    and I dont need to check.
    I already posted a quote on Jesse from agent flobee upthread.
    but just for you I will post it again:

    "Man up, dude. Just admit that for you told the truth and you liked how it felt."

    Parent

    Like... (none / 0) (#116)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:41:29 AM EST
    ...that famous "video" that Agent Flobee was going on and on and on and on about?

    Parent
    I guess we will just (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:44:24 AM EST
    have to wait and see on that wont we?

    Parent
    What I guess... (none / 0) (#146)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:51:51 PM EST
    ...is that in your case, David Hannum was correct.

    Parent
    btw (5.00 / 0) (#148)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:54:15 PM EST
    Im sure you earlier comment was for the hoepful purpose of getting this part of the thread deleted.
    I dont really care.  its already been read.


    Parent
    And you would be wrong. N/T (none / 0) (#149)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    Nextgen....Contrary to what you probably (3.00 / 2) (#176)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:09:07 PM EST
    think, dissent, asking questions, and vetting is a good thing.  Get your head out of the sand...have you checked out their sources....most of them are credible.

    Parent
    and I will tell you something else (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:34:34 AM EST
    IF we can be saved from the electoral catastrophe/lemming cliff we are approaching, it will be NQ and their blog roll that saves us.


    Parent
    Yup - I read it for the (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:06:16 PM EST
    entertainment of the uncontrolled brainstorming.  But if it turns out Obama really was born in Canada, I will thank them for doing the legwork.

    Parent
    They are purely (none / 0) (#110)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:35:48 AM EST
    entertainment.  I also watch O'Reilly for the same reason (the laughs).

    Parent
    they are most certainly not (4.50 / 2) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:38:13 AM EST
    purely entertainment.  they are putting out information you wont find many other places.
    are some of the commentors a bit whacked?  sure.
    some here are as well.
    you want to talk about holding feet to fire.
    THEY are the ones who will do that.

    Parent
    I hate to admit it... (2.00 / 0) (#113)
    by nextgen on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:38:30 AM EST
    but that's the same reason I visit but I was shocked when I saw it's still on the blogroll here.  

    Parent
    On the Today Show (none / 0) (#2)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    as I was heading out the door to work, I half-saw a pretty funny segment on Jesse Jackson's comments from yesterday.  Kathie Lee Gifford was exploring the outer boundaries of which synonyms for a certain portion of the anatomy discussed by Jackson would get bleeped and which wouldn't.  The co-host looked quite embarrassed.

    When I first heard the story..... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:25:14 AM EST
    ...I would never have imagined that the offending word was "nuts." I mean they had no trouble with the Hillary nutcracker so what was the biggie with this?

    Parent
    yeah.... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:44:12 AM EST
    I thought for sure it would be c*ck or d*ck....but nuts?  Is that even one of the dirty words?  

    I've got no problem with the "cut your nuts off" figure of speech to express displeasure with someone.  It's colorful...and I like colorful.

    Parent

    According to O'Reilly (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:46:56 AM EST
    there was a great deal more, stuff he said they couldn't even show with bleeps.  O'Reilly's a liar and gross exaggerator, so take that down a few stops.  But there was apparently more than the "nuts" comment that had them all reaching for the smelling salts yesterday.

    Parent
    I'm sure there would have been plenty (none / 0) (#20)
    by JoeA on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:38:02 AM EST
    of controversy if some comparable figure had said he/she wanted to cut some part of Hillary's anatomy off on a hot mic.  
    I might well be wrong though!

    Parent
    Actually I was just referring to the word he used. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:44:23 AM EST
    When this was being reported yesterday it was described as an expression far too obscene to be shown on television, when actually it wasn't. And in fact Schuster and company had discussed the "nut"cracker at length. I am not saying that what Jesse said was in any way shape or form cool, but at least he said it in what he thought was a private moment so I'll give him that.

    Parent
    Kathie Lee Gifford? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:25:52 AM EST
    I thought she had faded into oblivion.

    Parent
    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:28:40 AM EST
    Six years? (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:29:37 AM EST
    Some poor lady is facing 6 years for getting some loving on the beach in Dubai.  Link

    In case you need a reason to stay the hell outta Dubai.

    you will have to stay out of (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:35:42 AM EST
    the chrysler building also.

    Investors from Dubai, Kuwait and Qatar bought the General Motors building

    Parent

    Chrysler Building. (none / 0) (#19)
    by pie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:36:52 AM EST
    And The Other (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:40:56 AM EST
    50% Of The Country They Will Probably Buy In The Next Few Years.

    Parent
    You mean... (none / 0) (#48)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:56:56 AM EST
    ...what ever is left over after the Chinese and Japanese get done with us?

    Parent
    Know the laws when traveling (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by stefystef on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:41:13 AM EST
    Dubai may seem hip and modern and progressive, but it is an Islamic national ruled by Shari'a law.

    The fact that she is a foreigner protects her from what they do to citizens who break the laws.   I'm sure the embassy will help her get out, but it just causes more problems and gives fuel to the fundamentalists that the West is full of nasty, immoral fools who have no respect for Islam or their laws.  This bodes badly for women, especially, since many of these fundamentalists think very little of women except to be property of men.

    In other words, don't be an obnoxious American/European and walk into another country, get wasted and screw around on the beach with no regard or respect for the host nation.

    If you can't do that, keep your butt home.

    Parent

    As far as personal safety is concerned (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:44:10 AM EST
    yes, don't go to the UAE and act like this. OTOH, I don't think we should pretend that their laws are acceptable. I do not respect modern cultural Islam for the way it mistreats women and other minorities.

    Parent
    Whats disrespectful.... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:48:47 AM EST
    about feeling good by having a few cocktails and enjoying the caress of another human being?  I'll never get it...never never get it.

    Actually the article said Britain and Dubai don't exchange prisoners...if convicted she will serve time in Dubai...though I'm sure the consolate will try to help her out...at least I hope so.

    You're right though in that if you are likely to piss off totalitarians, don't go to totalitarian nations.  Sure, I'd love to see the Dubai World Cup one day, but it just ain't worth it if its against the law to have my idea of fun...tv will have to do.

    Parent

    I didn't, but ugh. (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:34:20 AM EST
    specatular and a bit sad (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:31:35 AM EST
    Beautiful (none / 0) (#37)
    by JoeA on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:47:56 AM EST
    I was getting a bit offended at the cheering on the video,  but from the babelfish translation of the accompanying text it's not clear that the melting has anything to do with global warming.

    Parent
    we know it does though (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:49:06 AM EST
    right?  seems impossible that it would not at least have something to do with it.

    Parent
    Check out this.... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 11:10:52 AM EST
    ...Yahoo headline about Bush and FISA bill.

    Still leads by 5... (none / 0) (#151)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    ...in the realclearpolitics aggregate of polls.  As poblano has pointed out at 538, a pop vote win by 4 points or more pretty much guarantees an electoral college win.  I'd like to see him up by double digits in the aggregates on pollster and RCP, the week after the convention.

    I do feel he's starting to skate out onto the thinner ice for me--my tolerance for ideological impurity is stronger than most, but he's about 3 more "centrist positions" away from losing me as a donor and possible volunteer(law school tends to put a crimp into my free time, but I'm planning to at least phone bank).  At the very least he needs a week or two of emphasis on the more progressive aspects of his policy proposals.  

    I adjust that to 3.8 (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:39:10 PM EST
    as I've never seen realpolitics.com hang on to such an outdated poll as the oldest one there -- almost three weeks old now! -- and it was such an outlier, too.  

    I've had to do my own adjustments lately to the average at that site, which used to delete the outdated polls much sooner.  But not in any standard way, so I did track some bias in the primary season, too, as to how many polls were included from day to day, how long the site held on to some polls and not others, etc.

    Parent

    True... (none / 0) (#175)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:01:45 PM EST
    ...they held onto some 3 month old Florida polls, too.

    Parent
    Ha. Old polls are about as (none / 0) (#188)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:21:55 PM EST
    close to the truth today as old photos of me. :-)

    Parent
    Were you a hall monitor... (none / 0) (#166)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:42:46 PM EST
    ...as a kid?  A crossing guard perhaps?

    I think waldenpond.... (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:58:50 PM EST
    is the official comment moderator.

    With great power comes great responsibility waldenpond...we are counting on you not to go all gestapo:)

    Parent

    sigh (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:09:51 PM EST
    how many comments do I have to listen to.  I can't take it I tell you!!! I can't take it anymore!!! ... hey, looky there, it's after noon here on the West Coast... beer time.  :)

    Parent
    Cheers! (none / 0) (#181)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:30:19 PM EST
    Knock one back for me will ya:)

    Parent
    note to self: (none / 0) (#185)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:55:32 PM EST
    be nicer to waldenpond

    Parent
    McCain raised 22 million in June (none / 0) (#187)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:12:06 PM EST
    according to MSNBC. His best month.

    Vote Both (none / 0) (#204)
    by fctchekr on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:55:26 PM EST