home

Open Thread: "I'm Free"

I was in court and missed all the news today. Our last open thread is full, so here's another one.

The song: This is an update on my Friday night post: He's free. I'll be back in a little bit after I'm all caught up -- especially with Sen. Ted Stevens' Indictment. What else happened?

< Ex-NBA Ref Donaghy Sentenced To 15 Months In Prison | Dinner With Hillary, $5 bucks >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Jeralyn, I love, love, love this song. (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 05:57:00 PM EST
    This video is great. Do you know where it was recorded?

    If you haven't seen... (none / 0) (#3)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 06:13:16 PM EST
    ...the VH1 Rock Honors show with the Who, I would highly recomnend it.  

    I really enjoyed seeing the Foo Fighters doing old Who standards.  Taylor Hawkins isn't Keith Moon, but he's pretty solid in his own right.

    Parent

    Oh and... (none / 0) (#5)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 06:18:22 PM EST
    ...Houston 11/20/75.

    Parent
    One of the best concerts I've ever seen.... (none / 0) (#68)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:17:15 AM EST
    if not the best, was seeing The Who do Quadrophenia in the mid-nineties.  Keith Moon was long gone but Zach Starkey (Ringo's son) filled in admirably...Roger sounded unbelievable...Entwistle's bass was shaking the Garden....and Pete even picked up the electric for the encore, back when he rarely if ever played electric.

    It was like putting on the record and feeding it steroids...simply awesome.

    Parent

    Relief fund established for TVUUC shooting victims (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by VelvetElvis on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 06:10:07 PM EST
    For anyone interested, the Unitarian Universalist Association has established a relief fund for families effected by the recent shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist church in Knoxville.

    http://www.uua.org/giving/donatenow/117168.shtml

    Pretty ironic (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by pie on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 06:17:31 PM EST
    that this guy claimed he hates liberals.  He was angry because his food stamps were supposedly being cancelled.

    It certainly wasn't people like Hannity, Savage, or O'Reilly who instituted that program.  Yet they authored the hate screeds that he read and embraced.

    Nice going, a$$hats.  They'll feel totally guiltless, I'm sure.

    Parent

    I also (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by tek on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:04:09 PM EST
    noticed that from the article.  UUs are the people who would be helping him get his food stamps, or whatever he needed.  We are UU.  I was astonished that his happened in a Unitarian church.  

    I guess it shows how confused people get.  The media tells Americans liberals are bad so whatever bad thing happens in their lives they attribute to liberals.

    Parent

    UU (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:12:30 PM EST
    I have only attended a UU church once but found it to be one of the most intelligent reality based groups I had ever been around. (far better than your average political gathering..lol)

    Parent
    It demonstrates that (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by pie on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:14:50 PM EST
    people who are desperate will blame anyone and everyone, except those who tell them what they want to hear that it's not their fault their lives are in shambles.  It is, partly, of course.  But there are also plenty of situations that belie that.

    Makes the people like those three- Savage, Hannity, and O'Reilly (Malkin and Coulter, also) even more insidious and definitely culpable.

    Parent

    Yep... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:32:12 AM EST
    good points.  

    Blame all your problems on the immigrants, the liberals, GW Bush...and my personal favorites the cops and the state.  Any and all may contribute to your problems, but often times they are used as excuses to avoid looking in the mirror.

    Parent

    To be fair..... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:28:15 AM EST
    lets not blame rabid right wing authors and pundits for the actions of a murderous psycho.

    I don't wanna hear people blaming acts of violence on video games, tv, movies, music, or books...that's O'Reilly's and Hannity's line of bull.

    Parent

    Congrats (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 06:29:37 PM EST
    on getting your guy free! (or on bail, anyway).

    Obama as law professor: (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:06:42 PM EST
    NYT

    Hey, he gave open book exams! (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:11:05 PM EST
    No wonder people love him!

    ;)

    Parent

    Ha. Way to get those rate the (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:14:41 PM EST
    prof. scores up.

    Parent
    Any quotes from Adam Bonin (none / 0) (#17)
    by MarkL on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:19:04 PM EST
    in the article?

    Parent
    "Adam B" left a long comment (none / 0) (#22)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:27:53 PM EST
    about his experience as a student in Obama's class.

    Parent
    Obama should listen to Adam B---and (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by MarkL on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:43:22 PM EST
    go back to teaching law.

    Parent
    Interesting... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:40:45 AM EST
    Adam B's comment has been removed.  (I would have liked to have read it.)

    Perhaps it didn't go along with Obama's narrative so the campaign complained?  

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#20)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:26:00 PM EST
    I encourage everyone to check out the Fall 2001 constitutional law final exam, at the link.

    The question involves a hypothetical wave of biological terrorist attacks in January 2002, and a government plan to allocate a limited number of vaccines against the biotoxin based upon various race, gender, and age-based classifications.

    What an interesting and highly provocative exam question to ask students, just a couple months after 9/11.

    Parent

    Very interesting! (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:59:01 PM EST
    Thanks.

    Parent
    Now if the NYT would do a piece (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:05:02 AM EST
    on Sunstein as law professor at University of Chicago, . . .

    Parent
    Sunstein is well-considered (1.50 / 2) (#88)
    by sher on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:23:29 PM EST
    by his U of C students and colleagues.

    an alum

    Parent

    well we had a little excitment in los angeles (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by skippybkroo on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:25:20 PM EST
    a 5.4 earthquake, which is not that big, but it was centered in metropolitan la (actually chino hills, right on the cusp of la/long beach/pomona, towards the inland empire.

    and it lasted a long, long time...it seemed like about 20 seconds to me. and 20 seconds of the earth moving uncontrollably while crap is falling off your shelves and things are swaying is quite distressing.

    and in honor i have videos of carole king's i feel the earth move and big joe turner's shake rattle and roll over at skippy's late nite music club.

    glad you are okay Skippy (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:56:24 PM EST
    20 seconds could be an eternity. Funny songs, too!

    Parent
    More than a little excitement for those close to (none / 0) (#41)
    by bridget on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:39:52 PM EST
    center. I talked to someone there. It was very long, very loud and stuff fell from shelves. People waited it out under their desks.

    Everybody was quite amazed it was only 5.4. People felt it all over the place. In Riverside and all the way to Las Vegas. Usually we don't think much of the 5.0 earthquakes but this one was strongly weird.

    Parent

    Roundup of German newspaper articles (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:29:31 PM EST
    on Obama visit here.

    Their press seems to be less enchanted than ours is.  I particularly appreciated this comment:

    If one carefully scrutinizes the contents of the U.S. senator's speech, it's striking to see how paltry and disappointingly shallow it turned out to be.

    I feel that way after a lot of his speeches, even the ones considered "historic."  

    This one is good too:

    Many observers of the United States consider Obama to be a "political soufflé." If that is the case, it would be better if the American voter manages to collapse it just in time - if only to save us from disappointment as well.

    The Germans won't be nearly as disappointed as the young Americans.  

    Thanks Grace (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by weltec2 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:05:37 PM EST
    I enjoyed that. There is also the video of BO's speech. I had parts of it from other sites but I copied it from there so that I can listen to the whole thing later.

    Parent
    Why Bother With The Right Wing (2.66 / 3) (#34)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:30:45 PM EST
    German press when you can link to our very own wingnut nation?

    Do you think that Old Europe has more caché than powerlie or red state, etc?

    Parent

    Freedom of Speech too much for you? (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by bridget on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 11:00:54 PM EST
    so tell me, which one of those German papers above cited are rightwing? I would like to know.

    You have read them all in the original language and they are like all those US rightwing papers/blog you read but not as wonderful?

    just wondering

    Parent

    Sorry For The Hyberbole (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 11:17:39 PM EST
    But considering that Red State, Powerlie, WSJ, and the rest of the echochamber from wingnuttia have the same articles floating about, the logical deduction is that they are conservative, right wing newspapwant shilling for McSame.


    Parent
    I don't get it (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 11:32:52 PM EST
    Isn't it likely that right-wing websites would trumpet anything critical of Obama, regardless of whether the original source was right-wing or not?

    When I saw your comment, I assumed it meant you actually knew something about the German newspapers in question.  I guess I shouldn't have assumed that.  I think as a pure deduction, your conclusion is anything but logical.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:23:13 AM EST
    So what is your conclusion, Germany is a PUMA country?

    Most of my reading indicates that Obama is very popular in Germany, contrary to the link provided above.

    Parent

    Reviews of his speech (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:55:02 AM EST
    don't equal popularity. He can be popular for many reasons, but if a reviewer feels his speech lacks substance, perhaps that's true. The speech lacks substance. His popularity was there pre-speech. The speech it's self may not have lived up to the hype, but he could still retain his popularity there for other reasons.

    Constructive criticism is healthy. He could learn and grow from it. One of these days he's going to have to show up as Obama, not whatever people want to project on him. Let's get real here, his campaign is STILL saying people just need to get to know him. I find that interesting considering the astro-turfing they they have done and how long it's been going on. Until he takes some clear views and sticks to them, all the astro turf in the world isn't going to help. Maybe they should try natural turf for awhile . . .  ;)

    Parent

    Hahahahahaha! (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:03:34 AM EST
    None of those articles said he wasn't popular!  

    They said, if he were a food, he'd be the low calorie variety.  He lacks "substance," not friends or popularity.  

    Anyway, I love the Germans.  They have the driest wit.    

    Parent

    Then link it (none / 0) (#56)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:56:12 AM EST
    or lose it.  The debate here.  

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#61)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 05:48:57 AM EST
    My conclusion is that several German newspapers had skeptical reactions to Obama.  I'm not sure why it has to get any more complicated than that.

    I'm not sure what it is at the link that claims Obama is not popular in Germany.  These are just newspaper editorials, no one claimed they speak for all Germans.

    Parent

    Popularity does not equal (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 10:09:58 AM EST
    substance, respect or confidence in someone's ability. Just look into the daily life of any high school to see an illustration. It's the perfect analogy because this election has been very much like high school since the beginning.

    Parent
    That Makes Sense (none / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:34:36 AM EST
    Odd that all the anti-Obama editorials are lumped together under one heading: Roundup of German Reaction to Obama's Speech. ANd then to qualify it as
    Their press seems to be less enchanted than ours is.

    Is dishonest.

    From my read of German newspaper reactions to Obama's speech, most of the editorials were favorable.

    Parent

    Massachusetts House just (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:42:26 PM EST
    overwhelmingly passed a bill to get rid of the old law that requires state residency to get married, meaning that gay people from elsewhere will be able to come to Mass. to be legally married.  Senate passed it unanimously or close to unanimously a couple weeks ago, and Gov. Patrick has supported the bill and will definitely sign it.

    It's a loonnng way from the semi-hysteria against gay marriage in the state and the legislature just a handful of years ago when the state supreme court first decided the Mass. constitution could not be construed to bar gay marriage.

    TIme moves slowly (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:52:13 PM EST
    As with Oregon's assisted suicide law, in time all the hullabaloo will fade away and everyone finds it works perfectly well and none of the horrible stories pitched by those opposed had any substance.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#49)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:18:40 AM EST
    in this case, it moved very, very quickly.  It's only been about 2 or 3 years for the very vehement (although minority) opposition to just melt away.

    Vermont is preparing to convert civil unions to a marriage law, and the opposition is resorting to desperation tactics (er, polite Vermont style), refusing to participate in hearings, etc, and instead just holding their own "hearings" where they preach to their own choir.  We should have full gay marriage here, too, in a couple of years at most.

    Parent

    I went to a couple of rallies/protests (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:45:27 AM EST
    during the amendment hullabaloo in Mass. and a LOT of the anti-marriage protesters were bussed in from out of state.  A lot of money was coming in from out of state, too.  

    (to be fair, a lot of pro-equality money was coming in from out of state).  But there were tons of church groups in from all over the U.S.  I always thought that there wasn't nearly as much 'native' hostility to gay marriage as the media and the anti-side loudmouths made it seem.

    But I think that once Mass Equality and allied groups got the word to Mass. legislators that they wouldn't lose their seats over this -- dispelling, I think, the myth that the radical right/religious nuts held huge political sway even in Mass. -- a lot of legislators moved their support from against/neutral to pro-equality.

    MassEquality worked their butts off.  That's the way to do issues activism.

    Parent

    It was surely a case (none / 0) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:14:31 PM EST
    where the legislators were way behind their constituents.  That's where most of the hysteria was.  The public was pretty sanguine about the whole thing.


    Parent
    Quick is a relative term (none / 0) (#52)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:45:54 AM EST
    Isn't it odd how we can say two or three years and consider it fast? But you are right.

    Back in 1979 when Florida decided to start using the electric chair again I was sure it would only be a matter of months before people came to their senses. In the mid 80's I found myself in a stirring debate arguing for Free National Health Care which was surely just around the corner.

    Two or three years? You are right. That would be extremely quick.

    Parent

    When you're my age (none / 0) (#84)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:13:35 PM EST
    2 or 3 years is lightning fast. :-)  Only seems long when you're young.


    Parent
    Very cool. (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Grace on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:17:18 AM EST
    Now your state will make a lot of money on people coming in for weddings, honeymoons, etc.  That's a good deal.  

    I wasn't for gay marriages originally.  I thought Civil Unions were fine, but now that California has allowed gay marriage, I find I don't really care whether it's a marriage or a union or a whatever.  "Equal rights" is the best part of the whole thing.

    The only thing I hope is that this won't lead to a lot of lawsuits against various churches who refuse to marry gay people.  I still believe in the separation between church and state and I think religions should be allowed to have their own rules and beliefs.  Just like the Catholic church refuses to recognize divorce, Catholic churches shouldn't be forced to marry same sex couples if they don't want to.  I'm sure this will be tested somewhere along the way.  

    Parent

    I think any challenges like that would fail (none / 0) (#63)
    by kempis on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:36:37 AM EST
    Church weddings are different from civil marriages. Civil marriages and the legal recognition of them may be challenged, but not religious weddings.

    Currently, no non-Catholic straight couple has the "right" to get married in the local Catholic cathedral. No one has the "right" to marry someone of another faith in a church that does not allow it. Churches set up their own theological regulations for marriages conducted by their officials--and they are free to do so. They operate in their own sphere, removed from governmental legalities.

    Currently, churches set the criteria for the marriages they'll perform, and the state provides the marriage certificate to couples who've had church weddings having applied first for a license. Again, two separate spheres.

    And currently, there ARE churches that conduct gay and lesbian weddings. There are denominations that do this (MCC) and there are progressive churches within denominations (Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc.) So gay and lesbian couples who want to be married in a church know which churches accept them, and they tend to be members of those churches as well.

    What churches do and don't permit is a theological issue. I really don't think that any suit brought against a conservative church would fly. But the legal experts here may have other opinions.

    It just seems to me that such a suit would be unnecessary since there are churches that DO perform same-sex weddings and since churches do not have an obligation to marry anyone who wishes to be married in them. They get to define their rituals by their theologies.

    Parent

    Church weddings are a religious rite (none / 0) (#86)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:16:50 PM EST
    You can't sue a church for refusing to perform a religious rite, period.

    Parent
    Vermont has done extremely (none / 0) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 03:21:41 PM EST
    well with civil unions because it's also a wonderful vacation spot, quaint old inns, country roads, etc., a beautiful place to get married.  I suspect a good part of the impetus for going to full marriage is the desire to hang onto that "marriage tourism."

    Cape Cod and the Berkshires in Mass. are no doubt gearing up to do a booming business, and Vermont better hurry up or it's going to lose most of its marriage business.

    Parent

    Woohoo (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:00:37 PM EST
    Now let the supreme court cases role out...

    That was the fear in the past, and the reason evangelicals wanted a constitutional amendment banning it.

    On another note, more proof Deval Patrick is a significant improvement from Romney who vowed to veto such a bill when he was Gov.  Now that he finally dropped his casino battle and got to the business of governing he has done a pretty good job.

    Parent

    Oh, my God (none / 0) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:13:07 AM EST
    of course he's an improvement over that idiot Romney.  He's just not what he was cracked up to be during the campaign.  He's a competent, accomplished guy, though, and if he can quit undermining himself with nonsense, he'll learn how to get things to work.  At least his actual ideology doesn't seem to be in question (the very bad, IMHO, idea of casinos aside).

    You can only be in favor of casinos if you've never stood in line at a convenience store in a blue-collar or poor area and watched low-income people spend $40 or $50 at a whack buying those cursed lottery tickets.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:24:40 AM EST
    As a bleeding heart myself, I fully understand how it feels to watch people throwing away their paychecks and wanting to protect them from themselves.  At the same time, freedom sometimes means the freedom to make bad choices.  I think there's a reasonable, liberal school of thought that says we should try to eliminate predatory practices but still leave people free to live their lives.  It's one thing, for example, to prohibit misleading advertising and sales practices by the tobacco companies, and another thing to tell people they can't even smoke in their own home because it's bad for them.

    Back home in Detroit, the casino issue ended up being resolved for a far more pragmatic reason.  There was a successful casino in Canada, just 15 minutes across the river, and they were taking in millions and millions of US dollars.  Folks finally decided, while all the arguments against casinos are well and good, if people are going to gamble anyway we should at least keep their money in the local economy.  I'd imagine in MA, with casinos like Foxwoods not too far away, the same argument holds some weight.

    Parent

    My objection to Patrick's (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:13:03 AM EST
    casino plans was not the idea of having casinos in MA. It was the way he was going about it. I think we will see at least one when the Wampanoags finish getting their case heard by the feds. Since they were never allocated tribal lands, the issue is over whether they can use land they have purchased to build a casino. The town the land is in was originally supportive of the casino until Patrick convinced them they could get more money out of the deal if the state sold licenses and put them up for bid.

    Parent
    Poor people... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:20:29 AM EST
    have just as much of a right to "waste" their money as rich people.

    People value different things...I for one value the action and thrills gambling provides more than mere money...and I'd be considered "blue collar poor" by some standards.

    I rarely play lotto...but I love the ponies and cards and casino games and numbers.  People might look at me and think "this poor victim of the demon gambling", but I'm having a ball spending money on something I value...action.

    The moralists who want to protect me from myself are not appreciated...their benevolent tyranny is no prize.


    Parent

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#73)
    by CST on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:46:39 AM EST
    But the casino plan was just a bad plan.  There were 3 in a region that doesn't need 3, all were located outside of any good public transit, and it just was badly done.  I am not opposed to casinos, I am just opposed to dumb growth.


    Parent
    I hear ya.... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:57:46 AM EST
    That makes sense.  We need a casino so bad by me.  The Shinnecock tribe has been trying to build one for years but the Hamptons money scene has been fighting them tooth and nail...don't want their playground sullied by degenerate gamblers I guess.

    Parent
    Jim Cramer Tells DeGeneres who (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:44:26 PM EST
    best candidate to handle the economy would be...ye gads 482 billion dollar deficit, not including the war!!

    link

    Iran War Protests this Saturday (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:20:55 PM EST
    I was just walking back from the store and a bunch of notices have been posted for a war protest this Saturday in Times Square. Mentions something about multiple protests/states. Anyone else hear about this?

    Think Obama will give a speech?! lol!~

    He will if there is something in it for him! (none / 0) (#40)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:25:58 PM EST
    Here is a letter I wish I had written:

    link

    Parent

    Me too, Psst. Wish more (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by zfran on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 11:52:28 PM EST
    people would read this stuff. We've been saying so much of this and here it is, once again, in black and white. Does it make it only one "voters" opinion, sure, but we've heard the same things from so many. It really is amazing!!!

    Parent
    Hillary button on Flipping Out (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:47:45 PM EST
    too funny. The assistant guy is sitting there quitting and he has on a Hillary campaign button.  :D

    Congrats, Jeralyn! Freedom rocks! (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by bridget on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 11:09:19 PM EST
    I am so happy for your young client. And for you, too. You prevailed.

    I did read the post the other night and was wondering what would happen today.

    You are the best :-)

    Race Issues (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:10:49 AM EST
    Having spent the last two weeks on PUMA sites, I can say that race issues inclusive of a campaign to smear the Clintons as racists or race baiters (a campaign that even existed on this blog) is still a huge issue for those who have left the party.

    Now I don't know if unity is even necessary for Obama to win at this point, so the issue may be lost on anyone who never cared about unity anyway except as it might have hurt Obama's chances.

    Turns out, recently Digby has jumped on the train to smear anyone who criticizes Obama as racist or race baiting.  I personally think that Obama has been presumptious, I find him arrogant, I find his arrogance to be a facade for what lurks beneath is the same as what lies underneath Bush's arrogance.  An inferiority complex.  Self-doubt.  Bush walks with his arms out to his side in some caricature of a Texan something I don't know what, but that's just the sense I get when I see him do his photo ops.  Same deal with Obama.  Different style of course, the half hop and the big grin and such.  In either case, an overly-contrived set of gestures in an effort to superimpose an air confidence over a situation where one has found themselves quite simply out of their depth.

    But obviously, you can't discuss that in the democratic party, because the second you say presumptious, the second you say arrogant, someone's going to slap the race card right down on the table.  (presumably because it's probably true and there's no other real defense).  Didn't you know calling Obama presumptious is the same as calling him uppity?

    Now there is nothing more divisive than accusing someone of racism.  One of the things that was pointed out in a way that I hadn't considered is that, given where society is at this point, as far as the media is concerned, calling someone a child abuser is probably less toxic than calling someone a racist.  Now it's already been discussed that people are rewarded for being sexist.  At the least, a two week vacation and a promotion is the "punishment" doled out for those who speak inartfully about women.  But I can think of nothing more toxic, at this point, than for someone to be branded a racist.  

    Now of course, that's a good thing.  I want to make it clear the point here is not to say we need to make it less toxic to be racist.  What we need to do is IMPLORE the people who use it for political gain, who take that situation to make a polticial opponent toxic, to stop.  To make sure it's understood that those people who exploit the issue are pushed to the edges of discussion.  Not to the forefront.  These people, in my view, are despicable and divisive.  I would fight for their right to express their views, but I would not provide for them a platform to SPREAD their views.

    Because there is real racism in this society.  Systemic.  Both passive and overt.  Even in the liberal bastion known as California, I see the economic divide, so just from a practical standpoint, does accusing your political opponent of being a racist help solve this economic injustice?  It's certainly not proven in any way shape or form that it does.  If it helps Obama to be president, and then he's actually able to do something about it, Ok.  We'll see.  If it helps an African American kid to think differently about himself when he sees an African American president, then OK.  But ultimately, as I've always said, the proof. will.  be.  in.  the.  pudding.  

    This is just to say that what exist in the media with respect to this issue (inclusive of blogs), the toxicity of racism, does not translate to the real world.  The hiring manager who is still either aggressively or passively racist still exists.

    But of course we don't see the likes of Keith Olbermann doing stories about such hiring managers.  We see the pundits give "equal time" on a real issue like affirmative action, and then turn around and build their own careers on a politicized version of the issue.  

    Can a blogger do that to?  I don't see why not.

    To wrap this up, I still feel the issue as it has manifested itself in the Democratic Party over the last two years has not been dealt with.  Those who have exploited the issue are probably hoping it just goes away at this point.  Because they got what they wanted from it.

    If anyone wants to know what sparked this essay of sorts:

    http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=375

    From Digby:

    Keep in mijnd [sic] that the GOP does not do this stuff for a knock out [sic]. They operate on the death of a thousand cuts. Little criticisms, relentlessly played, dribbled out over time designed to create a running theme. This one is obvious: elitist, aloof, and --- presumptuous. That last carries quite an amazing amount of freight --- presumptuous, uppity, doesn't know his place. It applies neatly to any Democrat who deigns to lead Broderville but the historical, subliminal American memory that attaches to such a word when the person in question is black is particularly powerful. (I smell the mark of Rove on that --- he's really good at stuff like this.)

    And after I've let out the anger (cause you know people are going to get angry if you accuse them of racism, especially those who aren't racist), I want to be able to see Digby's point of view.  Yes.  They, republicans, did the same to Clinton actually.  Obviously.

    So the crux of the matter really is this:  How do you know the difference between someone like me saying "I think Obama is presumptious" and someone like Karl Rove saying "I think Obama is presumptious"?  (Can Michael Steele call Obama presumptious?)

    If one can't tell the difference, then that's a problem.  I can't tell if Digby can tell the difference, at this point.

    You see, it's a form of power.  To be able to stand up and accuse someone of being racist or even just race baiting and have people listen to you.  And as far as using such power judiciously is concerned, I think Obama folks -- cultists or otherwise -- have failed.

    I will end by saying this:  The thing that came to mind is that there was once a lieberman supporter called the bullmoose, and he called good people unpatriotic cause they criticized lieberman.

    I guess i've heard tell that did a lot of damage to the party.  I think it's true it did.  Real.  Longterm.  Damage.


    Sen. Obama's M.O. (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by zfran on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:33:30 AM EST
    apparently continues to be the same. See Post #40 by PsstCmere08 and the link provided. It seems he always uses the same themes with racism high on the list. What happens if he makes it to the presidency with these tendencies, where does he go "up" from there???

    Parent
    Calling People Racists (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:15:20 PM EST
    While condemning the act is at best slimy. Most of what you complain about in your comment, you are doing yourself.

    You see, it's a form of power.  To be able to stand up and accuse someone of being racist or even just race baiting and have people listen to you.

    Wow, not only did you imply that Obama is racist but you baldly called a "hiring manager" a racist? Is that a form of power you are striving for.

    And to mischaracterize Digby's post as a smear, is absurd. Who is she smearing, the press? Hilarious.

    The context of your quote, while generally reflecting digby's larger point, was specifically related to the brouhaha whipped up by the "liberal press" regarding Obama not visiting wounded soldiers in Berlin, but hanging out in the gym instead.

    And yes, "death of a thousand cuts" is how you and the GOP slime machine you are evidentially defending appears to function. Digby is spot on, imo, as usual. Innuendo based on a cherrypicked selection of facts that imply Obama is more interested in voguing in front of a mirror than meeting with wounded troops, appears to be something you are embracing here.

    Not sure why you are defending Rove et al here, but Obama hate obviously makes people do strange things.

    Parent

    Oh And Here (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:16:48 PM EST
    Is the link to digbys smear, as you ludicrously characterize it.

    Parent
    If none of that got through (none / 0) (#66)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 07:42:57 AM EST
    This should:

    Hold outs are dealing with the undemocratic primary process.  Doesn't mean they'll stop working to correct it.  It just means balanced against a McCain administration, the outrage is mitigated.  If one wants to think of it as reason prevailing, it could.

    Hold outs are dealing with their hero (Clinton) not getting to be president.  If one wants to think of reason prevailing here too, it could.

    Hold outs are dealing with the sexism.  They know, however bad Obama and his Media lapdogs are, McCain would be worse.  Not that much worse, really.  Reason could prevail here as well.

    You can obviously reason with those who think Obama is the the right on Clinton ON ISSUES by saying McCain is hard right.  

    "Reason" WILL NOT, CAN NOT, and SHOULD NOT prevail on the issue I discussed above.  

    Where there is softening of the hardened outrage on other issues (as long as those issues can still be resolved), I can just simply guarantee that those who woke up one morning to find out -- from the Obama campaign, Obama bloggers and other media outlets -- they were race baiting, or that the Clintons were race baiting feel the exact same way about it today as they did that day, in pretty much, a fairly emotional context.

    If anything, it's getting worse.

    This is just my impression of the attitudes I see on the PUMA blogs.

    Parent

    John McCain an elitist? (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:25:32 AM EST
    'Setting what multimillionaire investor Charles Gallagher called a "Colorado record," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) raised $3.2 million Tuesday night in the Denver suburbs.

    Standing on the patio of Gallagher's home, McCain made his usual fundraiser jokes about being welcomed "into this modest, middle-income tract home." After Gallagher murmured about the possibility of a tax break, the senator continued, "These public housing projects are quite remarkable."'

    http://tinyurl.com/63hwdj

    Or just McCain being McCain?

    He's a real barrell of laughs.... (none / 0) (#82)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:17:43 PM EST
    that McCain...personally I don't find the best democracy money can buy all that funny myself.

    Parent
    Yep... (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 01:17:04 PM EST
    ...nothing funnier than old, bloated white guys sitting around their country club palaces, eating their gourmet food, whining about taxes and the poor people.  Just a barrel of laughs.

    Guess I best get back to "learning my lesson"!  LOL...

    Parent

    Electoral Projections (none / 0) (#7)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 06:35:24 PM EST
    Based on state by state polling, as of today both fivethirtyeight and realclearpolitics project Obama to go over the 300 Electoral Vote mark.

    538 puts Obama in the lead 303-235  

    RCP puts Obama in the lead 322-216

    The states RCP has McCain losing that Bush won are: Colorado(9), New Mexico(5), Nevada(5), Iowa(7), Indiana(11), Ohio (20), and Virginia(13).

    Electoral predictions now? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by pie on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 06:51:14 PM EST
    Useless.

    Parent
    Perhaps you wold prefer this one? (none / 0) (#9)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 06:59:21 PM EST
    Then surely you will enjoy this outlier GE poll released today by Research2000 that included both Barr and Nader.

    Obama  51
    McCain  39
    Barr       3
    Nader     2

    Actually EV is far more useful than a nationwide poll because it evaluates each state's polls. Makes it easy to see where the effort from each candidate will be centered.

    Parent

    Dude. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by pie on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:06:47 PM EST
    July.

    If you think this campaign is over, you're going to be disappointed.  It hasn't started.

    Parent

    Oh, Yeah. It's Started. (none / 0) (#77)
    by daring grace on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 11:17:29 AM EST
    People started voting in January in a primary season that was more robust and more intensely covered than any in my memory (last 40 years--maybe '68 somewhat corresponds).

    McCain wrapped it up early and so Obama had two lines of attack to defend against until Clinton dropped out. Although it can certainly be argued that on the blogs he still has two fronts to defend.

    We may be in the deep, still waters of the summer doldrums before the conventions, but the campaign is happening now.

    Parent

    Now, when I go to realclearpolitics (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:27:03 PM EST
    I see this in great big numbers: Obama 238, McCain 163 -- and the rest are leaning or listed as tossups.

    Are there special rose-colored glasses given out to Obama backers to see what isn't there?

    And, of course, this is down from the 255 that Obama had there a week ago.  And, of course, the average of polls on the site has him startlingly down to only 2.5 points ahead today -- the first time that average has droppe under 3.0.  And the average for Obama was more than 8.0 points ahead only a couple of weeks ago.

    Sigh.  You keep doing this, Coral Gables.  At least this time you cited your sources, but you still overstate the situation.  Why?  Even though you still won't do links, we're not luddites here and can google (or have the sites bookmarked, too).  

    You must just be masochistic.  So after these lashes of reality, do you feel better now?

    Parent

    Painful. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by pie on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:33:31 PM EST
    You must just be masochistic.  So after these lashes of reality, do you feel better now?

    Yes, painful.

    I find the exuberance on the wane these days.

    Parent

    Click one more time to get leaners (none / 0) (#26)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:37:34 PM EST
    No cream, you just have to click on the "no toss ups" button.

    Parent
    Why in the world would you do that (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:57:43 PM EST
    in July?  Jeesh.  Have you ever been through a campaign season before?

    Parent
    A Couple I Guess (none / 0) (#51)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:27:07 AM EST
    Would you mean other than voting for McGovern and every Dem since? It's all about what states you can take away from the other guys column. Yes it's late July, which means barely more than ninety days that will likely decide the next eight years in office for someone to fix the Bush disaster of political appointments, huge deficits, and loss of respect around the world.

    Ninety days is the blink of an eye when you're trying to get over 70 million votes so you can repair eight years of incompetence.


    Parent

    This reply does not address (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 02:16:43 AM EST
    the point at all -- the polls.

    Jeesh.

    Parent

    got a link? (none / 0) (#18)
    by skippybkroo on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:21:55 PM EST
    got a link to those numbers?

    Parent
    Here ya go (none / 0) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:36:31 PM EST
    RCP is an easy read in red and blue. RCP

    538 puts the total in the upper left and the map over to the right in an assortment of semi-translatable colors.

    538

    Parent

    OH, MI, and PA are not sure things for Obama (none / 0) (#64)
    by kempis on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 06:47:05 AM EST
    I know he's polling fairly well right now, but I live in Western PA. PA barely went to Kerry in 04 and there seems to be much more doubt about/animosity toward Obama floating about.

    This is his election to lose, but he may lose it. If he can't close the deal with people in the upper Ohio Valley and MI, he will. I may be wrong, but I think these polls are overly optimistic. They are surely not indicative of where things will be on November 3. I agree with those who think this contest will be more volatile and see-sawy this fall.  

    Parent

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#67)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 08:09:37 AM EST
    There are plenty of states in play that could go either way. RCP's toss up list currently has eleven states and 137 electoral votes up for grabs which can easily put McCain in the White House.

    The only advantage the DEM's have with that list of eleven "toss up" states is that, in 2004, 106 of their electoral votes were in the GOP column and only 21 were in the DEM column. That leaves McCain fighting for what he should already own.

    Oh for the day when we realize that one person one vote is a far superior method to having the entire electorate involved. State by state voting leaves far too many people virtually ignored, because the individual votes in their particular state are close to meaningless. One vote in Florida or Ohio or Pennsylvania shouldn't mean more to winning a Presidential Election than one vote in California or Texas or Utah...but it does.

    Parent

    Congrats Jeralyn (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:25:40 PM EST
    I missed the post the other night.  It seems so unfair to me - they make the charge and possible sentence and thus the stakes so high that it elevates flight risk, and then use that as an excuse to set bail so high.  I'm glad you prevailed.


    Just In Case (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:12:10 PM EST
    It hasn't been mentioned, here is the Oliver Stone trailer about dubya.