home

Sunday Morning OpenThread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:02:51 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm watching Federer-Nadal. Nadal up an early break in the first set.

Rain delay with Nadal leading 2 sets to none - 6-4, 6-4, 4-5 (on serve in the 3rd).

12:55 EST, match to resume momentarily.

Federer wins 3rd set tiebreaker on the back of 4 aces, 7-5.

Federer wins 4th set tiebreaker 10-8, staving off two championship points.

5th set, 1-1, deuce, rain threatening. 2-2, deuce. Rain delay. Play to resume momentarily. 6-6 in the 5th. No tiebreakers in the 5th.

Nadal breaks for 8-7. Serving for the championship. Nadal wings a forehead long. New balls? Nerves? Serve and volley for 15-15. Big forehand sets up easy volley for Nadal. 2 points way. Federer evens at 30-30. Feder misses backhand. Nadal has his 3rd championship point. Fed saves with an impossible backhand return. Service winner. Another championship point.

NADAL WINS! 9-7 in the 5th. Unbelievable match. What a look on Fed's face. he can not believe it.

This is an Open Thread.

< Saturday Night Open Thread | Truth Commissions >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Morning OpenThread | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    what do you make... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:07:22 AM EST
    of this...?

    http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200806/POL20080630a.html

    It's the difference (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:27:00 AM EST
    between 'talking the talk' and 'walking the walk'.  Something we'll probably see a lot between these two guys before November.  Personally, I imagine the guy who 'walks the walk' will be consistent.


    Parent
    It's nice to see that break into the mainstream (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:00:21 AM EST
    If anything maybe some deserving folks in the Obama campaign will be getting a raise.


    Parent
    Heh. (none / 0) (#45)
    by madamab on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:03:13 AM EST
    I wonder how much my stepmother is getting paid? The article was about his Senate staff, but still...she's a county campaign director in VA. I wonder how she'd feel knowing some guy with her same position might be getting paid more?

    Parent
    obama is not having a good week.... (none / 0) (#48)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:06:22 AM EST
    link

    Parent
    That is just aweful journalism (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:34:19 AM EST
    You are taking averages without job titles, knowledge of how long people have worked for him, and making a blanket statement on gender inequality?  That is shameful.  There are probably legimate arguements of sexism, but this is not one of them.  Also this didn't make it into the Mainstream press.  The article is in cnS news.  This oringally came from no quarter.  This article "research" is pathetic.

    Parent
    When those same "controls," as it were (none / 0) (#72)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:13:06 PM EST
    apply to the staffs of the other candidates, it does suggest that this is an interesting and perhaps telling first stage in a study worth pursuing, though -- rather than pooh-poohing it, the all-too-typical way of dealing with women's pay.

    Parent
    I hope you don't think I am pooh-poohing women's (none / 0) (#74)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:25:23 PM EST
    equal pay.  Far from it.  Equal pay for equal work (and what is work needs to be expanded to include household work as well).  However, this is a political hit piece.  I will always read and respect well thoughout and well researched pieces, even if I disagree (infact I would rather read these pieces, it exercices the mind more- see pro slavery arguements from Calhoun).

    Parent
    Interesting that behind the rebellion (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:37:46 AM EST
    internally was Michael Stark -- the blogger hero of the left for his camera-stalking of the hapless Senator George Allen.  

    Parent
    ribbon, on another thread (now closed) (none / 0) (#46)
    by wmr on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:04:00 AM EST
    you referred to Obama as the most liberal senator.  If you were serious, you should check out Media Matters on this.

    Parent
    Ifil and the problem with Digby... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:38:23 AM EST
    ...The Anchors are brainless actors and the reporters are not much more than that. It's really the directors and script writers who are fixing the news.  A related question...Is Elizabeth Berkeley really at fault for the lame script in Showgirls?

     

    reference to Who Us? about Vastlaft's questions (none / 0) (#9)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:42:57 AM EST
    posed to Gwen Ifil.

    It's quite clear she works for her sponsors.

    Parent

    Joe Eszterhas... (none / 0) (#10)
    by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:44:48 AM EST
    Is he the next model for news writers?

    Parent
    He wrote the 2004 election (none / 0) (#16)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:05:29 AM EST
    Bush Porn

    Parent
    As far as how women are treated (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:52:23 AM EST
    Esterhas would be an improvement.

    That's not saying Joe's good.  That's saying the media is that bad.


    Parent

    it doesn't give me much confidence (none / 0) (#62)
    by hellothere on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:38:05 AM EST
    when i see a "news" item on the net and then 3 days later the so called media is reporting it in breathless terms on tv.

    Parent
    I woke up early this morning and watched (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by masslib on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:51:16 AM EST
    an old movie, "Small Town Girl".  It was sweet.  It must have been really old because Jimmy Stewart had a bit role.  Now, I'm on my third cup of coffee.  It's going to be a long day.

    Obama hears a 'Huh' (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:51:43 AM EST
    funny ...

    link

    Thanks For The Laugh (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:03:02 AM EST
    It would be even more funny if I couldn't actually picture that conversation taking place in real life.

    You know that conversations like that actually do go on behind the closed doors in Obama's land right now.

    The more I see his ads pop up on TV, Web sites and radio, heck even in my GMAIL and Facebook accounts sidebars  -- they're practically bombarding all outlets and avenues right now -- the more I feel sick to the stomach with the thought that he could actually be the next President.

    (I've increasingly been thinking that four years of McCain wouldn't be so bad if it means Hillary will take the reins in 2012 ... If only there was such a guarantee -sigh-)

    Parent

    Well, I think if Obama loses after all this, (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by derridog on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:50:22 PM EST
    the Democratic party leadership will, at least, be a bit chastened and might even reconsider trying to shove their favorite candidate down our throats next time as they will have seen, it could backfire.

    The alternative, that Obama wins, means the Dems will see this as a perfectly fine option for them, whenever they don't particularly care for the candidate the people want.

    Parent

    It was a tight primary race. (none / 0) (#89)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 02:29:43 PM EST
    The electorate was split pretty much 50-50.  There was racism and sexism from both sides, and false racism and sexism claims.  If the party leadership had supported Hillary instead, we'd be in the exact same split party position, only a different group of Democrats would be furious.  The new young Dems would walk off instead of pounding the streets for our party this fall.  AA's would have a car wash day and not vote.  Re-engaged voters who gave up on American politics years ago and who came back to participate and deliberately chose Obama over Hillary would reasonably conclude that the Dem party is still unethical, hopeless, and a waste of their time and money.

    Either direction the Dem leadership went, our party would have been split.  

    So now what?  Keep pushing for McCain as a valid choice in the hopes of proving a point or punishing the party or enhancing Hillary's chances in four or eight years?

    Our country does not have another four or eight years.  We are going bankrupt.  We need more than just half the Democrats pushing our progressive agenda.  BTD is right - push for the issues, and try to get the party/candidate/electorate to stay in alignment with our core values.  PUMA needs to do something besides encourage votes for McCain.  Either demand Hillary's on the ticket or choose another third party candidate who the party can actually rally behind.  This incessant Obama bashing does not help our party's goals or our own.  

    If McCain wins, especially if he wins because Hillary supporters won't vote Dem, you guys are all that's left because the Obama half of the party isn't going to stick with it.  Even if Obama wins, we still need most party backing our issues, not just criticizing our new president.  We need unity beyond the election or we'll have wasted the chance in a lifetime to put our country on track with a progressive agenda.

    Somehow we need to get our party back together.  


    Parent

    Glad you liked it, RalphB! (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by madamab on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:07:33 AM EST
    The drawbacks of a too-fertile imagination..:-)

    Parent
    madamab (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:59:46 AM EST
    I love your plays!  They're always really great.

    Parent
    You know (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:08:37 PM EST
    I'm not much of a Michelle Obama fan, but it's still hard to escape noticing that she's being cast in the exact same role Hillary was cast in back in 1992.  You know, the one where being tough and invested in your husband's success makes you a witch.  It's actually a little uncomfortable.

    Parent
    This is standard for Democratic wives who have (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by derridog on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:57:06 PM EST
    opinions of their own or power of any sort. Think Theresa Heinz-Kerry, Eleanor Roosevelt, even Roslyn Carter (cause she didn't allow drinking in the WH).

    Republican women are always painted as "ladylike" (meaning they don't interfere with anything but tend to their knitting).  Just the fact that they could construe Barbara Bush as ladylike (it was the pearls no doubt) tells you all you want to know about where the MSM stands in terms of which party they promote.

    Parent

    hahaha (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by ribbon on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:30:31 AM EST
    "Dammit Bill, I told you to call him "Mr. President!"

    priceless...

    Parent

    Tee-hee! (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by madamab on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:53:35 AM EST
    Ribbon - I gave you a shout-out on my latest post. Cannot BELIEVE Obama pays his female staffers less than his male ones...oh wait.

    Yes, I can!

    Parent

    The symbol of underpaid women (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:23:39 AM EST
    everywhere:  She is a furry li'l creature in a toga, as she is named "yes, we can" in Latin.  She is Vera Possumus!

    Parent
    madamab rocks....that piece was great!! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:33:47 AM EST


    Parent
    I was watching "Reliable Sources" (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kenosharick on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:05:04 AM EST
    -first time in ages and they threw out the question to their panel of whether the media was "doing their job of knocking down rumors about Obama."  Is that really their job? They never did that for Gore, Kerry, or Clinton-in fact they fanned and spread rumors/lies about those candidates.

    Baby And Bathwater (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:55:43 PM EST
    But they knew that...

    You need your passport to get your SS card and your SS card to get your passport. And your birthcertificate to get both as triple proof that you are not a commie infiltrator aka mexican. Even if your family has been here for 300 years.

    And then without your paperz  you can not vote, that is already the punchline in a few states.

    I'm African-American and my family moved to California almost a hundred years ago after a lynching took place outside their hometown in Kentucky.

    I'm also undocumented, or in the current anti-immigrant vernacular, "illegal." I don't have the necessary documents to prove my identity. Therefore, within four years, I won't be able to vote, have access to social services, or receive state identification to travel.

    How did this happen?  

    Dave Neiwert

    I'm against voter ID (none / 0) (#94)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:39:48 PM EST
    but we need valid and reliable examples to fight it.  Why would this person whose family has been in California for a century not have been, therefore, born in California?  Maybe this is more clear in the original, but this snip just makes no sense as is.

    Parent
    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:58:44 PM EST
    To many of us, Obama isn't really a lefty.  For me, at least, that's a great deal of the reason I'm not fond of him.

    I don't know for sure that he's a leftie, (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:30:18 PM EST
    but he's got millions of lefties backing him, and that's what I think is what will forward our agenda.  I think we need to support him where his platform is congruent with our issues.  

    Look at how TL commenters jumped on Obama's "mental distress" statements to a Christian magazine.  Folks here immediately started putting new words in Obama's mouth, claimed he was anti-abortion, declared that he was against women's legal control over their own bodies, etc.  Yet his record on choice says otherwise.  Obama has voted pro-choice and is running on a strong pro-choice platform.

    It's as if you guys are looking for ways to attack him.  He's got plenty of areas where he should be criticized, but to grasp at a phrase like "mental distress" and make all sorts of claims that Obama is giving the right wingers what they want or (is secretly one of them) us telling about the amount of Obama hatred here.  

    Obama needs the votes of right wing and centrist Americans, and many of them are anti-abortion.  He's spoke to them in terms of their framework and philosophies.  If he gets their votes, that's a good thing.  Reaching out to the part of our electorate who usually vote against our issues doesn't mean he's giving them what they want.  It means he's savvy enough to speak to their hopes and fears.

    I personally don't think it's the right time for him to push progressive issues.  Obama is still a blank slate to many right wingers and centrists.  He's been smeared by the right, yet he's created a huge surge of new and newly engaged Dem voters.  Republicans and Independents are taking another look at him because they want to see what we see in him.  

    Now is the perfect time to reach out to those on the right, before the convention and before the GOP smears really hit big time.  If he quells the fears of those who think he's a crazy liberal or "too exotic," if he connects with them now, the right wing's dishonesty won't be as effect when they roll it out big time after the convention.  Once they're on board, his progressive focus won't be as scary to them, it'll just be part of the meme of Obama's willingness to bring together people with disparate ideas and philosophies.

    Parent

    Get a sense of humor please. (3.50 / 2) (#79)
    by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:01:09 PM EST
    the little skit was funny, no matter how you slice it.  

    Well, imagine it was the same type of skit, but (none / 0) (#80)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:17:28 PM EST
    making fun of Hillary instead.

    See my point?

    It's painful to come to a left wing site and hear over and over again how bad our candidate is.  Mind you, I fully agree in criticizing his positions.  But to literally revel in anti-Obama rhetoric, in words he did not say, well, that's as bad as Obamabots being gleeful about Hillary losing.

    I think some posters here lose perspective and forget we're on the same team.

    Parent

    Not hard to imagine (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:38:58 PM EST
    It's easy to remember all those months when virtually every "liberal" blog was positively dripping with hatred for Hillary Clinton.  Hatred that makes madamab's little skit look like, well, the playful exercise that it is.

    But somehow, you single out TL for supposedly jeopardizing its liberal license.  Gee, I wonder why that could be?

    Parent

    Because I expect more from you guys (none / 0) (#86)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:55:00 PM EST
    than I could ever expect from young, sexist, mostly uneducated Obamabots.

    Because we have to work together to promote our left wing issues.

    And because PUMA needs to do something besides just b!tch about Obama.  Don't think I didn't spend my share of time criticizing sexism in the other blogs.  I don't just feel ya, I share the pain with you.  And now it's time to either choose another third party candidate, force Hillary onto the ticket as VP, or let it go.  We have an election to win.


    Parent

    "Knocking Down the Rumors" (3.00 / 2) (#20)
    by creeper on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:15:59 AM EST
    Rumors?  You mean like the one that Obama had resigned his Senate seat?
       
    "I'm surprised at how finely calibrated every single word was measured. I wasn't saying anything I hadn't said before, that I didn't say a year ago or when I was a United States senator," said Obama, who is still a senator from Illinois.

    Oh, wait.  They DID "knock down that rumor".  I wonder if they mentioned it to the "former" junior Senator from Illinois.

    That gaffe says it all.  Barack Obama's entire identity is wrapped up in his candidacy for President.  He has completely forgotten that he already HAS a job.  The people of Illinois are getting squat from this manipulator.  But then, they should be used to it.  He promised them faithfully he would serve out his full term as Senator (see Clinton, Hillary, promises fulfilled) and then abandoned that pledge immediately.

    Like George W. Bush, Barack Obama really hasn't a clue what he wants to DO as President...only that he wants to BE President.

    I Suspect That (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:22:52 AM EST
    ever since his monumental (I admit) speech at the 2004 convention, DNC top brass and others i.e. Ted Kennedy, Clair McCaskill, John Kerry etc. have been feeding him religiously with the thought that he WILL BE President, and they will hoist him on their shoulders towards that goal.

    I'm not saying that he doesn't have a central role in it (of course he does) but he's been receiving a nudge, push and shove along the way. I believe, now more than ever, that it was fixed right after Kerry's loss that Obama will be Project 2008 for the DNC.

    Parent

    I'm Sure You're Right (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by creeper on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:26:42 AM EST
    The coronation was pre-ordained years ago (and I bought into it briefly) and is proceeding on track.

    But how does that equate to not realizing that he already has a job?

    This is just so bizarre.  What reality does this man inhabit, anyway?

    Parent

    awww, the poor DNC...check this out: (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:37:17 AM EST
    link

    Parent
    The food color thing is hilarious. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:52:01 AM EST
    ...picky, picky, picky.

    Parent
    That Is Just Nuts (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:08:12 AM EST
    Why would the color of the food matter? I think when one's hungry, any good and nutritious food would be appreciated, whatever color it is.

    Though I do like that they're concerned about the fruit and vegetable intake of the delegates. My mom, and I'm sure many mothers here, would approve. I definitely approve, since I've been following a strict fruit/vegetable diet too.

    Parent

    What have you got against purple food?!!! (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by derridog on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:09:19 AM EST


    Parent
    This made me laugh. How sad (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by zfran on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:02:40 AM EST
    when I looked forward to the convention, and now, I'm chuckling at what a disaster on the inside it's turning out to be....and yet, they want to "cornonate" the king in a larger, albeit, more expensive venue. Who's picking up that tab?

    Parent
    Coronate isn't a word (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:07:29 AM EST
    It sounds like a heart condition. The correct word is simply: Crown.  Although I note you placed "marks" around the word.

    We might see the Prince's Coronation, but we will see the Prince Crowned.

    Anyway. I guess America is still a an Oligarchy pretending to be a Democracy so it's no biggie.

    Parent

    Loved the Story. (4.00 / 3) (#64)
    by creeper on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:51:56 AM EST
    Thanks for the link.  Looks like they're spending money faster than they can take it in.  

    If we give him enough rope, will Barack Obama hang himself?  Is there a point at which the average American voter looks at this spectacle and says to himself, "This is nuts!"?

    Given the nature of conventions maybe John Q. will overlook the over-the-top extravaganza.  But will he, by August, be able to overlook one too many waffles...one too many flip-flops...one too many reminders that this man hasn't a clue?

    No matter.  I don't care what wakes the voter up, so long has he does wake up.  There's far too much at stake for us to remain hypnotized by this snake-oil salesman.

    Parent

    Sounds more (none / 0) (#37)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:41:37 AM EST
    like the project of the Bush admin

    Parent
    bwaaHAHAHA ... what knobs! (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ellie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:55:20 AM EST
    Why I Am No Longer a Democrat, part 7039257230875

    A 28-page contract requested by Denver organizers that caterers provide food in "at least three of the following five colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple and white." Garnishes could not be counted toward the colors. No fried foods would be allowed. Organic and locally grown foods were mandated, and each plate had to be 50 percent fruits and vegetables. As a result, caterers are shying away. [...]

    And caterers, expected to feed the 40,000 people coming to town, are throwing up their hands over the food requirements.

    ... Peggy Beck, a co-owner of Three Tomatoes Catering.[said] "It was such an ordeal. We've jumped through hoops and hoops to bid on their stuff, and we had to have certain color food so the plates would be colorful." In the end, the parties that she had been bidding on were canceled to save money. "This was some of the silliest stuff ever," she added.

    Nick Agro, head of Whirled Peas Catering [... said ...] "These were fantastic ideas, but I question who is willing to pay for these extra costs," Mr. Agro said.

    Well, if there's a good excuse for the Dems to be unwilling or unavailable to fight for our vanishing human rights, I suppose I could be more understanding ...

    Nah, I think I'll stick with being corrosively critical for everyone's own good!

    Parent

    Sounds like the (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by camellia on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:58:13 AM EST
    sacrificial lamb.  Anyone ever read Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery"?  

    WHY do they want him?  What do they see in him that I don't see?   Is it that he could possibly be manipulated more easily than Hillary?   He certainly doesn't seem to know where he wants to lead us.

    And that little skit is hilarious!  Sadly, it isn't hard to envisage.

    Parent

    They like him because he's a sell out. (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by derridog on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:08:19 AM EST
    He is a fabulous mimic who can read a text with inflection and seeming honesty, not to mention change his style and his accent and his message to fit the occasion.

    But he doesn't mean any of it. He is the establishment candidate. He will challenge nothing that GW Bush has begun.  The loss of our civil liberties (a-ok with O), privatizing Social Security (sure -one of his economic advisors is all for that), NAFTA (oops turns out he likes that after all), women's issues (well, we all know how he feels about women) and so on.

    The biggest thing he will sell us out on is Iraq and the corruption there. That's because his Iraqi backers, like Nadhmi Auchi, helped put him up for Pres. just so he wouldn't make any waves while they steal the national treasury and that of the Iraqis and line their own pockets.

    The tragic thing is that the Democrats want him too and, apparently, for the same reasons.  They are also sell outs (with a few honorable exceptions) and they don't want any challenges from people who know how to challenge them (ie., the Clintons).

    Parent

    pathetic isn't it that many in the senate turned (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by hellothere on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:44:06 AM EST
    out to be graying american idol fans.

    Parent
    Obama was, it turns out (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:30:39 AM EST
    the most typical of American workers today.

    He was a temp.  Filling a seat in Senate for all of four months.  Just as well his interim employment there is over, though, as he compiled one of the worst attendance records in Congress.

    Not that it gives him any understanding of the situation of the vast numbers of temp employees in this country, a corporate strategy that has seeped into the academic sector, too, thanks to all those regents and trustees from the business world.  All those other temps don't get full pay or any benefits.

    Parent

    Cream, when you frame it that way...he has (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:59:01 AM EST
    always been a temp.  Kinda frightening that he doesn't take his jobs more seriously.

    Parent
    Yep. Typical, though, (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:10:51 PM EST
    of his age group, the younger baby boomers, and especially in the professional "creative class."

    Job-hopping became their norm.  Understandable as it is that the corporate culture destroyed the tradition of loyalty to an employer, many of them still don't see that they sacrificed something, too.  

    It carries over into much else in their lives, as we also can see with Obama.  There are interesting studies on this syndrome in the under-50 age group of professionals today -- the costs for business (which we all end up paying, of course) and the costs for society . . . such as attitudes toward, bingo, Social Security and other social programs.

    Parent

    Cream...I am glad to be in the group of (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:14:32 PM EST
    baby boomers that were taught to always do the best job possible, follow through, keep learning, take pride in yourself and your work, be considerate and caring, etc.  

    Parent
    Perfect example of what he is talking about (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:40:43 AM EST
    Instead of 'was' he should have said 'became'.  But now that off-the-cuff statement is being examined more than the Dead Sea Scrolls and used to draw inferences.

    I understand the point - I also wish he would have stayed in the Senate - but this parsing is going too far IMHO.

    Parent

    For a Senator who has yet (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Fabian on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:11:30 AM EST
    to FINISH his first term?

    I admit some people (moi for example) jumped on it with both feet.  I rather expect that anyone who is a US Senator should remember it unless he's got a disease worse that Alberto Gonzales and Ronald Reagan combined.  Or perhaps he's just suffering from "mental distress" and can't be trusted to make any important decisions.

    Parent

    I think its going to be a long match... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:21:11 AM EST
    ...who are you rooting for, BTD?

    Pete Sampras (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:37:48 AM EST


    Parent
    It's a spanish year perhaps with Nadal. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:39:08 AM EST
    bloody Swiss.

    Parent
    Well I'm feeling nostalgic for Bjorn Borg... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:42:11 AM EST
    ...Still has a great head of hair, I must say.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:03:42 AM EST
    Actually, my point is no one actually play grass court tennis anymore.

    IF Federer was a real grass court tennis player, her would going to the net a lot more.

    He is playing a clay court match at Wimbledon.

    And he is going to lose the second set now it looks like.

    Parent

    Federer is coming to the net now. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:08:28 AM EST
    Not uickly enough though.  Nadal may have unlocked him and he looks like he's in better condition.

    Have you ever been to Wimbledon itself?

    If not recommend sunblock and Pimms No 1.

    Parent

    Never went to Wimbledon (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:14:54 AM EST
    US Open all the time when I lived in NYC.

    Parent
    Is the US Open a big circuslike event? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:33:35 AM EST
    I've been to Wimbledon twice.  Both times I got sunburned.  The crowds are almost as interesting to see as the tennis.

    Looks like a rain storm is arriving to ruin Nadal's tempo.

    Parent

    Hope Nadal is okay after that fall. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:23:06 AM EST


    Parent
    Federer seems (none / 0) (#31)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:32:19 AM EST
    at a loss as to what to do--between the wind, Nadal, ...McEnroe saying on several points that Federer changing his mind midpoint. Hard for me to watch!

    Gotta love Nadal's unflinching determination and his willingness over the past couple of years to work for it.

    Parent

    When did the (none / 0) (#47)
    by camellia on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:04:02 AM EST
    "Screamers" get into the tennis majority?  It is weird to hear these shrieks and grunts!  

    Parent
    Don't grunts (none / 0) (#58)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:33:46 AM EST
    date back to Jimmy Connors?

    Parent
    Tennis is different than it used to be. (none / 0) (#60)
    by rjarnold on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:34:47 AM EST
    The balls have more bounce and the ground strokes are faster, so it's harder to get to the net, even on grass.

    Federer probably should go to the net more often especially right after he serves, but there are less oppurtunities for it.

    Parent

    Take a "Boardwalk Breather..." (none / 0) (#4)
    by SunnyLC on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:30:43 AM EST
    Take a breather, PUMAs!!

    Boardwalk Breather...My Favorites from the Jersey Shore to NM (Yes, There are Boardwalks in NM!!!)

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/66hpcx

    Wind up the holiday weekend on a positive note to start the next week in fighting form!!

    This isn't a PUMA site (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:48:10 AM EST
    And while I probably fit the definition (lifelong Democrat who won't vote for Obama), I still don't embrace the label.

    I still distrust movements.

    Even a counter-movement to a movement based on lies.


    Parent

    It may be the only real grass-roots (none / 0) (#68)
    by RalphB on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:07:33 PM EST
    movement of this whole campaign.  Seemed to spring from The Confluence on it's own.  Don't see much to distrust at this point.


    Parent
    Me neither. So, you object (none / 0) (#88)
    by derridog on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 02:02:20 PM EST
    to like-minded people organizing?

    Parent
    I saw a program yesterday on the Travel (none / 0) (#23)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:24:37 AM EST
    Channel about a ship called the ResidenSea. It's a cruise ship sized vessel with about 100 permanent apartments on it, ranging in price from a couple million to much higher. People buy the apartments and can live on the ship year round as it goes around the world, from port to port, year in and year out. Very luxurious, the first place I'd go after if I were a pirate (they have a diamond store on the ship with $12,000,0000 in inventory).

    I didn't really find the ship or it's people annoying until they showed that the self service buffet in one of the ships's many restraunts wasn't really self service. You point to the food you want and an attendent standing next to you picks it up for you. Come now.

    I saw (none / 0) (#30)
    by oldpro on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:31:27 AM EST
    part of that show but missed that very special moment...sheesh...

    Parent
    Olympic trials (none / 0) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:25:02 AM EST
    I've been enjoying them immensely over the past several days.  

    The funny thing, with the runners at least, you can tell who is likely to win, if you watch the ones wearing necklaces (Bernard Lagat) or some other very obvious characteristic, like a beard (Anthony Famiglietti) or pink hair (Anna Willard).  This is not always true, but definitely a trend to watch.

    I was sad that Tyson Gay was injured on the 200 meter last night, a really bad cramp I think.  I think he got in on the 100 meter, though, which is the bright side.

    The steeplechase is an interesting event. Why do they make them jump through water?

    The steeplechase is kind of scary (none / 0) (#26)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:28:28 AM EST
    My son ran high school track just to stay in shape. His school track team wasn't very good and best members were mainly athletes from other sports who participated for fitness. But the only ones who ever got hurt were the ones who did the hurdles. Adding water to the jumping just seems to make it all that much scarier.

    Parent
    Seriously. (none / 0) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:40:11 AM EST
    I noticed that Anthony would put one food on the "steeple" or whatever they call the high hurdle thingy and then would jump as far as he could to miss the water.  And he used the same "water foot" each time, so one foot would stay dry.

    At least the dry foot would avoid the blisters.  I wonder if they put waterproofing on their shoes.

    Parent

    The steeples are the spires at Oxford... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:12:23 AM EST
    ...and some of the surrounding churches.  The hurdles are just called barriers.  They are there to imitate the little streams and puddles you might find on a cross country run around the town.

    Then there's the paperchase.  Running around after confetti.

    Parent

    So they get blisters (none / 0) (#27)
    by Salo on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:28:59 AM EST
    and wet wet socks.

    OTOH It's a hybrid track/cross coutry event.

    Parent

    OMG Thanks for the reminder (none / 0) (#28)
    by g8grl on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:29:05 AM EST
    Almost missed all of the match.  Nadal up two sets, 2 all in the second.  Saved 2 break points.  WOW. Thanks, BTD.

    Fabulous match. (none / 0) (#38)
    by oldpro on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:47:13 AM EST
    Wind playing havoc now and then...disturbing Federer who can't seem to break through no matter what he does...but still alive.

    Incredible athletes...just thrilling to watch the best do what they do...which is why I love the Olympics.  They will be a welcome distraction this August.

    That Nadal (none / 0) (#55)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:13:20 AM EST
    sure is pesky!!

    $ Raised by Campaigns in June 2008 (none / 0) (#70)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:10:15 PM EST
    Has anyone seen any numbers here?

    Classic tennis match (none / 0) (#85)
    by Steve M on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 01:54:56 PM EST
    Federer's game is clearly missing a little something - he used to drill the lines on shots that he's missing this match.  But he's such a gamer.

    Nadal is so athletic, he is never out of a point - but apparently Federer is never out of a match.  A five-set classic for sure.

    the match was one for the ages (none / 0) (#93)
    by scribe on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 04:46:53 PM EST
    but, to be fair, there is no way Federer should have been so surprised.  It seemed obvious enough to this observer that I remarked aloud, about 6 or 7 games before the match was over, that Federer was relying on Nadal making mistakes, and not trying (or able) to win on his own power.

    This is not to knock Federer - no one I can think of other than he could have come back the way he did in the 3rd and 4th sets to stave off elimination, and to force 4 championship points.  But, Nadal had just too much going.

    In another sports angle - has anyone been watching the Tour de France?  I always love the scenery - I really wanna go to Brittany....

    Parent

    Nadal! (none / 0) (#90)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 03:17:15 PM EST


    Wow, I haven't enjoyed tennis that much in (none / 0) (#91)
    by Teresa on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 03:28:00 PM EST
    years.

    It was OFF THE HOOK! (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 03:33:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Ransom Paid? (none / 0) (#95)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:45:29 PM EST
    I wonder if it counts as a campaign contribution.

    "Colombian authorities sought over the weekend to discredit a Swiss academic and former intermediary in talks with a left-wing rebel group who has been linked to a disputed report that officials paid $20 million for last week's release of 15 high-profile hostages.

    [snip]

     The report raised doubts about the official version that the helicopter-aided release was based on a ruse fed to the rebels.  

    LA Times via war & piece

    Sunday Morning OpenThread | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment