home

Monday Night Open Thread

Since I'll be awol this evening-- see post below -- here's an open thread for you.

All topics welcome, but please remember the site rules.

< Monday Night TV | McCain on Rights of the Disabled >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • I wanted to post this earlier (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:09:35 PM EST
    but the thread was closed by the time I got home.

    Today I drove for the Democratic Host Committee in Denver, picking up Dem staffers at the airport and delivering them to their hotel. Very interesting chatter amongst themselves as I was playing chauffeur.

    The Host office and the staffers were all a-twitter about Obama's decision to accept the nomination at Invesco field. Tickets must be printed, seats must be assigned, transportation must be arranged, does this mean we can give out more tickets to our constituents? The news media, apparently, is furious at having to make arrangements for two locations. A single phone line, apparently, costs $800 to $2400.

    I didn't get a feeling that the staffers were necessarily opposed to the idea, just that it's causing an incredible amount of trouble and inconvenience. They were talking about staying an extra day or two to arrange walkthroughs at the stadium.

    money (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by CHDmom on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:53:26 PM EST
    Who is paying for the extra stadium? I thought they were having problems paying for the convention. So now they have to rent a stadium, rent a second stage,lights, sound, ect and have another set of stagehand working about 10 days to build everything and take it down? sounds like ALOT of money.Not to mention twice as many tractor trailers bring everything doesn't sound very "green".

    Parent
    Details (none / 0) (#164)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:00:16 PM EST
    thanks (4.00 / 1) (#224)
    by CHDmom on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:12:44 AM EST
    I see Howie said they have plenty of money, so I guess the DNC will pay for it?

    Parent
    Interesting story (5.00 / 20) (#5)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:10:59 PM EST
    about Hillary for those who missed it.

    Wow Wow Wow. (5.00 / 16) (#7)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:15:35 PM EST
    If anyone wants to understand the incredible differences between Obama and Clinton, this is it.

    She is remarkable.

    He is unremarkable.

    Parent

    Shainzona...succinct and right on target!! (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:19:18 PM EST
    He is going to..... (2.62 / 8) (#39)
    by Veracitor on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:43:46 PM EST
    ......be President.  She isn't.

    Parent
    Out of the two running, my money is on (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:47:45 PM EST
    McCain...and let's see what skeletons come flying out of your boy's closet and how many more times he shoots himself in the foot between now and the convention.  And perhaps you might have heard, there is no nominee until said convention....thanks for playing.

    Parent
    Oy Vey (3.66 / 3) (#87)
    by cpa1 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:38:15 PM EST
    I got a Special Notice from the DNC today that has to be responded to within 72 hours.  I keep sending these back saying thanks to the DNC Chairman's disgusting behavior favoring Obama, I want to have nothing more to do with the DNC...and yet they keep coming.

    I'm not a Hill Raiser, or at least I wasn't when all this started.  Obama and more importantly, the Obama supporters that I hated from the DailyKos made me jump to be very respectful of Hillary and the kind of person she is.  I am not really a feminist either (although I do support feminist issues), I just think Hillary has the class and the intelligence to be president and Obama is "self interested only" liar.  I don't like him at all but I'll probably vote for him.

    Stellaaa asked me a question on an earlier open thread, about the Obama interview with the Reno Gazette: http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026
     

    That interview, and a few issues with his credentials tipped the scales against him, were you convinced by this interview?   I found it really telling.

    The interview did tip the scales for me.  First he voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice, for Sec'y of State, which I though a little odd for someone who thinks he can take the high ground on the Iraq war.  Avoiding the Alito filibuster stoked the fires.  

    Then in the interview I heard this guy go after the Clinton legacy and after that I thought he was a piece of _.  Then he went after the baby boomers by saying he is not vested in the 60's and 70s, a time when people liked to solve problems with Love-Ins.  Then he complained that 80% of our medical costs go to 20% of the population, pandering to the kiddies who don't see what kind of horrible person he really is.  Then towards the end he got delusional, telling everyone that he is the only one who can see problems and solve them.  Finally, he had the unmitigated gall to praise Reagan, at which point I said to myself, F__ him!

    I hated him after watching that interview but I hate the Republicans even more.  I think he will lose to McCain and part of me wants to see that happen, even though I will vote for him, at least as of now.  

    Tennis Match

    Wow, BTD, the best tennis I have ever seen.  I didn't think Roger could come back the way he did and I cannot believe what an incredible player Rafa is.  I don't know how you can have that much control of your body with your mind.  And as Martina says, whatever you do to condition yourself to these grueling matches will payoff tenfold in the end.  I wonder what it is like to be in that kind of perfect shape, perfect conditioning so that the mind can tell the body what to do and the body doesn't hesitate.  Each of these shots, I could lay out on paper, how to hit it, where to hit it and how hard.  But, doing it on the court, even when you are fresh, is an amazing feat.  This match truly brought an end to any era dominated by Roger Federer.  Now if Andy Roddick would only hit deeper and put his opponents on the defensive more often, he could win more Grand Slams.

    Parent

    You own your vote. You DO NOT (5.00 / 5) (#136)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:30:52 PM EST
    have to vote for BO....ignore the top spot and vote downticket so if McCain wins, maybe there will be enough Dems in Congress with spines to keep him under control.

    Parent
    If McCain wins? (1.66 / 3) (#231)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:15:58 AM EST
    Of course he'll win if Hillary supporters refuse to vote for anyone.  I don't understand why you would encourage other voters to not vote for president in the hopes that McCain will win.  This is a left wing site and you're promoting the Republican candidate.  You can vote however you want, but is very sad to see you subverting the party on this site.

    Anyway, our country doesn't have another four or eight years to wait for Hillary to run again.  


    Parent

    Got your crystal ball (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:48:59 PM EST
    in just the right position?

    Heh.

    Parent

    I just love (5.00 / 16) (#47)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:51:01 PM EST
    these little unity ambassadors.  Don't you?

    Parent
    Strange that underneath the hope and unity (5.00 / 16) (#50)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:52:43 PM EST
    is just a bunch of mean-spiritedness.

    Parent
    It cuts both ways (4.00 / 3) (#57)
    by anydemwilldo on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:57:11 PM EST
    Some of us really try.  We get sneered at too.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 6) (#117)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:11:37 PM EST
    The Hilary/Obama war is over. Obama is going to be the nominee. But that doesn't mean that Democrat's, particularly progressive shouldn't be insisting that our candidate is representing our veiw. Winning the nomination wasn't a blank check for Obama. He has a committment to live up to his committments (and party principles). Too many of his supporters are willing to give him carte blanche. I do have to wonder if the tables were turnrd, if they would have the same reaction to Hilary? When someone is wrong, their wrong. This smacks too close to how the right wing and the media that thought GWB could do no wrong.

    Parent
    exactly mmc....gwb redux (4.50 / 2) (#120)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:16:57 PM EST
    I would love if they went away, but in (5.00 / 10) (#54)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:55:56 PM EST
    their quest to line up voters for obama, I think they do faaaarrrr more harm than good.

    Parent
    So much the worse for all of us. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:00:30 PM EST
    If I were you (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:48:17 PM EST
    I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

    Parent
    Who are you (none / 0) (#116)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:11:28 PM EST
    Tracy Morgan?

    Parent
    Thanks for the link (5.00 / 11) (#12)
    by Coldblue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:21:44 PM EST
    I missed it.

    One more tear for what could have been one of the best presidents this country has ever had.

    Parent

    It's too (4.33 / 15) (#16)
    by tek on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:25:26 PM EST
    disgusting that we could have had a great president who would have totally turned the country back around but instead the Democrats give us a fraud.

    Parent
    SteveM....thanks for sharing that....the bad (5.00 / 13) (#13)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:21:49 PM EST
    thing is those kinds of stories just make me all the sadder she is not yet the nominee.  I have not given up hope that she will be.  Those obamatrolls on this site who always accuse that those of us who will not vote obama is because we are bitter/sour grapes, etc.  No, it is because we want the best for America; the democratic party be damned...Hillary is what America needs NOW...

    Parent
    I was directed (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:33:23 PM EST
    to her blog several weeks ago and then read about her.  

    She rocks.

    But no one rocks more than Hillary Clinton.

    Parent

    She was (4.75 / 8) (#48)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:51:48 PM EST
    a professor at my law school, as it happens!  Super-duper-smart person.

    Parent
    At U-M? (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:55:37 PM EST
    I read her CV.

    Wow.

    Parent

    Lovely story (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:35:58 PM EST
    That -- and Clinton's first speech (5.00 / 10) (#41)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:45:15 PM EST
    after suspending her campaign really got me.  The speech to the high school graduating class, as she had promised the graduate -- a daughter of a volunteer years ago -- that she would be there if the girl did not quit but got to graduation.

    The video of the girl walking into her graduation with Clinton at her side, the faces of the other graduates realizing the greatness of the moment -- all faces of color, btw, from what I could see -- was wonderful.  They got a message that quitters never win . . . and that there are many ways of winning.

    Parent

    Cream....I find it amazing that a racist like (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:58:13 PM EST
    Hillary would do such a thing! (huge snark)

    Parent
    unfounded accusation (none / 0) (#130)
    by Yotin on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:27:17 PM EST
    Hillary a racist? This is a violation of the rules. Support your contention.
    Hillary has a 96% rating by the NAACP.

    Parent
    Only 96%? (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:29:37 PM EST
    For your information, "snark" means the comment is not intended seriously.  "Huge snark," well, I assume you can figure that one out.

    Parent
    Well, it is nice to see that (none / 0) (#142)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:34:45 PM EST
    accusation against her defended, even if the post s/he was responding to was a huge snark.

    Parent
    Be cool, Yotin -- and google for definition (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:36:50 PM EST
    of snark.  And Pssst is good with me for a long time here now.

    Parent
    Thanks Cream.... (none / 0) (#161)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:57:02 PM EST
    yotin.....huge snark = no she is not a racist (none / 0) (#135)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:30:51 PM EST
    Didn't know whether to cry or scream (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:06:32 PM EST
    Crying is quieter at this hour . . .  I'll scream again tomorrow.

    Thanks for the link :)

    Parent

    Wow! I'm a 58 year-old-man and I got kinda (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by mrjerbub on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:37:31 PM EST
    choked up. I think we are going to think long and hard about what really happened here. An opportunity missed? To some of us...

    Parent
    I've been to London once (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:21:05 PM EST
    but my impression was that you couldn't throw a rock without hitting a fish and chips place.  Lord knows I ate it enough.

    I have one comment (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by tek on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:22:58 PM EST
    we marched in the community 4th parade with the Democrats.  The Obama campaign sent people over.  This was in FL.  Every one of the Obama people was black (about 5 people, not one of them from our town).  On the parade route there was not one eruption of wild applause for the Obama signs, mostly silence.

    This weekend I discovered (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:31:36 PM EST
    that I could use the same password I use on mydd here and the password for TL at mydd. I have the same name on both places and the passwords are somewhat similar though not identical. I'm guessing it is a glitch resulting from a similar comment system?

    Anyway, just thought I'd put that out there in case in the GE some screwy things happen with accounts being hijacked or people being spoofed and causing problems on these blogs.

    I've decided that Obama is not a (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:31:45 PM EST
    flip flopper.  

    He's a Weeble.  That's because "Weebles wobble but they don't fall down" and he basically wobbles around answers to issues.  I think his "refining" his stance on Iraq is more wobbling than anything else.  

    Anyone agree?  

    Salo's comment yesterday was perfect (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:17:42 PM EST
    Ever try to flip jello?


    Parent
    For those who think caucuses stink.... (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:38:04 PM EST
    read at your own peril.

    link

    Reading this makes me (5.00 / 0) (#169)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:10:17 PM EST
    scratch my head with wonder that we can do this and call ourselves Democrats. I understand the reasons for the caucuses. I have read them again and again. But they are not convincing.

    Parent
    I voted in the Tx 2-step and (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:27:08 PM EST
    in my precinct, id's were not checked, voter id card #'s were not checked, the purpose of which to be sure you were a registered voter, and show proof (your voting receipt) that you had voted earlier in the day (those in "charge" said that if one was there to caucus, of course they had already voted). Forms were missing, there was no organization. It was a mess, and possibily illegally run. The state was asked to investigate various allegations, but refused.  

    Parent
    Pub food is terrific (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:38:32 PM EST
    there and in Ireland, a whole different level from the basic burger pub food too often on this side of the pond.  Of course, some of the best is not British but from all those years in Injuh; I loved the curries.  Also, Indian takeaway is a staple.

    And the cheeses!  Try the British version of mac and cheese for comfort food -- and you will never allow the term to be used again for that glow-in-the-dark orange stuff in a box perpetrated on the American people.  

    But a tip:  Avoid a breakfast food beloved by the Irish, so also found in Brit spots, called "black sausages."  Ugh.  No meat in them at all.  Famine food from An Gorta Mor.  A step up from eating grass, as my people had to do.  But not much of a step.

    Pub food was (none / 0) (#42)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:46:09 PM EST
    good when we went.  More choices and a bit healthier and tastier.  I can't imagine it's gone backwards since then, especially with the likes of Jamie Oliver and Nigella on the tube.

    Parent
    Just stay away from (none / 0) (#204)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:55:17 PM EST
    the "steak and kidney pie."  Aaauuggghhh!

    Parent
    Interesting News Out Of Baghdad (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:55:43 PM EST
    BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating.
    ...
    He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security.
    ...
    Al-Maliki said in a meeting with Arab diplomats in Abu Dhabi that his country also has proposed a short-term interim memorandum of agreement rather than the more formal status of forces agreement the two sides have been negotiating.
    The memorandum "now on the table" includes a formula for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, he said.

    "The goal is to end the presence (of foreign troops)," al-Maliki said. Link

    The Iraqi government kicking us out might be the only way the occupation will end any time soon.


    MO Blue...nice to see someone calling (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:10:22 PM EST
    this debacle what it is...an occupation, not a war.

    Parent
    As Obama likes to say: "Uh...." (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Chisoxy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:38:29 PM EST
    He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security.

    How is that different than what we've had. They keep failing to meet the standards.

    Parent

    Some differences IMO (none / 0) (#131)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:28:48 PM EST
    ....his country also has proposed a short-term interim memorandum of agreement rather than the more formal status of forces agreement the two sides have been negotiating.

    The memorandum "now on the table" includes a formula for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, he said.

    No formal status of forces agreement would allow the next president more leeway. The "formula" could mean that particular time related goals would be established and if met, the result would be X number of U.S. troops would be withdrawn until all U.S. troops are gone. To date, no timelines have been established and neither party has proposed complete withdrawal. For those politicians who favor a timeline, this provides justification for  it since it would be a the behest of the Iraqi government.

    Small things maybe due to fact the Iraqis have not been able to provide the necessary security but it does open a couple of doors IMO.

    Parent

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:35:54 PM EST
    the root cause of this whole status of forces mess is the fact that the UN Security Council resolution expires on 12/31/08.  Now, who the heck told the Security Council that an awesome expiration date would be right at the moment the US is having a transition of power?  It guarantees that a lame duck president will be binding the hands of his successor to some degree, even if we assume the good faith that GWB clearly lacks.

    Parent
    Can't they get away with the short term (none / 0) (#153)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:49:42 PM EST
    interim memorandum of agreement that the Iraqi government is proposing?  If the UN Security Council were willing to accept that and modify the resolution accordingly, that would solve the problem of the new president being stuck with something that GWB dictates.  Is there some reason that cannot be done?  

    GWB does in fact want to bind the hands of his successor. I'm almost sure that it was reported that he was going to make it so the next president had no other option than to follow his Iraq strategy (if you can call it that).

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#216)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:03:42 AM EST
    I think that is a fine solution, actually.  My point is simply that it would have been better still to have the UN mandate expire in a non-election year so that the problem never arises.

    Maybe the point was hotly negotiated in the Security Council, I really have no idea.  You assume John Bolton or whoever would be trying to maximize the Bush Administration's influence over the process, but you'd think the other member states would be more interested in the stability of Iraq.

    The thing is, in a sense, the Democrats have already won this battle just by making a stink about it.  Of course Bush can sign his name to anything he feels like and pretend like he doesn't need Senate approval, but if there's a reasonable prospect that the next administration is just going to call the thing illegitimate and tear it up, the Iraqis understand that reality and aren't going to go along with Bush's proposal.  A contract is only useful if you can be confident it will be enforced.

    Parent

    Hmm (5.00 / 7) (#56)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:56:48 PM EST
    That's arguably just a tad over the top.

    Agree, a tad, but made me laugh anyway. (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:01:34 PM EST
    Well, snicker I mean.

    Parent
    Our son was tranferred there a year ago.... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:00:00 PM EST
    he loves it and I'm sure you will too.  Fish and Chips all over the place!   Enjoy!!!!

    Can't get them at pubs (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:05:07 PM EST
    Try a take-away. Pubs have mostly gone upscale with their food.

    Whatever you do, don't eat eels. Gah.

    Whew....testy aren't ya? Apparently someone (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:08:29 PM EST
    struck a nerve there...btw in case you didn't notice, you are in violation of site rules...Clinton losers?  Well, I never...lmao

    I really don't care (3.50 / 2) (#94)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:46:57 PM EST
    I read diaries like this with a bit of sadness.  I don't make fun of amorphous faceless groups of people on the Internet.   What's the point?  

    But now even some of the people that I thought were more rational here have become more interested in taking shots at Obama and his supporters.  

    Oh and I didn't use the term Clinton losers.  I don't take shots at the people here except on occasion when goaded fairly heavily.  

    Parent

    Wow....passing the shovels around TL (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:00:05 PM EST
    Factual statement (2.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Veracitor on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:44:25 PM EST
    Read the thread, and tell me how else I'm supposed to address people that are hostile because they bet on a losing horse.

    Parent
    No. (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:59:14 PM EST
    You obviously have no idea of how we feel, and even less ability to figure it out.

    We didn't back a loser. We are not hostile just because the nomination was handed to someone else, unearned.

    Repeating your own baseless and WRONG assumptions about how and why we feel the way we do just makes you look ignorant - and it doesn't help your candidate either.

    Parent

    We're hostile because the losing (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:02:05 PM EST
    horse was picked----a loser for the Dems (probably), and a loser for the country if elected.

    Parent
    your tunnel vision is showing Veracitor (4.80 / 5) (#100)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:59:05 PM EST
    For myself, I only see America as the big loser in this race.  The lesser candidate was picked, pure and simple; and it wasn't even honest.  Hillary will do just fine and as you can see, she still has a ton of supporters.  If you are interested in country first, party second, you might want to take a second look at obama's creds.

    Parent
    When the race is rigged (4.25 / 4) (#124)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:22:42 PM EST
    it's not the horse's fault.  The jockeys may be prosecuted, but the horses go on to long lives in greener pastures.:-)

    Parent
    Obama won fair and square (2.55 / 9) (#147)
    by RosieScenario on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:41:13 PM EST
    Obama played by the rules, collected the most pledged and super delegates, and won the nomination fair and square.

    The flawed primaries in FL and MI were resolved with a good faith effort on all sides.  Many Clinton supporters on the RBC voted for both the FL and Mi compromises.

    Senator Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee because he has the most committed delegate votes.  The race was not rigged in any way.

    Parent

    Oh, thank God (5.00 / 12) (#156)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:53:17 PM EST
    Nice to see a new name around here.  I was worried we wouldn't get the chance to rehash all this stuff yet again tonight.

    Parent
    D**n ya, now I got soda up my nose. :-) (5.00 / 5) (#163)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:59:46 PM EST
    FAIL (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:53:21 PM EST
    Rosie....he still does not have enough (5.00 / 4) (#159)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:54:01 PM EST
    delegates.  Please remove the glasses with the rose tint and go check the rules before making these kinds of statements.

    Parent
    Without rehashing who said what (2.00 / 0) (#219)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:06:04 AM EST
    and who did what wrong in the primaries, it was a close race and the electorate went 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 situation, only a different group of Democrats would be furious.  The young Obama supporters would walk away instead of pounding the streets for our party this fall.  AA's would have a car wash day and not vote.  People who gave up on American politics years ago and who came back to vote for Obama would leave in disgust after concluding that the Dem party is still a bunch of cheaters.  Either direction the Dem leadership went, our party would have been split.  

    So now what?  Some Dems promote McCain in the hopes of proving a point or punishing the party or enhancing Hillary's chances in four or eight years.  But we can't wait that long.  We are going bankrupt, and McCain will keep us on the sorry path we've been on for the past eight years.  
    Somehow we have to get our party back together.  BTD is right - focus on the issues, and try to get the party/candidate/electorate to be in alignment with our core values.  The unmentionable cat movement is growing, and from arguments I read hear and on other blogs, the anti-Obama rhetoric is just reinforcing the anger.  I think it's time for PUMAs to do something besides encourage votes for McCain.  Either use your political clout to demand Obama put Hillary on the ticket or choose another third party candidate who the party can and will rally behind.  If McCain wins, especially if he wins because Hillary supporters won't vote Dem, the Obama half of the party isn't going to stick around.  You'll be on your own with half the political power you would have had with a united, or at least a cooperating Democratic party.

    Even if Obama wins, we still need the majority of our party backing our shared issues, not just criticizing our new president.  We're going to need unity/cooperation well beyond the election or we'll have wasted the best chance in our lives to redirect our government toward a progressive agenda.  


    Parent

    Without rehashing this in detail--- (5.00 / 3) (#222)
    by MarkL on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:10:06 AM EST
    you're wrong. There was overwhelming sexism in one direction, both from Obama's camp and from the media. There was also an attempt to paint the Clintons as racists by the Obama camp.
    Nothing the Clintons or their advisers did compares in the least. You can't make it so with a sweeping dismissal.


    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 6) (#166)
    by Jackson Hunter on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:06:33 PM EST
    That is some good snark!

    The Party violated their own "Sunshine Rules" when they discussed the issue in private at the RBC.  That is the reason for PUMA, not Hilary support.  That was a crooked game played by crooked rules. by a bunch of perennial losers who haven't won a Federal Election without a Clinton since 1976!

    Three other states, in which Obama would be quite competitive, violated the same rules FL/MI did, where he would not be as competitive.  Gee, that was just a co-inky-dink, right?  Those waivers were innocently granted, right?  Yeah, you betcha.

    Sorry, I'm not buying what you are selling, but you are certainly free to try to sell it if you can.  Good luck.

    Jackson

    Parent

    they were on the committee that penalized FL and MI (but not other states) BEFORE any voting took place, and voted to do so.

    Parent
    Speaking of snark, your tag line is (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:23:44 PM EST
    HILARIOUS.

    Parent
    Rosie, you're confusing (5.00 / 0) (#223)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:12:19 AM EST
    two different meetings -- August 2007 vs. May 2008.

    You could look it up.  Then you'll be able to catch up here.

    Parent

    You could read the post, as I did. (2.00 / 0) (#234)
    by RosieScenario on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:21:18 AM EST
    Jackson Hunter on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:06:33 PM EST said:

    (snip)
    Three other states, in which Obama would be quite competitive, violated the same rules FL/MI did, where he would not be as competitive.  Gee, that was just a co-inky-dink, right?  Those waivers were innocently granted, right?  Yeah, you betcha.

    end quote

    My comment was correct.

    Quite the Welcome Wagon around here.

    Parent

    Off toic, Rosie. I'm talking 'bout (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:06:43 PM EST
    horsies here.  Lots of Derby fans here.  

    Now, when I talk about bad races, your scenario has Obama in it?  Not very optimistic, er, rosy of you.

    Parent

    The race wasn't rigged (2.00 / 2) (#212)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:00:24 AM EST
    What the DNC did was finish the primary.  Obama had already won.  It was just a matter of superdelegates committing, and I'm sure many of them didn't want to be the deciders who went against the part of the electorate who voted for Hillary.  

    What would you have them do, help Hillary win instead?  Or just let the party flounder all summer?  

    You might not like their methods, but they had to end it so we could focus on the GE.


    Parent

    I would like them to have chosen the (5.00 / 3) (#218)
    by MarkL on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:05:57 AM EST
    popular vote winner and the overwhelming strong finisher: the experienced, knowledgable candidate.. since you ask.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#228)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:14:24 AM EST
    He had already won, except for the fact that if the superdelegates chose to commit to Hillary instead of him, he wouldn't have won.  Interesting word games you're playing here.

    Parent
    I've never called (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:25:23 PM EST
    you a name or attacked you.  I'm not calling Obama a name either and I'm not attacking him.  

    Are you talking about yourself?  

    What would you call a politician who "refines" their positions like Obama does?  

    Actually (5.00 / 7) (#82)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:29:06 PM EST
    I am sort of enjoying having it both ways, and watching to see if you guys can elect your candidate on your own.  Obviously, you have a far deeper knowledge of politics than me, to understand why it's helpful to your candidate if you alienate fellow members of the party.  So good luck putting it to work.

    The religious right (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:05:06 PM EST
    did this for years -- and it worked, didn't it?  

    ;-)

    Parent

    Kinda (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:09:36 PM EST
    But they had a more popular figure at the head of their movement.

    Parent
    Whenever you're ready..... (2.50 / 2) (#97)
    by Veracitor on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:49:40 PM EST
    .....to be united, then we can talk about it.  Serial Obama-bashing does not promote unity.

    Parent
    Hey, whenever YOU are ready to (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:52:53 PM EST
    act like a uniter, we're ready.

    Parent
    Shrug (5.00 / 12) (#112)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:08:22 PM EST
    I've seen how Obama supporters behave and I have no interest in "unifying" with them.

    I've never before seen a race where the supporters of the winning candidate tell the supporters of the losing candidate that it's their responsibility to get unified, but like I said, you guys apparently have an insight into political strategy that I lack.  So good luck getting your candidate elected without my assistance.

    Parent

    It's a new kind of political strategy. (5.00 / 10) (#146)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:40:20 PM EST
    It's called "Get over it."  It's used all the time with women who are deemed to emotional to do anything else or to think for themselves.  No matter what happens, you just tell them to "Get over it."  I think it dates back to Biblical times.    

    This is the first political season that has had a woman running, so it's perfectly acceptable to tell her supporters to "Get over it."  

    <snark>

    Parent

    that you precondition it to something (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:25:26 PM EST
    other most do and not you puts a quick end to any idea of "unity". what you say in essence is fall in line and shut up. that's how i take it. no thanks

    Parent
    I wonder if anyone has read about what (5.00 / 3) (#230)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:15:46 AM EST
    is happening in Iowa?  In a nutshell:
    Obama campaign, not Iowa Democratic Party, to coordinate GOTV in Iowa (desmoinesdem)According to this report at Iowa Independent, the Iowa Democratic Party's "coordinated campaign" for getting out the vote has been disbanded, with "field staff that was previously working for down-ticket races now being placed on the payroll of Obama's presidential campaign and working almost entirely on its behalf." Bleeding Heartland is worried about how this will affect Democratic candidates in some battleground state legislative districts.
    It seems that the O campaign wants to concentrate and pay canvassers in student/AA rich districts where the Obama turnout will assure a victory, and not help the rural and small districts where Obama will not bring in big numbers.  This plan will dry up all hope of increasing important state legislative Dems who have depended on the coordinated GOTV effort.  Who said this wasn't all about Obama?

    Parent
    No desire to be "united" (4.87 / 8) (#149)
    by badger on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:45:09 PM EST
    Being "united" doesn't stop erosion of the Bill of Rights, provide universal health care, or support a woman's right to choose.

    I just want a decent President leading a competent government.

    Maybe in 2012 ...


    Parent

    Oh really (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by RalphB on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:33:25 PM EST
    She put herself in this race, much as Hillary did in '92.  If I remember correctly, Hillary fought back herself.  Michelle should try that, then she'll get some support.

    But Obamatrolls is ok? (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:36:22 PM EST
    Way to be consistent.

    Oh, and Dalton? Safe trip! (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:38:43 PM EST
    And enjoy.  And get around Europe a bit, too.  Brits consider Amsterdam -- amaaaaaazing Amsterdam -- a day trip (emphasis on trip:-).  And Galway is wonderful, very popular with ye youngsters.

    But if you can get to Dublin to the Trinity College campus to see the Book of Kells . . . don't miss it.  (But if you see the Garda, another tip:  Do not, not, not try to take a picture.  Not fond of electronics, those guys.)

    And much, much more you will find for yourself in London.  Terrific.  My son is heading there for the first time this summer, and I know that he will be transformed, too.  

    Food!! (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:43:13 PM EST
    I have a recipe recommendation.
    I've been thinking about lentil salad---that sounded summery:
    It's a simple recipe which I found delicious, with a great texture.


    INGREDIENTS

        * 1 cup dry brown lentils
        * 1 cup diced carrots
        * 1 cup red onion, diced
        * 2 cloves garlic, minced
        * 1 bay leaf
        * 1/2 teaspoon dried thyme
        * 2 tablespoons lemon juice
        * 1/2 cup diced celery
        * 1/4 cup chopped parsley
        * 1 teaspoon salt
        * 1/4 teaspoon ground black pepper
        * 1/4 cup olive oil

    number of stars

    READ REVIEWS (36)

        * Review/Rate This Recipe
        * Save To Recipe Box
        * Add to Shopping List
        * Add a Personal Note
        * Post a Recipe Photo
        * Post a Favorite Food List
        * Create a Menu

    DIRECTIONS

       1. In a saucepan combine lentils, carrots, onion, garlic, bay leaf, and thyme. Add enough water to cover by 1 inch. Bring to boil, reduce heat and simmer uncovered for 15 to 20 minutes or until lentils are tender but not mushy.
       2. Drain lentils and vegetables and remove bay leaf. Add olive oil, lemon juice, celery, parsley, salt and pepper. Toss to mix and serve at room temperature.

    from:link

    I added bulgur too, which worked out fine.

    sounds very healthy too! (none / 0) (#129)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:26:38 PM EST
    Wait a minute. (none / 0) (#181)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:32:24 PM EST
    Shouldn't you let the lentils soak overnight first and then rinse them? Also, I wouldn't dice the carrots and celery. I would just slice them. Would you put lettuce under it or just serve it as is?

    Parent
    No, just rinse the lentils (none / 0) (#184)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:33:52 PM EST
    and the cook. I had it cooking on a low boil for 20 minutes and they were fine. I was using green lentils. I had it plain. Tomorrow I'm going to put some in an avocado I need to eat and see how that is.

    Parent
    I love the pink lentils: delicately nutty flavor (none / 0) (#209)
    by Ellie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:58:13 PM EST
    ... compared to the French green lentils' slightly "peppery" undertone.

    That salad dressing / veggies combo looks like it would go nicely with chick peas and tubetti pasta too.

    Parent

    I love the big yellow lentils----I believe (none / 0) (#211)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:59:45 PM EST
    the Indians call them Tarka Dal.
    I don't have any, but I would love to find a source.

    Parent
    From TPM: (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Addison on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:02:36 PM EST
    Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by nell on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:47:50 PM EST
    Very interesting that it is FOX, the one network that was more fair to Hillary than the others (in that it bashed both Dems equally). I have to wonder what he will be like as a commentator...is he a Dem strategist where he has to keep with the party line? Is he a rogue strategist who can call it like he sees it? I am sure he has some animosity towards the Obama campaign and especially towards the media in general for how horrendously Hillary was treated, I know there was a lot of frustration among the staff about it - no matter how hard Wolfson tried, it really didn't matter if he was any good at his job, all that mattered to the press was hating Hillary. I wonder if that will impact his comments at all.

    Parent
    The most charmless man on the planet on Fox? (none / 0) (#173)
    by RosieScenario on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:17:13 PM EST
    Should be lots of fun.

    Parent
    Obama took a job with Fox? (5.00 / 5) (#188)
    by RalphB on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:38:16 PM EST
    Interesting! (none / 0) (#125)
    by Jane in CA on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:22:53 PM EST
    Thank you for the link.

    Parent
    well (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by facta non verba on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:04:28 PM EST
    there is that commercial he made in Pennsylvania where he claimed that he didn't take money from oil companies. No one does. The 1907 Tillman Act prohibits direct contributions from corporations. It was an outight attempt to deceive. In fact, Obama has gotten more money from energy interests that all other candidates combined. Of all the presidential candidates on both sides, only three voted for the Bush Cheney Energy Policy: Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and Barack Obama. McCain did not vote with his party. Hillary did not cross the aisle. Neither did Dodd or Biden. Nor did Kucinich nor Paul. The others obviously were not in the Congress at the time. If you want a Bush third term in terms of energy policy, vote for Obama. He's their man.

    Right, your comment is ok, but (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:06:38 PM EST
    not Tek's. I had a similar discussion with Jeralyn a few days ago. Charges need to be concrete and fleshed out. It's ok to say "obama is dishonest about issue x" if you can show it; its' not ok to say "Obama is a liar", per se.


    Parent
    It's okay to state (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:25:44 PM EST
    "I think Obama is a liar" because that's just stating a personal opinion.  

    Parent
    Could have been a Democratic list (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:09:32 PM EST
    You wouldn't have to be on a Republican list. You could have been on any Democratic list that was lifted and sold. Someone once paid to make make me a member of the NRA as a joke. To this day I receive mail from some of the most far right organizations you could imagine and that was 15 years ago. (Although the NRA hat that came with my membership did get me out of a ticket while driving in Texas so it wasn't all bad)

    Mailing lists once sold appear to develop a life of their own.

    Yep, the policy of repeating (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:19:32 PM EST
    the evidence every time is not as favorable to politicians.  Some here might wish for a return to "just words," simple one-word shortcuts, instead of the facts there for all to read again . . . and again. . . .

    Oh i forget---the evidence: (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:33:04 PM EST
    just check the comment history.

    Breaking News! (5.00 / 7) (#155)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:52:52 PM EST
    Both Candidates Agree: Social Security in CRISIS!

    Our Correspondents Report:

    Obama and McCain agree: Bleak financial forecast means highly successful and popular program must be heavily revamped!

    Benefits to exceed payroll taxes by 2017! (But interest on trust fund keeps surplus going until 2025.)

    Trust fund expected to be gone by 2042--in only 34 years! (Or maybe 2052, according to the CBO.)

    Only 74% of benefits to be paid in 2040s under current forecasts!

    Only 70% of benefits to be paid in 2080s!

    --------------------

    Of all the GOP frames that Obama has bought into, one of the most annoying is his trumpeting of the Social Security "crisis" and his criticism of other Democrats for not addressing this "crisis". The GOP has been trying for decades to dismantle Social Security, starting with convincing the public that the program is in trouble. When Obama agrees to these premises, it becomes established conventional wisdom that something must be done, and the GOP has its first victory in the battle.

    See for example this front-page Washington Post article and its incredibly disappointing online headline.

    Just another issue (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:58:17 PM EST
    Where right here, right now, I am convinced Clinton would be tacking more to the left than Obama if she were the nominee.

    Parent
    Ironically (5.00 / 9) (#165)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:05:24 PM EST
    Clinton showed an impressive amount of political courage on Social Security in the primary, simply for having the guts to buck the Beltway narrative and tell the truth about it.  You could just see the pundits tut-tutting as she said that we don't need to do anything to Social Security, we just need to get back to fiscal responsibility in general.

    I wasn't a Clinton supporter back then, but that was one of the moments that made me into one.

    Parent

    GOP frames? (2.00 / 2) (#168)
    by tben on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:09:14 PM EST
    "This fiscal crisis in Social Security affects every generation. We now know that the Social Security trust fund is fine for another few decades. But if it gets in trouble and we don't deal with it, then it not only affects the generation of the baby boomers and whether they'll have enough to live on when they retire, it raises the question of whether they will have enough to live on by unfairly burdening their children and, therefore, unfairly burdening their children's ability to raise their grandchildren."

    "...And if nothing is done by 2029, there will be a deficit in the Social Security trust fund, which will either require ---- if you just wait until then ---- a huge tax increase in the payroll tax, or just about a 25 percent cut in Social Security benefits."

    From: REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY ---- February 9, 1998 [that would be President Clinton]---- Gaston Hall, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.]


    Parent

    My goodness (5.00 / 7) (#171)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:12:46 PM EST
    We're still into equating Clinton's attempt to create add-on accounts with the budget surplus with Republican attempts to suggest the existence of a crisis in order to phase the entire program out?  Wow.

    Parent
    no, thats not what we are doing at all Steve (none / 0) (#175)
    by tben on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:19:09 PM EST
    We are demonstrating that the notion of Social Security facing a crisis is not a "GOP frame". It is a demographic reality that President Clinton was capable of seeing (as I suspect Hillary is too, though it was convenient of her to take the opposite position, weakly, during the primaries).

    Republicans have not make up the demographic problems of SS. They tried, unsuccessfully, to exploit those problems in order to privatize the system, but they did not make them up.

    Privatization is now dead - as dead as any polticial idea can be. Republicans with a newly reelected president and control of both houses of Congress could not get it passed. What possible constellation of power would be needed in order to pass privatization? Well, whatever it is, if such a thing even exists, we will be having the opposite for the forseeable future - a Dem controlled Congress and WH.

    So it is time to stop playing Chicken Little with privatization fear mongering, and deal with the problem in a progressive manner. Obama's proposal is one good one. If you have another, lets hear it. Denial is not a good idea though.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 13) (#183)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:33:01 PM EST
    No, Obama's proposal is horrible and would WEAKEN Social Security's long-term prospects, not strengthen them.  Raising the payroll tax when the general fund is running a deficit is equivalent to raising the income tax and making a note on a piece of paper that if Social Security runs short of money in 30 years, we promise to find the money for it in the general fund.  In no sense would this "fix" Social Security or even help it.

    It is amazing to me that in 2005, the progressive blogosphere was completely united around the understanding that the "crisis" with Social Security was completely fabricated.  Progressives understood basic facts, like the concept that the oft-cited projections regarding SS running out of money in 2047 are based on the most pessimistic set of assumptions concerning long-term economic performance, and that a more reasonable set of assumptions results in Social Security remaining solvent indefinitely.

    Then all of a sudden, Barack Obama said the inartful word "crisis," and suddenly a whole bunch of so-called progressives have discovered the problem that doesn't exist all over again.  And when Paul Krugman, who used to be considered the unassailable guru on this issue, reiterates that there is no crisis and no reason to do anything, now it's all because he's an irrational Obama-hater.

    I can discuss this with you all day if you like.  "There is no crisis" is not some made-up talking point that we all pretended was true in order to defeat Bush's privatization plan.  It is the 100% unvarnished truth.  Again, just because Hillary was the one to say that the way to fix Social Security is to return to fiscal responsibility in the general fund doesn't make it false.

    Parent

    No, sorry but it is not the truth Steve. (2.00 / 1) (#206)
    by tben on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:56:40 PM EST
    As I just pointed out to you above, there is no "all of a sudden" Barack said the word "crisis". President Clinton, a man in a position of responsibility, called it a crisis because it is a crisis.

    The "what me worry" strategy was most certainly just that - a strategy advocated by, mainly the progressive blogosphere, that was taken up because it works in such a political context. It puts the burden on the other side to prove, as a first step, that there is a problem. And that can quickly be driven down into a eye-glazing, boring argument that most people dont have the time or energy to follow. And so they say - lets leave it all alone until those two sides can figure out if there is a problem. And so we win.

    Great strategy - and I was fully on board with using it, because the issue under discussion was privatization - an absolute evil. But lets not kid ourselves, it was taking a strategic route very similar to what the global warming denier take. Hey, there is no problem - the burden is on you to prove that there is.

    As to Hillary - you are misrepresenting her position. She does not claim, as you do, that there is no problem. In fact she repeated has said that when Bill left office, SS was fully funded till 2055 - after that, then the projections of only 75% benefits. After the past seven years, the date is now 2041. She emphasizes that Republicans have cost the trust fund 14 years of solvency.

    In other words, she completely agrees with the demographic projections that I have discussed and that you have denied. The only question is WHAT to do, not WHETHER one must do things.

    Here (LINK) is a short 4 minute YouTube of her speaking of these issues. Please pay attention to her acknowlegment of the existence of a problem, her political solution for solving it (work with Republicans for a bipartisan solution) - hey she even has some praise for Reagan!

    In the context of this primary season, she decided to stake out a position, as the season wore on, that could make some kind of a contrast with Obama. She is not nearly as blind or irresponsible as some fo her supporters though.

    Parent

    Sorry (5.00 / 3) (#221)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:10:00 AM EST
    You're clearly more interested in playing political word games than understanding the actual policy issues involved.  As I've explained in plain English, it is literally impossible to "fix" Social Security as long as you are running a budget deficit.  You're just making a paper notation of something you intend to do in 40 years, a notation that is worthless without the cash to carry it out.

    I am sorry you got the impression that "there is no crisis" was nothing but a ruse, but you couldn't be more wrong.  I understand this issue very well and I have yet to read a single false word from Paul Krugman on the subject.  Try reading him as a truth-telling expert on economics rather than an Obama-hating hack, and your understanding of this issue will improve.

    Amazing to me that with the budget in total disarray, and with Medicare set to experience a very real crisis in a decade or even less, anyone could think that the priority for our precious dollars is to try and shore up Social Security against what might happen 40 years from now.  Even if it were physically possible to do that, which it is not for the reasons I have explained, the opportunity cost of "fixing" Social Security instead of using the money to address more pressing concerns would be unacceptable.

    Parent

    now you are just making up nonsense (2.00 / 1) (#233)
    by tben on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:20:59 AM EST
    Did you watch the link I gave you? Did you see Hillary discussing the temporarliy successful fixing of SS in the 80s (a time of deficits).

    You seem to think that the trust fund is worthless paper notations. Of course, this is the Republican frame, I hope you realize. Remember Al Gore and the lockbox? Thats the trust fund he was talking about. Just a bunch of paper, you and GWB say.

    No, those IOUs are backed by the full faith and credit of the US. The government MUST give that money back to SS, or else the entire financial system would collapse because the gov't would be in default of its obligations.

    Your faith in Paul Krugman is touching, but I am sorry to say that I disagree with your self assessment. I dont think you have more than scratched the surface in understanding this issue. But we wont settle that tonite. Just rewatch that video and rethink what Hillary really beleives.

    She as much as admits, near the end, that she is purposly not going to reveal what she has in mind to FIX SS, because yes, she does think it needs fixing. Politically, she thinks it smarter to play those cards close to the vest.

    Finally, no one has claimed that SS is "the" priority. It is one of many. Hopefully, the next administration can walk and chew gum and do a dozen other things all at once.

    Parent

    A program that.... (5.00 / 7) (#186)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:36:17 PM EST
    ... under cautious financial estimates will be fine for another 34 years does not need to be fixed now.

    If you want a crisis to fix, here are a couple of suggestions:

    The general budget is running a deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars this year.

    The Medicare trust fund is projected to run a net negative in 2010, and be depleted by 2018. It has an actuarial deficit more than twice that of Social Security.

    Parent

    Obama solution to a problem that does not exist (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:57:33 PM EST
    First and foremost Social Security is now operating at a surplus and will do so for at least the next 10 years (conservative estimate). If the cap is increased while there is a surplus to quote Josh Marshall "those funds will by definition go into more government bonds, which is another way of saying that it will go toward funding our current deficit spending.  In fact it will enable more deficit spending." More Marshall:

    Lifting the payroll tax cap while Social Security is still running a big surplus not only solves a problem that doesn't exist it enables the very policies that put the program in danger. Perhaps this is all another way of saying that I'm not a fan of putting more hens in the hen house while the foxes are still at the door, or even in the house.
    ...
    Our best way of ensuring the future health of Social Security is to stop running up the national debt now.
    ...
    Otherwise, we're still risking getting played in the same bait-and-switch privatizers have been trying to pull for years --

            using regressive payroll taxes to fund current government spending and then telling future recipients that that money has disappeared and thus Social Security has to be phased out altogether.

    Notice the words used.  Regressive Payroll Taxes To Fund Current Government Spending.

    Parent

    Exactly right (5.00 / 6) (#226)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:13:22 AM EST
    I'm in favor of raising taxes for all the usual reasons liberals are in favor of raising taxes.  We have to get the budget in order again and that's not going to happen through John McCain's magic fairy formula of slicing out a few earmarks.  Raising the payroll tax is obviously one of a menu of options for increasing government revenues.

    But I'm not on board with the fundamental dishonesty of proposals like Obama's, where we get away with raising money for general purposes by telling people that what we're really doing is strengthening Social Security.  Once people catch on to the game, you'll never be able to raise taxes again.

    Parent

    A tax applied to people (2.00 / 1) (#225)
    by tben on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:12:53 AM EST
    making over 250K is not a regressive tax.

    And the argument that injecting further money into the trust fund is doing nothing but provinding money for deficit spending is just plain ridiculous. The government is going to deficit spend, or it wont, irrespective of whether SS has money to lend it or not. The gov't can borrow money any time it wants to.

    This argument is basically an argument against the very concept of a SS trust fund (y'know, Gore's lockbox). Used to be that Dems supported this notion. If you support the notion of a trust fund, then you cant turn around and suddenly claim that by putting a bit more money into it, it all of a sudden becomes a bad thing, because it will just lend that money to the gov't - i.e. continue to do what it has always done with its surpluses.

    By raising new monies for the trust fund, Obama's plan will guarantee these monies for SS benefits - yes, they will be lent to the gov't, as all SS surpluses are, in exchange for full faith and credit IOUs. That means, down the road, Congress MUST supply the money for SS.

    If you do nothing now to shore up the trust fund, then down the road, Congress MIGHT supplement the SS benefits that are falling short, or they might not.

    Lock in future benefits now, by raising the money through SS.

    Parent

    Please tell me... (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:21:13 PM EST
    ... you understand the difference between the political context then and now.

    The great Social Security fight of 2005 wasn't that long ago. It was only by successfully arguing that Social Security was just fine that Democrats saved it from a newly "re-"elected president with enhanced majorities in both the House and Senate.

    Parent

    No, that is not true at all (2.00 / 1) (#185)
    by tben on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:35:15 PM EST
    SOME people argued that there is no real problem. Nobody took that argument very seriously.

    Privatization was defeated because the vast majority of the people love the program the way it is and do not want it privatized. They do not want to trust their retirements to the stock market, and they understand that the management fees alone would be an enormous drain to the benefit levels. Privatization was nothing but an attempt by financial institutions to get their hands on the biggest pot of money imaginable. And that became clear to everyone, which is why the proposal lost.

    And it will NEVER pass even if the GOP got 80 seats in the Senate and 350 in the House.

    But there is a problem. The demographic realities are just that. Read President Clinton's explanations if you dont want to beleive people like me. The point at which the SS system, as presently constituted, will be able to pay only 70% of benefits is coming. The projections may be off a bit, so that it comes a few years earlier, or later, or maybe the benefit level would be 75%, or 65%. But unless there is some great plague that kills off half the boomers, and we import several million more young workers, then its gonna happen.

    Obama's plan is one that actually strengthens SS itself - it provides SS with guaranteed income sufficient to pay full benefits. The do-nothing strategy leaves SS vulnerable - when the day comes, we would have to fund the difference from general revenues - i.e. compete with all other spending. The pressures then to cut benefits would be enormous, and they would come up every year as every new budget is passed.

    If you want SS to be on sound footing and protected from potential political interference, you fix it now along the general lines that Obama is proposing. You have a better set of specific fixes, fine - lets hear them. But dont leave the system vulnerable.

    Parent

    You've bought into the framing. (5.00 / 7) (#189)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:39:51 PM EST
    Lots of people argued that there was no real problem with Social Security. Josh Marshall was one of them, before he lost his mind.

    If we made a list of all the fiscal problems we might face as a nation, Social Security would be so far down the list it's not even funny. That's even leaving aside what I consider several fundamental weaknesses with Obama's plan--that to raise taxes now only allows the general fund to owe even more money to SS later, and that taxing the rich to pay for the poor weakens one of the key political advantages of SS--that you get out what you pay in, so that everybody supports it.

    Parent

    Also... (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:47:09 PM EST
    as Steve M pointed out, these estimates tend to be very pessimistic, as any responsible estimate should be. And hence, as the real world tends not be that bad, things get better.

    In 1997, for example, the projected date at which the SS trust fund would be exhausted was 2029. 2042 is almost certainly earlier than the actual date.

    Parent

    Yep. If I can't pay my mortgage (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:54:42 PM EST
    20 years from now, I'll be in a fiscal crisis, too.

    So I'm taking steps now to prevent that from happening.  And until then, I'm still in my house.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:55:38 PM EST
    Every year when the Social Security Trustees crunch the numbers, they use three different sets of assumptions: one optimistic, one pessimistic, and one straight down the middle.

    Every one of Bush's arguments used the most pessimistic assumption of the three, and the media repeated it as gospel, even though under the middle-of-the-road assumption there would not even be a projected shortfall.  As Josh Marshall so ably chronicled back in 2005, dozens of hapless and uninformed Democrats helped create the problem by going on talk shows and conceding the argument about projected shortfalls even though it simply wasn't so.

    What Bill Clinton and Al Gore wanted to do with the surplus was 100% correct.  The thing is, even if there never was going to be any shortfall, there's no downside to doing as they suggested; you simply end up with more money in the general fund to do all sorts of good things for the country.  But if the worst-case scenario occurs and you really do run low on SS funding, you're sure happy you put the money in that lockbox.

    Parent

    See post below (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:49:39 PM EST
    If you try to fix it now you do so under conditions that over-amplify whatever problems that may exist.

    The problem for now is Republican Fiscal policy and I wish Obama would spend more time criticizing Republican Fiscal policy rather than spending so much time giving people the impression that SS is broken and needs to be fixed.


    Parent

    Please stop repeating the GOP lies (3.00 / 2) (#192)
    by RalphB on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:44:02 PM EST
    Just because Obama signed onto the Beltway frame of SS does not make it true.  Try very hard and maybe you'll actually be able to think for yourself.  

    Parent
    Given the impression people seem to have (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:21:46 PM EST
    Of Bill on Obamablogs I still kind of feel sorry for those who find that the very best they can do with these kinds of issues is basically say that, at least, Obama is no different than Bill.

    I like Hillary's answer during the debates.  Get the budget under control first.  Run a surplus like we were in 1999 and THEN assess the issue.

    Assessing it now is a really bad idea because we are doing so, we are judging the performance of a liberal and progressive program after 8 years of that program being abused by a Republican fiscal plan.

    Think of it like this.  Papa Bear goes out and maxes out the credit card on a brand new home theater system, 60" plasma the works.

    Then he turns to momma bear and says "maybe we can't afford health insurance.  look at our credit card bills."

    That would be a really stupid way for a family to decide whether or not they can afford health insurance.

    Parent

    What they don't understand (5.00 / 8) (#194)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:46:43 PM EST
    is that as long as the budget is in deficit, it is literally impossible to "fix" the potential problem with Social Security down the road.  There is no money to fix it with.

    Let's say, hypothetically, we raise the payroll tax next year and generate an extra billion dollars in revenue.  Where does the billion dollars go?  Does it travel forward through time and help bolster the Social Security deficit in 2047?  Sadly, it does not.  Instead, it goes straight into the general fund, representing a billion dollars less that we have to borrow from the Chinese next year.  That's great, but the little note we scribble on a piece of paper that says "by the way, in 2047 Congress now owes Social Security an extra billion dollars" does nothing to strengthen the program.  Unless and until there is an actual budget surplus, representing real dollars that can be set aside for Social Security or invested in some interest-bearing manner, there is no way to make Social Security any "stronger" just by making a note on a piece of paper.

    Bill Clinton was making a proposal that actually would have strengthened Social Security because he had actual money at hand to do it with.  Al Gore ran on a similar idea in 2000 - you might remember a little something about a lockbox.  But since "we" decided instead to blow the whole surplus on a tax cut for the wealthy, the concept of strengthening Social Security is no longer available.  Nothing can be done except to get the budget deficit back in shape.

    Parent

    This is just very basic economics (5.00 / 6) (#200)
    by RalphB on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:53:09 PM EST
    so long as there is no "lockbox", and I really don't see how anyone can fail to understand it.  This assumes, of course, that they attempt to understand it in good faith.  How hard is it to understand that it doesn't matter how much money comes in, via the payroll tax, if we spend it that year it can't strengthen SS.  When Obama first brought this up, I decided he was a poseur and not vote worthy.


    Parent
    This is why I think Obama WILL (5.00 / 4) (#210)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:58:28 PM EST
    privatize: his adviser Liebman's plan uses the temporary surplus from increasing the payroll tax to start personal accounts. Also, it occurs to me that the plan could be to let the over 250K crowd put their extra tax into personal accounts, as an option.
    It all fits together.
    It would be worth comparing the numbers from Liebmans plan with the surpluses Obama's plan will generate---that is a good test of my hypothesis.

    Parent
    I wonder how many Obama fans (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:03:24 AM EST
    have actually looked at his advisers, etc.?

    Methinks they wouldn't be spinnin' in da wind now if they had . . . .

    Parent

    A few week's ago, Krugman was (5.00 / 7) (#220)
    by MarkL on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:07:59 AM EST
    crunching the numbers from Obama's tax proposals and found there was no money for a health care program.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 5) (#232)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:19:58 AM EST
    There is sort of this fantasy among progressives that somehow, we can balance the budget and make all these new investments in strengthening the country without you or me making any sort of sacrifice to pay for it.  In fact, as Obama famously promised in the commercial where he assured us he would never pander, the middle class gets a big ol' tax cut!  Everything supposedly gets paid for by ratcheting up the income tax on a few fat cats, but oh no, definitely not you or me.

    What I read on the blogs is all these people saying "hey, if you live in an expensive area and you have several kids then an income like $150k/yr isn't really that much!"  Well, of course there's some truth to that, but if we're going to exempt everyone from new taxes except for the people who can absolutely, positively bear the burden without any inconvenience whatsoever, we're simply not going to get that much money out of it.  Somehow the laudable desire to spare coal miners from the burden of higher taxes wound up as the desire to spare big-city latte-drinkers the pain of doing without a few lattes.  We're never going to get anywhere until we get back to the concept of the common good and everyone paying their fair share.

    Parent

    Fish and... (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Jeannie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:12:28 PM EST
    Never order fish and chips in a restaurant - usually expensive and not good. Find a small cafe/take out where that is all they sell. And if there are local people there lined up - you know you have hit gold.
    In your first pub, go up to the bar and order a Bass for me.....

    Anybody else think that having (5.00 / 4) (#174)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:17:56 PM EST
    the "coronation" in this huge arena is a bit much? I don't have a problem with wanting it to be unique in some way, but it's quite over the top for me and at a great cost. I did, however, like someone's idea of using the Burger King crown to annoint.

    Godwin's law (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:32:32 PM EST
    May end up being applied here.


    Parent
    was just thinking the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:45:27 PM EST
    and resisted the obvious comparison. Biting tongue as we speak. :-)

    Parent
    There are pictures (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:51:41 PM EST
    One can find them on the internets.  On blogs.

    Parent
    If I understand Godwin's law, (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:54:27 PM EST
    I agree with you, however, this really, really irks me.

    Parent
    Hempstead Heath is a lovely place with (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by hairspray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:40:54 PM EST
    lots of students. Wonderful neighborhood and  very tony. Just walk around and go into the crowded places where the students are; the prices will be good.  Good for London that is.

    Try to get out of the city (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:57:32 PM EST
    and see some of the English countryside.  It's wonderful.  The West Country-- Cornwall and Devon, etc.-- is quite marvelous if you stay away from the big tourist spots.

    And by all means, at least once have a "cream tea"-- tea with scones spread with clotted cream and usually strawberry jam.  Ahhhh, heaven!

    Second this! (none / 0) (#227)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:14:14 AM EST
    out of the city that is :) I took the train through Wales from London, and it hooked up to the ferry to Ireland. Beautiful ride! I was just planning on staying overnight, but ended up staying a few days.

    I went to London for a week and ended up staying a month. It's pretty easy to navigate the food while being clueless as I was  ;) I ended up staying at a friend of a friends apt there after my first week and had no prob cruising around and getting meals on the fly.

    One thing I did find interesting was that the city streets are set up more in a spiderweb pattern, along with the opposite side of the road driving. I went on several walks (I'm a walker) to check things out and I kept ending up in the same zone. Once I go used to it, I was able to set out and actually hit different areas. I ran into this prob taking the tube and then walking, also. A GPS might have been handy  ;)

    I had a great time there just kicking around. I actually looked into moving there, lol!~

    Parent

    Pfc. Joe Dwyer Dies (5.00 / 4) (#214)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:01:55 AM EST
    After struggle with PTSD. This is sad:

    During the first week of the war in Iraq, a Military Times photographer captured the arresting image of Army Spc. Joseph Patrick Dwyer as he raced through a battle zone clutching a tiny Iraqi boy named Ali.

    [snip]

    On June 28, Dwyer, 31, died of an accidental overdose in his home in Pinehurst, N.C., after years of struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder. During that time, his marriage fell apart as he spiraled into substance abuse and depression. He found himself constantly struggling with the law, even as friends, Veterans Affairs personnel and the Army tried to help him.

    There will be many more.


    For Dalton re London F & C (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by akaEloise on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:29:56 AM EST
    I haven't been there since 1981, but the Sea Shell of Lisson Grove was great then -- and they have a website which seems to indicate they are still popular.  Google will take you there.  

    I can't imagine being (4.70 / 10) (#30)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:36:20 PM EST
    a Democrat FOR McCain.

    That's the root of my problem.  I want to be FOR a candidate, but I can't muster up enough enthusiasm to be FOR Obama.  So being FOR McCain is just ridiculous for me.

    (Side note: I consider myself FOR Gore and Hillary.    [shrug] If that helps anyone understand where I am at.)

    Fabian....I suspect you are far from alone :) (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:37:08 PM EST
    That would be my ticket... (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:47:20 PM EST
    Gore/Hillary or Hillary/Gore... either way.

    Or, at least

    Hillary/... (not Obama)
    Gore/... (not Obama)

    Parent

    I have a (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:00:55 AM EST
    Stewart/Colbert '08 bumper sticker.

    I think you can still get them through Comedy Central's Web site.

    Parent

    OK, but how about..... (2.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Veracitor on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:47:51 PM EST
    ......the flame-baiting, personal comment I responded to?

    I just love these little unity ambassadors.  Don't you?


    One of the first rules of having a civilized (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:00:42 PM EST
    debate:  Never attack another poster.  

    It's okay to criticize someone's opinion, but it's not okay to criticize another poster.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if it isn't one you endorse.  

    Calling other people names (who are not national figures, like nameless Clinton, Obama or McCain supporters) is a violation of good debate protocal.    

    Parent

    michelle obama's unfavorable ratings (none / 0) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:06:16 PM EST
    larger than her favorables....Cindy McCain, exact opposite...what does this mean?

    Nothing (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:08:05 PM EST
    What a gift you have (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:09:36 PM EST
    for saying a lot in few word(s).

    Parent
    it means to me that it is one more reason to (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:58:16 PM EST
    be concerned whether obama will win.

    Parent
    It means Michelle is being actively smeared (2.66 / 3) (#67)
    by anydemwilldo on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:01:41 PM EST
    No one is writing press releases about Cindy's gaffes and problems.  No one is forwarding email campaigns about McCain's patriotism.  If you believe everything your read, Cindy is just Cindy, while Michelle is an unpatriotic racist.

    You can't honestly have forgotten when they did this same thing to Hillary in '92, can you?  What makes it OK this time?

    Parent

    I would be interested in reading your protests (5.00 / 13) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:07:07 PM EST
    about the smears against Hillary during this primary cycle. Please provide the links.

    Parent
    Don't even try that (5.00 / 5) (#126)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:22:54 PM EST
    Because Obama has already let us know what HE thinks about how Hillary was smeared in 1992.

    And until you see Michelle on magazine covers in a dominatrix outfit, there's really nothing to complain about.


    Parent

    oh thanks (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:43:57 PM EST
    now how am I going to get that image out of my head.

    Parent
    What the difference in numbers (none / 0) (#15)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:23:42 PM EST
    for each of them?

    I did see a while back that Michelle had high unfavorables (42% iirc), in a Rasmussen poll several days after her appearance on the 'The View'.  Rasmussen said that was up slightly from an earlier poll.  I thought it was strange because I really thought The View would help her, at least with The View viewers who are not particularly involved in politics.

    Parent

    RE: The View helping her, depends who (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:32:11 PM EST
    you talk to...the hosts of The View think her being on the show really helped...apparently not.

    Parent
    The View bit was pushed too hard (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:32:53 PM EST
    in the media by Obama people as her "makeover."

    They need to push the authentic Michelle Obama.  If that isn't a winner, then there 'tis.  But it's never a winner to say you're pushing a pretense.

    Parent

    Amen and hallelujah! (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:36:25 PM EST
    But so much of Obama was a pretense (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:59:25 PM EST
    and people bought that.  That's why I thought it would win some folks over.  So much baloney has been distributed this year without objection or minimally critical analysis that I really thought it would help her.  Btw, I didn't watch but I read Jeralyn's live blogging (which was a hoot!).

    We haven't heard much from Michelle lately, so possibly the Obama people had a similar conclusion to mine.

    Parent

    I never quite understood how (5.00 / 6) (#95)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:47:33 PM EST
    "announcing" a makeover was positive. It's as if you're saying, "This person isn't good enough or likeable enough on their own; s/he needs fixing."

    If political advisors think a candidate or the spouse of a candidate needs a personality enhancement, just take the steps needed to accomplish it...slowly.

    It's just soooo effective to announce that someone needs changing, and then ask, "Do you like her better now?" I'm surprised they didn't call her the new and improved Michelle Obama.
    Sheesh!

    Parent

    Jerylyn and BTD.... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Shainzona on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:11:33 PM EST
    What do YOU think about Obama's move to the baseball stadium for his "acceptance speech"?

    Not to be pedantic... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:34:03 PM EST
    ...but they are moving it to the football stadium (Invesco), not the baseball field (Coors).

    Parent
    Won't he look small (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:31:17 PM EST
    in such a large stadium?  

    I sure hope they manage to fill it.  If they end up with empty seats, they could always pay people to attend.  That's what the Jimmy Kimmel Show does to get an audience.  

    Parent

    well they'll use the tv cameras in (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:29:27 PM EST
    creative ways and we'll think it is full. that is typical for speeches from politicans after all.

    Parent
    Ha! Like on that other late (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:33:05 PM EST
    night comedian's show where they don't even show the audience half the time but you can hear the 10 people clapping.  (I think he pays to get an audience too -- but I can't think of his name - not one of the majors.)  

    Parent
    yup and the congress critters making (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:38:51 PM EST
    speeches to empty chambers on cspan after hours. it's smart for them to do that and it gets their points out for anyone who watches cspan. but it is errie that no one is actually there but the camera crew.

    Parent
    76,273 </nitpick> (none / 0) (#77)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:16:26 PM EST
    Double Nitpick (none / 0) (#123)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:19:52 PM EST
    76,273 seats means they could probably top 80.000 with on field seating.

    Parent
    Security issues. (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:47:15 PM EST
    Would you pack people in like sardines if you were in charge of their safety?

    Parent
    Bubble or Public (none / 0) (#172)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:15:01 PM EST
    If I was in charge of their safety I'd want them giving their speech by closed circuit, but that would create something worse than our current bubble boy.

    People used to line the route a president's motorcade would take. Now police officers block roads and whisk everyone away. Since JFK we have gone more and more overly protective. Maybe it's time we went back the other way.

    Parent

    Rain would be a striking visual, IMO... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Addison on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:50:51 PM EST
    ...as long as there are waterproof microphones available, that is. Thunderstorms, not so much.

    Parent
    I thought there was (none / 0) (#137)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:30:52 PM EST
    a certain time of the year when Colorado is hot and windy.  

    Isn't the convention in August?  August is pretty miserable in SoCal.  

    Parent

    It's a weird year (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:51:22 PM EST
    We're 5.25 inches below normal precipitation so far this year. That's a lot when you only get 13 inches in a normal year. We had a cold dry spring and a warm windy June. July is the month for afternoon thunderstorms (and hail), but these can easily extend into August.


    But it won't be terribly hot - and it won't snow.

    It's never really miserable in summer, though. Gotta love that morning dry heat with a nice refreshing afternoon shower followed by a gorgeous sunset.

    Parent

    Here are the averages (none / 0) (#160)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:54:22 PM EST
    Here is the average weather forecast for Denver for August 28th.

    High 84
    Low 50
    Avg Precip 1/20th of an inch

    As good weather forecasts go, the odds look good for great weather and a huge crowd.

    Parent

    Try... (none / 0) (#17)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:30:30 PM EST
    ...the local pub.  Usually decent local food (fish n' chips, bangers and mash, etc.) at the most reasonable price.  Otherwise, you'll find food stalls all over--especially at the markets.  

    Lots of little shops selling great Thai, Mediterrian and other ethnic foods too.  

    I had the best lasagne ever at a little place in London--better than anything I had in Italy even.  

    Indeed (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:33:57 PM EST
    I love Borough Market in Southwark.

    Parent
    You'll probably be in Tube zone 2 (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:31:53 PM EST
    but if you make it into town--and I assume you will--forget the pub fare and make way for Edgware Road. There's a place not four minutes walk from Marble Arch station called [Maroush III http://www.maroush.com/pages/map_M3.htm. It has some of the best Lebanese food I've ever tasted anywhere. It's a bit pricy, especially with the Pound as strong as it is now, but the food is worth it.

    fish and-- (none / 0) (#35)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:42:18 PM EST
    I do not like fish--but fish and chips from one of the Harry Ramsden's is a big, big exception.  My husband said that the difference is that that chain uses a delicate white fish--anyway, it is super good, and it is eat in.  They have a web site: choose southeast UK; Eusten (sp) station is a London location.  Give it a try for sure--and be sure to douse with vinegar.  Other than that, legend has it that the best inexpensive places to eat in the UK are often Indian--tandoori, etc.  

    There was a nearly American drug-store-style eatery, very good, south of Parliament on a side street toward the embankment.  But try once at least tea on the balcony and some the goodies on the food floor at Harrods, ices or such at Fortnum and Masons--pricey for sure, but to be in London and not sample those--sheer poverty of spirit as well as pocket book.  For the rest of the time, head for one of the grocery store chains (including Marks & Sparks, formally called Marks and Spencers) for excellent take-out--eat cold or heat in a microwave.

    I've been to London once (none / 0) (#37)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:42:48 PM EST
    in 1994.

    Things were very different then, although the IRA was supposedly lobbing missiles into Heathrow before and after we landed.

    (I wasn't worried for some odd reason.  Heh.)

    The money exchange will hurt more, fer shure.

    I was (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:55:32 PM EST
    at Waterloo Station, just a few years ago, waiting for the train to Paris.

    I had a candy wrapper to throw out, and would you believe it, I couldn't find a single trashcan!  I was looking all over.

    Suddenly it occurred to me that the most likely reason there were no trashcans in the public spaces is that, not too long ago, the IRA liked to put bombs in them.

    And there I was, stuck with my candy wrapper.  Talk about letting the terrorists win.

    Parent

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:59:36 PM EST
    And there I was, stuck with my candy wrapper.  Talk about letting the terrorists win.

    We have, haven't we.

    But the terrorists are wearing suits and ties and housed in nicely-appointed offices.

    Parent

    Indeed, it's a constant frustration (none / 0) (#62)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:59:48 PM EST
    Washington DC can be the same way when there is some impending important event.

    Parent
    I didn't know that (none / 0) (#118)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:13:24 PM EST
    All you have to do is send an email to a site owner claiming your candidat is being "bashed" and the site owner will put a stop to it right away.

    Seems to be a request (none / 0) (#148)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:42:18 PM EST
    to 'rephrase' type of situation to me.  'I think' such and such 'because' of this and that.  If you've been here for quite awhile, one word seems a summary, if you are new, it can be interpreted as a bash.

    Parent
    perfect video - fairytale (none / 0) (#229)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:15:45 AM EST
    for how I feel about election. Love this line: I don't want the next best thing. It's by Sarah Bareilles. Quite good. Here's the link [youtube.com]