home

Tuesday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:15:11 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Did anyone see the Access Hollywood interview with the Obama family? The kids are cute. It will be airing in parts for a few days.

Obama's donors apparently are resisting helping Hillary retire her campaign debt. The comments are nasty. So far, his donors have contributed only $100,000 or so.

On an unrelated note, the iPhone goes on sale Friday. Is anyone here going to stand in line to buy one? I'm thinking about it.

This is an open thread. Remember, disagreement and criticism are fine, but no personal attacks or insults.

< Obama's Statement on Disagreement With His FISA Position | Late Night: Jessie's Girl and Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tuesday Night Open Thread | 206 comments (206 topical)
    According to Rasmussen... (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:23:55 PM EST
    Congress has a 9% approval rating. I think the bubonic plague might be higher.

    I don't think this affects the Democrats' advantage going into the fall, but what does it take to get Pelosi et al to figure out they need to wake up and actually do something?

    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:39:34 PM EST
    Bubonic plague indeed.

    I don't expect we'll see any actions worth lauding out of Congress any time soon.  It has hit critical mass for people who have no motivations besides keeping their seats.

    The problem is most people who feel Congress is doing a bad job either like their own Congressperson and feel the rest of the bunch is the problem, or hate them but don't want to give up their person's power.

    And as long as there is a critical mass of do-nothings, each individual Congressmember can always blame all the others for their collective ineffectiveness.  It's the inaction of a crowd effect, writ national.  

    Plus, the ascendant wing of the party -- my pals Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Obama -- would rather la la la dream of some future day of greatness than buckle down and fight the good fight now.  Because the good fight is hard.  Collecting money from corporate sponsors is easy.

    [ Parent ]

    Even Jonathan Turley, constitutional (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:29:26 PM EST
    attorney, said today there is a cover-up involved regarding FISA, which has to include some dems that are covering their butts...and the fix is in.

    [ Parent ]
    Um (2.00 / 1) (#18)
    by owenaprhys on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:41:58 PM EST
    the sky opening up and Jesus floating down from Heaven with a stupid stick whacking them all??????

    Hell, would even THAT work???

    [ Parent ]

    Gee (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by nell on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:25:34 PM EST
    those Obama supporters quoted in the NY Times victory are such good losers. Whatever, their comments do nothing to achieve unity. The more they continue to disrespect Senator Clinton and what her historic candidacy has meant to so many of us, the less likely Clinton supporters are to rally around the nominee. It went from WWTSBQ to Why Didn't the Stupid B***h quit...it never ends.

    Well I guess I'll have to send Hillary more $$$ (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:32:49 PM EST
    ...I thought this was behind us but apparently not.

    [ Parent ]
    I rather give to help pay off her debt ... (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:16:58 PM EST
    than contribute to his campaign. She has shown that she stands by her words: she said she would work to help him win, and she has stepped to the plate in the spirit of unity. This "reticence" from the Obama camp is yet another proof that those who accused her of divisive were just mirroring their own divisiveness.  

    [ Parent ]
    Obama donors may have given only (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by RalphB on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:06:55 PM EST
    about $100k but I hear that PUMA sites have raised around $4M to retire her debt.  Can't vouch for it but it's what's going around.

    This is funny.  While I don't really disagree with Obama here, it's not usually a good idea to say you're ashamed of Americans ...

    video

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think he said he was ashamed (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by zfran on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:28:02 PM EST
    of americans. I do however, think he should have used more than Spanish at the beginning to make his point about our kids being bilingual. It sounded as if we should learn spanish to be able to communicate with all the legal and illegal people from down south that come here. He really didn't get to his point until the end of that clip!

    [ Parent ]
    It's seek Latin voters day--both McCain and Obama (none / 0) (#122)
    by jawbone on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:09:56 PM EST
    spoke to Latin leaders' group.

    So, Spanish was the important language of the day. Or week. Or election.

    Me, I'd be pushing Chinese, other Asian languages, along with some European languages.

    [ Parent ]

    These comments would not have happened if Clinton (2.00 / 9) (#10)
    by RosieScenario on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:35:54 PM EST
    had not asked for help paying her debt.  

    Clinton and her own supporters need to pay this debt, if she doesn't wish to hear negative responses from Obama supporters when they are solicited.

    [ Parent ]

    Are you from this solar system? (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by MarkL on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:39:21 PM EST
    Those nasty comments have been coming non-stop since before the primaries began.

    [ Parent ]
    You do not know how politics, she is done (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:41:03 PM EST
    clearly.  The Obama supporters are the outliers on this (no surprise, perhaps, with the "new politics").  You can search past threads here to know the history of this in previous campaigns.

    [ Parent ]
    She didn't ask (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:43:07 PM EST
    Obama did.

    Obama supporters are betraying the politician they support!!!!!!!!

    [ Parent ]

    What's more, it's traditional for the (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:48:35 PM EST
    winning campaign to help the competitor retire campaign debts.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh Rosie (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by nell on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:50:08 PM EST
    I have something you want, something you need. You know what that is?

    My swing state vote.

    [ Parent ]

    Your country and your descendants and your own (2.57 / 7) (#36)
    by RosieScenario on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:59:52 PM EST
    personal self-interest need your vote, if you choose to exercise it.  

    The particular comments made in the article linked by Jeralyn were made in response to a solicitation to Obama supporters to give money to Clinton's campaign.  I simply pointed out this fact -- if these comments are distasteful to Clinton and her supporters, they can simply pay off the debt themselves.

    As the article makes clear, it is not at all traditional for a campaign to incur $20 million in debt.  It is way beyond normal for Clinton to expect Obama supporters to pony up millions.

    [ Parent ]

    no, you implied that the solicitation (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:07:12 PM EST
    came from Clinton, when in fact the solicitation came from Obama.

    And regards the article making clear what is traditional for campaign debt....  this was no traditional year.  There has never been a primary like this with the levels of spending that were recorded.  So, there really aren't any past primaries which are comparable.

    Also, what is traditional id for the winning candidate to help the other retire their debt.  There is nothing out of the ordinary here for Obama to assist in this.  It is standard procedure.

    [ Parent ]

    The fact that the Obama campaign has (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:38:39 PM EST
    been so stingy with their money tells you something about the quality of the UNITY schtick they are always spouting off about.  But this isn't the only issue.  In Iowa the O campaign has pulled out of the combined GOTV effort with the local party and placed the volunteers on the O payroll.  The plan is to simply GOTV in student rich areas where Obama will pull in the most votes. Pull out of areas that might net Democrats in the state legislature and leave them on their own. The local pols are worried about the downstate races. You can get it on desmoinesdem.

    [ Parent ]
    So, the Democratic party (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by seeker on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:37:00 AM EST
    means nothing to Obama.  His supporters are just following his lead:  to He11 with the rest of the party or party unity.

    Guess what, I can do that too.  Hillary will get any extra money I might have until and unless Obama starts to act like he is a Democrat in all respects.  

    [ Parent ]

    You forgot to mention the concentration (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by MarkL on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:08:35 PM EST
    camps we will be sent to if McCain is elected
    (a threat from an Obama delegate).
    Remember that next time---you might be more convincing.

    [ Parent ]
    As if anything can make (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:12:33 PM EST
    the nasty comments about Clinton and her supporters stop.  CDS clearly is an incurable illness, as some just can't get over it.

    No doubt my descendants still will be hearing the anti-Clinton comments decades from now.  

    [ Parent ]

    Don't be misleading (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:17:25 PM EST
    I don't know what you are used to at other sites, but we are high information voters here and know how to use 'the google'.

    Clinton is not asking anyone to help pay back the part of her debt that a loan of her own money to her campaign.  She has said she considers that an investment for the future.  She's only asking for help paying back her vendors -- a little less than half the number you quoted (depending on which account you read).   That has been widely reported on.

    [ Parent ]

    As the article makes clear, (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:25:28 PM EST
    she's not asking for $20M, not does she expect it. Obama asked.

    And if you think the distasteful comments about her -still, when all is said and done, a fellow Democrat - are the price to be paid for HIS asking, I think you're more than a little wrong.

    To put it mildly and to avoid being erased.

    [ Parent ]

    I hope you're OK then (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by frankly0 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:31:00 PM EST
    if virtually no Hillary supporter gives Obama a dime?

    These are the same supporters who raised 229 million dollars for Hillary.

    Happy that that means nothing to you, because that 2O some million Hillary owes is just way too much for Obama supporters to make even the smallest dent in.

    I'm sure that Obama has no interest in any of that money -- or in the votes of Hillary supporters either, who may not be so happy to see how vindictive his little "movement" is toward Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    I think you may be reading more into this (2.00 / 2) (#94)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:39:53 PM EST
    than what's happening out there.

    who may not be so happy to see how vindictive his little "movement" is toward Hillary.

    Aren't most people on both sides just going about their lives, not feeling vindictive?  Most people just voted and moved on.  A few comments from Obama supporters surely don't reflect the millions who simply cast a ballot for him.

    Remember, conflict was, and still is, good for ratings (and blog viewings).

    [ Parent ]

    Please (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by frankly0 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:53:42 PM EST
    100K speaks for itself in terms of vindictiveness.

    Helping to retire the debt of a defeated opponent is SOP. And it is so precisely because helping to retire that debt is small potatoes next to the amount of money the contributors to the defeated opponent can ante up themselves for the winner.

    Only sheer vindictiveness would explain why Obama donors would refuse to put up a relatively small amount of money when their own candidate would in the end likely profit many times over for whatever contributions they put into retiring Clinton's debt.

    As Paul Krugman has observed, there's a venom in many Obama supporters that is truly special -- and it lives on fully even when their man has won.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton DID ask for O&supporters contributions (3.00 / 3) (#137)
    by RosieScenario on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:23:13 PM EST
    The condescension being tossed my way is completely unwarranted, as well as impolite.  Nothing in my posts is factually incorrect.

    Senator Clinton DID ask for Obama and his supporters help in paying down her debt.  When emails went out, some of the responses were not at all favorable, as outlined in the NYTimes story.  

    nell began this subthread by complaining about those anonymous comments.  I simply pointed out the reality that those particular comments would not have been made, if Clinton had not requested that Obama supporters be solicited to clear her debt.

    The NYTimes story also states that the total debt is $20 million, and Clinton has not specified the amount she expects Obama's supporters to contribute so that she will be content.

    Neither Obama nor Clinton can instruct all of their followers how to behave.  Hence, Obama supporters resisting requests to contribute money to Clinton, and hence the Clinton supports resisting her requests to assist in electing Obama.

    Never fear, I won't attempt to share a chuckle with you folks again.  

    [ Parent ]

    Your tag line----it's GONE!!! (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by MarkL on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:25:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You are being (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:26:50 PM EST
    extremely cute with the passive voice, and I'm not surprised that no one wants to play along.

    [ Parent ]
    Bye (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:32:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Is this a GBCW diary at TL, Rosie? Kewl! (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:22:42 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    For the 1000th time, (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:51:50 PM EST
    please, try to break out of low-information mode.  Do some research.  Read some stuff.

    It is quite usual for a candidate to pay off the debts of the losing candidate in a close election when they are in the same party.  If the Dems were the least bit serious about the Unity schtick, they'd go along with tradition -- it's hardly new.

    The less Hillary has to work down her campaign debt -- and mind, this is JUST her primary debt, her money for the general was significant but can't be applied here -- the more she can campaign for Obama.  Since the NYT had an article a few days ago about how her big dollar donors are balking at giving to him, you'd think someone at Obama's campaign would be grown up enough to realize it would be a big plus to have her working on her big money people for him.

    Finally, given the enormous self-promotion of their fundraising prowess, the paltry showing of the Obama campaign paying off her debt implies a distinct lack of 'Unity' and offers up pretty solid evidence that, as many said all along, 'Unity' only ever really meant 'Submission' in the land of Obama.

    Ok - second finally -- I'm dying for the most recent fundraising numbers because there are rumors that Clinton's donors knocked down half her debt during their big July 4 push.  From what I've read, the DNC has been barely able to raise little more than that in the last month.  Clinton, who's out of the race > the entire DNC.  Hum dee dee.

    [ Parent ]

    what the Obama supporters are failing (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:54:51 PM EST
    to understand is that Clinton has approx 40 mil of funds for the General Election that she CANNOT use to retire her vendor debts.  She can however use that money in the future for her next senate run OR she can ask her donors to re-direct those contributions to the Obama general election campaign.  And, I believe she has asked her donors to redirect those funds to Obama.  So, it seems to me they wold be getting over 2 to 1 for their money by helping her. She is asking for help with 12 mil in debt and NOT asking for the 11 mil she loaned to her campaign.  She has near 40 mil that coiuld be re-directed to Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think so (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by nell on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:04:46 PM EST
    I believe her request was either to redirect it to her Senate campaign in 2012 OR if the person did not specify that it go towards 2012, then it would automatically be refunded. She COULD ask them to redirect to Obama, but I can't imagine she would do that when his donors have been so pathetic about donating to her.

    [ Parent ]
    i don't believe she has to ask for it (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:10:37 PM EST
    to be re-directed to her 2012 senate campaign.  She can automatically use it for that.  And, I think i read that she has asked donors to re-direct to Obama.  Of course I think they could also re-direct to other candidates in other down ballot races as well.

    [ Parent ]
    ask (none / 0) (#204)
    by CHDmom on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:37:57 AM EST
    She has to ask if she can redirect it to her next campaign or if the donor wants the money refunded. (This is for the people that maxed out on their primary donations, that were asked if it can go to the GE, at least)

    [ Parent ]
    I think she asked her big money people (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:20:03 PM EST
    to redirect to Obama at that Mayflower thing a day or two before the U-event.  I'm too tired to look it up now, but Heidi Li always has all the facts on the money question.

    [ Parent ]
    yeah, i tried teh google, but didn't find much (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:25:20 PM EST
    except that i guess what she has for general is around 20 mil and she would have to ask her donors to redirect to her next senate campaign.  couldn't just automatically use it for the senate run

    [ Parent ]
    So it is okay for Clinton supporters (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:23:38 PM EST
    to contribute to Obama, but not the other way around?

    [ Parent ]
    Orange Fur....maybe Cindy Sheehan (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:25:48 PM EST
    winning Pelosi's seat this November.

    Looks like Hillary and her vendors (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:27:15 PM EST
    are going to have to eat most of the debt. Oh well, they knew the risks.

    As for the new iphone, well, it looks good and maybe it's in my future, but there's no way I'm standing in line all day to pay for the privilege of maybe getting one.

    so why should hillary turn over her (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by hellothere on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:50:04 PM EST
    donors to obama and then ask them to contribute? at least as far as i know they aren't being quoted in the ny times regarding obama.

    i for one am sick and tired of seeing hillary still trashed! the meaness is way over the top and needs to stop.

    so in november the people who trashed hillary want out vote, then please act like it.

    [ Parent ]

    andgarden, the sentiment wasn't (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by hellothere on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:53:09 PM EST
    meant for you. i can see how it might. it wasn't my intention. i find this ongoing bashing frustrating.

    [ Parent ]
    That's not a "Unity Now" (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:53:53 PM EST
    comment.

    [ Parent ]
    AFL Lifetime Achievement Award (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by NJDem on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:27:38 PM EST
    for Warren Beatty--McGovern is talking now and BC is coming up--Jack Nicolson too (he was at the Lakers game).

    The kids are cute as heck (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:30:08 PM EST
    Charming children, well-behaved but relaxed and self-confident.  Kudos to the Obamas.

    In fact, one of the very, very few things I like about the man is his obvious enjoyment of children, his own and other people's.  Jeanne Moos, I think it was, did a piece on political baby-kissing the other day, and I was honestly moved by the utter comfort with which he eagerly picked up and snuggled each baby handed to him, smiling very privately and directly into the infants' faces as if there were no other people around.  That's a really nice thing to see in a man particularly.

    If only it had something, anything, to do with presidential qualities.

    They sure are cute (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:59:49 PM EST
    As a father of a daughter myself, I can't help but pay close attention to the way Obama interacts with his kids, even though people who are serious about politics aren't supposed to care about that sort of thing!  He seems like a great dad to me.

    Here is my favorite picture of Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    FYI on Hillary's debt... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:46:12 PM EST
    rumor has it that PUMAs were able to help retire half of it in one fundraising weekend (July 4th.) One more effort should take care of it all.

    So no worries about that, Senator Obama.

    Why Now (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:31:15 PM EST
    If they have been able to retire half the debt, it begs the question as to why they didn't donate the money to her when she needed it. There is still a max they can donate for the primary season. I'm sure Hillary would have been much more appreciative if they had done the donating when it may have helped win the nomination.

    I can see why Obama's supporters would have an issue donating money that will go to Mark Penn. Of course, I can also see why Clinton supporters would have an issue donating money that will go to Mark Penn.

    [ Parent ]

    I really doubt (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:34:11 PM EST
    that folks who have no problem with their money going to Robert Gibbs would have a strong objection to their money going to Mark Penn.

    [ Parent ]
    Robert Gibbs (none / 0) (#169)
    by RalphB on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:55:37 PM EST
    that rotten scumbag, is one reason I started out against Obama before the campaign started.  Anyone who would hire him can have no ethics.


    [ Parent ]
    And I still think (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:35:45 PM EST
    Nobody knows why they don't like Mark Penn.

    They've just been told that cool people hate Mark Penn and they want to fit in.


    [ Parent ]

    What was his Value? (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:52:20 PM EST
    I have no issue with Mark Penn because as a Florida voter I donated to neither candidate. I only mentioned why donors supporting either of the candidates might object. When a major consultant, and his company, are still owed the vast majority of the debt from a losing campaign, it does make one wonder what his actual value amounted to.

    [ Parent ]
    Hmm, maybe winning the most votes ever (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:56:36 PM EST
    in a primary by any candidate, woman or man, in any party.

    Do keep in mind that much of his billing, as in any campaign (and not just in politics) is for actual costs incurred -- media time and space, printing, etc.

    [ Parent ]

    and don't forget his employees (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:15:32 PM EST
    I find all this b*tching about her debt amusing seeing as she is helping him with 3 NY fundraisers this week. He wants her to help him raise close to a quarter billion dollars . . . . I doubt he can rely on his "grassroots" support and get there . . .

    [ Parent ]
    Well (3.50 / 2) (#127)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:12:16 PM EST
    If I was to look back I could find my own comments here predicting Hillary would win the popular vote and that would carry her to the nomination. Saying she did feels good but there are too many variables that show it not to be the case. In total votes they were essentially tied or he led slightly. Obama came out ahead with elected delegates and Supers.

    I have argued here against caucuses; argued for Florida and Michigan revotes; argued against Super Delegates, voted for Hillary, and withheld donating to anyone because of what I thought was a complete primary disaster, but I'm not a highly paid consultant whose gameplan ultimately failed.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:59:32 PM EST
    Presumably someone did polling for Obama and got paid for it, just like Mark Penn's company did for Clinton.

    I'm not aware that the services provided by Penn's company were in any way unusual for a political campaign, or that they are any different than the services provided to the Obama campaign by whoever he chose to dealt with.

    It's just that Clinton's polling expenses have a face on them while Obama's polling expenses go to some vendor none of us know or care about.  

    There is this visceral reaction that since Mark Penn supposedly sucked as a chief strategist, therefore his firm can't possibly be entitled to all that money.  But his firm wasn't providing the strategy, they were providing polling and other perfectly ordinary services.  There's no reason to assume that just because Hillary lost her polling must have been worthless.

    I think it would be completely normal for Penn to waive some of his firm's fee at this juncture, but I'm not sure that would be legal under the campaign finance laws.

    [ Parent ]

    Campaign finance laws is (none / 0) (#129)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:14:42 PM EST
    a good point.

    [ Parent ]
    Most of the "Mark Penn" money (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:37:38 PM EST
    isn't going to him personally, it's to his firm.  If I understand this right, his firm is the one billed for many media expenses, polling outfits, etc., not the campaign directly.  So paying the "Mark Penn" bill isn't about paying Penn himself.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not saying he was perfect (none / 0) (#125)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:10:50 PM EST
    The level of hatred just has never been substantiated.

    One person suggested it's cause he's pudgy.


    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#136)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:23:00 PM EST
    That "cocaine" TV appearance was pretty darn odious.

    But on the whole it's just been a typical two minute hate.  Nothing he did approached that Robert Gibbs ad from 2004, for example.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think so (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by standingup on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:01:40 PM EST
    Penn has proved his incompetence.  He did not do well for Hillary as a pollster/consultant or whatever his title was in her campaign.  I might find a little respect for the man if he were to reduce his bill to compensate for the poor performance but that isn't likely to happen.  

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary almost won in the most (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:18:22 PM EST
    hotly contested primary race I've ever seen, and I've seen many.

    Why the absence of burning resentment against Edward's pollsters?  Richardson's?  Biden?  They lost by way more than Clinton did.  I bet no one can even name any of their polling/consultant people.

    And, as someone said above, he may not be able to waive his fees, since the value-in-kind of them count as campaign contributions.

    [ Parent ]

    Penn's enormous (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by standingup on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:21:51 AM EST
    ego and arrogance has made him a big target.  I don't think any of the pollsters for the other candidates were running the campaigns as Penn was for Clinton.  

    Hillary should have won instead of ending up in the "almost won" category.  You can go back and see several areas where Penn's strategy missed the mark.  From Penn's lack of knowledge about the delegate apportionment to his idea to push Hillary as the inevitable, practically incumbent candidate, when the country was really looking for change.  Hillary probably could have pulled it out if she had fired Penn early on when it became evident they had problems.  But Penn underestimated Obama and missed the electorate's desire for a candidate who represented change.  

    [ Parent ]

    I'd go for a refund from Solis Doyle (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:30:38 AM EST
    first, after her incredible overspending and poor scheduling and more.  I see her as a significant reason for the problems in Wisconsin.  Note that after that, the campaign was managed by Maggie Williams -- and Clinton began her great winning streak, with more than 600,000 more votes than Obama.

    So Obama, after a good first six weeks of the primary season, hasn't had a good win since -- for the last five months, and despite outspending Clinton by as much as 5 to 1.

    So Penn got more votes for a lot less money.  And Obama ought to get a refund from Axelrove -- that could help compensate for the lack of funding from Clinton supporters, who have to help her since his supporters won't do as he asked and do so themselves.

    [ Parent ]

    Still think it's an excuse and not a reason. (none / 0) (#197)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:28:07 AM EST
    I mean really, the argument is that Obama supporters -- those that did not want Clinton to win -- are now holding it against her that Penn didn't actually help her win?

    That's pretty pretzely.  

    [ Parent ]

    I think you are twisting (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by standingup on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:44:09 AM EST
    a few things yourself.  Those Obama supporters are being short sighted, especially those if the article is correct, who are claiming the money should be going to fight McCain and the Republicans.  They are missing the point of helping Clinton to retire her debt so that her donors will be more willing to contribute to help Obama defeat McCain.  

    But there are plenty of hard feelings with many within the Clinton campaign toward Penn for the mistakes he made.  Penn was known to be a source of controversy inside the campaign, creating a lot of unnecessary tension with the staff.  I think there are many who believe Penn is largely responsible for her loss.  Criticism of Penn has come from all circles, not just Obama's camp.      

    [ Parent ]

    Mark Penn was considered an anti (none / 0) (#175)
    by hairspray on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:59:15 PM EST
    union guy for some of the work he did in the past in that field.  I don't know the specifics but when I used to read DKos I saw that referred to a lot.

    [ Parent ]
    His firm (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:04:31 AM EST
    has a division that represents management in connection with organizing disputes, or what we might call "union busting."

    As a pro-union guy myself, I certainly wasn't thrilled by this, although it's important to keep things in perspective.  We're talking about the largest PR firm in the entire world, they engage in a zillion activities.

    It's not just a gotcha though.  Apparently some of the major unions gave Hillary's campaign quite a bit of grief over it.

    [ Parent ]

    but didn't a majority of the union workers (none / 0) (#194)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:23:11 AM EST
    vote for her?

    [ Parent ]
    You know.... (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:25:08 AM EST
    I've probably gone quite over the edge here, but the idea of a bunch of Dkos groupies sitting comfortably on their butts tap tap tapping out their keyboard activism all day and making money off of rank hate, criticizing anyone for union-busting -- well I can't really say how I really feel about that but words like 'disingenuous' and 'smarmy' come to mind.

    The Mark Penn thing (and likely the union thing, is the point of the above) just sound very much like excuses to continue hating on Clinton rather than actual reasons not to unify.  Or absolute naivete -- this is what happens in elections. People work on your campaign.  You pay them.  There it is.

    [ Parent ]

    He didn't know how to (none / 0) (#121)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:09:44 PM EST
    Game a caucus, that's true.


    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by standingup on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:02:38 AM EST
    and even worse, he didn't understand the proportional allocation of delegates either.  A winning strategy usually requires a basic knowledge of the rules.  

    [ Parent ]
    i admit it (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:18:10 AM EST
    they spent too much time listening to voters and not enough time  figuring out how to exploit stupid rules.

    Its a mistake no politician can afford to make.

    [ Parent ]

    Can you explain (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by standingup on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:30:29 AM EST
    how understanding that the Democratic party does not use the winner take all system the Republicans use is exploiting the rules?  How was Penn going to exploit the rules enough so that Hillary would take all 370 California delegates as he predicted?  

    The rules may be stupid but if you want to win, you might want to understand how your candidate gains the necessary delegates to win.  

    [ Parent ]

    I don't know (none / 0) (#207)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:41:17 AM EST

    You're the one who said if you want to win, ya gotta know the rules.  When a rule is stupid and undemocratic and you devise a strategy that takes advantage of that unfairness, I call that exploiting the rules.

    [ Parent ]

    You don't even attempt (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by standingup on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:55:56 AM EST
    to be reasonable.  It's a shame because it isn't for a lack of intelligence.

    As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified -- and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories. (Time)

    Penn's incompetence was a problem.  

    [ Parent ]

    Speaking for myself (4.57 / 7) (#101)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:48:43 PM EST
    If they have been able to retire half the debt, it begs the question as to why they didn't donate the money to her when she needed it.

    I was giving as much as I could every month. Many of her supporters and contributors are probably in the same position - I can't afford to give $2300 in one donation. I was pacing myself and working from a budget. I haven't stopped donating, either.

    Remember, she IS the overwhelming favorite of the white working class. The people, you know, who liked her because they were not invisible to her, and because she promised to fight for them. The ones who are the hardest hit by this rotten economy.

    [ Parent ]

    Thank you echinopsia (4.00 / 3) (#110)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:58:45 PM EST
    Thank you for what is a very legitimate reply.

    I would be more careful by just saying "working class" though, as the added word can be viewed in less than nice ways if (like many here) I chose to pick your words apart ;)

    [ Parent ]

    If you say "working class" (4.00 / 4) (#147)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:35:31 PM EST
    the instant indignant response of the Obamanians is that it's not the whole working class, just the white ones.  So you can't win whichever way you put it.

    The reality is that black folks of all classes voted overwhelmingly for Obama.


    [ Parent ]

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:51:21 PM EST
    I do my best not to read between the lines and nitpick the words of others, but if I was to do it again...
    I would not use the term Obamanians or Obamabots anymore than I would say Clintonistas. or Billary. They, like you, are just supporters of their favorite candidate ;)

    [ Parent ]
    You are way overly sensitive (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:40:54 AM EST
    I used "Obamanians" in the same way I use "Clintonians."

    I NEVER use derogatory terms like "McSame" or "Rethugs" or "Obamabots."  So you're picking on the wrong person here and are making up things to object to, frankly.

    [ Parent ]

    You would be correct (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:50:18 AM EST
    If you use both like that and not the others, then obviously there could be no perceived issues at all. I stand corrected and wish all others could follow your lead.

    [ Parent ]
    Then why did you nitpick (none / 0) (#172)
    by RalphB on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:57:19 PM EST
    those words, if you normally don't do it?  Go on, do it again.

    [ Parent ]
    Ralph (3.50 / 2) (#190)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:20:00 AM EST
    I was sexist yesterday for having no issue with the term nipping crows. I see that as no worse and no better than referring to the suffering white working class. It has become common to pick apart words of those we barely know because we don't like someone's candidate of choice.

    If I was to suggest sexism in this election at a site such as americablog I would get ridiculed, likewise if I was to suggest racism at a predominantly Hillary site.

    Word play and word selection with no harmful intent should be harmless. Don't be so sensitive. And there is no need to nitpick your words even in playful jest. You offered nothing of substance.

    [ Parent ]

    Offering nothing of substance (2.66 / 3) (#209)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:43:46 AM EST
    seems to be your own specialty.  You started with the sensitivity by threatening another poster for choice of words.  You'd do better keeping your own mouth shut.


    [ Parent ]
    If you chose to pick those words apart (3.50 / 4) (#162)
    by RalphB on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:51:10 PM EST
    then you would be race-baiting without a cause.  Of course, there was a lot of that during the campaign.  

    Since it might not be true to say Hillary was the overwhelming favorite of just the 'working class'.  The 'working class' includes lots of those AA voters who went >90% for Obama.  echinopsia's statement at least has the advantage of being undeniably true.

    Frankly, if your view is that skewed, I don't know why anyone would care about it.


    [ Parent ]

    please drop the racism remarks (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:22:35 AM EST
    now. Thank you.

    [ Parent ]
    Please look at the comment I was (1.00 / 1) (#214)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:46:43 AM EST
    replying to, though it doesn't mention the unspeakable word, it's clearing a threat to call out someone for using the word white.

    Oh I forgot, that's OK now since you're an Obama blog.  I have called no one racist!  Just replying to someone who was alleging it.

    [ Parent ]

    This was my situation as well n/t (none / 0) (#198)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:29:45 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    When does the campaign (none / 0) (#53)
    by Nadai on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:12:58 PM EST
    release those numbers?  I've read the rumors on several of the PUMA/Hillary blogs, but I'd love to see the actual amount raised.  I'm guessing that since the big push was in July, it won't come out for another month or so.

    [ Parent ]
    I went looking for documentation (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:25:53 PM EST
    a little while ago.  The official FEC filings site does not have June out yet.  My guess is the 5 or so million number is coming from her campaign or some of the Hillraisers.

    site with FEC reports

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for the link! (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by Nadai on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:39:55 PM EST
    It looks like hers are usually filed around the 20th of each month, so another couple weeks for June's numbers and six weeks for July's.

    I hope the $5 million rumors are accurate.  I'd love to see another big push, maybe the first week of August but definitely before the convention.  It would be so nice for her to go to Denver debt free.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm scraping up what I can now (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:11:49 PM EST
    because according to Heidi Li's page, the big negotiations concerning Clinton's role at the convention are happening in July 15, and I'd love for her to be totally free of debt and un-beholden to Obama and his campaign going in to that.

    Although, it may be less pressing now.  If his campaign doesn't look like it can manage to help her for more than a 100 grand, and her supporters can cough up 1/2 her debt over a weekend, then Obama can't hold his power to reduce her debt over her head in the negotiations.

    [ Parent ]

    Good point (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by Nadai on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:23:51 PM EST
    I get paid this Friday - time to tithe again.  :)

    I'd really rather Hillary's supporters paid off her debt instead of relying on Obama, anyway, even pretending he was reliable.  I want it crystal clear to everyone that she's got a power base independent of the DNC.

    [ Parent ]

    Did you know that Kos is withholding (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by MarkL on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:46:22 PM EST
    his contribution to Obama over the FISA vote?
    According to NoQuarter, he is being raked over the coals by Kossacks for this.
    Of course, I won't go there to check, myself.

    link

    Yes, I'm sure Obama (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:50:13 PM EST
    is shaking in his shoes because Kos is withholding his $2300. L-O-Freaking-L.

    If he cared at all about FISA, Obama would be filibustering the way he said he would.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm with Kos on this (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:01:10 PM EST
    and haven't sent in my $2300 either.

    [ Parent ]
    Kos said it himself (4.83 / 6) (#34)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:59:17 PM EST
    I think someone here posted the quote a few days ago.

    After giving Obama thousands of dollars worth of free boosterism, holding back a couple of lousy grand was the most amazing example of a grown man holding his breath I've seen.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:24:55 PM EST
    it is a lot more amazing that commentors would accuse him of "undermining" the nominee by not donating the maximum.  As if we all have a moral duty to give $2300 to Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Ha ha (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:30:53 PM EST
    I didn't see that part.  Ah well.  Broke it.  Own it.

    [ Parent ]
    Underminer. (4.80 / 5) (#106)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:54:56 PM EST
    $2300? You traitor.

    You can donate $4600--$2300 each for the primary and the general.

    In fact, you've mentioned your wife before. That should be $9200 between the two of you. Pony up or the end of Roe vs. Wade will be all your fault.

    [ Parent ]

    Can my 2-year old (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:01:04 PM EST
    also donate $4600?

    I'm told that $300 of our stimulus check is actually hers, and yet here we are spending it without asking her opinion.  Shameful parents, we are.

    [ Parent ]

    Puhleeze research; it's easy (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:03:05 PM EST
    with the search function here.  And sweeping generalizations, absolutes, always are a trap.  Not stepping in it, nuh uh.

    I suspect (5.00 / 6) (#79)
    by standingup on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:27:45 PM EST
    RosieScenario is a reincarnation of a former banned commenter. There is one in particular who just can't seem to give up the temptation to create new accounts. The temperament seems quite familiar.

    [ Parent ]
    yes, her incarnation as a (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by MarkL on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:34:33 PM EST
    PA housewive in a depressed area was particularly memorable. The way she went on and on about how she had so much better taste than the poor people around her reminds me of Rosie.

    [ Parent ]
    Rosie's comment (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:33:20 PM EST
    was deleted. It was baiting. Rosie is limited to ten comments a day in a 24 hour period.

    [ Parent ]
    Dear Jeralyn: (none / 0) (#184)
    by RosieScenario on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:11:28 AM EST
    I sincerely apologize for the trouble I have caused you.

    Thank you for the informative site.

    Best regards.

    [ Parent ]

    Hello? Is there a protester out there? (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:03:23 PM EST
    Here's a photo of the distance of the "protest zone" from the entrance to the Pepsi Center (and Dem delegates).

    Formatting Error! Reposted (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by nell on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:12:14 PM EST
    Obama mocking Americans who don't speak two languages.

    First, yes, the video comes from a right wing source, but it is Obama talking and nothing else.

    Second, while I agree with his premise and believe that we should take bilingual education more seriously in this country and really resent the way immigrants have been treated (especially given that I am the child of immigrants), I do not like Obama's tone. I don't think it is ever a good idea for a presidential candidate to imply that he is ashamed of Americans and this does not help the elitist image people have of Obama and Democrats in general AT ALL...when you side with the French, you start to remind people a lot of John Kerry...

    http://tinyurl.com/5m6xmb

    Obama's support of vouchers (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:14:55 PM EST
    is not at all the way to help the majority of schools, public schools, be able to afford to expand foreign-language instruction.  

    [ Parent ]
    great minds! (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by RalphB on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:18:35 PM EST
    I posted the same link in #42.  Not a good idea to tell voters you're ashamed of Americans.


    [ Parent ]