home

Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:32:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Your turn.

< The Biden "Bounce" | Unity Through The Years >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread | 198 comments (198 topical)
    Ahhh (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:38:08 PM EST
    The conservatives have already come up with a new term: Bidenisms

    From The Corner....(expect to see these on a 527 ad any day):

    Bidenism: the ability to say almost anything at any time without worry about consistency.

    E.g, On America after 2000: "We don' have much of a democracy ourselves. "

    On Darfur: "I'm sending American troops alone."

    Looking back at Iraq in 2005: "The decision to go to war was the right one."

    On Bush's war in the Middle East: "I believe President Bush's strong rhetorical support for democracy has made a difference by creating space for and emboldening modernizers and moderates."

    After the 9/11 attacks: "Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran."
    surely they knew this was coming (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:42:14 PM EST
    what I would give to have been in the strategy sessions where Biden was picked.

    Parent
    Biden vs VP TBD (none / 0) (#81)
    by indiependy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:26:54 PM EST
    Biden is going to chew up and spit out whatever chump McCain eventually selects. Just look at the damage he did to Giuliani. Pawlenty, Romney, whoever it is they don't have a chance.

    As far as the using Biden's pro-McCain words or his critiques of Obama out there against him, that could be said for many of the VP candidates that were out there. Heck, McCain's now running his 3rd different ad featuring clips of Hillary jabbing Obama.

    Parent

    well that is clearly the plan (none / 0) (#128)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:44:36 PM EST
    we will see how well it works out.

    Parent
    One of the TV stations was talking (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:42:36 PM EST
    about the choice of Biden as VP and whether or not the fight between Biden and McCain would get ugly.

    The answer was a resounding "No, it will not get ugly."  

    The reasons why were:  They are friends.  They both have more than enough material on record to pull from to make the other look bad, so there is no need to try to drag up personal things.  

    I don't know about everyone else, but to me, negative campaigning involves either making things up or use of personal details that have nothing to do with anything.  

    Parent

    In a rational world (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Lahdee on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:58:48 PM EST
    you'd think negative campaigning is as you described, but in a world where republicans can make a sneeze seem like a negative attack anything can happen.

    Like my old grandfather you'd to say about republicans, "they know how to rob you and have everyone believe you're the thief."

    Parent

    It won't be a fight between Biden and McCain... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by pmj6 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:00:54 PM EST
    ...but rather between their surrogates. That's who will say the really outrageous stuff.

    Parent
    "No, it will not get ugly." (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:03:18 PM EST
    not only that, but if Biden does get nasty there is so much video of him saying glowing things about McCain it will just make him look craven.

    Parent
    and thus we have the REASON (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:05:20 PM EST
    to have Bidenisms. They are already planting the seed.

    Parent
    Certainly the fact... (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by pmj6 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:44:03 PM EST
    ...that Biden has been an enthusiastic supporter of invading Iraq makes it a problem for Obama, at least in terms of retaining the support of those who still cling to the belief he'll pull our forces out of that country.

    Parent
    I think that Bush will make the deal soon (none / 0) (#84)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:29:14 PM EST
    Probably in Oct. Iraq wants us out within 3 years. And if he makes the deal, it takes the argument off the table except for the "I want them out sooner," Almost like the Oct surprise when they will have Osama caught. Heh.

    Parent
    in order to speak out against (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:26:45 PM EST
    the personal attacks being made on biden there I first have to speak out against edwards and Obama and their supporters who executed the same kind of personal attack on Clinton.

    Parent
    These aren't really personal attacks (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:44:30 PM EST
    because all of these things were said "on the record."  

    Anything these guys have said, voted for or against, campaigned on -- those are fair topics in an election.  

    Parent

    i think (none / 0) (#190)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:15:17 PM EST
    cherry picking quotes and juxtaposing them to make someone appear inconsistent and politically motivated is a personal attack.


    Parent
    So, who would like to be Mark Warner tonight (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Teresa on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:43:43 PM EST
    and follow Hillary Clinton (she is first, isn't she?)?  I read an article where he is already explaining why he won't please a lot of the people there. He is a "centrist radical".

    I like Mark Warner and understand the need in certain states to be moderate, but when has a convention ever needed a keynote speaker to come out raging against the past eight years more than this one? Instead, we'll get more get along with everyone bipartisanship apparently.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Lahdee on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:55:44 PM EST
    Warner precedes Hillary.

    Parent
    I heard this morning on X M Potus '08 (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:56:04 PM EST
    that Hillary is the last speaker of the evening.

    Parent
    Thank you Lahdee and Ruffian. (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Teresa on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:01:18 PM EST
    I'd say that's a good decision because the after hours talk will be all about Hillary no matter when she speaks.

    Parent
    Darn It (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:17:21 PM EST
    And here I was, counting on tuning in to see her speak, and tuning out immediately thereafter to settle down to a good book or, maybe even call it an early night.

    Now, I have to stay up and keep switching channels to see if it's her time to speak.

    I really don't care about any of the other speakers (even though I am a supporter of Mark Warner) because I know all of them are just going to wax-lyrical about Obama and sing his praises to the high heavens, which I've seriously had enough of over the last 8-9 months.

    Yeah, yeah, I know Hillary will join in the chorus, but hey, IT'S HILLARY!! :)

    Parent

    wonder if she'll go on later (none / 0) (#29)
    by sancho on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:00:37 PM EST
    than michelle did last night.

    Parent
    I wish the DNC would just trot Barney the dinosaur (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:58:43 PM EST
    out as their mascot and be done with it. This post partisan cr-p is so preschool. We should be pounding the crud out of the GOP but instead the party is calling for blurring the lines some more. Ugh.

    Parent
    Warner will choose his words carefully - (none / 0) (#31)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:00:58 PM EST
    with plans to win his Senate race this year - and in case he runs for president in 2012.
    He's taking no chances.
    This is Obama's 4-day party and apparently he selected Warner to deliver an approved Centrist keynote address.


    Parent
    He needs to kiss up to Warner (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:03:51 PM EST
    Warner is his best shot at Va IMO. Warner was very popular and very effective as governor here. If by some miracle Obama is able to pull Va off I will not doubt for a minute he does it off Warner's coattails.

    Parent
    You are absolutely (none / 0) (#78)
    by camellia on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:25:43 PM EST
    right about Warner's influence in Virginia.  He's possibly the most popular Democrat EVER in this state, and it looks like he's a shoo-in for the Senate seat.    He is definitely the Kingmaker as far as Obama's chances in this state.  

    Parent
    You Cannot Be Serious, BTD (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:44:30 PM EST
    To pick up from one of your replies in an earlier thread, you wrote:

    I could not care less if Hillary is bored for 8 years as the VP and is stuffed into a closet.

    I care about winning THIS election.

    I DO NOT intend to make this an argument, BTD, so don't feel like I'm trying to pick one with you. But, are you seriously suggesting that Hillary has been useless Senator who's accomplished nothing in the 7+ years she's been in the Legislature?

    She definitely would be more engaged in a Senator's role than in a role of VP, especially under Obama, whom we've seen to have a massive ego and pride ... and a penchant for ignoring the resources at his disposal that give him the best options for achieving success. He's shown to be absolutely comfortable consulting with his small, select group of people, and the GE has yet to even roll-out at full speed.

    Do you seriously think he would confer with Hillary in anything? If he chose her only to WIN, boy am I glad he didn't pick her. She has accomplished so much, not only at state level for her New York constituents, but also at national level, for children, for seniors, for military servicemen and for all working people. (I'm listing the groups who most benefit(ed) from legislation she's proposed or/and co-authored.)

    No doubt, Obama would surely have put Hillary in a ceremonial role, and being a woman, that decision would only been made easier for him and his inner-circle of misogynistic Hillary-hating minions.

    With all that she's seen and heard from visiting nearly all 50 states in the last 18-19 months, she is in a great position to actually influence "Change" from her vantage point in the Senate. Her profile has been raised, and her voice has been strengthened.

    I respect your opinion BTD to see Obama win at all cost, but I am SO THANKFUL he did not choose Hillary to be his Veep if that was all she would have helped him with.

    Oh boy, I agree on this (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:07:08 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton is far too talented to second chair anyone, especially Obama.  And, to watch a woman put in that role after experiencing such misogyny is simply intolerable.  Obama needs to live and die by his own record and words.  No one should be blaming Biden either.  We vote for president not vice-president.  I am sure Biden was chosen to make up for Obama's lack of experience and also to appeal to working class/Catholic voters.  That just won't work.  It is not Biden's fault.

    The truth is Obama peaked long ago, long before the primaries actually ended.  This downward trend has been going on for many months.  Recall Hillary's wins in the later months.  

    Obama needs to win this himself.    

    Parent

    Senator trumps VP (none / 0) (#105)
    by Realleft on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:37:09 PM EST
    I think Sen. Clinton is in a better position as a senator than as VP, and I think the Democratic agenda is probably better for her being in that role as well.  That doesn't mean she wouldn't have been an excellent VP, but I don't understand why so many people seem so upset about ANYONE not getting the VP role.   Remember the Garner quote about it not being worth a warm bucket of piss?  It's not that great of a gig!

    The senate needs strong Democrats to advance important legislature over the coming years, and to help rebalance the power between executive and legislative branches. Sen. Clinton will serve America well in the senate, and will be ready to become the next president in 2016 with a great legacy as a powerhouse senator who authored and supported major legislation. (This is not saying she hasn't already served well, but wait until she returns after doing what she'll be able to do under a Dem administration).  

    Parent

    It's about respect, not about being VP (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by davnee on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:53:50 PM EST
    I definitely prefer HRC in the Senate.  I think she can better serve the country there than as VP (would serve it best as Prez, but that's off the table this cycle).  BUT it offends me, as a supporter, that she was not seriously considered for the position, because she is (A) bar none the best choice, and (B) given the Obama camp's race-baiting and sexism during the primaries, it would have been a significant gesture of apology and admission that all that had been done out of hardball political necessity and was not to actually be taken seriously.  You have got to consider the optics of it.  Respect is an important part of politics.

    And all the above doesn't even take into consideration the utilitarian reason for making HRC VP - you know winning.  But I'll leave that argument to BTD who isn't personally invested in the career trajectory of HRC and could care less if she gets stuck being the national funeral attender.

    To summarize, not picking HRC is both insulting and stupid.  That's not the kind of twofer that presidential candidates are normally in the market for.

    Parent

    Dick Cheney might disagree... (none / 0) (#137)
    by pmj6 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:46:49 PM EST
    ...and Al Gore likely did not regret being Clinton's VP for 8 years. The office is what you make of it (and what your boss allows, of course). It's not nearly as useless a post as it used to be.

    Parent
    And this is the main problem... (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by pmj6 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:48:22 PM EST
    ...with Clinton not being the VP. Obama needs a doer in the White House, someone to work long days and get things done using all the levers of power available. Obama himself is not up to the task, it's not his style. I don't see Biden filling that gap either.

    Parent
    Uh huh (none / 0) (#141)
    by indiependy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:48:33 PM EST
    If only Obama had put his trust and confidence in great resources like Mark Penn and Harold Ickes. There's a great gameplan for achieving success. Can't imagine why he'd be absolutely comfortable consulting with the small, select group of people that helped him overcome the inevitable one with the edge in money, name recognition, and party insiders. I mean why listen to them when you can hear the advantages of only preparing for the first 1/4 of the race, and why having a handful of fat cat donors is way better than using silly things like the internet to raise money? Because being flush with cash is totally overrated, way better to spend money you don't have and have to ask others to retire the debt you created. You're right, clearly this guy can't run a campaign and needs advice from the experts like HRC and her team.

    Parent
    And the unity pony rides again (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by americanincanada on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:54:28 PM EST
    Patronizing supporters of your closest rival, who you only beat by the slimest of margins, is a sure way to win them over!

    Parent
    DNC. You forgot to list the DNC in you list of (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Angel on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:55:19 PM EST
    Obama helpers.  They should be at the top.

    Parent
    And all the rest (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:06:27 PM EST
    Brazile, Kennedy, Dashle, Pelosi, Dean, Richrdson and on and on and on.  I have never witnessed anything like it.  Even Carter interviewed last night put his position in a nutshell. It was all about race with him. The whole thing sickened me.

    Parent
    Yes, the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by indiependy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:17:36 PM EST
    Especially -

    Alexis Herman, the chair
    Harold Ickes
    Hartina Flournoy
    Donald Fowler
    Jaime Gonzalez, Jr.
    Alice Huffman
    Ben Johnson
    Elaine Kamarck
    Eric Kleinfeld
    Mona Pasquil
    Mame Reiley
    Garry Shay
    Elizabeth Smith
    Michael Steed

    Parent

    Because the general election (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:59:53 PM EST
    is not a caucus.  That's why.  Obama overcame Hillary with caucuses (shout the opponent down), with the AA vote (great help in the AA, but not all that's needed), and copying Hillary policy positions (won't work in the general election).

    Parent
    Don't Parse My Words (none / 0) (#186)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:12:52 PM EST
    I meant other high-level Democrats (the Governors of PA, NJ, OH, MI, other Senators, Reps., Gen. Clarke etc) who supported Hillary, and also her husband, Bill. You know, that last successful two-term Democratic president? Yes that one!

    Parent
    Just received another call from the Obama (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by mogal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:46:19 PM EST
    campaign asking for a donation of $150.00. I said NO he had his chance to win the election by making Hillary his VP choice.

    The lady said, Yes, I know a lot of people are very upset." Evidently she was getting this response from a lot of people.

    Anyone surprised?

    i am (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:50:05 PM EST
    i cannot believe that any of the 18 million people that voted for her would be upset.  Does this really come as a surprise to you?  Try it with FISA next time they call and see if they don't have a response ready for that as well.  They do.  We all know that many people are upset that Hillary wasn't chosen, so what?

    Parent
    so what? i'll tell you what. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:20:38 PM EST
    seriously, all this negative bull going on hurts the democratic party. obama could have ended a lot of it early on but the didn't. the onus isn't on the hillary democrats. it never was!

    Parent
    aw shucks (2.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:30:23 PM EST
    go vote for mccain.

    Parent
    that response demonstrates (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:32:22 PM EST
    the reasons why hillary democrats are so turned off. thanks for that!

    Parent
    thanks (none / 0) (#123)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:43:12 PM EST
    that amt tax is killing me.

    Parent
    Your wish is my command N/T (none / 0) (#90)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:31:05 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm surprised actually (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by stefystef on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:51:25 PM EST
    Obama's camp has made a big deal about their donors giving up endless donations for "the cause" and that Clinton supporters would fall in line and support the party and his campaign.

    I think the PUMA movement is bigger than the Obama camp and the Barack-worshipping MSM want to admit.


    Parent

    How big is the PUMA movement? (none / 0) (#34)
    by ding7777 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:02:59 PM EST
    I know its bigger than just those people who are in Denver right now, but I really don't know how big it is

    Parent
    Carville had his PUMAs on last night (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:06:59 PM EST
    if that's any indication ;)

    Parent
    That Was Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:24:37 PM EST
    If you're referring to Jeralyn's pic of the CNN crew, yeah, that was really something.

    However, I'm not sure he wore it to make a point, because I doubt it could have been caught on TV.

    He probably wore them for the comfort factor (though we'd all like to think otherwise) and that Jeralyn snapped the photo right when he was stretching out in his seat ... like a puma! ... and his choice of footwear was exposed.

    But seriously, lets not give the MSM any ideas. They're all scraping the barrel to fill airtime on CNN between Convention coverage.

    (The amount of airtime they're giving to this FAA glitch right now is absurd; like it's a doomsday scenario)

    Parent

    he did didnt he (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    posted a very funny quote from him in a previous thread about no message.
    and how right is that?  what exactly was the "message" last night?
    Hes not as bad as you think?


    Parent
    capt, the message is there is no (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:21:52 PM EST
    message. i guess the message is vote for me and donate too.

    Parent
    Message Is: VIAGRA (none / 0) (#85)
    by Desired User Name on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:29:26 PM EST
    I kid not, when I clicked on I saw a Viagra ad.
    This may be goofy but I ALWAYS pay attention to what kind of advertisements are run during certain TV broadcasts and I was frowning my brows over the commercials I saw during the convention thus far.

    I look forward to what I see during the Repub Conv.
    I'd imagine that is where the Viagra would be...

    Parent

    can I just say (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:39:32 PM EST
    as a staunch opponent of the death penalty, the person who wrote the Viva Viagra jingle should die slowly and painfully.

    Parent
    I second this. (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:44:29 PM EST
    Also, whoever thought it was a good idea in the first place.

    Parent
    Cruel & Unusual(ly Hard) Punishment (none / 0) (#132)
    by Desired User Name on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:45:18 PM EST
    I hope you are NOT suggesting the person be WATERBOARDED? ;=}

    that's some turgid torture I can't abide!

    Parent

    wasn't it bob dole who (none / 0) (#99)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:33:42 PM EST
    actually did advertisements for them?

    Parent
    did an LOL (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Desired User Name on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:39:24 PM EST
    Yes Dole was a spokesman for Viagra, too funny.
    I forgot about that :-} Man-oh-man how debased has politics become? I'll be checking the commercials tonight. Call me a weirdo but there is something "to it"...shows how a portion of the world (not just advertisers) are perceiving our dear Dems.

    I suspect there will be a ton of "ASK YOU DOCTOR" during the Repub. Convention. heh heh

    But no "MAC vs. PC"

    Parent

    No one knows, and there appears to be no (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:30:54 PM EST
    possible way to actually get a good count.

    I read somewhere that there are some 200 or more web sites devoted to "Just Say No Deal" with the registered members all choosing anything but a vote for Obama. Some people probably belong to multiple sites, so counting wouldn't be accurate. Many "PUMA" don't know the group exists.

    So, if you're looking for a real number of actual PUMA, contact the site owner and ask her.

    The acronym means people united means action (something similar) and those are the people who are protesting the DNC's management of the primary. The number of people who will not, under any circumstances, vote for this year's democratic ticket, can't be known until election day.

    Had the primary been conducted differently, few Hillary supporters would have difficulty backing the candidate chosen. The issue is the fair and square part of the primary.

    Parent

    Had the primary been conducted (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by miriam on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:25:49 PM EST
    differently, as in fairly, in the general election we could all be voting for Hillary Clinton the Democratic candidate.

    Parent
    While there are formal groups (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:31:22 PM EST
    one can join, my own sense of things is that it's impossible to know how many share the premise of PUMA - that there is no party unity, and here are all the reasons why; I think it has many more adherents to the premise than it has formal members.

    I've never joined the groups, but I certainly share the feeling that the party has gone off the rails, and that we have been betrayed, abandoned, manipulated and disrespected by the party.

    Parent

    Yup. (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:42:18 PM EST
    There are more of us who don't don't go to the websites and don't want to be part of a formal group than there are people who have formally joined.

    Parent
    Yes, it's almost impossible to know a definite (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:51:40 PM EST
    numbers count.  PUMA itself is a bona fide 527, and has registered members.  But many people calling themselves PUMAs don't realize that.

    All sides -- proponents, opponents, and the MSM-blogger-infotainment world conflate any Clinton primary supporters who are not supporting Obama with PUMAs, even people who have never heard of PUMA or JSND.  It has become shorthand for a large group of people.  

    The only numbers that can be considered anything like 'hard' numbers (and this is still a bit iffy) is the number of Clinton voters during the primaries who say they now are voting McCain, staying home or voting 3rd party.  By now I think there are 3 or more polls that put that in the high 40s, and at least 2 (probably 3) that put that in the 30-35% range.  Even at the low end, though, 30% of almost 18 million is millions of voters; more than (I believe) the margin for the last couple of elections.

    Parent

    It's been off (none / 0) (#192)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:20:23 PM EST
    the rails ever since the final triumph of K Street.
    People like Clinton and Biden not having the moral, and, or, intellectual integrity to stand up to the warmongers just put the final dots and crosses on all the i's and the t's.

    But, none of you are thinking about any of that of course; this is all about how insensitive people hurt other peoples feelings during the most recent primary.

    For folks like you, we'll need a draft to go along with the next antiseptic, "surgical" intervention. Something to wake you up a little more.

    Parent

    The McStooge (none / 0) (#171)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:02:11 PM EST
    movement would be a more accurate characterization.

    It never ceases to amaze how often the rationale here for the beyond-the-bounds-of-reason devotion to Clinton is that she's allegedly "more" progressive, while the issue of who is more progressive suddenly becomes all but irrelevant when the choice is between Obama and the troglodyte
    McCain.

    It'll be a shame if it turns out that the direction the country goes in in the next four years is determined by emotional reactions centering around the way pet candidates are treated (actual issues being obviously a secondary consideration), but, the fact that we had Bush for two terms pretty much solidified already that little resembling reasonablness has anything to do with this process.

    Parent

    Correction: (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by chel2551 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:14:32 PM EST
    It'll be a shame if it turns out that the direction the country goes in in the next four years is determined by Obama's inability to convince voters why he, as a democratic candidate, has the best policies for the issues many voters are most concerned about.  If he can't present himself as the most qualified candidate now running in this election, that is Obama's fault.

    Obama's fault.

    Many voters are obviously not yet convinced.  Two months to go.

    Parent

    How (none / 0) (#198)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:28:22 PM EST
    would it be her fault?

    As usual, most of the fault will lie with another benighted herd of devotees.

    Parent

    Are They Specifying (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:53:33 PM EST
    Contribution Amounts Now? {shocked}

    As anyone who is a regular here knows, I am a Hillary supporter, right down to the bone, but even I didn't (and couldn't) contribute $150 at any one time during the Primaries.

    It's laughable that they're even suggesting the contribution amounts (if they are). Ultimately, I did reach my contribution limit, but my single-highest contribution amount was $50 (after she won PA)

    If I receive such a call from the Obama campaign, I'll tell him/her to stick their hopes of such a contribution where the sun don't shine. Geez. The audacity...

    Parent

    I'd be laughing too hard to respond (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:08:35 PM EST
    if they asked me for $150!

    "It's the economy, Stupid"

    Parent

    I say No Way (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:15:36 PM EST
    You have got to be kidding and ask them to take my name off their list. They don't. They keep trying. daily in the mail. Today it was from Nancy Pelosi. And the other day I told the DNC no and added a few other comments. God love those volunteers.

    Parent
    they wont be asking me (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:17:23 PM EST
    because they dont have my phone number.
    and I dont expect that to change.

    Parent
    did you get the (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:27:13 PM EST
    Obama mailing yet where on the front of the envelope it says "(insert name), It will be different this time"?

    For some reason, I couldn't help thinking of an abusive spouse apologizing after yet another round of unnecessary, unprovoked fisticuffs.

    Very bizarre.

    Parent

    I just got that today (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by janarchy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:45:30 PM EST
    and they wanted me to volunteer my time for them too. I plan on writing a long letter to mail back to them on their own dime after HRC's speech tonight. How the roll call vote is dealt with will be a big part of how long it is.

    Parent
    Hillary Donations (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Desired User Name on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:20:20 PM EST
    I too am a Hillary supporter, big time! I donated a great deal of money and chunks at a time. A friend told me that my name and address was listed on the Huffington Post as a Clinton Donar.

    WHAT?? I had no idea. I go over there and yep, there I am but they hadn't updated the amount donated but they had no prob busting out my address and a map of my location. I was a little miffed.

    Did you all know your info was being publicized.
    Another funny thing is that I listed "unemployed" for on THAT DAY I was...now I am "unemployed for life" as per Huffington Post.

    Yet another reason I'm not too smitten with Arianna ;=} She made me HOMELESS!

    Parent

    I think they have to report (none / 0) (#75)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:24:44 PM EST
    any donation over $500. And Huffpost didn't do this to you: newsmeat.com and fec.gov have had the info for years.

    Parent
    I think it's below 500 (none / 0) (#91)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:31:09 PM EST
    because I also showed up and at the time was under 500. I was googling my name and that was the only hit.

    Parent
    Not True (none / 0) (#100)
    by Desired User Name on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:33:53 PM EST
    I am STILL listed and it STILL is not caught up, not up to date on how much I donated. I am also STILL listed as being "unemployed" even though I only wrote that ONCE and I only wrote for my first donation.

    I just checked via google...I put my name and address and instantly UP COMES Huffington Post and THAT is the ONLY listing, for I am not the type to advertise my private information all over the web.

    But I promise you I donated way more then $500 and my info resides on HuffPo.

    Again as I said she forced me to be "jobless" for an eternity.

    Parent

    OOOPS I misread what you said (none / 0) (#101)
    by Desired User Name on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:35:14 PM EST
    Apologies...I got your comment completely wrong.
    Sorry. Ignore my response!

    Parent
    I believe it's there, but I can't (none / 0) (#117)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:41:07 PM EST
    find the list, and I was also a contributor. I've searched for myself and family who I know contributed and find no list on Huff Post.


    Parent
    I think it's over $200 (none / 0) (#155)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:54:24 PM EST
    HuffPo just makes it a lot easier to find people; their search engine is much better than the fec's or opensecrets (eg, my $ shows up in HuffPo but not the other 2, I don't know if it's because they're behind getting names onto the database or what).

    Parent
    Do you have a link to that published list? (none / 0) (#106)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:37:23 PM EST


    Parent
    How To Find Your Name for Donations (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Desired User Name on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:08:56 PM EST
    I have reached my comment limit, but I just saw your question.

    Do a GOOGLE search for your
    NAME and HOME ADDRESS
    or whatever address you used to donate funds.

    HUFF PO will come up.
    It's easier than searching their own database.

    Also there will be a map of your locale.
    I hate that so much :-( BUT be warned their list is not updated, at least my info was/is not.
    My first donation was $10 buckeroos and that's what they have, along with "unemployed"...wtf?

    PFFFFFFT.

    My best to you and your search and to TL
    and again sorry for overstepping the newbie comment limit. I never meant to be a menace.
    xx-:=}

    Parent

    I wish (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Desired User Name on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:09:35 PM EST
    I could have been as cordial as you were, but I let it rip when I got the call. For one I didn't know how they got my number and 2...forget 2, because 2 would get me kicked off this site :-}

    I love this site. Thanks for the multi open threads BTD. I like the various topics being bounced around and the many links.

    Parent

    I would have let it rip too. (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:03:24 PM EST
    I wonder if you'll end up on lists for other candidates looking for donations -- like Pelosi?  Frankly, it would be a cold day in the underworld before I would donate to her either.    


    Parent
    Not me Mogal....They specifically asked (none / 0) (#157)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:54:36 PM EST
    for $150?  Anything I get from them is torn up and send back in the prepaid envelope.

    Parent
    Interesting lineup tonight (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Lahdee on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:53:32 PM EST
    My favorites include Ted Sorenson, David Patterson (Gov-NY), Patrick Leahy, Cecile Richards (Daughter of Ann Richards), Dennis Kucinich, John Sweeney, Rahm Emanuel, Steny Hoyer, Janet Napolitano (Gov-AZ), Kathleen Sebelius, The Keynote from Mark Warner, the Governors Deval Patrick (MA) and Brian Schweitzer (MT) and some woman from NY.
    It is expected her speech will include a cure for cancer, the answer to world hunger and the formula for cheap, eternal energy.

    Perhaps we are seeing the beginning of (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by stefystef on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:53:52 PM EST
    the Bradley Effect.

    While it seems like everyone is on board with Obama (if you watch the MSM), the polls are not reflecting this.

    Could it be that people are claiming to vote for Obama, but in reality will not?  On TV, they say, Oh yeah, I love Obama, but secretly plan to vote for McCain or not vote at all???

    With all the hype, it would seem to me that Obama would be doing better...

    The hype is manufactured (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by pmj6 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:57:43 PM EST
    The Obama campaign is very good at stage-management, making it look like their candidate commands a massive following. The Invesco stadium acceptance speech is part and parcel of that. But the reality is much bleaker. Obama can't even win a commanding majority within his own party, so I don't expect him to do well in the general where he will not be able to rely on his strength, the art of the backroom deal, to prevail.

    Parent
    If that were the case (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by BernieO on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:09:39 PM EST
    his poll numbers would probably be higher. I think the Russia-Georgia dustup reminded people that foreign policy experience matters.

    Parent
    How is that again? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Realleft on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:17:52 PM EST
    The "Russia-Georgia dustup" reminded people that it would be better to have blustering leaders who shoot from the hip with ridiculous sound-bites that misrepresent and exacerbate the situation based on their own (or their partners) financial rewards?

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:20:39 PM EST
    It reminded people that the world is a dangerous place and one candidate was talking about the conflict (rightly or wrongly) while the other candidate gave a lame, generic statement and then went bodysurfing in Hawaii.

    Parent
    EXACTLY (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by americanincanada on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:23:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes, exactly (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by pmj6 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:20:43 PM EST
    McCain definitely came off the winner from that, since Obama looked uncomfortable discussing the subject. Moreover, as time went by, Obama's position drifted closer to that of McCain.

    Parent
    Maybe obama thought Georgia, in the (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:58:38 PM EST
    U.S. was invaded by Russia; kinda like in Red Dawn :)

    Parent
    It reminds them what happened last time (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:21:59 PM EST
    someone with no real experience "won" the presidency in 2000.

    Parent
    Well... (2.00 / 0) (#136)
    by Realleft on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:46:10 PM EST
    I see that you all saw that.  Surely, not what I saw!  I saw another dangerous jingoistic saber rattler contrasted with someone who gave it the minor attention that it deserved (it is a minor regional matter) and deferred jumping to a war-mongering stance that just so happened to fit perfectly with his partner being paid $800,000 to take just such a stance.  

    Parent
    What matters is public perception (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by BernieO on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:28:06 PM EST
    Considering the media was all about big bad Russia going after poor little Georgia, McCain's response played well with the public, whatever we may think of it.


    Parent
    Would that be a pre-Bradley Effect? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by davnee on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:17:34 PM EST
    My understanding is the Bradley Effect (if it exists) is saying to a pollster you'll vote for an African-American and then not pulling the lever in the booth.  What you suggest would be telling your neighbors/coworkers you are voting Obama and then saying to the pollster that you won't vote Obama.  And if that is what is happening then Obama is in a whole heap of trouble.  Because if many people aren't even feeling pressured enough to hide their true preferences from pollsters, then imagine what happens to even more people in the privacy of the voting booth.

    Parent
    Just to add this (none / 0) (#64)
    by davnee on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:19:12 PM EST
    I'd hypothesize more of a trendiness/hype effect than a Bradley Effect in polls.  The buzz might be Obama every where you go, but that may not be translating into hard and fast voting preferences.

    Parent
    pelosi is just quoted on yahoo (none / 0) (#83)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:29:05 PM EST
    saying the polls were being "fair" to obama. geez, like that will play well.

    Parent
    pelosi-polls weren't fair to obama! (none / 0) (#86)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:29:57 PM EST
    sorry i type too fast sometimes.

    Parent
    speaking of Obamas problems (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:36:59 PM EST
    Pelosi = problem number one afaiac.

    Parent
    You mean the polls aren't (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:40:26 PM EST
    in the tank for Obama?! {shocked I tell ya!}

    Parent
    tsk tsk, pass the smelling salts. it (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:42:13 PM EST
    is such a shock to us! snark

    Parent
    His poll numbers (none / 0) (#181)
    by jb64 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:06:47 PM EST
    have fallen every week since he clinched the nomination. As each week went by and it became increasingly clearer to voters that Hillary Clinton would not be joining the ticket, his numbers fell. There is no bounce to the Biden pick (unless you count a negative bounce)I know this sounds simplistic, but I think it is clearly the case.

    Parent
    If you like hurting yourself (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Faust on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:54:36 PM EST
    I recommend a jaunt over to Digbys blog where she has a clip of "Morning Joe."

    Watching it I felt a bit like my mind was being eaten by wild baboons while my skin was flayed from my body but it is facinating to watch how absolutely insane our pundits get to be on national TV.

    It's like 7th graders are in charge of our national discourse.

    7th graders and Mica (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:04:31 PM EST
    the teachers pet 5th grade hall monitor.

    Parent
    You mean like yesterday (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:08:19 PM EST
    when some putz came over here and attempted to sell the idea that McCain was singlehandedly overturn Roe V. Wade? I would say calling these people 7th graders is an insult to 7th graders.

    Parent
    Roe would be at risk under McCain (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:01:18 PM EST
    McCain says he is pro-life and would appoint judges like Scalia.  He has a 100% Pro-life voting record. NARAL and NOW say McCain is a disaster on choice.

    Yet, somehow, an elaborate rationalization occurs whereby McCain will not hurt Roe.  The Democrats in the Senate will stand firm.  Just like they have done under the current Republican President...Yes, they stood up to an unpopular President, so that gives me complete confidence they will stand up to one who would be popular as a dragon-slayer, come-from-behind winner. Yes, there is a rational reason for believing that with certainty.

    And then Obama says something about abortion that rankles; he talks about reducing abortions, (sounds like "rare" as in "safe, legal and rare" to me), and this small deviation makes Obama unacceptable on choice.  If abortion is that important, where a slight variation in in phrasing or emphasis matters greatly, there is no rational basis for supporting McCain. Total folly.  If you support choice, McCain is not your candidate.

    There are a lot of bad things that would likely occur over the next four years under a McCain presidency that could conceivably be curable:  tax structures can be fixed, lack of health insurance can be belatedly addressed, bellicose war policies can be reversed, torture policies (McCain says it's okay if the CIA does it) can be reversed...perhaps not fixed completely but at least reversed.  But the Supreme Court appointments will be long-lasting and not reversible for at least a generation....The oldest members are those who are moderates or who lean slighlty to the left (the last of the true liberals being long since gone.)    Stevens is 88.  Ginsburg is in her 70s and surrounded by health issues.   McCain will likely have two appointments to the Supreme Court in his first term.  Under McCain, you could easily have a 7-2 conservative court.....

    McCain is a severe threat to Roe.    

    Parent

    Was just watching that (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:17:37 PM EST
    It was a hoot.  I think 7th graders would be better behaved.  It just makes explicit what TLers caught onto long ago -- these people aren't professionals, they're just loudmouths with a good paycheck.

    Parent
    Delegates are filling out... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by gtesta on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:13:23 PM EST
    forms on who they intend to vote for during the roll call.  My wife is in the NC delegation (Hillary pledged delegate) and she called and said that they are filling out forms today indicating how they intend to vote.
    Sounds kind of strange.  Maybe the Obama camp wants to check their vote totals ahead of time?
    I read this somewhere (none / 0) (#145)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:51:38 PM EST
    and it not a usual practice  they said.  If I find it, I'll post.

    Parent
    This is choice (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by mogal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:14:38 PM EST
    David Harsanyi, Denver Post

    And there is a noteworthy difference between Biden and Clinton: The loquacious Biden entertained the press corps for a handful of primary debates before dropping out; Hillary persuaded 18 million primary voters to support her.

    So then why not Clinton? If you erode your theme of "change" by choosing a longtime Washington insider, why not pick the one who can unite your party?

    Perhaps a clue can be found in the words of Nancy Pelosi, who said Democrats need to "begin anew." At a convention that will feature Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, John Kerry, Joe Biden and maybe Ted Kennedy (in order of most annoying), who can argue?

    It's true that Biden is the "safe" pick. And for those who've dug deeper into Obama's political career, you already know the junior senator from Illinois always makes the safe pick.

    The one thing that is certain, though, is that picking Biden over Clinton helps one candidate. And that candidate is not here in Denver.

    Reach columnist David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.



    Right whales... (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by desertswine on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:16:27 PM EST
    The Bush administration yesterday proposed scaling back protected zones for endangered whales in the Atlantic Ocean, yielding to cargo companies' concerns about new speed limits for ships in these areas.

    About 300 of the whales remain, and researchers say their tiny population has been reduced further by fatal collisions with large ships.

    "Time is money in shipping."

    There are more Bush criminals than there are right whales.

    yeah (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:19:20 PM EST
    unfortunately that species does not seem to be in any danger at all.

    Parent
    My prediction for HRC's speech tonight (5.00 / 6) (#70)
    by lizpolaris on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:21:28 PM EST
    She'll talk about the anniversary and then go on to blast the current WH administration over running the country into the ground for 8 years, contrasting that with what we should be doing (leaving the historical comparison with Bill's admin to him later in the week).  And she'll do it without personally attacking McCain but still tie him to Bush.  And then go on to say everyone should vote for Obama.

    The punditry boys will say it was a typical speech and too predictable, complain there was not enough Obama groveling (because there can never be enough), whine about her clothing and gestures, gripe that there even has to be a nomination instead of a coronation - and then some small faction will shake their heads in the corner wondering why the best candidate isn't the one in the lead.  Those people will be regarded as racist by Obots and as fools by other mainstream pundits (HRC could never win because everyone has CDS just like they do).

    I plan to put the above into squares on a card and play Pundit Bingo in the morning!

    Excellent Pre-Speech Analysis (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:37:23 PM EST
    I might also add that reporters will trip over themselves on the convention floor after she exits the stage, shoving tape recorders and microphones in all those "bitter knitters who just. won't. fall. in. line. like good Democrats" and breathlessly ask them:

    • "Did she change your mind?"
    • "Will you vote for Obama? You will, won't you?"

    And then they'll ask the diehard Obamans on the floor:

    • "Was she convincing and forceful enough?"
    • "Did she really mean it?"
    • "Is she tearing this wonderful party apart?"
    • "Do you still believe she's trying to steal this?"
    • "Do you think she wants Obama to lose?"

    Argh, it just won't end. And then all the pundits will come out of their dark holes to bloviate about what she said or didn't say, or did or didn't do. And they'll parse each and every word to see if she was being that witchy racist she really, really is.

    Parent
    Read something earlier on the CNN or MSNBC (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by Angel on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:45:00 PM EST
    website, can't remember, but basically it was that Hillary would "say" the right things but boy oh boy you had better "watch the body language" because that's where she'll be sending her message.  Wonder if she'll brush her shoulder, wipe her shoe, scratch her face.....

    Parent
    CNN Has Already Started (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:06:04 PM EST
    That horrible and biased reporter, Jessica Yellin, is now speaking to a "passionate" Hillary supporter.

    They labeled her as "An Angry Clinton Supporter"

    Geez, they must be getting a lot of mileage from this narrative.

    And now, Suzanne Malveaux is doing the same thing. She just HAD TO add in the "bitter" word.

    They're just incorrigible.

    Parent

    CNN (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by americanincanada on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:25:06 PM EST
    is losing their minds over Bill Clinton and his remarks again. And they even brought on...wait for it....Charles Barkley to talk about it!

    LMAO...I have to keep laughing or I'll cry.

    Did Bill say something else again today? (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:31:38 PM EST
    ...Poor guy, he should just walk around with duct tape over his mouth. That might make them happy. Heck now, they'd just start up on his body language then.

    Parent
    morse code (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by jjsmoof on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:33:25 PM EST
    Or they'll accuse him of breathing in morse code /snark

    Parent
    He said this (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:40:23 PM EST
    Link

       Bill Clinton appeared to undermine Sen. Barack Obama again Tuesday. The former president, speaking in Denver, posed a hypothetical question in which he seemed to suggest that that the Democratic Party was making a mistake in choosing Obama as its presidential nominee.

        He said: "Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?"

        Then, perhaps mindful of how his off-the-cuff remarks might be taken, Clinton added after a pause: "This has nothing to do with what's going on now."

        The comments are unlikely to be taken as an innocent mistake by those Democrats who continue to be angry with the former president for, they say, not supporting the Illinois senator wholeheartedly, if not implicitly undercutting him.



    Parent
    Saw it on CNN (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:43:59 PM EST
    As long as the media can keep the subject on Bill and Hillary, they don't have to talk about the delegations having to submit their votes today or how uncomfortable many Hillary delegates are being made to feel.

    Personally, I think they've overdone the Clinton hatred and few are even bothering to listen anymore.

    People who don't already hate the Clintons can't be swayed by this garbage.


    Parent

    Indeed (none / 0) (#160)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:54:51 PM EST
    People who don't already hate the Clintons can't be swayed by this garbage.

    Although the DNC Secretary did announce the timings for the votes to submitted on stage last night, and it was broadcast on PBS (not too sure about CNN etc, and I highly doubt they did).

    I cannot imagine that it will soon come to a point, if it already hasn't, that all this anti-Clinton narratives will backfire on Obama.

    I mean, probably less than 10% of the Democratic voters actually have been following this nonsense.

    Oh, thanks cmugirl for posting that. I can see how, and where, the media will parse his words.

    Parent

    That article also repeats the false 'fairy tale' (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:07:06 PM EST
    cr*p.

    Just sayin'.

    Parent

    Bill has (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:21:29 PM EST
    the perfect reading on why McCain is ahead. There are voters who only agree with McCain 25% of the time yet will still vote for him because they believe that he can deliver at least that 25% whereas people don't have faith in Obama to deliver anything at all. And it's all Obama's fault too. He's flip flopped and waffled all over the place on so many issues. You can't trust Obama to take a stance on anything. And that is no one's fault but Obama.

    Parent
    Haha (none / 0) (#138)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:47:07 PM EST
    WTF Bill, that needs some context!

    The article looks like a piece of hackery though - note the casual inclusion of the false statement that Bill called Obama's candidacy a fairy tale.  I think we're not getting the full story here.

    Parent

    He was responding to a specific (none / 0) (#165)
    by americanincanada on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:59:05 PM EST
    question about emerging demorcracies at an event for former world leaders.

    CNN needs to get a grip.

    Parent

    Strange (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:14:48 PM EST
    I'm not sure I'm exactly following, but when the media refuses to report any context, you have to suspect they're up to something.

    We've seen this far too often to fall for it any more.  Well, most of us anyway.

    Parent

    A Little O/T (none / 0) (#169)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:01:02 PM EST
    Are you surprised that Gov. Granholm hasn't been scheduled to speak, or even make an appearance on stage by the Obama campaign?

    Being the Democratic governor of a very important state -- and one that mattered a lot this election cycle -- I'd have imagined she would be slated for a speaking role.

    Besides Hillary, Jennifer Granholm is my favorite politician. She is so intelligent and an extremely down-to-earth and wonderful person to speak with.

    Parent

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#176)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:05:51 PM EST
    this is exactly the kind of statement that makes Democrats think they can't trust the Clintons to put our party and our issues first.  Why on earth would Bill need to say something like that, especially this week when he has a chance to promote our party.  Instead he says describes the situation as voters agree with Candidate X who can't deliver (clearly an Obama reference) and who agree with half of Candidate Y (obviously McCain, hey, he's a maverick, he'll buck the GOP policies, right?).  

    Bill has a job to do.  He should be supporting our party, promoting our candidate.  Is it asking too much for him to not undermine our chance to take back our country?


    Parent

    Who's (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:26:59 PM EST
    fault is that people don't think Obama can deliver? It's Obama and his continual inability to stick with positions.

    You can't trust Obama to put the party first. Obama is all about post partisanship right? That's certainly not putting the party first. Obama has never put the party first. It's all about transforming the Democratic party into the "Obama Party" and it's all about him not issues.

    Parent

    If Hillary had won the nomination, (none / 0) (#203)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:39:47 PM EST
    I don't think Obama would say what Bill Clinton said.  I don't think he'd undermine her chances for success.  What has Obama ever done to make you think he'd be spiteful enough to disparage the Dem nominee if it were Hillary instead of him?

    Parent
    Bill has a job to do? (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by miriam on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:40:57 PM EST
    Excuse me, but he's already done his job as president and done it damn well.  Why he should go out and shill for a candidate who's done nothing but insult him and badmouth his presidency, and his wife, is a mystery to me.  Maybe the brilliant Obama should have thought of possible problems with dismissing a popular president before he did it.  But then again, much of what Obama does is an amateurish mistake or a monumental blunder...like picking Biden instead of Hillary.  And we're supposed to vote for this man?  

    Parent
    Is this about (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:32:21 PM EST
    His comments from today?  The Obama camp can't love this - the Big Dog does not misspeak (well, ok, except for that "I did not have $ex with that woman" thing).  He knows exactly what he is saying and what affect it will have. This keeps the Clintons in the news and not the message that Obama is our Chosen One.

    Parent
    I'd Love To Know (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:41:51 PM EST
    what he said today. Or maybe, on second thoughts, I don't.*

    I mean, what else can that TWO-TERM Democratic president, who brought much peace and prosperity under his watch, say, because really, he is after all an elitist racist, right?

    *yes, I do :)

    Parent

    next up (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:26:24 PM EST
    Don Imus

    Parent
    Don Imus (none / 0) (#143)
    by Desired User Name on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:50:05 PM EST
    is still in Bible Country...
    still in the text.

    oh wait, that's Rev. Wright.
    My bad. I can't keep any of these
    "kicked to the curb" "thrown under the bus"
    people straight.

    I need to make a list, in order of importance, or in order of offense, or in order of who Obama
    thought was a bad bad man and who he thought was just some old "UNCLE." OH BUT not an "Uncle Tom"...oh crap, who said "Uncle Tom"...

    SEE, it's all so confusing.

    Parent

    did you see where the (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:52:50 PM EST
    Illinois senator who called a Hillary delegate an Uncle Tom is now saying he was misunderstood and he actually said Doubting Thomas.
    pfft.


    Parent
    UNCLE TOM/Doubting Thomas -I did see it! I did! (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Desired User Name on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:55:36 PM EST
    I was referring to that...I know it's nuts, I know.
    :-}}}
    -----------

    COMMENT TOTAL:

    and sorry for more than 10 comments
    this will be my last
    Didn't mean to get carried away...I've READ this blog for so long (months) and never signed up until
    recently. I got exhuberant. Sorry

    Parent

    dont feel bad (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:00:24 PM EST
    my first week I got humiliated in a front page post by name.
    ;-)


    Parent
    10 comments DUN (none / 0) (#148)
    by waldenpond on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:51:48 PM EST
    Reminder... new commenters (those less than 30 days) are limited to 10 comments per day.  You are at 23.  Thanks.

    Parent
    Clearly, the media (none / 0) (#125)
    by JThomas on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:44:20 PM EST
    has way too many hours to fill before the convention convenes for the day so they chase these stupid stories about Obama vs Clinton.
    I am voting for Obama but can see that the media loves to try to get Bill Clinton to expand on politics then use anything he says as some kind of shocking slight towards obama. It is just media noise. Means nothing.

    I expect Hillary to do a great job tonite for the democratic party. She will hammer bush/mccain..she remembers that joke by mcCain about Chelsea and Janet Reno.

    Parent

    Hotel roll call (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jjsmoof on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:30:51 PM EST
    Anyone else get anymore info on the 'alleged' Hotel roll call being negotiated by the bama/clinton camps? this has me at a whole new level of pi$$ed off.

    Yes. See LA Times blog. (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:37:56 PM EST
    Hotel breakfast voting.  A wee tad too reminiscent of the very long lunch during the rules committee fiasco.

    LAT

    Parent

    Thanks for the link (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jjsmoof on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:41:18 PM EST
    I'm at a loss for words.

    Parent
    I'm stunned (none / 0) (#200)
    by janarchy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:31:39 PM EST
    And since when does one campaign decide how the roll call vote for all campaigns/candidates is supposed to go? Doesn't anyone see how rotten that looks?

    Parent
    No convention on at our home last night, first (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Angel on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:36:59 PM EST
    time ever for that for both my husband and myself.  We will probably try to watch Hillary and Bill if our schedules allow for it.  My sister and I wore our new Hillary t-shirts this past weekend, made us feel good knowing that we supported the best candidate.  My mother is coming around to Obama because of Joe Biden. She's in her 70's and is scared about the economy and other things.  She's a life-long Democrat who would never be able to sit out the election nor vote for a republican.  That's where Obama will get a lot of his votes; not from people who like him or think he's qualified, but from people who are such staunch believers in the Democratic philosophy that they think any Democrat is better than any republican. I don't necessarily believe this but I do understand it.  I strongly resent that Obama has been shoved down our throats, and I will not grant him my vote regardless.  

    Uh-oh Obama may need to (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by gtesta on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:37:49 PM EST
    reschedule his acceptance speech if he wants anyone from Western Pennsylvania to watch it.
    Steelers vs. Carolina Thursday at 7:30!!
    supposedly they moved up the (none / 0) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:47:57 PM EST
    start time.  Im sure they hope they moved it enough.
    possibly he should be more worried about the rumors that McCain plans to announce his VP that day.
    split screen anyone?


    Parent
    Biden is poor? (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by waldenpond on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:42:12 PM EST
    Not really.  The latest talking point is that McCain can't rememerber how many homes he owns and Biden is the poorest member blah, blah, blah..  It's all relative and I have yet to see a 'poor' politician..... Apparently this is his home... four acres in Delaware (it's nice) and his net worth is adjusted down for his 2.2 million in campaign debt.  I'm your average Joe that is not in a postion to afford a home like that (I like my home just fine), nor could I qualify for 2.2 million in credit.  So pfffft.... he is not 'poor'

    How about this one? (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:45:11 PM EST

    Fifty-three percent of Americans expect their federal income taxes to increase if Barack Obama is elected president, while 34% think they would increase if John McCain gets the job -- both of which are higher than expectations were for their counterparts in the 2004 election.

    I just saw that too. (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by dk on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:50:28 PM EST
    Forget all the other stuff, folks.  LIke it or not, this is what it is all about.  If Obama doesn't turn this around, I think he loses.

    Parent
    Proof that many Americans (none / 0) (#153)
    by eric on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:53:00 PM EST
    are really, really stupid.

    Parent
    Or proof that the Democratic (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by dk on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:58:05 PM EST
    party leadership is doing a very poor job of explaining their own economic policies.  

    Parent
    That too (none / 0) (#173)
    by eric on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:02:41 PM EST
    You'd think that by now, they would be aware of the level of knowledge and understanding and would compensate.

    Parent
    Well, Bill and Hillary are very good (none / 0) (#183)
    by dk on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:08:14 PM EST
    at it.  However, the party went a different route this year.  Too bad for the party.

    Parent
    Charlie Rangel Speaking this Afternoon (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:52:45 PM EST
    Hour # 2  4:08 PM - 5:00 PM (LOCAL)
    Remarks
    The Honorable Chris Van Hollen
    Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Maryland

    Remarks
    Cecile Richards
    President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America
    Daughter of the former Governor of Texas, The Honorable Ann Richards

    Congressional Black Caucus
    The Honorable Carolyn Kilpatrick
    Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Michigan
    The Honorable Charles Rangel
    Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, New York
    The Honorable John Conyers
    Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Michigan
    The Honorable Bennie Thompson
    Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Mississippi

    Moment of Silence

    Video - "In Memoriam"
    My local NBC channel (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by camellia on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:21:30 PM EST
    just wondered what Hillary is going to say tonight to help to heal her fractured party.    Listen up, folks -- she doesn't need to do anything more.  The healing is up to The Precious.  

    And what is all the noise about Michelle's talk last night?   It was a nice speech, well delivered and quite pleasant.  Did anyone expect her to get up there and say -- well, this guy's a real deadbeat.  He wont help the kids with their homework, he forgot to pick me up at the station last year, he leaves his dirty shorts on the floor, and I just don't like his family.   I had understood also that the Obama kids were no longer going to be wheeled out as props during this campaign.  Did I miss the memo saying that's no longer in effect?

    Invocation (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Lahdee on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:29:32 PM EST
    The second night of the Democratic National Convention has begun with an invocation.

    Dear Lord, let us pray for unity tonight. Let us pray that we leave here this evening united behind Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Dear Lord, please see to it that all the speakers are clear of voice and wise in word. And Lord, please make sure that woman from New York does what she's supposed to. Amen.

    In spite of NATO warnings.... (none / 0) (#1)
    by pmj6 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:35:59 PM EST
    ...the Russian government recognizes the "independence" of "breakaway" regions of Georgia. A new cold war is looming closer.

    This is nothing (none / 0) (#6)
    by eric on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:43:03 PM EST
    like when the US recognized Kosovo. Nothing at all.

    Parent
    Ah, another of Kremlin's self-appointed spokesmen (none / 0) (#11)
    by pmj6 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:49:40 PM EST
    The circumstances of Kosovo's independence are radically different from what Russia is doing to Georgia.

    Parent
    Do your homework (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by BernieO on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:18:39 PM EST
    It is true that Russia used the Georgian attack on South Ossetia as an excuse to invade them, but there is no one claiming that the South Ossetians have any desire to be a part of Georgia. The international community (minus Russia) has declared that they are part of Georgia, but they have refused to go along with it and have functioned as an independent state since the breakup of the USSR. At that time the Georgians ran roughshod over the other ethnic minorities in that region and adopted the slogan "Georgia for the Georgians".
    South Ossetians are a separate culture with their own language. When they were part of the USSR, they were allowed to teach their language in school but the Georgians want that to stop. As an Irish Catholic American I know how well that kind of oppression works out. Whatever the West and the Georgians want, these people will not acquiesce. If we were in Russia's place we would support them too. The only reason we don't is we think it will strengthen Georgia if they control that area. In fact it will only lead to prolonged conflict just like Russia has experienced with Chechnya, the French did in Vietnam and the British did with Ireland. Just because Russia has its own agenda it does not negate the right of these people to be independent or align themselves with Russia. There is no evidence that they are being coerced by the Russians to do so.

    Parent
    Fine! (none / 0) (#102)
    by pmj6 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:36:41 PM EST
    If the South Ossetians really and truly want to be an independent country then it can be done like it was done in Kosovo, East Timor, etc., in other words under the watchful eye of the international community, and not at the Russian gunpoint. And here's the difference between what has been happening in Kosovo and Georgia: the West intervened in Kosovo because it was a genuine catastrophe unfolding in slow motion. Russia doesn't give a rat's ass about the self-determination rights of South Ossetians or anybody else, they are merely using it as an excuse to dismantle Georgia piece by piece.

    Parent
    Or, (none / 0) (#135)
    by vicndabx on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:46:07 PM EST
    they are using it as an excuse to push back on American policies they deem not in their best interests - see withdrawal from START and ICBM Missle Shield.

    Parent
    That's part of it too... (none / 0) (#147)
    by pmj6 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:51:48 PM EST
    ...but I have to say, that's a remarkably counterproductive way of doing it! Because the image of a belligerent Russia will only reinforce the domestic support for US ABM defenses, galvanize and unify NATO, and result in a whole range of policy outcomes harmful to Russia's interests.

    Parent
    It is what the people in those regions (none / 0) (#40)
    by BernieO on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:05:06 PM EST
    overwhelmingly support. Either we are champions of democracy which has the right of self determination at its heart or we should stop claiming that we do. Putin is right that the West is being extremely hypocritical in supporting independence for the Kosavars, but not these people.

    During WWII the Allies promised the Vietnamese we would give them their independence from France if they fought on our side. They kept their side of the bargaing fighting against both the Vichy French and the Japanese but after the war was over we broke our promise gave Vietnam back to the French. I once saw a PBS documentary that interviewed people who had worked in our State Department Southeast Asian bureau during this time and they all confirmed that even though they had vigorously argued in favor of keeping our promise, the European bureau won out because they wanted to strengthen France. Of course this wound up causing both the French and us huge problems. It is always a losing proposition when people want to control their own region instead of submitting to outside rule.

    We don't learn from our mistakes.

    Parent

    Exactly how do we know this? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by pmj6 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:16:56 PM EST
    In Kosovo's case we know what they wanted because they held free and fair elections and there is no doubt independence from Serbia was a key priority among the Albanian majority. There is nothing equivalent coming from Abkhazia or South Ossetia, all we have is the Kremlin's word that's what the people of these regions want.

    And while we are at it, why not look at those of Russia's provinces where pro-independence sentiment is quite high, like Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, maybe even the Maritime Province.

    Parent

    so when we do the same thing (none / 0) (#77)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:25:22 PM EST
    for so called "good" reasons it's perfecly ok. but russia is "bad" so it isn't ok. naw, it doesn't fly.

    Parent
    It is not "the same thing" (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by pmj6 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:31:49 PM EST
    Thwarting that murderous maniac Milosevic is not the same thing as using Chechen mercenaries to violate the integrity of an independent country (yeah, that's how these provinces got to be "breakaway").

    Sorry, but your efforts to draw equivalence are misplaced and misguided. And even by your own logic, if we were "wrong" to support Kosovo, then Russia is equally wrong to support Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

    Parent

    typically things are more (none / 0) (#108)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:37:28 PM EST
    complicated than our lazy media will take the time to explain. attacking iraq was "good" in their eyes. yeah team and all that. russia has been provoked by the usa in a number of ways. georiga in many ways was their surrogate and was stupid to stir it up. russia is not virtuous but neither are we.

    Parent
    That is exactly the problem: (none / 0) (#111)
    by eric on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:38:01 PM EST
    consistency.  We could argue all day about whether or not the recognition of some autonomous region is proper or not, but one has to approach it from a perspective of self-awareness.

    Russia, for example, was angry when the US recognized Kosovo.  The US (or our gov't) claims to be angry about the Russians recognizing South Ossetia.  Now, you are going to have people on both sizes who see the other as being wrong.  But it is pretty much the same thing.  You simply cannot dismiss it outright because the Russians did it.

    With that being said, there certainly have to be limits to self-determination.  And it is valid to ask whether a region is better off or is entitled to declare itself independent.  And it is certainly also valid to question whether an established nation should get involved and recognize that breakaway region.  But one must do so looking into a mirror.

    Parent

    that for the comment. (none / 0) (#113)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:39:30 PM EST


    Parent
    How's this for consistency? (none / 0) (#172)
    by pmj6 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:02:16 PM EST
    Russia has sponsored Abkhazian and South Ossetian separatists long before anyone has heard of Kosovo. That is how these provinces got to be "breakaway". So Russia did not require any hurt feelings, recognition of Kosovo, ABM Treaty withdrawal, START 2 non-ratification, US radar systems in Poland, the threat of Georgia joining NATO, or pretty much anything else to violate the sovereignty and integrity of Georgia. It required no provocation. No, retroactively, all of these are being used to excuse Russia's actions. Sorry, not buying it.

    NATO intervention in Kosovo was under very different circumstances. It was embarked upon at great cost (still ongoing) and with great reluctance, and certainly not in response to some Russian outrage or in order to hurt Russia. It was done to liberate a people who were in a dire need of being liberated. If the Russian government has a problem with it (which, you know, they really shouldn't, seeing that they are so sensitive to national rights of self-determination for ethnic minorities...), sorry, I have no sympathy.

    Parent

    Remember (none / 0) (#2)
    by bocajeff on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:37:10 PM EST
    The night Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama met at Sen. Feinstein's home after the primaries? I would really like to know what was the topic of conversation. Was the subject of the V.P. or any other position brought up? Or was it just a get together for them to air their grievances (which I find hard to believe).  

    If you truly wanted to heal the party, I bet the answer is somewhere in the conversation that evening.

    I remember it (none / 0) (#28)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:59:47 PM EST
    must be the meeting this article is talking about. That was the only night I know where they were along together somewhere where he could have "signaled" to her he was not choosing her.

    Parent
    it could have been the other way too (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by sancho on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:03:23 PM EST
    hillary might have suggested you can go your own way, now. there's really no way for us to know.

    Parent
    Maybe Di Fi will write a tell-all. (none / 0) (#158)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:54:42 PM EST


    Parent
    For Hillary's sake - (none / 0) (#13)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:50:33 PM EST
    I hope there's not a full "mock" roll call vote - and Hillary ends it after NY votes.
    She doesn't need that losing vote on her record - and in the history books!

    If history records this primary and convention (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:55:50 PM EST
    accurately, there will be no harm to Hillary Clinton. She followed the rules, and she kept her campaign within the confines of democracy.

    Parent
    SCORE!!! (none / 0) (#15)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:53:07 PM EST
    Free tix to the Yankee/Sox game tomorrow night! {happy dance} I love random afternoon phone calls  from clients that aren't work related :)

    Lucky you. Now, segue is baseball: (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:55:35 PM EST
    I going to Padres/AZ game tonight, which starts at 7:06 p.m. PDT.  What is my best bet for watching the entire video of the intro to Hillary Clinton's speech and her entire speech?  

    Parent
    Maybe they'll play it at the stadium? (none / 0) (#33)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:02:04 PM EST
    I was hoping for Thursday night tix, but I won't complain {grin}

    Parent
    Ha. Mayor and owner of the Pads (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:08:15 PM EST
    are both firmly Republican!

    Parent
    Rats! I figure I can catch Bill's (none / 0) (#53)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:15:27 PM EST
    speech when I get home. They were replaying speeches last night. Or I can pull it off one of the websites.

    Heh, maybe Hillary will put both their speeches and videos on her website, hehehe

    Parent

    Of course, most people would (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:32:43 PM EST
    simply TIVO!

    Parent
    Congrads! (none / 0) (#24)
    by stefystef on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:56:12 PM EST
    I gotta see a game at both stadiums before the end of the season. Both Yankees and Shea Stadiums will be torn down for the new ones next season.

    Don't have much time.

    Have a great time!

    Parent

    I need to get my behind to Shea (none / 0) (#37)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:03:32 PM EST
    also. And then in the spring, hit a game at each stadium before I move, lol!~

    Parent
    Yous a lucky (none / 0) (#44)
    by vicndabx on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:07:44 PM EST
    dog!  Hope the games are good and we can see the bombers gain a little ground in the wildcard race.

    Parent
    I hope so too! (none / 0) (#62)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:17:58 PM EST
    If it's a Sox blowout tomorrow night, I'll just cruise the stadium with my camera. They're working on getting me tix during the last home stand, but just in case I want to get some good pics of the place.

    Parent
    For those who might be interested (none / 0) (#129)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:44:45 PM EST
    this fire is right behind my home.

    I think it looks worse than it is, it should be out soon.

    Be safe. (none / 0) (#150)
    by Angel on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:52:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Thanks. I'm at work. (none / 0) (#159)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:54:44 PM EST
    There's nothing I can do.

    Parent
    Exhibition (none / 0) (#134)
    by JThomas on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:45:58 PM EST
    football? Not so much.

    Remember, I'm talkin' Steeler's Fans! (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by gtesta on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:49:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Obviously..... (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:52:02 PM EST
    you don't understand Steeler fans.

    Parent
    Heh-heh (none / 0) (#168)
    by gtesta on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:00:46 PM EST
    Reminds me of the time my wife and I went to a Steeler's bar in the Outer Banks to watch a game.  We got there early and she staked out a seat in front of the big screen TV.  She had on her Hines Ward Jersey, Steeler earrings, etc.
    A guy and his buddy come over and asked if she would scoot down so they could watch the game.
    The look she gave them...I thought she was going to strangle them with her terrible towel.  Needless to say the guys slunk away.

    Parent
    Here is David Carr's "on the ground" (none / 0) (#178)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:06:15 PM EST
    reflections on a reporter at Day 1 of the DNC:

    NYT

    Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread | 198 comments (198 topical)