home

DNC: Tuesday Night 's Final Hour

The DNCC just sent out the final schedule for tonight at the Democratic National Convention. The final hour -- 8:00 to 9:00pm MT -- will feature the following, in order:

  • Ret. Rear Admiral John Hutson
    President, Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire, Lifelong Republican

More...

  • The Honorable Deval Patrick
    Governor of Massachusetts
  • Pamella Cash-Roper
    Unemployed nurse and lifelong Republican (N.C.)
  • The Honorable Brian Schweitzer
    Governor of Montana
  • Hillary Clinton Segment - Video/Remarks
    The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
    US Senator, New York
  • Benediction then Recess
    Revs. Jin Ho Kang, Yoougsook Kang
    Methodists - Aurora, Colorado
    The Honorable Shirley Franklin
    Mayor of Atlanta, Georgia
< Monday Night Pepsi Center Video | Conventional Wisdom >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Slighty On Topic (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:52:18 PM EST
    JimWash08 asked in an earlier thread why Gov. Granholm was not speaking at the convention (if so, she probably would have been tonight - female governor and all - Day of the Woman).

    The reason is because of Kwame Kilpatrick. If she were to speak, it would highlight his problems (and bring focus to the fact that he is an Obama superdelegate).

    Plus, she was a huge supporter of HRC.

    Granholm (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Emma on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:26:09 PM EST
    This is what I got in email:

    Tune in tonight to the Democratic National Convention as Governor Granholm moderates a town hall forum on renewable energy! The Governor will be appearing between 8 and 9 p.m. EST, and will be taking questions from people all over the United States about clean energy and what's being done to bring these great, green jobs to Michigan.

    So, yeah, she's speaking.

    Parent

    Thanks cmugirl and Emma (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:53:25 PM EST
    I have great admiration for Gov. Granholm, and I'm thrilled she's participating in the DNC after all.

    Parent
    She needs to stay here in MI (none / 0) (#36)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:18:40 PM EST
    And concentrate on getting this loser out of office.  

    Parent
    The City Council needs to do that. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Emma on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:40:29 PM EST
    But they're all cowards.  They kicked it up to Granholm and she won't do anything.  She can't do anything, it's political dynamite for her.  They'll leave it all to Kim Worthy, the prosecutor.

    Parent
    I don't think the counsel can do anything??? (none / 0) (#101)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:00:00 PM EST
    Generally speaking the powers that be want him to disappear though

    Parent
    Is this an open thread? Anyway, no other place to (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by jawbone on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:56:19 PM EST
    put this: Apparently Elizabeth Edwards is being blamed along with her husband for the coverup.

    I feared something like this would happen. Both of them not at the convention; both of them somewhat silenced on healthcare.

    Article says when Obama was in Carolina two weeks ago he never mentioned her or John.

    Somebody got a twofer. Who benefits??

    Isn't the keynote speech scheduled for tonight?

    Never Forget (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:04:03 PM EST
    It's always the woman's fault.  Always.

    Parent
    I heard a bit last week that (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:09:43 PM EST
    Elizabeth had been scheduled to speak at the convention, and that was cancelled, but I have no source for it.

    I don't think John's affair disqualified him from running, but I do think this on-going drama of lying at every turn is destroying what he had left of a political career.

    That's hardly Elizabeth's fault.

    Parent

    I don't think it was Elizabeth's fault at all. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by NvlAv8r on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:12:51 PM EST
    However, his affair did indeed disqualify him from running.  Say he won  the primaries (OK, it is a longshot) and he was the nominee, and it just comes out that he had an affair and a possible baby out of the relationship.  Through his hubris he would guarantee a McCain victory.

    But I don't think Elizabeth deserves blame.

    Parent

    I agree, but the story goes that she (none / 0) (#97)
    by hairspray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:20:43 PM EST
    encouraged him to go in or stay in (?) when she knew their was a dynamite situation that could come out. I personally don't think she knew the whole story.

    Parent
    She's being criticized bcz when he confessed to (none / 0) (#38)
    by jawbone on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:19:45 PM EST
    her, what she thought was a private betrayal, she didn't go public with it. So, she's being charged with complicity.

    Oh, my.

    BTW--Only blacks are on stage to pay tribute to Stepanie Tubbs Jones? Conyers up now. Is it only Congressional Black Caucus? More folks to speak of her later on?

    Parent

    sadly dems think the next dem (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Salo on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:43:40 PM EST
    president will not be hounded for their sex lives.   Jeez, Edwards is a private citizen and they will not let up on him. Imagine what they WILL do to someone in office.  especially a thin skinned Democrat.

    Parent
    Rangel gave a beautiful tribute to (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:14:47 PM EST
    Stephanie Tubbs Jones. And, to think he might not have gotten any time at the microphone.

    Hey! Rangel allowed to speak during Tubbs-Jones (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jawbone on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:14:48 PM EST
    memorial tribute.

    So, he did get on the podium!

    Wonder if he's there at the behest of those doing the tribute.

    Stemwinder of a short speech!

    Is that to say that if Stephanie Tubbs Jones (none / 0) (#47)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:24:32 PM EST
    had not passed, Rangel would not have had a chance to speak?  Something is definitely rotten in Denmark.

    Parent
    hmmm.... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:21:56 PM EST
    two completely unknown 'lifelong' Republicans are added to tonights roster...

    anyone think this is because the PUMA "we're lifelong Democrats" message is getting traction?

    maybe - but (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:27:11 PM EST
    Obama likes to boast about his Repub supporters - even if they're only supporting him until the general election.
    ;>

    Parent
    btw - where was Obama last night? (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:24:51 PM EST
    Not even THE ONE could have been in 2 cities at the same time.


    Kucinich should have been the VP pick (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:54:06 PM EST
    Although, his comment that the insurance companies took over our healthcare is very right, the UHC proposals are to insure everyone, not to provide affordable medical services to everyone.

    If I'm wrong about that, I'm sure open to hearing otherwise.

    He's little spitfire! (none / 0) (#72)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:56:20 PM EST
    So far, him and Paterson have shown the most passion. Dem passion that would be.

    Parent
    CNN quotes Bill (2.00 / 0) (#12)
    by jpete on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:58:58 PM EST
    "Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y," Bill Clinton said Tuesday at a Democratic event in Denver that featured his first public remarks since his wife Hillary Clinton was officially informed she would not be vice president.

    "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?" he asked - adding, after a pause: "This has nothing to do with what's going on now."

    So is this man angry or what?  

    How about a little context? (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:59:59 PM EST
    then we'll decide

    Parent
    context schmontext (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:39:52 PM EST
    you got the quote.  now donate dammit.

    Parent
    What?! (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:43:23 PM EST
    Donate to Obama?!!!! Sorry, I'll need to buy refreshments tomorrow night at the stadium. Gotta keep my priorities in order!  ;)

    Parent
    In or out of context (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:43:34 PM EST
    I wish I'd said it.


    Parent
    I suspect (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:02:32 PM EST
    that it would be wise to let a little more context come in before we let the media play us again like they did with the RFK remarks.

    Parent
    Better Yet (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:05:53 PM EST
    remember the time Jake Tapper said Clinton said the opposite of what he'd actually said about energy?

    With the Clintons, a giant grain of salt must be taken with any quote, story, or other "reporting" from the media.

    Parent

    With stories about the Clintons (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:20:52 PM EST
    I ignore them unless they have context and NAMED sources.  

    Parent
    I'm not even sure that's enough (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by dianem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:35:53 PM EST
    I think that we need to ignore it unless there is a clip that we can hear for ourselves. There are plenty of named sources who have slandered Clinton, and they always provide "context" to suit their spin.

    Parent
    Smart. (none / 0) (#73)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:58:42 PM EST
    Very smart.

    Parent
    Wow that man (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by lizpolaris on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:07:55 PM EST
    is savvy.  That's spot on.

    Parent
    Gosh, I saw the video of him making the (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:11:52 PM EST
    comment. He sure didn't appear angry, but you just go ahead and keep this going.

    Unity is on your head.


    Parent

    Perhaps you can explain the context. (none / 0) (#99)
    by jpete on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:40:50 PM EST
    Of course he didn't appear angry.  Nor will Hillary tonight.  But it's hard to believe she won't be, at least a  bit.

    Parent
    Sounds like something from the primary (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by DemForever on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:17:26 PM EST
    and would have been a perfectly fine thing to say, Hillary can deliver more than Obama, even though others would dispute it.

    Doesnt make sense in the context of McCain -- what he wants to deliver I want no part of.

    Parent

    Exactly. We don't want what McCain can deliver (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by andrys on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:17:36 PM EST
    so it'll be very important to vote the lower Dem ticket no matter what people decide to do with the presidential slot, which is a very personal and very complicated decision even for Dems who've voted Dem for 50 years.

    Gallup and Rasmussen today, as already noted, speak loudly.

    It'll be up to the presumptive leader to actually LEAD instead of once again blaming the Clintons or putting all the onus on Hillary's "tone"...

    Parent

    Why assume that is a reference to anyone in this (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by esmense on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:12:59 PM EST
    race? Are you assuming that Obama can't "deliver?"

    Parent
    Of course Obama can't deliver! (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by lambert on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:14:04 PM EST
    That's why Michelle had to drive herself to the hospital!

    [rimshot. laughter]

    Parent

    That remark is at: (2.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jpete on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:59:50 PM EST
    Absolutely No Context (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:08:05 PM EST
    given for Clinton's alleged remarks in the story.  Nothing anywhere on what Clinton was talking about or what point he was making.  Take quote out of context and use it to hurt Democrats and to paint yet another tale of Bill Clinton, angry and out of control.  Shocking!  

    Parent
    Sounds like he's been reading (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:17:03 PM EST
    Edgar08.

    The Deliverables-Activist Blogger.


    Parent

    How much time does Hillary get? (none / 0) (#1)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:50:52 PM EST
    That is a lot of people for one hour.....

    20 minute speech (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:52:21 PM EST
    says NYTimes.

    Parent
    Two "lifelong Republicans" (none / 0) (#9)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:57:30 PM EST
    apparently booted him to an earlier slot....

    Parent
    What's up with this? (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by lizpolaris on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:10:22 PM EST
    Pamella Cash-Roper
    Unemployed nurse and lifelong Republican (N.C.)

    Gee, maybe they can scoop some other folks up from obscurity to speak.

    lizpolaris
    Employed and former lifelong Democrat now undecided (N.C.)

    Parent

    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Firewalker on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:20:32 PM EST
    Sure, they need to fill slots that are (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by andrys on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:21:29 PM EST
    unfilled by Jimmy Carter, Charlie Rangel, Al Sharpton, Wes Clark, et al

      Repubs are better, of course!  Especially if they are turning.  Who cares about unifying the DEM party via those who made the mistake of backing another candidate during the primary?

     

    Parent

    This was supposed to be (none / 0) (#11)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:58:30 PM EST
    in response to the where's Warner comment.

    Parent
    "The Hillary Clinton Segment": (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:57:52 PM EST
    how about The Honourable Hillary Clinton, Sen., NY, lifelong Dem.?

    Parent
    Video & Chelsea too (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:59:25 PM EST
    So, "segment" was not meant to offend...

    Parent
    Seems a tad impersonal. (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:01:58 PM EST
    How was the Caroline Kennedy/video/Ted Kennedy "segment" billed last night?

    Parent
    Definition of Segment: (none / 0) (#54)
    by mogal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:31:09 PM EST
    1. One of several parts or pieces that fit with others to constitute a whole object: "a section of a fishing rod"; "metal sections were used below ground"; "finished the final segment of the road".

    2. One of the parts into which something naturally divides: "a segment of an orange".

    Parent

    What does it mean Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#37)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:19:42 PM EST
    video/remarks?

    Parent
    Video, Chelsea & Hillary (none / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:47:12 PM EST
    OK....thanks (none / 0) (#74)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:59:53 PM EST
    and it never runs on time, so (none / 0) (#2)
    by bjorn on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:51:53 PM EST
    when might she really be speaking?

    Parent
    When is Warner? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:52:01 PM EST


    Warner will be replaced (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by kredwyn on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:09:19 PM EST
    with two life-long Republicans cause...well...here have some unity pop.

    Parent
    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:15:43 PM EST
    Mark Warner is going to get pushed off the stage by life long Republicans? Honestly, this convention s*cks more than I could have ever thought possible. Start writing off VA Obama (not that I thought you could win there anyway).

    It's fine to have those former Republicans but honestly does it have to be at the expense of rising stars in the party? Dumb.

    Parent

    Probably means the dreams of winning VA (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:20:21 PM EST
    are fading fast...at least they are not prime time dreams anymore.

    Parent
    That has to be just an omission, no ? (none / 0) (#87)
    by andrys on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:22:54 PM EST
    He'll speak, I imagine !

    Parent
    No room for (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by standingup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:19:58 PM EST
    Clark or Rangell but clear off the stage for Republicans to speak at the Democratic Convention.  

    I need something a bit stronger than pop to swallow what they are doing to the party.  

    Parent

    tell me again why McCain (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:23:34 PM EST
    is sooooooo scary

    Parent
    I mean (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:28:00 PM EST
    he seem more willing to take on republicans than Obama

    Parent
    Can you tell my why (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by standingup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:40:30 PM EST
    McCain isn't speaking at the convention too?  It might be the only way we get to hear his name.

    Parent
    have some unity pop (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:22:51 PM EST
    looks like unity koolaid to me

    Parent
    Candygram (none / 0) (#95)
    by kredwyn on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:07:44 PM EST
    Gov Paterson on now :) (none / 0) (#6)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:54:18 PM EST
    to rousing cheers!

    Lead off prime time with two of three (none / 0) (#7)
    by Teresa on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:54:44 PM EST
    Republicans. These conversion speeches don't do much for me. So Warner isn't prime time?

    It's not like it's (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Cards In 4 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:05:21 PM EST
    Colin Powell.  These are republicans that their mothers don't even know what party they belong to.

    Parent
    When is Warner, the keynoter? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:00:04 PM EST


    Last night's announcer made me think of American (none / 0) (#17)
    by jawbone on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:00:45 PM EST
    Idol or one of those competitive reality shows.

    Same person today?

    Egads! (none / 0) (#18)
    by flashman on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:01:45 PM EST
    I'm going to miss the whole dang convention because of work and impending deadlines.  Sigh  Would like to be able to watch, especially Hillary's speech.

    Here's one version of the full schedule for today: (none / 0) (#27)
    by jawbone on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:09:22 PM EST
    at HuffPo.

    Looks like Warner closes out 9-10 hour (EDT)--so won't be covered on broadcast TV, except for PBS.

    What's with that?

    Seems it's had some big changes (none / 0) (#55)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:32:25 PM EST
    since Huff got ahold of it.

    Parent
    Warner would be after Clinton, heh? (none / 0) (#43)
    by DFLer on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:21:20 PM EST


    The same 3 or 4 talking points/phrases (none / 0) (#52)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:29:46 PM EST
    are going to be well worn out by the time Hillary speaks.

    Warner's Keynote Speech (none / 0) (#53)
    by themomcat on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:30:22 PM EST
    Maybe they moved it to tomorrow night? The thinking being that his speech wold be overshadowed by the HRC's speech. And tomorrow, Pres. Clinton's speech is not on prime time, iirc.
    I think this is a strange line up considering the day was suppose to be about women's issues as this is the anniversary of the 19th Amendment.


    They changed the theme to the Economy (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:37:30 PM EST
    women got flushed again.

    Parent
    I suspect "they" are reading the (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:41:27 PM EST
    horrible press about last night at the DNC.  

    Parent
    In Case Anyone's Still Wondering (none / 0) (#92)
    by The Maven on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:38:24 PM EST
    Warner got moved to just before the "prime" hour, after Sen. Bob Casey and Lily Ledbetter (of the Goodyear pay equity case fame), and just before Gov. Ted Strickland.  Then follows the schedule listed above.

    Parent
    DK on now :) (none / 0) (#65)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:48:57 PM EST


    What time is Hillary Speaking? (none / 0) (#66)
    by scourtney on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:49:28 PM EST
    I have to go out and I want to Tivo it...

    CNN just said 3 hrs from now (none / 0) (#67)
    by mogal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:52:20 PM EST
    A lot of speakers in 1 hour and Hillary's last (none / 0) (#69)
    by lambert on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:53:34 PM EST
    Sure hope none of 'em run long...

    while channel surfing last night... (none / 0) (#78)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:07:41 PM EST
    it seemed to me that there was a lot of "musical interludes" between speakers --- lots of empty space to prevent speakers who went long early in the evening from screwing up the 'network window' schedule.

    It looks to me like the 10-11 Eastern schedule has no "cushion" at all... to me it looks like the schedule is designed for the first four speakers to be ignored while the network anchors chatter relentlessly with their "correspondents" and "analysts"...

    The best thing I can say about this schedule is that it doesn't allow the network anchors any time to trash Clinton after her speech -- they will have to get all their shots in before she speaks!

    Parent

    CNN (none / 0) (#89)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:26:34 PM EST
    I've switched from C-Span to CNN on and off all afternoon just to see if Carville was on the panel.

    All I can say is that if you're watching CNN, you're missing the convention.
     

    Parent

    Kucinich was fabulous just now... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Aqua Blue on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:55:00 PM EST
    He and his speech is needed in Prime Time.

    America needs to hear what he just said.

    He got a standing "O".

    Kucinich is a terrific speaker (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by esmense on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:14:31 PM EST
    If you love real progressive stem-winders, he's your man.

    Parent
    Compare and contrast... (none / 0) (#75)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:00:24 PM EST
    Here is the DNC's original list of Tuesday night speakers....

    What is most notable is that both Rendell and Strickland (two strong Clinton supporters) were bumped from the evening program -- they are speaking in the 4-5 and 5-6 (denver time) slots.  

    And what's most interesting is that they were to me the "attack dogs" (big shock that the job of going negative on McCain was given to Clinton supporters)

    Is the Obama campaign pulling a "Kerry" here -- one of the biggest criticism of the 2004 convention is that it made no effort to define Bush in Democratic terms (the GOP was not so generous toward Kerry at its convention.)  

    I'm really curious to see what btd has to say about this....

    Well, Obama alienated McCain in the Senate (none / 0) (#77)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:06:37 PM EST
    shortly after he showed up in DC.

    Haven't you ever seen the letter from McCain to Obama? Scathing.


    Parent

    so around 7pm (none / 0) (#76)
    by scourtney on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:01:06 PM EST
    okay thanks!

    Senate women on next, after Clinton's (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:12:11 PM EST
    into.

    Added insult - capping HRC with Shirley Franklin (none / 0) (#83)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:15:43 PM EST
    ... who told the "fairy tale" lie, in church, with Bill Clinton seated in the audience.

    Looking forward to Brian Schweitzer... (none / 0) (#84)
    by NvlAv8r on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:17:21 PM EST
    He was on my short list of VP candidates.  Can't wait for his speech.

    I've seen Gov Brian with the talking heads (none / 0) (#93)
    by DFLer on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:45:25 PM EST
    first time I've heard him. He impressed me.

    Parent
    McCaskill gets TWO turns at the podium??!! (none / 0) (#88)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:24:23 PM EST
    Thank goodness I have a mute button.


    Can we have one lousy night... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:37:00 PM EST
    ...without the benediction by a figure representing organized religion?  I appreciate the Methodists and all, but jeez, come on.  I know Hillary's a Methodist, but jeez, come on.

    Jeez, come on.

    Sigh, sigh, sigh.

    Nope, never (none / 0) (#94)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:51:29 PM EST
    I'm sighing along

    Parent
    Was it this boring last night? (none / 0) (#98)
    by echinopsia on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:31:39 PM EST
    It's all ObamaObamaObama and all the wonderful things he's going to do that he has never actually promised to do, and some that he has already showed he will not do.