home

Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread

I'm gone for the rest of the afternoon. Here's an open thread for you to take over the discussion. All topics welcome, please be civil.

< John Gotti, Jr. Charged With 1990 Murder | McCain to Congress: No Recess, Get Back to Work >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    there is a very funny post at NQ (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:36:38 PM EST
    about Dana Milbank being banned from the Olberman show for his recent hilarious "President Obama Continues Hectic Victory Tour" piece.

    just go read it but heres a taste:

    Dana Milbank won't be on the news hour any more.
    Dana Milbank of The Washington Post, who notified us today that after four years appearing with us, he had accepted another television offer. This saved your crack Countdown staff an increasingly difficult decision.
    We had decided not to have Dana on this news-hour again until this was cleared up, and, sadly after some very happy years, he's apparently chosen to make that cloud permanent. Good luck, Dana.

    **

    if this was not sort of frightening it would be very very funny

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:42:59 PM EST
    Bob Somerby managed to bash both Olbermann and Milbank while telling that story today.

    Parent
    heh, indeed (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:46:28 PM EST
    We've long asked why the gruesome Milbank was featured on this "progressive" news program. Last night, Olbermann threw Milbank under the bus--after Milbank had apparently driven away in an unnamed limo.


    Parent
    Thanks, Bob! (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:50:08 PM EST
    Milbank - terrible.
    KO - not so hot either.
    MoDo - predictably, painfully bad.

    Reading MoDo is like banging my head against a wall because it feels good when I stop.

    Parent

    then (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:01:42 PM EST
    stop banging your head against the wall ... I mean, stop reading MoDo!

    It really is a waste of time.  

    :-)

    Parent

    Second That (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:27:39 PM EST
    The less hits her columns get on the NYTimes website, and the less papers are sold, the better the message will be to the beancounters to kick the woman off to the curb.

    Parent
    People complain about her and then read her (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by bridget on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:23:18 PM EST
    and quote her again and again .... It's the gossip factor, I guess.

    When was the last time Noam Chomsky was quoted on any net site? You know the ones the socalled netroots frequent? Does anyone even know who Tariq Ali is? Just to name a couple real "progressives."

    Does anyone even read Patrick Cockburn's news from the war? He is an independent journalist and a must  read IMHO. What about Fisk? And what about those journalists and writers who one will never see on mainstream TV but who discuss Palestine? Gaza? Lebanon? on a regular basis? Who cares? Anyone?

    just saying

    Parent

    No kidding (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by BernieO on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:34:39 PM EST
    When will liberals realize she is part of the problem. Not reading her - especially online would go a long way to making her truly irrelevant. The Times always lists the "most emailed" columns. It would be great if she were no longer on that list. She is a waste of oxygen. Boycott her folks!

    Parent
    someone should tell MoDo (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:09:47 PM EST
    that she has not been of the age to pull on coquettish  pouts in interviews (without drawing guffaws) in a long long time.

    Parent
    I wonder how (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:47:09 PM EST
    one would phrase the same basic insult against a middle-aged male.  Can you think of an equivalent?  I can't.  Which makes me very unhappy with this kind of personal insult.  Don't really want to haul out the "S" word here, but...

    Parent
    well (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:51:58 PM EST
    first off I dont think she is middle aged.  depends on how many 110 year old people you know.
    but afaiac a man who doesnt realize his age is just as, or perhaps even more, obnoxious.
    the whole coyly looking under her eyelashes and pouting is just ridiculous at this point.


    Parent
    "Boyish charm" (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:55:51 PM EST
    is as close as I can come.  In other words, not very close.

    Parent
    actually (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:59:13 PM EST
    there is a pretty good movie making the rounds now that is sort of about this.  its called Step Brothers.

    Parent
    but the are not quite (none / 0) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:59:35 PM EST
    "middle aged"

    Parent
    Capt....so true...she is a little long in the (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:39:59 PM EST
    tooth...maybe that is why she is so b!ttchy...

    Parent
    all she'd do is cover her ears and sing (none / 0) (#40)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:11:14 PM EST
    la la la.

    Parent
    um, (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:11:42 PM EST
    pull OFF coquettish pouts.
    though she cant pull them on either.

    Parent
    rec list at DK yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:44:21 PM EST
    I can't wait for the first debate so I can read KO's objective and factual take on it.
    [As likely as VP Hillary Clinton.]

    Parent
    One good aspect of (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:29:35 PM EST
    the type of "journalism" KO practices is that it's never in doubt which side he favors.  

    Something to be said about not disingenuously disguising your true views behind a lot of professional-sounding rhetoric about "objective" journalism.  Like they do at the Big Networks which, last study I heard about this cycle, was overwhelmingly favoring McCain in its coverage while pretending not to have favorites.

    Parent

    That study was total (none / 0) (#86)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:49:25 PM EST
    garbage.  Somerby tore it into little tiny pieces a few days ago.  It's completely meaningless. (For one thing, it counted up very limited stuff in just the three network evening news shows plus -- you ready? -- Fox News's main news show.)

    Parent
    Be happy to see a cite (none / 0) (#131)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:17:51 PM EST
    from Somerby and his take on that study.  

    No study of that nature is going to be perfect and perhaps in the Howler's view that one was a little more less perfect than some others.

    Not always that easy to specifically define what constitutes negative versus positive coverage, or avoid missing what could be crucially import coverage which seems on the surface to be neutral.

    Such as when a major news outlet seems to merely "report" about a candidate's latest negative ad.  Iow, would running the ad in its entirety with all the negative data and imagery therein, but with little to no tough analysis of same, be considered negative coverage of the candidate who ran the ad or negative against the candidate who was the subject of the oppo ad, or would such objective-seeming coverage be entirely omitted from the study.

    Parent

    not surprising (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:47:57 PM EST
    What fascinates me is that ordinarily the Media is supporting the Republican in the race and doing all it can to make the Dem look bad (Al Gore's "sighs" and "earth colors" as well as Kerry's "flip-flopping" and "wind sailing").

    Now, they could still flip for McCain and keep up their tradition.  But what if they don't?

    What if they stay in-the-tank for Obama?  Does that guarantee a win for the Dems?

    No.  Looking at the Primary, people grew to ignore more and more what the Media told them and voted for Hillary.  I suspect many voters are fully aware of the Obama Bias in the Press and, being aware of it, are more immune to it and, therefore, more likely to not be affected one way or the other.

    So, even if Obama stumbles badly in the debates and the Media covers his butt, the American People will still know and remember that Obama stumbled badly and not just trust the Media to tell them what they saw.

    I think the Media has gotten so bad in their support for Obama (certainly MSNBC), they've turned most reasonable people off both them AND Barack.

    Parent

    I think things have changed (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by BernieO on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:37:05 PM EST
    It looks to me like the public is really catching on to the media. Look at the number who say the media is trying to get Obama elected. This could signify a backlash.

    Parent
    KO lost me (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:51:09 PM EST
    at "news hour".

    He thinks his show is news?  That's more than a HEH, that's a downright LOL!

    Parent

    I was having trouble with that also (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:01:10 PM EST
    I thought he was talking about 2 sep shows, had to read it again. I also found it amusing when he mentions "out of context quote". Hello pot . . . .

    Parent
    I don't think the Newshour chases ... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:02:30 PM EST
    ratings with videos of monkeys riding dogs.  Or runs repeated promos for pieces that end up running longer than the piece itself.

    Countdown isn't news.  And KO isn't a journalist.

    Parent

    Speaking of the value (none / 0) (#17)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:57:21 PM EST
    of celebrity - how often does KO talk about Hilton and Spears on his show?

    Parent
    oh yeah, that (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:03:59 PM EST
    "Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame," says Barack Obama. "I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse." - Barack Obama, in February 24th, Washington Post

    Parent
    nice (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:24:21 PM EST
    I suspect we'll see that quote resurrected sometime in October right before the Election.

    Ugh.

    Parent

    oh, and the "Obama Girl" (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:28:30 PM EST
    was that racist? did that suggest some dark sexual intent?  and if not why not?

    Parent
    Who doesn't talk about Paris Hilton? (none / 0) (#161)
    by bridget on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:39:29 PM EST
    the most talked about person in the last five years or more - and I am not talking about entertainment mags. Every news person, pol, and pundit gossips about her at least once.

    no wonder she is in the political ads, too

    btw. Paris' hamburger commercial was pretty darn fabulous ;-))) Absolutely stunning.

    Parent

    What about Craig Crawford? Still banned (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by bridget on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:31:17 PM EST
    from Mr. Olbermann's show? Or is he back in his good graces?

    He dared to defend Clinton, I remember. Then he disappeared. And that was before Olbermann fell completely over the edge in his excitement over Obama.

    Parent

    Darn (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:37:05 PM EST
    Now I won't be able to settle my 'Which one is most smug and fatuous?' questions with a side by side comparison.

    Parent
    It's not frightening at all, (none / 0) (#19)
    by rjarnold on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:59:14 PM EST
    Milbank is a horrible journalist, and his piece contained a quote that wasn't even a real quote. (It was from vague recollections of a couple of people at the event.)

    It's actually really funny since KO tried to put it into context when neither of them even know what Obama actually said.

    Parent

    it is frightening (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:06:28 PM EST
    when  comedy news show bans a comedy news writer because his comedy was not approved by the O-Council.
    sorry. it frightening and sad.


    Parent
    i'll be glad the day ko exits through the rear (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:09:17 PM EST
    door. i don't imagine he is chortling anymore about his poll numbers.

    Parent
    The way I see it (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by rjarnold on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:42:06 PM EST
    It's a stupid show host, attacking a stupid pundit, and neither of them even have their facts straight.

    The only frightening part is that Olbermann still has a show and that Milbank is still a pundit.

    Parent

    The Quote May Have (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:30:08 PM EST
    been repeated out of context, but the gist and purpose of the entire column was perfect.

    It was basically the print version of the "The One" campaign ad, and presumptuous the man was -- and is.

    Parent

    And how many pundits (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:52:04 PM EST
    got thrown off how many "news" shows for distorting and even flat-out making up quotes by Clinton, Kerry and most of all Al Gore?  Crickets?

    Parent
    My thought, exactly. Olbermann (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:04:21 PM EST
    was among the worst in distorting what Clinton said -- as in her quote about RFK that got a Special Comment from the Murrow wannabe.  For Olbermann to now pull this officious crap about Milbank just shows Olberman's own narcissism.  That does make it difficult to see it in a candidate.  The One in Journalism is not the one to see problems in positioning as The One in Politics.

    Parent
    Well, if all news anchors/producers (none / 0) (#117)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:07:03 PM EST
    were consistent and honest about keeping off or kicking out so-called reporters for what slime they've written, knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard of same, there would be precious few left, at least among MCM, to appear on these shows.

    I would have hoped, say about 5 yrs ago, that someone like KO would have acted as the teevee equivalent of Somerby and held these "journalists" to account for their prior sins and crimes against the truth, but that's not very realistic considering which corporation backs that show.

    So, we'll have to settle right now for that one small first step on a journey of a thousand miles, and accept that it was on account of a misdemeanor offense and not for the larger priors of a felony nature.

    Parent

    Maybe it will help Dana get his creds (none / 0) (#145)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:33:14 PM EST
    back as a respectable journalist.  KO apparently isn't smart enough to know he should be ashamed for what he has been doing.

    Parent
    Going to CNN (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by waldenpond on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:37:09 PM EST
    Milbank's going to CNN.  He can sit between Roland Martin and Jeffrey Toobin.... pffffttttt.

    Parent
    Talk about Freudian slip (none / 0) (#176)
    by sj on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:44:45 PM EST
    When you wrote:

    "This saved your crack Countdown staff an increasingly difficult decision."

    I read "This saved your Crackdown staff an increasingly difficult decision."

    I'm not thinking enforcers or anything...

    Parent

    Could the political discourse be any dumber? (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by rjarnold on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:51:19 PM EST
    First there is this piece by Amy Chozick in the WSJ asking if Obama is too skinny to be President, and then there is this piece by Timathy Noah in Slate saying that Chozick's article is inappropriate since it is racially insensitive.

    As a lifelong beanpole... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:38:11 PM EST
    ...I can only think that people like Amy Chozick are jealous.  

    Parent
    From a skinny person . . . . (none / 0) (#18)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:59:05 PM EST
    {bangs head on desk} . . . .

    Parent
    Well, there goes my diet (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:05:44 PM EST
    if, as Noah claims, "skinny means black."  And little did I know that in all those skinny years of mine in past, I actually was African American.

    And there goes another word from our vocabularies, too, I suppose?  

    Parent

    That explains it.... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:14:35 PM EST
    I'm a white boy with rhythym and contempt for the man because I'm skinny as all hell...that explains it:)

    Parent
    My gosh (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:27:10 PM EST
    I phoned my former Journal colleague, Michel Martin, an African-American journalist who is now host of NPR's Tell Me More, which frequently addresses matters of race, to ask whether she was offended. She was not.

    Congratulations to Tim Noah, I guess, for soldiering on anyway!

    If you talk to middle-aged conservatives, it's amazing how many of them will admit that they basically adopted that political orientation as a reaction to the sort of unbearable liberals they encountered in college.  (David Brock describes an instance of this phenomenon in Blinded by the Right.)

    Surely, included amongst the ranks of the insufferable must be white people who can identify latent racism in statements that no actual black person finds offensive.  It's like there's a contest underway this week to see who can make the most absurd accusation of racism.

    Is it possible that Noah's piece was nothing more than a particularly subtle parody?  You know, I would really like to think so.  Maybe I'll just go with that.

    Parent

    offended? i am offended by all these (5.00 / 6) (#171)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:42:43 PM EST
    faux offended people. why weren't all these pundits so concerned about offending women and hillary?

    Parent
    My thoughts exactly, Steve (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by kempis on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:52:20 PM EST
    ...from "gee, this is the kind of searching-for-offense analysis that alienates most people from liberals" to "I sure hope this is really a parody."

    Holy cow.

    Both articles are silly. But I'm truly embarrassed for Noah.  

    Parent

    "Skinny" means "black" (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by angie on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 05:00:26 PM EST
    Then how the h3ll do Noah explain Sir Mix-Alot's classic song "I like big b*tts"?  Having a little "junk in the trunk" is celebrated among the black people I know.

    Parent
    Well, it looks like I might (none / 0) (#47)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:18:28 PM EST
    be getting something from Obama after all. Folks won't be able to call me skinny anymore. {starts working on faux outrage}

    Parent
    So that makes me VERY white...lol (none / 0) (#179)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:45:14 PM EST
    Haha (none / 0) (#21)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:01:35 PM EST
    Noah references Happy Days to support thin = racially insensitive.

    In answer to your question: no.

    Parent

    It looks like you might be wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by rjarnold on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:32:26 PM EST
    I just found an article asking if McCain's "The One" ad is calling Obama the anti-Christ.

    At best, this ad implies that those who plan to support Senator Obama are looking for a new savior or a replacement Messiah. But many are reading it even more darkly as an attempt to portray Obama as an anti-Christ figure.

    A vote for Senator Obama is a vote for the man we think will make the best President, not for a new Messiah. As Christians, we have one Lord And Savior. Jesus Christ. It is blasphemous to suggest otherwise.

    And it is beyond offensive to suggest that Senator Obama is a false Messiah or the anti-Christ himself. How low can we go? It shows the McCain campaign is willing to make a mockery of our faith to feed people's fears. Christians need to reject this out of hand.

    This person now has a petition for her idea.

    Parent

    I thought the same thing (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:38:53 PM EST
    but had a different gist.

    McCain is pointing out that Obama seems to be  asking his supporters to worship him.  There's nothing the hard core evangicals (like my grandmother and my BIL) hate more than "false idols".

    So I felt the target was hard-core evangelicals...you know, the ones Obama is pandering to with his wishy-washy choice stance.

    Parent

    My spouse has used the term for 8 years (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:06:03 PM EST
    for Bush.  The 2000 election was, to him, the endtimes.

    Parent
    If you believe in that... (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:12:56 PM EST
    ...voodoo, wouldn't you also have to vote for him so as not to screw-up the second coming and the "rapture"?

    Parent
    I think the idea is that all the existing sinners (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:28:04 PM EST
    and agents of Satan have the voting part covered.  You know, gays, liberals, feminists (or women generally, depending on your particular sect), Democrats.  Who'd I miss?  Oh yeah, Catholics.

    Although if we get to the GE and the polls are as close as they are the past few days, then I wonder if your point won't come into play...hmmmm.

    Parent

    don't foget the bitter ones with guns! (5.00 / 0) (#174)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:44:10 PM EST
    I used to believe it was gwb, but I could (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:48:09 PM EST
    go with obama...

    Parent
    I wondered who would mention that (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:01:35 PM EST
    State article.  "Skinny" = racist slur?  

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:15:06 PM EST
    all the skinny people I know ARE presumptuous.

    damn skinny people.

    Parent

    Amy missed it (none / 0) (#72)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:38:22 PM EST
    The "skinny" comments are a way to suggest that Obama is weak.

    And I guess by extension you could say they're "homophobic."  

    But it really doesn't fit into traditional slurs of African Americans.

    And, anyway, Obama's not skinny ... if this photo is anything to go by.

    Slim?  Slender?  Sure.  But skinny?  Don't think so.

    Needs quite a bit more core would before he fits that label.

    Parent

    Doesn't Obama refer to himself (none / 0) (#80)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:43:03 PM EST
    as "that skinny guy with the big ears"?

    Parent
    Not so skinny anymore, btw.... (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by MarkL on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:45:51 PM EST
    too many pancakes! (none / 0) (#177)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:45:03 PM EST
    hellothere...I think you mean waffles :) (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:49:44 PM EST
    Is that what he means when he (none / 0) (#82)
    by MarkL on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:45:28 PM EST
    says he looks different from other Presidents?!

    Parent
    no (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:56:48 PM EST
    he means he doesnt have a powdered wig or wear wooden teeth.


    Parent
    I don't think "weak" was the intent. (none / 0) (#125)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:10:13 PM EST
    "Different", yes.  "Elitist", most certainly.  

    Parent
    Chozick and Noah have too much time on their hands (none / 0) (#209)
    by bridget on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 05:09:17 PM EST
    And If skinnyness is a liability in politics as Chozick wonders, Mr. Obama himself doesn't seem to think so and seems to be just fine with this latest Obamamaniacial nonsense gossip. The more the merrier for Obama. Takes attention away from the real stuff.

    "Listen, I'm skinny but I'm tough," Sen. Obama said."

    And proud of it, no doubt.

    btw. anyone seen that pic of Obama in the bathing suit? Not THAY skinny at all. Just my own personal opinion, of course. But I am skinnier than that LOL.

    Parent

    Kos is (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by ding7777 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:01:54 PM EST
    explaning why Obama doesn't have a "working class white" problem by limiting it to an "Appalachian" problem.  

    Proof?  Obama won 7 of 10 those really, white  "white  state" contests.

    Unfortunately, those "white state" contests Obama won were caucuses not primaries.

    oh those pesky details! (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:05:17 PM EST
    I think it's bizarre how Kos and co. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by rjarnold on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:07:24 PM EST
    always complain and get offended when someone says that Obama has a problem with a certain group of people.

    Parent
    yeah... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kredwyn on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:04:06 PM EST
    and those caucuses represented a fraction of the voters in the actual state.

    Parent
    Someone explained (none / 0) (#45)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:16:19 PM EST
    Appalachians to me.  Appalachians tend to distrust and dislike outsiders until they get to know them.  Once they get to know you better, they may warm up to you.

    So Hillary was doing the right thing by meeting with them in small groups, plus she had a head start campaigning with Bill.  If Obama had followed the same game plan and let people see Obama up close and personal instead of up on a stage, he might have done better in the primaries and gotten a jump on the GE.

    A campaign isn't all media buys and big speeches.  

    Parent

    the kennedys knew that and jfk won. (none / 0) (#182)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:45:57 PM EST
    Republican States (none / 0) (#52)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:21:10 PM EST
    They won't do him any good in the GE. If he carries Kansas in the GE we better all stock up on ruby slippers.

    Parent
    This whole week has been primaries (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:38:17 PM EST
    deja vu. Now we are back to Appalachia and caucus states?

    I know what is coming next...where is Rev Wright these days?

    Parent

    Wright is on his way. (none / 0) (#121)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:08:03 PM EST
    Or at least his book is -- a fall tour, so we're told.

    Parent
    LOL, seriously? (none / 0) (#128)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:11:56 PM EST
    I'm suddenly remember what a Republican colleague of mine once said about him: The gift that keeps on giving.

    Parent
    Wait! (none / 0) (#95)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:55:24 PM EST
    You mean all those Appalachian white folks have been cured of the racism that made them unable to see the light?  And retroactively even?  It's a miracle!


    Parent
    No, I think Kos' argument is that (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:57:57 PM EST
    even racists love Obama.

    Parent
    smells like desperation to me. (none / 0) (#184)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:46:46 PM EST
    Obama's Energy Policy Problem (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by bmc on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:04:11 PM EST
    In stumping Tuesday in this key battleground state, Obama sought to link the troubled economy with Republican policies and offer his own energy plan in contrast. He has tried to cast McCain as more concerned about oil company profits and drilling than an overall energy strategy.

    However, Obama himself voted for a 2005 energy bill backed by Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production, a measure Cheney played a major role in developing.

    McCain opposed the bill on grounds it included billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.
    http://tinyurl.com/6d63s2

    Obama goes for easy points on energy
    Tuesday, August 5, 2008
    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/05/EDEI124S1O.DTL

    ugh (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:20:38 PM EST
    I knew that ad was opening an unnecessary can of worms.  

    McCain will respond with the reasons he voted against it, ask Obama why he voted FOR it (or, more specifically, why Obama voted FOR giving the oil companies billions of dollars when they're enjoying record profits off the consumer's backs) and -- ta-dah! -- Obama's once again playing his hapless game of disorganized defense.

    And the American People move closer to wondering "now, WHY are the Democrats running this guy?"

    Parent

    I"m Expecting (none / 0) (#69)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:35:05 PM EST
    it will be brought up in at least one of the debates too, and Obama better be prepared with a good answer to explain himself.

    Parent
    Someone billed as one (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:57:10 PM EST
    of Obama's energy advisers on MSNBC a few minutes ago (didn't catch her name) was completely unable to cope with Shuster's question about Obama's vote for Cheney's energy bill and pretended she didn't know how he'd voted on it.

    I'd say they haven't really thought this through real well.

    Parent

    One way in which the MSM does Obama (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:02:28 PM EST
    no favors is this:  by lauding every breath and deflecting, for him, every possible criticism with often laughable analyses, he gets very little or no practice in answering challenging questions or statements.

    Who will be moderating the debates?  If it's not one of the few remaining non-in-the-tank media stars left, it may not matter.  But if it's someone who will actually not just toss whiffle balls Obama's way...

    Parent

    The last debate -- the first one (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:10:27 PM EST
    to toss him any tough stuff -- certainly showed that.  He had to cope with a whole 17 minutes or so of what Clinton had been dealing with for months, even years.

    And so, of course, Obama cancelled the remaining debate(s) and the proposals for town halls since.  By the time we get to the whole three debates with McCain -- that is, if Obama doesn't cancel those -- let's hope that Obama's staff does some homework.

    Parent

    Video? (none / 0) (#206)
    by sj on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 05:02:30 PM EST
    Do you know where there is video of that debate?  I don't know the date/place so googling has been useless and I didn't see it real-time.  I'd like very much to see it.

    Parent
    PBS will moderate 2 of the 3 debates. (none / 0) (#194)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:51:04 PM EST
    Dasche wasn't much better (none / 0) (#166)
    by RalphB on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:40:55 PM EST
    at it on CNN this afternoon.  Really weak.

    Parent
    daschle always is. weak appearing i mean. (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:47:48 PM EST
    one without (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:02:37 PM EST
    the "uh"s and "um"s and unfortunate pauses as he racks his brain for the well-rehearsed, politically expedient answer.

    I have a feeling the debates will be the deciding factor for a lot of people as well as an unwelcome wake-up call for those who have yet to see The One in action.

    There's really no way The Man -- inexperienced and still stumbling without a teleprompter or prepared remarks to recite -- can live up to The Hype -- The One, post-partisan, post-racial demigod who makes his supporters weep and then faint.

    Who COULD live up to that kind of billing?!

    Parent

    lol...Baricky, you got some 'splainin' (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:52:03 PM EST
    to do :)

    Parent
    well we just came through a tropical storm. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:07:10 PM EST
    i spent yesterday bringing in the plants and stocking up on water. i dread august every year because i know another storm is brewing at any time. funny, i used to not worry about such things.

    thank goodness all we got was some wind and needed water.

    Are you on the TX coast? (none / 0) (#57)
    by RalphB on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:23:57 PM EST
    I'm in Austin and the storm is gonna pass over here sometime this evening.

    Parent
    yup! i am in houston. (none / 0) (#157)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:37:11 PM EST
    we are 60 miles from the coast but oh those bayous and creeks. i live close to buffalo bayou and during allison i did have some water in the kitchen and baths but not enough to do any damage.

    Parent
    Lived in Houston in the late '70s (none / 0) (#185)
    by RalphB on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:47:03 PM EST
    Once every house in my neighborhood flooded, except mine.  Was on minusculely higher ground and didn't even know it, until the waters rose.  It was still kind of scary.

    All we ever get here is rain and some wind.  I'm just looking forward to the rain.


    Parent

    are you in washington? (none / 0) (#192)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:49:50 PM EST
    i feel sorry for those folks getting 100+ temperatures lately. dallas is at and above 100 today not to mention the rest of the country.

    Parent
    sorry i didn't read all the post properly. (none / 0) (#193)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:50:52 PM EST
    that comes from staying up late watching the weather.

    Parent
    ya'll will probably get some rain and (none / 0) (#159)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:38:11 PM EST
    maybe light wind but not much more. it is moving fairly fast.

    Parent
    Double standard? Hypocrite? (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:08:11 PM EST
    Critical of McCain, Obama quiet on own energy vote
    Democratic candidate Barack Obama criticized Republican John McCain on Tuesday for taking a page out of "the Cheney playbook" on energy, overlooking his own support of oil-friendly policies that the unpopular vice president helped to craft.
    <snip>
    However, Obama himself voted for a 2005 energy bill backed by Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production, a measure Cheney played a major role in developing. McCain opposed the bill on grounds it included billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.

    The Obama campaign has said the Illinois senator supported the legislation because it included huge investments in renewable energy.

    (Raum, AP/Yahoo News, 8/5)

    the word shameless comes to mind. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:10:07 PM EST
    When I think shameless... (none / 0) (#141)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:30:18 PM EST
    ...I think of McCain being against off-shore drilling and then changing his tune after getting a million bucks for his campaign from Big Oil.

    Now that's selling out we can believe in.

    Parent

    to each his own! (none / 0) (#148)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:35:20 PM EST
    McCain has not been quiet about it. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:19:11 PM EST
    and I expect will be less so.

    Parent
    I wonder what (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:21:38 PM EST
    constitutes a "huge investment" and if it in any way compares to what the Bill gives the already rich Oil Companies.

    Parent
    Ask ADM and friends ;) (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:23:11 PM EST
    He voted for Cheney's energy bill (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:33:47 PM EST
    because of a bone thrown to renewable energy while giving 8 billion in tax breaks to big oil and requiring refiners to use 5 billion gallons of corn ETHANOL.  Now we know the motivation, yes?

    He voted AGAINST capping interest rates at 30% because that wasn't a low enough cap.

    Anybody see through these excuses?

    Parent

    Where was McCain in 2007? (none / 0) (#84)
    by CST on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:47:06 PM EST
    He appears to have missed all the votes on that energy bill.  A shame too since it was a great bill, that would've been even better with one extra vote on an amendment which provided billions for research on biofuels and other alternative energy sources.

    Parent
    Another myth bites the dust (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:26:15 PM EST
    courtesy of the NYT:

    Big-Dollar Donors are Major Force in Obama Campaign:

    In an effort to cast himself as independent of the influence of money on politics, Senator Barack Obama often highlights the campaign contributions of $200 or less that have amounted to fully half of the $340 million he has collected so far.

    But records show that one-third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more -- a total of $112 million, more than Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama's Republican rival, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primaries, raised in contributions of that size.

    Behind those larger donations is a phalanx of more than 500 Obama "bundlers," fundraisers who have each collected contributions totaling $50,000 or more. Many of the bundlers come from industries with critical interests in Washington. Nearly three dozen of the bundlers have raised more than $500,000 each, including more than a half-dozen who have passed the $1 million mark and one or two who have exceeded $2 million, according to interviews with fundraisers.

    While his campaign has cited its volume of small donations as a rationale for his decision to opt out of public financing for the general election, Mr. Obama has worked to build a network of big-dollar supporters from the time he began contemplating a run for the United States Senate. He tapped into well-connected people in Chicago prior to the 2004 Senate race, and once elected, set out across the country starting to cultivate some of his party's most influential money collectors.

    Yes, things sure will change in Washington if Obama is elected...


    Pay Up To Sing Happy Birthday (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:42:33 PM EST
    On a similar note, I read an article this morning (sorry can't find the link) about how people shelled out up to $28,500 per couple to join in a birthday celebration for him at a Boston hotel last night.

    Parent
    And? (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:57:20 PM EST
    People just paid $80,000 a head here to have fancy snacks with McSame at a posh country club neighborhood where he "joked" about the plight of the middle class.

    http://tinyurl.com/6l4tty

     

    Parent

    You Missed The Point (none / 0) (#107)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:02:16 PM EST
    Read the comment in the parent post again.

    Parent
    Sorry, I didn't "miss the point" (none / 0) (#136)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:21:44 PM EST
    It's what politicians do.  They raise $ any old way they can.  They don't care about where it comes from or who is giving it to them as long as they get it.  Not a surprise to anyone who is paying attention.

    Parent
    You mean paying attention to Obama (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:57:45 PM EST
    and what he tells them, and especially when he tells them he represents "New Politics"?

    Or are you really saying that all those Obama supporters realized he is a hypocrite?  And so they are hypocrites, too?  And the media that reported this straight, as it was told to them by the Obama camp, also were knowingly lying?

    Just trying to clarify why you think there is nothing new in this.

    Parent

    Shades (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by Emma on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:41:13 PM EST
    of renting out the Lincoln Bedroom?

    Parent
    And, as with so many stories this year, (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:05:19 PM EST
    too little, too late.  Where was reporting checking Obama's  news releases 3 months ago?  6 months ago?

    Parent
    Thank the Lord obama is a "new" kind (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:54:23 PM EST
    of politician and never lies...hallelujah...uh huh, right, sure...:)

    Parent
    Would have been nice if the NYT had done more (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by kempis on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:56:33 PM EST
    to burst this bubble during the primaries. The information was there. They just didn't bother challenging the myth that Obama's campaign was funded almost entirely by ordinary folks cracking open their piggy banks.

    Parent
    Assuming These Figures Are Accurate (none / 0) (#114)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:05:37 PM EST
    Do you mean to tell me that it's business as usual in Washington for a candidate to raise $170 million in contributions of less than $200.?

    I never dreamed for a moment that Obama was never going to take money from some the 'usual suspects'. It was widely reported during the primaries.

    But that more money came from more than a million individual donors...that's new. What if anything it means if he's elected remains to be seen. But it's different.

    Parent

    Energy (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:28:55 PM EST
    As much as I disagree with Freidman, he has said for two years that the candidate that wins on the energy issue could win the WH. On this issue he may finally be right. This problem will only be intensified by November when the heating bills start rolling in to most households. And Obama's vote on the Cheney bill may bite him worse than Hilary's Iraq vote did her. Iraq is no longer front and center in the news cycle. Energy costs will be.

    According to Ras, McCain's winning the energy (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:34:37 PM EST
    issue:

    Forty-six percent (46%) of voters trust McCain more than Obama on energy issues while Obama is trusted more by 42%. Two months ago, Obama had a four point edge on the energy issue


    Parent
    I don't think NoQuarter's spectacular (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by MarkL on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:30:55 PM EST
    claim about Obama's COLB can be ignored.
    The claim is so specific, and so amazing, and it is verifiable.
    The claim is that the supposed birth certificate on Obama's "fight the smear's" site is actually a digital overly onto his sister Maya's certificate.
    Why Obama would have done this is quite mysterious: of all the myriad reasons presented on noquarter (some of them quite wacky), the one that makes some sense is that the second birth certificate issued when he was adopted, shows that he is or was an Indonesian citizen, making him ineligible for the Presidency.

    Some Links Would Be Nice (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by flashman on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:41:30 PM EST
    I'm not one to constantly cry for links, but since you are referencing sites... I haven't been tracking this story so much, and it would help me.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#81)
    by MarkL on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:44:25 PM EST
    Thanks, I'll keep an eye on this (none / 0) (#119)
    by flashman on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:07:34 PM EST
    BTW, whatever happened to NQ's "whitey" story?  Was that a dea end?

    Parent
    no (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:08:32 PM EST
    he always said they were saving it.
    will they use it?  it looks like they wont have to.

    Parent
    OMG! Tin Foil Hat Time! (4.00 / 3) (#189)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:48:40 PM EST
    How many times (3.66 / 3) (#105)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:00:43 PM EST
    does NQ have to fool you before you start questioning them?  

    Does your hatred of Obama so bright that you completely discarded skepticism?

    Parent

    when exactly have they fooled you (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:07:42 PM EST
    "it is verifiable" (2.00 / 0) (#167)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:41:00 PM EST
    LOL.  Stop, you're killing me!  

    Have you actually looked into the supposed "credentials" that this "expert" claims to have?  

    Or thought about why Obama would be issued as US passport if there is a question as to the validity of his proof of birth?  

    Or is it some high-level conspiracy being pulled off by the secret muslim faction trying to get Obama elected? Probably the same people who staged the moon landing and 9-11!11!!

    It to laugh.  

    Parent

    what exactly about his credentials (none / 0) (#178)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:45:11 PM EST
    troubles you?  I admit I did not spend a lot of time googleing them but they looked pretty credible to me.

    Parent
    This claim reminds me of the Dan (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:55:45 PM EST
    Rather, couldn't-have-been-a-typewriter deal.  

    Parent
    although the evidence looks pretty exhaustive (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by NJDem on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:01:20 PM EST
    (to these naive eyes anyway), it just seems waaay
    too out there.  Then again, I thought he would have released a sealed/stamped COLB well over a month ago--why let this stuff even fester?  

    Then, we have BC with his interesting choice of words yesterday--NOT saying there's anything to those tea leaves, but those were some choice words from a man who chooses them very carefully.  

    Parent

    Wouldn't you love to be an (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:05:22 PM EST
    investigative reporter and/or GOP muckraker who is getting a per diem and all expenses pd. to scour Hawaii birth certificates?

    Parent
    yes (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:07:04 PM EST
    I would
    but it seems there is no need.  the guy at NQ seems to have found most of the solid stuff already.


    Parent
    Is this the same fellow who (none / 0) (#149)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:35:28 PM EST
    kept talking about a tape of Michelle Obama speaking from the pulpit at Trinity UCC?  

    Parent
    some think Bill was referring to that (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:05:49 PM EST
    in the GMA interview when he was asked if Obama was qualified to be president and he said "That everybody has a right to run for president as long as they're qualified under the Constitution"
    I think you will hear more about this.

    Parent
    my popcorn's popping (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:21:43 PM EST
    and my dogs have been warned to stay away from all squeaky toys until I give the go-ahead.

    :-)

    Parent

    you want to talk about what (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:29:08 PM EST
    would rid us of Dean Brazil et al?
    how ridiculous would they look if there is anything at all to this story?


    Parent
    it might be helpful (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:20:41 PM EST
    to remember that this is the same Barack Obama who used legal means to clear his opponents off the ballot when he ran for State Senate (um, he won), whose adviser Axelrod leaked his Republican opponent's private divorce documents in order to sink him in the race (it worked) and who gladly smeared the last successful Dem President with the racist brush when it looked as if the AA community wasn't going to "wake up" and "get it".

    Forging a birth certificate would be child's play after all that.

    Parent

    a lot of people will care (none / 0) (#183)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:46:12 PM EST
    if it turns out to be true.
    btw, I didnt bring it up.

    Parent
    Mark...it is interesting stuff, and it is a (none / 0) (#207)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 05:02:45 PM EST
    wait and see type of thing.  So many people were hot to call McCain out of his birth certificate, but you aren't allowed to speculate on obama's?  More b.s. and more silly people defending obama; makes you wonder how they get through day to day life.  We will know soon enough and let the chips fall where they may.

    Parent
    Is the orange site responding (none / 0) (#208)
    by waldenpond on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 05:07:42 PM EST
    This originally reflected more on the orange website than Obama.  Why would anyone give them a birth certificate?  Doesn't make sense as the Obama campaign tries to distance itself from the left.

    This is one of those issues the Obama camp could have nipped in the bud.  I don't understand why the Obama campaign is allowing the orange site make them an object of ridicule.  Anyone has the right to demand a birth certificate from someone running for President.  Someone is going to file a legal request for proof.  

    Parent

    MSNBC's continued Clinton Derangement Syndrome (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by JoeCHI on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:40:59 PM EST
    Could the MSNBC coverage of Clinton's ABC interview be any more hostile?

    In light of the fact that the network is so rabidly pro-Obama, you would think that they would check their Clinton Derangement Syndrome in this matter. Their continued vilification of the Clintons certainly doesn't help Obama.

    For The Life Of Me (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by flashman on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:51:41 PM EST
    I can't come up with any good, current ratings on MSNBC's shows.  Last ones I saw, their "star" performer is was still getting his clock cleaned by his hated rival at Fox.  Both, however, were losing badly to "Sponge Bob Square Pants"  What a world!

    Parent
    personally (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:03:20 PM EST
    I will take Sponge Bob to either of them anytime anywhere.

    Parent
    oh they dont only hate that interview (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:53:50 PM EST
    they fear it.  for several reasons.

    Parent
    Another poll..... (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by mogal on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:52:44 PM EST
    ATV/Zogby Poll Toss-Up! McCain 42%, Obama 41% as Undecided Voters Increase

    and we know where the undecides will go (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:54:27 PM EST
    dont we.

    Parent
    O'Hanlon and Pollack are at again (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:54:49 PM EST
    in another of their infamous NYT op-ed articles.  Not to be overshadowed by regular columnists Tom Friedman and Bill Kristol, their  polemic and propagandistic screed assures them an unassailable place as the most likely to be wrong on Iraq assessments and prognostications. The piece is based on their "research trip" to Iraq, but no research procedures are presented, we are just treated to their conclusions.  However, a possibly contaminated research protocol can be garnered from the acknowledgement that the American military arranged the "logistics" and interviews were conducted at military bases. We are left to wonder how much wining and dining was provided to assure a favorable research environment but no mystery remains about the disaster that will be visited upon us and Iraq if we reduce combat troops at any time in the foreseeable future or maybe ever.  The surge and the other facilitators of progress are sustainable, but not stable. Sort of a house of cards built on top of a concrete platform, not a carpet, mind you, that could fly away. Their findings are replete with similar contradictions.  I hope that Foreign Affairs has better referees for publication than the NYT.

    Sen. Chris Matthews (D-PA)?? (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:31:12 PM EST
    Excuse me, I just threw up a little in my mouth...

    (Wilson, The Politico, 8/5)

    So does he (none / 0) (#180)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:45:30 PM EST
    Obama "heckled" into leading (5.00 / 0) (#203)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:56:57 PM EST
    pledge of allegiance.  So saith Huff Post.

    The press still doesn't get it... (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 05:59:12 PM EST
    at least not MSNBC.  They are hell-bent on making Bill Clinton the villain in this.  I believe they (meaning the sexists pigs of MSNBC) really want to pretend that Bill costs Hillary the campaign...that their sexist rhetoric played no part; that their cheerleading for Obama played no part.  
    David Gregory just got done sneering and snickering at how Bill's answer shows he's bitter and not supporting Obama.

    Here was the question to Bill:

    Do you think Senator Obama is ready to be president?:
    ANSWER:  It can be argued no one is ever ready to be president. I know I had to learn a lot my first year.  But he's(Obama) great at strategy, great at inspiring (which all presidents have to be), and is smart as a whip which means he can learn whatever he has to.

    I may have left out a word or two but that is pretty close to what Bill said.  And yet, Gregory, and his four Clinton hating friends, all were sneering at his "bitterness."

    What a bunch of jerks.  They know it's the press who Bill is going to come after..,methinks the phonies are scared.

    Hypothetical: if you were as wealthy (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:44:59 PM EST
    as Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are, would you sell photos of your newborn twins?

    Reality: I read it was for charity. (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:48:54 PM EST
    And if paparazzi are gonna plague you, anyway, this was a way to defuse the competition for the first photos at least by a bit.  And if paparazzi and publications are going to make millions from it, I thought it was pretty smart to make them pay.

    Parent
    if the money (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:49:45 PM EST
    were going to charities that don't get as much money as they should (as the money from the sale you mentioned did), then, yes, I would.

    Only because the charities benefit and the chance of paps using guerrilla tactics to get "the shot" -- and potentially injure my family -- would go down somewhat.

    Parent

    Pre-emptive strike? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:55:12 PM EST
    Good idea.  Your publicist releases the information that Thus-and-So will have the exclusive and suppresses the market for images.

    Celebrity.  It's a free market.

    Parent

    it's an interesting game (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:12:08 PM EST
    If you hide out in your house and duck behind your coat whenever you see a camera, the price for a good shot of you goes up.  Garbo was a master at playing this one.  Forty years after making a movie and she STILL had her photos selling like hot cakes.  But you have to be fairly huge for this to work effectively.  No reality show "stars" need apply.

    If you make yourself available, the interest in shots of you goes down and, eventually, the paps care less.  Too needy and too hungry for fame.  Blech.

    If you're going to play Hide and Seek, you have to play it intelligently or the paps rebel and vote en masse to NOT take your picture, which is the kiss of the death in this business.  That's when you see once "shy" stars opening up to People mag with a flurry of photos and a tell-all interview.

    I have close friends who play this game with the paps (I've even been a "mystery guy" in a few pap photos, something my friends found hilarious and which has earned me the title "Lover Boy") and the lengths these men and women go to get a shot is downright scary.  

    Imagine, you're in a bathroom stall doing your business when suddenly ...

    Get the picture?  (no pun intended)

    Parent

    Going to Their Foundation (none / 0) (#124)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:09:43 PM EST
    For charity, yes (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:56:41 PM EST
    I agree with that it's a good move against the paps also. Think of all the children that will benefit. This couple is known for being active, so it feels like exactly what it is.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jennyd on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:19:56 PM EST
    Babies are priceless and deserve privacy!

    Parent
    in the world (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:08:16 PM EST
    Angelina and Brad live in, publishing their pictures gives them that privacy they'll enjoy.  Without publishing them, they'd be Public Target #1 and end up wearing scarves over their faces like Michael Jackson's kids just to ruin the photographer's shot.

    With their pictures now published, the unsafe, insane rush to get THE first photo is now a moot point and those kids can now have some semblance of a normal life.

    May not make sense to you, but you don't live with the threat of insane photogs harming your family just for a picture.  Without publishing the photos, these children would have no life, no privacy and be continually under guard and moving targets.  In the end, it's better this way.

    And the money goes to charity.


    Parent

    But (none / 0) (#55)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:22:13 PM EST
    I just saw the picture.  The babies are awfully darn cute (how could they not be?)

    Parent
    ... if you were publisher (none / 0) (#13)
    by ding7777 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:52:13 PM EST
     of PEOPLE magazine would you pay 14 million for the pics?

    (the money is being donated to charity, correct?)

    Parent

    it is going to charity... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kredwyn on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:54:34 PM EST
    If that's what they're paying.... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:21:18 PM EST
    jesus what are they making off those kid's mugs?

    It's all very unsavory if you ask me...

    Parent

    Yes, because the wealthy spend a lot of money (none / 0) (#33)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:06:31 PM EST
    Offhand I would say, the wealthy like Jolie/Pitt spend at least several thousand dollars a day on luxeries and that's not counting basic cost of living expenses like food and housing.  This is what it means to be rich.

    Parent
    I need another word for "questioned" (none / 0) (#12)
    by kredwyn on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:51:51 PM EST
    that isn't as strong as say "challenged."

    And for some reason my brain's just not working...

    "demur"? Courtesy of (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:05:16 PM EST
    thesaurus.com

    Parent
    that's a good one... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kredwyn on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:16:39 PM EST
    inquired (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by flashman on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:10:43 PM EST
    Do the silly Repubicans think their energy stunt (none / 0) (#51)
    by thereyougo on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:20:48 PM EST
    will work?

    Have they got a clue that ANYTHING they say is not to be believed?
    I'm talking about the call to drill on the coasts to 'save money at the pump' silliness, demanding that Nancy Pelosi allow a vote for it.
    I don't see the presses stopping. I don't hear the MSM flocking to cover it like when Newt called for the government to shut down back in the days of Bill Clinton. I am glad it did shut down,and called their bluff.

    The House Republicans are so full of themselves to think they got any credibility left with the American people. When are they going to get the message? Even the White House hasn't given them any cred.


    It Just Might (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by flashman on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:38:27 PM EST
    support for drilling is growing, according to what I've been hearing.  Americans want solutions without sacrifice.  It's asking too much to have then inflate their tires, evidently.

    Parent
    Well, (older?) Americans (none / 0) (#87)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:51:26 PM EST
    already know the "drill" so to speak when it comes to conserving on gas. Especially those who are most affected. Once they've done all they can do, they'd like some help with the situation. Exxon bringing in record breaking profits doesn't help. Just adds to the fact they are feeling screwed in this situation. If Obama would have done the tire inflate reminder with his energy speech, McCain's gauge wouldn't have played. They moved fast on that one. It would have been moot if he had said here's what you can do while I do this. As it happened, McCain got the weekend cycle with a tire gauge and Obama with a flip on drilling.

    Parent
    If you say so (none / 0) (#104)
    by flashman on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:00:34 PM EST
    Meanwhile, it has been estimated that 1 in 3 drivers have underinfalted tired, wasting 3-4 million gallons of gas each and every day.  So, instead of looking for ways to conserve, they instead fall for the political expedient of lifting the drilling ban.  Never mind that will add to pollution, global warming and increase the chance of ecological damage to our coasts.  There is actually much more than can be done, but the point is, if we can't get people to check their tired, which by the way will start lowering the price of gas tomorrow as opposed to 7-8 years for drilling ( if at all ) then how are we going to get people to support real solutions that require sacrifice.  Expedience always wins over solutions.

    Parent
    My tires are properly inflated, (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:39:12 PM EST
    and I drive less than 7000 miles per year in a car that gets 35 mpg. My thermostat is set at 65 degrees in the winter, and I have recently improved the insulation in my home and replaced the old windows. All of my appliances are energy star rated. Although I hate them because of the color of the kight that give off, I use low energy light bulbs, and I turn out lights when I'm not in the room. My only energy "splurge" is keeping my hot tub hot - but even then I have a super-duper efficient cover for it. I'm doing my part. It's the government's turn to provide the incentives for the providers of the energy to find a better way to keep the energy flowing to my house.

    Parent
    Be Careful What Incentives You Support (none / 0) (#181)
    by flashman on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:45:45 PM EST
    First ask yourself this; when you say "The Government's turn" who is "The Governemt?"  Isn't the Government all of us?  Don't we all have a stake in developing sustainable resources?  And do we all also have a stake in supporting programs that conserve rather than exploit energy, in supporting programs that are good for the environment, and in programs that don't harm out pristine natural resources?  It's not about who's turn it is, it's about solutions for sustainable, environmental energy policy.

    Parent
    My point is that a single household (5.00 / 4) (#212)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 05:24:58 PM EST
    can only go so far with conservation. It then becomes a problem of infrastructure. I believe that government has to take some responsibility there.  As long as the government supports some forms of energy over others, my choices as a citizen with limited resources - financial, natural, and structural- are limited. It's fine to tell people to conserve for both the short term and the long term, but at some point we need a collective sharing of the burden, aka government, to provide a larger solution. For example, I would happily install a wind turbine in my backyard, but my house is situated on a city-like block, and a hamster running on a wheel would probably generate more energy than the turbine. I would need someone else, private or public, to build a wind farm elsewhere and transport that energy to me. I couldn't do it alone. Those of us who are old enough to remember the energy crisis of the 70's were very disappointed when Reagan took the solar panels that Carter had installed down off the White House roof. It was a signal that searching for alternative energy sources was no longer a government priority. It needs to be a priority again, while I check my tires every week.

    Parent
    here is my rant. i have to use albuterol and (none / 0) (#201)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:55:04 PM EST
    does one of my cats. worldwide they have revised how you can get albuterol. even the un got into it and asked to have it stayed as people would die. we have congress not revising cafe standards like they should. i have a neighbor with a new hummner and now i have to pay more than twice as much for an albuterol inhaer? give me a break!

    Parent
    wasn't there a comparison to (none / 0) (#134)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:21:15 PM EST
    tires and off shore drilling? Heh, more people are checking their tires than licensing their dogs in NYC. We're at a 20% rate and it's mandatory. Tires voluntary ;) Maybe it's my age, but as a non-driver, I know about tires, mph, etc. There's a lot of "common knowledge" out there and it's fine to remind people, but it needs to work both ways. I think many have said drilling won't produce for many years, so that may soon be considered common knowledge, but at least it's "action" towards the future vs nothing. Now I'm not advocating for it, I'm just trying to think wider opinion.

    I agree that we can and should do more, I was just offering up some perspective vs the blanket "people don't want to bother". I've done a lot to reduce my energy costs and foot print, but I can't do it all. I need some cooperation ;)

    Parent

    Yes There Was A Comparison (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by flashman on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:38:04 PM EST
    And every analysis I've seen shows that by commuters maintaining their cars, more oil can be conserved than can be drilled.  The articles, rants, etc. that have disputed the claim have not debunked the analyses.  My problem is that drilling is not a panacea for the crisis.  "Action" with the absense of results is not sufficient.  In fact, it is a dangerous thing, since the action alone will lure Americans back to sleep.  We have a limited window of time to act to stave off the crises, and the longer we are seduced into a catatonic state of complacency by the right, the worse the crises will be.  Action is needed now, and not action for effect; action for solution.  When, oh when will we learn our lesson?  At $8/gl?  At $12/gl?

    Parent
    I don't think some see drilling as (none / 0) (#210)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 05:13:00 PM EST
    lacking effect. Or an immediate solution, so I don't think they will go back to sleep just yet. I agree with the limited window and do not want to see drilling. Once we expand off shore, I see then opening up other areas. I like wind, water and solar. Endless. I don't trust Obama on Nuclear, I think he might "compromise" on that one also down the road. I'll have to read over what he put out yesterday.

    Parent
    Random non-political thought (none / 0) (#130)
    by CST on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:15:47 PM EST
    What's up with the new Star Wars Movie?  Didn't they already make this movie with people?  Why start with the second one if you are gonna do it over with animation?  Why not start with movie #1?

    not a remake (none / 0) (#138)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:24:53 PM EST
    different part of the saga.  I think the animation look very cool personally.

    Parent
    Yup ... (none / 0) (#150)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:35:49 PM EST
    I believe it takes place between eps 2 and 3.

    I also like the animation.  Especially after I heard they're attempting to make the characters look a bit like the puppets in Gerry Anderson shows (e.g. The Thunderbirds, Stingray, Fireball X-L, etc.).

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#152)
    by CST on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:36:44 PM EST
    I thought it was a remake of the clone wars, episode #2.  The animation does look cool, I was just confused about why they chose that movie.  If it is a new one altogether that makes a lot more sense.

    I haven't seen anything on the new Star Trek...  To be honest, I hate Star Trek.  And if they make new ones I'll have to watch it b/c my boyfriend loves that stuff and I make him watch Project Runway...

    Parent

    Episode 2 is called ... (none / 0) (#165)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:40:29 PM EST
    ATTACK OF THE CLONES, not CLONE WARS.

    And Episode 2 ends at the ends with the beginning of the clone wars, and Episode 3 begins some years later, leaving much of the events of the clone wars left untold.

    Hence, this movie and the subsequent cable series.

    Parent

    Oops (none / 0) (#173)
    by CST on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:43:55 PM EST
    Haha.  I didn't do my research, just heard "clones" and something to do with a battle so I assumed it was the same one.

    Parent
    its an interesting part of the story (none / 0) (#195)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:51:27 PM EST
    to explore further.  I dont think most people got around to thinking about just how completely horrible the idea of making clones to fight wars is.

    Parent
    ha (none / 0) (#169)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:41:19 PM EST
    fair enough

    Parent
    personally (none / 0) (#142)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:30:26 PM EST
    I am more interested in the new (recast) Star Trek relaunch.


    Parent
    check it out (none / 0) (#151)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:36:07 PM EST
    Don't become too interested ... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:37:03 PM EST
    J.J. Boredom is sure to make a hash of it.

    Parent
    I dont know. (none / 0) (#163)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:40:08 PM EST
    he has his detractors but I liked lost and I loved Colverfield.

    Parent
    um (none / 0) (#164)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:40:26 PM EST
    cloverfield

    Parent
    He didn't direct CLOVERFIELD ... (none / 0) (#172)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:43:20 PM EST
    and his involvement in LOST is relatively limited, especially these days.

    Parent
    no (none / 0) (#190)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:48:50 PM EST
    but from what I hear it was really his baby.

    Parent
    You heard wrong (none / 0) (#199)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:53:53 PM EST
    Presidential/VP Debates Schedules (none / 0) (#132)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:20:14 PM EST
    (courtesy of TV Newser)

    >>> First presidential debate
    Friday, September 26
    The University of Mississippi, Oxford, Miss.
    Jim Lehrer
    Executive Editor and Anchor, The NewsHour, PBS

    >>> Vice presidential debate
    Thursday, October 2
    Washington University in St. Louis, Mo.
    Gwen Ifill
    Senior Correspondent, The NewsHour, and Moderator and Managing Editor,
    Washington Week, PBS

    >>> Second presidential debate (town meeting)
    Tuesday, October 7
    Belmont University, Nashville, Tenn.
    Tom Brokaw
    Special Correspondent, NBC News

    >>> Third presidential debate
    Wednesday, October 15
    Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.
    Bob Schieffer
    CBS News Chief Washington Correspondent, and Host, Face the Nation

    (more info here...)

    keep hearing about it (none / 0) (#186)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:47:10 PM EST


    My current fav show ... (none / 0) (#198)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:53:05 PM EST
    on US TV.  It's edged out for me by some UK stuff.

    But it's a brilliant show.

    AP/Ipso poll: Obama (none / 0) (#211)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 05:18:26 PM EST
    up by 6.  No, I don't do crosstabs.