home

Clinton And Biden

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:37:36 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Laura Thorne at daily kos:

By Big Tent Tent Democrat

< Colorado The Bellwether | The Bush-McCain Social Security Privatization Plan >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Clinton And Biden | 65 comments (65 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Does Hillary actually talk during this webcast? (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by vj on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:46:31 AM EST


    3 minutes, 21 seconds (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:23:40 AM EST
    before she gets a word in.

    Not good.

    Parent

    I didn't get that far (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by vigkat on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:51:49 AM EST
    into it.  I don't know what the goal was, but I don't think hearing Joe drone on and on to a bobble-headed Hillary for whatever length of time is a winner, regardless how many words she eventually manages to get in.  It makes me curious about who the intended target of this over-rehearsed kind of thing is.  But that's just me.  I would never choose to hang in there to the end.

    Parent
    If it had been rehearsed (none / 0) (#36)
    by vj on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:13:07 AM EST
    there surely would have been a bit of interaction between the two earlier....  no?

    Parent
    A competent director (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:24:19 AM EST
    would never have allowed that endless, mindless opening by Joe.  Only his mother would sit through it.

    Parent
    I couldn't keep watching (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:15:04 PM EST
    Hillary nod and smile while Joe pontificates on what is good for women.  Maybe I'll try again later.

    Parent
    quite a bit (none / 0) (#3)
    by progrocks on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:49:20 AM EST
    if you care to watch it

    Parent
    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:03:43 AM EST
    am I one of the few people who likes Biden?

    This would have been better though if it had been Obama instead of Biden sitting down with Hillary.

    I like him. And he likes himself, which (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Joelarama on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:22:38 AM EST
    is true of most politicians, and he likes to hear himself talk.

    I just wish Biden had a little more self-awareness -- enough to realize that he tends to go on and on, and reign himself in.

    Usually, I agree with what he says in the first 15 seconds, and then I want him to finish his point and shut up.  

    That was my reaction to this video, that was my reaction to the Alito hearing, that was my reaction to the Oliver North hearing.

    Parent

    Conditioned reflex... (none / 0) (#29)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:42:23 AM EST
    Joe starts talking...I stop listening.

    Besides the endless blather there is an insincere quality that surfaces off and on...like a B actor who knows his lines but can't quite bring off the Brando-level performance.

    Joe can't pass the Giraudoux test:  "The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made."

    Jean Giraudoux was a French diplomat, dramatist, & novelist and keen observer of human behavior.

    Parent

    I don't question his sincerity. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Joelarama on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:17:16 PM EST


    Parent
    We Irish call it Blarney. (none / 0) (#64)
    by oldpro on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 05:06:14 PM EST
    And Joe has a tendency to lay it on thicker than most.

    Parent
    I like him and was very happy with the pick. (none / 0) (#55)
    by blue prairie on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:10:47 PM EST
    I think he comes across as sincere and capable. I like that he is passionate and excited. I get the feeling that Obama and Biden like and respect each other. Is Joe perfect, no, but then I don't think he has ever himself claimed to be. Somehow I just feel he is the real deal and a good guy. I like to see him with his big family, just like I enjoy seeing the Obama's together. These seem to be affectionate families with open smiles, hugs and public affection. Have you ever seen the McCain's showing openingly comfortable affection? Usually she's walking 2 paces behind him. I also like to see Joe's grandkids and the Obama girls playing together, color blind. The night of the convention speech the sight of those little girls chasing confhetti stars was amazing. This is something our country needs to see, if for no other reason than to rub it in the faces of the bigots.

    Parent
    A couple of points (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:33:06 AM EST
    Is it really necessary to label anybody who chooses McCain over Obama a "liar?" It's just becoming too predictable. Whatever happened to, "Oh well, that's too bad; I disagree with that person's opinion, but these things happen both ways."

    And on the "equal pay for equal work,".....catchy slogan, but I'd like to see the "inequalities" that have caused this legislation to be necessary. As an employer myself, it would be competitive suicide to limit hiring based on gender. There have been countless studies done showing what appears "unequal" actually have valid justifications.

    Can Anyone illuminate this for me?  

    IMo (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:40:35 AM EST
    the whole "liar" thing is bad politics. It's bad politics because it's a personal attack and they are conceding the fact that Obama is out of the mainstream by not attacking the substance of her statement.

    Parent
    equal pay (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CST on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:44:50 AM EST
    The bill in question does nothing to change how we view equal pay for equal work.  It only increases the time period you have to sue for discrimination.  The courts still decide what constitutes discrimination.  Read up on Lily Ledbetter to get a better idea.  She was underpaid for 20 years, but because she didn't sue within 180 days of her first paycheck she lost the suit.  Despite the fact that she had no idea she was underpaid until someone sent her an anonymous e-mail after 20 years of working there.

    And the details of the case were VERY clear that discrimination was the cause of her pay.  She worked there for 20 years and was paid significantly less than some of the male employees who worked BELOW her.

    Parent

    gotcha (none / 0) (#39)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:24:25 AM EST
    While I have some sympathy for the law limiting the time span , certainly a compromise shouldn't be impossible to achieve.  Maybe mandating that employers issue "Miranda like" warnings to all employees regarding the law could be a start.


    Parent
    Under no circumstances (none / 0) (#49)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:36:26 PM EST
    should the statute of limitations run out before you even have the opportunity to realize you're being discriminated against.  That's just common sense to me.

    Parent
    the limitation (none / 0) (#50)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:42:46 PM EST
    should be the numbers of day "after you are made aware of the fact", not the number of days after the company starts the discrimination.

    Parent
    Or (none / 0) (#58)
    by jar137 on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:48:24 PM EST
    if the discrimination continues, the statute should not begin to run because the injury is ongoing.  The S/L should not begin to run until the employer stops the discriminatory behavior.  I don't know the facts of this case (was too angry to read the decision when it came down) to say whether this was considered by the court.  

    Parent
    Should read (none / 0) (#60)
    by jar137 on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:00:30 PM EST
    if the discrimination is continuous.

    The court could have taken the view that each disparate paycheck was an act of discrimination, so the S of L would not begin to run until the employer stopped the disparate salary.

    Parent

    This is a little weird (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:48:20 AM EST
    30 minutes?

    Not an ad (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:51:44 AM EST
    A webcast.

    Perhaps there are some potential ads in there.

    Parent

    I know it's not an ad (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:52:54 AM EST
    But did Joe and Hillary really have time to produce their very own TV show?

    Parent
    Apparently (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:54:54 AM EST


    Parent
    Rotheschild (none / 0) (#4)
    by prose on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:51:42 AM EST
    continued the lie that McCain pays his female employees more fairly because McCain has more females working for him in high up places.  The issue, of course, is equal pay for EQUAL WORK.  Rotheschild has been a part of the campaign for appx. 2 days, and is already lying to America's women (and not being called on it by CNN).  

    OK - back to my comment hiatis.  Just had to get that out there.

    Why on hiatus? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:52:31 AM EST
    I don't recall having any problems with you. Did you have a runin with J or Chris?

    Parent
    No... (none / 0) (#10)
    by prose on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:56:26 AM EST
    self-imposed.  I got into an on-going argument with another commenter.  I will comment, but probably not respond.  I don't want to take the time or get worked up again.  

    I get too in to this stuff.  I have to walk away now and then.

    Parent

    you need a more (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:57:33 AM EST
    civilized, laid back approach like mine . . .

    Parent
    lol (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Faust on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:15:35 AM EST
    good times.

    Parent
    Kos has a FP post up on... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Fabian on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:24:01 AM EST
    ...wait for it

    Why focusing on Palin was the smart approach - citing polls on Palin, not McCain.

    Just FYI.  You can delete this.

    Parent

    I will ignore it (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:28:17 AM EST
    Why they want to debate that NOW when it is demonstrably clear that they are wrong is beyond me.

    I will not dignify it with an answer.

    Parent

    I looked at the polls (none / 0) (#26)
    by Fabian on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:32:39 AM EST
    thinking I'd see McCain...nope, I saw Palin instead.  I'd be willing to concede the point if McCain's numbers tanked because of his VP.

    People vote for the top of the ticket.  Palin is/was a GOTV and fund raising ploy - plus a media magnet.  She isn't the GOP candidate for POTUS.

    Parent

    ::snort:: (none / 0) (#62)
    by kredwyn on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:37:04 PM EST
    I wonder what it says about me that I consider your posts, even the ones I grumble at, a safe haven of calm and reason.

    ;-P

    Parent

    I just realized I wasn't very clear there... (none / 0) (#9)
    by prose on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:55:32 AM EST
    Here's a more detailed explanation -

    Rotheschild says that women in Obama's campaign make 77 cents for every dollar men make.  SHe claims that this means that Obama does not support equal pay for equal work.  However, she ignores that her statistic is based on a LOUSY article (I believe it was from the WSJ) that simply compared the salaries of all the women working for Obama to all the men working for Obama.

    Rotheschild apparently thinks there should just be equal pay, regardless of whether someone is an administrative assistant or a campaign manager.  She makes no attempt to actually compare the pay-grade of men and women who are doing equal jobs.

    It's just good old fashioned McCain style dishonesty.

    She also never addressed that McCain opposes equal pay for equal work legislation.

    She is trying to win American women by lying to them.  I think American women are smarter than that.

    OK, for real, hiatis time.

    Parent

    That (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by CST on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:02:58 AM EST
    And Donald Trump endorsed McCain last night on Larry King.

    Calling Obama "out of touch with average Americans"

    ok so I made that last part up... his real excuse was tax cuts for guys like him, who apparently really need the cash right now

    I'm sure THAT will resonate with voters

    Parent

    Didn't (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:05:15 AM EST
    Donald endorse Kerry in 2004?

    The "out of touch" narrative must be what the GOP is pushing right now.

    Parent

    I don't know (none / 0) (#15)
    by CST on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:11:17 AM EST
    And I made up the out of touch thing... cuz I thought it was funny and I think that's what the aristocrat Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild said.

    He donated to both Kerry and Bush in 2004...

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:16:04 AM EST
    Lynn isn't the only one saying that Obama is out of touch.

    Writing her off as an "aristocrat" isn't going to really work since she grew up in a blue collar family in NJ. Frankly, after seeing her on CNN yesterday, if I worked for the Obama campaign I would be concerned. She's implying that Roe v. Wade won't be overturned by McCain. Of course, I understand that Obama's campaign was condescending toward her so it left her ripe for picking by the McCain campaign.

    Parent

    I know I know (none / 0) (#19)
    by CST on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:19:56 AM EST
    Just trying to be snarky.  And it would've been really funny if the Donald had said that.

    Parent
    rednecks? (none / 0) (#40)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:28:11 AM EST
    Writing her off as an "aristocrat" isn't going to really work since she grew up in a blue collar family in NJ.
    Well... when she calls those blue collar families "rednecks" I am not sure that it will be that hard to write her off as an "aristocrat."

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:41:31 AM EST
    but americablog has become a joke. If you have a more reliable source then put it forth.

    Parent
    what? (none / 0) (#47)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:27:54 PM EST
    The source is a CNN video clip, it just happened to be posted on AmericaBlog.  AmericaBlog didn't make it up.

    Here is a link to the video clip.

    Parent

    I watched (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:53:51 PM EST
    the whole thing on yesterday. Americablog cut in during the middle of her sentence. Nothing more than manufactured hysteria and smears from them.

    Parent
    You tube (none / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:29:51 PM EST
    It's up.

    Parent
    Context? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Cairo Faulkner on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    That looks to be out of context to me. It seems she is paraphrasing Obama describing people as rednecks and bitter, because she then goes on to say 'then call me bitter'. She's clearly talking about 'clinging to guns and religion' - something you can be sure we haven't heard the last of.

    Parent
    Except (none / 0) (#61)
    by daring grace on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:14:48 PM EST
    did Obama ever use the term rednecks?

    Clearly she is referring to his infamous 'bitter' comment, but the unfortunate use of the word rednecks, I think, is all hers.

    Parent

    Indeed (none / 0) (#63)
    by Cairo Faulkner on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:43:41 PM EST
    Hence I said 'paraphrasing'. But the outrage at elitism is either false or misplaced, as we've no reason to think that she personally considers such people rednecks. The cut off (or rather, cut on) of this clip is what makes this questionable; it opens with her talking about rednecks, but it seems pretty clear she was using such dismissive language to characterise the Democratic position.

    Parent
    umm... (none / 0) (#65)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:02:32 AM EST
    ... she is the one who called them rednecks.  Not Barack Obama.

    It wasn't "paraphrasing."

    Parent

    Donald Trump preaching (none / 0) (#51)
    by blue prairie on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:49:10 PM EST
    that Obama is out of touch with average Americans...Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Donald Trump is an expert at being in touch with average Americans...Hahahahahahahahaha! It's true you can't make this stuff up!

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#52)
    by CST on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:52:18 PM EST
    It's not true, and I did make it up...

    I guess that wasn't clear enough in my post.

    Parent

    No you misunderstood my post (none / 0) (#56)
    by blue prairie on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:20:07 PM EST
    I was mocking the idea that Trump would criticize anyone for being out of touch with average Americans. I mean come on Donald Trump are you telling me that you, sir of all people are in touch with average Americans...which leads to the statement "You can't make this stuff up!"...which means the idea that Donald Trump would tell me he knows and feels what average Americans are going through is just so absurd and out of touch with actual reality, that someone would have a hard time even writing that as a comedy line. It is a rather common mockery line, the phrase, "You can't make this stuff up!". Maybe you've never heard someone say it, but my post was not about questioning you, in anyway.

    Parent
    Sorry I've reread your post! Duh..... (none / 0) (#57)
    by blue prairie on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:25:03 PM EST
    time for more coffee....I was up all night with a vomitting child.:(  Did not get any sleep...Must not sleep now.... Must head back to coffee pot....must have more coffee.

    Parent
    Although (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Lena on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:12:01 AM EST
    it IS interesting that McCain apparently hires women to work in higher positions within his campaign than does Obama.

    Parent
    It's even more interesting (none / 0) (#20)
    by Faust on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:20:16 AM EST
    that some women who claim to be interested in women's rights want to vote for McCain/Palin. I guess Hillary Clinton and NOW are totally out to lunch with their endorsment of Obama/Biden.

    Parent
    Here's (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:32:38 AM EST
    the problem as I see it:
    Both Obama and McCain are blurring where they stand on this issue. It's hard to sell McCain as anti choice when he has people like Rothschild saying that Roe v. Wade isn't going to be overturned and you have Obama pandering to evangelicals. Neither of them have been very clear nor concise on this issue.

    Bill Clinton said clear as a bell in 1992 that he would appoint judges that would uphold Roe v. Wade. Obama it seems wants people to glean this information by osmosis or something.

    Having said all that, social issues may not even be a factor in the election.

    Parent

    Social forces are always an issue (none / 0) (#32)
    by Faust on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:52:55 AM EST
    but they will be overshadowed by FP and the economy.

    In any case, the voting history of these candidates on the subject of choice is pretty clear.

    Parent

    I don't know about that (none / 0) (#33)
    by Lena on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:56:26 AM EST
    I just think it's interesting that McCain employs women at higher levels in his campaign than Obama. I wonder if Obama has an answer/explanation for that?

    Parent
    What is the basis (none / 0) (#59)
    by jar137 on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:56:40 PM EST
    for the statement that McCain employs women at higher levels?  And why should Obama have to explain that?

    Parent
    Well, the statistic that Obama and Dems cites (none / 0) (#35)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:08:19 AM EST
    that women earn 77 cents per dollar earned by men, isn't about equal pay for equal work either. It's the exact same comparison that the WSJ is using, and it's a suggestive statistic, but not right on point.

    So what do you call that? Good old fashioned Democratic dishonesty?

    Parent

    If that is true... (none / 0) (#37)
    by prose on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:23:04 AM EST
    then yes, the Democrats are being dishonest.  But I've never seen that be the way that the 77 cent statistic is presented.  Source?

    Parent
    Here you go (none / 0) (#41)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:37:05 AM EST
    NOW's web site describes the calculation as: "In 2005, women's median annual earnings were only $.77 for every $1.00 earned by men. For women of color, the gap is even worse - only $.71 for African American women and $.58 for Latinas."  If the comparison is median earnings of each group, it cannot be correcting for job level or experience.

    GAO report 04-35 states that controlling for some factors, such as occupation, there is still a gap, 80 cents to the dollar.  ("Occupation" is pretty broad though, so it is likely not a good control for job responsibilities.)  The report cites to several factors that account for the differences, and loss of experience due to child-bearing and rearing responsibilities seems pretty key.

    Parent

    Fair... (none / 0) (#43)
    by prose on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:48:33 AM EST
    then referring to the disparity as a disparity of equal pay for equal work seems dishonest.  

    One caveat though - a nation wide average verses a campaign wide average would seem to produce more reliable numbers in the same way that a poll sample has to be so large to be reasonable.

    Parent

    Smaller samples have more variation (none / 0) (#44)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:02:05 PM EST
    it is true.  But did you know that statisticians consider a well-chosen sample of 30 to be a large sample? :-)

    There are lots of reasons women get paid less than men on average. One is surely that they are hired for lower level positions and don't get promoted as fast as men. So the average statistic can still be useful.

    Parent

    i think this would be so much (none / 0) (#34)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:04:28 AM EST
    better if Biden would say "especially for women" a few more times in the first two minutes.

    Clinton And Biden | 65 comments (65 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment