home

Monday Lunchtime Open Thread

It's lunchtime on the East coast. I'm back at work. Here's an open thread for you, with the caveat below still in effect.

This site will not host personal attacks against Sarah Palin, rumors of a personal nature or a discussion of her personal life or that of her children. All such comments will be deleted and repeat offenders banned.

Our comment policy is here.

< Notice to Commenters | Another Memory Lapse by Alberto Gonzales >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    What do my fellow posters think about the Ras (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:54:53 AM EST
    poll showing Obama now breaking 50%?

    We'll wait a bit before getting excited (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:59:37 AM EST
    and, more importantly, remember that the only polls which really count are (a) the one on November 4, and (b) the Electoral College, in December.

    Winning those is all that counts.  All the rest of them are tea leaves.

    Parent

    Polls are like Horoscopes (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Grace on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:24:33 PM EST
    For Entertainment Purposes Only.  

    ;-)

    Parent

    I'll feel better (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by domerdem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:00:10 PM EST
    if it is there a week from now.  

    Parent
    Me too. (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:00:56 PM EST
    I saw him on Fox today (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by zfran on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:00:33 PM EST
    and he said the poll is 48/43 Obama. His   website says its 51% with "leaners."

    Parent
    What Ras not surprisingly left (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:04:02 PM EST
    out was the polling weeks ago that showing the race tied in his poll but McCain getting credit for having a 1 point lead or so among "leaners". The archives are on Realclearpolitics if you want proof.

    Parent
    It's a very good sign ... (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:02:47 PM EST
    but to reach that number they had to include "leaners."

    The race is 48-43 without it.  Showing a slightly weak (or weakening) convention bounce.

    Perhaps a more telling factor is that he's shored up his support among Democrats.  Now at 85%.

    Parent

    Correction ... (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:09:13 PM EST
    this is a 2 point increase from yesterday.  So perhaps an increasing bounce. Still, at 5 points is slightly weak.

    Parent
    I won't have any idea what to think until (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:04:07 PM EST
    andgarden and BTD disscet the cross-tabs.

    Parent
    I don't have access to Ras crosstabs (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:09:17 PM EST
    and, while I look at the Ras daily just like everyone else, I don't think it means much of anything right now. We'll probably have to wait until a week after the end of the Republican convention to know anything.

    I would also be concerned about the fact that lots of people in Louisiana, Texas, Alabama and elsewhere were evacuated and not included in this particular poll.

    Parent

    Why? (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:11:57 PM EST
    I would also be concerned about the fact that lots of people in Louisiana, Texas, Alabama and elsewhere were evacuated and not included in this particular poll.

    I assume those aren't part of the Obama campaign's 18 state strategy.  If their inclusion moves the numbers away from Obama it's simply hiding his strength, not reflective of any real problem, right.

    Plus, of course, I think the largest evacuation was New Orleans which will I expect will heavily favor Obama assuming they're actually able to hold the election there.

    Parent

    Hehe (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:17:23 PM EST
    Obama is sure to win     New Orleans, but there isn't enough kool aid in the world to make me believe that he'll win the suburbs. White people in the deep south won't vote for him, and their exclusion from the polling done yesterday is quite possible the explanation for why Obama is seeing 50% in some national polls (including Gallup just now).

    Parent
    This is why I agree with Obama's camp (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:22:47 PM EST
    that only swing states matter. Who in their right mind would give California more than an afterthought in their calculations? I'm not a pollster, but I can't believe they are that stupid.

    Parent
    Under ordinary circumstances, national polls (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:32:07 PM EST
    can show you trends. Any candidate who breaks 50% of the national popular vote is also an overwhelming favorite in the electoral college.

    However, it is correct to ignore the states whose electoral votes are out of reach for you. For Obama there is no use running up his numbers in Chicago (Illinois is already a lock), and for McCain no use doing the same in suburban Dallas.

    Parent

    Overwhelming? (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by ineedalife on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:50:01 PM EST
    Tell that to Al Gore.

    Parent
    Well, Al Gore won Florida IMO (none / 0) (#172)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:57:20 PM EST
    My dual points are. . . (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:08:07 PM EST
    the effect of displaced conservative voters is likely offset by the displaced New Orleanians and even if Obama's percentage is being boosted by under reporting from the states you mentioned that isn't a problem for Obama -- he wasn't planning on winning those states anyway.

    Parent
    Last point first (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:22:17 PM EST
    If you're saying that we should ignore national polls, fine. I don't agree in this case, but that's a position I respect.

    As to your first point, in order for that to be right it would have to be the case that an even number of McCain supporters and Obama supporters became unreachable yesterday. The demographics of the whole region make it very likely that McCain was hurt more (he is, after all, an overwhelming favorite to win Louisiana and Mississippi).

    Parent

    It think that's what ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:16:41 PM EST
    Andgarden is saying.

    But I think Ras' randomization and balancing procedures should take this into account.

    It's really no different than dealing with any "no answer" phenomena.

    Parent

    Sorry about the she/he mixup andgarden. (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:12:38 PM EST
    de nada (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:19:11 PM EST
    Good point oculus. Hey is andgarden (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:06:46 PM EST
    a pollster or something because she seems to have a good grasp of polling techniques. Just curious about her background/credentials...

    Parent
    "He." Don't know about the (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:08:47 PM EST
    background, but he is a child genius I think. Kind of a blog-commenting Mozart.

    Parent
    High praise and totally undeserved. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:11:30 PM EST
    I'm an amateur pundit who's terrible at math! I've never even taken calculus!

    Parent
    If you can learn a foreign language (none / 0) (#85)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:57:37 PM EST
    you can learn math.  Math is just a language used to express concepts far better than our ambiguous and inaccurate native tongues.

    It's not as intuitive, but it's incredibly powerful.

    Parent

    For me, a bad comparison (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:04:15 PM EST
    I was never able to learn a foreign language, either.

    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by CST on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:12:48 PM EST
    For me, it was the other way around.  I was good at math and rubbish at foreign languages.  Then I figured out that languages are like a code, once you crack the code you can figure it out.  I had to turn languange into math though to figure it out.  Different brains and such.


    Parent
    This Description of Math Intrigues Me (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:42:31 PM EST
    as a lifelong math-phobe who always did just so-so at it while acing my other courses, I've always been fascinated with higher math even as it often bewilders me.

    My friends think I'm nuts when I say that one of the things I'd like to do when I have more time is really delve into studying math as an adult with an eye to seeing the fun in it.

    Parent

    I wish it were so east... (none / 0) (#112)
    by santarita on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:17:11 PM EST
    Foreign languages are a snap compared to math for me.  I think I got derailed somewhere in 4th grade with decimals and fractions and never got back on track.

    Parent
    Gallup too - Obama 50-42 (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Josey on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:05:07 PM EST
    And Obama has gains with Hillary supporters (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by stefystef on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:06:50 PM EST
    this sounds good on the surface... so why am I not comfortable with those numbers?

    Parent
    I think that 3 days after the (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Faust on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:55:20 PM EST
    Republican conventions I'll start taking polls seriously. At that point we will have both VPs chosen, both conventions "processed" and will be heading down the home stretch with even non-political junkies starting to pay some attention.

    Parent
    So how does this reconcile with (5.00 / 0) (#197)
    by JAB on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:14:38 PM EST
    this, which shows that "Barack Obama's post-Democratic National Convention bounce in the polls appears to be slightly smaller than the norm of past conventions, and it's gradually depreciating. "

    Granted, this was from last night, but I think the numbers will fluctuate after Palin and McCain speak, don't you?

    Parent

    Polls (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by JThomas on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:04:58 PM EST
    are going to flucuate between now and next week.
    I am ignoring them for the most part.
    I do believe that last weeks DNC convention was a positive image builder for democrats thruout the country and could add momentum to what should be a democratic year at the ballot box.
    The debates are the next challenge for the Obama/Biden ticket and will be important.

    Why no bounce? (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by stefystef on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:11:49 PM EST
    Obama and the DNC gave it their all and yet nothing spectacular has happened.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/13068

    While I don't pay too much attention to polls, I am still rather surprised that Obama/Biden hasn't really pulled away from McCain, considering the positive coverage for the Democrats.  

    Interesting.

    Parent

    but that was yesterday - (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Josey on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:22:53 PM EST
    Obama finally hit 50 points today.


    Parent
    CNN only one not showing bounce over weekend (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by magster on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:48:43 PM EST
    CBS Gallup Rasmussen ARG and Hotline all between 6-9 point lead for Obama.

    Parent
    I worry about the Bradley Effect (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by stefystef on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:17:14 PM EST
    I wonder if those being polled are being honest.  Since racism has been thrown around during this election, I am concerned that people who "say" they will vote for Obama, will vote their real feelings in November.

    That's why polls are sketchy.  Americans have been known to say one thing and act different.  This is a valid concern.

    Parent

    Yeah the debates are crucial. I'm disappointed (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:10:36 PM EST
    because even though I live in Miss., I can't attend the 1st debate. Does anyone here plan on attending any of the debates?

    Parent
    Rumors of any nature... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by santarita on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:10:28 PM EST
    turn intelligent discussion into idle chatter unless the person discussing the rumor identifies it as a rumor and then admits that facts to be discovered may make the rumor false.  

    The above may sound too dogmatic (and it probably is) but one of the sterling distinguishing virtue of this blog as opposed to other so-called progressive blogs is the general recognition that rumors treated as fact lead the commenters into chatter and wild speculation and divert and distract from meaningful discussion of issues.

    Some commenter in a previous diary stated (without furnishing proof, of course) that this blog had been guilty of the same demeaning behavior with regard to rumors as other blogs.  That put the proverbial bee in my bonnet.

    I guess a degree in Communications/Journalism... (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:11:26 PM EST
    ...and a minor in Political Science doesn't exactly give one a firm grasp of American history or the Founding Fathers...

    "In 2006, the Eagle Forum Alaska sent a questionnaire to all the state's gubernatorial candidates, including Sarah Palin (R). From Palin's response about the Pledge of Allegiance:

    11. Are you offended by the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
    SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.  [Emphasis added]

    However, as Hunter points out, the words "Under God" didn't appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954; the founding fathers had nothing to do with them. The Pledge itself, in fact, wasn't even written until 1892."
    --Think Progress

    How many people realize this? (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by stefystef on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:19:56 PM EST
    I think most Americans think the Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1776 and don't know that most the "founding fathers" were not religious men.  And yet, there are those who want to be believe that America was founded as a "Christian" nation... it was not.  The Founding Fathers were very serious about the separation of Church and State.  It is only after centuries of myth-making do you have statements like Palin's taken as "truth".

    The "myth" of America keeps on going...

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#71)
    by nalo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:45:32 PM EST
    Definitely part of the great mythos of the conservative era.  I can tell you anecdotally that those of us under 30 who are educated (even in red  state) "liberal" public schools, were taught the truth.  In history we definitely learned all about the founding fathers, Enlightenment, separation of Church and State, religious freedom, and revolution.

    So there is a massive ideological shift to be had in the next 40 years!

    Parent

    Serious question (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Grace on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:43:44 PM EST
    When was God added to our money?  "In God We Trust"?  I don't have a clue.

    I didn't know about the Pledge of Allegiance either.  God's always been in it as long as I've been saying it.  Thanks for the new information!

    Parent

    In God We Trust (none / 0) (#86)
    by BrianJ on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:57:55 PM EST
    Was first added to a US coin in 1864, the two-cent piece.  (This coin was last minted in 1873.)  During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, In God We Trust was gradually introduced on more and more coin designs.  The last regular circulation US coin without In God We Trust was the Indian Head/ Buffalo nickel (minted 1913-38).

    Parent
    "In God We Trust" on coins (none / 0) (#91)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    From Wikipedia:

    Congress passed the Coinage Act (1864) on April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. "In God We Trust" first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

    Another Act of the United States Congress passed on March 3, 1865 which allowed the Mint Director, with the Secretary's approval, to place the motto on all gold and silver coins that "shall admit the inscription thereon." Under the Act, the motto was placed on the gold Double Eagle coin, the gold Eagle coin, and the gold Half Eagle coin. It was also placed on the silver dollar coin, the half dollar coin and the quarter dollar coin, and on the nickel five-cent coin beginning in 1866. Later, Congress passed the Fourth Coinage Act of February 12, 1873. It also said that the Secretary "may cause the motto IN GOD WE TRUST to be inscribed on such coins as shall admit of such motto."

    The use of "In God We Trust" has not been uninterrupted. The motto disappeared from the five-cent coin in 1883, and did not reappear until production of the Jefferson nickel began in 1938. Since 1938, all United States coins bear the inscription. Later, the motto was found missing from the new design of the gold Double Eagle coin and the gold Eagle coin shortly after they appeared in 1907. In response to a general demand, Congress ordered it restored, and the Act of May 18, 1908, made it mandatory on all coins upon which it had previously appeared. Therefore, the motto was not mandatory on the one-cent and five-cent coins, but it could be placed on them by the Secretary of the Treasury or the Mint Director with the Secretary's approval.

    American presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt strongly disapproved of the idea of evoking God within the context of a "cheap" political motto. In a letter to William Boldly on November 11, 1907, President Roosevelt wrote: "My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege... it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."

    Despite historical opposition, the motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909 and on the ten-cent dime since 1916. It also has appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins struck since July 1, 1908.

    Parent

    This country also did not sing the (none / 0) (#126)
    by zfran on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:27:56 PM EST
    national anthem at sporting events until WWII. So what! Didn't the supreme court either get a case to take "under God" out of the pledge and didn't they either take it, rule against it, or just didn't take it at all? Either way, the court had the votes to take it out of our pledge and didn't. They could have reversed Roe v Wade and didn't. My mom always said that we cannot have too many blessings (we are not at all religous). Are you ready to "pay" through tax dollars to remove the "god" part off our money! Some things just are!

    Parent
    I don't care one way (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by nalo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:15:40 PM EST
    or the other about it.  It's Sarah Palin who has a very strong view that "under God" is vitally important, based on wrong historical facts.  Her views are not out of line with generic Republican thinking.  But I'm vary of a politician who doesn't understand the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, and the founding principles of our country.  (For a direct opposite view, see Barack Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech where he shows he understands the history.)

    Parent
    1864, 1954 (none / 0) (#92)
    by nalo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:02:24 PM EST
    After the Civil War and after World War II were 2 eras of religious revival in our country.  Pretty much any argument about "the founding fathers", "Christian nation" are completely bogus

    Parent
    and it was added (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:54:07 PM EST
    as a rallying cry to unify us under god against the atheistic commies in the Soviet Union.  It was a "patriotic" statement meant to distinguish us from "them".  Sorta like "freedom fries", but not so much like "women of cover".....

    Parent
    I always liked... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:58:46 PM EST
    ..."Duck and cover!".  Never did understand how my arms were going to protect me from a nuclear blast.

    Parent
    You didn't pay attention! (none / 0) (#118)
    by BernieO on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:22:12 PM EST
    You were supposed to get under your desk for protection, silly. Didn't you know these were really lead shields?

    I am very thankful that my school didn't do this to us. Of course I lived in a small town in a rural area, so maybe they just didn't know about it. Either way, it was ridiculous and also terrifying for kids. I was such a sceptic even then (never bought the Santa thing either from what my parents told me) that I probably would have realized how dumb this was. On the other hand I was well aware of the nuclear threat and did not need to be reminded like this. My best friend had a recurring nightmare about bombers armed with an h-bomb coming to attack. This exercise would have probably put her in therapy.

    Parent

    I did the drop drills when I was in (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by zfran on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:46:19 PM EST
    school in N.Y. They were used because if there was an atomic attack, it wouldn't protect you, altho' they didn't tell us that, but it was just something to do instead of doing nothing. People also built bomb shelters in their backyards, like they showed in an episode of Happy Days.

    Parent
    Actually... (none / 0) (#144)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:43:14 PM EST
    ...we were herded out into the hall like good little sheep.  No way I would have fit under my desk.  

    But you're right--I rarely paid attention to authority figures--even way back then.  Too much negative conditioning from people telling me "this won't hurt at all" only to find it did usually hurt like heck, I guess.

    Parent

    How does she do on geography so far? (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:13:38 PM EST
    Actually a lot of repubs don't (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:15:51 PM EST
    recognize the same thing, so Gov. Palin is sadly not unique in that regard.

    Parent
    I doubt many people who were in (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:20:36 PM EST
    public school after "under God" made it back into the pledge have much retained knowledge about the history of the pledge or that phrase.

    Parent
    Made it back in? (none / 0) (#44)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:25:27 PM EST
    I don't think it was ever "in" until the Cold War required that we have God on our side in the fight against the evil, Godless Commies.

    Parent
    I'll never be VP I guess. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:33:59 PM EST
    "Under God" was added in 1954.  In my defense I was in public school both before "under God" and after "under God."  

    Pledge

    Parent

    No defense... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:43:53 PM EST
    ...if those public schools were in Iowa!

    Parent
    Yes, I've heard the whole... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:22:29 PM EST
    ..."Christian nation" canard, but to assert that the Founding Fathers had anything to do with writing the Pledge is a bit much.  

    Especially since it was written by a Socialist.  

    Parent

    Right. It depends on your age. (none / 0) (#51)
    by andrys on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:32:30 PM EST
    Unfortunately, I'm old enough to remember when it was added and broke up the rhythm of it all...

    Parent
    More on "under God" (none / 0) (#65)
    by Pianobuff on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:41:58 PM EST
    that gives some historical context for why the words were added (with reference to Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington) can be found here.

    Maybe this is what Palin had in mind?

    Parent

    I doubt it (none / 0) (#77)
    by nalo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:50:46 PM EST
    If you've ever read Jefferson, you'd not be confused into thinking that he wanted a religious government. (certainly some other founding fathers might have advocated it, but their opinions did not get into the Constitution.)

    Also, Lincoln is not traditionally referred to as a "founding father" either.

    Parent

    The Weekly Standard?! (none / 0) (#80)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:54:14 PM EST
    LOL.  Thanks, but no thanks.  

    Parent
    Still, it is good have Republicans (none / 0) (#128)
    by domerdem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:30:11 PM EST
    here to get a full range of views on the election

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#130)
    by Pianobuff on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:31:28 PM EST
    I learn a lot here.

    Parent
    You're right that (none / 0) (#179)
    by nalo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:00:31 PM EST
    that Washington (and Lincoln) were at least slightly religious.  But, Washington was a general.  The founding fathers who had the most influence on the formation of our government, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution (Jefferson, Franklin) were very much Enlightenment figures who were not religious as we would think of it.  They looked at a lot of different religions/philosophies to incorporate a new government based on ideas of freedom and secularism.  For example, a Koran owned by Thomas Jefferson was used by Keith Ellison to be sworn in.  Right-wing zealots, are now using this as an example to smear Barack Obama as "un-American".  Ironic, huh?

    Parent
    oops (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:12:37 PM EST
    Palin addressed teen pregnancy prevention in her 2006 run for governor, indicating on a questionnaire that she favored abstinence-until-marriage education over explicit sex education programs, school-based clinics and condom distribution in schools. [redacted] Wasilla High School, teaches abstinence in health class, its principal said.

    CHicago Tribune

    Safer to stick to the the reformer with a record (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:26:18 PM EST
    her record includes Ted Stevens and earmarks
    or her putting Alaska first with her flirtation with the Alaska Independence party

    to name just a few.

    Parent

    As mayor, Palin contacted town (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by byteb on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:36:19 PM EST
    librarian about how to get certain books banned. When the librarian refused, she threatened to fire her for not fully supporting the mayor.

    This according to a Times Magazine report found online:  http://tinyurl.com/67rrfc

    Parent

    Yeah I think there was a media outlet online (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:41:04 PM EST
    that was already inquiring which books Mayor Palin wanted banned.

    Parent
    probably (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:43:26 PM EST
    My Pet Goat....

    Parent
    An Inconvenient Truth? (none / 0) (#123)
    by domerdem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:25:40 PM EST
    I do not believe in censorship, (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by zfran on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:55:09 PM EST
    however, Gov. Palin backed off the call for book censorship. This paragraph was one small piece to a very interesting article. Let's look at how Obama won his IL Senate seat and who he "stepped over" for lack of a better word to get there. How long did he stay? How many times in the IL senate did he vote "present" wherein Gov. Palin may not have been the sort of leader you agree with on everything, but she did lead and made decisions. Better than voting "present?"

    Parent
    The primary is over (1.00 / 0) (#214)
    by nalo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:30:11 PM EST
    The Alice Palmer thing has some validity.  The present votes has been debunked and has no validity.  

    Obama (and Hillary) demonstrated that leadership skills/inspiring people were each candidate's strongest skill.  McCain and Biden seem mediocre at it (not good...not bad...a notch above Bush).  It's unclear, how good Sara Palin will be yet, so we're debating issues.

    Parent

    Funny. (none / 0) (#76)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:49:29 PM EST
    I read that the town librarian and the town police chief both actively campaigned against Palin when she ran for mayor, and both those positions serve "at the pleasure of the mayor."

    Ultimately, the librarian convinced Palin that she supported Palin, but the C.O.P. did not. The librarian retained her position, and the C.O.P. was relieved of duty by Palin.

    Parent

    Registration records (none / 0) (#54)
    by Pianobuff on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:35:43 PM EST
    You may want to review her registration records.

    Parent
    You may want to go back a few more years (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:41:09 PM EST
    In 2008 she is a registered R. which is all your pdf file shows- 2008.

     According to the AIP, that wasn't always the case.

    Parent

    How many... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Pianobuff on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:43:49 PM EST
    pages did you look at in the file?

    Parent
    Your right I looked too quickly (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:54:52 PM EST
    However, I don't see the critical 1993 1994 registrations as that is the time frame the AIP claims she was a member.

    Moreover handwriting at the bottom of  photocopy "no change" with no information as to when it was written; who wrote it;  what was their official capacity, if any, is not sufficient evidence to rebut an apparent eyewitness.

    Now can you explain the Stevens 527 connection and the Stevens endorsement as well as keeping the federal tax dollars for the bridge?

    Parent

    You'll have to trust me (none / 0) (#95)
    by Pianobuff on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:04:53 PM EST
    That I want to be careful about making posts that would be long-winded shills, as viewed by the board owners.  I do have a point of view on this, but so far have received no admonitions on the board yet and would like to keep it that way.  A link to her voter registration records is as far as I would like to take this in order to retain the posting rights I have.

    Either way, we are only a few days into it and I'm sure your other questions will be addressed as the campaign unfolds that exonerate or acquit in the public eye.... just not by me in a long editorial.

    Respectfully submitted.

    Parent

    Here (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by JAB on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:15:28 PM EST
    This is how Politico is reporting it Link: (can't get the .pdf link to work from here)

    The McCain campaign posts Palin's voter registration document (.pdf), showing that despite some leaders' of the Alaska Independence Party's claims, she apparently was never a member.

    Clearly, however, she courted the AIP, and had some relationship with him. Also worth keeping in mind is the fact that the AIP, though it sounds pretty exotic and includes secession advocates (!), isn't all that fringy in Alaska. It's a fairly important force in a GOP-dominated state, and even elected one of Palin's predecessors as governor.



    Parent
    Those are the same documents we were talking about (none / 0) (#117)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:20:26 PM EST
    my questions remain. Where are the 93-94 registrations? When were the comments penned on the photo copies, who penned them and in what capacity?

    Parent
    I trust you have an opinion. (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:16:46 PM EST
    But that doesn't explain the unverified handwritten comments at the bottom of these photocopies, nor does it explain the absence of the relevant registration, nor why the AIP stated she was a member or explain how an "anti-corruption" candidate was involved with a Stevens 527, or how she can claim with a straight face that she said no thanks to the bridge but kept the federal tax dollars.

    I trust you have an opinion on all of this. But that isn't really relevant is it?

    Parent

    Not to this board (none / 0) (#124)
    by Pianobuff on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:26:31 PM EST
    per its posting rules....

    Parent
    Donna Brazile Hit by Pepper Spray (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:31:41 PM EST
    ST. PAUL -- Donna Brazile was hit by pepper spray as she walked to the Xcel Center at the start of the Republican Convention here.

    The well-known Democratic pundit and strategist confirmed the incident, but declined to comment further. Protests outside the convention center led to 56 arrests earlier in the day.

    Link

    Ick, now that is ugly (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:38:06 PM EST
    Well, I guess when the discourse on all sides get ugly some people don't understand the line between talk and action.

    What a shame.

    Parent

    ok (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:38:25 PM EST
    was she "hit" with a 10 gallon canister, still in the container, over the head?  Or, did they just spray her a little?

    Parent
    Stop fueling my imagination! (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:00:43 PM EST
    To be honest, the worst thing I wish for D Brazile is for her to be blacklisted by Democrats everywhere.  I wish her the best of health always.

    Parent
    Interesting Piece at New Republic Site on Palin (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:57:19 PM EST
    Respectful and informative.

    The Plank

    Another one at another of their sites on the influence of the right wing on their platform (big surprise) and how it could affect McCain.

    The Stump

    Congratulate me (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:12:48 PM EST
    I did extensive ghostwriting on a novel which will be released in several months by a major publisher.

    The novel just got rave reviews from KIRKUS REVIEWS and LIBRARY JOURNAL.

    The Kirkus Reviews rave is very significant because it has a direct effect on how many copies the chains order.

    Anyone familiar with publishing will attest to this.

    This was all very good news.  Out respect to the credited author, I won't name the book.  But I thought you all might like share in my good news.  

    Congrats! (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Faust on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:15:27 PM EST
    Can you tell us the genre at least?

    Parent
    Horror (none / 0) (#153)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:47:21 PM EST
    awsum (none / 0) (#182)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:02:53 PM EST
    can you tell us the title?

    Parent
    sorry didnt read far enough (none / 0) (#184)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:03:35 PM EST
    why cant you name it?

    Parent
    Capt, you're a bright guy ... (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:25:34 PM EST
    I think you can figure that out.

    I wish I could though.  Because I might be able to sell a few books, due to my massive TalkLeft fanbase.

    ;)

    Parent

    duh (none / 0) (#208)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:23:32 PM EST
    reading comprehension low today.
    also doing about 6 different things currently.
    will you send it to me here?

    red_vlx@hotmail.com

    Parent

    Happy to Congratulate You! (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by otherlisa on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:21:43 PM EST
    I write novels and recently got my very first literary agent.

    That sounds like a fun gig. I'd love to hear more about it.

    Parent

    Congrats! And a question (none / 0) (#113)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:17:13 PM EST
    How often do novelists use ghost writers? I've heard of ghost writers for autobiographies, but never for novels. Are there novelists who have great ideas, can plot and so forth, but just can't put sentences together?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#135)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:36:56 PM EST
    Sadly.


    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#183)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:02:53 PM EST
    I would add that most often the problem with a book will be structure and plotting.

    I've never met someone who could effective structure and plot, and couldn't write a publishable sentence or paragraph.  

    Although I did lots of style fixes to make the language more compelling.  Most of my work was structural.  This required the adding of many chapters, re-imagining many others, filling in plot holes and so on.

    Parent

    Fascinating (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:17:57 PM EST
    I'm in a different field, but I also do a lot of work that others put their names on. It's an odd feeling to see a piece of analysis go out with someone else's name when you did 90% of the work.

    Parent
    congratulations (none / 0) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:19:29 PM EST
    I may want your services.  I have been working on a novel for, um, most of my adult life.

    Parent
    Congratulations! And a Question... (none / 0) (#120)
    by santarita on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:24:19 PM EST
    What does ghostwiting for a novel entail?  I can understand ghostwriting for a bio but not a novel.

    Parent
    Same process ... (none / 0) (#143)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:43:14 PM EST
    making a publishable book from whatever material you have to work with.

    Parent
    I'm starting to think J's Eagleton theory might (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Faust on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:14:39 PM EST
    be right.

    A review of the news on Palin is quite something. I thought this pick was bold but risky when announced. The biggest question was: "how is the media going to respond to this pick?"

    The answer is: not very well. There is blood in the water and the sharks are hungry. Frankly a lot of the coverage is bad. But bad or good makes no difference. If the Village gets it in its head that you need to be savaged for the good of...uhhhh...whatever it is they think is important on that day, then you are in deep trouble.

    There is time for the growing narrative to change of course. But if it keeps heading in this direction I might have to kick down for the pool J started.

    The mistake you make is in thinking (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:49:01 PM EST
    that what is going on in the media bubble is reflective of what is going on out here in the real world - one thing we should all have learned in the primary season is that the people aren't always on the media train.

    These are the same people who love a good disaster, you know?  Who fan the flames of their own stories to make them hotter.

    I think people are onto that, and over it.

    Parent

    PS (none / 0) (#110)
    by Faust on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:16:41 PM EST
    when I use the word "bad" above I mean the quality of reporting.

    Parent
    in the "can you believe it" category (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:18:26 PM EST
    america blog is now talking about vetting:

    "This is what vetting looks like"

    without a trace of irony.
    you cant make this stuff up.  

    We don't need to attack (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by OldCity on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:30:53 PM EST
    her family or her personal life.

    It's relatively clear that though mysteriously popular, she's galactically uninformed about some basics in American History and government.

    The thing about running for President or VP is that utter overt populism isn't going to get it done.  You need a bit more than "God" and conservative values.

    Alaska consumes more Fed grant money per capita than anywhere.  "God" was added to the pledge in the 1950's.  She was for the bridge befroe she was against it.  She just got her passport.  Alaska is to Russia as Oregon is to Singapore.  

    I mean, if we needed further indication that the Republicans truly think that their constituencies are made up of a bunch of rubes, this pick is it.

    Did anyone see Campell Brown hand it to Tucker Bounds last night?  Whoo.  

    History (none / 0) (#213)
    by Grace on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:28:12 PM EST
    Alaska is to Russia as Oregon is to Singapore.  

    We purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867 (Seward's Folly).

    We did NOT purchase Oregon from Singapore.  

    Parent

    Obama has less experience than Lincoln (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Exeter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:40:07 PM EST
    And Obama and Palin how comparable amounts of  experience.  Once again, I put a limited amount of stock in experience, but enough with intellectually dishonest comparisons of Lincoln and Obama and Palin.

    Lincoln led troops in the Blackhawk War, served in the U.S. House for a term and Illinois legislature for four terms, and most imporantly was a national political figure for nearly a decade before he became president-- including his famous Lincoln-Douglas debates.  

    Your Lincoln point... (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:51:11 PM EST
    is well taken.

    But it is not true that Obama and Palin are evenly matched in terms of experience.  Obama's experience clearly excedes that of Palin.  

    Parent

    Only If... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Brillo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:50:33 PM EST
    You play ridiculous games with numbers, as if 1 year of Senate experience is comparable to 1 year of small town mayor experience in terms of preparing you to lead the country.  Oh, and if you also ignore everything they've done before entering politics.  And if you ignore the last year's worth of experience running for president against what is basically the largest, richest, most well entrenched political campaign ever...  

    Sorry, but Palin and Obama's experience and readiness to lead this country are in no way comparable.

    Parent

    The famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, (none / 0) (#175)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:58:13 PM EST
    which did make Lincoln a national figure, occurred in 1858 -- just two years before the one-term ex-Congressman was elected President, with just under 40% of the popular vote.

    Parent
    may I just say (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:07:01 PM EST
    that at least Obama, with his own mother in mind no doubt, tried to walk this back.
    the great irony here is that this may turn into Obamas Sista Solja moment with the Kos left.
    wouldnt that be delicious?


    Meanwhile (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by eric on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:10:19 PM EST
    on the other side of the river, in Minneapolis, Ron Paul is having his own mini-convention in the Target Center.

    Tucker Carlson is opening speaker?  Heh.

    wow (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:11:37 PM EST
    thats what I call excitement.

    Parent
    RIP Don La Fountaine (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:26:07 PM EST
    The famous voice of movie trailers, credited with originating the phrase: "In a world where..."

    Here's a little youtube self promotion which I went to to be reminded of his voice.

    In a world where...

    Holy Moly! (1.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Josey on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:35:43 PM EST
    Fox News, Sept 1

    >>>>The New York Post reports that during a sermon at the Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church in Houston, Texas, Wright said: "This ordinary boy -- Obama -- just might be the first president in the history of the United States to have a black woman sleeping at 1600 Pennsylvania legally."

    Wright was referring to Obama's wife -- Michelle Obama. Not clear was whether he was also making a reference to prostitution, old miscegenation laws or interracial sex under slavery.

    Maybe he was refering to Thomas Jefferson (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by ding7777 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:46:33 PM EST
    and Sally Hemmings

    Parent
    Right (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by rdandrea on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:46:55 PM EST
    And just wait till Fox gets hold of the story that Obama fathered two black daughters!

    Your point?

    Parent

    Lol!!! (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:50:47 PM EST
    Fox /NYTimes is reporting what (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by ding7777 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    Rev Wright is preaching

    Parent
    Now that McCain has hired (none / 0) (#103)
    by domerdem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:11:09 PM EST
    Tucker Eskew it is more likely that the Obama story will get out.

    Parent
    hah :) (none / 0) (#122)
    by nalo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:25:14 PM EST
    Talk about a hypocritical stance.  What's he trying to prove?  John McCain just keeps doubling down and doubling down on the Bush/Cheney doctrine.  Even as recently as 2004, he seemed halfway reasonable.

    Parent
    So are "1" ratings for disagreement (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:46:49 PM EST
    still a violation of site policy? Or is this place back to being a bully blog?

    Ref:  Josey's comment above.

    Parent

    Live Joe Biden rally ... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:04:44 PM EST
    on C-Span right now.

    The rally is ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:24:16 PM EST
    in Deerfield, FL and he's clearly focusing on the "Jewish vote," talking about Israel and antisemitism, and focusing on his record on these issues.

    Parent
    Go Joe! (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Grace on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:34:13 PM EST
    They'll like him down there.  Joe Biden is similar to the "folksy guy-next-door" Democratic politicians who do well in the state a lot of time.  

    Parent
    Quote: (none / 0) (#43)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:25:08 PM EST
    "Barack Obama is exactly where I am on Israel"

    Extended applause.

    Parent

    First question about ... (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:36:33 PM EST
    Palin.

    Biden wouldn't take the bait on the experience argument.

    He said he doesn't know her, but has no reason to believe she isn't qualified to be VP.  

    "She's a Governor.  That's no mean feat."

    He then said that children should be off limits.

    Big applause.

    Biden, at least, is playing it exactly right.

    Parent

    Biden answers ... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:40:32 PM EST
    question about caring for elderly parents.

    He ends with describing healthcare as "the number one domestic priority."

    Parent

    Without having anything to say. . . (none / 0) (#13)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:06:24 PM EST
    about any candidate's personal life, I just want to contribute that the policy

    or a discussion of her personal life

    seems to be to be both unreasonably restrictive -- it's not clear to me what can safely be said about a candidate under these guidelines aside from discussing their theoretical position papers -- and a form of unilateral disarmament -- the Republicans are not now and will not in the future be shy about discussing the personal lives of our candidates.

    In addition, this policy seems to be considerably more protective of the Republican candidates than this site has been of either of the major Democratic candidates about both of whom many personal insults have been posted in the comments without a policy of deletion.

    I must have missed a slew of horrible anti-Palin posts while I was away, or something, because I simply don't see how this policy is either necessary or realistic.  It means that all the top political stories in the Times today are off limits.

    Please, please, please don't re-start (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:12:08 PM EST
    the avalanche.  Although I agree it is pretty silly to constantly encourage discussion of the Palin pick but censor discussion of what the NYT and Los Angeles Times are discussing "above the fold."  

    Parent
    Thousands of opportunities at (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by andrys on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:40:01 PM EST
    The Orange Place.  They were such vicious speculations (built on the main one reported) that the much-linked thread was taken down.  It was the worst stuff I've seen on the Net from a Dem forum and was much worse than I've seen at Freepers, which I had not thought was likely.

     So, it's great to experience some sanity here.  If I feel the need to discuss it I just go to one of the other places, but I find that's about 5-10% of the time spent here.

    Parent

    Whoa there now... (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:45:01 PM EST
    Juan Williams (who isn't exactly an Obama fan) didn't take O'Reilly's GOP bait about the vile KOS story being worse than the smears about Obama. They both should be condemned equally. People's families should be off limits. Only ONE candidate said that.

    Parent
    That's because McCain (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:06:51 PM EST
    benefits when Palin's family is discussed.  If McCain said "Don't go there." it would look like he was trying to hide something.

    Again, the stories being spread by the blogs reflect worse on Dems than they do on the Republicans.  McCain has a grasp of how to play the Good Guy.  It may be 100% pandering, but it's well played pandering.

    Parent

    Those Rumors... (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Brillo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:18:06 PM EST
    Originated whithin the Alaska GOP.  

    And I'm sorry to keep saying this, but people here continue to not get it.  It's only those of us that spend our time here on these blogs that think this is where the stories are coming from.  For the vast majority of American people the stories (both the personal garbage and the real, substantive policy/experience stuff) out there about Palin aren't coming from the Dems or 'leftist bloggers', they're coming from the media.  

    Watch the national news, read Time, read CNN/MSNBC's websites.  There is virtually nothing there stating this is coming from the Dems, it's stuff the MSM is digging up as they dig into this unknown politician's history.  What little you do have from the party is largely Obama and Biden shooting down questions about much of this stuff as inappropriate.  

    I think all the hand wringing about the party risking looking like they're somehow bullying Gov. Palin is mostly imagined and totally overblown.  The polling seems to be bearing that out...    

    Parent

    You do realize, however (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by JAB on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:41:41 PM EST
    That at last polling, something like 49% of voters think the media is in the bag for Obama, so while you may argue it's not coming from the Dems or leftist bloggers, that may not be the perception.

    Parent
    Then Let the MSM Media do... (none / 0) (#127)
    by santarita on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:28:43 PM EST
    what they normally do - focus on the news that belongs in the tabloids  to the exclusion of the news that matters.

    Parent
    The News... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Brillo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:36:39 PM EST
    Most of the MSM's coverage of Palin has been focused on the non-tabloid stories.  Most of the criticism is centered around her lack of experience, not the trashy stuff.  Again, people need to step outside the blogs, it's a whole other world of coverage, and it's what the vast majority of the country is getting their impressions of Palin from.  

    Parent
    That's funny (5.00 / 6) (#146)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:44:43 PM EST
    Because for two straight hours last night I watched CNN talk about her daughter's pregnancy and her reproductive issues. Not a word about her qualifications.

    Parent
    Five Days.... (none / 0) (#167)
    by Brillo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:55:08 PM EST
    Of coverage.  

    Parent
    Some people on Kos are way out of line (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by democrattotheend on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:15:37 PM EST
    As an Obama supporter during the primaries, I never thought I'd feel more comfortable here than Kos, but some of the stuff going on there is just way out of line. Granted, for every inappropriate diary, there are 50 comments saying it's inappropriate and those diaries get deleted (I think some of them are trolls anyway), but Kos should do a front page post setting guidelines the way the moderators here have done. Kudos to Big Tent Democrat for laying down the guidelines here.

    Obama made it clear yesterday that he thinks families are off-limits...it didn't sound like a wink-wink to me, and it is disappointing to see some of his supporters taking it as a wink wink.

    Parent

    Because it does not belong in the discourse (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:08:27 PM EST
    nor does it impact her ability or lack thereof to be president.  One might argue that the policies of abstinence based education is not good enough but beyond that, what does it matter?  Let's get Ms. Palin speaking about foreign relations, "what do we do about Iran, Palestine, Georgia, Darfur etc", let's hear what she has to say about creationism being taught in schools and whether or not evolution should continue to be taught, let's hear her stance on the economy and climate change and jobs creation or poverty.  Leave the kids the hell alone and let's find out who she is and whether or not she is ready to lead this nation in the event McCain is elected and gone to be with Allah before his term is up....Perhaps when the blogs IGNORE the situation in its entirety, maybe just maybe we can find out how strong her grasp of the issues really are....

    Parent
    Google Chrome browser (none / 0) (#29)
    by ding7777 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:15:58 PM EST
    to be unleashed tomorrow (link)

    tech question (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:15:05 PM EST
    We use Firefox and the latest upgrade may or may not have caused a PITA problem.  When a site responds too slowly, the stoopid computer/browser assumes there is a connectivity issue and tries an alternative method of connecting to the internet.  While it is busy trying to fire up the dial up (which doesn't work) or MSN6 (which isn't set up), it stops "talking" to the server.  Then I have to close the box that popped up to get the software to revert to the DSL connection instead of the connection to nowhere.

    Is there some setting I can adjust to get the browser to stop timing out so fast?  (Stop being so danged impatient stupid computer!  Just wait a few milliseconds.)

    Parent

    Sounds like it could be a sucess. (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:18:20 PM EST
    What browser do you currently use?

    Parent
    I use AOL; is that still Netscape? (none / 0) (#46)
    by ding7777 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:27:43 PM EST
    No, a version of IE ... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:30:34 PM EST
    created for AOL.

    Parent
    what do you think of IE8? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Josey on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:37:31 PM EST
    I haven't tried it yet ... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:00:46 PM EST
    still using 7.

    But I mainly use Firefox.  Still use IE because occasionally websites don't fully function with Firefox.

    Parent

    I thoght the AOL version of IE was just for the (none / 0) (#87)
    by ding7777 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:58:22 PM EST
    AOL stanalone version of AOL

    Parent
    If there is an AOL ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:05:02 PM EST
    icon in the top left-hand corner of the browser, it's AOL's version of IE.

    If there's a different icon, you're using a different browser.

    Parent

    I'm using (none / 0) (#125)
    by ding7777 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:26:59 PM EST
    AOL 9.1

    Parent
    Don't think so. Btw, a lot of (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:31:01 PM EST
    people detest AOL. Are you satisfied?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#67)
    by ding7777 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:43:46 PM EST
    I connect via broadband but opted to keep AOL - too old to change, I guess

    Parent
    Today (none / 0) (#139)
    by eric on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:40:46 PM EST
    actually.  (Sept. 2)  Supposed to be released at 20:00 GMT, which I think is 4:00 EDT.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, iphone (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jgarza on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:21:30 PM EST
    Did you get your iphone?  just curious if you like it.  I'm getting one next month when my contract expires.

    To andrys, re Total Popular Vote (none / 0) (#74)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:47:21 PM EST
    [This continues a discussion, from the Monday night open thread, about the legitimacy of including Michigan in the "Total Popular Vote" talking point.]

    andrys, first you argue that the votes in Michigan are countable, since the DNC restored Michigan's delegation to full voting strength at the convention last week.

    Then you turn around and argue that "No, the DNC does not determine state votes, or, more accurately, State-certified votes." The DNC, you admit, can ignore the results of primaries that violate DNC rules, "but that does not change the votes that were made by individual humans during this primary season."

    Let's put aside, for now, the very relevant question of who gets to decide when "primary season" begins. You do see the contradiction here, don't you? You can't very well argue that the DNC has no power to determine which popular votes are to be counted, and also claim that the DNC's removing the 50% voting penalty means that the Michigan popular votes now "count".

    I agree that Obama and his people were equally guilty of making "total popular vote" a talking point. Obama also regularly cited the number of state contests he had won, another bogus metric. For her part, Clinton tried to interest the superdelegates in the superior "total electoral vote" of the states she won.

    All of those arguments had no real purpose except to sway superdelegate opinion. Thus they became completely academic three months ago, when the superdelegates decisively broke in favor of Obama.

    Making fun of Palin (none / 0) (#83)
    by Nevart on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:56:46 PM EST
    OK, no derogatory remarks about Palin.

    But can we still make fun of Larry Craig?

    Tap, tap, tap. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:08:31 PM EST
    Anyone in there?

    Parent
    until he admits (none / 0) (#102)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:09:48 PM EST
    to being gay.  It would be "homophobic" to make fun of him from that point on though.

    Parent
    I suspect it will relent (or relax) a bit (none / 0) (#98)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:07:24 PM EST
    in the future, once the firestorm over the issue starts to die off and more-substantive issues-oriented reporting shows up and can get torn into and apart here.

    The point is, the real vetting is going on now, as we write, and the reporters are writing whatever it is they will write.

    We, OTOH, have to dial back from the emotional issues and stay focused on the real issues - winning the election and persuading people that Obama is better across-the-board when compared to McCain.

    In the meantime, those wanting discussion outside the bounds permitted here can go to the NY Daily News, NY Post or NY Times.  They all have tabloid coverage today.

    abstinence-only education (none / 0) (#121)
    by Howard Zinn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:24:34 PM EST
    No insult here to Mrs. Palin.  I just wonder if this whole story will bring up the very valid debate about the consequences of abstinence-only sex ed.  I know that you can't make a case against it using only one family as an example, but it does shine a pretty big spotlight the issue.

    The Texas state-adopted health books (that must be used in every class in the state) can only mention abstinence in discussions about birth control.  No other options (condoms, the pill, etc.) can be discussed, even regarding efficacy.  

    Not that this is necessarily a topic that Dems or Repubs necessarily want to spend much time on, but I wonder if it will become a necessary topic due to Palin's revelations.

    while this is the only valid argument (none / 0) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:32:57 PM EST
    it is still a minefield

    Parent
    what, (none / 0) (#147)
    by Howard Zinn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:45:13 PM EST
    for personal attacks against Palin?  I was gone this weekend so I missed the drama.  I dunno, I think that this illuminates a very dangerous conservative trend in this country -- to stick your head in the sand while kids are having kids.  It's uncomfortable to discuss sex with kids so instead of teaching pregnancy prevention, just teach abstinence and pretend teens won't be having sex.  It's denial made manifest, IMO.  

    Through the influence of the Bushies, many anti-AIDS NGO's have adopted this stance as well, often with mixed or disastrous results.

    This is just another way that the ultra conservative religious ideologues have hijacked the Republican party.  Hopefully people will start seeing what a dangerous stance this is, especially faced with the threat of over population.

    Parent

    Leave the poor 17-year-old girl out of it (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:49:35 PM EST
    I'm sure she's having a tough enough time of it without being a punching bag for lectures on sex ed.

    I thought the left was supposed to be the party of decency.

    Parent

    not saying anything against the 17 y/o; (none / 0) (#181)
    by Howard Zinn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:02:04 PM EST
    I'm saying that abstinence-only sex ed, as a philosophy, is inherently flawed and comically impractical.  Again, in my opinion.

    Parent
    Of course it is (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:05:26 PM EST
    I'm just tired of people mocking that girl.

    Parent
    we agree yet again (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:10:28 PM EST
    and the "other" part.  honest to god.  I thought that was the most horrible slimey disgusting thing I have ever seen in american politics.
    and that is saying a helluvalot.
    it was almost enough to make ME want to vote for Palin.

    Parent
    the point I was trying to make (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:55:23 PM EST
    is that while this does reveal shortcomings of abstinence only.  there is a 17 year old girl involved.
    if you try to make points at her expense, as she seems to try to do the right thing,
    well, lets just say, I wouldnt do that.

    Parent
    You don't know that she was taught (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:13:06 PM EST
    abstinence only. Palin is pro-contraception, afaik. She favors abstinence only in school over the more explicit sex ed, but as Gov has done nothing on that front.

    My feeling is, abstinence only parents aren't going to budge on sex ed, but everyone who isn't abstinence only would/should/could expand on sex ed at home if it isn't thorough enough in school. Kids get pregnant who have had thorough sex ed. They are TEENAGERS. You just do the best you can. I think using the daughter as an example abstinence only education is wrong. Perhaps using her as an example that when you have teenagers, no matter how well you try and raise them, Sh!t happens so maybe we shouldn't be too harsh in judgment.

    Parent

    hmmm . . . (none / 0) (#215)
    by Howard Zinn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:54:51 PM EST
    I guess I wasn't articulating my point completely.  I was trying to say that this could re-invigorate the debate because of her situation.  

    I'm not against this issue being illuminated for the election, because I happen to think that the time is ripe for having the debate again.

    I'm not stating that there is a logical reason, just that the association is there.  And that's enough for the average Joe.

    Parent

    ah (none / 0) (#185)
    by Howard Zinn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:03:48 PM EST
    ok I get it.  I've just always hated the ideology behind abstinence-only ed.  Written a few papers on it.  Like I said, I missed the drama this weekend.

    Parent
    Relevance? (none / 0) (#133)
    by santarita on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:36:32 PM EST
    Did Alaska adopt the Texas health books?  Does Alaska have the same requirements as Texas?

    Does Alaska forbid parents the opportunity to discuss options to abstinence?  

    And you are right, anecdotal evidence is not terribly persuasive.

    Parent

    no, (none / 0) (#151)
    by Howard Zinn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:47:01 PM EST
    but Palin's situation definitely raises the issue out of relative obscurity.  It's like Obama's race.  It's something that doesn't impact him as a candidate directly, but it does shine a light on some of the race problems we have in this country.

    Parent
    GOVERNOR Palin, Please (none / 0) (#157)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:49:52 PM EST
    It's a pet peeve of mine...

    Parent
    sorry but more Americablog (none / 0) (#131)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:32:03 PM EST
    is there another, better word for clueless?  read this and you will want to find one.  from sage Aravosis:

    I'm watching McCain surrogate Gary Bauer, a religious leader who had a fall from grace a few years ago, lecture MSNBC about how dare they cover the Bristol Palin unwed pregnancy story. McCain supporter Bill Bennett tried this tactic on CNN's Wolf Blitzer yesterday too. Someone needs to remind the McCain campaign, when they whine to journalists about how terrible it is that the media is reporting on the pregnancy, that none of us knew about Bristol Palin's unwed pregnancy until yesterday morning when John McCain's campaign leaked the story to Reuters.

    where to start.
    does it make you wonder WHY McCain leaked it?
    just askin.

    Well, at the risk of being vaporized, (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:43:11 PM EST
    my understanding is that they put it out there for the express purpose of killing the ugly rumors appearing on many of the left blogs.

    I would have done the same - what choice did they have?

    Parent

    I must have misunderstood that comment. (none / 0) (#154)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:48:05 PM EST
    there are literally about 100 Palin posts on ABLOG.
    I read some of them.
    what ugly rumors were they trying to stop?

    Parent
    I Think Answering Your Question (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:54:19 PM EST
    is off limits here.

    But if you go around the Net you can probably find references pretty quickly.

    It's funny. I was hanging out here (and really no other sites) over the weekend and caught bits and pieces before they were deleted, but until I got off the computer and turned on CNN and MSNBC, I still thought the stories of her daughter's pregnancy were made up rumors.

    Parent

    Not going there, sorry. (none / 0) (#162)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:52:26 PM EST
    But you might want to read the NYT or the LAT for a clue.

    And in case I am misunderstanding you - very possible - my comment was an explanation of why the McCain campaign released the news.

    Parent

    Oh, you missed the weekend entertainment (none / 0) (#166)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:54:25 PM EST
    for the DKos crowd. They had a little bit of fun at a 17-year-old girl's expense analyzing pictures of her stomach and pictures of Gov. Palin to come to the thoughtful conclusion that Gov. Palin actually pretended to be pregnant and that her latest baby was actually the daughter's.

    I'm not sure which was the lowest - this episode or the fun with skin-darkening accusations.

    Parent

    oh I read it (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:58:30 PM EST
    and I saw the horror show over the weekend.  I know what is not being discussed  here and I congratulate Jeralyn for banning it.
    if for no other reason, out of self interest.
    I absolutely believe McCain knew this before he made the decision.  I believe he knew what would happen but I think the response has surpassed anything he could have hoped for.
    this is suicide. for democrats.

    Parent
    The DKOS crowd... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Brillo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:56:49 PM EST
    Spend most of that thread telling the poster to take the garbage down.  

    Parent
    And recommending it to the top spot... (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:57:24 PM EST
    'Top Spot'... (none / 0) (#199)
    by Brillo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:15:39 PM EST
    Is determined by more than just the number of reccomendations, but also the number of comments, even when those comments are negative.  It's not hard to get a garbage diary up there.  

    Parent
    Just google (none / 0) (#177)
    by ding7777 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:58:51 PM EST
    Palin coverup rumor

    Parent
    They explained why they put the info out (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:47:10 PM EST
    and is it really a "leak" if it's an official press release?

    Parent
    I guess you guys are talking about the (none / 0) (#161)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:51:46 PM EST
    "leak" part.
    that was really an after thought of my point.
    I was really, in my comment, referring to how clueless it was to be criticizing Gary Bauer as if they knew more about what the wingers would like than Bauer or any of the others they name.
    they are correct though, I have not seen a republican or a conservative say anything negative about the pregnancy. at least as far as Palins candidacy is concerned.

    Parent
    may I just say (none / 0) (#149)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:46:23 PM EST
    oh my f-ing god

    Joe Biden: Sarah Palin is "good looking"

    Link

    Bad joke... (none / 0) (#164)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:54:14 PM EST
    but nothing to get quite so worked up about I don't think.

    Parent
    bad joke (none / 0) (#180)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:00:52 PM EST
    that explains and excuses it?
    omfg #2

    Parent
    I missed you this weekend Capt (none / 0) (#171)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:56:50 PM EST
    But you wouldn't have liked it around the blogs.

    Parent
    thats why I did not comment (none / 0) (#178)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:00:14 PM EST
    I was actually around some.


    Parent
    We all know that you'll put up anything... (none / 0) (#196)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:14:14 PM EST
    ...that paints the Democratic ticket in a bad light, but seriously--a joke made at his own expense is somehow a giant OMFG moment?  

    "There's a gigantic difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and between me and I suspect my vice presidential opponent," he said in Toledo, Ohio. Pause for the punch-line. "She's good looking."

    Way to focus on the issues!

    Parent

    what you know (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:20:38 PM EST
    is something of an open question afaiac.
    what I know is that this is not where Biden should go.
    joking or not.  he is an idiot and could still be more likely to be the undoing of the dem ticket than Palin is likely to be the undoing of the republican ticket.
    particularly in view of the "news" and reaction to it over the weekend he should just keep his famous mouth shut.


    Parent
    I think the more important line (none / 0) (#209)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:24:19 PM EST
    was something about her becoming Gov of Alaska. It could be used for a Palin introduction ad.

    "She's a Governor.  That's no mean feat."

    The McCain camp does like the "in their own words approach".

    Parent

    eh (none / 0) (#163)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:52:31 PM EST
    As they said on Slate, there is nobody with the experience to be president but a president.   You either have executive experience, foreign policy experience, or legislative experience but not all three.  There is no job requiring all three that isnt POTUS itself.

    That said, everyone knows there are both formal and informal minimum standards.  TBD by the voters.

    also (none / 0) (#174)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:57:45 PM EST
    Also, Bush is more qualified to be president than any of the current candidates if you look at overall experience in all three categories.   But that doesnt measure judgement, which we can't measure with numbers and only get hints at.

    Which is why we look at mistakes so carefully.

    The GOP lost a whole day... (none / 0) (#186)
    by mike in dc on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:04:10 PM EST
    ...of their convention.  They have only 6 prime time speakers to a) define McCain; b)support the idea that Palin is up to the job; c)define Obama; d) put the best spin on the Bush record; and e)define a positive agenda for the party going forward.

    Who do they have to work with?
    Joe Lieberman
    Fred Thompson
    W
    Sarah Palin
    John McCain
    Rudy Giuliani

    That's pretty much it.  Compared to Biden, Kennedy, Gore, the two Clintons, Warner, and the two Obamas, I'd suspect the Dems have a pretty clear edge here, speaker-wise.  Only Biden and Warner put up sub-par performances in prime-time.  I can't imagine Lieberman and Thompson are going to be firing up the imaginations of indie voters, and W's presence in prime time may actually hurt McCain.  Palin and McCain are going to be stuck with most of the burden of lifting their party up, and I'm not sure they're up to it.

    You forgot Mittens!!! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:09:52 PM EST
    They didn't lose (none / 0) (#207)
    by eric on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:22:58 PM EST
    a day, they gained a shorter convention.  They have little to work with, and plenty to hide from.  Notice how quickly they were talking about postponing and canceling things?  They almost seemed disappointed when Gustav began to weaken.

    Parent
    Sally Quinn on CNN.... (none / 0) (#204)
    by Oje on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:18:20 PM EST
    is fighting a 30-year old battle. Saying something about how conservatives uniformly support stay-at-home moms. She should spend some time looking at how conservatives like the Palins try to reconcile work and family today.

    What is even more funny to me is that it seems like among the Washingtonian elites, there is very little variation in the family structures of self-described conservatives and liberals. Political and media families floweth over, from the Germonds to the Buchanans, the Doles to the Clintons. The most famous political couple in 1990s America, Carville and Matalin, are like a just one small example of a political class writ large.