home

Friday Morning Open Thread

I was busy in Gainesville helping Urban Meyer scheme for the Alabama game . . .

Open Thread.

< Schwarzenegger Signs Bill Reducing Marijuana Penalties | Friday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Second attack on NATO convoy in Pakistan (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 10:36:06 AM EST
    ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- Assailants in Pakistan launched two separate attacks Friday on vehicles carrying fuel for NATO and American forces in Afghanistan, highlighting the vulnerability of the U.S.-led mission a day after Pakistan closed a major border crossing.
    ...
    Around 80 percent of the fuel, spare parts, clothing and other non-lethal supplies for foreign forces in landlocked Afghanistan travels through Pakistan after arriving in the southern Arabian sea port of Karachi. The alliance has other supply routes to Afghanistan, but the Pakistani ones are the cheapest and most convenient.
     AP link


    Andrew Shirvell, Assistant Attorney General (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:22:10 PM EST
    for the state of Michigan, has taken a "voluntary leave" in the wake of his CNN interview with Anderson Cooper where he set forth his campaign to harass and target University of Michigan Student Assembly president, Chris Armstrong.

    The Ave Maria Law graduate, state official and activist with the Westboro Baptist gang claimed that the openly gay student leader was advocating for a "homosexual agenda" and felt that the student was satanic.   Shirvell created a personal blog "Chris Armstrong Watch" in which he focused intently  on the  handsome student, stalked him, following his friends so as to lead him to Armstrong, took pictures of Armstrong's house, and called the office in DC where was doing a summer internship.

    The University of Michigan safety department banned Shirvell from the entire Ann Arbor campus.  Shirvell's boss, Mike Cox, Attorney General, defended his colleague's right to free speech and noted without disapproval, that Shirvell's activities were on his own time.  

    Now, Cox states that Shirvell "will be the subject of disciplinary hearing after he returns to work at an undetermined future date." Perhaps a medical leave is needed for this guy and complaints to the State Bar of Michigan (313-961-6585) will be both jarring and  therapeutic. These stalking situations are dangerous and can end catastrophically.

    Democrats infected Guatemalans (1.00 / 0) (#4)
    by beefeater on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 11:10:16 AM EST
    with STDs 60 Years Ago, in the '40's by a democrat administration. Isn't this just one more reason to keep them from the levers of power?

    is it a full moon (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 11:11:47 AM EST
    or something?

    Parent
    Only At BAM (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 11:17:31 AM EST
    Vollmond

    Quite spectacular as well...

    Parent

    Lucky you. (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 12:09:14 PM EST
    Luck? (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 12:15:58 PM EST
    Not so sure it is about luck... but maybe..

    I saw it three times this week.... and will continue my marathon next week...

    RIP Pina Bausch..

    It is really great that the company decided to stay together to keep the repertoire alive.

    Parent

    Fortunate for you the BAM (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 12:17:20 PM EST
    booked these performances and you are able to go see them.  

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 12:24:48 PM EST
    I have been going to BAM for 26 years... and they have come pretty much every two years since 1984.  I have also gone to Wuppertal several times and seen them perform there, as well...

    close friends in the company...  and for me, there is no better dance theater company.. or performance experience ever..

    Parent

    Schedule (none / 0) (#118)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 06:15:59 PM EST
    Here is the schedule of the Tanztheater Wuppertal.... check and see if you are in any of these international cities in the next year. Doesn't look like they are making it to CA.

    I would love to go to Monaco to see them do Rite of Spring and Cafe Muller.

    Parent

    Schedule (none / 0) (#119)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 06:16:44 PM EST
    Rite of Spring is what I'd like to (none / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 07:30:43 PM EST
    see.  Could have seen it in L.A. in 1984 as part of Olympic Arts Festival.

    Parent
    Oh, Too Bad (none / 0) (#126)
    by squeaky on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 09:25:07 PM EST
    What a shame to have missed it....

    Just watched the youtube link, in full screen mode it continues to the end of the piece... what an amazing work.

    Parent

    Here it is; no full moon (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by the capstan on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 12:41:02 PM EST
     WASHINGTON | Fri Oct 1, 2010 1:09pm EDT

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States apologized on Friday for an experiment conducted in the 1940s in which U.S. government researchers deliberately infected Guatemalan prison inmates, women and mental patients with syphilis.

    In the experiment, aimed at testing the then-new drug penicillin, inmates were infected by prostitutes and later treated with the antibiotic.

    "The sexually transmitted disease inoculation study conducted from 1946-1948 in Guatemala was clearly unethical," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement.

    Parent

    Wish I could say 'unbelievable' (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 12:46:05 PM EST
    but once you've experimented with atom bombs on city populations I suppose you can justify anything to yourself.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#8)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 11:37:26 AM EST
    That, I would like to really know about.  

    60 years ago was 1950--during the Truman Administration....And Guatemala was living through its Decade of Spring--ten years of Democracy.

    In 1952, Truman's Secretary of State Dean Acheson put the kibosh on the planned CIA coup of the Arbenz government--a plan that the Dulles boys implemented under Ike in 1954.

    I have reviewed a fair number of the original U.S. documents from that era including yearly NIEs and now declassified cables on U.S. covert activities there.  I have never heard of this STDs business.

    And, I have never heard of a "Democrat" Administration....

    So, out with it.  What is the source of your information?

    Parent

    Found it--Hillary, again, (none / 0) (#11)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 11:43:17 AM EST
    She has befriended Guatemala in the past, including Sister Dianna Ortiz, and was, I believe, instrumental in releasing thousands of previoulsy declassified documents on Guatemala in the 1990s.

    Parent
    isnt that about the same time (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 11:44:50 AM EST
    they were giving them to black men?

    Parent
    Yes, Tuskegee experiment (none / 0) (#14)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 11:49:15 AM EST
    in Alabama.

    Good on Hillary, though, for releasing the documents--and for the apology.  

    Take that, Jeane Kirkpatrick!  Yes, we can blame America first in this instance.

    Parent

    See Reuters online (none / 0) (#15)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 11:49:59 AM EST
    1940s; purpose of experiment was to test penicillin.  

    Reminiscent of the Tuskegee experiment starting in 1932.

    Parent

    2010 Ig Nobel Prizes Awarded (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 10:11:31 AM EST
    PHYSICS PRIZE
    Lianne Parkin, Sheila Williams, and Patricia Priest of the University of Otago, New Zealand, for demonstrating that, on icy footpaths in wintertime, people slip and fall less often if they wear socks on the outside of their shoes.
    MANAGEMENT PRIZE
    Alessandro Pluchino, Andrea Rapisarda, and Cesare Garofalo of the University of Catania, Italy, for demonstrating mathematically that organizations would become more efficient if they promoted people at random.
    BIOLOGY PRIZE
    Libiao Zhang, Min Tan, Guangjian Zhu, Jianping Ye, Tiyu Hong, Shanyi Zhou, and Shuyi Zhang of China, and Gareth Jones of the University of Bristol, UK, for scientifically documenting fellatio in fruit bats.

    Not really a big fan (none / 0) (#9)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 11:37:34 AM EST
    of the Igs as they seem to grab onto the snicker-worthy surface of some scientific studies to get that cheap laugh and a few day's worth of publicity for their program.  Turns out some of the studies may well have scientific relevance and importance though they may look trivial.  

    These awards also tend to re-enforce the mainstream status quo worldview -- i.e., anything that looks/sounds kinda freaky will get the back of the hand sneering treatment, with audio of the awards show provided for that ScienceFriday show on NPR, another mainstream outlet that tends to frown upon what appears "weird" or outside of accepted polite boundaries of inquiry.  

    A comformity-enforcing mechanism that might do a little more harm to notions of free thinking and independent inquiry than good in highlighting actual wasteful studies.  

    Just my 2¢

    Parent

    sorry (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 11:41:36 AM EST
    far be it from me to marginalize those who choose to put their sock on after their shoes.

    Parent
    Nah, as I noted, (none / 0) (#16)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 11:50:09 AM EST
    there are some studies that just seem stupid, and maybe they are, and not worth whatever public dollars are being spent on them.  But the Iggies tend to mix in other studies which look silly but which probably have their place -- as with the Biology-sex observations in the animal kingdom in your #3.  Laughter-inducing perhaps, but I'm not sure why they aren't important and relevant.

    Parent
    I actually think (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 01:35:15 PM EST
    the one mathematically showing that companies would do better promoting randomly was pretty interesting.

    Parent
    That too. (none / 0) (#57)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 02:41:21 PM EST
    Reminds me of Bill Buckley who once said, during the best and brightest advisers period of LBJ and VN, that he could have done better with advisers just taking people at random from the Boston phone book.

    Parent
    Even a stopped clock... (none / 0) (#132)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 12:50:10 AM EST
    Yes, the relevance of basic science in any field (none / 0) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 02:47:25 PM EST
    can seem pretty distant, but basic science is the building block for applications and permits science to serve technology.  Research also tests hypothesis, as may be illustrated by the work on economics of scale for which Paul Krugman was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics (unit costs decrease as the size of the facility usage levels increase).   Application: free trade is important, not an economically viable model for Luxemberg to start an auto plant unless it plans/is able to export cars.  

    Parent
    Digby (none / 0) (#3)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 10:50:39 AM EST
    points to an interesting article on Organizing For America and the DNC in general.  

    From Ari Berman:

    OFA operates under the assumption that the president's policy is always the best possible one. But what about when it isn't? What are Obama's supporters to do then? They are told to sell the policy, but they can't influence the shaping of the product. "There's a certain hubris among the people around Obama in the White House that they were above the fray and didn't have to pay attention to the base," says Iowa Senator Tom Harkin. "Certainly a president has to govern from the middle, but you've got to reassure your base that what they did and how hard they worked was worth something." Much of the tension can be traced back to White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, a consummate Beltway insider, who replaced David Plouffe, the Obama inner circle's past conduit to the grassroots, as the central figure in Obama's orbit.

    ...

    OOFA now feels more like any other advocacy organization and less like a movement or Obama's groundbreaking campaign. It turns out that grassroots organizing and Washington sausage-making blend about as well as vodka and milk. "It's no coincidence that some of us who are organizers didn't go into the White House," says former Obama field director Temo Figueroa. "I would've been fired in the first f*cking month." OFA was meant to blend the two worlds, but it often floats in a political no man's land, tethered to a Washington establishment yet unable to change it. Critics like Ganz suspect that is by design. The White House doesn't want its activists to disrupt the backroom deals its aides cut with lobbyists and legislators, nor does it want them putting too much pressure on obstructionist Democrats, lest it alienate key swing votes in Congress. When MoveOn.org ran ads targeting conservative Democrats who were blocking healthcare reform, Rahm Emanuel memorably called the ads "f*cking retarded." And, indeed, the White House has expended considerable political capital denouncing the "professional left" and defending apostate Democrats like Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas from insurgent primary challengers, which has further undermined Obama's reformist brand.

    Just because they have an aversion to the left flank doesn't mean they don't need one.

    OFA never was an advocacy group (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 12:24:50 PM EST
    or a movement for anything else than electing Obama, were they?

    OOFA now feels more like any other advocacy organization and less like a movement or Obama's groundbreaking campaign.

    So now they are being treated like an advocacy group - when Obama needs advocacy he will start shmoozing them again. I'm not saying any other campaign is run any differently.

    Move On and other orgs did not spin off directly from the campaign - I'm sure they are less disgruntled at being treated just like an advocacy group.

    Parent

    The OFA (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 01:06:46 PM EST
    is just part of the DNC (now).  They don't influence the President, he influences them.    

    Parent
    Exactly as it ever was with that group though (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 01:40:44 PM EST
    Just like Tricky Dick providing plays (none / 0) (#7)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 11:26:49 AM EST
    for the Redskins?

    Didn't the Trickster (none / 0) (#13)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 11:45:27 AM EST
    recommend the Statue of Liberty play for the Skins, which Coach Allen then called, and didn't it go bust?  

    Long time ago, and not inclined to google something like that.

    Parent

    I'm sure BTD's suggestions (none / 0) (#17)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 11:50:15 AM EST
    at least equal Nixon's.

    Parent
    Foresight. Fri. morning quarterback? (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 12:18:21 PM EST
    he probably thought (none / 0) (#18)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 11:55:59 AM EST
    the symbolism of the statue of liberty would play well. He can just hear him: "that reminds me..have we bugged that place yet?"

    Parent
    I always thought (none / 0) (#23)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 12:22:15 PM EST
    Nixon spotted the opportunity to get some NFL action as a psychological compensation for the way he was basically used as a tackling dummy during his stint on the Whittier College football team.  He couldn't be a player of course, but he might be able to play coach, if just for one game.

    And with the right-leaning, accommodating Nixonite George Allen as coach, he had the means and opportunity to play coach.

    Didn't turn out so well, if I recall.

    Also not turning out well, a few months later, was Dick getting it into his head that he could be a modern General Patton in SE Asia after screening that George C. Scott biopic in the WH.  Of course, in May there is no football, so an idle mind turns to other ways of waging war besides football ...

    Parent

    Moving moment on Project Runway last night (none / 0) (#26)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 12:39:52 PM EST
    I can already say (none / 0) (#32)
    by CST on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 01:12:26 PM EST
    hands down, I think Mondo should win the season.  I don't even need to see his collection.  He is clearly the best in show.

    But as relates to last night's show, I don't think there was a dry eye on the stage.  It kind of reminded me of this , and how much things have changed since then.  It's a whole new world out there.

    Parent

    Ah yes, Real World San Fran (none / 0) (#35)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 01:28:29 PM EST
    I was actually still in my twenties then (how long has it been on? holy sh-t), was a big fan of the show.  I always like to imagine what that season would've been like had Dave Eggers, as he wrote about in his memoir, been chosen over Jud to be in the cast.  Still, I remember Pedro's story well. Yes, how things have changed indeed.

    Parent
    I'm glad to be able to share my sentiments (none / 0) (#37)
    by NJDem on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 01:39:36 PM EST
    about the episode with you two (no one I know watches).  What an unbelievable moment watching it last night.  When Nina Garcia said she wished she knew what the pattern meant--in that tone--not realizing of course the implications of her words, my heart just sank for him.  

    It was not just inspiring to see how brave he was, but the pure joy he felt in being free from his secret.  What that must have been like for him these last ten years...

    And having remembered RW San Fran so well, I can't believe I didn't think of Pedro last night. Although it reminds me of how old I am getting, it is wonderful to see how far we have come.    

    Parent

    the biggest change (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 01:49:02 PM EST
    comes I think from the science end.  Pedro was dying and indeed he died shortly after the show.

    No one even mentioned death last night.  It was all about living with it.

    Parent

    i thought the same thing (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 02:40:47 PM EST
    tho i was thinking about magic johnson, and the great doc ESPN recently made about bird and magic. i remember thinking then, damn, we've lost him already.

    Parent
    I would like to comment on Glo Allred.

    I'm pretty sure the sequnce of events was this, please correct me if I'm wrong:

    At the press conference Diaz said she saw the letter(s) in Whitman's garbage (7 years ago).

    In response to that, Whitman said she/they never saw any such letter(s).

    In response to THAT Allred produced the letter with Whitman's husband's writing on it.

    Is that pretty much accurate?

    How cunning of Allred to have the letter in her possession, or know that she will have it, yet coach Diaz to, er, tell a little untruth about the letter, to say that she saw it in the garbage 7 years ago, in the hope that Whitman would take the bait by denying the letter of 7 years ago, which Whitman did, thereby giving Allred the opportunity to miraculously and triumphantly produce the 7 y/o letter for all to see.


    So...are you saying that Nicky (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 01:07:34 PM EST
    lied because if she had told the truth - that Whitman's husband gave or left for her the letter from SSA - Nicky would have had to admit that she didn't address the situation because she knew she was in the country illegally?

    I'm still not sure how this matters to the larger issue, which was that she was only being paid for the hours originally agreed upon, and not for the total hours she was working.  Take a look at the SSA letter - it shows wages for 2002 that equal 15 hours times $23: $17,940.

    Unless you are also arguing that if Nicky lied about the letter, she must be lying about everything else?

    I think it is likely to be a given that being in the country without the proper documents means people lie to keep from being sent back.  Does that mean they are also lying about the conditions in which they are working or what they are being paid?

    And should the fact that someone lies about his or her resident status give the employer carte blanche to treat an employee however he or she wants to?

    Allred has kind of boxed herself into this corner: she wants people to focus on the poor treatment of an undocumented worker who felt she had no recourse, while at the same time painting Whitman as a hypocrite and all-around witch - but, as anyone could have predicted, it has all come down to Nicky lying on her paperwork which allows others to assume she's lying about everything else.

    This is why employers who hire the undocumented have the upper hand, and why we have this underclass of workers not being properly compensated for their hours and responsibilities.

    Parent

    Well said (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 01:21:47 PM EST
    <clap, clap, clap>

    Also, may I point out that the hubby's handwriting on the letter doesn't necessarily contradict the story about the maid fishing it out of the wastebasket.

    I can think of any number of scenarios where he would have written that, and then either he or Whitman decided discretion was the better point of valor if they wanted to keep their housekeeper's services and tossed it out instead of giving it to her.

    In my experience, despite the frequently tremendous stream of verbiage, Gloria picks her words very, very carefully so as to convey an impression but without actually saying anything false.

    Parent

    I really just meant what I wrote. (none / 0) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 01:26:45 PM EST
    I'm trying to ascertain that my timeline of events is accurate, and, if so, Allred is very very cunning.

    Had Allred produced the letter at the first press conference, it would have been all over for Whitman right then.

    But she didn't, she kept it hidden up her sleeve and let Whitman take the bait in denying the letter, and THEN miraculously produced it.

    Of course, if my timeline's off...

    Parent

    I think you should have referred to (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 01:49:27 PM EST
    it as a fact pattern, as opposed to a timeline, because your timeline is dependent on Allred coaching her client to lie - and doesn't take into account that it all could have happened exactly the way Nicky said - that she fished the letter out of the trash.

    But, what about the note to Nicky on the letter - doesn't that mean she must have been handed the letter, or that it was left for her by her employers?

    Well, no, it doesn't.  Try this on for size:  husband reads letter, scribbles note on it.  Wife asks what he's doing, and he tells her.  Wife says, "are you nuts?  you can't give her that letter - that's going to open up a whole can of worms that's going to be worse for us than it is for her - just get rid of it!"  So he does - and Nicky later finds it - with the note - in the trash.

    Your "timeline" evaporates if your assumption about the lying is wrong.

    By the way, I'm not saying that I'm right, either - I just object to the automatic assumption that the employee is lying because she's told other lies about her status.

    Parent

    Honestly, Nicky is just a sideline to (none / 0) (#42)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 02:03:43 PM EST
    my point. I really wanted to commnt on Allred, as I said in my first post.

    My point was meant to be about Allred.

    Let me rewrite:

    At the press conference Diaz said the Whitmans got letter(s) (7 years ago).

    In response to that, Whitman said she/they never saw any such letter(s).

    In response to THAT Allred produced the letter with Whitman's husband's writing on it.

    Is that pretty much accurate?

    How cunning of Allred to have the letter in her possession, or know that she will have it, yet coach Diaz to NOT to say "we have the letter," but merely say, "the Whitmans got a letter" 7 years ago, in the hope that Whitman would take the bait by then denying the letter of 7 years ago, which Whitman did, thereby giving Allred the opportunity to miraculously and triumphantly produce the 7 y/o letter for all to see.



    Parent
    Seriously? No one has a comment (none / 0) (#109)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 04:03:54 PM EST
    on whether Allred is the cunning manipulator she appears to be?

    Parent
    Because it's just silly (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 12:58:12 AM EST
    Allred is a very skilled attorney, and very skilled attorneys don't give out any more information than is needed for the immediate purpose.  Even prosecutors, who I assume you admire greatly, don't release any more info than they absolutely have to to move along each stage in the charging and prosecution.

    The goal here is to get the client some good dough from the target.  You'd be stupid to give out more info than necessary at each point along the line, and Gloria is absolutely not stupid.

    You can call that manipulation, but then you'd have to call every attorney on the planet manipulative.  They may even be so, but that's the way the system works.  Nothing in the slightest unusual about it.  It's just smart on Gloria's part.

    Parent

    I agree, very cunning on Glo's part. (none / 0) (#141)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 10:08:22 AM EST
    To think--I used to track Polanski (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 02:07:09 PM EST
    criminal matter.  Can't get that interested in Whitman's case.

    Parent
    Maybe because this "case" (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:18:13 PM EST
    may not be totally fact-dependent. It is a charge and counter-charge involving a very controversial political issue in a high stakes political contest at a crucial juncture. I've alluded to it elsewhere: The "court of public opinion" has broader standards and a different attention-span than a court of law. It may be that here the media setup is that W said certain things about "illegal immigrants" and she has been found to have such an individual in her longtime employ as a maid. W denies a few days; alters position somewhat after an official letter is produced; and, the public looks at W and then they look at the maid--and back & forth a few times--and the "findings" start to congeal as "fact" fairly quickly. Other "findings" are still out there: Especially, how does W perform on this score during the weekend's debate on Univision?  

    Obviously, things can change in the so-called blink-of-an-eye. (They already have.)  But, IMO, the real "fact" issue here involves perception of a set of circumstances. And, part of that involves "who gets the benefit of the doubt" in a she said/she said when it is 5 weeks until the election and the political issue is supercharged?

    Parent

    Although I haven't delved into the Whitman (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:24:29 PM EST
    matter, if GOP Senators can constantly deliver screeds against homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, etc., yet engage in these very activities themselves and live to again campaign and keep their Senate seats, why shouldn't Whitman be able to brush this off, say "mistakes were made," go into inpatient rehab [not sure what rehab would be appropos here], and survive.

    Parent
    That might have been the shrewdest approach (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:33:18 PM EST
    for her, oculus. She has moved from denial to trying to attribute it to a Brown political smear to calling Allred as the force behing it...perhaps, she can pivot at the Univision debate in the manner you suggest.  But the emotional force of the immigration issue is like riding a tiger, I think.

    Parent
    i think she sounds ridiculous (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:43:30 PM EST
    saying she'll take a lie detector if Brown will. this is her problem.

    when is the Univision debate?

    Parent

    I think the debate is tomorrow. (none / 0) (#106)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:56:42 PM EST
    She's flailing (none / 0) (#134)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 01:01:42 AM EST
    which is good.  I'm willing to bet she either used pressure or condoned it as an interview technique for hiring at her firm.  So now she gets a really good dose of it herself, and she doesn't seem to be doing so well with it.

    Parent
    W may brush it off and continue (none / 0) (#77)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:30:19 PM EST
    but how will that effect the Latino vote? I think this is a bit dif than some of the other Repug "activities".

    Parent
    Were you anticipating Whitman will (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:33:04 PM EST
    garner a significant no. of Latino votes w/or w/o this?

    Parent
    I really don't know where she stands (none / 0) (#89)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:41:05 PM EST
    in the polls with them, just know that she has been spending to get them. I think this could make it money down the drain. she comes off a tad cold on the issue, imo.

    Parent
    One thing that seems to be missing... (none / 0) (#111)
    by EL seattle on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 04:24:16 PM EST
    ...in all the timeline info that I've seen is the follow-up letters/notifications/correspondences from Uncle Sam about the 2003 notice.  Did someone reply in such a way that the government was no longer concerned about the number mismatch?  Or did the government just forget about the whole thing?  As I understand it, there were a lot of SS number mismatches around 2002.  Maybe everyone assumed that this was a clerical error and not worth the effort of spending time on (back then).

    Or maybe there's a stack of unopened 'past due' notices somewhere?

    Parent

    Obama/Hillary (none / 0) (#41)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 01:56:12 PM EST
    Thoughts on this poll (I posted this in another older chain but want to get a serious response).

    Obama is favored over Hillary by large margins, even among women and liberal dems.  The only demographic that shows Hillary beating Obama is the conservative dems.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/143318/Obama-Clinton-2012-Democratic-Nomination.aspx

    Obama still has a lot of good will out there.  I was pretty surprised by that result.  I like what the guy is doing but thought he'd get destroyed by Hillary.

    Sh*t storm approaching. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 02:07:57 PM EST
    So what? (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 02:20:45 PM EST
    Maybe the question you should be asking yourself is why Obama can only manage to get the support of 52% of Dems - why there are even 37% who favor someone else, and why another 10% have no opinion.

    Friday is a bad day to try to stir the pot - people are getting ready for the weekend.

    Parent

    That's 2012 (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 02:33:45 PM EST
    no mainstream Democrat in their right mind would challenge Obama for the nomination.  It's a silly question.

    Parent
    Much too early (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 02:39:32 PM EST
    to speculate, and we haven't even got past the midterms.  

    Ask again a year from now.  If the economy is still in the dumpster, well still a big mebbe.  It would take quite a bit of further disappointment in O's performance with the economy to allow for a reasonably united party to emerge from an intra-party primary challenge.  

    The discontent would have to at least rival LBJ 1967-8 proportions, and that was pretty bad, and he was much more unlikable and much more distrusted by the lib base.  Hated even.  Right now, we're merely disappointed in a rather likable president.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 02:51:54 PM EST
    it wouldn't have to be LBJ levels only Carter levels but even if the economy is in the dumpster I see it more likely that Obama will lose than anyone will actually contest him for the nomination.

    I just don't see the party repeating the LBJ/Carter scenario and just letting Obama lose instead of challenging him for the nomination.

    Parent

    Republican (none / 0) (#61)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:04:13 PM EST
    popularity is still in the toilet.  They have no leader (and Michael Steele has apparently been kidnapped or something).  We have problems, but they have a lot of problems too.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:15:42 PM EST
    it is but look what's probably going to happen in November. Never count them out. In 2012 Obama is going to have a record and it's not a popular one right now. If he continues down the path he's going, the base is going to be even more demoralized. After all, nobody respects a wimp.

    If he wants to accomplish anything positive, it's going to be hard because the GOP is just going to spend all their time subpoenaing his administration.

    Parent

    The thing that's different (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by CST on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:24:24 PM EST
    about presidential elections vs midterms is that it's not just the "base" that votes in presidential ones.

    I know a lot more people who voted in '04, '08, and will probably vote in '12 - than who plan to vote this year.

    It's just an entirely different set of people/opinions out there in a presidential election.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:30:48 PM EST
    look at Obama's sinking numbers with independents too. He may be able to recover but I certainly wouldn't put money on it right now.

    Parent
    I'm not even (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by CST on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:36:57 PM EST
    talking about indies necessarily either.

    I'm talking about the generally despondent people who only pay attention every 4 years.  Not because their politics are less liberal or what have you.  Just because they don't really follow politics.

    Consider how much has changed in the last 2 years.  I wouldn't place bets on anything 2 years from now, probably depends more on the economy than anything else.  I'm just pointing out that I don't think the same dynamics will be in play.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:49:30 PM EST
    these so called "despondent" voters may not vote for Obama in '12 either. You can also wonder if they are despondent now might they be despondent in '12 too? These voters seem to me to be very unpredictable. You certainly can't count on them NOT showing up nor can you count on them showing up IMO.

    Parent
    the fact is (none / 0) (#102)
    by CST on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:55:08 PM EST
    way more people vote in presidential elections than midterms, even in down years.

    Midterms are base elections.  Presidential elections are not.

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:58:37 PM EST
    but you seem to think that it works to Obama's advantage in '12 where it might not. He is still going to need the base too and if they are demoralized...well, we shall see. If the economy doesn't turn around in the next 12 to 18 months, he's going to be a one-termer.

    Parent
    Republican popularity (none / 0) (#115)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 05:23:11 PM EST
    may still be in the toilet but they are winning at the polls.

    Parent
    Well, the lesson of Carter (none / 0) (#62)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:12:11 PM EST
    is that you need a deeper-seated discontent in the party, and more than just one attractive and available challenger, to go successfully against an incumbent (and/or not damage him fatally for the general election).

    Recall that with Carter, just one foreign event not involving war was enough to rally the country around him, certainly enough of his party, to immediately put Ted Kennedy's challenge in jeopardy.

    So, re Obama, you'd need something rather more profound and widely-felt and important -- i.e., the economy still being in the dumpster a year from now -- to withstand the quirks of presidential popularity and all those small things a president in power can do here and there to change some of the electoral dynamics.

    Parent

    Yes, (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:22:55 PM EST
    I agree and that's pretty much why I see it unlikely that Obama will have a challenger.

    I guess Obama could decide not to run for reelection which I find unlikely and we could have an open primary but I also see that as very unlikely too.

    Parent

    Brodie (none / 0) (#67)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:21:42 PM EST
    I think that is exactly right.  That's what this poll tells me. Disappointed but still generally like him and hope he justifies our faith.

    That's where I am.  I think those who view Obama as a smashing success and those who view him as a liberal failure are equally wrong.  He has two years. That's an eternity to write the final story.

    Parent

    Can I ask you honestly (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:32:14 PM EST
    Do you think he is a liberal? I personally don't think he is even trying to be a liberal success.

    Parent
    Obama is a liberal (none / 0) (#86)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:39:01 PM EST
    who is facing an opposition that is scoring points the more liberal he looks.  As a result, he is particularly hamstrung. But I think a GOP House could provide the breathing room (and opposition) that he needs to move left.

    That is the only bright part of the drubbing the dems are about to take.

    Parent

    Then I must be a socialist, because (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:53:40 PM EST
    Obama is definitely not a liberal.

    The opposition is scoring points with their own the more liberal they can make him look, and we both know that has nothing to do with using the facts or truth to do it.

    And please understand that many of us do not think Obama has much desire to move left, and think the breathing room that may save us from more conservative, Republican-lite legislation will come in the form of gridlock.


    Parent

    Sweetie, if you're (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 06:15:05 PM EST
    a socialist, then so am I.  Sometimes I feel like Diogenes, wandering around with a lantern, searching for an honest man.

    Parent
    The thing about change (none / 0) (#123)
    by Politalkix on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 09:20:34 PM EST
    is that you fear it more, the older you get.
    It should be noted that McCain won the majority of votes of voters above the age of 60 in a year when Obama trounced his Republican challenger.

    Parent
    Obama is a liberal if (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 04:57:39 PM EST
    what you call health care reform did reform health care.

    Hint:  Obama himself now calls it health insurance reform.  And even that is a stretch.

    Parent

    History will be kind (none / 0) (#127)
    by Politalkix on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 09:39:45 PM EST
    Sure, if by "history" you mean ... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 10:10:20 PM EST
    ... the author, Michael Kazin, the leader of "Historians for Obama".

    Shocker.

    Parent

    Boo Hoo (none / 0) (#131)
    by Politalkix on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 10:46:58 PM EST
    if only Sean Wilentz was the author of all written history in American politics....

    Parent
    What does Sean Wilenz have to do ... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:49:48 AM EST
    ... with anything?

    It's just pretty funny that you chose an opinion piece by the captain of the  Obama cheerleading squad as evidence that "history" will judge Obama kindly.

    Hey, .... why not ask Rush his opinion of how history will judge GWB?

    Parent

    Title of article says (none / 0) (#139)
    by Politalkix on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 10:43:25 AM EST
    111th Congress: History will be kind. Article is not just about Obama. Bye Bye.

    Parent
    No kidding. Of course, ... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 11:22:59 AM EST
    ... I never said it was "just about Obama".  You were the one responding to a comment about Obama, and suggesting "history will be kind", citing the captain of the Obama cheerleading squad.

    But I understand your desire to deflect with straw arguments and run away ...

    Parent

    "Even among women"? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:22:41 PM EST
    Explain, please, why you are surprised as to women voters.

    And try to do so without reference to any politicians; the question is about what you think about women's voting behaviors.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    Cream City (none / 0) (#76)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:28:34 PM EST
    I was surprised by the reaction of women voters because of the concessions on choice and contraception in the healthcare package. So much was made of the concessions on those issues by Obama, Reid and Pelosi, that I thought it would have a real impact with women voters.

    I know you are looking for some kind of sexist "gotcha" here, but there is none. Many women I talk to were furious with Obama over those issues (and many believed that Hillary would not have conceded those points), but that sentiment may not be as mainstream as I believed.

    Parent

    Ah, but that shows (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 04:38:38 PM EST
    as I thought, thinking that women vote as a bloc, all thinking alike, doesn't it?  That all are pro-abortion, pro-birth control, etc.

    Gotcha.

    Parent

    It IS incredibly surprising ... (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 10:00:33 PM EST
    ... that an incumbent POTUS, entering office with historic approval ratings only 20 months ago, can only garner a bare majority of his own party's voters against a hypothetical opponent who hasn't made the slightest suggestion she would run against him.  This is, of course, even before the beating that his party will take in the midterms.

    But I'm guessing that's not what you meant.

    Parent

    Geez, get over it, will you? (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 01:03:36 AM EST
    You're the one obsessing about Hillary here.  Give it a rest.

    Parent
    you need to learn how to do (none / 0) (#44)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 02:07:12 PM EST
    links . . . .

    Parent
    I take it you missed (none / 0) (#47)
    by vml68 on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 02:12:20 PM EST
    yesterdays attempts.

    Parent
    ah, that i did (none / 0) (#48)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 02:17:36 PM EST
    caught the act the day before though :)

    Parent
    Actually my comment was (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by vml68 on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 02:23:02 PM EST
    directed at Oculus. But you are right that it was not yesterday but the day before.
    I am not getting this need to constantly bring Hillary up if ABG is trying to drum up votes for Obama.

    Parent
    One way to determine why I am here (none / 0) (#64)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:16:33 PM EST
    is to ask me.

    No shame in my game. If I come to shill for Obama, I'll just say so.

    There is a disconnect between those that see Obama as super liberal (Team Glenn Beck) and those that see him as super conservative.

    This poll indicates fairly clearly that conservatives dems don't see him very favorably while liberal dems do. It's relevant not necessarily because of the Hillary/Obama angle. It's relevant because of the possible disconnect you see between liberal political junkies like most all most all of us who post here and the average liberal dem voter out there who is less engaged.

    I think this phenomena is real and one that has to be addressed by those who believe Obama is completely out of touch with the average progressive.

    He appears to be out of touch with the average blue dog dem based on the numbers.

    Parent

    Let see if I have this straight (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:33:39 PM EST
    Liberal Dems love Obama. Conservative Dems do not. If you are correct in your assumptions, doesn't it seen rather counter productive for Obama and people in his administration to rail against the liberal members of his party and placing the blame for the bad poll numbers on their shoulders.  

    Parent
    No surprise why you're here (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by shoephone on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 08:14:44 PM EST
    You're a run-of-the-mill internet troll with too much time on his hands.

    Parent
    Kind of a moot (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 02:24:00 PM EST
    point since she's not going to run against Obama. The fact that only 52% of Dems would support him at this point surprises me.

    Parent
    52% (none / 0) (#66)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:19:06 PM EST
    Shouldn't surprise anyone. Kennedy was LEADING Carter at various points before the primary.  52% is around what you would expect when you have a very visible president and a SoS that is shielded from having to make difficult domestic decisions that are the voters highest priorities.

    Parent
    His (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:28:03 PM EST
    support should be around 80% of the party. It shows the massive amount of disappointment the base has.

    Parent
    Kennedy was leading Carter ... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 09:48:05 PM EST
    ... when Carter's approval ratings were in the twenties.  To be fair, you should give Obama a little more time to catch up to Carter.

    Parent
    Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 01:05:36 AM EST
    Hillary, Hillary, Hillary...

    You're like LBJ obsessing about Bobby Kennedy.  Assuming you're wayyyy too young to remember that, go look it up.

    Pathetic.

    Parent

    I think Ted might (none / 0) (#71)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:24:17 PM EST
    have been leading all the way up to the point he actually announced, or when the US hostages were taken, or when that Roger Mudd interview was aired, which all occurred nearly in the same time period, well before the first (IA) primary contest.

    He looked pretty formidable though for most of 1979, on paper, in the polls.  Probably 1978 too ...

    Parent

    Bottom Line (none / 0) (#124)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 09:21:37 PM EST
    is that rumor's of Obama's destruction are about a year premature. He could screw it up or he could pull a Clinton (who had identical approval numbers on this exact week).

    Time will tell.

    Parent

    So, David Gregory is out there stirring this pot (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:28:14 PM EST
    No surprise there. NBC always was Hillary-obsessed, and not in a good way. I'm sure Chris Matthews can't wait to "analyze" this with spit-producing excitement.

    I tend toward the view of Hillary as VP in 2012. Looks like a lot of approval for that ticket among Dems in that poll.


    Parent

    How (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:33:13 PM EST
    did that changing VP's work out for Gerald Ford? If his approvals continue to stay down and he dumps Biden for Hillary it might look like a move of desperation.

    Parent
    I don't think Jerry (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:47:20 PM EST
    was wrong to want to dump the unelected and largely unpopular Rocky -- who wasn't exactly helpful for moderate Ford with his conservative party.  Ford didn't necessarily pick well, was the problem.  WHoever the Repub was, of a conservative bent, who was not as crazily cranky as Mean Bob Dole probably would have been a better pick.

    Ford also darn well nearly won that '76 election too, despite Dole's well-deserved HatchetMan presence and despite FOrd's own doofus debate performance.

    A few votes in a coupla states (OH and NY, where pre-Nader candidate Gene McCarthy was successfully kept off the NY ballot and Carter barely won) would have changed the outcome.  (Frankly, these days, I kinda wish it had happened, and we might have avoided Reagan ...)

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:52:09 PM EST
    and that's why I never write the GOP off in an election. The GOP can have a Carter like win in a presidential election. Heck, look no further than Bush in 2000 & 2004 to see more recent evidence of this.

    Parent
    Well, I didn't say it would work! (none / 0) (#85)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:37:40 PM EST
    But I certainly think an act of desperation may be in order, since I don't think the economy is going to be much better in a year and a half than it is now.

    Parent
    Ruffian (none / 0) (#88)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:40:33 PM EST
    I think it would certainly work. I believe it would guaranty his re-election.

    I just hope that both hillary and obama (and Biden) can put their egos aside and do it.

    Parent

    If (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:45:59 PM EST
    the economy is still bad which it looks like it is going to be why would Hillary want to be on a suicide mission with Obama? No one can save him if things don't change.

    Parent
    The thought of an Obama- (none / 0) (#97)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:51:24 PM EST
    Hillary ticket does get my juices flowing, but agree that she's unlikely to want to go down with that Hindenberg should we still be mired in the Great Recession.

    But a little short of that, where political suicide is not a sure thing but the economy is merely still "troubled" to a significant extent, yet Obama needs a boost, then at that point I'm on board with a switch. Biden can take one for the team at State and he'll go down as one of the great party statesmen for nobly stepping aside ...

    Parent

    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:55:34 PM EST
    think Obama would do it though because it would be 1-admitting that he made a mistake with Biden in the first place. 2-Obama bows down before the Broders of the world and that might make them lay down on the fainting couch--my oh, my those horrible Clintons From Arkansas. We can't have that now can we?

    Parent
    Egos (none / 0) (#125)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 09:25:00 PM EST
    again that is what is comes down to.

    If egos can be set aside by all the path to victory is there.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 05:56:45 AM EST
    Obama's ego so far has to never take responsibility so that is why I don't see it happening.

    Parent
    And, that is the key assumption (none / 0) (#110)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 04:08:36 PM EST
    ...that the economy will remain bad. That is also where my assumption is different: Economic factors are actually trending up. But, there are so many factors...e.g., foreign policy and foreign wars. The positioning of the economy, tho, will be determinative.

    Parent
    Few ecoomic factors are trending up (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 05:00:00 PM EST
    and most are not.  The housing industry is key, and Obama himself said this week that it will not recover for years.

    Certainly not by 2012, no way.  It's gonna get better for some folks, but it's gonna get uglier by then for a lot of the people who tend to vote Dem.  That's the key, as always:  Whose economy?

    Parent

    You are right, housing is a central issue (none / 0) (#122)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 09:10:19 PM EST
    Even with that, those kinds of factors that the economists look at are actually moving up. Measuring deviations on import/export, GDP, productivity slowing, all the stuff that the Krugmans of the world pay attention to (and I really am not conversant in.) In the short run, it probably doesn't matter in terms of perception. The questions will center around what the facts & the perception are come springtime and later. I guess we'll see.

    Parent
    It might work (none / 0) (#99)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:52:05 PM EST
    I'm not really ready to make any predictions either way. I think it would be the best shot the Dems have, and I think Hillary would go along with it.

    That's about all I am prepared to say at this point.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#90)
    by vicndabx on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:41:35 PM EST
    "spit-producing"

    Parent
    Ha. I was having a mental block (none / 0) (#116)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 05:56:31 PM EST
    On the term 'frothing at the mouth'. Or, alternatively, 'spittle'.

    Parent
    VP would be a waste of her talents (none / 0) (#96)
    by sj on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:50:23 PM EST
    She's a work horse and the VP job in the Obama administration is just not very influential.

    Parent
    I don't think so at all (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:55:51 PM EST
    Highest office a woman has ever had, and she would make it into a satisfying job for herself. I don't think she would say no.

    Parent
    VP in the modern era (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:57:36 PM EST
    is a lot more of a workload (after careful thorough negotiations with the prez, a final agreement practically in writing and notarized).  Gone are the days when a P could basically just order the VP to get lost overseas on meaningless and lengthy "fact-finding" tours (e.g., JFK sending Lyndon abroad, out of his hair).

    And it would be a needed change of pace from the very difficult and slow negotiating req'd with foreign leaders.  Easier to work with your own country's P, and you get quicker results, one way or the other.

    Parent

    Have any of you seen any/all (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 02:23:30 PM EST
    of Tarell Alvin McCraney's "The Brother/Sister Plays"? Sfgate

    Rave reviews in NYT about the playwright, a recent Yale Drama School grad.  

    Also, Bill Irwin's take on Moliere's "Scapin" at ACT is very funny.  Lots of contemporary political humor incorporated.

    Trial court judge permits Adams family (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 02:37:30 PM EST
    to w/d from representation of Blagojevich.   AP

    how did that get there? (none / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:39:19 PM EST
    Florida man denies cocaine found in buttocks is his

    MANATEE -- A search of a 25-year-old man following a traffic stop Wednesday morning revealed one bag of marijuana and one bag of cocaine in the driver's buttocks, according to the Manatee County Sheriff's Office. The driver said only the marijuana belonged to him.

    to be fair I often find things there of which I had no idea.

    ahem, TMI! (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:44:55 PM EST
    Too bad kdog isn't here today. (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:51:44 PM EST
    Cincinnati Reds celebration clinching NL Central includes smoking cigars in clubhouse.  5 viewers complain.  link

    militarytracy (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:56:28 PM EST
    I am taking some time off after finishing RF4 and I wont be around for a while.  so dont wait for me to show up for what you emailed me about.
    I will catch up.