home

Friday Afternoon Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 02:54:10 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Who should Aaron Sorkin pick to play John Edwards in the movie based on Andrew Young's book? Tom Cruise?

The prosecution has rested in the Blagojevich trial. Brother and co-defendant Rob may be the first witness Monday. Ex-Governor Rod is also expected to testify next week. The Judge is giving Blago a hard time about which tapes he will be allowed to play. The Chicago Tribune profiles the cooperators in the trial today here.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Apple Offers Free Bumpers or Full Refund for iPhone 4 | Does Lindsay Lohan Need Robert Shapiro? >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Friday Afternoon Open Thread | 100 comments (100 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    do we really think (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 03:02:06 PM EST
    as HuffPo seems to that the republicans will be able to get Hispanic to vote against their own interests as easily as they did with uneducated whites simply by putting up a candidate who talks like them?

    really?

    I see Arizona.

    All the Dems need to do (none / 0) (#2)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 03:20:24 PM EST
    is have someone at every single place Jeb is speaking to shout out a question:  "What do you think of the Arizona anti-immigrant law?"

    Parent
    I would say if Jebbie runs (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 03:28:09 PM EST
    this should be the official Dem theme music for 2012

    Parent
    Perfect, Capt! n/t (none / 0) (#4)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 03:32:13 PM EST


    Parent
    And Jeb Can Use The Trailer (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 03:32:18 PM EST
    With a little editing of course....  Machete

    ok, a lot of editing...  

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 03:41:05 PM EST
    Since he already came out against it 3 months ago, I don't see how that would help.

    Parent
    then the question (none / 0) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 03:47:10 PM EST
    should be do you intend to continue the Obama administrations lawsuits against the law

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:03:58 PM EST
    If he actually runs for President.

    But since Mittens is raising tons of money, and is definitely more appealing than you-know-who from Alaska, and is actually liked by moderate Republicans and Independents, it doesn't really matter what Jeb Bush thinks.

    Parent

    Isn't against the rules to bring some (none / 0) (#20)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:28:53 PM EST
    rational common sense into any Bush bashing thread?  :)

    Parent
    I just don't (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:38:38 PM EST
    think that Jeb is running in 2012. Still too close for people to vote in another Bush (that would make it Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Bush).

    I think if a Republican (my bet: Romney) loses in 2012, Jeb is the forerunner for 2016.

    Parent

    Again more common sense (none / 0) (#32)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:44:35 PM EST
    Jeb isn't running, I'd put money on that.  

    Romney, obviously.  (and the latest PPP shows him in a pretty good position).

    Palin wouldn't survive the primaries.

    Newt and Huck are both wild cards - possible king makers.

    Parent

    did you put money on the (none / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:50:18 PM EST
    reality show thing
    I cant remember.

    if not, like to?

    Parent

    Don't bet on things that cannot be (none / 0) (#44)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:55:17 PM EST
    analyzed logically - hollywood being one of those examples.

    Parent
    Jeb wont run (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:56:41 PM EST
    seems a lot of people disagree.
    did you read the link?


    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:00:49 PM EST
    I still think he's looking ahead to 2016.  He hasn't really been out there raising money.  Of course, he COULD run, but I think he's smart enough to know it's too soon for another Bush.  People may be unhappy with Obama, but I don't think they are ready for another Bush.  Romney looks like a much better bet, and if I put money on it, Mittens would be my choice by far.

    Parent
    Romney may be (none / 0) (#58)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:18:35 PM EST
    beloved by moderate Republicans (yes, yes, I know, it sounds like an oxymoron, but there are such- I know a few), but I'm not sure he can get past the very vocal Evangelical base- they loath the Mormons.  We'll see.

    Parent
    the base will never swallow Mittens (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:21:26 PM EST
    wrong god

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#74)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 06:05:35 PM EST
    so too, Cappy.

    Parent
    The Mormon thing (none / 0) (#97)
    by jbindc on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 02:34:17 PM EST
    Was the issue in 2008.  It's so old news.  If the R's think Mittens can win, they won't care about his Mormonism.

    Parent
    Please, does anyone know what is (none / 0) (#72)
    by Untold Story on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 06:03:06 PM EST
    up with Romney with his eyebrows not moving when he speaks - it is so difficult (for me) to hear anything he says as I keep wondering what is going on with his face from eyes up?

    Anyway, haven't heard of anyone on the GOP side yet that can run successfully against Obama despite Fox's attempt at brainwashing the public otherwise.  They have no candidate - none!

    Parent

    Haven't you (none / 0) (#75)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 06:08:06 PM EST
    ever heard of Botox?  It reduces wrinkling by partially paralyzing the facial muscles- nothing moves from the eyebrows up, so no wrinkles show.  If you see unmoving eyebrows and forehead, think "Botox."   ;-)

    Parent
    Thanks, but it makes him look like a (none / 0) (#99)
    by Untold Story on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 03:40:30 PM EST
    Zoombie.  It is so distracting from whatever he is saying, very unnatural, imo.  Anyway, guess he has a pulse even tho his eyebrow and forehead don't move!

    Parent
    Well, if he has a pulse, (none / 0) (#102)
    by Zorba on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 07:47:13 PM EST
    that puts him one up on Dick Cheney, who literally has no pulse, now that he has had a left ventricle assist devise implanted.

    Parent
    Really, makes a paranoid person like me (none / 0) (#103)
    by Untold Story on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 08:46:11 PM EST
    wonder if he ever had one to begin with and this might be just a cover story :)

    Parent
    Two points (none / 0) (#76)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 06:17:00 PM EST
    •  What's up with the eyebrow thing??

    •  See post #32 PPP isn't considered a Rasmussen by any stretch.


    Parent
    You are using likely (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 06:24:36 PM EST
    voters from 2010....The electorate will be different in 2012.

    Parent
    Huntsman in 2016 (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 06:22:56 PM EST
    Romney will run, win the nomination, and lose the general in 2012--but will have broken the Mormon barrier.

    Hillary/Crist v. Huntsman/Nikki Haley (or Whitman if she can outspend Jerry Brown in Governor's race) in 2016.

    Parent

    Huntsman would is a possibility in 2016 (none / 0) (#80)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 06:34:59 PM EST
    HRC in 2016?  Can't see it for many reasons.

    Your prediction on Romney in 2012 could be close to the mark but still miss the winner.  The Mormon thing is old news.  His "religion" speech dealt with that in the R party like Obama's Philadelphia "race" speech did for the D party.  Believe if you like that the R party is the same as it was 8-10 years ago and is held hostage by the evangelicals - IMHO (as one) it has moved on.

    As for 2012, the 2010 results will be the turning point for Obama.  If the dems loose big, he will replay the 1994 Clinton game of triangulation.  He, Rahm and Axelrod will see that as a way to get the full 8 years out of the gig.  Ironically, if the dems only hold onto a basic majority, then it will be a similar gameplan, but with a few minor tweaks.

    Parent

    Without Evangelicals (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 07:32:30 PM EST
    Republicans nominate people like Ike, Nixon and Ford......

    I'll believe it, when I see it....

    The Republicans will try to muddy the waters with Huntsman....

    I agree with you on the Mormon thing--largely.  But Beck could really pour fuel on the fire.....

    The best critique of Romney--and it came from a conservative--is that he is 100% faithful and dedicated to his wife and church, and everything else is negotiable.  He will say what he has to say.

    I hope Huntsman does not run....but he is really good.  Warm, compassionate--as Romney is not--and smart.  He did well with the Utah mine disaster a while ago.  But note--he did nothing to reign in the mine owners on safety and risk taking--so he is a true blue Republican.....

    He would be tough.....

    But Republicans don't nominate new faces.....


    Parent

    Romney has the (none / 0) (#85)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 07:34:24 PM EST
    experience advantage over Palin in running for the nom and knowing what does and doesn't work, plus he's just smarter (but who isn't?).  He's hungry to get what he thinks is his due (nom) and to take his rightful place in the world (WH).  Plus the Repub Pty tends to favor the guy from a previous race who ran well but came up just short.

    Good luck though with trying to convince a lot of the religiously bigoted regular voters in the GOP to show up at the polls in Nov for Mitt.  As a Dem, I like this scenario.

    Hillary/Crist?  Sorry, a little too seniorish and I don't like the assass'n insurance angle for the Dem.  Crist is still a very recent work in progress and we'll see how far he evolves.  But I think we could do better in this case for Hillary, going younger, someone with a little personality to go with a good lib/center-left record.

    Huntsman/Haley?  He'd have to come back from far-off China and introduce himself to this country, especially to the GOP knuckledragging low-information/anti-pointy head types who have tended to dominate in primary voting.  Meanwhile, the familiar Jebster will already have name rec, plenty of money, and plenty of Goopers eager to get back into the WH and do it the only way they know how -- by nominating yet another Bush.  

    Parent

    If I were a Republican (none / 0) (#86)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 07:38:38 PM EST
    and wanted to win, and recognizing how unappetizing another white southernor would be, and wanted to get more traction with younger voters.....

    I'd go with Huntsman/Haley (assuming she continues to be as tough and savvy as she has turned out so far)

    But, Republicans don't think that way....So, Jeb may be it.....

    Parent

    New blood is required -- (none / 0) (#100)
    by Untold Story on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 03:45:20 PM EST
    much like the Carter era when corruption was aplenty and this guy showed up with a great smile and folksy manner and won the day.

    Everyone is sick to death with Washington and politics as usual.  None of those that ran before have a chance, imo, including Hillary.  

    GOP might feel they are in a good position, but they have no one to run - well, no one that can win.

    Obama gets a second time.  He will prove to be everything we thought he was - just give him room and get rid of those career politicans!

    Parent

    Obama already IS... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by sj on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 01:27:30 PM EST
    ... everything I thought he was. What did you think he was?

    Parent
    Sincere, intelligent with a passion to do the (none / 0) (#106)
    by Untold Story on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 05:35:24 PM EST
    right thing for all the people!

    Parent
    Karl Rove (none / 0) (#98)
    by jbindc on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 02:36:06 PM EST
    was raised in the Mormon culture in Salt Lake City, although he himself is not one.

    They want the WH more than they care about the LDS Church.

    Parent

    @35 which post is this in relation to? (none / 0) (#43)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:53:01 PM EST
    Maybe my "preferences" aren't set correctly, but can't determine which comment you are responding to.  TIA

    Parent
    hit (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:00:53 PM EST
    "parent" and you can see what comment it is responding to.

    Parent
    Thank you CST that helps n/t (none / 0) (#57)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:09:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Am surprised at that comment (none / 0) (#56)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:09:01 PM EST
    your posts are normally very interesting but, can't see the value on that one.  

    BTW, Mrs. BTAL is English, so the loo reference did not go unnoticed.

    Parent

    sure it would (none / 0) (#10)
    by CST on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 03:48:13 PM EST
    it would lose him his republican base.

    There is a big difference between making a statement about something and making noise about something.

    My guess is he'd rather not be making noise about his position on the Arizona law.

    Parent

    exactly (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 03:50:54 PM EST
    given the state of the republican party he would never win the nomination with that position

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#14)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 03:56:23 PM EST
    Basically, Jeb's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.  If he answers that he's always been against the law, the Republicans won't like it.  If he evades or equivocates, the Hispanic voters won't like it.

    Parent
    Well, I suppose Jeb does not just talk (none / 0) (#21)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:29:30 PM EST
    the talk but is seen as walking the walk by being married to a Latina?

    Parent
    hence (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:51:11 PM EST
    my original question

    Parent
    Ah. But as it was phrased (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:19:10 PM EST
    it seemed somewhat dismissive of such an electorate.

    And an interesting electorate, it is.  So Obama is pandering wisely to Hispanics as well by backing off on his pro-choice promises.  

    Such a contest could be fascinating to see how low pols are willing to go.  I wouldn't want to bet on either Dems or Repubs sticking by any principles.

    Parent

    not intentionally dismissive (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 08:18:33 PM EST
    or any more so than of the people who elected Bush by being convinced to vote against their own interests by putting a republican in the white house.

    southern white people. me.

    Parent

    obviously (none / 0) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 08:20:13 PM EST
    I did not vote but Bush but . . .

    Parent
    Ha. If it turned out that (none / 0) (#91)
    by Cream City on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 08:44:04 PM EST
    you had voted for Bush, I think that I would have to reorder my worldview considerably!

    Parent
    Ah hah! (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 07:36:22 AM EST
    Denial always comes before the person comes out of the closet.

    Huck and Sarah will take it all in 2012.

    Parent

    I think studies (none / 0) (#82)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 07:12:49 PM EST
    of the Hispanic vote in last couple of elections shows a huge increase, primarily due to the coming of age of those who before had been too young to vote, and it's not clear that the young Hispanic voters are so anti-choice.

    Parent
    Brad Pitt or Dennis Quaid (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by esmense on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:10:35 PM EST
    Pitt is a decade younger but Edwards looks boyish. Quaid is his the same age, but looks his age more than Edwards. But both actors have exactly what it takes to capture that weird mix of earnestness and embarrassing vanity, and a certain type of particularly Southern, particularly lightweight charm perfectly.

    pshaw (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:20:11 PM EST
    both are far to rugged.


    Parent
    Maybe. But if you look closely, a bit of blue (none / 0) (#77)
    by esmense on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 06:18:05 PM EST
    collar still clings to Edwards even under the styled hair and expensive lawyer suits. As it does to both Pitt and Quaid -- they are actors who can easily carry off the contradiction between mill workers son, self-deluding presidential candidate. Compare photos of Quaid and Edwards especially -- Quaid is the better looking man (in my opinion), but he, like Edwards, knows how to make very good use of a certain type of crinkle-the-eyes Southern charmer's smile. I think he'd make an unforgettable John Edwards -- with all his very American complexity, charm, self-regard, embarrasing, humiliating weakness and moral shortcomings.

    Parent
    Slight preference for Quaid (none / 0) (#88)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 07:44:35 PM EST
    who would be better at conveying the lightweight southern charmer angle (plus all I know about Brad Pitt is that he's apparently married to Angelina Jolie, and comes off as a too-patient and probably longsuffering spouse and father -- much too decent a fellow for Edwards ...).

    But Edwards as we know also has that darker, manipulative and cynical side which is hidden from the public.  Could the DQ of affable Arkansan Bill Clinton fame (recent Brit-made movie) and affable Okie space boy Gordon Cooper fame (The Right Stuff) pull that off?  Or should we call in Tom Cruise, who like Edwards doesn't have much of a chin and who more importantly comes ready to work each day with the dark side built in.

    Parent

    Forget Angelina (none / 0) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 12:00:45 AM EST
    Brad Pitt is one of the most skilled actors out there today.  I honestly think he can portray just about anything.

    The fact that he had the excruciatingly bad personal taste to get tangled up with the Jolie creature has nothing to do with his acting ability.

    Parent

    Since Edwards himself is such a great actor (none / 0) (#96)
    by Untold Story on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 07:53:55 AM EST
    he would be my first choice to play himself!

    Parent
    Brad Pitt (none / 0) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 11:58:44 PM EST
    Nail on the head.  Well done.  He's got the acting chops to do the complexity-- and the boyish charm.

    Parent
    What about Greg Kinnear (none / 0) (#101)
    by Untold Story on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 04:12:42 PM EST
    of Josh Duhamel?

    Parent
    Kinnear...best suggestion so far. (none / 0) (#104)
    by DFLer on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 10:38:08 AM EST


    Parent
    Tuf sh@t policy (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:24:28 PM EST
    Say you're a women... maybe dealing with cancer and you buy insurance from the high risk pool entirely with your own money ... and unfortunately, experience an unplanned pregnancy.  Your doctor recommends you terminate and continue with your treatment.... unh uh, not so fast: under the New Dem Party you are held hostage by the conservative Tough Sh!t policy....

    The Obama govt has decided to apply the Stupak rule and has banned abortion coverage within the high risk pool.

    For some strange reason, women are upset.  Well, Tough Sh!t.  Suck it up ladies, it's all for the greater good.

    aaaahhhhhhh... can't wait for November.

    Can't Wait till November? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:34:21 PM EST
    Why? So you can vote in GOPers who will make abortion illegal, as opposed to not covered by insurance?

    hmmmm...  

    Parent

    or perhaps some Dems (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:44:07 PM EST
    who do not compromise on our rights? there's more than one option out there . . .

    Parent
    Promises Promises... lol (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:20:14 PM EST


    Parent
    heh, still better than GOP though . . . (none / 0) (#69)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:37:24 PM EST
    and I never believed Obama on our rights. Just wasn't fierce enough about them for my taste. Ah . . . the "New Dems". D*amned if ya do (vote), D*mned if ya don't.

    Parent
    Your typical reflex (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:44:50 PM EST
    You need a new schtick.  You automatically go into some weird zone that has nothing to do with what is posted.

    I have stated many times, I live in CA.  My state will not make abortion illegal.  CA will have it's own high-risk pool before it goes along with Obama's conservative health care policies.  The right to privacy and self determination is protected for those I care about.

    I don't necessarily agree with BTD that Dems are toast in November because I find Repub ideology repulsive, but if Dems lose, it's well deserved, and yes, I am curious as to how the election turns out.

    Parent

    OK (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:48:54 PM EST
    Good to know that you loath GOP, it is hardly the case here, particularly amongst the crowd that swore that they would never vote for Obama.

    Oh, and not a reflex, but a trained response... like to see 1000 or more quotes from TL by commenters who swore to get even?

    Spite is a nasty thing, imo.

    Parent

    I can't think of more than 2 commenters (4.25 / 4) (#60)
    by observed on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:19:17 PM EST
    who routinely throw out past quotes of people, because there probably aren't 3 people who are that immature.
    If people don't like Obama, that is their right.
    The proper response is to see it as Obama's failure if there are so many Democrats who want him to lose (accepting your claim at face value---I don't buy it).

    Parent
    Proper? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:26:47 PM EST
    That is a good one...  Glad to know what the current memo is.

    And as far your characterizing the fact that I actually read and retain most comments, as immature.... well looks like you belong to the camp of being bound to repeat, as you appear to value forgetting over remembering.

    Parent

    What you do is useless---it does (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by observed on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:35:15 PM EST
    nothing to help bring Democrats together, which is ostensibly your goal.
    On the other hand, it IS worth trying to figure out why Obama has pissed off so many formerly loyal democrats.

    Parent
    Useless? (3.00 / 2) (#70)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:49:40 PM EST
    Well, good to know. Guess that rules out my being a tool, what is your defense?

    Parent
    seriously (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:28:22 PM EST
    nothing more rude than having your own inane words read back to you.


    Parent
    btw (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:29:26 PM EST
    many republicans seem to agree with you on this.
    Angle comes to mind.  Rand Paul etc.


    Parent
    Re-read the Obama's EO and (none / 0) (#25)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:36:50 PM EST
    the Hyde Amendment.  

    Parent
    OK (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:43:08 PM EST
    I do understand that, as a Republican or a Conservative Independent,   you are supporting waldenpond's implied suggestion to vote GOP in November.

    I familiar with the text of the Hyde amendment and Obama's EO.

    Not sure what your point is, other than to drum up business for your side of the aisle.

    Parent

    The point is that Obama sealed the fate (none / 0) (#37)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:49:03 PM EST
    of the pro-choice with his EO in his all important goal to pass his BS HCR bill.  It proved he was willing to sell out any previously stated "principle" or group for his historic legislation.  That is my point.

    BTW, I didn't take waldenpond's post as an implied suggestion to vote GOP.

    Parent

    Sealed His Fate? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:55:37 PM EST
    Hmmmm let's see, I am pro choice, adamantly so, Obama did not seal his fate with me.

    But your agenda does dovetail with that of some commenters here, whose believed that Obama sealed his fate long before singing the EO, which BTW, does nothing more than promise to agree with existing laws.

    But your "seal his fate" wet dream rhetoric, will no doubt be embraced by several commenters here.... Strange bedfellows, imo.

    Parent

    It is a simple concept (none / 0) (#53)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:04:28 PM EST
    Prior to the election, Obama stood in front of Planned Parenthood and made very specific promises.

    When push came to shove, he chose his "legacy" over those promises and sold out pro-choice supporters/voters.  

    If you can't see that, then maybe Kos is a more appropriate forum for your beliefs.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:07:31 PM EST
    Whatever you say. Have you read the EO? Probably not, as you are too busy researching talking points and regurgitating them.

    I know it is a job, and someone has got to do it.

    Parent

    who got my vote? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 07:32:27 PM EST
    Bless your little cotton-picking heart, Squeaky!   I said after primary season I could not classify Obama as a liberal.  I didn't vote for him (which made no difference in my very red district), and I did not vote for McCain.  I will continue to sit out elections unless a liberal re-appears in my lifetime.  Which may not happen!

    Parent
    How Luxurious (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 07:42:49 PM EST
    Well I once had the luxury of being able to vote for Nader, knowing that it would make zero difference in my State..  

    Also I had the luxury of voting for Tasani against Hillary in '06, also knowing that her seat was a solid D seat.

    Nice to know that you have the permanent luxury of taking such a principled position.  lol

    Parent

    Elections and cow-towing to the agenda (none / 0) (#23)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:33:08 PM EST
    has consequences.  The pro-choice crowd are getting the Obama "I won" treatment.

    Parent
    today at work (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:55:40 PM EST
    we have bagpipes.  not sure why and I dont care.
    I think we should have bagpipes every friday at 5

    John Cusack (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 06:39:32 PM EST
    So likeable, and such potential for edge.

    You can't handle the truth, Sorkin!

    Lol.

    Sen. Byrd Replacement (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 03:40:59 PM EST
    Gov. Joe Manchin is tapping his former chief counsel and a member of a prominent West Virginia family, Carte Goodwin, to succeed the late U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd, Democratic officials told The Associated Press on Friday.

    raw story

    Mark Steines as John Edwards (none / 0) (#8)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 03:46:54 PM EST
    He is the co-host on Entertainment Tonight and although I am not a every night fan, I have noticed that when he appears, I think it is John Edwards. He has similar mannerisms and a good smile. That is my vote for the movie.

    how about this guy (none / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 03:49:24 PM EST
    he would need a little curl relaxer but other than that . . .

    Parent
    Ok, I know who he is (none / 0) (#71)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:52:35 PM EST
    Hmmmm, And I remember him from different projects. But he does not have that easy "You all just love me" smile. And, btw, why would it be necessary to make a movie? We lived it. Heh. Maybe 10 years from now. If anything, a TV Lifetime movie. Not worthy of the big screen.

    Parent
    I was thinking Michael Keaton... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 03:49:28 PM EST
    somewhat of a passing resemblance, decent actor...and haven't seem him in much lately.

    Parent
    The guy from 30 Rock (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:16:39 PM EST
    Kenneth.

    Michelle Bachmann (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:18:18 PM EST
    Files paperwork to have a "Tea-Party Caucus" in the House.

    Bachman (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:52:29 PM EST
    Teabag Overdrive

    Parent
    Who in their right minde would want to see (none / 0) (#22)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:30:46 PM EST
    much less pay to see a movie about John Edwards?

    Well, I wouldn't (none / 0) (#26)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:37:21 PM EST
    But you'd be surprised at how many people probably would.  After all, it has adulterous sex in it, doesn't it?  (And especially if they get a sexy blond actress to play the Rielle Hunter part.)

    Parent
    Hahahaha! (none / 0) (#29)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:40:33 PM EST
    But who would play Rielle?  I'm not up on the blond sex-bomb actresses du jour.

    Tilda Swinton.. (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 04:44:57 PM EST
    and then have John Waters direct it as a musical.
    With Divine as Elizabeth.

    perfect (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:03:47 PM EST
    you beat me I was just about to suggest Tilda

    Parent
    Or An Animation... (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:05:36 PM EST


    Parent
    hey Jim (none / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 05:34:54 PM EST
    I will see your wine bottle trick and raise you a beer bottle

    I would re-raise (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 07:30:32 AM EST
    but I would be bluffing.

    lol

    Parent

    Probably not a good political choice of words (none / 0) (#73)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 06:04:01 PM EST
    After the 8% unemployment comment, which immediately sets expectations, this appears to be another political faux pas.  Then again, it may have been one of Pelosi's pound of flesh demands after the Gibbs' faux pas.

    Obama: Hold me accountable for high unemployment

    Obama did nuance/hedge his position with the rota "I inherited this" meme.

    Friday Afternoon Open Thread | 100 comments (100 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment