home

Monday Morning Open Thread

Travel day for me.

Open thread.

< Court Day For Charlie Sheen | Blagojevich Lawyer Sam Adam, Jr: A Bundle of Nerves >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Continuity. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 10:22:01 AM EST
    President Obama, in an interview on CBS' "Sunday Morning" said: "Nobody thinks that Afghanistan is going to be a model Jeffersonian democracy. What we're looking to do is difficult, very difficult but it's a fairly modest goal, which is: Don't allow terrorists to operate from this region Don't allow them to create big training camps and to plan attacks against the U.S. homeland with impunity."

    President Bush, in an Oct 7, 200l speech, announced "Operation Enduring Freedom", against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The goal is to disrupt use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban to make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plan. At the same time, that we bomb military targets we'll drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering Afghans.

    Nine years, difficult, indeed.  Modest goals, immoderate strategies, immodest achievements.

    Spent the weekend (none / 0) (#1)
    by kenosharick on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 09:56:11 AM EST
    moving to Tampa from the Atlanta area. Does it ever cool off here? Even a little?

    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 10:01:05 AM EST
    in November.

    Parent
    Is it really hotter than Atlanta? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 10:15:12 AM EST
    Whew....we have been a little hotter than Atlanta lately and I don't travel deep Florida often.  Usually during the cooler months for dog stuff because German Shepherds have no coat here in the summer.

    Parent
    Senseless survey (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 10:12:55 AM EST
    I used to read David Sirota all the time when he was in Montana because he had a sense of what it was like to be a liberal and live in the Rocky Mountain states that went right to my struggling liberal soul :)  That was a long time ago, and I don't read him regularly.  Often if what he is writing about is of no interest to me I just move along.

    I missed something though.  And in the interest of desiring to stay informed only and not defend anyone, what has David Sirota done that has chapped so many?  Truly curious, not a worshipper here.

    A few times that I commented on some posts (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by steviez314 on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 11:38:56 AM EST
    of his at Open Left, I was very surprised by his responses, which seemed needlessly hostile.

    I suspect the issue is more of tone than substance.

    Parent

    Ah Ha! (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 11:40:23 AM EST
    Thank you

    Parent
    I recall seeing some of (none / 0) (#17)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 11:48:04 AM EST
    that a while back, maybe a year or so ago.  Though I think he calmed down in more recent times after some harsh exchanges with a few posters threatened to turn into a banning fest.  

    Parent
    I once read & admired Sirota too (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 03:23:32 PM EST
    Then, he took to the airwaves in Denver. Great, I thought: Open discussion of issues and all that. Nah. The most complimentary statement of late that I can say is: Whiner. He whines about everything from the day of the week to complaining about writing a book to complaining about almost every Democrat to complaining about anyone who doesn't agree with him. Obnoxiously condescending as well.  At first I thought that he was an unsung Quixote-like forerunner tilting at windmills. Nah. His motif now is whining, complaining (while shilling for his own favorites, of course), and acting out like the Greek favorite, Narcissus.

    It took me awhile, some times of feeling sour after listening to his edgy, defensive moaning. So, I turned the station off. The mornings look brighter. And, there is a gift from the experience: I really appreciate our old classical radio station, KVOD, more than ever. (And, when I want news info, theres always NPR. Or--for talk--B.Press or E. Schultz.)

    Oh, yea I know. This has been my exercise of whining about the whiner. A payback thing.

    Parent

    And he's a whiner (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 06:49:27 PM EST
    Fair enough. I don't have that experience with him because I only "deal" with him when I agree with him on an issue.  And I don't listen to him on radio, I only read him.  I can't recall anything that I've read from him though that offended me.  Just some things weren't hot topics for me that seemed to be so for him.  He has pushed for his own microphone.  When he's pushing in a way I want to go I get on for a ride.

    Parent
    He's a liberal (none / 0) (#8)
    by waldenpond on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 10:51:11 AM EST
    Liberals are despised by progressives.  Hamsher, Greenwald, Sirota are the most hated.  

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 11:11:30 AM EST
    Then why does he use the word progressive so many times in his writing. Seems to me that he appears to identify with the term progressive big time.

    Parent
    Perhaps... (none / 0) (#36)
    by sj on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 02:00:18 PM EST
    ... just as BTD seeks to redefine the center as the position that he, himself, holds, Dave S is seeking to reclaim the progressive banner.

    But it really doesn't matter, does it?  This is a strange, kinda, sorta "gotcha" for you to think you've found.

    In Denver, some of my liberal friends were instrumental in creating the Progressive Caucus of the CO Democratic party.  Pre-2008 "progressive" and "liberal" were darn near the same thing.  My Colorado friends have a hard time letting go of the term and some of the small victories that came with it.

    Parent

    Gotcha? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 02:10:26 PM EST
    Not sure what you are talking about. I do not know anything about Sirota, nor care about the eeeeevil he may have done.

    My point is an ongoing one, that is to make fun of those who think liberals are good and progressives are bad.

    The only reason liberals shifted to the word progressives is because liberal became radioactive. The historic relevance of the "progressive" movement, is nil, imo.

    Bottom line is that they are sll the same folks, now imagining that they are the McCoys and the others are the Hatfields, because one voted Obama and one who voted for Hillary swore to never vote for Obama.

    Parent

    Hogwash - on multiple counts. (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 02:38:24 PM EST
    "Liberals" didn't shift to the new terminology; that shift no doubt came from inside some Democratic strategy operation as a way to blunt the so-called scariness of the label - in other words, to win elections.

    Enter people like Rahm Emanuel, who - along with some other party smartypants, started working in red states to get Dems elected - Dems who, had they been running in blue states, would have been quickly outed as Republicans in Dem clothing: these people were not liberals, ever, but they were welcomed quite enthusiastically in some quarters and were happy to do so under the less-scary "progressive" umbrella.

    Thus, these once-interchangeable labels began to diverge, with their being more movement to the right in many "progressive" quarters.

    I have made no bones about being a liberal, and I do not identify with "progressive," and I don't think I am alone - which means that, out here in voter-land, we are not the same people.

    I came to identify as a liberal not because I identified with any particular politician, but because where I come down on many issues puts me there - I choose the people I vote for, not the other way around.  

    And no, this isn't - for me, anyway - about a way to highlight my support for Hillary, or my displeasure with Obama.  It isn't my way of saying, "I'm better than" anyone else.  It's an admission that my views are liberal ones, period.  Was/is Hillary a liberal?  On some issues, yes, I think she is - on others, not so much.

    If progressive has come to mean a mushy, wishy-washy mess that's about polity and not policy, about settling for mediocrity instead of fighting for excellence, about pre-emptive concession and compromise instead of balls-to-the-wall fighting for what one believes in, about shutting up instead of speaking out, about loving what we used to hate about the other guys, then count me out.  Please.

    I know you want this to be about a family feud, I know you love to set up the Hillary v. Obama brawl whenever you can, that you think you know what "the bottom line" is, but you really need to give it up; not only are you trying too hard, it's just gotten sad.

    Parent

    What A Crock (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 03:59:37 PM EST
    I have made no bones about being a liberal, and I do not identify with "progressive," and I don't think I am alone - which means that, out here in voter-land, we are not the same people.

    The only thing that sets you apart from progressives and other liberals, is that you took the primary personally, and felt that Hillary was so humiliated by progressives that they are a party unto themselves.

    Meanwhile, there is zero difference today between Liberals and Progressives save for a fashionable name change. Your projections are rather hilarious, and certainly not liberal by any definition of the word.

    But if you want to live in a fantasy land where Progressives are eeeevvvil and Liberals are wholesome as fresh baked bread, be my guest.

    Parent

    Making stuff up again, as usual. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 04:03:57 PM EST
    Please stop trying to tell me what I think or why I stand for what I do - you never, ever get that stuff right.

    As for the label equivalence, wrong again.

    I think the only person living in a world of his own creation, is you.

    Sad.

    Parent

    What You Think? (1.00 / 4) (#58)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 04:22:59 PM EST
    Well you do not appear to think, so I am not responding to that, I am responding to what you wrote.

    And your continuing fantasy that you, as a liberal, are somehow better than those who call themselves Progressives.

    Most do not care what they are called, Liberal or Progressive. But there is a very small group that thinks that they are special, holding the torch, for Hillary...  lol

    Parent

    SITE VIOLATOR (4.00 / 4) (#67)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 06:21:56 PM EST
    Really, Jeralyn. Is there ever going to be a bright line drawn on what constitutes violation of site rules, or will Squeaky always get a pass?

    Parent
    Hypocrite! (2.33 / 3) (#71)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 06:28:56 PM EST
    Quite the double standard you have got there.

    But I am sure that all the kool aid you have drunk has made you selectively blind.

    IOW WATB

    Parent

    Have no idea what "kool-aid" (none / 0) (#88)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 11:46:09 PM EST
    you refer to.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#89)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 11:59:25 PM EST
    That is obvious

    Parent
    And you have no idea either (none / 0) (#90)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 12:05:22 AM EST
    because you are, as usual, simply making sh*t up again.

    It must be lonely for you, having nowhere to go but a blog, where you feel compelled to post roughly 100 comments every single day for years on end.

    Man, am I glad I have a life.

    Parent

    Good One...lol (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 12:19:04 AM EST
    You have no idea.... but I like your fantasy of what my life must be like... rather poetic.  

    Parent
    My POV is that (none / 0) (#60)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 04:43:32 PM EST
    "Progressive" has morphed to the right. "Grassroots" is also trending center right these days. I cringe when I hear them both as they just say "Marketing" and "Branding" to me . . . I may be alone in this . . . or perhaps not to the more aware (eyes open/jaded!) or those that don't consider themselves one of the "New Progressives" that have really bubbled over from 2006-2008. Many may also want to distance themselves from the Obama Election Movement as it was and has proven it's self to be a tad bit blind . . .

    and there are those on the right that are trying to use progressive as a positive in their campaign in not so flaming red areas . . . so how liberal can progressive really be?

    Parent

    Smoke And Mirrors (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 04:52:42 PM EST
    I have been commenting here for several years, and the influx of Hillary supporters starting around Jan '08, were largely to the right of most "liberal" commenters here.

    The reason I mention it, is that I think that this site could be a good barometer for the changing times. As far as I can tell the whole country shifted right during the BushCo years, and that includes the liberals, like Anne, who profess to be special and to the left of Progressives.

    Most of the so called liberals who emigrated to TL are tough on crime. Is that a typically liberal stance? NO.

    Parent

    Which Progressives? (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 06:47:39 PM EST
    The Liberals who "became" Progressives due to the Liberal label being used as a GOP weapon, or the new bunch . . . . "The New Dem Party" as they liked to say during the election. Hillary voters weren't invited IIRC. And many of her voters were from "The Old Dem Party".

    I don't think you can define a Liberal (Mass America Liberal) based on "crime". "Crime" is not some neat little bundle nor is everyone cut with the same cookie cutter. A person may feel strongly about some crimes, and not so much about others. Doesn't mean they aren't a bleeding heart Liberal in every other sense. A lot of people may identify as a Liberal based on many other issues and crime is just really not part of their big picture identity/life. IIrc, even kDog thinks there are cage-able crimes ;)

    Parent

    Not True (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 07:18:09 PM EST
    The traditional liberal position on crime is that it is a symptom of problems in society and should be treated as such. Harsh sentences, mandatory minimums, death penalty, etc are traditionally the bane of liberals and the fruit of conservatives.

    Lock em up and throw away the key is a conservative position.

    The biiiiiig complaint about liberals from conservative opponents, for the last 20 years are that liberals are soft on crime.  This is of course a distortion of the liberal view which is more oriented to solving the underlying social problems, as opposed to zero tolerance Giuliani style.

    Crime and how to deal with it is most certainly part of the so called "liberal" package. I don't know how you can argue that it is not.

    And as far as cut from the same cookie, well yes, many of us have a variety of positions, but in general the liberal position aka the progressive position, is quite consistent.

    There may be personal quirks that distinguish one liberal or progressive from another but all in all, they share the same views. The nonsense that Progressives are an entirely different species, or different at all, is utter BS, imo, a remnant of cult wars.

    Liberal became a toxic tag, so rather than be an obvious target, the name was changed to Progressive.

    Parent

    I totally (none / 0) (#76)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 08:30:20 PM EST
    forgot about "soft on crime". Is that still said? Can't remember the last time I heard it :-P Will admit to my brain being in a massive fog today though . . .

    I was thinking of "crime" not in the social sense, but in actual crime from the media perspective, as a product. Crime from a social aspect sure doesn't get the discussion that it needs (in the media), but crime has become more of a media product. I'm talking about the average person and media conditioning. You may well find some liberals with very strong reactions (tough on crime/knee jerk beliefs) in certain instances, but in general, there is also a large section of "liberals" that are working in micro areas to improve social situations, but crime isn't at the forefront of the motivation. Now my view is prob partly colored by where I've had my energies over the years and the people I've been around (especially the past few years, younger set). One example would be food justice/equality. I don't focus my energies there to improve the social aspect so crime will no longer be a symptom born from a problem in society, and the same goes for many working so-called 'liberal issues'. Now if you sat them all down and had a discussion about it, perhaps you would find there is a majority that follow traditional liberal, but many aren't focused on "crime" per se.

    I think in time, Progressives will be different than Liberals and you can already see it in "the marketplace". I see them to the right of liberals. Progressive and Grassroots are now marketing and branding tags and I don't see that as Liberal at all . . . just selling another "product". "A true progressive" is losing meaning fast as anything other than a gimmick for campaign season. I wonder if "Progressive" will live until 2012? 2016?

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 08:43:31 PM EST
    In time, everything changes...  But I think that, in the murkiness of it all, many think that progressives are to the left of liberals.

    I think, as I said before, that it is all smoke and mirrors. People posturing to set themselves apart from others, who basically hold similar viewpoints.

    IMO, the distinction seems to be more about group vendettas, or sports, than about politics or positions. Seems to me about identity more than anything.

    Parent

    Group vendettas? (none / 0) (#78)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 08:57:43 PM EST
    I think most are pretty much past that aren't they?

    I think we are talking about 2 different worlds/groups of people. Those that are blogging/writing/talking/running for office, and the rest of the world ;) I see the "media posturing progressive" to the right of liberals. I also see the "oh so willing to 'compromise' progressive" (would that be a postpartisan progressive?) to the right of liberals also. Not so much in words, but in actions ;)

    Parent

    The question is (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 03:46:57 PM EST
    how is it that Rahm Emmanuel and some admittedly "centrist" bloggers get to redefine political terms - that have connoted something quite different from current usage for decades - at their politically expedient whim?

    "Progressive" now is the new "misspeaking": an ill-defined term to take cover behind (and no, that's not a reference to people taking cover in Bosnia). Words only mean what power says they mean, and nothing else.

    Parent

    so, maybe Rahm is the new Humpty Dumpty(?) (none / 0) (#50)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 03:52:28 PM EST
    he'll always land on his (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 03:56:03 PM EST
    feet. He's like one of those very well connected Hollywood hustler types in a David Mamet screenplay.

    Parent
    I didn't mean to suggest that this (none / 0) (#53)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 04:00:19 PM EST
    effort to re-brand liberals as progressives started with Emanuel, just that it no doubt was hatched in some Dem strategy room by people like him, and propagated the way these things always are: repetition whenever and wherever there's an outlet.

    For a time, there was some equivalence, but not anymore, and I see that point of divergence most strikingly beginning with the 2004 and 2006 elections.

    Parent

    Yeah but, (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 04:07:39 PM EST
    for a fair number of years before THAT, in my experience, "progressive" generally connoted people slightly further to the left than the typical Clinton-Obama liberal.

    This is more about the ability of power to commandeer the language, imo.  

    Parent

    Earlier than 2004 (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 04:19:22 PM EST
    Conservatives have been largely successful in their effort to rebrand the word "liberal" to mean weak, effete, soft on crime, and soft on communism. John Lukacs, in his 2004 essay "The Triumph and Collapse of Liberalism", observed a change in the political usage of the term "liberal" from the 1950s onward asserting that the word "liberal" "has become a Bad Word for millions of Americans."[53]
    The use of pejorative terms such as "bleeding-heart liberal", "tax-and-spend liberal", "cut-and-run liberal", "Massachusetts liberal", "limousine liberal", and "liberal elite" became a common political tactic.[54]
    For example, Republican political consultant Arthur J. Finkelstein was known to repeat the word "liberal" in negative television commercials as frequently as possible:
    "That's liberal. That's Jack Reed. That's wrong. Call liberal Jack Reed and tell him his record on welfare is just too liberal for you."[55]
    Many politicians began to shy away from the "liberal" label, preferring terms such as "progressive" or "moderate."

    WiKi

    Flaming Liberal, Bleeding Heart Liberal, and other derogatory terms for liberals have been around for some time. I would imagine that the term Progressive which represents the same group as Liberals, came into popularity during the war as a strategy to uproot the GOP.

    Less ammo, as by 2006 the word had so many negative connotations that no liberal could run without being called effete during time of war.

    Remember the Kerry, Gore attacks? Those were attacks based on the connotations of liberal.

    Your fantasy, is a crock, imo.

    Parent

    If you would ever spend more than (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 06:17:00 PM EST
    10 seconds thinking you've read and understood what someone posted before you hit the keyboard to respond, you would understand that I was saying that I saw "progressive" moving away from "liberal," to the right, beginning with the 2004 elections - to be specific, in the Congressional races, as there was a bigger effort to elect more Dems.  The only way to make that happen in red states was to put up candidates who were definitely right of center, and convince the left wing of the party that that was okay.

    It hasn't exactly proven to be, has it?

    I don't much care what the GOP thinks about either term, and as far as "crocks" go, I think you've about cornered the market on those.

    Parent

    Talk about Freud's (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 11:22:31 AM EST
    "narcissism of small difference" in all it's glory..

    The Judean People's Front and The People's Front of Judea (wankers!)

    Parent

    Apparently sometime in 08 (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 11:32:22 AM EST
    political bloggers and operatives - of questionable significance and substance - appropriated those terms (with long venerable histories), and were given the privilege of transforming them into their personal pet code words.

    Parent
    It does seem the Judean People's Front (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 11:38:36 AM EST
    for Incrementalism has stolen away the Progressive label because even turtles can make what can be called progress while Rome burns :)  They just can't carry water being turtles and all :)

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 11:45:26 AM EST
    they had to use a catchy-something, after Gingrich and Limbaugh & co succeeded in transforming "liberal" into an expletive connoting weak-kneed, irrational, traitor sometime in the late eighties/early nineties. Not that rushing-to-the-center-right Dems minded all that much.

    Parent
    Cool (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 11:59:00 AM EST
    But some of them are using it as an excuse to not have to work very hard right now.  Some of them are hiding behind it, using it as a way to reassure fatcat donors who are totally screwing the middle class and the poor.

    Parent
    I'm afraid (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 12:11:49 PM EST
    the general trend will continue until we have publicly financed elections.

    Or the poor and middle class start threatening to storm the Bastille.

    Parent

    It was such a dynamic (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 12:17:45 PM EST
    appearing to happen in CO that Sirota recently wrote about, and has caused me to ask the question Why does it seem so many people dislike David Sirota?  I have only seen him as another voice out there, one who seems to be working toward the same goals that I find myself desiring.  But some strongly dislike him, and I missed something about how this has come to pass.  Steve says he has a Tone problem sometimes.

    Parent
    To: waldenpond (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 03:27:07 PM EST
    So far as I know, D. Sirota self-identifies as a "progressive" most days of the week on his morning airwaves.

    Parent
    Liberal vs progressive (none / 0) (#15)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 11:43:56 AM EST
    doesn't mean a great deal to me, and I tend to use the terms interchangably.  Progressive though might denote a slightly more lefty and purist liberal, a little less willing to be pragmatic and compromise.  Other than that ...

    Re Sirota, from his OpenLeft posts I see him as somewhat fiery populist liberal, with a little more lefty contrarian in him than the even-tempered liberal Mike Lux, but far less crankily contrarian than another "lefty" poster there whose numerous often lengthy blogs dominate that site, and maybe slightly less purist and never-satisfied than Hamsher.  And, happily, Sirota doesn't have Greenwald's frustrating tendency to go libertarian at times.

    Parent

    Seems To Me (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 11:49:59 AM EST
    That liberals adopted the word progressive because liberal became a dirty word. Now, at least here, for some, progressive means that you voted for Obama, and Liberal means that you voted for Hillary.

    Pretty silly, imo, but some still feel the need to distance themselves from those that were mean to Hillary and her supporters during the primaries.

    Parent

    It used to mean (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 11:51:13 AM EST
    what you describe Brodie, though at this site, for many, it now seems to be a code word for Obama supporter. Mainly because Obama's people were afraid to use the word "liberal" and people respected them so much that they allowed them to rewrite the political dictionary.  

    Parent
    Ironically (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CST on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 11:53:48 AM EST
    I believe it was hillary who said something to the effect of "I'm not a liberal I'm a progressive" - whatever that means.

    Parent
    she didn't really mean it (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 12:01:03 PM EST
    she just said that in a moment of frustration; after one-too-many eye rolling, cheek scratching attacks on all women past, present and future.

    Parent
    Yes, you're right -- (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 12:06:19 PM EST
    I recall slightly cringing when I heard her say that in one debate and the way she explained it -- referencing the early 20th C Prog movement -- just seemed like more liberal running away from being called a liberal.

    As I've noted here often before, I was a staunch HRC backer but didn't always like the way she ran her campaign.  I wish at that point she'd referenced JFK from the 1960 campaign who listed all the things he stood for (civil rts, min wage, decent housing for all, etc), then said, If that makes me a liberal, then I proudly embrace being the term.  

    Parent

    Mark Penn (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 12:11:17 PM EST
    Was bad news. Her campaign was significantly better after she dumped him. Too bad it was over by then.

    Parent
    Funny (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 12:00:14 PM EST
    Yeah, they all avoided the term. As the wingers with an assist from the liberals, made Liberal a dirty word.

    Parent
    During one of the early debates as I (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 02:59:34 PM EST
    recall.

    Parent
    Oh, the old primary wars -- (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by brodie on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 11:58:47 AM EST
    sigh.  Came here probably Mar 08 so missed a lot of that discussion, as it doesn't ring a bell.

    Me, I'm going to stick with using them interchangeably, and probably "liberal" a little more than the other since it has fewer letters and like most people I'm lazy.  So folks here should know I'm not making any indirect O vs HRC reference when I use them.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 12:09:10 PM EST
    Not really from here, in that most of this crap is generated from bloggers who were treated badly elsewhere, and used TL as a haven to wreak payback on their imagined enemies.

    Dkos, HuffPo, etc, as well as various columnists who supported Obama were, and still are for some, sworn enemies. For many even the word Democrat is still evil.

    Parent

    One persons perception please (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 12:29:11 PM EST
    And that would be yours.  I blog here because "hard things" can for the most part be discussed here.  Someone did tell me the other day though that BTD is my daddy :)  Who's yer daddy Tracy?

    Parent
    To: MT...thanks (none / 0) (#48)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 03:43:53 PM EST
    You opened up a useful, instructive interchange about changing perceptions of "liberal" & "progressive."  You're right: Here is a place for some real open discussion.

    Parent
    Not unless ... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 08:34:53 AM EST
    For many even the word Democrat is still evil.

    ... you're suffering from a multiple personality disorder.

    BTW - Personally, Dkos, Huffpo and "various columnists" aren't "sworn enemies" for supporting Obama.  They may be rubes, dupes, and idiots for buying into his campaign promises, but what really put them over the top was how they accused anyone who didn't support Obama of being racists.

    Now that was something that should never be forgotten.

    Parent

    Olbermann (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 12:19:54 PM EST
    Maddow..a pox and the seven plagues of Egypt on their posterity, courtesy of Hillary shoulda' been 44..

    Parent
    Oh Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 12:32:03 PM EST
    Don't have a teevee, but I have noticed from several commenters here that Maddow is eeeeeevil.

    Did she say bad things about Hillary too, or was it just that she supported Obama.

    I know Olberman is hated because he was a sexist MFing pig, IOW he supported Hillary.... lol

    Parent

    It is a free country :) (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 12:26:12 PM EST
    Are we a nation of immigrants? (none / 0) (#7)
    by PatHat on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 10:26:55 AM EST
    Coincidence or coordination?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/02/israel-to-expel-children-_n_666995.html

    Good thing we have a 14th Amendment.  Um...ooops.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/01/ftn/main6733905.shtml?tag=contentBody;featuredPost-PE

    Will the Administration even touch this? Obama continues to miss opportunities to pull together Americans who have a basic sense of what America is about. Forget the right wing, they will never come along, but the basic right of citizenship for children of immigrants is something that is a core value of America. Please don't tell me that it isn't anymore.

    Guess what? (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 01:36:35 PM EST
    T
    he 14th Amendment was enacted in 1868 to ensure that states would not deny citizenship to former slaves. It reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

    There are no former slaves left. It has accomplished its purpose and it is now being used for something else.

    The Amendment should be deleted.

    Parent

    The supreme court disagreed with you (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by CST on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 01:47:17 PM EST
    In Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a man born within the United States to foreigners (in that case, Chinese citizens) who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States[10] and who were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power, was a citizen of the United States.

    There is a significant history behind the 14th amendment that extended past the slavery debate.  You may think the only purpose was for the children of slaves.  The supreme court disagreed with you.

    Parent

    they dont think they're (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 03:12:00 PM EST
    going to get the 14th Amendment "deleted" any more than they thought Terri Schiavo would've revived if only an evangelical had been given the opportunity to lay hands on her..

    It's the usual tack of pushing a base stirring wedge issue: cooked up at wingnut central and dispersed by their loyal, always-on-the-Right-page errand boys and gals.

    Btw, have you heard Obama's new tax plan is just like Herbert Hoover's?

    Parent

    My very own stalker speaks (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 03:28:49 PM EST
    stalk this, Hannity (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 04:21:26 PM EST
    See, he gets all up tight and vulgar (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 06:08:52 PM EST
    if I ignore him.

    Now, down Stalker. Down Stalker.

    There, that's a good Stalker.  I'll see if I have any treats left for you.

    Oh me. I have none.

    Sorryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

    lol

    Parent

    Name calling and taunting? (none / 0) (#70)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 06:25:23 PM EST
    I thought those were against the rules . . .

    Parent
    Old-timers (none / 0) (#74)
    by waldenpond on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 07:15:08 PM EST
    Old timers are an exception. Find a 50 comment long trashing of a thread, and there will be an old timer involved.  They're crotchety and curmudgeonly.  Just smile and nod your head.

    Parent
    You know, I agree (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 10:46:50 PM EST
    What would you recommend I call someone who comments, usually insulting and/or personal attacks, on every comment I make??

    How about:

    Jondee is stalking me?

    Would that be acceptable?

    Parent

    twist a pig's ear (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 11:15:29 PM EST
    and watch him squeal..

    You should tell mommy, that's what I'd do.

    Parent

    Well I am trying to be a (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 12:06:50 AM EST
    loveable fuzz ball for my personal Ole Stalker.

    Parent
    And the man-made (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 04:38:03 PM EST
    greenhouse gas hoax - promulgated by left wing scientists - has nothing to do with the wiping out of entire swathes of brain cells in Tea Party members.

    Parent
    See Ole Stalker just can't resist (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 06:11:04 PM EST
    I wonder what is the appropriate Xmas present for a Stalker?

    Parent
    how about (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 06:25:21 PM EST
    skipping a few dialysis sessions. Just for old times sake.

    Parent
    Now Ole Stalker is (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 10:40:36 PM EST
    asking me to die by kidney failure.

    Aint he a sweet thang?

    Parent

    The SC could disagree with (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 03:27:47 PM EST
    ignoring the 14th but could not and would not disagree with deleting it by amending the constitution.

    Care to have a drink with me and discuss amending??>

    Parent

    Yeah, but that's what Beck (none / 0) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 11:37:54 PM EST
    and Limbaugh and Hannity say, so it must be true, no?

    Parent
    Okay (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by sj on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 02:09:30 PM EST
    If you think it should be deleted, I don't see why you think your birth (or that of your parents or grandparents) within these borders should have any greater claim to citizenship than that of a child born today.  

    Frankly, I'm just glad that the constitution is wiser than your biases.

    Parent

    What is wise about continuing to use (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 03:31:47 PM EST
    an amendment for something that it was not written for?

    And if wanting people to NOT be rewarded for coming into the country illegally and having anchor babies makes me biased.... so be it.

    Parent

    By That Twisted Logic (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 03:39:07 PM EST
    Throw out the 2nd amendment too...  not to mention the rest..

    None of it was written for today, obviously.

    Parent

    oh, and the 4th amendment (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 05:00:27 PM EST
    Ongoing concerns over 200 years ago--angers about being forced to quarter soldiers in one's home--had an impact.

    Parent
    Neither squaky's or your (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 06:06:18 PM EST
    example meets the mark.

    Sorry.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 06:21:58 PM EST
    Why's that. IMO, you tea party folk should just find another place to live. Imagine, all white, guns galore, no immigrants, new constitution.... in fact you could probably have slaves too.

    And with all the $$$ you all have you could more than likely buy yourself a paradise somewhere.

    We promise to write, so you can remember how bad it was before you left.

    Parent

    New Constitution? (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 10:52:53 PM EST
    You have a problem with following the old one and amending it?

    And you promise to write? Heck, I couldn't shut you up.... and wouldn't want to. You prove my points so well.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#85)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 10:58:45 PM EST
    But you apparently have a problem with the constitution.

    And make a silly argument that it needs wingnut cherry picking.

    So much for the social liberal ploy.

    Parent

    Amending the Constitution (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 12:05:27 AM EST
    is a silly argument?

    Wow.

    Try reading it.... and the amendments...

    Parent

    Yes Silly (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 12:24:16 AM EST
    Considering that a few white wing loons think that they can rally up more than two votes out of the 66 needed to delete the 14th amendment.

    Hilarious.

    As I said, you will have better luck buying an island or country somewhere, and starting anew.

    Parent

    Oh reaslly? (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 12:57:20 PM EST
    Just let the current immigration mess continue and we shall see what the country wants to do.

    Parent
    What Mess? (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 04:11:37 PM EST
    There is no mess, unless you consider wingnut fearmongering a mess. If that is the case, I would agree.

    Parent
    66???? (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:01:52 PM EST
    Well, I guess the number of states has been flexible every since Obama announced he had visited 57..

    lol

    Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or

    Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.

    Link

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 04:10:19 PM EST
    Ratifying after 2/3 of the House and Senate approve.

    Sorry for not helping you with the House math. 2/3 of the Senate is 66.

    Parent

    wingnut radio (none / 0) (#100)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 04:25:34 PM EST
    stopped carrying that five minute segment they used to devote to civics and replaced it with numerology and end times prophecies.

    Parent
    I'm all for an "anchor baby" (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 10:00:23 PM EST
    and an anchor baby's mother, father, sister and brother balancing out the glaring mental deficit of a cluster of Tea Partiers with misspelled signs, ranting about communist conspiracies in Washington..

    Parent
    purely from the stand point (none / 0) (#80)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 10:13:49 PM EST
    of improving some of the genetic backwaters in this country with a little diversity.

    Parent
    2010 platform (none / 0) (#81)
    by diogenes on Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 10:36:21 PM EST
    Why don't you just go ahead and make "Open borders for improving the genetic backwaters in this country" your public and open platform in the 2010 elections?

    Parent