Zed?

Jane!

Jane!

Did you ask them about the tax returns? And yes, a 3AM ad was already up on Saint McCain’s website. I wish Obama’s team would be more open. Anyone know what Obama raised since Tuesday? He seems to be able to raise a lot when the chips are down.

Do-overs my aching back!

“The response was unsatisfying.”

But I’ll bet confronting them was satisfying.

I’m very upset with the Clinton campaign for resorting to bald faced FEAR tactics. The week before last or so, Hillary was accusing Barrack of using Rovian tactics. Well, one of the primary hallmark of a Rovian tactic is to accuse your opponent of what you, yourself, are guilty of. In a marvelous bit of irony, Hillary does just that since she has been the most Rovian in many regards, the phone add being only one example. I become more disillusioned with her “end justifies the means” campaign every day. She thinks getting into the White house again will make it all ok; but she will accomplish nothing other than aiding the Republican effort.

Robert Creamer makes an excellent case:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..90115.html

Boo!

What Swifty said.

Hillary has been aiding McCain lately. It may not be by design but that’s the effect, and I wish someone would tell her to knock it off.

Jane Are you comfortable with Clinton and the DLC in her campaign. Im not

Democrats are soft on national defense. After all, they keep caving in to the Republicans and let an idiot like George Bush do whatever he wants. That’s not just soft. It’s weak and stupid.

I don’t understand why there is any difference between Clinton vs. Obama at the “phone answering” moment. Is there an explanation for why Senator Clinton has an advantage there?

Strictly OT:

From the Department of Karma is a Bit*h:

Fewer Reporters on Rice’s Plane
BRUSSELS, March 6–When Condoleezza Rice became Secretary of State, she was treated like an instant rock star. There was such demand to chronicle her maiden overseas voyage in 2005 that an unprecedented 19 reporters were given seats on her plane. Many were television correspondents.

Rice, now in her final year as Secretary, scored a minor diplomatic advance this week when she convinced Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to restart peace talks with Israel. But there are vastly fewer reporters around to record her acheivement.

The three wire services–Associated Press, Reuters and Agence-France Presse–are on board. Bloomberg News and National Public Radio took seats. But only three newspapers–The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Washington Times–are on the plane, down from the standard five. And the networks did not even bother to send a camera crew, let alone a correspondent.

Sob, sob,…

Clinton had raised $3 million in 24 hours and that they were open to do-overs in Michigan and Florida.

Open? – hmmm – certainly not as a Plan “A”, I would think.

More like – if that’s the only possible way left, well, ok, we’d consider it, I guess.”

imho/ymmv and all other applicable disclaimers, since it’s just a WAG.

digg Boo! not poo!

Or blatantly complicit! The Rahm Emanuels of the world might amount to nothing more than wolves in sheep’s clothing.

points to Clinton for transparency.

are complete transcripts or audio of their conference calls released (not just clips)?

.

Steny Hoyer is reserving his right to play kingmaker as a superdelegate no matter what the people say. He was on squawk box this morning making Democrats look bad.

I think the 3 a.m. ad has been parsed to death. This was a flea bite on the dog of the political universe. Obama has been shielded by a Clinton hating press. Once she is out of the way it will be him and the McCain/Republican slime machine.

I just read “Team DLC” at DailyKos about the DLC being buried in the Clinton camp. That’s enough for me. DLC has made the Dems what they are today. GOP lite and Bush toadies!

did it look as bad as when hoyer soiled his shorts when impeachment was brought to the floor?

The tenor of the Clinton campaign, even as it fluxuates, seems more
suited to one against a Republican opponent, they don’t really have
any other experience base to work from and the Obama campaign has a
different pace that highlights the shrillness of the Clinton attack.
The apparats in the HRC campaign are all the New York rough you up
style that seems unsuited to a debate within a party trying to choose
between good candidates. Too much apple pie, you say? When the debate
of a month ago took place the Democrats were able to frame the election
on their terms rather than answering Reaganite slander that will be
typical of the McCain effort. The Clintonistas have been overtaken be
time and circumstance and must limit the damage they have done to the
party already. The times, they are a’changin’.

The 3AM ad is inexcusable! As pointed out in the post, we’re talking about a Dem primary and not the General Election.

I don’t think there’s any comparison between 3AM and “Harry and Louise.” The Obama ad states simple fact, and that is Hillary’s plan FORCES all of us to partake in the flawed system without first fixing the problems. This mandate issue is an extremely important point and that’s all his ad points out. Hillary’s plan is fake universal health care in that they will claim they cover everyone like in Canada, when it’s not like Canada’s system at all.

CTBob has the best spoof version of 3AM in all the Toobz, and points out how the ad doesn’t even really make sense. Just stupid all around:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99oat5t-w9w

If you want more fear mongering and dirty political tricks that we’ve all complained about for years, by all means vote for Hillary.

the reason i ask about transcripts and/or audio of the conference calls is that without them, the whole process looks as opaque as ever to me. (although i can see why it would look transparent to those who are allowed to participate).

hope that there are transcripts and/or audio files available.

shield? hardly

I just read that too. what do you think of the DLC, Jane?
Harold Ford for chair?

I don’t understand why there is any difference between Clinton vs. Obama at the “phone answering” moment. Is there an explanation for why Senator Clinton has an advantage there?

I think it is more about the lead up to such a moment. For instance, would the phone be red or black, landline or cellular?

srry, that’s a states’ secret.

Here is the Kos link
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..438/470435

I’m sure the “reporters” at the McCan’t BBQ say now that St. John is so much more open than the others. Clinton or Obama would never invite them over for a meal.

After this is over, the Democratic party needs to rationalize their nomination process. This so-called nomination processs is as f’ed as a stack of coat hangers.

As far as this cycle, in terms of Michigan and Florida, the only reasonable
resolution is to find the money [in the great scheme of things it won’t be that much-about what we spend in an hour or so in Iraq ]and then reschedule the primaries a week or so after Pennsylvania.

Ensure just does not buffet well.

this has probably already been covered here (and if so, i’d be happy to be sent to the correct thread) but since almost the only tv i watch is c-span, i don’t see the ads…

kos has a post up about a doctored ad to make obama’s face look darker and wider. is this really true?

So why did Hillary leave her name on the MI ballot after all? Don’t remember seeing much discussion about this.

Nobody else did, yet here we are in this supposed predicament now. Interesting…

I’m sure the “reporters” at the McCan’t BBQ say now that St. John is so much more open less ethical than the others. Clinton or Obama would never invite them over for a meal.

Adjusted for enhanced truth value.

Getting worse by the nanosecond

Hillary Spokesperson Compares Obama To…Ken Starr!

wow.

they should be last after all other primaries.

Jane Are you comfortable with Clinton and the DLC in her campaign. Im not

Speaking of the DLC, have you looked at Obama’s chief economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee? In addition to his position in the Obama Campaign, he is also Senior economic advisor for the DLC and the PPI. The PPI is the DLC’s “think tank”. Oter member of the Obama economic team, Jeffrey Liebman and David Cutler are not exactly economic populists.

truthiness *g*

I think it is debatable. Ill be glad when this one goes away.

BTW -WaPo reports this morning that Bu’ush says the 2002 AUMF gives him the authority to remain in Eye-Rack FOREVER absent any further congressional approval.

John McBu’ush smiles sanguinely.

Quail wings, perhaps, from the HRC campaign? ;-)

So what did you or any of the other reporters do on that call when Wolfson equated Obama with Ken Starr?

This “openness” is nothing more than Republican-style media manipulation, and that crack is a perfect example: with one hand she plays the victim card, with the other she flings whatever shite she or her punks decide to fling — and if you allow them to do it, it sticks and she gets to live her own double-standard.

Just like Bush.

Is there any wonder there’s a rift developing in the Democratic Party? It’s because Penn and Wolfson and their ilk have the jackhammers and pickaxes.

Clinton or Obama would never invite them over for a meal.

Perhaps that is a display of their better judgement. They would never invite such riff raff to the house.

I just read “Team DLC” at DailyKos about the DLC being buried in the Clinton camp. That’s enough for me. DLC has made the Dems what they are today. GOP lite and Bush toadies!
reply

I agree..The Obama DLC’ers are out in the open. Austan Goolsbee, for example.

It’s a pretty big stretch to call any campaign “transparent” when they refuse to allow public scrutiny of their tax returns. Especially when they are the Clintons, with their sleazy history and amazing “good luck” in investments.

kos has a post up about a doctored ad to make obama’s face look darker and wider. is this really true?

I added some scales to this one of Same McCain.

Please tell us what you think of the 3AM ad.

BTW -WaPo reports this morning that Bu’ush says the 2002 AUMF gives him the authority to remain in Eye-Rack FOREVER absent any further congressional approval.

Boy, Congress sure authorized a hell of a lot with that thing. What’s next–the AUMF gives Bush the authority to tap-dance at photo ops?

Some good Dems here seem to be overreacting to what was only a fairly noncontroversial ad by Hillary which sought to underscore her experience and steadiness at the helm. And it’s hardly being Repub or Rovian to go about highlighting a candidate’s national security strength in this way. A similar ad was used, effectively, by the Mondale campaign in 84 against the younger, less experienced Gary Hart (the same ad guy for WM is on the HRC communications team).

Politics is not a friendly gentle game of badmitten, and playing it tough doesn’t always mean someone is going Repub or Rove.

Good grief, this is nothing compared to what Lyndon did against Barry with the Daisy Girl ad (ordered up and supervised by one Bill Moyers, btw). That might have been Rovian (or Nixonian) — way over the top, in the view of some.

Also kinda fear-mongering in a Rovian sense was the Dean=Osama ad run by some group associated with Kerry and Gephardt before Iowa in 2004. That one was truly nasty.

Now, as for DLC, I read somewhere that Obama’s economic advisor, Austan Goolsby (sp), is on the board of the think tank for the DLC (Progressive Policy Inst), so both candidates, it turns out, have their share of ties to that mostly outdated and barely influential centrist org.

Thanks for the report, Jane. Otherwise, anyone who hasn’t already decided who they favor and is susceptible to convincing by other commenters, please raise their hand.

Now, anyone who doesn’t think emotional accusations against the other candidate are ultimately going to make it more difficult to unite and beat Republicans, raise their hand.

Oh well, there appears to be no hope for it.

LOL, yep.

BTW- Linky.

Why did Hillary command Laxio release his tax return but hers is secret?

love it.

Obama is obviously no Noam Chomsky, but there really is no comparison between Hillary and Barack on the DLC issue. Obama has one (maybe a couple more?) with DLC ties, whereas Clinton was the head of the DLC and is still on their “Leadership Team.” Her staff is mostly DLCer and her husband was a central figure in the DLC’s creation.

When the DLC tried to attach themselves to Obama, he immediately told them to buzz off.

Hey, here is a SVG of McCain’s head!

I’ll take your word…besides, I already saw the AP version. I’m not on speaking terms with the Washington Post-It.

Jane, your question and analysis will see you treated as the “media” during this summer’s convention in Denver. Access to the Clinton campaign will be denied. Guess it will be the bathroom for FDL. Rove wins again…

No poo was used in the writing of this post.

So there’s a case for precident. Well, if the precident was crap, then it’s time for a change away from that. I’m ready for a change and I hope that isn’t too audacious to expect. Funny, it is usually the conservative mindset that rails against change, even for the better.

i haven’t decided, and probably won’t.

all i’m sure of is that i want mccain to lose.

With Clinton, I’ll get a DLC candidate and a boatload of DLCers. With Obama, I might get some DLC-influenced policies. That choice isn’t the best, but is easy to make.

According to TPM yesterday, it was the Clinton campaign who told the Canadians to take campaign rhetoric against NAFTA with a grain of salt.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com…..pleak0305/
BNStory/National/home

Breaking: Leaked secret meeting memos reveal that both Clinton and Obama wanna replace NAFTA with NOTMBFTA.

North Of The Mexican Border Free Trade Agreement.

;)

Nope. He already had the powers of tap dance through his inherent Constitutional authority to make a supreme a** of himself. /s

OT: more winger love.

Picking Losers:

The American Enterprise Institute, one of the premier U.S. think tanks, has presented former Australian Prime Minister John Howard with the Irving Kristol Award for 2008. The award, AEI states, is for “individuals who have made exceptional intellectual or practical contributions to improved government policy, social welfare, or political understanding.” Howard, AEI gushed, “is one of the world’s most successful democratic politicians.”

I hope you stick to that decision, because I personally think all other considerations, aside from replacing Republicans in Congress, are secondary for the next nine months.

if jane finds the convention boring, she can always meet up with those who are protesting in the streets.

About the subject of this post, I can’t figure out why so many people seems to miss the fact that the world is no more dangerous now than it has been since Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Oklahoma bombing, or at any time since man discovered he could destroy the entire world in one fell swoop. What did people expect? You could see all this coming a mile away. I still remember the Achilles Lauro and the loss of Mr. Klinghoffer. If it comes down to it, the world has always been a very dangerous place, and it has been up to us to make it less so. Imagine a caveman coming out of his cave and facing so many fierce forces of nature, wild animals, other tribes. I’m just so tired on the fear mongering! It’s gotten ridiculous.

Speaking of conference calls, I’ve been wanting to mention the call I got last night from my Congressperson, Trent Franks. He’s a conservative Republican all the way, so you can imagine that it was quite disconcerting to hear some of the spiel, but I guess I have to give credit that his campaign called me, a registered Democrat, and there were also a few other Dems that were allowed to ask questions and speak. From what I could glean, people in my district want the double fence to be built, regardless that Chertoff doesn’t think it’s a good idea, Franks really wants to drill in Anwar and is just certain it will not hurt the ecology there. The man sounds like a sincere fool where it comes to warrantless wiretaps; he doesn’t believe for an instance that GWB has ever lied to us about anything. I wanted to ask about warrantless wiretaps also, but time ran out. Luckily a fellow just before the end of the call (I was on the phone for about an hour) did ask that question and was pretty good at parrying the answers.

“it was good to take the issue on up front, which might have made sense if it was a general election ad but…”
I strongly disagree with your assessment here.You know that frankly, because this is such an open primary election, with Independents and crossover voters being allowed to have a say in who the Democratic nominee will be, the smart strategy is to run just as if it WAS the general election.

The ad used Republican framing. That’s the problem. What’s next, each accusing the other of raising taxes?

And Senator Clinton is a member of the DLC herself!

I personally think all other considerations, aside from replacing Republicans in Congress, are secondary for the next nine months.

i’m sorta keen on oversight of the dems we already have in office too.

Speaking of quail wings, did you see the touching moment between Hillary and Karl Rove the other day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTGbI8pzvqk

She goes on Pox all the time. Bill just did a one-on-one interview on Limpballz show with Lush’s fill-in host. Up until yesterday, Lush’s site had a large button on his frontpage with Hillary’s logo with “Vote Hillary.” They’ve now changed it to a Photoshopped photo of Hillary with the words, “There Will Be Blood…We Got What We Wanted: Chaos.” If there are more open primaries I assume they’ll start this Vote Hillary thing again.

Hillary has virtually no chance of winning now. I could understand fighting it out until Mar 4th, but now she is hurting Dem chances in Nov with each week she stays in.

I agree that it’s silly to compare this to the daisy ad, but it’s not silly to talk about whether a primary tactic damages the Democratic brand and thus harms whoever is nominated. The Dean=Osama ad definitely crossed that line, talking about McCain as being more qualified than Obama does too. I think the 3am ad did, but it certainly can be debated whether it crosses the line.

The point is not that some tactics are “too nasty,” the point is that some tactics, by reinforcing right-wing frames and attacks, are harmful to our general election chances, and harmful to the chances of downballot Democrats. Any Democrat who uses such tactics is throwing other Democrats (not just their opponent) under the bus for their own benefit, and should be smacked down for it.

With Clinton, I’ll get a DLC candidate and a boatload of DLCers. With Obama, I might get some DLC-influenced policies. That choice isn’t the best, but is easy to mak

I guess my point is that they are all politicians and if you look behind the curtains about who is in each campaign, they all come from the same roster. A lot of the old Clinton crowd is with the Obama campaign now. The earlier Obama comments about SS that caught so much heat weren’t a rookie mistake; that was Jeffrey Liebman’s thought s on SS.

The DLC has been churning out “centrist” politicians that were supported enthusiastically during the 2006 election simply because of the D in front of their names but now have earned the ire of democrats. The most local example is the primary defeat of Al Wynn in Maryland’s 4th district. Donna Edwards ousted him riding a wave of grassroots support run by voters who voted for Wynn but found that he was in effect a Republican.

Presumably this DLC style of governing is what Obama means by “transcending politics.” It appears that way if one looks at David Cutler, Jeffrey Liebman and Austan Goolsbee, his three financial advisors. Cutler and Liebman are from the Clinton administration and Goolsbee, Obama’s main advisor, comes from the University of Chicago. Cutler writes about incentivizing the healthcare industry as a way to improve care. Liebman has endorsed the partial privatization of Social Security. Their influence shows in his subprime plan. Obama hasn’t called for a moratorium on foreclosures or a freeze on interest rates, both policies that help people stay in their homes.

link

I’ve asked this several times over the last few weeks and haven’t noticed an answer.

Why did Hillary leave her name on the MI ballot when everyone else took their names off?

Word!

I find Bill’s visit with Rush’s standin and now lauded by Rush the most despiciable act of all.

Oh, fuck.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/…..dm-fallon/

she said she didnt campaign there but wont answer the question.

bonkers March 6th, 2008 at 9:08 am
31
I’m sure the “reporters” at the McCan’t BBQ say now that St. John is so much more open than the others. Clinton or Obama would never invite them over for a meal.

__________

did he serve quail wings?

Obama needs to be wary of his whiz kids, they can put him at odds with
the groundswell that propels his campaign, it is his call to make, but
he better get it right, the DLC is out of touch with the democracy.

AP: The Fed says Americans’ percentage of equity in their homes has fallen below 50 percent for the first time on record since 1945.

When I see/hear complaints about Hillary “going Karl Rove” on Obama, the answer is invariably, “The GOP will do this so it is good to get it out of the way.”

Let me say, just once, that I thought we were replacing the GOP because they SUCK. If I wanted to my candidates to prove how “GOP” they can be, I would vote for John Freaking McCain.

The Democrats are supposed to be better than that, so be better dammit!

BTW -WaPo reports this morning that Bu’ush says the 2002 AUMF gives him the authority to remain in Eye-Rack FOREVER absent any further congressional approval.

It’s another infringement on the sole power of the Congress to declare war but shows why the War Powers Act or the AUMFs are inherently bad idea because any give to the Executive branch on this power has been abused by the Executive, every time.

Hole card just in case she was behind, lawsuit grounds, etc.

October surprise, anyone?

Who called Canada about Nafta?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com…..ional/home

That’s what I was thinking as well. Some will probably defend that as “smart” and being a “fighter.” I call it being a traitor to the DemocratIC Party.

It matters little to me HRC’s ties with that group, mostly because a lot of good major Dems have the same (Bill and Gore, e.g.) and because she hasn’t been out there aggressively promoting a cautiously centrist approach on certain key issues like, say, Obama has on SS and health care reform. Instead, HRC on health care has a far more progressive plan than Obama. They both also have similar approaches to pullout from Iraq. Very little separates them on substantive issues apart from SS and health care.

But Obama did go DLC with his talk of postpartisan/bipartisan governance, such that he’d want true conservative Repubs in his cabinet — Hagel and Lugar. He also wants Arnold in his admin. Such aggressive affirmative outreach to the Repub conservatives by Barack must have warmed the hearts of Al From and other DLCers.

Obama needs to be wary of his whiz kids, they can put him at odds with
the groundswell that propels his campaign, it is his call to make, but
he better get it right, the DLC is out of touch with the democracy.

What you are talking about comes from the bottom up. The national candidates just divide up the advisors, consultants from the “pool”..the politics are just the same. When it was a three way, I was always amused that Edwards supporters (My choice) projected virtues on him that were fictional..same with Obama now.

So why did Hillary leave her name on the MI ballot after all? Don’t remember seeing much discussion about this.
Nobody else did, yet here we are in this supposed predicament now. Interesting…

She agreed to the rules… and then she broke them now she wants to rewrite them and as leader of the clinton party does she have the right?.

As an edwards supporter I say let him have his name on the MI and FL ballots if they do a redo. Let him win some delegates. Heck he could probably win both states now.

That’s bad. Maybe there’s some hope that Gates, and perhaps a few others, would have enough integrity to resign over the matter.

link?

That’s what I was thinking as well. Some will probably defend that as “smart” and being a “fighter.” I call it being a traitor to the DemocratIC Party.

Maybe so, but I can just see her sitting there wringing her hands and chuckling!

Her logic was that by staying on the ballot, it gave the MI democratic party faithful a chance to get everyone in the state revved up and excited about supporting the Dems in the 2008 election. From the AP, Oct 11, 2007 (via the WaPo):

CONCORD, N.H. — Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton said it would be foolish to take her name off Michigan’s primary ballot and sacrifice her chances against the Republican nominee.

As the only top tier Democrat remaining on Michigan ballot, Clinton is all but guaranteed to win the state’s primary. Michigan is tentatively slated to send 156 delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, but national party officials have threatened to take away those delegates if the state persists in holding its primary on Jan. 15.

“It’s clear, this election they’re having is not going to count for anything,” Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio’s call-in program, “The Exchange.” “But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008.”

Another piece from the University of Michigan Daily reflects some disappointment from the UM students, in that the request of five other candidates to have their names removed from the ballot damped down interest in the campaigns:

University of Michigan student groups supporting the candidates saw their causes lose immediacy when the withdrawals were announced, but some see it as only a minor stumbling block.

“Obviously we’re disappointed, but we’re confident that a solution can still be reached,” said junior Travis Radina, co-chair of Students for John Edwards for President.

Radina said his organization will not change its approach to the campaign but will instead hope for a compromise between the DNC and the state. The organization will, however, begin encouraging out-of-state students to register in their home states and vote via absentee ballot.

“This is something we’ve been thinking about a lot, and we’re definitely encouraging people to do it,” Radina said.

Radina has scheduled a meeting of the organization’s executive board tomorrow to discuss plans to encourage the state to move the election date back. The DNC would then allow the candidates to run in Michigan’s primary.

“I think it will be better for students if all the candidates are on the ballot,” Radina said.

I don’t know how much I buy her argument, but at least one non-Clinton supporter agreed with her logic.

FWIW, YMMV, etc.

Dream on.

The Democrats are supposed to be better than that, so be better dammit!

They are a lot better..just not as good as they should be or that we want them to be. Political indifference by “real” Democrats for the past three decades, me included, has put us where we are now. I hope it is not too late.

Adendum: He has only suspended his candidacy so why not have his name included.

“So I got a chance to ask a question as to why they chose to run the “phone ad,” which reinforces the the Republican “be afraid all the time” frame? And isn’t John McCain ultimately the winner in that argument?”

Jane, thank you for initiating this conversation at FDL, it’s much appreciated.

I wish I agreed with your sense of “transparency” – I only feel the strong winds of a spin storm.

What we agree on is the call for both camps to be open to any and all questions concerning their judgement, tactics, and overall leadership.

No shit. The GOP did promise more war.

What drug would you have to be on to think starting a war with Iran is good for McCain when most of the country is against the war in Iraq. The republics are truly insane.

Good for you Jane! I’d much rather hear this stuff straight from you guys than MSNBC, Newsweak, etc.

When The Economist and Megan McArdle sing the praises of your Economic Advisor, that is a bad sign. That said, I am voting for Obama because he is the best out of the bunch(not saying much).

I find this so sad and depressing. I dont think its good for the party as we are unable to focus on what Bush is doing.

Again I’d say you’re overreacting. Dems seem to have this delicate sensibility about engaging in rough and tumble politics, thinking that if a campaign merely suggests or implies the other guy isn’t quite tough enough or up to the rigors of the job, it’s going Rovian and handing the Rs ammo for the general. This is just silly.

Too many on our side always get their undergarments in a bunch about whether the rhetoric is getting too heated — with the MSM always there to promote such nonsense about Dems alleged ‘divisive’ campaigning (like they care!).

It was tough politicking back in the day, when JFK fought HHH in the primaries (then against the rumor-mongering Lyndon in the backrooms leading up to the decisive convention). Kennedy’s people basically called Hubert a WWII draft dodger. HHH had previously alleged Daddy Joe Kennedy was trying to buy the election for his boy, etc etc.

Things though played out, differences got largely smoothed over, and the party was united in the fall. Ditto for other tough cycles — recall 1992 and Bill engaging in very tough rhetoric against frontrunner Tsongas and Bob Kerrey, then later against Jerry Brown. No kid gloves in that contest.

Yet we again united to fight in November.

Same will happen this time against the ageing, gaffe-prone McCain.

Thus the qualifier from Jane about what “openness” means: “much more open when it comes to letting people ask tough questions of them.”

Open answers, complete with the ability to verify them, of course, are another part of the definition. But before you can talk about answers, the questions have to get asked.

I find this so sad and depressing. I dont think its good for the party as we are unable to focus on what Bush is doing.

It is because no amount focus from “the people” is going to stop this craziness in the WH. We can do nothing because our representatives will not do what the majority of people want them to do. We are royally fucked until the revolution.

I’m fully confident that the Clinton campaign, flush with wins due to a Rovian-style last minute smear campaign, will decide that this strategy is the only path to victory and proceed to gut themselves with their own knife.

Gates is another example of the Mukasey Principle in action. Anyone who would work for this Administration by definition has no integrity. Fallon is different. He is career military. Like most of these, he is probably fairly conservative, but even a lot of these conservative military types can see that Bush’s policies have been a disaster.

If the 3 am ad was a vicious attack ad- then GW Bush is a conservationist.

That was about as mild as I’ve seen in presidential campaigns and isn’t really attacking ANYBODY- it’s just a reminder that Hillary sleeps next to a guy who has eight years experience in dealing with this shit.

The Michigan and Florida situations should be resolved. State legislatures moved up the primary dates to get more money for local teevee channels- voters didn’t do this and they should not be punished.

It’s INEVITABLE that this will be resolved in the end by super delegates- it’s impossible for either candidate to win the thing without em. Hopefully they will “choose wisely”.

Hillary may have the popular vote advantage by then and Obama will almost certainly have the pledged delegate advantage. It remains to be seen who will be leading the polls vs. McBush.

Superdelegates will have plenty to look at. They’re job is to do what’s best for the party in view of the facts at that time.

I don’t really care which of the candidates win. I see NO evidence that there will be a difference in the two administrations at a policy level- they are exactly the same.

Well McCain gets points from the Halliburton crowd. And according to Naomi Wolff this country is in big trouble with that crowd.

I’m wondering what all the Obama supporters are going to do when the republics start attacking him in earnest. These bastards made Max Cleland look like a draft dodger. Stop attacking each other and worry about McCain. He’s the enemy.

“…even a lot of these conservative military types can see that Bush’s policies have been a disaster.”
_____________

And they will be dealt with by the Bu’ushies accordingly.

Did you see Rick Perlstein’s post at HuffPo yesterday? Very interesting indeed.

Or maybe I meant Naomi Klein or both. Sometimes I get confused when I read two books simultaneously.

At times I agree, but at other times I’m hopeful. If Obama and Clinton (and their strategists!) can step back for just a moment, they’ll notice that this situation will ensure that the Democratic party has a hammerlock on media attention for the next two months, especially in a state that will be critical in the fall election.

Who can offer the most stinging criticism of the BushCo record, that John McCain wants to extend for another four years?
Who can offer the most stirring call to the Democratic party, to take back the White House?
Who can offer the most compelling case for supporting the Rule of Law, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights?
Who can offer the strongest defense against telecom immunity, warrantless wiretapping, and all the rest?

For two months, Clinton and Obama will likely lead every evening newscast and dominate the discussion of the cable folks throughout the day. McCain can only dream about getting this kind of attention.

That makes me smile.

If Fallon gets canned, I guessing he won’t go quietly.

It matters little to me HRC’s ties with that group…

Being a member of a group is not a “tie”. She’s a leader in the group!

Instead, HRC on health care has a far more progressive plan than Obama.

That’s false. Neither are pushing true progressive reform of health care.

Please point to Obama’s current policies towards Social Security. Perhaps you could give us a link from his website?

But Obama did go DLC with his talk of postpartisan/bipartisan governance

That’s not “DLC” talk. It’s just standard bipartisan talk that all candidates use.

I’m not willing to take the chance that “things will smooth over.”

Campaigning on a platform of “fear” isn’t hard nosed politics, it is an appeal to the base human element; that’s neocon land and it isn’t OK by me — overreaction or otherwise. Also, your historical analogy is suspect. If you want to find something analogous with a political message appealing to mass fear response, study a fascist propaganda effort. Franco had a good one. How’s your history there?

OK, I’m for HRC but here’a my take on the ad— Hillary is hammering Barack on his
lack of experience. She is also willing to do something about his lack by offering to
make him a vice president to lead the country for another eight years when he should be
prez in 2016. I also think the ad reflects GWB abysmal response in crisis when he read The Pet
Goat in Sarasota.

Fallon came in after Gates and we should therefore conclude at the behest of Gates. It was a direct line from ISG through Gates to the NIE that scuttled the attack on Iran.

Purivada at 79–

I had this suspicion that W. was going to pull something major before the elections–given the fact that we suddenly had “red alerts” and “orange alerts” in August, 2004, September, 2004, and Otober, 2004, just prior to elections.

…and it perked my ears up when Prince Harry was *outed* and sent home from Afghanistan–there was just something about it that made me wonder…

Given this latest mov, I would say we’re one step closer to war involving Iran…they’re bent on it.

Well, you’re probably right regarding Gates, but he was supposed to be a representative of the Bush 43/Brent Scowcroft group of pragmatists, rather than neocon ideologues, brought in to repair DOD after Rumsfeld. Scowcroft did have the nerve to write Op Ed’s opposing the invasion. Still, you’re propably right.

Hills support of KYL

I don’t really care which of the candidates win. I see NO evidence that there will be a difference in the two administrations at a policy level- they are exactly the same.

I agree..all of these “huge” differences are a projection by a candidates supporters. They are all within in the same political space. Obama is re-running the Clinton ‘02 campaign..I don’t know which campaign Hillary is re-running but that person didn’t win.

sorry Kyl Lieberman bill

What EXACTLY constitutes Hillary’s Day One CIC chops? Eight years of formal dress state dinners and embassy cocktail weenies at receptions, plus a little committee time in the Senate?

The “red phone” ad is tame, and perfectly fair. It’s just stupid, as it gives Obama the chance to club her over the head with her war votes. What was really destructive was Clinton’s explicit praise of McCain.

red alerts? When?

Seems to me that the fuckin warning system has been “orange” since it was invented.

i relllllllllllly dont want to bomb,bomb,bomb Iran

Thank you, Steve. I was just about to ask what we know about Team Obama. IMO, the National Review piece was the kickoff to Obamarama because people want a true progressive. Progressive Punch disagrees with NR (a conservative rag). They have Hillary to the left of Barack.

Both candidates have their warts. Obama has criticized the Dems far more than the Reps and used their talking points against us. And I didn’t see the 3am ad as fear mongering. I thought it was “your children can sleep safely because the President is taking care of the bogeyman” type of thing. But that could be just me.

Come on you know she did more than that. She traveled abroad many times and was a champion for children’s and women’s rights all over the world.

Okay, but it IS expected that the repugs would campaign in this matter, not our own party. There are going to be some that argue that Hillary’s campaign is just ‘vetting’ Obama and will praise the fact that she has a ‘win-by-any-means-attitude and there will be those that see her tactics as repug tactics, showing that the dems are no better than the repugs when it comes to ‘creative’ campaigning and possibly only giving ammo to the repugs for the general elecation

They are not “do-overs” in Michigan and Florida. No delegates were selected, so there’s no “do” to “over.”

Did anyone on the call ask tough questions about the tone-darkening and face-widening pictures of Obama that appeared in Clinton ads? I’d be interested in the Clinton campaign’s response to those questions.

what EXACTLY are Hillarys bona fides for Cin C?

To 42, If he wnat so badly to remain there, I wish very badly that he would just go there and stay there. Maybe that can be a tag line: go there and stay there. He forgot the first part.

Sadly–can you elaborate

examples ?

To the extent that the Hillary campaign is a shell to provide Bill with another eight years in the White House, she is justified in making the experience argument. HE has DEFINATELY had relevant experience. Of course she can’t say that and therefore this dance.

Oh, and I totally forgot about her time as a carrier pilot flying sorties over Bosnia. Majorly My Bad.

If the 3 am ad was a vicious attack ad- then GW Bush is a conservationist.

That was about as mild as I’ve seen in presidential campaigns and isn’t really attacking ANYBODY- it’s just a reminder that Hillary sleeps next to a guy who has eight years experience in dealing with this shit.

Agreed.

But the “leaked” NAFTA memo, which appeared precisely, and only, one news-cycle before Tuesday’s voting – now *that* has the look and smell of another kettle of fish.

The “3 am” commercial,IMHO, doesn’t smear, or accuse, anyone. It highlights a legitimate question, invites the voter to make up his/her own mind, and says nothing negative about anyone.

The question: A president will be called upon to make hard choices, under stress and without much notice. In whom would you have more confidence, in that context?

It is telling that polling indicates that even a preponderance of Obama supporters seem to think Hillary would be more reliable under those circumstances. But the ad doesn’t even make that assertion, it just asks the question.

How is that either “buying into a Republican frame” or even “going negative”?

nycounsel

As has already been pointed out Obama is guilty of doing the same thing. Using republic talking points against the dems. Both sides should stop. I refuse to spend my time bashing either of them. I want McCain to lose, I will do what I can at the local level to ensure that happens.

I won’t be able to get health care under Obama. I would under Hillary. I need surgery on my face…how long do I have to wait?

And the DLC has always liked Obama…probably because of his using Lieberman as a mentor. They once listed him as a member because they thought he was. So he either comes by it naturally or his instincts need some honing.

Who leaked it? Who had access to it to leak it?

With all due respect, I have never understood the basis for her 3am ad. She slept next to the man that had to answer the phone and she did not have top secret clearance where she would have been able to sit in on discussions, decision making, etc. I just don’t buy that line of argument. The leaders that she met while she was first lady are (a) no longer in power or (b) dead.

Who leaked it? Who had access to it to leak it?

snoopydog in the WH

That made me spew my coffee…. thanks for the laugh.

Perhaps they are trying to hint that she was involved in Bill Clinton’s top secret stuff, and hence has experience, but they can’t directly say that obviously.

excuse me? i just asked for examples as I would like to look into it myself. If you don’t have examples, just say so. I wasn’t implying that you are bashing any candidate.

she voted for the KYL Lieberman act which enables the boooshies to bombIran

By the way- goopers didn’t INVENT negative campaign ads. Candidates for president from ALL parties have been accusing one another of illegitimate children, murder, rape, and making a public nuisance since the dawn of the republic. If anyting- we’ve toned it down from the good ol days.,

I can’t recall exactly, but I believe it was in August that we went on red alert.

The anti-nuke power crowd is nervous about Obama’s ties and financial support from Exalon. The two big nuke companies in the US, Westinghouse and GE own CBS and NBC. Just goes to show that whatever your political views are, the system is such that the threads are so interconnected that what is on the surface isn’t what is really going on.

For me the elections are easy, I just look for the candidate with the -D and send money to progressive challengers.

Interesting analysis of the Ohio vote:

truthisall.net Update: Mar.5, 10am Ohio just did for HRC what it did for Bush in 2004. Clinton won the final 2-party Ohio vote by 55.23-44.77% (100% reporting) http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/ The 9pm exit poll had Clinton leading by 51.65-48.35% (two-party) The Final Zogby poll had the race DEAD EVEN… http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1461 Bush’s Ohio vote share exceeded his “pristine” exit poll share by 5%. Clinton’s 2-party vote share exceeded her exit poll by 3.6% (55.23-51.65%). The probability that the 3.6% shift was due to chance is 1 in 4,436 (2% MoE). Assuming a 3% MoE, the probability is 1 in 103. Once again, just like in the 2008 New Hampshire primary and the 2004 stolen election, Zogby’s projection was confirmed by the exit poll. It should be obvious by now to anyone who has analyzed the numbers: the elections are being stolen right before our eyes. But the media keeps blinders on the masses while catapulting the propaganda. They never mention the probability of election fraud as the root cause of the skew in pre-election and exit polls. Tommy Heinrich was a NY Yankee baseball player who played right field with Joe DiMaggio in center. His nickname was “Old Reliable” because he would always deliver in the “clutch” when it counted. Know this: Ohio is “Old Reliable” for the Republicans. It will deliver it’s phantom votes in the clutch for John McCain just like Diebold’s CEO and Secretary of State Blackwell delivered them for Bush in 2004. It’s not who votes. It’s who counts.

They also have a detailed analysis of the 2004 vote:

http://www.truthisall.net/

hence giving credence to the whole co-presidency thing, huh?

Both candidates have their warts.

Please tell us about Senator Clinton’s warts, in your point of view.

why on gods green earth did she vote for NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND then?

I’ve spent a lot of time around here giving links and arguments showing there is a lot of difference between Hillary and Barack. They don’t just “all suck.”

Obama’s not perfect. Got it.

Hillary and Bill are leaders and practically founders of the entire DLC movement. I think the DLC was designed specifically to destroy the DemocratIC Party from within and have felt this way since about 1995. They throw out just enough “bones” to Liberals so we keep voting them in. Meanwhile, they sell-out or country and Constitution to the highest bidders. What more do they have to do for people to realize this? We are in a Constitutional Crisis right now, and it’s developed under these people’s “leadership.”

The choice is clear.

Nor was I implying you were. We should all be working at the local level to make sure McCain loses. Not sure what you’re getting at.

Who leaked it? Who had access to it to leak it?

I believe it was leaked by someone at the Canadian Embassy (?)

I’m just sayin’ that the timing, for HRC, couldn’t have been more fortuitous, and if nothing else, it sure *looks* suspicious as all hell, at least to me.

But the “leaked” NAFTA memo, which appeared precisely, and only, one news-cycle before Tuesday’s voting – now *that* has the look and smell of another kettle of fish.

Exactly. That, and the Obama picture smells like Karl Rove. Not Clinton. IMO only. Think about it though. Messing with the campaign would be right up his alley. Making both candidates look bad? Obama looks like a Muslim and Hillary looks like she plays dirty? That’s KKKarl.

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Eye-Ran…Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Eye-Ran…Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Eye-Ran…Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Eye-Ran…Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Eye-Ran…

The Homeland Security Advisory System has been raised to Severe only once, which applied only to flights coming from the United Kingdom:

August 10, 2006 – August 14, 2006, in response to British law enforcement announcing it had disrupted a major terror plot to blow up aircraft, the Department of Homeland Security raised the threat level for commercial flights from the United Kingdom to the United States to Severe.[21]

wiki

Do we know where the altered film or photos appeared. I can’t tell from the article, which shows an alterations series, that we all could do with photoshop or other graphics program. If they did it, it’s terrible, but I can’t tell where it is saying they did it.

“The “red phone” ad is tame, and perfectly fair. It’s just stupid, as it gives Obama the chance to club her over the head with her war votes. What was really destructive was Clinton’s explicit praise of McCain.”

Exactly right.

I don’t get why there isn’t more outrage about that, particularly since I’ve read she’s said it three times, which rules out the slip-of-the-tongue defense.

Okay, thanks for the info. I must have missed that day.

DLC=democracy down the drain

Could be—Bill’s been accused of bangin some Cannuck govt. official. Beats me.

I work in a school district and often wonder the same thing. I have no answer but it has most definitely devastated many schools. Our district is down to teaching the test and only the test. I guess you could say she was for it before she was against it. In a perfect world our next president will get rid of it.

Fallon came in after Gates and we should therefore conclude at the behest of Gates. It was a direct line from ISG through Gates to the NIE that scuttled the attack on Iran.

I am dubious about the “direct line”. The NIE was produced by a consortium of the nation’s intelligence agencies so Gates’ input into it was probably non-existent. Remember too that this NIE was sat on for a year and that it was not Gates but the protests of the intelligence community and the likelihood of its being leaked anyway that caused its eventual release.

I won’t be able to get health care under Obama. I would under Hillary. I need surgery on my face…how long do I have to wait?

David cutler is the Obama economist who is the expert on health care.

Another adviser with a particular interest in health care is David Cutler, a Harvard economist who was also an adviser to Bill Clinton-surprise, surprise. Cutler wrote an article for the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 asserting that “The rising cost … of health care has been the source of a lot of saber rattling in the media and the public square, without anyone seriously analyzing the benefits gained.”

Anxious to show the good side of rising costs, Cutler and a group of other economists defend the idea that a powerful and profitable medical industry can serve as an engine of economic growth in the USA as the wretched Gina Kolata reported in the August 22, 2006 NY Times.

link

Getting at? i asked you for examples to a statement you made and then you said,

As has already been pointed out Obama is guilty of doing the same thing. Using republic talking points against the dems. Both sides should stop. I refuse to spend my time bashing either of them. I want McCain to lose, I will do what I can at the local level to ensure that happens.

What is implied about a question?

Dems aren’t Christian enough? They’re too partisan and obstructionist? Will those do? I’m not against Obama, BTW. I just think it’s important to look at the candidates clearly and not buy any of the hype.

Thanks.

she is for power first,kids and their parents…not so much

Oh please, oh please let the bomb Iran video land on a campaign ad this fall. snicker.

Haven’t heard those complaints before, could you provide a link?

I won’t be able to get health care under Obama. I would under Hillary.

Why would you get health care under one policy and not the other? Neither is proposing single payer universal care.

And the DLC has always liked Obama…probably because of his using Lieberman as a mentor.

The “mentor” thing is a pure smear. That just has to do with learning the Senate rules, not on which bills to vote for. Do you have any evidence he voted like Lieberman?

You refer to the Obama in a Muslim outfit. That Rove put it out is possible, but Rove is not darkening Obama’s complexion and widening his face in Hillary Clinton ads. That’s directly from the Hillary camp.

they will once again engage in MASS murder,which will depress me deeply

“Dems aren’t Christian enough?”
___________

I too take Sheik bin al BaraBlackHusseinOsamaBamaMadrassa at his word.

Let Us Prey.

Audrey March 6th, 2008 at 10:04 am 132
In response to Steve-AR @ 39
Thank you, Steve. I was just about to ask what we know about Team Obama. IMO, the National Review piece was the kickoff to Obamarama because people want a true progressive. Progressive Punch disagrees with NR (a conservative rag). They have Hillary to the left of Barack.

Both candidates have their warts. Obama has criticized the Dems far more than the Reps and used their talking points against us. And I didn’t see the 3am ad as fear mongering. I thought it was “your children can sleep safely because the President is taking care of the bogeyman” type of thing. But that could be just me.

huh?

Rob, they’ve been an issue all along. Obama’s, not so much. Hillary’s membership in the DLC, triangulation, etc…

You give my Audrey’s comment as an example? What talking points has he used? I swear, this is like talking to Wolfson

“Bill, can you take it?”

Exasperated snark, man.

Look, I have no idea why you are so upset. I don’t sit in here and bash Obama. I am going to vote for him. I feel like he’s going to pull it out. I was pointing out something someone said. Perhaps that wasn’t such a good idea, but I didn’t see you jumping on the person who originally said it. Forgive me.

Perhaps this article about his talk on faith?
snip>
Sen. Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to “acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people,” and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoing Americans.

“Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation.”

“It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase `under God,’” he said. “Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00281.html

rwcole–

First, wikipedia is known for errors.

Secondly, I worked for the government at that time.

Just for the sake of argument, let’s say that it was only orange and yellow alerts…the purpose was to frighten people…and it worked…

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh

[Mod Note; looks like it’s time to get that keyboard fixed.]

What if it’s 9:38 in the morning, and “the call” comes and you are on the way to a kindegarden school in Florida and you witness that first plane hit the WTC (even though there was no such footage at the time), and then you continue on and read My Pet Goat and another call comes, and your Chief of Staff tells you another plane hit the other tower…and so what do you do?

You sit there for 7 minutes with a stupid look on your face and do absolutely nothing…no plans shoot down planes, because there aren’t any in the area.

Yeah, the Republicans are really great at protecting America. Gag me with a spoon.

I’m not jumping on you, honest. You made a statement and I asked for an example to which you commented that I was implying something with my question ( I wasn’t). I asked again and you paste a comment from another poster that just gives another general statement. I never accused you of siding with one candidate (I could care less) I just wanted an example of his repug talking points.

P.S. I don’t so upset, just questions and when I disagree, a hearty debate

Thank you, that is all I wanted *g*

I will say, however, that the Clinton campaign has been much more open when it comes to letting people ask tough questions of them.

I think if you wanted to pinpoint the worst statement that the Clinton campaign has put out, and that neither candidate should ever put out, Jane, and Christy already alluded to it in a comment if I remember correctly–it was the statement that in so many words that “she and McCain bring real experience to the White House–(although I expect neither of them to end up there except as visitors) but Obama brings only a speech he made in 2002.

That garbage is patently ridiculous. And my point again–seems you always have to say it because the combination that Clinton is the first woman running and the hyper-sensitiviity to anything said about Clinton at FDL makes some people furious as a reflex–is that that comment bashing Obama and equating her experience and McCain’s to something that at all resembles crisis managemnt is as Rachel Maddow said, the kind of statement you might expect from a Republican candidate running for VP (or President).

That is negative campaigning of the first order, and that comment should never have been made.

I’ve said yesterday that Obama needs to start going negative to counter her. I said it because I believe he can win even more delegates if he does, and she’s not going to stop. While it’s true that the ad shop for Obama has produced negative ads, they have been few and far between, and they have not been as viscious as her attacks on him.

I want to stress something that I don’t think enough of us seem to appreciate. We are mesmerized by the MSNBC CNN charts that show states, a picture, and a check mark with “Projected Winner” because we grow up as kids being coached to win. Those charts are complete bullshit, as countless people tried to hammer home yesterday via print or TVB.

It is far more accurate to picture this primary race as a race for delegates, even though Clinton tries to say she “won big states.” If you look at the margins last night, in Texas and Ohio they are reasonably close and Obama certainly won the delegates. I didn’t make these rules for these states but Clinton will end up gaining 8 delegates for the entire 4 states Tuesday. When next Tuesday night rolls around, she will be behind about 160 delegates. And that’s a significant number.

Bottom Line: Clinton cannot possibly win in pledged delegates. Then we get into Harold Ickes’ spin thumping his chest that all delegates are fair game–he can unpledge pledged delegates and he can pursuade Super Delegates to disregard the final total that has Obama winning the primary race via delegates that the voters chose. I don’t think he can, but I understand his strategy. It includes counting Michigan and Florida as if there were no problems with what weren’t elections there, and I don’t think that’s going to happen.

Now…Jane said that the Clinton campaign is “more open to questions.”

I’d like to ask them why they put Wolfson and McAuliffe out lying and saying that Obama was derilict in the failure we have (as to Taliban control there and an economy driven by Opium production actually going on) because he didn’t tend to a committee on Afghanistan. I would have liked you to ask him why he lied about that. HRC is on 3 committees that oversee troops in Afghanistan; Obama is on zero–that’d be zilch that’d be none if my English is not good enough.

HRC is responsible for doing whatever she can on those 3 Senate Armed Forces subs that are supposed to inform affairs on Afghanistan.

Jane you say that the Clinton campaign is open to questions. I’d have liked to see you ask these questions:

The first is that given that Clinton cannot possibly beat Obama in pledged delegates after Peurto Rico, what do they plan on trying to do then? I think we know the answer. I can sum it up with a few words: Get Super Delegates, Get Michigan and Florida as is. Won’t happen; won’t work.

The Second is what possible reason could the Clinton campaign have in putting out the words through the mouth of Hillary that she and McCain are experienced and Obama is not in the kind of emergency management skills that Clinton and McCain could bring to the White House? Where in the world do they get the idea that anything in Hillary’s past gives her any more experience than Obama in crisis management–or McCain’s and doesn’t she realize that that will be used–although ineffectively by McCain in his campaign against Obama?

I don’t recall Clinton working as an emergency physician in a tertiary emergency room. I sure as hell don’t think anyone here is dumb enough to believe that crisis management at 3AM is much different from the crisis management you watched play out on the NBC TV show West Wing with President Bartlett–no one is alone with Tina Feye wrap-arounds managing crises and the Iraq war that Clinton continues to support and promote puts your proverbial child sleeping in more danger anyway.

I have 13 more questions and I continue to point out that since LHP’s questionable allegations in her headline a few weeks ago, there has not been a correlate headline post vetting Hillary. I am happy to supply the questions to begin to vet Hillary here–I wonder if Jane can get the answers to them.

Questions in addition to the above two for Jane Hamsher to ask the Clinton campaign and vet at FDL

But I don’t see that as a repug talking point as I don’t think the right has a monopoly on religion and belief

Wow. Someone just told me Barbara Boxer was endorsing Hillary and she a superdelegate. This is the first super I’ve heard going to Hillary in a while (Obama’s picked up even more today), so I searched around. Birds of feather:

http://www.latimes.com/news/na…..6201.story

And I had no idea Boxer’s daughter was married to Hillary’s brother. Go figure! Ah, but they divorced after a year and now Tony’s not paying his child support. Oops…Tony Rodham was then beat up by the boyfriend of a woman he was having sex with…literally caught in the act.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12…..514395.htm

Won’t even get started with Hugh Rodham
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12…..514395.htm
Funny quote from the above Joan Walsh link from 2001:

the last thing the Democrats need is a directionless, undisciplined ex-president who won’t go away.

Ain’t that the truth…

Given Boxer’s performance in the infamous CTBob video when she was shilling to Traitor Joe, Hillary can have her.

Perhaps that 3AM call will be one of Hillary’s brothers calling to get bailed out again.

I was just repeating something Steve-AR said. Sorry for being so general. I love this site and would never want to offend anyone here. I don’t mind the hearty debate.

While neither are on board with single payer in any way; and Cutler is a whore for the insurance industry; Hillary makes a valid point that mandating that everyone has (buys) health insurance provides the best price negotiating with the insurance companies (IMHO, evil bastards).

Obama makes a decent argument that those who refuse to participate (buy insurance) will be fined. Obama’s plan, leaving holes in the population by allowing citizens to opt out, lets insurance co’s keep their rates higher.

IMHO, both plans are a clusterfuck, but they are an improvement over our current situation.

No problem, I just didn’t want there to be any misunderstanding as to the intent of my question.
*g*

I think the DLC is what you get when you are in the middle of a Republican era, which you can easily argue the period of 1981-2009 has been / is. It end up amounting to a speed bump inside a longer conservative period, and it reeks of Democratic weakness and self-loathing.

2009 hopefully is the beginning of a protracted liberal/progressive era, with the 2006 Congressional election being the baby step that marked the change.

If I am right, it is the time to move beyond the DLC and to start being proud of what Democrats are supposed to stand for, perhaps to the point that “liberal” becomes a word of pride instead of a label issued by the right wing simultaneous with spittle emanating from their mouthes. I want to see Democrats able to be proud of that label, and I want to see Conservatives run from their label, perhaps by a strong emphasis on the first syllable and its shared root with “convict”.

It’s out turn, and this time America and the world as a whole wins.

jusr came back on for a few… has Jane even been on the thread?

So relatives of some politicians have been —-fuckin—an fightin—and bein a general nuisance?

Well don’t that beat all?

Nope.

And why “the likelihood of it getting leaked anyway”? That’s what I’m getting at: the release of the NIE in unadulterated form, not the conclusions of the agencies.

Granted. I personally believe religion and state should be just as the Bill of Rights states-seperate. I realize that is an impossibility in today’s climate, however in a perfect world…

Disclaimer: I have no dog in this fight!

Tula is upstairs with her guest, Richard Freeman, Harvard Economics Professor.

Audrey, that’s ridiculous. I do think that Clinton’s health care plan is better than Obama’s. Both are inadequate because they leave the private insurance companies in charge, but both are progress. Under either plan, you are more likely to be able to get affordable health care than now. There’s an argument that if were were electing a monarch who could impose policy by fiat, then under Queen Hillary coverage would be cheaper than under King Barack because everyone would be required to pay in.

But, in practice, either candidate would have to get their plan past a Republican Senate filibuster, with a few blue dogs helping the Republicans. So either one would have to compromise, and the result would be only a marginal improvement over what we have now (unless we can pick up about 10 seats in the Senate).

So please don’t repeat nonsense and pretend like there’s a black and white distinction. While I don’t know the details of what you need and what your resources are, I simply don’t believe that under Hillary you’d be covered, and under Barack you would not be. About the only difference is that it would be more likely that under Barack you could choose not to be covered, and evidently you would not choose that.

Boxer announced before the California primary that she would vote for the candidate who recieved the most votes in the primary.

She reiterated that position on ‘Morning Joe’ this morning.

Amen, brother. What she’s doing here is appealing to the press for intervention. The press is not merely McCain’s “base”, its the base of support for the war (that’s why it’s McCain’s base). She’s loudly proclaiming Obama unreliable on the war (which is why we should vote for him).

Actually I would provide links but I don’t have time to hunt them down. Otherwise I’d be happy to. Here’s Progressive Punch though:
http://www.progressivepunch.org/
They rate the votes of all Senators on a progressive scale. Hillary was 23, IIRC, while Obama was 49.

Rob, @179, Obama bragged about it when he was campaigning against Lamont. I don’t think it’s necessarily a question of learning the “rules” with Lieberman.

Hillary’s plan would make it available to me. Obama’s would not. Look for it. I didn’t say anything else. I guess the issue isn’t as important to some.

I knew it was a mistake to get into this. Just asking for people to look at the candidates as the politicians they are, is all I’ve done. We will choose one or the other, wont’ we?

While I’m disappointed that Barbara Boxer is endoring Hillary Clinton in her role as a superdelegate, I think it’s appropriate for her to do so, since California went for Clinton. For her to substitute her own judgment, in the absence of some major scandal or new information that the voters didn’t have, would be undemocratic.

If all superdelegates do the same, and go with the vote of those that they are responsible to (senators to their state, representatives to their congressional district), then the winner of the pledged delegates is going to wind up as the winner of the superdelegates. Unless Hillary Clinton’s campaign catches fire and Obama collapses, Obama would win under these circumstances.

I agree with you but I also have sen how religion has been hijacked by the right and at times vilified by the left. My parents are about as left as they come but go to mass every week and will tell you what an important role religion plays in their life. For me, it comes down to respecting people’s religious beliefs and respecting their role in many peoples’ lives (and of course separate from the state)

Boxer and Hillary are family. Boxer has a ton of votes in support of Bush so it makes sense. Boxer’s daughter Nicole married Hillary’s little brother Tony in the Rose Garden in 1994–the one who got punched out at Lake Winola, Pa. by his marijuana smoking home boy back in 2001.

But the marriage of a Rodham and a Boxer did not end happily ever after. They divorced after that Rose Garden marriage, and Nicole regularly hauls Tony into court alledging he is many months behind in his child support payments. Tony divorced Nicole and remarried Megan Madden.

Thanks to ole Wikepedia for the help.

Nonplussed gave me some examples and I respectfully don’t find those repug talking points. No party has a monopoly on religion or beliefs. But thank you for responding.

Oh, I wasn’t talking about healthcare and such, this had to do with the statement that Obama was throwing around repug talking points.

Hillary may have the popular vote advantage by then and Obama will almost certainly have the pledged delegate advantage. It remains to be seen who will be leading the polls vs. McBush.

Pledged delegates are usually only bound for the first round of votes. So, if a candidates hits the magic # before the convention, they become the nominee b/c they can win on the first ballot.

However, once that’s over, the convention becomes a free for all and those delgates can vote for anybody they want.

Thank you!! That’s the one! :)

I should never come here when I’m multitasking already. But I can’t help it.

Both of them leave a ton of issues we confront as physicians out every day Joe. They don’t do a thing about the insipid paperwork we now have to deal with and the ridiculous calls from some nurse who works for the insurance companies that question tons of relevant things that docs do for patients because those nurses don’t have a clue what the clinical situation is–and if you ask them how they’d work up the patient you get a long silence.

Neither of the plans address the growing costs of medicare either.

And most importantly just as people stupidly think that someone has “won a state” instead of a portion of delegates neigher candidate would get much of any of their proposals through any congress that exists in 2009-2013. That’s just a historical fact. I’ve watched health care plans come and health care plans go.

BTW why won’t Hillary release the 1.5 million documents detailing whatever her secret health care plan was in the 1990’s that she refuses to answer questions on and where can she or anyone document her “Obama leaves 15 million uninsured statement”? It doesn’t exist as fact in the annals of either insurance or clinical medicine as practiced every day.

Team Clinton keeps saying they welcome the extra time to learn more about Rezko and other things. They have spent time on Obama’s experimentation with drugs as a teenager, and there is evidence that the Drudge/Obama-in-garb photo came from her campaign. Her ridiculous answer on 60 Minutes (as far as I know…take him at his word) about whether he’s a Muslim or not, would lead further credence to this theory.

Should Obama then be bringing up major Clinton/Boxer donor who just pleaded guilty and is going to jail (Jinnah)? Should his campaign start some whisper campaigns about her brothers and the lack of ethics within her family? Should some of the rumours of Bill’s continued infidelity SINCE Monica start seeing a little more light just accidentally? Oh there’s so much more…

I don’t think Obama should or will, but imagine if these roles were reversed. You think Howard Wolfson would hesitate to go after this stuff?

We have a clear choice for our Dem nominee.

I don’t want to bomb Iran either. That makes two of us, not a significant number. We need a way to organize on the web and make the feelings of tens of millions of people known. Christy touched on this a few days ago. I have no idea how, but we should talk about it.

I would like to see more investigative reporting in the U. S. on the leak from the Canadian government that sank Obama with Ohio voters concerned with trade. The Toronto Globe and Mail today has much more on the story and it doesn’t reflect well on the Clinton campaign. Here is an excerpt:

Mr. Brodie (Prime Minister Harper’s Chief of Staff), apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton’s campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing.

The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.

The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton’s campaign called and was “telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.”

Joe, do you think Paul Krugman is ridiculous when he says:

But as I’ve tried to explain in previous columns, there really is a big difference between the candidates’ approaches. And new research, just released, confirms what I’ve been saying: the difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage — a key progressive goal — and falling far short.

Specifically, new estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton’s would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama’s — at only slightly higher cost.

And:

Now, some might argue that none of this matters, because the legislation presidents actually manage to get enacted often bears little resemblance to their campaign proposals. And there is, indeed, no guarantee that Mrs. Clinton would, if elected, be able to pass anything like her current health care plan.

But while it’s easy to see how the Clinton plan could end up being eviscerated, it’s hard to see how the hole in the Obama plan can be repaired. Why? Because Mr. Obama’s campaigning on the health care issue has sabotaged his own prospects.

Link

So the Clintons have taken money from Rezko co-defendents

Who wudda thunk

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..356/470517

and another

http://www.margieburns.com/blo…..01879.html

I don’t recall Clinton working as an emergency physician in a tertiary emergency room. I sure as hell don’t think anyone here is dumb enough to believe that crisis management at 3AM is much different from the crisis management you watched play out on the NBC TV show West Wing with President Bartlett–

Obama has a medical degree? He was an emergency room physicain? Wow, he shouldn’t hide his light under a bushel basket like that! He ought to tell folks that he has an MD in addition to his JD. What a guy!

And Pete, I hate to break it to you, “West Wing” was a teevee show, it’s no more real than “24″.

Hillary doesn’t have a mathematical prospect for gaining either the delegate vote, or the popular vote after Peurto Rico. She is not going to get Michigan and Florida as is.

So that brings us to the question do you think Ickes can grab enough delegates that are pledged delegates from Obama and get Super Delegates to abandon Obama who were elected by real people to ignore what the people voted for them to do enough to take the election from Obama?

Do you plan to do an analogue vetting post for Hillary who has yet to be vetted here or in the media? Obama and his supporters are going to be pressing MSM to vet Hillary’s so called undefined claim to experience.

Here are some questions for your vetting post besides the obvious one of what constitutes her experience in foreign affairs or domestic crisis management and why she made the comment that would be appropriate for a Republican to make that she and McCain had experience but Obama only had “a single speech from 2002.”

A list of vetting questions for LHPs yet to be done vetting post on Hillary Clinton

BTW, LHP, Obama was not ‘Public Official A’–it was Fitz’s real target, the Governor of Illinois, and Amy St. Eve released that early this week. I believe you implied or stated it was Obama. Not.

“I agree with you but I also have sen how religion has been hijacked by the right and at times vilified by the left.”

I have not seen religion vilified by left. Where have you seen this? I know it as a Repub talking point, though. We don’t like some religious people like Falwell and Dobson and we bemoan the politicization of the Church. That doesn’t mean we’re anti-religion. Could you share your sources where we vilify religion?

Thanks

I think although he’s going to win the pledged delegates and the popular vote that he should now go as negative as she has, to proove he is not a “bunny” and we both know that’s pure shit, as Rachel Maddow feared he could be perceived. He’s up against a grizzled angry woman, and he needs to counter her with the questions that FDL is afraid to vet. You’ll not see a FDL vet the way LHP claimed to be “vetting” Obama.

I provided her the quesitons, and I’ve provided her the CLE on what constitutes a ‘present’ vote in the Illinois Senate and who ‘Official A’ really was–it wasn’t Obama–in the Rezko trial.

The Clinton campaing and many Hillary supporters here have used the Rezko trial as code for “Fuck Obama” and none of them has any understanding of what’s going on in Amy St. Eve’s court with Rezko. One of them could, if she paid attention though.

I suspect that the 3 AM ad annoys some people mostly because it was effective. From my perspective it was hardly in the Rovian or Willie Horton mold. In fact, I understand that it is a version of an ad used by that past liberal icon, Mondale. It seemed to hark more on the “experience” gap, and to subtly underline the Clinton co-presidency theme, rather than fear as in the LBJ daisy-nuke ad. As for the Canadian NAFTA leak, it appears to me that Obama’s initial response to it was what made it a bigger issue than it needed to be. There is no doubt that someone from the conservative ruling party in Canada jumped on the opportunity to embarrass Obama over his misstatement. I doubt that whoever leaked the memo has any love for Hillary, or the democratic party for that matter.

i have heard it and seen it on blogs. I have assumed that it is reaction against the right wing all you have to do is some of the names thrown about (jesus freaks, etc) to understand how that could be construed as vilification

red hen says-”

I would like to see more investigative reporting in the U. S. on the leak from the Canadian government that sank Obama with Ohio voters concerned with trade. ”

for the kazillionth freakin’ time, that is not why voters went for hillary in ohio….there are many reasons-here’s a few…we’re having heavy duty economic woes here, she addressed them, he did not…..it’s that simple…..she campaigned all over the place, he appeared here in my region once, at an invitation only, his wife appeared in the region once…

she won in all but 5 counties here……there’s 88………yeah, i’m sure a leak from the canadian government made all but 5 counties vote for hillary.

however, here’s a hot potato for ya, obama had a private meeting in westerville, ohio, with state workers for his campaign, and after hearing him reexplain and not explain about the nafta meeting, after this meeting, many of them quit. that part is true.

so, i guess days later when they went to vote for hillary, that the nafta leak thingy kinda was true in their case.

i’m in ohio, and still gonna bash the crap back with my bat every time you all continue to write crap about why ohio voted a certain way cuz it doesn’t agree with what you wanted……..that is just not accurate.

go dodd.

Seven Israeli’s killed in Jerusalem.

For Obama to get the nomination solely on the basis of pledged delegates, he’d need to win something like 85% of those yet to be awarded. And that’s not going to happen, unless Hillary drops out and the races are uncontested.

Face it: both Clinton and Obama will need superdelegates to win the nomination.

Somehow I hate to think that the SupDels will have that much power. Sinking feeling in Stomach.

The mere fact that the dems have launched religion friendly sites would indicate that there is some sort of perception issue that dems aren’t friendly to people of faith.
See the following links as examples
http://www.time.com/time/polit…..49,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14683667/

O/T Obama raised 55 million in February

WOW
Good for him.

well, this is interesting. Turns out it may have been the *Clinton* campaign which contacted Canada re NAFTA:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..425/470456

90 million between he and Hillary for the month of February. It’s great, I guess but somehow also obscene (IMO)

Yep. That would feed a lot of hungry people.

The Clintons don’t need to be defeated, they need to be destroyed. We as a nation need to silence them and remove them from our consciousness. Send her packing.

[Mod Note; speaking metaphorically, of course.]

Gee LHP as a physician who did 8 years of tertiary emergency medicine I kinda know Obama isn’t, and I also know that if I put Hillary in an ER or any crisis situation she’d be running for help. By the way was it usual practice for you as a Public Integrity section litigator to issue a subpoena for documents and then wait 18 months or forever until someone like Hillary Clinton “discovered” them in her East Wing dining room? How about your law partner when he was at DOJ? Did you word the subpoenas to say “just drop them by anytime from now to eternity–don’t inconveniece yourself–we really don’t give a damn if you comply with the subpoena? ‘Cause that’s what happened when Amy St. Eve was on the White Water team that subpoenaed Hillary’s Documents. 18 friggin’ months is a damn long time to comply with a DOJ subpoena. That ain’t the way it’s done around here.

But thanks for the reminder. I loved West Wing. How ’bout you. I know damn well that Martin Sheen could be a better President than John McCain or Hillary Clinton.

Do you now understand a little better what the Rezko trial is about? Do you now believe Amy St. Eve when she tells you that Obama was not ‘Official A’ as you either directly said or intimated in your headline? It was the governor of Illinois.

But the questions I most want to see you answer I posted. If you believe Hillary has so much crisis management experience then will you please profile it or flesh it out for us?

Also did you read your hometown newspaper’s op-ed by former Illinois Senator, Clinton White House Counsel, D.C. Court of Appeals judge and Obama supporter explaining what a Present vote is–I’ve linked it many times since your headline vetting Obama.

Did you read the questions I’ve given you to vet Hillary with and when are you going to do the headline vetting Hillary with them?

Why are you afraid to do a headline vetting Hillary with my questions?

I appreciate your helping me understand the difference between TV and reality. I do think you know my point was that Hillary’s claim to experience that is superior to Obama’s is a myth.

The only crises I know of that Hillary faced were the claims her husband lied that caused impeachment–Flowers on the campaign trail, and fending off questions now about her $5 million dollars, the Burkle money, and her husband’s money deals that funnel money into the “library fund” or Hillary’s campaign and the Mark Rich bribery pardon.

No, not public official A, Pete, he’s the “Political Candidate” in the evideentiary proffer. The candidate who got donations through Rezko strawmen.On of those donations came out of the proceeds of a kickback that Rezko demanded go to the strawman

That seems a bit extreme. I’d be willing to bet that most of the people here did very well during the Clinton years and the country was financially in very good shape. Why bother to hate her? Just don’t vote for her.

Check out the update at that same Kos link: “According to CBC, all the details were wrong. Canada contacted the campaigns.”

From my days as an intern at the US State Dept, this whole episode sounds to me like there’s a lot more going on here about Canadian politics and behind-the-scenes tomfoolery than about the US race.

How easy would it be for someone from another source to identify themselves as being from the Clinton campaign? Especially if that someone had inside info on the Obama campaign or contacts in the White House. Dirty tricks? Remember the Canuck letter.

Just wondering.

easy enough, I suppose. *Somebody* was playing dirty – the timing of the release practically screams it.

Who? Heck if I know. Clinton benefited, Obama suffered, and as Peterr just alluded to, there was a fairly good row in the Canadian Parliament the next day.

I need to turn up the “devious” dial on my thinking cap, I guess…

18 friggin’ months is a damn long time to comply with a DOJ subpoena. That ain’t the way it’s done around here.

I’m sorry, did you go from being a doctor to being a prosecutor? Which “here” are you referring to?

Yes, I have had instances where I subpoenaed documents and instead of the documents I got back an affidavit from the cusodian of records for those documents saying that after a diligent search, the documents could not be found.

I have written such affidavits myself for clients who could not locate documents in response to a subpoena or discovery demand. It really quite common.

When a party submits such an affidavit, they nonetheless have a continuing aobligation to produce the documents, should they either stumble upon them at a later time, or remeber another place to search for them, or otherwise locate the documents at a later time.

And, yes, in my career there have been instances where people who could not locate documents when originally asked, found them later. Ofetn because something came up in a deposition, that triggered a memeory, or because they came upon them when looking for other documents in connection with the case.

Most lawyers who do any kind of litigation, civil or criminal will have had the same experience.

I don’t think you have evidence that Obama knowingly received illicit funds ever in any proffer by Fitz’s AUSAs.

If so where?

I don’t see you talking about my 15 questions for Hillary. Vetting her is not so much your cup of tea is it? How about that pardon of Mark Rich? Do you think that Hillary knew that the funds she took from Norman Hsu who enterd a plea and is now in the care of bad physicians in the DOJ medical system were illicit?

Clinton, Boxer donor pleads guilty to giving Hillary and Barbara illegal ill gotten gains Feb. 29, 2008

I don’t hear Terry McAuliffe, Penn, Maggie Williams or Howard Wolfson touting her using this illegal money: What say you LHP–Jinnah would have been A-Okay when you were employed by DOJ PIN (Public Integrity Section) ’cause it’s Hillary?

February 29, 2008

Southern California businessman Abdul Rehman Jinnah pleaded guilty this week in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles to directing illegal campaign contributions to Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barbara Boxer of California.

Jinnah is scheduled to be sentenced in June. He could face more than a year in prison for reimbursing employees and associates for political donations made in their names.

Jinnah admitted Monday that he used straw donors to contribute at least $53,000 to Clinton’s political action committee, HillPac, and Boxer’s 2004 reelection campaign.

He was indicted in May 2006 but fled the country soon after for his native Pakistan. He returned to face the charges a year later and has been under house arrest.

How ’bout Jinnah LHP? Did Hillary know that Jinnah’s contributions to her and Boxer were from illicit gains and why did she take the money. Jinnah’s on the way to prison.

Why won’t you vet Hillary to answer my questions the way you repeatedly purported to vet Obama here?

And why is it necessary for them to do this? Because of Republican talking points about how Democrats were going to take their Bibles if they got in power and not let them be Christians. That’s the talking point. You had to be paying attention to the rise of the right wing through the use of the Church all along to get this, so it’s not your fault for not seeing it.

So you don’t see talking points and you “see” vilification where I haven’t. Just differences in perception, I guess.

Can hardly wait for further discussion to help me decide whether Hillary or Obama is the most evil.

hmmm… what’s Hillary’s middle name?

Pete you’re out of line. I personally intervened with the mods to bring you back after your last episode but you’ve worked everyone’s last nerve.

There are a lot of places that welcome this kind of pie throwing and this isn’t one of them.

Dear Jane,

Surely you’re not as naive as you pretend to be in your post. The fear card goes hand in hand with a politician who would vote to authorize an unwarranted war, not out of principle or belief, but out of political expedience. She disqualified herself for this nomination in 2002 as far as I was concerned. Her campaign tactics since she first began to perceive a threat from Obama late in the fall is exactly what you get with a person who could vote for war to maintain political viability. You and others here who know better persist in pretending this never happened and didn’t matter. Her vote then, and her behavior now, indicates precisely what sort of commander in chief she’d make: calculating, triangulating, overreacting to perceived threats, willing to act not out of principle but for the sake of expedience.

Just make one thing clear, Pete, I never worked in DOJ’s Public Intergrity Section, which is in DC. I have never had a job that was domiciled in DC.

I did public corruption cases in a US Attorney’s Office in a major city.

Actually, while according to some Clinton benefitted, did she look like she was playing dirty? I think it makes her look bad. That, I think is the crux of this. Heck, I don’t know if she did it. I just think it seems eerily familiar.

I will say, however, that the Clinton campaign has been much more open when it comes to letting people ask tough questions of them.

Sure, because Clinton and her surrogates rarely answer the question that is asked of them. Instead, they authoritatively answer, with encyclopedic detail, the question they heard in an alternate universe where everything can work to their political advantage!

I’ve seen a few articles claiming that Hillary is a more progressive voter than Barack. Then there’s this -
http://progressivepunch.yvod.c…..2&y=4

I think if you google comparing Obama to Lieberman’s voting records, you should find some interesting articles. (written by an Edwards supporter who doesn’t like any current candidate)

By all means, whenever I want FACTS I turn to DKos… Ugh.

…while according to some Clinton benefitted, did she look like she was playing dirty? I think it makes her look bad.

For the sake of argument, I might point out that HRC *really* needed wins last Tuesday. In other words, the immediacy and desperation for a win in Ohio – might it not take primacy over any worry about (potentially – hello, MSM?) looking bad later?

Just thinkin’ out loud here….

Really? He told them to buzz off? He fired his economic advisors?

Not somehow obscene – totally obscene. It is a disgusting and total waste of money that could have been used for the common good. We the people need to stop this money wasting rock star media circus and find the road back to electing a president.

Yes interesting…but did that mean a darn bit of difference in terms of delegates? In order to win more delegates one has to win Districts at about a 62-75% level.

No one could make the argument that there was fudging to guarantee a Clinton win…but most surveys had her winning the popular vote in Ohio anyways…as did the exit polling. Where it mattered…delegates…one would need to show it actually made a difference. In the case of the 2004 election thye situation was a bit different. Bush simply had to win against Kerry. The fudging assured that he’d get all of Ohio’s electoral votes in a winner-take-all state.

Agreed. I’m doing the same.

Jeezus…this is getting tiresome. Yes, he did very quickly and directly.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html

Yes, he has a few advisers (one?) that has some attachment to the DLC. He’s not perfect, I understand that. He’s far better than Clinton on the DLC issue.

I wish he’d have Noam Chomsky as his Chief Economic Adviser, but that’s probably not going to happen. Regardless, Obama offers the best choice I’ve ever had in my voting lifetime for a Presidential finalist.

Nobody reads post #156.

Everything else is window dressing. He said, she said.

ABC News reported the initial source was Mr. Harper’s Chief of Staff Ian Brodie, his most senior aide. Later, a memo composed by consular official Joseph de Mora was leaked to The AP. So there was an initial leak, and then “evidence” provided to supposedly back it up. Then yesterday, Harper said that Mr. Brodie was not the source of the leak, but he actually appeared to be speaking about the memo, rather than the initial story.

“The government is seeking to find the person responsible for divulging this information to the public, but it was not my chief of staff,” Mr. Harper told the Commons. Mr. Harper’s communications director, Sandra Buckler, said last week that Mr. Brodie “does not recall” discussing the issue.

It seems likely that de Mora or others passed on information about their conversations to Ottawa. And the word is that, ironically, the Clinton campaign was much more direct in saying that NAFTA-statements were just posturing. But for some reason Obama was targeted and the CBC (usually a very careful agency) even issued a statement that “the Clinton campaign had not made similar statements”.

Harper asserts that his government is investigating, but this only came after he made really undiplomatic statements about the leaks and asserted that they would have not impact on the US election so it was a “tempest in a teapot”. NOW he is saying it could have serious impacts on US-Canadian relationships (if perhaps anyone but Mr. McCain were to win) and has ordered the investigation. Clearly he has already exonerated Brodie, without any information whatsoever. Sounds sort of like the statements that followed the Plame leaks exonerating Rove and Libby (both of whom, of course, DID leak).

Perhaps this goes with my thought about Clinton only winning the states where Terry McAuliffe built powerful machines when he was head of the DNC. Terry closed office in many states and poured everything into his 15 State Strategy. OH was one of those. I remember watching 2004 and 2000 elections thinking WTF, why does it just have to be about these few states!?!? Obama’s winning virtually every other state by an average of 20% or more. I assumed it was more about Dem Party officials in those states feeling obligated to McAuliffe/Clinton for building the machine for them, but maybe it’s more nefarious.

If one believes, as I do, that the Repub power structures and the DLC Dems are engaged in a Kabuki Dance to keep us pacified as if there’s a difference, when really they want the same things for their BigMoney masters, then it makes sense that controlling the voting machines in key states would benefit Repubs and DLCers.

BlackBoxVoting.org is all over this stuff. I just can’t believe we’ve hardly done anything to fix these problems after 2000 and 2004. Will people be sitting around saying, “What happened?!?” come Nov again? What’s it going to take!
http://blackboxvoting.org/

It may be that tghis is a double whammy put out by Harper at the behest of the White House. Lemme run this scenario by you all. Canada asks for meetings with both campaigns to get assurances regarding trade. Both campaigns say that they would push for revisions strengthening the labor and environmental protections of NAFTA but not throw out the full treaty. This is essentially both candidates public positions. They say that there is some political posturing on both sides to apint the other as overly pro- or anti-NAFTA. The Canadian Trade officials press further and write down things that simply sound like the campaigns are trying to deceive the public.

They decide to leak the leading statements…first about Obama…so that Clinton is “back in the race” and then before Pennsyltucky they were going to leak Her campaigns statements.

Repugs win as the two Democrats are suggested to be liars to the public, particularly in economically depressed States.

Wouldn’t surprise me. Harper is a neocon of the highest order, although I think he knows he has nothing to worry about with Hillary.

It was great to see Jack Layton lettin him have it the other day. Last I was in TO, some of Layton’s official campaign literature had his face next to a marijuana leaf, and he wins! I love Canada.

obviously, the “devious” dial on your thinking cap goes to a much higher setting than does mine.

Very interesting thoughts – thanks.

Jane, I observe that the 3AM phone call adjust reminds me to consider who I would feel most comfortable about answering the phone. The rest of the ad is obligatory politicking. Everyone might appreciate that. What I am clear on is that the person picking up that phone better not be John McCain!

Well, yeah, but would the reporters actually SAY that? Not so much, at least so far.

Also kinda fear-mongering in a Rovian sense was the Dean=Osama ad run by some group associated with Kerry and Gephardt before Iowa in 2004.

You have a talent for understatement. :) Honestly, that ad was much worse than the 3 a.m. ad and carried exactly the same intent and potential damage. Karl Rove could have written it verbatim. All that ominous music and menacing full-screen Osama with the captions along the lines of “No experience.” “Dangerous world,” etc. Plus, it was a totally negative ad aimed squarely at Dean, not one touting a candidate and just implying that the rival candidate didn’t have the right stuff. All it lacked was the prowling wolves of the Bush anti-Kerry ad later in the season. There were also lots of accusations of petty dirty tricks on the ground (the usual robocalls, push polls, manipulating the process, etc.) made against the Kerry folks vis a vis Dean of the same type that have been lobbed at the Clinton camp. The only difference was the Osama ad wasn’t an OFFICIAL Kerry or Gephardt ad; it was done by “operatives” in a 527, but come on. That’s a distinction without a difference when we’re talking about Republicans. Let’s not get “Clintonesque,” as it were, and parse these things when it comes to Dems.

Then there was Lieberman’s hissy fit, for which he enlisted the aid of several prominent Congress critters, practically calling Dean an anti-Semite for making the benign and rational observation that if the U.S. wanted to have an influence in Middle East peacemaking it needed to be seen as more “evenhanded,” which apparently according to Lieberman and his outrage squad was some kind of dog-whistle code for “We must destroy the Zionist cabal and smite their firstborns.” And Dean himself and Gephardt pretty much destroyed each other in Iowa with negative ads.

Yet Deaniacs sucked it up and voted for Kerry; some, including Howard himself, worked their butts off to elect Kerry. And as a matter of fact, one of the chief architects of the Osama ad is now working for Obama, so these people always find employment and politics makes strange bedfellows.

As an Obama supporter, as a Democrat, as a citizen, I hate these kinds of ads. I think Clinton’s 3 a.m. ad is stupid and counterproductive, despicable maybe. But unique? Hardly. This is how campaign politics unfolds in this country, unfortunately. I hope people are outraged because they’re tired of the games, they’ve lost patience with this playground crap after 7 years of the hell Bush has put this country through. But not because they think only Clinton has ever resorted to this type of campaigning. Only those truly as young as the TV stereotype of Obama supporter have that excuse.

She didn’t take her name off because it wasn’t required. Why did Obama take his name off?

In the 3 a.m. ad, when the phone rings, maybe she could just answer “present” or claim she “missed” the call or heck, just push the wrong button (works for Obama)

Sorry, about the length

I’m probably the only one here but I have to respond

Some good Dems here seem to be overreacting to what was only a fairly noncontroversial ad by Hillary which sought to underscore her experience and steadiness at the helm. And it’s hardly being Repub or Rovian to go about highlighting a candidate’s national security strength in this way.

It’s exactly Rovian, I don’t have time to go digging up the links for what I’m about to say. First, the ad …

This ad is evil when you take into account the entire campaign: think of the release (by the Clintons) of the pic of Obama wearing what looks like a turban implying he’s Muslim (and btw the Muslim headdress is called a ghutra); Hillary going on 60 Minutes and saying that Obama isn’t Muslim … “as far as I [she] know[s]” … feeding the paranoia of “redneck” America and implying that he is some kind of Muslim plant, and btw so what! if he was Muslim?!? What the f is wrong with that?; then you have the ad with the sleeping kids (clearly intended for the soccer moms) oh, and I haven’t verified this but it has been mentioned that on one of the kids pajamas the beginning of a word can be seen, the beginning of the word is “nig” which could be a multitude of things except when you think of all the racial rhetoric employed heavily and for a long while by the Clintons – since at least South Carolina.

Subliminal ads work! There was a study refuting the old story about inserting coke and popcorn frames into movies during the fifties to get people to buy popcorn and coke whereby the ad exec who put the story out admitted that he just wanted the story out there to drum up news about coke, but what isn’t highly reported is that it does work.

Subliminal ads work especially well on teevee. OK this is one link I’ll give since I’ve already put the time in on this

.. That television you watch every day, your secret best friend, is an addictive opiate, and not only that, it’s one of the most potent mind control devices ever produced. And I’m not just basing this on intuition. I have the neurological evidence to prove it.

[…]

Of course, not all addictions are chemical. Any behavior that leads to a pleasurable experience will be repeated , especially if that behavior requires little work. Psychologists call this pattern “positive reinforcement” . This is what we mean, technically speaking, by addiction. In this sense, television certainly fits into the category of an addictive agent.

When you watch TV, brain activity switches from the left to the right hemisphere. In fact, experiments conducted by researcher Herbert Krugman showed that while viewers are watching television, the right hemisphere is twice as active as the left, a neurological anomaly. The crossover from left to right releases a surge of the body’s natural opiates: endorphins, which include beta-endorphins and enkephalins. Endorphins are structurally identical to opium and its derivatives (morphine, codeine, heroin, etc.). Activities that release endorphins (also called opioid peptides) are usually habit-forming (we rarely call them addictive). These include cracking knuckles, strenuous exercise, and orgasm. External opiates act on the same receptor sites (opioid receptors) as endorphins, so there is little difference between the two.

[…]

Herbert Krugman’s research proved that watching television numbs the left brain and leaves the right brain to perform all cognitive duties. This has some harrowing implications for the effects of television on brain development and health. For one, the left hemisphere is the critical region for organizing, analyzing, and judging incoming data. The right brain treats incoming data uncritically, and it does not decode or divide information into its component parts.

The right brain processes information in wholes, leading to emotional rather than intelligent responses. We cannot rationally attend to the content presented on television because that part of our brain is not in operation. It is therefore unsurprising that people rarely comprehend what they see on television, as was shown by a study conducted by researcher Jacob Jacoby. Jacoby found that, out of 2,700 people tested, 90% misunderstood what they watched on television only minutes before. As yet there is no explanation as to why we switch to the right brain while viewing television, but we do know this phenomenon is immune to content.

The ad’s evil

Psychophysiologist Thomas Mulholland found that after just 30 seconds of watching television the brain begins to produce alpha waves , which indicates torpid (almost comatose) rates of activity. Alpha brain waves are associated with unfocused, overly receptive states of consciousness. A high frequency alpha waves does not occur normally when the eyes are open.

OK, hold on a second here, and pay extra attention to the next two paragraphs

I should note that the goal of hypnotists is to induce slow brain wave states. Alpha waves are present during the “light hypnotic” state used by hypno-therapists for suggestion therapy.

When Mulholland’s research was published it greatly impacted the television industry, at least in the marketing and advertising sector. Realizing viewers automatically enter a trance state while watching television, marketers began designing commercials that produce unconscious emotional states or moods within the viewer. The aim of commercials is not to appeal to the rational or conscious mind (which usually dismisses advertisements) but rather to implant moods that the consumer will associate with the product when it is encountered in real life. When we see product displays at a store, for instance, those positive emotions are triggered . Endorsements from beloved athletes and other celebrities evoke the same associations. If you’ve ever doubted the power of television advertising, bear this in mind: commercials work better if you’re not paying attention to them!

Now, think of the ad in context with the subtext of all of the racial rhetoric. The ad is evil and Rovian in that the Bushies used similar scenes in their ads in 2004: there were ads showing kids getting off of their school bus and the bus blowing up; scenes of what appeared to be a gun held to the head of what could be seen as Korean woman implying we had N. Korea in control; a cross behind Muhamed Karzai implying that the US was going to bring Christianity to the MidEast … and more that I can’t remember off the top of my head.

Then there’s the Dean-Osama ad which others have mentioned

Ever heard of Edward Bernays?

Edward Bernays was Sigmund Freud’s cousin

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized.” – Edward Bernays

Google “The Century of the Self”

If it was just one, or even a few incidents where one staffer or a few said something that they shouldn’t have I would say “fine let it lie”, but this is systemic and long term – a strategy for the “redneck” vote and if it continues I would have to wonder what their (Clintons) true feelings were for African Americans and Muslim Americans

It’s evil and Rovian in that you are manipulating people’s fears

They should be ashamed of themselves

I could care less about the Lieberman connection, but I have to say that Obama supporters have drained any meaning from the word ”smear.” Every negative thing one candidate says about another isn’t a smear. I mean really, Bill Clinton says Obama likes Ronald Reagan, and it’s a ”smear”. Can we please be a little more realistic?

Well, Pete, to answer one of your questions, the Clinton ad never said she had experience handling crises, and Obama did not. It said the President will have to respond to crises, and asked voters who they would want in the White House when that happens. I happen to think that Jane’s reaction about fear tactics is a bit much, but her point is certainly arguable. You are blatantly misstating the facts, and demanding a response to your misstatements.

Geez, John, you don’t have time to actually look at the ads you’re attacking, but you can post endless paragraphs about subliminal ads? That’s what’s known as a red herring. You go on an on about subliminal advertising, as if the debate is over how effective Hillary’s subliminal ads are. When in point of fact, there is no evidence that there is any kind of subliminal advertising at play. That’s just another Internet fever dream.

And Hillary’s response on 60 Minutes wasn’t “evil,” nor was it “Rovian.” On what planet is a response of “Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that” not a blanket statement? And could you please provide us with a link to the story where it was established that the Clinton campaign “released” the Obama photo? Since you didn’t express it as your opinion, but as a statement of fact, I’m assuming you have some backup.

You know what is evil? Poisoning the discourse by accusing people of every vile tactic under the sun, simply by rehashing Internet rumors. That’s what’s evil.

You know, I’m not emotionally invested in this (Clinton v Obama) and I’m not getting into a flame war with you

Have a great evening!

Folks need to put downt he koolaid now. Clinton and Obama are both centrist candidates and the differences between them on policy proposals and voting records are fairly minor. Such as exist are as follows:

Clinton is more left leaning on domestic economic issues though still certainly not particularly progressive.. Obama’s key advisors are right leaning Univeristy of Chicago school types. That’s not good, that’s not good at all.

Obama is better on trasparency issues and the internet.

Obama is very slightly more progressive on foreign affairs.

There just ain’t that much difference and folks need to stop acting as if there is. What’s the line about academia, the fighting is fierce because so little is at stake?

Put down the bloody kool-aid and get a grip.

Hear, Hear! Ian, you have to say this loud LOUDER LOUDEST in other threads.

Is it November yet?

It’s the state Demo parties that foot the bill for the primary elections. No chance of getting any federal money for it.

My suggestion for Howard Dean is to “split the difference” by allowing Michigan to redo their primary. Only Hillary’s name was on the ballot there. Those voters did not have a choice. (I believe I am right about this). Delegates out of this redo should be seated.

Neither candidate campaigned in Florida (although some of Obama’s TV ads found their way in). Florida delegates should be seated.

Dean should take charge of this if he is to retain any clout as national chairman.

As to the rapacious turn this campaign has taken, it is disgusting all of us. I had a long conversation with a friend tonight. She is politically astute and as committed as I am to seeing a Democrat win this election, but is saddened to see this disintegration of the party. We have just about concluded we will work to support Noriega for the Senate and stay out of the presidential campaign.

Many of you have decided that Clinton is the biggest offender…maybe so. But I believe a constant barrage of sliming Hillary on this blog and other liberal blogs sickens me. Jane has written article describing a Clinton conference call and gives that campaign one teeny weeny good point and many now jump on her for that.

If we lose to McCain, Hillary shares a great deal of the blame. But liberals like us , if thinking clearly, will have to say we paved the way.

If Obama is to be our nominee, he needs to toughen up and tell his supporters to get a life. I like his cool calm demeanor, but some of his supporters are getting me down.

Rob, you’d be great as a communications director or media spokesperson, assuming you’re not being paid to do this for a living. Keep it up!

RW, if you’re still here: Josh @ TPM had a post about this yesterday. The leaker was identified as Canadian PM Stephen Harper’s chief of staff. Evidently, the idea was the conservatives in Canadian and US government wanted to take down Obama. Here’s the link:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com…..ional/home

Exactly!

Obama’s not going for the bait. If Hillary’s going to win this thing, she’ll have to win it, not sucker him into an emotional over-reaction. She tipped her hand with her nasty remark that all Obama has going for him is a speech he made in 2002.

I voted for Obama and have experienced twinges of buyer’s remorse. Hillary’s intemperate ads and her intemperate remarks have made that remorse go away. Leadership counts as much as experience, and she didn’t show any with that war vote. Imagine if she’d done the right thing instead of the expedient thing. Think of that in terms of a different metric than votes in primary elections – lives lost, children orphaned, human beings blinded or maimed. If she’d risked her political career by opposing the war, how much closer would we be toward ending that terrible tragedy? That’s how I measure Hillary.