from the tone on this site, i except this to be eviscerated, however, what better way to get conversation started...
i read this from evan handler on the huff po...
what got me was the last three paragraphs:
As I've said, I have had no doubts as to the sincerity of Senator Clinton's wish to do well for the American people and their interests. I just no longer believe she has the wisdom or good judgment to know when her own private wishes have come into conflict with the interests of the rest of us. One doesn't have to look far or remember hard to know we've seen too much of that syndrome over the past seven years already.
Senators Clinton and Obama were asked during their most recent debate whether they'd come to regret any votes they've cast while holding public office. I have a regret to confess to. When I voted in the California primary less than four weeks ago, I pulled the lever for Senator Clinton. I now believe I was wrong. If Senator Obama had carried California the contest might be over by now. I hope the people of Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont will make better choices than I did last month, and settle the race decisively -- before Senator Clinton has the chance to do more damage in her quest to protect us while we sleep. I've come to trust the candidate who's encouraging us to wake up, and to protect ourselves - even, if need be, from our own government.
I hope I get the chance to vote for Senator Obama again. I am not a devotee or disciple. I am a skeptic, and remain somewhat skeptical. Still, over the past few weeks I have become convinced that Barack Obama is the better choice for the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. And, well...God help us all if that's not enough to make him president.
btw, this is the link
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-handler/i-cant-believe-im-stand_b_89448.html
Posted by anthony at March 14, 2008 03:20 AMSome of y'all are not going to like this...Turkana might do the checking. I'm talking of percentages not the actual number of votes cast.
This years participation in the primary voting cycle would rank 7th in the ten most recent elections, including 2008. Democratic participation has out drawn Republicans in the eight of the ten election primaries. This years percentage is about 62% of the participation...to get to a 2/1 rate would equal about 66/67%.
1980-61%
1976-63
1992-64
1988-67
2004-68
1972-74
1984-75
Republicans only bested Democrats in 1996 and 2000 election years. So you captured the WH with 61 and 64% and lost with much more. Your excitement doesn't necessarily mean the achieving desired result. This years participation is nothing abnormal.
Posted by peter at March 14, 2008 04:38 AMCommondreams,org has a lead story: Ain't nobody thinking seriously about the Iraq war since no TV news is covering it." Like, WHAT? Since WHEN does MSM determine what Americans think? MSM NEVER covered the Iraq war! Progressive sites become more boneheaded by the minute. I think about the Iraq war every FUCKING day and how that skirmish in the Middle is killing American soldiers for nothing, and how it's trashing the USA economically.
I guess we're just becoming more conditioned to the ongoing dumbing down and accepting of propaganda.
Josef Geobbels, how ya doin!
Posted by Myownprivateinferno at March 14, 2008 05:03 AMThere is this great site called world clock (google it) that lets you arrange meetings anywhere.
Posted by ghost2 at March 14, 2008 05:16 AMsounds like pants pissing peter needs to get out of the bunker and get some fresh air, those Cheetoes farts can be deadly
Posted by Gay Veteran at March 14, 2008 05:25 AMIt used to be pretty bad in Europe, most countries used daylight saving but changed on different days. It is now co-ordinated across the Europe Union. A few years back an attempt was made to co-ordinate with the US (I think) cos we all changed on the same day but then I think some Merkun who thought that all Europeans were communists and that changing on the same day was un-Merkan decided to change on a different day. Any way there are more of us Europeans than you Merkans, so nah-nah-nanah-nah!
Posted by blowback at March 14, 2008 05:28 AMBTW, we Brits did it first so nah-nah-nanah-nah with bells on. And the European Union standardised on the last Sundays in March and October some time ago (1981) while the US changed their approach with the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Prior to that Act it had been the first Sunday in April and the last Sunday in October):
The bill amends the Uniform Time Act of 1966 by changing the start and end dates of daylight saving time, beginning in 2007. Clocks were set ahead one hour on the second Sunday of March (March 11, 2007) instead of on the first Sunday of April (April 1, 2007). Clocks were set back one hour on the first Sunday in November (November 4, 2007), rather than on the last Sunday of October (October 28, 2007). Lobbyists for this provision included the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, the National Association of Convenience Stores, and the National Retinitis Pigmentosa Foundation Fighting Blindness; lobbyists against included the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the National Parent-Teacher Association, the Calendaring and Scheduling Consortium, the Edison Electric Institute, and the Air Transport Association. This section of the act is controversial; some have questioned whether daylight saving results in a net energy savings.
Posted by blowback at March 14, 2008 05:39 AMYeah, Mary, we're just starting up web seminars and the coordination issues are bad enough without trying to figure out the best time to accommodate everyone's schedules. Sadly, the least tech savvy person in our office is in charge...funsies!
Posted by iamcoyote at March 14, 2008 05:42 AMObama basic training. Answers a lot of questions. Reminds me of the Young Republican boot camps run by Rove. Whatever works, I suppose.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 14, 2008 05:54 AMAnthony,
I'm not quite sure why you think the comments you pasted would get "eviscerated". I still think Clinton would be a better president than Obama but I have no problem with Handler changing his mind. I happen to disagree with him on some of his points and agree with him on others. But he stated his case. What's to be bothered about?
Posted by snark at March 14, 2008 06:02 AMI see the Federal Investigators are after Spitzer for perhaps using campaign funds for his trysts. Yet Republican Giuliani clearly used taxpayer money to pay for his trysts and lots more for his girlfriend and that was quickly swept under the rug. Media Control.
Posted by T2 at March 14, 2008 06:04 AMiamcoyote...of course they are brainwashing the O supporters. When you are operating a clandestine Al Qaeda operation to take over the United States by sneaking a smooth-talking Muslim named Hussein into the presidency, you've got to cover all your bases.
Posted by T2 at March 14, 2008 06:08 AM...sneaking a smooth-talking Muslim...
Are you saying Obama is a Muslim?
Posted by snark at March 14, 2008 06:14 AMAre you saying Obama is a Muslim?
Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 14, 2008 06:16 AMNot that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
Of course not. I'm just not quite sure why Obama supporters seem to keep raising it as an issue.
In any event, I'll vote happily for Barack Obama if he is the nominee.
I'd also vote for his mother were she still alive and running. Sounds like an interesting woman.
Posted by snark at March 14, 2008 06:27 AMyou are right iamcoyote, there is nothing wrong with that.
Posted by T2 at March 14, 2008 06:48 AMsnark:
it seems those that are pro-obama crowd are called everything but a child of the god of your choice. if you don't follow the line or are anti hilary it has been par for the course to have your intelligence questioned...
these veiled muslim rants are getting old. he is a christian, raised christian. his father is a muslim. some of our staunchest supporters were named hussein, like king hussein of jordan, for one.
i don't remember learning in the constitution that you had to be christian to run for potus
is that a new amendment or somethin? i guess just wealthy, white, and male gets you the presidency these days hmmm???
"Obama supporters seem to keep raising it as an issue."
Since when was Steve Kroft an Obama supporter? Oh yeah, I forgot all Media is anti-Hillary, pro-Obama.
moving away from the exciting Dem primary for a moment.....The General on the Ground, Petraeus, has now admitted the Surge has Failed in it #1 goal of providing an atmosphere where Iraqi Governmental progress could be achieved. This despite Bush and McOld's repeated assurances that Surge was Success. How long before Petraeus follows Fallon out the door?
Posted by T2 at March 14, 2008 07:01 AMT2,
Are you kidding me?
No one in this thread raised the "Is Obama a muslim" crap until you did. You are an Obama supporter are you not? Get a grip.
Posted by snark at March 14, 2008 07:02 AMmy god snark, you can't see sarcasm for the life of you, can you....I guess I'll have to post disclaimers any time I get sarcastic so you won't get confused.
by the way, Kevin Drum has an excellent, actually reasonable, summation to the whole Race-Baiting issue, posted on his site at 1:45 am.
it seems those that are pro-obama crowd are called everything but a child of the god of your choice. if you don't follow the line or are anti hilary it has been par for the course to have your intelligence questioned...
Huh?
these veiled muslim rants are getting old. he is a christian, raised christian. his father is a muslim. some of our staunchest supporters were named hussein, like king hussein of jordan, for one.
Right, which is why I think Obama supporters like T2 should stop injecting it into the conversation. And I made no mention of his name. Again, T2 did. His middle name could be Mussolini for all I care.
i don't remember learning in the constitution that you had to be christian to run for potus
is that a new amendment or somethin? i guess just wealthy, white, and male gets you the presidency these days hmmm???
I love this. Let's all look and see who's using raceism and xenophobia as a political tool here. Shock of shocks! It's T2 and anthony, both Obama supporters. Uniting the country once again. Maybe Brian Bell will be along shortly to tell us all how we should be "chicken" to engage African-American's in conversation?
Oh yeah, I forgot all Media is anti-Hillary, pro-Obama.
How could I miss the sarcasm in that given the general nature of your comments here? Hard to understand.
Posted by snark at March 14, 2008 07:16 AMYeah, Mary, we're just starting up web seminars and the coordination issues are bad enough without trying to figure out the best time to accommodate everyone's schedules.
I'm still having issues with the TV schedule.
No time change here in AZ, yet the TV schedule does change. Missed some of the Phoenix Suns game the other day... the horror.
Obama's not a muslim... who knew?
Posted by Seven of Six at March 14, 2008 07:21 AMI'm still having issues with the TV schedule.
No time change here in AZ, yet the TV schedule does change.
That's what you get for living in a backwater that just adjusts to everyone elses schedule. ;)
[disclaimer: the little winky face is used to indicate when a comment should be taken as a joke or as sarcasm]
Posted by snark at March 14, 2008 07:21 AMObama's not a muslim... who knew?
Hillary knew.
Posted by snark at March 14, 2008 07:22 AMHillary knew.
As far as she knew. ;)
That's what you get for living in a backwater that just adjusts to everyone elses schedule. ;)
It like a bad episode on TV, that's called "McCain's Land". ;)
snark:
not raising the race card nor am i xenophobic. wouldn't be where i am in life if i were...
tell me what of the last part of my comment is not true? name one non-white, non wealthy (for the time frame), non male potus?
i am an obama supporter, you support hilary, we have a different opinion of who we think is the better candidate, period. but to throw xenophobia and racism into this conversation debases the discussion, no? how am i racist? how am i xenophobic? do you know me? or do you infer things because its expediant to jump to conclusions vs. engaging in conversation, to justify whatever point you're making?
i haven't called you a clintonite, clintonista or clinton head. in this blog, that is obviously pro hilary (i thought it was pro-liberal) as a supporter for the other guy, i'm lumped into the 'obamanite' crowd. a lemming following the flavor of the month... so, who exactly has the phobia? not i sir/ ma'am, not i...
btw, point conceded on the muslim issue. it is irrelvant wtf his middle name is...
Posted by anthony at March 14, 2008 07:32 AMHillary knew.
But not strongly or quickly enough, dammit! She should have stood on her chair a la Tom Cruise and denied it three times! But that half a second she hesitated, tells all. Bad Hillary!
Posted by iamcoyote at March 14, 2008 07:32 AMsnark, just so I can get back on your good side ;-), my original comment was intended to mock the very well travelled GOP talking point circulating for weeks in the Right Wing Nut emails...you really didn't get that?
Posted by T2 at March 14, 2008 07:38 AMWhatever works, I suppose.
Yes, and it sounds exactly like what we need for the general election - regardless of who the candidate is.
Is this not what we all would have wanted a couple of years ago - before it was my candidate vs yours - remember, when we were all Democrats?
We were looking for a presidential election where our candidate could inspire the electorate and bring enough people into the fold to make sure that we won by overwhelming margins so that we could make sure that the Republicans could not steal it.
Now - seems we have that and there is something wrong with it because...?
It like a bad episode on TV, that's called "McCain's Land". ;)
Heh.
Mornign laughs are good SOS.
Posted by Anjha at March 14, 2008 07:50 AMnot raising the race card nor am i xenophobic. wouldn't be where i am in life if i were...
I didn't say you were xenophobic. I said you were using the xenophobia and racism of others as a political tool.
tell me what of the last part of my comment is not true? name one non-white, non wealthy (for the time frame), non male potus?
Did you ask people to name such persons in your original comment? No, you did not. You made a statment;
i guess just wealthy, white, and male gets you the presidency these days hmmm???
Which addressed at me and had nothing to do with anything that I previously wrote in this thread. I had not mentioned Obama's race, just as no one had mentioned Obama's religion before T2. Which is why I accused you of USING racism and xenophobia as tools.
i am an obama supporter, you support hilary, we have a different opinion of who we think is the better candidate, period.
That is correct.
but to throw xenophobia and racism into this conversation debases the discussion, no?
Which is why I called you on it.
how am i racist? how am i xenophobic?
I did not say you where. Please, try to understand the differenc between calling someone racist and accusing them of using racism and xenophobia as political tools.
do you know me?
Only through your comments here.
or do you infer things because its expediant to jump to conclusions vs. engaging in conversation, to justify whatever point you're making?
I simply reacted to your comments. I did not mention Obama's race. You did. And in such a way as to infer that I implied that only rich white males should be president.
And isn't this, what we're doing right now, engaging in conversation?
i haven't called you a clintonite, clintonista or clinton head. in this blog, that is obviously pro hilary (i thought it was pro-liberal) as a supporter for the other guy, i'm lumped into the 'obamanite' crowd.
See, you just did it again. You introduced derrogatory names that I did not use. I called you an Obama supoorter. Is that not true?
a lemming following the flavor of the month... so, who exactly has the phobia? not i sir/ ma'am, not i...
Again, I made no such reference. You have chosen to respond to things not said, rather than things said. I made no judgement on your reasons for supporting Obama. I did not accuse you of having a phobia. Just appealing to the phobia of others to further your political interests in Obama.
The entirety of this exchange bears that out without doubt.
snark, just so I can get back on your good side ;-)
No one here is on my bad side T2, except Brian Bell.
, my original comment was intended to mock the very well travelled GOP talking point circulating for weeks in the Right Wing Nut emails...you really didn't get that?
Sorry, the hair-trigger atmosphere that all the racism accusations around here (and in general) has created just really has gotten to me. I know you support Obama. But had a Clinton supporter been the first in the thread to mention "Muslim" all hell would have broken loose. I'm sick of it. And I've basically been commenting lately in a way that shows how stupidly easy it is to throw those accusations rather than actually making a rational argument.
Posted by snark at March 14, 2008 08:06 AMHey good news. Preznit Bush is going to give a big, big speech (as media is calling it) on how to be and why we should be very excited about the economy.
He is going to be a cheerleader about how great things are - and how fab they will be - once everyone gets the $600 checks in the mail.
Whippee.
I am so relieved.
Posted by Anjha at March 14, 2008 08:07 AMyou really didn't get that?
I thought it was funny, T2, in an ironic way. But what's bad is the Muslim thing is really catching on through viral emails. Rachel Maddow was talking about it last night; she saw some study that showed the number of people who believed the emails was rising. What's crazy is at the same time the right is pushing the Hussein angle, they're also starting to rant about his pastor hating America. Yeah, how can he be Muslim, if he's in a Christian church? Cognitive dissonance has never been a problem with the rubes, has it?
Yes, and it sounds exactly like what we need for the general election - regardless of who the candidate is.
There's no denying that Obama has a formidable organization. And there's no doubt that over the years, some people on the left wanted to use right wing methods because they work. I think what makes a lot of people uncomfortable, including myself, is the creation of an Obama brand, rather than a Dem brand. Sure, that's how Bush got close enough to steal the election, and we want the Dems to come out in big numbers, but I worry about it backfiring. Also, I haven't watched the videos of that Wright fellow, but if there's a clip of him saying "God Damn America" there's going to be no way to counter it, even with hugging and sharing of feelings. Both "smears" use others' racism as a political tool, as snark is showing up above, and it does way more harm than good, IMO.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 14, 2008 08:07 AMIf you want to see why snark is righteously disgusted with Brian Bell, go read the exchange at the end of the "A Quick Note to Geraldine Ferraro" thread down below (on Wednesday). It really is horrific.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 14, 2008 08:11 AM" no one had mentioned Obama's religion before T2". And just to add one final point for clarity...Obama's religion is Christianity. He is not a Muslim. So much for my attempt at humor.
Posted by T2 at March 14, 2008 08:12 AMThanks T2. I try to be as precise with my words as possible but sometimes...
I certainly meant that in the general mentioning religion rather than identifying his religion.
Posted by snark at March 14, 2008 08:26 AMThere's no denying that Obama has a formidable organization. And there's no doubt that over the years, some people on the left wanted to use right wing methods because they work.
I don't see it as a "right wing" method. Not sure what you're referring to.
What I see is someone who is asking people to get involved in their own government.
Obama doesn't say "vote for me and I'll go take care of it." He says, "let's do this together - I need you to be involved in your government - I want you to pay attention to what we are doing, I will provide the transparency - here is the earmark website already created - etc, etc..."
He asks us to take responsibility, to be involved and to give back. I like that. I think that is the only way that we will be able move forward.
I think what makes a lot of people uncomfortable, including myself, is the creation of an Obama brand, rather than a Dem brand.
I conceed that point. I would like him to identify more as Democratic and Dem policies and this is what the Democrats do - I would like to think that this is a GE strategy. That his appeal to independents and crossovers is partly a result of this neutrality rather than a constant barage of Dem-good, Repub-bad.
But, this might not be correct. I would like to think so. More will be revealed.
but I worry about it backfiring.
How so?
Re: the whole preacher thing.
I have watched the videos and I am not offended by them but some people will be. Especially people who are just offended by every little thing anyhow.
I don't think that it will be a big deal unless the media makes it a big deal and I am glad that it is out now instead of later. I think that it will diffuse the 'he's a Muslim' meme, but it will grow the 'he's a radical black man who wants the blacks to rise up against whitey' meme that is also out there.
Picked up someone visiting Tennessee recently and that was the rumor there. But Tennessee is fervently anti 'worman' too. I don't think either could win that state in the GE.
Posted by Anjha at March 14, 2008 09:23 AMI don't think that it will be a big deal unless the media makes it a big deal
Looks like they're working on that already. As for the Obama camp stuff - the Young Republicans have camps like that all the time, which is what I was referring to. I understand that it's good for people to get involved in the process, but again, it's selling the Obama brand, not the Dem brand. It'll backfire if Obama doesn't get the nomination, which is still a possibility, however remote. Not to mention, it doesn't help with downticket races.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 14, 2008 10:02 AMsnark:
we come to our conclusions from differing perspectives on life. i point out that to illustrate how race and yes, xenophobia is an expected part of life for an african american. that is the way it is. whether im in a suit or in casual dress, i still get looks, i still get the purse on the other side when i pass a white woman on the streets in our fair country.
i would very much like to view the world in color blind glasses, but i cannot.
i've read many comments here where obama supporters are name-called, denigrated, or dismissed. i referenced that. yes, i agree you didn't use those words, but in the past posts, they were by others on this blog.
how is obama calling out others for what he feels as racist or xenophobic not different than you taking my words and attributing the same connotations to them? you felt they were, i answered you, they were not. he felt they were and wanted a retraction/ explanation and did not receive one-- for a while...
it is unfortunate that those not of color continue to charge he is using the race card, seemingly discounting the history we of color endured in these united states. its the way it is, and until we sit at the table, it will continue to be that way...
have you heard of without sanctuary? look up the book. its terrifying. but it is the history we harbor in this country. until that is faced, i don't think african americans will truly get a seat at the table. so when comments like those made though innocuous as they may sound, are taken/ viewed through skewed consciousness...
Posted by anthony at March 14, 2008 01:21 PMi would very much like to view the world in color blind glasses, but i cannot.
No one is asking you to.
i've read many comments here where obama supporters are name-called, denigrated, or dismissed. i referenced that. yes, i agree you didn't use those words, but in the past posts, they were by others on this blog.
So what does that have to do with me? Is that my fault? Do I need to apologize to you for that? Why even introduce it into the conversation? Do see what I'm getting at? There was no name calling and denigrating between us until YOU brought it into the exchange. Why?
how is obama calling out others for what he feels as racist or xenophobic not different than you taking my words and attributing the same connotations to them? you felt they were, i answered you, they were not. he felt they were and wanted a retraction/ explanation and did not receive one-- for a while...
There is no difference! I'm glad you recognize that. That's what I was trying to demonstrate
That's the point. We can go on and on pointing fingers and hurling accusations because of some perceived offense but it's all just bullshit. That's my point. What's the result of such accusations? We've increased the body count. Oh boy, a few more people tarred with a racism/sexism/xenophobia charge!
Is that the road toward redemption anthony?
Is that where you want this country to go?
To a point where no one engages anyone else for fear of being "ostracized, berated of physically harmed" (to quote Brian Bell) as a result? Because that's where we're headed with that approach.
it is unfortunate that those not of color continue to charge he is using the race card, seemingly discounting the history we of color endured in these united states. its the way it is, and until we sit at the table, it will continue to be that way...
So no black person can be guilty of using race baiting to further their agenda because of the history of racism in this country? Sorry, I disagree.
so when comments like those made though innocuous as they may sound, are taken/ viewed through skewed consciousness...
That being the case, isn't it incumbent on you, as one who understands the skewed consciousness to seek to diffuse the misunderstanding rather than pick it up and use it as a bludgeon?
But I'm rather sure you will come right back and insist that the Clinton campaign has been shamelessly "using the race card" so the entire exchange wil have been for naught.
Posted by snark at March 14, 2008 01:56 PMactually, no,i dont use the race card, its counter productive. we agree to disagree, find a middle ground, or move on.
if you truly read my comments, i did not accuse you of race baiting, name calling or anything else. i will not apologize for my point of view, nor will i ask you to do so.
i appreciate your candor and your perspective. all i ask is you do the same for me. yes, we are sensitive to the race baiting. we are looked upon as second class citizens. we do have a different justice system. we are over represented in jails and under represented in college. those facts are indisputable. i do not know the color of your skin, nor your ethnic background. i look for an america that it will not matter. my reality is based on my history. slavery, beatings, selma, water cannons, jim crow, "you got accepted cuz your black," the n-bomb, all of it. tell me, if you had to face something like that everyday, what would you do? how would you feel? how would you see the world? so when one comes along and challenges everyone to look to the better, why not gravitate towards him/ her???
i am not "insisting," anything of the sort. i gave examples and referenced why they are percieved as such.
america is run by rich white men. they do not want an african american, nor a woman to break that pentultimate glass ceiling. reading your words, i do not think you are naive to believe otherwise.
shouldn't it also be incumbent upon you to seek to understand where and why i feel this way, how it came about, and work to denounce it where you see it? sometimes a bludgeon is needed to get the point across. so many would rather close their eyes and make it go away. it wont, it cant, until it is acknowledged as a part of the mainstream consciouness. i think were we differ is that i'm calling out that consciousness, with that bludgeon.
please do look up "without sanctuary." it may go a long way to give you and others some understanding on why we can be "sensitive," to the race issue, at times. it was a life my grandfather faced daily, at times, my father, and fortunately, for a lesser extent, me...
Posted by anthony at March 14, 2008 02:59 PMits midnite here over the pond...
thanks for the discussion snark, wish you well.
Posted by anthony at March 14, 2008 04:01 PMLikewise Anthony, thank you for the discussion.
Yes, it is incumbent on me to speak out against genuine racism and any other form of discrimination. And I do. I also speak out when I believe people have been wrongly accused and when I see people attempting to use claims of racism and prejudice to decide people.
Be well.
Posted by snark at March 14, 2008 04:24 PM...to DIVIDE people.
Posted by snark at March 14, 2008 04:27 PM