DISQUS

what you said

Your update didn't improve your post, except to suggest you may have a personal axe to grind here. Maybe you got kids who aren't having a great experience in CPS, I don't know. But you just bash the guy without adding any specifics. If you're going to attack the guy like this, maybe you should add some facts. Just sayin'.

Impressive rant, but what's your point, that he doesn't have enough degrees to do the job? Why is that? You don't explain. In fact, you really don't say anything specific that he did wrong to earn your anger and disrespect. I've read about the guy, and he seems to have an excellent reputation. Did you -- or did you just notice that he's from Chicago and decide he must be a hack? That's the kind of analysis I'd expect from a GOP pundit.

Wow, this seems like a post from a time machine date-stamped about a week ago. Obama has been slamming McCain without mercy in his ads and on the stump. And it's working. Palin is tanking in the polls. A meteoric fall that has no recent precedent. The last thing Obama should have done was to allow himself to become the issue by directly criticizing her. All that would have done is suckered Obama into the GOP trap of feigned outrage that she's a victim of sexism. We saw that with "lipstick on a pig", which was obviously contrived. Obama didn't need to say a thing. Palin imploded on her own, beginning with the Gibson interview. Meanwhile, others are doing the job just fine. I think Tina Fey was a turning point in Palin-mania. Read NRO/The Corner - they're ballistic that now McCain-Palin are widely accepted by the traditional media as a couple of pathological liars. They're right.

Besides, it would be a mistake for the top of the ticket to attack the bottom of the other ticket. That's Biden's job. And the other surrogates. And it's the job of the media to report on who she is and what she stands for, and they've done a pretty good job.

Obama has a 50-44 lead in Gallup and 50-42 in Research 2000 today. As 538 noted yesterday, this kind of turnaround post convention by Obama exposes the McCain-Palin bump as very ephemeral, and its got to be very troubling for the GOP.

He knows what he's doing. Folks always say to do more of this and less of that, but he always rises to the occasion. He won the primaries, and he did it the right way. He didn't go for the jugular against Hillary. He essentially let her win several primaries late because he knew he had enough delegates and, thinking long-term, he knew he'd need to win back Hillary's supporters back into his camp. If he had divisively gone for the jugular then, he'd be in much worse shape now.

Some said Invesco was a huge mistake, and he was tremendous. Some said giving a night to Michelle was mistake - they should have used the night to hit McCain. But now she's incredibly popular and a huge asset to the campaign, and virtually untouchable by the GOP.

Nobody said it would be easy, and it will take a lot of hard work every day between now and election day, but he is following a smart strategy. One thing he is doing now that he did in the primaries is allow his opponent to hang himself/herself. Rope a dope. It's worked. People complained he wasn't exploiting "nation of whiners" but he saved it for the right time - his acceptance speech.

I don't feel responsible for John Edwards' hubris and narcissism. I don't feel responsible for Elizabeth Edwards collusive defrauding of voters, staff, donors, other supporters and the press. I never put him on a pedestal, but I did observe him tout himself as uniquely qualified to serve in a position of trust. He touted his marriage and family as a character validation. He could have done what Gov. David Paterson did and simply disclosed the affair in 2006 before he ran. It actually wouldn't have been a huge story then because he wasn't a candidate yet. He could have dropped out after Elizabeth announced her cancer. But he chose to stay in the race and suck money and votes from the other candidates, knowing he was sitting on a time bomb. Bill survived. Newt survived. McCain survived. He could have survived. But no, he decided to lie to his staff, supporters, the press and the American people generally. Like Bill, really dumb judgment. It's not a moral issue, it's simply a judgment issue. Like yelling at your boss over something petty when your spouse has a serious health condition and you have young kids that still need to go to college - it's not about the ethics, it's about the obviously risky conduct that puts your career in jeopardy and hurts others by extension. Narcissistic. Selfish. Dumb.

"I know Obama has good staff, but there are strong indications that there are no Blacks with influence on his staff, because if there were, he could have avoided stepping into the muck on the slavery reparations issue, and he would have been better equipped to silence that “heckler” with a more comprehensive answer."

Um, I can think of one key Black staff member with influence. Obama wrote his Philadelphia speech, remember? He doesn't have a tin ear on race.

The protesters yesterday might have been real, but they might as well as been sent by Karl Rove himself. Right after Rick Davis goes ballistic with contrived anger about Obama "playing the race card from the bottom of the deck" (a nice dog whistle to OJ), African American protesters yell at Obama about racial issues. They were high-fiving at McCain headquarters in Arlington when that video hit the cable news nets yesterday, I guarantee it.

Obama's response was, as always, cool, calm and firm. He didn't order them arrested, like the McCain campaign did with protesters in Denver. He let them speak their mind, and then he responded on the merits. That's the definition of respect.

What would you have preferred -- he let them hijack his event and make it an even bigger drama for the cable nets to jump over? If so, I'm glad you're not one of his key campaign advisers with influence.

It's becoming increasingly clear that McCain is all about selling access to whomever is willing to pay. See this breaking story in Monday's NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/us/politics/2...

This whole sense of humor thing is BS. It's the MSM taking the pose of the school yard bully. The bully does something hurtful and when called on it, instead of being respectful and apologizing, the bully tries to avoid responsibility by blaming his target for not having a good sense of humor.

I'd like to see some of the egocentric national reporters and anchors handle having themselves and their spouse mocked on a major magazine cover surrounded by hateful images and see them laugh it off. Let's start with Maureen Dowd, and surround her with Irish Catholic hateful imagery and mock her miserable love life, and see how much she laughs.

Like others here, I think Obama's got a great sense of humor, a priceless laugh, and a very calm, balanced temperament that will make him a great leader in a time of crisis.

Off-topic, but you may find this newsworthy... Obama hate activist and Georgetown professor Heidi Li Feldman, head of the anti-Obama 527 "Denver Group", is running ads to sabotage Obama's candidacy. Ran one recently in Chicago Tribune and one again today in Congressional Quarterly trying to force an open roll call for Hillary at convention as only way to "insure legitimate selection" of nominee. She doesn't seem to realize primary race is over and Hillary conceded, and Denver Group's efforts are only giving MSM and McCain anti-Obama talking points. Her contact info and more here: http://roadkillrefugee.wordpress.com/2008/07/18...

Karmi,

You're comparing apples to oranges. You're looking at the total of local, state and federal expenditures for schools, but very little of it comes from the federal govt. Whatever is spent, it's not enough. The Fed just floated $3 Trillion to prop up hurting banks. How is America going to be prosperous in the future if our kids get a lousy education today?

I've been exchanging emails with Barry Blitt about his cartoon. Pretty impressed that he's replying. I think he's very naive and genuinely thought his audience was just the sophisticated New Yorker audience who would recognize his outrageous cartoon as lampooning right wing attacks. I don't think he fully appreciated how fucking naive that is -- this is a huge election that the whole world is watching, and nobody should take Barack's election for granted. To my surprise, he agreed. I wrote about the cover here. http://roadkillrefugee.wordpress.com/2008/07/14...

Absolutely. Magazine industry is hurting right now - ad sales are down. They knew what they were doing. They wanted the controversy. If you want to hold them accountable, complain to the advertisers. That what folks did to MSNBC and it worked. Ad sales pay the rent. They'll hear ya.

I'd love to see some of the angry Hillary supporters transfer some of their anger on behalf of Michelle here, because this thing is all hate for Michelle. I'm so angry I could buy 20 copies just to burn them. (I know, that'd be stupid).

The cartoonist has his own website with his email address. Feel free to send him a love note. This is unbelievably disgusting, hateful and irresponsible. It's the kind of thing that will incite some unstable crazies out there who might take it literally. I'm disappointed to see Andrew Sullivan post that he thinks it's funny. Maybe he thinks that's how you defuse it - not take it seriously. But I wouldn't blame the "Democratic Party" for this -- the New Yorker is accountable. The inside article is a hatchet job, too. I never liked the New Yorker -- it's what the GOP's talking about when they say effete, elitist liberalism.

One frustrating aspect to this whole "FISA sell out/flip-flop" business is Obama supported the much more significant, from a civil liberties standpoint, Supreme Court case restoring habeas corpus to Guantanamo Bay detainees. It was a 5-4 decision, and McCain and his surrogates attacked Obama as soft on terrorism for supporting it. If Obama was hell bent on tacking to the center, he would have disagreed with it. It would have been easy. Some on the right suggested it was the worst Sup Ct decision ever -- worse than Plessy v. Ferguson. It was only last month, but the netroots have all forgotten about it and given him no credit for it whatsoever. Most of these folks complaining don't know half as much about constitutional law as Obama.

Obama promised to filibuster a different FISA bill in January. This is what legislators do -- they bluff and cajole to get a better bill. Obama plays poker. For all we know, his threat to filibuster may have improved the bill.

Some on the left, like Dave Winer today, argue he should have staked his whole campaign on telecom immunity. This is lunacy. I could care less if telecom carriers pay off a few plaintiffs lawyers, only to later get reimbursed by their insurance carriers. What good does that do? The revised FISA law is better, but the Patriot Act is what gutted the 4th Amend. It was passed in 2002 before Obama became president. Who's going to fix that -- McCain or Obama? Some purity trolls on netroots are acting so crazy, it's like they think McCain will be better for them on these kinds of issues. It's crazyass Russian roulette.

The Kos folks, and Rachel Maddow, and Greenwald, are pissing me off by completely misrepresenting and over-blowing the importance of telecom immunity. They're sloppy on the facts, and wrong in how they're carrying out their anger. All they're doing is giving Sean Hannity something to talk about ("Hey look, even Obama's supporters are angry!"). I suspect most of these angry folks weren't true Obama supporters in the first place, otherwise they'd keep it in perspective and stop being such narcissistic spoiled brats.

It wasn't a $300 prize it was $300M prize, and if your point was that because the idea came from a blog that it's proof the GOP isn't far behind the Dems in using the Internet, this is a terrible example. The prize makes no sense. First, you only get the prize if you invent something prize-worthy, like a game-changing battery. But if you've invented such a thing, you don't need the prize -- you're sitting on an IP asset worth over a billion. You needed the money when you were scratching together loose change to fund the pre-invention stage. Not to mention the issue of where in the budget the money comes from, and the wisdom of having taxpayers fund this private initiative that the inventor will profit from and exploit instead of the public. And do you exclude GM, Honda, etc, that have been working on such technology for years, let alone Tesla? A stupid gimmick, not an energy policy. But hey, it came from a blog!

I don't see the misunderstanding based on this excerpt below, but I'm happy to consider it one and move on, because that's just the kind of happy go lucky guy I am. Admiration in tact. Although you could follow me back on twitter. Just sayin.

"When I saw the email in my inbox entitled Strategy Briefing For You I thought for a brief instant that the Obama campaign had figured out that I have a mind, that I have an education and a resume, and I might be someone worth briefing. Three paragraphs later the disappointment hits. Watch the video then give us money. Permalink to this paragraph

I (like to) think Obama needs more than my money. I think Obama needs my mind and my influence and experience. My creativity. I think Obama might, from time to time, want to brief me, without asking for money."

I admire you and your writing, but this post is embarrassingly petty. You're not the only bright, well educated guy in this country of 250 million with some good ideas. Do you really want Obama spending the next 5 months sitting down for one on one meetings with contributors with a notepad? You can communicate your ideas on your blog and via HuffPo -- that's more than most folks can say -- and you can get more involved in the campaign. But to suggest this mass email should be a personalized invitation for a personal interview with the candidate is absurd. And to suggest that the call for contributions, which is the lifeblood of a successful challenge to the GOP, is some kind of personal insult to you is pure silliness. Ironically, check out Obama's remarks reported in today's Washington Post about what he said to former Hillary contributors: he specifically said he's not just looking for their cash -- he wants their network, their organizing efforts and ideas. I think that's true -- his campaign wants and needs your help. Are you doing a house party this Saturday night, for example, as some 5,000 supporters around the country are? There's a lot to do and he needs your help. But he needs money, too -- there's no denying it.

Excellent post. I appreciate your passion for civil liberties, and your willingness to recognize political reality. I'm also impressed that you were able to listen behind the words of the husband to sense his fear, and that he is essentially brainwashed by FOX propaganda. I'm actually more optimistic on #3 above -- I think Obama has a unique ability to communicate with voters and once he is president, he will be able to reframe issues appropriately. He's a constitutional scholar -- when have we ever had that in the Oval Office?

Great post! Michelle is incredibly kind, intelligent and "the closer". Like Obama, she offers a different generational approach to politics that is very refreshing and more difficult to define under old labels and preconceptions. But that doesn't stop the GOP from trying to demonize her.

Londonamerican - It's a false urban legend that he played "I got 99 problems" -- look it up -- it's been debunked. The "bitter" comments were deliberately twisted by hack Mayhill Fowler (who showed her unprofessionalism again in her interview of Bill Clinton about the Vanity Fair article). Obama was saying the opposite of what many in the media said he meant, thanks to Fowler's selective quote and negative spin in her initial post. The full quote from that SF event makes that clear. Rev. Wright is not his surrogate and you know that. Nor is Donna Brazile, who remained uncommitted the entire primary season, and in any event, I don't recall her making dismissive comments. All Axelrod said was Democrats have rarely won a majority of the white working class vote -- nobody has disputed that fact. He didn't "dismiss" these voters. Obama just chose his first general election campaign event in rural Southwest Virginia (on the TN border) today -- how's that dismissing white working class voters? That's a clear message he's focused on winning their vote.

You obviously are grasping for any reason to rationalize your anger. I'm sorry you are angry, but it's not based in fact. Obama is a cool guy who will make a great president, and doesn't deserve your anger because Hillary lost -- he deserves respect for beating such a strong and effective opponent. I think they will be working together all summer -- hopefully you'll come around.

Right on!

HRC's negotiations begin at $28,500...

Beastie Boys fight for your right to party, Prince had a lot of hits, but the only breakthrough was "party like its 1999", Ace Freely (Kiss solo album) Back in the NY Groove,

I actually hated Bette Davis Eyes -- but because apparently millions of others recognized Kim Carnes stunk and she never had another hit, it restored my faith in humanity.

Other one hitters: Adam Ant (can't remember the song name - "don't sleep, don't drink, what do you do?"), Frankie Goes to Hollywood's Relax, Sex Pistols's God Save the Queen, Billy Idol's White Wedding...

I couldn't agree more. And I'm still waiting for that apology. BTW, Union County, a 99% white rural county in S.E. Indiana, was even later than Lake County in releasing its returns, but CNN didn't say anything about it. I'm convinced that Hillary's folks were firing off emails and calls to CNN to push the conspiracy angle against the mayor. They were already talking recount before the returns came in. Whatever happened to that? I guess since they came out more favorably than expected for Hillary, then nothing could be wrong. Why is that? Why were they more favorable to Hillary? Maybe we should do a recount. Obama only lost by 14,000 votes... One last note, if Lake County had come in earlier, it would have tightened the returns earlier in the evening, which would have caused the networks to freak out earlier and perhaps caused CBS to revoke its projection, and most importantly, probably would have caused Hillary to not give her speech until the returns were final. So arguably Lake County did Hillary a huge favor by delaying the returns.