home

BSG Open Thread

Who's rooting for the Cylons? This is an Open Thread.

< Myopic Political Analysis About Indiana | Hillary and Obama Speak at NC Jefferson Jackson Dinner >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Rooting for the Cylons? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Kathy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:57:45 PM EST
    You, sir, are no friend of BSG.

    She is baaaaack!! (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:59:58 PM EST
    Well since there's a Cylon (none / 0) (#64)
    by cosbo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:39:51 PM EST
    civil war now, we kinda have to root for the good ones, no?

    Parent
    Daily Hysteria and Gotcha (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:59:30 PM EST
     Will somebody go back at some point and set the record straight about all the false stories, the negative attacks, the "fake outrage" and then the : "who me?".  I mean how many times can they get away with this scenario?

    It's what separates (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:58:04 PM EST
    the Hillary supporters from the Barack supporters.

    We have no daily phony scandal hysteria to later not apologize for.

    Calm and rational, low information voters, we are.

    And aren't we supposed to be watching Murder She Wrote reruns, sipping Metamucil martinis, and scaring the kids off our lawns?

    What is this Battlestar Gallactica stuff?  The scary thing is we were saying 'Frack' in college (25 years ago) and we're still saying 'Frack' today!  The more things change!

    Parent

    Hilarious (none / 0) (#107)
    by DFLer on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:29:56 AM EST
    And aren't we supposed to be watching Murder She Wrote reruns, sipping Metamucil martinis, and scaring the kids off our lawns?

    Hilarious! Amen, sister.

    Parent

    Not one of my shows I'm afraid. . . (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:02:01 PM EST


    never heard of them (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:05:06 PM EST
    I assumed BTD was talking about a sports team.

    Parent
    That's what I thought too. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Iphie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:13:41 PM EST
    I got a call this week asking if I would be willing to give my opinions on a couple of issues. I was so excited, I thought I was finally going to be polled for my political views. But, no -- they started asking me about sports teams, and then about cars -- which is when I had to cut them off. Cars and sports are possibly two of the only things I have absolutely no opinion on and no knowledge of.

    Parent
    You have no idea what you're missing. (none / 0) (#63)
    by cosbo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:38:46 PM EST
    start with the miniseries and come forwards. It's not that many episodes. A true space opera, but with dramas taken from today's politics.

    Parent
    Vanity Fair article (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by bjorn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:08:39 PM EST
    by James Wolffe refers to older women that support Clinton as "part of the post-sexual set."  Older women who don't support Clinton are apparently still full of sexual vitality!  Made me laugh really hard while I was reading it on the plane.  According to Wolffe Obama is the embodiment of middle class sexuality and vitality, and hence he  attracts the young ones!  I am not clear on what this means McCain represents.

    post partisan, post racial (none / 0) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:18:02 PM EST
    Heck what is wrong with post sexual.  Like I tell the young ones, we did it all when the consequences were not so great.  

    Parent
    What's with the past tense? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Cream City on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:46:35 PM EST
    As Ronnie McDowell wrote so well . . . and as Wolffe apparently has yet to learn:

    Older women are beautiful lovers --
    I said older women, they understand
    I've been around some, and I have discovered
    That older women know just how to please a man.

    Everybody seems to love those younger women
    From eighteen on up to twenty-five
    Well I love 'em, too, but I'm tellin you
    Learnin' how to really love takes a little time.

    So baby don't worry about growin' older --
    Those young girls ain't got nothin on you,
    'Cause it takes some livin' to get good at givin'
    And givin' love is just where you could teach them a thing or two.

    Older women are beautiful lovers --
    I said older women, they understand
    I've been around some, and I have discovered
    That older women know just how to please a man.

    That is, if a man works hard at deserving us. :-)

    Parent

    Yes, I learned a long time ago that (none / 0) (#39)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:09:48 PM EST
    men are just like horses. Feed them on time, scratch them when they itch, and they will do anything for you. And no, I am not kidding.

    Parent
    And women are like cops... (none / 0) (#108)
    by kdog on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:35:14 AM EST
    yes them to death and eventually they will leave you alone:)

    Parent
    right on! (none / 0) (#19)
    by bjorn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:19:00 PM EST
    Well, that sure was a piece of BS. (none / 0) (#76)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:44:33 AM EST
    When I watch BHO debate or give speeches, and I am not making fun of him, but I do not see sexuality. Sorry. Actually, I notice his ears. Now Stephen Colbert has the different ears and but I think SC is sexy. John Edwards, Al Gore as VP, JFK, Alexander Hamilton (Yeah, check out that $10 bill), but no Obama. I guess I have always seen him as a good speech giver, 2004. There are others but I am a little miffed that people are saying older white women. And this is 45 up ladies. They had better do right for this election or they will see what older white woman are capable of and it will not be pretty but it will make us feel better.

    Parent
    Aha! I trust he is polishing (none / 0) (#114)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:54:08 AM EST
    up his proposals for the gays since his appeal to guys is sexual.

    Parent
    Obama is to man crush (none / 0) (#115)
    by Kathy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:14:39 AM EST
    as banana is to split.

    Parent
    Misogyny in action (none / 0) (#118)
    by Lora on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:46:02 AM EST
    It's partly around this consensus view of her not having sex that people support her or resist her. She's the special-interest candidate of older women--the post-sexual set. She's resisted by others (including older women who don't see themselves as part of the post-sexual set) who see her as either frigid or sexually shunned--they turn from her inhibitions and her pain.

    This is ridiculous and insulting (He CAN'T be SERIOUS...??!!)

    Wollfe is a misogynist.  I'd laugh along with Bjorn, but I'm feeling a tad nauseous...

    Parent

    I'm a fan (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by janarchy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:32:13 PM EST
    of the Caprica Buccaneers myself. With or without that hot piece of Cylon meat, Samuel T. Anders.

    Oh Anders. <3 (none / 0) (#46)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:21:29 PM EST
    But, Leoben and Helo always do it for me. Gods, the men on that show...

    Parent
    I'm about the hot Pilot Love (none / 0) (#67)
    by janarchy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:57:08 PM EST
    I'll take Apollo, Anders and/or Helo any day. swoon And then there are the women...!

    Parent
    Doctored anti-Clinton video scam (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Cream City on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:00:39 PM EST
    exposed by Anderson Cooper on CNN, a couple of times -- once already and coming back to it again after the commercial.  He says they debated doing anything about it but decided that it had gone so widely on the 'Net and was such a dirty trick that they would talk about it.  And CNN says it's definitely doctored, no wishy washy weaseling on it, like some allegedly liberal and unbiased (ha) blogs.

    Is anyone saying (none / 0) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:04:25 PM EST
    who is behind it?

    Parent
    My guess... (none / 0) (#43)
    by OrangeFur on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:15:21 PM EST
    ... is an overzealous Obama supporter. I can't believe the the official campaign would be that stupid.

    Of course, people believed that Hillary Clinton would be stupid enough to make false robocalls in NC, or deliberately insult MLK, but still.

    Parent

    This morning @TL someone (none / 0) (#75)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:44:25 AM EST
    named Saul  Goode posted the link.  Then immediately @ 10:51 EST.  

    I googled Saul  Goode and I was surprised it was  a video/company. Now I have no idea whatsover, but it seemed it was out of the blue that the link showed up here, and the name was of a video company.  No accusation, just an interesting coincidence that it turns out the video is doctored.  


    Parent

    well I am not sure (none / 0) (#44)
    by facta non verba on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:19:06 PM EST
    who is behind it but the DailyKos and the Huff Post are getting hammered for pushing the story. What's amazing though it shouldn't be given everything we have endured is that even in their retraction post, the Huff Obama doesn't really step away from only suggesting that the context was different and on the comments all the Obama folks nonetheless continue to spout the view that it wasn't doctored. Now it is all over the cable news and guess who looks pathetic, desperate and unsavory? Obama supporters are their own worst enemy.

    Parent
    Who is hammering (none / 0) (#47)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:24:17 PM EST
    DKOS and Huffington?

    Parent
    Jake Tapper (none / 0) (#49)
    by facta non verba on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:37:42 PM EST
    on ABC News

    Parent
    Good, I Hope They Get Hammered Hard (none / 0) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:49:20 PM EST
    and then a complete revolt by the American public against the media, cable and local, demanding that they report the new period and quit bending the news to fit a desired outcome.

    Parent
    I've come to really appreciate Jake Tapper! (none / 0) (#52)
    by DeborahNC on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:52:56 PM EST
    Tapper dirtied his hands with it, too (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Cream City on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:32:34 PM EST
    and gets no kudos from me on this.  He went with the story because, he says, he was busy with lunch or something, somewhere else, so he couldn't verify it.  Just went with it.  His explanation is so convoluted that it's ridiculous.

    I think a lot less of him now.  One fewer one to read.

    Parent

    I don't know all of the back story of how Jake (none / 0) (#89)
    by DeborahNC on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:50:43 AM EST
    Tapper handled the video. I was responding to the comment above stating that Tapper was hammering DKOS and HuffPo.

    Also, IMO Jake Tapper has been much more circumspect than many MSM bloggers about going with the flow of the Obama spinmeisters.

    That said, I think that Tapper was very unfair to John Edwards before he dropped out, and I didn't hesitate to let him know. After Edwards withdrew and I became a Hillary supporter, I've noticed that he does not take a firm "anti-Hillary" position. That's what I appreciate.

    Parent

    I'm getting annoyed (none / 0) (#54)
    by zyx on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:55:59 PM EST
    that Google News turns up HuffPo hits now.  They call that NEWS?  Huh?  It's a BLOG, c'mon!

    Parent
    UK Elections (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by dissenter on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:19:37 PM EST
    Wow, did you see how Labour got clobbered in the elections yesterday? A conservative is now running London and my liberal husband is happy.

    Just goes to show, you go too far left and you freak out the middle. Kos will learn this soon.

    Poodle Blair took Labour down (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ellie on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:16:53 AM EST
    What a disgrace that Blair's inexplicable personal mission to become Bush's BFF set the party on its heels.

    Parent
    Partly (none / 0) (#90)
    by dissenter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:50:49 AM EST
    But equally important has been the rise in taxation and immigration. The conservatives support the war

    Parent
    "war room" doctored video story debunked (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by lambert on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:56:08 PM EST
    There's a transcript.

    Jake Tapper, who posted the transcript, calls the video that doctored the word "n****r" into what Kantor was saying "the definition of a dirty trick" and would like to know who's responsible.

    I'd like to know that too -- though Ben Smith knows the name of the video's "editor," who is an Obama supporter -- but I'd also like to know who blogwhored the thing to the A list, since that might help to explain why it was suddenly OK to publish a very inflammatory video without (I have to assume) being sure of its provenance, and without having a transcript. Remember when we used to have a media critique, instead of being transmission belts to the mainstream from the candidate's "supporters"? Ah, those were the days....


    Tapper went down in my estimation (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Cream City on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:14:51 PM EST
    a lot by jumping on that bandwagon, busy as he was with lunch, so he didn't check it out.  And his apologia is so convoluted that it lacks any linearity.  He used to be credible, and he used to be able to write, too.

    (Btw, I especially dislike the too-common blog practice of updates correcting information only at the end.  Put them on top to let the reader know that the earlier post is crap.)

    Parent

    Boehlert expose of 'HRC must quit' media (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Ellie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:55:02 PM EST
    I think the article may be quietly washing over the media and start removing some of the "behind the sham" props buttressing the IMO zombie, out of gas Obama roller coaster ride.

    For those who missed it, Boehlert's article at Media Matters, (So now the press tells candidates when to quit?, by Eric Boehlert, Media Matters, April 30/2008) lays out the In The Tank for Obama media's disgraceful actions of literally creating a historically unprecedented category for Sen. Clinton by demanding that she fold.

    The media have applauded, derided, participated in gang swarming of candidates, but never formed a chorus to demand that a candidate QUIT RUNNING.

    This is quite different from editorials for public servants to resign or be removed based on [whatever], of course. However, under Obama Roolz, the mass idiocy seems to have an irrational basis on the presumption that merely opposing -- or questioning, or failing to support Obama -- is always innately "wrong".

    A pox on the super-geniuses who came up with the plan to reduce (fauxgressive) prog-blogs to the role of becoming "our" Drudge et al to plant fake facts to catapult into the mainstream news.

    Parent

    Party Unity (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by dmk47 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:35:34 AM EST
    Just curious, is this ever going to get discussed here:

    Gipson continued by slamming unnamed "Gucci-wearing, latte-drinking, self-centered, egotistical people that have damaged our lifestyle," before endorsing and introducing Clinton.

    No, that's not Clinton talking. But she was standing there, and as far as I've been able to tell has said nothing to distance herself from that, and hasn't been asked anything about it. Nor is this the first time she's been introduced to a crowd in terms like those.

    Let's say the majority here have their way and Clinton is the nominee. I frequently see commenters here say they'll withhold a GE vote for Obama until he makes it clear he wants and values their vote, or something to that effect. Okay, tu quoque. A Clinton surrogate is effectively describing people like me as un-American. Is that supposed to make me feel welcome if she's the nominee? That she wants or values my vote?

    Now, unlike what I hope is a minority of TL commenters, I wouldn't think of doing anything but vote for the Democratic nominee even if she's willing to try to boost her primary result by courting a sentiment that regards people like me as not really American, some sort of dangerous subversive outside element that has "damaged the lifestyle" of real Americans. But that is self-evidently poisonous.

    I remind the TL community, contrary to popular belief around here, the much-derided McGovern coalition has been more loyal to the Democrats than any other group since the demise of the Johnson administration, and has been the core of the Democratic presidential vote for going on forty years now. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, she will lose if the targets of Mr. Gipson's slander don't vote for her.

    So, are you all okay with this kind of thing? Do you have no problem with your candidate playing to those views? These are earnestly posed questions and I'd appreciate earnest answers (i.e., please don't tell me that it's okay to foster this sort of thing because Sen. Obama's supporters have done the same sorts of things; supposing for the sake of argument that's true, it doesn't for a moment excuse Gipson, or obviate Clinton's obligation not to give a stamp of approval to Gipson's calumnies).  

    Speaking for me only (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by dissenter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:50:16 AM EST
    I won't vote for Obama. He is unqualified and I don't think he is a real democrat. I think the Democratic Party will be badly split but he has only himself to blame for that.

    I don't vote one way or another based on what a candidate's supporters say. Obama's problems can be directly linked to what he has said and inflicted upon himself.

    I've been a voting dem since 1984 (the first chance I could vote for president) and I could have lived with any other Dem candidate. I've voted for plenty I haven't particularly liked but I just can't do it for Obama. I really, really don't like him, trust him or think he has one answer to this nation's problems. He comes off to me like a snake oil salesman.

    If he is the nominee, I will vote down ballot and leave the top blank. The dems will have to win without me.  I simply don't like the guy and I do not feel that I owe the democrats anything any longer. As far as I can tell, they have done very little for the American people for a very long time.

    Parent

    Cut the double standard (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Regency on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:56:07 AM EST
    I'm sorry, but there's simply no reason for me to care how offensive the things Clinton supporters say may be, especially after Obama stood by while McPeak called Bill Clinton McCarthy. So, I don't know if she espouses those views, but I'm really beyond caring.

    Parent
    How about the really offensive Wright comment? (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:57:53 AM EST
    about Monica and Bill?  No that did not offend Obama.  Well, it was the truly offensive Wright comment.  

    Parent
    I agree on that (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by dissenter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:02:40 AM EST
    And the race baiting...that one I will never get over. For anyone to call Bill Clinton a racist is beyond my comprehension and I took particular offense at Michelle's remarks about how she is really proud of her country for the first time.

    I've been dodging bullets in Afghanistan and Iraq. My immediate reaction was F$CK You sister.

    Lots of people have been doing things for their country and fellow citizens but in their world, nobody else exists.

    Parent

    Right... the double standard (none / 0) (#82)
    by dmk47 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:03:46 AM EST
    Hello, Clinton can't win the general election without getting the votes of the people Mr. Gipson slandered. So let's just clarify. Even as a tactical matter, you're okay with this stuff? Because insulting the core voters you'll need to win doesn't strike me as wise.

    Here's a thought: let's adopt one standard. It's not okay for Obama supporters to do this stuff, it's not okay for Obama not to say something about it, it's not okay for Clinton supporters to do it, and it's not okay for Clinton to say nothing about it. Is that fair?

    @Dissenter, in the interest of comity I'm not going to say what I really think of partisans of either candidate who are even contemplating not supporting the Democratic nominee in the fall, whoever he or she might be, given the stakes in this election. Still, you don't see the glaring tactical problem with what you're saying? Suppose every Obama supporter takes an equivalent attitude to yours. Then Hillary Clinton loses the GE. Do you want that to happen? Do you not think courting suggestions that Sen. Obama's supporters are un-American is a short-sighted and counterproductive tactic for Clinton?

    Parent

    I don't really care what you think (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by dissenter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:20:23 AM EST
    or how you vote. Your vote is your choice. I am not here to force people to kneel to a party before their personal beliefs.

    On the practical side, I can see how Clinton can win and Obama can't but like I said, nobody owes anyone their vote.

    I was brought up thinking someone had to earn a vote. That goes for all candidates.

    As previously mentioned, I don't vote on what surrogates say - including the Rev Wright. Michelle Obama clinched it for me. And when I slightly wavered, Barack's comments on small town folks really pissed me off. Who do you think are the ones out in Afghanistan and Iraq getting killed!  You insulted everyone of them.

    And just so you know, I have two college degrees, I live in a liberal city, I go to starbucks, I hate relgion and I am not a low information voter.  I do however have great respect for  Americans who may not have it as well as I do.

    The A is bigger than the D. If Michelle and Barack Obama had ever been shot at, they might understand that.

    Parent

    Good, glad we see eye to eye (none / 0) (#87)
    by dmk47 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:34:24 AM EST
    I don't respect something that has no respect.

    Do you want Hillary Clinton to win? That's a straightforward question. Bully for you that you think your candidate can win; if you think she can win without the votes of tens of millions of people who don't like being told we're enemies of real America, you're wrong, and you'd better hope your candidate isn't thinking the way you are.

    Again, do you think she helps or hurts her chances by associating herself with profound insults to tens of millions of people not named Barack Obama whose votes she'll need to win? I think she hurts herself.

    Parent

    I believe (none / 0) (#88)
    by dissenter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:48:05 AM EST
    That people don't vote on what surrogates say. I believe they vote on what the candidates say and do. How you vote is up to you. Yes, I want Clinton to win. And yes, I think she can. Her coalition is frankly larger and more important to the electoral math. I don't see a possible Obama mathematical strategy that gets him what he needs in a GE without white working class votes.

    Additionally, I don't think most Americans sit around reading blogs all night. Fortunately, they have better things to do and more important concerns than what surrogate said what.

    But I will repeat once again. Nobody owes anyone their vote. This isn't Russia or China last time I looked. As for me, I've had it with the McCarthyism and threats from Obama supporters over the Supreme Court. I get them in my email every day.

    I live in CO. It is a pro choice state.  We have a decent state government primarily because we don't all sit around telling everyone else what they have to think, say or pray to. That is why I live here.

    In case of an Obama nomination, I choose to abstain as I do not think McCain or Obama are qualified and they will be equally bad. At that point it is a toss up. I don't care. It is like choosing bad from bad. Why bother.

    And before you ask, NO I don't think Obama can win CO. People here don't like taxes and they love their guns.

    Parent

    Ignoring the insane parts (1.00 / 1) (#91)
    by dmk47 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:07:32 AM EST
    This might be less productive an exercise than bashing my head on a wall, but let's try one last time.

    If you believe Hillary Clinton has a non-negligible chance of winning the white working class vote in the general election, I suggest buying a bunch of lottery tickets to fund your retirement. No Democrat has won the white-working class vote in 40 years. Al Gore lost it by 17, John Kerry by 23.

    For Hillary Clinton to win the general election in the fall, she will need to win the votes of tens of millions of people whom her campaign surrogates have repeatedly insulted in appalling terms. It also happens that these people tend to overlap pretty well with the set of people who are highly tuned into political coverage and do notice things like campaign surrogates denigrating their equal standing as Americans.

    Since you insist that this has the slightest thing to do with Obama, let me rephrase the question one final way. Do you think it is morally acceptable or not morally acceptable to suggest that tens of millions of law-abiding American citizens are a dangerous, hostile, subversive internal enemy?

    If yes, PFO. If not, do reflect on our conversation, such as it was.

    Parent

    I'm done with this (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by dissenter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:32:38 AM EST
    This is like talking to someone in an insane asylum.

    If your vote is predicated on what a surrogate said than I feel very sorry for you. Seriously. Most people do not sit around and post on blogs on Friday night. I usually don't except I am talking to my husband in a war zone and the connection keeps going down. Otherwise, I would be doing something else. Like sleeping. That is my point. You just don't agree with it. And that is fine too. I don't think the MAJORITY of people give a damn. They care what the candidate said.

    Votes must be earned. And secondly, I do not believe you will find a quote anywhere from me that referred to you or your comrades as unamerican, dangerous, subversive or hostile. I said Obama and Michelle insulted millions of Americans from small towns. Is your name Obama or Michelle?

    This is what is wrong with your side. You spend your time looking for fights. I have no problem with anti war people. I have no problem with people that don't like guns. I have no problem with people that are frustrated with people whom they believe vote against their economic interests. I have no problem with crazy black preachers even. To each his own. I could care less. I have a problem with McCarthyism which is what Daily Kos, Huff Post and an assortment of other blogs engage in. I have a problem with people that simply are tone deaf.

    Perhaps you are missing the point. I don't care if Obama loses. I want Hillary to win. But she will have to earn it. Got it. Earn it. I am not expecting everyone to fall all over her. Do I think she can earn blue collar workers in sufficient numbers in Ohio, PA, FL, MI? Yes, I do. I know Obama can't. He doesn't even want to count votes or have a revote in FL or MI.

    Perhaps you are new to this game. It is about math. That is it. You can't get the right number without FL, PA, MI and OH. Case closed. Blue collar workers like something that Obama people don't quite get - someone that can take a few body blows and get up. Blue collar workers take them all the time. So do women and Lationos. Your side has very thin skin. I also think a lot of women will crossover and Latinos will support Clinton is good numbers to put her over the top. If you don't like my answer so be it. I don't care. I am not here to force you to see my rationale.

    This conversation has become old. My suggestion to you however is that if you believe what you are saying you and your fellow Obama followers find a way to reach out to Clinton people. It won't work with me but like I said, most people don't waste their time on blogs. Doing what you are doing however isn't going to get you 270 EV.

    Perhaps a little self-reflection is in order. You've had the total media behind you, Obama has been given a free ride on his very thin resume and  you have time. I suggest you put it to better use.

    As for me, I am going to bed.

    Parent

    Only one comment more: (none / 0) (#110)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:40:34 AM EST
    "For Hillary Clinton to win the general election in the fall, she will need to win the votes of tens of millions of people whom her campaign surrogates have repeatedly insulted in appalling terms."

    I have never heard Hillary insult anyone, anytime.  Her surrogates?  So far as I know, the incident at the dinner was a one-off.

    AND, something over 50% of the voters are women.  And Obama's dismissive way with us has turned off more people than there are Gucci-wearing, latte-drinkers, etc. in the whole hemisphere.

    Parent

    Show us the link (none / 0) (#95)
    by Manuel on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:55:26 AM EST
    where you made a similar request of Obama supporters and we'll take you seriously.  Otherwise, this is just concern trolling.

    Parent
    Well Since Obama Had No Problem (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:10:43 AM EST
    putting down small town people for the amusement of his SF fan club donors, I have no problem at all with anyone calling him on it.

    If a Clinton supporter wants to call him out for his typical white woman comment, I don't have any trouble with that at all either.

    Parent

    No, that's not responsive (none / 0) (#86)
    by dmk47 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:30:19 AM EST
    Mr. Gipson did not "call out Obama" for the San Francisco remarks, nor did he call out Obama for anything else. These remarks were not an attack on Obama. They were an attack --- a despicable attack on the equal standing as Americans of millions of Democrats whose votes Hillary Clinton will need to win the election.

    You believe it's okay to do that? You believe the very thing you claim to deplore about Obama --- his insult to millions of Democratic voters --- is okay for a Clinton supporter to do?

    I'm done trying to appeal to common moral intuitions, because if you think something awful becomes okay just because Obama or an Obama supporter did it first, perhaps there isn't a common moral intuition to appeal to. (For example, I don't think it would be okay for Obama or an Obama supporter to imply that Clinton supporters are some sort of culturally corrosive fifth column.)

    Let's talk about your interest in Hillary Clinton winning the general election. Do you think she helps or hurts her chances by associating herself with grotesque insults to millions of people without whose vote she will lose? Repeat: not an insult to Obama; Mr. Gipson didn't insult Obama, he insulted millions of loyal Democrats.

    Parent

    Obama , His Surrogates And Supporters Have Done (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:15:29 AM EST
    done everything to cast Clinton's supporters as racists, uneducated, low class people. They have disrespected older people and their accomplishments, put down women at every opportunity and intentionally disenfranchised voters. They have issued death threats and harassed the family of Tavis Smiley.  They have insulted millions of loyal Democrats. So if anyone's campaign and supporters have issued grotesque insults and participated in grotesque actions it has been Obama and his supporters.

    Go tell your candidate and his supporters to change how they behave because he doesn't have a chance in hades to win without all the very people he and his supporters have repeatedly insulted.

    Parent

    Please understand (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Manuel on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:50:13 AM EST
    I do not condone those remarks but I understand where Mr Gipson is coming from.  Maybe he is bitter.  Did you complain when Obama stood by as a supporter compared Bill Clinton to McCarthy?  Look, in the heat of a campaign there is a lot of trash talking.  A lot of stuff is said that doesn't mean anything.  My beef with the Obama campaign is that they claim to be changing politics while doing a great job at hitting below the belt.  Perhaps I ought to admire them for it but they offend my sense of fair play by decrying negativity while indulging in it.

    Parent
    I think most of the people (none / 0) (#96)
    by themomcat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:57:16 AM EST
    Mr. Gipson was referring to are Republicans. I am with dissenter on this. I really don't care what the candidates supporters say, I listen to the candidates, what they say, where they stand and how they have evolved. No one owns my vote. I have only once voted Republican since I started voting in 1968. I will most likely will not vote for Obama or McCain because as dissenter so adequately put it, neither one of them is worthy of the office. I will vote Democratic down ticket because no matter who is in the WH our best protection is a strong majority in Congress and, hopefully, some who will have a spine.

    Parent
    sorry not buying it you're suppoosed to be better (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by kimsaw on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:49:51 AM EST
    educated in a hopey changey world. Everyone's entitled to their opinion and whining. It was a labor leader who spoke those words, a leader in for the working class Obama trashed.  Obama started the heat because he chose to dump the white working class where he put his grandmother. He's a typical politician who offers that words matter than doesn't chose his words very well. The road goes both ways Obama is not a unifier in fact he is a champion at propaganda, race baiting and character bashing. His supporters are not at all gracious and can't even behave as respectful Democrats when both sides are in the same room as evidence at the JJ dinner in NC.

    Your loyalty arguments don't resonate with me cause this independent can't even tell if he's a democrat or republican. He's surely not an independent cause those of us who are know where we stand. Obama is a baby pol lost in the words because he left his moral compass at home. He's not a leader but he plays at being one when a teleprompter's in view.

    We've lived for 8 yrs with the same type of leadership. Obama's not unifying anything, he's help divide from the get go. He has characterize Clinton time and time again with the die hard republican smears that most of us working people have tossed aside. We've listen, heard, read and studied Senator Obama and he comes up short on substance and character. He's all image and unprepared.

    On a final note you don't trust Clinton to unify the party, I don't trust Obama. When opportunity has arisen to clarify a position or association he skirts the issues or comes up with half truths. Think Ayers, Wright, MoveOn vote, Kyl-Lieberman or present votes if you dare. His surrogates aren't any better, let us not forget Jesse Jackson Jr.  Sorry I don't like being hoodwinked or disrespected anymore than you do.

    Parent

    Where I come from (none / 0) (#106)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:29:32 AM EST
    (next to NC), it would be considered rude to lay into someone who introduces you, even if he makes slurs* during the introduction.  Don't see how she could do payback last night.  And I doubt she vetted his remarks before hand.  But it is not like the Wright issue; she hasn't known him for 20 years.

    Knowing Hillary's smarts, I'd not be surprised to hear a comeback at a later time.

    *not based on race, etc.

    Parent

    Fox News (none / 0) (#1)
    by uncledad on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:54:53 PM EST
    I can't believe some of the praise I have read on this site for FAUX news. Does anyone remember what FOX did during Bills impeachment. Do any of you realize that Sean Hannity still insists that Vince Foster was murdered. Wake up before it is too late!

    Have you seen what (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:56:41 PM EST
    MSNBC, Air America, Huff Post, TPM, DKOs have been saying about the Clintons, Democrats?  

    Parent
    Fox News (none / 0) (#100)
    by uncledad on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:18:57 AM EST
    I admit that some coverage on MSNBC has been a biased against HRC somewhat (mostly just KO) but they have sure jumped on the feeding frenzy about Rev. Wright along with the rest. My point is FAUX is the official propoganda arm of the republican party, they are only being fair to HRC because it makes us dems argue. You will see if HRC is nominated what they will do. I want to see the praise for FAUX then.

    Parent
    I'm sure you're equally outraged (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:01:38 PM EST
    about the lies from MSNBC, right?

    Wake up!

    heh.

    Parent

    FOX NEWS (none / 0) (#101)
    by uncledad on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:20:05 AM EST
    See above!

    Parent
    Hey, first-time commenter (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Cream City on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:06:20 PM EST
    How long have you been lurking to say that about this blog?  There's never agreement on anything here -- except that none of the media can be trusted.  Just managed.

    Parent
    FOX NEWS (none / 0) (#102)
    by uncledad on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:22:55 AM EST
    "How long have you been lurking to say that about this blog?"

    I just stubled upon this yesterday, lurking?

    "Never aggrement on anything here"?

    I think I was reading pretty much universal aggreement for the praise of FAUX NEWS!

    Parent

    I Thought Fox Was O.K. Now That Obama (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:07:25 PM EST
    went on there and praised Republicans on their ideas for government regulations, charter schools and tort reform.

    Parent
    FOX NEWS (none / 0) (#103)
    by uncledad on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:30:18 AM EST
    FOX will never be OK in my book. JUst because they act like they are fair now, they have a track record.

    Parent
    Do you remember (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:12:35 PM EST
    when MSNBC's own Keith Olbermann suggested that a superdelegate should take Clinton into a room and only the superdelegate should come out?  This from the highly praised liberal's voice?

    When was the last time Fox said that about Hillary?

    MSNBC is WORSE than Fox, IMHO.  They pretend to have left-leaning commentators who actually would like to drive a wedge in the Democratic party.

    Parent

    FOX NEWS (none / 0) (#104)
    by uncledad on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:44:15 AM EST
    Lets face it Olbermann is an Obama supporter, he makes that obvious. I agree he takes some cheap shots at HRC. But ask yourself this question: If the general election is between HRC and McCain who do you think FOX will target? Who do you think Olbermann will target? Lets get real FOX is not a real news station they are run by Roger Ailes (he was a media consultant for Nixon, Reagan, Bush-41) he was part of the "vast right wing conspiracy", remember. FOX is only being "nice" to the Clintons now because they hope it will cause problems come the convention.
    None of the MSM can be trusted, they are all biased for one thing (Ratings) they will twist and turn the truth about anything in order to sensationalize it for ratings. But of all of the 3 cable networks FAUX is by far the most right wing, they have no use for progressive ideas.
    Like I said wake up!


    Parent
    yeesh (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Kathy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:42:54 AM EST
    I leave for a few days and some new folks are running around accusing us of supporting Fox?  I can't recall anyone actually agreeing with Fox, and I've been here a while now.  What we do is use our brains to process information.  None of us here think in any way that Fox is our new best friend.  "A mob is a mob, even when it's with you," as John Adams was purported to say.

    Uncledad--is that some kind of incest "joke"?  Very distasteful.

    Parent

    Whe the general (none / 0) (#117)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:33:18 AM EST
    election comes, if it's Hillary versus McCain, Olbermann and Matthews and the whole MSNBC lineup will both be just as anti-Hillary as Fox. They'll just pretend they're subtler about it.  If the candidate is McCain, however, you'll still get your Olbermann, but Matthews loves McCain, so good luck with the MSNBC lineup.

    Someday, MSNBC will be trashing your candidate and you'll see as I have that they are NO BETTER than Fox.  They just use a different technique (divide and conquer).

    Parent

    faux news (none / 0) (#121)
    by uncledad on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:17:21 PM EST
    "Someday, MSNBC will be trashing your candidate and you'll see as I have that they are NO BETTER than Fox.  They just use a different technique"

    I beg to differ, think back 5 years, has fox ever swayed from the Bush-Cheney line? Fox and right wing radio have changed this country, and not for the better in my opinion. So yes MSNBC is better, at least they reported the war, say what you want about Olbermann, you can't say he dummied up to Bush, in fact he was really one of the first to break with the coporate news cycle line about the war in IRAQ. Thats why all the bobbleheads at fox hate him.

    I'm gonna vote for whom ever gets the nomination. Can you say the same?

    Parent

    Well.. (none / 0) (#105)
    by MaryGM on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:05:05 AM EST
    About a month or two ago, FOX had a commentator that said "Someone aught to take her behind the barn..."  It was more explicit that Olbermann, and certainly didn't produce an apology.  I'm not in any way sticking up for KO; he deserves all the backlash he gets, but FOX has been equally disrespectful.  It's like saying, "Well McCain's alright" because he's not gunning for Hillary these days.

    Parent
    Olbermann (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:30:43 AM EST
    NEVER apologized to Clinton for this (but only to some HuffingtonPost writer).

    And Olbermann is supposed to be the liberal commentator, meaning that he should be held to a higher standard than Fox.

    I'm sorry, but the example you gave showed more evidence that there's no difference between MSNBC and Fox.

    Parent

    I was rooting for Voldemort (none / 0) (#10)
    by rilkefan on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:06:48 PM EST
    but I knew my heart would be broken

    NC Jefferson-Jackson Dinner on C-Span (none / 0) (#12)
    by Iphie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:07:42 PM EST
    For anybody interested. Hillary already spoke and Barack's on now. It looks like it's going to be re-broadcast again in a couple of hours 12 east coast/9:00 west coast.

    Has anyone one else been watching? What did you think? I know I'm biased, but I really do think that Hillary has so much more energy at this point -- she was fired-up.

    Jibaro Soy (none / 0) (#14)
    by Florida Resident on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:09:42 PM EST
    Sometimes I am so glad I'm just one and I don't understand all those complicated things, that Obama and the DNC tell me were so bad about the Clinton years.

    who hates baltar? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Rainsong on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:15:52 PM EST
    well..as much as I do. I really, really hate Baltar, beginning with the pilot mini-series when he alone was responsible for the genocide of billions.

    He has not grown better with time. I do not understand or sympathise with his madness. I keep watching episode after episode, waiting for the screenwriters to finally have the gumption to have his bad karma debt paid. But. No. Such. Luck.

    They'll probably vote him in President again, now he's a religious icon and the reborn Son of the One True God.

    I'm glad it will end this season. Who is the 5th Cylon anyway? And can anyone give me a reason to  care?

    Nah (none / 0) (#25)
    by janarchy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:33:33 PM EST
    Gaius is the equivalent of John the Baptist, not the Messiah. I suspect he's going to wind up with his head on somebody's platter (Roslin) very soon now.

    Parent
    He'll live to see earth... (none / 0) (#65)
    by cosbo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:47:44 PM EST
    his weasley kind always manage to survive. Besides Head Six says he'll live to see earth.

    Parent
    Well, Head!Six might say it (none / 0) (#68)
    by janarchy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:59:12 PM EST
    but do we know she's telling us the truth? And even if he sees Earth, it doesn't mean he'll live to stay there. We'll see.

    I love to hate Gaius, personally. Although the new prophet thing and his cult is scary.

    Parent

    Actually I find him kind of fascinating... (none / 0) (#83)
    by cosbo on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:04:41 AM EST
    I don't know why. Maybe because of Jame Callis acting skills. I can't really quite hate him because he's not all bad, but I can't stand him because he's so undefined and weak. Props to the actor. I have to say.

    As for the prophet thing, it looks like one of the set ups in the show heading for an explosive end along with everything thing else.

    Parent

    Oh, I love Callis (none / 0) (#98)
    by janarchy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:39:29 AM EST
    He's brilliant and it's a pity that neither he nor several other people on the show will ever be nominated for Emmys based on their performances although they're 1000x better than most out there. Gaius is a despicable little creep who caused a holocaust and tried to blame everyone but himself for what he's done. I'm not sure what to think of the current religious conversion -- whether it's truly something he believes or if it's because Head!Six is bullying him into it or it gives him the attention and the adulation he craves. Probably some combination thereof.

    This season is definitely got me on the edge of my seat because I have no clue where they're going with it. My only hope is that the producers actually do! I still suspect Gaius may have to die for his sins at some point ala John the Baptist but who knows?

    Parent

    I hope not. (none / 0) (#122)
    by cosbo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:57:26 AM EST
    He keeps things interesting.

    Parent
    me too (none / 0) (#27)
    by popsnorkle on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:41:23 PM EST
    I think I hate him as much as you.  He was part of why I couldn't stand continuing to watch.  

    From the start I kept hoping it would just end.  Way too long and pointless for what the show was in my opinion

    Parent

    I am really tired of him (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Kathy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:48:56 PM EST
    and I keep waiting for him to say, "we are the ones we have been waiting for."

    Maybe that's why he has lost his appeal?

    Parent

    welcome back (none / 0) (#42)
    by RalphB on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:13:15 PM EST
    your humor has been sorely missed.  

    Parent
    that's one of their problems (none / 0) (#48)
    by facta non verba on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:24:21 PM EST
    they are waiting. We are working for solutions. They are passive minded and we are active minded. For ones who tout the power of words, they sure don't understand the nuance.

    Parent
    While you were gone (none / 0) (#61)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:32:08 PM EST
    we celebrated every poll that was for Clinton and disparaged all others.... in your honor.

    Parent
    as you should! (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Kathy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:39:07 AM EST
    And I see there are many, many polls of late that show very good signs for our girl.  Good news to come back to!  My cat has made several matching donations, so keep those pennies rolling in!

    Parent
    Remember... (none / 0) (#17)
    by OrangeFur on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:17:25 PM EST
    ... when Indiana was going to be the tiebreaker?

    Now it's somehow become a state that Clinton has to win.

    What happened?

    New scandal brewing for tomorrow... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:19:21 PM EST
    memos and stuff I guess they are trying the kitchen sink at her.  

    Parent
    Where did you hear that? (none / 0) (#22)
    by OrangeFur on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:29:53 PM EST
    In the other thread (none / 0) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:32:24 PM EST
    something about a company closing in Indiana and some memo from Bayh to Clinton.

    Parent
    Here it is... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:35:05 PM EST
    but don't know details article

    Parent
    Magnequench ?? (none / 0) (#31)
    by RalphB on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:50:10 PM EST
    Debunking of the story at Corrente.

    link

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#32)
    by RalphB on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:53:19 PM EST
    I don't see anything "bad" for Clinton in the original story you posted.  Looks like one of those things that the creative class bloggers might try to blow up into a scandal though.


    Parent
    "Progressives" (none / 0) (#41)
    by OrangeFur on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:13:10 PM EST
    Is there anybody they don't think needs to be destroyed?

    Parent
    So now (none / 0) (#112)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:51:15 AM EST
    they are saying that Bill should have been a fortune teller?  Back in '95, we weren't stuck in a war.

    "For example, if the sale of the company to Chinese investors was going to jeopardize national security, why did President Bill Clinton's administration approve it in 1995?"


    Parent

    Look out, San Diego (none / 0) (#21)
    by Lora on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:26:28 PM EST
    Still think an election wouldn't be hacked?

    How about when a Master Hacker is named the GOP chair of San Diego?

    Letter from Iran to the UN? (none / 0) (#28)
    by kayla on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:43:31 PM EST
    Rachel Maddow, on Race to the White House, mentioned something about a letter from Iran to the UN lamenting Hillary's detterent policy and saying that she should not be our next president.  Did I hear that right?

    Sort of sounds (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:54:01 PM EST
    like she SHOULD be our president then.

    Parent
    Sure.... (none / 0) (#113)
    by kdog on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:51:19 AM EST
    if you want more war and war profiteering, any of the three stooges is a safe bet.

    I'm looking for something new, like peace and stuff...this guy seems like a good choice.  Check out his platform and FDQ (frequently dodged questions) section.

    "What do I know about running a country?  Not a damn thing.  But that hasn't stopped others-and it's not about to stop me.  Often approaching something with no pre-conceived notions can lead to unforeseen innovations-or an unanticipated appearance on the six o'clock news. Either way, it's interesting."

    - Steve Kissing

    And it would also be damn cool to have a President Kissing.  I don't know this guy from a hole in the wall. but I have no doubt he would be an infinitely better leader than any of the stooges.

    Parent

    Does Iran have a vote? (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by RalphB on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:54:36 PM EST
    How about Florida and Michigan?   :-)

    Parent
    Definitely in the running (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Cream City on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:58:02 PM EST
    for my pick for best comment of the night.

    But, of course, the night is young. :-)

    Parent

    I for one (none / 0) (#50)
    by DandyTIger on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:47:59 PM EST
    welcome our new Cylon overloards.

    Someone had to say it. :-)

    ... or overlords... hate when that happens n/t (none / 0) (#60)
    by DandyTIger on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:23:53 PM EST
    I don't think I have seen BSG since the days (none / 0) (#53)
    by Florida Resident on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:54:34 PM EST
    when the guy from Bonanza was in it.  

    Lorne Green! (none / 0) (#57)
    by Maggie Mae on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:05:41 PM EST
    He played Ben Cartwright.

    Parent
    Yep him wasn't he Adama? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Florida Resident on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:11:37 PM EST
    Bill Moyers (none / 0) (#56)
    by kateNC on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:02:25 PM EST
    Bill Moyers discussed spin tonight with Kathleen Hall Jamison. She was so insightful and even-handed about why Hillary and Barack went on Fox and why Barack is being interviewed by women on The View and morning shows.

    She said they were both doing exactly what they had to do go counteract public perceptions and reinforce their personal stories.

    I love rational discussions backed up with strong arguments and this was truly prime viewing. I urge you to go look at it. Maybe everyone can find the reality community again. I hope so.

    I got my Oregon ballot in the mail today. (none / 0) (#69)
    by caseyOR on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:12:11 AM EST
    Any ideas who I should vote for? /snark?

    Let's just hope it's counted correctly (none / 0) (#119)
    by Lora on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:53:12 AM EST
    Best of luck on your vote (for whoever you choose) receiving the appropriate care, custody, count, security, and proper handling that it (and every other vote) should have.

    Parent
    Are The Dems Out Of Step Once Again (none / 0) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:22:19 AM EST
    When the Democratic Party's newly acquired consultants were advising how the to modify party positions to appeal to people of faith and particularly evangelicals, I argued that they were moving against the tide. That there were cracks in the religious/political structure and it would be a mistake to pursue this strategy. This is a hopeful sign that I may have been right in my assessment.

    Conservative Christian leaders who believe the word "evangelical" has lost its religious meaning plan to release a starkly self-critical document saying the movement has become too political and has diminished the Gospel through its approach to the culture wars.

    The statement, called "An Evangelical Manifesto," condemns Christians on the right and left for "using faith" to express political views without regard to the truth of the Bible, according to a draft of the document obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

    "That way faith loses its independence, Christians become `useful idiots' for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology," according to the draft.
    Link




    John Mellencamp (none / 0) (#72)
    by Iphie on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:25:38 AM EST
    is performing at a Clinton rally in Indianapolis tomorrow -- that ought to be a big, high-energy event. He's not taking sides, but he's definitely supporting the Democrats -- I'm glad that his Obama appearance was on the night of the PA primary -- that seems so long ago, I think the benefit has worn off by now.

    Ah, the video was a dirty trick by the (none / 0) (#74)
    by MarkL on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:38:11 AM EST
    Clintons

    Should have been obvious from the start, eh?

    Yuck give a warning (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:56:11 AM EST
    How utterly disgusting.  This is really like the Soviet purges, the French revolution, the Chinese cultural revolution, how utterly disgusting.  The mob.  

    Parent
    A lesson about winning and losing (none / 0) (#97)
    by Manuel on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:11:08 AM EST
    All of us could learn a lesson from these women.

    Jake Tapper: Directors' transcript of Kantor video (none / 0) (#120)
    by jawbone on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:21:19 PM EST
    Finally, the actual transcript from the director of The War Room for the doctored video clip which was put out to smear Mickey Kantor, Carville, Little George, and, of course, Hillary.

    Tapper says all evidence of the doctored YouTube clip has been removed, so no finger prints remain.

    Someone must have copied it!

    Anyone here?

    And, was there any illegality in doctoring a copyrighted movie and lying about it?