So why hasn’t John Edwards already endorsed Barack Obama? On the surface, the two Democrats are simpatico when it comes to railing against lobbyists and standing up to Hillary Rodham Clinton.
But something has happened to give Edwards pause since shutting down his own presidential bid. It might not have helped that Obama ungraciously stepped on Edwards’ withdrawal announcement, diverting the news media’s attention to his own speech at the very moment that his former foe was scheduled to go before the cameras.
Or, maybe Edwards is mulling over the details of his lengthy, policy-oriented telephone chat with Clinton after he dropped out. Could he be comparing that to the terse call from Obama, who was less interested in a wonky conversation, instead focusing on whether or not Edwards had decided to endorse?
Perhaps Edwards will be influenced by how Clinton honored his wishes to keep their recent private meeting out of the public eye. Contrast that with the public spectacle that the Obama camp is making of their candidate's meeting with Edwards.
Still, the odds ought to favor Edwards backing Obama, but the longer it takes the more obvious it becomes that something slowed it down.
Craig on "Imus in the Morning"
Tues (1/12) RFD-TV/WABC-AM 6:30 AM EST
Comments
From previous thread
Sheila is usually the one who tries to pour a little oil on the troubled waters though even she who is the most peaceful of creatures has gotten a little perturbed when Obama is not loved as much as she thinks he should be. :-)
It's why we sometimes call her the hall monitor.
Posted by: Jamie | February 11, 2008 3:16 PM
Sooooo close....
Posted by: pogo
| February 11, 2008 3:17 PM
Oh Craig, stop it! People are starting to talk. And I think Bill is getting jealous.
xoxo
Hil
Posted by: Hillary | February 11, 2008 3:18 PM
Craig,
It could well have to do with the Clinton and Edwards' health care plans being more compatible. That was the major focus of his work as an attorney, politician, private citizen, and candidate.
The Obama plan has more holes than swiss cheese for the insurance companies to slip through.
Posted by: Jamie | February 11, 2008 3:19 PM
Patsi just after new thread warning:
"I can see them doing the same thing in Ohio. Repubs voting for Obama."
The Tennessean's exit polls reported a very considerable number of people who said they did just that."
====
More info, plz, Patsi. Did the Tennessean ask whether GOP voted for Obama because they liked him, or for Obama because they perceived him to be a weak candidate?
There's a world of difference there.
PS: any word on your friends at Mayo?
Posted by: dog's eye view
| February 11, 2008 3:20 PM
PS: we had a very kind troll at end of last thread, with gentle words for those in military service. Hope that troll will visit us more often.
Posted by: dog's eye view
| February 11, 2008 3:21 PM
From previous thread:
Diva: "I was phone banking for Hillary voters in Washington State and I heard from older voters who didn't want to have to take a ferry to go caucus. Why were these caucuses held so far away from these voters?"
I just heard a caller on Seattle radio say that she had to drive 15 miles to go caucus. Others at the caucus had to drive as far as 25 miles.
How did this happen? In Iowa the caucuses are very near your home...I have never heard of having to go this far to caucus, especially in an urban area.
Posted by: Ally
| February 11, 2008 3:22 PM
No dog'd eye -- no real details except to say that they would not vote Dem in the general. It was in the Tennessean's running exit polling on line the day of the primary. I know one guy, a Repub, who hates all the candidates....and said he was going to vote for Hillary....when I asked him if he'd be there in the general he said no. I asked him to stay out of our primary then.
Posted by: Patsi | February 11, 2008 3:29 PM
I'm betting Edwards endorses Clinton.... with a very carefully timed annoucement.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 11, 2008 3:29 PM
dog's eye -- I am concerned because I haven't heard a word from my friend. She's been pretty much in touch until now. And nothing on the daughter's web site. They were to get the verdict on Friday so I fear they got bad news.
Posted by: Patsi | February 11, 2008 3:31 PM
Not planning to vote Dem in the general, that is not encouraging. But never say never.
====
I bet that Edwards will endorse Obama, and that will surprise no one here.
Shall we bet on the timing of the announcement?
Posted by: dog's eye view
| February 11, 2008 3:32 PM
Ally the real question is, why didn't the clinton folks have a corp of volunteers going out to pick up that old soldier and others!
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 11, 2008 3:32 PM
yeah, that's a good guess, Patsi. Here is hoping that you hear from them soon, and that the news is not terrible.
Posted by: dog's eye view
| February 11, 2008 3:34 PM
" the IRAQ WAR is the REAL issue in this race!"
I think that "they are coming to kill us" is going to be the issue. Romney threw down that gauntlet in his last speech. The Republicans know that there are millions of people who -- no matter what they say about Iraq -- believe their lives are in constant danger from "Islamo Facists" and will vote accordingly. We will see external threats, real or not, and security alerts close to the election. In the end, that's what I think it will be about. And I'm just not so sure where the American public really is on this. I think we have become a nation open to mass hypnosis and hysteria.
Posted by: Patsi | February 11, 2008 3:36 PM
Look, I appreciate your willingness to point out bad stuff that the media does to Clinton.
But this is just plain silly. They shared a love for "railing against lobbyists and standing up to Hillary Rodham Clinton"?!?
That's one stylistic similarity, and the fact that neither of them are Hillary.
That's it? That's the reason for you to pretend that it was a shoo-in for Edwards to endorse Obama?
Come on, this is Village-level reasoning in an effort to manage the expectations game.
Doing it to make Hillary look good isn't any better than doing it to make her look bad.
Posted by: Elvis Elvisberg | February 11, 2008 3:37 PM
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 11, 2008 3:43 PM
Hi Craig,
How is your foot? That was a big foot. haha
I hope Edwards goes with Hillary. He can head up the health care problem.
There had to be a big problem with the caucuses. Hillary should have taken at least a few?
Again Obama is all words with no substance. We need substance.
Go Hillary
Posted by: Carol | February 11, 2008 3:45 PM
"open to mass hypnosis and hysteria."
This opens up a sociological question. Now I know that every generation has its "dead celebrity causes riot" events, but it seems as if in the last 20 years things have just gotten too weird with the lighted candles, messages, cards and flowers piled on a shrine. What is going on? Is it a failure in education, a fear of the modern age that puts more emphasis on talimans and religion, an influx of other more emotional cultures? Or perhaps just TV coverage of the latest "best pictures" events?
Posted by: Jamie | February 11, 2008 3:50 PM
dog, I don't think Hillary will get the Edwards' endorsement although it certainly would not be a huge surprise to see that happen, but it would break Brian's heart. I rather believe that Edwards will throw his support to Obama as a result of what I would call their kinship in their disdain for Washington as it is and their shared position that Hillary represents that.
Posted by: pogo
| February 11, 2008 3:51 PM
MSNBC (and others) are saying the Edwards/Obama meeting has been cancelled.....maybe it's not a given he'll go with Obama.
Posted by: Gidget
| February 11, 2008 3:52 PM
HRC ad
aimed at the young voter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA8Wy51Ionk
Comments?
Jack
Posted by: whskyjack | February 11, 2008 3:55 PM
Wait...is that true that the call with Obama was less detailed and he was being terse...or are you speculating?
If you are speculating you are feeding into my theory that Obama is arrogant and a jerk which wouldn't be fair because I'm really struggling with that.
I'm not sure how to read that part of your post
:-/
Posted by: Wendy!
| February 11, 2008 4:07 PM
Gidg, it's certainly not a given, although I have to repeat, I think John will eventually endorse Barack. Call it a feeling.
jamie, I wonder, too, about those shrines. I can't imagine putting stuffed animals, flowers,candles, and cards out for someone I never met. Just like I wonder about the crosses and wreaths placed at fatal accident sites. The last thing I want to do is remind myself ofte spot a loved one died every time I pass it. Hell I've even seen vinyl cutouts on car windows commemorating the death of a family member. I really don't understand it.
Posted by: pogo
| February 11, 2008 4:09 PM
Burrito
I'm not so sure...Friday Elizabeth Edwards was less than sympathetic about the Chelsea Clinton remark - she had a funny look on her face like...give me a break Hillary - even though the words that came out of her mouth were mo cautious.
I'm still sticking with my question from the last thread to Craig...has Edwards lost his moment. That one poll from WI looks like maybe no as there are a lot of Edwards supporters on that and undecideds. An Edwards endorsement could swing WI.
Posted by: Wendy!
| February 11, 2008 4:10 PM
pogo it wouldn't break my heart, silly puss! I think Obama is a better fit, but I can see reasons for Edwards picking Hillary too.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 11, 2008 4:16 PM
Pogo: Agreed that my money is on an Obama endorsement from Edwards.
Brian: Agreed...she should have had buses pulling up to old-age homes and loading those codgers up!
Posted by: Ally
| February 11, 2008 4:24 PM
I just saw something that said Clinton was ahead in the polls in Rhode Island! Yipee
OK - it's Rhode Island I know.
Posted by: Wendy!
| February 11, 2008 4:26 PM
Brian, you're nothing if not resilient.
Posted by: pogo
| February 11, 2008 4:29 PM
I've seen successful GOTV campaigns and Washington looked to me as if the Clinton campaign pretty much left it up to the local activists who acted as if this time was going to be like every other time. They got completely blindsided by the sheer size of the number of people at the Caucus.
Even more than the old folks, they should have had every union organizer out making sure that there was a bus or group of drivers for every caucus site.
Posted by: Jamie | February 11, 2008 4:29 PM
Jamie: Yes, they need to get out more than just the elderly. I just use it as an example since I personally transported older folks to my caucus. The Clinton campaign really dropped the ball in the caucus states.
Posted by: Ally
| February 11, 2008 4:35 PM
Jamie:
You should have been named the new campaign manager of the Clinton campaign ; )
Posted by: warren | February 11, 2008 4:41 PM
Wendy, Rhode Island has as many electoral votes as Maine and has 21 delegates. They all do count, don't they? That's what I hear.
Posted by: pogo
| February 11, 2008 4:43 PM
Wendy, make that 32 delegated for RI
Posted by: pogo
| February 11, 2008 4:44 PM
Pogo
Oh...thanks...then I repeat Yipee - Hillary is ahead in RI
Posted by: Wendy!
| February 11, 2008 4:46 PM
Here is the Rhode Island poll. It is a March 4 primary
which doesn't help with tomorrow's states.
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/rhode-island.html
Posted by: Jamie | February 11, 2008 4:54 PM
Wendy,
Don't discount Rhode Island because it's a small state. Next to Massachusetts, that is the state the Clinton's do best in. A couple of years back, striking firefighters in Providence adjusted their picketing of the cities mayor so that Hillary could attend a party fundraiser and not have to worry about crossing their line.
If she does not get 60% of the vote in that primary, I would be shocked and it would be a major disappointment for her side.
She has been endorsed by every major Democrat in that state except by Rep. Patrick Kennedy and the AG Patrick Lynch. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Lynch's brother is a Clinton supporter.
Obama's only connection to the state is the fact that his Brother in Law is the Mens Basketball coach at Brown. While I think he will poll even to her in Providence, I see HRC doing as well as she did in the areas of RI that border MA.
Posted by: Bear
| February 11, 2008 4:57 PM
This is actually the one I saw - of course - it's not one of the major polls.
http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo-20080211-brownpoll___.b10d88a1.html
I'm just happy she's ahead somewhere
Posted by: Wendy!
| February 11, 2008 4:58 PM
well, if Obama doesn't sweep the Chesapeake primary, he will have defied all the prognosticators. There's plenty more states out there and lots of delegates to try and lay claim to.
Daddy duties call - later, all.
Posted by: pogo
| February 11, 2008 4:58 PM
The Clinton Campaign needs to drop this Shuster thing. It is starting to come back and bite them in the butt, which is exactly what I was afraid of. Chelsea really needs to portray herself as a strong young woman who is not injured by the words of some pundit. The radio show I listen to just did an hour on it, Barbara Walters said on the view to drop it...it is backfiring. Badly.
Posted by: Ally
| February 11, 2008 4:59 PM
Wendy, she's ahead in PA, OH, TX, WV, OR and a few other states, but there's plenty of time for Obamam to work on those.
Posted by: pogo
| February 11, 2008 4:59 PM
Jamie,
I'm pissed off that Dwight hasn't written back to me from Washington State Democrats. Why can't they have the caucus and the primary too and have them at least divided the way the Repugs do it? This just sucks, and I am sorry if I sound like a broken record. I don't want to be a downer, but just when I think I can deal with Obama, a couple of his supporters get so arrogant and nasty that it makes my skin crawl. Really!
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 11, 2008 5:00 PM
Bear...
Good to see you! I hope you're getting good medical advice and care. Take care, and get well....
Posted by: harborwoman | February 11, 2008 5:00 PM
Hey gang...for those of you who have missed the past, say, four weeks of Obama vs. Hillary acrimony on this blog...here's a great post from another blog that pretty well sums up all the arguments made on all sides here:
http://alexbalk.tumblr.com/post/26058843
Posted by: LardassLiberal
| February 11, 2008 5:01 PM
"new campaign manager " Didn't totally manage campaigns, but did run the office and staff for campaign managers. Even that earned a T-Shirt and a much needed trip to the padded cell afterwards. :)
Posted by: Jamie | February 11, 2008 5:01 PM
EuroTom: Yes, the primary ballot has made for a very confusing situation in Washington. I have heard many reports of people who thought they could do one or the other. Between that issue and the distance to the caucuses for many folks, it sounds like a real CF.
Posted by: Ally
| February 11, 2008 5:03 PM
To further comment,
RI is one of the few states where Hillary's ground game would exceed any effort Obama has put forth in the election thus far. She is held in high esteem in the academic circles and there is a working class and ethnic vote that would skew to her favor since there is a large Dominican and Latin population there.
I don't know which way the Haitian population would tilt. That group, if anything like my family, would vote based on issues first.
There is a budding Laotian and Vietnamese population there in Providence and I have never been able to figure out their politics or whether they are a politically active group... I will offer insights as the information becomes available and between doctors visits.
Posted by: Bear
| February 11, 2008 5:03 PM
Wendy-
Me too! She's also 10 points up in Texas (48/38) but 12% undecided...in Calif those undecideds broke her way, but...fingers crossed.
We have to have something to look forward too because tomorrow is looking like a blood bath.
Posted by: Gidget
| February 11, 2008 5:04 PM
Bear,
My hopes and good wishes to you. Take Care!
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 5:05 PM
bear, I like your nickname. I am often called a "teddy bear" because of my size and shape. LOL... anyway, what's up? you are sick? We don't want that!
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 11, 2008 5:07 PM
All this micro-targeting . . . they should have fired Penn a long time ago. That guy gives me the creeps.
He always has that plastic smile on his face while he is attempting to stick a knife in someone's back.
Posted by: warren | February 11, 2008 5:09 PM
Pogo - have you seen a resent Oregon poll? I figured she'd get WV - man no place more blue collar than WV (my Dad is from WV - I'm hoping it goes her way).
Posted by: Wendy!
| February 11, 2008 5:10 PM
Is Maryland a big state? I just did a google search on the size of Belgium (our country) and it says that we are about the size of Maryland.
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 11, 2008 5:10 PM
I meant recent
sorry...i was too late to fix it
:-(
Posted by: Wendy!
| February 11, 2008 5:11 PM
Yes I've been preparing myself for tomorrow knowing there are still a lot of states left out there...BIG states...BLUE states...blue collar states!!! Her little run is coming- Obama can have the end of Feb...Hillary will take March.
Posted by: Wendy!
| February 11, 2008 5:14 PM
My dad lives in Oregon and the Obama ground game is powerful there as well.
Posted by: Ally
| February 11, 2008 5:15 PM
Wendy, from your mouth to God's ears...
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 11, 2008 5:15 PM
is Oregon a caucus or a primary?
I really believe Hillary would have done a lot better in a WA primary rather than caucus...I'm not saying a win but I am saying a closer race and more delegates. I think Oregon will be the same in some places.
Posted by: Wendy!
| February 11, 2008 5:21 PM
Obama vs. Axelrod on Superdelegates
"So I guess Obama's strategy is to accept superdelegates who say "Obama's our guy," but if the voters say "Hillary's our girl," those superdelegates should think long and hard about how they approach the nomination and ignore the voters' choice. Got it"
http://www.taylormarsh.com/
Posted by: GORDO | February 11, 2008 5:21 PM
Wendy we will know on 19 February
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 11, 2008 5:21 PM
Oregon is a primary state.
Posted by: Ally
| February 11, 2008 5:28 PM
I am just wondering if ANYONE here watched the news clip with Cher where she talks about Hillary, Barack and an ex-President? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C61nORMvObA
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 11, 2008 5:29 PM
Gordo - thanks for the post. Yes the hypocrisy coming from the Obama camp has always been evident to me. I wouldn't mind so much if he was just your typical political hypocrite...but he presents himself as something different as being above it...then he's not. If he's going to play politics as usual...then play it...bring it on...I can live with that...but don't say you're not like the rest and then act like the rest. It's too transparent.
Posted by: Wendy!
| February 11, 2008 5:31 PM
What cracks me up is that Clintonites are mad that people don't perceive Obama to be as politically devious as Billary. Talk about setting the bar low.
Posted by: alpha1906
| February 11, 2008 5:33 PM
Remember that point in the (SC?) debate when Edwards went after Obama for not voting in the Senate and voting "present" 130 times as an Illinois legislator? Edwards was really perturbed at BHO railing at how BHO ducked making the tough decisions, saying "That's why you are elected! To make the tough decisions!" Maybe Edwards is remembering that and it's giving him pause before throwing hi support to Obama.
Posted by: Divalicias | February 11, 2008 5:34 PM
Ally --- I don't know why the caucus locations were so far away for some Washington voters. My guess is that outside Seattle and other urban areas, WA is a very rural state.
In Virginia that could happen too. We don't caucus by precinct -- we caucus by local Democratic committee, one caucus site per county. Depending on where that caucus site is, people would easily have to drive more than 20 miles to vote.
Posted by: Divalicias | February 11, 2008 5:39 PM
Virginia caucus?
Posted by: LushIsLinda
| February 11, 2008 5:52 PM
Hillary Pollster Mark Penn: Obama More Likely To Suffer Fate Of John Kerry Or Al Gore
The "GOP attack machine," Penn suggested, "skewed the perceptions of such distinguished public servants as Al Gore and John Kerry" in a way that left perceptions of them "out of touch with reality."
Penn said that Hillary has "withstood" this process, while Obama would find that his independent support "would evaporate relatively quickly once he faced the Republicans." Penn added that the GOP "is already playing the national security card against Obama."
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/hillary_pollster_mark_penn_hil.php
Posted by: GORDO | February 11, 2008 5:55 PM
one more gooper gone
Source: Shadegg to Retire
Monday, Feb. 11, 2008; 5:32 pm
Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) will announce this evening that he will retire from the House upon the conclusion of his current term, according to a well-placed Republican source.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 11, 2008 5:55 PM
alpha WTF are you talking about? American politics are corrupt... If you think Obama is above that, wake up... it's time to have some coffee and do a reality check.
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 11, 2008 5:55 PM
I'm voting for an alternative candidate in my congressional district. Brian Baird must go even if it costs the dems 1 seat.
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 11, 2008 5:57 PM
Roadside shrines -- I don't have a problem with them at all. When people experience a loss, whether it be for a celebrity or a relative, the grief can be comforted by seeing that others have also expressed their sense of loss. The act of creating a memorial can be healing. No memorial is trivial -- each one is an expression of a life come to an end and the empty space in the lives of those left behind.
Pogo, even if there isn't a shrine next to the place where a loved one was killed, do you think for moment that the family forgets where that life was ended? Rest assured it's never forgotten.
Posted by: Divalicias | February 11, 2008 5:57 PM
Bear - I see you are having medical difficulties. I wish you the very best and I'll be thinking about you.
Colleen
Posted by: colleen | February 11, 2008 5:58 PM
Diva: These were suburban Seattle callers...not in rural areas. If anyone has more info on the Seattle area and the distance to caucus I would love to hear about it.
As far as taking a ferry, I can't imagine where you would have to do that. All of the island communities have some amenities. I think if you have a grocery store and a school you should have a caucus site!
Posted by: Ally
| February 11, 2008 5:58 PM
I don't know about you guys, but seeing Talking Points Memo blog that Obama is up a lot of points.
Scares the heck out of me. And not for the same reason it bothers some of you.
Shades of New Hampshire.
Complacency is not our friend.
Posted by: dog's eye view
| February 11, 2008 6:03 PM
I've been saying Shuster was just speaking in the vernacular of the day and making a point , innocently, illustrating how the Clintons are using Chelsea.
I'd say about 4 out 5 people tell me I'm insensitive as Shuster and we both should be banned to Siberia.
Oh well, so be it...I suppose the men out in Cal who fix cars up for poor young hoopdee drivers will hafta call their TV show " Fix Up My Ride".
Then there's John McCain, mean-spirited crazy son of a bitch (no offense old-Mom McCain...just a generic S.O.B.---not calling you a female dog)---remember what HE called Chelsea? :
http://www.attytood.com/2008/02/the_worst_thing_thats_ever_bee_1.html
Posted by: Dexter
| February 11, 2008 6:04 PM
Gore and Kerry were not strong in terms of likability.
The way Obama connects with voters - we will interpret attacks on him like attacks on us. Be afraid GOP.
Posted by: warren | February 11, 2008 6:04 PM
EuroTom: Just watched the Cher video. Love her. Love the shoes. Love the bag. Love Cher.
Posted by: Ally
| February 11, 2008 6:10 PM
I BRAKE FOR POLAR BEARS
or, as a famous blogger wrote, "If that damn bear gets any cuter I'm moving there!"
http://www.nuernberg.de/internet/polarbear/
Posted by: Dexter
| February 11, 2008 6:10 PM
Is anyone watching Tucker? Who or what did he call a slut?
Posted by: Linda~in~Wisconsin | February 11, 2008 6:12 PM
Warren, this "connection" is so media generated, that's what bugs me. All of a sudden Teddy Kennedy said "boo" and the MSM RAN with it! I think they'd make Attila the Hun seem like this likeable, teddybear of a man if he was running against Hillary. And once the MSM picked up on it, people get manipulated by the buzz that was created. I bet if you really asked the everyday Obama supporter what exactly he stood for they wouldn't know.
I am a pessimist and it's time to sleep.
good night.. and I don't mean to rain on anyone else's parade.
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 11, 2008 6:13 PM
Inspiring Kool & The Gang song from 1993 called "Unite". There is no video for this song. It effectively uses samples from MLK's "I Have A Dream" speech.
http://www.last.fm/music/Kool%2B%2526%2Bthe%2BGang/_/Unite?autostart
Posted by: Corey
| February 11, 2008 6:14 PM
Cool Ally, she's my favourite. I loved what she said about politics. LOL...
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 11, 2008 6:15 PM
Dex, ditto - the Shuster debacle is much ado about nothing. Perhaps outrage could better be directed at dead soldiers, New Orleans, the homeless and starving children in America.
Posted by: colleen | February 11, 2008 6:17 PM
I hate Mondays.
"Wide BlackBerry Ouytage is Reported."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/technology/11cnd-RIM.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Like I have one. But I covet it!
Posted by: dog's eye view
| February 11, 2008 6:17 PM
Craig, I am so upset with Tucker, what kind of a man is he? He is disrepectful of his guests, stretches the truth, tells half truths and takes things out of context and really just bad mouths everyone. Really turns me off to watch MSNBC.
Now he is nagging on Hillary saying that SHE is saying poor me. I HAVE never heard her say that in any shape or form.
Posted by: Carol | February 11, 2008 6:18 PM
Warren ---------
Will Obama still be likeable after the Repub Attack/Smear Machine has worked on him for months?
Posted by: GORDO | February 11, 2008 6:18 PM
"This opens up a sociological question. Now I know that every generation has its "dead celebrity causes riot" events, but it seems as if in the last 20 years things have just gotten too weird with the lighted candles, messages, cards and flowers piled on a shrine. What is going on? Is it a failure in education, a fear of the modern age that puts more emphasis on talimans and religion, an influx of other more emotional cultures? Or perhaps just TV coverage of the latest "best pictures" events?"
________________
Jamie -- I'd be inclined to look at a series of causes including worsening education....in the meantime, I'll just quote the late great Frank Zappa:
"It's not getting any smarter out there."
Posted by: Patsi | February 11, 2008 6:22 PM
EuroTom: And what she said made sense. She killed it.
Posted by: Ally
| February 11, 2008 6:23 PM
Carol, I turned on the TV to hear the word slut coming from Tuckers mouth...........What was that all about?
Posted by: Linda~in~Wisconsin | February 11, 2008 6:23 PM
Tom
You're right about Obama supporters not really knowing what he stands for. Did you see the Larry King with Will.I.Am, John Legend and America Ferrera?
Early in the interview America went with the Hillary has substance and not just slogans...which both Will and Legend took offense to.
Later a viewer who was about to graduate from college was wondering who she should vote for...who was going to do something about jobs and her future.
Will said she should vote for Obama because...he couldn't really answer...he then said...it's not just a slogan I believe him...and he left it at that.
At first Larry was going to pass on America but she insisted on answering. Her answers were of course talking points I realize that but she outlined specifics from Clinton's plan to help create green collar jobs and help students pay back loans who are willing to do public type jobs like teaching, nursing, research etc. It was choppy but she did a good job highlighting a few things...definitely better than I don't think it's just a slogan.
Posted by: Wendy!
| February 11, 2008 6:25 PM
Divalicious
"When people experience a loss, whether it be for a celebrity or a relative, " I think there is a difference between loss of someone personally close and known as opposed to traipsing off to sob over someone you have never met. These cult like gatherings of bathos are something new and catered to by the media. Look at the whole wallowing in death with TV cameras logging every sob and shriek. There is almost something mentally irrational about the carrying on.
Posted by: Jamie | February 11, 2008 6:25 PM
First Far North Dallas election sighting (in a terse, brutal fundamentalist area), a bumper sticker for Obama on a new, shiny, red Corvette, convertible - top was down.
tt
Posted by: tiptoe
| February 11, 2008 6:26 PM
Euro Tom -- I can't watch the clip because of my old computer....sorry....
Posted by: Patsi | February 11, 2008 6:27 PM
For what it is worth, Edwards during the last of the debates seemed to "side" with Hillary. I personally liked how he stood with her rather than against her. Both Edwards and Richardson have not given an endorsement. Again, what do they know that we do not know? At this time (and isn't it mostly about the timing?), I do not think an edorsement is forthcoming . I think endorsements are most effective, if at all, when the candidate drops out (like Guliani for McCain).
On another note, surprised to read about Hillary and McCain in a vodka drinking contest (Newsweek) in 2004 on a senate trip to Estonia (taxpayers expense?). This was before that lovely purple bottle -- Jim Hendrix vodka -- hit the market, for sure.
And in the previous thread, someone asked about scotch...I vote for a bottle of Pinch as it a groovy bottle shape and decent scotch.
Posted by: Blonde wino
| February 11, 2008 6:33 PM
Bear, sending positive thoughts your way. Fight it tooth and nail.
Posted by: eprof2 | February 11, 2008 6:34 PM
Wendy: I watched Larry King and I thought America rocked. She was so bright, so knowledgeable, so passionate and so detailed. I fell in love with her. I did sense some tension on the set and which mirrors some of the tension I see in these discussions. I hope that we are all able to come together in November!
Posted by: Ally
| February 11, 2008 6:35 PM
tiptoe
Romney drives a red convertible.
Posted by: Blonde wino
| February 11, 2008 6:35 PM
alpha...."Billary" is getting on my last nerve. How would you like me to start calling your guy an "Obamanation"?
Posted by: Patsi | February 11, 2008 6:37 PM
clever, Patsi...very clever!!
Posted by: LushIsLinda
| February 11, 2008 6:39 PM
just a caution for all of us. Dirty and Rough Politics Ahead.
Is Clinton Campaign Stirring Up Maryland Jews Against Obama?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/10/is_clinton_campaign_stirring_u/#more
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 6:40 PM
Colleen
"the Shuster debacle is much ado about nothing." I think that it was a kind of "last straw" situation. The reaction would have been negative but a simple apology for using a word that still meant one thing to listeners that was not intended in the modern sense. It still was a crass, unwarranted remark but not on the level of the mcCain quote.
What was wrong was that the station had been so non stop constant Hillary bashing that the Shuster remark brought a deluge from the public down on the NBC president's desk.
I note that today, MSNBC has seemed a bit more chastened and even handed. Every Obama person has been matched with a Clinton person and fewer snarky anti Hillary remarks. I believe several people more than Mr. Shuster may have gotten an ear full.
Now Tucker is still a useless dweeb but that is another situation.
Posted by: Jamie | February 11, 2008 6:42 PM
Patsi,
We're going to live in an Obamanation very soon, so go on ahead!
Posted by: alpha1906
| February 11, 2008 6:43 PM
Wendy! Yes you!
Could you please qualify statements like the following?
"You're right about Obama supporters not really knowing what he stands for."
If you added the word "some", as in -- some Obama supporters do not know what he stands for -- I believe that would be an accurate statement.
FWIW: saw a tiny bit of the Larry King program with America Ferrara, John Legend and Will.I.Am.
Uh. I hear the last two can sing pretty well?
Not a commanding performance, have to give you that.
But that's sideshow, and not the substance, and best not to confuse the two.
Posted by: dog's eye view
| February 11, 2008 6:44 PM
Ally
I noticed the same tension. I felt bad for America because she sat in the middle of the two - but I give them all credit they were ALL very polite and nobody stepped on anyone else. All three of them listened to the other talk before commenting.
Posted by: Wendy!
| February 11, 2008 6:44 PM
Yes....I like it....Obama-nation....good catch Alpha!
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 6:46 PM
Obamanation.. I like it.
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 11, 2008 6:46 PM
dog...yes...I stand corrected adding the word some would have been more effective. I apologize for painting with too broad a brush.
Posted by: Wendy!
| February 11, 2008 6:47 PM
Obomination is better spelling
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 11, 2008 6:47 PM
Too Late Euro Tom. ;0) Too late.
Obama-nation is an Alpha catch.
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 6:49 PM
Although I never use the term, "Billary"...I think it is kind of cute!! When I hear/read it...I always smile 8>)
Now, a pop-culture term that sends shivers down my spine is..."Barchelle"!!
I would much rather have "Billary" in the White House...instead of "Barchelle"
Posted by: LushIsLinda
| February 11, 2008 6:49 PM
Thanks Wendy!
Another compliment: from what little I saw: America Ferrara was very impressive. Do not watch her show, but now have a favorable opinion of her personally.
Posted by: dog's eye view
| February 11, 2008 6:50 PM
oh and alpha, you don't need to reply to this... I would just caution you to tone down the confidence to the point of arrogance. The nominee has not been chosen yet, so I think you are sipping the bubbly way too soon.
As the old adage says: "Don't count your chickens before they're hatched"
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 11, 2008 6:51 PM
Obamarama!
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 11, 2008 6:51 PM
Sheila,
Ed Lasky is an extremist and if you look back at his other articles, you will see that he frequently praises and supports Republicans. He hates Soros who has been a major donor to Democrats. Check out some of his previous articles:
http://www.americanthinker.com/ed_lasky/
Posted by: Jamie | February 11, 2008 6:52 PM
Bear,
My prayers are with you my friend. Since you don't take shit from anybody or anything, I'm sure you'll be back and good as new soon.
dnd
Posted by: dnd | February 11, 2008 6:53 PM
Obamadrama
Posted by: LushIsLinda
| February 11, 2008 6:53 PM
I don't care about him Jamie, The Pamphlet is horrible and wrong though. Something to watch out for.
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 6:53 PM
What role would Oprah play in the Obamanic White House? I am guessing "spiritual advisor". She certainly thinks she walks miles about the rest of us.
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 11, 2008 6:54 PM
Amen to what Tom said about not counting chickens before they're hatched.
SO: if you are in the Chesapeake primary region: get out there and vote for your favorite candidate tomorrow.
Your vote makes a difference.
Posted by: dog's eye view
| February 11, 2008 6:54 PM
Tom - I agree - Obama and Obama supporters have the same problem with too much arrogance too soon. While the supporters won't hurt the campaign I think Obama himself may.
I am a USC Trojan...we have many reasons to brag about our football team...we were favored to win the last three national championships going into the season...we didn't...nuf said.
Posted by: Wendy!
| February 11, 2008 6:55 PM
letters@msnbc.com
MSNBC/Microsoft-NBC
30 Rockefeller Plz
3rd Fl
New York, NY 10112
(212) 664-4444
Does microsoft own NBC?
Posted by: Linda~in~Wisconsin | February 11, 2008 6:55 PM
I'm sure after the Campaign was over Maya Angelou would be magnanimous enough to volunteer for that role. She is manificent and authentic.
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 6:56 PM
EuroTom
This might answer your question
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnL9HRLNxIA
Posted by: LushIsLinda
| February 11, 2008 6:56 PM
This political season is making me paranoid....Tucker just said he thought Edwards would endorse HRC.....and I immediately think...is that good...bad....what he really thinks....what he wants us to think ....will it hurt Hillary...yikes!
Posted by: Gidget
| February 11, 2008 6:56 PM
BTW - dog - I meant SOME Obama supporters.
Posted by: Wendy!
| February 11, 2008 6:56 PM
30 Rockefeller Place is definitely NBC's headquarters. I believe MSNBC is a duo project of NBC, owned by General Electric last I heard, and MSN.
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 11, 2008 6:57 PM
Linda In Wis
no, not anymore. They have a small share though.
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 6:57 PM
Wendy!: I disagree on the arrogance of Obama supporters.
I cannot tell you how traumatized many were by the New Hampshire experience, where you did have some people assuming the election was in the bag.
Never.
But do you recall how Mark Penn (if memory serves) and some others tried to brand Hillary Clinton as the inevitable nominee many months back?
That backfired bigtime too.
Posted by: dog's eye view
| February 11, 2008 6:58 PM
They dropped in 2004. They were losing too much money on MSNBC
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 6:59 PM
You know, maybe all of this earlier primary and caucus vote wasn't such a great idea in retrospect.
I still believe the convention is where the dem race will be decided and the media will have us frayed by the time late August is upon us.
Posted by: Blonde wino
| February 11, 2008 6:59 PM
Noted, Wendy!, re the some. Thank you.
Posted by: dog's eye view
| February 11, 2008 7:00 PM
Obama-nation has a ring to it! ;0)
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 7:00 PM
I just received this from Media matters.
Tell NBC News President Capus that the time for apologies has passed.
Sign the petition
http://mediamatters.org/action_center/capus/
Thanks for the feedback on microsoft. Does that explain some of the votes in Washington?
Posted by: Linda~in~Wisconsin | February 11, 2008 7:01 PM
dog - I'll give you that one - the campaign was over confident in the early days. I know Hillary is tough but this will toughen her up even more - make her that much better of a president.
Posted by: Wendy!
| February 11, 2008 7:01 PM
or as McCain would say "oh bom iran"
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 11, 2008 7:02 PM
Any campaign that has Mark Penn at it's head has a lot of nerve calling anyone arrogant.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 11, 2008 7:02 PM
dog - I will also admit that for the most part the Obama supporters here are less arrogant and far more thoughtful...though I still think HE himself is. My problem is I keep reading the comments at Talking Points Memo - now that group IS very arrogant.
Posted by: Wendy!
| February 11, 2008 7:03 PM
Linda In Wis,
having grown up in Washington and still heavy ties to the state,
Let me tell you....Washington is as singular and original in their thinking as Alaska.
No, they are very liberal and very very independent in their thinking.
Washingtonians would have been studying and stretching and eaking out what made sense to THEM.
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 7:03 PM
I'm just curious. Did McCain and Clinton do vodka shots together before or after he called her daughter ugly?
Posted by: colleen | February 11, 2008 7:04 PM
Wendy: I do not think the Obama campaign was overconfident in New Hampshire, but the voters and some volunteers were.
I still think New Hampshire was saying "NO, not a coronation of either candidate at this point. This is going to be a longer race."
They got their wish!
Posted by: dog's eye view
| February 11, 2008 7:05 PM
or as McCain would say "oh bom iran"
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 11, 2008 7:02 PM
From one Obama Momma, That was CUTE!
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 7:05 PM
Wendy!: so stay here and stay off the comments at Talking Points.
Frankly, I think this group would be much more copacetic if some of our valued longtime members did not get too much of their "news" from MSNBC.
People may die of boredom watching CSpan's congressional hearings, but no one shows up at this blog loaded for bear after an hour or two.
Seriously, try watching political coverage on CSpan for a few days. You will see the whole event, not just selected clips, and with less distractions.
Posted by: dog's eye view
| February 11, 2008 7:10 PM
Anyone have any tips as to how to get tickets to debates?
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 11, 2008 7:11 PM
I will take the advice, all cable news is crap.
Posted by: max | February 11, 2008 7:12 PM
Anyone have any tips as to how to get tickets to debates?
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 11, 2008 7:11 PM
I have that answer. I was on the Kerry Campaign and did the Debate in Florida.
ALL of the tickets were given out by each party through the campaigns and VIPS for each party.
So you are out of luck.....unless you are a person with an inside. ;0)
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 7:14 PM
Hey Wendy,
My undergrad and grad degrees are from UCLA, so must be natural enemies. lol
Tom, not arrogance. We in the Obama ranks know that we're fighting an uphill battle. We have to call more people (which I do every day and all of the other Obama friends I have do) about getting people out to vote. And we're excited about our candidate. So excuse us if we say that on a board that's overwhelmingly for HRC.
Posted by: alpha1906
| February 11, 2008 7:15 PM
Dog's Eye: I have limited by MSNBC viewing significantly for the very reasons you mention. I still watch Dan Abrams but that's about it. The Morning Joe coverage on South Carolina primary day was just one of my last straws.
Posted by: Ally
| February 11, 2008 7:16 PM
Alpha! You are on a role buddy!
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 7:16 PM
ticket information for Cleveland debate
Ticket requests are already pouring in. CSU got 800 calls before noon Friday. The Wolstein center holds 13,00. But no decision yet how many tickets will be available.
When that information is available it will be on our website , WKYC.com. and Cleveland State's website (
Channel 3 President and General Manager Brooke Spectorsky provided the link between NBC and Cleveland State
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 11, 2008 7:18 PM
Jamie and others:
Somebody finally comes up with a Seabiscuit vs War Admiral analogy. Was waiting for this.
http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-vs-clinton.html
Posted by: dog's eye view
| February 11, 2008 7:19 PM
Shelia thanks ... I have no insides :(
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 11, 2008 7:19 PM
My Bust Kate,
must just be the General.
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 7:20 PM
thanks KC
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 11, 2008 7:21 PM
Alpha 1906: I remember you fondly from the Imus threads. We were on opposite sides of issue then. So good to see you back more often.
Posted by: dog's eye view
| February 11, 2008 7:21 PM
I agree on getting news from different sources. Catch someone on Charlie Rose - you can hear a whole conversation. Plus, most anyone you bump into has an opinion (or at least a few talking points).
I am sure PBS has transcripts of Mr. Rose - who is the best in the game.
Posted by: warren | February 11, 2008 7:22 PM
Burrito,
Get on a campaign and be excited and work feverishly for your candidate, no matter who it is.
Its fun and its worthwhile with so many awesome people to bond with. No matter how many long hours. Better than sitting up in the nose bleed section at the Debates. ;0)
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 7:22 PM
Either way I know it's not easy...That's the one I want... I have friends calling me...HA! like I have any connections... People are funny
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 11, 2008 7:23 PM
I have offered to volunteer.... will see what happens
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 11, 2008 7:25 PM
Warren, Dog,,,,,is it just me or do Obama supporters tend to watch more CSPAN and less MSNBC?
Could that be why we are generally happy? ;0)
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 7:25 PM
I have offered to volunteer.... will see what happens
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 11, 2008 7:25 PM
You go girl!
Don't just offer, walking in that office and say, "Where's the Pamphlets?" ;0)
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 7:26 PM
Sheila, that so-called Jack-Up-The-Jews campaign is bogus. First of all, there aren't enough Jews there to take that kind of a chance. Second, there have been several "slimes" -- ones that actually got reported about -- that were "attributed to Hillary's campaign and were later traced back to some right wing groups.
I hope the Obama folks don't think we on the other side sit around thinking, "Oh, my God! I got an anti-Hillary email! I bet it came from Obama!"
I repeat:
"It's not getting any smarter out there." Frank Zappa
Posted by: Patsi | February 11, 2008 7:28 PM
"Obama-nation has a ring to it!"
I can't wait until you get your "O" THE PRESIDENT stickers for your cars.
Posted by: Patsi | February 11, 2008 7:30 PM
I love MSNBC. I think it talks about the politics of politics. I know sometimes it is like a gossip show - but if you can cut through the bs - you can pick up on a lot of different views. They have some very opinionated people on that network - all of whom know this stuff inside and out.
I have a crush on Norah, get a kick out of Tucker (even though he is a total bastard) and kinda like Joe.
I also think Pat sometimes provides real insight into the cold heart of GOP politics - and he cracks me up too.
But I also watch CSPAN and CNN and of course FOX.
Posted by: warren | February 11, 2008 7:32 PM
would that be a big "O" ?
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 11, 2008 7:33 PM
Warren! You are a real live Political Junkie! lol You will go far on this blog!
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 7:33 PM
Barack Obama interview, now, Channel 7 - ABC -- DC Metro area, sponsored by Politico.
Posted by: dog's eye view
| February 11, 2008 7:34 PM
Well it certainly is not helping me quit smoking ; )
Posted by: warren | February 11, 2008 7:35 PM
Wait until after the General. I quit 1 1/2 years ago. I literally waited and cut down very slowly. But in 2004, you couldn't have wrestled them from me.
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 7:36 PM
Do children of past presidents get secret service protection for life?
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 11, 2008 7:38 PM
I kind of have a "girl crush" on Norah myself 8)
http://radio.weblogs.com/0107064/MyImages/norahodonnell.jpg
Posted by: LushIsLinda
| February 11, 2008 7:41 PM
No Burrito,
But they get equal protection as their parents for 10 years after the end of the Office or until they are adults.
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 7:41 PM
No burritto they don't, up to the age of 18
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 11, 2008 7:41 PM
http://www.secretservice.gov/faq.shtml#faq2
just was curious
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 11, 2008 7:42 PM
LL: this is my work computer - should I click on that link.
Posted by: warren | February 11, 2008 7:43 PM
Thought I remembered this comment made by Edwards. As fast as this Primary is moving, he could very well endorse Clinton...or keep his first preference.
We'll see soon enough.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/the-edwards-end.html
The Edwards Endorsement
January 30, 2008 2:59 PM
Something to keep in mind about John Edwards and endorsing…
He has never come out and said he would endorse Barack Obama, but he has always made it clear that he preferred Obama's politics to Clinton's.
Before the Iowa caucus, he explained it this way to me: "One of them believes change is necessary and the system doesn't work, and the other defends the system."
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 7:43 PM
Oh, yeah, warren...it's OK...just a semi-sexy pic of Norah...it could be a screen-saver for you!!
Posted by: LushIsLinda
| February 11, 2008 7:44 PM
Therefore, President Clinton will be the last president to receive lifetime protection.
What a cool career would that be, I think it is perfect for my son.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 11, 2008 7:45 PM
All this hoopla about John Edwards' endorsement....does anyone think it would matter at this point?
Posted by: Patsi | February 11, 2008 7:48 PM
No no - got a picture of Fiji. But I am due for an update.
I wouldn't put anything past Edwards. If he couldn't get something from Barack that Hillary was willing to give - he would put together quite an argument as to why he is endorsing Hillary.
Posted by: warren | February 11, 2008 7:48 PM
Obama-nation has a ring to it!"
Is that where the Obamaniacs live?
Posted by: Jamie | February 11, 2008 7:48 PM
Is she married?! What's that MSNBC address again?
Posted by: warren | February 11, 2008 7:49 PM
Obamamanians Jamie.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 11, 2008 7:49 PM
Erin Burnett is the best warren, forget Norah... who ever. Mind you, I'm not trying to play match maker.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838220/
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 11, 2008 7:50 PM
Jamie! Probably. ;0)
warren,
Of course Edwards would go with the one candidate that would move his agenda forward. He'd be a fool to waste some good fuel.
But don't count Edwards out. His followers are too loyal and will follow his lead. So delegates and Edwards Supporters. Some of the most loyal of the lot....good trade ;0)
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 7:51 PM
Warren....Nora just had a baby this last year.... lol
Posted by: Sheila
| February 11, 2008 7:52 PM