home

Wednesday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 07:21:49 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm finally done with court for the week. I'm guessing there's been a lot of news today since our open threads are full. Here's another one while I get caught up. All topics welcome.

< Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | Enquirer Claims John Edwards Indictment Imminent >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Night Open Thread | 121 comments (121 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I'm guessing there's been a lot of news today (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 07:26:55 PM EST
    Not really just more of the same thread wars

    I'm guessing that (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Zorba on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 07:57:54 PM EST
    everyone needs to take some deep, cleansing breaths and relax, CoralGables.   ;-)    There has been too much animosity here today.  People can respectfully disagree, and that's fine, because it would certainly be incredibly boring if everyone was just echoing each other.  What I like about this site is that most posters at least respect each other and can disagree without getting obnoxious, as happens in far too many other sites.  Have your opinions and beliefs- I will defend your right to them.  Please don't trash others who do not have the same opinions as you do.  Disagree civilly.  I guess that's all I have to say.  Peace to all, and namaste.

    Parent
    Cat fences :) (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:02:35 PM EST
    (other thread closed before I could respond to your comment) There is fencing designed specifically to contain cats and you can also ''top' your fence in a way to contain them. I'll prob be embarking on a cat containment system after I move since I'll have a yard they might enjoy. I think the older cats would stay in, but not the 2 youngsters.

    Parent
    I like that, (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Zorba on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:32:03 PM EST
    Nycstray.  If you adopt a cat that has been used to being outside, it's very difficult to contain it indoors.  If there is "cat-containing" fencing available that would allow them to enjoy the outdoors in safety (for them and for other, smaller animals), I think that's great!  (BTW, my son has a cat in an apartment, and cannot do the fencing thing, but he has trained the cat to accept a harness and a leash and takes her out regularly.  That's more than I would do- or most people, I would guess- but more power to him.)  

    Parent
    All of my cats have been indoors (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:46:07 PM EST
    since kittens. But I think they would like lazing in the dirt/sun while I garden and putz around. I always said I wanted to build an atrium type thing if I ever had a yard again so the cats could enjoy it, so I'm very happy to see some different systems out there. A friend out where I'm moving is thinking of doing the same, so we'll prob throw our heads together and share labor.

    It's true some cats just want to be outside and it can be pure h*ll keeping them in. Speaking of leashes ;) here's Rocker

    Parent

    Love it! (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Zorba on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:58:35 PM EST
    Rocker's great!

    Parent
    Awwwwww how cute (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:01:03 PM EST
    My cat acts like we are trying to strangle them when we put the leash and harness on them.

    Parent
    Pretty cat (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:19:50 PM EST


    Parent
    My cats learned how to open sliding screen door (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jawbone on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:56:01 PM EST
    onto deck and back yard.

    Only two, whose lives did not overlap, could do the physical feat of hooking a claw into the insulation and pulling the door open enough to get shoulders through. Both were right pawed only, and, while I tried, I could not train them to close the door after themselves.

    Ooops, take that back: My boycat could do it, but left the labor to the little black female (who disappeared last September after letting herself out at 5:40-ish in the afternoon. Never returned. Hurts to think of her loss....).

    Anyway, the boycat will open the sliding screen door on his own now that it's down to just him.

    Point being: Cats who want out really want out.

    My Abbycat would hook a claw into the actual screen and eventually slit it, then used her head and shoulders to simply enlarge the opening. No more having to work at opening the screen door -- she and her sister could just run right out. Cost $45 to replace that screening.

    Parent

    Oh, yes! (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:28:05 PM EST
    Some are just more determined and a wee bit smarter.  When I first moved here and before I was ready to let them go out for the first time, one morning one of them started howling his head off from the screen porch, and when I raced in to see, there was the other one calmly walking around outside. (His brother either didn't recognize him Outside or couldn't cope with the cognitive dissonance of the whole spectacle.)

    I got him in, but couldn't for the life of me figure out how he'd gotten out.  The next morning, same thing. I finally figured out he'd been shouldering open a door held closed by just a hook-latch at the back of the storeroom, and I tightened it.  He got out again, and this time I found he'd pushed so hard, the eye of the hook had been pulled right out of the wood!  His brother either never figured it out or didn't have quite enough courage to follow him.

    This is the same cat who disappeared some months later, and for whom I still grieve, so I know your feelings all too well.  I cannot even imagine how people who have a child disappear that way manage to get through the rest of their lives.

    Parent

    Very handsome cat (none / 0) (#47)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:27:38 PM EST
    Great whiskers!

    When you're researching fencing, look into deer fencing.  They're making stuff now out of strong plastic mesh that's essentially invisible from a little distance and not wildly expensive.

    Now that I live on a very low-traffic country road, I take the risk of letting my cats out -- during the daytime only -- and there's absolutely no question that they relish their lives and have far fewer "issues" between then than they did before.

    That said, I've lost two cats, one to a truck and another presumably to one of the predators around here.  But without question, if they'd gotten to vote, they would have voted for an exciting life cut short over a long boring one in prison.

    These have all been cats with feral ancestry.  My sense from having lived with a few purebreds from breeders that they are much, much more content with an idoors-only life.

    Parent

    Thanks! I loved that kitty sooooooooo much! (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:40:54 PM EST
    He had a short stint in life. Always kinda sickly (poor immune system). Almost lost him as a 9wk kitten, so am thankful for the few years I did have.

    My ferals have been in for 17 yrs now. They came in at 4 months when we had a big snow storm. I imagine they'll be happy with a warm spot in the yard at this point in life ;) Thanks for the deer fencing tip! I'd love to have a secure area they could access through one of my windows, as the windows come down close to the floor. It would also keep my veggie garden cat free as they'll easily bust the Dot barrier. She's so easy when it comes to barriers, lol!~

    Parent

    Word to the wise, though (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:20:47 PM EST
    Even with fencing, do not let them come and go as they please or you will have wounded mousies brought to your pillow, or half-eaten corpses stashed under your furniture.  My cats aren't allowed in until I can see they're not carrying!

    The cats are only a minor nuisance with the veg garden, and having them free to prowl around has the huge positive of keeping the voles and shrews and rabbits at bay around the whole property.  I had a big vole problem with the garden my first year (almost every single potato had bites taken out of it!), but the cats have worked steadily at it and I've had very little vole nibbling or digging of potatoes since then.

    The main irritant with the garden is that the cats just adore to roll around ecstatically in freshly turned earth, so I have to cover newly planted beds with row covers until the seedlings are large enough to survive the attention.

    Cats generally prefer to have a couple of well-established toilet areas, so once those got established away from the garden (with the help of a spray bottle of water and a lot of shouting and banging and charging by moi), that hasn't been a problem, either.

    But watching the cats live with the full sensory stimulation they were designed for has been just an incredible joy to me, and to them.  The first time I saw my original two racing full-out across the grass, I literally wept.

    Parent

    Ugh. Forgot about that! (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:09:18 AM EST
    I had one kitty that would jump up and hang from the window on the door to be let in. She quickly learned that the door didn't open with mouse in mouth, so she would place it on the ground and then jump up and hang {rolls eyes}

    Parent
    My cats claim familial descent from Alpha-Leos (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Ellie on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:53:37 AM EST
    Even with fencing, do not let them come and go as they please or you will have wounded mousies brought to your pillow, or half-eaten corpses stashed under your furniture.  My cats aren't allowed in until I can see they're not carrying!

    They claim their right to show off their noble ancestry and mad skills, usually in the early AM when a dead mouse, bird or (worse) half-dead one gets a huge ovation.

    "Ovation" is how they translate me, screaming "What the muthaf&cking freaking f#*k???" at the top of my lungs before falling backwards in a half-faint and spilling steaming hot cafe-latte on my face.

    I finally learned to keep my composure and put down the mug, grab the dustpan and move the unfortunate creature -- the mouse or bird, not me -- outside to to a small, fallow area of dirt while saying, "Good kitty!"

    Parent

    I don't know about deer fencing (none / 0) (#88)
    by cpresley on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:33:02 AM EST
    To keep cats in the yard. We have the deer fencing in our yard that is the the hard plastic ( invisible fencing ), but I don't know if it would keep a cat inside the fencing. It would be very possible for a cat to climb the fence.

    Parent
    A fence would be nice (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:34:47 PM EST
    I wish my neighbor had a fence for her cat. It kills things and leaves them on my patio. She says that it the cats way of showing affection to me. I could do without the "gifts" when I roam out in the morning with my coffee.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:32:52 PM EST
    I had to quickly learn not to go out barefoot in the summer.  Yech.

    It's not really affection per se, the cat is for some reason courting your favor.  My (neutered) male cat wanders far and wide for mousies, and when he catches one, races back with it to my (unrelated, also neutered) female cat, who sticks closer to home, and drops his trophies at her feet.  She picks them up and prances around with them proudly, head held high as if she'd caught them herself.

    Parent

    I did not know this (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:58:27 PM EST
    Thank you, I will investigate more thoroughly so I know what I'm talking about and I will be recommending it in order to keep living things safe around here.

    Parent
    Some of the "systems" are pricey (none / 0) (#41)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:07:41 PM EST
    but you can easily design and put something together much cheaper using them as inspiration.

    It's totally unreasonable to let cats roam and get upset if something happens to them, even more so to take legal action if something happens because you can't/won't keep your cats contained.

    Parent

    Let's not (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:30:54 PM EST
    lose sight of the fact, though, that these people had a beloved family member violently ripped to pieces.

    I agree with all the "shoulds" in this situation, but even stupid, illogical people suffer anguish when a pet dies horribly, no matter whose "fault" it is.

    Parent

    Being upset over the death is one thing (none / 0) (#67)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:30:32 PM EST
    but blaming the dog/car/person with gun/wild animal etc seems 'wrong' to me as those are the possible outcomes when a cat roams. Especially in some places where it could jeopardize the life of the dog.

    I've let cats roam in the past depending on where I lived and their safety odds. Anything happens to them, it's on me, not the car, coyote etc. I personally don't think my youngest has the brains/instincts to roam safely (he's just not that bright!) when I move and I think the area is still too busy making the risk too high. And then there's the neighbors . . .  The cabin is a dif story . . . .Also, another reason for containment is to keep other critters out. My mom's pets have been attacked by coons in her yard and she warned me to check the yard if I let my Dot out at night etc. There may be a feral cat issue in the 'hood also . . . .

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:05:42 PM EST
    I'm just asking folks to have at least a bit of sympathy for the horror of this event because I wasn't seeing any in the comments.

    I've imagined this happening to my cat who disappeared here and was literally terrified for a solid year to go walking anywhere outside my immediate property for fear of finding pieces of him or tufts of his very recognizable fur clinging to a few bones.

    (I fully accept his and my responsibility for his death, and as I say, we both made the choice to take that risk.)

    Parent

    Well Said (none / 0) (#7)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:02:27 PM EST
    It's always best to think before you tap.

    Parent
    haha (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:07:08 PM EST
    I was going to say the same thing. I don think there was any news today. Nothing positive in the news anyway.

    Parent
    THE EARLY DAZE, part 5 (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 07:36:04 PM EST
    More from the wayback machine is up at THE ABNORMAL WIDTH OF NORMAL HEIGHTS blog.

    (Just sent in my bi-yearly contribution to the TL kitty, Jeralyn.  Thanks for all the continued hard work [and BTD, too], it never ceases to amaze me.  Peace.)

    Most enjoyable... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:14:49 PM EST
    ...reads, Dadler.  Thanks for sharing with us all.

    Parent
    I second... (none / 0) (#103)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:45:02 AM EST
    keep 'em comin' Dadler.

    Fun to picture you entering my neck of the woods via Penn Station.  Whenever I pull into Penn or ride the rails, the B-Boy Bouillabaisse always pops in my head, like clockwork...it is the definitive depiction of a NY train/subway ride.

    Trench coat wing tip going to work
    And you'll be pulling a train like Captain Kirk
    Pick pocket gangsters paying their debts
    I caught a bullet in the lung from Bernie Goetz
    Overworked and underpaid staring at the floor
    Prostitutes spandex caught in the slide doors
    Stuck between the stations it seems like an eternity
    Sweating like sardines in a flophouse fraternity
    $50.00 fine for disturbing the peace
    The neck tortoise your Lees are creased
    Hot cup of coffee and the donuts are Dunkin
    Friday night and Jamaica Queens funkin
    Elevated platform never gonna conform
    Riding over the diner where I always get my toast warm
    Bust into the conductor's booth and busted out rhymes
    Over the loud speaker about the hard times
    Sat across from a man readin El Diario
    Riding the train down from El Barrio
    Went from the station straight to Orange Julius
    I bought a hot dog from my man George Drakoulias

    It don't get no better...if the song wasn't such an epic poem I'd post all the lyrics.

    Parent

    The subway in the summer (none / 0) (#110)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:59:13 PM EST
    There is nothing more ripe in NYC.  Summer of '87, the subway after my day of work temping at IBM on Madison and 50something, I don't think I have ever felt hotter.  Or more alive.  

    Parent
    Oh yeah man... (none / 0) (#111)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:09:25 PM EST
    subways in the sweltering summer.

    Another line from that track that I've lived..."Ridin' between the cars, pissing smoking"...the B-Boys should be the new poet laureates of NYC.

    Parent

    Expectations were raised (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 07:55:48 PM EST
    I don't find this a "hate Obama" site at all. I do read (and totally agree) with a lot of comments on the frustration and disappointment with the performance of the Democrats since they finally achieved their goal of capturing the WH, Senate and House.

    For eight years those in DC sat and wrung their hands in dispair that they were unable to stop the Republicans. We we assured that things would be very different under their leadership.

    Democrats have not even come close to living up to the expectations that they raised. As the party leader Obama is the captain of the ship. So yes, he gets the hits just as GWB did when it was a Republican administration.

    I for one (4.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:14:15 PM EST
    began to get extremely disappointed back at the end of 2007 when I realized that no matter what they said they were going to give George W. Bush what he wanted. Then I knew we were in trouble with Obama because of his issues and how he ran his primary campaign. That being said even I didnt think he would be THIS bad. No one respects him. The the GOP doesnt fear him and his friends know he's too weak to stand up for them or have their back. It's really become a farce and it's pretty sad.

    Parent
    The over the top nature of your (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:01:20 PM EST
    haterism never fails to suprise- "Its almost a farce" seriously, I gotta say you probaby thought Clinton was a 1 term president in 1994 right? I mean he lost congress and had a lower approval rating than Obama does now.

    Parent
    Deal (2.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 05:12:49 AM EST
    with the issues not personal attacks. It's pretty much agreed upon that Obama has had a disastrous first year.

    No, I didn't think that Clinton was going to be a one term President. I didnt think one way or the other about it but Clinton never worshipped at the altar of bipartisanship either. I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama completely cave if the GOP shut down the government. Heck, he's caving to them now and they don't even control anything.

    Carter keep congress and had an approval rating much like Obama. How did that one work out?

    Parent

    Carter likely wins re-election (none / 0) (#112)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 02:00:27 PM EST
    if not for two things largely beyond his control that happened late in his term- the Iranian Hostage Crisis and Reagan emerging as a political phenom- if either of those things doesn't happen (or heck if Ted Kennedy doesn't run) Carter probably wins in a walk- if say the Operation to Free the Hostages is a success, Carter wins easily.  

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 02:45:59 PM EST
    because Carter was going against a tide that had been rising for quite a while and I think he still would have lost but perhaps not as badly with out some of those issues. You have to realize that he barely got into office in the first place much like W.

    Obama is most comparable to Nixon. Nixon was very supportive of liberal ideas when the ideology was on the downswing much as Obama keeps trying to recussitate conservatism.

    Parent

    Suckers are a Dime a Dozen (2.67 / 3) (#9)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:06:26 PM EST
    We we assured that things would be very different under their leadership.

    And things go better with Coke, GE brings good things to life, We try harder, All the news that's fit to print, You're in good hands with AllState, A diamond is forever, Put a tiger in your tank....

    There is little difference between D and R, but enough difference that I pull the lever for D and would rather have them in the saddle than the GOP.

    The thing that amazes me is that there was soooooo much hope involved, particularly here with Hillary. Big mistake, imo. Can't say you were not warned.


    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:30:55 PM EST
    I agree that the difference is more than enough to make me vote Democrat. That's exactly why I get so upset when I see them fumbling along and squandering an opportunity of a generation.

    They've succeeded in erasing the memory of eight years (of the worst president in my life) in a matter of one year!

    Parent

    Expectations (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:02:57 PM EST
    If one has no expectations from a candidate, what is the point of voting? I'm definitely not naive but when I cast a vote for a Democrat I expect them to act like one. If I thought Republicans really had a lot of good ideas, I would be voting Republican.

    Way too much time has been wasted dancing with a partner that has no desire to dance.

    Parent

    Your last paragraph makes no sense. (none / 0) (#13)
    by observed on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:10:36 PM EST
    Hillary is not President.


    Parent
    Riiiight (2.50 / 4) (#16)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:14:28 PM EST
    Hopey went both ways, and evidentially, judging by your relentless ODS comments, you swallowed the bait whole. I would love to know what name you posted on here before 2010.

    Parent
    Why not drop it. (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by observed on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:23:58 PM EST
    First of all, your'e making no sense: we can't judge how Hillary would have fared as President, because she isn't. All that matters today is what Obama does.
    I am not one of those people who is always writing a long comment wishing that Hillary were President. Really, all I wish is that the 2008 selection process had not had an unprecedented unfairness. Denying a floor vote for a candidate with that many delegates? Outrageous, and Obama's and the Democratic leadership's failure to even try to heal wounds is still hurting the party.

    The sorry fact is that in the modern world, strongarm tactics and backroom deals sour the process when everyone can see them so clearly.

    I don't want to discuss the primaries day in and day out, but apparently several Obama supporters  think there's nothing better to do than call someone a PUMA or hater to get the discussion started again.
    Why all the baiting comments? I don't see any purpose.


    Parent

    I'd say the people with ODS are the (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by observed on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:29:08 PM EST
    ones who thought Obama was going to close Gitmo within  a year; bring home all troops from Iraq within a year; stop extraordinary rendition; stop the domestic spying and prosecute those who enable it under Bush; investigate Bush and Cheney for war crimes; pass a health care bill with a strong public option; reveal that he didn't mean the PPUS and was ready to stick it to the GOP; etc., etc.
    Who had it wrong and who had it wrong in their predictions about Obama?
    I can't think of ANYONE who supported Obama who laid out a scenario for the first year which remotely approaches what actually transpired.


    Parent
    Reform is only allowed (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:46:48 PM EST
    to go so far no matter who is elected. And the ones who know it ahead of time and can work the system, become the frontrunners.

    People who dont already know this are the ones with "DS", or a pernicious form of naivete, imo.

    Parent

    Really (none / 0) (#58)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:05:17 PM EST
    he's pretty much met my expectations and exceeded them in some areas- his foriegn policy has been more effective than even I thought it would be, he's moved more of Gitmo and trying detainee's than I ever expected an electable politican would. On Healthcare I admit I'm a bit disappointed with congress, but on the whole its still gotten closer than it ever did under Clinton despite more egregious Republican obstructionism (showing the tactical value of negotiating with Pharma and keeping them on the sidelines).

    Parent
    That's the big advantage ... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:18:57 PM EST
    ... of setting the bar so low, although I'd say Observed's point holds true:

    I can't think of ANYONE who supported Obama who laid out a scenario for the first year which remotely approaches what actually transpired.


    Parent
    I think he's done a pretty good job at this point (none / 0) (#63)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:21:27 PM EST
    around B, especially considering the crises he inheirited.

    Parent
    That's the big advantage ... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:27:50 PM EST
    ... to grading on a curve.

    Parent
    You know... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:53:31 PM EST
    ...I've wondered the same thing myself.  I notice the question has gone unanswered as well.

    Parent
    I'm thinking about rejoining (none / 0) (#37)
    by observed on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:59:50 PM EST
    Big Orange as HillaryIs45.
    I think the time is right.

    Parent
    So criticism of Obama ... (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:45:22 PM EST
    ... means someone had unrealistic expectations of "hope" with regards to HC?

    How does that follow?

    Parent

    The huge disappointment is that (none / 0) (#5)
    by observed on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:00:40 PM EST
    Obama really believes that governing in a bipartisan fashion is the right way to go.
    I think he needs a civics lesson of his own, because that's not my understanding of how represenative governments function.


    Parent
    I think alot of blame gets (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:12:37 PM EST
    portioned out to Obama when the reality is that Reid and Pelosi are equally responsible for the bipartisanship. They aren't just innocent by standers. Reid could have told Obama "no" when he suggested that Baucus or Snowe take the lead on health care. Pelosi didn't have to declare single payer was off the table. Just as Pelosi and Reid could have actually held Bush accountable prior to Obama. There is a record of behavior going on that predates 2008. Kdog has a very valid point when he points out the problems with the Democratic party are deeper and occured pre Clinton and Obama primary. For some how Clinton was treated was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

    That isn't saying I don't hold Barack Obama partially responsible. As President he is supposed to set the tone and he appears to be tone deaf in regards to where his core of supporters wish him to go. I just think that Pelosi and Reid are getting off too lightly.

    Parent

    You're right there. It's hard to (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by observed on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:17:10 PM EST
    understand unless the root cause is simply that corporations won't support candidates who are  not right/far right.
    Since the GOP is generally more in line with what the corporations want, they have no need to backtrack from party philosophy.
    Dems, on the other hand, have some conflict between the desire for money and expressed party values.


    Parent
    SOME conflict? (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:42:25 PM EST
    It's THE conflict from where I sit..and has been since it became a foregone conclusion that any serious contender was going to need to raise hundreds of millions $ from people aren't donating it out of sense of public spiritedness or civic reponsiblity. This is also why, at this point, I think it hardly matters WHICH Democrat gets elected: they'll only be allowed to go so far in the direction of genuine reform before the Scaife - T Boone Pickens slimeballs, with the cooperation of (many) media confederates, launch a campaign of Swiftboating - Vince Foster - Whitewater - Mena, Arkansas disinformation to distract and disorient the public and elicit bogus "public outcries", endless Fox - talk radio exclusives, endless grandstanding ops and calls for special investigative committees on the part of the Jim Bunnings of the world..

    Grassy Knolls? It's one big Grassy Knoll for progressives at this point.

    Parent

    Isn't Reid much worse? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by observed on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:45:31 PM EST
    Pelosi has tried much harder on HCR than Reid, IMO.
    Even at the meeting last week, she reminded Obama that he had publicly supported the public option last week.


    Parent
    From a tactical standpoint (none / 0) (#34)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:57:00 PM EST
    taking single payer off the table was a really dumb move. It rates right up there with allowing Baucus to write the Senate version of the bill. So I think it's a draw.

    Parent
    It grates on my ears and makes my (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:20:51 PM EST
    jaw clench every time I hear Obama say that they've listened to everyone, to "both" sides (as if there are only two?), considered all the good ideas, when they have done no such thing.  Where was the discussion about single payer?  Where were the single-payer advocates at all the hearings, at the summits?

    They were absent.  Not invited despite reasoned, polite and persistent pleas.  Arrested for daring to show up and ask to be heard.  What kind of America arrests people for wanting to have a credible and cost-effective plan get a hearing?

    So, as arms are twisted behind backs to vote for this legislation - legislation that would foist an industry-friendly plan on all of us, and as Obama continues to spout the disingenuous and downright false assurance that "if you like your plan you can keep it; if you like your doctor, you don't have to change," remember that not all the good ideas have been discussed and presented to the American people for a fair assessment.

    I ask myself all the time, "why has it been more important to listen to Republicans, but not to single-payer proponents?  Why has it been more important to have a steady stream of industry lobbyists and Republican leaders wearing a path to the Oval Office, to have secret deals and promises, but not one invitation extended to anyone from the single-payer movement?"   The answers I come up with are all as cynical and as negative as you might imagine, and the frustration just sometimes consumes me.

    Reasonable people can disagree about what's best for the country, but neither Obama, nor the House and Senate leaders taking marching orders from him, have had enough respect for the American people to put all the options on the table, or enough honesty to make the process credible.

    That's a failing that will reverberate for years.

    Parent

    Referring to single payer today, (none / 0) (#92)
    by lucky leftie on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 02:39:03 AM EST
    Obama said..." in America it would be neither practical nor realistic."  Right, not "practical" for either party to forfeit that sweet, crazy money rolling in from health insurers and "unrealistic" to expect them to do so.

    No mention of the public option, of course.  

     

    Parent

    Single Payer isn't realistic or Pratical (none / 0) (#113)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 02:03:46 PM EST
    a slow transition to Swiss style system is but single payer, seriously, wow- how do you suggest we deal with the hundreds of thousands who would be added to the unemployment roles, the massive transition costs, the logistical issues of shifting hundreds of millions of people to Medicaid, the non-acceptance rate by private physicians, the costs of loans and medical school, etc.  The hurdles for single payer are insane compared to those for a Bismark style system.  

    Parent
    Maybe the point is (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 03:52:37 PM EST
    By just inviting single-payer advocates to the table, Obama could have won so much goodwill and maybe found an idea or two that he could have incorporated into the bill - much like he did with Republicans.  It would have cost him nothing and he wouldn't have the single-payer folks so pi$$ed at him.  They may have actually felt like working to help him pass a bill.

    Politically, another dumb move by the WH.

    Parent

    Not sure who the (none / 0) (#119)
    by lucky leftie on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:19:47 AM EST
    hundreds of thousands of newly unemployed would be but at least they wouldn't have to worry about losing their employer provided health insurance, like those who are currently unemployed.  

    A sizeable segment of the population already has single payer health care.  It's not perfect and there are problems but they aren't insurmountable.  

    Parent

    funnyordie.com (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:01:52 PM EST
    Obama has a dream with former presidents (ala SNL)with regards to the CFPA.   Presidential Reunion.

    I think I might ban the word PUMA (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:30:35 PM EST
    it's a lightening rod for rudeness -- on both sides.

    Stereotyping is never a good thing.

    Once again, disagreement is fine and all points of view are welcome. But personal attacks and insults are not.

    Words like Obamabot and Puma detract from the points being made, especially for those who want to read and express themselves on issues and don't make judgments out of blind hatred or devotion.

    There is no presidential election for quite a while and the primaries are history. There's a health care bill on the table and 2010 Congressional elections coming up. Guantanamo is still open and the war on drugs continues to escalate. The job situation is still very bad (tomorrow's news will confirm this.)

    Let's leave the extremist emotional judgments on personality behind and strive for some productive discourse.

    This is not an Obama hate site and this site is a strong supporter of Democratic candidates. That's not going to change. We certainly call the Dems out when they mis-step, but it's not personal and it doesn't mean we're thinking of jumping ship. We're trying to change their minds.

    If you feel differently, you are a minority view here and the chattering rules may be enforced.

    Banning "Puma" would be a great (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by observed on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:48:43 PM EST
    move. I don't have any problem with restrictions on O-bot, etc.
    I'm also quite done with "wouldn't Hillary be a great President" comments.
    If she were creating world peace instead of banging wardrums for this administration, I'd feel a bit nostalgic, but not today, not as things stand.


    Parent
    We have a standing rule against trolling (3.66 / 3) (#66)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:30:02 PM EST
    ... which was deliberately violated here, producing in the unfortunate cascade of heated commentary.

    Parent
    That's more than (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:02:16 PM EST
    a little unfair to single out one person as a "troll" after the months of "obot" - "CDS" - "hater" cheap shots that've passed muster here as acceptable discourse.

    What is this, "Mommy he started it"?

    Parent

    Clearly intended to provoke a (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:45:29 PM EST
    response.  But what else is new?

    Parent
    One person's provocation (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:51:02 AM EST
    is another person's valid corrective.

    I have noticed though, that a group of seeming avenging angels showed up here some time in late 08 and seem to feel they've been given the unwritten authority to dictate site rules.

    Parent

    My "what else is new" (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:13:29 AM EST
    was a generality.  

    Parent
    Unfair? How so? (none / 0) (#116)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:07:35 PM EST
    "plus I know how much the pumas hate Maddow"

    That's where it all started, and that's a definitive troll -- an attempt (very successful, in this case) to bait others into conflict for the sheer enjoyment of conflict.

    This bait was dropped gratuitously, and without context in the foregoing thread, attached to a simple repost of an earlier day's comment.

    Please note, I did not single out the author as a "troll" (a corruption now unfortunately common in netroots usage, denoting only "somebody me and my friends don't like"). I singled out the specific comment as an instance of trolling - which it clearly is.

    Parent

    I dont think it (none / 0) (#117)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:33:10 PM EST
    was an attempt to gratuitously bait other commentators, because I see it within the context of that particular commentators history here, which has been generally overwhelmingly supportive of engaging in evenhanded, searching dialogue focused on the issues of the day; as opposed to the typical "troll" who will generally periodically show up at a site to drop rhetorical bombs not meant to engage in any way, but to incite.

    Generally sensible people vent in a provocative way here all the time, Capt just did it one time in a way that apparently violated the unspoken site rules regarding acceptable targets.  

    Parent

    Sorry, that's just a crock. (none / 0) (#118)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:55:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Understandable, but (3.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:39:25 PM EST
    I will miss reading cawaltz's comments -- essentially one who was attacked for political beliefs, as a PUMA, and not one of the attackers.  

    Parent
    I think she's just banning the word (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:19:48 PM EST
    not me, in particular. I can go by the term independant instead if it makes things easier for her. As I stated in the last thread I respect that this is her site and and Jeralyn gets to call the shots as she sees fit.

    Parent
    Hope so. It would be odd (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:40:30 PM EST
    to see similar treatment of terms such as, oh, Dem, Repub, LGBT. . . .

    Parent
    yes, it's the word (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:46:18 AM EST
    PUMA just like Obamabot. They are lightening rods for insults. I wasn't referring to any particular commenters.

    And yes, if I ban one, I'll ban the other. First I'll see if things calm down a bit.

    Parent

    Thanks, Jeralyn. (none / 0) (#105)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:33:22 AM EST
    I think banning those insulting words will be helpful, as they are clearly only used to incite.

    Yet, I also think we have to accept that the childish motivation of those commenters is simply to attack commenters that they don't like (i.e., it is transparently never about the comment, but about going after the commenter) - so the behavior won't stop, they will just find ways to use other insults to continue doing what they do. A fact of the intertubes.

    Thank you, though.

    Parent

    Little Miss Innocent? (1.00 / 1) (#107)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:12:35 AM EST
    Your comment reeks of condescension and insult. WHo are you to think yourself so haughty and better than other commenters to judge what is childish, or the motives of other commenters?

    IOW, Look in the mirror, you are doing exactly what you condemn. Not surprised.

    Parent

    I am quite dissatisfied (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by JamesTX on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:38:47 PM EST
    with Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders. Anyone with any kind of genuine progressive sentiment must be. We had a slight political advantage on the left for a very short time, and absolutely nothing was done with it. It was sabotaged at every step. To make it worse, there was absolutely no apparent reason for squandering the opportunities, and there has been absolutely no explanation from out leaders. They won;t even try to console us. This is weird. It is as if the best way to deal with populism is to campaign on populist issues and then ignore the base once you are elected. They won't even give us any excuses. What are we to make of that?

    I don't see how a Clinton presidency would have been any different. If anything, Clinton is more centrist and more "moderate" than Obama. In his victory speech last night in Texas, Good Hair Perry drew roars of applause upon announcing a resurgence of conservatism and cited the list of recent elections and other events which support that hypothesis. The media machine appears to be picking up the scent, and has begun restructuring their commentary and rhetoric around all the old worn-out memes that were popular throughout the conservative dark ages. It looks like what the press and pols like Perry want us to believe is that the progressive sentiment that fueled the last election was just an inexplicable flash in the pan from which Americans have suddenly regained their senses. Apparently, if majorities really do drive the electoral process, that is the only explanation. Vast numbers of people who wanted something different just suddenly decided they wanted to go back to corporation worship,  24/7 sex offender programming on TV, new crime bills every few months which require less evidence to send people away for longer times, unconditional support for any funding measure which claims to "support the troops", and a plain preference for hatred, force, violence and punishment over all other ideas.

    But that doesn't mean I am going to become a Republican.  I am just fresh out of ideas as to what people who think like myself can possibly do. We spent the last 30 years assuming that all the nastiness we had to put up with was due to our being a minority and losing elections. But this time we won, and the trend just continues. Who wouldn't be confused and disoriented under those circumstances? It doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't leave any options. It means representative government is simply not. When that is the case, what do you do? I am just in limbo. I am trying to process the events of the last year, and I can't make any sense of it. Normally, I would think the answer was political, but we won the political contest and nothing changed. How do I process that? What am I supposed to think?

    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:52:36 PM EST
    we need to remind ourselves that different factors enter into governing than campaigning. Seriously, we got the first part of the prize with the big 2008 win; but, some may have assumed that the rest was automatic or semi-autopilot. Oft times, you run with the base and govern from the middle. Bush stuck with his base, but--as I recall--the rest of the country came to realize the narrowness or out-of-touch(ness) of that approach. The real challenge is how to govern for all of the people (and the many,varied positions) while keeping true to your liberal values, isn't it? Compromise and negotiation...a necessary dilemma.

    Parent
    I could argue that (none / 0) (#64)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:27:03 PM EST
    her domestic policy was not more centerist or moderate but what would be the point? The time for that argument was back before the election. Having it now will not change a darn thing so I'll abstain.

    I think the same ought to be said though for those conjecturing that a Clinton or Obama looks the same though. We don't live in an alternate universe so you have no way of knowing whether or not she would be better, worse or the same.

    Parent

    The congress and senate (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 11:22:56 PM EST
    would be the same, and they'd be beholden to all the same interests they're beholden to now.

    Parent
    I agree that (3.50 / 2) (#83)
    by JamesTX on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:19:52 AM EST
    I can't know it would be the same, better or worse. I am not "against" Clinton, and never was. My favored candidate was John Edwards, so you can see what would have happened if I got my way! I was not particularly thrilled with the way the Obama campaign was handled, but once he was the candidate, I supported him. I continue to hope it gets better. That is, I am not trying to argue that Obama was the best choice, especially given what we know now. In fact, I was troubled by the kind of irrational "rock star" campaign for his candidacy and particularly troubled by the way questions were handled by his supporters and his campaign. They sort of demanded support, but they viewed questions as threats and attacked people for asking questions. The underlying message to people who asked questions was that they still had a chance to cool -- they could still be part of the solution -- if they just stopped asking difficult questions. If they didn't, then they became the enemy. Either way, the questions were never answered -- particularly obvious questions that may have helped predict what has happened, such as his unwillingness to stand firm against the most radical ideas of the far right. Now we see why those questions couldn't be answered. And now I am not so sure that I would have wanted to be cool. He always gave some indication that he agreed with conservatives much more than I would like to see in a progressive candidate. He was what we got in the end, and I simply dropped the issue and moved forward. I followed the party, because I am a Democrat. I am extremely disappointed, though. I can't help but hope there really is an eleven dimensional chess game, and he is going to stand up soon and yell "check". But I am worried.

    Parent
    I don't think "the left" (none / 0) (#91)
    by lucky leftie on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 02:26:52 AM EST
    ever had any sort of advantage with this administration, we just thought (or hoped) we did.  Indeed, progressives are the only faction the WH has been willing to fight with or dis. They make nice with repubs, conservadems and Lieberman but progressives who want to pressure democrats to act like democrats are "fuc#ing retarded."

     

    Parent

    Ruffian (none / 0) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:07:06 PM EST
    as I failed to ask earlier...Braves & Mets at Lake Buena Vista today?

    Yes - Braves won 9-5 (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:20:24 PM EST
    Came from behind - they were down 4-0 at one point. I'm not a Braves fan at all in the regular season, but they are home here in preseason. They play in a nice little stadium at Disneyworld. Yes, it is kind of Disneyfied, but the food is better than the Astros spring training site a few miles away.

    It started out a cool cloudy day, but the sun came out for the game and it was very nice! Nothing better than taking an afternoon off and sitting in a ballpark.

    Both teams showed signs of hope for the season, though one Mets baserunner will take some ribbing for tripping over third!

    Parent

    do I need to go back (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:08:13 PM EST
    through the open threads and do cleaning of insults and personal attacks? (I hope not, the spammers are work enough, but I will.)

    You're okay (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:18:38 PM EST
    It wasn't that bad. It was just a rehash of the primary fight between the Cat Party and the I Hate Cats Party (particular breed of cat left out so as to not stir the emotions of both parties)

    Parent
    And my comment about cat fences (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:23:33 PM EST
    is totally unrelated, lol!~{grin}

    Parent
    I don't think things got too nasty (none / 0) (#17)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:14:56 PM EST
    I wasn't offended by anything said to me.

    Parent
    Obviously the last thread wasn't worth reading (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:32:19 PM EST


    Right, because you weren't there, (none / 0) (#28)
    by observed on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:35:28 PM EST
    obviously.
    Add some sparkle to this one, now.

    Parent
    200 comments of bickering (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 08:38:39 PM EST
    aren't fun even when I'm involved.

    Parent
    Before the ban (none / 0) (#40)
    by JamesTX on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:06:56 PM EST
    goes into effect, can someone tell me what a Puma is? And what is an ODS? I hate to be out of step, but these are new terms for me.

    A (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:15:57 PM EST
    Puma is a shoe in most countries and a cat in some. ODS is the ticker for ODESIA GROUP INC. Neither of those explanations hold true here.

    Parent
    Did someone zip you (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:18:14 PM EST
    into a baggy and freeze you for a bit? :)  Heh, the Wiki says that PUMA is a registered PAC, I didn't know that.  ODS stands for Obama Derangement Syndrome which I think is a spin off from the coined CDS which stand for Clinton Derangement Syndrome = unnatural irrational biased hatred for any candidate with the last name Clinton.

    Parent
    Thanks! n/t (none / 0) (#56)
    by JamesTX on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:54:24 PM EST


    Parent
    No disrespect intended (none / 0) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:36:03 PM EST
    but Google is your friend.  If you see a term you don't understand being used freely by a bunch of other people, odds are nearly 100 percent you'll be able to find the definition through Teh Google.

    Parent
    Then I guess it (none / 0) (#54)
    by JamesTX on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:44:22 PM EST
    is a shoe!

    Parent
    But a shoe may also be a phone (none / 0) (#59)
    by shoephone on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:08:39 PM EST
    though not necessarily a puma.

    Back to my glass of red...

    Parent

    I guess that (none / 0) (#62)
    by JamesTX on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:20:18 PM EST
    explains it. The information is...highly classified

    Parent
    LOL. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by shoephone on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:46:52 PM EST
    Oh, how I love it when Max holds me close...

    But some communications devices are better than others.

    Parent

    Well stated (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:01:29 AM EST
    99

    Parent
    PUMAs (none / 0) (#68)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 10:33:16 PM EST
    were people who were upset with the 2008 primary process for various reasons. Some sat on their hands and some voted McCain in the general election. Many of them are and continue to be disparaged as "unreasonable" for their position that what the Democratic party did in 2008 was just plain wrong and as a result was not worthy of their support.

    Parent
    please don't (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:53:58 AM EST
    start a discussion of p* when I'm talking about banning the word.

    Parent
    My apologies (none / 0) (#120)
    by JamesTX on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 07:59:53 PM EST
    Jeralyn, for soliciting! I really didn't know. Now that I have been educated, I see why it is such a sensitive issue.

    Parent
    Oh, cawaltz, sorry (none / 0) (#100)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:30:30 AM EST
    that you again got hit for just giving a reply.

    I have appreciated your calm demeanor in these threads, despite attacks on how you self-identify.  And of course, one who does self-identify in a group is the one who ought to reply when someone asks for a definition of the group.

    As the actual instigator in earlier threads is in a group in our society attacked for self-identifying in other ways, it really is surreal to see all this.

    Parent

    Yes, my apologies (none / 0) (#121)
    by JamesTX on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 08:04:37 PM EST
    to you, cawaltz, for talking you into this!

    Parent
    Did anyone see American Idol? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:53:00 AM EST
    Crystal Bowersox was great, I'm so glad she's out of the hospital. Simon said if she wasn't able to sing tonight, she'd go home.

    Yes, completely agree! (none / 0) (#96)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:08:11 AM EST
    Crystal was definitely the best of the bunch - and it's not even that I'm the biggest fan of that style, it's that she sings from her heart and is very real. Most of the others were just very rehearsed and forced, although 1 or 2 of them came close to Crystal.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#89)
    by ZtoA on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:37:28 AM EST
    I watched some of Rachel Maddow tonite instead of a cooking show or a movie and, sorry, I'm not impressed. But enjoyed the impetus to watch!

    It was a humor show, which was not funny - tho she thought it was a riot that she --"I'm Shocked!, Shocked! (tho actually, I'm not because I am soooo great and I just wanted to rub that into all of your faces)" -- found out that some pols lie and do so without caring if Rachel Maddow, the cable pundit of the moment, says they lie. Hey, they have their ratings to care about too. I think she over played the 'they are bad bad baaaaadddddd' part.

    Maybe I tuned into the wrong night but I cannot see what Captain or MKS thinks is so super-duper intelligent about Ms Maddow's opinions. Maybe it is because she comes off as self confident (on steroids)? Maybe it is because I'm actually more cynical, less hopeful of political transformational change.

    I listened to her for years on Air america (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:24:50 AM EST
    and always found her well prepared and a lot smarter than the average radio pundit. She has a policy background rather than media background. I think she tries to be entertaining as well, instead of just a wonk, and sometimes that does fall a little flat, at least to me.

    I've never watched her MSNBC show - I just rarely watch NBC news in any form, mostly due to the likes of Tim Russert and Chris Matthews, who were horror shows long before the 2008 election season.

    During the primaries I listened to her radio show and she shared all of my reservations about Obama - the Reagan love and post partisan unity schtick raised red flags to her too. I can't remember the exact point when she said it was time for Clinton to concede for the sake of turning all the energy against McCain, but it was late in the game, not early as a lot of other liberal pundits were, and she made arguments based on strategy, not personality, so she did not anger me with her stance.

    I'm not going to engage in any of the wars of yesterday, but I did want to throw in my 2 cents about Maddow. She is a very informed and sharp debater on the issues and facts, and I am always glad to see her in opposition to Republican spokespeople.  

    Parent

    Earnest (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:17:26 AM EST
    I find her to be overly earnest.  She does have decent research but she can beat a dead horse to death, bury it, dig it back up, pick the bones and beat on it some more..... in other words her range of topics are informative but limited.

    Parent
    She does prepare very well. (none / 0) (#94)
    by observed on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 07:06:34 AM EST
    I saw her interview this "ex-gay" and rip him apart, because she had read his book and had quotes ready.

    Parent
    I think the issue (none / 0) (#95)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:02:26 AM EST
    Is that some people (of the very few that actually watch her in the entire country)  mistakenly consider Maddow a "journalist".

    Parent
    MSNBC didn't hire her for her (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:21:23 AM EST
    mad journalistic skills, but for the audience she acquired while on AirAmerica, and the chance to bump up the ratings.

    Does she "report?"  Yes, in the sense that she combs the rest of the media for "intersting" stories, comments on them and gets the players involved in them to sometimes sit for interviews.  But little of it is packaged for fairness, and it generally comes with a predetermined point of view.  If the word "journalism" has to be attached to what she does, the word "opinion" has to accompany it.

    Which is all well and good, I suppose, but the only reason it even matters what Maddow and her ilk think about anything is that, while MSNBC is looking for ratings, what she's saying night after night is influencing what others think - more so if people think what she is giving them is some sort of "news."

    I don't need Rachel Maddow to tell me what's important and what I should be thinking about it, or how I should be reacting to it, and that's one of the reasons I don't watch her, and why I stopped watching/listening/reading much of that kind of stuff.  Oh, sure, it can be interesting to see how people's minds work, and how much of the detail they leave out to keep people thinking in a particular way, but when "interesting" evolved into "infuriating," I knew it was time to stop torturing myself.

    Parent

    She has never claimed to be a journalist (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:27:07 AM EST
    in all the years I listened to her on Air America. She is a commentator from the liberal point of view, and a policy wonk. I believe MSNBC knew they were not hiring a neutral journalist.

    Parent
    I didn't say MSNBC said she was a journalist (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:44:19 AM EST
    I was referring to the fact that the very few people who actually watch her think she's a "journalist" when she clearly is not.

    Parent
    The point here was not (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:36:50 AM EST
    how Maddow self-identifies but how commenters misidentify her.  True that she does not claim to be a journalist.  

    On the other hand, a lot of these pundits like to show up at journalists' fetes, and not as guests but as members of the group.  So it's also true that a lot of them like to play it both ways but fall back on the faux "I never said" nonsense for which they attack pols and others who pretend to be what they are not.

    I can think of two of these teevee pundits whom I respect, and it is because they are not confused -- nor do they participate in confusing the audience -- about who they are and what they do.

    Parent

    Stark is out as Ways and Means Chair (none / 0) (#109)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:44:25 AM EST
    Sander Levin is in

    Nancy fumbled the ball.

    Wednesday Night Open Thread | 121 comments (121 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment