-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/05/tuesday-open-thread-hi-everybody-3/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
By MICHAEL CIEPLY
Published: May 27, 2008
LOS ANGELES — Sydney Pollack, a Hollywood mainstay as director, producer and sometime actor whose star-laden movies like “The Way We Were,” “Tootsie” and “Out of Africa” were among the most successful of the 1970s and ’80s, died Monday at home here. He was 73.
The cause was cancer, said the publicist Leslee Dart, who spoke for his family.
Mr. Pollack’s career defined an era in which big stars (Robert Redford, Barbra Streisand, Warren Beatty) and the filmmakers who knew how to wrangle them (Barry Levinson, Mike Nichols) retooled the Hollywood system. Savvy operators, they played studio against studio, staking their fortunes on pictures that served commerce without wholly abandoning art.
Hollywood honored Mr. Pollack in return. His movies received multiple Academy Award nominations, and as a director he won an Oscar for his work on the 1985 film “Out of Africa” as well as nominations for directing “They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?” (1969) and “Tootsie” (1982).
“Michael Clayton,” of which Mr. Pollack was a producer and a member of the cast, was nominated for a best picture Oscar earlier this year. He delivered a trademark performance as an old-bull lawyer who demands dark deeds from a subordinate, played by George Clooney. (“This is news? This case has reeked from Day 1!” snaps Mr. Pollack’s Marty Bach.) Most recently, Mr. Pollack portrayed the father of Patrick Dempsey’s character in “Made of Honor.”
Mr. Pollack became a prolific producer of independent films in the latter part of his career. With a partner, the filmmaker Anthony Minghella, he ran Mirage Enterprises, a production company whose films included Mr. Minghella’s “Cold Mountain” and the documentary “Sketches of Frank Gehry,” released in 2006, the last film directed by Mr. Pollack.
Mr. Minghella died in March, at the age of 54, or complications from surgery for tonsil cancer.
Apart from the Gehry documentary, Mr. Pollack never directed a movie without stars. His first feature, “The Slender Thread,” released by Paramount Pictures in 1965, starred Sidney Poitier and Anne Bancroft. In his next 19 films — every one a romance or drama but for the single comedy, “Tootsie” — Mr. Pollack worked with Burt Lancaster, Natalie Wood, Jane Fonda, Robert Mitchum, Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Nicole Kidman, Ms. Streisand and others. A frequent collaborator was Robert Redford.
“Sydney’s and my relationship both professionally and personally covers 40 years,” Mr. Redford said in an e-mailed statement. “It’s too personal to express in a sound bite.”
Sydney Irwin Pollack was born on July 1, 1934, in Lafayette, Ind., and reared in South Bend. By Mr. Pollack’s own account, in the book “World Film Directors,” his father, David, a pharmacist, and his mother, the former Rebecca Miller, were first-generation Russian-Americans who had met at Purdue University.
Mr. Pollack developed a love of drama at South Bend High School and, instead of going to college, went to New York and enrolled at the Neighborhood Playhouse School of the Theater. He studied there for two years under Sanford Meisner, who was in charge of its acting department, and remained for five more as Mr. Meisner’s assistant, teaching acting but also appearing onstage and in television.
Curly-haired and almost 6 feet 2 inches tall, Mr. Pollack had a notable role in a 1959 “Playhouse 90” telecast of “For Whom the Bell Tolls,” an adaptation of the Hemingway novel directed by John Frankenheimer. Earlier, Mr. Pollack had appeared on Broadway with Zero Mostel in “A Stone for Danny Fisher” and with Katharine Cornell in “The Dark Is Light Enough.” But he said later that he probably could not have built a career as a leading man.
Instead, Mr. Pollack took the advice of Burt Lancaster, whom he had met while working with Mr. Frankenheimer, and turned to directing. Mr. Lancaster steered him to the entertainment mogul Lew Wasserman, and through him Mr. Pollack landed a directing assignment on the television series “Shotgun Slade.”
After a faltering start, he hit his stride on episodes of “Ben Casey,” “Naked City,” “The Fugitive” and other shows. In 1966 he won an Emmy for directing an episode of “Bob Hope Presents the Chrysler Theater.”
From the time he made his first full-length feature, “The Slender Thread,” about a social work student coaxing a woman out of suicide on a help line, Mr. Pollack had a hit-and-miss relationship with the critics. Writing in The New York Times, A. H. Weiler deplored that film’s “sudsy waves of bathos.” Mr. Pollack himself later pronounced it “dreadful.”
But from the beginning of his movie career, he was also perceived as belonging to a generation whose work broke with the immediate past. In 1965, Charles Champlin, writing in The Los Angeles Times, compared Mr. Pollack to the director Elliot Silverstein, whose western spoof, “Cat Ballou,” had been released earlier that year, and Stuart Rosenberg, soon to be famous for “Cool Hand Luke” (1967). Mr. Champlin cited all three as artists who had used television rather than B movies to learn their craft.
Self-critical and never quite at ease with Hollywood, Mr. Pollack voiced a constant yearning for creative prerogatives more common on the stage. Yet he dived into the fray. In 1970, “They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?,” his bleak fable of love and death among marathon dancers in the Great Depression, based on a Horace McCoy novel, received nine Oscar nominations, including the one for directing. (Gig Young won the best supporting actor award for his performance.)
Two years later, Mr. Pollack made the mountain-man saga “Jeremiah Johnson,” one of three closely spaced pictures in which he directed Mr. Redford.
The second of those, “The Way We Were,” about ill-fated lovers who meet up later in life, also starred Ms. Streisand and was a huge hit despite critical hostility.
The next, “Three Days of the Condor,” another hit, about a bookish C.I.A. worker thrust into a mystery, did somewhat better with the critics. “Tense and involving,” said Roger Ebert in The Chicago Sun-Times.
With “Absence of Malice” in 1981, Mr. Pollack entered the realm of public debate. The film’s story of a newspaper reporter (Sally Field) who is fed a false story by federal officials trying to squeeze information from a businessman (Paul Newman) was widely viewed as a corrective to the adulation of investigative reporters that followed Alan J. Pakula’s hit movie “All the President’s Men,” with its portrayal of the Watergate scandal.
But only with “Tootsie,” in 1982, did Mr. Pollack become a fully realized Hollywood player. By then he was represented by Michael S. Ovitz and the rapidly expanding Creative Artists Agency. So was his leading man, Dustin Hoffman.
As the film — a comedy about a struggling actor who disguises himself as a woman to get a coveted television part — was being shot for Columbia Pictures, Mr. Pollack and Mr. Hoffman became embroiled in a semi-public feud, with Mr. Ovitz running shuttle diplomacy between them.
Mr. Hoffman, who had initiated the project, argued for a more broadly comic approach. But Mr. Pollack — who played Mr. Hoffman’s agent in the film — was drawn to the seemingly doomed romance between the cross-dressing Hoffman character and the actress played by Jessica Lange.
If Mr. Pollack did not prevail on all points, he tipped the film in his own direction. Meanwhile, the movie came in behind schedule, over budget and surrounded by bad buzz.
Yet “Tootsie” was also a winner. It took in more than $177 million domestically and received 10 Oscar nominations, including for best picture. (Ms. Lange took home the film’s only Oscar, for best supporting actress.)
Backed by Mr. Ovitz, Mr. Pollack expanded his reach in the wake of success. Over the next several years, he worked closely with both TriStar Pictures, where he was creative consultant, and Universal, where Mirage, his production company, set up shop in 1986.
Mr. Pollack reached perhaps his pinnacle with “Out of Africa.” The film, based on the memoirs of Isak Dinesen, paired Ms. Streep and Mr. Redford in a drama that reworked one of the director’s favorite themes, that of star-crossed lovers. It captured Oscars for best picture and best director.
Still, Mr. Pollack remained uneasy about his cinematic skills. “I was never what I would call a great shooter or visual stylist,” he told an interviewer for American Cinematographer last year. And he developed a reputation for caution when it came to directing assignments. Time after time, he expressed interest in directing projects, only to back away. At one point he was to make “Rain Man,” a Dustin Hoffman picture ultimately directed by Mr. Levinson; at another, an adaptation of “The Night Manager” by John le Carré.
That wariness was undoubtedly fed by his experience with “Havana,” a 1990 film that was to be his last with Mr. Redford. It seemed to please no one, though Mr. Pollack defended it. “To tell you the truth, if I knew what was wrong, I’d have fixed it,” Mr. Pollack told The Los Angeles Times in 1993.
“The Firm,” with Tom Cruise, was a hit that year. But “Sabrina” (1995) and “Random Hearts” (1999), both with Harrison Ford, and “The Interpreter” (2005), with Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn, fell short, as Hollywood and its primary audience increasingly eschewed stars for fantasy and special effects.
Mr. Pollack never stopped acting; in a recent episode of “Entourage,” the HBO series about Hollywood, he played himself.
Among Mr. Pollack’s survivors are two daughters, Rebecca Pollack and Rachel Pollack, and his wife, Claire Griswold. The couple married in 1958, while Mr. Pollack was serving a two-year hitch in the Army. Their only son, Steven, died at age 34 in a 1993 plane crash in Santa Monica, Calif.
In his later years, Mr. Pollack appeared to relish his role as elder statesman. At various times he was executive director of the Actors Studio West, chairman of American Cinematheque and an advocate for artists’ rights.
He increasingly sounded wistful notes about the disappearance of the Hollywood he knew in his prime. “The middle ground is now gone,” Mr. Pollack said in the fall 1998 issue of New Perspectives Quarterly. He added, with a nod to a fellow filmmaker: “It is not impossible to make mainstream films which are really good. Costa-Gavras once said that accidents can happen.”
A-Word Chatter and the End of Legitimacy
David Bromwich:(emphasis added)
"When a democratic society fails to honor the contract by which we elect our leaders in peace, and let them govern in peace, and show our approval or disapproval by keeping them or turning them out of office--when the incantation "He is not one of us" dips so far below sanity that we pretend the rules and decencies aren't in force any more--it is more than one person who is harmed. This loose way of talking and thinking of violence hardens us against real responsibility if the violent thing should happen. We are administering shocks to ourselves in advance so as not to be surprised by the actuality. But such preparations are in their very nature corrupt, and corrupting. And they are not less so when used against any person of dignity and estimation, on the public stage, than when they are leveled against an elected official."
Topics du jour so far:
Hillpatine's RFK remarks
Olbermann's Special Comment
Bubba's Conspiracy remarks
Black folk can be hilarious when they want to be.
For me, Krugman would have to do mea culpas from now until the election for me to take him seriously, because his hackery on behalf of Hillpatine has been pathetic.
Clinton has run her campaign the same way Bush has run the country
He's Obama's ' Charlie' (West Wing Reference)
From our website:
"Established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on November 11, 2007, Veterans Day, VFFPAC will endorse and offer extended support through financial contributions and media assistance to Republicans, Democrats, and Independents who support victory in the Global War on Terrorism. Bottom Line: VFFPAC will support those who support victory — that is our only litmus test.
Tell DKos to chill; it's not a smear campaign. The ad asks legimitate questions.
My contribution for the day, from the Weekly Standard:
Change That Matters: Iraq Has Changed; Why Can't the Democrats?
I'm listening to Roland as well. He's droppin' science!
Adventures in Lannyland
Obama Words That Matter
Memorial Day: A Contrast
On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.
Obama is about as phony as it gets...
McCain went after Obama for failing to visit Iraq and rightly so. Obama chooses to attack McCain with Webb's political gimmick and spend Memorial Day hailing our brave soldiers as victims.
The success of the surge is the most significant development this year, it should not be ignored. Obama has been selling “judgment” to the Democratic primary electorate. McCain now is asking Americans to assess Obama’s judgment in light of his refusal to examine key facts and adjust national security policy to maximize American interests.
Obama's feet have been cemented in the concrete of defeat, and he was put there by the virulent anti-war base of the party. Or did he step into it on his own?
Now, does Obama have the political courage and will to break from his party's entrenched anti-war position and begin to acknowledge the factual developments, both political and military, and prove to voters that 'hope'(for victory and success), 'faith' (in a winning strategy) has come from the right and 'change' may be necessary from the left?
If Barack Obama accepted John McCain’s challenge to visit Iraq, what would he hear from General David Petraeus? His briefing would highlight improvements on every front, including greater political reconciliation and the recent strength shown by Nouri al-Maliki in Basra and Sadr City in establishing sovereignty throughout Iraq. Obama would also learn that violence has now dropped to a four-year low, thanks to the efforts over the past 12 months to establish order through the “surge”:
The U.S. military said Sunday that the number of attacks by militants in the last week dropped to a level not seen in Iraq since March 2004.
About 300 violent incidents were recorded in the seven-day period that ended Friday, down from a weekly high of nearly 1,600 in mid-June last year, according to a chart provided by the military.
The announcement appeared aimed at allaying fears that an uprising by militiamen loyal to radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr could unravel security gains since 28,500 additional American troops were deployed in Iraq in a buildup that reached its height in June.
Navy Rear Adm. Patrick Driscoll, a military spokesman, credited the decrease to a series of operations launched by the Iraqi government in the last two months to extend control over parts of the country that have been under the sway of armed Sunni Arab and Shiite militants. They include crackdowns in the southern oil hub of Basra, the northern city of Mosul and Baghdad’s Sadr City district.
The irony of this is that the improvements could result in a significant drawdown of American forces regardless of the results of our election in November. The secret surge — the buildup of a professional Iraqi Army — will soon make American combat troops superfluous. Maliki tried to go it alone in Basra and wound up needing some logistical and air support for his operations, but Sadr City appears mostly to have succeeded in staying all-IA. The quiet resolution in Mosul has established order in the last bastion of AQI, and while a number of those terrorists appear to have hotfooted out of the area before Maliki’s arrival, over a thousand suspects remain in custody.
The question facing the next president will be the manner of withdrawal, not the fact of it. The Maliki government wants American support for the near- to mid-term in order to consolidate central-government sovereignty and keep Iran out of its hair. The Iraqi Army needs a little more time to develop its troops and especially its logistics, but they now perform well enough to conduct their own security operations with little involvement of American ground troops. An orderly transition to a support role, akin to Germany and South Korea, would bolster the Iraqi elected government and keep the US military in good position to run counterterrorist operations in the region, with the Iraqis as allies.
Maliki already knows this. Iraqis will not long abide American combat troops in Iraq past the necessity, and as we see in Sadr City, the emphasis on an all-Iraqi effort makes a great deal of difference. Getting Americans out of the front lines will benefit everyone, and Maliki’s proposal for a security agreement is based on that reality. He envisions a significant drawdown in 2009 as part of that agreement, and the Iraqi Army appears ready to assume the entire front-line role.
John McCain has made this point all along. His vision of counterinsurgency warfare saved Iraq from collapsing into a Somalia with oil when that result appeared inevitable at the end of 2006. With the violence dropping rapidly and Iraq stabilizing under a representative democracy, the US cannot afford to walk away entirely and give away the strategic positioning a partnership with Iraq would provide.
Obama and Clinton prostrated themselves before the Soros/MoveOn crowd, and somehow, Obama emerged as their chosen one.
But he can't backtrack now, else he pisses them off.
Problem is, what happens when he gets into office and realizes that all his promises on getting out of the war (i.e. removing all combat brigades within his first year) will be damn near impossible for him to keep?
Maybe he should make Rep. Paul Kanjorski his press spokesman, so he'll be able to say that Obama "sort of stretched the facts" like the dems did in 2006.
"Weekend delegate update: Obama 6-1 Posted: Monday, May 26, 2008 10:29 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Obama, Delegates
From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
Obama picked up six delegates to Clinton’s one over the weekend. He got one from Alaska (former Gov. Tony Knowles 5/25), Wyoming (W. Patrick Goggles 5/24) and Georgia (Stephen Leeds) and three from Hawaii Brian Schatz -- new HI party chairman 5/25; Kari Luna -- new HI party vice chairwoman, and James Burns -- add on) after state conventions this weekend. Clinton also got one – add-on Verna Cleveland from Georgia.
The NBC NEWS Delegate Counts:
PLEDGED: Obama 1,647 to 1,502
SUPERDELEGATES: Obama 315.5 to 282.5
EDWARDS PL. DELEGATES: Obama 12 to 0
TOTAL: Obama 1,974.5 to 1,784.5
* Obama is 51.5 delegates away from the required 2,026, according the NBC NEWS counts.
(We are also checking to see if we will adjust Alaska’s count. NBC had a 9-4 split for Obama, but according to AP, Obama picked up both statewide PLEOs. That would give a 10-3 split there. We will update if adjusted.)"
McCain is on offense and going hard at Obama here. The McCain campaign thinks that Obama’s lack of immersion in Iraq makes him look inexperienced and weak, especially since Obama hasn’t visited Iraq for over two years, well before the surge reversed American fortunes.
I don't think Obama will be able to get to the White House without acknowledging the success of the surge. When forced to explain the particulars of his surrender plan (in light of our success) to general election voters, Obama will have a tough time.
The far-left will stand by him and give him political cover, knowing that they have him in their pocket.
The question will be, how effectively can he back pedal to gain credibility with the general election voters? Reuter reports that Obama is already doing this with regards to Iran:
"There's no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know that he was actually in power. He's not the most powerful person in Iran," Obama told reporters while campaigning in New Mexico.
Will the voters buy it?
Just as with arguing with Clinton supporters, when you start from a slanted position, my impression is that dealing with truth, objectivity and reality isn't really your strong suit.
But y'all keep at it...Im sure it helps you sleep at night.
Nope, they won't. Because if he acknowledges the success, then the question becomes "if we're winning-or it looks like we could win-why do you want to leave?"
I don't think Obama not going to Iraq makes him look weak/inexperienced, but it damn sure makes him look uninformed.
But, you know, if he doesn't want to go to Iraq, fine. At least talk to the commander on the ground without speechifying for seven-plus minutes (like he did when GEN Petraeus went to the Hill in '07). And if he doesn't want to do that, then maybe VFF will have another Vets on the Hill event this year (granted, if they do, it will be before the elections-giving Obama an easy out).
McCain should keep pressing Obama on this issue, since the media doesn't seem to want to do it. It's a simple question: why do you want to be the first president to lose a war that we are winning?
Surge success is immaterial, just as previous successes or failure were.
The surge success in immaterial only because it does not conform to the narrative of defeat and policy of immediate withdrawal?
Why should we leave when we are winning?
The policy of having a strong, stable Iraq as an ally in the mideast will help to contain and deter Iran and its terrorist proxies Hamas and Hezbollah, and Syria as well. Just as we remain in Germany and Japan after victory in WWII, we can maintain a presence in Iraq. It is in our national security interests to do so.
Of course we can't "occupy" Iraq for the forseeable future. Nor do we want to. For that matter, nor has it ever been policy to do so.
Recall the now-failed Rumsfield Doctrine of getting in with as few troops as possible and then getting out. That's no way to run an occupation.
Iraqis are beginning to stand up to fix the problems in their country. Brigades of Iraqis calling themselves the "Sons of Iraq" are taking the lead on security in individual neighborhoods. Important legislation-such as that revising the de-Ba'athification law and providing amnesty to those who were insurgents-has been passed or is being worked on.
Hell, the prime minister of Iraq went to Mosul to lead an attack on insurgents himself. Let's see Obama do that.
Inkognergo,
Actually, it doesn't. It's pretty sad to watch a country which I can countless others went to fight for-and which thousands have died for-show itself unwilling to pay the cost of freedom.
How convenient to dismiss those who disagree with you to be lacking in truthfulness, realism and objectivity.
It is much easier than formulating a credible rebuttal to the points raised.
Can either of you explain what a "victory" in Iraq would be?
My opinion, and I'm sure S will weigh in with his/hers:
A victory in Iraq will be achieved when the Iraqi government is strong and stable enough to provide for the common welfare of its citizens; when the Iraqi military is strong enough to provide protection for the nation, and when terrorist in Iraq are no longer able to claim that country as a front to launch attacks into our country or our allies.
Victory in Iraq would be the successful establishment of a politically stable Iraq that can govern and defend itself against insurgent militias, outside terrorist groups and interference from hostile neighbors like Iran and Syria.
The victory achieved in Iraq through the strength and resolve of the American troops and Iraqi citizens will create another strong ally against state sponsors of terrorism and serve as a powerful deterrent to Syria and Iran, who seek to expand their influence and power in the region.
Iraq Soldier Discusses His "Kills" (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/27/iraq-soldier-discusses-hi_n_103698.html
In the spring of 2007, a conference was held on the outskirts of Washington, DC. Entitled Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan, it hearkened back to the Winter Soldier testimonies held three decades ago during the Vietnam War. Of the testimonies we filmed, this one, by Iraq War vet Jon Michael Turner, was the most compelling and intense.
Brief history lesson, followed by some facts:
Most of the participants in the first "Winter Soldier" investigation have been proven to be liars, or their stories have proven unverifiable.
The new "Winter Soldiers"-also known as Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) held their Winter Soldier conference in Silver Spring, MD. It was not open to the public (in fact, the police had the place surrounded, and had sharpshooters on the roof).
A couple weeks ago, IVAW took their info to the Congressional Progressive Caucus. This hearing was open to the public (and I attended), but no one was placed under oath to swear to the atrocities they described.
My point in painting this picture is to ask you to be careful about presenting information that no one has been allowed to verify, or that anyone is willing to swear to the truth of.
I just heard Stephanie Tubbs Jones tell Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC that there will be demonstrations in DC this week-end to make certain all the votes are counted. That must be a reference the busload of Clinton supporters they are bringing in. I hope Obama's people have a showing planned also.
"Stable" in the sense that it was controlled by a murderous tyrant who killed countless Iraqis, sponsored terrorism in the form of Palestinian suicide bombers in their mission to kill innocent Israelis. Saddan Hussein was openly hostile to the will of the international community; defying countless United Nations resolutions and running a corrupt oil-for-food scam that enriched his regime at the expense of his people.
Removing Saddam Hussein
from power and liberating Iraqis from the terror under which they lived was a bipartisan policy supported by Democrats and Republicans.
Was the war mismanaged after the toppling of Hussein? Yes.
Was Bush late in changing the strategy in Iraq? Yes.
Did Bush ultimately change strategy? Yes.
Is that strategy now working? Yes.
Is the 'surge' counterinsurgency strategy now providing the security necessary for political reconciliation and stability? Yes.
Is the training of Iraqi troops now allowing Iraqis to take the lead in defending the government from militias and terrorists? Yes.
I don't agree with you and am offended with you calling these soldiers liars. I choose to take these soldiers at their word because I see no benefit in them coming out to show what they did in Iraq, in fact, I can see them getting into deep crap because they are talking about it. To me the reason they are coming out is because they have a conscience and they can't condone what they did and want the American public to be aware of what happens behind the scenes when the camera's are gone in Iraq.
These guys wanted to make sure their story is visable to as much of America as possible because it is an important issue and one we should not overlook.
More stories are found here:http://newsproject.org/
Original Story:
Iraq Soldier Discusses His "Kills" (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/27/iraq-soldier-discusses-hi_n_103698.html
Why is it that when faced with credible evidence that the 'surge' is working, the huffpo and other anti-war sites find it necessary to resort to demonizing our troops?
Even if you believe these soldiers, how is this a rebuttal to the the assertion that the surge is working?
"We're the REAL bad guys" is not an argument, but an attack against the thousands of brave men and women who put their lives on the line for our freedom and the freedom of the Iraqi people.
http://ivaw.org/wintersoldier
Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan featured testimony from U.S. veterans who served in those occupations, giving an accurate account of what is really happening day in and day out, on the ground.
This four-day event brought together veterans from across the country to testify about their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan - and present video and photographic evidence. In addition, panels of scholars, veterans, journalists, and other specialists gave context to the testimony. These panels covered everything from the history of the GI resistance movement to the fight for veterans' health benefits and support.
Does anyone know of Obama supporters planning to show up? Any DC people here????
Stephanie Tubbs Jones was just telling Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC that there will be demonstrations to count all the votes in DC this week-end and I found this at AmericanThinker.com.
“May 22, 2008
Hillary supporters to demonstrate at DNC meeting
Thomas Lifson
"Count every vote" is a very familiar war cry among Democrats. That cry is set to be heard this Saturday in Washington, DC, when the Democratic National Committee Rules Committee meets at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in tony Northwest Washington.
Here is the message from the Hillaryresponders site:
....the DNC Rules Committee is meeting that day to make a determination with respect to MI and FL and we think it is essential to convene in Washington to support our cherished democratic principles, help enfranchise MI and FL and to show that Hillary has equally high numbers of passionate, devoted supporters who believe fervently that she will be the better general candidate and best president.
Our purpose is not to divide the party or attack the DNC or Senator Obama. At the same time, Hillary's strong support cannot be dismissed in DNC efforts to unify the party. [bolding in original]
An interesting test for media bias: how much coverage will this demonstration receive?"
White Fright story out of the Roswell (Georgia) Beacon?
Saddam's in his grave and bin Laden's on the run....it's a great day.
You may disagree, and that's fine. But my statement wasn't really a agree/disagree statement. In any instance, you can't make your case to the American public with sharpshooters preventing the entrance of "the American public."
I've been pretty consistent in my opposition to IVAW's Winter Soldier. At the risk of tooting my own horn, I can send you all the interviews I've done about that topic.
My position's been simple: put the witnesses under oath (oddly enough, that's the same thing we do with people accused of a crime!), and allow them to be questioned. If these things happened, you won't hear a louder cry for punishment than from me. However, if they didn't happen-or no one can prove them-then there needs to be some accountability for that as well (little principle called perjury).
The best thing about that is that it doesn't require you to support the war. I'm making an assumption that you believe in justice, right?
Why do anti-war protestors choose to try and shout down McCain rather than prepare a question which intelligently challenges McCain's position on the war? Maybe it is because they can't outargue McCain.
After the second interruption, McCain simply laughed it off and then said with conviction, "I will never surrender in Iraq."
McCain's temper has yet to appear, nor his 'mean streak'. The protesters looks foolish and ineffective. Well done, Senator.
There is no benefit of the surge that would outweigh the killing of these innocent people just trying to make it through the day. I am not buying that.
----------------------------------
Whatever makes you happy!
And you're willing to accept that as unverified fact?
God, I hope you're not a judge.
Note that I haven't once said that the members of IVAW who testified were lying. All I'm saying is that they should be held to the same standard we hold people in our criminal justice system to.
Do you agree?
Most liberal protesters look foolish, and are ineffective. Unless their goal is to piss people off, in which case they're an overwhelming success.
But hey, at least they're consistent.
I disagreed with that statement. It is not one individual speaking out, or even two or ten. There is a huge number of people stepping forward and I accept their stories as truth. I don't need to hook them up to a lie detector and I do not need them to be put under oath. These are military men and women who served their country. It is not in their best interest to speak out against the war nor is it in their best interest to speak about the atrocities they have inflicted on innocent people.
War isn't pretty. I know that because my brother served in the Army for over 24 years. He has seen his share of wars, has all kinds of medals and recd. accolades regarding his service. He loved serving his country, the military was good to him but he did not sugarcoat his experiences. I have other family members men/women who have also served in the military. So, yes I believe these soldiers.
Yes, and when was the "first 'Winter Soldier' conference" held?
If you actually read what I wrote, you'd see that I wasn't referring to IVAW's "Winter Soldier" at all.
(and I hesitate to emote this strongly, but I feel it's warranted) If you are willing to accept anyone's world as fact, unverified-and, by default, be complicit in the blind slander of our military-then, at best, you're an idiot.
I could educate you on the rule in military justice that states that if you see a crime and don't report it, you're just as guilty as the criminal, but based on your response, I'd be wasting my breath. Maybe your brother knows, and he can tell you.
It's people like you-who would accept anyone's word against the military as fact, without even seeing if it's true-that make me wonder what the hell I served for while I was in uniform.
I know, I can't wait either.
Did you watch the video? If you feel that is a credible rebuttal to the policy of the 'surge' or a convincing reason not to vote for McCain that is you right.
Will McCain's temper reveal itself before Obama's reveals himself to be an untried rookie and inexperienced lightweight?
Clinton's South Dakota spot, "Responsibility," opens with a knock on President Bush.
"We are nine trillion dollar debt," Clinton says as the spot opens, after which an announcer adds: "George Bush's spending has sent the economy into a tailspin and put social security in jeopardy."
Clinton then states, "We borrow money from the Chinese to buy oil from the Saudis." The announcer follows with a promise that "Clinton will stop spending money America doesn't have. She'll end fifty five billion dollars in giveaways to corporate special interests, reduce the deficit and protect Social Security."
Clinton then vows to "get us back to fiscal responsibility."
That's right, Ms. Hillary, we all know that you can bring fiscal responsibility to this country seeing as how we all have been able to observe you never spending money your own campaign doesn't have. You are a fantastic manager as we have all been able to see! We have all observed your truly fantastic job of keeping your own actual campaign out of debt and staying centered in the real world where bills due need to be actually paid and you can't just lend money from your own pockets when you have a lack of funds.
This woman is a walking talking Saturday Night Live skit. Flat-out ridiculous.
Next Hypocrisy, Inc episode: Clinton campaign releases an ad about how if elected president, she is going to bring an end to racism/white supremacy in the U.S.
I was reading over at DailyKos where they are discussing this issue. And some of the people have contacted the Obama HQ directly.
They would rather not have a counter protest. A voter registration drive will be going on that same day. And they would rather people participate in that effort.
However, if you are going to participate...well here's a post from someone who received another email from HQ.
"I just got a call directly from the campaign itself and they've said that anyone interested in attending the RBC Meeting may feel free to go the morning of to see if there are any last-minute seats available (since all the seats available via online are taken). However, if there are no seats available, we are ALL invited to participate in the massive VOTER REGISTRATION DRIVE they are organizing for that same day (details to follow in separate email). The campaign also STRONGLY DISCOURAGES any outside rallying by Obama supporters at the RBC Meeting, as it can be seen as a disruption to the process occurring inside the meeting. They in turn STRONGLY ENCOURAGE we take part in the voter registration drive in our area. I will follow up in a separate email with details on how you can be involved in this drive."
Well reasoned arguments and appeals to objectivity and justice may be lost on val, but not on me. And thanks again for your service!
It is sad when smearing the troops or implying McCain is a 'mean old man' become the default rebuttals to an argument effectively citing the success of the surge.
IMO, like the surge is succeeding in Iraq, we are succeeding in the debate here at JJP.
The Clinton side has posted an event on the Obama website related to these protests. Completely ignoring them would deflate much of their protest.
http://www.jubileeusa.org
Yes, war is hell. That's probably the only enduring message from IVAW-war sucks.
I'm going to pose a question to you: if you were in the military, and you woke up one morning to discover that someone you served with was accusing you of randomly killing Iraqi citizens, wouldn't you at least want to question that person to see where he got that info from to clear your name?
The discussion about women being raped/abused in the military is one that we should have. IVAW brought that up to....behind closed doors. Are you going to try and convince me that's a reasonable place to have the discussion?
My thing is to let them appear crazy like the person leading them.
The Obama campaign needs to remain organized and register voters as they plan to do on that day.
How is it going to help him otherwise, if people are disrupting the meeting?
You said that the Clinton's supporters posted an event on Obama's website?
Unbelieveable....let's not lose focus.
The insurgency must be fought-and defeated-at home and abroad.
yeah, here's a paste of the event:
“IT’S NO JOKE! COUNT EVERY VOTE” Do not leave Florida and Michigan voters out in the cold in November 2008 (Community Service)
Our mission:
We have over 300,000 signatures!
How can THE DEMOCRATS brag about REGISTERING a million new voters while disenfranchising 2.3 million voters?
Our goal is to obtain even more online and at our “IT’S NO JOKE! COUNT EVERY VOTE” Rally at the World’s Famous Laugh Factory on Friday, May 30th, 2008 at 12-noon (8001 Sunset Blvd., Hollywood, CA 90046) where there will be a press conference with special guest speakers and a FedEx person on hand to overnight the signatures to Howard Dean and the DNC Bylaws and Rules Committee.
Hello, Teri Bernardi would like you to visit the following online campaign, by iPetitions: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/1234Whatarew... David Axelrod, a top adviser to Barack Obama agrees that the DNC must seat the Florida & Michigan delegates in order to win the White House in November.
MySpace URL: http://www.myspace.com/everyvotecounts4you... Friday, May 30 at 12:00 PM
Duration: 1 hour
Host: Chris Jackson
Location:
World’s Famous Laugh Factory on the Sunset Strip (Los Angeles, CA)
8001 Sunset Blvd., Hollywood, CA 90046
Los Angeles, CA 90049
View Map:
* Google Maps
* MapQuest
* Yahoo! Maps
Directions: On the Sunset Strip
Bringing up a past that cannot be changed in order to justify your position that we are the problem has little bearing the argument advocating the success of the surge.
'We never should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place' is becoming a worn out, out-dated stance in light of the success we are having in Iraq.
Looking forward, how does an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the positive progress we are making, help the Iraqi people, deter Iran in it's quest to expand its power and influence, acquire nuclear weapons and destroy Israel?
Are we sure it's an Obama shirt? LOL
I have one. I noticed it right off.
Obama has shown integrity throughout his campaign---lets honor what he says. It's over folks.
If Hillary wants to challenge the rules let her and her supporters do that alone.
I agree with Truthseeker that Camp Crazy would like nothing more than for this meeting to turn into a spectacle.
I am not sheep. I can't force me in a direction I don't want to go and I don't automatically become blind to everything around me and see only what you want me to see. I can make my own judgements based on what I see, know and hear. It is easy in this internet age to research information, educate yourself to get a comprehensive picture of a situation vs. a one sided view Bush/McCain/you would like me to see. I hear what you are saying I just don't agree with it.
BTW - I am not opposed to all wars just DUMB wars.
In April '92, Clinton camp called Brown victory "impossible"
I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running. ... I can't believe it. It is just frantic the way they are trying to push and pressure and bully all these superdelegates to come out. -- Bill Clinton, on Sunday
:: ::
Without editorial comment, here's a list of quotes and statements about the 1992 Democratic nomination battle from March and April of that year. (Links after the jump.)
"Things I see happening in the Brown campaign lead me to believe something destructive is happening. I'd say it's time for Democrats to link arms, dig in our heels, set our sights and work together to put Bill Clinton in the White House in 1992."
-- Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin (NYT, 3/27/92)
"In an interview, Ronald H. Brown, the party chairman, said he wanted to maintain his neutrality but was compelled to speak out against what he described as the former California Governor's 'scorched-earth policy' of verbal assault on Mr. Clinton's record and character. "
-- NYT, 3/27/92
"It's mathematically impossible for Brown to get the nomination."
-- Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos on Clinton's last foe (NYT, 4/8/92)
"In the future, people will look back upon this week and this campaign as a turning point, not for Bill Clinton, but for the Democratic Party and for America."
-- Bill Clinton, after winning New York's primary (NYT, 4/8/92)
"People are starting to rally around the flag."
-- Dee Dee Myers, Clinton Press Sec'y (NYT, 4/10/92)
"It's time to close ranks. We cannot wait until July when we already know who has earned the right to be our nominee and who will be our nominee."
-- West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller (NYT, 4/11/92)
"Indeed, reports circulating on Capitol Hill said the Clinton campaign was mounting a strong campaign to swing uncommitted senators behind the Arkansas Governor, and that Ronald H. Brown, the party chairman, was taking part in them."
-- NYT, 4/29/92
"I cannot imagine a set of circumstances that would keep Bill Clinton from having a majority of the delegates by the end of the primary season."
-- Democratic Party Chairman Ronald H. Brown (NYT, 4/29/92)
"Mr. Brown added that he had long hoped for an early nominee 'so we can focus our time and attention on George Bush.'"
-- NYT, 4/29/92
:: ::
March 20, 1992:
Mr. Clinton is already close to the halfway mark in the number of delegates needed to win the nomination and has a 7-to-1 edge over Mr. Brown, who is running a maverick, anti-establishment campaign. Many Democrats said that barring an unexpected collapse by Mr. Clinton's campaign, it is difficult to see how Mr. Brown can overtake the Governor.
"It certainly brings it much closer to a conclusion," said Ronald H. Brown, the Democratic national chairman. "You could argue that it's theoretically possible for Jerry Brown to mount a come-from-behind challenge, but the math and the reality of Bill Clinton's momentum certainly work against him."
March 27, 1992:
The chairman of the Democratic Party issued an unusual rebuke yesterday to one of his party's two remaining candidates for President, saying Edmund G. Brown Jr. has "crossed the line in terms of inappropriate attacks" against Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas.
In an interview, Ronald H. Brown, the party chairman, said he wanted to maintain his neutrality but was compelled to speak out against what he described as the former California Governor's "scorched-earth policy" of verbal assault on Mr. Clinton's record and character.
The party chairman's remarks came on a day when other leading Democrats appeared to be closing ranks behind Mr. Clinton, who holds a substantial lead in the number of delegates accumulated but has encountered persistent unease over his candidacy among party regulars.
...Mr. Harkin said one reason he had decided to endorse Mr. Clinton was to try to put an end to some of the acrimony that has developed between the two remaining major Democratic candidates. He also said that Mr. Brown had not sought union support until after Mr. Harkin dropped out of the race.
"What I'm afraid now is that we may be entering a destructive phase," Mr. Harkin said in a television appearance with Mr. Clinton that was sent by satellite to a Washington meeting of Democratic fund raisers. "Things I see happening in the Brown campaign lead me to believe something destructive is happening."
Mr. Harkin said he had put aside the political differences he had with Mr. Clinton during the primary campaign and he appealed for party unity. "The differences between me and Bill are minuscule compared to our differences with George Bush," Mr. Harkin said at a news conference here.
"I'd say it's time for Democrats to link arms, dig in our heels, set our sights and work together to put Bill Clinton in the White House in 1992."
April 8, 1992:
Clinton aides breathed their first sighs of relief late last week after their own surveys of New York voters began to show that their support had solidified while Mr. Brown's had begun to soften.
"In the future, people will look back upon this week and this campaign as a turning point, not for Bill Clinton, but for the Democratic Party and for America," he told his cheering supporters.
..."It's mathematically impossible for Brown to get the nomination, and it would take Tsongas about 90 percent of the remaining delegates to win," said George Stephanopoulos, Mr. Clinton's deputy campaign manager. "So lightning would have to strike. But we're going to keep our sneakers on, just in case."
April 9, 1992:
A tally by The New York Times showed that Mr. Clinton had gained 162 delegates on Tuesday, putting his total at 1,279 of the 2,145 needed for nomination.
...Indeed, reports circulating on Capitol Hill said the Clinton campaign was mounting a strong campaign to swing uncommitted senators behind the Arkansas Governor, and that Ronald H. Brown, the party chairman, was taking part in them. Mr. Brown said he had made no request of any superdelegate, although he conceded that he had talked to many "who were reassessing their positions on the day after Bill Clinton took an extraordinary leap forward."
April 10, 1992:
Dee Dee Myers, Mr. Clinton's press secretary, insisted that "people are starting to rally around the flag," and she mentioned Mr. Rockefeller [who was scheduled to endorse later in the week] as an example. She also said the Arkansas Governor plans to meet with uncommitted superdelegates on Capitol Hill on April 29, the day after the Pennsylvania primary, when Congress will return from the Easter recess.
Ronald H. Brown, the party chairman, has been phoning uncommitted delegates and others, "discussing the lay of the political territory," as he described it. He denied putting pressure on anybody, but others in the party said he was sending a subtle but clear message that it was time to halt the squabbling.
April 11, 1992:
The executive board of the Service Employees International Union, which claims one million members, and Senator John D. Rockefeller 4th, Democrat of West Virginia, endorsed Mr. Clinton in separate announcements.
"It's time to close ranks," he said. "We cannot wait until July when we already know who has earned the right to be our nominee and who will be our nominee," he said.
Mr. Rockefeller, who is the party's finance chairman, considered running for President this year and has moderated three forums on health care with the Democratic candidates. His endorsement was timed in part to offset the notion that Democrats in Congress and other elected officials who will be superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention in July are reluctant to climb aboard Mr. Clinton's bandwagon.
"Our fight now is with a man named George Bush, not with other Democrats," Mr. Rockefeller said. "Our weapons are ideas. Our leader is Bill Clinton."
April 12, 1992:
In a signal that he was prepared to temper the divisive tone of his campaign for President, Edmund G. Brown Jr. said today that he would back the Democratic Party's Presidential nominee.
...Ronald H. Brown, the Democratic national chairman, paying heed to the scores of placards waving in the audience for Gov. Bill Clinton, Governor Brown or former Senator Paul E. Tsongas, acknowledged that many Democrats think the primary campaign for President is still unsettled, despite Mr. Clinton's overwhelming lead in delegates.
"I know there are some out there who are saying, 'My God, We need another candidate,' " Ronald Brown said. But he implored delegates to follow the lead of voters in the primaries so far and "keep our eye on the prize."
In a call for unity, Mr. Brown declared: "We can and we must win, but it's going to require the absolute solidarity of our party. We are a very peculiar institution -- the only institution in the world I know where we are harder on each other than on our own adversaries."
...It was clear today that former Governor Brown was intent on shedding his role as an angry critic of the Democratic Party and its leaders. Only two days ago, he wondered aloud whether Ronald Brown was "man enough" to cancel the rest of the primaries and anoint Mr. Clinton the party's Presidential nominee. But today Governor Brown passed up opportunities to criticize of the party chairman and Mr. Clinton. He saved his fire for "the citadel of governance that has failed the principles of this nation."
April 29, 1992:
Ronald H. Brown, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said tonight, "I cannot imagine a set of circumstances that would keep Bill Clinton from having a majority of the delegates by the end of the primary season, based on his performance today." Mr. Brown added that he had long hoped for an early nominee "so we can focus our time and attention on George Bush."
... The polls Tuesday showed Mr. Clinton running well across the board, even with some voting groups that had proven less supportive of him in the past, including Roman Catholics. He carried more than half of the white vote over all, 7 in 10 of the black voters and 6 in 10 of the union households.
Some analysts said his strength reflected a simple fact of life: For the first time in a very long time, Mr. Clinton was not facing a barrage of character questions. "He still has a long way to go," said Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic poll taker, "but he's got the chance to run the kind of campaign he needs to run. He got that chance in Pennsylvania; he wasn't fending off a new charge every day."
.....
Now, here you go again...dropping truth and logic when it comes to Billary...
How.dare.you.
BWA HA HA HA H A HA HA
I'm in Kentucky.....I'll be saying my prayers all goes well.
To the mongers, the anti-war aren't going to agree with the pro-war. Personally, I would never agree with OCCUPYING a soverign nation anymore than I would be ok with being occupied. I remember 4 or 5 years ago when soldiers were interviewed and said, straight out, that they were guarding the oil pipeline.So to some of us, our tax $s have been paying for oil companies to siphon those people's gas out of their land, and we are still being charged astronomical prices (paying twice). Sadam Hussein was in the way. John McCain himself recently said that the war was started over oil. Bush & cheney are HEAVILY connected to the oil industry as well as those companies that have received no-bid contracts (Halliburton, KBR). But people need to have a different reason to put their lives on the line, thus the whole political, WMD, al Qaeda, yada-yada string of anything but oil excuses.This is what is meant when people use the term, "unjust war." Now that we have "bombed Iraq back to the stone age," I think we should help them rebuild and get out. What we did to their country was unconscionable.
Lanny Davis is a McCain operative. I read it yesterday on DailyKos. That explains some things and is another verification that the MSM sucks.
The kkklinton campaigen death watch: 7 days til liberation!
Will she take it to the convention? Historically, anytime it has gone to the convention, the dem candidate has lost. I'm sure she knows that.
The Moveon.org ad about Charlie Black is scurrilous! Whoo-wee. I think it's valid. No one would tolerate a nazi sympathizer or person affiliated with a so-called militant group or...You know, anyone controversial.
I read an article Rikyrah posted called "Running Mate Choice," and I thought it was a true vanity piece. I disagreed with a lot of what the writer said. For one,he spoke repeatedly about Obamas's lack of experience and how he is going to need help doing whatever. I'm thinking that this writer is dense. He has run the most brilliant campaign in modern history. He has used the primaries to build bases and open offices in 50 states that can & will be utilized in the GE. He is registering voters for the benefit of the party as well as for his own benefit.He is building a data base.He has surplus money. I think he'll be fine. I think he will be able to figure out how to implement what he wants to implement.
People who will stand by while our troops are slandered have a special place in hell reserved for them.
Now....
Has someone told Obama that his uncle couldn't have liberated Auschwitz?
I agree about the suit - I didn't like the tan.
I think he looks better a darker suit.
Teacher,
I dunno, I think the dark one suits him better. I didn't like the red tie with it either. You're right, economy...stick to navy or black.
I suppose it matters not that Obama was using that story to illustrate the mental/emotional trauma of war and why soldiers need screening and treatment for PTSD.
I suppose for the hypocrites, it matters only that the details of an old family story went awry in the telling.
Vets cannot wait for Republicans to get their heads out of their asses.
George Hamilton tan, no silver hair out of place AND SINGLE?
Oh heck no, the GOP won't accept that AT ALL.
Isn't it intersting how George Jr is always touching McCain in pictures? Especially interesting in how he touches him. Bush makes a point to touch McCain at the scruff of his neck, leading him like a little bitch. Who can forget that awkward hug where the shorter McCain's face is pressed into Bush's chest. George always throws his arm around McCain's shoulder 'cause he knows McCain can't stand it.
No, I said that last sentence based on my accute awareness of your heads up your asses.
And speaking of details, what did you think of McCain's confusing Shia and Sunni. Also, what do you think of PTSD and the soldiers - like McCain - who return to their family's suffering from it?
I had as weird vision of the McCain weekend candidate gathering being something like Flavor of Love where they have to show why they are for McCain. I kinda like Lindsey Graham except for him being in the 527 with Lieberman.He seems smart and is quite glib. I think he is on the VP list as well. I like Huckabee, but I haven't yet forgiven him for the so-called joke about shooting Barak. I wouldn't think that he would stoop so low.
I thought it presented an opportunity for the DNC to pounce on McCain, which they did...and rightly so.
Only reason evertong not kicking and screaming as loud over Obama is because you expect those gaffes from someone who never served.
As someone with PTSD, I think it's very serious. Anything else you wanna know about it?
I saw tat tick and te tight clench in his jaw.
I know he's physically impaired. The optics were bad, as we all know they don't like each other, and it made McCain seem like the panderer he is accused of being. I think George is delighting in making the bully grovel.
I don't have a pavlovian response to his service and understand he's always been a bully.
Those who feel it ought to know it, but unfortunately, sometimes the ones who've been there are more cruel to their brothers in the same situation. It proves that military service doesn't make one automatically comapassionate to his/her brothers.
Well Joan, we don't have to act. She DID say it. People DID respond viscerally and she DID pointedly refuse to apologize to the Obama's. Hillary gave a backhanded apology to the Kennedy's and wasn't generous enough to include Obama in even that lame apology.
Joan knows the truth but refuses to acknowledge it.
truthseeker isn't interested in serious debate, preferring personal attacks. The litany of stock responses from the left cannot camouflage the fact that they cannot defend their candidate's position on Iraq, Iran and foreign policy in general.
I too suffer from PTSD, not from combat related trauma, but from early childhood sexual abuse. One need not fall victim to tragic, horrific circumstances.
Here again truthseeker is throwing PTSD around to personally attack McCain as unfit, without being informed.
I will continue to challenge Obama on his positions on the issues. IMO he is woefully lacking in experience and judgment.
I have yet to read on this thread a challenging rebuttal to our contention that the surge is working and that Obama's promise to immediately withdrawal our troop regardless of the progress demonstrates how unprepared he is to lead our nation at this time.
Thanks for the great posts everyone. Thanks djcheferon.
There in some twenty dozen quotes is unequivocal proof the nomination was wrapped up for Bubba well before June. But hey, most knew that. If they did not, they do not deserve to be journalist. Most of the MSM just allowed the crazy lady to repeat the meme over and over until she started to it believe herself. Enablers I tell ya.
Funniest thing today on Hardball (Chris is SO going to get it)...
They were showing footage of Bubba doing his schitck " they are trying to push her out of the campaign, never has a candidate been so DISRPECTED...yada yada". Camera pans back to Chris and he deadpans "Did he respect her"? Of course we all know what he was referring to.
I thought I was going to bust a gut. Ha, the irony.
There's respect for you.
Anyone else share that sentiment?
I saw that angry Joan Walsh. Do you think she was feigning angry for the sake of the argument that illary had nothing to apologize for?
Naw - she's pissed. Sorry girls it's over.
If you want to take me down you'll have to use some other tack. I'll respectfully give you 3 tries.
Well Joan, we don't have to act. She DID say it. People DID respond viscerally and she DID pointedly refuse to apologize to the Obama's. Hillary gave a backhanded apology to the Kennedy's and wasn't generous enough to include Obama in even that lame apology.
Joan knows the truth but refuses to acknowledge it.
truthseeker,
I went back and forth as to what was my favorite segment on Hardball today - that exchange, or Roger Simon just hammering on Hillpatine. I'll go with Joe Madison. Joan ' My Magazine Actually Called Obama UPPITY' Walsh bitching and moaning about
'the demonizing of BILLARY?'
Joe looked like he was about to crack up.
I know I called out, ' Bitch, please'.
Joe told it like it was - Black folk ain't having NO PARTS OF THE CLINTONS, and saw the statement for what it was.
I know...she was practically shaking. I think she knows it's the end but can't bring herself to blame Hillary for her own demise. She blames Obama and sexism..even though no sexism came from the O campaign.
I worry how this group of women will be able to live with themselves when the history books are written and the documentaries are made. They are failing to show honour in a difficult situation. They will not look back and be proud.
I agree. She won't be proud tomorrow when she sees the tape of that scowl on her face long after that conversation ended.
Anger is very unattractive.
What about Libertarianism? I don't know much about them. John Stossel, Tucker Carlson & Glen Beck are Libertarians. Unimpressive, I know. I think they believe in every person for him/herself. They believe in the least government of all. I would let them haul their own garbage and fix the streets in front of their homes. Go for it.
If you want to change political parties, you have to go to the DMV and fill out a new form. I think I'm going to register indy. I can't say that dem fits me any longer.
You've got 2 more tries. Use them wisely.
Libertarians also oppose any laws restricting personal or consensual behaviour, as well as laws against victimless crimes. As such, they believe that individual choices for products or services should not be limited by government licensing requirements or state-granted monopolies, or in the form of trade barriers that restrict choices for products and services from other nations (see Free trade). They also tend to oppose legal prohibitions on recreational drug use, gambling, and prostitution. They believe that citizens should be free to take risks, even to the point of actual harm to themselves. For example, while most libertarians may personally agree with the majority who favour the use of seatbelts, libertarians reject mandating their use as paternalistic. Similarly, many believe that the United States Food and Drug Administration (and other similar bodies in other countries like Health Canada in Canada) shouldn't ban unproven medical treatments, that any decisions on treatment be left to patient and doctor only, and that government should be limited to passing non-binding judgments about efficacy or safety, if it is allowed to do anything at all.[20]
Some libertarians believe such freedoms are a universal birthright, and they accept any material inequalities or wanton behaviour, as long as it harms no one else, likely to result from such a policy of governmental non-intervention. They see economic inequality as an outcome of people's freedom to choose their own actions, which may or may not be profitable. However, many libertarians believe that extreme concentration of wealth in a few hands is a result of state intervention, and that liberty ultimately leads to a more diffuse distribution though not necessarily an equal one. A prime cause of extreme wealth disparity stems from government granting special privileges to some businesses at the expense of consumers and other businesses.[citation needed] Many libertarians, including Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard, consider that the most fundamental government grant of special privilege involves the legitimization and protection of fractional reserve banking through the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. They therefore call for the abolition of the Federal Reserve System.
Identifed as enabler of the mortgage scandle - Phil Graham. Doesn't look good.
Part of me wants to say, forget her and her base. I know that is not realistic. I simply do not understand their logic. All I hear, "it is OUR/HER time". Now, they are starting with lame as sexist sh**, like Obama sometimes refers to female reporters as "sweetie". And? Not a good thing. But you know what, I vividly recall McCain losing his temper with a female reporter aboard his private jet. I thought he was going to pimp slap her with his good arm. That's who they should be worried about.
I liked when Joe asked "who is doing the questioning here, you or Chris? I could be wrong, but I notice some White Hillary supporters will become really brazen when matched up against a male counterpart of late. They don't quite seem to give the same push back to the host. Witness todays episode with Joan Walsh of Salon. She really did not become combative until Joe started to speak. Last week Lisa Caputo had her ass handed to her by Chris and she couldn't say sh**, but a day later she was on with (I think Jamal) and she was pulling the crazy white lady routine. Then again, I see this type of behavior of the very candidate they support.
It's like, where was this gravitas when you were up against Matthews.
RAOTFLMAO
You're right, the way she took on Joe. It was like she was trying to put the black man in his place.
As for McCain and that reporter...talk about not answering a reporters question. You didn't hear a peep out of any of those women. McCain has called his wife "cunt". He has made a crude joke about Chelsea being ugly because Janet Reno is her father, which he had to apologize for.
All I hear from these paper tiger feminists is how they're going to vote for anti-choice McCain if Hillary is not on the ticket. But, they put Obama through hell because he's a black man and they want to emasculate him, and make him bow down to them. Ms.martin, you are so right about their unattractiveness.
Apparently Obama learned all he need to know about Iraq from watching Olbermann.
I guess the idea of sitting down with American troops, their leaders and the elected government of Iraq isn’t as interesting as a world tour of thugs and killers. Perhaps if McCain had suggested skipping Baghdad and going right on to Tehran to chat with Ahmadinejad Obama would have been more interested.
I hope McCain can get some mileage out this. He can beat Obama up for not wanting to see first hand what’s going on in Iraq but also for being unwilling to put partisan politics aside for the sake of the country.
Obama '08: Hope, Change and Bitterly Clinging to an Old Narrative.
Brian Lewis
Executive Vice President, Corporate Communications
FOX News
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Phone: 212-301-3000
Fax: 212-301-8588
E-Mail: brian.lewis@foxnews.com
As I type this, I am in the process of suffering through Hannity and Colmes to compile a list of Fox News sponsors. I plan to contact each sponsor and tell them why I plan to boycott their products/services.
I'll also mention the petition below to Mr. Lewis of Fox and each sponsor. Since yesterday alone, it has garnered over 6,000 signatures.
This is the last damn straw...
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/fox-news-has-to-sack-liz-trotta
truthseeker and honey,
and don't get them started on Michelle!
They DESPISE Michelle..
But, that's ok...cause we've got Michelle's back.
here's the video:
Video
Some good satire at Huffington:
Ku Klux Klan Won't Endorse Obama
Is the appropriate word for it, projecting? I dunno, maybe just crazy.
But yeah, they give Michelle B. a hard time.
Thanks BAP for the petition info!
Jeremiah Wright served in the military. So, bow down or STFU!
Obama confusing a Polish camp with a German one pales in comparisons to a "military vet" and SENATOR not knowing the difference between Sunnis and Shiites in a war he voted for and supports. And, to think, the dumb mf went to Iraq (and brags about) but he doesn't know the most basic of details about a CURRENT event.
So one that dumb shouldn't even be allowed to run and if his views of his 'pastors' in anyway way reflects his own or a number of flag waving, bs talking (White) Americans then we know why McCain never even bothered to learn the difference by Sunnis and Shiites.
I like, damn... Did the mf ever even pick up a newspaper?
Don't tell me he's another WHITE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION candidate like Bush...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3U0df0qGoA
This could be turning into "Those black people stole this from Hillary" The Clinton's have people fighting on their behalf. Joan and McAuliffe are on tv destroying their integrity while the Clinton's sit on 50 million dollars, govt. perks and lifetime Secret Service protection. I wish someone would shake some sense into these surrogates. Her campaign staff probably hasn't been paid in weeks.
thanks for posting the link. I was going to go and look for it.
http://www.faithbase.com/barack_Obama/
The Obama staff issued a correction the following day to the Auschwitz/Buchenwald
"Senator Obama's family is proud of the service of his grandfather and uncles in World War II – especially the fact that his great uncle was a part of liberating one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald. Yesterday he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald in telling of his personal experience of a soldier in his family who served heroically," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton."
They also offered background on his uncle's unit.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId;=10006140
Come on....getting hints of Bob Barr just looking at her...LOL
Racial heritage of six former presidents is questioned
Can He Take a Frisk?
What about Obama not knowing that Arabic isn't spoken in Afghanistan? Is that comparable?
Thanks for your replies yesterday re: "winning" in Iraq. Sorry I couldn't follow up.
Based, though, on both of your responses, you both believe that we will have won when Iraq's government is stabilized and functional. Both of you know, however, that such a scenario is analogous to beating someone to near-death, and then having the nerve to claim a "victory" once they're off life support and are stabilized.
I'm sure you both also know that the key to "victory" in Viet Nam was similarly stated in those vaguely platitudinal terms. Democracy; stabilized government; blah, blah. But none of those things happened until our government withdrew our military from Viet Nam. In other words, we were part of the problem. Not the solution.
This is why John McCain was correct in his figurative assessment of "100 years" in the region. He knows as well as any that the "victory" that some people tout can take generations to achieve.
Or we can do what we did with Viet Nam and leave so that the people in the region can make their own decisions on how they will conduct their lives.
Exactly who makes up "the insurgency" in the U.S.? For that matter, who makes up the insurgency in Iraq, seeing as how the U.S. has supported both Shia and Sunni fighters at one time or another?