Re: Labs And I Have This Conversation Every Day

1

I love this clip.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 5:17 PM
horizontal rule
2

Greatest youtube clip evar?


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 5:21 PM
horizontal rule
3

Amazing. When was that? Youtube description just says a few years ago, I must know more.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 5:28 PM
horizontal rule
4

There are so many wonderful things about that clip. Why is she in her bathrobe?


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 5:31 PM
horizontal rule
5

||

And while we're speaking of funny videos, please allow me to pimp my blog.

|>


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 5:32 PM
horizontal rule
6

3: Based on the crawl, looks like July 19, 2001.


Posted by: potchkeh | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 5:33 PM
horizontal rule
7

That was before 9/11 changed everything.


Posted by: JH | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 5:41 PM
horizontal rule
8

Who they are.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 5:44 PM
horizontal rule
9

I believe the name of the show is Good Day NY, rube.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 5:58 PM
horizontal rule
10

Wow.


Posted by: Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 5:58 PM
horizontal rule
11

I didn't say that NY Good Day was the name of the show, little bitch.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 6:00 PM
horizontal rule
12

You're just attacking me because I'm white.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 6:02 PM
horizontal rule
13

The clip just makes me sad actually.

12: Ooh yes. Let's all talk about that. I think it was all carefully planned to appeal to angry white folks and make them say, "Yeah! I totally coulda gone to Columbia and Harvard Law, been a state senator, a US senator, and presidential candidate, if all the uppity black folks weren't being handed all the slots."


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 6:06 PM
horizontal rule
14

I didn't know Labs was your landlord, ogged. I guess the "girlfriend's permission" incident didn't end well?


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 6:23 PM
horizontal rule
15

Also, wasn't there once a video of an anchor/reporter exchange much like that, that was bitterer and went on longer, that turned out to be a ratings hoax? Looking for a link.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 6:24 PM
horizontal rule
16

God, I hate that word, "squabble." (from the link in 8)


Posted by: iancgdi | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 6:40 PM
horizontal rule
17

I think this is a subtle slam on Labs' teaching.


Posted by: spaz | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 6:58 PM
horizontal rule
18

I'm always picking up on the subtle stuff...


Posted by: spaz | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 6:59 PM
horizontal rule
19

Someone has to.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 7:00 PM
horizontal rule
20

You could light insects on fire with those glasses. And the elevator guy flexes like he just won something.


Posted by: bjk | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 7:41 PM
horizontal rule
21

Speaking of crazy old people...

Ferraro: 'They're attacking me because I'm white'


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:04 PM
horizontal rule
22

5: For extra points, Atwood's Tavern should work in a Margaret Atwood theme.


Posted by: DS | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:05 PM
horizontal rule
23

21: Whitey can't catch a break.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:07 PM
horizontal rule
24

So are we going to have a Mississippi thread, or is there no reason to bother?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:09 PM
horizontal rule
25

Or is the Mississippi thread one of the ones I haven't read?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:10 PM
horizontal rule
26

21: God, I fucking hate her. She spoke at my MA commencement and it was one of the most pathetic public speeches I've ever listened to. This was 2003, the year Nerd U had just had our business school held hostage by a gunman (local crazy who was known to all of us, from India), so she spoke for twenty minutes about how it was our campus's 9/11 Moment and that she knows how we felt that day because that's how she felt on 9/11.

Thanks, Ferraro. Very helpful, reducing all violence to a case of brown foreign people attacking American wealth or whatever. I'm not sure that's what she was getting at (the speech was incomprehensible), but that was the only conclusion I could draw.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:12 PM
horizontal rule
27

I was surprised to see her defending the remarks, since the Clinton folks are supposedly distancing themselves from her original statement. It makes me wonder if she's gotten some behind-the-scenes okay to run with the race thing while the Clinton folks officially distance themselves, or whether she's actually just riffing on a theme solo.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:19 PM
horizontal rule
28

The most incredible thing about that Ferraro link is not even the "because I'm white," it's that she claims that she was only Vice Presidential candidate in 1984 because she was a woman. Yes, everyone who is not a white male only got there through white male charity... Except for the person she's supporting.

It's like Jon Chait said in a dialog with Yglesias today: the primaries drive you insane because they are actually insane.


Posted by: destroyer | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:25 PM
horizontal rule
29

It makes me wonder if she's gotten some behind-the-scenes okay to run with the race thing while the Clinton folks officially distance themselves

This seems like the obvious answer to me.

I'm having weird out of sync reactions to this campaign. I was pissed off at Clinton a month or 6 weeks ago, but now I find myself shrugging my shoulders now... I'm more annoyed that Obama hasn't been able to shift gears and fend this shit off. It's inevitable and pretty mild so far. Worse is coming.


Posted by: spaz | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:25 PM
horizontal rule
30

What a way to run with it. "Oh yeah? Well what about reverse racism! I totally think Obama should hit her back on having so many female staffers because that's definitely reverse sexism.

Okay, I don't, but really.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:26 PM
horizontal rule
31

29: I dunno, I think getting Ferraro to say something this ludicrous is probably a swell start. Also, not for nothing, but he did, you know, just win a couple more states by large margins.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:28 PM
horizontal rule
32

I think the contrast between Ferraro's unrepentant interview and the youtube clip of power apologizing is pretty stunning.


Posted by: ixnaythemetier | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:28 PM
horizontal rule
33

so she spoke for twenty minutes about how it was our campus's 9/11 Moment

Good times.

Where are the older commenters? Has Ferraro always been nuts?


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:29 PM
horizontal rule
34

It's starting to really seem like "Whitey can't catch a break" is the Clinton campaign's new sotto voce strategy. It might even work; white people love that shit.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:29 PM
horizontal rule
35

33: Looks like it.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:31 PM
horizontal rule
36

32: dead video link, both there and a Sullivan's blog. Dang. I'd like to see that clip. Looking...


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:31 PM
horizontal rule
37

35: wow. Well hey, it worked (?) last time!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:33 PM
horizontal rule
38

Oooh, here it is, I think.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:33 PM
horizontal rule
39

Well hey, it worked (?) last time!

In the "four more years of a Republican administration" sense of "worked," of course.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:34 PM
horizontal rule
40

The link in 35 is via blueollie in comments at EotAW, btw. Just so no one gets the impression that I read DKos regularly.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:36 PM
horizontal rule
41

Which, you know, not that Mondale would have won regardless. But wow, talk about an unfortunate evocation of the past.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:36 PM
horizontal rule
42

I swear to God, the only other time in my life that I've heard someone utter the phrase "reverse racism" unironically was at a Costco in Queens after a black customer service guy accidentally bumped into the white lady in front of me. She became wildly indignant and I accidentally rolled my eyes a bit, and then got a lecture on Reverse Racism!!!1!

The weird thing is, there is no way to respond to anyone who uses this phrase. What do you say? "Nuh uh"? 'Cause I tried "Uh, I'm really the wrong person to express those views to" and it only made her madder.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:37 PM
horizontal rule
43

40: I wish somebody would. Surely they must say interesting things occasionally?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:37 PM
horizontal rule
44

If they have any sense, Clinton's people will beg that crazy old guinea to shut the hell up.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:38 PM
horizontal rule
45

42: "shit, wigger, you gotta fix your own shit, first."


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:38 PM
horizontal rule
46

Clinton really needs to disavow and repudiate Ferraro. (Not kidding.) And given the fact that Ferraro's said pretty much the same thing before, I'm going to assume this isn't a plant by the Clinton campaign; in any case, they've certainly said enough racist crap on their own, and directly, that this particular piece doesn't need to be attributed to some sekrit order by the Clinton camp.

I, for one, am really disappointed and saddened by this crap. I didn't know before about her racism.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:43 PM
horizontal rule
47

7: That was before 9/11 changed everything.

In fact it seems that those two were on the air in the same capacities relatively early on 9/11 in a sequence that seems to have some notoriety among some conspiracy theorists. Apparently the field guy (Dick Oliver) interviewed some eyewitnesses who thought it might have been a missile, but the anchor (Jim Ryan) cuts in and says it was a plane. Thin gruel indeed, nor does it appear that they launched into a rancorous discussion of reporting on that occasion.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:43 PM
horizontal rule
48

42: "You're awfully touchy for a white person"


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:46 PM
horizontal rule
49

The Negroes took our delegates.


Posted by: Mark "Flounder" Penn | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:49 PM
horizontal rule
50

46: yes, but are you dejected? How can you refuse to be defected by these comments?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:50 PM
horizontal rule
51

Aw, juck.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:52 PM
horizontal rule
52

Dejected. Yeah, that too.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:52 PM
horizontal rule
53

If they have any sense, Clinton's people will beg that crazy old guinea to shut the hell up.

Are you kidding? I assume they approved it beforehand. It turns out it was Carville who first made the "Alabama in between"* comment about Pennsylvania, and HRC needs to do really, really, really well there. Maggie Williams (African-American head of the Clinton campaign) apparently sent out an e-mail about Obama's response to Ferraro in which Williams claimed Obama was playing the race card. They believe they need to remind everyone "in between" that Obama's black, and that there were/are reasons (some probably pretty reasonable) that they don't like/aren't comfortable with African-Americans. It's only going to get uglier, is my bet, though it will wax and wane in intensity. And there isn't a lot Obama can do about it; complain about it too forcefully and pointedly, and people, inc. the media, will accuse him of "playing the race card." So he's just left with long time strategy of smiling and hoping it passes like and idle wind.

*Cala's complained about this formulation, and she has actual information, so there's much reason to doubt it.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:54 PM
horizontal rule
54

33: Where are the older commenters? Has Ferraro always been nuts?

Sorry, I've been busy watching 9/11 conspiracy videos on YouTube...

My take, yeah a bit nuts ... but then so are all fucking politicians (and celibate ones too, I bet).
[INSERT EXHIBITS A though BC456YZ.3 HERE.]

She did not campaign well as VP candidate, but in retrospect the whole enterprise was doomed. Her most memorable moment was when she took a typical assholish debate question and made it 10x worse.

BOYD: Congresswoman Ferraro, you have had little or no experience with military matters and yet you might someday find yourself commander-in-chief of the armed forces. How can you convince the American people and the potential enemy that you would know what to do to protect this nation's security, and do you think in any way that the Soviets might be tempted to try to take advantage of you simply because you are a woman?

FERRARO: Are you saying that I would have to have fought in the war in order to love peace?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:56 PM
horizontal rule
55

Are you kidding? I assume they approved it beforehand.

I'm not so sure it's unapproved either. Just seems like stupid move to send some old Italian out of Queens to talk about The Blacks.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 03-11-08 11:58 PM
horizontal rule
56

I'm not so sure it's unapproved either.

I can't even imagine this wasn't planned. They "disagreed" with Ferraro. AFAIK, that's where the HRC campaign stands.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:02 AM
horizontal rule
57

Yeah, I mean, didn't they immediately turn the reponses around into "yes, none of us should suffer hurtful attacks from anybody" or some such nonsense? Part of the program.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:06 AM
horizontal rule
58

"none of us should suffer hurtful attacks. p.s. Obama's playing the race card."

So: Obama won Mississippi by about 2,000 votes less than Clinton won by in Texas, & gained rather than lost delegates. Why is one of these a decisive game changer & one of these barely covered? Yes, one broke a streak & the other didn't, but the main thing seems to be an obsession with "expectations" & "momentum" which allows the media to inflate its own importance, and the press's inability to comprehend the fact that even though you have pretty maps with colors & states this is not the electoral college, delegates are awarded proportionately & the margin of victory matters.


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:12 AM
horizontal rule
59

"barely covered" is an exaggeration, but why is the media now joining in the "some states & votes are more equal than others" game?


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:12 AM
horizontal rule
60

Basically, I think Chris Bowers is right, here:

While this treads into "votes that don't matter" territory, the truth is that after watching politics for more than twenty years, at this point trying to win back those "Reagan Democrats" feels like a lost cause. I've had enough of it. I'm tired of how trying to appeal to these voters basically never seems to work, but always succeeds in pushing the Democratic Party to the right. I'm tired of how it has created a perception in the Democratic Party that the progressive base don't matter, except as an ATM machine. And I'm tired of it because it has just gone on for so long at this point that we now have massive, emerging Democratic voting blocks that we should appeal to instead: non-Christian whites, the "creative class," and Latinos / Asians. While the once-Democratic and now Republican "Reagan" Dems are growing pretty darn old, the future of the country and the electorate can be found elsewhere. Why continue to chase after voting groups that are shrinking in size, that push the party to the right, and who we never seem to win anyway, when instead we can chase after far more fertile voting blocks that will push the party to the left and who represent more than 100% of the population growth in the United States?

He calls the group the Clinton machine was built to entice the Reagan Democrats, I see them as the Southern Conservatives. Same diff., as he notes.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:13 AM
horizontal rule
61

53: "Alabama in between"

As noted several times this is mostly inaccurate*, but it sure as shit is SE Ohio and Western Maryland and Hillary will carry many of the counties with 60-70% of the vote. Philly area had better come in strong for Obama, because barring something dramatic I don't think he will do much in the P'burgh area; he will be slaughtered in the suburban counties and will do well to break even in Allegheny County itself. (Wish I thought differently, but look at Mahoning (Youngstown) county in Ohio on the PA border - 64% Clinton.)


* However:
"Report: Pennsylvania's climate could be like Alabama's
Study on global warming: Droughts, floods ... and an end to skiing"


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:20 AM
horizontal rule
62

Honestly, I have a really hard time imagining Obama winning Pennsylvania. The demographics there are extremely unfavorable to him.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:29 AM
horizontal rule
63

And yet, it won't matter that much outside of the media. Hello, crazy.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:35 AM
horizontal rule
64

If he managed to get a delegate draw in Penn, would HRC pull out? She has to win 64% of the remaining elected and undeclared super-delegates, with the NC primary still to come. If the only way she can actually win is by burying his general election prospects in shit, is there any reason to think she'll decide to pull out if she hasn't done it by then?


Posted by: ixnaythemetier | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:42 AM
horizontal rule
65

Yeah, it's really weird that the "only certain states count" meme really does seem to have totally infiltrated the media coverage.

Honestly, I think a big part of this is that the news media figured out a long time ago how the electoral college works and how to structure their coverage around it, and they've been using the same methods in every other election even though primaries (especially Democratic primaries) work very differently. This explains all the emphasis on "calling" states when who wins the popular vote is nearly meaningless in most Democratic primaries, as well as the idea, relentlessly pushed by the Clinton campaign as well, that only the "swing states" (plus the really big states that are hard to ignore) really "count," which is totally absurd in the context of a primary.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:44 AM
horizontal rule
66

Yeah, it's really weird that the "only certain states count" meme really does seem to have totally infiltrated the media coverage.

Colbert was clever on that meme yesterday.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:47 AM
horizontal rule
67

Whoops. Colbert link here


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:50 AM
horizontal rule
68

67: That's dead-on.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:56 AM
horizontal rule
69

Especially the last line.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 12:56 AM
horizontal rule
70

OMG, thank you for the colbert link. I have to wash this out of my brain.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 1:03 AM
horizontal rule
71

70: Man, Schlessinger is a dipshit, but how is it that Meredith Viera is the non-moron interviewing three complete dipshits who are purporting to be experts on sexual behavior? What is the point of having experts if the only people who make any sense are the people who aren't experts?


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 1:08 AM
horizontal rule
72

Good fucking lord, that is awful. And bitch, I just accidentally bumped your post with something frivolous. Fucking co-bloggers!


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 1:11 AM
horizontal rule
73

70: Did she really deploy an argument based on Physiognomy (1/5th in)? Yes! She! Did!

Christ.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 1:16 AM
horizontal rule
74

70: Thank you so much for that. That's just what needs spreading. I couldn't finish it before I had to start a fight with my little brother.
71: What do you know from sexual behavior? Are you holding out on us?


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 1:17 AM
horizontal rule
75

71: Indeed.
72: Bitch. (With any luck you just saved me the recriminating trolls, so thank you.)


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 1:42 AM
horizontal rule
76

Denouement: he's just been snowboarding, so fucking him up in the name of justice wouldn't be fair. His friend though... if I get chance to fuck him up I'll take pictures. (He's a sexist monster, so it's ok!)


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 1:52 AM
horizontal rule
77

I definitely think Ferraro's been tasked to do this. The Clinton campaign is desperate to remind white voters that Obama is, you know. a NEGRO. Because some of them don't seem to have noticed sufficiently.


The clip is all kinds of awesome.


Posted by: Timothy Burke | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 7:17 AM
horizontal rule
78

Laura Schlessinger is such a mind-numbing moron in that clip. Yes, indeed: ladies, if you don't fuck your sweet, sweet men in every dirty way they want, and just wuv them with backrubs and support when they get home from struggling in the cold, tough World of Men, it's your fault that they go to naughty whores and get nasty sores on their wee-wees.


Posted by: Timothy Burke | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 7:21 AM
horizontal rule
79

73: It's even kookier than that short clip would suggest. Fisher divides human beings into four different personality types, each of which is associated with a different predominant hormone: negotiator (estrogen); director (testosterone); explorer (dopamine); and builder (serotonin). The whole thing is scientifically Platonic, or perhaps platonically scientific:

HF: Oh! I'm the Explorer/Negotiator. But frankly I think I cheat, so I could be a Negotiator/Explorer. Those two could be very interchangeable. Plato came up with these four types, and then Aristotle, and Galen in the second century A.D., and then Carl Jung. We've known about these types for hundreds of years. What I've done is add that biological component.

Did Plato divide them into four categories as well?

HF: Yes. What I call the Explorer he calls the Artisan, what I call the Builder he calls the Guardian, what I call the Negotiator he calls the Idealist, and what I call the Director he calls the Rational. Frankly, I would not have made up new names if I had known the originals. You can't beat Plato.


Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 8:04 AM
horizontal rule
80

The actual parental hormone is Prolactin.

Testosterone is the Guardian (military/police) hormone. And Plato had three types, not four. As far as I know the Idealist / Rational distinction is not in Plato.

Otherwise, nice try! A bold and original [= "nutjob"] paper!


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 8:20 AM
horizontal rule
81

The actual parental hormone is Prolactin.

Oh, geez, I thought it was Oxycontin.


Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 8:23 AM
horizontal rule
82

"HF: Oh! I'm the Explorer/Negotiator Aries/Taurus. But frankly I think I cheat, so I could be a Negotiator/Explorer Taurus/Gemini. Either way, I'm dominated by black bile."


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 8:26 AM
horizontal rule
83

to unite two video clips in this thread, Dr. Laura will be on Colbert tonight.


Posted by: Sybil Vane | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 8:37 AM
horizontal rule
84

My issue with these three dipshits is that they're all very invested in showing why Spitzer is likely to do what he did, given his circumstances. (1) He's a high-testosterone male, so of course he couldn't help himself. We can tell this from his face. (That one's pretty dumb, but at least the causality arrow goes the right way. Does not explain a "need" for illegal prostitutes, rather than a regular mistress.) (2) He's in a position where he enforces morality but doesn't always display moral behavior, so we can assume he got into this work out of a need to control himself. (Just muddled whatever. Does no one who works in government or law enforcement do so out of anything than a feeling that he might be a Bad Boy? At least this hypothesis addresses the fact that she's a pro.) (3) Schlessinger's is the most absurd, since she doesn't address the question of why Spitzer did such a thing at all. She just assumes that since he did it, his wife must therefore be a withholding cunt who got what she deserved because her man was STARVING. I'm starving too, Laura. I'm starving too.

But what the fuck is the point of this panel? None of them address the key issue here, which is not that he cheated, but that he illegally arranged to have sex with a prostitute and moved her across state lines to do so. I don't give two figs if Spitzer got someone to blow him in Central Park. I don't care if he has a dozen mistresses in Queens. I do, however, care a great deal that the guy who finally got me a decent paycheck and health insurance, who has been fighting for public education and against corruption since he got in office, blew all his future career of making my life better by committing a very stupid crime.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 8:45 AM
horizontal rule
85

but that he illegally arranged to have sex with a prostitute and moved her across state lines to do so.

And also (and I think this point is worth emphasizing, because some people on the internets are getting distracted by the question of whether or not prostituition should even be illegal in the first place), that he engaged in the illegal practice of "structuring" (dividing one large transfer of money into several smaller transfers to evade the legal requirement to report any transfer of $10,000 or more). Which is getting into the territory of money laundering. I think this is why he is resigning, actually. He could maybe ride out a sex scandal...but the money stuff is pretty damning.


Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 9:09 AM
horizontal rule
86

But what the fuck is the point of this panel?

to fill ten minutes of airtime between ad breaks

this has been episode 1021 of short answers to easy etc etc


Posted by: felix | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 9:15 AM
horizontal rule
87

Anyone think he could have ridden it out, like Vitter, if hadn't just been an AG who prosecuted these crimes?


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 9:15 AM
horizontal rule
88

This appears to be the Spitzer thread, so I'll ask her. What the fuck is up with the whole "deal" situation? It seems to me like the rumor is he was offered a deal that he wouldn't be prosecuted, if he resigned? Does that sound right?

The thing is, deals are usually where you give the feds/cops something they want (testify against another defendant, agree to plead guilty) in exchange for something you want (leniency).

How the fuck is it that the something the government wants is for him to resign? Doesn't that expose the entire operation as a political hit? I obviously think that Spitzer should be charged. If he wants to be a witness, or plead, to get leniency, fine. But his governorship is not really related to his crime, and frankly, it's not something law enforcement's got the right to ask him to do.

It's like saying, quit your job as an IRS auditor, and we won't prosecute you for cocaine possession. The fuck?


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 9:21 AM
horizontal rule
89

Ferraro: 'They're attacking me because I'm white'

"And I would've gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for you damn kids!" the suddenly deeper voice snarled, roughly ripping the mask from it's face and revealing--David Horowitz!

As sad as it is to hear Ferraro spout racist nonsense, it's even sadder to hear her spout such lame racist nonsense.

If Obama deigns to respond to this at all--and I'm not sure there's any benefit to doing so--some paraphrase of the response Jackson gave in the Post story linked up thread would be good: "Some people are making hysteria while we're making history."


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 9:24 AM
horizontal rule
90

87: Vitter broke because his name was in someone's black book, not because there was an ongoing government investigation into his behavior which has (according to newspaper reports) led to evidence sufficient to prosecute. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to speculate why there wasn't an ongoing government investigation of David Vitter, but see The Big Easy starring Dennis Quaid for a partial explanation.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 9:24 AM
horizontal rule
91

How the fuck is it that the something the government wants is for him to resign?

Isn't it like saying to a criminal doctor who shouldn't be trusted on medical matters: "Give up your license permanently"? They do that on L&O once a week, and it never struck me as bizarre. It looks like both punishment and a preventative measure.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 9:25 AM
horizontal rule
92

If Obama deigns to respond to this at all--and I'm not sure there's any benefit to doing so--some paraphrase of the response Jackson gave in the Post story linked up thread would be good: "Some people are making hysteria while we're making history."

I think the HRC campaign dreams of the day on which they can closely connect "Jesse Jackson" to "Barack Obama." No rhymes, Obama.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 9:27 AM
horizontal rule
93

And don't use the word 'hysteria' around the Clinton campaign.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 9:34 AM
horizontal rule
94

Isn't it like saying to a criminal doctor who shouldn't be trusted on medical matters: "Give up your license permanently"?

At first, I was going to say "it's not the same!" But if you focus on the money laundering charges instead on the prostitution, it's kind of the same.


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 9:34 AM
horizontal rule
95

No rhymes, Obama.

What about double dactyls?


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 9:35 AM
horizontal rule
96

Senator Hillary BetrayUs?


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 9:38 AM
horizontal rule
97

Hillary, Billary
Tickety-tock
Her buddy Eliot
Was too free with his cock.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 9:41 AM
horizontal rule
98

Sifu's cob-logger led me to this one-

Ode on a $5,500 Blow Job
The fellatrix was quite unprepared, she admits,
For the grilling she got from Blitzer.
Most gentlemen ask if she swallows or spits;
He asked if she swallows Spitzer.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 9:45 AM
horizontal rule
99

Okay, my question is:

NPR keeps reporting the Michigan/Florida compromises as though these are Real Pending Compromises.

Do you all thing the DNC is actually considering some alternative to seat the votes? Or is this just smoke?

Would they dismiss the compromises on the premise that obviously anyone pushing a compromise stands to benefit from it? Then why the hell does NPR paint it as though a compromise is imminent?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 9:52 AM
horizontal rule
100

How the fuck is it that the something the government wants is for him to resign? Doesn't that expose the entire operation as a political hit? I obviously think that Spitzer should be charged. If he wants to be a witness, or plead, to get leniency, fine. But his governorship is not really related to his crime, and frankly, it's not something law enforcement's got the right to ask him to do.

FWIW Spitzer did exactly the same thing with CEOs he didn't like. He got the scalps of the Greenbergs père et fils by threatening to indict their companies if they didn't resign. Not that two wrongs make a right, but "live by the sword, die by the sword" or something.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 03-12-08 10:02 AM
horizontal rule