figure I should just keep my mouth shut until she gives her speech
You, me, her, everybody.
I can't bear to watch, to be completely honest.
I predict she's going to speak of her historic bid, the shattering of the glass ceiling and etc, and then fold that narrative of progress into a larger narrative where progress requires a Dem in the White House, which is why we we should all enthusiastically embrace the Obama-Biden ticket.
Or she might endorse Mike Huckabee.
(And anyone who thinks she's not going to endorse Obama, for whom she has been campaigning for two months, is not living in the reality-based community).
I'm not that anxious about it at the moment, but that's mostly because the Sox are up 7–3, and I've had some Bourbon.
4: hella. I should get to this bourbon.
For Christ's sake, this is all about Obama now. It's his case to make and his race to win. If he blows this election, you guys are going to pin it all on Wicked Witch Hillary.
Hm, not bad. Good show, Evan Williams! Hooray, Hillary!
6: no, PGD. We're going to pin it on you, personally.
Witchcraft has been a historically underappreciated factor in US electoral politics.
Just ask Eric and Ari: they'll tell you they don't appreciate it at all. QED.
One more word from you, Sifu, and Hillary and I are going make your calves explode. And don't think we can't do it.
As much as he can try me, Dennis Kucinich gave a heck of a speech this afternoon.
What PGD said in 6. Obama is the winner, the race is now his to win. And Hillary Clinton is not the cold, uncaring mother who never gave you enough love. Time to cut the cord, guys.
11: it's always the crazy ones. Al Sharpton was utterly spellbinding in 2004.
13: okay, fine, we'll blame you, too.
The person who introduced Kucinich sure has an annoying voice.
Apparently they zoomed right on close on a friend of mine during Michelle's speech last night.
"This administration can tap our phones, but they can't tap our creative spirit"?
Clever, that Klein lad.
my hunch is Clinton will own the convention. What she needs to do in this speech is so easy and so obvious and will be greeted with such gratitude by the Democratic Party and such rapturous coverage by the media that it's almost inconceivable that she'll pass up the opportunity to be the hero.
14: it's always the crazy ones.
Kucinich remains one of the few American politicians who sounds like he comes from a sane reality.
This thread's going to be really pleasant, isn't it?
21: I know. What a nut!
I actually know a non-trivial number of sane politicians, some of them of national significance. Kucinich seems kind of nutty compared to them, but certainly he's saner than any Republican, or (possibly) most Democrats in national office.
Biden seems fairly sane, if distressingly pragmatic for somebody from Dela-fucking-ware.
She started with "my friends"? It's a dog-whistle to McCain supporters!
So far we've got two people wearily defending Hillary against the reflexive criticisms of ungracious Obamoids, and zero people criticizing Hillary in any way.
And the speech hasn't even started yet!
I actually know a non-trivial number of sane politicians
Do tell.
Kucinich endorses a lot of good policies. But a guy who has alien encounters while visiting Shirley MacLaine is a guy who has alien encounters while visiting Shirley MacLaine. And that guy is nutty.
27: not on the blog, dear Kraab. My secret identity as Bruce Wayne must remain exactly that.
You can e-mail me, though, if you want.
I'm Sir Kraab and I approve of Hillary's orange suit.
Biden seems fairly sane, if distressingly pragmatic for somebody from Dela-fucking-ware.
Tell it to Radley Balko.
23: a non-trivial number of sane politicians
Depends on how you define "sane." My definition of "sane politicians" would be "people who know and act and speak like what's happened in the past eight years is criminal, and like American policy priorities need to be radically readjusted because they're currently fucking insane." Are there a "non-trivial" number of American politicians who are "sane" in this sense? I don't see much of them up there.
(And no, Obama is not "sane" by this definition, he's just a more competent choice for making nice with the occupants of the asylum than the alternatives were. Which is fine, but Kucinich doesn't seem "nutty" to me compared with almost anyone in American politics.)
31: I'm taking credit for that. When I saw a pic this afternoon of her aides holding a variety of suit jackets up against the backdrop, I said, "Go with the orange!"
28: Meh. Religious experiences with Shirley MacLaine are a refreshing change of pace from the close relationship with Jesus Christ that almost every other American politician claims to have. If he'd had religious experiences with Tom Cruise, that would be nutty.
32: Radley Balko, while admirable, is as crazy as I am. We are talking about politicians of national prominence here, right?
33: re there a "non-trivial" number of American politicians who are "sane" in this sense?
Yes. Now ask me how they're constricted in terms of doing something about it.
Why does the dncc want me to download two pieces of software, one purveyed by microsoft, to watch their fucking videos? Isn't that a little ridiculous?
35: Not religious experiences, DS. Alien encounters.
The big thing that makes me nuts about Kucinich is the fact that he yokes together a rare degree of sanity for a high-profile politician in the ways DS mentions with a very visible and irritating vein of not-of-this-world dippery. Quit tainting the sane with the dippy, Denny!
Ms. Rodham Clinton is wearing orange? I can't bear to watch any of this tonight. Thank god for radio.
36.2: Yes.
So I guess Kucinich's articles of impeachment have attracted a whole bunch of supporters, then?
Now ask me how they're constricted in terms of doing something about it.
Funny you should say that, because I was just about to ask you how they're constricted in terms of doing something about it.
Hillary is not the least wooden speaker in the world.
Ms. Rodham Clinton is wearing orange?
It does make her stand out against the blue background.
Actually this is a pretty good speech. Nice nods to obama, women, health care etc.
38: Aliens, angels, same shit.
39: Actually, I've never seen much sign of his supposed "dippery." Last time we talked about this his "Department of Peace" idea was produced as evidence, and it turned out that the people denouncing it as dippy didn't actually know anything about it.
Bill looks proud. Bill looks old.
Orange? Blue backgruond? The Denver Bronco colors!
I'd consider anybody who had claimed to have actually seen an angel nutty, yes.
My mom and dad are both pretty bitter about the Hillary stuff (for reasons that escape me now) and I think this speech might appease them to some extent. Especially connecting Obama to Bill.
and it turned out that the people denouncing it as dippy didn't actually know anything about it.
That's not precisely in accord with my memory of how that went down.
I was just about to ask you how they're constricted in terms of doing something about it
The triplet problems, of course, are the tyranny of the minority built into the constitution, the historical accident of a bunch of suspicious hicks coming into phenomenal wealth and dumping it right back into media, and the obsessively media-focussed narcissism of the late-era American "individualist". Any progressive politician who's going to survive has to work within this. The most effective legislatively, like Teddy Kennedy, have a public persona that bears basically no resemblance to their real working method. The most effective as executives are rock stars, as in Teddy's brother, FDR, and [ hey let's hope ].
49: But since there are lots of such people (w/ angels, aliens, ghosts, personal encounters with the Messiah and so on and so forth), and lots of them are in American politics, I'll say again that Kucinich doesn't seem specially nutty by comparison.
FDR was not Teddy Kennedy's brother.
49: For example, Bobby Jindal? Bonkers.
Stupid cspan stream made me miss out on Tubman's advice.
58: Don't worry, Tubgirl is going to recap it on FOX News later.
Snap reaction to the speech: meh.
Deval Patrick gave the only really good speech I saw tonight.
Deval Patrick gave the only really good speech I saw tonight.
Well that'd be a first.
The "why were you in it?" stuff was really good. I hope she continues to hammer that going forward.
Of course, you only saw it if you were watching C-SPAN. Otherwise you got to see Pat Buchanan or Chris Matthews hollering.
Unless, of course, it turns out that her supporters really were in it just for her.
My son is so frightened of starting first grade tomorrow that he's having a really hard time getting to sleep. I wonder if I can find a youtube of Sebelius's* speech to show him.
* Just one of many things I've been wrong about this election. Sheesh, she's as boring as the drive across Kansas.
I can't remember who said it now, earlier in the evening, regarding McCain and his record of supporting Bush, but it's a great line: "that's not a maverick, that's a sidekick!"
Pat Buchanan is still alive? I'm honestly both surprised and saddened to find that out.
Geez, what a waste of valuable airwaves or bandwidth or spectrum or whatever.
Are you serious?! She hit all the right notes, she said all the right things, and her address was received by the audience with great enthusiasm. So, um, short of committing ritualistic suicide on-stage, just where did she go wrong? or what more did you want?
52: This is the thread I'm recollecting, in which the most palpable hits were landed AFAICS against DK's campaign website and aspects of his voting record on abortion.
54: Neither the first nor the second of those problems do anything to excuse the ineffectuality and mealy-mouthedness of Pelosi and Reid; which is to say, they are genuine challenges that do not mandate a need to fold up in submission or be seen to loudly laugh the Kuciniches of the world out of the room. The third is sort of a "we're dicks because we're dicks, what can you do?" thing.
68: Schweitzer, I think?
70: who are you talking to?
what more did you want?
Apo won't be happy until he gets a candidate who craps pot.
Oops! 70 was in response to Apo's 61.
72.2: I don't know Pelosi or Reid.
70: who are you talking to?
Presumably apostropher's use of the word "meh", or ben w-lfs-n's use of the word "wooden". Those were the only criticisms in this thread.
75: ah. Maybe he thinks she just doesn't give a very good speech in general?
70: Clearly, MC, we expected the ritualistic suicide, hence our disappointment. It would have made it so much easier for us to cut the cord.
64: Indeed, M/tch, she can leverage synchronicities by hammering that. Or them.
Regarding Kucinich: is it good enough to say simply that his personal views don't appear to impact his political ones, and that since he's not running for the Presidency, we can let the two remain distinct? It's unfortunate that he's shared more than he needed to about the private, given that, as a not-stupid man, he surely knows how the public at large responds to that sort of thing; and his efforts otherwise (attempts at impeachment proceedings) are negatively affected by his new age talk; so, yes, we regret that.
short of committing ritualistic suicide on-stage, just where did she go wrong? or what more did you want?
If she were going to commit seppuku, she'd have gone with white or something close. So when she came out in orange, I knew not to get my hopes up.
68: It was Patrick.
70: MC, it's the same thing as with Warner, Schweitzer, and Casey (the others I saw tonight), and nothing to do with content particularly. Just not really great speakers on the roster tonight.
That was a really good speech, you whiners.
Boy. If only Deval would put the same effort into running the state he governs.
*hack* *koff* *flort *blyugh blyugh* what did I say? No, no. You must have misheard.
It was Patrick.
Or maybe it was Schweitzer. I dunno. Anyhow, Jesse Jackson Jr. was good the night before, too, but the convention seems less energetic overall than I'd expected.
NO. It was Bob Casey, Jr.
"John McCain calls himself a maverick, but he votes with George Bush more than 90% of the time. That's not a maverick, that's a sidekick."
he surely knows how the public at large responds to that sort of thing
Um, I've seen little evidence that he does know.
Everyone I saw tonight ranged from only okay to pretty bad. Until Clinton, who was quite good. The speech was powerful, as thoughtful as one can hope for in something so brief, and had lots of eminently pullable quotes for the nets. She did Obama a lot of good tonight, I suspect. So far, women have dominated the convention, which is an excellent thing.
88: Ha. That's kind of a sticking point, isn't it?
Sorry about 80.1, by the way. It came out more snotty sounding than intended. Just a poke at the "going forward" language, which does drive me nuts, but I should get over it.
87: yeah but he got banned from the convention because his dad was anti-choice in the 1830s, so clearly you're wrong.
POINT: SIFU.
The talking heads give it higher marks than me, fwiw. So maybe I'm just a tired, jaded old man or something.
I have been on bitchphd. and wandered over here. I think that if anyone says that Hillary's speech wasn't absolutely necessary and exactly what the party needed, then they are insane. "sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits"(!)
The talking heads
It helps to remember that the convention is staged for them and not for you (or me). Anyway, conventions have outlived their usefulness as political theater. They're probably still good for activists and big donors, but for the viewing public they suck ass -- and not in a good way.
Conventions are fun as fuck to attend for the parties.
93, insofar as it is a drive-by defense of Hillary against non-existent attacks, is sort of sweet.
MC, it's the same thing as with Warner, Schweitzer, and Casey (the others I saw tonight), and nothing to do with content particularly. Just not really great speakers on the roster tonight.
Except that it's not the same thing at all, as you know very well. There was actually something at stake in this speech, and some pretty serious expectations had been placed on it. Either you think she did not meet those expectations (in which case, please specify) or else you can't be generous enough to acknowledge that she met those expectations.
95: That's what I meant, Harry Hobnobber.
I WANT MORE SHOUTING. I THINK I MISS AL GORE. HE WAS GOOD AT THAT.
97: MC, think of Harriet Tubman: we must move forward. Together. Or look for the torches in the woods. Or whatever.
HILLARY NUMBER ONE USA USA THAT'LL SHOW THOSE SHITHEAD ROMANIANS OUR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES WIN MARATHONS WITH LIKE 8 MINUTES TO SPARE.
Anyway, conventions have outlived their usefulness as political theater. They're probably still good for activists and big donors, but for the viewing public they suck ass -- and not in a good way.
Coverage of conventions would be a good chance for people to hear entire speeches covered by major TV channels, which otherwise happens zero times a year except when the President announces a special event. But I guess the channels aren't even showing the speeches, just blithering away.
Yes, I think she met expectations. I'm really talking about delivery, and it's aimed at the whole night, not just Clinton.
Incidentally this: Anyway, conventions have outlived their usefulness as political theater was contraïndicated by Yglesias earlier today, referring to actual science-y type research, in a post I am too lazy to either verify or look up.
Who I really felt sorry for was poor Lilly Ledbetter from Alabama, who probably didn't make the big news networks.
102: Again, that's what I meant. The press's assumptions about what viewers want or can tolerate preclude showing more than snippets of speeches. So we get more of Pat Buchanan wheezing about the Commies darkies Jews women Romanians Democratic menace.
I have not watched the speech as I am avoiding the convention, but I have to say, though I've generally liked Clinton's suits, that color orange is not doing her any favors. It's not her fault; the color is anathema.
NYT is pissing me off though. 'Betrays no anger'? The fuck? You were expecting her to act like a toddler?
Edward Witten, who's something like the smartest person alive, showed up in Yglesias's comments today. Shouldn't we be asking him for advice or something?
106: What you're really saying is that "news" networks have outlived their usefulness as sources of news. But they never had any usefulness.
At least they're actually having well-written speeches at the convention. They're doing their best. The media is hopeless.
105: and who, incidentally, got fucked over like precious few before her by both Good-for-aMerica and the supremos.
106: oh, well, right, retreat to the universally agreed-upon decision.
Good speech, gracious, some good lines, I liked the Bush/McCain "Twin Cities*" one, could get some play, but don't want to lose Minnesota in the process.
*Geography humor rules by definition, no matter how lame.
"decision", in context, is incomprehensible.
Clinton did well, I thought. Most of the other speeches have been meh. Given that they're supposed to be priming the pump for the orator-in-chief, I find the lack of rhetorical rigor disappointing, but then I'm disappointed in the Democratic Party and the country generally, so this convention is meeting my expectations handsomely.
I'm afraid I heard only what must have been a third of her speech, so bearing that in mind:
I wanted her to say something like: I'm aware that some of my past supporters have spoken of not voting in the upcoming election. That is the wrong decision (my friends), and I'm strongly against it. It's the worst thing we can do, and I entreat you all to vote for Barack Obama. (For lo, else we invite John McCain into the White House, blah blah.)
Did she say that? Or did she merely dance around it? If the latter, I am disappointed.
MC: I think we're all relieved after HRC's speech. It's hard to muster any sort of hope or joy or enthusiasm or any other positive emotion, since the election hasn't happened yet.
107: NYT is pissing me off though. 'Betrays no anger'? The fuck? You were expecting her to act like a toddler?
And she also didn't cry, or screech, or whine, or nag. Inconceivable!
If Hillary didn't reject and denounce Bill, I'm voting for McCain. Look, fair is fair.
Or pee on the stage! Let's make a list!
Hillary was absolutely terrific. Are you people on drugs?
Isn't Brian fun?
I liked Gov. Patrick too. Warner, Sebelius, etc stand as stark reminders just what a skill it is to give a good inspirational speech to an apathetic audience.
My understanding is that Hillary hasn't yet released her delegates to vote for whomever. Do I have that right? I think she's expected to do so tomorrow, but I was hopeful she might throw it in tonight.
I thought the speech was pretty good, although it drove me nuts that she kept stepping on her own applause/audience response lines. Did a lot to assuage my seething anger.
Or pee on the stage!
Kennedy was probably our best shot at that. Unless Robert Byrd's speaking tomorrow.
Are you people on drugs?
Um, yes.
Are you people on drugs?
Who, Apo? Is this even really a question?
I'm also a little tired of Harold Ford now.
Napi must be actually at the convention. His actual enthusiasm seems bizarre and is out of place in this thread.
On a related note, I just saw a McCain commercial containing video of HRC saying "I would bring a lifetime of experience to the job, Senator McCain would bring a lifetime of experience, and Senator Obama would bring a speech."
parsimon....she had a great line directed to her supporters asking if they supported her personally or for equal healthcare, an end to the war, etc..... (of course all of this was much more eloquent). Then she said that she supports Obama and they have to as well, for the good of the country, etc....That's when I was hooked and started to tear up with pride for the country which I haven't had for YEARS.
Lame: the groups doing the mostly mild protests outside of the convention (I was in their shoes lo these 8 years ago) named their umbrella organization "Recreate 68".
Lamer still: the Denver PD used their presence at the convention as an excuse to buy millions of dollars of "less-than-lethal" weaponry.
119: She didn't tap dance, or give anyone the finger, or gnaw off her arm in frustration, or start rambling on incoherently about some distant childhood memory until the crowd hushed and Bill had to come up and gently maneuver her off stage. She didn't break out into song, or tell a Knock! Knock joke or cast a spell (as far as we know, at least).
What, AR, you don't think Brian is fun?
or cast a spell
This thread makes me believe otherwise.
OK, I'm just throwing this in without having looked at the rest of the thread:
Hillary was fucking awesome. It was a well-written speech, well-delivered. The crowd loved her, she loved it back, and she turned that love towards the Democratic Party and Barack Obama. She celebrated her run, and she told her supporters that if they didn't support Obama, then they were shitting on her run. She did great. And Bill was proud of her for doing such a great job.
OK, I'm just throwing this in without having looked at the rest of the thread
Like we need your kneejerk contrarianism in here, JRoth.
129: and Senator Obama would bring a speech
Reality check from Ardent reader. A reminder on why you never compare your primary opponent unfavorably to anyone in the other party, especially the presumptive nominee.
But it was a good speech, Apo you sourpuss.
She may have cast a spell, but it would be all sneaky-like, using the color orange as camouflage. And unicorns. Also, I hear she didn't twitter her speech.
PS - AB agrees with this, btw, but she was always a bigger HRC than than I was so....
Tho she probably likes BHO more than I do, too.
130: Okay, clo. I heard that stuff. It seems close to what I wanted, if not exactly direct. So, well, okay, then.
"Look, I owe the American people an apology. If I had beaten the old man you'd of never heard of the kid and you wouldn't be in this mess. So it's all my fault and I feel that very, very strongly. So this is an important election for us. Let me tell 'ya." [-- Michael Dukakis]
I VOTED FOR YOU, SO YES! YES, YOU DO! THANKS FOR FUCKIN' NOTHIN'!
max
['Shouty enough?']
132: She also didn't scratch her ass, rend her garments, do card tricks, take hostages or pull a Budd Dwyer. It's that kind of playing-it-safe strategy that cost her the primary.
138: Have I mentioned my new Slate gig?
145: oh, for fuck's sake. Give the guy a break. If he'd won, you know what, we'd have our fucking SUPERTRAIN. Talk to Dick Morris, Murdoch, and fucking cable news. The guy couldn't win in the modern era, and here go the Democrats; talk to yourself.
Jesus, apo, you've heard her better?
Yeah, sure. The speech where she ended her campaign was much better written and delivered than this one. That one was really moving and memorable.
Don't get me wrong. I'm thrilled if the national impression and the media narrative is that she gave a great, healing speech. I'd just be surprised is all.
The article on the Fox website is not too bad all things considered, but taken out of context this sentence is a hoot:
Clinton, dressed in a pumpkin-colored pantsuit, asked her backers Tuesday to ask themselves why they supported her in the first place.
"The fuck if we know", they replied.
I need to start looking up speech times and just TiVoing them off the C-SPAN feed. I set up my TiVo to record a different broadcast network for each night of the convention in the hopes that one of them would come out as the least loathsome and THEY ARE ALL LOSING.
That said, Hill's speech was awesome, with the right amount and quality of guilt-tripping her supporters for even suggesting they wouldn't vote in November, plus some McCain bashing and unequivocal pro-women's rights statements.
pumpkin-colored pantsuit
Jesus, is that some kind of stupid Cinderella reference? Gah.
Live the change, man, live the change.
My understanding is that Hillary hasn't yet released her delegates to vote for whomever. Do I have that right? I think she's expected to do so tomorrow, but I was hopeful she might throw it in tonight.
I don't think it's a bad thing that she didn't release her delegates. It gives them a little time to think things over and get on board with Obama after her speech.
THESE ARE THE PEOPLE HILLARY NEEDED TO CONVINCE. DID SHE DO SO? WHO KNOWS? MY GUESS IS THEY ARE TOO DUMB AND HARDWORKING TO LISTEN TO ANYONE BUT A REPUBLICAN.
154: Yes, and if you look historically, nothing she is doing is at all divisive or unusual. In fact this as nicey-nicey as it gets. I think they should run it all the way through the roll call. Big fucking deal. Let every fracking delegate cast their original vote. Then do the unanimous thing.
Napi must be actually at the convention. His actual enthusiasm seems bizarre and is out of place in this thread.
Yeah, well, there's some here who might take a few tips from Napi, and start acting like grown men rather than fratboys.
(Oh geez, I didn't just say that aloud, did I?).
Also, OPINIONATED ENTHUSIAST in 135 pretty much nails it, I think.
157: YESSSSSSS!!!!!!
I'll take that under advisement, Mary Catherine.
MC, really, though, who are you talking to?
I'm going to bed now but I ask that people try to keep a cool head overnight.
Mary Catherine doesn't like me, Tweety. But I'm okay with that and think she's swell.
87: Via TPM, here is AP 'Fact Checking"* Bob Casey on the "sidekick" line.
THE FACTS: McCain voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time from January 20, 2001, to when Congress left Washington on its annual August recess, according to a study by Congressional Quarterly. But McCain wasn't always a staunch Bush backer. In 2005, his support for Bush's position on legislation reached a low of 77 percent; last year, when he launched his latest bid for the GOP presidential nomination, he voted with Bush 95 percent of the time.
*The lede is: Some convention claims about McCain and his record omit pertinent details. (Yeah, like more damning ones!) ... plus "How do averages work, Mommy?"
161: I'm going to bed now but I ask that people try to keep a cool head overnight, and don't indent anything that I wouldn't.
161: sleep well, you crazy destructive lunatic.
162: I'm just confused. This is all history. Yay, democrats, yay Obama? Yeah?
This is all history.
Yeah. What remains is the fallout. Media reaction, Hillary diehards' responses, the election as it unfolds from here on. We're bystanders.
We're bystanders.
Only if you want to be.
Puma, the shoe company, could mount a risky but potentially profitable market push for a new brand of sandal geared specifically toward the Hillary supporters who claim they'll now support McCain. The Puma Flip-Flop. I predict that Puma will not do this.
Puma, the feminist shoe company.
I predict that Puma will not do this.
Who said they were going to do the prediction blog thingie? The one that ogged mentioned before he went underground (there are many cells, people, we're still not safe)? Because I was going to do it. But that person said they were. So I didn't. Well, that person, did you do it? If not, I want my money back.
I didn't catch the "twin cities line." What was it?
Also, stepping on an applause line is totally fine, if you can follow it up with another.
I predict that Puma will not do this.
I don't know, their marketing is pretty daring.
On preview, damn you, Ardent reader.
168: I meant chiefly with respect to how convention speeches go, how the media responds to them, how the public responds to that in turn. Since I can't turn myself into someone with media influence or any influence on political speeches, I'm a bystander.
Also, if somebody said this already, sorry, but the orange suit against the blue background was pretty obviously an homage to the Broncos. And in Colorado, which apparently has become a swing state since I left, that's good politics.
oh, for fuck's sake. Give the guy a break. If he'd won, you know what, we'd have our fucking SUPERTRAIN. Talk to Dick Morris, Murdoch, and fucking cable news. The guy couldn't win in the modern era,
Ahem. Bullshit. He had it and he blew it. I was there, I watched it, in detail.
and here go the Democrats; talk to yourself.
But since you're kvetching, GO KILL SOME REPUBLICANS, OBAMA!
max
['Better?']
173: With an agenda like that, it make sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities," said Clinton. "Because these days they're awfully hard to tell apart.
Said after giving alitany of Repub screwups over the last 8 years.
alitany
The next "Madison" among the baby-naming set. heebie and jammies: don't be tempted!
They've alread settled on the gender-neutral Jammie-Jeebie for the young one.
173: tj, TPM Election Central probably has a transcript of the speech up by now, or maybe CNN does. The Twin Cities line was something about McCain as sidekick to GWB, so it's fitting that they'll be appearing at the Repub Convention in Minnesota (they're twins, see? haha).
the orange suit against the blue background was pretty obviously an homage to the Broncos
Good thing they didn't go with Rockies colors. Purple against a black background would have been striking but awfully dark.
182: On the veldt men had to post quicker because they're one-upping assholes.
I'll just let you know, JP, that I missed the quoted line in 178 because you failed to conform to house style. I will try not to think less of you as a person.
183: but awfully dark.
Clintons (and Jesus) are racists!
183: Prince could have pulled it off. What's wrong with Hillary?
185: Men had to cheat on the veldt as well.
I predict that Barack Obama will denounce Coors and Coors Light as shit-water beers. My friends, that is going to be wizard cocksucker.
186: I'm thinking of the carbon footprint! Can you imagine how many more lumens they'd have to pump into the place to make her show up on TV?
wizard cocksucker
Etymology? My OED comes up dry.
gender-neutral Jammie-Jeebie
Jambo for short.
Jesus, ari. You still haven't read the archives?
Mary Catherine doesn't like me, Tweety.
Oh, of course I like you, Apo. Geez, what do you want? that I should wear an orange pantsuit or something?
God, orange flatters no woman that I have ever met in real life. A gutsy move by Hillary!
193: Is it in these archives? I thought wizard cocksucker, along with Airwolf, was an import from The Poor Man.
The Twin Cities line was something about McCain as sidekick to GWB, so it's fitting that they'll be appearing at the Repub Convention in Minnesota (they're twins, see? haha).
I have a couple of non-politically-involved Hillary supporters (as in 'She's going to win and go on to become the greatest President in American history') I'm listening to; when they react I'll be able to tell you how it went down. Although I expect they'll be fine, since they were more or less reconciled to Obama anyways.
max
['Day or two.']
RTFA, n00b. I mean that in the kindest way possible.
197: you too, n00b.
And Airwolf is from John & Belle Have a Blog.
GOD!
God fucking damn it. I hit 'post' ages ago.
Geez, what do you want?
More shouting.
200: It is via John and Belle Have a Blog. It is from Dave's Long Box.
RTFI, ben.
Look who's got all hoity-toity all of a sudden.
People who provide links are god's children; the rest of you cretins are cylons. Thanks, Wrongshore.
If we regularly provided links, no one would be motivated to RTFA.
Newsflash: Ron Fournier of AP is a dick!
But she did extract her price.
The bill came due Tuesday. The crowd. The applause. The promise of a vote Wednesday, and a speech laced 17 times by some variation of the pronoun "I."
*17* times. I really can't fucking believe it. I bet that is the most narcissistic speech in history, it would certainly turn me off, I think. (I have 13 12 more to go. How ever can I do it? I am at a loss. I guess I am just not cut out to be a politician, I always was very self-effacing, just poor little old me.) [last 6 left as an exercise for the reader]
Fournier is the guy who worked for McCain until about a year ago, right?
To the hog farm with him.
208: No, he contemplated working for McCain. Don't think he ever left AP. He is now Washington Bureau head, but also does "analysis".
209: To be fair, Lois Lane's shortsightedness is pretty inexcusable.
Fournier tried some online venture that doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. Not sure if he was still with the AP at that point, but I remember reading that he "returned" to the AP, so it seems he left. It's not clear that he's not working for McCain anyway.
I'm just seeing Schweitzer on replayed coverage now. He's doing a good job with the crowd. I caught the end of Clinton's speech - thought it was pretty well done.
177: noooo, not bullshit.
And here we are.
Apo: Not to speak for Mary Catherine, but before the speech I had the impression (from Fleur, although I may be misinterpreting the post from Becks, and generally from everyone here who was strongly negative about Hillary) that there was a real worry she was going to try to knife Obama, either just out of spite or to set up a 2012 run. And I thought that was an overstated and kind of goofy fear, and it would have been nice to see someone say "Golly, I was afraid Hillary was going to backstab Obama; I'm relieved that she was enthusiastically supportive, and in hindsight I feel a little silly about having thought so little of her."
I'd have to read some old threads to figure out exactly who I'd like to have said this, but I do kind of wish someone had.
It turns out that through his wife McCain has ties to Bronfman and the Canadian Jewish Mafia. That should kill his candidacy right there. Leonard Cohen, Mordecai Richler, and their negativistic ilk are abhorred by the American people, and Seagram's isn't really all that.
there was a real worry she was going to try to knife Obama
Well, *I* never thought that was a possibility. Whatever else is true of HRC, she's not an idiot. And she made it perfectly clear in her concession speech that she'd support the nominee. However, any time Clinton comes up, MC starts having a heated and overly personal debate with some alternate world apostropher who's making a set of arguments that this apostropher can't see anywhere in the thread.
I've mostly taken to assuming that it's a variation on the Emerson-stras dance and just ignoring it.
218: Yeah, like I said, I'm not really sure who I thought had that belief without going through old threads, so aiming the irritation at you specifically was probably mistaken. But I did have the strong impression that such a belief was out there, and if that's what MC was annoyed about, I had the same reaction. Not saying she was right to be cross at you, but if you were confused about the subtext, that's my sense of it.
I've been watching the convention on PBS, and I really, really despise David Brooks. Everything out of his mouth is a lie -- he was claiming that Hillary had forbidden Obama to pick Sibelius, and there was all sorts of tut-tutting about how "Well, that's not very feminist of her or her supporters, is it?" Speculation about how people might react to a pick isn't something you can condemn them for unless they, you know, actually react that way.
David Brooks is playing his designated role as shit-stirring provocateur, along with the rest of McCain's media surrogates. And yes, every word out of his mouth is a lie, just like Bill Kristol. When they do it on television, you can see on their faces that they know it's bullshit.
A lot of the Clinton mercenaries seem willing to stab the Democrats in the back. Lanny Davis and Howard W-lfs-n are at Fox, Dick Morris has been sliming the Clintons and the Democrats for years (Stephanopolous has too, though less so), and Mark Penn is back in Uzbekistan or someplace after creating McCain's campaign strategy for him via Hillary. Carville seems more or less loyal as long as the money keeps coming in somehow, but he's one degree of separation from Dick Cheney every day of the week.
There was talk about Murdoch at Fox maybe supporting Hillary, but that wasn't what it was about at all. Her key staff members were setting themselves up for cushy Fox jobs. Hillary was just a sideline for those guys -- same as Mark Penn, who wouldn't even quit lobbying for the duration of the campaign.
There always have been good reasons for Democrats to dislike the Clintons, and they didn't go away when Hillary replaced Bill. Putting people like those I just mentioned in positions of influence in the Democratic Party is one of the big ones.
Terry McAuliffe also sucked up to Fox, but he's a money-raiser and not a parasite like the others.
I did do the predictions blog, but the internet hasn't been great about emailing me predictions to catalog, so it's been a little sparse. I'm only one man!
I thought Hillary's speech was very very good, so I disagree with Apo in that respect. That said:
"Golly, I was afraid Hillary was going to backstab Obama; I'm relieved that she was enthusiastically supportive, and in hindsight I feel a little silly about having thought so little of her."
Can we find whoever thought this and mock them pointedly? I can't believe this describes anyone here.
I confess that I might have been one of those people, based on the things her surrogates and some of her big supporters were saying. I never was at all sure, but I had passing fears of that kind.
To my knowledge, of the big members of her professional team, only Carville and maybe McAuliffe have pitched in so far.
And Sean Wilentz has been beastly.
OT: I need a one page summary (with links is acceptable) about why someone should vote for Obama. It should preferably only be the pro-Obama stuff, not anti-McCain.
Medical insurance.
Middle-class-friendly tax policy.
Supreme court.
Social issues generally.
Possibility of a wiser fiscal policy.
Possibility of a wiser foreign policy. Certainty of a less provocative one.
Possible reinvestment in America.
Possibility of a return to legality, habeus corpus. etc.
203: Ummm, isn't that from Ernest Cline via Dave's Long Box?
229: Possibility of a return to legality, habeus corpus. etc.
Start salvaging the Justice Department in general. Voter access and rights specifically. Election integrity.
In fact salvage all of the Admin departments. EPA in particular.
It's possible to be pro-Obama and not anti-McCain, but you reallyy have to be anti-Bush because so much of Obama's task will be salvage. I've proposed "Cleaning up the Mess" as Obama's governing theme, though Americans are positive thinkers and it wouldn't really work. Maybe "More Lemonade Than You've Ever Seen Before" would be positive enough.
227:
Restoration of checks and balances
Restoration of Habeus Corpus
Fixing the Homeland Security/TSA clusterfuck
On environmental protection, even with Obama's wavering on Alaskan and offshore oil he can undo a lot of past damage and reproefessionalize the EPA, National Park Service, Justice Dept., etc.
Obama will be so much better than Bush that I ssomewhat worry that he won't walk things all the way back, because he won't have to. He's made a number of toxic-moderate statements during his move to the center. He knows he has us over a barrel.
Voter access and rights is a big point, and one I trust Obama on, but it's only a good argument for a Democrat. If Max is trying to convince a centrist Republican, that might not be a good one.
and in hindsight I feel a little silly about having thought so little of her."
This strikes me as bizarre. Of course it was a concern. She--like everyone else running for the Presidency--is really, really, really ambitious. Is there really any doubt about whether she would prefer to run in '12 (as Obama would have preferred, had the positions been reversed)? The limiting factor on her actions is the extent to which she would be blamed, either by Obama supporters or party regulars, for his loss. It's not her deep decency as a person (as it wouldn't have been for Obama).
- John McCain is on Ambien
- John McCain thinks we should be at war with Russia right now
- John McCain differs from Bush in zero policy areas except for wanting to start more wars
- If Obama is elected black people will believe there is a future for them after all and stop committing so many crimes
John McCain is one guy, and he isn't some sort of Superman. He will have to depend on the Republican party to get anything done. And those guys are same ones who gave you the last eight years.
216: Look, in hindsight, nobody is going to feel silly for having had such suspicions about HRC, since she spent the primaries actively providing fodder for them. It's a relief, however, that she did the smart thing and the right thing, and a good first step to winning back much of the goodwill she squandered in 2008. Hopefully the Big Dog shows similar acumen tonight.
This is surely a new standard for stupid Internet arguments: being annoyed because someone didn't take back something that they never said.
237: Is there really any doubt about whether she would prefer to run in '12 (as Obama would have preferred, had the positions been reversed)?
Well, yeah, there is doubt. Of course she's insanely ambitious, like Obama and like anyone else who gets as far as being a serious candidate in a major party primary. But first, and most cynically because I figure that's what will appeal to you, feeling silly about having thought so little of her covers feeling silly about having thought she was stupidly and counterproductively ambitious, rather than sanely and intelligently so. Thinking she'd backstab Obama at this point (in the service of personal ambition) seems to me to be thinking she's not just a monster of ambition (which they all are) but a fool.
Second, and while I don't expect you to buy this, I do, monsters of ambition or not, people get into politics because they have ideological beliefs they feel strongly about. I don't think it's likely that the only factor which sways Hillary between supporting McCain and Obama is what it will do to her personal career -- she's got political goals she cares about (not all of which I share), and getting Obama elected serves those goals much better than McCain would. Thinking she doesn't give a damn at all about what happens to the country as long as she's in power goes past sane cynicism into oversimplified they're-all-exactly-the-same-ism.
216: To echo Doc Slack, there was certainly nothing to feel silly about. Hillary Clinton did enthusiastically support Barack Obama in her convention speech but it's hardly the case that, for example, the McCain campaign feels "silly" for using materials and strategies developed by the Clinton campaign during the primary in order to attack Obama to this day. Mark Penn advocated all along, and especially late in the game, moving toward a character-focused campaign designed to question Obama's patriotism and American-ness. Although his strategy didn't obtain his was nevertheless a high-profile voice that intended to take the primary all the way to tomorrow. There was nothing silly about fearing that his voice would lead Clinton's choir.
242: Um, Cala? SCMT and DS are both engaging on the basis that the belief I identified was reasonable and therefore shouldn't be apologized for. Doesn't that take the discussion of that belief out of the realm of being unusually stupid, given that there are people now standing up and saying they themselves felt something similar?
And add Armsmasher to the chorus.
And to get back to what I said in the beginning, a chorus of "Golly, I guess Hillary wasn't as bad as I thought" would have been nice. I can't require anyone to say anything, that would be silly, but it would make me happy if the reaction to the speech had included a little "I was afraid she'd hurt the party, thank goodness she was either too decent or too sensible to do what I feared."
There was nothing silly about fearing that his voice would lead Clinton's choir.
I don't know, I think it's a little silly. Whatever bad blood there is between the Clintons and the Obama campaign, I don't think it would be reasonable to expect a talented and experienced politician to knife her party's nominee at their convention.
More of 246: Which, to be clear, Doc Slack just said, which was very reasonable and decent of him.
I'll go back to the point I've made several times. Several of the insanely ambitious mercenaries the Clintons relied on are quite capable of working against the Democrats; Dick Morris already is doing so, Mark Penn probably soon will be unless he's too busy with the Uzbeks, and it's too soon to be sure about Lanny Davis and W-lfs-n.
People hate the Clintons for a reason. Obama is already a disappointment on policy, and I'm starting to have doubts about his campaigning too, but if he wins at least he'll be able to root the Clinton / DLC people out of the Democratic Party, and he's already devised a much healthier funding base than the horrible one Terry McAuliffe gave us.
Lanny Davis, Mark Penn, and Dick Morris are a really bad legacy of the Clintons. She is going to have to do some amazing campaigning to counter-act those buffoons.
245: I didn't realize the comment system was so messed up! I thought the numbers were going in sequential order. My bad. I see clearly now that the early conversation was in response to 237 and 241.
Or, alternately, yes, it's still silly to jump all over people for not responding to arguments thought by other people near them on the Internet.
The mainstream narrative of a continued "rift" will not die. If you want your head to explode read MoDo today. And the usual suspects are trumpeting that the endorsement was too generic, it was all about "a Democrat" winning and not Obama specifically.
Gah.
249: Yeah, that's all valid. If there's one thing wrong with the Clintons (and there are a million), it's that they believe you can rely on people who don't support your ideology to work for it politically. And I've put that softly, but it's really, really stupid and culpably indifferent to policy results. Hillary's much further right than I like, but I don't think she actually agrees with all of the horrors like Mark Penn and Dick Morris she hires across the board, she just thinks she can use their political skills without having it impact her policy positions. And this is terribly harmful and stupid.
Hopefully the Big Dog shows similar acumen tonight.
The nice thing about all of the fearmongering about Hillary's potential backstab is it set the bar nicely low, and dictated that today's news coverage would be about Democratic unity. With any kind of luck, the media will spend the leadup to Bill's speech wondering if Bill will be able to restrain his rage, or will haul off and punch Obama.
Obviously, Bill is going to try to outdo his wife in praising Obama, and Bill's a heck of a speechifier. I'm looking forward to tonight's speech.
I have a morbid fascination with crazy PUMA blogs, and HRC's "Were you in it just for me?" lines are forgotten, but the Harriet Tubman "Keep going!" lines are being taken as a Secret Message.
251: Oh, honestly. I believed people were worried about Hillary knifing Obama because of the general tenor of past conversations, and because of some specific expressions of concern, like Fleur's and Becks' (unless I misread the post). And so I explicitly stated the subtext I perceived. And maybe I just got lucky, or maybe, you know, I correctly understood how people were feeling, but based on the information I had I came to a correct conclusion that at least some commenters here had that concern.
I'm really not seeing how a conversation that works along those lines is unusually stupid.
I wasn't worried about her speech being harmful; she's a pro, and an incredibly disciplined politican (much more so than Bill). I was worried about it not being as helpful as it needed to be--sounds like that was needless. I haven't actually gotten a chance to watch a second of the convention yet, though.
This is starting to piss me off. I'd dislike Hillary just as much if she had a penis. She's a major politician who has played a major role in the Democratic Party for 16 years or so, and in many respects it was a bad one. Her people (notably Carville, Penn and Begala) squelched any attempt by the Democrats to oppose the Iraq War; if they'd had their way I doubt that Congress could have been regained in 2006.
I'm very glad that she didn't sabotage the party. I still hope that Obama drives her people out of the Party once he wins, leaving her a diminished figure with much-reduced clout.
Somebody had to lose, and Hillary lost.
The mainstream narrative of a continued "rift" will not die.
The media aren't going to be happy unless they settle the nomination with a swordfight and someone gets cut. It's been beyond ridiculous. Like I said 'betrays no anger? the fuck?' The woman's a professional; she didn't get 18 million votes by being stupid; and oddly enough, throwing a temper tantrum at the convention has not historically been a way to set up a presidential run in eight years.
I, for one, was worried she'd grab the trophy out of Howard Dean's hands and begin her acceptance speech.
I'm really not seeing how a conversation that works along those lines is unusually stupid.
You explicitly stated that subtext as a reason that it was understandable to be upset with the thread as it was, which is a thread where the most critical comment of Clinton's speech is 'meh.' Everything else is positive, or mocking the media. With some fashion commentary.
Now that I've had a night to think about it, I've decided what I found missing in all of the speeches last night, including Clinton's. I want barn-burning, blistering takedowns of Bush and McCain. Not just red meat, but ragged, bloody meat chunks with fur still attached. And it appears the Obama campaign is nixing that and instead trying to stress a feel-good, rags-to-riches theme.
Which leads me to worry that, for all their strategic brilliance in the primary, they still haven't come to grips with the campaign that's going to be run against them and what it's going to take to counter it. I'm hoping that it is instead just a slow ratcheting up that will really accelerate with WJC and Biden tonight.
Obama's "post-partisan" shtick worries me. We're nowhere near being a post-partisan country. And none of the speeches last night (with the exception of Deval Patrick's) really took it to the other side. If, in fact, they don't start turning up the heat and fast, the GOP is going to have a far more effective convention. They won't have any problem pulling out the heavy ammo for four straight nights.
But Lizard, given the media coverage going in, which albeit is neither fair nor something that Hillary Clinton can directly control, was it not reasonable to believe that she could softpedal her enthusiasm for Obama just enough to do him some little bit of harm—to damn him with faint praise? While she can't be blamed for everything the media says, at the same time she is more aware of its usefulness than almost anyone. She knew going in that there was an enthusiasm threshold and that her speech would be perceived to fall on one side of it or the other. The problem with writing off back-stabbing fears as silly is that a speech that could be decried as back-stabbing (that is, not helpful) would read like something close to the speech she gave.
I have a personal stake in this which makes me especially touchy (not that I usually need a reason, obvs). My sister is a PUMA, and she's sending the family all the creepy shit Penn put together for Hillary. I haven't even talked to her about it at all, because I'm afraid of what I'd say.
Perhaps my fears about Hillary herself at the convention were exaggerated, but we're still dealing with the after-effects of her campaign. And I do expect a certain proportion of her voters, funders, and mercenaries to misbehave.
And as I said several times during the primary season: when a woman and an African-American became to two main contenders for the Presidential nomination, on the one hand that was uniquely wonderful, but on the other it meant that one of the Democrats' most loyal constituencies was going to have to lose.
I agree that some of the Dem reaction to Hillary, here and elsewhere, was sexist, but the things my PUMA CLintnista sister are saying are racist.
I was worried about it not being as helpful as it needed to be
Right—which would have made it harmful, distorted and transmogrified by the media, as Clinton had every reason to know it would be. There was reason to fear that, and thank goodness the speech was as helpful as it needed to be.
Thinking she'd backstab Obama at this point (in the service of personal ambition) seems to me to be thinking she's not just a monster of ambition (which they all are) but a fool.
Or believed herself sufficiently skilled, and sufficiently well-positioned in the party, to get away with it. See Frenemy.
I don't think it's likely that the only factor which sways Hillary between supporting McCain and Obama is what it will do to her personal career -- she's got political goals she cares about (not all of which I share), and getting Obama elected serves those goals much better than McCain would. Thinking she doesn't give a damn at all about what happens to the country as long as she's in power goes past sane cynicism into oversimplified they're-all-exactly-the-same-ism.
The primary complaint made about McCain by Dems, at least in the blogosphere, seems to regard his foreign policy, and it remains unclear whether Clinton is closer to McCain or Obama in that area. People, rightly or wrongly, seem to believe that McCain doesn't care that much about domestic policy or will be limited in that area by Congressional Dems. I suspect that partly explains why a higher proportion of Dems--and my recollection is that Clinton backers are the largest subgroup within that group--support McCain than supported Bush in '04.
That said, she didn't shiv Obama, but rather did what she needed to do. And if she had shived him, that would have been at least as much on Obama as on Clinton; it's his convention, his party (for the moment), and therefore his problem to solve.
262: I had this thought, and with the caveat I've only been reading about the coverage, I don't think it's really a problem. For people not rabidly following the primaries, this is their first introduction, if not to Obama, almost certainly to Michelle, etc. They're not yet 'our guy taking it to the other side' yet; I think they need to establish 'this is our guy.'
Clinton had a good line about Bush & McCain in the twin cities.
As someone who has occasionally behaved as if Hillary Clinton was the cold, uncaring mother who never gave me enough love, I thought she gave a barn burner of a speech. She was really on fire. Contra Apo, I thought it was better than her exit speech, maybe the best speech I've ever seen her give: passionate, funny, touching, gracious, and unequivocally supportive of the Obama/Biden campaign. I don't know how anyone could ask for more from a speech.
Of course, you only saw it if you were watching C-SPAN. Otherwise you got to see Pat Buchanan or Chris Matthews hollering.
It's a little amazing how unnecessary these guys have become. So far, I've watched this convention entirely on C-SPAN or YouTube. I can't wait until everyone else discovers how unnecessary they are, too.
262: What Apo said.
A lot of the shit from the Bush years will hit the fan while Obama is President, and unless he succeeds in blaming Bush, he will be blamed. The Republicans are completely shameless and are already laying the groundwork for doing that.
The campaign is the time for Obama to make it clear who is responsible, and also for him to explain that a major part of his job will just be cleaning up messes. If he doesn't do that, by 2010 he'll be a failed President.
If Obama can't make the Republican Party into damaged goods and keep them that way for a decade or two, the Republicans are going to get another chance in 2012.
||
Does anybody know when Brian Schweitzer spoke? I heard him on the radio briefly, but I'm not sure what time it was. If you go to cspan, you can watch Hillary or Mark Warner (snore) or the whole damn day. I spent some time fast forwarding through bits, so I caught Kucinich, but I'm not going to watch all 5 hours to get Schweitzer's whole speech. The youtube clip I saw was only a minute long.
|>
261: Yeah. I did. I had a true belief, based on prior conversations, that there were a number of commenters here who thought it reasonably likely that Hillary would try to damage Obama through this speech? Was my belief stupid?
None of the commenters who held that belief said anything, before MC and later I got cranky about it, to acknowledge that their fears were, in the event, ill founded. Was noticing that fact stupid?
I, and I'm guessing MC, got a little irritated that there didn't seem to be anyone who had been worried on those grounds who thought it worthwhile to give Hillary credit for not being the maniacal engine of destruction they thought she might have been. Given that the post opening the thread appeared to implicitly refer to those fears, and Tweety's early comments appeared to as well, and so the topic had been broached, being specifically irritated at any individual who hadn't explicitly stated that fear would have been unjust, but was a little irritation at everyone who felt that way but didn't feel that it was necessary to walk it back when their fears turned out to have been misplaced really unusually stupid? I mean, I'll cop to being a moron, but I swear I see things that dumb on the internet pretty frequently.
I fear this insanely minute meta-dispute will only become stupider unless LB actually names the people she is disappointed in here.
going back to "Tweety's early comments", I note that in comment #7 he says "Hooray, Hillary!"
I do not think that LB was imagining things. Worrying about Clinton shanking Obama was at least a passing thought for a lot of people. As I've been saying, I think that this was based more on her surrogates and mercenaries than it is on her.
Those guys are the real losers. Hillary is going to have to remake herself without them, and that's possible for her to do. They're going to have to find other careers, at least I hope so, because Obama will never trust them?
This accounts especially for Sean Wilentz's nastiness. He must have had big plans for himself. Krugman seems to be taking it a bit better.
I mean, we all mocked the GOP conventioneers wearing the purple heart band-aids in 2004 and Zell Miller's batshit insane "he'll defend us with spee-yut-bawls" speech but, however distasteful and ridiculous it appeared to us ever-so-reasonable people, that shit worked.
I'm with Armsmasher and SCMT. For the life of me I can't understand why the consummate-politician Clintons find it so fucking hard to embrace enthusiastically Obama's salable qualities and defuse the "unreadiness" taint. Even if they don't believe it, when has that ever been a problem for either one of them?
273: Nah, cause I'm not going to bother arguing it. I will grant that it is not the dumbest thing on the Internet, since that seems to be the point of contention at the moment.
275: Well, technically, the Diebold machines worked.
270: Last night, just before Mark Warner, I believe. His speech sparked a debate among my friends over whether a bolo tie can be worn with the top button undone. (Answer: it depends, but a single-breasted jacket shouldn't ever be buttoned, the way his was.)
273: Now that it's been stated explicitly, Slack and Tim and Armsmasher and Emerson have all copped to worrying about it, Fleur did yesterday, and if I'm reading Becks and Tweety in his first couple of posts, they were both worried as well. I'm not individually annoyed with any one of them for not retracting their fears, I just would have been happier if someone who had been worried had piped up explictly along those lines.
Take the arbitrary social conventions to the indentation thread, 279.
261, 271: An argument about the merits of having a different argument may be a little meta for the morning.
give Hillary credit for not being the maniacal engine of destruction they thought she might have been.
We evaluate these things differently. The media has repeatedly characterized Kennedy's speech in '80 as damning Carter with faint (or no) praise, and determined (gawd only knows how) that it helped cost Carter the election. Clinton needn't have been peculiarly monstrous to pull a Kennedy. (I suppose that depends on your evaluation of Kennedy and the of his speech in '80.)
I hereby offer LizardBreath my individual annoyance services. I'll even do it pro bono.
I'm catching some clips, and man, someone needs to give Sebelius some oratory lessons. She obviously knows her shit, but she seems not quite sure what to do with applause lines.
277: If you'll drop it, I will. Your 242, with the "new standard for stupid Internet arguments" just annoyed me -- I like saving that kind of language for things that I actually want to fight about.
282: Kennedy actually refused to shake Carter's hand on the podium -- that was pretty explicit bad feeling.
Obama's "post-partisan" shtick worries me.
I'm a bit befuddled, too. But you have to imagine the counterfactual: In America, there are a limited number of ways for a black man to be acceptable to white people on the national stage. There's a good chance the Angry Black Man persona simply wouldn't be tolerated by the media.
(Hillary was similarly constrained by gender. People who say there are obvious things she could/should have done to win election tend to forget that.)
Let us not forget that George W. Bush was also a post-partisan candidate in 2000. Sadly, George was running against a Democrat, so he was able to get away with it.
Also: If Obama does decide to get tougher, it will go over better in the media if he does so after the media spends a few weeks bitching about his unwillingness to get tough.
Schweitzer was a fashion dogwhistle to the Utter West states, so far away from the stylish glow of the Western Glamor Capital, Dallas.
I'm not individually annoyed with any one of them for not retracting their fears
I'm definitely not willing to admit that my fears were silly, like you asked. That they weren't borne out doesn't make them unreasonable.
I just would have been happier if someone who had been worried had piped up explicitly along those lines.
She did a good job; she also did exactly what she needed to do and what she's pretty uniquely qualified to do (giving a rousing speech, targeting both a general audience and a specific following). What I really feel toward Clinton, wrt your irritation, is a mix of equal parts Hooray!, What have you done for me lately?, and What, you want a cookie for doing your job?
I think Obama wants to be feel-good now, and will have surrogates attack McCain in the closing months.
I really want to see Biden use his knife skills.
Schweitzer's speech was pretty good. A bit distracting that he didn't seem to know what to do with his hands, but good to see someone working the crowd.
I, and I'm guessing MC, got a little irritated that there didn't seem to be anyone who had been worried on those grounds who thought it worthwhile to give Hillary credit for not being the maniacal engine of destruction they thought she might have been.
Yes. That there was indeed that subtext (Hillary might knife Obama and etc) is pretty obvious in the first dozen or so comments to this thread, with PGD intervening very early on to say c'mon guys, this is about Obama now.
And PGD is right. This is about Obama now and what he needs to do to get elected. I really hope he doesn't listen to people like David Brooks, who think his emphasis on personal biography is great but he just needs to refine and hone his personal/biographical message. In addition to going after McCain/Bush on the economy, and never losing an opportunity to depict McCain as Bush III, he needs to get out there and "reach out to" or "connect with" the traditional Democratic base: not in terms of who he is, but in terms of who they are and what an Obama (as opposed to a McCain) presidency would mean for them in terms of health care, jobs, housing, etc.
I'm definitely not willing to admit that my fears were silly, like you asked. That they weren't borne out doesn't make them unreasonable.
I think this has been the point of everyone so identified, if that wasn't clear. Again, the bar was "Not as monstrous/ambitious/angry/whatever as Kennedy."
For the life of me I can't understand why the consummate-politician Clintons find it so fucking hard to embrace enthusiastically Obama's salable qualities and defuse the "unreadiness" taint.
The purpose of Clinton's speech last night was not to convince Obama backers that she is on board, or to convince the media that she believes Obama has enough experience; it was to begin the process of convincing the 20% of holdouts to vote for Obama. That was the only audience that was important. Given the depth of the disappointment and resentment felt by that 20%, this was a very difficult task, and one speech was not going to do it. If Clinton was too enthusiastic and displayed any contrition about her earlier criticisms of Obama it could have backfired by deepening the resentment. At the same time she needed to avoid appearing unenthusiastic in order to bridge the gap between her and Obama's supporters. Given the complexity of the task, she did a pretty fucking admirable job.
What, you want a cookie for doing your job?
I really don't like the "You want a cookie"? meme, regardless of the context. People don't do their jobs without cookies: I'm not here because I have an abstract duty to litigate, I'm here because I get a paycheck. So, yeah, when you've been worried that someone was going to be a damaging enemy going forward, and they turn out instead to be competently and effectively on your side, is a little praise so much to ask? (Not that this is really applicable, in that Clinton's not reading this, so neither of us can grant or withhold cookies from her.)
You can selectively argue that point about rhetoric, LB—that's fine. I don't think you have ground to stand on to be irritated with any of those people you've identified, though.
A cookie would be kind of nice, actually.
I don't think you have ground to stand on to be irritated with any of those people you've identified, though.
meet
i>I'm not individually annoyed with any one of them for not retracting their fears
That would have been much punchier if properly formatted.
i>I'm not individually annoyed with any one of them for not retracting their fears
I know that I am not alone is saying that I am much happier with that knowledge.
Tweety's early comments appeared to as well
Did not.
For what it's worth at this advanced moment in the debate about whether somebody who was or wasn't in the thread should have acknowledged that they no longer felt the way that LB suspected they might have felt (although they didn't say it): I didn't avoid watching her speech because I was worried that she would somehow fail to endorse Obama. I was (a) worried that her speech would be crappy, because they usually are, and (b) that it would -- intentionally or no -- provide enough of a hook for her tiresome diehards and the media idiots who love them to parse her speech into a fingers-crossed endorsement. Actually that's not even accurate. I was worried that I would parse her speech looking for the kinds of things that those crazy people would interpret that way, and this would in turn make me crazy. As it turns out, she could have said fucking anything and those two groups of crazy people would pull the same thing out of it, and as it further turns out her speech was apparently great, so there we are. Maybe I'll watch it today. I'm glad, honestly, that it's over.
I really don't like the "You want a cookie"? meme, regardless of the context. People don't do their jobs without cookies:
I don't think cookie is a stand-in for salary, I think it's a stand-in for humoring someone who expects extra recognition for doing their expected duties.
Thanks apo. I've had trouble with beltway blips in the past. You click play and the ad covers the video, and if you click close, the whole thing goes away. I tried it in safari instead of Firefox, and it worked this time.
In response to apo's 262, I offer this Oliver Willis post, which pretty much describes my feelings on the issue.
I don't think cookie is a stand-in for salary, I think it's a stand-in for humoring someone who expects extra recognition for doing their expected duties.
Are you saying there are no actual cookies involved here? Because I've been doing my job real good here, and it's almost lunchtime.
We buy M&Ms when someone goes above and beyond the call of duty. Sometimes, even a large bag.
303: Yeah, this is a broader child-rearing, interacting with people generally, kind of thing. If you had a kid who uniformly did their expected duties, without omitting anything or screwing them up, would that be a bare minimum, unworthy of notice, or a pretty incredibly awesome kid? I'd say a kid meeting that standard would deserve, and should get, all sorts of praise for being wonderful.
And pretty much the same thing for adults. I've had terrible secretaries and awesome secretaries, and the difference was that the terrible ones didn't actually do their expected duties successfully, and the awesome ones did. They both got paid, but the awesome ones got, and IMO deserved, a lot of interpersonal stroking as well.
I'd say a kid meeting that standard would deserve, and should get, all sorts of praise for being wonderful.
Liberal. Maybe we could set up a game of midnight basketball for Clinton.
And pretty much the same thing for adults. I've had terrible secretaries and awesome secretaries, and the difference was that the terrible ones didn't actually do their expected duties successfully, and the awesome ones did. They both got paid, but the awesome ones got, and IMO deserved, a lot of interpersonal stroking as well.
And it's the former, not the latter, of which people would most likely say "you want a cookie for doing your job?" Unless you're suggesting that the praise/lack of praise actually caused the variance in performance (not likely), I don't get your point.
I like to think of my salary as my reward for being a pretty terrific kid.
I just had a cookie for breakfast. It was oatmeal, so that makes it okay. I had to buy it myself though; no one handed me that cookie.
310: So you'd say "You want a cookie for doing your job" to someone as a way to convey "IMO, you're not doing your job"? I hadn't understood that to be how the phrase was used. I guess I could hear "You want a cookie" as "You generally suck. Even if, for once, you did something that you should do consistently, that's not enough to merit praise."
And it's the former, not the latter, of which people would most likely say "you want a cookie for doing your job?"
Right. It's the person who seems to have inadvertently stumbled upon actually doing their job correctly for once, and who wants recognition for this, who is the butt of the joke. Not the person who consistently does their job competently.
Dickerson over at Slate gets this one right - he puts Hillary's speech in its appropriate historical context, and compares her to Reagan in '76 and Kennedy in '80. (It might also be useful to reflect on Humphrey in '72 and McCarthy in '68, though I have no idea what speaking roles they had at their conventions.)
Tuesday night, the Democrats celebrated Ted Kennedy. He was in Clinton's shoes in 1980, after his hard-fought battle with Jimmy Carter. When he gave his convention speech, he mentioned Jimmy Carter once, congratulating him only in passing. Ronald Reagan never mentioned Gerald Ford in 1976. Hillary Clinton named Barack Obama more than a dozen times. Kennedy's famous speech declared that the dream will never die. Clinton's pitch was that the dream cannot live without electing Barack Obama.
All correct. But this strikes me as being incorrect:
But there was one big flaw in the pitch: Clinton never made the case that Barack Obama was ready to lead as commander in chief.
Given the damage that Hillary did on this, I think she did right in not bringing it up. From what I've seen, today's coverage largely ignored this theme, but that would have been different had she tried to rebut her own words.
I had to buy it myself though; no one handed me that cookie.
Yet another reason to vote Obama in '08!
Now that we've settled this important matter, cookies for all!
Although, the original Chris Rock joke is more in line with LB's interpretation - that someone doing a consistent, competent job at staying in their kid's life and staying out of trouble doesn't deserve praise.
I think we should all get together and send Hillary a giant cookie.
It depends on what you mean by 'meeting the standard' is, right? The secretary who defends his incompetence by pointing out that he didn't spill coffee on your briefs is going to be the guy you think 'want a cookie?', not the one who competently does all duties successfully. I'm sure you're going to praise Sally and Newt for doing well in school, not for refraining from slicing each other. etc.
It's the person who seems to have inadvertently stumbled upon actually doing their job correctly for once, and who wants recognition for this, who is the butt of the joke.
Because they don't understand that a cookie is a sometime food.
not for refraining from slicing each other
Although, in case they're reading, this is a good idea too.
318: I thought the line was 'I'm not in jail. I take care of my kids.'
318: I've actually thought about this as what I've privately named the Schindler's List paradox. Looked at one way, Schindler didn't do anything more than the bare minimum of his moral obligation -- anyone in his position who didn't do everything possible to save people from the camps would have been a monster. On the other hand, most people in his position would have been monsters; the fact that he resisted the temptation to be a monster made him a hero. I think there's a place for realizing that something can be a minimum obligatory duty, and still be worthy of recognition and praise.
Schindler definitely deserved a cookie.
Made with yummy christian infant blood!
So, cookies for Newt, Sally, mcmc, maybe Schindler. None for Clinton, or Hitler.
324: Sure, if we postulate Nazis killing secretaries who don't spill coffee.
320, 322: I occasionally wonder about whether the TKD lessons are a good idea. The school lets them pick (reasonably matched) partners for sparring practice, and we've had occasions where Newt has made Sally cross, and she has as a result challenged him during sparring practice and wiped the mat with him. On the one hand, this seems like bad behavior. On the other hand, it's all controlled and rule-bound, and she's generally pretty reasonable.
But there's definitely some interpersonal violence going on there.
So you'd say "You want a cookie for doing your job" to someone as a way to convey "IMO, you're not doing your job"? I hadn't understood that to be how the phrase was used.
Well, yes, and also to someone who acts as if they doing their job correctly if they were getting more stroking and affirmation, etc. And also as suggested in 314. It's a wonderfully versatile phrase.
295 Grumps, I agree with you that her speech was solid for those narrow ends. My gripe really extends to the general comments/campaigning since her (belated) concession and is equally focused on WJC. I have yet to see either one assertively try to sell Obama (and "Obama" is the "issue" on voters' minds).
327: I think in keeping with this thread, we don't actually give any cookies to individuals, just nebulous cookies to the nebulous individuals who did what we wanted them to do, not anyone specific.
329: That's hilarious. Probably wrong, but hilarious.
Schindler didn't do anything more than the bare minimum of his moral obligation -- anyone in his position who didn't do everything possible to save people from the camps would have been a monster.
Huh. I don't know that most people believe that. At least, I don't think of civilians who didn't take risks to fight the Nazis as monsters. They just weren't heroes. People are--or at least I am--pretty forgiving about not risking death to save another. That may be my own moral failing, though.
Get Newt on some performance-enhancing drugs, stat.
332: She's been campaigning for two months; I just don't think it's been covered as much, probably because it doesn't fit into the West Wing episode going on in the media's head.
330: Oh, sure. But there's a pride thing about accepting; saying "No, thank you" would imply admitting that she was going to walk all over him. But he's not terrorized or anything, and they're not coming out of sparring with bruises (much).
Insert a "would be" in the second sentence of 331. And I'm not sure why it posted about 5 minutes after I clicked "post".
Hillary barely touched McCain last night. After all of your pleas for democrats to "attack, attack, attack" why are you letting Hillary off the hook? Begala and Carville have also been criticizing the dems for not attacking enough, but nary a word from them about Hillary's failure to take on McCain beyond "No way, no how, no McCain." MSM expectations are everything, it seems, and by that standard she did fine, I guess. But, she did not attack McCain in the way Carville and Begala led me to expect or in the way you led me to hope. I guess it's left for Biden to do that.
335: In about five years, nature should take care of that.
we don't actually give any cookies to individuals, just nebulous cookies to the nebulous individuals who did what we wanted them to do, not anyone specific
Okay, you know who gets a cookie? Whoever made the Stickies application for Mac. That thing is my pensieve. Without Stickies I couldn't think about thinking about something later. It was made, sure, but it was made to be very simple and it probably took work on someone's behalf to not let someone go mucking it up with a lot of features.
340: Huh. I'd have to look at a transcript, but she seemed to go after McCain pretty effectively to me.
Perusing the last 20 comments or so, I am overcome by the craving for a cookie. I, in particular, am craving Oreo cookies, though this detail is neither here not there.
Someone we know is cruelly prejudiced against the mentally ill.
I think there's a place for realizing that something can be a minimum obligatory duty, and still be worthy of recognition and praise.
There's a lot of context that goes into when to praise. It is not just a matter of setting a line for minimum duties and praising when someone goes beyond that.
Praising someone for being decent when everyone else fell to barbarism is one case. I also think there is room for praising people who do better than they normally do. If the goal of praise is to reinforce behavior, you want to be providing reinforcement whenever someone stretches.
When Joey was potty training, we gave him a treat for using the potty. Caroline, who was four at the time, demanded that she get a treat for using the potty, too. "It is not fair that Joey gets a treat and I don't." We said that Caroline could get a treat for making progress on a skill she is working on, like picking up her messes, but not for skills she's already mastered.
But he's not terrorized or anything
I would say as long as it doesn't spill over outside of class it isn't a big deal.
All of this:
Now, John McCain is my colleague and my friend. He has served our country with honor and courage. But we don't need four more years of the last eight years...
AUDIENCE: No!
Senator Clinton: ... more economic stagnation and less affordable health care...
AUDIENCE: No!
Senator Clinton: ... more high gas prices and less alternative energy...
AUDIENCE: No!
Senator Clinton: ... more jobs getting shipped overseas and fewer jobs created here at home...
AUDIENCE: No!
Senator Clinton: ... more skyrocketing debt, and home foreclosures, and mounting bills that are crushing middle-class families...
AUDIENCE: No!
Senator Clinton: ... more war and less diplomacy...
AUDIENCE: No!
Senator Clinton: ... more of a government where the privileged few come first and everyone else comes last.
AUDIENCE: No!
Senator Clinton: Well, John McCain says the economy is fundamentally sound. John McCain doesn't think 47 million people without health insurance is a crisis. John McCain wants to privatize Social Security. And in 2008, he still thinks it's OK when women don't earn equal pay for equal work. (AUDIENCE BOOS)
Now, with an agenda like that, it makes perfect sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities, because these days they're awfully hard to tell apart.
That all sounded very effective to me.
340: Reading the transcript, she says "Now, with an agenda like that, it makes perfect sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities, because these days they're awfully hard to tell apart." That's a good zinger, and she had a *lot* to do in that speech, viz., make Obama convincingly her candidate. There wasn't a lot of time left to go after McCain.
So was Hillary's performance better or worse than Schindler's? I'm hearing that he did the bare minimum, whereas she excelled.
340: Didn't the same piece speculate that it's Obama, not Clinton, who doesn't want a negative campaign?
I really think that a negative campaign is absolutely necessary, because when the shit hits the fan during Obama's term people have to already know where the responsibility lies. Otherwise Obama will be blamed for everything, and the Republicans are sharpening their knives for that already.
I, in particular, am craving Oreo cookies, though this detail is neither here not there.
That's not true. You, in particular, should be psyched about Obama.
And in 2008, he still thinks it's OK when women don't earn equal pay for equal work.
This line baffled me. Was she referring to something specific he's said?
Via Digby, Boehlert also had a bit of historical perspective on how second-place finishers behave at conventions. He uses '88 and '92 as his primary examples.
I agree that political necessity and actual virtue intersected here for Hillary - she had to do what she did. But it's not because she's being held to the same standard as past political candidates.
It's the Lily Ledbetter thing -- McCain was opposed to the law that would have restored the old interpretation of the statute of limitations for suing for pay discrimination as running from each paycheck, not from the initial (usually secret) discriminatory decision as the SC just held.
can we find whoever thought this and mock them pointedly? I can't believe this describes anyone here.
Me either (other than, apparently, Emerson, who should only selectively be taken seriously anyway).
This line baffled me. Was she referring to something specific he's said?
Probably referring to this.
I really think that a negative campaign is absolutely necessary,
Me too. I really wish we would do a McDonald's style blanketing of America with some two-word damning catch-phrase and the photo of McCain and W hugging. Swiftboat the holy hell out of it.
356: Have you read the whole thread yet? Because a bunch of people have copped to feeling something recognizably similar.
356: Like Heebie, I'm always right, but unlike her I get no credit for it. Reverse gender discrimination up the yinyang.
re: 329
Siblings fighting is normal, no?
[That said, my sister was pretty evil when it came to intersibling violence]
the photo of McCain and W hugging
God, I love that photo. I'm so happy that the Obama campaign is using it.
One of my brothers did cut another brother. As I've said, I'm the mild-mannered one.
I really think that a negative campaign is absolutely necessary, because when the shit hits the fan during Obama's term people have to already know where the responsibility lies.
Cart, horse. In any case, I'm pretty sure that the Obama campaign will go negative. Just not yet.
361: Dr. Oops and I certainly hit each other a lot. (Which is a testimony to my bloodymindedness and lack of self preservation, given the lifelong size and strength differential there.) It's just funny having it formalized.
Hmm, thanks. In that case her line seems pretty damn unfair. Here's McCain (from your link):
"I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems," the expected GOP presidential nominee told reporters. "This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system."
336 Yes, no doubt the Media Filter would've downplayed it if Clinton has been more pro-Obama elsewhere (I've seen little of her recent stumping), but her comments that I've heard to date have been tepid and diffuse (and Bill has been downright passive aggressive).
Simply, both Clintons are masters of spin (whereas many other dem surrogates seem to, well, suck at it), and I do not see them spinning for Obama, overtly or subtly.
re: 363
My sister once grabbed the sides of my mouth and pulled until it tore [sort of a double fish-hook].*
* sounds nastier than it was.
Was she referring to something specific he's said?
Probably something about the recent court case that more-or-less denied women the right to sue if they aren't aware they are being discriminated against.
But we'll know the Democrats are finally learning when they start pulling shit like this out of thin air. I'd love to see McCain be forced to say: "I do, too, favor equal pay for equal work."
In that case her line seems pretty damn unfair.
"Pretty darn unfair" or not unfair enough? I think the question answers itself.
Hmm, thanks. In that case her line seems pretty damn unfair.
So McCain's position is that he's in favor of pay equity as long as there is no effective enforcement mechanism? Clinton was hardly unfair.
366: How is it unfair? "I'm in favor of equal pay, but not in favor enough to actually vote for the legislation, or to propose an alternative with fewer drawbacks" amounts to "I know to say that I'm in favor of equal pay even though I'm not."
359: No, because it seems I got caught in a time warp. I'd swear I hit "post" just after "preview," but a whole hour seems to have gone by.
"I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems..."
Actually, doesn't it just open us up to lawsuits for only one kind of problem, unequal pay? That's not much of a defense.
Hmm, to the best of my memory, I only actually hit my brother once or twice our entire lives. Which is not to say I wasn't a shitty, tormenting big brother, because I was and I feel guilty about it to this day. Just that it was nearly always mental, rather than physical, cruelty.
366: McCain's pretty disingenuous there. The SC changed a longstanding consistent reading of how the statute of limitations was supposed to work in pay discrimination cases, and changed it as a matter of statutory interpretation rather than on any constitutional basis. Calling a law changing the statute back to the way it was "This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system," is nonsense.
375: Apo bullies like a girl.
re: 375
My sister and I stopped fighting once I got big enough to cause serious damage. We got on really well as kids, I wouldn't want to imply that we were fighting all the time, but disagreements could sometimes turn physical and talking to most of my friends that seems to have been the same in their families.
Yes, her line was dishonest and unfair. A fair line to the same effect would have been: "And in 2008, he still thinks it's OK to shield employers who deny women equal pay for equal work." Or something like that.
He's in favor of equal pay as long as courts can't make employers pay it. He's also in favor of destroying evil, I hear.
I love seeing multiple pwnage on a policy question in this thread. Everyone's really ready to go after the metavagueness.
315 - The media looking for some way to frame Clinton's speech as bitchy and insufficiently supportive makes me feel better about supporting Obama over her. It has nothing to do with the merits of the candidates themselves; I'd actually prefer Clinton in terms of concrete policy proposals. The problem is that the media narrative about the Clintons is already set in stone; perhaps enough so to swing the election; certainly sufficiently to damage her effectiveness as president; without question enough to piss me off to a degree harmful to my health.
Also, I've changed my mind about semicolons.
376: totally agree, but just because he's lying doesn't mean we have to as well. That's playign the wrong game. They're always going to be willing to lie nastier.
Yes, her line was dishonest and unfair. A fair line to the same effect would have been: "And in 2008, he still thinks it's OK to shield employers who deny women equal pay for equal work." Or something like that.
I think it's fair to attribute a position to a politician even if that position is merely a consequence of the policies the favor, and not a personal preference of that politician.
Apo, what were your search terms for that Schweitzer link? I want to try to modify it to find the Deval Patrick speech.
One of my brothers did cut another brother.
My eldest brother shot me in the head. With a BB gun, ok, but it was both intentional and cold-blooded. He just wanted to know what it would feel like to shoot someone, I guess.
385: http://www.google.com/search?q=deval+patrick+dnc+video
A fair line to the same effect would have been: "And in 2008, he still thinks it's OK to shield employers who deny women equal pay for equal work." Or something like that.
The original is perfectly fair. If you can't sue to enforce a right, then you don't really have that right.
re: 386
Oh, yeah. I've been shot in the face with one. Messing about with friends. I think all of us got shot with it at one time or another.
In that case her line seems pretty damn unfair.
I'm just piling on poor Brock at this point, but WTF? Unfair? McCain's surrogates are running abound saying that Obama wants to surrender to terrorists, and you're clutching your pearls over this?
Also, "And in 2008, he still thinks it's OK to shield employers who deny women equal pay for equal work" is boring and ineffective.
387: I did Democratic convention with 2008 included and got his sppech to the Massachusetts State party convention. I didn't use + effectively.
Yeah, fuck fair. If nuanced, uninspiring, and fair is what you expect (and it's not wholly unreasonable, given the Democrats' past performances), I understand why you expect McCain to win. That's the strategy we've repeatedly rode to defeat.
If he blows this election, ... I'm leaving.
But that's got nothing at all to do with Hillary, either.
Yeah, Brock, you're totally smoking crack on this one. What she said accurately conveyed his position to anyone familiar with the issue.
I bet Brock believed that Clinton was going to softpedal her support for Obama last night. Heck, he might still believe that. Where did I put my stones?
BG, all the speeches are on the Dem Convention site, but you have to install the Microsoft Silverlight thing to watch them.
IIRC, Brock doesn't place much stock in the "personally opposed, but don't want the clumsy hand of the state getting involved" dodge when it comes to abortion.
Also, "And in 2008, he still thinks it's OK to shield employers who deny women equal pay for equal work" is boring and ineffective.
I'm excited about gender equality, Bave. Maybe you aren't. I don't really know you that well. But I'm still going to suggest that you're being a little bit SEXIST here.
Her line was only fair if you think McCain was actually being flatly dishonest in the quote in 366. In that case, she was bluntly calling him on the dishonesty. And that's fine. But if you think his position is in truth more nuanced, her line is unfair. I don't know how you can get around that.
But I'm clearly in the minority here, so whatever. I just don't want to see Democrats get caught up in the game of "how far can we twist our opponents' words". Because I think they'll lose.
Her line was only fair if you think McCain was actually being flatly dishonest in the quote in 366.
Comity. That's exactly what I think.
I find it shockingly easy to believe that McCain was being flatly dishonest when he said that, actually.
So was Hillary's performance better or worse than Schindler's? I'm hearing that he did the bare minimum, whereas she excelled.
Schindler was never worse than Hitler, while Hillary has long been worse than many Hitlers and is only now approaching single-Hitler status.
I just don't want to see Democrats get caught up in the game of "how far can we twist our opponents' words". Because I think they'll lose.
You think Republican truth-stretching is in some way caused by Democratic truth-stretching? I didn't think anyone believed that anymore.
I just don't want to see Democrats get caught up in the game of "how far can we twist our opponents' words". Because I think they'll lose.
Do you think the Republicans will not play that game if the Democrats refrain? C'mon, Brock.
Okay. I'm can get behind calling politicians out on their dishonesty, but I will note that it's something that's Not Generally Done.
Democrats don't have to win the lying and slander game, just whittle down the Republicans' customary advantage. It's like the Republicans going after the black vote: if they get 20%, it's an enormous victory for them.
408: no, but I think two sides playing that game presents differently than only one side doing it.
Thsnks, Sir Kraab. Unfortunately, that site is not making nice with my computer. It tells me that I have an incompatible browser or operating system.
I've got Mac OS X 10.4.11, Safari version 3.1.1 and Firefox 2.0.0.16. Tiger is supposed to work, Firefox version 2 is supposed to work, and Safari version 3.1 is also supposed to work--but none of them do.
I don't think that McCain is so dedicated to gender inequality that he'd make sacrifices for its sake. He just doesn't think that it's a real problem and opposes all attempts to deal with it.
Also, McCain is terribly vulnerable on this front. He opposes torture, but won't vote to restrict or investigate it. He opposes the MLK holiday until it passes, at which point he retroactively supports it. He's okay with South Carolina flying the Confederate flag over their capitol until he loses the primary there, at which point he opposes it. I could list several more, but I'm sure I've bored everybody already.
Yeah, fuck fair.
Exactly. Just win, baby.
412: Do you have ad-blocking software running, or settings set not to accept certain cookies, or javascript turned off or anything like that?
But if you think his position is in truth more nuanced, her line is unfair.
Are you kidding? McCain's took that position because it was the most politically expedient position to take. You can't seriously believe that he gives a fuck about pay equity, one way or the other. Nuance is fine, but it shouldn't be ascribed to situations where it clearly doesn't exist.
And the larger point stands: at a time when many believe China to be our next great strategic threat, can we really afford to elect a President who may have been brainwashed by the ChiComs during the five plus years he spent with the VietCong?
408 is actually a perfect example of what I mean. The idea that truth and integrity should take a back seat to winning is what got us in this mess.
Java is enabled, but I do block pop up windows.
Not to mention purposefully letting himself get captured in order to get his Purple Heart.
The idea that truth and integrity should take a back seat to winning is what got us in this mess.
I think I saw that West Wing episode, too.
Not to mention purposefully letting himself get captured in order to get his Purple Heart.
The Chinese are nothing if not crafty.
419: But your standard of truth and integrity is insane. What Clinton said could only mislead someone who was speculating about what she might possibly be referring to, without any knowledge of current political issues. Anyone who either knew what she was talking about, or bothered to look into it, wouldn't be confused at all. Believing that it's lying to refer to a current political controversy without explaining all the details would mean that you couldn't get through a speech in less than a day.
404: How can McCain's quote be read to be honest? He was raising the spectre of unanticipated consequences for a bill specifically designed to restore the status quo from before the Court's decision.
Okay, okay, you've beaten me: I oppose equal pay for equal work. There, I said it.
Brock's argument is such transparent bullshit that I think he's playing with us again.
The idea that truth and integrity should take a back seat to winning is what got us in this mess
Which mess are you referring to, Brock? The one where Republicans have won 7 of the last 10 presidential elections?
426: Now admit that you're looking forward to the day when we all have the choice of speaking Mandarin or going to the labor camps.
Who spoke last night and rephrased Clinton's bit about compassionate conservatism: A compassionate conservative cares about equal pay for equal work, but not enough to do anything about it—something like that—?
As you'd expect, I totally agree with what LB was saying above.
Way back in May I and others were saying that once the primary was settled in early June Hillary would pitch right in, support Obama, and work to heal any damage caused by the primary. That she was a tough politician working for causes she believed in, not a crazed Machiavellian ambition-monster, and hence she'd work enthusiastically for her party and her causes even if she was not the nominee. And so it has been -- that's exactly how things have worked out. But that's not what her critics were saying all along.
Rumors persist that McCain collaborated with his Viet Cong captors and at one participated in a feast-orgy with Maoist guerillas.
||
The technique for bringing the internet down that my friends referred to in their senate testimony in 1998 has finally been publicly demonstrated, and there's still no real way to fix it.
Remember to secure your BGP routers, kid!
|>
424: the truth is, *I* didnt' know what she was talking about. And when she said it, I thought, "Huh? Surely that can't be right... she's got to be twisting something." Because I knew there's just no way McCain would come out against equal pay for equal work. I can't be the only person who had this reaction (even if I'm the only person here who reacted this way).
I'd just like Democrats to be making statements that are much less susceptible to being dismissed as mere spin. (There's no way similarly to dismiss the line in 379--it's straightly factual. It might be boring, but that's because I came up with it in 10 seconds. Polish it and it works.) Their spin machine is better than ours, and I don't believe the solution is merely to build a better spin machine.
They have to resort to spin because facts and straight-thinking are on our side. We shouldn't have to.
Isn't it time to stop our retrospective analysis of Hillary's speech and start spilling our anxieties about Bill's speech? Anybody expecting Bill to let his hurt feelings show?
Do you have ad-blocking software running, or settings set not to accept certain cookies
Maybe her browser doesn't deserve a cookie.
Can someone translate the link in 433 into English?
Brock, the simple fact is that voters have no idea when a politician is lying, because the media doesn't tell them. Therefore one is handicapping oneself not by lying, but by telling the truth. We won in 2000 with this handicap, but at the very end our lack of ruthlessness over the Florida recount fiasco did us in. Since then it hasn't gotten any better.
Whether a statement is "susceptible to being dismissed as mere spin" has virtually nothing to do with whether it actually is mere spin. It all depends on the idiots in the media.
It occurs to me that it's going to be awkward trying to explain that 426 was only a joke when I'm running for Senate.
(Yes, of course I'll be running under this pseudonym.)
438: woo boogy man scary scary brrrr monsters.
Mostly, what the recent demonstration means is that no piece of the problem that would have allowed my friend to take down the internet in 30 minutes has been fixed, and in fact it turns out it's possible to engage in NSA-scale eavesdropping on data traffic from the comfort of your own home, with a bit of work.
Can someone translate the link in 433 into English?
People with reasonable programming knowledge can intercept, read, and modify almost any communication on the internet without anyone noticing?
Sifu, what do you do when you want to send a sekrit message? Are there good, simple anonymizers and other security programs out there that civilian non-tech types can use?
"Huh? Surely that can't be right... she's got to be twisting something." Because I knew there's just no way McCain would come out against equal pay for equal work.
What you're saying is that it was absolutely transparent to you that she couldn't possibly be truthfully claiming that McCain was advocating that employers be required to pay women less than men (assuming that's what you mean by 'come out against equal pay for equal work'). And so you checked to find out what she did mean, because there was no way your initial interpretation could have been the truth.
That means it's not deceptive. You didn't know what she was talking about, but you still weren't deceived, just confused. To be deceived, someone would have had to be not just ignorant of the specific reference (which you were, and which anyone might have been), but absolutely unaware of what positions McCain might plausibly publically hold.
You can't call a statement a lie because someone who is not just ignorant of the specifics of what's being talked about, but completely unaware of what's plausible in the general area, might be misled by it -- that level of unambiguity is just unsustainable in ordinary communication.
The idea that truth and integrity should take a back seat to winning is what got us in this mess.
BIG plus-minus error.
441: take down selected bits and pieces, or the whole thing? The porn sites too??
Sifu, what do you do when you want to send a sekrit message?
Tell it to somebody in person? Less glibly, if you want to send a sekrit message to somebody, you don't need an anonymizer. You just need public key encryption, and there's a GPG implementation for your platform, whatever it might be, that's perfectly easy to use. If you want to send a sekrit message AND obscure your own identity, well, it depends how secret you want to be, but sure, there's anonymizers around.
Pwned by 441. Actually, though, "NSA-scale eavesdropping from the comfort of your own home" sounds like a lot of fun. If I saw, like, an infomercial that promised a kit that let me do that then I'd definitely consider buying it.
Don't you have to know a lot of technical addressing information for the places you want to eavesdrop on, though? Or is that really easy to pick up?
450.2: that's all public by design; you need that information to route.
It's a little more complicated than I'm claiming, because you need access to a BGP router. Then again, there's a ton 'o BGP routers and they're highly unlikely to all be well secured.
Now admit that you're looking forward to the day when we all have the choice of speaking Mandarin or going to the labor camps
Ooh, I'm looking forward to that. I've wanted to learn Mandarin for a long time, but can't justify it for my job. Once the Chinese occupying army comes, I'll have an excuse!
Because I knew there's just no way McCain would come out against equal pay for equal work.
Wow, really? It's not like the bill McCain voted against would have achieved pay equity; it simply would have preserved for women the right to sue employers who paid them less and gave them less promotions because they were women. In other words, not only is McCain implicitly against legislating explicit pay equity, he is even against giving women the standard tool with which they could enforce their civil rights.
I'm clearly sliding toward the dark side. Fortunately for the world, I'm much too lazy to ever be an effective evildoer.
I hung around with some hackers in my late teens, though, this is exactly the sort of thing that would have gotten a geeky HS-college nerd with fantasies of omnipotence very excited.
What you're saying is that it was absolutely transparent to you that she couldn't possibly be truthfully claiming that McCain was advocating that employers be required to pay women less than men (assuming that's what you mean by 'come out against equal pay for equal work'). And so you checked to find out what she did mean, because there was no way your initial interpretation could have been the truth.
Of course no one's talking about requiring employers to pay women less than men. The debate is about requiring them to pay women as much as men--that's the only way I've ever hear the phrase "equal pay for equal work" used.
What was absolutely transparent to me was that she couldn't possibly be truthfully claiming that McCain was advocating that employers be allowed to pay women less than men.
Are we done Brock-mocking? Because I totally wanted to bring up how disgusted I am that some Democrats call McCain "pro-torture" just because he voted to allow it to continue. I mean, isn't anybody listening to what the man says?
McCain was advocating that employers be allowed to pay women less than men.
But this is essentially what supporters of the court decision are advocating, is it not?
455: Your position seems to be "I'm against pedophilia, but I don't think we need to get the cops involved." Good luck with that.
McCain was advocating that employers be allowed to pay women less than men
But he is! He supported the filibuster of a bill that would have allowed enforcement of Title VII, which is to say that he opposed making equal pay for equal work enforceable, which is to say that he supported employers paying women less than men. This is so simple I'm confused.
What was absolutely transparent to me was that she couldn't possibly be truthfully claiming that McCain was advocating that employers be allowed to pay women less than men.
Brock, you are descending into self-parody here. This is exactly what McCain was advocating. The only condition he would impose is that they not tell the woman that they are doing that.
she couldn't possibly be truthfully claiming that McCain was advocating that employers be allowed to pay women less than men.
Regardless, my argument holds. Someone with specific knowledge wouldn't have been deceived; someone with a general sense of plausible positions for McCain to hold wouldn't have been deceived (that's you, and you weren't). You'd need someone with absolutely no background to evaluate the statement against to be misled by it.
And further, he really was, no fooling, advocating that it should be more difficult to enforce laws requiring that women be paid as much as men. That's not crazy far off even your characterization of her statement.
It looks like there are two camps of people jumping on Brock. One group, led by Apo says to fuck fairness. The other group, led by elbee says that the comment actually was fair, given the situation. I side, as usual, with the person with lizard on her breath.
In fact, I think I would agree with Brock if LB's option wasn't available.
458:"I'm against pedophilia, but I don't think we need to get the cops involved."
So pretty much the Pope's position, then.
While I agree that we should lie about McCain if convenient, what we're talking about here is not a lie but just a somewhat tendentious summary. I do not blame Hillary for not lying, however, for there is a time and a place for everything.
So pretty much the Pope's position, then.
To be fair, the Pope would have trouble running for that office, too.
I agree that the comment is completely fair, given his vote. I don't see how you could interpret it any other way. I also think that fetishizing being scrupulously fair regarding the positions of inveterate liars is a guaranteed road to losing.
462: I don't see any contradiction between apo's and LB's positions, and I support both. The McCain criticism was totally correct, but I wouldn't mind if it wasn't.
Oh, come on. The SCOTUS decision doesn't say Title VII is unenforceable; it just makes suing a practical impossibility in many cases.
SCMT gets it exactly right in 458. But it's not my position; it's McCain's. And yes, I think it would be unfair in that situation for Hillary to say "McCain is in favor of pedophilia!" Why distort? The facts are bad enough; let the facts speak for themselves.
Jesus, Brock, sorry to pile on, but I live in friggin' Europe and I knew exactly what that line in Hillary's speech was about. I knew the gist of the Ledbetter case and that the act had failed to pass which would have restored the rights of women to sue when they actually discovered they were being screwed. So I knew she was emphasising that McCain had voted against it.
But then I live in a country where it's only thanks to the EEC (as it was) that we have strong protection for equal pay. Which still had to be enforced, industry by industry, through a series of lawsuits. The Ledbetter decision infuriated me because I'm sensitised to equal pay issues and the need to force employers to comply. Obviously you're not.
I had not read Robb's 12:01 when I posted my deluxe consolidated position at 12:03.
SCMT gets it exactly right in 458. But it's not my position; it's McCain's. And yes, I think it would be unfair in that situation for Hillary to say "McCain is in favor of pedophilia!"
I hadn't realized that you were among our robot commenters.
462: Indeed. In fact, one of the best things the Republican party has done in the past decade or so is to make it possible to say really nasty shit about a good many of them without even having to bend the truth!
468: okay, so your point is that she should have said "McCain opposes equal pay for equal work if the company is able to hide their discrimination for 6 months"? Really? You sir, are weird. And a lawyer.
And further, he really was, no fooling, advocating that it should be more difficult to enforce laws requiring that women be paid as much as men
LB, this is exactly what I said she should have said, and not at all what she actually said.
I was done defending this 100 comments ago; I'm not sure we're making progress.
Oh, come on. The SCOTUS decision doesn't say Title VII is unenforceable; it just makes suing a practical impossibility in many cases.
I didn't kill him, your Honor, I just restrained him and covered his mouth and nose up so he couldn't breathe.
Brock, there is not actually any difference between someone advocating that something should be legally permitted to happen, and someone advocating that something should be illegal but the laws should be impossible to enforce.
472: see, I agree with this completely, which was why her statement bothered me. But whatever.
it just makes suing a practical impossibility in many cases.
Most cases? As far as I can see, it gives companies a very easy, practical approach to make sure that it is practically impossible to be sued for. As I understand it (aicbw, of course) The decision basically says `go ahead and descriminate, just be a little careful about how you do it.'.
So would you be happier if it was worded: "John McCain supports maintaining an easy loophole for companies to avoid any penalty for gender discrimination" ?
If this isn't correct, can you explain how the decision differs from my characterization above?
The McCain criticism was totally correct, but I wouldn't mind if it wasn't.
I would mind. I suspect you would to if the lie were bad enough. There are still some things none of us would stoop to. I mean, we aren't beasts, or Karl Rove.
that something should be illegal but the laws should be impossible to enforce
But this also is unfair; no one is arguing this. The SCOTUS decision (which I don't support, to be clear) made it more difficult to enforce the law--not impossible. (And to anticipate your objection: yes, impossible in some cases. But it's always impossible to enforce laws in some cases.)
Also, see Holbo on the difference between saying "he thinks it's OK" and "he approves".
not at all what she actually said
Seriously, you seem to me to be making a hairsplittingly fine distinction into an ethical issue: while McCain's position is genuinely horrendous someone with absolutely no knowledge of the context might interpret Clinton's statement to mean that he held a slightly different horrendous position, and she is therefore significantly dishonest for not forestalling that possible misinterpretation. The misinterpretation seems wildly unlikely to me, and the consequences seems minimal (that is, the misinterpreting hearer wouldn't think much worse of McCain than he deserves, just differently badly.).
Which means I can't understand your position that this is an important issue of honesty.
Semi-OT:
Not that I really think Obama is likely to lose, but JMM has provided a glimmer of silver lining to the black, looming Death Cloud of a McCain Presidency:
This danger has actually got me to thinking that should McCain win in November, the likely strong Democratic majorities in Congress will need to begin making a concerted effort to rein in the war powers of the president to keep the country safe between 2009 and 2013It would be a very, very good thing for this country to return to the Founders' intentions WRT military action. After 8 years of Bush, we can't afford the other costs - plus of course I have no reason to believe that Congressional Dems would actually do this - but the idea that Washington could get its head around the idea of limiting the President's war powers is a heartening one.
477: I think you may just be giving McCain more of a benefit of the doubt than he deserves. I mean, sure, there's a technical distinction between being against requiring equal pay and opposing giving women the ability to enforce that requirement. Pragmatically, as has been abundantly pointed out, it's the same thing. As his people would say, "You're either with us or you're against us."
But it's always impossible to enforce laws in some cases.
Brock, you're an idiot.
I would mind. I suspect you would to if the lie were bad enough. There are still some things none of us would stoop to. I mean, we aren't beasts, or Karl Rove.
You probably think Emerson is just joking about the hog farm.
||
My story about Schweitzer trying to teach me Arabic in his kitchen has gotten funnier. For the short attention span of coastal folk concerning things non-coastal . . .
|>
Can anyone explain what this TPM post is referencing?
478 meet 379
you don't really expect me to read back that far, do you ?
The stage in the arena where Obama's giving his acceptance speech is going to have columns on it -- conservatives are calling him uppity for presuming that he's entitled to stand on a stage with columns framing him.
I don't think it's a hairsplitting difference, LB. "I'm against pedophilia, but I don't think we need to get the cops involved" isn't "I'm in favor of pedophilia!" "I'm against smoking pot, but I don't think we need to get the cops involved" isn't "I'm in favor of smoking pot!" "I'm against pay discrimination, but I don't think we need to enable too many costly and potentially frivilous lawsuits to combat it" isn't "I'm in favor of pay discrimination!"
I honestly don't see why I'm so alone on this.
493: It really doesn't matter what he does, though, does it?
LB wins, Sifu is as condescending and out-of-touch as Barack Obama.
W-lfs-n attacks MSNBC from Fox.
He has a point about Matthews, and even about Olbermann to a degree, but he shouldn't be making it from Fox. But Fox probably pays even better than Clinton.
Olbermann slamming Clinton was not unusual by Fox standards. What's unusual about Olbermann is that for years he was almost the only major-media person (except Krugman) who consistently, repeatedly, slammed Bush. (Meanwhile Fox lied as much as they could in order to help Bush).
And the Clinton people really didn't want anyone to slam Bush too hard unless they were reading from a Clinton media packet.
I honestly don't see why I'm so alone on this.
I think you've got a very different sense of the plausibility of any hearers being actually misled by Clinton's statement than I, or most other people here, do. If I agreed with you that a plausible reaction to Clinton's statement would be for a voter to think "Huh, I had no idea McCain had come out for taking laws against pay discrimination entirely off the books," while I might still be less bothered than you, I'd agree there was an honesty issue.
"I'm against pay discrimination, but I don't think we need to enable too many costly and potentially frivilous lawsuits to combat it"
I'm not at all convinced this is a reasonable interpretation of the SCOTUS decision, Brock. Perhaps this is the fundamental difference here. If you see the decision as a measure against frivolous lawsuits (is there evidence this was a problem?) you may see the original statement as harsh and even potentially misleading to someone ignorant of the context. If you see it as a fairly effective tactic to gut the law, you may see the statement as completely fair.
494: Brock, I think you were out of luck this election cycle when Mike Dukakis decided not to run.
potentially frivolous lawsuits
Can I just say how much I fucking hate this phrase? It's such bullshit, propaganda crap. Genuinely frivolous suits? THEY GET DISMISSED! If it doesn't get dismissed, it might not ultimately be meritorious, but it's not "frivolous." it's a phrase that means little more than that big corporations (or industries with powerful lobbies) think they are to important to be subjected to the indignity of the American justice system.
* Except, obviously, if we are talking about the lawsuits brought against my virtuous client. All of those are frivolous.
I honestly don't see why I'm so alone on this.
Because the rest of us love America, Comrade.
||
Now we know what to get ogged for his birthday.
|>
I honestly don't see why I'm so alone on this.
I want the Democrats to pull more of this. I want them to exaggerate and paint Republicans as evil corrupt buttheads. The Republicans are going to do it whether we do or not, and I really, really, really, really do not want to lose this election.
The SCOTUS decision (which I don't support, to be clear) made it more difficult to enforce the law--not impossible. (And to anticipate your objection: yes, impossible in some cases. But it's always impossible to enforce laws in some cases.)
So Brock, what's your position on calling McCain "pro-war"? I mean, he doesn't support war in all cases - he's been quite pacifistic so far in resolving the Canada matter, for instance.
494 - "I'm against smoking pot, but I don't think we need to get the cops involved" isn't "I'm in favor of smoking pot!"
It is, however, "I'm in favor of letting people smoke pot."
In the pay discrimination case, opposing effective enforcement is the same as supporting the right of employers to discriminate. You may not endorse the discrimination explicitly, but that's a distinction without a difference as far as the person being discriminated against is concerned.
506: Wait, I'm having trouble following your math. Not to be a total cliche, but I'm really bad at math and better at talking and stuff. Can you say that again, but so that I can get it?
I want them to exaggerate and paint Republicans as evil corrupt buttheads.
That's not an exaggeration.
I think you've got a very different sense of the plausibility of any hearers being actually misled by Clinton's statement than I, or most other people here, do.
I'm actually much more concerned about Republicans being able to characterize Democratic attacks as simple spin, and no different their own attacks against Democrats, than I am about any individual hearers of Clinton's speech being "misled". I doubt anyone was misled in the way you are imagining. And look, few people who matter at this point were even wathcing her speech anyway.
But when McCain says "I am all in favor of pay equity for women", it takes real work to explain how Clinton's statement was in fact, correct, in a sense. Most voters don't have time for real work. The statement could have been better grounded in fact, and therefore a lot tougher to deny or deflect effectively. And I think this could have been done without losing rhetorical punch.
Democrats don't need to take any cheap shots. That's my position. Yes, Repubilcans will be taking them anyway, but it only increases voter cynicism and apathy if both sides partake. That's not to the Democrats' advantage.
Be fair apostropher. They're not all evil and corrupt and buttheads. Just all of the ones with any power at the moment.
he's been quite pacifistic so far in resolving the Canada matter, for instance.
And that's why I'm supporting Obama this year - fucker isn't afraid to throw down with Canucks.
I want them to exaggerate and paint Republicans as evil corrupt buttheads.
You really think they need to exaggerate in order to paint that picture?
But when McCain says "I am all in favor of pay equity for women", it takes real work to explain how Clinton's statement was in fact, correct, in a sense.
Let me give it a try: "He's lying." Not so hard, actually.
But when McCain says "I am all in favor of pay equity for women" he's saying that the Democratic position on the matter is the correct one, and he's not saying that Barack Obama is a radical Black Muslim celebrity.
That's how you win elections - by forcing the other guy to respond, defensively, to your attacks.
But when McCain says "I am all in favor of pay equity for women", it takes real work to explain how Clinton's statement was in fact, correct
Brock, it's like you haven't been watching politics for the last decade. There's no need to explain it; you just repeat it until it becomes accepted. Al Gore never actually claimed to have invented the internet, you know. And Democrats don't actually support homosexual recruitment in schools. And the media isn't actually liberal.
JRoth hates America, and wants to get the White House burned again.
I guess that's one way to get it cleaned up.
I'm actually much more concerned about Republicans being able to characterize Democratic attacks as simple spin, and no different their own attacks against Democrats, than I am about any individual hearers of Clinton's speech being "misled".
If this is the case, you're not worried about honesty, you're worried about tactics. At which point (A) they can characterize anything we say anyway they want, so why sweat it, and (B) I'm pretty sure you're just mistaken about the tactics. For someone to be sincerely affected by Republican claims that the line was a cheap shot (if any such claims are made), they would have to believe that the line could have actually misled someone.
You're the most concerned about the line here, and you don't believe that -- you're worried about the tactical effect of a Republican claim that hasn't yet been made, on a class of people who you don't know to exist. At this point, I think you need to step away from the meta.
Put down the meta. Walk slowly away from the meta.
You really think they need to exaggerate in order to paint that picture?
If they want to do it in bumper sticker terms, probably.
It has proven surprisingly difficult to make attacks stick simply by stating the ugly truth - once you get past 4* words, people start to tune out.
* Made up number; I'm sure someone has actually calculated effective length of attack lines (I wonder if a single Mighty Line would work optimally?)
But when McCain says "I am all in favor of pay equity for women", it takes real work to explain how Clinton's statement was in fact, correct, in a sense.
It's not that hard. We already have a frame for talking about this kind of stuff: "McCain is just giving lip service to the problem. He may say he opposes pay discrimination, but he has actively stood in the way of all efforts to fix the problem."
But when McCain says "I am all in favor of pay equity for women", it takes real work to explain how Clinton's statement was in fact, correct, in a sense.
Disagree. All it takes is "When the Senate was presented a bill that would have closed a loophole allowing employers to discriminate, Senator McCain did everything he could to prevent it from passing."
The Brockian side of this argument (on behalf of his hypothetical republicans) accepts a sad conception of upholding civil rights--rendering them not merely aspirational, but utterly hollow.
Talk about the hope candidate! Didn't McCain, in defending his gas tax, claim that we could shame big oil into not merely raising prices? Didn't he start backtracking on the cap part of his carbon cap-and-trade before it was pointed out that such a position was not only fanciful but completely irrational.
And Democrats don't actually support homosexual recruitment in schools.
Uh, apo, email me. I need to let you in on something.
If they want to do it in bumper sticker terms, probably.
Exactly. I want 4 word phrases. Let's stop over-explaining and start sound-biting.
525 sounds like the basis for a new thread!
I NEVER META LAWSUIT I DIDN"T LIKE.
Let's stop over-explaining and start sound-biting.
Exactly. HG is right again.
HG is right again
This meets the "in 4 words or less" criteria, but I don't see how it's going to get Obama elected.
I'm actually much more concerned about Republicans being able to characterize Democratic attacks as simple spin, and no different their own attacks against Democrats, than I am about any individual hearers of Clinton's speech being "misled".
If they has a reason to, the Republicans would dismiss allegations that the world is round as simple spin. The possibility that Republicans will dismiss Democratic claims as spin is not a variable. It's a constant, and the constant is 100%.
525: "McCain Blows Dead Goats" is catchy, but probably won't fly with disgruntled GOP'ers.
Republicans would dismiss allegations that the world is round as simple spin
It takes real work to explain that rotational spin causes the world to bulge in the middle, rather than being truly round.
531: And Mickey Kaus would sue for copyright infringement.
Pear-shaped! With a bulge in the middle! Democrats are liars.
535 carries the advantage of actually being true.
536: That's just a slightly abridged version of McCain's slogan, "Vote McCain and Die Gloriously".
How about "McCain: Like Bush But Dumber"?
"Neocon John Means New Wars."
Yes, yes, five. Also, I really do think Dems should be making the "If you fire the head coach, but keep the same players, your team is still going to suck" argument. Because the Republican party blows, and that is something that most Americans recognize and most pundit Republicans have acknowledged.
"Republicans Make Oil Prices Rise"
"Republicans Cause Out-sourcing"
"Republicans Won't Protect Your Children From Lead-Coated Toys of Pure Lead."
"Senile, Drug-Addled, Warmonger: McCain."
"John McCain: Reckless; Feckless."
"Freckled Testicles on the John"
"POW John may be old, but he's got a hard one for Iran"
Frecksticles!
Perfect on a hot day.
You people aren't even swinging low. I want to see ads that say "If you can't trust a Republican in an airport bathroom, how can you trust one in the Whitehouse?"
Oh hey, did y'all see that Leahy compared McCain to late-stage Reagan?
Awesome. I look forward to McCain's fellow Senators shitting on him, then him having to return to the Senate a loser.
"It's the Stupid, Stupid"
"McCain: Crazy Old Asshole"
Is it just me, or is there a spike is half-witted trolling here?
557: I'm all for Brock-mocking, but that crosses a line.
557: let the delete fairies do their work, and soon it'll all be a memory.
560: Of course, it just seems to be more frequent so I was wondering why.
I'm against pay discrimination, but I don't think we need to enable too many costly and potentially frivilous lawsuits to combat it
The only way it makes sense for McCain to call this 'frivolous' is if he thinks it's frivolous to sue your employer when they're not paying you what you are owed. As I understand the decision, it set the six month window from the time of when they first decided to discriminate, not from your last paycheck or from six months when you found out about it. That's not a frivolous lawsuit in the normal sense of the term, just in the sense of 'business really are going to get caught with their pants down on this one.'
I'm sure the MC/Apo/LB dustup doesn't need my tuppence, but this is how I feel:
John McCain has six months of clips showing Hillary slagging the Dem nominee and praising the Repub.
Obama took six months of hits from Hillary slagging him and praising McCain.
Walking back from that? Hillary has a speech she gave last night.
Ignoring the four word constraint, I suggest:
"McCain: I liked him better when he disagreed with Bush"
"McCain: With mavericks like this, who needs lapdogs?"
"McCain: Still a prisoner of the 1960s"
"McCain: Unfortunately, the Viet Cong didn't beat any sense into him"
"McCain: At his age, shouldn't he be wiser?"
"If you liked Bush, you'll love McCain"
"McCain: Still crazy after all these years"
I was wondering why.
They're trying to break us in our post-ogged confusion.
564: 1/2/5/6 are great. 3 is confusing and 7 just doesn't move me. I like the spirit of 4 but think it would backfire (especially among vets).
"McCain: Unfortunately, the Viet Cong didn't beat any sense into him"
There's a political winner.
There's a political winner.
pithier: "OAP stuck in a DMZ"
pithier: "OAP stuck in a DMZ"[sic]
Well, I think we all empathize with anyone stuck in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Sorry, I can't keep up. Maybe this has been said about the equal pay stuff you were all talking about round about the high 300s, but screw fairness or relevance. Am I the only one who heard a pumawhistle?
"My Turn Signal is Blinking For John McCain"
"If you liked Bush, you'll love McCain"
I LOVE this one.
Am I the only one who heard a pumawhistle?
About the equal pay stuff? No, that was pretty clearly a reference to Ledbetter, who had spoken earlier in the evening.
"McCain: Unfortunately, the Viet Cong didn't beat any sense into him"
This is the worstbest. If the shoe were otherfooted, Rove would be all over this.
As in, I really and truly want it to be spread far and wide.
half-witted trolling
You're granting him about 50% too much wit.
"Bush-McCain: Same Crew, Different Figurehead."
563- That's right. Hillary gave a very impressive speech last night. And wonking out her speech to debate whether she should have talked more about Obama the person, or whatever, doesn't consider that the speech's effect is insignificant to the damage caused during the campaign.
I really liked Kucinich's speech, but he's just a kook who filed impeachment charges against a war criminal. Nothing to see here. Gotta get elected, after all.
John McCain: George W. Bush on Steroids Ambien.
doesn't consider that the speech's effect is insignificant to the damage caused during the campaign.
Yes, how dare she have said bad things about Obama while campaigning against him!? It's like she didn't even want him to win!
pleasepleaseplease let the Ambien thing take root. Jay, Dave, Conan? Do your thing.
579: Some day (and I hope that it is not too far in the future), the contrast betwen the Clinton Articles of Impeachment that convulsed a nation, and the Kucinich Articles of Impeachment which were ridiculed will be Exhibit 17B in the "Post Cold War America: A Bully Abroad, A Laughingstock at Home" exhibit.
581 is disingenuous, JRoth. Lines were crossed that need not have been.
583: All part of a `psychological disorders of nations' exhibit?
Yes, how dare she have said bad things about Obama while campaigning against him!? It's like she didn't even want him to win!
Moreover! The only reason why Biden didn't spend more time saying bad things about Obama while campaigning against him is that Biden pulled out of the race very early on.
How many repulsively bad things did Obama say about Clinton during the primaries?
581: A presidential candidate should never, ever compare his or her opponent unfavorably to the presumptive nominee of the other party. Never.
Lines were crossed that need not have been.
Especially since they weren't crossed until after Obama had cinched the nomination, and then it was crosscrosscrosscrosscrosscross.
Lines were crossed that need not have been.
I agree with this. I also see that, without any help whatsoever from the Clintons, the McCain campaign has blown past those lines so fast that they are mere dots in the rearview mirror.
It was always an absurd claim that the Clinton campaign's tactics either were especially scandalous (in context of foreseeable GOP attacks) or would somehow provide license for the GOP to say/do things they otherwise wouldn't. Note that McCain isn't actually running the ads quoting HRC about CIC - they use them to excite the press, but know that they're not especially effective TV ads, so they're not on the air anywhere in the country. Note further that McCain's very first attack - the celebrity stuff - was more scurrilous than anything HRC did.
McCain has brought a gun to the gunfight, and people are still pissing and moaning that HRC brought a roll of quarters.
Lines were crossed that need not have been.
On my scorecard, one line was crossed: Hillary's unfavorable comparison of Obama to McCain for crisis leadership. That's ugly, but politics ain't beanbag.
If properly medicated, for example with ambien, a mentally ill person can serve effectively in any job, including President of the United States. Democrats are violating their own anti-discrimination principles when they ridicule McCain for following his doctor's advice.
For this reason I ask all other mentally not too healthy Americans to join me in voting for John McCain this fall. No more rubber room!
That's ugly, but politics ain't beanbag.
I don't know if `ugly' is the right term; `stupid' fits better, for starters.
Who cares what she said in the past? What's done is done. She's also done what's necessary since then.
Note that McCain isn't actually running the ads quoting HRC about CIC - they use them to excite the press, but know that they're not especially effective TV ads, so they're not on the air anywhere in the country.
I saw it twice during the David Letterman show last night.
Once Mark Penn was involved, Hillary's campaign got nastier. Just recently McCain hired a Rove clone and his campaign got nastier immediately
In both cases they were running behind, but Obama certainly has to keep the option open of going fully negative against the erratic, slightly-mentally-ill old gigolo even while he's still ahead.
She's also done what's necessary since then.
That, and no more. For that she shouldn't get rewarded in 2012, but she will.
If elected president, I would provide free cookies to all.
I think she wants a cookie.
On a hot dog!
I saw it twice during the David Letterman show last night.
Huh - TPM (I think) said otherwise. Wherever I read it, it was reputable. Or so I thought. I can't downgrade their trustworthiness, because I don't know who said it.
This is why the internet doesn't work.
For that she shouldn't get rewarded in 2012, but she will.
Slow down, Gabriel. Unless BHO wants a new VP, there won't be any job openings in 2012.
596: I'm pretty certain that isn't accurate. Mark Penn was involved in Hillary's campaign from the start.
the erratic, slightly-mentally-ill old gigolo
But we still love you, John!
I'm not a big one for believing that you have to seem and sound forceful when dealing with potential rivals in foreign policy, but I do wonder if America, in these troubled times, can afford a President who needs diapers.
Also, surely some Dem can invent and promote a drinking game like "Six Degrees of POW."
Mark Penn was involved in Hillary's campaign from the start.
Yes, but there was a shakeup at some point after Iowa - when Patty Solis Doyle (?) left. At least, I assume that's what JE was getting at.
It's certainly become clear that Penn was more eager to go MAD than anyone else in the campaign.
604: See, Tim gets it. If Obama wasn't stomping down the independent groups, we'd have an ad with McCain in the War Room, suddenly excusing himself and fleeing for the men's room and not making it in time.
"Obama: Protecting the continent. McCain: incontinent."
Unless BHO wants a new VP, there won't be any job openings in 2012.
Not likely after this slow-motion fiasco of a convention. Obama will be behind in the polls after next week's slanderfest and will never recover.
The key question going forward - really, always the key question - is whether McCain will alienate the press enough that they'll cover the election semi-fairly. Up til now, it's been like a rigged football game in some stupid movie (like that prisoners vs. guards one) - no matter how badly McCain fucks up, the press covers for him (part of the reason most people think the press is favoring Obama is that they are literally unaware of McCain's fuckups, so they don't know they're being hidden).
But he's disillusioned a fair number of people at the margins (eg, the bad Klein), even his fans admit that he's running dirty (eg, Brooks), and he's getting whacked by fact-checkers (see Jake Tapper today). At this rate, his twice-weekly screw-ups will actually get covered properly by October, and Obama will walk away with it.
But we may not maintain this rate.
606: I do think that quashing the 527s may be BHO's biggest - in some ways only - mistake of the whole cycle. Obama's campaign won't even hit as hard as McCain's does, and McCain's 527s are hitting much, much harder.
Obama's awfully skinny for rope-a-dope to work.
this slow-motion fiasco of a convention
Why do you say that?
A lot of the guys in the press are hoping McCain lets them wear his letter jacket. Just the way it is. That's who they were in high school and that's who they are now. The Dems should call them on it--make fun of the press:"Did he ask you to the prom, yet, Halperin?"--and move on.
Not likely after this slow-motion fiasco of a convention. Obama will be behind in the polls after next week's slanderfest and will never recover.
I think we just disagree. Time will tell, in any case.
Did he ask you to the prom, yet, Halperin?
Awesome.
607- The rock concert tomorrow night will be awesome, though. Probably in the minority, but having the acceptance speech in that stadium has been a wtf for me. I hope I'm wrong and it works out well.
610: No coherent argument against McCain, and not much of an incoherent one. Obama had hours of precious prime-time coverage to chain McCain to Bush, and has thus far wasted it on gauzy nonsense and Clinton psychodrama. Botched.
Going back to the thing about the McCain HRC ads airing, it was reported in the freaking WSJ that they weren't airing. I mean, jokes about Murdoch aside, WTF?
Perhaps they simply sent them to the press first and started running them a few days later.
613: It's meant to excite the youth and the base, and it's totally going to work. The expectations for his speech itself are too high for him to match, but putting him in front of 70,000 people is going to make it exciting no matter what.
614: The psychodrama and the gauze were deemed essential, and successful, by the media; they would never have let up on PUMAs and "just who is Barack Obama?" if not for that. I'm becoming certain that almost nothing is going to satisfy the Attack More! chorus (led by Velociraptor James Carville); Schweizter was great, and Biden tonight is going to be even greater.
Let's make "asleep at the wheel" a dog-whistle.
I click away fast at work from images, so it took me until just now to notice the full extent of that photoshop job. Great work.
Clinton psychodrama
Obama cannot single-handedly fix the press. One of the Bitch bloggers (I think) said she's seen more 9/11 Truthers than PUMAs, but is that what gets on the TV? And HRC spent plenty of time going after McCain, but the press is busy parsing her fucking body language.
Let me be clear: I'd like to see more attacks on McCain; I expect Biden to rip him a new one tonight. But the simple reality is that the nets refuse to broadcast that message: last night an MSNBC anchor asked, "[W]hy not position a senator, like Claire McCaskill, up there for five minutes and let her throw some red meat out to the crowd?" McCaskill had, in fact, done just this, on at 8:15 on Night One of the DNC. MSNBC chose not to air it. This is not Obama's fault.
I would also add that, if it were 24/7 attacks on McCain, the press would freak out. They do not want to see McCain lose, and we can't expect them to be honest brokers.
I'm kind of glad I read more than the first line of the link in 617 before forwarding it around the office.
Or rather, more than the first line of the post to which the image in 617 belongs. Whatever.
The vicissitudes of fortune amaze me. Had I been married to Seven of Nine, I might also want to show the world my awesome seducing prowess. Probably not the best idea for a politician.
So from that improbable start to this, one can't help but wonder if there isn't some guiding hand. But I had been told that Clinton was one of the lizards, so who knows.
The Obama campaign does get to decide who's in primetime and who isn't. That doesn't prevent the networks from ignoring speakers -- like Schweitzer -- in favor of talking head blather.
Destroyer is right about the Clinton psychodrama. There's a very important point underlying this, however: If Obama wins over the Clinton voters who are currently undecided, he wins the election.
OK, that's completely ex recto, but I think it's close enough to true to more or less take it. He doesn't have to do anything more than that; doesn't have to risk alienating people looking for a new politics, doesn't have to sling so much mud he splashes himself. Doesn't have to win over the press.
The notion above that he needs to discredit Bush to get a mandate is, I think, attractive but wrong. he can spend November and December talking about the Augean stables. No need to use October for that.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a thousand surrogates whacking away at McCain, or that Obama shouldn't be carefully tuned whenever something like the 'how many houses do I own, I don't know' thing comes along. Or that he should ever take an attack without immediately responding.
502
"Can I just say how much I fucking hate this phrase? It's such bullshit, propaganda crap. Genuinely frivolous suits? THEY GET DISMISSED! If it doesn't get dismissed, it might not ultimately be meritorious, but it's not "frivolous." ..."
Really? This seemingly frivolous lawsuit against my employer has been dragging on for years. Or do you mean they get dismissed after the lawyers collect millions?
It's curious to me how many people seem to be applying a theory of agression in politics not unlike McCain's Theory of Foreign Relations. They Only Respect Force and All War All The Time are ideas that appeal, I suppose. But, in the execution, less likely to give the results you want.
More ex recto, but I think that for every vote lost in Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio on account of the substance of the Swift Boat allegations, at least 5 were lost on account of Democratic strategists of one stripe or another appearing all over the place with 'He Looks Weak; He's Inviting (and thus Deserves) Attack; If He Won't Fight Back Now, Why Would Anyone Think He'll Defend America' and all the rest of that. Oh sure, the Swift Boat thing was worth 10 or 15 points in the South. Who cares?
It's meant to excite the youth and the base, and it's totally going to work.
This is very true. The 75,000 person capacity gave the Colorado field organizers a hell of a lot of free passes to give away, and they've been using them to entice a lot of enthusiastic people into volunteering for the local GOTV efforts. It's helped boost what was already a pretty incredible local ground game in the state.
It's curious to me how many people seem to be applying a theory of agression in politics not unlike McCain's Theory of Foreign Relations.
Applied to domestic politics, that theory has had a lot of success.
I mean that while you in all your wisdom may believe the lawsuit against your employer to be "frivolous," you are apparently wrong. Federal judges, IME, don't particularly like wasting their time on total bullshit any more than the rest of us so if there was truly no good faith basis for bringing the lawsuit, it would not remain pending for years. But hey, I don't practice in Utah. Maybe they do things differently out there.
(in retrospect, maybe 631 was the more measured response...)
627: Did someone fart?
That seems unfair. I'd be happy if that was the case that conservatives used everytime they needed an example of a frivolous lawsuit.
It isn't an example that's particularly relevent to cases of individuals suing corporations, but it is an example of a counter-productive and frustrating lawsuit.
629 Some other good news from the ground: Al Giordano reports that ACORN says it has already signed up 1,128,704 new voters toward its goal of 1.5 million. . . . About one-quarter of its success has come in just two states: Florida and Michigan (where the non-primaries hadn't already increased substantial new registrants).
Umm, the SCO vs IBM case is pretty damn frivolous. SCO is suing IBM for using Linux because Linux allegedly contains SCO's IP, which is a pretty ridiculous claim if you're familiar with the lineage of the software involved.
I mean that while you in all your wisdom may believe the lawsuit against your employer to be "frivolous," you are apparently wrong. Federal judges, IME, don't particularly like wasting their time on total bullshit any more than the rest of us so if there was truly no good faith basis for bringing the lawsuit, it would not remain pending for years.
Did you look at the wikipedia case? I'm not familiar with the court proceedings, but I was outraged when that lawsuit was filed.
I don't claim any expertise but, from my perspective, it's possible to believe both that the courts are well suited to handle personal injury cases (or malpractice, or discrimination cases, or whatever currently maligned category of suits you want to name) and that intellectual property and, specifically, software have been problem areas for the courts.
This is all a tangent since, as I said, it isn't really analgous to anti-discrimination lawsuits, but I really would be happy if more people used that as a paradigmatic example of a bad lawsuit.
Umm. That was me in 636, to 632. Operating on low battery at the moment.
636: it's likely without merit, but I dunno that it's frivolous, given the absurd state of software IP law at this moment.
The SCO v. IBM lawsuit may well be frivolous, but it doesn't mean that James has a point.
James, when berating lawyers in these forums don't use real cases. One must mention Jarndyce versus Jarndyce, and you will not only be understood, but applauded.
Well, it looks like one of the issues in the case was identifying the software involved. And the 2007 ruling is a related case seems to be that Novell rather than SCO owns the IP in question, depending on the interpretation of some contract amendments or some such. I'm not going to read the actual decisions, but I will say that 'frivolous' is a term of art in the law, and it does not seem to apply to this case.
And IBM has a counterclaim, that's been pending for years. Is that frivolous too?
635: Yeah, but you know that's all voter fraud. The GOP will probably argue for throwing out those states' EVs if the end up going Dem.
Applied to domestic politics, that theory has had a lot of success.
Just because someone hopes to be greeted as a liberator doesn't mean they will be.
Sifu's right. The SCO vs. IBM thing looks silly if you're a tech person familiar with the codebase. The entire area of law is a mess though, so `frivolous' isn't really the term. It's a good argument for cleaning up IP law, I suspect.
"Frivolous" doesn't mean "I don't think it will win" but "doesn't have standing to file", or something close to that, right?
Sifu's right.
IN YOUR FACE, HEEBIE.
a pretty ridiculous claim if you're familiar with the lineage of the software involved
I am not. Nor am I familiar with all that much intellectual property law, and even less when narrowed to the field of software licensing. I presumptuously suspect your knowledge of the legalities is equally limited. Which is sort of my ultimate point -- something may appear generally ridiculous yet still be legally reasonable because sometimes the law itself is goofy. (Or appear ridiculous but in fact be quite reasonable because the law is quite rational yet exceedingly intricate and complex.)
sometimes the law itself is goofy
Definitively the issue in this case.
because sometimes the law itself is goofy. Or appear ridiculous but in fact be quite reasonable because the law is quite rational yet exceedingly intricate and complex.
Yeah. In this case I'm pretty sure it's the former.
I am the law! Tremble before me, puny humans. Gorsh.
645 should have had a "but things probably look different if you're a lawyer, and not a tech person"
I would describe the SCO stuff as `opportunistic', not `frivolous'.
642
"... but I will say that 'frivolous' is a term of art in the law, and it does not seem to apply to this case ..."
Frivolous may have a specialized legal meaning but it also has an ordinary English meaning which would be what a layman like McCain intends when he uses the word. And suing somebody for stealing something which is not yours in the first place seems frivolous within the ordinary English meaning.
But on the ordinary English meaning, suing someone for treating you unfairly over a period of years is hardly frivolous at all. I don't think moving to a less precise definition of 'frivolous' helps McCain here.
That was quite a contagious fart.
Can we just agree that subsequent comments reveal that 637 hit all of the key points?
and suing somebody for stealing something which is not yours in the first place seems
This is entirely the problem though. In the context of IP law, it wasn't at all clear that `which is not yours' was actually true. At least, that's been the unofficial position of a couple of IP lawyers I mused about the case with back when it was newish (no idea what they would say now).
So it doesn't matter if in any common-sense description of what happened, people would agree they don't have a stake.
We shouldn't be overly sympathetic to IBM here though, as they've contributed to the mess that is software patents also.
As far as I can see, basically software patents have been probably a bad idea, and definitely a bad implementation, pursued vigorously by interested parties. When one of them gets bit on the ass by it, well, I'm not shedding any tears for them.
653: Actually, when referring to "frivolous" lawsuits, the specialized legal meaning seems entirely proper. Kind of like if I am talking about a guy being "safe" in baseball, even as a non-player it is assumed I am using the word in the specialized context.
In any event, suing someone for stealing something which is not yours does sound awfully frivolous -- of course, presumably the point of the litigation is to resolve who actually owns the rights. Apparently, there is an argument to be made or it wouldn't still be pending.
Whenever I see "SCO", I think of John Scofield.
but I really would be happy if more people used that as a paradigmatic example of a bad lawsuit.
bad lawsuit, or bad laws? I'm voting the latter.
I just went to look for a clip of John Scofield and realized that I have conflated him and David Sanborn lo these many years. They don't even play vaguely similar instruments, and probably not vaguely similar types of music either.
still not as bad as when I confused 2 Live Crew and the Crew Cuts when I was 6 or 8 years old.
662: Awesome. There's a great description at Tapped, too.
USA! USA! USA!
Yeah,great. Makin' me all misty.
651 has a pretty clever email address.
Nomineeeeeeeeeeeeeee
OK, this is far more important than a lame old David Sanborn hijack.
654
"But on the ordinary English meaning, suing someone for treating you unfairly over a period of years is hardly frivolous at all. I don't think moving to a less precise definition of 'frivolous' helps McCain here."
But that wasn't Di Kotimy's argument in 502 which appeared to be that McCain was wrong because there was no such thing as a frivolous lawsuit.
And measures which make it easier to sue do encourage frivolous (as well as non-frivolous) lawsuits.
Apparently, there is an argument to be made or it wouldn't still be pending.
This hardly follows. If someone alleges facts that state a claim, a lawsuit generally goes forward at least until the court is in a position to entertain a motion for summary judgment based on discovery, something that can take years. And even such a motion can be defeated by an affidavit.
Thus, a plaintiff who is willing to lie in a pleading or in an affidavit can keep a case going for years. I am not so cynical as to think that this happens all the time. But I have a hard time imagining that a practicing litigator could claim not to know that such things happen, and have, indeed, happened to their clients. I do not have a proposal for a better system (more strictly enforcing the rules against frivolous lawsuits creates other problems). On the other hand, it seems a bit much to pretend that they do not happen (and more than once in a blue moon).
But that wasn't Di Kotimy's argument in 502 which appeared to be that McCain was wrong because there was no such thing as a frivolous lawsuit.
Her point was that under the legal definition of frivolous, there is no such thing as a frivolous lawsuit that drags on for years. SCOTLAND vs. IBM has dragged on for years because the laws make no sense and any patent or IP lawsuit can end up dragged into an infinite nightmarish swampland of paradoxes, without ever becoming "frivolous", because under the laws that make no sense, both parties have a reasonable claim.
In areas like malpractice or personal injury or monetary damages, there is in fact no such thing as a frivolous lawsuit that drags on for years, under either the legal or real-world definition of frivolous., because they are tossed out quickly if the judge does their job.
657
"As far as I can see, basically software patents have been probably a bad idea, and definitely a bad implementation, pursued vigorously by interested parties. When one of them gets bit on the ass by it, well, I'm not shedding any tears for them."
The case involves copyright and contracts not patents.
Dudes! Shut up about frivolous lawsuits and read Sifu's two links!
664. Sifu, I'm sure that "Love Train" was playing as a tribute to Jeri Ryan puling a train at that sex club, per my reference in 623.
667: There's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem here, isn't there? It doesn't make it easier to sue, if I understand it; it makes it easier for a case to go forward, e.g., because it can't be dismissed automatically due to being filed outside of the 180 day limit (which could have occurred before the person first learned of the discrimination). It might encourage more *lawsuits* (which businesses wouldn't like), but they wouldn't (almost by definition) be frivolous.
I get Mark Ambinder and Mark Halperin confused, and it does seem that they are the same person.
Behold Ambinder's conundrum.
McCain campaign airs provocatively misleading ads.
The press has a conundrum.
If we want to point out how misleading they are, we air the ad.
McCain's campaign wins the point.
If we refuse to point out how misleading they are, McCain's campaign escapes criticism.
IS HE THE BIGGEST IDIOT EVER?
My mom did jury duty once for a malpractice case that was borderline frivolous (the plaintiff had gone to several doctors before finding one who would agree with her claim). After the jury swiftly decided in favor of the defendant, the judge thanked them for being sensible, explaining that dismissing a case was a hassle for him, so it was easier to just go through the trial and get it over with, presuming that the jury would get it right.
I suppose this anecdote supports the 'frivolous' lawsuit idea, except that it lasted like 2-3 days, plus 1 for jury selection. Not exactly grinding the wheels of justice to a halt.
671: three links, including 617.
671: I read it. Nicely done. You see? Political theater lives on!
671: No, we'd rather compete with James in this contest we're having.
If we want to point out how misleading they are, we air the ad.
Gosh, if only there were another way...
669: Thanks, Peter. I might soften that form "no such thing" to "not a significant problem" to allow for the fact that there are occasional judges who don't always do their job. But "frivolous lawsuits" are hardly an epidemic and mostly people who throw that phrase around just mean "lawsuits that I wish I didn't have to deal with."
Ha, classy and memorable move by Clinton. Very cool.
I have yawned at the convention, but I'm really glad I turned on the tv just in time to catch the acclamation.
</earnest>
This Ambinder does seem to be a moron. maybe he doesn't want the Republicans to win, but he plays by their rules, because he has an incredibly easy job and doesn't want to lose it. Presumably he was hired by people who want the Republicans to win.
I'd rather talk about how the Democratic nominee's meteoric rise was caused by the hottness that is Jeri Ryan. To keep it classy.
You have no proof that he came here on a meteor at all, let alone that he's a Borg.
What could be a better anthem for party unity than Love Train? It's stuck in my head now, anyway. Pretty cool move.
Forgive me a moment of earnestness: the Democratic Party, the Party of slavery, secession, and segregation, just nominated a black man as its candidate for the presidency. Sometimes things get better -- if only incrementally.
Ezra gets it wrong - there was housekeeping that had to be done within the Party - Michelle and Hillary had to have their moments, with no distractions.
Ezra will be right, though, if nothing else is accomplished.
690: Well, 200-plus, really, but who's counting?
692: oh, sure, like slavery counts, now. Pedant.
You have no proof that he came here on a meteor at all, let alone that he's a Borg.
Exactly. Bill Clinton may be one of the lizardmen, but the truth is that Seven of Nine was never released by the Borg, just sent on a sleeper mission. The Illuminati sure have some strange ways of staying in power.
Ezra gets it wrong - there was housekeeping that had to be done within the Party - Michelle and Hillary had to have their moments, with no distractions.
The women had to take care of housekeeping? Nice, PF.
690, 692: You both disgust me. Move to China, and be done with it.
698: You know, our zoo has two baby elephants, and both mothers are good mothers.
Unlike some zoos I could mention.
692: did the democratic party, even in name, exist 200 years ago?
"There's a goddamn baby elephant in my bed" the mother was quoted as saying.
Notice that Hillary moved to "suspend the rules"? The rest of us have to follow the rules, but she can just wave her hand and ignore them. That's not right. And Obama just sat there.
692: did the democratic party, even in name, exist 200 years ago?
Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party_(United_States)
I'm still working on the four-word slogan. At first I thought the limit was too constraining, but then it hit me like a diamond bullet:
McCain: Complete Fucking Douchebag
If I were a farmer with a vast wheat field, I would mow that into it, then set up a website with nothing but an image of it from Google Earth. Since I'm not, I offer the idea to any wheat farmers among the Unfoggetariat.
The unrepentant mother quoted scripture, explaining that disobedient, demon-possessed children need tough love. "Did you see that movie where the kid ate her mother's liver? That's the kind of kid it was".
That is great. Parliamentary procedure is love!
707 - I think "McCain: Crazy Old Asshole" is superior because it emphasizes the fact that McCain is
(1) Crazy
(2) Old
(3) an Asshole
704, 709: It's sobering to think that, almost certainly, someone somewhere has expressed exactly those ideas in all seriousness. In Oregon a decade or so ago a young, defiant child in a religious commune was beaten to death on her father's orders. It wasn't a freak hit or anything; the beating was quite protracted.
Is moving in the spirit of unity a particular kind of recognized parliamentary motion?
Moving to a vote by acclamation is. I think being moved by unity is not required.
||
Having a blog is fun, because then you get such great feedback.
703: Thank you for posting that. I'm a little surprised how emotional I was watching it. Thanks.
McCain: Not ready at 3AM. Blame Ambien!
I believe that George Bush the First had an Ambien free-association-rapping moment. I couldn't Google it up though.
The case involves copyright and contracts not patents.
Heh. I guess it has been going a while, I've forgotten the details. Doesn't change anything really, all the relevent IP law is a mess (no opinion on trademark).
... and obviously when we were talking about code ownership, it's copyright not patents (but there was another SCO patent case). anyway, we've moved on (best bet)
Speaking of ambien, this is a good song.
Huh, I deleted that album because I found it rather twee and sort of insufferable. Diff'r'n't strokes.
Wow, Evan Bayh has very little in the way of speaking ability. Thank God, he's not the VP nominee.
Napí, LizardBreath, check your respective email addresses. (Not sure I have your current email, Napster.)
I believe that George Bush the First had an Ambien free-association-rapping moment. I couldn't Google it up though.
Perhaps 41's regurgitation into the lap of the Japanese Prime Minister is what you're remembering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnOnDatqENo
Personally I think that was GHWB's payback for getting shot down. given that logic, McCain could well shit on the Vietnamese PM's plate. Hell, maybe he'll go for all the marbles, and pee on Hu Jintao. They all look alike anyway.
Hi! This thread is pretty long. It would be lovely if there were a new one providing an opportunity to eviscerate discuss Bill Clinton's speech.
Which is apparently beginning now.
i like this song, so classic, nicely lonely mood
sukiyaki
Sifu, M. Gordon needs to be slapped down! I, too, am jealous of your wit, but really now. Sticks and stones, baby. Sticks and stones.
In Japanese culture, puking on someone's lap is regarded as rude. But George the First wasn't into nuance.
That's not it though. Bush I came out with a string of unintelligible but vaguely poetic babble.
673
"... It might encourage more *lawsuits* (which businesses wouldn't like), but they wouldn't (almost by definition) be frivolous."
Some of them will be frivolous because the plaintiff is lying or mistaken. Just as when you pass a criminal law some people convicted under the law will be innocent. Expanding the scope of laws always has this sort of cost which you may or may not think is worth it.
Take this rare opportunity to download "Rappin' Rodney" for free!
Another Sukiyaki with translation and story of Kyu Sakamoto
James, you're off in space. Your original redefinition of "frivolous" was wrong, and your new redefinition is even more wrong. If the plaintiff is lying, it's fraud and perjury, not a frivolous lawsuit.
720
"Heh. I guess it has been going a while, I've forgotten the details. Doesn't change anything really, all the relevent IP law is a mess (no opinion on trademark)."
What's so messed up about copyright law as applied to software? I think it is fairly reasonable. For example, unlike patent law, independent development is a complete defense.
734 his daughter was born after his death
so is life
736: Apparently because it's weakly formed and undecidable, leading to interminable lawsuits that you inaccurately regard as frivolous. I say that based on what people have already tried to tell you. Apparently we're in the midst of the kind of litigation process by which either laws are better defined in the courts, or else rewritten.
738: more than that, it's a poor standard to apply to software. Patents are as bad, if more solidly theoretically grounded. Blame Bill Gates (really!) as he's the first person to push for copyright protections on software.
735
"James, you're off in space. Your original redefinition of "frivolous" was wrong, and your new redefinition is even more wrong. If the plaintiff is lying, it's fraud and perjury, not a frivolous lawsuit."
My definition of a frivolous lawsuit is one lacking merit. So a suit based on lies or delusions is frivolous.
Several people seem to be forgetting the golden rule of arguing with Shearer, which is, don't.
739
"more than that, it's a poor standard to apply to software. Patents are as bad, if more solidly theoretically grounded. Blame Bill Gates (really!) as he's the first person to push for copyright protections on software."
What is your objection to copyright protection for software? Here is Richard Stallman on copyright and patents:
"Software developers are not up in arms against copyright law, because the developer of a program holds the copyright on the program; as long as the programmers wrote the code themselves, no one else has a copyright on their code. There is no danger that strangers could have a valid case of copyright infringement against them."
As we said, that's a stupid definition, Mr. Humpty Dumpty. You are not longer saying anything speciific.
Sorry, W-lfs-n. This thread has been James's for some time.
739
"... Blame Bill Gates (really!) as he's the first person to push for copyright protections on software."
This is not true although Gates was an early advocate as seen in this 1980 interview . According to this :
"... According to the Copyright Office, the first deposit of a computer program for registration was on November 30, 1961. ..."
744: he was the first to seek enforcement, and the first to see the business model of software as one that relied on enforcing copyright applied to code.
743
"As we said, that's a stupid definition, Mr. Humpty Dumpty ..."
So what's your definition?
745
"he was the first to seek enforcement, and the first to see the business model of software as one that relied on enforcing copyright applied to code."
Actually he wasn't. Data Cash Systems vrs JS&A Group .
Some four years after Bill's letter to the Homebrew Computer Club.
The legal definition is best. "Anything that anyone thinks is a waste of time" is a terrible definition, and that seems to be yours (with "anyone" being James B. Shearer). A lot of the law seems frivolous and a waste of time to a lot of people, but they're people who don't care about the law. Legal work is nitpicky by nature.
It looks like the case IBM hasn't won yet, with all their lawyers and against a smaller opponent, is the result of a poorly written law. Either judges will have to make law, or Congress will. Litigation is a normal part of the process by which law is changed.
In the case of fraud, fraud is fraud and unrelated to the frivolousness of lawsuits. No matter how well-grounded and unfrivolous a lawsuit is, if someone's giving false testimony there's a problem. But the problem isn't a frivolous lawsuit.
So by now you've lumped at least three different things into frivolity, one of them being actual frivolity, and by your modus operandi it seems that you might add others later.
741: Sorry, Ben. I feel sort of responsible for starting this. What we really need is for someone who will crack down on frivolous commenting. That's what we need.
I can't speak to the SCO case specifically, but I will say that there's a real problem in the legal system (and not one that I have good ideas about how to fix) with cases where the facts are technical enough to be incomprehensible to the judge, which is (I would guess) where the SCO case fits.
Within the realm of cases where the facts are comprehensible to an educated layperson like a judge, Di's right that there's not a huge problem with frivolous lawsuits (defined, IMO, as ones where the plaintiff's position on the facts shouldn't properly create liability). Suits like that get dismissed. Of course, if a plaintiff is willing to perjure themselves, they can state a fraudulent but facially non-frivolous claim and keep it going until they get caught lying, which might be never, but there's not much the legal system can be expected to do to make that impossible.
703: I click on that link, and the video comes up with a big-assed NewsMax ad to the right saying "Obama Finished? Vote Here Now!" How interesting.
with cases where the facts are technical enough to be incomprehensible to the judge
But if it comes down to deciphering complex, technical facts, that's the paradigmatic jury question not suited to resolution by judges. I'm not seeing why technical facts should correlate to a greater problem with frivolous lawsuits.
Seriously, I think you get situations where a judge simply doesn't factually understand what's going on enough to see that the claim doesn't make any sense. I worked on a big case where plaintiffs' claims for damages rested on a set of economic arguments about how my client's actions had affected prices and the value of goods purchased in a given market that were, frankly, frivolous. But really really complicated, and with expert reports propping them up. Our judge in that case happened to be absolutely brilliant, and saw through the nonsense, but that was luck -- they're not all that clever. (Of course, he ruled against us on other grounds, but he cleared out the economics nonsense pretty well.)
A reasonable reaction to dueling expert reports is to say "Eh, they're both from respectable people, and I don't understand either, so let it go forward." I can totally see that happening in a case where the facts depend on the details of software design -- if you can't understand what the parties are claiming happened, it's hard, as a judge, to say the facts don't state a claim.
Okay, I see your point now -- basically the problem that, for the right price, you can pretty much find an expert to say anything.
If it's just a matter of the judge not understanding, though, that seems to me a problem with the lawyering as much as with the judge. If it's that complicated, you need to work that much harder to make it clear -- even if that means ceding control over your brief to someone who is a better writer. I've worked on a number of matters where the lawyers most intimately involved had an incredible grasp of the facts, etc., and once you cornered them and asked the right questions and got them to lay it all out carefully it made sense -- just that you never would have gotten any of it from their briefs.
669
"In areas like malpractice or personal injury or monetary damages, there is in fact no such thing as a frivolous lawsuit that drags on for years, under either the legal or real-world definition of frivolous., because they are tossed out quickly if the judge does their job."
That was really a politicized hit job on the judge's part. Bad, but not business as usual.
751
"Within the realm of cases where the facts are comprehensible to an educated layperson like a judge, Di's right that there's not a huge problem with frivolous lawsuits (defined, IMO, as ones where the plaintiff's position on the facts shouldn't properly create liability). Suits like that get dismissed. Of course, if a plaintiff is willing to perjure themselves, they can state a fraudulent but facially non-frivolous claim and keep it going until they get caught lying, which might be never, but there's not much the legal system can be expected to do to make that impossible."
Here is a news story about an early denial of summary judgement. The judge is quoted as saying:
"Despite this, Kimball hasnt dismissed SCOs case. "Nevertheless, despite the vast disparity between SCOs public accusations and its actual evidence--or complete lack thereof--and the resulting temptation to grant IBMs motion, the court has determined that it would be premature to grant summary judgment."
As for his reasoning behind the decision, Kimball said, "It is apparent that complete discovery is necessary prior to the just resolution of any claim.""
757
"That was really a politicized hit job on the judge's part. Bad, but not business as usual."
Really? The judge was Susan Webber Wright . According to wikipedia:
"Wright presided over Paula Jones's sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton. The claims were based on activity alleged to have taken place when Clinton was Governor of Arkansas and Jones worked in his office. Wright refused to grant Clinton absolute presidential immunity against the lawsuit, but nonetheless ruled that a sitting president could not be sued and deferred his trial until after his presidential term was over.1 Her order was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which affirmed her ruling that Clinton was not entitled to absolute immunity, but reversed the stay Wright imposed, to allow Jones's lawsuit to continue without delay.2
On April 1, 1998, Wright granted summary judgment to Clinton in a 39-page ruling that expressed exasperation with both Jones and her lawyers, and stated that she believed the case to be without legal merit.3 Jones's appeal to the Eighth Circuit was dismissed when Clinton settled with her out of court."
What do you think she should have done differently? Wikipedia does note that she is a conservative Republican and that:
"Wright was a student of Clinton's in a class on admiralty law while at the University of Arkansas law school; she later challenged him on her grade. The dispute occurred after Clinton lost her final paper then offered her only a B-."
She should have dismissed it on the pleadings without discovery for failure to state a claim.
Imagine how history might have changed if he'd just given her an A-.
Bill Clinton taught admiralty law??
760
"She should have dismissed it on the pleadings without discovery for failure to state a claim."
Is this view widely shared? What fraction of federal judges do think would dismiss at that stage?
Her later dismissal of the case after discovery was called surprising by the NYT and the WP.
That was flip, because I haven't actually read the complaint, but my understanding of the allegations Jones made is that they don't state a claim -- for employment related sexual discrimination, you need not only the underlying bad behavior, which Jones did allege, but either threats or promises: "Have sex with me and I'll promote you, or if you don't I'll fire you," or tangible detrimental employment effects after the incident. It's my understanding that Jones didn't sufficiently allege detrimental employment effects.
But I could be wrong -- possibly the allegations were enough to require discovery, I can't be sure without looking at the complaint. In which case the judge really should have controlled the discovery process better; the sort of fishing Jones' lawyers were allowed to engage in was unconventional and improper.
James is, unfortunately, pretty right about the SCO case, in that it was utterly meritless and they knew it. It was complex because they were following a "baffle them with bullshit" strategy that meant the discovery process dragged out forever. It was technical enough for that not to be too difficult.
The whole case also stalled while Novell v SCO was settled, since that would affect whether SCO even had standing to bring their case against IBM. That case really did involve a lot of detailed contractural complexities, and SCO may even have believed they were in the right, so it legitimately took a long time.
I don't think SCO's case was legally frivolous, though, but perhaps vexatious. A layman might reasonably describe it as either without knowing their technical meanings.
