• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Ann Brown on Decisions, Decisions.
    jmac on Decisions, Decisions.
    Ga6thDem on Decisions, Decisions.
    HerstoryRepeating on Decisions, Decisions.
    William on Decisions, Decisions.
    Pat Johnson on Decisions, Decisions.
    tamens on Decisions, Decisions.
    Catscatscats on Chernobylesque
    Propertius on Chernobylesque
    Catscatscats on Chernobylesque
    William on Chernobylesque
    William on Chernobylesque
    William on Chernobylesque
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Chernobylesque
    Niles on Chernobylesque
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    October 2010
    S M T W T F S
    « Sep   Nov »
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • And They Made A Desert: 80 to 90% Drop In Nutrients In Food
      Stumbled across this lovely chart the other day. The core fact most people, including the folks in the “best every world” Panglossian movement (like Pinker) don’t seem to understand, is that even if they were right (questionable), the prosperity we have is based on burning down our house. “Sure is hot! Hottest it’s every been!” […]
  • Top Posts

  • Advertisements

Wednesday News

Good Morning Conflucians!!

We start off the morning with a real stunner. Virginia Thomas called up Anita Hill and left a message that it’d be just find and dandy if Anita would admit she’s a liar and apologize:

A spokesman for the university confirmed that Hill turned the message over Monday to the school’s Department of Public Safety.

“And they in turn informed the FBI,” said Andrew Gully, senior vice president of communications and external affairs. “They felt it was appropriate thing to do.”

At the university, Hill is a professor of social policy, law and women’s studies. Hill became a household name and the subject of a national conversation about sexual harassment after her explosive testimony at Thomas’ contentious confirmation hearings in 1991. On Tuesday, Hill said she had nothing to apologize for.

“I certainly thought the call was inappropriate,” Hill said in a statement. “I have no intention of apologizing because I testified truthfully about my experience and I stand by that testimony.”

Thomas’ message was first reported by ABC News, which obtained a transcript:

“Good morning, Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. OK, have a good day.”

Virginia Thomas confirmed the message.

“The offer still stands,” she told ABC News in a statement.

Apparently WTF week continues. What nerve. That sadly brings back all those memories of the intense sexism and misogyny surrounding that incident and how shocking it was that most in the media and government sided with the sex offender, now justice Thomas. I bet Harry Reid likes him too. Maybe he’s one of his pets as well.

As mentioned by myiq last night, the big story being pushed of late is O’Donnell’s disbelief that the separation of church and state can be found in the First Amendment. You could interpret that to mean she was asking if that particular phrase was in there, of course it’s not, or if the discussion were more broad. O’Donnell now is of course siding with just the particular phrase. Here’s more:

During Tuesday’s debate, O’Donnell and Coons were arguing over the teaching-of-Creationism thing when Coons said that one of the “indispensable principles” of the Founding Fathers was “separation of church of state.”

“Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” said O’Donnell in reply, drawing gasps from a crowd composed largely of law students and professors.

A few minutes later, Coons returned to the subject, saying the First Amendment establishes the separation between church and state.

“The First Amendment does?” said O’Donnell. “You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

After the debate, O’Donnell did not respond to reporters asking her to clarify her remarks. Her campaign manager, Matt Moran, later issued a statement saying that she was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state. “She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution,” Mr. Moran said.

We report, you decide. OK, couldn’t resist that. To me it looks like she didn’t mean that exact phrase but instead thinks the state can impose religion, hence being for teaching creationism. Here’s a bit more:

O’Donnell is not the only conservative Republican Senate candidate with “tea party” support who has raised the issue of what the First Amendment means. In Nevada, Sharron Angle has taken a point of view similar to that of her Delaware compatriot.

In an interview earlier this year, Ms. Angle said that Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Father credited with originating the phrase “separation of church and state,” has been misunderstood on this matter.

“Thomas Jefferson was actually addressing a church and telling them through his address that there had been a wall of separation put up between the church and the state precisely to protect the church from being taken over by a state religion,” said Angle to Las Vegas Sun columnist Jon Ralston. “That’s what they meant by that. They didn’t mean we couldn’t bring our values to the political forum.”

It sounds like some of the justifications that make their way around the circuit for teaching creationism and for pushing religion on us through the government.

Because of the recent ruling that DADT is unconstitutional, the military is now forced to consider openly gay recruits. Of course Obama is moving fast to stop this as we all know:

The military is accepting openly gay recruits for the first time in the nation’s history.

The historic move follows a series of decisions by US District Court Judge Virginia Phillips, who ruled last month that the “don’t ask, don’t tell’’ law targeting openly gay service members violates their equal protection and First Amendment rights. Yesterday, Phillips rejected the government’s effort to delay her order that halted enforcement of the 17-year policy.

Government lawyers are expected to appeal her decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco.

In the meantime, the Defense Department has said it will comply with Phillips’s order and had frozen discharge cases. Cynthia Smith, Pentagon spokeswoman, said recruiters had been given top-level guidance to accept applicants who say they are gay.

At least two service members discharged for being gay began the process to reenlist after the Pentagon’s announcement yesterday.

Recruiters also have been told to inform potential recruits that the moratorium on enforcement of the policy could be reversed at any time, if the ruling is appealed or the court grants a stay, she said.

Still, supporters of gay rights hailed the military’s decision.

“Gay people have been fighting for equality in the military since the 1960s,’’ said Aaron Belkin, executive director of the Palm Center, a think tank on gays and the military at the University of California Santa Barbara. “It took a lot to get to this day.’’

The White House has insisted its actions in court do not diminish President Obama’s efforts to repeal the ban. In their request for a stay, government lawyers argue Phillips’s order would be disruptive to troops serving at a time of war.

They say the military needs time to prepare new regulations and train and educate service members about the change.

Phillips has said her order does not prohibit the Pentagon from implementing those measures.

So on the one hand, it’s great that the judge ruled that way and for the most part it appears the military will comply. But it’s very sad that Obama is working to overturn the ruling. Of course it’s not at all surprising Obama would want to do this given the people he has surrounded himself with for many years, esp. religious leaders, but also senior staff and advisors who think it’s only a lifestyle choice.

It appears we have some interesting activity between the FED and the banks, and perhaps the recent stock market drop has to do with some of that:

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York has joined a group of investors demanding that Bank of America buy back billions of dollars worth of mortgage securities that are plagued with shoddy documentation and lending standards, according to people familiar with the matter.

Some of the most powerful investment groups in the country as well as the New York arm of the central bank are accusing one of Bank of America’s major mortgage divisions of cutting corners when it was issuing mortgages during the housing boom and as it has been foreclosing on struggling borrowers during the bust.

If Bank of America refuses to comply, these investors could end up suing, a person familiar with the matter said.

The demand from the New York Fed and other investors sets up an unusual and high-stakes confrontation, pitting an arm of the federal government against the country’s biggest bank. It also illustrates conflicting policy priorities, because it could put the Fed at odds with a bank the Treasury Department has been helping through the financial crisis over the past two years.

With this new confrontation, the government finds itself in the awkward position of being an unhappy private investor pressing for its rights to be enforced. The New York Fed holds roughly $16 billion of mortgage securities that it acquired after it bailed out American International Group.

On Tuesday, Bank of America dismissed concerns that investors will drag the bank into court for years with costly lawsuits.

“We don’t see the issues that people [are] worried about, quite frankly,” chief executive Brian Moynihan said in a conference call Tuesday as the bank reported a $7.3 billion third-quarter loss.

Sure, nothing to worry about. Nothing to see here. Go about your business. These aren’t the droids you’re looking for. Business Week has some coverage of this as well:

The action follows a foreclosure freeze that drove bank stocks lower this month as shareholders reconsidered the risks of home loans sold before the housing crash. The New York Fed acquired mortgage debt through its 2008 rescues of Bear Stearns Cos. and American International Group Inc., and the Fed’s participation may raise the odds of prevailing against Bank of America, said Scott Buchta of Braver Stern Securities LLC.

“Individual investors have been trying for years to get these big banks to buy back loans at par, and haven’t had a lot of luck,” said Buchta, head of investment strategy for the New York-based securities firm. The New York Fed “in your corner, that adds weight and might give you a better chance for success.”

Buckle your seat belts, we’re in for a bumpy ride.

And speaking of a bumpy ride, the undeniable story about how much better for candidates Big Dawg is than Oprecious is still being told:

Former President Bill Clinton is more effective than President Obama at motivating both Democrats and Independents, a new Gallup Poll indicates.

Both President Obama and former President Clinton have been traveling the country campaigning to prevent a Republican landslide in November’s elections. Clinton has headlined more than 80 events for hard-pressed Democratic candidates, and some observers think he could complete 100 appearances by election day.

In a poll conducted October 14-17, Gallup asked registered voters whether having Clinton or Obama campaign for a candidate would be a plus, minus, or make no difference. From those responses, Gallup calculated a “net impact” by subtracting the percentage who said campaigning would make them less likely to vote for a candidate from the percentage who said it would make them more likely to vote for a candidate.

“Clinton does modestly better than Obama among Democrats,” writes Gallup editor in chief Frank Newport. The net positive impact of Clinton’s campaigning among Democrats is 48 percent, while for Obama it is 42 percent.

Where the former president dramatically outshines Obama is with independent voters. Among independents, “Clinton’s impact breaks about even,” Mr. Newport writes. Some 21 percent of independents are more likely to support a candidate if Mr. Clinton works for them, while 23 percent are less likely, leaving the net result at a negative 2 percent.

But independents in the poll react in a much more negative fashion to Obama. While 12 percent say they would be more likely to vote for a person Obama supports on the stump, a whopping 39 percent say they would be less likely. That produces a net impact from Obama campaign appearances of a negative 27 percent among independents. Since independent voters are often the key to winning elections, that negative impact is a major problem for Democrats.

Unfortunately for the world, the analysis then proceeded to give an opinion as to why this might be. And of course we hear the usual mythologies and Obama pampering:

Why the gap in campaign performance? Gallup’s Mr. Newport argues that it “almost certainly reflects the fact that Clinton has been out of office for 10 years, and thus has become a more benign figure to those who are independent or who identify with the Republican Party.” Obama, he argues, as sitting president is “more likely to generate strong feelings at this point in his career.”

Another likely factor in the poll results is that Bill Clinton is a gifted campaigner, whatever one thinks of his politics. Politico columnist Annie Groer aptly refers to the former president as a man “who never saw a rope line he didn’t want to work.” At an event in New Mexico, the former president said he planned to do “about one stop for everybody that helped Hillary run for president.”

Yes, we see yet again the myth that Clinton is only popular now because he’s been out of office for so long and we’ve forgotten how much we hated him when he just left office. Never mind the facts and what those numbers were. We can’t have facts getting in the way of our mythologies. Notice they also can’t help by pushing the “whatever one things of his politics” bit. Really, you guys are going there. I think most Americans quite like his politics, it’s inside DC that they don’t like it. Nothing changes. WaPo has a related story, but hold your nose, there’s some heavy spinning there as well. But even with their spin, what’s obvious in these contrasts comes through. (In the voice of Dana Carvey doing an impression of HW Bush) Clinton good, Obama bad.

Esquire has an interesting article pointing out that given that Obama is mostly an echo of MA Gov. Patrick, watching the governors race now might be a good indication of how Obama’s will be. And perhaps that’s it’s a bit of a referendum of Obama as well. I think there’s something to that. Definitely a race to watch for a number of reasons.

Let’s change gears here and look at a few things going on in the privacy world. The first item is about how the US Gov. is watching you on Facebook, and in some cases is pushing being “Friends” with some to even more closely monitor your activity:

According to documents obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the U.S. government is busily tracking social networks in a number of ways, including using sites like Facebook to monitor people who are applying for U.S. citizenship.

According to a May 2008 memo by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Narcissistic tendencies in many people fuels a need to have a large group of “friends” link to their pages and many of these people accept cyber-friends that they don’t even know. This provides an excellent vantage point for FDNS [Office of Fraud Detection and National Security] to observe the daily life of beneficiaries and petitioners who are suspected of fraudulent activities.”

In other words, social networking sites give the government an opportunity to reveal potential fraud by friending people who are applying for citizenship, then monitoring their activity to see if they are being deceptive about their relationships. “In essence,” says the memo, “using MySpace and other like sites is akin to doing an unannounced cyber “site-visit” on a petitioner and beneficiaries.”

The other item is about traffic and street cameras monitoring citizens. This story has a twist in that some of these cameras are being opened up to the public, so anyone can watch, and also monitor the police as well:

Back in 1996, writer and scientist David Brin wrote “The Transparent Society,” a tale of two fundamentally similar yet very different 21st-century cities. Both were littered with security cameras monitoring every inch of public space, but in one city the police did the watching, while in the other the citizens monitored the feeds to keep an eye on each other (and the police). These days, many UK police forces monitor their city streets with cameras mounted on every corner. Now, for a fee, a private company is crowdsourcing security surveillance to any citizen willing to watch, fulfilling Brin’s prophecy in a sense.

Devon-based Internet Eyes offers businesses a surveillance service in which private citizens eager to earn cash rewards can log on and view video streams remotely, keeping an eye out for suspicious activity. If a viewer spots a shoplifter, a text is sent to two mobile numbers of the owner’s choosing, alerting store personnel of the matter. The viewer can earn rewards of up to 1,000 British pounds if the tip turns out to be accurate (that’s roughly $1,600). The business pays 75 pounds per month for the service.

If it sounds a bit Orwellian, it is and it isn’t. After all, it’s not the actual government accessing the feeds but regular civilians with no law enforcement power. And steps are taken to keep things secure; the feeds swap every 20 minutes and are completely anonymous, so a viewer doesn’t know the location of the camera. If a viewer does report a crime, the feed switches immediately afterward. In short, any kind of voyeuristic fun you might want to have via the service is seriously limited.

And one last update as we’re going to press. The DADT Judge refuses to stay her decision:

The federal judge who declared “don’t ask, don’t tell” unconstitutional denied the Obama administration’s request Tuesday to let military authorities resume discharging openly gay and lesbian troops while the government appeals her ruling.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips of Riverside rejected Justice Department arguments that she should suspend her decision to prevent disruption to military operations during the appeal.

In fact, she said, courtroom testimony showed that halting the “don’t ask” policy would help the armed forces by retaining service members, including many with exceptional skills.

The trial showed that the law “harms military readiness and unit cohesion, and irreparably injures service members by violating their fundamental rights,” Phillips wrote.

The administration, which has appealed her ruling to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, has said it would immediately ask that court for a stay if Phillips refused to issue one.

A stay would remain in effect at least until a hearing, which might not be before next spring.

Phillips’ order “brings us one step closer toward ending once and for all this unconstitutional policy, which President Obama and Congress seem incapable or unwilling to end themselves,” said Dan Woods, lawyer for the Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000-member gay rights group that sued to overturn the law in 2004.

And so it goes. Chime in with what you’re reading and seeing.

Advertisements

127 Responses

  1. Wow! Obama loves Teh Gays so much, he tried for a stay of execution?
    And I wonder what Joe Biden, Obama’s mostest and single good decision thinks about these developments to this embarrassing episode in his life? Who is unstable now?

  2. Oh, today is Wear Purple Day – in memory of the bullying victims hence my new avatar.
    http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=159201610765973&index=1

  3. Church and State

    Please correct me if I am wrong, but the original idea was that no state could favor a church. This was based on the Church of England, in Revolutionary times had a tax on all to support their operations. That said that Baptists, Catholics, Quackers and everyone got to contribute to the Church of England. Hence, the government shall support no Church.

    Religion has been allowed to make their own case and stand on the merits.

    • You’re not wrong. First Amendment was to deny the government the power to favor any religion, and indeed, it was a rejection of Church of England’s favored status.

      What concerned me about this debate (I watched it all, on purpose) : when asked, Coons couldn’t even name the 5 freedoms in the First Amendment. He knew freedom of speech, but then looked confused, and looked to the moderator to “rescue” him. Sad, really.

      • They showed on teevee that he later named the 5 freedoms for reporters; my daughter (who had to memorize the bill of rights for school) ) said “He keeps looking down at a paper– cheater!”
        LOL.

        • Your daughter’s one smart cookie!

          You’d think the man who wants to argue about the First Amendment would actually come to the debate knowing what the hell is in it, wouldn’t you?

          Sheesh.

      • Could O’Donnell?

  4. ”Obama, [Mr. Newport] argues, as sitting president is “more likely to generate strong feelings at this point in his career.”

    Literally laughing out loud! And Bill Clinton ‘as former president’, ‘at this point in his career’ isn’t? Lol.

    But I wonder, will it move the voters? I mean it’s not like Bill Clinton is ipart of this administration or have any power within the DNC. Then on the other hand I recall how Hillary Clinton voters would admit to be voting for Obama in the GE because “Hillary told me to.” So … who knows.

    • Yea, that one got to me too. And very good question about the voters. You never know. They could be motivated despite the broken promises. That is, the 2% less evil argument may work with many. We’ll see very soon.

  5. On the separation of church and state – maybe O’Donnell needs some pointers from candidate Conway on how that works….
    Got my tabloids – a few of your headlines actually made page ones (not Clinton’s popularity, silly)
    http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/tabloids-dadt-suspended-thomashill-encore-elections/
    A note of Clinton: he was beloved IN SPITE the media, for Obama was only hype. As bill said “You have to make the people feel like winners”

  6. The Republicans don’t miss a trick! Dems, please learn something. The Mrs. Thomas crank call is just another pre-election reminder to Republicans to hate Democrats and all that they stand for. Send the haters bristling to the polls.

    • Ummm…Why are you assuming that the Rs are the only haters and the Ds are so innocent? Did you see Conway’s Aqua Budha ad? Grayson terra ad? Sorry, they are all the same. What that story did for me was to remind me all the misogyny and that one of the vilest figure n that story is the VP. Hate them all.

  7. Re the gazillions of cameras going up everywhere, I recently passed one of Google’s cameras. As I have no desire to be publicly displayed I asked the guy operating it whether I had just been filmed. He explained that they automatically ‘blur’ all humans and explained where I could go to see for myself and make sure. But I shouldn’t worry, because as it was raining the camera wasn’t active. Lol! In other words “It never rains in sunny Google Wo-orld.” 🙂

    Then as I was leaving a young man walked up to the camera, vigorously waving at the camera yelling “Yeah! Am I on, am I on!” Lol. One persons reluctance to be publicly exposed is another person’s chance.

    • That street view and related things Google is doing is a bit creepy. And they do indeed catch people and often don’t blur their faces. They do most of that stuff in an automated fashion, and the software isn’t foolproof. There have been lots of cases of catching people in windows of houses. Very embarrassing.

      I think if it’s legal for them to do that, they should have to at least notify everyone their passing by in some fashion. At least post schedules and such so you can see and be notified or something.

  8. Everything you need to know about ObamaCo is revealed in this up-is-down DADT play. Judge Phillips ruled against the Obama administration’s (that’s right, not Bush, this is Obama) request to let the military resume discharging openly gay and lesbian troops. Phillips points out that halting the “don’t ask” policy would help the armed forces by retaining service members, including many with exceptional skills – that’s what our Democratic President should be saying, rather than fighting against it.

    When people show you who they are, believe them.

  9. Nice round up Dandy. And as you seem to be the ‘tech wunder kid’ here I have a couple of questions:

    Is it deliberate that TC has turned off the ‘mouse over’ function, that allowed you to se the content of a link in a small window?

    And do you, or anyone else, know what’s up with the extra space that sometimes come between an ‘apostroph’ and an ‘s’? As in … “in the 60’s.”

    • The extra space seems to appear only after a zero followed by an apostrophe. Weird!

    • Thanks.

      There may be a global setting for that mouse over function. I’ll check. But if there isn’t, then it must have been turned off for you. When it pops up, there is an option to turn it off. Funnily, there doesn’t seem to be an obvious option to turn it back on. Anyway, we’ll see.

      As for the font, it’s a kerning thing, or lack there of, from the default font choice. Yea, could be refined a bit.

  10. Here’s a video of WaPo blowhard trying to unsolve the mystery of Clinton’s popularity
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/the-fast-fix/?hpid=artslot

    • I replied to them on Tweeter: Peace and prosperity and Last elected President. I know you hate it, but it’s true.
      I read today in the Guardian that following the controversy on the vile anti-gay editorial, WaPo writers were told not to engage readers on Twitter. The Guardian thinks it’s arrogant.
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/oct/20/washington-post-twitter

    • “Øbama being an ex-president in 2012 is not anything Clinton would want to see happen”. In what world does this guy hang out?? Øbama being an ex-president in 2012, would either mean that the DNC came to their senses and nominated Hillary (who would then be elected president) or that the DNC stayed clueless, nominated Øbama again in 2012 and watched as the Republican defeated him. Having a Republican president in 2012– opens up the way for Hillary to run and win in 2016 after the republican president messes up the country. So– Bill Clinton clearly knows that Øbama being ex-president in 2012 is the only way for the country to survive.

    • LOL. Priceless.

  11. DT, great post!
    Typo alert though, it is “liar” not “lier.”

  12. I also have been wondering about the “link preview” feature. Has it been turned off or is it my browser? I used to be able to hover over your blogroll and see what others were posting today without going there. I can’t any longer and wondered if its me or them – wordpress.

  13. Wow, DT, I had no idea the Dept of Homeland Security had been playing Farmville on Facebook all these years to find “bad guys.” (snort) Good grief, is all I can say.

    Great roundup!

  14. Confession: if O’Donnell wins, I will be chuckling because it is a huge wet-fish slap in the face to VP Biden from Delaware.

  15. Oh, since this is an open thread, I will mention I was just reading a young adult fantasy novel I borrowed from the lib. It is published in 2009 and it’s about a teen who crosses into another world where the Big Bad is a charismatic bi-racial Prime Minister who is going to lay waste to the country through his policies that favor the elite at the expense of the people. LOL.

  16. Oh, yeah, Bill’s numbers are so high because he’s been out of office ten years. Idiots. His popularity was just as high the day he left office.

  17. The video of Dan Choi re-enlisting

    Also, I read that the Marines objection on age is pure BS: if one had prior service, it’s deducted from the age.

  18. This corny video will probably make more people vote Republican.

    • MO is a better tele-prompter reader.

      Did you see at the end BO suddenly grins wide — I wonder if TOTUS said (smile).

    • If you are going ot post video of those people , you need to warn people.

      • Lol! Actually it’s quite funny. Like an amateurish home video. Have Axelrod and the rest of the creatives left already? 😉

    • I didn’t watch the video. I can’t get over the skowl on Ms. Obama’s face while Mr. Obama looks like he’s lecturing us on what wine to buy.

      They are a miserable couple.

      And he looks fine, but someone needs to tell her to stop drying her sweaters in the dryer.

      • Despite all efforts by some to make Michelle into the next Jackie O of the fashion world, I doubt that there will be a reverse sweater trend for the new decade. She wore the sweater in the video twice, once with the lace up part in the back and recently with the lace up part in the front: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/18/michelle-obama-repeats-sweater-_n_766137.html

        • You know – probably exposing myself as terribly shallow – I couldn’t get my eyes off that sweater, seemingly bursting at the seams. Doesn’t anything come in her size? And doesn’t she have someone to advise her?

        • Oops! I only now see that Teresa has the answer to the shrinking sweaters. 🙂

      • Implying that Meechelle does her own laundry is raycist. OMG… That was funny. I can’t imagine wearing that outfit, even on a bet. Is his hand on her shoulder mean he is trying to control Meechele? Or is he now a ventriloquist?

    • Well, that was lame as lame can be. I notice he’s not exhorting Obots to “get in people’s faces and argue with them.”

      Probably because if they did, these teapartiers and many liberals would knock them flat on their ass. Bullying only works until people catch on that you’re a bully. Bullies visibly shrink once people stop being shocked and cowed by the behavior, realize they are being bullied by a coward, and they can push back. Once that illusion is gone, you can’t get it back. They are onto you, and you’d better run once you see that realization dawn in the eyes of the crowd.

      You can see that shrinkage in this video – clearly.

      I don’t think thuggery and intimidation is going to win any elections for Obama anymore. People are so over being afraid of being called names like raycist, they are over being afraid of the press, or what the elites might say about them. If the Obots try to pull that same shit the next 2 elections, they are in for a rude awakening.

    • lean forward. hahahahhahahahahaha

    • Are they doing an answering machine message? I ain’t calling!

  19. Obama is the albatross around the Donkey’s neck.
    If the Democratic party dumps him in favor of Hillary in 2012 the republicans will play the race card.
    Axlerod or who ever did it opened a can of worms when the dealt that deck during the primaries. By violating the Reagan Rule the Obama campaign handed republicans ensure ammunition victory. If Hillary gets the nomination look for republican campaign ads featuring clips of Tweety, Olbermann, et-al from 2008.
    So either way, I think that the republicans will be back in total control in 2013.

    • that should read:
      enough ammunition to ensure victory.

    • Great round up , per usual

      It was always about destroying the Dem brand to rehab the Repugs faster and it’s working very well

      What’s with this Virginia Thomas calling up Anita Hill
      business? If it has media “legs” the owners want to reintroduce the whole thing with a cat fight angel…..

      Anita did the right thing and alerted the authorities . She knows this bottom feeding crowd, get the shit on record stat…..next we’ll hear Virginia Thomas wants Rosa Parks to say she’s sorry via Ouija board.

  20. “I’m the best candidate that defines where we’re st in this country”.

    YOU CAN SAY THAT AGAIN!

    • What’s amazing to me is that the mainstream press has endless discussions on how crazy and stupid and clueless O’Donnell is (and personally I agree that she’s not exactly an intellectual).

      But this guy is not trotted out continually on every news program, and discussed ad nauseum and mocked and picked apart. They will sometimes mention him, but it’s a quick, almost embarrassed aside, then they move on.

      Seen a bunch of SNL skits on this mindless twit? Nope. Seen any lengthy discussion on why in the hell those obviously uninformed and anti-intellectual cretins of the Democratic party chose this creepy imbecile in the primary, and what that says about them? Nope.

      • Too true.

        • And those racist AA voters in SC will be electing an AA Teabagger this year. Hmmmm.
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/21/AR2010062102962.html

          • As MrMike said above, the Republicans have learned a few tricks on how to race bait from Obama’s 2008 campaign. I expect to see Republicans putting their money behind more AA candidates and using some of the same dirty tactics used by Obama to smear Democratic candidates who criticize a Republican black candidate in the future. There is also no stopping the Republicans from pulling out old clips from 2008 to smear the Clintons as r@cists if Hillary ever runs again.

          • Yeah, and he’s running against Strom Thurmond’s son.

            I’m not crazy about this guys’s policies, but if this were a non-republican AA man set to beat Strom’s son in SC, the press would be all over it as a shining example of black achievement and a better day in America.

            Despite my disagreements, I feel really bad for black conservatives. They take a lot of risks, often make great gains for the cause of equality, and get little credit or respect for it at all.

        • Hypocrisy is one thing that really burns me up – in any area, not just politics. Always has. I can look at some things and say “that’s wrong”, but it doesn’t make me viscerally disgusted. Hypocrisy and double standards have always earned the most contempt from me.

      • Alvin Greene actually had a pretty awesome editorial somewhere … don’t know if someone wrote it for him

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/aug/27/alvin-greene-south-carolina

        “De Mint started the recession” lol. I guess he’s determined to stay on point and not get gotcha’d by teh media.

    • All he can say is “the DeMint started the recession”. He can’t seem to carry a normal conversation. If any woman candidate carried on like this on national television, the attacks would be nonstop. She would be called a bimbo, tart, stupid (fill in misogynistic label here).

  21. We knew it was coming but the Obama Administration just asked the 9th Circuit Court for a stay of the judges order to suspend DADT.
    Tell me again why the LGBT community continues to support this guy?
    Hopefully, this should do it.

    • Looks like the lesser of two evils isn’t, no matter what the position is on any policy.
      I see a lot of Democrat voters sitting this one out.

    • Yep. There is barely a sliver of difference between him and many republicans. There are some R’s that are worse than him, but there are also quite a few republicans that are actually more-gay-friendly than he is.

      So the LGBT community is supposed to support him WHY, exactly?

    • This should be the second request then? The judge already rejected one yesterday

      • I think that the 9th circuit court of appeals is basically a higher body that could overrule Judge Phillips.

        • That’s correct. The DOJ is requesting the SF Court of Appeals an emergency stay that could overrule the decision from Judge Phillips.

      • The DOJ is going to a higher court to get the emergency stay.

    • Not buying the 2012 plans for Hillary.

      That is total horse manure.

      • Anybody can predict that Pelosi is done. It’s all over the news. The other stuff is fun to read.

    • NewsFlavor: White House Insider: Coming Soon – Serious White House Scandal

      Received reliable word that a “serious” scandal is being navigated by WH officials right now.

      link above

  22. Just watched a Morning Joe video with ole Chuckie the Todd analyzing the new NBC/WSJ poll, spinning as fast as he could while his own body language showed “Oh shit. We’re gonna get creamed.”

    Biggest surprise (for him):

    Direction of the country question:
    32% Right track
    59% WRONG track.

    Mika looked like she was gonna cry. (No rainbows, no ponies, no utopia.)

    • Obama keeps basically saying “Stay the Course”.

      When the people don’t like the direction you are going, the only way to win them back is to change direction. Bush’s administration refused to do that, and Obama’s is as well.

  23. Rs ad against Conway

  24. FYI: I wanted to put this in WTV’s post re Hillary’s message to LGBT youth, but since everyone’s in this thread, I just want to share this piece of desperate CDS from Sullivan: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/10/it-gets-better-hillary-clinton.html

    I’ve been searching LGBT blogs to see the reaction to Hillary’s video, and there sure is a lot of CDS going around although the Hillary supporters are actively pushing back (I saw Dee mixing it up in one of those blogs — JoeMyGod, I think).

    • That is amazing to see some LGBT blogs in the face of obvious bigotry on the part of Obama and his advisors and obvious support on the side of HC, they’ll still go that way. Talk about voting against your own interest.

    • The Justice Department on Wednesday asked a federal appeals court to immediately suspend a judge’s order ending the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, further escalating a politically uncomfortable legal fight for President Barack Obama with weeks to go before Congressional elections.
      Lawyers for the federal government filed the request for an emergency stay with the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit at about 11:30 AM Eastern Time.

  25. Interesting. Some R’s who taped the Coons/O’Donnell debate are going back over the tapes and found something odd.

    The exchange started earlier than the media portrayed, and went on longer than the selected clip showed. And O’Donnell did indeed specify during the debate that she was talking about the actual words “separation of Church and State” being in there.

    From a couple of commenters on Ace of Spades:

    Coons: The First Amendment establishes the separation, the fact that the federal government shall not establish a religion, and decisional law by the Supreme Court over many many decades…

    O’Donnell: The First Amendment does?

    Coons: …clarifies and enshrines that there is a separation of church and state that our courts and our laws must respect…

    O’Donnell: So you’re telling me that the separation of church and state… the phrase “the separation of church and state” is in the First Amendment?

    Then it jumps to the part I already transcribed.

    That’s what I heard at 6:34 of the exchange, she used the term “phrase separation of church and state”…The exchange at 7:30 is a continuation of that since she was talking over Coons at 6:34 but I think had she repeated exactly what she said at 6:34, it would have been much less clumsy. It appears to me she knew exactly what the 1st amendment is about and that she simply didn’t properly repeat herself.

    If true, then one can still argue whether her views on the scope or limits of the first amendment re: religion are objectionable. But for the media to deliberately leave out the clarifying exchange, and portray this as if she’s a clueless twit who had no idea that the 1st amendment even addressed any restrictions on religion at all, is a lie.

    • The two parties and the media see the TP supporters as people who cannot be controlled. The media, the Democrats and Republicans are out to take away any legitimacy of TP supporters by painting them insane.

    • If she said “the phrase”, then that makes a big difference. I still think it’s part of her and many wingers ideas about the First Amendment and church/state issues, and they kool-aid they drink about it, but editing what people say to change how they come across is pathetic. Especially when someone is so far down in the polls and can be beat on issues if done in a reasonable way. Seriously pathetic.

      • Yeah, that’s why I said one can still argue whether her views on it are objectionable. But to paint her as having no clue what the amendment says seems deliberate.

        Argue the point, please.

  26. Re: Anita Hill – Vriginia Thomas.

    The former girl friend of Clarence Thomas is writing a book.

    From an article at the dailybeast:

    “Lillian McEwen, who dated Thomas from 1979 through the mid-1980s, tells The Washington Post, “The Clarence I know was certainly capable not only of doing the things that Anita Hill said he did, but it would be totally consistent with the way he lived his personal life then.” McEwen is writing her memoirs but has never before publicly discussed her relationship with Thomas.”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/thomasrsquos-ex-anita-hill-was-accurate/dj-vu

    Judge McEwen served as legal counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee late 70s to early 80s. IOWs she worked for Joe Biden for four years. It was before Clarence was nominated but suggests further that Biden absolutely knew all along who and what Clarence was and that Anita was telling the truth. My guess is that Biden didn’t see anything particularly wrong with sexual harassment – didn’t consider it a crime. Its one of the spoils of office or position.

    On another note – Does anyone remember what year Biden switched from anti-choice to pro-choice?

    • Interesting. Perhaps the Thomas’ knowing this book was coming out hoped to get Hill to flip so they wouldn’t look as bad.

      • Hey Dandy. When I saw this I immediately thought of you.

        She’s only three years old, but the determination in that stride! And in the one unpatched eye of hers! Oy! … Or is that Ah-oy? 😉

    • And where was she all those years ago when she could have spoken out and supported Anita Hill? cue crickets!!

      I just hate it when people say nothing because grabbing power is more important than doing the right thing. Maybe Judge McEwen didnt think she would get a judgeship if she stuck her neck out for Anita Hill.

      Whether it was the men on the Senate Judiciary Committee who acted like the judges at the Salem Witch Trial or women like Anita Hill who go along with an “every person for herself” mindset, I have little sympathy.

      The person I do feel for is Anita Hill. I was an under graduate during that period and had a friend who worked for then Ohio Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D). It was his office who located the prior sexual harrassment charge, and it was his office who persuaded (or harrassed-however you want to look at it) Anita Hill to come up to Capital Hill for the hearings. She was the one who was approached, and not the other way around.

      Little good it did her when men like Alan Spector went about quoting passages from the Exorcist and flat out calling her testamony a lie. And an closeted gay conservatives like David Brock (now media watch-dog hound) set about destroying her reputation; only to acknowledge years later that it was the truth and that the so-called “character” witnesses Justice Thomas called on his behalf were a montley crue of perv’s themselves!!

      That moment set the stage for what would take place 18 years later when we went from accusations of a “high class lynching (Thomas’s words)” to accusations of racism against all Democrats now deemed to be interlopers!

      • I meant to say women like Judge McEwen (not Anita Hill)

      • Judge McEwan was probably just trying to stay out of the line of fire and take care of her own career. At the time of the hearings she was in private practice but later had various appointments that would have required political help. I assume she was trying not to commit political suicide.

        “3rd Chair, 2002 – 2003
        Judge Lillian McEwen
        Securities and Exchange Commission
        Judge Lillian McEwen began her legal career in 1975 as an Assistant United States Attorney in Washington, D.C. From 1979 to 1982, she was counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, where she worked with former Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. She then practiced criminal law privately for several years. From July 1994 to March 1995, Judge McEwen served as an administrative law judge with the Social Security Administration in Fresno, California. She was then promoted to Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge in New Haven, Connecticut. In September 1995, she was appointed Administrative Law Judge with the SEC. She retired in January 2007. During her term, she presided over and issued initial decisions in administrative proceedings brought by the SEC’s Division of Enforcement.”

    • Dee,

      I cross posted your comment at TGW in the Anita Hill post.
      Thanks

  27. Is it not possible that Obama is doing this because the best way to overturn DADT long term is after the Pentagon study in December.

    There are options other than “Obama does not support gay rights” to explain what’s happening. And some of those explanations actually show an intent to make the repeal as permanent as possible.

  28. Today is 20.10 2010.

    It’s also ‘World Statistics Day’. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/wsd/

    And if this hadn’t been an American blog I could even have posted at 20.10 o’clock!

  29. FWIW, I can’t stand Obama but I do like Deval Patrick so voted for him today (absentee ballot). Despite the fact they both used Axel-rove and that Obama’s campaign was modeled on the success of Deval’s… they are actually two very different men with very different characters (despite sharing pigmentation identity).

    Patrick is a policy wonk, and those are always my fave candidates. One of my husband’s college roommates works for the Lt. Gov (he is director of homeless programs,etc) and he said Deval’s biggest problem is that he isn’t as politically savvy as he is policy savvy. Here is an insider criticizing Deval for his political skills and praising his policy skills. Also Deval speaks like a regular person, unlike Obama. And they are not the “good friends” the media likes to make them out to be. They simply use each other politically, (pigmentation politics).

    The only thing I’m really unhappy at Deval about is that he had Obama come to campaign for him (ick!), and not only that but my flight home to Boston on Saturday was delayed due to Air Force One being in the airspace.

    Had fun voting today for lots of non-Dems (unaffiliated, green, even a Repub female) in many of the state gov’t races. It’s more of a pleasure voting now that I know it’s all a game. I don’t get how anyone can still belong to a political party these days.

  30. Yale Fraternity Under Fire For Misogynistic Chant

  31. I put this on the Anita Hill thread, but since everyone’s up here:

    This is bizarre. I wonder what sparked it.

    Here is my most vivid memory of those hearings:

    Anita Hill was giving testimony. Virginia Thomas was in the audience.
    Just as AH described Clarence Thomas’ pet name for his penis (long dong silver–some things don’t fade from memory, apparently), the camera panned over the crowd and VT, who had been looking down toward her lap, snapped her head up in an instant and was riveted on Anita Hill.

    It was so revealing. AH knew what HE called his dick, and VT knew she knew. Right then, we all knew he was guilty.

    Sounds like his wife is trying to rewrite history.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: