The cultists have taken over Vermont, apparently.

Your first Open Thread, Norm? I think that means you have hit the big time! ;)

Nothing like democracy in action:

The Dallas Morning News gets hold of Clinton caucus "training materials," in which supporters are instructed to fight for procedural control of caucuses. The materials say in part, "DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in leadership roles." It goes on to say, "If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serve as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness. "The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement of the delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions of the Chair and Secretary. This is why it is so important that Hillary supporters hold these positions."

But shucks, she can just sue if she loses

Thanks Norm. Been dying to get those irrelevant topics off me chest!

That is: sue if she loses

The Pentegon has a RAY GUN!

Using electromagnetic radiation, the Active Denial System sends a 100,000 watt beam that penetrates 1/64th of an inch which is where your nerve endings are. The person being hit by the beam feels like they are on fire. The only thing is this tool is a non-lethal weapon: it doesn't injure or kill! Too bad the Pentagon isn't spending that much on it.

Click here for more.

53% of Ohio voters who attended college voted for Obama.

62% who did not attend college voted for Clinton.

>

53% of Ohio voters who attended college voted for Obama.

62% who did not attend college voted for Clinton.

Interesting data point. Thanks Theowne. The 53-47 split is not that large. The 62-38 split is large. What does that say about the race?

Can Norm or Charles (or anyone else) provide any analysis or color?

Your first Open Thread, Norm? I think that means you have hit the big time!

Norm is where it is at. Onegoodmove is the antidote to what ails us. Thanks Norm!

100% of the people who voted for Obama and Hillary voted for a Democrat.

Using electromagnetic radiation, the Active Denial System sends a 100,000 watt beam that penetrates 1/64th of an inch which is where your nerve endings are. The person being hit by the beam feels like they are on fire. The only thing is this tool is a non-lethal weapon: it doesn't injure or kill! Too bad the Pentagon isn't spending that much on it.

Old news but always worth revisiting. There was a video on this two years ago. Then I read that they shared the technology with Blackwater and the Israelis. Why am I not surprised? Thanks for reminding me.

But Obama is a corporate Republican stooge.

But Obama is a corporate Republican stooge.

Which one is he?

While we're having our infighting on this blog, I thought we could use a good laugh at some other portions of the blogosphere, for example here

Even their advertisements are hilarious. One appears to encourage hedge fund trading on Iraqi dinari, an "grossly undervalued currency," "up 18% since Dec. 2006!" Woh! Why didn't I ever think to invest in a civil war zone with over 2 million refuges in flight, many of them from the business, education, and heath sectors!

PS: Charles--they have some material on our good mutual friend Barry da Bomb Hussein that just know you're gonna love, I guarantee it! You should consider guest posting there.

here that is

OK last time, dammit.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/

Ok since you guys can't get off the subject I've been wondering something.

How much "change" do you really think either candidate will be able to bring about with the state of the dollar, economy and national debt?

this is rather entertaining.

http://garfieldminusgarfield.tumblr.com/

Dar...

Mcain - Some bad Change

Clinton - Almost no Change

Obama - A small amount of change that could build over the long run.

How much "change" do you really think either candidate will be able to bring about with the state of the dollar, economy and national debt?

I figure..... about 5 change. Give or take 2 change. ;-)

Hey Norm, do you have the tech for hierarchical comment-trees (branching threads)? I don't know if you plan to have a lot of open threads in the future, but if so, wouldn't it be great if multiple discussions could occur simultaneously, such that parties interested in a particular topic could easily read everything in a particular line, in one place, and ignore other lines?

Maybe something for the future?

Clinton wins Rhode Island. I can smile again.

Ding dong the witch is dead! Which old witch? The wicked witch! Ding dong, the wicked witch is dead!!

Huck f#ck is gone, outta here!! No more listening to his religious bull shit, "life starts at conception, therefore any women who washes out a non-implanted egg during her period is committing an act of murder." Can we all be happy that Huckabee is gone?

Re: Ray Gun

When I read that it was called the "Active Denial System" I thought it would turn out to be another Rovean political device...

Seriously, I thought it was satire 'til I finished reading.

Creepy though. While I can see benefits for war as an alternative weapon to reduce so-called "collateral damage", I fear it will be touted as a tool for domestic riot control. That scares me.

I know we don't like to talk about our own crimes, but you do remember that Bill Clinton is still a war criminal? lets count the dead, 200,000(mostly children) killed when he bombed the pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum.

Over a million Iraqis, disproportionately children, died as a result of the sanctions. Madeleine Albright was confronted with statistics of half a million children under five having died as a result of the sanctions. She replied "we think the price is worth it".

We could go in to talk about support for massacres in East Timor, or the indiscriminate bombings in Kosovo, or the indifference to the Rwandan Genocide ect. But I think 1.2million murder victims is enough to hang a man.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/070700-103.htm

Hahaha, is anyone watching McCain's speech? He's staring at the teleprompter constantly, I would think he would practice a bit more....

Okay, one last comment before I buzz off...

You're all aware that Charles regularly breaks the site's posted rules about limiting comments to 250 words, right?

Something to think about, the next time Norm slaps on his jack boots and starts banning people for what they perceive to be Norm's hypocrisies...

There's also the little thing about personal attacks, but hey, who I am to argue with such a sophisticated figure.

(I'm not a fan of the cursing, as well).

In fairness, I think a commenting policy is probably a hard thing to define clearly and implement consistently. Crooks & Liars has some pretty busy site monitors, but I suspect they have more resources to do that than Norm.

It may be -- and I'm totally guessing -- that things have escalated here beyond what Norm's had to deal with in the past. I say this as someone who's been coming here quite a while, but not paid more than occasional attention to the comments.

Charles--they have some material on our good mutual friend Barry da Bomb Hussein that just know you're gonna love, I guarantee it! You should consider guest posting there.

Adam, isn't this a bit unfair to Charles? He has never used Hussein to attack Obama. Read his posts again. He attacks Obama on language, on ties to corporations, on a double standard by the media, on his willingness to work with Republicans, on not being a Democrat. He has never attacked Obama for allegedly being a Muslim, has he? I have even read a few points in his favor by Charles.

The 53-47 split is not that large.

As I understand it, that means 53% of that group voted for Obama, k% voted for Hillary, and (53-k)% voted for someone else or did not vote. If that's the case, then the split is actually much larger.

Is that right Theowne? Where's this taken from anyway?

hightower:

He attacks Obama on language, on ties to corporations, on a double standard by the media, on his willingness to work with Republicans, on not being a Democrat. He has never attacked Obama for allegedly being a Muslim, has he? I have even read a few points in his favor by Charles.

It's was pretty much just a joke, given his visceral dislike of Obama. But if you saw the website, you'd notice that it also complains that all the "stupid young people" vote for him (which Charles himself has said), and emphasize links between Obama and corporate interest that are tenuous at best and absurd at worst (like Charles linking Michelle Obama to a law firm who once had Wal-Mart as a client, neglecting to mention that HRC was actually a member of their board). So the serious horn of my remark is that attacks that are not supported by evidence, that call Obama's supporters "stupid" and "irrational," are, to my mind, on par for the course with attacks on the candidate's name. In both cases, the point is to distort issues by directing attention toward petty (and mostly false) bullshit.

He attacks Obama ... on his willingness to work with Republicans

LOL Oh, thank you! I reeeally needed that laugh tonight. lol working with Republicans. eeew.

But, really, right now it looks like Hillary is gonna take Ohio and Texas. And if that happens, she won't stop til she gets her talons on the nomination.

And then you can count on your girl doing everything in her considerable power to win in November so she can give you 4 more years of bitter partisanship and ceaseless bickering.

Congratulations!

Dar, you raise an excellent question.

I don't think there is a straightforward answer, as the strength of the dollar and the economy in part depend on factors beyond the candidates control. But if there is anything to the candidates'--both of them--protectionist rhetoric--which I don't--that might have a poor impact on imported goods: if supply on those goods goes down, or tariffs are enforced that cause prices to go up, while demand remains constant, their cost can reasonably be expected to go up.

As for national debt, that depends on whether and when we get out of Iraq, whether the candidates' proposed tax increases will extend (contrary to their assertions) beyond the upper 1% of wage earners, whether Congress passes another stimulus package with tax rebates, how those will be paid, and what social programs among the many both of the candidates proposed will actually be instituted.

Prospects are not good on any of this issues, I'd say.

Looks like Hillary will win Ohio. So she will stay in the game.

a republican and a democratic pundit just agreed that things will do look good for the democrats any more.

Since it will drag out, clinton and obama supporters will become more entrenched in their positions. if obama clinches in june, many of clintons supporters will not vote for obama in the general election out of spite and disappointment. even more so for obama voters, particularly youth and african-amaericans who will feel completely without a voice in the election.

Post NYT accusation, McCain picks a conservative Vp (Romney, Jodi Rell) and get's the independent plus the conservative vote.

so not only would we get 4 more years of conservative government, we cultivate a sense of political apathy never seen before amongst the youth and we give 3 supreme court justices to the pro-life, pro-industry cartel.

mmm mmm mmm. it time to seek alternate citizenship for real. one more domestic terrorist attack and we will be orwellian before you can say "not me!"

there will be a loser. i'm serious when i say the emperor is cackling with laughter. liberals, your endgame sucks.

Adam, I just agree with Charles in that there are core Democratic values, if you remember his post he admitted he didn't care for Clinton in the beginning and just thought Obama "naive" but as he learned more about him, he was offended by his sacrificing of Democratic values. That, I think, is the point, which does gets lost with his polemical style. The thing is I've seen Charles' writings on other sites and that's how I came to one good move. Other sites are linking up to Charles' posts. Charles argues that some fights are worth having. I agree. Compromise with GOP is bunk. I like Charles. And Norm.

Latest Numbers:

• Ohio 83% of vote 56-42 Clinton
• Rhode Island 98% 58-40 Clinton
• Vermont 85% 60-38 Obama
• Texas 69% 50-48 Clinton (too close to call)

Adam,

Nothing like democracy in action: The Dallas Morning News gets hold of Clinton caucus "training materials," in which supporters are instructed to fight for procedural control of caucuses. The materials say in part, "DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in leadership roles." It goes on to say, "If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serve as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness. "The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement of the delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions of the Chair and Secretary. This is why it is so important that Hillary supporters hold these positions.">

see: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/04/730395.aspx

Looks like the Obama supporters beat them to it! ; )

Adam. For starters I think highly of you. I would like to understand your thinking that's all. More what you don't like about her. She does have warts. If I am wrong somewhere, please point it out as you on Bernanke. Always willing to admit mistakes. Life nor politics is static. Events can dictate change of thinking.

Atlas Shrugged? That ain't me. Quite the opposite. Individualism at the expense of societal goals is not something I can support. Rights of conscience is my bag. On economics, I am more of a socialist with a heavy dose of free enterprise. I believe in government for the greater good.

Thanks for the comments. Though I am not quite sure why I am topic of conversation on threads with which I have nothing to do. However if it is because I provoke thought then that is not bad at all.

Charles

Compromise with GOP is bunk.

That is not what Obama stands for--we have cited his record on this point many, many times. But there's no point.

There is a difference between criticism backed by argument and evidence--Obama is not perfect--and making tenuous connections between between a law firm Michelle Obama worked for, tendentious attacks on Obama supporters based on the gut impressions Charles gets from talking to Obama supporters, or praise based on gut impressions he gets from Clinton supporters, fear-mongering asides about how we "need to wake up," "pay-attention," that "we're head back to 1970" with Mother Russia, and then a longish tirade against Wal-Mart, presumably directed against Obama and for Clinton--because Michelle Obama putatively also served on the board of a Wal-Mart suppler--that failed to mention that HRC served as a rendelldemo.html#comment-114265

Guilt by association reasoning does not establish a link between Obama and corporations. Gut impressions from talking to supporters of either candidate is not a systematic survey with a controlled sampling but an airing of prejudice. Ad hominem attacks against Obama supporters as "naive," "irrational," "faith-driven," just plain stupid, insane or telling us, in Charles words, that we've all "fucked up"--when backed by nothing more than the resources above--is bigotry. rendelldemo.html#comment-114253 that do not offer any further evidence or insight but only more bashing about Obama's supporters does not forward the discussion, and does not prove anything.

Charles will tell you that it's not a "zero-sum" game, and Clinton has warts too, as he acknowledges. But it is zero-sum: if Clinton wins the nomination, the Obama loses (and vice versa).

Thank you Adam.

This is one of the questions that interests me as opposed to much of the window dressing.

They have both said the state of the country is a mess from Bush and any candidate that gets elected will have a mess to clean up. After cleaning up the mess how much will be left over for getting real changes implemented?

They will probably be able to get some kind of health care passed since U.S. companies favor it. IMO that is the real reason it has become an issue. U.S. companies are getting beat up in the world market and they see health care costs for workers as one of the reasons. After health care what will they be able to accomplish?

Energy policy is going to be a major battle. The established oil companies are going to be hard to overcome and I don't think corn ethanol is the answer. This is an issue that is better addressed sooner than later so there is time to come up with viable alternatives IMO.

Problems in the middle east aren't going to just go away if we withdraw troops and neither candidate has said that they are going to follow a more isolationist policy when it comes to military interventions. I think Obama even said he wants to increase the military and Clinton will probably do the same. They both support Israel which is fine but is it the same one sided blind support the U.S. has always given? I'm not so sure that's in our best interest.

There are more but it's late. Thanks again for the response.

All I have is question and no answers, I don't think anyone has the answers and I'm not the type of person to speculate. I just wonder what people who seem certain in either candidate believe either will be able accomplish or how they define change. It is a pretty vague term and it can mean many things to many different people.

like Charles linking Michelle Obama to a law firm who once had Wal-Mart as a client, neglecting to mention that HRC was actually a member of their board)

Adam she worked for Sidney-Hill, not just any law firm. It's the sixth largest in the world, over a billion in revenues. Michelle also sat on Board of one of WMT's largest suppliers. Her job is to find loopholes for corporations to exploit. She works to circumvent NAFTA while her husband rails against it.

I thought it was well known that HRC sat on the board of WMT, if I need to mention that my posts will be longer but your criticism is well-taken. I will try to do better on that score.

Nor did I say ALL of Obama's supporters were this that or the other. But clearly some are stupid, like the kid who on that Dan Savage video who said Obama was "infallible. He can't fuck up." Explain how that comment isn't stupid and I will take everything back.

When I rail against Obama's supporters, I may not be talking about you personally. More than likely I am not. Sorry if I offended any of you in that regard. I am trying to write about observations on the general political climate and the discourse.

That said I am very happy camper tonight. Very happy. It has been a good night. My mother who is 85 got to do something she never thought she would. She voted for Hillary Clinton in Rhode Island, the bluest state of all. I am happy for my mom. Clairborn Pell, I hope you are smiling. I miss our morning jogs together.

Charles

ZDZP: Delighted to hear your voice. Thanks for the link. OK: So both candidates are bending the rules as much as they can.

Dar: I think your analysis is spot on, esp. on health care and the middle east. What I especially appreciated about your most recent comment is that it actually talked about issues rather than candidates--I think they are both very weak on the issues you raise--and for that reason was tremendously clarifying, I think.

Charles: I posted a link to a far right wing website as a joke, and remarked in passing that their criticism of Obama bore certain resemblances to some of your own. Someone defended you, so I posted another comment with links to your previous statements about that analogy, and what I found offensive in a recent posting of yours. That comment is "under review" by the site owner--and, for that reason, I will not be back. Joann and others were right, I was wrong.

Good bye.

Popping the champagne as Texas comes in. She wiped in Texas won all but about ten counties. She won by 13 points in Ohio, a critical state come November She was outspent 2:1 in Texas and Ohio. Tell me what all this means?

I am proud to be a Hispanic tonight. We delivered for the Democratic Party.

Clinton supporters, this is your night. More work to do.

Charles

Open thread, uh?

So, anyone seen that recent "US Marine throws puppy off a cliff while being filmed by his comrades"?

Grabbed it by the scruff and went "hey little doggie," and then flung the wee little pup the hell out outta there -- you could hear it yelping and baying in fear as it flew through the air -- and once it went splat, they all laughed and said "that was cruel, that was cruel--" and then the soldier's name. So now he is supposedly being investigated.

I emailed Norm about it, but he didn't pick up on it. Amazingly, a local station did, last night. And tonight, some of the major ones are doing so too.

But I guess I'm getting off topic. I really should congratulate you Hillary supporters on tonight's events. Hopefully, she'll get the nomination. That way, whoever wins the election, you'll be sure to have plenty of young Americans stuck in Iraq for years to come, till their humanity has evaporated to the point that puppy flinging is twice as funny as Jackass. That's why the world respects us so much.

Go USA!

Perhaps this might help others understand my politics. I live in San Francisco, the most progressive city in the United States of size (Burlington VT, Berkeley, CA & Santa Monica more liberal but tiny). Gavin Newsom is by most definitions a liberal. Not in San Francisco, he is a centrist and he's way to the left of Obama. I am way to the left of Gavin Newsom though I think him a good mayor.

Next this thread on Democratic Underground shows the discontent of the left with Barack Obama. No I did not write the post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4875813#4888770

to Blinky - hey dude/ette, if you're around, thanks for the tip on photo.net.

I've been an amateur photographer for a long time and that site looks like a great resource/community.

Here we go. Turns out the Obama Cultbots are human after all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/05/exit-polls-obama-support_n_90018.html

Weather Channel founder wants to sue Al Gore. (Video also here.)

I'm also curious to see if there are any global warming skeptics here. I'm sure Syngas and Callgirl are among the few on here.

Among the common arguments I've heard so far by these people are: 'it's cyclical patterns we experience', 'there's no evidence we're causing it', 'they said there was global cooling in the '70s so why should we believe them now with this one', and my favorite, 'the scientists haven't concurred'. Just like with the topic of religion, I've yet to hear new arguments that haven't been shot down already.

The article RedSeven just linked to quotes this from another article:

"A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November..."

My first reaction was that 10% is weirdly high, but 25% seemed huge. But I was forgetting the independent voters. Still feels weird.

I was forgetting the independent voters.

Look at your quote, its a poll of democrats.

abolutely off topic. atheist army guy denied promotion. worth a look

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080306/aponreus/militaryreligion_lawsuit

You're right, RedSeven, it was right there in the first sentence. I guess I'm back to "WTF?"

You're right, RedSeven, it was right there in the first sentence. I guess I'm back to "WTF?"

It's a poll and the number one misuse of poll is forgetting that people don't predict their own behavior.

They say what they want to say . So if Clinton supporters are pissed their candidate is losing they are less likely to say they will vote for the opponent. On the other hand, its easy for Obama supporters that think they will win, to say they would theoretically vote for hillary.

From the democratic primary it will be the hardcore hillary and Obama haters that defect. I imagine that will be 10% or less. 5-10% would be normal.

So if Clinton supporters are pissed their candidate is losing

before someone reacts, I was speaking about peoples perceptions before last nights results in that last comment

How about once the last one has gone beyond the end of the home page? That seems to be the end of a post.

Once a week is probably fine if my suggestion is too often.

i'm not sure what i think about the whole idea. of course i have to like a thread where anyone can address anything- i'm for free speech, full stop, right?

but i fear the existence of such a thread will provide an excuse for more draconian enforcement of the "rules" on the other threads. i even had a paranoid vision of norm forcibly moving posts he feels are off topic from thread to thread. brrrr!

i can't really wrap my head around the objections to off topic material. it seems to me that most of it is in the context of bringing anecdotal evidence, or responses to personal attacks (which are not, in my view, off topic,though frowned upon). in any case, it can be (and is) easily talked over and ignored by those focused individuals, unamused by personal wrangling and "stories from someones childhood" who wish to do so. so i don't think off topic stuff, especially in a written forum such as this, actually prevents focused discussion in any way.

just my 2 cents.

i remember a post, maybe a year or so ago, where someone posted a link that had nothing to do with the topic at all. the thread became about that link, which was (sorry norm) more interesting than the headline topic. i think norm even got involved in the new discussion. as i recall, the sky didn't fall down.

" Pathological liars have a surplus of white matter, a study found, and a deficit of gray matter. That means they have more tools to lie coupled with fewer moral restraints than normal people, someone said. "

Cacorasia:

Medveved... ...vedev put in Putin. And China might end the onegoodchild policy, which was the most unimperialist policy in the history of large potentially imperialist countries. Supporting Ralph is an easy decision, if you can spare the change. But to vote for him. Or not vote for him. That's tough. A catapillar (McCain) not-flapping his wings (he'll get them in heaven from Hagee) in North America could set off a world war in "Eu"rasia.

Obama has purple lips? He's being poisoned! By whom? Putin?

Sigh.

Roll eyes.

I thought it was a great point.

I hear Hillary has purple hips. It doesn't q"white" matter.

When's Norm going to shave off that upside-down flavor saver and get back to... he needs a sidekick named... Al (Or would it better be "AI"?). Whatever. You know, like Franken, and Ben (Stein), on tour, onely cyber-tour.

I'll gladly opening act for 'em on the pathological kithara.

Just kithing.