It's almost as if the party "rift" has been exaggerated for effect by news outlets obsessed with the notion of drama, and desperate to find some kind of major conflict, whether it exists or not.

That's an outrageous assertion!

orange

LiveScience says:
A new Pew survey finds that when it comes to honesty, intelligence and a handful of other key traits valued in leaders, the public rates women as superior to men.

Yet, only 6 percent of Americans say women make better political leaders.

Yes, there still is sexism out there.

And, Joe Biden probably wasn’t the best Veep pick to address that issue. Still think B.O. should have gone wit Sebelius.

But, I’m voting Green anyway.

you go, Greenie.
Just dont expect us to listen to you bitch about McCain for the next 4 years. We'll have the tiny violins at the ready.

you have a good point of course about sexism; one of the reasons I backed HRC was that after how completed male leaders have screwed things up, I thought it made sense to give a woman a chance. but Sebelius would not have been a good VP pick. her response to SOTU sucked. And Kansas is out of reach.

of course if you really care about sexism, voting in any way that helps McCain - he who laughed when a supporter called HRC a bitch, he who is alleged to have called his own wife worse, and who we know bailed on his first wife after she waited through his absence - is about the least logical conclusion one could ever come to. whatever. every population has its fringes, i guess.

Hey Steve - is this a new benefit of the new gig, post-Mini-Report posts?

May I please use this thread as the "open thread" for Convention news?

Here's something from TPM Election Central; a possible assasination plot, foiled:
http://tinyurl.com/6sb2he

It's almost as if the party "rift" has been exaggerated for effect by news outlets

Gee, it's almost as if that mouth-foaming rabid dog wants to bite me or something. Couldn't actually be, though, right?

I saw the NewsHour today, oh boy. Everybody from bobo Brooks to Gwen Ifill was salivating over the notion of a "divided" Democratic party, and seemed determined to find them some intra-party acrimony no matter how much they had to dig to get it. Oh, also they were chiding the Dems for going negative on poor little John McCain, since their doing so with would veer off from the Republican-friendly narrative of making the entire election a referendum on the Reverend Wright.

A few years back the GOP make a go at completely de-funding PBS. It's a pity they didn't succeed.

I saw somewhere (I think Balloon Juice, but it's down AGAIN) that Wolf Blitzer actually said on air (paraphrased) "we want to hear from delegates on the floor, especially Clinton delegates who're mad." Nice to get it out there front and center.

Bleh on mis-spelt assassination above. Sorry

Vis the un-remembered personal info. I just discovered that, if I click on the prompt from my own 'puter, I don't have to type in the whole thing; only the first couple of letters. Duh. If I live long enough, I'll catch up to McCain in my tech-savvy...

Good for her. What are the odds that this gets through to the nuttiest fringe of her supporters?

Rachel Maddow on MSNBC just pointed out that the nitwit former Clinton delegate in that campaign ad thinks John McCain won't overturn Roe v. Wade. What an idiot.

It's simple really - otherwise they'd have to actually report on real news, issues, etc. They're fundamentally lazy and wed to their own narrative. God forbid they actually talk about Barack Obama and what he stands for. I watched BBC World News tonight and even those anchors wanted to talk only about Hillary - it was embarassing because everyone they interviewed clearly wanted to talk about Obama.

(sigh)

Hello America. The news networds are nothing more than ENTERTAINMENT NETWORKS which follow the credo CONTROVERSY SELLS. So if there isn't controversy they have to manufacture it.

The VAST majority of HRC's supporters are behind Obama and those who don't are doing so for other reasons and are likely beyond hope-- they're deeply bitter, are secret republicans (like the head of PUMAPAC who gave $500 to McCain's campaign in 2000), or just "aren't comfortable" voting for a black man.

The Hispanic caucus?
She divides America into ethnic caucuses?

Pretty bankrupt, intellectually speaking.

I've been watching MSNBC and it is unbearable. I haven't really watched network news for a long time, for obvious reasons, which have now been confirmed.

Ugh - I had to shut it off.

PUMAs on a (numerically tiny) rampage:

The overwhelming and unstoppable PUMA coalition that Bowers and other selected-not-elected leaders have repeatedly claimed numbers in the 2-2.5 million members range could only get together sixty people for the “conference� and, because they didn’t meet the 250 registrant requirement imposed by the Wardman, they had to move the conference to ... get this ... the Country Inn next to Dulles Airport in Sterling, VA.

Favorite photo caption:

The t-shirts read: “I belong to a coalition of allegedly 2.5 million people and all I got was this EPIC FAIL.�

There's probably more people that go to work dressed as Captain Picard than Clinton delegates voting for McCain.

CSPAN, my little cabbages! Enjoy the music between speeches, not the talking heads whose very presence in our living rooms makes us all dumber. Or just leave it on and go catch up on laundry between speeches. I've gotten two loads in.

Republicans and the media keep reiterating a talking point, whether it's true or not, until it is.

Republicans and the media keep reiterating a talking point, whether it's true or not, until it is.

mhr most of us here know that Roe v Wade is a Charley Brown political football to be pulled out from under the feet of the pro-lifers yet again.

"It's almost as if...." Ha ha, Kevin, a bit of understated humor.

The rift is real, but not big and not news. The only interesting question is, are the MSM pushing this because (a) they want a story with this theme, or (b) they're in McCain's pocket? Or (c) All of the above?

"It's almost as if...." Ha ha, Kevin, a bit of understated humor.

The rift is real, but not big and not news. The only interesting question is, are the MSM pushing this because (a) they want a story with this theme, or (b) they're in McCain's pocket? Or (c) All of the above?

Hey Steve - is this a new benefit of the new gig, post-Mini-Report posts? -zeitgeist

I just figured it was a byproduct of the season.

Plus, Steve has Blogaholism. We'll have an intervention.

On November 5th.

Republicans and the media keep reiterating a talking point, whether it's true or not, until it is. -Slappy Magoo

Only to them. =)

The character who believes that McCain will "overturn" Roe v. Wade clearly never took a civics class in junior high or history or political science anywhere. TR should get a copy of the US Constitution and study it.

And the asshole on a blog who nitpicks over comments like this should kindly go fuck themselves.

McCain has said he would nominate Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Happy, asshole?

Socratic Gadfly,

Uh, excuse me, but the fact that "only 6 percent of Americans say women make better political leaders" isn't evidence of sexism. Evidence of sexism would be if only 6 percent of Americans say women make political leaders as good as men.

The study actually says that 69 percent of the respondents said men and women were equally good. Since we don't know what the other choices are (it's a lousy article) -- we cannot conclude, on the basis of this article, that it indicates sexism.

mhr: The Washington Post clearly needs your literalist grammar skills! Contact them right away!

GOP Hopefuls Vow to Overturn Roe v. Wade

mhr

You are provoking the natives unneccesarily.

You won't win any new friends for John McCain this way.

Please try to post something positive about John McCain and stop provoking them.

Thank You.

McCain Blog Outreach Coordinator

mhr most of us here know that Roe v Wade is a Charley Brown political football to be pulled out from under the feet of the pro-lifers yet again.

I know Michael Moore said that back when he was trying to get people to vote for Nader in 2000. It wouldn't be so bad if Bush were elected by the spoiler effect, he said; Bush wasn't that different from Gore anyway. Liberals were fooling themselves, he said, by fretting about abortion, since Republicans never wanted Roe overturned anyway, they wanted it there to rile up the anti-abortion folks.

(By 2004, Moore's line had changed. But this is part of the reason I haven't been a wholehearted fan of Michael Moore since 2000.)

mhr's point that the President can't overturn Roe is exactly the reason why this argument doesn't make sense. It's the Supreme Court that would do it. The RNC may find Roe useful, but Republican presidents sure do keep appointing justices who would overturn Roe. The reason they haven't done so yet isn't any Republican switcheroo plot to keep abortion just this side of illegal; it's just that the majority of Thomas/Scalia/Alito/Roberts-style hardliners that would do it isn't quite there yet. If McCain got to appoint a couple of justices, it probably would be there, and Roe would be overturned.

I know it's a bit off topic, but right now, this is the only active thread that shows the "post a comment" box. Is there a glitch with the system?

Steve,

I'm having the same issue with both 'open' threads.

[Apologies, the comment window should be visible on all threads now. --Mod]

Same here.

I was just gonna say Michelle Obama's speech was terrific (except for the idiot remote at the end between Barack and his girls).

I'd vote for her quicker than him.

You can't post a comment to the latest post, so here it goes.

The coverage on MSNBC is definitely superior to the CNN (conservative noise network) and obviously, that faux Noise repig mouthpiece network. Michelle Obama hit a slam dunk! She Be-rack'ed that house~! Her story is the American dream come true. It can still happen. She was charming, she was real. Their children were endearing. What a moment for the campaign. What a moment for Democrats. Brilliant.

I found her a little stagy with the fake spontaneous pauses. But who in politics isn't stagy? Most of them are much worse at this than she is. And you know how awful Cindy will be, not just in delivery but in message.

But despite it being worth having CSPAN on to avoid the talking heads, that band really was annoying, as was the ridiculous millinery people always sport at these conventions. I'm guessing Coltrane in the thread above hasn't seen a convention before--I've seen plenty and take the cheese factor in stride, but the headgear always makes me cringe.

Okay, then this'll have to be the "emergency backup redundancy nuke-the-GOPers" thread.

First, from the mini-report---I hate Karl Rove to pieces. My wife thinks he's proof that God has a really sick sense of humor---and my almost-8-daughter says that she's not allowed to mention his name, because it's TWO FOUR-LETTER WORDS!

Damn, Karl---if you've lost America's third-graders, then that "pet goat theory" isn't working any more.

As if it ever did....

Now, on to the convention. Teddy didn't quite roar, but he didn't need to. Just getting up on that blasted stage was enough---that, and the promise to be in the Senate next January---adds to the sound of approaching cleats (the old-fashioned steel ones) that'll be dancing all over what's left of the GOP in less than 5 months' time. Personally, I'd love to see Teddy get the job of telling Benedict Joe to "get the fV

And I think he'd do it, too....

Since the comments on the open thread seem to be closed...

My husband talked me into watching some of the opening night. Don't know what station -- I think, maybe, PBS (Babbling Brooks was holding forth and Andrew Kohut and what looked like a much older-than-I-remember Jim Lehrer). My husband said I had just missed Ted Kennedy who, he said, was very good. mayb I'll have to look that speech up somewhere on the Intertubes.

That Repub guy spoke - too bad you don't have to learn elocution in Congress; he seemed to talk through half closed mouth, so I had trouble understanding him. But he exuded the excitement of a 3-day-dead carp.

Then came Claire McCaskill, who spoke very clearly but sounded like a preschool teacher or a nurse -- with a sort of forced cheerfulness that ticks me off.

The film about Michelle was nice. Michelle's brother was nice. And Michelle herself was *great*; very natural and sounding like she were talking to a few friends in her living room, not to a huge audience. If I hadn't read the text of her speech beforehand, I wouldn't have believed she was scripted. She seemed to be *very* popular among the attendees, which kinda surprised me. I thought she was supposed to have been a drag on Obama, vis the Democratic faithful?

It sounded like the audience appreciated her mention of Clinton (and the 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling) and also all the other mentions of women's rights (anniversary of women's right to vote) and that Obama voted for equal pay.

The kids were cute. The older one -- Malia -- is very pretty; they're gonna have to keep a beady eye on her as she grows, 'cause she'll be a heart breaker.

I beat retreat before Babbling Brooks could spoil the evening for me with his inanities. And anyway... I reached my an-hour-a-year TV watching limit :)

It's almost as if the party "rift" has been exaggerated for effect by news outlets obsessed with the notion of drama, and desperate to find some kind of major conflict, whether it exists or not.

Or by news outlets whose corporate masters have decided they want to feed the memes that serve the interests of the Republican Party. Realistically, I think both are factors to an extent, though I'll note I haven't seen nearly as much invented intra-Republican conflict in the media (comparing the media coverage of the parties since there were presumptive nominees on each side.) If it was really just about "drama", you'd expect the invented "drama" to be balanced between the parties.

The whole night was a big yawn.

It surprises me that there are adamant supporters of Hon.Sen. Clinton that went through the time and expense of going to this convention in the first place, but its even more surprising that these people, who are not going to be appeased no matter what Senator Clinton does or says, are constantly dragged before cameras a evidence that she's not doing enough for party unity. So, unless she staged a party revolt and tried to get herself nominated, she won't be doing enough for party unity because there exist this vanishingly small group which insist that, no matter what she does, she isn't getting enough respect, or something (none of these people have any specific charge of what actions Hon. Sen. Obama should have done).

GOOD GOLLY, what would I do without the entertainment of morning blog comments...if you thought last night was a big yawn you've never observed a convention before...but just wait till next week ...there will be a parade of POWs all kissing McShame's butt...cause that's what this sad old man has...even heard him pull it out AGAIN on Leno last night (boy Repugs know which Network "comedy" show to appear on don't they)...the IMPORTANT thing is now and MUST be until November making very sure that the current RULE ends and the ship of state has a chance to correct!

BTW there will be NOTHING that Hillary or Bill can say that will satisfy the PUMAs or the MSM...itching for a "fight" so viewers will be glued to their tvs...shameless but not surprising...I don't even think it has to do with DEM or REPUG...it's all about promoting their particular venues with NO REGARD at all for honesty, integrity, facts, providing relevant information...MY GOD...give me Jon Stewart!!!

You know, I think it's safe to assume at this point that at least half of the PUMAs are Republicans and the other half have some sort of diagnosable pyschological condition, and that the appropriate reaction is to ignore them. The majority of Hillary supporters I know are like my sister-in-law, who sighed when she lost, then put an Obumper sticker on her van and GOT ON WITH HER DAMN LIFE.

Isn't it interesting that the dread vile Hillary Clinton so many left leaning bloggers feared and loathed, has once again done what any good Democrat should do? All the conspiracy theories about how she was going to try to steal the election have consistently been wrong, but like the pundits on the right, facts apparently don't matter.

As for the PUMAs, I'm sure the MSM could find their McCain counterparts among the disenchanted religious right. But MSM won't look, won't report on that.

since Clinton is still a candidate, the DNC needs a super quick ad out there with the tag line

I'm Hillary Clinton and I do not approve this message.

Isn't it interesting that the dread vile Hillary Clinton so many left leaning bloggers feared and loathed, has once again done what any good Democrat should do? All the conspiracy theories about how she was going to try to steal the election have consistently been wrong, but like the pundits on the right, facts apparently don't matter.

I happen to think Hillary Clinton should be getting more credit than she's receiving for the work she's doing for Obama and for her unambiguous endorsements of Democratic unity (in contrast to her childish husband's public bearing of grudges). On the other hand, instead of gracefully withdrawing when the numbers showed she could not prevail, her campaign spent months whipping her less stable supporters into frenzies of victimhood with ludicrous charges of disenfranchisement and voter suppression, further fueled by suggestions that misogyny was solely responsible for her loss.

I wish the worst of her dead enders were behaving better at this point, but she carries a big piece of the blame for them falling so far down the rabbit hole.