6:50 Central Time: My resolve jells.
7:15: I'm watching PBS tonight. C-SPAN last night. PBS has HD + longer coverage than the networks. (I don't have CNN HD.) The introductory material is about how last night somehow had to be soft-focus on Michelle and Teddy. But tonight, we'll have "red meat." Yes, I'm hoping for more excitement tonight.
7:24: A home-care worker is reading a script so robotically that it's kind of ironically human (and nice). Who would feel natural in that situation? Obama spent the day with her once, working at her job, to prove whatever that proves. The sound of talking in the hall almost drowns her out. Now, another working woman. This seems to be a parade of working women — in bright-colored suits that seem to be a tribute to Hillary's many suits.
7:28: That last woman had such a harsh voice. Now, with a deeper voice, it's Governor Janet Napolitano. The bright color for her bright-colored suit of the night is red. She's doing a nice job of laying into John McCain, but I feel these nagging feminist pains. Why is this woman — and why is Hillary — stuck on some special woman's night?
7:53: A man is talking. How is this happening? I rewind to see Jim MacNeil saying, "There's a Republican. Yes, a Republican." He's totally puzzled. It's the mayor of Fairbanks, Alaska, Jim Whitaker. Ooh, isn't he embarrassed to be relegated to Women's Night? He seems completely unfamiliar with his speech as he begins "We are Americans first" and pauses so you can tell he's thinking: American's first what? He goes on about energy. He explains why he's here: "to endorse Barack Obamas." That's not a typo. He says Barack Obamas.
8:04: Governor Kathleen Sebelius. John IMs, "I love her symphonies." Her bright-colored suit of the night is the reddest of all possible reds. She's out redding Napolitano. Against the bright blue background, it's like a psychedelic poster from 1968. It's searing my eyeballs. Yet her voice is so insanely flat. She speaks as if she's alone in a room memorizing the speech.The din of conversation in the hall is overwhelming. She's reciting words that were written to ravage John McCain, but with her delivery, it's quite comic. Well, there are actually punchlines all over the place, but I don't know if they'd make me laugh if she had a comic touch. It's funnier this way. But no one is listening.
8:16: Man, is this boring. Bring on the Hillary.
8:31: Lilly Ledbetter. She's surprised and "umbled." Great southern accent with a robotic but somehow impassioned delivery. She was the plaintiff in an important recent sex discrimination case, which she lost because she filed the lawsuit outside of the statutory limitations period. As she puts it, "Our Court sided with big business." But what she should say, to be honest, is: "Our Court declined to rewrite the statute to be fair to me." She goes on to blame the Senate for voting down the amendment that would make it possible to sue if you don't know about the discrimination when it first takes place, but then she says that Barack Obama as President will solve the problem: "As President, he has promised to appoint Justices who will enforce laws that protect everyday people." That doesn't really add up. But she's doing a good job of making us feel that the Democrats will protect the rights of working people.
8:41: The keynote speaker, the former governor of Virginia, Mark Warner. His theme is the future. Technology and economic development are important. He's trying to pump us up about that general idea. It's not at all clear that it has much to do with Obama. He says it doesn't matter if good ideas come from Democrats or Republicans. Now, he's boasting about the things he achieved as governor of Virginia, and it just makes me think about how Obama has no record at all of achievements like that.
9:15: Deval Patrick, the governor of Massachussetts. I'm getting nothing out of this. Reach for tomorrow... "Government is simply the name we use for the things we choose to do together." That's a quote from Barney Frank. Sorry. I detest sentimentality about government. I want more critical thinking and humility.
9:39: Here's the film about Hillary Clinton. It's mainly about the notion that women can achieve. She wanted to be an astronaut. She "dared to reach up." Her mother told her you can be anything you want. Lots of nice, smiley pictures, but it's generic pro-woman material. Let all women feel great. (But she lost!)
9:41: Chelsea Clinton looks gorgeous, with big hair and (finally!) a dark, skirted suit. She introduces her "hero" and her mother, Hillary Clinton. Hillary's dressed in bright orange. We see Bill, glowing and clapping and licking his lips and sticking his tongue out — in a somewhat reptilian way. Now, he's mouthing "I love you" over and over. Hillary is honored to be here, and the crowd goes wild.
10:00: Somewhere in there, Hillary said that she supports Barack Obama, but for the most part, it felt like another one of her campaign speeches. Anecdotes. Lists of problems, principles, and policies. We kept seeing closeups of Michelle Obama, who seemed to be closely monitoring the her husband's wily old opponent. And Hillary didn't do anything wrong, but did she help Barack Obama? She did say, addressing her supporters, "Were you in it just for me?" She answers that they must have supported her because they supported what she believed in and wanted to achieve. And therefore, we need to a Democrat in the White House. She says Obama's name a few times, but it seems to me as if it's just something that follows by reason of the desire to have a Democrat in the White House.
10: 30: And I'm not really sure exactly how she ended it, because I'm one of the viewers who used a DVR to record the show, and she spilled over into the next hour. They should have taken that into account.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
300 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 300 of 300To me this is a major issue. And a moral issue. I think free markets and free trade lift many millions of people around the world out of the worst poverty.
Loafing, this is why, to my mini-astonishment, I read that Brazilians slightly favour Obama as President, in a recent IBOPE poll. But fully 41% of them don't.
Brazilians know that the Democrats are anti-free trade and that hurts South Americans.
Maybe other South Americans are more traditionally liberal, and want Obama like most of Europeans do.
But Brazilians know free-trade is crucial to their economy.
What is the deal with disappearing comments? I am too lazy to and don't care enough to look into it myself...
All of that troll Harvard's comments are gone?
Seven Machos, it was implied. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
Look at all the imagery -- the astronaut desire, the 1842 ladies, her daughter having the pleasure of seeing her mother's name being called. The culmination was the Presidency, which didn't happen.
This was fun- watching baseball, reading the live-blogging and sipping some Jamesons.
When is the election?
vbspurs said...
She is the very first totally unqualified woman to run for president.
Peter, I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you there.
She wasn't a beneficiary of Affirmative Action, like Michelle was. She was a more than competent attorney, a First Lady of an US State for several years, a US First Lady for 8 years, and a Senator for another 8.
Come on now. I hate the lady too, but she's qualified.
First, I do not hate her. I just think she is dishonest. Next, please cite one major accomplishment of Hillary Clinton in her so called thirty five years of public service. Tea parties and social affairs as first lady do not count. She was never a competent attorney. She was a second rate attorney who benefitted from her husbands political connections in Arkansas. She has never authored any significant piece of legislation nor has she sponsored any significant piece of legislation. As I told someone else here, she basically showed up in the US Senate to collect a pay check and run for president.
If you want qualified women how about Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, and some of the female governors who have executive experience?
Hey, the comment numbers went down. What gives?
"To me this is a major issue. And a moral issue. I think free markets and free trade lift many millions of people around the world out of the worst poverty. But the Democrats are acting like free trade is evil."
Of course they do. If they actually lifted many millions of people out of poverty then they'd be out of a job. They need miserable people for their whole phony populist spiel to work come election day.
Peter -- Again, I'm not a Clinton fan but you can only take the experience and accomplishment thing so far. Obama doesn't meet the threshold. But certainly, if Clinton doesn't meet the threshold, a great many other presidents don't either, including Lincoln and Washington.
I'm just pissed as hell about Senator Clinton's speech.
I had no idea that the Democrast currently hold the recipe for lower gas prices, universal health care, world peace, universal union membership, and a budget surplus.
What the hell are they waiting for? The White House?
Holding back such valuable information is just criminal.They must have an incredible secret book of solutions for all our woes, either that, or they intend to tax the living shit out of anyone making over 50k per year.
Tea parties and social affairs as first lady do not count.
I take a more sanguine, perhaps even European view of this.
I know it discomfits Americans to think in these terms, but people who hover closely to the highest levels of power, have much more know-how about the inner workings of governance than your average person does.
This is why I am not unimpressed by George W. Bush's resume before his Governorship. He was the son of a US Senator, and the son of a Vice-President/President of the United States.
In my book, that counts for something. He breathed politics from his cribs, and his transition to Governor and the President was much more successful because of it.
Again, I know this is un-American, but it's how I view the paradigm of power.
There now, I've deleted all the comments by Harvard and nearly all of the comments reacting to him, including one of my own. I couldn't bring myself to squelch our dear cockroach and I left 2 or 3 others up for one reason or another. I apologize to the many other good commenters who suffered deletions.
Now, we have many more spaces until we get to the dreaded 200th comment, so look at the bright side.
Carry on.
Seven Machos said...
Peter -- That's a very valid criticism of Clinton. However, you are conflating achievement with qualification. I think her resume is pretty solid in terms of experience. Unlike, say, Obama.
Her resume? Please, I hope you are not talking about her fake auto-biography. Again, name one major accomplishment; something that can be documented or proven. She has no experience. None, zilch, zero. I will tell you what. Let us compare her to Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, or Diane Feinstein. Next to them, she is a mere babe in the woods. All of Hillary Clinton’s experience and accomplishments are mere fiction; the biggest fairy tale I have ever seen- to quote her husband.
/grandson of an US Senator.
Or no... I see that deletions don't reclaim the spaces, so we are still counted as over 200. Too bad!
Here's a point that I made at a party. In that moment I held everybody's attention and that is a rare thing when people are drinking. It's my story, and I'm sticking with it.
In the United States the politics predictably swings from party to party. The electorate tires of one party and "changes" to another. It is predictably and reliably time for such a change.
However. The Electorate has recently punished the Republicans for behaving oh so unRepublicanly, most notably with earmarks, and so now both houses are controlled by Democrats. This brings us up against another reliable predictability, The US electorate, in their collective wisdom, prefers to set executive and legislative branches against each other. This assures little gets done, if anything, except in cases of extreme emergency. And so, although the presidency is for the Democrats to loose, loose it they will because they have put forward one with too little experience to appeal to the general electorate.
The Democrats put forward a woman who is broadly disliked by the general electorate and a racially mixed candidate with little experience, then dared the general electorate to not vote for either lest they be tagged either misogynist or racist. The electorate will take the dare.
Everything follows logically from this. The above analysis is provided by astute observation by a detached unaffiliated citizen, who, although hasn't actually witnessed all that much, has read a whole bunch of stuff.
The end.
Vbspurs asked:
"Hey, the comment numbers went down. What gives?"
1 - the world has reversed on its axis and laws of mathematics are askew.
2- I posted some negative comments.
3- Ann got bored and deleted some of Harvard's best.
Peter V. Bella says (re Hillary Clinton): First, I do not hate her.
Oh, bullshit. You rant about her on a regular basis, and the rants are comical in their vitriol. At least man up enough to admit that you hate the woman.
Door Number 3, AJ. ;)
Wow, Janet Napolitano gives off a very butch vibe. She also looks like the late Rosemary Clooney.
Well, I see my response to Harvard stayed on the board. Must have been my comments about proper use of the H-Bomb and Warner's speech that saved it.
"There now, I've deleted all the comments by Harvard and nearly all of the comments reacting to him, including one of my own. I couldn't bring myself to squelch our dear cockroach and I left 2 or 3 others up for one reason or another. I apologize to the many other good commenters who suffered deletions."
Dammit Althouse, that was some of my better nasty work!
I can't stand Hillary! either. But now that she is back to just being a NY senator, she is no more annoying than Schumer or Leahy.
Wait til 2012 when I will have to get my hate groove back.
"Wow, Janet Napolitano gives off a very butch vibe."
Capital D! Capital Y! Capital K! Capital E!
I wonder if Beth gets the same signals I do. I'm not sure if "gaydar" works across genders.
Just re-watching Chelsea Clinton introducing her mum.
She looked awesome. That hair, and the sobriety of her dress suited her perfectly.
I kept looking at Michelle Obama (looking Jackie Kennedy-like in those sleeveless dresses she favours, the better to draw that comparison), and she was pursing her lips in utter distaste during the Clinton speech.
It made me tense just looking at her sourpuss face of dissatisfaction.
Pan to Chelsea, looking so proudly to her mother, and the tension evaporated.
The real question is whether her sons are hunky actors.
Oh, bullshit. You rant about her on a regular basis, and the rants are comical in their vitriol. At least man up enough to admit that you hate the woman.
And man up he changed his name from Middle Class Guy.
It's amazing to me even after Hillary more than likely saved Obama's campaign tonight, that still people like Sullivan and Roger Simon and most of the press corps can't get over the grassy knoll Clinton hatred. In light of all the shit they threw and all the kooky conspiracy theories that turned out on it's face to be complete and utter bullshit, they still can't stray from their preferred "Hillary is Jezebel" storyline. Disturbed children.
Palladian, from her Wiki entry:
Spouse - single
That's not always a good barometre, I'm not married. But then, I'm not a husky-looking, mannishly haircutted 50 year old lady.
I can see now why the French chopped off the heads of everybody's of whom they grew tired.
I'd be perfectly willing to pull the lever, and not lose a moment of sleep.
Political dynasties utterly suck and there should be a law against them, and if not a legislated law, then a natural law. In this country, I just can't see it. And yet, there it is.
If the Democrats put up Hillary, or God forbid, Chelsea, then the Bushes should put up Jeb or worse, one or both of the twins, Jenna and Barbara, just to make sure both sides are equally miserable.
This is a point of view I intend to maintain for the rest of my days. I declare my open hostility to the phenomenon.
Agreed, Garage. I went over to Andrew Sullivan's site to see what he had to say and he still could come up with anything but the most minimal praise for Hillary's speech. The mixture of crazed Hillary-hatred plus Obama fanboyism is really a bizarre thing to behold.
Chip Ahoy - Madame Defarge! ;)
I do a Susan Estrich imitation I believe to be hilarious. It involves destroying my own voice. It's the same voice I use for a heavy smoker.
Greta Van Susteren talking about her email inbox flooded from women voters supporting Hillary still.
"If McCain chooses a female running mate -- kaching!"
I agree. Today, Sarah Palin's stock went up strategically.
CHIP! I also do a killer Susan Estrich voice. It sounds like one of the Bouvier sisters mixed in with "Rose" of Family Guy fame.
....that has impacted the lives of Americans in a positive manner
Setting the bar pretty high for our politicians don't ya think?
garage mahal said...
I know you are not educated and not mature. What I cannot figure out is if you are a high school freshman or sophmore.
Peter V Bella = Middle Class Guy?
Yes. And I do not appreciate being compared, even indirectly, to he who shall not be named; lest Ann rightfully deletes this post. I have never insulted Ann nor have I been harshly critical of any of her posts. I am not he who shall not be named. I just decided to post under my real name.
Constitutional Amendment Proposal:
Any individual who is directly related to a current or former president as a sibling, son, daughter, parent, first aunt, first uncle, first cousin, first nephew, or first niece, or as a current or former spouse, shall not be allowed to run for the office of president or vice president until 16 years after the end of the current or former president's last term, or 16 years after the death, removal, incapacitation, or impeachment of any sitting president.
I love how people get caught up in the moment, forgetting how high her negatives are across the board. This venomous performance tonight sealed her fate.
Hillary & Bill will be blamed for Obama's loss. All the fakery and phony pageantry does not change the comeuppance she will receive from democrats for putting Mr. McCain in office.
Hillary is over. She is trash. May Bill bring home a coterie of veneral diseases that would make Job wince. Hopefully a raging case of herpes is included.
You have to flatten out the vowels and painstakingly nail every single consonant. Plus slow the cadence.
I agree. Today, Sarah Palin's stock went up strategically.
I don't know anything about it, but I read somewhere she's in the middle of a scandal in Alaska???
Somefeller
Something that struck me tonight was the ease that Hillary can stick the knife into McCain in ways Obama cannot. The dynamic just isn't there for him in my opinion. Obama doing it is like picking on a cripple.
Integrity said....
ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Seven Machos. Here. Here.
I second the motion. Do, please include, "or beheaded".
I believe that should be cootery of venereal diseases.
And, really, if the worst you ever bring home is herpes, you've done reasonably well in the whole STD lottery.
I just hope and pray McCain picks someone exciting. Obama had to pick someone safe. McCain, in contrast, has to pick someone exciting. Which is more dangerous, but if he does it successfully it could win him the election.
If McCain picks that Mormon who strapped his dog to the roof of his car it would be a BAD MOVE.
Loafing, only found this:
JUNEAU, Alaska – Gov. Sarah Palin on Wednesday said at least two dozens calls were made from her staff members to Department of Public Safety officials questioning the employment of a trooper who went through a messy divorce with Palin's sister.
But Palin maintained none was done at her direction, a claim backed up by one administration member caught on tape.
That was an article from 14 August. I would say as far as scandals go, if that was the one, it's small potatoes.
garage mahal said...
It's amazing to me even after Hillary more than likely saved Obama's campaign tonight…
The only thing Hillary saved tonight was her legacy. In two weeks this will all be forgotten. After the Republican convention, the real campaign starts and Hillary will be a foot note; unless McCain runs ads with Hillary claiming Obama’s deficiencies. Hillary hopes he loses. Then she is in position for 2012. If he wins, she will just be the senior Senator from New York who someday may be called the lioness of the party.
Oh, I do not hate. I just do not like liars.
Couldn't make up my mind how to rotate Clinton's round face, so I made a pyramid of Clinton roundy faces. They all suit equally well. Every time they put the camera on him, I mentally rotate his face. Can't help it.
Actually, I kinda take my words back about Governor Palin.
I think Senator McCain cemented his choice of running mate this past weekend. He probably picked him or her early August.
Only Obama having chosen Hillary would've made him change his Team's minds.
So it could well still be Palin, but most likely it's Romney.
Why is this woman — and why is Hillary — stuck on some special woman's night?
Tuesday was the Governors' night. Being a progressive party, Democrats tend to nominate a lot of women gubernatorial candidates.
And why didn't Ann notice Kucinich?
"to endorse Barack Obamas."
People tongue-slip when they're speechifying: I'm pretty sure Janet Napolitano endorsed "Governor" Obama.
"Our Court sided with big business." But what she should say, to be honest, is: "Our Court declined to rewrite the statute to be fair to me."
Oh please. Alito read all meaning out of the statute. What people get paid is the biggest secret in corporations. (Except for officers and directors.) I'm surprised Ledbetter found out she was being screwed at all. Alito turned the statute into an empty promise, the equivalent of the "Free Beer Tomorrow" in your corner tavern.
she spilled over into the next hour. They should have taken that into account.
I'm going to say the burden fell on Ann here. I assume Ann has been watching politicians make speeches at least as long as I have -- LBJ's States of the Union. Expecting each of a series of politicians to restrain themselves so as to end before the end of the scheduled time is wildly unrealistic. Compare the Academy Awards.
Well, guys, I think I'm saying goodnight, as our comments are starting to trickle rather than gush out.
Tonight had less fireworks, and possibly was less convivial because of the whole MIT-bot thing. But still a good time to be with you.
Catch you later!
Brazilians know that the Democrats are anti-free trade and that hurts South Americans.
Are you kidding? Brazilians hate free trade. If you want to sell things to Brazilians, you have to build a factory there. They may want asymmetrical trade, but good luck on that.
I missed the third e in venereal. Why is there no edit function available?
Really? Deleting all my critical comments? Seems as though I struck home, despite the Double Digit IQ Team's best efforts to defend Mama.
My work is done here - enjoy your intellectual inferiority to each and every person you ever meet in real life,
Harvard Forever!
OMG! Candice Mitchelle, the lip liner looks like she raided a whole bag of Oreos
FLS -- Statutes of limitation are a big part of the law. Sucks to be you if you don't file in time. However, judges didn't make the statutes of limitation. Not even Alito. Not even that dastardly little fascist bitch Scalia.
No, legislators make the statute of limitations. Note the first word in the phrase.
It would be interesting to note the Democrat/Republican composition of whatever legislature made the law.
I thought your work was done last time you said your work was done.
judges didn't make the statutes of limitation.
No, but judges move the statute of limitation start date to the time the plaintiff discovered the problem, all the time. They simply chose not to do so this time.
Thus Obama is right to want one or two justices who do not immediately and primarily identify with giant corporations, instead of with working people.
judges move the statute of limitation start date to the time the plaintiff discovered the problem, all the time
They do? Arbitrarily and with caprice, huh?
I must now egg shit. I mean exit. Goodnight.
Damn is it complicated to get to the over-200 new comments! Althouse should've posted a new thread before she went to bed.
Victoria: Like I said, I don't know much about the Palin scandal and maybe it's a non-scandal scandal, but it seems to me that when you pick a rather unknown running mate, ANY hint of scandal would be bad news.
I take Prof. Bainbridge's view of Romney's treatment of his dog. I can't see myself voting for a dude who did that to a dog. Sorry.
Well, since it was pretty difficult for me to find the newest comments, I guess I'm out of here. But if you're in a time zone where Conan hasn't yet aired, do tune in! He has a funny bit where he dubs in other lines where Obama's kids spoke on mic last night after their mom's speech. Conan had 'em saying stuff like, "Biden's a beltway hack," and "Dad, you're a Muslim." Well, tune in to that, it was funny. Goodnight.
Obama's suggestion that it is illegal for a 501(c)(4) entity to fund issue ads that are negative toward him appears ludicrous.
Just two things keep Obama's suggestion from being ludicrous:
1. The attack ads advocate no issues.
2. Promoting social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. (IRS Publication 557)
501(c)(4) Organizations promote Social Welfare, like volunteer fire departments and homeowners associations. Promoting social welfare does not include running issue-free attack ads against Presidential candidates.
I'm surprised fen does not support playing by the rules.
From IRS Publication 557:
501(c)(4) -Civic Leagues and Social Welfare Organizations
If your organization is not organized for profit and will be operated only to promote social welfare, you should file Form 1024 to apply for recognition of exemption from federal income tax under section 501(c)(4). The discussion that follows describes the information you must provide when applying. For application procedures, see chapter 1.
To qualify for exemption under section 501(c)(4), the organization's net earnings must be devoted only to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes. ...
Examples. Types of organizations that are considered to be social welfare organizations are civic associations and volunteer fire companies.
...
Social welfare. To establish that your organization is organized exclusively to promote social welfare, you should submit evidence with your application showing that your organization will operate primarily to further (in some way) the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements).
...
Political activity. Promoting social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.
I was stunned at the different reactions from CNN's pundits and Fox's.
To CNN this was not only the greatest speech Hillary has ever given, and one of the greatest speeches anyone has ever given, it was also a complete, unequivocal boost to Obama, a passing of the baton. The word "generous" came up several times. She mentioned him 10 times!
Meanwhile Fox's commentators, not just the righties, are saying Hillary all but left Obama in a Greyhound station locker. Sure, she mentioned his name 10 times, but so what? It was a generic speech of support for the Democratic Party's candidate X. She didn't take on the issues that she raised and are now being used against Obama. She never said he was qualified. She never talked about his strengths as C-in-C. She didn't do anything to overcome his image as too liberal. Nothing to help on the Wright or Ayers' issues. And nothing really hard-nosed about McCain, other than saying she and the other Democrats hope he'd lose.
CNN's bar seemed pretty low. It was kind of like, she mentioned his name. She didn't endorse McCain. Yay! But the Fox people didn't seem to register the enthusiastic response to her speech in the hall. The point is to unify the Democrats. That's job one, and she did about all she could. Overcoming his negative image is the work of his campaign, not something Hillary could address by herself in one speech.
John Stodder and anyone else -- I have mentioned this before but suppose you took a generic CNN type and a generic FOX type and locked them in a room together and said, "You can't come out or eat until you've produced a script/report that you are both satisifed with." The Joe Combedhair reads it on the air.
Wouldn't such an approach create the balance and objectivity taht everyone claims to want?
john stodder, you said (in part): I was stunned at the different reactions from CNN's pundits and Fox's.
With regard to which reactions (as distinct from yours), I point to this (blast-from-the-past) video.
I'm not sure if "gaydar" works across genders.
I'll have to watch a recap somewhere -- I had a class to teach tonight and completely missed the convention.
And yes, it does work across genders, at least for me. Of course, I live in New Orleans, where we're serviced by ferries and protected by dykes (the dykes need to do a better job, obviously).
But then, I'm not a husky-looking, mannishly haircutted 50 year old lady.
Sez you! (kidding)
If you want to sell things to Brazilians, you have to build a factory there. They may want asymmetrical trade, but good luck on that.
There is no such thing as asymmetrical trade.
1. The attack ads advocate no issues.
Vigilance against terrorism is an important issue, and certainly one related to the general welfare. Just because only one of the candidates is cozy with terrorists doesn't mean the issue can't be raised. :)
FLS -- It is my sincere hope that this issue is litigated through to the Supreme Court and we can see the end of McCain-Feingold. The delicious irony notwithstanding, it would be tremendous to see poltical speech unshackled by this blatantly unconstitutional law.
And it is unconstitutional.
Did anyone watching MSNBC tonight catch the latest Chris Matthews argie-bargie with Keith Olbermann?
It is hilarious.
I'LL FINISH IN A SECOND.
Cheers,
Victoria
And yes, it does work across genders, at least for me.
I was waiting for you to answer, Beth, before rebutting.
I think just about the only people who don't have gaydars, are older straight males.
Women. Kids. Gays of both varieties. Intense gaydar.
Sez you! (kidding)
A sore spot with me since Friday! I had an 8-month lush growth of hair, with a view to getting a trendy cut. I told this hairstylist I never had used before -- "make it pert and fashionable. Something like a Victoria Beckham, only longer."
And she chopped 60% of it off. :((
Thankfully, my hair grows like a weed. So...you know...sniff.
I also noticed (the camera was merciless) Bill Clinton doing something weird with his tongue and jutting his lower jaw, as if he had both a piece of lettuce stuck between his bottom teeth AND temporomandibular joint syndrome. I mentioned it in my -- not live -- tivotaxidermiblog and then looked at it and thought "This is too Althousian" and erased it.
Hillary's lack of enthusiasm for Obama himself seemed glaringly obvious.
For some reason I've been wondering if McCain is going to pick Condi Rice. Is she too closely associated with Dubya? She would be a plus for me.
You're right. Straight males utterly lack gaydar. It's comically bizarre because to a woman it is so loud and clear. (So how to explain the women who fall in love with gay guys? Deep down they know, but they're looking for the unattainable?)
I also noticed (the camera was merciless) Bill Clinton doing something weird with his tongue and jutting his lower jaw,
He also mouthed "I love you. I love you so much" at one point, towards his wife. MWAHAHA.
With that constant open-mouthed smile of his, just paint some freckles on him, and he'll look like Hoody Doody.
I notice that the comments on LGF and Kos resemble ours closely, so when a moderate blog like Althouse agrees with the polar opposites, it's probable we all got it right.
Cheers,
Victoria
but they're looking for the unattainable?
Good one.
Maybe it's an ego thing ("they just need the right girl" mentality) except women have less ego than males, in terms of "conquering" for romance, so perhaps this is overreading.
IMO, fag hags/fruit flies (US/UK) don't feel threatened sexually by gay males, obviously, but that liberates them to be themselves.
There is also very little challenge to reform them either, since they tend to be neater, politer, and physically gentler than straight males, all characteristics women tend to tone down or improve in their men.
Royal households have an unusual amount of gay males in their staff. The late Queen Mum was famous for her all-gay male staff.
It's like having the best of both worlds.
(I've had only one gay male friend, probably because I'm very flirtatious)
Cheers,
Victoria
Arbitrarily and with caprice, huh?
No, equitably. Courts are (or at least were) motivated by fairness, a desire to do justice.
Of course, I live in New Orleans, where we're serviced by ferries and protected by dykes (the dykes need to do a better job, obviously).
That's why we love Beth: She's non-partisan.
Courts can be motivated by whatever they want but their job is to follow the law, which is created by the legislature. To the extent that it's not, it's common law and common law is based on two simple principles: (1) what would a reasonable person do and (2) what are reasonable people doing, anyway.
However, when the legislature steps in, the common law is eviscerated. Sovereignty of the people. Democracy and all that. Look into it.
No, equitably. Courts are (or at least were) motivated by fairness, a desire to do justice.
Well thank heavens they don't do anything crazy, like actually follow the law when it conflicts with their sense of fairness and justice.
Oh, wait. Some of those mean Republican judges DO do that. How cruel!
Loafing Oaf, Victoria: Palin being interviewed by Larry Kudlow on the 'scandal' and veep speculation. When asked about the probe, she use 'cool' both in describing the ethics probe and in describing her job.
Wow - that will go down as one of the all-time Machiavellian moves in convention politics.
HRC's performance clearly opened up the question of whether-or-not she would have been a better VP candidate than JB. She drove home the point that she could have brought both her 'votes' and her 'support' to BO campaign.
And it now looks like BO blew the so called 'first' important decision of a future president - who will be his VP. History will record that at best JB was his second best choice - which will make him look weak and afraid.
For at least one more night - HRC beat BO.
Of course Hillary's speech was good. And its focus was to convey all the grandeur and ambition that she needed to feel it should convey - both for her own benefit and for that of her followers. No one can accuse her of dealing in messianism, though! Her brand of that sort of thing is just narcissistic enough to escape the general label.
It takes a certain kind of authoritarian to not realize that messianic narcissism doesn't win elections. At least it doesn't win elections for Democrats. Oh, and she's to the left of "Marxist" BHO on health care, housing prices and all sorts of other things that the Republican punditocracy (well represented here) would like to pretend not to notice.
former law student said...
"Alito read all meaning out of the statute."
There was no other credible way to read that statute. And don't tell me about the dissent and the lower court opinions I'm missing - I'm aware of them and reiterate in light tehreof that there was no other credible way to read that statute. The interpretation Ledbetter urged would read the filing period out of the statute, and I felt bad for Kevin Russell being stuck arguing a position he had to know was deeply absurd. If that result is unfair or unjust, it lies within Congress' purview to act and the bill promised to change Title VII in response has languished for months on the Senate calender. A cloture vote was called, and failed, and so far as I know, no further action has been or is planned to be taken.
Seven Machos said...
"It would be interesting to note the Democrat/Republican composition of whatever legislature made the law."
It's part of the Civil Rights Act, which has one of the more famous voting breakdowns of any piece of legislation.
Something that's worth noting - maybe this isn't so well known - is that Title VII as it was originally enacted contained an even shorter filing period. After experience, Congress acted to expand the filing period in the 1970s because it felt that claimants should get longer to file. So the idea that Congress somehow wasn't aware of or didn't intend to time-bar some claims is just preposterous. I'm a textualist, I really don't care much about Congressional intent, but I'm in the minority, and most lawyers - including FLS, I fancy - would say that statutory construction is the task of giving effect to the intent of the legislature. But in light of the foregoing, it should be obvious that to seriously argue for Ledbetter's side, you would have to argue that neither the text of the statute nor even Congressional intent matters.
To oppose Ledbetter's result, you need a kind of ultra-strong Breyerian purposivism. You need to argue that the purpose of the statute, stated at a very abstract level (cf. Easterbrook, Abstraction and Authority, 59 U. Chi. L. Rev. 349 (1992)), is unconstrained by anything, and should be given effect no matter what limits the text placed on that purpose, and no matter what compromises were needed to secure its enactment (cf. Rodriguez v. United States, 107 S. Ct. 1391, 1393 (1987)). That strikes me as a pretty disreputable position, and one that gives purposivism a bad name.
Amba: "You're right. Straight males utterly lack gaydar. It's comically bizarre because to a woman it is so loud and clear. (So how to explain the women who fall in love with gay guys? Deep down they know, but they're looking for the unattainable?)"
As a woman, I have gotten it wrong -- and thought a man was gay when he was not... including that time a lawyer kept talking about a male "partner."
OK I missed the memo on why Obama wasn't present for Hillary's speech. Especially weird to me because Drudge has a photo up of him watching her on TV, and a headline about Bill snubbing the big O's upcoming speech.
I'm trying to think that Obama could "rise above" this sort of thing. If not, it shows an utter lack of something on his part.
why wasn't Obama present for Hillary's speech?
Tradition. The candidate never shows up till he is summoned by the delegates.
Think of your Fifth Grade Class elections, where the candidates had to leave the room during the vote.
FLS said: Tradition. The candidate never shows up till he is summoned by the delegates.
Thanks for setting me right. I thought we were following Oscars tradition.
"I'm going to say the burden fell on Ann here."
What burden? I gave them my attention, but they lost it. They want to get their message out, I would think. They failed in the case of me and everyone else who relied on the schedule grid on a DVR.
Palin being interviewed by Larry Kudlow on the 'scandal'
"Cool"?? LOL! I like her, including her Midwestern lenghtened vowels. But cool needs to be axed from her vocab publicly pronto.
Cheers,
Victoria
As a woman, I have gotten it wrong
Sure, it's not fool-proof.
But you know, women are better at recognising patterns. It's why Bletchley Park was staffed by women as code-breakers.
And gayness is just about recognising certain signs.
Cheers,
Victoria
For at least one more night - HRC beat BO.
The kindest thing I read about her last night on Kos (other than praise for being a team player in giving a great speech -- err, okay) was that she should replace Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader.
I bet you THAT she wants. She won't take Atty-General or similar.
Cheers,
Victoria
vbspurs said...
"I bet you THAT she wants [Senate Majority Leader]. She won't take Atty-General or similar."
Of course. Look at it in terms of incentives. Hillary thinks Obama is going to lose. She can extract the promise of a promotion in exchange for her support. From those starting points, which makes more sense that she'd push for: a pound of flesh that she can only get if Obama wins, or a pound of flesh that she gets either way?
Yeah, but Simon, who is going to tell Harry Reid? If Obama gives him the axe, a popular guy like Reid still has his defenders.
A cynical power move from a rookie President, and wet-behind-the-ears politico like Obama?
Hah.
And gayness is just about recognising certain signs.
Or the absence of certain signs, like guys trying to look down your shirt, or checking out your derriere.
Strangely, a straight woman looks at another woman's derriere or cleavage, without fear of being thought of as gay, FLS.
Only we do so competitively, of course. ;)
Or is it, as David Spade's character once said on--whatever show he was on, heh ("Just Shoot Me"?)--all women are only two drinks away from a lesbian encounter.
"Where'd you get that?"
"Cinemax After Dark."
Post a Comment