DNC Day 1 Open Thread

Everywhere I hear the sound of marching, charging feet, boy!

‘Cause summers here and the time is right for fighting in the street, boy!

–Rolling Stones

116 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. DavidThi808 says:

    I had a press pass to the big tent, I was so ready to go down there this week, and… Things are too busy at work.

    So I can’t go down. I gave my pass to redstateblue and so hopefully we will have lots of good posts from the DNC – but they won’t be by me 🙁

    • parsingreality says:

      I live in CO (twice) for a total of 23 years, in the Denver area for 14 of them. I leave in 2007 and of course, history being made as I watch from the bayou……

      Oh well, only another hundred years or so and it will be back.  (TR in 1904, IIRC)

    • redstateblues says:

      I’m sitting in the big tent as we speak. Should be quite interesting.

      Also wanted to say congrats to the Hawai’i little league team who won the Little League World Series yesterday! They were incredible.

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      and no play?  My recommendation is to marry rich and then you won’t have to worry about your job or how many houses she owns.

      I got my press pass yesterday in a last minute switch.  The regular reporter for the Weekly Register Call had to go out of town for family and I got the call as the alternate.  It is like getting into the Olympics as an alternate.  I wasn’t their first choice but I’m happy to be going.

      The Liberal has landed . . . at the Pepsi Center.

  2. DavidThi808 says:

    How to let the entire world know you’re a complete dick.

    Work tonight was uneventful as usual, until my second delivery of the night.

    “Can you take a check?”

    “I can’t take a personal check. We accept business checks, but not personal checks. Sorry.”

    “Look, I’m the majority leader of the state senate, I’ve lived in this house for 30 years, and I’ve never bounced a check.” He’s gruff. I am uncomfortable, my eyes pleading, but I say nothing. “Do you know what that means? I’m a public figure. If I bounced a check, it would be all over the papers. I’d lose my reputation!”

    And it goes on and on. Amazing.

  3. ThillyWabbit says:

    Someone apparently bumped into a fire sprinkler in their sky box releasing 250-500 gallons of water all over their equipment.

    Couldn’t have happened to a more fair and balanced news network.

  4. DavidThi808 says:

    from the Denver Post

    Kennedy arrived Sunday night in Denver and got a checkup at a local hospital as a precaution, said another party official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

  5. HamiltonRoberts says:

    If John McCain would chose Mitt Romney for VP he would secure victory in the western U.S. where the election will be decided.


    • Fidel's dirt nap says:

      So he will just step in and “secure victory in the western us ?”.  That’s some really super strategic thinking.

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      At least he probably knows how many mansions he owns.  I think 30 million is the number I heard he spent trying to buy the White House.  He makes Polis look like a penny pincher.  Good luck trying to brand Obama with the elitist label with Romney on the ticket.

      • Romney just re-enforces the “rich guy” aspect of the ticket.

        He won’t bring home evangelicals (they might stay home, but they won’t come home to the GOP ticket), and in early polling of Pres/VP combos he didn’t deliver any of the Western states to McCain.  With Nevada tipping toward Obama, Romney might be able to save that state for McCain – if he can get McCain to flip-flop on his Yucca Mountain support.

        Sadly for McCain, I think Romney is one of his best choices, if not the best choice.  It’s just not going to be enough.

        • Laughing Boy says:

          Is much more a state of mind than of wallet.

          • That’s why Biden is the ultimate shiv in the Republican mantra of elitism.  (Well, that and McCain not knowing how many homes he has…)

            Biden is the least wealthy member of the Senate, after all his years in the office and his supposed connections to Delaware business and bank interests.  He goes home to Delaware on the Amtrak every night, knows the conductors and ticket-takers (and presumably after all these years, even some of the regular commuters).  His family roots are in PA coal country.

            McCain cannot claim that kind of connection with everyday America, and neither could Mitt Romney were he to become McCain’s VP choice.

    • One Queer Dude says:

      McCain-Romney will have a lock on Utah, Arizona and Idaho. How is Mittens gonna play in Virginia, North Carolina, and Missouri.

  6. DrewKerin says:

    The lead editorial from today’s Denver Post, which is not exactly a conservative newspaper.

    Barack Obama must think he brings enough excitement to his presidential ticket all by himself.

    His selection of Joe Biden as his running mate was hardly bold or inspiring for a campaign that, at its heart, is about change. And adding a longtime Washington insider to the ticket isn’t likely to invigorate a campaign that’s dropped a few points in the polls, nor will it help Obama in the Western states he so badly needs to win.

    He had better options – Sen. Hillary Clinton and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, to quickly name two – but instead of going bold, Obama chose someone who wouldn’t suck all of the air out of the room when he’s in it.

    And he chose someone who, quite honestly, could become a liability as the campaign wears on. Biden has a way of sticking his foot in his mouth when he’s speaking off the cuff. Just ask Obama, about whom Biden said: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

    Much like when George W. Bush selected Dick Cheney to shore up his lack of foreign-policy credentials, Obama tabbed Biden to add some world-affairs depth to the ticket. He does bring that, but is it enough?

    He also brings some serious liabilities, including the allegations of plagiarism that drove him from the presidential race two decades ago. It was embarrassing and dishonest.

    Such weaknesses could make the focus of this presidential campaign more about Biden and less about the important issues facing this country, such as the economy, the war in Iraq and energy policy.

    We hope that isn’t the case. But almost instantaneously, the Republicans let fly with attack ads in which Biden questioned Obama’s readiness to be president. Surely, more such ads and questions will follow.

    To be sure, if Obama is elected, Biden could be a great asset in getting legislation through Congress. It’s one thing to have ideas, but it’s another to convert those into policy that can change people’s lives. Health care, energy and immigration policy all are areas in which Congress is sure to be involved if comprehensive solutions are to be achieved.

    However, experience is a double-edged sword. Biden’s spending six terms in the Senate doesn’t fit with Obama’s promises of change.

    In fact, it’s a surprising status- quo decision.

    One of the first tests of a presidential candidate’s judgment is their selection for running mate.

    In that crucial first test, Obama seems to have failed.

    The first Gallup poll taken last Saturday, their first on Biden as VP, has to be less than heartening for the Democrats.


    Cheer up though… as I have stated before: come November, no one votes for vice president.

    • Nor with the opinion on the bounce.

      I think very few VP picks would have resulted in a more significant bounce, and most of those would have only inspired those of us already firmly in Obama’s camp.  And the +7% net change isn’t bad for a Friday night / Saturday morning VP announcement.

      I hardly think Clinton or Richardson would have been “bold” choices, nor would they have “sucked the air out of the room” had he chosen them.

      I appreciate the Post’s concern trolling, but I think whoever produced this particular editorial is way, way off base.

      • DrewKerin says:

        I think very few VP picks would have resulted in a more significant bounce, and most of those would have only inspired those of us already firmly in Obama’s camp.  And the +7% net change isn’t bad for a Friday night / Saturday morning VP announcement.

        by: Phoenix Rising @ Mon Aug 25, 2008

        From the actual USA Today/Gallup Poll article:

        This results in Biden potentially having a net positive impact on voter support for the Democratic ticket of +7 percentage points — small by comparison with other recent vice presidential selections.


             A net 17% of nationwide registered voters said they were more likely to vote for John Kerry in 2004 on the basis of his selection of John Edwards as his running mate (24% more likely and 7% less likely).


             A net 12% of voters reported being more likely to vote for Al Gore in 2000 on account of his choosing Joe Lieberman (16% more likely and 4% less likely).


             A net 18% of voters indicated they were more likely to vote for Bob Dole in 1996 on the basis of his choice of Jack Kemp to complete the ticket (26% more likely and 8% less likely).


             A net 25% of voters were more likely to vote for Bill Clinton in 1992 on account of Al Gore (33% more likely and 8% less likely).

        It should be noted that all of these poll figures represent initial public reaction to new vice presidential selections.


        • The announcement was on a Friday night / Saturday morning (thanks in part to the Secret Service…).  When I talked to people on Saturday, many of them weren’t even aware of the announcement yet.  Bad timing doesn’t help these numbers.

          Also, Obama’s campaign is already generating a lot of interest.  What choice would have moved a huge number of people in a positive direction?  Clinton’s supporters might have been happy if she were chosen, but some Obama supporters would have been less enthusiastic.  Only an “outside” choice could have done more, but I think most folks looking for a dark horse VP choice are already in the Obama camp.

          • One Queer Dude says:

            Were they really going to abandon him over his V.P. choice? If true, what does that say about their commitment to him and his cause?

            • Gallup asked the question as do you feel more enthusiastic, less enthusiastic, unchanged, or no opinion about voting for Obama given the VP choice.

              If Clinton were elected, there would definitely have been some Obama supporters less enthusiastic about the ticket.  That’s different from abandoning the candidate altogether, though I don’t doubt some of the less rational Obama supporters might have gotten off the bandwagon for a breather if he’d made that choice.

              As to commitment, it shows the same lack of proper focus that some of the Clinton supporters are still showing.  I’m not so naive as to think none of Obama’s supporters are as irrational.

    • DavidThi808 says:

      …a pretty clear sign that the choice of Biden scares the Republicans.

      • DrewKerin says:

        “Nothing has changed since Joe Biden first made his assessment that Barack Obama is not ready to lead.”

        Ben Porritt – McCain spokesman

        Isn’t that what Hillary was telling us as well all last spring?  Unless, of course, Joe and HRC are just “flip-floppers.”  

        • I see George W. Bush is supporting McCain this time around, despite the despicable ads he ran against McCain in 2000.

          • DrewKerin says:

            Which is why this “McCain is a third term of Bush” is such utter nonsense.  Bush treated McCain in a most despicable fashion in 2000.  There is no love lost between these two.  I suspect McCain would take delight in undoing some of what Bush has done.

            Of course, Bush is supporting McCain now.  They are both Republicans.  It is kind of like Hillary supporting Barack.  I seriously doubt she truly believes Obama is the better Democratic candidate for president.  But they’re both Democrats.  

            • One Queer Dude says:

              Now stop that, Drew!  I think it’s a thinly- veiled attempt to entice some of us to consider voting for McCain!

              • Jambalaya says:

                …of Bush’s deeds he’d undo.  Given his dishonesty, we’re left to conclude that he’d support all of Bush’s goals (given his embrace of Bush and vice versa).

                • DrewKerin says:

                  campaigned on bashing his own party’s incumbent president. I honestly cannot think of an example.  Can you (seriously)?

                  • Jambalaya says:

                    …everyone does it?

                    • DrewKerin says:

                      where McCain was dishonest.  I believe lawyers call that “presenting facts not in evidence.”

                    • Jambalaya says:

                      …I believe the last part was your premise.  Please present the facts in support of your position.  Thanks

                    • DrewKerin says:

                      Too bad McCain is not honest enough to say so and to say which of Bush’s deeds he’d undo.  Given his dishonesty, we’re left to conclude that he’d support all of Bush’s goals (given his embrace of Bush and vice versa).

                      by: Jambalaya @ Mon Aug 25, 2008

                      I suspect McCain would take delight in undoing some of what Bush has done.

                      by: DrewKerin @ Mon Aug 25, 2008

                      I wrote that I suspect which is an opinion. You responded that given John McCain dishonesty… as though it were a fact. There is a big difference.

                      But I’ll let John McCain’s words answer your question:

                      Q: It sounds sometimes as if the Democrats are running against George W. McCain. How would a McCain administration differ from the Bush administration?

                      A: First of all, I oppose the spending spree that we are on and the largest expansion in size of government since the Great Society with no plan to pay for it. On the issue of climate change, we obviously have a very different outlook. On the war in Iraq, the way it was mishandled for nearly four years. I have said that as president I would declare that we will never mistreat another prisoner, torture another prisoner who is in American custody ever again. I will close Guantanamo Bay. Obviously, I would work more closely with our allies on a broad variety of issues. I would also try to address the genocide in Darfur in a more effective fashion. Those are just a few of the areas where we would have a presidency that has significant differences from the present administration.

                      Reader’s Digest – September 2008, page 129

                      Now, Jambalaya… where are your facts?

                    • Jambalaya says:

                      In either event, I accept it as true for now.  My first post was a question to YOU in response to YOUR post in which YOU stated that McCain would likely undo part of what Bush has done.  I asked YOU to support YOUR claim that this was so.  Bizarrely, you asked me for facts in support of a proposition that YOU initiated.  So, I asked you right back.   Now, you’ve presented some purported facts….with no confirmation links, of course.  Thank you for clearing up how much McCain is trying to run from Bush (despite your speculation that it wouldn’t happpen).

                    • DrewKerin says:

                      I think something was lost in the exchange of messages.  I really did misunderstand what you were asking about… and I think you misunderstood what I was asking about.  

                      I never wrote “McCain would likely undo part of what Bush has done.  For the third time now, I wrote:  I suspect McCain would take delight in undoing some of what Bush has done.

                      I asked you to support you claim that that McCain was dishonest. That still stands.

                      My apologies for not providing the online link.  I was using the actual magazine article when I wrote it.  Here is the link:


                      Thank you for clearing up how much McCain is trying to run from Bush (despite your speculation that it wouldn’t happpen).

                      by: Jambalaya @ Mon Aug 25, 2008

                      I must insist you point out where I have ever speculated that such a thing wouldn’t happen.  Do you just make this stuff up?    

                    • Jambalaya says:

                      …so when you say “I suspect” that something might happen, you are absolved from any responsibility for supporting your suspicion?  We are to take your suspicions as utterly unsupported?  Ok, so noted.  IF Drew says, “I suspect,” stop listening…total b/s to follow.  Thanks.

                    • DrewKerin says:

                      It is an opinion.

                      Just because you don’t agree with a point doesn’t automatically make it b/s.  If that were true, I would have been buried in the stuff here a long time ago.

                      I noticed you have still offered nothing to support your statement that McCain is dishonest, nor have you justified saying that I “speculated that McCain wouldn’t run away” from Bush’s positions.

                      I guess I should just surmise that you are, indeed, just making this stuff up.

                    • Sir Robin says:

                      Drew, you’ve been walking a great line over the last couple months. Don’t push it.

                    • Jambalaya says:

                      …when you speculated (by your own admission, your posts are mere opinions, not facts) that McCain would not be dishonest, I thought you meant McCain would publicly, clearly, and repeatedly disavow the policies of G.W. Bush.  But I have NOT seen that.  You cited one September article in which McCain tepidly backed away from some Bush decisions, without naming Bush.  But McCain openly accepts Bush’s support, while naming Bush and without reservation.  That’s double talk and dishonesty.  That’s McCain.  And that is the substance of your “suspicions,” if one bothers to see you through all of your posts.  I don’t expect anyone else to bother.

                    • DrewKerin says:

                      The good thing about John McCain being around so long is that many people already have formed an opinion (good or bad)about him.  

                      Obama’s journey from “left” in the primaries to “center” in the general election is certainly understandable.  But it is not helpful to “non-political junkies” who are examining this previously unknown candidate with a mighty thin resume.  They make up most of the electorate.

                    • Sir Robin says:

                      You discount the “change” element to your arguements peril. Even non-political junkies pay $4+ dollars/gallon at the pump, can’t afford healthcare, are paying for the Iraq debacle, and have tenuous job security.

                      Your candidate is bankrupt….regardless of how much property his wife owns.

                    • DrewKerin says:

                      I definitely will admit that, but how comfortable will the public be with a new, untested candidate to be that agent of change?

                      Can you honestly think of any state legislator in America that you can envision being President of the United States in four years? Most people can’t, but that is precisely where Barack Obama was four years ago.  That is going to be a “tough sell” for a lot of voters.  

                      Obama is no JFK.  Like it or not, a lot of people think John McCain is a hero.  And we aren’t paying $4+ a gallon for gas anymore.  I’m not bragging about what the gas prices are now, but it does show that a lot can change before now and early voting begins in October.      

                    • DavidThi808 says:

                      I can think of 2 state legislators that with 4 years in the Senate could be ready to be president (I would want to re-evaluate at that time):

                      1) Andrew Romanoff

                      2) Cynthia Thielen (my mom)

                      It’s rare, but it’s not impossible. Obama actually has more experience than Lincoln did when he became president – and Lincoln didn’t do too badly.

                    • DrewKerin says:

                      I also thought Andrew Romanoff did a good job as a state legislator (he’s another reason not to have term limits), but he would still be a hard sell outside of Colorado or the Rocky Mountain region.

                    • Ralphie says:

                      and read what other people, people who have been here longer, post here.

                      You have an annoying habit of posting unsubstantiated crap, then disavowing it when people call bullshit on you.

                      Try posting good stuff the first time.  It will really help your credibility.

                    • DrewKerin says:

                      I am amazed at the level of presumptuousness that some of you liberal posters display.  Talk about annoying habits!

                      Who are we kidding here?  There isn’t anything that is pro-Republican, or pro-conservative, that could be posted here that you would ever call “good stuff.”  

                      But just about everything written about Democrats is (apparently) enlightened, insightful, and wonderful.  The world doesn’t work that way, and the public doesn’t buy it.  

                      Nine of the last fourteen presidential elections have gone Republican.  Four GOP presidents, in that time frame, won reelection compared to only one Democrat.  Your party does have a way of “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory” every four years.

                      So what if there are people who have posted here longer?  Big deal!  That doesn’t mean they write better.  If nothing else, I provide some degree of balance, which is sorely lacking here.

                      I’m not writing to please anyone here.  I am merely trying to point out there are other points of view out there.  You can ignore them at your own peril.  It makes no difference to me.  

                    • Sir Robin says:

                      We’re talking the utter failure of the Republicans party. Your asides are tolerable, but let’s not get too righteous, shall we?

                    • DrewKerin says:

                      Good!  I’m glad I’m able to accomplish something worthwhile here.  You all can only join hands and sing “Kumbaya” for so long.  There is another side to the coin, whether you want to see it or not.

                      Charlie Cook, of Cook’s Political Report, was interviewed on NPR a couple weeks ago.  (Sorry, I don’t have a link to this one.)  At that time, the polls were showing McCain and Obama at 44% each nationally.  Cook said a lot of Obama’s national support came from large population states that the Democrat was bound to win.  He stated that should be a concern for Obama as to what was going on in the less populated states.

                      There’s about nine weeks, or so, until the general election.  A lot can happen.  I think the three presidential debates will have a huge impact on this race.

                      I know the DNC is in town this week, folks, but try not to let it all go to your head.

                    • But even more worrisome, on the McCain side, is that McCain has very few states that he can rely on.  His support is very weak except in a few key Republican states; his broader appeal across the nation unfortunately (for him) dilutes his electoral strength.

                      At this point it’s time to ditch the electoral maps for a few weeks; two conventions and a week of settling and then the polls start meaning something.

                    • DrewKerin says:

                      At this point it’s time to ditch the electoral maps for a few weeks; two conventions and a week of settling and then the polls start meaning something.

                      by: Phoenix Rising @ Mon Aug 25, 2008

                      Voters will have had a chance to reflect then on what parts of both conventions they chose to view.  At that point, polls will start having some meaning.

                    • Before the conventions, the polls aren’t meaningless; they have a much different meaning before the race really begins, but they aren’t without merit.

                      For the weeks surrounding the conventions, the polls really are useless, though.  Talks of “bounces” and such are all dross.  Only after the GOP convention “bounce” settles down do the numbers really take on meaning again.

                    • redstateblues says:

                      Quinnipiac University
                      showed a statistical dead heat here on Sunday. McCain at 47% and Obama at 46% with a +/- 3% margin of error. Obama has the edge when it comes to enrgy and the economy, and McCain had voters’ confidence when it came to the Iraq War and terrorism.

                  • ThillyWabbit says:

                    And you see how well that worked out for him.

                  • bob ewegen says:

                    Tippecanoe and Tyler too!

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      If you think the corporate owned Denver Post is a liberal newspaper then you probably voted for Bush twice.  They say that George Bush is as dumb as a rock but the people who voted for Bush are even dumber.  This is the same paper that endorsed George Bush in 2004.  Dean Singleton went nuts when Ritter allowed for state employees to engage in collective bargaining.  It is just more conservative spin that the Denver Post is biased towards Democrats.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

      I would guess that low information voters such as yourself think that Biden is a bad choice for the Democrats but from my perspective having Joe Biden one heartbeat away from the Oval Office is not a bad thing.  He was true to his first wife until she died and knows firsthand personal hardship and pain.  People such as yourself who are only concerned about “winning” never see the quality in a pick like Joe Biden.  My 23 year old son was hoping Obama would pick Biden.  The youth of this country get it. Too bad your too old to understand what makes Biden a good addition to the ticket.

      • Laughing Boy says:

        Has much more to do with how much smarter you think you are than everyone else than how many houses you own.

        The Post is a very liberal newspaper, and I think the editorial staff would tell you as much.  The Singleton anti-Ritter thing nearly caused a rebellion in the newsroom.

        • I want my President to be smarter than most of the rest of us.  I also don’t want him/her hobbled by thinking they’re “just average”, but rather that they’re willing to use every bit of their intellect to not only make their own decisions but also to consult intelligently with the brightest minds on each and every topic of importance to the country as needed.

          I don’t want another 4 years of government that has no respect for scientists, or military planners, or anyone else that doesn’t agree with their ideological prejudices.

          • Laughing Boy says:

            already has shown he has no respect for military planners.

            He had to be arm-twisted into meeting with Petraeus, and then said he didn’t agree with his assessment.

            My point was that I see a lot of left-leaning folks decrying how “stupid” Republicans must be.

            Is that really any way to try to forward an agenda?

            • Ralphie says:

              That the president makes policy, the military implements it.

              The day military planners start making policy is they day we ought to be worried.

              Hmmm.  Maybe that’s why a lot of us are worried.

              • Laughing Boy says:

                That’s not what he said at all.

                …not only make their own decisions but also to consult intelligently with the brightest minds on each and every topic of importance to the country as needed.

                Here’s another quote:

                Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama admitted he has never made an attempt to meet with Army General David H. Petraeus and said his opponents are making it a “sarcastic” and “flippant” political issue.

                Over the week Obama has been sharply criticized by right-wing bloggers and his likely general election rival John McCain for openly saying he would meet with enemies of the United States without “preconditions” and not reaching out to the general who oversees war operations in Iraq.

                A reporter asked Obama to “respond to McCain saying you’re more willing to meet with Ahmadinejad than with General Petraeus” in an impromptu press conference on Obama’s campaign plane Wednesday evening.

                Obama initially said it was a “sarcastic” criticism and that he “saw” Petraeus earlier this year. “That’s just, you know, a typical sarcastic comment that doesn’t have anything to do with substance and is just patently untrue since I just saw General Petraeus when he was testifying in Washington,” Obama said.

                The reporter clarified: “He’s saying outside of those meetings on the Hill, you would not set up your own meetings with General Petraeus, never attempted to meet with him?”

                “I haven’t,” Obama said.


            • Most of us rest our case after that.

              • Laughing Boy says:

                That’s how you want to deal with that argument?

                If you feel like everyone who disagrees with you on policy is “stupid” you’re going to run out of allies fairly quickly.  

                You are defining elitism, and I’m not sure if you realize if you’re doing it.  I don’t believe that you truly think I’m “stupid”.

                Do you?

                • There’s a reason I said “most of us”.  Frankly, I could see people voting for Bush the first time out.  By the time 2004 rolled around, though, I truly believe Bush won on the backs of people voting about purple Band-Aids, flip-flops, windsurfing, and a visceral (and misplaced) dislike of Kerry’s testimony before Congress during the Vietnam War.  They ignored the utter incompetence that was the Bush Administration’s prosecution of the Iraq War, the idiotic increase in spending and simultaneous decrease in revenue, and the complete and total disregard for our system of laws that he was quite clearly showing before the 2004 election.

                  It’s not precisely stupidity, more a combination of groupthink and shallow attention on the part of many Bush 2004 voters.  But it was perhaps the most unwise decision the voters have made in a long time for the office of President, and I have no problem saying it was easy enough to see at the time…

                  • Laughing Boy says:

                    for an intelligent person to still feel that voting for Bush in 2004 was the right decision for them or does that immediately put them beneath you in terms of intelligence?

                    Is it also (or independently) for you to respect someone who would disagree with you?

                    Isn’t that Obama’s message?

                    • You’re trying to get me to answer simply a question that has no simple answer.

                      I try very hard to play Devil’s Advocate with myself, and I have yet to figure out an intelligence-based reason to have voted for 43 the second time around.  Emotional and ideological reasons I understand, and I understand intelligent people make decisions based on those things all the time.

                      So are people who voted for Bush “unintelligent” or “beneath me”?  No.  If they still think it was “the right choice”, same question?  Again, no.  But for the life of me I haven’t seen a single pro-Bush person put it in terms that I can absorb intellectually.

                      I can understand the election of Reagan, or Bush 41, or Nixon.  Heck, I voted for Bush 41 (and probably made the wrong decision in so doing…).  But not Dubya take 2.

                      I’d welcome an attempt at explanation – perhaps in its own diary for discussion…

                    • Gilpin Guy says:

                      vote for a candidate because he looks dumb enough to have a beer with them is a fairly accurate IQ test LB.

                      In 2004, people already knew that there were no WMD and that the country wasn’t in any imminent danger from Iraq.  Bush had already racked up record deficits and it was obvious that his tax cuts were “welfare for rich”.  Anybody who was paying attention knew that another four years of Bush would be a disaster for the country.  Bush helped push the deficit from 5 trillion to 10.  Talk about betraying conservatives for the rich.  What else do you call someone who in the face of such obvious incompetence still votes for such an idiot.  I know! I know!  An idiot.

                      The Denver Post is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to take over our media networks and the “liberal bias” complaint was used to intimidate media outlets under they could be bought by rich right wing extremists.  The Post is in the pockets of the corporate conservatives as effectively as the RMN.

                      I do like your faux outrage.  You are going to get good at in the next eight years.  Playing the aggrieved victim is a conservative staple.  The rest of us just think whiny wussies.

                    • Laughing Boy says:


                    • Gilpin Guy says:

                      I thought Republicans considered it a badge of honor to be called stupid since they hate science and facts.  They love to vote for the dumbest candidate to deal with our most complex problems.  Give them a choice between a candidate who graduated at the top of his class from Harvard Law School and one who graduated at the bottom of his class at Annapolis and we all know which one they will vote for.  Anyone who can speak in complete sentences without using the word Bubba is obviously an elitist.  

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      by asserting that half of the country hates “science and facts”?

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      The correct contraction would be “you’re”.



                    • At some point and time in any debate on “right” and “wrong” choices for candidates, someone inevitably has to be “right” and someone else “wrong”.  The person making the “right” decision should not be labeled elitist any more than the person making the “wrong” choice should be labeled stupid.  We should not be crippled by an inability to admit bad judgment, nor by an unwillingness to express confidence – backed up by independent analysis – that we are doing The Right Thing™.

                      This is the same path we’re taking WRT news reporting; rather than actually investigating the truth of each side’s statements, reporters – stretched out on the end of a thin budget string – are just reporting both sides as equally valid, leaving the reader with no other facts on which to base his opinion of a story.  The result is a crippled system unwilling to takes sides or risks for fear of offense, no matter how warranted.

                    • It is not necessary that a candidate is the “wrong” choice, nor that any candidate is the “right” choice.  But I think in our current political climate, most of our candidate choices do come down to “better” or “worse”.

            • DavidThi808 says:

              war is too important to be left to the generals. Obama is approaching this correctly – unlike Bush.

          • DavidThi808 says:

            This is a job where if you do a good job they carve your face into the side of a mountain. I want him to be so fucking brilliant at it that we’re all in awe. So yes, I sure as hell hope Obama is smarter than me.

      • DrewKerin says:

        If you think the corporate owned Denver Post is a liberal newspaper then you probably voted for Bush twice…

        It is just more conservative spin that the Denver Post is biased towards Democrats.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

        I would guess that low information voters such as yourself think that Biden is a bad choice for the Democrats but from my perspective having Joe Biden one heartbeat away from the Oval Office is not a bad thing…

        My 23 year old son was hoping Obama would pick Biden.  The youth of this country get it. Too bad your too old to understand what makes Biden a good addition to the ticket.

        by: Gilpin Guy @ Mon Aug 25, 2008

        I don’t think I’m alone in believing that the Denver Post leans liberal and the Rocky Mountain News leans conservative.  Set up a poll here and see if my assertion is correct.

        I have new for you, Gil.  Most people, who will vote in November, are “low information voters.”  But I never would have been so presumptuous as to claim anyone who blogged here fit that category.  Clearly, a “low information voter” would have no inclination to bother with this, or any other, political blog.  They are the people with which negative attack ads are so effective.

        If you have read my previous posts about Joe Biden, you would have realized that I have already stated I liked him better than any of the other Democratic presidential candidates this year.  In fact, I think he is better prepared to be president than Barack Obama!  

        Your 23 year old is an insightful young man, if Biden was his first choice for VP.  I do not believe most of the rest of his generation was hoping for that.  I imagine they were checking their text message to see the name of Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, or Kathleen Sebelius.

        Lastly… and I’m sure you’ll love this… the Denver Post called me this afternoon to say they were going to run “My Letter to the Editor” about Obama choosing Biden this week… possibly tomorrow!  I’m just pleased my viewpoint was chosen to be shared with the delegates before they leave town.    🙂    

        • ThillyWabbit says:

          I would tend to agree that the editorial board is somewhat more liberal at the Post than at the news, but the newsrooms of both papers are typical of newsrooms across the country. They are overworked and understaffed, and take the easy way out. They print what people (and people’s spokespeople) say uncritically, and rarely report facts as facts. Their news coverage is neither conservative nor liberal, but it is both cynical and lazy.

          In terms of columnists, the Post has lost it’s best liberal columnists Jim Spencer and Diane Carman. All they have left is ultra-leftist Susan Greene to balance out the likes of Al Knight and John Andrews. The one moderate bright spot is our friend Bob Ewegen who, despite being a self-declared Republican, is one of the most intellectually curious and pragmatic writers in the whole nation in my opinion. Over at the News, it’s Mike Littwin singlehandedly balancing out the News’s bevy of conservative commentators. Looking at just columnists, both papers lean very conservative.

          On negative ads, they rarely work to persuade. They are more effective as vote suppressors. They cause low-information voters to either not vote at all or to skip that line on the ballot.

          On low information voters, they are both the scourge and the hope of the democratic process. It’s terrible that people make decisions about who they’re voting for based on who they’d want to have a beer with, or based on what an ad says. It’s also terrible that these people, by and large, fail to participate.

          But they also comprise a huge potential for reinvigorating our democracy. I don’t know this for a fact, but I’d speculate that the drop in voter engagement over time correlates with the drop in performance of our education system. So fixing our schools might lead to fixing our democracy. With an educated and engaged populace, politicians would not have the incentive or as much ability to lie and spin for those who will believe anything.

        • Gilpin Guy says:

          Printing letters by radical conservatives is another example that the Denver Post being a “liberal” paper is just a myth.  Their endorsement of Shafroth in CD 2 is another.  I’m not holding my breath that the Post is going to hire another Spencer to balance Harsanyi.  Not going to happen.  As far as polls go, take as many as you like.  It is all a commie plot to take over our media outlets and turn them into propaganda apparatus.  Oops that’s the conservative spin.

  7. Laughing Boy says:

    The Democratic convention now teeters on the brink of a media disaster thanks to real news that threatens to distract reporters from the scripted show.

    And wouldn’t you know, it’s all about the Clintons. The trouble with the news-free nature of modern conventions is how anything unplanned can instantly get of hand with thousands of reporters in town vying for every morsel of something different.


    • Or, you could look at this:

      Let there be no mistake about it, We are united. We are united for change.

      We are, after all, Democrats, so it might take awhile. We’re not the fall in line party — we’re diverse, many voices. But make no mistake, we are united. We are united on behalf of the Democratic party, the values we hold dear, the reason we work so hard in politics to make the changes that we know will matter in the lives of hard working Americans and for the future of our children.

      And we are united behind Barack Obama and Joe Biden and we are gong to make sure that we win on November 4th.

      If you voted for me, you have much more in common with Senator Obama on every issue I campaigned on, on every cause that I have stood for, than you do with Senator McCain.

      I ask each and every one of you to work as hard for Barack and Joe Biden as you worked for me.

       — Hillary Clinton, Denver, Aug. 25, 2008

  8. Laughing Boy says:

    Clinton Advisers Skipping Obama Speech.

    A number of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s top advisers will not be staying in Denver long enough to hear Barack Obama accept the nomination for president, according to sources familiar with their schedules.

    Clinton will deliver her speech Tuesday night. She will hold a private meeting with her top financial supporters Wednesday at noon, and will thank her delegates at an event that afternoon. Former president Bill Clinton will speak that night. Several of Hillary Clinton’s supporters are then planning to leave town. Among them, Terry McAuliffe, Clinton’s campaign chairman, and longtime supporters Steve Rattner and Maureen White. Another of Clinton’s top New York fundraisers, Alan Patricof, did not make the trip to Denver.

  9. Laughing Boy says:

    Uh oh…

    DENVER, Colorado (CNN) – Bill Clinton is perplexed and, frankly, not happy that he was asked to speak about national security Wednesday night at the Democratic National Convention and not about the economy, the issue that he rode to the White House at another time of economic peril, a source close to the former president said Monday.

    Some close to Clinton are encouraging him not to stick with the night’s theme of national security and add language about the economy in his remarks, in a way that Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, would frame it, the source said. It’s no secret that Clinton considers himself a highly effective communicator on the politics of the economy.


    • He can talk about increasing the national security of this country by investing in domestic jobs in the alternative energy economy, increasing the security of the country by reducing our national debt owed to less-than-friendly foreign nations, and increasing our security by rebuilding our position as a global economic and technology leader.

    • Fidel's dirt nap says:

      since you have taken such a keen interest in the Democratic national convention, will you be covering the part where Obama gives a rousing and inspirational acceptance speech to an enormous crowd of dedicated and united supporters ?

      Will you ?

      I hope so.  I await your analysis 😉

  10. We occasionally go ’round here about the supposed bias of polls.  Most frequently cited is the Republican bias of Rasmussen, which conservative posters here often question.

    I’ve stated before that this isn’t necessarily a partisan bias, merely a sampling/weighting bias.  Pollster.com has a great analysis article out on the effect, which they call “house bias”, and sure enough, Rasmussen is the most “Republican” of the major national polls…

    “House bias” polling analysis is at the link.

    • DrewKerin says:

      I don’t think we should be taking any of them seriously until after both political conventions have had their say, packed up, and left town.  It’s about that time that the average voters will start paying serious attention to politics.

      In defense of any professional polling outfit though, even if they had a bias, they still have to be as accurate as possible.  Otherwise, no one will pay money to utilize them in the future.

      • Jambalaya says:

        …Why do we see a McCain ad every 5 minutes during the DNC, then?  Just bad McCain-campaign management?

        • DrewKerin says:

          I wouldn’t say average voters ignore the conventions, although I doubt they will be watching every speech,every night.  I’m sure they will watch Obama, HRC, and Biden when they speak.  (I truly am looking forward to seeing the TV ratings of both political conventions.)

          The ongoing parade of McCain ads?  I think they need to spend their pre-convention primary dollars before McCain accepts the nomination next month.  Clearly, Obama doesn’t need to run that many, although I still some some today, this week.


  11. cologeek says:

    According to the Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/poli

    Here is hoping that this has nothing to do with Obama or the convention, we really don’t need this sort of thing going on now.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.