President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 26, 2008 03:13 PM UTC

DNC Day 2 Open Thread

  • 86 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols



Photo by Colorado Pols

Tweet
Share

Comments

86 thoughts on “DNC Day 2 Open Thread”

  1. I picked up the CNN clip this AM from the internets.  My mom and I watched it and were very impressed.  She is a great speaker in her own right, and she made a number of comments and phrases that were obviously designed to counter the “First time in my adult life I’m proud to be an American,” oopsie.

    I can’t see Cindy McCain being an asset to her husband, probably neutral.  She already looks waxen/face lifted/old.  Michelle is pretty and youthful. Shallow voters (i.e., most) do care about such matters. And if she can speak better than MO, I’d be real surprised.

    The Kennedy tribute and appearance was awesome, even if I think the Immigration Act of 1965 was a terrible, terrible piece of legislation.  The listing of of laws made that he spearheaded or supported is incredible.  Even a lot of people that hate Ted Kennedy benefit from them every day.  

      1. A phrase often misused, but sometimes appropriate.

        With Kennedy, we are lookg at him with a long, know history.  We can’t get that with MO.  With MO we got a very good to excellent speech and delivery with an up and comer.

        Firs female president? I’m not suggesting that because I think she should be, just that she is obviously an orator which, Bush being the exception, certainly helps to win.

        On that matter, Caroline Kennedy is no orator, for instance.  Her words were perfect, but the delivery was constrained and without fire.  

        1. Think about how emotional she must have been, she was introducing her Uncle who is dying of brain cancer. I thought that the symbol of Caroline was very powerful.

          I also thought that the whole notion of the Kennedys passing the torch to the Obama family, and the Obama message, was good.

  4. seems like an excellent job is being done.  No escalation or big problems during protests, and now they nab some nut jobs that wanted to shoot at Obama from long range.

    The convention is just beginning it’s second day, but I just thought it would be a good idea to give credit where it’s due.

  5. Please stop.  If you don’t know how truly insane and uncaring of anyone else he is other than himself, watch this clip.

    I know most of you probably despise Michelle Malkin, but I also know that almost all of you would go to the aid of a 100-lb. woman being chased and attacked by a big, stocky lunatic, regardless of how you feel about her political views.  

    1. No doubt that MM’s presence here is sow the seeds of discord and hate given that is her usual MO.  She got a little taste of her own medicine, it would appear.

      1. looking under every rock for some sort of slime. provoking and agitating, looking for any thing to exploit, by running it over and over. like Howard Deans scream.

        funny the way for them to get what they are looking for is to bring some ditto heads and hang out with fred phelps…

        But that would ultimately expose them as the Propagandists they are.

            1. Getting assaulted by a lunatic nearly 3 times your size is play-acting.  

              Keep attacking Malkin, and not the loony troofer.  It tells us how deeply you believe in such lunacy above civility.

              1. …that you see the truth as “attacking Malkin”.  Believe me, you would know if I was “attacking” MM.  

                Tell me, do you think what she and her minions did to the family in the CHIP ads was acceptable?  

                1. Oppose her with words and ideas.  You don’t have the right to physically intimidate her.

                  What about her free (and usually hateful ad shallow) speech?

                2. Believe me, you would know if I was “attacking” MM.

                  You’re really tough, hero.  

                  She’s a tiny little woman.  You must be a very scary tough guy.

                  1. …just like you threating to put someone in the “hospital or morgue”.  

                    I have no doubt that you gets your thrills from inflicting physical violence.  

                    My “attacks” would be with “words and ideas”, unlike you.

              2. Troofers are morons, but there was no assault other than perhaps the Ginormous dude who laid hands on the troofer.

                BTW Malkin is evil.

            2. Alex Jones chases me like that he’s in the hospital or the morgue.

              I was really hoping for some reassurance that the far, far lefties on the blog (I’m pretty sure 95% of the folks here wouldn’t endorse that kind of behavior) realized the difference between politics and what amounts to assault on a small woman.

              Even if you hate her, is it ok to chase her around, trying to incite the crowd like she’s the Frankenstein monster?

              No.  Of course it’s not.  This is pretty black and white – glad to know where a couple of you stand.  Ick.

                1. The civil way to post is to treat morons like they’re actually really smart. All views deserve equal consideration, whether they’re informed or not. Also whether they’re honest or not.

                  Also whether they’re getting paid by the McCain campaign or not.  

                2. Isn’t that what you wee complaining about – no substance? So tel me specifically what you disagree with.

                  Oh, yeah.  It’s easier just to be rude.

                  Hey, you never responded to my answer that you were whining about me not giving to your Obama question that I respectfully gave you.

                  Where’s the beef, SR?

    2. She’s an effin’ political commentator, not some neo-con mastermind.  There’s got to be someone better to yell at on the streets of Denver…

      Come next week, if some bullheaded repub is chasing Rachel Maddow (or any other dem commentator) around St. Paul, I have a hard time believing anyone on this blog will dismiss it as “you reap what you sow.”

      1. 1. MM is a hate monger, pure and simple

        2. I doubt Rachel would run from anyone.

        3. MM got just what she wanted–sympathy, pity and attention.  I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if she chorographed all of this.  

          1. …that you’re all for freedom of speech when it suits you, but when someone uses it against your little sweetheart, it’s assault.

            Good job with the name calling too.  You’re just a peach, aren’t you.

            1. You want the protesters to have free speech to the point where they can carry turds around in bags (I assume) and yet MM has to run away from a mob in fear for taking photos?

              You’re not the idiotic conspiracy theorist, Jones is.

            2. the meth-using, neo-Nazi assassin group.

              I’ll just assume he endorses them and their tactics.

              Alex Jones seems to be acting like a jerk in that video, especially since Malkin’s not worth the trouble, but LB’s burst-into-tears routine at “incivility” is tiresome when he spends so much time insulting people.

              1. And it goes without saying that I don’t endorse those animals.  Nice try, though.

                Alex Jones seems to be acting like a jerk in that video

                We agree.  Hooray for civility.

                1. As a liberal who doesn’t think very highly of MM, I don’t agree with how she was treated, I’d much rather see her take a good verbal beating for the jacked up points of view that she has.  Physical harassment, orchestrated or not, has no place in a socio-political discussion.  I saw browbeat em with big words and watch em sweat.

                  1. Same with Jones.  What he does is so deplorable, but demonstrably false and circus-like.  When he acts like that it only shows more people how unbalanced of a charlatan he is.

                    But no matter how I felt about him, I wouldn’t make it physical or scream and yell – you automatically lose when you do that.  

                    My earlier comments had to do with him pursuing me aggressively, yelling, pushing.

      1. …it still was an uncalled for and unacceptable response. Not to mention stupid. In real life as on the blogs, the best thing to do with trolls is to ignore them. It’s also the reaction that is most upsetting to them.

  6. That phrase has really stuck with me since watching An American President (??) with Michael Douglas last night.  He walks in unannounced to a press meeting and starts with that line.  

    Oh, how true.  Good writing.  

    2. America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You’ve gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say, “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.” You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.  Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.

  8.    Anyone care to guess how the GOP primaries in Alaska will go tonight.

      My predictions:  

    (1) Ted Stevens, who does not have a serious primary opponent but does have an indictment, will narrowly win because he has too many opponents. Stevens will win with less than 50%.

    (2) Don Young, who does not have an indictment (at least not yet) but does have a serious opponent, loses.

      I also predict that Stevens will drop out before his criminal trial ends so that Sarah Palin can appoint a replacement who will be placed on the Nov. ballot by the state Republican Party.  

    1. My predictions:

      1) Stevens wins, but shows signs of damage.

      2) Young squeaks it out against Lt. Gov. Parnell by less than 1%.

      Stevens will hang on until the trial is done, hoping for an acquittal; by the time he resigns it will be too late.  If my second prediction is right, Parnell would be the “obvious” candidate to get the nod for Stevens’ spot on the ballot.

      If I’m right, Alaska’s Congressional delegation gains two Democrats.  The Lt. Gov. might be able to overcome likely Dem winner Berkowitz, but I don’t think he could beat Begich for the Senate seat.

      1.    If Stevens wins the primary and is acquitted, he may just win the general on a sympathy vote coupled with his claim to having been exonerated, by a jury of D.C. liberals, no less.

          If he does not resign before the end of Sept., the GOP is stuck with his name on the ballot.  And the trial, which begins on or around Sept. 22, is expected to last two to three weeks.  Any verdict will not come until after the deadline for replacing candidates.

          If he’s convicted and bails out in Oct., the GOP will be forced to ask voters to cast a vote for the resigned Stevens which will be counted for Parnell or some other Repub.  That didn’t work out well in Tom Delay or Mark Foley’s districts.  Maybe Alaska will be different. Or not.

          Come November, Alaska’s delegation gets at least one and maybe two Dems.

        1. There’s a lot more stacked against Stevens than his house renovations; none of those charges are up for this trial – they’re awaiting the results of this one, I’m guessing.  He’ll be damaged by the testimony, too.  Maybe there’s a sympathy vote, but I doubt it.  This is the same scandal that’s taken out a significant portion of the AK Legislature leadership, and Alaskans are tired of it.

          Thanks for the technical details on replacement; it’s a pain to keep them straight.

          There is a chance that Stevens will resign; his trial will be in D.C. right in the middle of campaign season, and if his ego isn’t too tied up in it he’ll probably make the right choice for the party.  IF his ego doesn’t get in the way.

    2. With 36.8% of the vote in, Berkowitz and Begich are in with room to spare.  Stevens is currently cruising along with 63%(!) in his race.

      As everyone figured, Young v. Parnell is the race to watch.  Young took an early lead, but Parnell has moved ahead by 314 votes, leading 45.78% to 45.07%.  (Gabrielle LeDoux, a third Republican, sucks up the remaining 9.15%.)

      Note: Parnell is the head of elections in Alaska.  I wonder if Young will “go there” with allegations of election fraud/corruption if the results are really close…

      1. Young now trails by 4 votes, out of 48,014, with 45.2% of the votes tallied.

        The rest of the races are pretty static.

        I’m goin’ to bed.  This won’t be decided by morning, or even likely in the next few days.

        1. With most of the vote now in, the AK-AL race is still too close to call!

          Young trailed most of the evening, but is now ahead by 145 votes (of 93,366 total) – 45.48% – 45.32%.

          The remaining precincts are all remote areas where supposedly Young has traditionally done well, so it looks like he may have pulled it out – barely.  It will be several days before they get all the absentee ballots counted, so sit back, relax, and enjoy the show!

          Ted Stevens never really broke a sweat, finishing the night with 63% of the vote.  For an indicted Senator, he pulled of a strong win.

  9. In a comment to the Denver Post, Dick Wadhams was quoted as saying

    “Just consider this [the RNC presence at the DNC] the Ministry of Truth,”

    Has someone slipped Wadhams some truth serum lately?  First the “shoving ads up your ass” comment, now he admits that the GOP is living in 1984.

  10. Pardon my blegging but if anyone has a way to get me 1 or 2 invites to tonight’s Max Baucus party I would be forever grateful.

    You can reach me at

    “user_name”@yahoodotcom

    Thank you

  11. the Denver Post published my “Letter to the Editor” today.  It’s the second one on the link below.

    http://blogs.denverpost.com/el…

    While I’m sure most of you won’t agree with my sentiments (and that’s okay), I invite you to offer your viewpoint to either of the Denver’s newspapers, once McCain chooses his running mate.

    Keep in mind though that, in the real world, you are not allowed to hide behind the cute names so many of you feel obligated to use here.  

    1. ” I’m somebody now! Millions of people look at this newspaper(book) everyday! This is the kind of spontaneous publicity – your name in print – that makes people. I’m in print! Things are going to start happening to me now.”

       

    2. Keep in mind though that, in the real world, you are not allowed to hide behind the cute names so many of you feel obligated to use here.

      Curious if you’ve ever read any history.

      There’s a long and storied history of political writers using pseudonyms. Just amongst the founders Franklin, John Adams, Hamilton, Madison, Jay and Paine (among others) all used pseudonyms regularly.  

      1. I was aware of that, but times were a whole lot different then.  The Founding Fathers actually faced being hanged, or shot, by the British if they had been captured.  What they were doing then would have been considered treason by the Crown.  None of us face such peril today.  

        The political figures we bash, or support, have the courage to stand before us without hiding behind aliases.  As confirmed “political junkies” we should be able to do the same.  It’s called having the courage of your convictions.        

          1. It was no doubt a carry over from the Revolutionary War days, when their lives were truly on the line.  I imagine they continued using the same pseudonyms because they had established some degree of credibility with those aliases before.

            Even after the Revolution had been won, there was no certainty that the new found independence would last.  The country stumbled along with the Articles of Confederation for the first few years before they realized that form of government would not work.  Times were far different then than now.  

          1. You may just be a fool, who can’t see that their a fool.

            Lay off the one-liners… unless you can get them right, or you’re doing stand-up comedy.  They really don’t provide much substance to any dialogue.  

        3. Back off with the “anonymity is evil” nonsense. I will gladly tell anyone my name and who I am if they ask. I simply don’t want to have just anybody knowing my political views.

          If I wanted to write a letter to the editor (I have in the past) I would, of course, provide my real name. If Pols thought that it was a necessity, they wouldn’t allow it.

          Plus, it’s a lot more unfiltered here, and it would be a shame for people to lose opportunities in their careers simply because they wrote publicly about politics.

          1. Back off with the “anonymity is evil” nonsense. I will gladly tell anyone my name and who I am if they ask. I simply don’t want to have just anybody knowing my political views.

            by: redstateblues @ Wed Aug 27, 2008

            Never have I said, nor ever believed, that “anonymity is evil.”  That would, indeed, be nonsense.

            I have no problem letting people know what my political views are, when the circumstances are appropriate, i.e. here, bumper sticker on car, yard sign, political gathering.

            Anonymity is disingenuous, and I stand by that statement.  It is also why I admire candidates, and officeholders, from both parties because they are out there — front and center — telling it like they see it.  That doesn’t always take place here.  A few use their anonymity to post one line “put downs” or call folks, they disagree with, names.  That adds nothing to the general discourse.

            A friend sent me a link to the New York Times Opinionator.  I couldn’t help but notice one particular requirement stated in their FAQ section:

            Should I use my real name when making a comment?

            Yes, definitely. Please fill in the name field with your real name or initials. We have found that people who use their names carry on more engaging, respectful conversations. (my emphasis) However, we recommend against using your full e-mail address on security grounds.

            “Engaging, respectful conversations” is sorely lacking here on a consistent basis… unless one is a Democrat fawning over the liberal issue of the day.

                1. Aside from being silly and remembering good times from days gone by…

                  In cyberspace, no-one really knows your name.

                  You didn’t sign up for this account using a certified SSL client certificate, and I doubt 1 in 10000 people actually has a certified personal SSL or S/MIME certificate.  For that matter, I doubt 1 in 10000 Internet users has a well-trusted PGP key.

                  I could sign up as “Drew_Kerin” and be just as “legit” a “Drew Kerin” as you are, from what little anyone knows about you.

                  BTW, did you know before this post how much the Speaker of the House knows about IT issues?

                  1. Good point!  But if that is the case, then why the need for aliases at all?  I still think — in most cases here — being anonymous is being disingenuous.

                    No, I didn’t know how much the Speaker of the House knew about IT issues.  Things were a lot different back when I was the speaker.

                    Sincerely,

                    Newt Gingrich  

            2. didn’t you see that I said I would tell anyone my name if they asked? Why should I put my real name attatched to my posts when anyone who wants to know can ask?

              I was talking to a blogger yesterday about why the blogosphere is so powerful. I said that it’s so fantastic that people on sites like ours are judged by their ideas, not their backgrounds, appearances, races, religions, or ages.

              In the age of Google, where employers will do an ego search of prospective employees, why should I lower my chances of getting hired by a conservative company just because of my personal political beliefs? If I put my name here, the first thing to come up when someone searched me would be this. I love politics, but it’s the last thing I want prospective employers to factor in when they are considering hiring me.

              And if you didn’t want to brag about the letter to the editor, why post it on here? If your main concern was expressing your opinion to a wider audience than pols, then you should have been content with that.

          1. Plus, it’s a lot more unfiltered here, and it would be a shame for people to lose opportunities in their careers simply because they wrote publicly about politics.

            by: redstateblues @ Wed Aug 27, 2008

            I’ve already had people threatening to try to get me fired because I have political views and express them here. So I’m kind of grateful for some degree of anonymity, thanks.

            by: sxp151 @ Wed Aug 27, 2008

            I do recognize that there are some people, whose blogging here could negatively impact their careers.  I believe what you wrote about your individual circumstances, sxp151.

            But there are how many bloggers here at ColoradoPols.com?  (I really don’t know the exact number.)  It appears that less than a dozen post using their real name.  Are we to believe everyone else is in that same situation?  It strains credibility to believe so.  

    3. I’ve written about that here before.  All of the “regulars” know my real name here – I don’t make a secret of it.

      And for those who truly hide their identities behind their ‘nyms, well, pseudonyms protect people from more than just government prosecution.  If a truth is said, does the signature below the line really matter?

      1. If a truth is said, does the signature below the line really matter?

        by: Phoenix Rising @ Tue Aug 26, 2008

        I guess it doesn’t… unless you’re a Republican here.

        DrewKerin reminds me of Steve Martin in The Jerk

        “I’m somebody now! Millions of people look at this newspaper(book) everyday! This is the kind of spontaneous publicity – your name in print – that makes people. I’m in print! Things are going to start happening to me now.”

        by: WesternSlopeThought @ Tue Aug 26, 2008

         

        Apparently, Westy was fixated on the fact I got my name in the Denver Post.  That was hardly my intent.  My goal was to circulate the two questions raised in my second point.

        The truth of that issue was salient and has still gone unanswered.  I’ve passed it along to Newsweek as well.

        Doesn’t Biden outshine Obama on the issues? Face it – when you compare the rГ©sumГ©s and accomplishments of both senators, exactly where does Obama come out better than Biden?

        Drew Kerin, Littleton

        The answer appears to be that he doesn’t come out better than Biden anywhere… except maybe giving speeches.

        1. But in case that wasn’t enough…

          In the perception of voters, Obama will still outshine Biden handily.  Yes, that’s “giving speeches” – charisma, or, as some call it, leadership ability.

          When it comes to grassroots issues, and issues of corporate oversight, Obama will outshine Biden.  Obama has been more outspoken on a new energy policy, too.  And while he doesn’t have Biden’s experience, his foreign policy points have shown wisdom, and good judgment more than anything else is a requirement of diplomacy.

          Thanks again for concern-trolling about our strong party ticket.

          1. I agree with you there.  Frankly, that is worrisome.  But if voters start looking for the substance of the two men, Obama is going to have problems.  Biden has credentials and experience that Obama can only dream about.  That is not real encouraging for the country, unless they are planning a co-presidency.

            Charisma doesn’t necessarily equate to leadership.  Hitler is the perfect example.  (And in no way do I mean Obama is Hitler.)  I think Biden has far more practical leadership skills.

               

  13. (Note: there is nothing of political substance to this post  😛 )

    I don’t know if anyone else is watching, but the last hour or so, Matthews seems to have gone a little crazy.  He keeps snapping at Olbermann and responding on-air to whoever is speaking into his earpiece.  It’s rather funny…

    Aside from that, nice little speech from Frederico Pena a few minutes ago.

    1.    Pena was talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and I’m asking myself, where was Federico during the early ’90s on that issue. Well, he was Sec. of Energy while we were feeding our addiction.

        He would have been better off just talking about DIA, how we finally the baggage system to work properly and how the financing for the airport did not bankrupt the city, as some had predicted.

      1. who spent months telling America that Barack Obama was not ready to lead.  Come to think of it… so did his vice presidential choice, only Joe Biden did it for a much shorter amount of time.

        Do you really think the voters missed that?  I doubt it.  So why should they start believing otherwise now?  Either HRC and Biden were “flip floppers” or liars.  I think it is the former.

          1. I had no idea that program was in existence.  I’m not a veteran blogger and this is the only one I dabble with.

            Thanks for the “heads up!”  I signed up today!  I might as well get something for my efforts.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

54 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!