Democratic Convention Watch: Open Thread

Saturday, May 24, 2008

Open Thread - VP Edition

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

Who should get the Democratic VP Slot? Have at it.

And please be excellent to one another. We do not accept name calling or any attacks on our commenters. Any objectionable comments will be deleted. Try to be civil.

Thanks!

438 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 438 of 438 Newer› Newest»

Leah Texas4Obama said...: Aunt Jean-

Please explain what you are talking about regarding Susan Rice and 'monster'.

It was some other woman that said 'monster' not Susan Rice.

Have you heard some kind of 'new' news that we haven't?; August 08, 2008 12:49 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Mike In Maryland if the post wasn't from you I'm sorry you wouldn't know what I was talking about but it did say Mike In Maryland. Sorry. It wasn't anything bad. Jean; August 08, 2008 12:50 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: AP,

I would love to just drop it, but

AUNT JEAN,

I've had more than enough of your blasting people's comments without putting your response in context. You say that someone insulted you all the time, but don't tell us when and how, but expect us to bow down to your 'superior wisdom'.

When I stated that Bill said "YES YES YES", I didn't make a comment on Hillary being ready or not - it was just a comment on Bill's statement being STUPID.

Bill stated that even a Vice-President wouldn't be ready. That's quite the comment, considering that Al Gore ran for President in 2000 and lost to probably the LEAST prepared individual who EVER ran for President.

Jean - DO NOT take every comment as personal, and interpolate something in the comment as a bashing of Hillary. If I wanted to comment, good or bad, about Hillary, I would have done so directly. Since I didn't make a comment about Hillary, DO NOT interpolate it as a comment on Hillary.

And place your comments in context, so we know what you are discussing. Maybe you think you can read minds, and you think everyone else can also, but I know of no one else who can. Otherwise, please stay off the computer when you can't think cogently and engage in logical conversation.

Mike; August 08, 2008 12:51 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Well now things are back to normal :)

I suppose it is refreshing after spending a stressful day over on the other thread :); August 08, 2008 12:54 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Leah,

VBG

Mike; August 08, 2008 12:55 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah and Mike I guess I was reading an old post I'm sorry I do apologize.

Mike In Maryland but I did get an email from the new thread about a post you wrote to me isn't that strange if you did do it. I wonder what happened. Jean; August 08, 2008 12:56 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Obama is leaving tomorrow to go to Hawaii to visit with his grandmother and sister and to go to the veteren's cemetery where his grandfather is buried, and vacation a little bit with his family. I wonder what kind of crap McCain is going to pull while Obama is away!; August 08, 2008 1:00 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I guess we will need to tell Matt that if he gives us our old thread format back that we won't complain about 'stop' anymore.

We can just ignore him and think of him as a crazy old uncle that walks thru the room every now and again muttering to himself ;); August 08, 2008 1:04 AM
apissedant said...: Leah,
Did you see the latest National Enquirer on the issue? They have a, photo of "him" visiting the child "in the hotel room." It is a very very blurry photo of a man that very well may be John Edwards with a baby. The man is wearing hospital scrubs and is covered in sweat.

Doesn't this show the insanity of their accusations? Why is he wearing hospital scrubs and covered in sweat in a hotel room?

Fox News has a recent piece complaining about only Fox News and The National Enquirer covering the story. They state that only those in the political know actually know about the story, and that most of them don't even believe it. That's what Fox News says!!!

So if this is the case, isn't it in John Edward's best interest to continue ignoring it? It also says that The National Enquirer actually does have even more incriminating photos, but they are airing them by their own schedule. This is in the same line as O'Reilly claiming he has more incriminating video of Jackson, but he doesn't want to hurt Jackson's reputation. That accusation was just as quickly laughed off and ignored by the rest of the media.; August 08, 2008 1:04 AM
apissedant said...: Leah,
The new thread also addressed issues with "off topic" posts, because you could ignore an entire line of postings... so I say no more complaining about that too. ;)

VBG; August 08, 2008 1:06 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: One of the things that Oreo stated when the new software was introduced was that it allowed the admins to lock out certain posters. Since stop has now posted at least nine times on the new thread, using the 'MyUSA' pseudonym, and he hasn't been stopped from posting, there goes one of the major reasons Oreo presented for the new software.

We need to flood the demconwatch@googlegroups.com email Inbox with messages about the deficiencies of the new software, including the lack of control placed on stop.

Mike; August 08, 2008 1:07 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I thought he was wearing a blue shirt. Why would he be wearing hospital scrubs in a hotel room late at night?

Anyway, to me it didn't look like him in the photo with the baby. I could be --- but the face looked too thin to me.

And if it was a 'true' photo - I don't understand why it's so blurry. Most cameras nowadays take much better photos than that!; August 08, 2008 1:08 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: apissedant said...
Leah,
The new thread also addressed issues with "off topic" posts, because you could ignore an entire line of postings... so I say no more complaining about that too. ;)
----------------

I disagree with that because you still have to read/scan past them. It's not like some message boards where the treads all have their own links.

Anyway - I hate the new format over there.; August 08, 2008 1:11 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Mike-

But 'stop' is posting in a more calmer fashion over there. He hasn't been as offensive as he was before. I think he has taken a 'new tone' so that Matt won't delete everything off by him.

Also, maybe not enough people have clicked on the report button on his posts (since he hasn't been too offensive yet). He doesn't bother me when he behaves (which wasn't very often in the past).; August 08, 2008 1:14 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah probably it's blurry because it's not Edwards. Jean; August 08, 2008 1:22 AM
apissedant said...: Leah,
It could just be a blue t-shirt, who knows, it is way too blurry. Still doesn't explain being coated in sweat in the middle of the night. Just oddball crap, and only the far right, and those actively involved have noticed. Those on the far right don't matter, and the rest of us don't buy it.

He spoke out several times denying the allegations, there is still no new proof of the allegations, so why would he keep airing a public denial? It would look really odd if he kept coming out every week to deny it.; August 08, 2008 1:37 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: The problem I see is that he has not came out and said anything since the picture came out.

The ones I saw had him in the blue shirt looking up holding a 'balloon string' or something then the photo of him holding the baby next to that with the same blue shirt. But the one holding the baby was so blurry you couldn't see if there was sweat or not... I haven't heard anything before about sweat.

Anyway, I still think it is going to remain in the headlines until he says something.; August 08, 2008 1:42 AM
apissedant said...: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/exclusive_john_edwards_love_child_photos/celebrity/65258; August 08, 2008 1:47 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Here are the photos I saw.

The one of Edwards looking up could have been taken anywhere - outside on a hot day... it has nothing to do with the other photo.

The photo with the guy with the baby could be wearing that shirt to 'look' like Edwards.

All set up by the Enquirer to sell magazines ;); August 08, 2008 1:49 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yep! Same link that I forgot to put in my last post! LOL :)

The two photos were not taken at the same place.; August 08, 2008 1:51 AM
apissedant said...: Yup, they even imitated the sweat stains. The neat thing is that the shirts don't look the same. The one photo that is clear and definitely looks like Edwards has very long sleeves. You can't see his arm in the picture. The other photo has very short sleeves.; August 08, 2008 2:17 AM
apissedant said...: John Edwards should not address this issue himself. There is no reason to give it that much credit. At most, if his people decided a response was necessary, the photo should be brought on a friendly show like Countdown. The obvious problems with the photo should be discussed. The fact that the spy photo is blurry, and the other is clear. The fact that he is covered in sweat. The fact that the shirts appear to be different. The fact that they appear to have been taken in different places. The fact that no photo exists with the mother of the child in it.

I honestly don't recommend this. As soon as someone other than Fox News brings up this issue, everyone will bring up this issue. The suspicion will hurt him even when this is eventually proven to be false. Even if he took a paternity test, they'd claim that the paternity test was doctored and the doctors were paid off. There is no way to win against their campaigns of misinformation except to completely ignore them.

The same thing we all learned personally with jpsedona, mike, and Stop.; August 08, 2008 2:22 AM
apissedant said...: OHH!!!
As to Matt and Oreo. I realize you do not spend as much time on here as some of us contributors, and you honestly don't want to spend all of your time deleting comments by Stop. Is there any possibility of just extending a partial moderator position to one of the more rational and frequent contributors? They could be informed that they were only allowed to delete posts by a list of "banned" people. You could add or subtract people from this list at your discretion, and if the person ever veered outside of this realm, you could remove their moderating ability.

This way you could still maintain the integrity and message of your website without having to constantly police it yourself. There would be an extra person to pick up the slack on occasion, but they would still not officially be apart of your team, so you would not have to expand the actual team of contributors. You could even do it privately so none of us know who it is. Just an idea to keep your faithful posters happy without inconveniencing yourselves too much.; August 08, 2008 2:29 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: AP,

EXCELLENT idea. We need to let Matt, Oreo and Doc Jess know we are in favor of this solution by emailing them.

Mike; August 08, 2008 2:37 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: P.S.

I am NOT in the running for that position.

For one thing, I've sent a few scathing emails to the site coordinators about the new discussion software, and I know that I'm not on their 'favored poster' list right now.

For another, I have other duties at a Yahoo group (for the eye condition I have) that take precedence over any discussion here.

Third, I'm on the Board of Directors for a 501(c)(3) non-profit (for the above eye condition) that also takes precedence.

Mike; August 08, 2008 2:42 AM
apissedant said...: Mike,
LOL...
I would sometimes describe you as an ornery old man, but I still find you to be an intelligent, caring, passionate, and positive voice on this thread. I think at times we have almost all been overly stubborn, quick to judge, rude, or in some other way offensive at one point or another on this thread.
That is both the beauty and the unpleasant part about this forum. We aren't at work and we aren't running for office. The fact is we are all completely real here. We say what we want, when we want, with very little filtration.
I personally love this about this venue. I get to see what people really think, and often what their first unfiltered reaction is to something. Even on the streets this is difficult, because people are more likely to filter in face to face conversation.
For this reason, I don't hold any one incident against anyone, and I hope no one else does either.

That's my opinion, and I hope I didn't offend you with it.; August 08, 2008 2:55 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: apissedant said...
Mike,
LOL...
I would sometimes describe you as an ornery old man

OK AP,

For the last time, you can STOP the 'old man' comments when referring to me! VBG

Funny you wrote the word 'ornery' - in college, my nickname was 'ornery critter'.

Mike; August 08, 2008 5:09 AM
apissedant said...: Something I haven't seen mentioned here yet... Gates is proposing doubling the number of US forces in Afghanistan. Isn't that pretty close to the plan that Obama proposed?; August 08, 2008 5:29 AM
apissedant said...: Haha Mike,
How'd you earn that name?; August 08, 2008 5:30 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: AP,

Guess. VBG

Let's just say that when pranks were ongoing, I usually wasn't the quiet church mouse sitting in the corner.

Mike; August 08, 2008 6:08 AM
suzihussein22 said...: I thought it was going to be cool to not have to worry about making a link a tiny url, but now that's the least of the problems.

leah-Yeah, I'm ignoring the enquirer story like we do the rabble.; August 08, 2008 7:36 AM
suzihussein22 said...: m in md-I would've NEVER suspected you were ornery at such a tender age. "VBG" :-D; August 08, 2008 7:38 AM
Karen Anne said...: Is this the refuge from the new open thread software? :-)

What's with gak Bill Clinton in Wednesday night? I see how Hillary is due a spot, but that red-faced petulant creep smearing Wednesday night? Two nights of people many voters despise? How many voters will he drive away?

After this and FISA I am getting doubts about what kind of President Obama will be. He seems to cave. McCain would be far worse, of course, I am just no longer sure how much Obama can accomplish.; August 08, 2008 8:30 AM
Beryl said...: I heard today that McCain supporters sent out a memo stating that they need to paint Obama as a "job killer" and controlled by corporations. Of course they had nothing to substantiate it in the memo but they will do it all the same.

Another fun note:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfF7YR6wFMQ

You know the DNC wouldn't take the low road with an attack add like this but wouldn't it be fun?; August 08, 2008 10:51 AM
Oreo said...: All...
We're working on a solution for the Open Thread. Stay tuned.; August 08, 2008 10:58 AM
Oreo said...: We've posted a new Open Thread here.

It's the old commenting format; August 08, 2008 11:44 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: *** VP TALK ***

Looks like it will be either Biden, Bayh, Kaine, Sebelius, or a surprise :); August 19, 2008 2:47 AM
tmess2 said...: 91 hours (or less) and counting and still not one good leak from inside the campaign itself. The best rumor so far is that the vettees have been asked for information on how they can be reached on Thursday afternoon (suggesting a late Thursday or Friday morning announcement).; August 19, 2008 4:35 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 438 of 438 Newer› Newest»

Welcome to Democratic Convention Watch

Blog Archive

Democratic Convention 2008

Democratic National Convention History

Denver & Colorado Democrats

DCW in the News

Friends of DCW

2008 Republican National Convention

Saturday, May 24, 2008

Open Thread - VP Edition

438 comments:

Tags