Bill Maher: F*ck*ng too right!

If you haven't watched Maher yet, tonight was it back on form and really one of the best I've seen in a while.  Intelligent discussion. Little grandstanding, that I think has got in the way too often recently.  And everyone just had great stuff to add the the conversation.

His new rules HAS to be seen by everyone here who can - if it YouTubes and you see it before I do, feel free to post a link in the comments.  Basically he nailed it with the whole bitter thing.  I diaried on this a few days back - about being a bitter elitist.  In his usual concise to-the-point style: "You know who's bitter in America?  I am.  Because shit kickers voted twice for a retarded guy they wanted to have a beer with and everyone else had to suffer the consequences".

Anyone else see this week's.  I think it's the best in a while.  You?

They had an earlier segment showing rural Pennsylvanians just laying into the media construct that they are mad at Obama's comments - this guy is a LOT stronger in that segment than the mainstream media seems to realise.  I suspect they anticipate a far stronger race-based voting bias than looks to be the reality.

•  Yes, Awesome.

  And Kos did well too!

  by sam2300 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:19:02 PM PDT

  •  He did great...

    but his makeup made him look very pretty.

    by TexasLiz on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:27:50 PM PDT

    •  actually

      I thought he looked a little orange! But I guess orange is his color!

      by sam2300 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:37:41 PM PDT

  •  i love cornell's politics bu ton a panel

    he just loves the sound of his own voice a little too much. More interaction would have been nice

    by Tanya on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:34:26 PM PDT

    •  He can talk a circle into a circle

      Frankly, I wanted to hear more from Ms. Ali -- that is one brave human.

      by crabbytom in md on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:56:21 PM PDT

      •  Many moons ago I had a relationship with a good

        friend of his, my line was he talked a lot of shit and said nothing. But i have to admit he sounds good saying it LOl

        by Tanya on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:21:43 PM PDT

    •  I love cornell

      He has a lot of passion for thinking and believing.  I love seeing someone who's willing to talk with their entire body.  He did sort of fillibuster the whole panel, but that's bill's job as host to get everyone involved.

      by Urizen on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:43:15 PM PDT

      •  HERE are all the VIDEO REPLAYS of the show

        
        

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        
        

        
        

        
        

        
        

        
        

        
        

        by rhfactor on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:50:31 PM PDT

  •  Thanks!

    This is a fun show, even if I felt like an intellectual midget next to Cornell, lol.

    by kos on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:47:29 PM PDT

    •  You were great

      My husband watched with me.  He's not a Kossack  but he said "So that's the guy whose blog you're always on?" I said yes.  After you spanked Chrissie Matthews, my husband said "Maybe I need to read Daily Kos too. That's Markos is sharp."

      by Delilah on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:23:43 AM PDT

    •  Well, I know I speak for many

      when I say you did the community proud - and made us all look good by reflection :-)

      by ResponsibleAccountable on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:29:39 PM PDT

•  Tip Jar

  by ResponsibleAccountable on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:19:58 PM PDT

  •  Tipped for...

    ...your sig -- good one.

    by ETF on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:13:38 AM PDT

•  I got nervous watching Maher tonight

  as I'm so used to the MSM abusive bullshit.  So even though Bill's not MSM - he's on my tee-vee!  And he nailed it on all the elitism and bitter crap.  I really like the interviews with the Pennsylvania bikers!!  

  by FORUS50 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:21:43 PM PDT

•  HBO's website...

  generally posts a transcript of Bill's New Rules sometime on the Tuesday after a Friday episode.  Looking forward to checking this out (I don't get HBO... too cheap).

  by Greasy Grant on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:24:48 PM PDT

  •  The show is on YouTube you know

    about a day after the broadcast. Who needs cable?

    by jgoodfri on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:31:26 PM PDT

    •  but if i don't pay for cable

      and enough others join me in that HBO won't have the revenue to make shows like this

      THAT's why we need cable DUMBASS

      by ResponsibleAccountable on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:13:57 PM PDT

      •  The "DUMBASS" was unnecessary...

        but the comment was correct in its substance.  So I'm rec'ing it despite my disagreement with the less than polite phrasing.

        by Mike McL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:22:43 PM PDT

        •  you you're right

          trying to be funny but came across rude

          by ResponsibleAccountable on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:48:45 PM PDT

        •  Well, la-de-dah :) eom

          by plum on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:09:07 PM PDT

          •  yeah, bloody elitists

            this is how us real world people speek

            ;-)

            by ResponsibleAccountable on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:45:40 AM PDT

      •  becasue Comcast wants $130

        for cable with HBO. And i can't get satellite where I am. I am not paying $130/month to watch one show.

        by jgoodfri on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:24:03 AM PDT

        •  makes a lot of sense

          TV has got very expensive as people have become more and more addicted to it... it's logical if terrible

          by ResponsibleAccountable on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:30:30 PM PDT

•  and Tweety was an idiot

  of course. He STILL can't understand that voting for "somebody who acts like us, looks like us" is voting sans brains.  Right Tweety - try that Senate thing you've been talking about and see how many of those same people want to vote for "the common man" that you think you are.  I would love to announce that election result a second after the polls close.

  by FORUS50 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:28:39 PM PDT

  •  hey, at least he's on Obama's side

    he just disagrees and that's ok.

    i'm glad that MSNBC is pretty much in the tank for Obama since FOX is all Republican bullshit all the time.

    by AntonBursch on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:33:55 PM PDT

    •  Yeah but....

      Technically, neither one of them is supposed to be "in the tank" for anyone. That is part of the problem.

      by RDemocrat on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:42:53 PM PDT

    •  But....

      That is why I like Bill Maher. He is never "in the tank" for anyone. He tells it like it is.

      by RDemocrat on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:44:06 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, ABC is such an Obama lapdog eom

      by plum on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:10:29 PM PDT

    •  On Obama's side, why do you think so?

      I think Tweety is a know nothing loud mouth that thinks he is christ risen.  I wouldn't vote for him if I got paid big bucks to do it.  He is just another freakin insider and good ol' boy running for office.

      by dkmich on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:35:37 AM PDT

  •  He lied

    He recently told Stephen Colbert that he wants to run for the Senate in 2010 - tonight when asked about whether he intended to run for office he said "no" & didn't even acknowledge what he said just days ago - He's been driving me nuts lately - he's a tool.
    
    
    ````
    peace
    
    

    by peace voter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:40:21 PM PDT

    •  Everytime I watch tweety

      I always wonder why the fuck he's on television.  He possesses none of the qualities necessary to be a TV personality.

      by zreeb on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:43:01 PM PDT

      •  Except he's cynical pimp. n/t

        by daulton on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:49:06 PM PDT

        •  and a loud-mouth

          by Melchuck29 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:13:29 PM PDT

      •  Why watch him? He is no longer a spectator.

        The second Matthews confirmed on Colbert that he wanted to be a senator and all but confirmed his running in 2010, I have not watched a second of Hardball. All objectivity is out the window. Everything he says about Pennsylvania and its politics, such as comments about Ed Rendell, must now be viewed through the prism of a guy that is warming up for a political office run.

        So we broke up.

        by mrfletcher on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:07:07 PM PDT

    •  Wow, that's interesting

      because when he said it to Colbert, he looked almost emotional about it when he answered.  I thought he said it was his dream, didn't he?

      Sounds like an adviser got a hold of him and said "Shut up, too early."  Kind of hard to stuff the cat back into the bag.

      by ksh01 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:46:39 PM PDT

      •  here's tweety

        
        
        
        `````
        peace
        
        

        by peace voter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:52:36 PM PDT

        •  I listening again

          what a freaking twit.
          
          
          ````
          peace
          
          

          by peace voter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:05:32 PM PDT

        •  definitely a reversal

          but maybe he left a door open at the end.  I don't think he's very easy around people, though.  It could get in his way.  Just think of all those clips of him!

          by ksh01 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:12:00 PM PDT

      •  I want leaders who change their minds

        I do not want politicians who flow with the poll.  But I very much believe that "message discipline" and ruthless consistency is a bad thing.  I want people in government (whether it's a town board or the U.S. Senate) who are willing to look at facts, evaluate the credibility of statistics, consider opinions, and make decisions based on their thoughtful judgment at the time they are presented with an issue.  I also want people whose judgment generally turns out to be correct.

        Call me a conservative progressive if you will.  I believe in progressive causes and want them to succeed.  I think the best way to accomplish that is through measured steps towards a better system which respects individuals and properly implements the social contract.

        But I'm digressing and perhaps ranting a bit.  Like I said, elected officials ought to be willing to change their minds when confronted with new information.  But I'm just a schmuck lawyer elitist who believes in the Constitution and the principles upon which it was based.

        by Mike McL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:37:12 PM PDT

        •  yup

          exactly right - leaders should change their minds in the face of evidence

          by ResponsibleAccountable on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:50:41 PM PDT

        •  Yep

          Ruthless consistency got us the ultimate example with George Bush and "Oh if only I had the chance to replay Vietnam all over again I could prove we would have won", Dick Cheney!
          The media got so focused on nailing down a candidate's view and then idiots came along practically screaming for a stubborn ass in power with the 'flip-flopping' crap that it pretty well blew out any chances for a smart president who can think on what is needed and not just react with the easiest answer because it was done that way before. (Didn't work then, but by golly it will work this time!)

          by RElland on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:10:49 AM PDT

    •  oh come on

      he lied?  everyone thinking of running for office goes through this back and forth - yes i am no i am not

      i am sure some part of it is internal back and forth and some is artifice, but it's hardly a big deal

      it's interesting that he's thinking of it

      by ResponsibleAccountable on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:18:23 PM PDT

      •  Maybe to you...

        For progressive Democratic politics, Tweety would be a bad deal. Not to mention that he's an ass.  If he ran and won, the only good thing to result from that would be him going off the air.  

        by dkmich on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:38:23 AM PDT

        •  he'd not win

          people won't elect a pundit - i don't think

          by ResponsibleAccountable on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:31:24 PM PDT

  •  I think Chris Matthews gets too much stick

    he really is not a bad presenter

    he loves politics so gives us one of the best shows ON politics on TV

    like everyone he'll have his inconsistencies and flaws, and sure, the NYT critique was probably fairer than he'd like to think, but i enjoy what he does

    by ResponsibleAccountable on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:16:55 PM PDT

•  When he's good he is very good; when he's bad he

  is horrid. Regardless, he is creepy.

  by muledriver on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:34:29 PM PDT

•  uniongal usually posts RT diaries

  She posts here & on YouTube and she's already posted tonight's opening:

  If you keep checking she may post a diary here with all of the segments.
  
  
  ````
  peace
  
  

  by peace voter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:35:19 PM PDT

  •  fantastic - thanks

    i never usually watch it on time so don't see the diaries on it here usually

    by ResponsibleAccountable on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:19:40 PM PDT

•  best line was the last

  "I'm bitter because you shit kickers voted for this asshole Bush twice, and the rest of us had to suffer for eight years."

  ...or something to that effect.

  by zreeb on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:35:38 PM PDT

  •  Well...

    I do kick shit, but I never voted for Bush. Some shit is just to stinky to kick!!

    by RDemocrat on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:45:11 PM PDT

  •  His line about Bill-O was great, too

    He was riffing on the three "g's" and said something about how "if you believe the Mexican immigrants are going to steal your gun and shoot your god you must be Bill O'Reilly".   Nailed that sucker!

    by Budlawman on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:45:33 PM PDT

    •  that whole riff was amazing

      really on the money

      by ResponsibleAccountable on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:20:21 PM PDT

•  kos got as pissed as Maher

  when he talked about who is in touch with small town people.  he practically snarled.  it was awesome!!

  this was the BEST one in a very very long time.  honestly, i know i've seen a better one, but I can't remember for sure.  this was the perfect example of an intelligent discussion.

  and that gun shop guy was AWESOME!!!  

  and who were the dip shits?  the LA folks that Bill interviewed.

  just like the LA debate when they clapped for a Obama/Clinton ticket because they were all fucking clueless about the real life power struggle happening in this primary and how high the stakes are for most people.

  by AntonBursch on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:38:41 PM PDT

  •  Kos was great, BTW. n/t

    by daulton on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:48:20 PM PDT

•  If....

  You are new to Bill Maher, welcome. You will find he gets it right, and says it well a lot. Just remember he said Edwards was the Democrats' one real winner this year.....

  by RDemocrat on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:41:07 PM PDT

  •  Edward Who?

    Just kidding.  I'm a former supporter.  It just seems so loooooong ago even though it was only two and a half months.

    by ksh01 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:57:57 PM PDT

    •  I know

      This loooooooong primary has been a nightmare. No matter who wins.

      Best wishes!!

      by RDemocrat on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:19:21 PM PDT

      •  Next new rule.

        We wait until November 1st of 2012, announce the running candidates and tell America to choose them in one full week with a link per candidate to Wikipedia and the government record center of their bills and votes.
        Now that scramble would be fun to watch.

        by RElland on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:14:08 AM PDT

        •  That's why I like the UK system

          no fixed electoral timetable which means the gov't calls election and there's a short period of electioneering

          by ResponsibleAccountable on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:32:12 PM PDT

  •  New Rule

    John Edward did not win anything.  Dopn't blame the media, don't Blame Obama, don't blame anyone.  Nice guy, but terrible candiate.

    by SonnyTufts on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:34:20 PM PDT

    •  I wouldn't say terrible

      not as "inevitable" as HRC and nowhere near the populist chops of Barack.  In a "change" election he was the same old same old (i.e., white guy).  

      I like him less now than I used to.  He should have endorsed Obama weeks ago when he got a glimpse of what Hillary was up to.  Watching from the sidelines isn't leadership.

      by Urizen on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:50:03 PM PDT

      •  Oh, good!

        Another pundit who thinks Edwards is sleaze because "he won't endorse MY candidate" even though said candidate shares precious little philosophy for Edwards to feel comfortable endorsing.  (Like, not endorsing isn't an option?)  If your guy has such fierce political chops, he doesn't need any former candidate's endorsement.  Speaking of chops, although I flat out agree with Obama's "bitter/cling" statements and think anyone who was offended by them pathetically insists on being fed political pablum, sounding like a lofty sociologist is a mistake Edwards would never have made, even while he addressed the same issue.  If Edwards had gotten fair attention from the press, you might have seen some chops, but he didn't, so how would you know?

        by planetclaire4 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:36:22 PM PDT

        •  it's hard to argue

          that for the good of the party we should NOT be consolidating behind Obama ASAP - as Clinton cannot win the nomination from here without fatally damaging the party

          so he should be endorsing on THAT basis - for the good of the party

          by ResponsibleAccountable on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:47:50 AM PDT

          •  So it all rests on Edwards whether Obama

            can win the nom or not--Obama?  With Obama's chops?  I repeat, no endorsement from a former candidate or sitting senator or governor is going to swing the nom his way.  And by endorsing, Edwards would have backed down from pressing the progressive wing of this party.

            My take is for the good of the party, the elders should yank HRC's membership, though I do recognize this is a democracy, and even the pinheads out there who don't see how atrociously party-destructive HRC's behavior has been still have their right to press her case.  It seems to me the only thing that's going to put her away and give Obama the nom sooner than later will be her supporters waking up to just how cravenly she has behaved.  No endorsement from Edwards can do that.

            I do like your sig line--where is it from?

            by planetclaire4 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:53:18 AM PDT

            •  Wow

              claire, we finally disagree. I don't believe Hillary has acted any worse than Obama. He just hasn't been held accountable for his mistakes.

              by RDemocrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:19:04 AM PDT

              •  I agree in a few instances Obama

                used a few tactics from the dark side, as if trying these as part of his "learning process" and he lost a lot of points with me, but these have not become part of his campaign's MOD to the extent HRC employs such.  Admittedly, I have a deeply personal problem with lying and a liar excusing his/her behavior as "overlookable," ends justifying means, whatever.  But I've had a problem with my perception of HRC as a rationally scrupulous person since her reaction to the Geffen Defection and that's just the way it is for me.

                What I saw during the Philadelphia debate were persistently applied guilt-by-association (no matter how tenuous--Ayers!!! and her not mentioning that his awful remarks were printed before the planes struck) tactics Joe McCarthy would have heartily approved.  But I don't.  I don't want a person who employs such tactics in the White House and I don't want that person becoming the standard bearer for our party.  I just think it can be done differently, as Edwards so shiningly--if not effectivelyin terms of results--showed.

                My issues went innuendo when Edwards went out the door, so I'm reduced, much as I resent it, to voting   "for the person," rather than issues.  I know many Edheads believe HRC's policies are closer to Edwards and thus support her.  But I see her as someone who dropped UHC for 14 years, only picking it back up after Edwards did her homework for her and forced her hand.  So I don't see her as a "fighter" for anything but power, which to me means she'll jettison any policy to support Monsanto or whatever.  I have no particular expectations of Obama either, but I think he'd behave in a more recognizably human manner.  That's not saying much, I realize, but it's all I've got.

                by planetclaire4 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:11:26 AM PDT

                •  Not.....

                  An unfriendly diagreement mind you.....

                  You are also one of my favorite posters. Had to happen sooner or later!!!

                  by RDemocrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:40:48 PM PDT

              •  RD, you're one of my favorite posters

                and we don't disagree at all downticket.

                by planetclaire4 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:03:27 PM PDT

            •  no of course not

              how can you read what you say from what i wrote - this is why our political discourse is just shouting past each other

              of course Edwards nod doesn't make that huge a difference either way - but if he is to have any impact it should be now

              it's like all these things - a small weight on the balance tipping one way or the other

              the sig line is probably best known to people on here as the phrase is used on one of the Despair.com posters... i love the stuff on there

              my personal favourite is the beautiful artistic shot of a box of French Fries, with the motto:  Not everyone grows up to be an astronaut

              (or something like that)

              by ResponsibleAccountable on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:34:38 PM PDT

              •  Perhaps we are shouting past

                each other because your primary concern seems to be the party and mine is progressiveness, which I don't want to see compromised by endorsing any but a very progressive candidate.  Possibly Obama has progressive bits to his agenda I would like and will applaud if I see evidence of any.  I just haven't yet.  All I see is another generic Dem who isn't, but might as well be, a DLC member, on top of which, who has a dismayingly incoherent foreign policy.  Iwouldn't do a third party, but if Obama and Clinton are what the Dems finally offer us, then I have to say I agree with Nader (except for SCOTUS), there isn't enough difference between parties to make a difference.

                Having said that, despair.com sounds like a prescription I need :S so thanks.

                by planetclaire4 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:46:32 PM PDT

          •  UH....

            In case you haven't noticed, Obama cannot win the number of delegates either. The same can be said about him. Trashing Edwards doesn't change that.

            When I see Obama at 29% against McCain in my state, I worry for my downticket candidates. Like it or not, Obama may not be the best thing for the WHOLE party!!

            by RDemocrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:17:30 AM PDT

            •  i think that the

              few states we'll lose with Obama due to the race issue - which i think is a big factor in KY - are out of reach of Clinton too, though

              IMHO

              by ResponsibleAccountable on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:35:48 PM PDT

      •  It is...

        Not Edwards responsibility to elect Obama. If Obama would speak on some things Edwards believes in, he would endorse him. That is Obama's fault not Edwards. Obama is desperately trying to remake himself as a centrist. Edwards is like me, he sees NO DIFFERENCE in Hillary and Obama. The only reason you do is because you WANT to.

        by RDemocrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:14:56 AM PDT

    •  I do

      Blame the media for watching shiny objects. Edwards was a far better candidate than either of the other two which is painfully obvious now. Nice try though.

      by RDemocrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:12:45 AM PDT

•  Maher, that font of wisdom! n/t

  by riverdan1900 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:45:00 PM PDT

•  Maher only takes his hands off his

  dick long enough to pat himself on the back.  OOOH, he's so smug and in love mit himself.

  by crabbytom in md on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:54:21 PM PDT

  •  yes but he is funny and often right while

    doing it

    by ETinKC on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:22:58 PM PDT

  •  that's half the fun

    the guy has a personality

    on TV that's because they have an ego - it has to be big for the personality to actually come across on TV

    by ResponsibleAccountable on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:23:05 PM PDT

    •  I love his show

      but I wouldn't want to have a beer with him that much.

      by Urizen on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:51:35 PM PDT

      •  i think he'd be fun

        off his head a little bit in some ranting intoxicating argument in a social context

        but then i'm an elitist and like that kind of thing

        by ResponsibleAccountable on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:53:12 PM PDT

  •  So what if he hits the right points?!

    by emacd on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:19:46 AM PDT

•  New Rules

  by notquitedelilah on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:00:00 PM PDT

  •  who's that kid

    laughing at the Pope joke?

    by Pondite on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:05:10 PM PDT

    •  I dunno

      ... he looks kinda orange to me.

      by bustacap on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:09:30 PM PDT

      •  like....

        SATAN ????

        by Pondite on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:15:36 PM PDT

    •  One lucky sumbitch...

      ...one day he's a lawyer with a blog about his wife's boobs and piano compositions, and the next day he gets to share a table with CORNELL WEST, possibly the most righteous  academic in America (though the recent C-SPAN in-depth interview with Michael Eric Dyson--let's hear it, Hoyas!--may have provided some competition).

      by JR on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:30:44 PM PDT

      •  Manning Marable

        is also a fantastic public intellectual. Love him.

        by Presumptuous Insect on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:37:51 AM PDT

•  I absolutely agree

  It was an excellent episode.  Every guest (except Matthews) had fantastic contributions to the conversation.

  And I am an apatheist like Bill, but I love my dear Cornel West.

  by Presumptuous Insect on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:10:19 PM PDT

  •  Same here ... Cornell rules

    Love that guy.

    by mannemalon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:15:16 PM PDT

•  Yeah, one of the best Real Time's in

  recent memory.

  The Pennsylvania report from Scahill(?) was quite eye opening for me.  To see those bikers, some of whom said they voted for Bush twice, saying they're going for Obama was pretty darn shocking.  

  Anyone think he may actually pull off PA on Tuesday?  This gave me a bit of hope, along with Smerconish today predicting Obama 51 Hillary 49.  Don't want to get expectations up, we need to keep it at double digit loss, so shhhhhhhhhhhh.

  by mannemalon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:14:46 PM PDT

•  Opening segment- the debate

  by notquitedelilah on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:15:31 PM PDT

•  Panel-Part 1

  by notquitedelilah on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:16:28 PM PDT

•  Panel- part 2

  by notquitedelilah on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:17:45 PM PDT

  •  Panel Part 3

    by An American In on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:06:19 AM PDT

    •  Panel Part 4

      by An American In on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:07:08 AM PDT

•  Recommending...

  subject to watching it on HBOW in another 45 mins or so.  Though it deserves a rec from me just for reminding me that there's more than dkos, msnbc.com, Countdown, and google news that're worth viewing (in my opinion at least).

  by Mike McL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:20:33 PM PDT

  •  of course Kos is on Maher

    so we get both hits at once

    by ResponsibleAccountable on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:27:39 PM PDT

    •  Great

      I hope Steph watched.  But we know he was jacking off to a picture of McCain.

      Thanks for the links.  

      by SonnyTufts on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:48:47 PM PDT

      •  after the debates

        he has McCain's cell number... a few late night whispers is enough

        by ResponsibleAccountable on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:54:48 PM PDT

    •  Nice sig

      Those who're interested, visit www.despair.com

      Truly, truly classic.

      by Mike McL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:49:19 PM PDT

•  Ayaan Hirsi Ali talking about threats facing

  the world said that Pakistan, who has a Nuclear bomb, is on the verge of being ruled by a military despot or Islamic extremists.
  This is patently false, The elections were won by the 2 democratic parties and the Islamic extremists were thoroughly routed.

  She also said that Iran is in the process of making nuclear bomb! Based on what evidence is she making this patent assertion on US television? ...

  by notquitedelilah on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:15:03 PM PDT

•  I don't know her

  Is he a republican?

  by Nath 4 BO on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:27:26 PM PDT

  •  She's Dutch and...

    she is a "Conservative Liberal" which doesn't seem to line up neatly with any American political party, at least to me.

    by An American In on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:32:07 PM PDT

    •  Though it is interesting that she is a fellow...

      ...at the American Enterprise Institute...

      by An American In on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:33:51 PM PDT

      •  Yes it is key to her parties view on the world.

        by notquitedelilah on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:42:21 PM PDT

    •  Of course it would help to read a little more...

      "Hirsi Ali is a member of the VVD, a Dutch political party that combines conservative views on the economy, foreign policy, crime and immigration with a liberal stance on drugs, abortion and homosexuality."

      by An American In on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:36:10 PM PDT

      •  Their stance on immigration is neo-fascistic.

        by notquitedelilah on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:40:43 PM PDT

        •  Thanks for that

          Comment editing would really be swell, no?

          by An American In on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:50:42 PM PDT

          •  Beg your pardon... I don't get your point.

            by notquitedelilah on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:39:20 AM PDT

            •  My point is if there were comment editing

              I wouldn't have made three half-comments :)

              by An American In on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:07:04 AM PDT

        •  i think there are many

          in Europe questionning how the multi-cultural paradigm can survive a culture within its walls that fundamentally oppose multi-culturalism and combines it with a nihilistic alienated mindset

          many on all political sides in Europe have been asking themselves tough questions in this regard

          there is no analog bewteen the US and EU on immigration so it's not that simple

          by ResponsibleAccountable on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:50:44 AM PDT

          •  I was not making a comparison with the US.

            I'm not American. I know were the VVD (People's Party for Freedom and Democracy) stand on immigration, and their stance in abhorrent to me and many other liberals in Europe.

            by notquitedelilah on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:57:22 AM PDT

            •  they go further than many

              but the status quo in Europe is not going to work either and the debate is just frozen into these polarized positions IMHO

              i think Britain is really in need of thinking through how this whole thing is going and how the multi-cultural thing is working out exactly

              by ResponsibleAccountable on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:59:19 AM PDT

              •  I think the Britain is well on its way.

                Not a good thing in y opinion.

                by notquitedelilah on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:18:24 AM PDT

•  If you watch the 4th part of the panel discussion

  You'll see that she even attempts to link world hunger to religion in her words " people who starve themselves".
  When asked about the religious compound in Texas situation, she said that she saw it as " the beginning of the end of multiculturalism"... WTF is she on about?

  by notquitedelilah on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:45:49 PM PDT

  •  I almost jumped at that comment

    But I didn't want to interrupt her and then the conversation went elsewhere.

    But that comment was weird. It was an unexpected moment of wingnuttery.

    by kos on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:10:59 AM PDT

    •  Had you read a bit of her writings,

      You would not have jumped.

      By the way, you were great. :~)
      You should speak out more in the MSM. We need a voice of sanity.

      by notquitedelilah on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:32:36 AM PDT

  •  you are minunderstanding what she is saying

    she is trying to say - and i know her work pretty well - she is trying to say that once your society starts allowing things like this in its midst, i.e. populations under the control of religious extremists who push policies and enforce rules that oppress women, it's the end of the sort of country we might like to think we're in

    and as to her comments about third world hunger, there is some validity in the point of view that while there are many reasons for these tragic circumstances, much of which the West should feel more shame and responsibility for than most people in the West apparently do, there is also a set of conditions to do with local customs and traditions (often wrapped in religion) that also contribute

    this makes sense to me

    i think, for example, countries that oppress women and don't allow them to participate in the workforce seriously undermine their economic effectiveness in the modern world... now what %age impact this has on GDP etc. can be debated - but it has some... and given that starvation is about small changes at the margins leading to cascading effects it is valid to say that cultural issues often contribute...

    ...ask anyone who works in relief work in Africa among large populations ravaged by AIDS (as a good friend of mine has been doing), and they'll have a pretty strong view on local customs, traditions and the influence of religion on undermining their efforts and underscoring the spread of this terrible plague - also impacting the food supply for many

    by ResponsibleAccountable on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:57:53 AM PDT

    •  There are over three hundred religions in Africa,

      as per my knowledge, and thousands diffrent and distinct tribal cultures, By attributing hinger to religion and people starving themselves on purpose you are saying that all these religions including Judaism, Islam and Christianity are In fact to blame by their subjugation of women.
      The common denominator among all these different peoples is not religion but culture. And here Ayaan is deliberately conflating the two. Why?
      The reasons behind the blurring of the line is quite obvious to anyone familiar with her writings.

      The Aids epidemic is a perfect example. I'm sure if you ask your friend you will find that these issues with which he has so much trouble are in fact cultural and spread across the religious spectrum.

      by notquitedelilah on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:16:45 AM PDT

      •  again i think you're oversimplifying

        she wasn't saying hunger is due to the religion - just pointing out that there are contributing factors at home in these countries as well as external factors

        the root problem for the world is overpopulation... i do not see how you cannot accept that overpopulation is largely influenced by issues of religion and local cultures in the places with those problems

        they don't have to have the SAME culture in each place, that isn't the point - just that there are factors from their religions and cultures in places that have become overpopulated while struggling economically and for resources... and it's important to understand this

        because otherwise we get stuck in the idea that the West can save them when in fact what is needed is a mix of changes from both inside and outside

        and in the end... my view not hers... it's all going to be unsuccessful... we are in a world that cannot support the billions of people on the planet... and now the oil peak has hit us we're going to see a massive die off worldwide... it's going to be very very bad... we are likely to crash to way below the couple of billion people the planet can sustain

        so all of this debate is mood, and it is going to be  a very very sad time

        by ResponsibleAccountable on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:55:00 AM PDT

        •  She did not mention overpopulation.

          she mentioned religion and people starving themselves.

          Were discussing her remarks not my views on the causes of world hunger.

          by notquitedelilah on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:00:39 AM PDT

          •  yes but people make remarks in context

            and the context of world hunger is overpopulation - it's so clearly one of the big underlying factors that discussions between smart people shouldn't require it to be explicitly stated each time

            by ResponsibleAccountable on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:37:28 PM PDT