“Well, Banana Bread (I hope nobody mistakes you for me because of your Web name), you are right on point number four, at least. At the time of its purchase by PlanetOut (PNO), LPI Media was overvalued and technologically at least five years behind the times (some would say more like fifteen). The $31 million figure represented the debt of fiscally troubled LPI Media combined with the estimated value of Specialty Publications (the porn arm of business that had been spun off temporarily but became a key financial ingredient of the merger).
Then PNO started to give away Advocate subscriptions to lure new members to its Web sites. And invested in a gay cruise company and made an all-out effort to land big ad accounts with airlines and car companies just as the economy was about to sour. And the endless brainstorming (and a few costly Palm Springs parties) to promote a new lesbian dating site, which never quite gelled. Anyone remember the company-wide e-mails asking for suggestions about naming the lesbian dating site? Mango and Juicy were two proposals (I kid you not), before the the project was dubbed Lucy (well, it rhymes with Juicy). In the midst of such antics from PNO executives up in Frisco, the Advocate took a backseat, regardless of how important it was to Judy Wieder and others.”
“Indeed, MMTJD. At least one of the greedy party-poopers who brought down PNO walked away with several hundred thousand in severance plus stock options (not worth much, it turned out) and vacation pay. While this kind of severance package might have been warranted in a large, successful company, it was criminal in a failing company where the majority of staff made well under $60K gross annually.
One may quibble with Ms. Wieder's vision. But at least she had a vision—and still has. This is more than can be said for her successors as editorial director.
BTW: The position of editorial director meant that she oversaw Advocate and Out, as well as Alyson Books, HIV Plus, and the launch of Out Traveler.”
Dec 5, 2008 at 23:51:06
“Brilliant sketch -- and very Biblically accurate, whatever carpings conservative Christians have with it.
I second that the No on 8 campaign -- in particular its videos and television ads -- needed to have had more of this level of "snark" to counter the fear-mongering ads of the Yes campaign, which you can be sure swayed many otherwise fair-minded voters in the last week or two before the election.”
As exhilirating and inspiring as Obama's victory is, I am angry with some California voters. I angry with the smarmy, sentimental hypocrites who voted against the rights of LGBT couples and families but still voted for Obama and the rights of chickens to flap their wings freely (Don't get me wrong--I'm a longtime Obama supporter, and I even voted for greater Lebensraum for hens who are eventually destined for slaughter anyway.)
I plan to boycott any groups -- and that includes all businesses, charities, and any other organization or event -- that are affiliated in any significant way with the Catholic Church or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. As other people have noted in this thread, the Catholics and Mormons were key to engendering widespread support for 8.
Let's hope ACLU, Lambda Legal, and other groups will successfully sue to block this measure from taking effect.”
“This is really quite remarkable -- McCain having to defend himself in the very state that has kept sending him to Washington.
But really it's not that surprising. As his campaign increasingly aligns with the Bush-Cheney presidency and veers well to the right of his own legislative record, McCain (and just what his presidency would be like) is raising serious fears among many voters. Obama, by contrast, has consistently demonstrated the cool logic, diplomacy, resolve, and creative thinking needed in a leader, and he has won over many doubters in both parties. I'm the contrast isn't lost on voters even in McCain's home state.
Then there was that choice of Sarah Palin. I tend to agree with Peggy Noonan; the election was over once McCain picked her just to satisfy the far-right and the oil companies.”
“Anyone who has read some of Vidal's memoirs ("Palimpsest" and others) should realize that on his mother's side he is the direct descendant of white racists and former slave-holders from Mississippi and Oklahoma.
Perhaps in his old age Vidal is reverting to the mentality of his maternal forebears. Or perhaps Vidal genuinely believed he was being supremely ironic with yet another variation on the shock-value pronouncements he's known for. But frankly, the remark calling Obama "a slave" was worse than offensive. It was crudely racist and beneath someone of Vidal's literary stature.”
“And I'd wager the parents and grandparents of some of the "Budweiser drinking" types would've been first in line to abandon working-class city neighborhoods during the "white flight" decades.
Rev. Wright, however inflammatory his remarks, comes from a prophetic preaching tradition. Even some white and Latino preachers -- not necessarily people with whom I personally agree -- use the same techniques. Take a look a some of the more extreme televangelists or Francis Schaeffer (author of "A Christian Manifesto").
To properly grasp what Wright is getting at, one has to put his remarks in context -- the context of each sermon as well as the larger context of urban racism and social injustice. He appears to be a pastor who sees his mission as challenging complacency, and sometimes that is done by shocking people out of complacency.
Now, for people who aren't particularly religious or for those whose exposure to worship is all pomp and tired ritual and maybe a J.S. Bach postlude on the pipe organ (possibly the only moment of drama in the service), a prophetic approach like Wright's is a shock.”
“Just for the facts. No argument with CA and NY, of course, but MA is actually smaller than Washington state in population (Just go to the 2007 population estimates, dears). And Georgia, which Obama won overwhelmingly, and North Carolina have knocked New Jersey out of the top ten most populous states.
Also, remember that Obama won the metro D.C.-Baltimore area, as well as the entire states of Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware -- by a landslide. The three states combined plus D.C. have a population of about 15 million -- hardly a small area.”
“Hmm. Like Richardson, Biden, and Edwards, Obama was following DNC rules by taking his name of the ballot in Mich. Clinton and Kucinich disregarded those rules.
There probably is a case to be made for seating the Florida delegates without doing over that state's election. All the candidates were on the ballot, and advertising for the candidates was reaching some markets in Fla.
But the January 15 Michigan mess being a valid election? Come now. An election with only one viable candidate on the ballot and over 40% of the vote going to some amorphous entity called "Uncommitted"? Sounds rather like disputed "elections" in military states.
Now, to be fair to Mich., the DNC should partially subsidize a do-over of its primary.”
“Countess, if that's not a blatantly racist remark, I don't know what is (re black vote).
It's strange that the people who keep ranting about Obama winning only "small" states conveniently forget that he handily won Illinois (of course) as well as Virginia and Georgia, both of which easily surpass much-mentioned Massachusetts in population. And don't forget that Obama won the ENTIRE Washington, D.C.-Baltimore region by a landslide. Hmm, D.C. plus the entire states of Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia -- oh, what's the population, a bit bigger than chronically depressed Penn. perhaps? Certainly bigger than either Jersey or Ohio by 2 to 3 million.
Of course, there is also the split decision in Texas (Hillary Clinton winning the primary by a peroxided hair, Obama easily winning the caucuses). Plus, there are Obama's strong wins in Washington state (Seattle-Tacoma, for the geographically challenged) and in bellwether swing states like Missouri and Colorado (Denver, St. Louis, and Kansas City metro regions, again for the benefit of the geographically challenged).”
“So why did your precious Hillary Clinton side with Bush on the Iraq War? She could have voted against it -- several senators and congresspersons did have the courage to do so. And there were plenty of questions about the reasons for going to war back in 2003. Truth is, as a carpet-bagger senator, she didn't want to alienate traumatized voters in post 9/11 New York.
I'd have a little more patience with her, were it not for her recent vote re Iran. I almost think McCain, as much of a warmonger as he is, would be more cautious than Hillary when it comes to foreign policy and defense-spending.
You can bet that none of the reforms Senator Clinton extols -- health care reform, housing assistance, green industry initiatives (all of which Obama extols too) -- will have a hope in hell of ever becoming reality if we become even more enmired on the international scene.”
“A superb post by Seitzman — to use his imagery, crystalline in its reasoning. If Senator Clinton were actually as prepared for the unexpected (whatever day it may fall on) as she claims, her campaign never would have faltered so unexpectedly.
Well, maybe the faltering wasn't that unexpected.”
“I agree that McCain rides his POW story to death -- in fact, it rather defines him. Yet some voters find it attractive, maybe because it fosters the illusion his being a strong authoritative male. Why else would they vote for a D.C. insider who professes not to understand economics (in these dark economic times)? Why else would they vote for a hawk so blinded by his 'Nam glory that he extols the virtues of war and would probably pursue a policy in the Middle East even more aggressive than the current administration's?”
“Superdelegates -- certainly not all 796 of them, but enough to get her over the top (pun intended).
Of course, on Huffington Post and elsewhere there's already quite a discussion about the role of superdelegates vs. voters. Here in SoCal, our of our local NPR hosts, Pat Morrison, is doing a program today on superdelegates (she's interviewing a Clinton super-d, an Obama super-d, and a still uncommitted one).”
“Echoing "Cambio," thanks for the injection of common sense into the universal health coverage demagoguery.
Simply put, a mandate such as Clinton proposes -- as already proven in Massachusetts -- does NOT lead to universal health coverage for everyone, because it still relies on very-much-for-profit health insurers and HMOs. It will not help middle-class families and self-employed people above the lower-middle-class subsidized cutoff point get more affordable coverage. Nor will it effectively reduce the spiraling costs of health care in the U.S. It might even encourage pharmaceutical companies to find ways of raking in even more profits.
Neither Obama nor Clinton have an plan that is acceptable to this one-time Kucinich supporter, but this much can be said for Obama's record. Illinois's subsidized health insurance program for children -- which he played a part in helping enact -- is one of the closest programs now in existence in this country to the sort of universal health coverage one sees in, say, the U.K. Children from poor and middle-class families get health coverage for little or nothing in terms of cost, and the covered services are extensive -- unlike the treatment limitations that were part of Senator Clinton's "mismanaged"-care-plan proposals of the '90s.
Admittedly, the Illinois plan benefits only a sector of the population. But it's a start, with proven effectiveness.”
“Granted, the MSM -- particularly CNN and large dailies like the L.A. Times and Chicago Tribune -- never gave Edwards a fair shake.
But you're mistaken in equating Obama with Clinton. I am writing as a former Kucinich supporter who accepts that Dennis's brand of progressivism is a lost cause, at least in '08. I'm still skeptical of Obama -- but he's getting my California vote on February 5.
You need to look at Obama's record in the Illinois state legislature, where he was a key proponent of several very fine programs, including one of the country's best subsidized children's health-care programs(far superior to anything we have in Calif.)
Just as the MSM cut the oxygen on Edwards, it glosses over -- or ignores --Obama's Illinois record, except for his connection to Rezko, who can probably be tied to many Chicago-land Democrats in some way.
Obama is definitely more progressive than Clinton on social issues and the Iraq War. He's a realist, though, and not given to making the kind of dramatic proposals that Edwards or Kucinich made. Seriously, could either failed candidate have made any of their proprosals a reality?
If the November election ends up being a choice between Clinton and McCain, then it would then be a matter of which hawk you want -- or who'd bomb Iran first.”
“Superb post by Scheer. Excellent that he mentions Richard Holbrooke (hardly distinguishable from Bush's cronies) salivating for a cabinet post in a potential Clinton administration.
Also, it's high time that a respected commentator gives Obama credit for eight very successful years in the Illinois legislature, where he effectively dealt with some of the nation's "most hard-boiled politicians." Among the programs that his efforts helped create is one of the nation's model subsidized children's health-care programs.”
“When I used "sellout," I did not mean to suggest that Edwards (see Feingold's piece on the Huffington Post) or the Clintons (you vote for one, you get both) are preferable to Obama. I was only pointing out some flaws with Obama that I've already heard from a number of acquaintances in California -- and are quite obvious to anyone not blinded by his powers as an orator and his history-making candidacy.
As for my own voting preference, I wanted Kucinich and would have compromised for Richardson or Dodd. I would also consider Hilary Clinton, if she'd radically alter her views on the war in Iraq (not going to happen) or Edwards if he didn't strike me as so condescending and disingenuous (somehow the elegantly laid-out policies at his campaign's website don't match what I hear from him in debates and campaign clips found on YouTube).
In part thanks to four cute little states going first (I have intimate knowledge of all four-- and compared to California they're all piddly), I get to vote for a candidate on February 5 who is no longer a serious contender. Some Democracy we have.”
DoninJoisey on Jan 26, 2008 at 18:15:34
“And then there's the ugly fact of superdelegates who can pick whomever they want. Yeah, that's democracy.
And the media, who excluded Kucinich from debates...”
“Only a few of the bloggers can accept this obvious point: that Obama is something of a sellout to nonprogressive interests, however admirable he has been as a politician— and talented as an orator.
Yes, Clinton and Edwards and certainly all the Repubs are sellouts, too. But Obama is the one blatantly pulling the wool over voters' eyes with the message of radical change. Whenever he gets into specifics, he is the least progressive of the three remaining Democratic candidates, especially on domestic issues. He is hardly a true progressive—although maybe by South Carolina and Iowa standards he'd pass for one.
Another problem with Obama is his connection to Rezko, which is potentially far more destructive than rehashing even the most salacious episodes in Bill Clinton's past. Obama needs to come clean soon after February 5—i.e., reveal anything and everything about ALL of his connections to Rezko's nefarious operations. Otherwise, the Republicans will quickly Swift-Boat Obama back to the Senate if he ends up being the Democratic nominee. And I don't think any Democrat wants that to happen.”
frozen01 on Jan 25, 2008 at 21:41:16
“Actually, I think Obama is the only one who is capable of getting people to ignore their rantings. Clinton would spend too much time yelling at them to actually get to anything people care about, and Edwards would spend too much time with his hand patiently raised, waiting for his "turn" to speak. I'm being overdramatic, of course, but I hope you get the point.”