89 Comments:
Best quote in the NY Times story:
You could see aerosolization of brain tissue, Dr. Lynfield said.
Who could have predicted huffing pig brains would be bad for you.
What a mystery!!!
»» Submitted by njbr at 12:07 PM on February 5
Scarlett Johansson is at Carleton as I type this?? WTF??
»» Submitted by Fehler at 12:29 PM on February 5
She was at the Obama rally this weekend too apparently.
»» Submitted by Paulie at 1:16 PM on February 5
She also sings in this video, which is pretty awesome.
»» Submitted by »»» tara_r at 1:24 PM on February 5
And she's got a CD coming out in May of Tom Waits covers.
»» Submitted by »»» indyr at 1:33 PM on February 5
I'm holding out to see who Jessica Simpson endorses before I make a decision.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 1:42 PM on February 5
she was at the U last night and Sweeney's in St. Paul along w/ Kal Penn.
she's just as attractive in person ;)
»» Submitted by »»» solace at 1:42 PM on February 5
Jessica??
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 1:43 PM on February 5
oh, hormel/qpp, how your stench permeates the city of Austin and surrounding farmland.
»» Submitted by vcmc at 1:47 PM on February 5
It pains me to say this, but I'm with Maz. I could give a flying f*** on who any celebrity endorses.
Plus I think Scarlett has a mouse face.
»» Submitted by »»» mb21 at 1:56 PM on February 5
oh nobody actually cares who celebrities endorse, don't kid yourselves
»» Submitted by »»» solace at 2:01 PM on February 5
Yeah, I wouldn't care who a celebrity endorses either, unless they had relevant things to say about why they support that candidate.
But that is one sexy mouse-face!
BTW, I found this article informative in helping decide who I like better or dislike less between Hil and Obama.
»» Submitted by Paulie at 2:03 PM on February 5
Very instructive article. I did a word search.
Number of time the word "principle" appears: 0
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 2:07 PM on February 5
It's funny that Republicans complain so often about celebrities who have political opinions, but then keep running celebrities for office. Listen, either celebrities are dancing monkeys who should otherwise keep their mouths shut, or Sonny Bono, Ronald Reagan, Fred Grandy, Fred Thompson, and Clint Eastwood are viable candidates. You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
Sure we can. They didn't say vote for me because I'm cute, or I'm an attractive face. They said vote for me because of my principles and ideas.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 2:11 PM on February 5
We're talking about Sonny Bono, Ronald Reagan, Fred Grandy, Fred Thompson, and Clint Eastwood. None of them could run on a platform of "look how cute my face is."
Also, I'm willing to bet Scarlett Johanssen has thought just as hard about her politics as you have, Maz, although that's not saying much.
Why you gotta rip on Fred Grandy?
»» Submitted by kevin at 2:17 PM on February 5
Is she even from here? I thought she was a ferriner.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 2:18 PM on February 5
She's from Duluth.
vote for me because I'm cute
Um, not to split hairs, but she's not running for office. She's endorsing a candidate she believes in.
Seems like the ladyfolk getting involved in politics gives Maz a migraine (see: Mrs Bill Clinton references, ad nauseum).
Just sayin'.
»» Submitted by »»» josie at 2:22 PM on February 5
The scuttlebutt is that McLame's VP candidate is either going to be governor Tim or Fred ... which is important because McLame says he'll only serve one term so his VP will have first dibs on the party nomination in 2012.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 2:23 PM on February 5
Mrs. Bill Clinton ain't no lady.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 2:24 PM on February 5
Well, the issue really is that Mr. Maz's Wife ain't no gentleman.
The relative lack of mudslinging coming from Camp Clinton today gives me an eerie sense of foreboding that Hillary's henchmen feel they have the nomination in hand. I hope they are wrong.
»» Submitted by grote at 2:27 PM on February 5
Go Hillary Go!! heh
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 2:28 PM on February 5
I am hoping for a Hillary/Obama ticket, but I think she's far from being able to claim victory at this point.
»» Submitted by »»» tara_r at 2:31 PM on February 5
It wouldn't seem to make sense for either one to select the other as a running mate. their strenghts and weaknesses are too similar. whoever wins between them is going to need someone with a strong foreign policy background to cover up their mutual glaring weakness. Whereas McCain has foreign policy experience and would therefore just need someone with height and a mullet to counter his shortness in stature and hair length.
»» Submitted by grote at 2:35 PM on February 5
I hope the dems put them both on the ticket. Then each camp can blame the other when they lose.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 2:38 PM on February 5
The scuttlebutt is that McLame's VP candidate is either going to be governor Tim or Fred ... which is important because McLame says he'll only serve one term so his VP will have first dibs on the party nomination in 2012
Maz the conservatives better be careful bashing McCain so hard. Your alternative is obama and/or Hillary. The right wing did this to themselves. Bush drove up the deficit, got us into a war that he f88cked up. He was supposed to be for low gov. spending, was against nation building and was supposed to be for limited government. I do not understand why the right has such anger for McCain. I am an independent and he is the only person running that I would vote for. Don't get me wrong I won't vote for Hillary but obama vs McCain, McCain get my vote anyone else the republicans run, Oboma gets it. Why did the right dump on Ron Paul so hard he is the true conservative I like him but he has no chance of winning.
»» Submitted by swandog at 2:39 PM on February 5
The scuttlebutt is that McLame's VP candidate is either going to be governor Tim or Fred ... which is important because McLame says he'll only serve one term so his VP will have first dibs on the party nomination in 2012.
Won't be Fred. Then the terrorists will know that all they have to do is attack any day between 2-4 PM when they're both taking their afternoon naps.
»» Submitted by »»» mnblrmkr at 2:40 PM on February 5
Why did the right dump on Ron Paul so hard he is the true conservative I like him but he has no chance of winning.
I agree with Ron Paul on 95% of his views. But this is no time in our history to have a pacifist as commander in chief. McCain earns our wrath because he's been poking conservatives in the ear for years ... opposing unlimited political speech (mccain-feingold), opposing the bush tax cuts that have been responsible for pulling us out of the 1991 recession, opposing conservative supreme court justices, etc.
We agree with him on national defense, but that's it.
And Bush didn't "screw up" any war. Name another american "war" where less than 2 american soldiers get killed every day. That's not a war, that's an occupation.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 2:48 PM on February 5
If he picked Pawlenty and won, wouldn't that mean we'd have a Governor Molnau?
»» Submitted by »»» rugburn at 2:49 PM on February 5
Won't be Fred.
Grandy?
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 2:50 PM on February 5
An occupation is precisely what Bush promised wouldn't happen, so there's screwup one.
Yes, and I would cream my pants if that happened, just because of how much the otherside would squirm. Don't forget my dream scenario, Pawlenty is VP, Molnau is governor and offers Steve Murphy the MNDOT job.
plz plz plz god humor me just this once.
The only thing stopping a Clinton/Obama ticket would be their pride. If they can get past that, they'll pretty much lock up the White House for at least 12 years. Remember Reagan and Bush were primary opponents, too. Bush even coined "voodoo economics".
And, for the record, I totally called Hillary breaking out the tears.
»» Submitted by kevin at 2:54 PM on February 5
The scuttlebutt is that McLame's VP candidate is either going to be governor Tim or Fred ... which is important because McLame says he'll only serve one term so his VP will have first dibs on the party nomination in 2012.
And I don't think it will be Timmy either.
From the Daily Mole(discussing a recent Rasmussen poll):
The real shocker concerns Pawlenty as a prospective Republican VP candidate: While 29 percent say it would make them more likely to vote for the GOP ticket, 35 percent say it would make them less likely to cast their votes for the Republicans.
Timmy doesn't have the national stature to counteract the at best wash in his own state.
»» Submitted by »»» mnblrmkr at 2:54 PM on February 5
Timmy doesn't have the national stature to counteract the at best wash in his own state.
Most VPs don't have any national name recognition when they're named. They're usually selected to balance the ticket geographically, or by age and experience, or selected from a swing state that might put the ticket over the top in the election. In a close state like MN, he might carry the state since he has a relatively high approval rating (55%) here.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 2:58 PM on February 5
I agree with Ron Paul on 95% of his views. But this is no time in our history to have a pacifist as commander in chief.
Paul's more isolationist/non-interventionist than pacifist.
»» Submitted by »»» mnblrmkr at 3:00 PM on February 5
The only ad the dems would have to run is "A vote for President McCain is a vote for Governor Molnau". MN stays blue.
»» Submitted by »»» rugburn at 3:03 PM on February 5
The only thing stopping a Clinton/Obama ticket would be their pride.
I disagree. Their votes come from the same pool of people, self-described democrats, who would vote for the ticket no matter who was on it. And it could get tricky. Would Obama be willing to be perceived as Hillary's house negro? Would Hillary's supporters be comfortable with Bill being totally out of the picture ... not even having a first lady office in the white house? I don't know. The plot thickens. heh
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 3:03 PM on February 5
Paul's more isolationist/non-interventionist than pacifist.
That's true philosophically, but as a practical matter, he may as well be a pacifist.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 3:06 PM on February 5
Most VPs don't have any national name recognition when they're named. They're usually selected to balance the ticket geographically, or by age and experience, or selected from a swing state that might put the ticket over the top in the election. In a close state like MN, he might carry the state since he has a relatively high approval rating (55%) here.
Recent history, they have had national recognition: Bush and Gore were Presidential candidates and Cheney was a former Sec. of Defense.
They're not usually a liability in their own state. Reread the mole quote: While 29 percent say it would make them more likely to vote for the GOP ticket, 35 percent say it would make them less likely to cast their votes for the Republicans.
That's not much of an asset in your home state. Especially when your next top ticket Republican is in a close fight.
»» Submitted by »»» mnblrmkr at 3:10 PM on February 5
Paul's more isolationist/non-interventionist than pacifist.
That's true philosophically, but as a practical matter, he may as well be a pacifist.
Not true.
»» Submitted by »»» mnblrmkr at 3:12 PM on February 5
So why are we even talking about Ron Paul? The guy has as much chance of getting the nomination as an albino ground squirrel.
I suppose it's typical political masturbation.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 3:12 PM on February 5
Albino ground squirrel leads Ron Paul in polls!
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 3:15 PM on February 5
Do the Hold Steady have health insurance?
»» Submitted by »»» andyst at 3:21 PM on February 5
What bad fortune -- finally a leader has emerged who I could trust our national security and economy to, and here I am stuck in a Florida hotel room on caucus night!
I speak, of course, of the albino ground squirrel.
Be sure to partcipate tonight, MNspeakers. Bob's prediction: the ground squirrel wins, throwing an already tight race into chaos!
»» Submitted by »»» justpbob at 3:23 PM on February 5
We'll be caucusing in SLP. My husband keeps saying he's got "caucus fever". I don't even know what that means.
»» Submitted by »»» mb21 at 3:25 PM on February 5
staphylocaucus?
»» Submitted by grote at 3:29 PM on February 5
I'm still somewhat undecided.
Kind of too bad we don't have rolling sub-caucuses for the Presidential race, like Iowa. In spite of the hassles a rolling sub-caucus presents me, I could then go by which one had the hottest women.
»» Submitted by »»» mnblrmkr at 3:30 PM on February 5
Paul's more isolationist/non-interventionist than pacifist
I agree he is no pacifist. In the event that the U.S. was attacked he would be the most likely to nuke and pave. biggest bang for the buck.
»» Submitted by swandog at 3:34 PM on February 5
We'll be caucusing in SLP. My husband keeps saying he's got "caucus fever". I don't even know what that means.
Where's Larry Craig? He could probably explain for you.
»» Submitted by »»» mnblrmkr at 3:42 PM on February 5
McCain earns our wrath because he's been poking conservatives in the ear for years ... opposing conservative supreme court justices
Not even close to true. McCain voted in favor of Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, and even Bork. Seems to me like he supports conservative justices or at least those nominated by GOP presidents.
I just don't understand how someone (McCain) that is socially conservative, strong on national security, and in favor of limited government (see reducing pork-barrel spending) can be so reviled by certain conservative commentators.
»» Submitted by medrowe at 3:44 PM on February 5
What matters is that his insistence today that the Gang of 14 was a good thing telegraphs - how loud can a telegraph be? - that Senator McCain still doesn't get it, or worse, that he gets it but cannot allow himself to be candid on this monumental error and is thus committed to compounding it.
Most conservatives agree with this analysis.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 3:54 PM on February 5
Lot's of hot air. Nothing of substance in that. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a nominee be brought to the floor for an "up or down" vote. The Senate is perfectly within its rights to withhold its consent be refusing to vote on it.
In fact, Hewitt seems to forget that the Republicans refused to even hold committee hearings for far more of Clinton's nominees, in spite of the fact that Clinton actively sought out the advice of Republican Senators before submitting nominations.
So McCain wasn't willing to toss out 200+ years of Constitutional precedent for a naked partisan power grab.
»» Submitted by »»» mnblrmkr at 4:12 PM on February 5
McCain scares conservatives because we don't feel we can trust him, except on national defesene, which is most important to me and why this conservative supports him, albeit with great reservations.
»» Submitted by kevin at 4:37 PM on February 5
I'm still somewhat undecided.
»» Submitted by »»» mnblrmkr
It's certainly easier to decide if you're a democrat. While republicans are arguing about principle and philosophy, you have to decide between a former first lady with no leadership credentials and the black guy who is 3 years removed from the illinois state house.
Decisions decisions.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 4:42 PM on February 5
McCain scares conservatives because we don't feel we can trust him, except on national defesene, ....
In spite of his 80%+ Lifelong conservative voting score?
»» Submitted by »»» mnblrmkr at 4:42 PM on February 5
I guess McCain was so successfully swift-boated that conservatives still think he is somehow suspect, despite his voting record.
Why would anyone vote for Hillary Clinton or George Bush in the last election. Does anyone think that it might be bad that the white house will have been held, if she wins, by two and only two families for two decades. Wake up America, we get what we deserve and vote for. Can you say baaa baaa baaa. sleep well sheep.
»» Submitted by swandog at 4:54 PM on February 5
I guess McCain was so successfully swift-boated that conservatives still think he is somehow suspect, despite his voting record
Yep George bush and company pulled that one off in 2000. In hind sight it was a catastrophe. John McCain would have been the correct choice when it comes to national defense and 911. Instead we got the "shrub", who could not think his way out of a paper bag with a flashlight.
»» Submitted by swandog at 4:58 PM on February 5
opposing the bush tax cuts that have been responsible for pulling us out of the 1991 recession
Maz, you write utter nonsense like this, and you expect anyone to take you seriously?
*shakes head*
»» Submitted by »»» mjm at 5:06 PM on February 5
I think people know I meant 2001 recession.
»» Submitted by »»» mazasapa at 5:26 PM on February 5
I'm at the 10-2 caucus site (Bryant-Lake Bowl) and the line is out the door creeping toward Aldrich.
»» Submitted by champs|blb at 6:28 PM on February 5
Yeah, the Elliot Park line stretched all the way put the door and down the street to the end of the block. Record turnout, they said.
SLP caucus took us an hour to even get into.
Al Franken is very short.
»» Submitted by »»» mb21 at 7:49 PM on February 5
Line was pretty long in Nordeast. Took close to an hour to get to vote.
Not sure if I could attribute it to enthusiasm or typical DFL disorganization.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 7:58 PM on February 5
I'm well aware of McCain's record. But this being the primary, I'm allowed to ask for more than 80 percent. :)
Judging by some of the exit polls, it looks like Obama has a good chance at winning Minnesota. He's apparently getting a lot of the upper-class, educate white liberals.
I get such a kick out of Brit Hume's dry sarcasm. On Hillary and Romney, "It looks like having several home states is helpful."
»» Submitted by kevin is kinda frisky at 8:00 PM on February 5
Just got back from voting with my 7 year old. I like showing him democracy in action. Took us about an hour to vote. Kick ass!
In the car on the way home, young Sam said, "I think it's going to be Obama vs. Mike Huckabee."
My thought? "Where the hell did you hear about Huckabee?"
»» Submitted by »»» nateek at 8:30 PM on February 5
Most people vote with a pencil and paper, but at least they gave you your kid back.
»» Submitted by kevin is kinda frisky at 8:32 PM on February 5
Obama outpolled HC by 3-1 in my precinct.
»» Submitted by »»» kurtis at 8:37 PM on February 5
Really? In my precinct we had to lift our firstborns above our heads while cheering for our given candidate. It seemed sort of tribal. I liked it.
»» Submitted by »»» nateek at 8:51 PM on February 5
Just got back from my caucus @ Jefferson Elementary (north of 26th, west of Hennepin, east of Lyndale) - the numbers were:
Uncommitted - 1
Kucinich - 1
Edwards - 2 or 3 (can't remember)
McCain (huh? they were supposed to be downstairs) - 2 or 3 (" ")
Clinton - 192
Obama - 500
Best overheard conversation of the night:
Republican: Which line is this?
Democrat: DFL - the Republicans are downstairs
Republican: Oh. I should have known - your line has all the good-looking people in it.
»» Submitted by »»» leigha at 9:03 PM on February 5
We'll reform health care and fund roads before we settle on which party is hotter.
btw - that was my old caucus location, and in this case he's totally right.
»» Submitted by kevin is kinda frisky at 9:06 PM on February 5
We both got elected as delegates to the senate district convention or whatever it's called next month. No wonder I never caucused before. You never know what you might step in.
»» Submitted by »»» kurtis at 9:12 PM on February 5
Just got back form my caucus (St. Anthony 1)
91 Obama
39 CLinton
1 Edwards
1 uncommitted
I got there at 6:40, and people were already leaving, having cast their ballot. Just as well, because the classroom we were in was full with the 50 people that stayed. There were still people coming to vote until 8PM when they started counting.
I was surprised at the Obama tally, becaue when I walked into the school, all I could see was Clinton signs.
»» Submitted by »»» mnblrmkr at 9:12 PM on February 5
The vote in my precinct was 1 McCain, 1 Edwards, and about 4 to 1 Obama v. Clinton.
»» Submitted by Joanna at 9:12 PM on February 5
I went to the district 44 DFL caucus in SLP as well. Totally nuts. I really wanted to get the whole caucus experience, but was so worn out by the time I got to my precinct room, I just cast my presidential preference ballot and left.
I'm sure there were a number of people who gave up before even reaching their precinct room. Seemed like a combination of unprecedented turnout and poor organization.
»» Submitted by »»» miller at 9:12 PM on February 5
Fox News called Minnesota for Obama by about 2-to-1.
»» Submitted by kevin is kinda frisky at 9:27 PM on February 5
CNN just did as well.
»» Submitted by »»» miller at 9:33 PM on February 5
I'm keeping score from Orlando. This is fun.
Waiting for California. May be a long night.
»» Submitted by »»» justpbob at 10:06 PM on February 5
Whittier Neighborhood. Turnout 4x it has ever been with results:
Obama:541
Clinton:100
And, wtf? My landlord is the precinct chair-
»» Submitted by localhuman at 10:19 PM on February 5
Uncommitted - 1
Kucinich - 1
Edwards - 2 or 3 (can't remember)
McCain (huh? they were supposed to be downstairs) - 2 or 3 (" ")
Clinton - 192
Obama - 500
I'm trying to figure those McCain votes out as well. The ballots were preprinted, my understanding is write ins aren't allowed. So if you're candidate wasn't listed on the ballot, your only option would be uncommitted.
»» Submitted by »»» mnblrmkr at 11:44 PM on February 5
I'm trying to figure those McCain votes out as well. The ballots were preprinted, my understanding is write ins aren't allowed. So if you're candidate wasn't listed on the ballot, your only option would be uncommitted.
We had looooong run out of official ballots by the time I got up to the registration table. They gave us little blank squares of goldenrod paper, and we had to write in our presidential preference.
»» Submitted by »»» leigha at 7:59 AM on February 6
Get a life, bob. You're in fricking Florida for pete's sake.
»» Submitted by kevin at 8:16 AM on February 6
We had looooong run out of official ballots by the time I got up to the registration table. They gave us little blank squares of goldenrod paper, and we had to write in our presidential preference.
I still would have thought that you would be limited to the eligible names that had been on the printed ballots. If someone wrote in an ineligible name, it probably should have been counted as uncommitted. Which, might have happened once the ballots were passed on up through the hierarchy.
»» Submitted by »»» mnblrmkr at 8:55 AM on February 6
You're in fricking Florida for pete's sake.
Naah, he's in Orlando.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 9:00 AM on February 6
»»» = registered user. click on it to see the user's profile.
|
|
|
