T-minus one day and counting before the blog transitions into another form...
This has been an exciting primary season. Full of twists and turns, surprises and suspense. Everything a good story should have. During the writer's strike, a buddy of mine said that the best reality show on television was "The Amazing Presidential Race."
So now that the primary season is winding down, and looking back at the past five months, I've been thinking about things that I will and will not miss from the process. I may add to this over time...
Things I will miss:
- Hearing from people all over America, those involved in politics, voters and readers of this blog. It's been refreshing. Even the mass e-mails and hand-written letters have been great.
- Having a front-row seat to an historic round of presidential primaries.
- Working with the media, I admit, has been exciting.
Things I will NOT miss:
- Certain media blaming Superdelegates for holding up the process by not declaring while other certain media blame Superdelegates for interfering in the process by declaring.
- The accusation that the "big bad Superdelegates" are a bunch of backroom deal makers inserted into the process only for personal gain
- Reporters STILL talking about Supers as elites and solely member of Congress and dismissing the notion that most of us are in fact grassroots activists.
Like I said, will probably add more as the thoughts occur...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/11/mccain-admits-he-doesnt-k_n_106478.html
This is funny to watch. And the fact that McCain doesn't know what to do with a computer is an automatic no vote, as far as I am concerned.
Posted by: Kasturba | June 13, 2008 at 08:08 AM
Well, hey, at least they aren't calling you a Republican.
On some note, you have to have at least a modest amount of sympathy for some (SOME) of the MSM. Chris Matthews has to come up with more junk to say in an hour then Leno does, and then has to repeat his whole rhetoric again an hour later with a slightly different panel. That can't be easy...
(Unless your on Fox, of course, where you can just find some jack-ass-yahoo, stick a microphone and a camera on'em and say, "This is news" when it's obviously just 10 minutes of air-time to soak up because O'Rielly was to busy sniffing his own farts and bleeding his supporters dry for a $40 Polo shirt and a podcast. Don't forget, each Premium Membership to Bill O'Rielly.com comes with a free "NO-SPIN" Flag-Pin that spins! WOW-WEE!)
Posted by: Dominic | June 13, 2008 at 08:19 AM
Things I will miss: The best candidate running for president, Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Things I will not miss: The eerie silence from the likes of Howard Dean regarding sexism in the party and in the media.
Posted by: Regina | June 13, 2008 at 09:52 AM
Dominic: You might like this link, too :)
http://news.slashdot.org/news/08/06/12/1211204.shtml
I wonder if McCain wanted his "Web 2.0" adviser to be described as "effluent with praise."
The thesaurus can be a dangerous thing...
Posted by: Joe | June 13, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Hey thanks for all your thoughts and insight Mr. Super. Something I will definitely NOT miss is all the drama and rhetoric that politics looks at. I can already see that this is going to be one hectic and crazy summer.
:)
Posted by: Danielle | June 13, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Regina get over it already.
Howard Dean is not responcible for the media's sexism. As for the Party's sexism, he has nothing to say because all things concidered the Democratic Party is not sexist. It is militantly not sexist. I dare say that if you look hard enough you can find sexism anywhere, but I chalenge you to prove that the Democratic Party is a good place to look.
In case you have not noticed the party was all for Hillary at the begining of the primary. Hence her initial advantage in Super Delegate endorcements. Her loss of that support can not be atributed to sexism, unless you care to claim that it took them that long to notice she was female.
Posted by: Blame | June 13, 2008 at 02:13 PM
"Gee, I really don’t wanna get into - I mean this is - get over it. It's so old by now"
Blame, err I mean Justice Scalia
Posted by: Truth | June 13, 2008 at 03:56 PM
Blame: I don't think sexism is one of those things you can argue over. You can really only denounce when you see it. And Dean could've done more of that.
Which reminds me that I would like to denounce Fox for calling Obama's wife his "baby momma." I find that sort of condescension disgusting, yet typical, of Fox "News."
Posted by: Joe | June 13, 2008 at 04:05 PM
I agree with Joe. What is starting to happen to Michelle Obama is horrible. It's the same stuff they used against Hillary back in 1992. Too bad a lot of Democrats repeated the same stuff against HRC. But we should vigilantly stand up to attacks on Michelle Obama. As far as Barack is concerned, though, he's on his own.
Posted by: Regina | June 13, 2008 at 04:47 PM
But in a sign of the urgency to raise campaign cash, Rendell said Obama didn't want to reschedule tonight's fundraiser, even though the governor warned him that many Philadelphia donors were headed to the New Jersey shore for the weekend. Rendell said Obama told him: "We don't need the people. We just need the checks."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-12-fundraisers_N.htm
Glad I'm not just an Obama transaction.
Posted by: Truth | June 13, 2008 at 06:41 PM
Well I would like to that you for the site. I have come to know more about the Democrats through this process. Although I am an Independent I can see how personal things get in a Primary when you have the best candidate. I think that this year you could of had two Democrats running against each other and given McCain a rocking chair so he could of sat there and watched.
Posted by: Dave | June 13, 2008 at 07:40 PM
Thank you for reminding me, Truth. I intend to send Obama another donation tonight.
I saw McCain out there agreeing with Scalia today, and they scare the hell out of me now with their idea that fair trials are now evil and dangerous.
I can't remember the last time I saw something quite so un-American.
Posted by: Joe | June 13, 2008 at 09:20 PM
Dave.
I am under the impression that is what happened. Hillary & Barack are two tough candidates.
After Clinton, McCain will be a pushover.
Joe.
Dean did what he was meant to do. His roll was to represent the DNC. To do that he had to be "above" the campaigns so that he could be a honest broker to settle disputes (MI & FL). His silence was necessary to avoid claims that he supported one side or the other.
If he had stood up against sexism then he would have had to do the same against racism. Then there would have been disputes as to which side he did more for. As is the nature of such disputes, most of the supporters of both sides would have ended up vilifying him.
Worse, defending against ether is a bad idea. It is to give them importance. It leads to such questions as "Obama is a geat candidate but is America ready for a black President?" or "OK, we have a black candidate, but don't we need to balance the ticket with a white MALE, so that there is some normalicy?"
Scream "sexism" and the reply will be "I am not a sexist, but seeing that there are so many then women must be unelectable. If we want our party to win then we must make sure that our candidates are male".
Posted by: Blame | June 14, 2008 at 01:49 AM
To Blame, many a time that racism reared its ugly head in the primary, Dean and other national Democrats (correctly) spoke up and against it. He and other DNCers were silent. Dean recently has spoken out against sexism, and added he doesn't watch cable news.
Either he is lying, or he is a poor DNC chair. The national party chair should watch cable news or be as vigilant against sexism as racism. He, Pelosi, and other 'leaders' showed their cards in their quick defense of Obama but no defense of Clinton during the primary.
Posted by: Regina | June 14, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Just because it provides a counterpoint to Truth's link:
http://www.star-telegram.com/197/story/699891.html
Not that I consider these things real issues to begin with.
Posted by: Joe | June 14, 2008 at 11:03 AM
A question for people
Colin Powel has been reported as saying he might vote for Obama.
Is that a hint that he would accept the VP slot?
If so would it be a good idea?
Posted by: Blame | June 15, 2008 at 10:03 AM
I'm not sure it's a VP bid, doesn't matter to me much either way.
In an unrelated note, it seems like the GOP is planning to go after Michelle Obama even more:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5144546&page=1
Posted by: Joe | June 15, 2008 at 10:10 AM
I was looking at the recent changes in the presidential candidates projections at electoral-vote.com.
If we only look at states that either candidate has by at least 5%, I see that on June 13 Wisconsin moved into that category for Obama while North Carolina has moved out of it for John McCain.
So that's +10 electoral votes for Obama and -15 for McCain, for those states that are at the >= 5% margin.
Posted by: Tony in MI | June 15, 2008 at 07:58 PM
http://perotcharts.com/challenges/
I haven't finished this, but found it interesting. Some of the charts I have seen before (or made myself), but I just barely started it. As I've been saying, both McCain and Obama are economic morons and I can't believe that we actually set up a race based on basically "hope/change" v. "the maverick". We are officially a National Enquirer nation.
Posted by: Truth | June 15, 2008 at 08:36 PM
Can anybody believe that after all that time of talking about removing the Social Security cap, Obama was stumped with the question that would amount to a tax increase for those making $102,000-$250,000 that he said would only not see tax increases?
After months of thinking about it, he came up with the donut answer. Tax 12.4% on $0 to $102,000 (did he figure out it was 2008 yet), stop at $102,001 and pick back up at $250,001. Really? This is what he came up with after that much time to think about it. So it is fair to exempt people earning $102,000 to $250,000? It is not a gift to them because they already have this gift. So it just amounts to a burden (with no relief) that will wipe out any expected increases in SS receipts by the burden that hurts economic growth. I guess he is bringing a gun to a knife fight that will bring harm to everybody in the vicinity.
I recently proposed a 4.2% / 4.2% decrease in the rate while removing the cap to offer relief to employees AND employers. This would amount to opening up a new job for every 50 employees. In other words, an employer could pay the same amount for 51 employees as they do for 50 employees now. It would also mean a reduction in taxes for everybody making $150,000 or roughly 94% of the population, up to $2,000 in savings a year. I think this will actually stimulate the economy greatly because it attacks the labor burden equation. Have you ever heard people talking about leaving their state or country for more “business friendly” states? Well here is something business friendly and labor friendly.
Taking some census stats, it appears that 4.2/4.2 would be a slight gamble because it might actually decrease SS receipts by a slight margin. Now it would of course correct itself immediately if it has the economic stimulus I believe it will, but if you wanted to play it safe 5.0/5.0 would be the breakeven point. The stimulus is still there but now an employer can higher 84 employees for the price of 83. The tax breaks are smaller (up to $1,200) and only people under $126,500 will see the break before it becomes an increase.
An option would be to extend 4.2/4.2 to companies that only higher US citizens and 5.0/5.0 to those that outsource (including work visas). This is the real kind of thinking needed to “aeffect” change (like that Joe)
On a side note, I understand he would raise the 25% back to a 28% tax bracket. That tax bracket starts at $32,551. So he should stop talking about middle class relief when he is really just playing Robin Hood with a gun. Unless he makes serious changes to his economic policies, it will be impossible for me to vote for him and that includes everybody I talk with. The more they learn about Obama’s plans vs. his speech, the more they are turning McCain friendly.
Posted by: Truth | June 15, 2008 at 09:28 PM
As far as http://electoral-vote.com/ goes, you need to look at trends more than the day to day movement (unless the day to day follows the trend, which it only was for Clinton v. McCain). I've been using two important dates, one month ago and June 3rd when Obama clinched the nomination. I also use the greater than 5%.
5/15 is 228 to 178 = +58 Obama
6/03 is 244 to 202 = +42 Obama
6/15 is 244 to 206 = +38 Obama
You can clearly see McCain is closing in where it matters.
Now if you think of +10% (Strong) and +5% to 10% (weak) as a pie of the EV, it is even worse.
Since May 15th, 6.6% of the pie moved from weak to strong for Obama, but 31.3% of the pie moved from weak to strong for McCain. This means McCain's stronger states are solidifying for McCain better than Obama.
If you take it since June 3rd, Obama actually lost 9% of the strong pie to the weak part of the pie while McCain gained 12.9% from weak to strong.
Conclusion, Obama was doing better with his +5% states while Clinton was in the race. I've just proven the Clinton backlash is very real. When Obama wants to take the majority of people that voted in the Democratic Primary seriously, let us know.
But if you want to go day to day, the latest change is Oregon went from strong to weak while McCain held steady. I’m sure Obama and McCain will have good days to counter each other, but the trend is what matters. And don’t go to cnn.com because they have the non-swing states advantage McCain when I checked a day or so ago.
Posted by: Truth | June 15, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Sigh.
Obama has recently about a 3 to 4 point advantage nationally. That small advantage is born out in estimated EV's.
There is no significant positional advantage to ether candidate. Come the election, if ether candidate gets more than 1% advantage over his rival, it will be enough. There are enough marginal States to ensure it.
A quick check of RealClearPolitics chart of McCain vs. Obama shows what just might be a trend towards Obama. That is all.
You just can't prove who is going to win by polls at this stage.
The above doesn't mean that it won't be a walkover for Obama because it will. Obama has the better campaign team, the support of party activists, the money, and the unification of the party machine.
He is not showing that great a rise in the polls just yet. That is because he is not concentrating just now on unifying the party. Instead he is unifying the party machinery, reorganising & expanding his workforce, and readying for the expected shift towards the centre.
Obama is not content with going for the Presidency. He is adopting Dean's 50 state strategy. He is out to destroy the Republican support base. This is total war. Every Republican elected official is a target.
Come the Republican convention there will be only one topic. Do they back McCain wholeheartedly, or use their meagre resources to salvage what they can elsewhere?
Posted by: Blame | June 16, 2008 at 02:27 AM
Blame: A quick check of RealClearPolitics chart of McCain vs. Obama shows what just might be a trend towards Obama. That is all.
Actually I think Regina nailed it. It shows a trend to undecided. It is the Democrat’s year so they want to vote Democrat, but upon inspection find they can’t.
Blame: He is not showing that great a rise in the polls just yet. That is because ….
Unbelievable. First it was Obama is not seeing a big rise because Clinton is going negative on him. Then it was the Republicans distorting the polls. Then it was the Clinton supporters distorting the polls. Then it was because McCain was just attacking Obama and not Clinton. Then it was clinching will solve all. Now it is because he is not trying just yet.
It’s because his economic plan is rated R. He’s abandoning promises and positions that set him apart in the past. He is acting like he had a mandate in the Dem Primary. He acts like certain demographics are meaningless to him. He can’t even agree to town hall meetings with the “confused”, old McCain. Maybe he needs some preconditions? His associations bring pause. Etc, etc.
Blame: Come the Republican convention there will be only one topic. Do they back McCain wholeheartedly, or use their meagre resources to salvage what they can elsewhere?
Actually, the Republican Legislative branch is doomed because people want to send a message to the Republicans. With a “lowly” Senator they don’t see it as vital (mistakenly) so they can vote Dem regardless of their qualifications (although they seem to be more centrist so far). McCain is beating the backlash, so the RNC will put everything into him because one position can balance the 3 branches in their favor.
And last I checked, the RNC coffers were bigger than the DNC coffers. I think the DNC is fighting a deadline today on convention finances.
DNC Strapped For Cash For Its August Convention
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/256141
Posted by: Truth | June 16, 2008 at 04:03 AM
Truth, you moved the goal posts again.
"As far as http://electoral-vote.com/ goes, you need to look at trends more than the day to day movement..."
Yep. And the trend is a big shift to Obama.
But back when you posted http://www.mrsuper.org/2008/05/polls-polls-pol.html#comment-115942418
you were using day to day results. Back then you wrote "Check out electoral-vote.com & 538.com *today* (5/22)" [emphasis added]
Above, you wrote "I've been using two important dates, one month ago and June 3rd when Obama clinched the nomination."
Except the 5/22 isn't one of those dates. No matter.
"I also use the greater than 5%."
No, you didn't.
Back then you reported the 285 to 242 numbers, a McCain lead. That includes all of the stares. With the 5% threshold, it would have been 230 Obama to 219 McCain. So when the numbers at 5% favored Obama, you included the "barely" states.
But let's keep those numbers for the dates that you cited in mind:
May 15 Obama 237 McCain 290
May 22 Obama 242 McCain 285
June 16 Obama 304 McCain 221
As you said, it's not the day-to-day, it's the trend.
Posted by: Tony in MI | June 16, 2008 at 09:11 PM
For those who think there is no Obama bounce, take a look at the trends for the national polls.
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvO.php
Posted by: Tony in MI | June 18, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Tony, I never said that Obama hadn't improved his standings in polls over the course of the campaign, which is what your pollster.com link shows. But the link also supports my argument. Obama has gone from about 45% before Clinton conceded, and is now at about 47%.
The clear anti-bounce is with McCain. The trend is a big drop-off for McCain in the last 2 weeks, while Obama has only marginally improved +1% or +2% within the margin of error.
Obama is doing better, but it isn't because of Clinton supporters coming home, which he still needs. It is because McCain is losing support to 'undecided.' Now if those undecideds start moving to Obama, that will be a bounce. But Obama has been at 45-48%, within the margin of error, both right before and right after Clinton exited the race.
If anything the media onslaught of saying Obama had it wrapped up before the election was over actually gave Obama more of a bounce than anything if you look at the pollster.com trend line.
Obama still has much work to do to woo Clinton supporters, and I for one need more than Obama saying how nice Hillary Clinton is, but making no meaningful ACTIONS (e.g., VP).
Posted by: Regina | June 18, 2008 at 12:55 PM
At this point, I am very upset that our two choices are Obama and McCain. We had such a great field to choose from and we chose two "slogan" candidates (change/maverick) that have made it clear they have no business handling such a serious job. Both are saying whatever it takes to get elected. The sad thing is McCain probably had the tools to be a decent president if he just stuck with what I believe is at his core. But even then, he still doesn't have what it takes to be president because trying to do what is right for your country isn’t the same as actually being able to do it. Obama is even worse. Both will at best, continue the hardships the USA is experiencing, and at worst tip it over the edge. I am starting to view 2009-20013 the same as I viewed the past 7.5 years ... survive until the next election hoping there will be enough voters that start to take this thing seriously.
I can point out what I don't like about McCain, but I think that side is overly represented here. So here are some of the latest Obama “what is he thinking” articles:
Obama: NAFTA not so bad after all
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008061810
Flip flop # 9,999,999,999,999 or was it just an outright lie? Well, you shouldn’t be surprised since the warning signs were already there long ago.
Uncle Sam can fund retirement - Obama
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/16/news/economy/retirement_savings/index.htm?postversion=2008061607
"The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee proposes that companies that don't offer retirement plans be required to set up and automatically enroll employees in IRA-type accounts. In addition, companies with plans would have to automatically enroll workers in them."
Obama is going to kill American business. Anybody with at least a double digit IQ can already do this (I know, I've done it). You fill out your W4 so less is taken out of your check. Then you put the extra money in a traditional IRA up to the max ($5,000 to $6,000). You can find all this info online, public broadcasts, books, etc. I think they need to teach some of this stuff in high school (mandatory - taxes, retirement, insurance, etc). Why does it always come down to business having to pick up where the government and employee failed? Pretty soon, business owners won't even have time to think about what it is their business does to make money. Oh wait, too late. So let's pile on. Next thing your car and house payment will come out of your check, with the employer having to make the payments. Stop forcing what any sane person can already do of their own free will. Nothing is stopping them from opening up an IRA.
Even though it isn’t 100% accurate to call Obama a Socialist, he is probably the candidate that embodies that definition the most in modern times. But then again, I don’t know what to believe from him because he has already proven his words are meaningless. I feel sorry for all the Obama supporters because they have to be coming to the realization that they wagered their vote on a seriously flawed candidate. Joe can tell you what it is like to have a George W. Bush bumper sticker turn from a source of pride to a source of embarrassment. Start looking at your Obama “flag pins” now because it might be the last time you can view them with pride.
Posted by: Truth | June 19, 2008 at 02:15 AM
Regina
Any chance that the voters McCain lost to undecided are Clinton supporters?
These will be those who swore they would vote McCain if Hillary didn't get the nomination without checking him out.
Now that Hillary is gone they are actualy having a real look at McCain & deciding they don't like him ether.
In the end they will realise that they have to make a choice. Obama's policies are very little different from Hillary's & he is far more feminism friendly than McCain.
I know that you want Hillary for VP but frankly she would not take it. It comes with no fixed powers or responcibilities, except what the President chooses to bestow on it.
Obama has made it clear that for Hillary the VP slot would truly be "not worth a bucket of warm piss" by his appointment of Solis Doyle.
Don't get too pissed about it. Obama could have welcomed Hillary as VP with open arms, and then, after the election is won, ignored her utterly. Solis Doyle is Obama's way of telling it as it is.
Now that you know that Hillary is going back to the Senate, what are your intentions? It is my hope that you will push for another female for VP. Obama isn't sexist, he just doesn't want Hillary.
Posted by: Blame | June 19, 2008 at 02:45 AM
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ijDA5bgxiHlTvS_r-SSjskS1Tq1wD91D58880
AP NewsAlert
19 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrat Barack Obama says he's opting out of the public campaign finance system.
--------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/17/AR2008061702034.html
He said he was reassured by the candidate's response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain.
Obama on Iraq
--------------------------------
So meeting with enemy leaders, NAFTA, Iraq and now general election funds all proven to be outright lies. I don't even know how supporters can defend this guy any more. He's basically trashed his entire "change" platform.
Posted by: Truth | June 19, 2008 at 06:05 AM
Blame said "Any chance that the voters McCain lost to undecided are Clinton supporters?" I honestly don't know. Could be, but could also be Republicans who weren't thrilled with his green wall performance 2 weeks ago. I've been trying to find cross-tabs to see who the undecideds are, but they are difficult to find (and the sub-samples are usually too small to make any inferences). I don't think we can interpret anything about who they are without more detailed polling data.
On another point: "Now that you know that Hillary is going back to the Senate, what are your intentions? It is my hope that you will push for another female for VP."
No, I'm not pushing for 'another female for VP.' I'm pushing for the best candidate for VP, who won 18 million votes and has a large base of support, 20% of which is supporting McCain and 20% of which is undecided based on most polls. Hillary Clinton deserves to be vice president because she is the best person to be president if Obama can't fulfill his duty. Claire McCaskill, Jim Webb, or whoever the VP du jour of the day is simply don't match up to Sen. Clinton. Doesn't matter if they are female or male. For me, gender is important, but it's not the only factor in voting. And certainly not for VP (remember all those moderate Democratic women who voted for Mondale-Ferraro in '84? Note sarcasm).
Posted by: Regina | June 19, 2008 at 07:26 AM
Electoral-vote.com
May 15 Obama 237 McCain 290
May 22 Obama 242 McCain 285
June 19 Obama 334 McCain 194
It's not the day-to-day, it's the trend.
Posted by: Tony in MI | June 19, 2008 at 07:45 AM
Regina
OK. Best of luck with your project. But one thing puzzles me. Should you get your way Hillary will quit her Senate seat to become VP with the special executive responcibility of baking cookies for the Whitehouse. Obama is young & in excellent health. How do you expect him to be incapable of fulfilling his duty? Hillary's cookies can't be that bad, can they?
Posted by: Blame | June 19, 2008 at 08:54 AM
Blame, your first post was good and deserved a respone. This 9:54am post deserves no response other than to say it's sexist. I didn't realize Al Gore and Dick Cheney made cookies.
Posted by: Regina | June 19, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Regina
They didn't, but they were the choice of their respective Presidents. Those Presidents chose to give their VP's positions, but there have also been Presidents who totaly ignored their VP's.
If you foster a VP on a President who clearly doesn't want her then that will be the effective result. The evidence is now indisputable that Barack does not want Hillary for VP.
Perhaps you and those like you could force Hillary for VP but after the november vote you have no power whatsoever to choose what Obama does with her. I joke when I mention cookies, but it is a joke with a point.
Hillary is on record for not being into baking cookies but why do you supose he will give her anything more exciting to do?
Hillary is a highly inteligent woman with a firm understanding of policy. In the Senate she will turn those policies into law and Obama will rubber stamp them.
It is not me who wants to stop her but you. You want to take her away from that power and resposibility so that she can sit on her hands and wait 8 years for Obama to die.
Once those 8 years are up what then? Hillary will have an 8 year gap in her CV to show electors, instead of the achievments she could have had in the Senate. Instead of a good chance of the Presidency in 2016 she would be finished.
Posted by: Blame | June 19, 2008 at 11:33 AM
"Hillary is on record for not being into baking cookies but why do you supose he will give her anything more exciting to do?"
I have no idea. But she is the best person to be there if, god forbid, we needed someone to step in. That's why she should be VP. Because she'd make an excellent president. And it would once again make me glad to be a Democrat, which I'm not excited about being right now, to be honest.
And regarding what Obama has her do, that will be determined over the course of the presidency. Cheney wasn't granted powers on day 1. He convinced Bush to delegate to him. Clinton will either convince Obama to give her some work or not. But I trust they would work together quite well.
And, finally, your comments are so offensive and hurtful, I'm not commenting further. Why don't you go iron MY shirt?
Posted by: Regina | June 19, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Obama to Endorse FISA Sellout Rep. John Barrow
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/19/133620/988
Posted by: Truth | June 19, 2008 at 01:44 PM
I hope Blame keeps posting because every time he says "Who cares about anything else. Just fall in line and vote Obama", he solidifies another voter AGAINST Obama.
Regina, I'm not so sure you actually want Hillary as Obama's VP. I think his presidency will be quite the disappointment and I would be surprised if he has more than one term (if one term). I'm not sure Clinton will want to be involved with that. Just look at all the "Veepstakers" that have already sent out the message they don't want to be part of hte Obama team. I'm sure you are just as upset as me with the Obama or McCain choice and it has nothing to do with gender/race. Assuming we voted for Clinton based off of gender is offensive.
Posted by: Truth | June 19, 2008 at 01:52 PM
Truth: Does that really help vs. McCain, who has always been a strong proponent of Telecom Amnesty?
Besides, there's nothing in there that says Obama will vote for the bill tomorrow. He's on the record as having voted against it before (in the previous vote, McCain voted yes & Hillary abstained, BTW).
So I don't understand how helping a fellow Democrat who he disagrees with on a single issue is of dire importance. Would the Republican challenger have voted against FISA?
No offense, but that entire piece is ridiculously confused, because they're trying to mesh two different issues as if Obama is doing that BECAUSE of his stance on FISA. Which is beyond ridiculous.
If you were going to post something, why didn't you post McCain's nuclear reactor plans? At least the idea is right, although he has absolutely no details that I can find, nor how he intends to get them constructed (what? tax breaks?). Also, of critical importance is the KIND of reactor (no, they're not all just 'nuclear', it makes a HUGE difference whether there are breeder reactors in there, or thorium reactors, etc.).
For all I know, he just plans some deregulation and tax breaks so they can run reactors more cheaply and less safely, in which case they'll use up all our uranium instead of reprocessing it, doing more harm than good.
If you think otherwise, please give me pointers to information. Because there are only a few good ways to go about this and many wrong ways, and the man hasn't said anything that convinces me he knows the difference or that he recognizes that a lot of federal "intervention" is *absolutely* necessary for something like that, even though it goes against the Republican creedo...
Posted by: Joe | June 19, 2008 at 04:18 PM
Joe, I specifically grabbed that article from dailykos.com. Are we now claiming dailykos is the MSM against Obama? I will agree that there were very strong comments against Obama's move that have been removed since my posting, but that would be pro-Obama, not anti. Barrow is up against somebody that is infinitely more progressive. Barrow is a "blue dog". Go ahead and say it. Obama is just doing what is always done.
You are now looking for detail in a candidate's platform? How do you explain your vote for Obama then? not only does he not have detail, but he is flip-flopping in a matter of days .. even hours. I think I've made my points on McCain. You are just agreeing with me that we have two horrible candidates. I'm just glad I am not responsible for either.
Even though I am depressed with the possible outcome, I am happy with the idea that both McCain and Obama can implode beyond repair and we can be given some real (even 3rd party) options in the next five long months. As far as I am concerned, both have already imploded, but their pathetic actions are cancelling each other out. Wonder if that is why there is an increase in undecideds?
Posted by: Truth | June 19, 2008 at 04:57 PM
Opposing view: Both sides must agree
I will seek a good faith pact that results in real spending limits.
By Barack Obama
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/opposing-view-3.html
We can have such an agreement this year, and it could hold up. I am committed to seeking such an agreement if that commitment is matched by Senator McCain. When the time comes, we will talk and our commitment will be tested.
I will pass that test, and I hope that the Republican nominee passes his.
2/20/2008
Just four months ago, less time between today and the election. Can somebody give me the decoder ring on how to know when Obama is telling the truth. Oh nevermind. None of this is a surprise to me, but it obviously is to all those that cast their vote for Obama.
Obama - a return to Watergate era politics. Now that is change.
Posted by: Truth | June 19, 2008 at 05:57 PM
Truth: I made no claims of "bias," only that the article made no sense. I didn't even use the word bias.
Surely you're not trying to say that it's more credible because dailykos is biased!?
------
As for the other, I could point out the "if that commitment is matched by Senator McCain" and point out McCain's failings in that regard (the loan during the primaries). Or to point out that the point of it was to keep politicians from relying on lobbyist money (Obama gets almost all his money $20 at a time). Or to point out that he needs it to counter those "independent" Republican groups making racist and disgusting ads.
But the thing is, I actually agree with you that he should abide by that pledge and I've said so in the past. And I'll still say so in the future.
But I'm still going to vote for him. This is, by my count, his first real flip-flop, and it's pretty damn small in comparison to an issue like torture.
There are no weasel-words for it. There's plenty of independent medical evidence that Bush has condoned torture and that US citizens have committed it over strenuous objection.
But McCain thinks we should continue this proudly, acting as if all dissenters hate freedom. How can I be proud of torture? How can I be proud to see my beloved country act like bin Ladin and Saddam in order to fight them?
Posted by: Joe | June 19, 2008 at 07:14 PM
Obama backs FISA compromise
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_backs_FISA_compromise.html
Joe, are you getting tired of defending Obama yet? I would have thought you learned your lesson with Bush.
As far as dailykos ... wow. I stumbled upon it a long time ago and decided it was filled with delusional rejects, but upon returning to read the comments ... frightening. All I can say is: Lord of the Flies.
Posted by: Truth | June 20, 2008 at 02:21 PM
Truth: I've never thought much of the dailykos, so I don't know why you're using them as proof of anything.
Also, did you actually bother READING that thing? Here's the quote you missed:
"It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."
In other words, he wants to get rid of the bad part. This is the one, big objectionable part of the bill. If this is removed, the rest is actually pretty decent.
Anyhow, you seem to be using this like a cudgel. And for what purpose? You don't appear to be mad at McCain, who supports telecom immunity very, very strongly. Nor at Hillary who ABSTAINED when Obama voted NO the last time this came up (after all that talk about the "present" votes, too).
Why is this Obama's fault? He's one of the few who led the fight against it!
Err, wait, there is one way your position could be consistent. Are you saying you're _FOR_ telecom immunity!?
Posted by: Joe | June 20, 2008 at 03:09 PM
Mind you, I hope that Obama does get them to remove the immunity provision, but it hasn't cleared the Senate yet.
Feel free to point me to the article saying Obama "caved" on it, but I'd just have to remind you that Hillary caved on that issue a long time ago, and McCain has been championing it, as you can see here.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/candidates_resp.html
Republican John McCain's statement: "For months, House Democrats, the ACLU, and the trial lawyers have held up legislation to modernize our nation's terrorist surveillance laws. Today, the House passed a compromise bill to end this impasse."
In case you don't speak Republican, the ACLU & "trial lawyers" are Republican boogymen. They hate mom, America & apple pie, are staunchly heathen, and want the terrorists to win.
Posted by: Joe | June 20, 2008 at 04:08 PM
Barack Obama missed 259 of 1231 votes (21%)
Hillary Clinton missed 229 of 2539 votes (9%)
http://www.govtrack.us/
Joe, are you sure you want to go down the "NV" Obama v. Clinton debate? You will lose BADLY.
02/12/2008 FISA as Exclusive Means for Conducting Electronic Surveillance (S Amdt 3910)
Amendment Rejected - Senate (57 - 41)
I will have to assume you are talking about this vote? The amendment on telecom immunity? 57-41 failed. Am I to understand that Hillary's vote would have equaled 3 votes even though that would make it 101 Senate votes to push it to the 60 needed to pass? I guess a senior Republican Senator could then put in his -10 votes. You fail to understand the difference between a real vote and a 'public display" vote. You will need to try a little harder on this one.
And no, I didn’t miss the part where Obama says he supports the bill even though it has the retroactive immunity clause embedded. That statement makes it infinitely worse. All he had was his unknown "character", and since the Primaries ended he has decided to shed that skin and enter his new phase. He is the leader of the Democratic Party right now. If he can't get it done now with a majority in both houses, he will never get it done. This failure is squarely on his shoulders as he is currently more powerful than Pelosi/Reid combined.
Besides, you started out claiming this had nothing to do with Obama's position on FISA. Are you actually going to pretend he hasn't compromised his character here?
-------
And if you want to talk about where Hillary and Obama differ, may I remind you about the Cheney Energy bill or the “Energy Policy Act of 2005”. Obama – Y / Clinton –N .
------
"If we have Osama bin laden in our sights, we should take him out before he’s able to kill another 3,000 people. I think that’s common sense." Obama 8/19/2007
“I think what would be important would be for us to do it in a way that allows the entire world to understand the murderous acts that he's engaged in and not to make him into a martyr” Obama 6/18/2008
Posted by: Truth | June 20, 2008 at 04:32 PM
Double standard much? As far as I know, you didn't even care about the bill until you saw that it could be used to blame Obama for something. If so, you never said anything about it and I seem to remember bringing it up, or at least linking to it.
If you want to do something constructive, email Hillary and ask her not to abstain this time (and your Senator, if they're not the same person). I already emailed the Obama campaign to ask them to fight this. I'd email my senator, McCain, too, but given that I'm donating to Obama, I really doubt he'll flip-flop in a good way this time, after his endorsement of immunity.
Anyhow, the rest of the bill, minus immunity, is reasonable. I don't blame Obama for being in favor of the decent parts! Besides, removing immunity hasn't quite failed yet. It still goes to the Senate next.
As for the last part, you're ignoring context. Obviously, he wouldn't pass up a chance to kill Osama, but it makes more sense to capture him alive to gather intelligence (without torture).
Posted by: Joe | June 20, 2008 at 07:46 PM
Well, I hope you all watched the Obama-Clinton event in Unity, NH today (and hopefully you are still checking in on this blog).
Great pictures and a really good feeling from the event. And now does everyone see why I think the Obama-Clinton ticket makes sense?
I am holding out hope he chooses her. After watching the event today (where I got to see just how good she is), I am only more solidified in the idea I'm only voting for him if he chooses her as VP. If he doesn't, I'm probably not voting for McCain but will simply abstain.
Posted by: Regina | June 27, 2008 at 01:42 PM