home

Thursday Morning Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:47:18 AM EST
Tags: Guantanamo, detainees (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Things have been a whirlwind online the past two days, between Hillary's win in West Virginia and John Edwards' endorsement of Barack Obama in Michigan.

There are other things going on in the world, such as, the Pentagon is trying to keep the five charged Gitmo Detainees from preparing for their military commission trial with their lawyers. The ACLU has the details.

The American Civil Liberties Union expressed outrage today at the Pentagon's announcement of a June 5 date for the arraignment of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other detainees accused of crimes related to September 11 before all of the defendants have met with their prospective lawyers.

[More...]

According to the Military Commissions Act, defendants must go before the military commission within 30 days of the formal filing of charges. The Pentagon just announced charges against the five detainees yesterday.

Private defense lawyers have signed on and are ready to go. But the Pentagon is delaying their security clearances. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero says,

It is extremely disturbing — though not surprising — that the government is brazenly disregarding the rights of the accused without any consideration for due process. This approach will only add to the illegitimacy of the military commissions, which are inherently unfair, fundamentally flawed and make a mockery of our Constitution and American values. Moreover, the government's failure to provide the necessary clearances to lawyers seeking to represent the Guantánamo detainees prior to arraignment is, predictably enough, another example of its attempt to subvert justice and tip the scales in its favor."

Now what's going on in your neck of the woods? This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Comments now closed.

< Obama, Medical Marijuana and the RNC | The Unity Ticket - The Hard Way >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Thursday Morning Open Thread | 271 comments (271 topical)
    Justice Irrelevant (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by HenryFTP on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:28:00 AM EST
    We're way beyond "procedural technicalities" and the similar litany of radical right complaints over the past 40 years about "coddling criminals". Bush and Cheney and their minions are running pure "show trials" for the 2008 campaign cycle -- it's pretty clear that they don't care at all whether any "convictions" obtained get overturned on appeal, because in all likelihood no appeal will even be heard until after Election Day.

    There is of course no urgency whatsoever to these trials, as we have held the defendants for years and it's highly unlikely that any useful evidence against them has been adduced recently. And it's not as if the Administration has previously paid any attention at all to any notions of the need to give any of these defendants a "speedy trial" in the interests of justice.

    So these trials are entirely theatrical, with a view to scaring the ill-informed more independently minded voters. The Republican base would be perfectly content if the defendants were simply "disappeared" Argentine-style, but Cheney thinks he can scare everybody again with some photo ops of scary-looking Muslims accused of doing scary things. After all, he doesn't need to secure a conviction that sticks, anyway -- he has retained the right to detain the defendants even if they are acquitted.

    If a regular elected prosecutor tried to pull this stunt, he or she would be crucified by the voters at the next election. But Cheney is obviously confident that the tame and complicit media won't point out what he's doing, and likewise confident that the Left will phrase (or have rephrased) its complaints in terms of "civil rights for terrorists" instead of "swift and effective justice to protect us from terrorists".

    Could someone explain to me who are the Republicans to whom we are now supposed to "reach out"? Show me one of their elected officials who has done anything one-tenth as effective as Morris Davis or Keith Allred or Alberto Mora to stand up against this outrageously unAmerican behavior, and maybe I'll reconsider.

    The Idea of America (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:29:03 AM EST
    we grew up with is dead.

    If it were still alive, the people would be in the streets, making their voices heard,

    The democratic pols aren't much better, are they? I love to watch them bluster on the floor and then, roll over for the sake of "bi-partisanship".

    I don't think our problems will be solved with elections, either.

    Where's the outrage?

    [ Parent ]

    Outrage got trampled (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:34:01 AM EST
    by the two party system.

    I'm nobody's "base".  Perhaps it is time for me to go officially Independent and Undecided.  I'd do it just to mess with the pollsters and of course, the RNC and the DNC.

    Oh won´t you sign up your name
    We´d like to feel you´re
    Acceptable, respectable, oh presentable, a vegetable!


    [ Parent ]
    Yo Fabian (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:37:40 AM EST
    It's me.

    You echo my sentiments, except I'm planning to stay Dem.

    Over the past few months, I've toyed with the idea of going Independent, but I can't quite do it, not yet.

    What I do know is that the supporters have demonstrated to me quite clearly there is no place in their party for me. I fit none of the conveniently narrow categories, nor am I comfortable with an association.

    That said, this isn't such a sea change for me. I was very detached from politics before the invasion of Iraq for a number of reasons - not necessarily apathetic, but detached. Couldn't relate.

    For now, the only person I'm backing is Andrew Rice in Oklahoma, who I think is a simply splendid Dem. As for what I'll do in November, I dunno. And all threats will do is solidify me in my indecision.

    Glad to see you, Fabian!

    [ Parent ]

    Hey, a-f-k-a-cookiebear! (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:46:42 AM EST
    I thought you had dropped out, well you did for a while.

    I can barely stand going to the orange place anymore.  Especially after WV, they are busy bashing  the entire population of that state.  At least Ohio was only "racist" and PA was "racist" and "bitter" but WVa is a whole slew of derogatory adjectives.  Once upon a time, I would have tried to defend the state and squelch the memes - but forget it now.  They've shat in their sandbox and I'm not cleaning it up for them.

    Hope Spring is kind to you.  It's good here - got our first tornado siren Sunday.  It must be spring!

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:53:16 AM EST
    that screaming of racism and blaming the voters is going to work real well in Nov. isn't it?

    When are these people going to deal with the reality that being black is the least of Obama's problems?

    [ Parent ]

    This place may be biased (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:00:33 AM EST
    but the Great Orange is a hermetically sealed echo chamber.  There's a huge difference.

    There are people (at the GO) who say that Obama did make a mistake, that he should have campaigned there, that he should have reached out - for the sake of symbolism, if not votes.  But alas, they are the minority.  The rest are more than happy to get Obama's back with whatever excuses they can come up with.

    It's great in terms of rallying the troops, but it sucks when it comes to winning the GE.

    [ Parent ]

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:48:37 AM EST
    and BTD are biased w/r/t to Democrats to be sure, however, I see more realism here than a lot of other places. BTD at least admits Obama has some huge problems and is one of the few bloggers who realize that the sexism is over the top.

    [ Parent ]
    Bias - yes. (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:10:50 AM EST
    Fingers in the ears, singing lalalalala - no.

    I have nothing against bias.  I have something against putting the blinders on and I've never seen BTD or Jeralyn do that.  

    [ Parent ]

    I'm outta dKos (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:56:28 AM EST
    I like reading over there sometimes because they're just so freakin' loony!

    But Asinum Asinus Fricat (or is that Asinus Asinum ... ?), Kate and I started an eating blog - http://www.politicook.net - we've snagged that smartypants Translator, and maracatu (or is that maracutu???) will be there as soon as his schedule clears up (he just got tenure track, I believe) and we've snagged others along the way. We're not in competition - we just prefer talking about food and farming and TEOTWAWKI.

    I was glad to find Armando over here - always enjoyed reading him.

    I got to go now - I should have left for work 15 minutes ago, and my hair's wet and I haven't even dressed yet. Thank god we're between semesters!

    More later ...

    [ Parent ]

    I bookmarked it. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:05:54 AM EST
    Always loved the food/farming diaries.

    Now when I talk f/f at dk, I have to oh-so-patiently explain the realities of agriculture and fuel prices and so on to those who think that with a wave of the Political Will wand, we can Feed The World.  (I've learned to steer clear of contraception and birth control with the Poli Emo crowd.)

    [ Parent ]

    Hey hon... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:48:59 AM EST
    Hugs...

    [ Parent ]
    Cookiebear (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:52:04 AM EST
    It's great to see you again. For once it's great to be in a deep red state. My vote won't matter one way or another.

    [ Parent ]
    omigosh (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:57:47 AM EST
    How many Kossians are over here?

    I'm psyched to see you, too!

    I got to go to work now, but I'll be back late tonight ...

    [ Parent ]

    Many (none / 0) (#51)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:16:16 AM EST
    A lot more than you think. I use to lurk here when Armando came over but early February I actually voiced a opinion, good or bad. I said the other day that I actually get to read all the diaries and comments here where as it got to be, read a diary and first few comments over at the Big Orange. And then it became the Big Obama lovefest too and they did not want to hear anything against Obama. There was only 'one' candidate and he was crowned. I liked him at first too when I was for Edwards, but his supporters, even if not him, made me look at Hillary and I liked what I saw. I also looked at Obama more and did not like what I saw. Anyway, you will see familiar names just like I said, "I remember Cookie Bear." Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    Outrage today (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:08:07 AM EST
    is mostly typed in neat little white squares on a blog.

    Real interest is for boob implants, Viagra prescriptions, insults for people that don't agree with you, what Stacy and Clinton think you ought not to wear, who is winning on Dancing with the Stars, American Idol or the Indy 500.

    People being held for years without any concern for their rights? Yawn. American "Justice" having become a travesty? Yawn. Americans torturing prisoners? Yawn.

    And here I am protesting by typing in a neat little white square on a blog.

    I marched and protested back in the day. I fought for civil rights and human rights and for what? I am too old and too tired of losing to fight anymore. And not at all convinced that any of it makes any difference in the long run.  

    [ Parent ]

    I agree that things appear to be at a nadir today (1.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jericho4119 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:16:14 AM EST
    Millions of us - and I bet you were one - went to the streets to protest this war in Iraq.  You saw as I did how the media ignored us and instead ran endless series of interviews with military "experts", who were revealed six-years later to be on the payroll of the Department of Defense and were there to parrot presidential talking points.

    All of them: every major TV network, every newspaper, every radio broadcaster was snookered by those pushing for this war and the much larger body of Americans pushing against it were shut out of the discussion.

    And this continues through to today, for the most part.

    But we are continuing to organize.  We are using the tools we have in front of us - even just little white boxes on a blog - to spread our messages as a counterpart to the drums of war.  And we are winning.

    I say we are winning because they are running scared.  Today, Republicans are losing elections in gerrymandered districts in which it should be impossible for them to ever face defeat.  Remember Henry Hyde, the former Nixon press aide and lead prosecutor in the impeachment of Bill Clinton (as if there was no Nixonian retribution in his actions)?  His seat is now a Democratic one.  And in the Democratic primary, each of the candidates who voted for this war has been run out of the race (Biden, Edwards, Dodd) one by one and the only one left is Senator Clinton.  She has garnered enough votes to shape the Democratic Party convention plank, but she has not garnered the support of a majority of voters.

    She will not be able to continue this war she voted to start and she will not be able to start a war against Iran, regardless of her Senate vote to call a portion of the Iranian government - the Revolutionary Guards - a terrorist organization.

    Sanity is returning to our politics at the same time - and because of - the actions of an electorate that will not simply bow our heads in silence, in deference to those who profess leadership and demonstrate it not.

    [ Parent ]

    Bull (5.00 / 0) (#247)
    by Mrwirez on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:21:18 AM EST
    Caucuses in RED states do not show any clear winner. Obama will lose, and the activist, extreme left will be responsible for us MODERATE Democrats misery... AGAIN, for not running the strongest candidate.  The winner of CA, NY, NJ, PA, OH, WV, TX, FL, MI, IN, AZ, NV, NM, (in spite of Judas), KY, AR, TN, OK, NH.... Thats the math that counts, 300 + in electoral college delegates. If I was a bettin' man I'd take her map hands down!!

    It is pretty clear racial nadir is a two way street. 92% of AA's voting for Obama? .....nothing racist there huh?? The Democrats can not win a presidential campaign with AA's, bloggers, and web designers. Your argument does not hold water. Also the NY Senator was covering all her bases according to the twisted data presented by the CIA and the Republican leadership, especially after 9-11 in NY. Clinton, after all, did not order the troops into Iraq.

    Remember Al Gore and the most votes?? Same results and you will be saying whaaa happened??? How did this happen again, but all that hope and the change? why. why. why.. Then Mrs Clinton will run again in 2012 and win after another McBush term.
    -Just say No to McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry.....Just say no to Obama!!

    After all the votes are in, Mrs. Clinton will have MORE total votes in the end.

    [ Parent ]

    Good people I know are dropping out and taking up (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by BGP on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:17:39 AM EST
    subsistence farming, working on developing local economic units. They've given up on national politics.

    I had hopes that Hillary, because she is a policy wonk, would initiate things, get things done, maybe not all to the good but at least to break this awful stasis we seem to be in.

    I'm not so sure about Obama. He doesn't really seem to be a do-er and I can't believe that he's going to move Mitch McConnell through inspiration. I see four more years of drifting with him but I hope I'm wrong.

    BTW, I am from Kentucky and didn't get here in time to say in the earlier threads that both Lexington and Louisville are college towns and liberal enclaves in an otherwise conservative state. Lexington even has an openly gay state senator. However I have seen very few signs around for either Hillary or Obama. Don't know what that means.

    Maybe low turnout, though we have a state senate race going on, too. But nobody's gonna beat McConnell so people may not be too fired up about that.

    Our AG (Republican but a good guy I think) said turnout maybe 20%, which would be 10% higher than last election.

    The Cincinnati suburbs are, well, basically nutcase country. That's the congressional district that elected Geoff Davis of the infamous "boy" statement. The creation museum is up there.

    [ Parent ]

    thanks for the KY update (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Kathy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:29:44 AM EST
    Isn't school out now, though?  (I mean college/university).  What about Ft Knox and the military folks--any idea which way they are leaning?  Can't see Tank Schoolers going for Obama.

    From my recollection of KY, other than that Lexington is beautiful and has a great college radio station, they are private folk, so I'm not surprised about the lack of yard signs.  Or, could be neighborhood restrictions?  I'm fairly certain that the Wright thing won't play well there, and it seems really, really stupid for Obama's folks to be sending out a flier that reminds anyone of his religion.  I know he is trying to counter the idiotic muslim rumor, but I'm not sure who thought it was wise to open up a conversation, yet again, about Obama's choice of pastor.

    I think your AG is one of the ones who signed on against the Siegelman prosecution, so he can't be that bad.

    [ Parent ]

    Fort Knox (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by BGP on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:41:19 AM EST
    is out of my sphere -- I'm pretty much Central, Northern in territory -- but I can say that the further west you get in the state, the redder it gets with the exception of Louisville, which is big enough to have its own voting district. And even Louisville had a Republican Congresswoman for many years. Her name slips my mind right now.

    The Democrat who seems set to win the senatorial primary isn't much better than Mitch in politics and would have a lot less power. Mitch brings home the bacon and that translates to votes. Not mine. Just sayin'

    [ Parent ]

    another anti-gay, anti-choice dem? (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Kathy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:49:00 AM EST
    Please tell me no.  I'm not sure why we are enlisting folks who are democrat in name only.  I know it helps get our folks in leadership positions, but what's the point of having leadership who can't count on dems voting for dem projects?  We've got dem leaders in the senate and cogress now who can't get a dang thing done.

    I just don't recognize the dem party anymore.  I had a brief lift when Rahm Emanuel spoke out against Kennedy's stupid and sexist Clinton smear, but that was ages ago in the scheme of things.

    I have been phone banking in KY since WVA, and there seem to be fewer people who answer the phone, but the majority of them I have spoken to say they are voting Clinton.  No one has mentioned Edwards' endorsement and I haven't asked.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, yes, school is out (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by BGP on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:45:19 AM EST
    students mostly gone home.

    [ Parent ]
    And (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by koshembos on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:07:15 AM EST
    then you have China and Burma, renewed civil war in Lebanon, the Iraq massacre continues and more.

    Obama was a done deal way back and even huge victories for Hillary in Oregon and other states couldn't change the party's narrative. The party that gave Bush everything he wished for is incapable of resisting Obama's mental violence.

    Obama is a very dangerous candidate; I am worried for the country. The party is by now accustomed to body blows and is hobbling along.

    Edwards was like a decent composer who cannot play the piano worth a leak. His political agenda was excellent, but his communicating it was lousy. that's the reason he had no following. Just a smiling Kucinich. His something like there is one man who can create a one America and he is Obama is right. It's Obama way or the highway.

    I'm really starting to feel (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by Grace on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:57:22 AM EST
    like I didn't leave the Democrat party but the party left me.  

    I don't like the direction the presidential race is going.  I want something concrete, not "hope" and "change."  

    Unfortunately, this race is started to make me feel like I was cheated out of something that I wanted.  "Accept no substitutions" yet they are offering me a generic president, one created out of synthetic 21st Century materials designed to look and feel like the real thing yet destined to leave a funky aftertaste and be less filling.    

    [ Parent ]

    Same here, I didn't leave the Dems, (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:08:51 AM EST
    they threw me under the bus. And road rash isn't the way to get my vote, it really isn't! I want a party that cares about and works for the same things I do, not one that is willing to back the newest, shiniest, least qualified candidate just because it makes THEM feel better about themselves. They aren't supposed to be about themselves, they are supposed to be about US. They aren't anymore, and that's why they lost me. I am going to write in Hillary if she doesn't get the nomination. Then I am going to register as an Independent. If the Democrats want my vote, they are going to have to prove they are worthy of it. Since Bill Clinton ran, they haven't.

    [ Parent ]
    Dangerous (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:36:26 AM EST
    The danger that is Obama is that poeple, people that I thought had some critical thinking skills, abdicate that thinking into the vessel that is Obama.  They attribute virtues in him that he does not posses, then they abdicate their duties as citizens and critical thinkers.  

    It sort of goes like this:  Obama looks and talks like what I think is virtues.  Obama must be virtues.  Everything Obama does is virtues. Therefore, everything he does and will do is virtuous.  Therefore, I can sit back and not think and just let him take care of everything.  

    This is the danger that is Obama, combined with the power he is amassing and the MSM support.  


    [ Parent ]

    But we're building a religion, and making a brand (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ellie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:09:52 AM EST
    Comfort Eagle Politics.

    Can't attribute the orig. poster of this link about the Obama campaign (set to Comfort Eagle by Cake.)

    [ Parent ]

    What makes Obama a dangerous candidate? (none / 0) (#60)
    by jericho4119 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:21:18 AM EST
    Is it is opposition to launching wars of indeterminate cost and length in search of unspecified goals and absent the presence of a threat?

    Or is it his unwillingness to partake in the senseless name-calling that occurs through resolutions declaring this country or that one a terrorist nation?

    Or maybe it is because of his preference for diplomacy and dialogue over antagonism and attacks?

    [ Parent ]

    Ha1 and double Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:26:09 AM EST
    Or maybe it is because of his preference for diplomacy and dialogue over antagonism and attacks?

    You mean pandering and monologues maybe?

    And now he's got "sweetie" to add to "bitter...clinging".

    (Calling people "cute" names...must. resist. Bush. comparison.)

    [ Parent ]

    Diplomacy and dialogue? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:29:47 AM EST
    Well, we've really seen that in this campaign, haven't we, sweetie?

    [ Parent ]
    That's an evil thought. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:42:28 AM EST
    Address every reply to a troll: "Hey, Sweetie".

    I'm sure they'll take it as a term implying the utmost respect and deference.

    [ Parent ]

    So I am a troll here? (none / 0) (#125)
    by jericho4119 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:00:08 AM EST
    Simply because I support Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    Well, he certainly doesn't mind (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:20:37 AM EST
    voting to fund
    wars of indeterminate cost and length
    . And he wasn't in the Senate to vote when the war started, and he probably would have been as fooled by the doctored intelligence reports as the rest of Congress was. He thinks the war is wrong, but doesn't mind voting to fund it, with borrowed money. And his idea of diplomacy is ridiculous. No world leader is going to take him seriously, he simply doesn't understand, or care about, the protocols of diplomatic communication. And those protocols are important to other people, whether Obama cares about them or not. Blowing them off won't earn him any points with the governments of other nations. And Obama seems to forget, like Bush has forgotten, that the President doesn't do the deal, Congress does. All the President, and the State Dept., do is handle the negotiations. And negotiations are done on lots of levels, not just the top level. So if Obama thinks he is going to sit down and talk to heads of state or heads of movements without any involvement by others, he should think again. He can talk all he wants, but in the end it not in his purview to make the deal. That is up to Congress. And after a few months of drivel oozing out of the White House, I doubt Congress will be in a mood to accommodate him.

    [ Parent ]
    You do realize that Obama had been for (none / 0) (#62)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:23:48 AM EST
    calling Hamas a terrorist organization before he was against it, right?

    [ Parent ]
    Fox News reports a Hamas endorsement . . . (none / 0) (#129)
    by jericho4119 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:02:37 AM EST
    . . . and the liberal blogosphere goes wild?

    But in a larger sense: should we not talk to Hamas?

    Are they not the elected leaders of the Gaza Strip - which is just celebrating it's 60th year as a "refugee camp".

    Warning: the above positions are my own and in no way represent the positions of Barack Hussein Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    imagine if they endorsed (none / 0) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:07:37 AM EST
    Hillary.


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, re Obama's Hamas as terrorist organization (none / 0) (#185)
    by andrys on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:36:39 AM EST
    I read that The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, which Obama co-sponsored on April 24, 2007, states that:
    "The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism)."


    - Andrys


    [ Parent ]
    Bomb Pakistan = Diplomacy And Dialogue? n/t (none / 0) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:50:41 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Ssh! I don't think we're supposed to remember that (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by kempis on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:30:46 AM EST
    The bombing Pakistan thing doesn't fit the narrative of Obama as Gandhi Jr.

    Just like his attacks on Hillary ("WalMart board," "anything to win," etc) don't fit the narrative of Obama as the practitioner of a new politics that "uplifts" rather than "tears down."

    Just like his cluelessness about what his pastor believed negates the story that he's a devoted churchgoer--and his pastor's rants contradict the narrative that Obama is a "post-racial" candidate.

    Just like his smirk last night when his crowd booed Hillary as Edwards praised her contradicts the line that he's rising above petty, partisan bickering. This is no Gandhi, no MLK, no JFK, no RFK. Without a teleprompter, he's increasingly GWB, without a nap.

    Obama's narrative is lovely but his reality is all over the map. It's going to get worse as the GE gets under way and more and more people see that he's not who their projections made them think he was.

    What is he? An old time, snake oil selling, Chicago machine-backed politician who will say anything, do anything, to get elected. He's Hillary without the mental toughness, the policy wonkishness, and the depth of executive experience--and I might add without the honesty; Hillary at least does not pretend not to associate with lobbyists or play hardball. I have no sense of what this guy's core values are. I know what he says they are, but those are vague buzzwords, and his actions seems to contradict even those.

    And he's stupidly left himself open to  some attacks on the right ( Wright, Ayers) because of his associations while he climbed the political ladder in Chicago. His hamartia is his "vaulting ambition" and I think it's about to "o'erleap itself."

    [ Parent ]

    So we are not supposed to attack people who . . . (none / 0) (#132)
    by jericho4119 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:04:12 AM EST
    . . . have attacked us?

    UBL is going to walk away from the scene of the crime, directly because our national media bought the spin that a war in Iraq was a better use of our lives, our money and our time.

    How is that one working out?

    [ Parent ]

    Mark Dann, OH AG resigns (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:26:42 AM EST
    under threat of impeachment.

    Yay, OHIO!  Go Buckeye Legislators!

    Jeralyn, can I have an official comment please?

    This is BIG to me.  Years of abuse from the Bush administration.  Years of total bullcr@p from AG Alberto Gonzales.  And what do we get?  One belated resignation of the AG, a trickle of other resignations and still, practically no accountability.

    Ohio has a scandal break, and boom! in mere weeks, the Governor and Legislator force the AG out under the threat of impeachment.  That's accountability.  I'm sure the elections had something to do with it - but...Rummy didn't get shown the door until after the 2006 elections, the Ohio GOP never took action even as scandal after scandal broke.  That cost them.

    Put this state on a pedestal!  I'm going to send a message of congratulations to Strickland and a snide reminder to Nancy Pelosi.  You want to see leadership, Nancy?  Come to Ohio, because D.C is fresh out.

    Still unresolved:
    Who will be appointed to fill the AG slot?
    Will the investigation continue?

    Links (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:38:10 AM EST
    Wikipedia(always amazing how fast wiki get updated)

    Toledo Blade
    Ever since Noe, T-Blade has been my Ohio e-link of choice.  Good website too.

    [ Parent ]

    Now if we could get Kwame to go! (n/t) (none / 0) (#121)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:57:52 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Hillary did an interview (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Iris on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:27:03 AM EST
    with Fox News, and it can be viewed here.

    You know.... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Mrwirez on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:16:26 AM EST
    this whole John Edwards endorsement is like Obama, all fluff and no substance. Bill press discussed this early this morning on his radio show. "It again shows John Edwards has no backbone." It would have meant more in March or even February when it would have mattered. He chose the "safe" choice. Did anyone notice Elizabeth Edwards was not there?? She voted for Clinton..... lol. Bill Press also said if Obama would choose Edwards as a running mate it would be political suicide... I'm paraphrasing, in the end his endorsement probably does not mean too much.

    Imo, I just hate wimps and opportunists, John Edwards is anything but tough or a champion of labor. He did not even carry his birth state SC, or his Senatorial state of NC for John Kerry.

     Having slept on all the events of the last couple of days....I was considering not voting in November, but that is not cool, the down ballot candidates need our support, and I just can't vote for McCain or Nader. I am actually considering Ron Paul if he is on the ballot in November. I am a tad pissed at Obama for even running this cycle. I am not sure I would vote for BO even if he would ask HRC to be his running mate. My work buddies feel the same, but I think many of them are leaning McCain

    I don't know about down-ticket Dems (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by honora on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:06:28 AM EST
    This is becoming so hard, but what if we refused to vote for any Dem this year.  If we give the Dems the House and Senate, that means that Pelosi, Kerry and Kennedy get what they want.  I am thinking that tough love is the way I will go this year.  I think that the Dems need 'shock' therapy or they will never take women and our contributions seriously.

    [ Parent ]
    The Problem..... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Mrwirez on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:41:38 AM EST
    Is I don't think Obama can win, as bad as times are, I think WV showed certain states will not vote for him. PA, OH, FL imo will go McCain. I don't know where you are from but here in PA people are afraid of Obama for many reasons here are a few I hear in PA.

    1- Other than NC with 33% AA voters, Obama has not won a state since Reverend Wright made a greatest hits tape.

    2-He does not seem overly Labor friendly, I think there is a real   disconnect here.

    3-That Hamas "endorsement" is very bad

    4-Bittergate and God had a huge effect

    5-I hate to say it but his race does play in

    [ Parent ]

    The race effect (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:05:18 AM EST
    is largely intransigent.  The same for the gender effect for Clinton.  So strike those voters out.

    The rest of the factors are in play.  Obama can reinvent himself, he can focus on the issues, he can figure out ways to neutralize some problems.

    Will he?
    Obama thus far has proven to be stubborn, not flexible.  He's a champion panderer, but he panders to one group at the expense of others, sometimes blatantly.

    None of Obama's strategic weaknesses are fatal by themselves, but they make him vulnerable.  It would be one thing if Obama's strengths were more than a match for his flaws, but I don't see that.  I think Obama is dying for Clinton to drop out because her strengths are in stark contrast to his weakneeses.

    Hillary can reach out to and connect with voters.  Obama can't.
    Hillary does issues well.  Obama avoids them.
    Hillary shows a firm grasp of policy and details.  Obama?  Let's not go there.

    In other words, Obama looks so much better when he's not standing next to Clinton.  It's one reason I think that he'll be resistant offering her the VP.

    [ Parent ]

    funny (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:25:40 AM EST
    because 47.6% of the voters must have felt something reaching out to them, or was that a wayward doctor?

    [ Parent ]
    2000 & 2004 showed that emo voters (none / 0) (#71)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:28:52 AM EST
    make up a significant voting block.

    Obama reinforces the idea.

    [ Parent ]

    Im fine with letting the Obama campaign (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:58:14 AM EST
    make it on their own.
    but we need the congress.  we can always get rid of Pelosi and the other losers but I agree with the other poster that Obama is toast and the congress is the only fire wall we are going to have.
    if we dont have that we are truly screwed.
    not that the democrats in congress have been profiles in courage or anything the last few years.
    but I think the ONLY good thing about an Obama candidacy is that hopefully he will bring out enough voters for us to do well in the congressional elections in many places we might not other wise.

    [ Parent ]
    The key (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:01:36 AM EST
    here is how successfully these candidates separate themselves from Obama though. Perhaps if they all throw Obama under the bus they will have a better chance of winning and picking up votes like Childers did.

    [ Parent ]
    That's going to be hard to do (none / 0) (#258)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:31:45 AM EST
    after they give him their votes as SDs, don't you think?? "Yes, we voted to give you an incompetent President, yes, we campaigned for him, yes, we gobbled up his cash for our campaigns, but now we disown him because the voters don't like that we did that." Oh yeah, that'll fly..snicker.

    [ Parent ]
    Congress (none / 0) (#42)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:09:26 AM EST
    will not end the war in Iraq.  If McCain is elected the war will go on.

    [ Parent ]
    it will go on if (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:11:11 AM EST
    Obama is elected also.

    [ Parent ]
    It would be a miracle if Obama won (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by andrys on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:42:54 AM EST
    I will vote the lower ticket to help in controls on McCain.

    - Andrys


    [ Parent ]
    exactly (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:46:54 AM EST
    its not that miracles dont happen.  just not good to count on them in an important election.

    [ Parent ]
    Press was funny this morning (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:15:05 AM EST
    I don't usually find him so outspoken (or amusing), but he said Edwards as VP candidate would be a catastrophic mistake, or words to that effect.  I'd have to agree.  It would be almost like re-running the 2004 election, except with a candidate who can nudge the AA and youth turnout up a tad. That's not my idea of expanding the electorate.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought Kerry was a terrible candidate (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:20:58 AM EST
    and I think ultimately Obama will be worse.  in terms of states won.
    it would be like running the 04 campaign again without the war hero stuff to fall back on.


    [ Parent ]
    Yup, that too (none / 0) (#204)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:51:33 AM EST
    Bad idea on all levels.  why would we want any reminder of 2004 on the ticket?

    [ Parent ]
    Why is it that the Edwards endorsement of Obama (2.00 / 0) (#65)
    by jericho4119 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:24:45 AM EST
    Is being treated as a non-issue, when had he endorsed Clinton, it would have been portrayed as yet one more key Democrat who rejects the Obama nomination?

    Edwards is just a politician who made a decision; no more and no less.

    The fact that he is choosing to line up with the prospective nominee and not fight a dangerous and bloody nomination battle, says positive things about party unity, no?

    [ Parent ]

    The only part of the Edwards endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Anne on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:32:02 AM EST
    that's a big deal is that there is a pretty significant disconnect between Obama's positions on health care, energy and consumer issues.  Ideologically, Edwards is more in tune with Clinton, and yet he chose to endorse Obama.

    I sent Edwards an e-mail message, before I opted out of receiving any more e-mails from him, that expressed my disappointment with his endorsement, in light of the disconnect mentioned above, and closed that e-mail by saying that I was glad to know what a mailing list was going for these days.

    Had he endorsed Clinton, I would not expect it to have much effect on the race, but I think it would have been a more principled choice; choosing principle over political expediency is an admirable trait deserving of respect - an action that may have done more to raise Edwards' credibility in this process than anything else.  Edwards did not, in my opinion, elevate his stature by endorsing Obama; it looked desperate on Obama's part and craven on Edwards'.

    C'est la vie, though.  My Edwards bumper sticker came off the car this morning - can't stand the idea that people would think it now means that I support Obama.  Which I most emphatically do not.


    [ Parent ]

    She has not lost yet (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by barryluda on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:08:03 AM EST
    iago states (in a prior, closed thread):

    There are no reasonable mathematics which give her the nomination.

    You're wrong iago.  As I explain in my prior post, it's a long shot but Clinton still has a real chance.

    In terms of the mathematics, it's even easier:  Every Super Delegate -- for whatever reason -- decides to switch their vote to Clinton.  If that happens (and it can happen at any time up to the convention) then Clinton wins.

    Now, when we start to talk about Obama's chances to win the GE, every idiotic comment by Obama's "friends" makes it just a little more difficult for Obama to beat McCain (should Obama go on from here to win the nomination).  So I really wish my fellow Obama supporters on here would grow up.

    I'm much more interested in beating McCain in November than whether it's Clinton or Obama (or both) who do it.

    Obama's effort to make it look (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Iris on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:18:32 AM EST
    like he's 'moving on' to the general election is part of the fake-out.  All Hillary needs to do is hang in there and keep pressing her case.  In the meantime, we should probably be reminding as many people as we can that Obama slid by the question of 'experience' and that the party leaders and elected oficials (i.e. superdelegates) need to be asking themselves who is the best choice to be not just the nominee, but the next President and the de facto leader of the Democratic Party.

    [ Parent ]
    no one is trying to push Hillary out of the race (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Josey on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:59:21 AM EST
    they're trying to humiliate her out.
    Disgusting!


    [ Parent ]
    fortunately (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:10:45 AM EST
    attempts to humiliate the Clintons have been made by professionals.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, but the Clintons are used to that (5.00 / 0) (#262)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:37:06 AM EST
    and the GOP was much better at it than the Dems are and the Clintons survived that just fine. Compared to Obama, the Clintons are bullet-proof. Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    They sound (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:53:56 AM EST
    just like Karl Rove and his rantings about the math. Well, right now the math says that Obama will lose the general election.

    [ Parent ]
    I love his response to the electoral map (none / 0) (#197)
    by andrys on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:47:29 AM EST
    When it shows to be not very likely that he will beat McCain but that Hillary would have a much easier time of it, he then decides to create a "new map" for his "new politics" and his logic is to say that he did well with some Dems in unrepresentative caucuses (but not so well in their beauty contest primaries that had triple the participation) and he can pull many Repubs and Independents over in a General Election.  This is vapid and suicidal.  Especially post-Wright/Rezko/Ayers/Young et al.

    - Andrys


    [ Parent ]
    Senator Obama has discovered. . . (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by NotThatStupid on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:03:14 AM EST
    ... the thing that a long string of similar, and similarly unelectable, candidates - Stevenson, McGovern, Kennedy, Dukakis, Kerry - 'learned' from their defeats:

    The elites don't need a better message, the party needs better voters.

    The only difference is that, this time, they've got the party leaders buying into that rubbish even before they lose the election.

    (BTW: I'm still interested in knowing if anyone here thinks there would be a case for a class action suit - on behalf of the elderly, infirm, military and other out-of-state people, two-job parents, etc. - against the national and state parties that run caucus primaries, on the grounds that they are discriminatory. Not to correct this election, but to fix the problem for future elections.)

    Should Be Pursued (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by Athena on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:20:17 AM EST
    I raised this issue here some months ago - whether the caucuses are ADA-compliant.  Seems that the physical venue may meet ADA norms, but that should not end the inquiry.

    The format of the event makes it physically impossible for every willing voter to participate - it is certainly not in the SPIRIT of the ADA - and that should remove caucuses as part of the Dem nominating process.

    It is definitely worth pursuing.  No doubt that caucuses disadvantaged some of Hillary's strongest demographics - i.e., elderly.

    2008 should be the last year for caucuses.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm no lawyer, but I think that's a great idea. (none / 0) (#45)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:11:07 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Kerry Obama (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:24:03 AM EST
    I have met Senator Kerry and Obama, Mr. Obama is no Mr. Kerry. Do you know how to tell the difference? Close your eyes and listen to each of them speak. When you wake up several hours later, that was the Kerry tape. when you get excited or pissed in 10 minutes, that would be Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    You (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:40:47 AM EST
    haven't seen his town halls where he drones on then. Obama can give a better speech than Kerry but that's about it.

    [ Parent ]
    sure i have (2.00 / 0) (#103)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:44:44 AM EST
    cspan runs 24 hours and sometimes i do too. You have not watched Hillary in town hall meetings, I have never been able to stay awake through an entire Hillary town hall. Guess that you and I have different tastes in speeches, imagine that.

    [ Parent ]
    It's the (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:50:37 AM EST
    ums and the stuttering from Obama that I can't stand. I guess it doesn't bother you.

    [ Parent ]
    Since Obama voted for CAFA (none / 0) (#210)
    by andrys on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:56:15 AM EST
    No, successful consumer class action suits are quite improbable now, as he was driven to 'reform' the process so there would not be so much "abuse" of corporations etc.  He tends to vote in unexpected ways.

    - Andrys


    [ Parent ]
    KY make or break for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:18:20 AM EST
    Now that Obama has Edwards on his side, there is no excuse for not closing the gap in KY. If Obama has any hope in the GE, he will work hard to close the gap, with Edwards by his side every daay, and he will bring it down to under a 10 point gap. If he can't, my feeling is that there is no hope whatsoever that he can win in November.
    Edwards could have helped him get 7% more (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by andrys on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:57:15 AM EST
    in West Virginia.  So he would have lost there by only 67 to 33 instead of 67-26.


    - Andrys


    [ Parent ]
    Kind of like (5.00 / 2) (#228)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:09:55 AM EST
    Bush dumping Rummy after the 2006 elections were over instead of months before, when it could have saved some GOP butt.

    It's like
    "Oh, would you look at that!  Edwards didn't campaign and didn't advertise and he still got 7%.  Quick, let's get him on board now that he's proven a valuable political commodity!".

    Like I said: capitalist relativism.

    [ Parent ]

    I would disagree (none / 0) (#276)
    by interestedcanuck on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:35:02 PM EST
    I think a big chunk of that 7% would have gone to Senator Clinton.

    They were protest votes againt Senator Obama not votes for John Edwards

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, (none / 0) (#57)
    by cannondaddy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:20:45 AM EST
    if he doesn't get a twenty point bump from the endorsement of a failed candidate with a whole week to campaign...

    [ Parent ]
    still make or break (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:28:19 AM EST
    I agree it's not much time. And it's a bit much to ask perhaps. But if Obama can't show some progress with his problem, then he's toast in the GE.

    [ Parent ]
    OK, John (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Athena on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:21:56 AM EST
    Since Edwards stomped on Hillary's WV victory, let him deliver KY for Obama.

    Otherwise - why did he suddenly show up?

    [ Parent ]

    There is absolutely no margin . . . (none / 0) (#88)
    by jericho4119 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:39:14 AM EST
    For the presumed presidential nominee to lose a primary election in KY will be portrayed by the media and by Clinton partisans as just one more reason why Obama should not be the nominee - regardless of whether it is by 10-points or by 40-points.

    Look at what has happened just this week?  WV has been put forward as a sign that working-class, white voters will not support Obama - which must be news to those coastal elites in Wisconsin and Missouri and Iowa.  

    How is it that Kennedy is said to have won Wisconsin because of the Catholic voters, but Obama is said not to be able to relate to Catholic voters - even though he won that state 58% to 41%.?

    Obama skipped WV because it would have been more embarrassing to have attempted to compete and still lost big - which was bound to happen with the short time period he had to introduce himself to voters - something the former First Lady does not have to do.  And while he may spend more time in KY than he did in WV, he should focus on OR as that will put him over the top with the majority of the pledged delegates.

    At this stage of the nomination process, he can do no more than capture that - FWIW.

    [ Parent ]

    50 state what? (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:47:16 AM EST
    Aren't we down to 47 states now?

    No FL
    No Mi
    No WV - although I'm sure the media was glad to take his money.

    [ Parent ]

    What ever happened to . . . (2.00 / 0) (#136)
    by jericho4119 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:06:05 AM EST
    . . . you can't win 'em all?

    Michigan and Florida made their bed; why should they not lie in it?

    A rule that has no penalty does not exist.

    [ Parent ]

    What did West Virginia do? (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Fabian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:14:11 AM EST
    Obama acted like the entire state was off his radar.

    [ Parent ]
    This is embarassingly wrong (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by angie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:08:00 AM EST
    You wrote:
    Obama skipped WV because it would have been more embarrassing to have attempted to compete and still lost big - which was bound to happen with the short time period he had to introduce himself to voters

    Um, no -- he is running for President of the United States of America -- that included WV -- no matter how huge the obstacle, he should have tried.  That is what I expect from a President -- trying his best despite the odds of success. How am I supposed to trust him to handle urgent & precarious world affairs if he is going to not try because there "isn't enough time to introduce himself."
    Furthermore, the meme that he blew WV off is bs -- he poured a lot of $ & resources in that state, and still got his clocked clean.
    Under either scenario, WV was an embarrassing failure for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    That is a lie (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:09:22 AM EST
    He did not "skip the state," he outspent Clinton 2-to-1, adn still got his a** handed to him. Don't spread lies here.

    [ Parent ]
    So on the one hand . . . (1.00 / 0) (#159)
    by jericho4119 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:17:53 AM EST
    . . . he is condemned for not making as many visits to the state - WV - as Clinton did and on the other hand, he is condemned for spending more money in the state than Clinton did.

    Hmmm.

    Anyway . . . HRC took off the entire month of February and more or less stated that those 11 contests did not count as they were "red" states.  I have seen posters here on this thread today comment that "Obama is not going to win those red states" in the general election.

    So - just so I understand the rules - let me sum up:

    1.  Only states that HRC wins should count for determining the nominee.

    2.  Any state that holds a caucus is inherent biased against HRC-voters and pro-Obama voters, so all caucus results should be ignored.

    3.  Primary results should be ignored too - if they include "too many" African American voters.

    Are there more, or does that capture everything?

    [ Parent ]
    I'm still waiting for an answer (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by angie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:29:19 AM EST
    Please, tell me how I am supposed to trust him to be President when he runs away from difficult situations? Isn't the entire job of the President to face up to difficult situations?

    [ Parent ]
    Oregon, not Kentucky, (none / 0) (#133)
    by riddlerandy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:04:33 AM EST
    will be the story.  Along with all the supers that have come over to Obama since WV

    [ Parent ]
    One poll I would like to see. Just curious (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Saul on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:19:29 AM EST
    I do not think Obama would be the front runner today if all the controversial information on Obama, or what we know now about Obama had come out in December of 07.

    These controversies came too late to help Hilary but they are a realty and the voting, especially the white vote would be totally  different today than it was in December, January and February and I believe if the voting was re done today Hilary would be the front runner.  

    The supers should consider this since the controversies will play a significant role in the GE.

    Maybe Maybe not (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:21:14 AM EST
    but it surprises me that he stayed the front runner after what i felt were less convincing debate appearances. Rev Wright controversy is a flippin joke, losing more debates than winning should be more of a litmus test.

    [ Parent ]
    I wish we could redo February (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by ruffian on Thu May