home

Open Thread

Your turn. This is an Open Thread.

Good post from Matt Stoller.

< Rosen Comes To Praise Obama, But Buries Him On Civil Liberties | Obama No Lieberman? Sure, But What Is the Unifying Theory? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Haplerin (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:21:25 AM EST
    has an interesting letter from two locals in Ohio calling for Obama to explain exactly what happened with NAFTA and Canada.  Well, one is a local but the other might be from the head office.

    LINK

    Does anyone know if these two unions were Obama backers before, or if they were for Clinton?  It's hard to keep unions straight these days.

    Also, Axelrod and Wolfson threw down this morning.  Wolfson got in some good questions about releasing documents related to Rezko.  The NY Times has a nice story about the case as well...

    Ted Strickland Ohio Gov (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:30:22 AM EST
    endorsed Hillary.

    Does anyone know if these two unions were Obama backers before, or if they were for Clinton?  It's hard to keep unions straight these days.

    Ohio State Building and Construction Trades Council endorsed Ted Strickland.

    Parent

    Kathy (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:02:14 PM EST
    On the NY Times Rezko, this is and continues to be my point:  

    First:   Obama completes purchase of house June 2005.

    Second  

    show that the lot purchase occurred as he was being pursued by creditors seeking more than $10 million, deepening the mystery of why he would plunge into a real estate investment whose biggest beneficiary appears to have been Mr. Obama.

    These creditors include all the public and private lenders for the affordable housing.  Did Obama not know that?   Not possible.  These are publicly finance projects, going into default involves lots of gyrations, so he had to know he defaulted on the affordable housing.  
    Third
    When the transactions were first reported, Mr. Obama said only that he had asked Mr. Rezko, as a developer, whether he thought the house was worth buying. But last month, Mr. Obama's campaign staff said the senator also recalled walking around the house and the adjacent lot with Mr. Rezko.

    He asks the advice of a developer who is in default on multiple projects for advice?  Makes me wonder about the advisers he will seek.  This is the judgement question.  

    4.

    Some critics say that given Mr. Obama's longtime emphasis on ethics, it is puzzling that he would have been so involved with the Rezkos on the house and lot deals after questions had begun to crop up about Mr. Rezko's political and business activities.

    For at least two years before the property purchases, news articles had raised questions about Mr. Rezko's influence over state appointments and contracts. There had also been reports that the F.B.I. was investigating accusations of a shakedown scheme involving a state hospital board to which Mr. Rezko had suggested appointments.

    Also, Chicago officials had announced that they were investigating whether a company partly owned by Mr. Rezko had won public contracts by posing as a minority business.


    NY Times Article

    Parent
    Stellaaa (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:13:56 PM EST
    you highlight what are to me the most important questions in this entire Rezko thing.  Since Obama's entire campaign rests on his "good" judgment, he should come completely clean about his ties to the man.  He should release all his notes, all his billable hours, etc., to show exactly what sort of contact he had with Rezko on the public housing deals.  Obama should explain exactly how the vacant lot/house deal evolved (especially those parts that Obama's only "remembered" recently about Rezko touring the house with him) and why Mrs Rezko purchased the lot instead of her husband.  Obama should also explain the letters he wrote on Rezko's behalf as well as tell why he dropped in on meetings Rezko was having with investors.

    Also, to my knowledge, Rezko was not a single-family home developer.  He did huge projects.  Unless he planned on putting up a skyscraper by Obama's house, there was no reason for him to buy the land.

    And, lastly, as the article points out, where did Mrs Rezko get the money?  And doesn't anyone think it's a bit strange that the cash down payment she made is almost exactly the same amount of cash that Obama paid her a while later for the strip of land?  Further, how did someone only making 37K a year qualify for a bank loan of half a million dollars?  And how did she explain to the bank the fact that she had the down payment in the first place?

    Parent

    reading off the wrong memo (none / 0) (#43)
    by dwightkschrute on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:30:14 PM EST
    Don't you know the latest line to use is:

    "His entire campaign is based on one speech"
    - Hillary Clinton

    Parent
    She didn't have to do much explaining (none / 0) (#79)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:05:28 PM EST
    to the bank. The bank owner is one of those people who are friends with Rezko or mixed up with his nonsense.

    Parent
    NYT stopped short (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:46:17 PM EST
    -- at least in the truncated version in my paper -- of contrasting BO's debate answer re Rezko, that they had only a five-billable-hours' and remote relationship, with the NYT's statement in that story that their relationship goes back for two decades. BO's debate answer ought to have been inserted at that point -- although, of course, those probably were "just words," after all.

    Parent
    Superdelegates vote on how their state voted? (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Saul on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:23:52 AM EST
    Feingold and other super delegate have endorsed the candidate that won their state.  They claim it would be wrong to go against the wishes of how their state voted.  My question is how come I have not heard, Ted Kennedy, Kerry and Gov Patrick, if you use the same logic that other super delegates are using, come out and say we must support Hilary because she won Massachusetts by double digits. Even if it hurts them to do so.  Fair is Fair

    The Obama Rules (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:25:58 AM EST
    Come now Saul, you know this.

    Parent
    No, my Senator Russ has not endorsed (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:38:59 PM EST
    He said how he privately voted and said he "probably" would vote for Obama -- and specifically said it was not an endorsement; please respect his words, as they are not "just words." Nor has he claimed that it would be wrong to go against the wishes of my state -- as we do have s-d's openly endorsing Clinton. Not to mention that the wishes of Dems in my state may not have been clear in Wisconsin, with the wide-open primary and extreme GOP crossover.

    Parent
    Shifting gears, the Vermont indictment vote (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ctrenta on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:30:29 AM EST
    I live outside Brattleboro, VT and this Tuesday is Town Meeting Day. Brattleboro has a non-binding resolution on the ballot calling for the indictment of George W. Bush and veep Dick Cheney. I diaried about it last night but didn't get any takers. I know this is a law-related blog and I'd love to hear what folks have to say.

    Here's a link to the diary.

    Let me know what you all think, especially why it's nonsense.

    With all the talk about superdelegates by the MSM, (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ivs814 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:44:03 AM EST
    the silence about the pressure black superdelegates are getting to support Obama is deafening.  Why is there no outrage?  

    How about 60 min section. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Saul on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:51:50 AM EST
    Is CBS bias to any of the candidates.  How about a 60 min theme on this with another interview with Mr. Cleaver.  That would put it out front.

    Parent
    You are right (none / 0) (#23)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:53:49 AM EST
    60 Minutes is really the only "news" magazine show left.  20/20 is a joke and NBC is busy hunting pedophiles--a noble cause, but still, what happened to the "news" part of the news?  "Give me a break."

    Parent
    How many of them are there? (none / 0) (#73)
    by vigkat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:33:22 PM EST
    There appears to be an almost inexhaustible supply. Or do they just keep re-running them?  I often wonder who watches this stuff.  All day long.

    Parent
    nice move (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by diplomatic on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:45:34 AM EST


    Sounds like she can handle (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by katiebird on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:46:50 AM EST
    her Senate responsibilities and campaign at the same time.

    Good for her.  

    as well as (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Nasarius on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:50:49 AM EST
    Appearing on late-night comedy shows.

    Very impressive ;-)

    Parent

    Practically (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:49:44 AM EST
    did you see what Obama's camp said when asked about this?  They gave a statement wherein (guess what?!) Obama equivocated about whether or not he would outlaw such groups.

    His campaign gave out the usual response that he'd have to "evaluate" the groups before he made a decision.

    boy, talk about what a president would do on day one...apparently, Obama is going to be doing lots of "evaluating."

    Timmeh said he made Russian president (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jawbone on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:20:30 PM EST
    question a jump ball to see how Clinton and Obama would react. Video shows Obama immediately looking at Hillary, and she gives the answer.

    On Timmeh's MSNBC show today (repeats I think), he said he deliberately made it a jump ball to see how they would handle a foreign policy question. He added Hillary was correct and only had trouble pronouncing the Putin protege's name.

    Dee Dee Myers said that if Hillary had pronounced the name spot on correctly it would have sealed the deal on her owning the foreign policy issues--but since she didn't have it down pat, it made Obama's "what Hillary said" reply make them look like equals.  !!!!

    So, even when a debate shows how well the two do on a particular question, there seem to be Clinton Rules which mean Hillary has to be perfect to be the clear winner! Gee, where have we seen that attitude before.... Oh, yeah, about women in the workplace and any new arena.

    Parent

    FYI (none / 0) (#40)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:29:18 PM EST
    Dee Dee Myers wrote some very good (and pro) Hillary articles in Vanity Fair.  

    Go to Vanity Fair and search for Dee Dee if interested.

    Don't know what she was up to on Russert's show....

    Parent

    She has been fairly consistent (none / 0) (#72)
    by vigkat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:29:36 PM EST
    in making pro Hillary comments on the talking head circuit, demonstrating she has empathy for the candidate and what she is up against.  And Dee Dee has reason to know the nature of the obstacles a woman confronts in that milieu.  A true breath of fresh air and clarity, especially when compared to the ever obfuscating Ms. Perino.

    Parent
    If she pronounced it right (none / 0) (#115)
    by tree on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:59:45 PM EST
    she probably would have been criticized for being a know-it-all and for trying to look smarter than the rest of us, and you know how we hate having a President who's smarter than us. ;-)

    Parent
    Stoller Attacks the Netroots (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:54:51 AM EST
    here:

    I'm having a tough time keeping any interest in this primary, it's both discouraging and upsetting to watch this disconnect between the internet space I've worked on for four years and reality itself get worse.  When I offer obvious points, for instance, that Obama may not be progressive, since he has in fact spoken repeatedly of his lack of ideology, I get ridiculous pushback from his supporters denying what he himself has said.

    There's no discussion of Iraq, just conversations about irrelevant ads that talk about 3am phone calls between fear-mongering politicians who agree with each other.  It's so unbelievably dumb it's hard to deal with.

    Maybe we're not all so crazy here, huh?


    Though I do agree (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Mike Pridmore on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:04:09 PM EST
    with Matt, I disagree that the 3am ads are not a relevant topic for conversaion.   Senator Obama claims in his ad that his stance was brave and carried great risk.  But in 2004 when he was running for the Senate he toned his Iraq rhetoric down so  much that his base of support called him on it.  He had even removed the 2002 speech from his website and they made him put it back.  If his base of support was so strongly against the war, that seems to diminish any claims he had to risk or bravery for opposing the war.  I discussed that and more with links here.

    Parent
    OB supporters say "just politics" that (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jawbone on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:27:14 PM EST
    Obama muted his antiwar criticism during the 2004 election campaign.

    Well, that's OK then.

    Parent

    Joseph Wilson has another (none / 0) (#116)
    by tree on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:09:11 AM EST
    post criticizing Obama on foreign affairs.

    On AUMF:

    Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress debating that resolution? During the 2002-2003 timeframe, he was a minor local official uninvolved in the national debate on the war so we can only judge from his own statements prior to the 2008 campaign. Obama repeated these points in a whole host of interviews prior to announcing his candidacy. On July 27, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." In his book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, he wrote, "...on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." And, in 2006, he clearly said, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."

    I was involved in that debate in every step of the effort to prevent this senseless war and I profoundly resent Obama's distortion of George Bush's folly into Hillary Clinton's responsibility. I was in the middle of the debate in Washington. Obama wasn't there. I remember what was said and done. In fact, the administration lied in order to secure support for its war of choice, including cooking the intelligence and misleading Congress about the intent of the authorization. Senator Clinton's position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice.

    And on Iran:

    On Iran and the question of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, the junior senator from Illinois was not quite so clever at avoiding taking a position. He first co-sponsored the "Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which contained explicit language identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. He subsequently claimed to oppose the Kyl-Lieberman sense of the Senate resolution proposing the same thing. Obama's accountability problem here is that he didn't show up for the vote on that resolution -- a vote that would have put him on record. Then he declined to sign on to a letter put forward by Senator Clinton making explicit that the resolution could not be used as authority to take military action. All we have is Obama's rhetoric juxtaposed with his co-sponsorship of a piece of legislation that proposed what he says he opposed.

    LINK

    Parent

    Good for Stoller (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:08:59 PM EST
    Agreed (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by dk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:12:26 PM EST
    but strange he doesn't even acknowledge the irony here.  I mean, he had a part in creating the beast, didn't he?  I'd have even more respect for him if he owned up to that.

    Parent
    Exactly! (none / 0) (#66)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    Sorta funny that Stoller is just now realizing what we've been discussing for months. Perhaps he was too much a part of it to see.

    and IIRC it was Stoller who accused Elizabeth Edwards of being racist and sexist per her comment that the media gave little positive attention to Edwards because he wasn't a black man or a woman running for prez. Obama supporters ran with Stoller's opinion - citing it over and over.
    But that's basically the reason Edwards gave for suspending his campaign - so that "history" could take place, etc.


    Parent

    A deja vu moment (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:12:12 PM EST
    BTD  Back home there has always been this allegation of people who get paid by their parties to call Political Radio Shows.  They can be found by the repetiveness of their comments as well as the long winded nature of their arguments.  When confronted these people usually resolve to repeating the same things or accussing the host or other commenters of being a tool of the other party.  I've been having this Deja Vu moments in the blogosphere lately.

    Are they anything like? (none / 0) (#38)
    by dwightkschrute on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:21:35 PM EST
    The people that get paid to hold campaign signs?

    Parent
    Similar Idea but they do it all the time (none / 0) (#53)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:45:10 PM EST
    like some of the people in the blogs you know the type you read once and you read them all.  By the way the paying for people for standing with signs on corners is old practice and those that think that Obama campaign doesn't do it are in for a rude awakening.  Remember the swooning ladies and Obama's response always seemed to be on queue?? questions that were being asked a while back.  Haven't had any of those since the subject was brought up.

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:29:35 PM EST
    The Stoller post is good, but check out this comment by Bowers in response to the question "What concerns do you have regarding an Obama presidency and the progressive movement?"

    Specifically that, after all the work we did, the activists following Obama will start to justify things like centrism, bi-partisanship, and putting conservatives in positions of great power as somehow actually progressive. It would be like a reversion to the early 1990's, when progressive internalize the belief that progressive positions are unwinnable, and conservative legislation and administration under an Obama presidency are given a free pass. I don't want to return to the 1990's. While Obama is a less obvious return to that era than Hillary Clinton, much of what he says and does indicates otherwise.

    Stunning comment.  A clear example of what Bowers is talking about is the issue of mandates in health care.  The policy arguments are fair game, but an alarming number of Obama supporters take the position that "forcing" people to purchase health insurance is a surefire political loser.  This is the "we can change the world, but we can't convince people to have premiums deducted from their paycheck" position that I love to ridicule.

    I actually explored a version of this issue in a diary a few months back.  It seems to me that the word "progressive" has been redefined, in the eyes of many Obama supporters, to mean whatever it is that Obama does.  If Obama says the way to accomplish change is by dancing the macarena beneath a full moon, then presto, that position becomes the lodestar by which progressivism is measured.  If Obama says we shouldn't have mandates for health care, then market-based solutions are suddenly the progressive position.  A strange and unpleasant phenomenon.

    Did you see this David Ignatius article on Obama? (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by BigB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:31:36 PM EST
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902784.html

    Obama: A Thin Record For a Bridge Builder

    By David Ignatius
    Sunday, March 2, 2008; Page B07

    Hillary Clinton has been trying to make a point about Barack Obama that deserves one last careful look before Tuesday's probably decisive Democratic primaries: If Obama truly intends to unite America across party lines and break the Washington logjam, then why has he shown so little interest or aptitude for the hard work of bipartisan government?

    This is the real "Where's the beef?" about Obama, and it still doesn't have a good answer. He gives a great speech, and he promises that he can heal the terrible partisan divisions that have enfeebled American politics over the past decade. This is a message of hope that the country clearly wants to hear.

    But can he do it? The record is mixed, but it's fair to say that Obama has not shown much willingness to take risks or make enemies to try to restore a working center in Washington. Clinton, for all her reputation as a divisive figure, has a much stronger record of bipartisan achievement. And the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, has a better record still.

    Obama's argument is that he can mobilize a new coalition that will embrace his proclamation that "yes, we can" break out of the straitjacket. But for voters to feel confident that he can achieve this transformation should he become president, they would need evidence that he has fought and won similar battles. The record here, to put it mildly, is thin.

    At last we have some valid questions raised (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Manuel on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:38:50 PM EST
    I hope it is not too late.

    Parent
    Josh Marshall (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Mike Pridmore on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:46:43 PM EST
    was a real jerk with his headline for this piece.

    The unkindest cut

    Ignatius to Obama: You're no Joe Lieberman!

    He seems to be trying to deflect the criticism with a dig at Lieberman.  I wonder how many e-mails he is getting to remind him that Obama strongly supported Lieberman over Lamont in the Democratic primary?

    Parent

    David Ignatius on Obama (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by AdrianLesher on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:36:49 PM EST
    David Ignatius, advocate of "bipartisanship" that is essentially capitulation, thinks Obama doesn't have what it takes to sell out to Republicans:

    Obama has been running for president almost since he arrived in the U.S. Senate in 2005, so his Senate colleagues say it's hard to evaluate his record. But what stands out in his brief Senate career is his liberal voting record, not a history of fighting across party lines to get legislation passed. He wasn't part of the 2005 Gang of 14 bipartisan coalition that sought to break the logjam on judicial nominations, but neither were Clinton or other prominent Democrats. He did support the bipartisan effort to get an immigration bill last year, winning a plaudit from McCain. But he didn't work closely with the White House, as did Sen. Edward Kennedy.

    He thinks Clinton is better at his kind of "bipartisanship":

    But can he do it? The record is mixed, but it's fair to say that Obama has not shown much willingness to take risks or make enemies to try to restore a working center in Washington. Clinton, for all her reputation as a divisive figure, has a much stronger record of bipartisan achievement. And the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, has a better record still.


    Thanks to Jeralyn and BTD (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    . . . this site seems to have settled back into being more readable, after a spate of users who took threads off topic, posted Obamamemo points repeatedly, etc., for a while. Thanks for the post moderation. It's a lot of work, I'm sure, but it allows the site to stay an oasis of sanity where actual exchanges of information and opinion, the latter mostly supported with evidence. Every time I venture into other sites again, only to see threads go off topic or making the same point over and over, and often without evidence (but lots of capital letters and exclamation points) -- I am only reminded of how good this site is and how well it ensures that our time here is used well and made worthwhile.

    I hesitate (none / 0) (#69)
    by Mike Pridmore on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:09:16 PM EST
    every time I start to post something most other places.  It takes a lot more courage to post a pro-Hillary or anti-Obama diary on certain websites these days that it might have taken for a certain junior senator from a certain state to oppose a certain war.

    Parent
    I hesitate too (none / 0) (#81)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:18:48 PM EST
    because who needs the vitriol if you dare not bow down to Ta One. I was just reading some comments at Crooks and Liars and someone called another commenter a troll for  having the audacity to post something positive about Hillary Clinton. That's how far down the rabbit hole the Obama Rules have taken us. You don't have to be a Wingnut, you just have to be another liberal/progressive/Democrat that doesn't support Obama to be considered a troll.

    Parent
    Obama and Jay Rockefeller's vote on Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jfung79 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:59:46 PM EST
    As of the 4pm Central Time version of the article below:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080302/ap_on_el_pr/obama_34

    Obama is described as saying that Jay Rockefeller, who endorsed him, voted against the war resolution, unlike Hillary.  

    But as a matter of fact, Rockefeller voted for the war!  Obama can't keep basic facts straight in his push to vilify Hillary?  Or maybe it is the AP writer who misunderstood.

    It's the same old Truthiness from Obama camp (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:12:00 PM EST
    just to prove it (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Nasarius on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:29:32 PM EST
    A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

    ...

    Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea

    Link

    This is ridiculously easy to fact check. The AP is just doing a wonderful job these days.

    Parent

    Excellent find!! (none / 0) (#104)
    by jen on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:59:00 PM EST
    I wrote to Mr. Raum (AP Political Correspondent who wrote the article) via Congress.org requesting a correction of this "misinformation."

    In the "Individual Search" simply put his last name. When the result page comes up, click "Send message" and you're good to go! Quick and easy thanks to everyone's help here.

    Thank you!!

    Parent

    No, David Axelrod said the same thing on This Week (none / 0) (#95)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:06:16 PM EST
    David Axelrod, though, cast Rockefeller as a war opponent when he mentioned the West Virginia senator's endorsement on "This Week," referring to:

    "Senator Jay Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who opposed the war in Iraq, who read the intelligence before the war, which Senator Clinton concedes she did not, and who said that Barack Obama has the judgment and the maturity and the vision to lead," he said.

    Just another example of the Obama camp making up the story as it goes along. Will the press care?

    Source.

    Parent

    Call him what he is (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:08:30 PM EST
    ...a liar....

    Parent
    Obama rules states that (none / 0) (#99)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 04:47:06 PM EST
    we can't question, critique or fact check dear leader.

    Parent
    Joe Wilson at HuffPo today (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by jen on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:24:05 PM EST
    Wilson on Obama (none / 0) (#110)
    by 0 politico on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:31:26 PM EST
    Yes, I read this, as well as the Washington Post Iglesias (probably misspelled the name), which raises other questions.

    I felt the Wilson piece was a rather scathing indictment of Obama's foreign relations work (lack of) in the Senate.  He states:

    "As a consequence of Obama's dereliction of duty on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a feckless administration has had absolutely no oversight as it careens from disaster to disaster in Afghanistan,..."

    Additionally:

    "He first co-sponsored the "Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which contained explicit language identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. He subsequently claimed to oppose the Kyl-Lieberman sense of the Senate resolution proposing the same thing. Obama's accountability problem here is that he didn't show up for the vote on that resolution -- a vote that would have put him on record. Then he declined to sign on to a letter put forward by Senator Clinton making explicit that the resolution could not be used as authority to take military action. All we have is Obama's rhetoric juxtaposed with his co-sponsorship of a piece of legislation that proposed what he says he opposed."

    And:

    "It is hard to discern whether Senator Obama is a man of principle, but it is clear that he is not a man of substance. And that judgment, based on his hollow record, is inescapable."

    Sorry, if that is a bit long.  But, I wonder what Caroline thinks when she compares this to her father's record in the Senate.

    Parent

    WashPost (none / 0) (#111)
    by 0 politico on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 09:39:07 PM EST
    Sorry, I meant David Ignatius'.  

    Parent
    I have a feeling (none / 0) (#114)
    by jen on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:05:58 PM EST
    Caroline didn't really base her endorsement on issues, so much as on the "movement" thing. And I think she said her kids were for Obama and that meant a lot to her as well.

    Parent
    As with Iraq war funding (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:29:02 AM EST
    news that retroactive immunity will be brought to the House floor as a divided question. Everyone gets something to vote against!

    And we get bamboozled again.

    I am waiting for the big guns to fire (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:31:45 AM EST
    to see what is really happening.

    Parent
    Not sure what you mean (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:33:09 AM EST
    Some folks have better sources (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:35:07 AM EST
    on this than the Media does.

    Does that make it clearer? Those some folks do not include me but they do include people I respect.

    Parent

    Understood (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:35:43 AM EST
    This sounds right to me, though.

    It's a Hoyer trademark.

    Parent

    How many ney vote senators on the 2002 Iraq (none / 0) (#7)
    by Saul on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:30:34 AM EST
    Resolution have been true down the line.  Of the 23 senators who initially voted no to the Iraq resolution in 2002 how many have voted no to all the supplemental spending bills for Iraq that came after the initial invasion of Iraq.   Anybody know?

    Saul (none / 0) (#11)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:35:09 AM EST
    no idea, but very good question.  I would think the majority of them, as the bills keep getting passed.  I'm sure someone will come along in a few minutes with the answer to this.  Sharp!

    Parent
    superdelegates (none / 0) (#14)
    by ruthinor on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:39:30 AM EST
    As I understand it, the role of superdelegates is to be independent voices, above the fray, not necessarily tied to voters in their districts.  They are supposed to use their own judgments with regard to who the nominee should be.

    ignoring sexual harassment? (none / 0) (#22)
    by dwightkschrute on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:53:27 AM EST
    Does money trump all for the Clinton campaign?

    The Hilary experience factor. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Saul on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:58:49 AM EST
    I don't think Bill Clinton thought up of all the things he accomplished during his administration on his own and Hilary was just being a housewife.  I got to think they acted as a partnership during his presidency and her input was probably used in many of his decisions and requested legislation and maybe many of his ideas were originally hers   So she had to learn a lot on what it takes to be a president by being very much involved in his policies and accomplishment.  The other experience plue factor for Hilary  is if she is elected  she will have  Bill as her advisor, who already has the knowledge on what it takes to be good president and that experience is priceless.

    administration accomplishments (none / 0) (#36)
    by dwightkschrute on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:14:07 PM EST
    Will she take credit for Defense of Marriage Act, Don't Ask Don't Tell, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, Telecommunications Act of 1996, and NAFTA?

    Parent
    There were plenty (none / 0) (#63)
    by Mike Pridmore on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:02:35 PM EST
    of progressive fights in the nineties.  Ask Barney Frank.

    Parent
    Oops (none / 0) (#26)
    by Saul on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:59:50 AM EST
    Meant to say plus factor not plue  Sorry

    About poll questions: How are "which word (none / 0) (#31)
    by jawbone on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:04:31 PM EST
    best describes Candidate X" worded?

    Is it completely open? Or is there usually a list of words to choose among?

    The reason I'm asking is that Timmeh gave poll results for "Which word best describes" and Hillary's list had "b**ch" at the 4th or 5th word. Timmeh used the "rhymes with witch" euphemism.

    I was really wondering if these descriptive words are bubbling up from the poll responsdents--or is there a hint planted in the form of a list of words.

    I had a poll about electric companies recently, and they had "which word" questions which had a list of five words.

    How do the political pollsters do this one?

    Anyone know polling techniques? Or been polled this way? T/U much. Trying to figure out how well this descriptor of Hillary has been planted out there.

    *Not sure how to discuss this word, which is being used on the Op-Ed Page of the NYTimes by MoDo, and referred to on MTP. I understand there is a no profanity rule, but this is a word which is being used by the MCM and obviously by opponents of Clinton, along with using it defensively by Tina Fey.

    open-ended (none / 0) (#45)
    by Nasarius on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:31:28 PM EST
    Is how they're usually done. See the third question on this Pew poll for example. I have no doubt that a large chunk of Republicans are calling her that without provocation.

    Parent
    Thnx much--now for link to current (none / 0) (#58)
    by jawbone on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:50:34 PM EST
    poll questions. My googling didn't get me anything good.

    Now, Advanced Search time.

    Parent

    "Obscene" Amount of Money in Campaigns? (none / 0) (#41)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:29:32 PM EST
    I brought this up a few days ago, but it was in an older thread and I don't think many people saw it.  I wanted to bring it up again.

    It's often said that the amount of money being spent by political campaigns is "outrageous" or "obscene".  Chances are the 2008 presidential/congressional races will break all records - I'm guessing around $5 billion total.  The race for the presidency (including primary season) will likely be over $2 billion alone (although I'm basing that on just what I've seen thus far - I don't really know).  

    Is this an "obscene" amount of money?  I don't think so.   I don't see why spending $5 billion on a year-long (or, really, 18 months) campaign for the presidency and 35 Senate seats and 435 House seats is a lot of money.  It's about $15 per voter.  The fact is the USA is a huge country, geographically and in terms of its population.  It costs a lot to get your message out and rise above the din of popular culture. Spending $5 billion every four years on political campaigns for leaders who each fiscal year will be responsible for $3000 billion in spending and decisions on war and peace, the environment, and everything else seems a pretty small price to pay.  

    And given that this money boom is being fueled by small donors, the increasingly large sums of money in political campaigns is a sign of a new participation from below. I, for one, feel empowered every time I send a small donation to a candidate.  I honestly do think that politicians are coming to realize that they need to pay attention to the legions of small donors, who may just yet overwhelm special interests, corporations, and others who have exercised so much influence over past campaigns.

    Anheiser Bush spent around $40 million for 15 30-second spots during the Superbowl, which brought in close to $200 in advertising revenue. That money was over 10 hours to convince us to buy beer, jeans, and iPods.  $5 billion over 18 months to elect 536 leaders of the federal government for 300 million voters does not seem at all excessive to me.


    300 million people, not voters.. (none / 0) (#44)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:31:25 PM EST
    ...if only it were so!

    Parent
    Until campaign spending (none / 0) (#65)
    by scribe on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:05:06 PM EST
    gets to about $50/vote cast, advertising is cheaper than buying them.

    (About 10 yr ago, a pol near where I lived was indicted for allegedly buying votes in a local election.  The going rate alleged was $40, so I added another $10 for inflation.)

    Parent

    Obama's spending (none / 0) (#88)
    by thereyougo on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:38:53 PM EST
    reminded me of the Senate Campaign against California Senator Feinstein against Ariana Huffington's ex husband some 15 years ago.

    Michael Huffington was a well financed millionaire who spent tons of money only to lose.

    I'm hoping it will happen again for the democrats.

    Parent

    Why did you delete my post on David Igantius? (none / 0) (#50)
    by BigB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:39:05 PM EST
    I just posted a l;ink to a column from David Ignatius and admin, why did you delete it? This is an open thread, correct?

    Sorry admin. (none / 0) (#51)
    by BigB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:40:45 PM EST
    I misunderstood. It moved up the thread. Sometime I don't understand how things get posted. Sorry again.

    See the FAQ (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:50:06 PM EST
    I saw something there that explains this.

    Parent
    Civil Liberties (none / 0) (#52)
    by koshembos on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:41:33 PM EST
    Big Tent says "I think a credible argument that Barack Obama is slightly better than Hillary Clinton on civil liberties from as legislative perspective can be made."

    First class in logic can be paraphrased as "anything can be said about False." I find attributing any positive values to Obama to be questionable. The only true statement about Obama is that he is a good orator. Other than that, everything, emphasizing everything, is an uneducated guess. Obama proved time and again that his stands are shifting with the audience and his track record is summarized by "Present."

    Chris Matthews closing question today: (none / 0) (#54)
    by jawbone on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:45:34 PM EST
    Will the Clintons actually support Obama if he is the nominee?

    Struck me as a variant on the CNN "Is Obama patriotic enough," except here it was "Are the Clintons Democratic enough?".

    Every one of Matthews' guests made a point of dissing Bill and Hillary in the way they answered.

    Katty Kay: Well, if the groundswell is strong enough for Obama, then, yes, the Clintons will get on the bandwagon to protect their reputations.

    All were variants of that kind thing--not one word that for the good of the nation and the Democratic Party, they would support the Democratic nominee!!

    But, of course, the MCM treats the Clintons fairly....

    (I need to find a transcript of this program.)

    Tweety needs to find transcripts (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:51:05 PM EST
    of the many times Clinton has said, from the start, that this is about Dems winning the White House -- that she will support the nominee, etc.

    Parent
    Where is the (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Mike Pridmore on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:58:21 PM EST
    reference to Michelle Obama saying she might not suppport Hillary?  That should have been mentioned by at least one of them.  If they had any journalistic integrity.

    Parent
    I'm convinced (none / 0) (#89)
    by thereyougo on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:42:30 PM EST
    Tweety's diabetes is making me unable take him serious any more.

    His comments can't be explained any other way.

    Parent

    support? (none / 0) (#106)
    by diogenes on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:36:30 PM EST
    It's obvious by now, as by Hillary's terrorism ad, that she will "support" Obama if he wins but really wants to weaken him so much that if he actually wins the nomination then he will lose the general election and she can run in 2012.

    Parent
    Oh please (none / 0) (#107)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:46:27 PM EST
    Hillary's secret plan is to throw the general election to the Republicans?  Save the crazy conspiracy theories for the orange place, please.  If Obama is the nominee, she'll do far more to help him get elected than you will.

    Parent
    Karl Rove to Clinton's Defense (none / 0) (#60)
    by AdrianLesher on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 12:58:19 PM EST
    I'm enjoying (none / 0) (#70)
    by Nasarius on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:19:07 PM EST
    Rove's strange concern-trolling during this race. He does it very well, because he sounds so reasonable, but you know he'd love to see a few more months of Clinton and Obama (and especially their supporters) slapping each other around.

    Parent
    Could be that Rove unwittingly may have (none / 0) (#71)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:29:14 PM EST
    spoke the truth though.  It seems to me that the worst thing for Obama would be if Clinton was seen as being pressured to drop out against her own wishes.  That would be seen as unfair and stoke the fires of Clinton supporters who will not vote for him.  This is a democratic primary, not a pickup basketball game, and the election is not over once the nominee is decided.


    Parent
    I saw on another board (none / 0) (#76)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:38:33 PM EST
    a suggestion that Gore/Richardson/Edwards do the prodding to get out of the race

    Yep, good idea, let 3 patriarchs push the woman out of the race..

    Wish people would think sometimes.

    I want to see her in the race until after Penn.  I know, I know, "Rezko is nothing".  However, did anyone think a Scooter Libby endictment would come out of the Valerie Plame trial?  When Fitzgerald is involved, anything can happen.

    Parent

    on odd days only....rove speaks "truth" (none / 0) (#90)
    by thereyougo on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:44:32 PM EST
    Not the job of the journalist.... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Oje on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:04:54 PM EST
    In the NY Times article on press bias today, Jonathon Alter states:  

    Jonathan Alter, the veteran Newsweek columnist who traveled with the Obama campaign to Dallas on Wednesday, said that the attempt by the Clinton camp to weigh various stories represented a kind of "silly, even-Steven-itis."

    "People got it into their head that if you say something good about a candidate, you have to say something bad about him, and if you don't, that's not fair," Mr. Alter said. "What the Clinton partisans wanted was for us to create a phony balance that was at odds with what our eyes were telling us. That's not the job of a journalist."

    That is good to know, because it immediately follows these three paragraphs:

    Which is not to say that there is not much more scouring to be done.

    "The number of questions that we don't know the answers to about the relationship between Mr. Rezko and Mr. Obama is staggering," Howard Wolfson, a top aide to Mrs. Clinton, said on a conference call with reporters on Friday.

    Still, others have noted that with the exception of a mention by Mr. Russert in Tuesday's debate, Mrs. Clinton has largely escaped serious journalistic vetting over matters like when or whether her campaign will release her tax returns or her calendar from her years as first lady, or detail the origins of the $5 million she has contributed to her own campaign.



    Of course it only needs balancing (none / 0) (#68)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:08:25 PM EST
    if it would make Mr Obama look bad.  Then you need to put something bad about Ms Clinton even though there is nothing wrong there.

    Parent
    An addition to... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Oje on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:34:23 PM EST
    The Obama Rules? or the first entry....

    Parent
    her PI taxes are a non issue to me (none / 0) (#91)
    by thereyougo on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:48:09 PM EST
    so what? if she's not nominated whats the big deal.

    they don't have a Rezko on Hillary. They've been in her closet and have found the skeletons from 10 years ago.Nothing here move on......

    Parent

    Is Obamamania = Joementum? (none / 0) (#67)
    by scribe on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:07:22 PM EST
    Go read my new diary and opine.

    From a quick read.... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Oje on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:38:07 PM EST
    I think the most pernicious aspect is the meme that only Republicans are qualified to head our military and foreign policy. Bill Clinton did the same thing in the 1990s, to the continuing detriment of the party. It speaks to the thread yesterday about how Obama fails to represent the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party."

    This is SO "old politics"...

    Parent

    Just 4 days ago (none / 0) (#77)
    by dk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:45:35 PM EST
    Rasumussen daily tracking poll had Obama ahead 49-40.  Today, Obama and Clinton are running even at 44 each.

    I know, it's a national poll so it's signficance comes with caveats.  Still, though, it's interesting, eh?

    Gallup daily tracking, on the other hand (none / 0) (#84)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:56:43 PM EST
    has Obama at 50%, Hillary at 42%

    Who is right?

    Parent

    Okay- I've been hit (none / 0) (#78)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:47:41 PM EST
    with a commenter who thinks my husband is a racist..... WHY!?!

    He believes that Sen Obama will compromise away on Dem issues.

    He feels that Sen Obama WILL not fight for the issues Dem need. He says he will vote for McCain because he is stronger on the Economy.

    Now because I posted this... I received the message that ....
    he is leaning towards racism.

    No.... my husband is a minority and really knows what prejudice can do.

    By the way... I vote Dem ...no matter who get the nomination.

    My concern... if this plays out... wote for McCain is equal to racism... Dems are scr%&*d.

    Nothing new (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:11:37 PM EST
    in some places voting for Hillary is equated with racism.  

    Parent
    That is NOT (none / 0) (#83)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:35:13 PM EST
    a very effective way to get people to vote for Sen Obama. Hope this trend ENDS.

    Parent
    BTD--in case you didn't see this (none / 0) (#82)
    by NJDem on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 02:27:18 PM EST
    on the "demographics" thread:

    According to the latest Rasmussen NJ poll, HRC beats McCain handily, but McCain beat BO by a few. link

    Interesting, no? I should add that these polls are totally irrelevant in my few--think how much has changed in just the last week.  

    But it contradicts both BO's 50 state strategy and belief he does better than McCain--kinda hard to argue that if you loose NJ...

    Is anyone else (none / 0) (#85)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:22:07 PM EST
    having problems connecting to this dsite today? My iexplore keeps eating up my cpu usage... then Internet explorer stops responding.

    I've gone to other sites... and it is ok.

    I'm having trouble too (none / 0) (#92)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:50:10 PM EST
    yes, and it's only this site.

    Parent
    Ditto, and I use Firefox (none / 0) (#100)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:02:13 PM EST
    but it just quits responding, too, over and over here. Glad to know it's not my new computer.

    Parent
    Yes, trouble (none / 0) (#103)
    by jen on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:27:26 PM EST
    Using Firefox. "Not responding" then all my windows shut down if force a "quit."

    Parent
    good, I'm tired of privatization. (none / 0) (#86)
    by thereyougo on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:23:53 PM EST
    its become a crony magnet. I'm not sure the taxpayer is saving much, since they have been accused of padding the invoices with excesses often unsubstantiated. Most apparent abuses -- the building of the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad. A boondoggle IMO that Henry Waxman is going to be holding hearings next week-- and the delivery of meals for the troops for starts and other things we don't know about.

    WFB -- RIP, but not in my neighborhood... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Camorrista on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 03:31:20 PM EST
    In 1955, Rosa Parks defied a bus driver in Montgomery, Alabama, who ordered her to give up her seat to a white man.

    In 1955, 14-year-old Emmett Till was murdered by white men in Money, Mississippi.

    In 1957, William Buckley, National Review:

    "The central question that emerges is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.

    "The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is by no means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own.

    "National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. The great majority of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could. Universal suffrage is not the beginning of wisdom or the beginning of reedom.  

    "The South confronts one grave moral challenge. It must not exploit he fact of Negro backwardness to preserve the Negro as a servile lass. It is tempting and convenient to block the progress of a inority whose services, as menials, are economically useful. Let the outh never permit itself to do this. So long as it is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits it to function."


    One interpretation (none / 0) (#118)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:32:50 PM EST
    of the original Lizard King's words: power = "culture", i.e., virtue. That being probobly the most generous interpretation. But then, what are we to make of the "culturally advanced" "negros" of the time? Apparently the transparently racist, hero of conservatism was unable to concieve of such a possibility existing outside the deathgrip of his conceptual universe -- even as he apparently championed the usefulness of extending sufferage to the "backward" of other races.

    Liberal Fascism indeed.

    Parent

    Lucianne Jr. (none / 0) (#119)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:39:44 PM EST
    knows how to pick 'em.

    Parent
    Good news for all Dems (none / 0) (#101)
    by Tano on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 05:04:24 PM EST
    from Rasmussen:

    "In February, the number of Americans who consider themselves to be Democrats jumped to 41.5%, the highest total on record. Just 31.8% consider themselves to be Republicans. The partisan gap--a 9.7 percentage point advantage for the Democrats--is by far the largest it has ever been. The previous high was a 6.9 point edge for the Democrats in December 2006."

    Apparently (none / 0) (#105)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 06:34:10 PM EST
    Bill Richardson said that the person with the most delegates on Wednesday should be the nominee.

    Joe Wilson (none / 0) (#109)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 07:19:46 PM EST
    apparently has another article up at HuffPo.  I won't link to the Po, but No Quarter kindly got permission to reprint.  Wilson seems to be saying that Obama's lack of oversight--that is to say, his refusal to do the job he was elected to do--has caused the world to be even more unstable and vulnerable to terrorist threats:

    As a consequence of Obama's dereliction of duty on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a feckless administration has had absolutely no oversight as it careens from disaster to disaster in Afghanistan, including the central governments loss of control over 70 percent of the country and yet another bumper crop of opium to fuel the efforts of the Taliban and their terrorist allies...Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Obama holds forth on Afghanistan, chiding the administration and our allies as though he's a profile in courage and not someone who has abandoned his post in establishing accountability.

    LINK

    An Interesting Article at the Houston Chronicle (none / 0) (#112)
    by sumac on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:47:44 PM EST

    Both candidates answer questions (without the drawback/benefit) of being able to "follow" the other in a live debate.

    Parent

    That link... (none / 0) (#113)
    by sumac on Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 10:48:49 PM EST
    I thought this website was about (none / 0) (#117)
    by ytterby on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:13:19 AM EST
    "The Politics of Crime" , yet every article seems to be about the presidential campaign. March 3 is an important date with respect to the Sentencing Commission and the crack/powder cocaine discrepancy. Why does this website not even mention it?