Craig Crawford's Trail Mix

Once I saw McCain and Romney on stage together yesterday, I decided there's no way in hell Romney can be the VP pick. Very uncomfortable few minutes.

Great link and a footage of Frank Luntz. He said, Character and attributes were more important to us than just plain issues and patches. he's right.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Frank_Luntz_enthusiastic_about_Obamas_words_0214.html

Craig,

Obama's launch on the McCain's record was well calculated. I thought the timing was just right. McCain is the REP nominee and so it makes sense that Both Obama and Clinton might take him to task at one point.

BTW,

I agree with your assessment. I just can't see MCain getting votes, except for the Party Base and people who are afraid of a Black man or a woman.

To the obama faithful........."When god wants to punish us, he (or she) answers our prayers."

ready for another gop "king" ?

The Frogs Desiring a King

The Frogs were living as happy as could be in a marshy swamp that just suited them; they went splashing about caring for nobody and nobody troubling with them. But some of them thought that
this was not right, that they should have a king and a proper constitution, so they determined to send up a petition to Jove to give them what they wanted. "Mighty Jove," they cried, "send unto us a king that will rule over us and keep us in order."
Jove laughed at their croaking, and threw down into the swamp a huge Log, which came down splash to the swamp. The Frogs were frightened out of their lives by the commotion made in their midst, and all rushed to the bank to look at the horrible monster; but after a time, seeing that it did not move, one or two of the
boldest of them ventured out towards the Log, and even dared to touch it; still it did not move. Then the greatest hero of the Frogs jumped upon the Log and commenced dancing up and down upon it, thereupon all the Frogs came and did the same; and for some
time the Frogs went about their business every day without taking the slightest notice of their new King Log lying in their midst.
But this did not suit them, so they sent another petition to Jove, and said to him, "We want a real king; one that will really rule over us." Now this made Jove angry, so he sent among them a big Stork that soon set to work gobbling them all up. Then the Frogs repented when too late.

oh......forgot to credit Aesop.......old Eye-Soap.

MSNBC must be falling on hard times these days. As Imus wasn't on this morning I switched over to MSNBC only to watch the weather-girl, Jackie, give her weather outlook report. Unfortunately for poor Jackie, she had to use her laptop computer to show the weather images. Little small blurs. Come on MSNBC spend some money on technology. BTW where is Joe and Mika? Joe is spending a great deal of time away from his MoJo show. This normally not a good sign.

Good morning.

Wasn't able to get on last night and maybe I'm glad I didn't as there was a lot of discourse on the thread.

So before I comment let me wish everyone a belated Happy Valentines Day.

Well McCain voted against a bill outlawing waterboarding and torture so I'm sure we'll hear about his flip flop on torture throughout the general election.

I also see K.O. did another special comment and called Der Fuhrer Adolph Bush a Fascist. I guess that I'm not the only one to think so.

Anyway I got to go and hopefully I'll make it online tonight.

Take care and God Bless.

glad to see some congresspersons have decided to pretend to stand up to the king.......
We'll see how that turns out........

At least Keith Olberman still knows how to stand up to the plate......

I Love, Love, Love Keith Olbermann. Andy Card is now defending Bush. I will never understand the free ride the media gave this administration.

Max......they're still at work undermining our voice....the media, that is........

the "corporate owned media" that is......

Craig, Why is MoJo so empty.....They should have you on the show...

This link is Barry Obama on just about everything. If you think government is to big now, has to much control over your life, look at what Barry has in store for you. If Barry has his way he is going to do this and more, including his Global Poverty Bill where he believes America should be shelling out even more money, and of course the rich(?) whoever they are, will pay for all this. Obama is good looking, nice wife, 2 cute little girls, dresses well, is articulate, can deliver a great speech, BUT lacks experience and common sense. Barry is a empty box wrapped up in pretty paper. As a protest vote against Barry, I'm voting for Hillary in the D's NC primary.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:haZoOg6SA9EJ:www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm+%22Barack+Obama%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=22&gl=us&client=firefox-a

The corporate owned media pretty much nails it. It is hard to stay hpoeful when truthfulness is hard to come by.

Going to see HBC today. OHB is in town, but at the exact same time, so I had to pick. Should be interesting to see the crowd, very last minute, and it's during working hours.

Unlikey_"the accused"_burrito

Here is the much shorter link to Barry "Mr Change & Hope" Obama.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

I am a liberal, I like that word. However, Barack Obama is way over the top. Yes, getting out of Iraq will save money and yes the rich should pay more, but that money is needed here. Once again I say, "Hey Barack,
nice speech, where's the beef?"

Think you've got it bad?

From the National Weather Service Caribou, Maine
Today's local forecast...

Snow showers this evening. Breaks in the overcast later. Wind chills may approach -25F. Low -8F. Winds WNW at 10 to 20 mph. Chance of snow 40%.

good morning gang.....

Craig.....
you think Republicans will play dirty tricks?...... Republicans!!???

nah..... that could never happen.....

Uburrito..... enjoy yourself today.....
that's the best way to honor a loved one who's died......

Max,
yes the rich should pay more.

Just curious, in your opinion at what level does one become "rich"? Is it tied to their salary, Warren Buffet doesn't receive a salary, assets, amount of debt, one could be a multi-millionaire and be million of $$$ in debt. HRC has said the rich are the ones making over $250K, is that person or family? Is that a family of 2 or a family of 6? Is someone living in Manhattan making $250K rich, or San Francisco? We know who the poor are, the government has even established a threshold on what constitutes being poor, but "rich" is a word politicians like to throw around, but never clarify their definition/understanding of who is rich. all they keep saying is the "rich" should pay more.

I just pulled a Craig and nearly fell down a flight of stairs. I fell to my side and my arm got locked in the railing on the stairs and I was stuck from my elbow to my underarm. I feel swell right now.

Corey,

Hope you get to feeling better. But if you think it hurts now, wait till tomorrow. Here is some non-medical advise. Put ice on it, take 2 aspirins and call me in the morning. That will be $50 thank you very much.

McCain's biggest problem is his desire to 'get along' with the crowd he's currently with. I saw it South Carolina in '92 when he equivocated on the flag issue. And again in South Carolina last year when the woman made "the Bitch" remark. His willingness to accommodate on the waterboarding issue is another example.

That said, I think if we was in fact elected, he would do the honorable thing if confronted with the same situations.

Let there be no doubt that waterboarding is indeed torture; and, that torture has no place in America.

Is McCain "gaming" the Dems? Great Question. But you have to ask how many "levels" of Machiavellian gaming are going on here.

Is McCain: (a) attacking Obama because he wants to run against him; or (b) does he just want us to THINK that?

Hillary folks might think (a) while Obama folks might think (b).

I think it's (c). McCain always intended to run against Hillary; he has a whole strategy worked out. But Obama is a "wild card." McCain doesn't know how to map out a strategy against him because the Obama campaign appeal is so defuse, so emotional. So he FEARS Obama. He'd rather go against Hillary, a known quantity.

Sometimes things are exactly what they are, which is the ultimate Machiavellian trick.

Just how bad is the economy?

Paul Krugman in today's NYT:

"I like to think of what’s happening as a sort of minor-key reprise of the banking crisis that swept America in 1930 and 1931."

mornin' all.

nash, ay-yuh, sounds like winter in northern Maine.

Corey, klutz :-). Swell is probably the operative word here, like in swelING. Seriously, Fry is almost right -ice and ibuprofen are your best friends.

Yes, McCain had to try and get the base back - so he voted against a bill outlawing what he said is torture. Spin, boy, spin.

BTW, Fry, I believe HRC said that the $250K mark was for a couple, but that may just have been my take on what she said.

Morning all.

Mornin' pogo: Pull up a chair, and put your boots up on the cast iron stove. Just lean your snowshoes against the wall and try not to wake up Uno the Beagle.

Today at the Crawfordslist "Downeast" Cafe, the menu is baked beans, ground beef, onions, and broccoli, smothered in garlic sauce.

That'll keep the damn tourists away.

BTW , that bankruptcy case for Plastech (the company I am supposedly employed by , although unaffected by any of this) that I mentioned two weeks ago is getting pretty nasty. Chrysler wants nothing to do with Plastech now. But , if Chrysler is allowed to remove all their tools and business from Plastech , Plastech will be liquidated completely. Ford and GM will be greatly affected by this. The judge will decide on what Chrysler can do on Tuesday. Should be messy.

This driving tip from the Maine Dept of Transportation...

If you're going to ram your tractor trailer into a motel, try to pick one where three state troopers are NOT spending the night.

http://bangornews.com/news/t/news.aspx?articleid=160209&zoneid=500

Jesse Jackson Jr. Threatens Colleagues as Pandemonium Breaks Out Over Lewis

"However, they don't stop there. Vote for Barack Obama, or you just might "find some young primary challenger" stepping in to take your job. It's hard to know where to start, but considering Jesse Jackson Jr. has done this sort of race baiting before for the Obama campaign, I cannot say that I'm surprised. There is, however, something so offensive about his threat that it smacks of the same type of hierarchical control African Americans, especially John Lewis, have always fought against, only this time it's a black man in the position of power telling people how they must use their vote or else
This will make the average voter recoil. The damage it can do to Obama's candidacy is unquestioned, especially looking into the general election."
http://www.taylormarsh.com/

Krugman is speaking from a position of ignorance.

In the Great Depression some banks became illiquid. They didn't have the cash to satisfy demands from depositors. That, in turn, caused a run on many banks. That caused the major bank failures. Since then, the Federal Government guarantees deposits. People won't lose their insured deposits. Result: No more runs on the banks.

The loan issue is completely separate. Deflation is the mortgage bankers' greatest fear. They see the potential of people walking away from their overvalued over mortgaged homes as their greatest threat.

The FRB's response in aggressively lowering interest rates is essential in this environment. The mortgage bankers, in turn, must aggressively lower the current interest rates they are charging existing borrowers. Those measures (hopefully) will keep people in their homes until there is some sort of recovery.

Should the situation continue to deteriorate, it's theoretically possible that we will see negative interest rates on large loans.

If the Federal Government determines that bailouts of mortgage bankers is necessary, the government should end up owning the bankers. Something like the Chrysler bailout years ago.

yup, nash - it'll keep 'em away now and later. LOL

"Sometimes things are exactly what they are, which is the ultimate Machiavellian trick." You old political philosopher, you.

Corey - if it's a chapter 11, hold tight. If it's a chapter 7, I'd be lookin'.

BTW, I vote for Bernanke for the Oscar in the "Biggest Understatement by a Character in a Supporting Role" category for his pronouncement yesterday that the economy has slowed more than expected. I also think he deserves a nomination for "Most Optimistic line by a Character in a Supporting Role" for his comment that the economy is expected to pick up later this year.

RR
How was the wine? We were drinking nutella martinis
NOT RECOMMENDED.
I have discovered that some zins are not labeled old vine but are anyway. If you ever see zin from Luddite
vineyards they are old vine.

tpm headline:
"Civil Rights Icon John Lewis Switches Super-Delegate Vote From Hillary To Obama"

What a call to Lewis' office turned up:
But the Clinton campaign reported having no word from Lewis on the subject, and a spokeswoman for Lewis, Brenda Jones, said the Times story and a similar one by the Associated Press, saying he was contemplating such a switch, were inaccurate.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/ t...hn_lewis_h.html

Hey Frydaddy,
It is funny Black leaders are now pulling support for Clinton. Now will America see that this is pretty racist? I mean even Obama has pleaded (rather lamely) to Blacks not to vote for him because he is Black. Can you imagine what the media would say if Whites started to vote for Clinton because she is White? It is rather sad and helps McCaiin have one more weapon against Obama. Without the race card, Obama would not have won (if he does). I think this trend will help Hillary in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

As for McCain prefering Clinton, what utter nonsense. McCain would have a hard time attacking Hillary's record on national security, but how many times do I have to post the litany of questions Obama will look foolish answering? McCain has already said Hillary would be a good President. He has never said that about Obama and Jon would not swift boat Hillary.

McCain needs simply to show how divisive Obama's campaign was in starting the race card. He has nothing to lose because he will not get the Black vote, but the Latino vote will help him very much. The Independents are growing disgusted with the terminal vagueness of Obama's message, his silence on things he should talk about including a boycott of the Olympics to protest the actions of China in Darfur where Blacks have been slaughtered. There is so much going on in Eastern Europe and NATO and as head of the Senate Sub Committee on Foreign Relations in Eastern Europe and NATO, McCain will make his silence look panderingly foolish.

Rezko trial will be going on, and more importantly, McCain can point to the Judicial Watch List and also reveal to Americans how Obama tried to sink the Amnesty Bill by offering an amendment that would have prevented employers from checking the status of workers after Amnesty program was in place. He can also quote Obama's AIPAC speeches, his 2004 speech on Iran and the recent proposal to send troops into the Kyber Pass in Pakistan.

Yes, McCain will have a better time with Obama and Florida will be very pissed about the position Obama took regarding their delegates. I have many friends in Florida who now say they will never vote for Obama. In NY, many Independents feel the same way. If the yellow brick road for Obama meant playing the race card, trashing the Clinton years, avoiding any tough geopolitical problems (not even Russia buzzing our ships or pointing missiles at the Ukraine), then Independents will prefer a McCain forced to deal with a Democratic Congress, rather than a total control by the Democrats powered into the White House by a biased media, false hope, personal attacks, race baiting, avoiding real questions and pandering to the more extreme Left of the Democratic Party.

Republicans should feel relieved if Obama wins the nomination. Unfortunately for Obama, once again I think Hillary will surprise him. He can count on McCain leveling charges that Hillary has been too polite to do as a fellow Democrat. The America people en mass are simply not dumb enough to allow vague rhetoric to decide our future. The last time we made that mistake was in 2000.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/14/clinton_supporter_john_lewis_h.html

link for Lewis story

Yes, dear congressional republicans - congress should be spending it's time passing a law that allows the governement to continue to spy on Americans and grants immunity to the telecom companies that operationalize that invasion into our constitutional right to privacy rather than voting to punish administration hacks who defy Congress' constitutional powers in it's oversight role and investigation into potential illegal actions of a corrupt and stupid administration. In a pig's eye. (Note to Boner - you must be skipping your tanning bed appointments - you're looking a little pale).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14/bush-aides-held-in-contem_n_86713.html

Oh, and congress should also be called out of a memorial service to vote on a meaningless procedural issue.

Frydaddy-Great questions, but the fact remain, when Warren Buffet pays less tax than his secretary there's a problem

nash, that is good advice to OTR truckers - and lord knows, they can use the advice.

Max,

Buffet pays taxes on capital gains, which are taxed at a much lower %. His secretary pays taxes on wages at a much higher %. Buffet is mixing apples with oranges. Trust me if Buffet's source of income was all derived from wages Mr. Buffet would be complaining rather loudly.

Flatus, you may disagree with Krugman's analysis, but he most assuredly is not speaking from a position of ignorance.

Fry, I'm tellin' ya, that voting for Hillary thing could become a habit. I think I just saw a pig fly by my window.

to those thinking of not voting, or of voting for McCain as a protest should your preferred candidate not get the nomination.

Supreme. Court. Nominations.

Run that by any disgruntled family members too.

Supreme. Court. Nominations.

Obama's Chicago Ties Might Fuel `Republican Attack Machine'

"Besides his relationship with indicted businessman Antonin Rezko, Obama might face Republican criticism over contacts with a former leader of the Weather Underground, a banker with ties to a convicted felon and even his church.
``He has had relationships with individuals who are controversial, he has had relationships with individuals who are in trouble,'' said Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aMzI3I6BAo_U

The polls show that Obama beats McCain so why would he want him to be the Democrat nominee? It doesn't figure. Must be something else going on......

Pogo your contempt for homeland security which Congress does support is rather confirming that favorite line about us being the enemy. And as far as the Consitutiton, please show us where the rights you feel are being trampled are stated.

This is such hyper Left. I do not support torture but Scalia is quite right in saying that the Consitutiton does not prohibit waterboarding on terrorists. Cruel and unusual applies to punishment, not trying to get a terrorist not covered under the Geneva Convention from talking when US citizens lives are on the line. The question is about judicial review of alll interrogations of suspect terrorists. The idea that Republicans have torn up the Constitution comes laregly from those who don't understand what that document says. Even Obama went along with the Patriot Act.

Interrogations and Gitmo do not harm American's life and liberty. It is really that simple. When attacks against us happen shortly after the next President takes office the blame will fall on them. The government has always had special powers to investigate Americans so if you're doing something criminal, I suggest you stop.

Obama doesn't beat McCain in every poll
Florida: McCain 44 percent - Clinton 42 percent
McCain 41 percent - Obama 39 percent

Ohio: McCain 44 percent - Clinton 43 percent
McCain 42 percent - Obama 40 percent

Pennsylvania: Clinton 46 percent - McCain 40 percent
Obama 42 percent - McCain 41 percent
-- source: Quinnipiac University's Swing State Poll
from Trail Mix column yesterday.

Well two can play that game....

Bad nominations won't get through a Democratic Congess. I say go ahead and vote for McCain over Obama, but make sure you vote for a Democratic Congress...

There goes that line of attack.

Think Democratic Congress and don't worry about the Supreme Court. Then elect a better candidate in 2012.

Skylark ---------

Poll numbers change - just snapshots in time.

maxtrue

Our current Democrats in the Senate don't give me much hope they would stop anything. And many of them are not up this time.

I think counting on them is a bad idea.

Amazing

People still quote polls to say that Obama beats McCain.

First, not all polls say that and how accurate have polsters been?

Can anybody think for themselves?

McCain facing a racial divide that nominated Obama will have a huge advantage. That is why Obama started off as color blind. His strategy change however, plays to McCain. That is why Obama's advantage against McCain is dropping.

By the time Obama wins the nomination, if he wins, the polls will come out and say Hillary had a better chance....LOL

Irony is the Democrats catch word.

Maxtrue: we will see if you are still advising ppl to vote for McCain in November, if HRClinton does not get the nomination.

Sour sour grapes.

Maxture,
It is funny Black leaders are now pulling support for Clinton. Now will America see that this is pretty racist? I mean even Obama has pleaded (rather lamely) to Blacks not to vote for him because he is Black.

Obama's words sound so similar to what Br'er Rabbit said to Br'er Fox and Br'er Bear. "Please, oh please don't throw me in dat briar patch!"

I have to give them credit, the Obama team with the aid of the MSM, are having it both ways. Obama is not to be seen as a black man, but if you challenge him, which is Obama code for attacking him, then you are brining race into it. It is obvious to me, but apparently not to many other star struck Obamaiacs.

A Democratic Congress faced with an election in 2010 is hardly going to appoint an arch conservative to SCOTUS. The fear game is just that. McCain was on the gang of 14 and has more bipartisan cred than Obama. I would rather take my chances than watch Obama captiulate to Iran, Russia, Chvez, Hizb'Allah, Kimmie, Assad, and others as we go down the tube, than worry McCain could get through a Bork which was rejected by a Democratic Congress.

It is a matter of weighing the worst possible alternatives. Imagine the Obama administration replaying his campaign of divisiveness. I can't stomach Rove in reverse, can you?

Obama beats McCain in the polls while Mrs. Clinton doesn't so why want BarCK AS HIS OPPONENT? DOESN'T FIGURE......

Dog eye

I am a registeed Independent. No sour grapes here. I WILL vote for the better candidate. I support HRC as an independent and have contributed to the Democrats. That stops when I feel it should stop.

Perhaps Democrats should consider what Independents think. We will decide the outcome I think.

Do you?

I think we established yesterday thanks to Craig's post that Obama supporters only think poll numbers are valid if they favor Obama.

I think we also established yesterday that we shouldn't be making our decision based on Poll numbers or electability

And...as I posted yesterday if we are going to use qualifications as our measuring tool then that is clearly Hillary. We know Obama agrees since he's started quoting her economic policy and claiming it as his own.

I would hope we can all think for ourselves and make our own decisions...the scary thing is that I don't think Obama can - that's why I voted for Hillary.

Burrito: very very sorry about the loss of your friend's brother to an IED in Iraq. Will keep Sgt. Timothy Martin and his family and friends in my prayers. 27. That is not a long enough life.

As Jamie (?) advised, best to use that grief to work in Sgt. Martin's honor, whether politically or with a cause he would have supported.

Pogo, Krugman has chosen to ignore (hence me characterizing his position as one of ignorance) the historical lessons of the Depression that were recognized in the widely embraced theory of Keynesian Economics; that is until academic Boomers sought to make their intellectual mark.

Their Neo-Keynesian constructs ignore the causes that exacerbated the banking and regulatory crises from which the Great Depression emerged.

I'm sure he's a fine human being.

Max: I am an independent as well. Obama pulls lots of independents; also moderate GOP.

McCain is the best of those nominated on GOP side this year; am glad he will apparently secure the nomination, but were I moderate GOP, I would not vote for him, as a wakeup call to my party.

But there is a long time between now and November. Lots of changes coming for all of us.

FryDaddy- I am not well versed in the tax code. I would imagine how Buffet gets to line 22 of his 1040 is beyond me. The fact is he pays less than his secretary and that is unfair.

Fry

I have a serious question for you. To my mind income is income. Now I realize that a great deal of capital gains and/or various trust funds, stock holdings and so on were started with money that had already been taxed, but the reinvestment of compounded interest or rise in stock value over a longer period is taxed at a much lower rate if at all. I can understand some sort of cost of living/inflation exclusion, but in fairness, shouldn't the profit over that amount be considered taxable as income? Afterall, if you are "living off the interest", that is an income.

Well there goes the buddy buddy friendship with the son he wishes he had. :-)

Bush 41 endorses McCain.

Wendy!, you are too bright to put up something like this:

"I think we established yesterday thanks to Craig's post that Obama supporters only think poll numbers are valid if they favor Obama. ..."

That is so untrue.

I see bad poll numbers and think: more work to do. Let's get those numbers UP.

Hello

I think the Democrats will not regain the White House this year. I may be totally wrong but it seems the divide between Obama and Clinton supporters is growing and whichever side doesn't get the nomination, those candidate's supporters will feel disenfranchised over the entire process and probably just not vote.

Nash....
wow..... that menu gives new meaning to the term "old fart"......

KGC..... the wine was delish!..... it was a Bogle.....

sour grapes...... sour grapes...... sheesh..... why don't some of you just stick your tongues out and do a loud raspberry..... it'd be just as mature.....

Maxtrue..... I think the change that moderates and independents really want to see in the WH is a competent adult.... and not this Republican to Democratic thing..... that's why we who want a Democrat in the WH for 2008 had better be very afraid of McCain, IMO.....

EuroTom: I disagree re the divide between HRC and BHO supporters; this list is not the general voting public.

But it will absolutely be tough to win the White House with either candidate. No taking anything for granted.

More than ever, the dream team idea makes more sense...it may be the only way to take-on JMc.

Most interesting thing about JMc is his stance on torture. Against most repugs. It will make him popular among dems.

Renee: you have a problem with my calling sour grapes on some of the stuff posted here?

Thank you, dog. That is precisely why I will vote for Obama if he is the nominee.

Maxtrue, your knowledge about the special powers of the US to investigate its citizens is superficial. I was referring tot he FISA bill, and the right being trampled is called the right to privacy. You are like the rest of the misguided folks who think terrorists are somehow special enemies, the surveillance of whom requires that we forfeit our constitutional rights and subject ourselve to the same surveillance that non-American enemies who are arguably not entitled to our constitutional protections receive. It's the government that is treating us as enemies, not me. The right to privacy, while not called that in the Bill of Rights, was determined to be inherent in and essential to the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, specifically the 1st and 4th Amendments, (See Griswold v. Connecticutt) which guarantees

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

With all due respect, FISA violates the 1st amendment right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the 4th amendment to the extent that it allows the government to search my "person and house[]" without a warrant and without the specificity required to obtain a warrant. It does not matter that the search is directed at a foreign communication - that is a legal red herring that is of no legal consequence if the search "captures" the conversation of an american citizen. I suggest you try taking a course in constitutional law to correct the focus you have on the right of the government to do anything - the balance between govenment powers and citizen's rights is at the core of this issue, and you have it backwards.

I think we also established yesterday that we shouldn't be making our decision based on Poll numbers or electability.....stated Wendy

And I think we should ignore those exit polls. The lesson we learned in 2000 and 2004 haven't been learned by the MSM.

Hillary has learned to break the glass ceiling. Anyone know the instruction manual on how to break the "black ceiling." This would be a white woman up against a black man for any position. She not only has to fight white males now, but black ones also. A little lesson in sociology would tell you that the black woman is the lowest on the economic scale due to the domination of males in general. (Not all males of course.)

As for McCain, with the lack of sleep and pressure, will he make it through the general election? Who will be left standing at the end of October? McCain may not be the best for our country, but at least we know more about his leadership.

The mess that will be created if the "black" superdelegates start moving towards Mr. Kenya will only being taking the issue back to civil rights and not forward to a unified United States. I think this will hurt more people than it will help in the long run.

And maybe we should start to worry more about the voilence within our own country, especially our educational system. Since the beginning of the year, five schools have been subject to shootings. Our youth may need more than inspiring words to get them on the correct track.

Blonde wino...Haven't pursued a lot of information on this, but I believe JMc voted 'yes' yesterday on a bill that will allow waterboarding, so his popularity relative to his FORMER position on torture may not be so compelling. I need more information, but I'm shocked and disappointed if he has truly changed his position on this.

Dog. Sorry. I meant MOST Obama supporters.

dog.... it isn't just you.....

just getting tired of all the bickering.....

Maxtrue posts are well thought out and full of issues...... maybe you disagree with him..... that's fine by me..... but reducing his posts to sour grapes instead of debating him on his points doesn't serve Obama supporters well, IMO....
it supports his position that Obama and his supporters seem unable to debate the issues....

Dog Eye

The SCOTUS line works for Republicans because they don't control Congress. Your idea that moderate GOP is going to vote for a more Liberal Obama is absurd.

As for Independents, McCain has done more for Amnesty than Obama. He will get much of the latino vote. Independents tend to be less Liberal and foreign policy wonks. Yes, Independents favored sending our troops into the Kyber Pass and talking to Ahmedinejad as he start P-2 enrichment. Sure, sounds like a good plan. Independents favored sanctions. Independents largely support ISrael, national defense and NOT making America a Nanny State with money we don't have.

Independents at the end of the day will move towards McCain not Obama and that is where the Democrats are making a royal mistake. By election time Iraq will not be the firebrand it once was and other national security issues will make Obama's strategy silly if not absurdly vague.

We know how Obama does in debates. With McCain, gloves are off.

"I knew Reagan and JFK, Senator Obama, and you're not either".

ah.... see Pogo's post....

now that's debating issues without resorting to name calling or using immature gestures..... IMO....

OK - perhaps I meant SOME.

Linda- why do you go out of your way to refer to him as Mr. Kenya?

Renee: with sour grapes, I was responding to a particular Maxtrue post. Will include it at bottom of this post. Still think "sour grapes" when I see it.

You do not see me vowing to vote against Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee.

WRT debating: people posting here have such closed eyes and ears that that appears to be a futile enterprise. Honestly.

Of course, lurkers may be another school of fish entirely, and it is for them I put up links to articles, etc.

===
Maxtrue's post , which I will limit my "sour grapes" to:

Well two can play that game....[Max is responding to my reminding Supreme Court Nominations is a reason to vote for whomever the Dem nominee]

Bad nominations won't get through a Democratic Congess. I say go ahead and vote for McCain over Obama, but make sure you vote for a Democratic Congress...

There goes that line of attack.

Think Democratic Congress and don't worry about the Supreme Court. Then elect a better candidate in 2012.

===
Renee: do you not think "sour grapes" when you read that?

Actually Flatus, I have no idea whether he is a fine human being, although I haven't seen anything that suggests otherwise - but I do know that Krugman is not ignorant of the causes of the banking collapse befor the Great Depression. As I said, you may disagree with his analysis as being Neo Keynsian, but he does not make it out of ignorance.

Max. BTW, the congress does not appoint SCOTUS appointees. The Senate has the role of providing Advice and Consent to the nominees of the president, who if they meet a reasonable level of qualification, will be seated, regardless of their political and legal positions or the majority party in the Senate - Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are examples of extremely conservative justices approved by a Democratic senate.

It's February folks...history has shown us that it is way too early to gauge "electability". I know it is an overused comparison but Dukakis was 17 points head of Shrub Senior in July of '88.

I chose to vote for the candidate that most closely followed the issues that I hold dear as a working 38-year-old woman with teenage sons who is lucky enough to have food on the table every night and a pretty nice roof over my head. My vote is for the women, men and children in this country who have not been blessed in the ways I have and have been invisible to this administration for the last 7 years.

But we all have the liberty to vote for whatever thing speaks to our OWN hearts and minds.

Renee, I try. ;-)

Pogo

I ask you to visit Stubborn Facts and try that out on Constutuional lawyers. You are largely wrong. If I were to refute your claims, people would be screaming about band width. If you need the link, I will happy to supply it.

"You are like the rest of the misguided folks who think terrorists are somehow special enemies, the surveillance of whom requires that we forfeit our constitutional rights and subject ourselve to the same surveillance that non-American enemies who are arguably not entitled to our constitutional protections receive." wrong

FISA requires judicial review and your quote does not include telecom. Again, too long an issue, but I must say people who are misguided in their understanding of Constitutional law have are very confused. FISA was created before Bush. You are spinning a story that is false. And terrorists are special enemies not even covered under the Geneva Convention. The IC estimates more than a half dozen cells and the lone wolf has raised its head. I suppose actions by our government haven't prevented or surpressed anything..LOL

Again go to Stubborn Facts, sign in and post your comments. There you will have people who know far better than me what the laws actually say in regard to our Constitution. Even Roe was based on privacy and such a poor basis has led to a poorer ruling. I support a woman's right to abort in the second and third trimester, but the legal frame work of Roe is confused. at best. A better solution would be to return the right to prohibit back to the States and require each State to provide transportation of its citizens to States that will perform legal abortion so the poor are not disenfrachised.

If you were such a legal scholar you would understand the weakness of Roe. As far as FISA, our government has always allowed what goes on today under executive powers and warrants. If there is a reasonable connection to terrorists, the government has the power to review telecom calls and banking transactions. Strange how the Constitution does not talk about privacy, certainly not in communications or banking records which were abundant in 1789. If Griswald was the last word and even appliable, SCUTUS would long ago ruled against the Patriot Act and other laws passed before Bush.

dog...
I will vote for Obama if he is the Dem nominee.....
I think those that are saying they will not vote for Obama or Clinton.... depending on their POV..... may change their minds..... if not..... they have the right to vote for whom they want.....

I praised Warren for his posts on Obama because they are simply supporting his chosen candidate without resorting to saying to the other side..... sour grapes, mean spirited hatred, and closed minded.... all the while thinking it's the high ground...... he simply states why he's chosen his candidate...... how refreshing!....

no more tit for tat with you..... I respect you and will do no more bickering on my part..... just asking you to think about it......

How many of the 126 each senate district gets, however, is determined by complex formulae that reward high turnouts of Democrats in the last two elections. And because the six most-heavily Latino senatorial districts have recorded such low turnouts, each will get only three or four national delegates.

Because turnout is much higher in Texas' two most heavily African American districts, in Austin's District 14, and in District 25, one district will get eight national delegates, one will get seven, and two will get six nominating delegates each.

Bottom line: the way Texas assigns delegates might be working against HRC's demographic strengths.

From my vantage point in Austin, though, I can tell you the Clintons' arrival in Texas has been splashy.
http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/15/will-hillarys-latino-advantage-matter-in-texas/#comments

And to turn out the vote in Texas she is sending in the guy who did the good job in Cal -although if it doesn't count as much in Texas shouldn't he be sent to Ohio.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/15/MNS1V2MN2.DTL

thanks Renee. Noted. Will think on your post.

Kathy, of all the names, that I could be calling him.........Why does it bother you that I call him Mr. Kenya?

Linda-
just asking why you feel the need to call him anything but his own name or title?

linda in wisc.- I agree with Kathy and it bothers me for the same reason unnecessary digs at Hillary bother me. I think you understand that.

Jamie,

It is how the tax code is set up. Lets say you managed to save $10k. You being a good hard working thirty individual saved this money from your salary. You have already paid taxes on this money at the higher rate, so what incentive is it for you to invest this money where you will be once again taxed at the same rate. For you to make a dime your investment would have to make a 30% profit. Now that is all well and good if you invested in Microsoft back in the early 80's. But the idea of investing is to make money. Not to keep paying taxes on money that has been already taxed at 30%. What Buffet also didn't mention is his tax free muni bond portfolio. One could make the argument these too are sources of income, but no tax or little tax are paid on these investment. Every state, city, county and town depends on the sales of these muni bonds as means to fund projects.

" That is precisely why I will vote for Obama if he is the nominee."

I will too. It will be akin to pulling the level for my favorite Menendez brother, but count me in.

"Why does it bother you that I call him Mr. Kenya? "
Posted by Linda In Wisconsin

It bothers me because it is disrespectful and rude. And I am NOT an Obama supporter.

Craig you are right on target as usual. Why is it that only you and Pat Buchanan really know what's going on? Are you guys that much smarter or are you the only ones with guts enough to call it like you see it. If Obamedia is the nominee we're going with McCain. Besides, if Rush hates him so much he can't be all bad.

Kathy,
The same could be asked in why does anyone call someone anything except by their real name? Tweety, MoJo, Mrs. Clinton, bitch, etc.

"ah.... see Pogo's post....

now that's debating issues without resorting to name calling or using immature gestures..... IMO...."

The problem Renee, for me anyway, is I have a few issues that move beyond the pale. I can't be reasoned when it comes to racism, sexism or torture. Just to name 3 that tripped my trigger in here yesterday.
If this was usenet where I could set my news reader to block certain posters I would have sent several people outside to play.
Pogo , I believe is a lawyer, he is used to irrational people. I'm a framer, I'm used to irrational people around me too. But us construction types tend to handle things in a more direct manner.
For me the three issues I listed above are moral issues, I don't have a lot of give when it comes to them.
There are a couple of supporters on each side that don't do their candidates any favor. For the most part they are new arrivals.
I have no problem with honest support and boosterism, Dogs eye veiw , Sheila, Jamie and Patsi all come to mind. This is not a total list there are many more but they are passionate in their support.

Jack

Linda- but I am asking you why you call him Mr. Kenya.

Flatus,

Let there be no doubt that waterboarding is indeed torture; and, that torture has no place in America.

Here is a hypothetical because well all love hypothetical questions. If waterboarding wasn't used on SKM, and all other forms of interrogation failed to get him to reveal the other attacks AQ was planning to launch against American citizens. How many American deaths would you feel comfortable with because we didn't use waterboarding? 1, 10, 100, 1000, 5000? I'm not trying to be be cute about this, but you have to have an idea of how many American death is suitable for not waterboarding when all other attempts fail. BTW it has been widely reported by many in the MSM that it took SKM approximately 15 seconds of waterboarding before he give up the goods, and this saved x amount of American lives. 15 seconds of discomfort and fear to save lives. I don't have a problem with that. And to those who will say but our enemies would be just as brutal to our captive military. My answer to them, the enemy has been much, much worse.

US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, California uses waterboarding as a form of training. SERE staff were required undergo the waterboard at its fullest. Other military units also undergo waterboarding as part of their training as it is designed to show how an evil totalitarian, enemy would use torture at the slightest whim. The thing to remember, with waterboarding as opposed to what our enemies do to our captured military personnel, with waterboarding although you may believe you are drowning and will die, you don't die. You will die a slow and agonizing death if captured by our enemy. Below is how waterboarding is administered.

Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.

Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration –usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death. Its lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threaten[ed] with its use again and again.

If waterboarding is torture, it is used to save lives, compared to AQ who uses torture for the shear joy of inflicting pain and death. There is just no comparison. I have purposely omitted the some of the torture methods used by AQ from this post as some might find it to unsettling to read, but I will say this much. What you watched on TV several years ago when AQ was severing their hostages heads was in a strange way humane when compared to their normal procedures of administering torture to the captives. Although they died a grisly death, they somewhat quickly.

Craig...1972 strikes fear into the hearts of many old time dems. With Limbaugh campaigning for BHO and Coulter for HRC, it sure is becoming quite a circus. There is a similarity between 1972 and 2008 with a dem delegate battle.

As for names, etc., we are such a sensitive group and I was a bit taken aback by the lack of humor on the posts since Super, Duper, FAT Tuesday. Again, what is so funny about politics, anyway?

Wine buy....Penfolds Regional Selection Shiraz Coonawarra 2003...at $10.98 (alcohol at 14%) a bottle, it is a great buy. Yummy. It is a limited release, but I never can find good wine at ten dollars...so, if you see it -- I recommend buying it.

LindaWisc: yeah, we have had some nicknames on this list.

But Mr. Kenya introduces a racial tone. Do you not see that?

How about if others start calling HRC "Senator Estrogen."

Do you see that now?

Morning peeps.

Bobby Cutts guilty of aggrevated muder.

Obama's African Hubris

"I suppose it is too much to ask of Obama supporters to read the following material and appreciate the arrogance and ignorance displayed by Senator Barack Obama, but folks, it appears he is going to do for Africa what George Bush has done for Iraq. Only worse He is taking sides in a tribal war in Kenya that is on the verge of becoming a Rwanda-like genocide. Really? Let’s start with this uncomfortable fact. The leader of the Kenyan Orange Democratic Movement opposition leader, Raila Odinga, is Barack Obama’s cousin. Barack may not put much stock in the relationship, but tribal allegiances are still strong in Kenya and Barack is clearly viewed as a Luo by his fellow tribesmen."
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26929

Max, let's start with this - I don't claim to be "such a legal scholar" and was not arguing Roe, although I understand the criticisms of that decision, which tend to be more about the arbitrary nature of the trimester framework than the origin of the right to privacy, which framework has largely been abandonned at any rate. I do however claim to be a lawyer and have studied the Constitution and Bill of Rights for much longer that I've studied law formally.

I do not have to go to Stubborn Facts to hear right wing positions on the Constitution and I don't plan to go there to debate conservative v. liberal views of the origin of constitutional rights. I can go to the office next door and argue with my right wing republican colleague, which happens all the time. We understand that there are two or more postions on the issue, and we disagree. I can also listen to that great legal scholar Sean Hannity, who after dropping out of college twice holds the same opinion of the srigin of our rights as you appear to.

And I was not talking about abortion, I was talking about privacy. Roe's reasoning is roundly criticized, but Roe was an application of Griswold in the abortion context and has no application to the questions surrounding the constitutionality of FISA. You want to allow the government to listen to your conversations without a warrant? Feel free, but I'm not so cavalier about the rights granted by our constitution and trampled by Bushco. Whether FISA was passed before Bushco sought to abuse it is a red herring akin to a child claiming his offense was ok because the other kids were doing the same thing. There is more at issue here than legal/illegal activities. I regularly converse with clients, some overseas, both by telephone and e-mail, about matters that are confidential, some of which involve the government. Explain to me how the government should have a right to listen to those conversations without any reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Let me stop you - there is no justification for it. As for banking transactions, that is a different kettle of fish. The government extensively regulates the banking system, and we have a much more limited expectation of privacy in our banking transactions, and I actually do not object to the government's oversight of that area.

FISA warrants might pass constitutional muster if reasonable consideration of the requested warrants was undertaken by the court. I submit to you that it is not. NO reasonable review of warrant requests would ever result in granting over 99.9% of requested warrants.

At any rate, SCOTUS may one day rule on whether FISA, the Patriot Act (which was a Bushco creation) and other intrusive expansions of government prying into your affairs are constitutional as written or as they are being applied, but the case/controversy requirement and standing issues suggest that it will be years before that occurs, if at all. And the court is not free to review even constitutional issues on its own, whether based on privacy or any other constitutional concern, but were Griswold as weak as you suggest, I suggest that it would have been reversed by now.

And I am spinning nothing. The sticking point on the renewal of FISA (which I contend is unconstitutional, but the court MAY eventually decide that issue) is immunity for the telecoms, not the merits of the bill itself.

dog's eye view

I believe Senator Estrogen has been used and some of us were accused of being part of the Estrogen Mafia. Good thing, HRC isn't as sensitive as some of the posters. I have gone to initials as I offended someone the other day by using McBush (it might have been you, actually). I do not mind using initials. I used to use BO because I was told we should not bring attention to his middle name. I was told that was not acceptable. So, I use BHO. I can play by the rules and understand that politics can get dirty.

Again, humor is a fickle thing...some think wit is wise ass, some think slapstick is awful...all in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

But Mr. Kenya introduces a racial tone.......DIV

It is all in the eye of the beholder. It is Senator Clinton, Ms. Clinton, or Hillary.

Did I make my point? Can we move on now?

Someone needs to smack down MSNBC. Can they be more obvious Clinton haters? Or are they just trying to change their record on racism? I haven't seen a poll number since they propped up those inflated polls from Ca. and NJ that so favored Obama. Now that Hillary is shallacking him in Pa. and Oh., you don't see a poll number. Does anyone else see that they are only trying to get on the "Obamacans" train for the "record" because they have been forever known as the "Imus" network.? Anyone remember him? The Imus show that Russert, Matthews, Scarborough, and that idiot Tucker Carlson, who all appeared and kissed "I-man" ass, by the way. Now they can't remember his name. I notice you don't see Craig Crawford on there much anymore, because he's the only who gives Hillary a breatk, and actually tries to talk about issues, and not the fact that Obama can talk like a white guy. MSNBC: the racist anti-racists.

Linda- guess I don't see your point, because you do not type
"Is it Senator Obama, Mr. Obama, or Barack"

RE GORDO's constant posting of Taylor Marsh comments and allegations:

"Lying Clinton hack, Taylor Marsh, exposed by Las Vegas Sun"

Daily Kos entry, with 500+ comments attached. From January 17, begins:

"Wednesday was just another day for so-called liberal radio personality, Taylor Marsh.

As she has done many times this primary season, Marsh drummed up another lie with which to bash a Democratic candidate who dares to challenge Hillary Clinton. Marsh has become our very own Rush Limbaugh. And, like Limbaugh, she uses outright lies, half-truths and distortions to attack Democrats. The difference being, of course, that Marsh claims to be a Democrat.

Adding to the already long list of lies she has promulgated on her radio program and on her blog, Marsh, on Wednesday, took this story from the Las Vegas Sun..."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/25812/2147/708/438638
===============

I don't think adopting Rush Limbaugh and rightwing talk radio tactics to support a Dem candidate is the way to go.

Others may disagree.

Fry, I'm curious - what is the source of that description of waterboarding you cited above?

dog's eye view

Then why is Rush campaigning for BHO?

Dog quoted:

"Think Democratic Congress and don't worry about the Supreme Court. Then elect a better candidate in 2012."

Dog - it does have a sour grape feel to it - I'll admit that. I have to say, however, I've been thinking about this as a strategy I may follow as well. If Obama gets the nom, vote for McCain and get another crack at it with a better candidate for the dems in 2012. The 2012 candidate does not necessarily have to be Hillary - let me just go on the record saying that. But it's still early but it's on the table.

My view is that in November that very quite group of rich Repugs will go to the polls to stop a liberal BHO. I do believe that is "why" HRC has become so moderate. The rich will always protect their money -- that is "why" GWB has stayed in power. He has enriched his cronies during his reign. (Too bad I can't use King George here instead of his initials.)

Wendy!, renee articulated well why you don't want ot vote for McCain in Nov., no matter who the nominee is - Supreme Court Nominee.

Blondie - you talkin' about Dumya?

Morning Blonde wino.

Thank you for using JMcC. Like that much better than McBush (it was me that requested the change.)

I do not think we should call Senator Clinton Senator Estrogen. Proper names are best, IMHO. It was an example.

Further, I personally prefer HRC and BHO as acronymns, although the Human Rights Campaign also uses those initials and it's occasionally confusing.

Hussein is Barack Obama's middle name, which he has retained throughout his career. It's a fine name.

FYI: Hillary's birth name was Hillary Diane Rodham, Diane also being a beautiful name. The huntress.

Pogo

: )

I like Diane, too.

And I am a very rich, I would dare say, wealthy woman, I just don't have the money to back that up.

Dog said:

"But Mr. Kenya introduces a racial tone. Do you not see that?

How about if others start calling HRC "Senator Estrogen.""

Dog - this is a very good and funny point.

I don't like the Mr. Kenya thing either. I prefer their names or initials.

Pogo - I'll give you guys that - the Supreme Court is a problem.

I'm still reluctant to vote for someone I don't believe in as a candidate. Which as someone posted earlier is my right. That said, I don't believe in McCain as a candidate either.

Perhaps I will not vote for President and leave that to the rest of the country to figure out. Vote my conscience w/o actually helping the other side directly. This may be the best I can offer.

Wendy-

I will be 100% solidly behind Clinton if she is the nominee. The same for Obama whom I support presently.

I know of many here who were most concerned about Clinton as the nominee because 1. they found her unelectable and 2. her name at the top would affect those down ballot.

I do not know many who see major differences between the two - save the initial authorization for Iraq. Everyone knows that whichever health insurance proposal goes Congress will not be 100% of Obama's or Clinton's.

My state went for Bush over Gore by a very small margin in 2000. If every Gore voter in my county had gotten an additional one to the polls that year, we would never have had Bush, or Iraq, or record deficits. Or Allito, or.....way too long of a list to name.

So "getting a crack at it' - this is the year we have had to wait eight years for. I remember good friends or mine saying to me there was no difference between Bush and Gore- both "corporate politicians". Does that seem naive or what now?

I realize that many are agonizing now. And especially for those on the list who have really worked for their chosen candidates, it is a deeply felt agony. I have had that pit in my stomach like a death in the family when my candidate quit in earlier elections.

But things will look very different a month form now, in mid-July- and in early November. A LOT RIDES ON THIS ELECTION. And though vital, it is a lot more than Supreme Court picks.

There are some here who will vote Dem no matter what, and some who probably will but are too rattled to admit to this presently.

But I would hope that all here would consider the choices made by those in 2000 who decided to "vote their conscience" for Nader or sit it out and wait another 8 years, because how much damage could Bush do?

For any of you that arenb't sick of it, here's a decent overview of the FISA & illegal wiretap bill issue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/15/bush-says-congress-puttin_n_86811.html

Wouldn't want any red tape to interfere with illegal wiretaps.

LindaInWisconsin...

I agree with several things that have been said in reference to your calling Obama "Mr. Kenya". I agree that humor is in the eye of the beholder, I agree that other people have used name calling (or nicknames) in some of their posts (some seem funny, some don't), but...bottom line for me is that I find tyour particular bit of name-calling so offensive that I now skip your posts.

If you want people to pay attention to what you have to say, then you also need to pay attention to what we have to say. And several of us are asking you very nicely to please stop referring to Obama by your chosen nickname for him.

Craig...just resent the bookplate info with address...I hope you get the email.

Have to run...late start...too much wine last night, but it was a great dinner.

Be careful out there and watch out for the other guy.

From Taylor Marsh:

"Hmmmm. Wonder where those DK "editors" were when I was getting defamed during the Nevada caucuses (see here and here), complete with blaring headlines on DK diaries? I guess it's selective. If you're smearing Clinton or anyone proving points about Obama you're fair game. I'd like to know how many others are experiencing this stuff. Seriously, these comments are monitored, right? Hey, but all the anti Clinton blogs out there have been a boon to the few of us who actually report . Oh, and by the way, still getting Obamabot screeds, even after last night's post: Obama's Unhinged Fans Reveal a Dangerous Zealotry. You'd think they'd realize by now they're actually hurting their own efforts, while giving fodder to wingnuts, as the rest of us cringe."
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27022

Obama's PAC has given $700,000 to the Super Delegates. Clinton's PAC has given $200,000.

That should help the Supers fund their next election and even more power.

Dog's Eye

"I disagree re the divide between HRC and BHO supporters; this list is not the general voting public."

Check out some of the news blogs. If you think it is testy in here at times, the battles elsewhere are absolutely brutal.

Jamie: if what is here on C List is representative of news blogs, I shall stay off those too.

Although those plugged in enough to comment on news blogs -- or read them in the first place -- and the voting public are not the same group at all.

Pogo

Coulld you post other links about legal matters other than the obviously Far Left Huffington Post. Now really, how do you want more objective moderates on both sides to understand your position when you post rants from the Far Left Side?

Show us one moderate, bipartisan link that defends your earlier position.

I've stopped reading KOS and Huffington long ago for insight into objective reality.

Kathy:

I appreciate your point of view. I'm glad you will be able to support either candidate.

I personally don't see any substance in Obama - I worry that he is not of his own mind and that he will be rolled over by the Republicans or too heavily influenced by others. We are at too critical a point for someone to learn the hard way on the job. I don't believe in him as a candidate today and the more I see of him and hear him speak the less I do.

I'm not going to throw my support or vote behind someone that I don't believe is right or ready for the most powerful job in perhaps the entire world. He is not right or ready at this time for that job. This is like me--a humble web developer-- deciding that I should be CTO of the company I work for tomorrow. It's not realistic and would not be in the best interest of the company I work for.

I supported Kerry last time because he was the democratic nominee not because I thought he was the best candidate. He betrayed John Edwards and all of us who supported him by giving up so easily. He was weak.

You are right though - the general is a long way away but as of now I'm not on board with Obama. I'm not going to give him my vote which I take very seriously (I have NEVER missed an election in the 20+ years I've been old enough to vote) just because he is the democratic nominee.

Dog's Eye

" the voting public are not the same group at all."

No they aren't. The ones who post are almost always the extremes or at least the most interested. That is what makes them "opinion leaders". They hear what the quieter (could even say more balanced) folks around them have to say and then restate it in heated terms.

It is always a bad idea to take any extreme at face value, but they often highlight an issue that is bubbling beneath the surface that someone with a vested interest should probably mark for action before it becomes a problem.

Amusing and truthful NYTimes column by Gail Collins, who shares pogo and my (and probably Harbor and Jamie)'s view of caucuses.

Notes from a Caucus
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/opinion/14collins.html?em&ex=1203224400&en=cf6af0098f51ebcf&ei=5070

" ...Democrats are having an exciting race for the presidential nomination, which always means trouble. Now we’re being told that it all comes down to Ohio (currently engaged in voting-machine litigation) and Texas, which has a system that involves both a primary and a caucus.

One-third of the states that have voted for a presidential nominee so far have done it by caucus. There is an impression abroad that these caucuses are grass-roots democracy, like those cute town meetings in “The Gilmore Girls.” Even if that were true, which it’s not, consider whether you would really want a presidential nominee selected by about 20 colorful characters in a barn. ..."

Jamie wrote:

"Check out some of the news blogs. If you think it is testy in here at times, the battles elsewhere are absolutely brutal."

Hear hear Jamie - While I read what TPM and others say I refuse to read the comments.

I feel much safer here. The people here on a