Campaign 2008

[At Home 0]

This, right here, is the most dangerous aspect of the left: assuming that the enemy does not mean what he says. Chamberlain made that mistake in the '30s. Carter made that mistake in the '70s. We must not make it again today.

 

Chamberlain's mistake wasn't that of misinterpretation. Chamberlain's mistake was that he and the rest of Britain did not want a war at all. They lost an entire generation. It's not like Britain and other countries were blind to the fact that Hitler was a threat to the human race. It was obvious.

 

Can't comment on Carter.

 

And the same mistake Jack and Bobby Kennedy made in literally averting nuclear holocaust?

 

[Guest Vitamin X]

I'd like some clarification on what mistakes Carter made in the 70's. For one, he wasn't president long enough to have established a sort of erroneous foreign/tactical policy, and for another, I don't recall any major conflicts during his administration or any that came immediately afterwards. If you're referring to the Middle East, it could be argued that several presidents, including but not just limited to Carter, made the same mistake.

 

Anyways, back to the campaign- Clinton won by a fairly small margin (53-47 it looks like) and picked up 28 delegates, while Obama picked up 19. That's not a good win for Sen. Clinton at all.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Hebrews are a race, not just a religion.

 

Wrong. Jews aren't a race. The idea that Jews were a Semitic race began to gain ground with the hatred of the Jews. Then and only then were they began to be erroneously classified as a "race."

 

Ah...fuck it, I'm not gonna even bother.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Anyways, back to the campaign- Clinton won by a fairly small margin (53-47 it looks like) and picked up 28 delegates, while Obama picked up 19. That's not a good win for Sen. Clinton at all.

 

Isn't it a little early to know this? I'm seeing less than 50% of precincts reporting.

[Nightwing 0]

Anyways, back to the campaign- Clinton won by a fairly small margin (53-47 it looks like) and picked up 28 delegates, while Obama picked up 19. That's not a good win for Sen. Clinton at all.

 

Isn't it a little early to know this? I'm seeing less than 50% of precincts reporting.

 

It is. How many points does she need to win by to have a so-called "Convincing Victory"? She seems to be hovering at 8-10 points right now and it's about 55% in.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I don't know what a "convincing victory" is. She still has no realistic shot at winning either pledged delegates or popular vote. I can't imagine the superdelegates pushing her over the top, since her superdelegate lead has actually been shrinking. I'm not really sure why she's still in. She has every right to be, but I don't get it.

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't know what a "convincing victory" is. She still has no realistic shot at winning either pledged delegates or popular vote. I can't imagine the superdelegates pushing her over the top, since her superdelegate lead has actually been shrinking. I'm not really sure why she's still in. She has every right to be, but I don't get it.

 

Right, Clinton will use the slim margin of victory to tell the world that the "tide is turning" even though she was predicted to win Penn from the get-go. She can stay in it as long as she wants, but it is kind of pointless. The only reason now may be to sabatoge Obama so when McCain wins and keeps Bush's policies alive, she can position herself for a 2012 run, but that is a kind of far-fetched scenario.

[NYU 0]

According to CNN, with 90% of precincts reporting, she now has a 10 point lead over Obama.

 

I mean, in the end, it probably won't amount to anything in regards to her, but it's still a good victory and an indication she is in control against Obama when it comes to the big electoral college states.

[At Home 0]

According to CNN, with 90% of precincts reporting, she now has a 10 point lead over Obama.

 

I mean, in the end, it probably won't amount to anything in regards to her, but it's still a good victory and an indication she is in control against Obama when it comes to the big electoral college states.

 

You mean in the states that the Democrats are virtually guaranteed a win?

[NYU 0]

Yeah, because it's not like Ohio turned out to be a Republican swing state in 2004 or anything.

 

And it's pretty obvious that if Florida had a full primary, Hillary would come out with that one too, earning her normal support from the huge populations of elderly and women. And once again pbone, as we all know, Florida was ANOTHER swing state in 2004 as well. And 2000.

 

Hillary also won Texas against Obama -- although the whole caucus thing turned the delegate situation into a muddled mess -- but odds are McCain will take that state against either of them.

 

It's a worrisome sign that Obama is losing to her in the big states. Granted, he would likely come away with the wins in New York and California against McCain anyway since they're overwhelmingly democratic, but Florida....Ohio....Pennsylvania....if he's losing to her in those states, there's a chance he could lose against McCain too. They've been on the fence for years when it comes to presidential elections, and it's telling that he's not garnering enough votes to beat a candidate that has been, for all intents and purposes, dead in the water time and time again.

[Guest blame that goot.]

Hebrews are a race, not just a religion.

 

Wrong. Jews aren't a race. The idea that Jews were a Semitic race began to gain ground with the hatred of the Jews. Then and only then were they began to be erroneously classified as a "race."

 

Ah...fuck it, I'm not gonna even bother.

I think "people" is the best term.

 

So, way to go Hillz!

[SuperJerk 0]

From what I saw of her victory speech, it was one of her better speeches in terms of both tone and delivery.

 

I don't know what a "convincing victory" is. She still has no realistic shot at winning either pledged delegates or popular vote. I can't imagine the superdelegates pushing her over the top, since her superdelegate lead has actually been shrinking. I'm not really sure why she's still in. She has every right to be, but I don't get it.

 

Right, Clinton will use the slim margin of victory to tell the world that the "tide is turning" even though she was predicted to win Penn from the get-go. She can stay in it as long as she wants, but it is kind of pointless. The only reason now may be to sabatoge Obama so when McCain wins and keeps Bush's policies alive, she can position herself for a 2012 run, but that is a kind of far-fetched scenario.

I still don't count her out. She may still win this.

[At Home 0]

Why would he lose to McCain in those states? Obama's drawn out millions of voters in those states to the polling booths. I don't really follow the logic of equating a Clinton win to a potential McCain win. In the fall, if the party isn't destroyed by then, all the democratic voters will rally under Obama. They're not going to splinter into factions or anything like that. In 1988 Dukakis came in third in Iowa's primary, but ultimately won it in the general. Whereas Obama has the ability to inspire, which makes him such a viable candidate for the fall. Fact is, Clinton's ability to win "big states" really has no bearing on her ability to win a general election. It doesn't even give her enough room to win the primary.

 

Dead in the water time and time again? Who is that referring to, just to clear up. If Clinton, we have to remember that after Super Tuesday, the race turned pretty stagnant with most of the states finished with their voting and we had long periods of inactivity. Clinton began her campaign with a big bang. She polled extremely well everywhere and "inevitability" became the slogan of her campaign. But Obama has been steadily gaining ground, and he's winning now. Clinton has been running a dirty and despicable campaign.

 

The pledged delegate race is over. Obama has won that. South Carolina will likely erase any gain that Clinton made today, and the popular vote has a great chance of going to Obama.

 

We're coming out of 8 Bush years, remember. As long as the Democrats fucking play ball, I don't expect to see McCain anywhere near the white house.

[SuperJerk 0]

From what I saw of her victory speech, it was one of her better speeches in terms of both tone and delivery.

 

Wait...she's STILL talking...

[snuffbox 0]

Hillary won big.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/ap_on_...rimary_analysis

 

This is a pretty good summary of where the Democratic nomination is at.

[EricMM 0]

Its disgusting that Hilary is still sniping at Obama from inside the Democratic party.

 

If McCain were the one doing all this attacking no one would give it as much credibility. But because its Hil-Dawg, she still has everyone over 40 trusting her. There is no logical way she can win this thing, the only way she wins is the illogical usurping of the Democrat's African American base and future generation, something the party heads in the DNC would be idiotic to do. But she stays in and continues to smash Obama. And she is doing serious damage. Saying that this is what McCain would do is fallacious, since McCain COULDN'T do this.

[At Home 0]

From Kos:

So why didn't he win Pennsylvania?

 

He was up against the machine. It's my theory that no endorsement matters except those that deliver a machine. Senators have no machine, so they're pretty worthless (like Bob Casey). Mayors and machine-state governors, like Nutter and Rendell, matter. Gavin Newsom in San Francisco, who has no machine, didn't matter, but Antonio Villaraigosa in Los Angeles, who has one of the biggest machines in the planet, delivered strong for Clinton. Obama won Connecticut in large part thanks to New Haven's mayor John Destefano's efforts. In Pennsylvania, Clinton had the state's machine working on her behalf, and it clearly helped cut Obama's margins in the Philly metro area.

 

Demographics. Arguing that Obama's failure to win Pennsylvania points to inherent weaknesses is as silly as claiming the same for Clinton in North Carolina, or Idaho, or Wisconsin, or Maine, or Minnesota, or Mississippi, or Alabama, or Washington, or wherever else. Fact is, we have two fairly different candidates who appeal to different demographics. They both have paths to the nomination, but they happen to be different paths. Clinton runs the same old path that has served us poorly in the last two elections. Obama's is different, putting the Mountain West, North Carolina and Virginia in play.

Fact is, Obama does terrible in Appalachian regions, and that has been death to him in states that share that region. Just watch him get crushed in West Virginia and Kentucky. In the same vein, Clinton does terribly in regions that are overwhelmingly white -- like Maine, Vermont, Idaho, Utah, and so on, and she does poorly with large creative classes (Washington, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina), and of course she does terrible with African Americans. She's also had trouble with younger voters, independents, non-malicious Republicans, and so on.

 

To claim that Pennsylvania was the only state that mattered when its demographics (Appalachia, older, more blue collar, etc) were heavily slanted toward Clinton is absurd as would claiming that North Carolina is the tie-breaker for everything, given that it's solid Obama territory. Ultimately, Obama won because he won more contests all around the country, not just some single, randomly chosen state.

 

Home state advantage. Clinton has roots in the state, and local ties matter in politics a great deal. That's why Obama crushed in Kansas, Hawaii, and Illinois, and why Clinton crushed in New York and Arkansas.

 

Initial deficit. Obama came back from around 20 points back, and cut the deficit to 9 points in six weeks.

 

Name ID. Clinton isn't just a senator, she's a former First Lady. She isn't some scrub.

 

Multiple targets. Hillary Clinton has the advantage of running against a single candidate -- Barack Obama. Obama, on the other hand, is running against Hillary, against the former President of the Untied States Bill Clinton, and against a Republican machine (McCain included) that has focused its firepower on the frontrunner.

 

Rhetorical constraints. Clinton has nothing to lose, so she's thrown the kitchen sink and then some at Obama. Her path to the nomination necessarily requires her sundering the party in civil war, so if she pisses a few people off? Who cares! It's all part of the plan!

Obama, on the other hand, can't take that approach. He's already won this thing, so he has to tread carefully. He gets too aggressive with Clinton, he risks pissing off her supporters more than they are already pissed off (can you believe that Obama insists on staying in the race even though he's won?!). So he can't really open up on Clinton and make the same kind of arguments she's making against him. He's trying to maintain some modicum of unity rather than engage in the sort of slash-and-burn politics that now characterizes the Clinton campaign handbook. The inability to truly go negative is a real disadvantage in politics.

 

So there you have it. That's why Obama lost Pennsylvania. In two weeks, I'm sure the Clinton people will be just as eager to demand explanations as to why they can't win North Carolina, right?

[NoCalMike 0]

Another reason we can't have a conservative for the next four years appointing potential supreme court justices......

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/ap_on_...o/scotus_search

 

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court affirmed Wednesday that police have the power to conduct searches and seize evidence, even when done during an arrest that turns out to have violated state law.

 

The unanimous decision comes in a case from Portsmouth, Va., where city detectives seized crack cocaine from a motorist after arresting him for a traffic ticket offense.

 

David Lee Moore was pulled over for driving on a suspended license. The violation is a minor crime in Virginia and calls for police to issue a court summons and let the driver go.

 

Instead, city detectives arrested Moore and prosecutors say that drugs taken from him in a subsequent search can be used against him as evidence.

 

"We reaffirm against a novel challenge what we have signaled for half a century," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.

 

Scalia said that when officers have probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety.

 

Moore was convicted on a drug charge and sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison.

 

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that police should have released Moore and could not lawfully conduct a search.

 

State law, said the Virginia Supreme Court, restricted officers to issuing a ticket in exchange for a promise to appear later in court. Virginia courts dismissed the indictment against Moore.

 

Moore argued that the Fourth Amendment permits a search only following a lawful state arrest.

 

In a concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she finds more support for Moore's position in previous court cases than the rest of the court does. But she said she agrees that the arrest and search of Moore was constitutional, even though it violated Virginia law.

 

The Bush administration and attorneys general from 18 states lined up in support of Virginia prosecutors.

 

The federal government said Moore's case had the potential to greatly increase the class of unconstitutional arrests, resulting in evidence seized during searches being excluded with increasing frequency.

 

Looking to state laws to provide the basis for searches would introduce uncertainty into the legal system, the 18 states said in court papers.

_____________________________

 

Wow, more people going to jail for drugs.....labor on the cheap in our privatized prison system. Doesn't it make you feel all warm inside!!!

[Guest blame that goot.]

We can't have a conservative because getting caught with crack is retarded?

[Guest]

I guess Mike missed the part that said

 

The unanimous decision comes in a case from Portsmouth, Va., where city detectives seized crack cocaine from a motorist after arresting him for a traffic ticket offense.

 

yawn

[NoCalMike 0]

I guess Mike missed the part that said

 

The unanimous decision comes in a case from Portsmouth, Va., where city detectives seized crack cocaine from a motorist after arresting him for a traffic ticket offense.

 

yawn

 

No, you just missed the following sentence which said,

 

David Lee Moore was pulled over for driving on a suspended license. The violation is a minor crime in Virginia and calls for police to issue a court summons and let the driver go

 

I have little to no sympathy for this specific idiot, but this ruling is much bigger then this specific incident.

[Guest]

Scalia said that when officers have probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety.

Pulling someone over is probable cause to search the vehicle. Sorry bud.

 

I don't see what this has to do with allowing more conservative judges on the Supreme Court. Nothing at all, actually.

[snuffbox 0]

There's nothing conservative about that.

[Gary Floyd 0]

I'm watching Carville and Richardson debating on Larry King right now. Good to remember that I always thought Carville was an insufferable cunt.

[SuperJerk 0]

There's one state that's truly a microcosm of the U.S. that has voted for the winner in the November election in every election except one since 1904. That state is Missouri, and Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton here.

 

 

[NoCalMike 0]

McCain opposes equal pay bill in Senate

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080424/ap_on_...wQ7mAqqckfCw5R4

 

The Arizona senator said he was familiar with the disparity but that there are better ways to help women find better paying jobs.

 

"They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else," McCain said. "And it's hard for them to leave their families when they don't have somebody to take care of them.

 

"It's a vicious cycle that's affecting women, particularly in a part of the country like this, where mining is the mainstay; traditionally, women have not gone into that line of work, to say the least," he said.

 

Is McCain confusing the issue? I thought the issue wasn't that women can't find good paying jobs, I thought it was that they are being paid less to do the same jobs that men do. Why should they have to have more education and training if they are already doing the same job?

 

[NoCalMike 0]

Scalia said that when officers have probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety.

Pulling someone over is probable cause to search the vehicle. Sorry bud.

 

I don't see what this has to do with allowing more conservative judges on the Supreme Court. Nothing at all, actually.

 

Ok, maybe it is a state thing.....I always thought that pulling someone over for a traffic violation itself didn't warrent a search. Now, if you pull someone over and they are bumbling/stumbling/smell like happy hour/nervous/anxious/huge cloud of pot smoke coming from car/drug paraphernalia clearly in sight etc etc.... THEN YEAH there is probable cause for the next step, but if someone is merely pulled over for a traffic infraction I didn't think it warranted an automatic search of their car. I could be wrong though.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Scalia said that when officers have probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety.

Pulling someone over is probable cause to search the vehicle. Sorry bud.

 

You don't understand what the term probable cause means.

 

I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with you about the ruling of the case though.

 

[Nightwing 0]

Pulling someone over isn't probable cause. Looking into their car and seeing what looks to be an open liquor container is. It seems as though this would mean that if it wasn't a liquor container but the top to a bottle of Aquafina... but I found a few pounds of crack, everything would be alright because even though my justification was proven wrong, I didn't violate the Constitution.