Obama '08?

There's no Clinton '08 thread, b/c what drives her support is completely different then what drives Obama's support.

You just don't get it, do you? The options are quickly narrowing to Barack Obama or John McCain. Choose wisely.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You just don't get it, do you? The options are quickly narrowing to Barack Obama or John McCain. Choose wisely.

Dude. I'd take Obama over Hillary pretty please, but anyone suggesting that the race is already pretty much over is just being foolish. This is still going to be a long slog.. at best. What Obama supporters should be hoping for right now is an even/even split coming out from Feb. 5. That would already be great considering the uphill climb faced in many of those states.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You just don't get it, do you? The options are quickly narrowing to Barack Obama or John McCain. Choose wisely.

Dude. I'd take Obama over Hillary pretty please, but anyone suggesting that the race is already pretty much over is just being foolish. This is still going to be a long slog.. at best. What Obama supporters should be hoping for right now is an even/even split coming out from Feb. 5. That would already be great considering the uphill climb faced in many of those states.

nimh wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You just don't get it, do you? The options are quickly narrowing to Barack Obama or John McCain. Choose wisely.

Dude. I'd take Obama over Hillary pretty please, but anyone suggesting that the race is already pretty much over is just being foolish. This is still going to be a long slog.. at best. What Obama supporters should be hoping for right now is an even/even split coming out from Feb. 5. That would already be great considering the uphill climb faced in many of those states.

I was referring more to McCain pulling off Florida. That's big. I would hold my nose and vote for Hillary over Romney. There is no chance I take her over McCain. I'm not alone. Too many democrats seem to forget that the base votes for the base regardless and independents decide elections. It matters little how much Soz and Bernie mix it up in the primaries; I'll give you 10 to 1 they back the same person in the General. Watch.

Do you think the base is going for Clinton?

maporsche wrote:

Do you think the base is going for Clinton?

I sincerely hope not. But the polls, bookies, and traders are currently pointing in that direction.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

maporsche wrote:

Do you think the base is going for Clinton?

I sincerely hope not. But the polls, bookies, and traders are currently pointing in that direction.

I agree that the base isn't voting for Clinton, I think she IS getting the independent votes and the moderate democrats.

I was referring more to McCain pulling off Florida. That's big. I would hold my nose and vote for Hillary over Romney. There is no chance I take her over McCain. I'm not alone. Too many democrats seem to forget that the base votes for the base regardless and independents decide elections. It matters little how much Soz and Bernie mix it up in the primaries; I'll give you 10 to 1 they back the same person in the General. Watch.

That's not exactly a risky prediction, though, is it?

The Fine Print

Just before Monday night's State of the Union speech, in which Mr. Bush extolled bipartisanship, railed against government excesses and promised to bring the troops home as soon as it's safe to withdraw, the White House undermined all of those sentiments with the latest of the president's infamous signing statements.

The signing statements are documents that earlier presidents generally used to trumpet their pleasure at signing a law, or to explain how it would be enforced. More than any of his predecessors, the current chief executive has used the pronouncements in a passive-aggressive way to undermine the power of Congress.

Over the last seven years, Mr. Bush has issued hundreds of these insidious documents declaring that he had no intention of obeying a law that he had just signed. This is not just constitutional theory. Remember the detainee treatment act, which Mr. Bush signed and then proceeded to ignore, as he told C.I.A. interrogators that they could go on mistreating detainees?

This week's statement was attached to the military budget bill, which covers everything except the direct cost of the war. The bill included four important provisions that Mr. Bush decided he will enforce only if he wants to.

The president said they impinged on his constitutional powers. We asked the White House to explain that claim, but got no answer, so we'll do our best to figure it out.

The first provision created a commission to determine how reliant the government is on contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, how much waste, fraud and abuse has occurred and what has been done to hold accountable those who are responsible. Congress authorized the commission to compel government officials to testify.

Perhaps this violated Mr. Bush's sense of his power to dole out contracts as he sees fit and to hold contractors harmless. The same theory applies to the second provision that Mr. Bush said he would not obey: a new law providing protection against reprisal to those who expose waste, fraud or abuse in wartime contracts.

The third measure Mr. Bush rejected requires intelligence officials to respond to a request for documents from the Armed Services Committees of Congress within 45 days, either by producing the documents or explaining why they are being withheld. Clearly, this violates the power that Mr. Bush has given himself to cover up an array of illegal and improper actions, like his decisions to spy on Americans without a warrant, to torture prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions and to fire United States attorneys apparently for political reasons.

It's glaringly obvious why Mr. Bush rejected the fourth provision, which states that none of the money authorized for military purposes may be used to establish permanent military bases in Iraq.

It is more evidence, as if any were needed, that Mr. Bush never intended to end this war, and that he still views it as the prelude to an unceasing American military presence in Iraq.

President Ronald Reagan, guided by his Attorney General Edwin Meese III (and urged on enthusiastically by a young lawyer called Samuel Alito), launched a concerted policy to start to use signing statements as a means of reinforcing the executive's message and consolidating its power. Meese arranged to have them published for this very reason.