Obama '08?

maporsche wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

maporsche wrote:

If McCain wins, he will be move favorable to protecting the freedoms of our citizens.

Really? He voted against the Orwellian named Patriot Act and Protect America Act then, I assume?

And what were the Clinton/Obama votes........oh yeah, they voted for it too.

It's not a differentiating factor in this election unfortunately.

No, Obama voted Nay on the Protect America Act, as did Clinton, and wasn't in the Senate to vote on the original Patriot Act.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00309

McCain also voted for giving telecoms retroactive immunity in domestic spying cases. I don't think he's going to do much to protect civil liberties.

maporsche wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

maporsche wrote:

If McCain wins, he will be move favorable to protecting the freedoms of our citizens.

Really? He voted against the Orwellian named Patriot Act and Protect America Act then, I assume?

And what were the Clinton/Obama votes........oh yeah, they voted for it too.

It's not a differentiating factor in this election unfortunately.

It's not? Are you telling me McCain's and Obama's positions are identical vis a vis the current FISA bill?

We put patriotism before partisanship and engaged in a real, open, and substantive debate about how to fix the PATRIOT Act. And Republicans and Democrats came together to propose sensible improvements to the Act. Unfortunately, the House was resistant to these changes, and that's why we're voting on the compromise before us.

Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed.

This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise:


* We strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records.

* We established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps.

* We protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters.

* We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.

* And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches.

The compromise is far from perfect. I would have liked to see stronger judicial review of National Security Letters and shorter time limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things.

Obama doesn't want to ban all guns nationwide. That's an absolutely ridiculous thing to say.

Cycloptichorn

Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.

Butrflynet wrote:

Lola wrote:

Spin this:

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/78053/

Quote:

The [SNL] show recognized what many observers had come to feel: that the media has conducted itself poorly and are worthy of parody. And watching Tim Russert, parodying himself in Tuesday night's debate, scowling eyebrows, raised voice, blustery manner and slightly weird questions -- encapsulated what's wrong with the media. Tim seemed to have the mistaken belief that he was the third debater, an impression only heightened after the debate when Chris Matthews repeatedly lauded Russert on "reeling in" Hillary Clinton with a question on her war vote. Increasingly the media has become the story -- and not such a complimentary one. While the "serious" reporters and pundits were this morning condescending of Clinton's mention of the comedy show, SNL's take on the coverage seems at least as informative as what shows up on nightly cable shows.

The irony is that we have an Alternet columnist writing about a comedy skit from a late-night comedy show and using it as an example of how the media has fallen down on the job when it comes to substantive coverage of the candidates. We also have a presidential candidate pointing to that same comedy skit in a debate to make a point about that lack of sunstantive coverage and the unfairness of it to her. Yet, in both instances the Slate commentator and the presidential candidate did not themselves use their time in the debate or the column to do what they are objecting to. Instead, they perpetuate the lack of substantive information by just pointing to a skit on a comedy show and expecting someone else to do it for them.

Why should they use their time to object? They have nothing to object to.

I recognize that Obama is very likely to be the nominee. I think his ability to appeal to the positive emotions of voters is his strongest asset. It makes him the most electabile in both the primary and general elections. This ability, together with his foresight in hiring knowledgabe consultants who will help him with this endeavor, make him the best person for the job.

At this point I simply object to the obvious biased media coverage. But I suppose it proves my point. There is no way to stop Obama. I wonder if Hillary will run with him. It would be an ideal ticket because she has the experience and know how and he has the ability to make it happen. I'll settle for that.

It's a good thing Obama is on our side. Otherwise we'd all be in big trouble.

Lola wrote:

The word is already out in many extreme evangelical circles that, as it was said to me, "Obama may be the anti-Christ." Wow! We could have seen that coming. However, I think it will do nothing to iinfluence the general election. People aren't into listening to the evangelical right wing nuts for now.

I have long believed the Evangelicals were a largely spent political force. No one listens to them more than Lola.

I was disappointed to read about McCain's acceptance of the endorsement from Hagee, whom I consider to be a figure comparable, in his wisdom and beneficial influence on others, to Louis Farrakhan's.

Interesting evening tonight. The lady and I went out to dinner. seated next to us were 2 elderly (my age) couples discussing politics. The one man I could hear clearly said
"Obama is not a real american, he was born in Hawaii and his father is an african muslim." Noone mentioned (as far as I heard) that Obama was the anti-christ. They had martini's before dinner.
Interesting innit?

Do you want to go to your grave, knowing that you could have voted against Hillary Clinton - and didn't?

http://www.ohiovalleypolitics.com/2008/02/27/the-worst-event-managment-ive-ever-seen/

Stuff like this sure won't help.

That's really becoming a pattern by now: Hillary's message to be "ready on day one" is, or should really be, pretty undermined by how badly organised, in comparison, her campaign is - from not having any kind of plan B for after Super Tuesday, to having no advance strategy in place for caucuses, to Solis wasting wads of money (even already in Hillary's Senate race), to even the organisation of individual campaign events.