the reason I posted this, from the end of the article:
This suggests Democratic primary voters need to pay close attention to independents. The polls suggest hard-core Democrats would be happy either with Hillary Clinton or Mr Obama. But there is no doubt who does better with independents. Until this week, Mrs Clinton's strength has been her ability to turn out the vote in solid Democratic states such as California and solid Democratic constituencies such as blue-collar voters. But she repels many independents who associate her with Beltway business-as-usual.
In contrast, Mr Obama sounds the themes that most appeal to independents—frustration with America's broken politics; hope of finding pragmatic solutions by reaching across the partisan divide. And independents have not disappointed him. Mr Obama beat Mrs Clinton among such voters almost everywhere, even in her strongest states such as New York and California. A recent Pew poll suggests Mr Obama has a 62% approval rating among independents, the highest of any candidate.
This should weigh heavily on the minds of the Democratic “superdelegates” (office holders and party elders who have an ex officio vote in the convention) if they are called upon to break a tie in the delegate race. Mrs Clinton's biggest problem is not that she is being out-campaigned by the silver-tongued Mr Obama. It is that she seems to belong to the previous era of American politics—the one of battling political machines. Republicans have accidentally stumbled through to the next age of politics, although the message has not yet reached the backwoods wing of the party. The big question now for many Democrats is whether their party can do likewise.
It resonates a feeling that the democratic party has fallen behind with current political trends. Is it because Democrats oppose the current sociopolitical state of the nation?
hmmm ... Good post though. I'm at work half drunk so what do I know...
(maybe that's the mexican talking asemi)
I'd just like to be able to judge a candidate on their technical and theoretical capabilities for once instead of on their "positions" and "stances". I want to know whether or not you are even able to address the shit you are concerned about before I vote for you.
Also... fuck parties. We should ban them. All of them.
an excerpt of interest:
For what little they are worth, the polls suggest that Mr McCain would beat Hillary Clinton but lose to Barack Obama. The badges and bumper stickers at CPAC offer a clue as to why. Anti-Hillary slogans are plentiful and angry. “Life's a bitch; don't vote for one.” “Happiness is Hillary's face on a milk carton.” But your correspondent saw only one anti-Obama badge, the mild “Obama? You gotta be kiddin' me.”
Republicans find it much harder to attack Mr Obama. This is partly because he is black, but also because he is unsullied by scandal and because they don't hate him as they do Mrs Clinton. Which is why Mr McCain hopes to face Mrs Clinton in November but expects to face Mr Obama.
excerpt (this is from a few weeks ago but I missed it then somehow):
On February 19th Mr Obama's tenth consecutive win over Hillary Clinton made it yet more likely that he will be the Democratic nominee. This is bad news for Mr McCain, since Mrs Clinton would surely be easier for him to beat. Half the country already dislikes her. And although Mrs Clinton could out-wonk Mr McCain in any debate, he could crush her simply by asking voters whose character they admire more.
He is a war hero; she is not. (To be fair, unlike her husband, she claims she tried to join the Marines but was rejected for her poor eyesight.) He freely admits mistakes; she is bizarrely incapable of doing so. He often takes brave and unpopular stands; she is cautious and poll-driven. He has a reputation for telling the truth; she, to put it mildly, does not. And the best thing, from Mr McCain's point of view, is that he would not need to make any of these charges himself, because a legion of freelance Hillary-haters would do it for him.
Devising a strategy to shoot down Mr Obama is much harder. He is plainly nice, intelligent and (so far) almost scandal-free. His track record is so brief that there is not much to attack. Yet Mr McCain gave hints in his victory speech this week as to how he might do it.
I'm anxious for tomorrow!
happening right now!
\o/
should have sold it, i know lots of canadians who would want it.
+1 Obama - Primary
+1 Obama - Caucus
.... and now to crazy matters and how insecure this election is.
1. The precinct judge at our precinct took off with a voter book. NO VERIFICATION! Well a photo id but that's EASILY forgeable.
2. People fighting as in Obama vs. Clinton(actually fighting)
3. Segregated Voting(one line Barack one line for Clinton)
... Texas is whack.
what's the story with the fighting?
this shit ain't over
There are a bunch of racist fucks in Texas. Trust me guys, all of Texas is not like this.
If you look at the political map on a per county basis, you will see that most of the urban areas voted for Obama, whereas lots of the rural areas voted for Clinton. This could be because Obama didn't plan for Texas. I, however, think it is due to the fact that people are racist/dumb/ignorant fucks. I don't know HOW MANY people I had to tell that Obama is NOT MUSLIM! WTF!!?!?!?!!?
texas ftw \o/
Austin will become a principality of Texas. The capital will become Longview.
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_l … vote=00168
Why do the words "police state" come to mind...?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080612/ts_nm/gua … court_dc_8
we'll see how this actually plays out and how Bush handles it, but don't be so quick to paint such a bleak picture of civil rights in the US.
i think the prisoners should be able to get retribution against bush--either civil or criminal. ... meaning that they should get some money from him, or be able to force him to eat feces for a while.
As if Bush is the only person responsible ... :-/
hahaha I didn't know "eat feces for a while" was a criminal sentence. I think, actually, that might fall under the 8th amendment ;).
Of course, it's not cruel to kill people, but letting them eat their own shit they've been crapping out for 8 years is ... :-/
The bill of rights (And the rest of the constitution too btw) applies to everyone, period.
And I was kidding about the feces eating asem, the bill of rights applies to Bush too (As much as I hate that at times).
Also, terrorists are humans, there is this huge propaganda machine going on to make terrorists (And "related" people, like Iranese, Palestinian, Hamas, etc) look like lesser humans ... It reminds me of German, English, Russian, U.S. propaganda during WWII, it's sad to see that many people apparently didn't pay attention during those history lessons and don't recognize the propaganda going on today ... Because it's very similar.
But back to my point that terrorists are human ... Depending on your perspective a Palestine guy blowing up a bus is a terrorists or a freedom fighter ... By the way, just how is this different from the English carpet-bombing German cities, or the U.S. dropped a nuclear bomb on a city?
I can't say I'm too happy about that, but 'm not going to be all moral on those actions, 65 years after the fact, sitting on a comfy chair, in a heated room.
There were good reasons to carpet-bomb Germany and drop a nuclear bomb, just as Palestine have a good reason to attack Israel ... It's not the nicest thing in human history, and certainly something that should be prevented/solved, but it's also very understandable ...
People need to understand terrorists, see why they are terrorists, and solve the underlying problem, because terrorism isn't problem on itself, it's a symptom of an underlying problem ... And it's the underlying problem that needs to be solved (i.e. the occupation of Palestine by Israel, or the occupation of Iraq, etc.)
I think that the US government and its various arms (CIA, military, etc.) are just as guilty of terrorism as the Israeli military and Palestinian suicide bombers. they're all killing civilians in pursuit of their ends.
I don't know enough about history to argue for or against bombing German cities or nuking two cities in Japan, but on a purely theoretical level I find the killing of civilians deplorable. I do not, however, have the same perspective as a Palestinian or an Israeli and have to be careful about applying my own moral judgments to a situation I don't know enough about.
maybe in some instances killing civilians is excusable, as a means to a greater good. I don't want to believe that, but it might be the truth. I do think that, whatever the situation, terrorism should be treated as a last resort and not as an initial tactic.
it applies to americans alone. the only thing we adhere to regarding foreigners is the geneva convention. and that only covers POWs.
the way we've structured guantanamo, and the way the people there have fought us, ironically have left the whole affair in what is basically a legal void. It's not legal, and it's not illegal and no one really has jurisdiction over the situation. terrorists made this problem. by not being affiliated with a recognizable entity or sovereign nation, they have in effect given us the opportunity to put them into a hole they can never escape from... which btw they can't. most of the guys in guantanamo will be killed if freed... by their respective home countries.
is anyone in guantanamo innocent? from what i've read of people known to be in there... no. is it possible that an innocent person gets fucked that incredibly hard? yes... but... i'd trust a military tribunal over a jury of my peers any day. lets face it... most americans are retarded, and that goes doubly so for people who show up to jury duty on a regular basis. I'd gladly take my chances with a tribunal...
All that being said, I want to be clear. I think that anyone who voted for or signed the FISA act... is a traitor to the united states. They should be charged with treason and put on trial. I'm not trying to be overly dramatic either. That legislation is utterly unamerican. Not because of telecom immunity... but because it legalizes the use of federal intelligence agencies to spy domestically. That is a violation of a core principle of our nations existence. They basically voted to say, fuck america we hate it and lets piss all over it. That's what that bill really is at the end of the day. And the people responsible for voting it in should be treated as they are... traitors.
Am I concerned about the way DHS operates? yes, very. The DHS and TSA are in my view more dangerous to america at this point than al quaeda or north korea or even iran. If I was the president I'd put a stop to their sort of ilk immediately.
That's just my opinion.
in other news, the ACLU and EFF are both filing suit with the supreme court today to overturn the FISA act on grounds that it's batshit fucking crazy unconstitutional... which it so blatantly fucking is.
It's very probably that a large number of the people being held at Guantanamo Bay are either innocent, or guilty only of relatively light crimes ... You know how things are nowadays, a white man kills someone and it's a dangerous madman murdering, a Muslim kills someone and it's a terrorist act...
Also, the supreme court has ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the constitution does apply to Guantanamo captives.
That's not supported by the evidence. At least 10 of the people in there are guilty of numerous terrorist acts and high level support of al quaeda. In fact, until his trial we held the guy who planned the 9/11 attacks in there.
Most of the guys in guantanamo are repeat offenders. People with direct links to hardcore terrorists, or people who themselves have been implicated in terrorist acts.
The occasional mistake in identity does occur, but most of the people being held there are in fact very bad people.
What about innocent until proven guilty? Do people need to prove their innocence nowadays ?!
Guantanamo is the shameful apex of an imperial executive, overactive military and intelligence units, and confrontational checks and balances. A medieval, 'grey area' dungeon, where the ideals of the Constitution are openly mocked. It really is an embarrasment to America.
Sadly, the people inside the camp can never be released. We can be assured that no matter their status before their incarceration, they now have a much fuller motive to act violently against American interests. (and nny you're right, they would be executed by their respective home countries)
Like its legal status, its moral status is a bit of a grey area. It seems that something 'like' Guantanamo is and will be necessary in the future. However, the entire process should have been conducted with more transparency (within reason) and oversight. Furthermore, I think certain principles should always be applied - habeas corpus seems a defining test of judicial liberty (now required, Boumediene vs Bush as referenced by CS). I saw 'Taxi to the Dark Side' a while back and while I hate referencing documentaries like this, it really highlighted the sort of trouble unregulated military operations like Guantanamo can stir up. It describes an Afghani taxi driver who may have been transporting terrorists at the beginning of the US invasion. He was detained, tortured, and subsequently killed by the US military in Afghanistan, without any evidence beyond circumstantial and hearsay. Disturbingly, the people he was traveling with were detained at Guantanamo for fifteen months and then sent home to Afghanistan, free. This is what I mean when I encourage more oversight and fairness. It is incomprehensible that a government bound to act by such a wonderful document as the US Constitution would endorse or permit this sort of thing.
This reminds me of a dark part of Canadian history... back in the 1970s there was a terrorist organisation in Quebec called the FLQ. They were socialist & separatist. They bombed Anglophone neighborhoods, gov't/military facilities, stock exchange. In October 1970 the FLQ took gov't officials hostage and ended up executing one. In response the Cdn executive suspended habeas corpus against its own citizens and deployed the army to cities in Quebec and Ottawa. Hundreds of people were detained. Anyway check out the wiki article... 'October Crisis'.
some decent stuff on here - the newsweek article has a handful of descriptions that are interesting.
also this thread is so derailed...
darn journalists and their loose language