Here's our "President" vetoing a bill against torture. In other words, here is the face our "President" makes when he is striving to make our country less safe, something he has worked diligently at for over 7 years now. http://markhalperin.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/bushsigningveto.jpg Well, it made me laugh. "President" Bush vetoed the 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act because it would prohibit the CIA from using one of its most important tools against terrorism.... What could that be? Waterboarding, duh. From the AP:
The bill calls for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to question suspected terrorists under the rules of the US Army Field Manual, which forbids the controlled-drowning tactic and other methods widely seen as torture. "The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror -- the CIA program to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "So today, I vetoed it," said the US president.
I mean, can we give them a seat but, like in the coat check room instead of the convention hall?
Well of course they will be seated. But with what restrictions or allowances?
A CNN political analyst raised this confusing but crucial point--that we should all stop talking about "whether to seat the MI/FL delegates" because that's not the issue. The real issue is whether those delegates can vote according to the flawed primary vote outcomes.
This is correct. The real issue is whether the FL/MI delegate votes will represent the primary votes. So if the delegates are seated but in a way that's inconsequential to the nomination, will voters care? I'm guessing no. I base this on my observation that the voting public has shown and ability to tolerate only so much complexity. There is no way this math business will matter, as long as it's clear that the FL/MI delegates are seated, period.
And anyone who thinks it's unfair for votes to be inconsequential, consider this: more Democratic primary votes from more places across the country have been consequential than ever before. In terms of voter representation, this is the most successful Democratic primary ever. And what do all these votes tell us? That Democrats would be perfectly happy with either candidate. So long as the party doesn't do anything subversive.
The key to making sure nothing looks subversive is for the delegate counts to reveal a winner well before the convention.
They will, because by June 4th every state and territory will have voted, and the delegate advantage of FL/MI (FL is Clinton +38, whereas Michigan is inconclusive due to the 55 "uncommitted" delegates) will be inconsequential.
Superdelegate endorsements will then ratify as the nominee the candidate with a delegate lead (minus FL/MI). There you go.If I were a FL/MI voter though, a plan which seats my delegates according to voter representation but with the clear understanding that those delegates will be inconsequential would suck. But hello.That's how more than half of the states usually feels. And Florida has been uncommonly... consequential... in recent presidential races.
Now, onto the business of choosing a nominee--Certified California Democratic Primary results came in two days ago, giving Obama +4 delegates and Clinton -4 delegates. Texas caucus results will be in March 29th giving Obama +37 and Clinton +30.As of today then, Obama has a pledged delegate lead of about 153.If you want to include FL/MI, then Obama has a pledged delegate lead of about 42, with 94 pledged delegates who are free agents but will favor Obama (55 "uncommitted" MI delegates, 13 Edwards FL delegates, and another 26 Edwards delegates)
And if anybody is friends with John King, please sit him down and explain this to him...To be the nominee, a candidate must have 50% of all delegates (including superdelegates) plus one. Not including FL/MI, there are 4048 delegates (including superdelegates). If FL/MI delegates are included, then a candidate will need an addtional 183 delegates, or 2208, to win.
So in conclusion, Obama will be the Democratic nominee in early June.
It started with the misreporting of an offhanded comment by Harper aide Brodie, who told reporters that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take [the protectionist talk on NAFTA renegotiations] with a grain of salt.".
It was falsely reported that Brodie said someone from OBAMA's campaign called with that message.
The report was correctly denied by Harper and Obama. Then this memo emerged, supporting the false rumor. How intriguing. The memo was released the DAY BEFORE Ohio voted.
Obama and Goolsbee assert that the (possibly illegally leaked) memo is a strong mischaracterization.
Senator Clinton, through all of this, despite the cautionary statements from Harper, repeats as loudly as she can that Obama has "basically done the old wink-wink, don't pay any attention, this is just political rhetoric." "I don't think people should come to Ohio and tell the people of Ohio one thing and then have your campaign tell a foreign government something else behind closed doors.''
She wins Ohio on a wave of last minute voters.
My country needs a bro hug.
There is only one candidate who can bring us this change.
Wow, poor Senator Watson.
Let's all resolve to get to know our candidate a little better this week....Here are some links to get you started.
If you have any good links, please post them as a comment!
1. Congresspedia
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama
2. Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
3. Library of Congress: (search "senate amendment agreements" for example)
http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d110query.html
4. Senate website:
http://obama.senate.gov
5. Contrast article in politico.com:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8573.html
6. New York Times summary of Obama's Illinois Senate accomplishments
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html
7. ... and accompanying article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?scp=3&sq=obama&st=nyt
8. Mark Halperin's (online free for a limited time) Undecided Voter's Guide:
http://browseinside.harpercollins.com/index.aspx?isbn13=9780061537301&WT.mc_id=news_HotHarper_Halperin_BI_Full_020108
9. Daily Kos Summary
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.02433: http://obama.senate.gov/press/080213-obama_hagel_can_1/ Info on Global Poverty Act.
Yes, as we know, extreme global poverty is a partisan issue. Sigh. I hope this bill makes it.
It's a commitment of $845 billion over several years from what I can tell, which is why Clinton's isolationist tendencies might drive her to label this bill as excessive spending (which would be good for Obama). Of course, the comeback from that is, combatting extreme global poverty is necessary for our national security. Anyway, for the doubters, Sen. Clinton's isolationist tendencies (and lack of humor) were on display when she tried to joke that Putin "has no soul," to which Putin later responded "As a minimum, a state official must at least have a head." Man, I love this election season.
Anyway, I hope people look closely at Sen. Clinton's and Sen. Obama's leadership records. Obama is a leader on national security, he is a leader on human rights, and he is definitely a leader on health.
Please compare each candidate's actions on the Katrina FEMA trailers. Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama are both on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. Sen. Clinton did not lead on the Katrina FEMA trailer issue. Obama did. Compare their press releases on their senate.gov websites and decide who sounds like a better leader Clinton: Link Obama: Link
