Gitchew a INTERNET candidate. (I gots mine, I'm voting for Michael Meyer)

This is why I am so impressed with Obama. Please, oh please, everyone, write to all your friends and relatives and urge them to vote for Obama!!! Only Obama can save us with hope and optimism. This so very, very, important, every time I hear Obama speak I get chills up and down my spine and tears roll down my cheeks. The thunder of his passion! The wisdom of his smile! The generosity of his warmth! Oh and be sure to donate here www.asuckerborneveryminute.com and feel the power, feel your pain, feel the dawn of a new era where the righteous rule.

I was a McCain man for the longest time. But, I've come to realize that Obama, too, will pursue the kind of short sighted, murderous policies that will finally bring this self-deluded empire down. I have no kids and am middle aged and not all that healthy, so I can only sit back and laugh at all the family value Republicans (and conservative Democrats) as their delusions come crashing down around us. Bravo Obama! I wonder what our next Syracuse will be? I'm still voting for Iran, although Pakistan looks tempting. Maybe Darfur, so we can save that oil oops, those starving villages.

Over at Left Business Observer,a few months ago, Doug Henwood wrote:

There’s no doubt that Obamalust does embody some phantasmic longing for a better world—more peaceful, egalitarian, and humane. He’ll deliver little of that—but there’s evidence of some admirable popular desires behind the crush. And they will inevitably be disappointed.

Henwood then somehow manages to find a silver lining in this cloud, by supposing that maybe THIS time someone will come along to offer a REAL hope for change.

It's been a long time since someone ran and won as a progressive Democrat - actually maybe no one ever has. Carter barely counts, since he was coasting on the coattails of the Nixon debacle. Kennedy was before there even was such a concept as a liberal/conservative divide. It'll be interesting to see what happens when the guy crushes all that hope he's been building up. Will people finally figure shit out and abandon the Democrats?

It'll be interesting to see what happens when the guy crushes all that hope he's been building up.

That won't happen. No matter how bad he is, he'll be better than Bush—and that'll be enough for the true believers. The vast majority of Obama voters will rationalize the inevitable "compromises" (i.e. betrayals) as necessary bows to pragmatism; he has to work within the realm of the possible, you see. In 2012 they'll have no time for our silly quibbles about how he bombed Iran, continued the occupation of Iraq, and circumvented any meaningful action on global warming. It'll be just like 2000, when after eight years of Clinton murdering Iraqi children by the hundreds of thousands, among other hideous crimes, a Gore-pimping Democrat actually pointed me towards the earned income tax credit as the glorious achievement that so clearly illustrates why we must, must, must keep the Democrats in power.

I shit you not. And even thus shall I not shit you in four more years, as the robotic millions ask for four more years to squander the precious few years we still have left, four at a time.

Well, WE live by Supreme Court Decisions on the Constitutionality of things, like 'em or not, that's how it is and should be. BUT Obama did represent himself as against telecom immunity, and that looks rough. I'm pro 2nd Amendment, and ANYONE that would hurt a child, I got nothing for. As far as YOUR soldier in Iraq, THAT'S EVERY WAR, and perhaps YOU might concider not buying wars. That way YOU can keep YOUR soldier on YOUR land under YOUR laws and YOU can then arrest and try YOUR soldier should YOUR soldier decide to rape a child. As long as YOU send YOUR soldiers to other lands then their laws apply or not as that's EVERY WAR.

Actually Mike, you does "got something for them." You gots an incentive for them to kill the child. Thanks Mike, Thanks Obama, real good thinkin' there!

Re: FISA bill- new amendment to remove immunity
This is a long shot, but surely it's worth a try?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/26/193828/906/525/542571

McClatchy

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/42361.html

"My support is still strong," said David Christie, 20. "And I don't think folks my age will turn on him if he keeps doing things like that. Folks my age are excited, and that's not going to die because of a couple of decisions."

Ellen Nielsen, a New Hampshire legislator, said, "Rejecting public financing does seem kind of cynical, but for someone who wants to be president, if you aspire to that job I guess you have to do it. I don't expect him to be a moral paragon. You don't get to where he is if you are."

In Illinois, fellow politicians and civic activists who watched Obama as a state lawmaker say he's a political realist who pivots when he needs to, but can be counted on to follow through on big promises.

"You have to run two different types of campaigns, one to attract the primary population, one to attract the general population," said state Sen. Terry Link, a Democrat. But Link said, "If they're trying to make him a Washingtonite, I would never believe he's going to be a Washingtonite."

Cynthia Canary, the executive director of Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a reform group, said: "We always should have been aware that there was a flip side to Sen. Obama being on such a tall pedestal. Sen. Obama has never been anything but human. In a way, we have done him a disservice by creating this rock and roll mythology around him."

These people are amazingly resilient. You could bounce ping pong balls off their heads all day.

Actually, I think Obama made the right choice. He criticized the decision based on narrow legal grounds, and he made statements that were technically correct.

His alternate choice would have been to appeal to the "child rapist" vote in one way or another.

That second choice of action, even though principled, would have guaranteed the biggest loss in the history of national elections.

Is that what you want?

saurabh The last Dem who ran on a progressive platform was called Richard Nixon (I am joking, but not entirely).

ROYT I was wondering the same thing. Basic game theory tells you that a player will maximize the offense for a given penalty. So if the rapist is going to die, anyway, he might as well kill the child and remove the witness. Same with minimum sentencing guidelines.

Rob Love the quote: "we have done him a disservice by creating this rock and roll mythology around him." Who's the victim of Obama's sellout? Why, he is the victim, of course. This is the sure sign of the tyrannical mind when one is so sensitive to Dear Leader's emotions. If Obama loses the elections, we will have "let him down."

Mike How do I not buy war, besides calling Nancy Pelosi? Maybe that's the key question. I don't know the answer. Do you?

Dave Obama contradicted himself on guns, the death penalty, and FISA. Isn't that a problem? You'll say that pandering is the price of victory. But is it? Gore pandered and lost. Kerry pandered and lost. Not to mention that Obama's appeal has always been the image of sincerity he projects to the gullible masses? Isn't that a giveaway?

I wrote: The vast majority of Obama voters will rationalize the inevitable "compromises" (i.e. betrayals) as necessary bows to pragmatism.

Dave wrote: His alternate choice would have been to appeal to the "child rapist" vote in one way or another. That second choice of action, even though principled, would have guaranteed the biggest loss in the history of national elections. Is that what you want?

I can't help but feel that some crucial point has been illustrated.

When they pull the curtain shut (pardon the anachron), I predict a LOT of voters will NOT pull the lever (another anachron) for Obama, though they will tell the exit pollers they did...

ROYT already shut down Mike's argument about the death penalty -- god, this is first-year crim law in law school stuff. And as for the second amendment, I support it too, Mike, which is why I think the National Guard is a good thing. Too bad Bush doesn't. Guns were a common-law right in the Framers' time and they are so now. Ironically enough, the National Guard and the local police forces that grew out of the militias the Framers intended to protect are suffering due to federal mismanagement (a double irony since they're supposed to be aiding the states directly) and -- the ultimate irony -- a heavily-armed populace. If only cops getting killed by heavily-armed criminals was as important to Obama as playing dispassionate legal scholar is. This from the man who couldn't even take a stand on the Bell shooting. (So he only caters to cops when the issue is ultimately to their detriment.)

Bernard: I sure as fuck do. Become a STATE CITIZEN and leave that FEDREAL CITIZENSHIP behind ( 14 ADMENDMENT) States don't buy wars, the Federal Government does. I DO NOT pay federal income tax, and I no longer buy much gasoline, 5 gallons per month at this time. In fact there are many ways to stop buying wars,calling the Speaker of The House is indeed one, but YOU have to actually call and voice YOUR concerns. Becoming a STATE CITIZEN WILL completely disrupt YOUR financial life. (but then YOUR WARS completely kill millions, priorities, I suppose)

I'm pretty sure that rape is a war crime now, though the idea of even child-raping US soldiers being made subject to international law seems laughable.

ROYT: I'm not the Supreme Court, but I AM willing to live by their decisions. Unless YOU perpitrate those kind of crimes YOURSELF, I'm fairly sure YOU have NO IDEA what is in the mind of such a person or what else they would do. YOU are just speculating, just like I have NO IDEA what they would do.

Mike: how does being a state citizen work?
I just stop paying taxes? Is that it? Do I then become a prison citizen?

John Caruso's ironically-proved point above supports another idea: it's better to agitate for the best leader and fail than shoot for the easiest-to-get mediocre leader and succeed. You can't party-build by putting up a slate of half-assed candidates. Hell, the REPUBLICANS have proved this for decades. Haven't any of the Obama ass-kissers realized that it was Republican zeal for ideological purity, combined with Republican tolerance and support in the face of media condemnation which did not imply ideological impurity, that built their party? This is seen in the purge of moderate Republicans over the last few decades (in part due to grassroots organizing that is alien to mainstream Dems -- not all Dems, but certainly the moneyed ones). Further, when Repubs commit egregious sins, such as child molestation or drug abuse, they don't condemn each other because those aren't sins to Republicans. Their ideology is evil, but it's fucking consistent. Dems, meanwhile, throw a candidate to the wolves over media-generated mickey-mouse bullshit. Hell, scratch candidate -- officeholder. Spitzer goes, but Craig stays. (And Spitzer's ouster was as political as it comes: he starts blaming Bush for the housing debacle and Republican attorneys suddenly find the time to prosecute an elected official.)

We are, admittedly, late with Obama. Even if the Dems had a spine and could purge their party, they'd be too slow to stop Obama. We're stuck with him because his fanatics, and a worthless media, didn't care to vet him and happily blew everyone else out of the race. But we'll do it again once he's in office. The party that trusted Clinton to oppose NAFTA just doesn't have the good sense to take a unified stance against rightwing corruption in its own ranks.

"Not to mention that Obama's appeal has always been the image of sincerity he projects to the gullible masses?"

Naw. It's all about 'transcendence'. That's heady stuff, indeed. And if a kinder, gentler, empire lasts a bit longer before its inevitable decline and fall, who's to blame the rubes for voting for a few more years of being on top? Seems rational to me.

Bernard: Read the 14 ADMENDENT and the attending Supreme Court decision of Slaughterhouse v. Louisanna. One must declare one's loyality to one's STATE CONSTITUTION in court or before one's State Secretary of State. YOU will LOSE all claims to federal services, social security, medicare, federal welfare programs, etc. YOU will cease using a social security number so YOUR job, insurance, social standing ARE at risk. After 31 years they haven't even called or written, no arrest no jail. (its not like they don't know who I am or where I live or phone number as I CALL EVERY DAY, DC business hours only, of course. I was apprehensive at first, 30 yrs ago, but it seems the PRO CONSTITUTIONAL NUTS that I learned this from were right all along.)

Bernard: If YOU are a judge, member of ANY bar association (lawyer), or federal employee, YOU cannot aquire STATE CITIZENSHIP without relinquishing those positions.

OR a resident of DC, YOU must reside in a STATE.

Thanks for the info, Mike!

Would anyone care to wager about bombing Iran? I say he won't do it as President. Also, the bits about Court decisions don't bother me as much as the other problems, in part because I don't believe for a moment that he'll appoint another Scalia.

"...I'm fairly sure...YOU are just speculating...I have NO IDEA..."

Wow Mike! It's so big you could pull this out of it, huh? Your head to one side, what else you got up in that hole?

Does speculating that other commenters may be sex offenders, no, rapists, no, wait, child rapists, not go too far for this place? Jon?

ROYT: I did NOT accuse YOU of any crime, I accused YOU of talking out YOUR ass which is NOT a crime in AMERICA.

Dude, as you're deaf to nothing, but unable to read the language in which you struggle to post, let's continue this.

Mike: I did not say YOU are a congenital IDIOT. There's no need to point to the OBVIOUS.

Mike: I still haven't said you ARE an IDIOT.

ROYT: Want to keep playing, I see. Ok I'll play.
I could be an idiot and YOU, why---????(could be STILL talking out YOUR ass)

Bernard Chazelle: "ROYT I was wondering the same thing. Basic game theory tells you that a player will maximize the offense for a given penalty. So if the rapist is going to die, anyway, he might as well kill the child and remove the witness. Same with minimum sentencing guidelines."
Mike Meyer: [crickets]


Mike Meyer: "I stop WAR by being a STATE citizen, me!"


No One of Consequence: "ROYT already shut down Mike's argument about the death penalty -- god, this is first-year crim law in law school stuff."
Mike Meyer: [crickets]


Mike Meyer: "I abide by supreme court decisions."


Mike Meyer: "ROYT might be a child-raper if he thinks he knows what's going on in their heads."

ROYT: Why any fool can take things out of contex, rearrange and add statements to fit their arguement, that's why its called "talking out YOUR ass". I don't believe, nor can YOU prove that I wrote the word [crickets] even once in OUR conversation until now.
I STILL got nothing for someone that would harm a child. Just because the Supreme Court decides such a person doesn't deserve death over not killing the victim in NO way obligates me to feel the same way. (I'm not able, nor would I, stop ANY war. I just don't invest MY MONEY in them. Spend YOURS how YOU like)

"Over at Left Business Observer,a few months ago, Doug Henwood wrote..."

yes, it would be a few months ago. when i subscribe to a "periodical" i expect it to arrive in periodic fashion.

You feel free to supply any context you think is missing, Mike. Only you will need it pointed out that the italicized were quotes and the rest paraphrase, accurate paraphrase.

Here's where context is missing:
"I did NOT accuse YOU of any crime"
"I'm not the Supreme Court, but I AM willing to live by their decisions"
"nor can YOU prove that I wrote the word [crickets]"

Where I'm from (psst: Earth), all of that stuff from you was nonsequiter, hopeless misunderstanding or willful pretense.

"Unless YOU perpitrate those kind of crimes YOURSELF, I'm fairly sure YOU have NO IDEA"

You go ahead and bring the context that makes that an appropriate way to argue, guy.

ROYT: One other angle occured to me and I hesitated in these several posts to bring it up but since YOU wish to continue---victim?