PLEASANT SURMISE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.
Why Obama Will Trounce McCain...
Current mood: excited
Category: News and Politics
Here are portions of a speech that Senator Obama gave on foreign policy. If it's just rhetoric, it still makes McCain look like John's playing flag football in the NFL. If it's more than just talk, then a President Obama will rightly find his place among the giants.
"George Bush and John McCain don't have a strategy for success in Iraq - they have a strategy for staying in Iraq. They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down. They refuse to press the Iraqis to make tough choices, and they label any timetable to redeploy our troops "surrender," even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government - not to a terrorist enemy. Theirs is an endless focus on tactics inside Iraq, with no consideration of our strategy to face threats beyond Iraq's borders.
At some point, a judgment must be made. Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don't have unlimited resources to try to make it one. We are not going to kill every al Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave - General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged this to me when they testified last April. That is why the accusation of surrender is false rhetoric used to justify a failed policy. In fact, true success in Iraq - victory in Iraq - will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future - a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up.
To achieve that success, I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war. Let me be clear: we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 - one year after Iraqi Security Forces will be prepared to stand up; two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, we'll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of al Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq's Security Forces, so long as the Iraqis make political progress.
We will make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy - that is what any responsible Commander-in-Chief must do. As I have consistently said, I will consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government. We will redeploy from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We will commit $2 billion to a meaningful international effort to support the more than 4 million displaced Iraqis. We will forge a new coalition to support Iraq's future - one that includes all of Iraq's neighbors, and also the United Nations, the World Bank, and the European Union - because we all have a stake in stability. And we will make it clear that the United States seeks no permanent bases in Iraq.
This is the future that Iraqis want. This is the future that the American people want. And this is what our common interests demand. Both America and Iraq will be more secure when the terrorist in Anbar is taken out by the Iraqi Army, and the criminal in Baghdad fears Iraqi Police, not just coalition forces. Both America and Iraq will succeed when every Arab government has an embassy open in Baghdad, and the child in Basra benefits from services provided by Iraqi dinars, not American tax dollars.
And this is the future we need for our military. We cannot tolerate this strain on our forces to fight a war that hasn't made us safer. I will restore our strength by ending this war, completing the increase of our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines, and investing in the capabilities we need to defeat conventional foes and meet the unconventional challenges of our time.
So let's be clear. Senator McCain would have our troops continue to fight tour after tour of duty, and our taxpayers keep spending $10 billion a month indefinitely; I want Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future, and to reach the political accommodation necessary for long-term stability. That's victory. That's success. That's what's best for Iraq, that's what's best for America, and that's why I will end this war as President.
In fact - as should have been apparent to President Bush and Senator McCain - the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was. That's why the second goal of my new strategy will be taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia. If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned. And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.
Senator McCain said - just months ago - that "Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq." I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That's what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And that's why, as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.
I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions - with fewer restrictions - from NATO allies. I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions. Just as we succeeded in the Cold War by supporting allies who could sustain their own security, we must realize that the 21st century's frontlines are not only on the field of battle - they are found in the training exercise near Kabul, in the police station in Kandahar, and in the rule of law in Herat.
Moreover, lasting security will only come if we heed Marshall's lesson, and help Afghans grow their economy from the bottom up. That's why I've proposed an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year, with meaningful safeguards to prevent corruption and to make sure investments are made - not just in Kabul - but out in Afghanistan's provinces. As a part of this program, we'll invest in alternative livelihoods to poppy-growing for Afghan farmers, just as we crack down on heroin trafficking. We cannot lose Afghanistan to a future of narco-terrorism. The Afghan people must know that our commitment to their future is enduring, because the security of Afghanistan and the United States is shared.
The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.
Make no mistake: we can't succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It's time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That's why I'm cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam.
Only a strong Pakistani democracy can help us move toward my third goal - securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states. One of the terrible ironies of the Iraq War is that President Bush used the threat of nuclear terrorism to invade a country that had no active nuclear program. But the fact that the President misled us into a misguided war doesn't diminish the threat of a terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction - in fact, it has only increased it.
...
We cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of nations that support terror. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a vital national security interest of the United States. No tool of statecraft should be taken off the table, but Senator McCain would continue a failed policy that has seen Iran strengthen its position, advance its nuclear program, and stockpile 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. I will use all elements of American power to pressure the Iranian regime, starting with aggressive, principled and direct diplomacy - diplomacy backed with strong sanctions and without preconditions.
There will be careful preparation. I commend the work of our European allies on this important matter, and we should be full partners in that effort. Ultimately the measure of any effort is whether it leads to a change in Iranian behavior. That's why we must pursue these tough negotiations in full coordination with our allies, bringing to bear our full influence - including, if it will advance our interests, my meeting with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing.
We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives. If you refuse, then we will ratchet up the pressure, with stronger unilateral sanctions; stronger multilateral sanctions in the Security Council, and sustained action outside the UN to isolate the Iranian regime. That's the diplomacy we need. And the Iranians should negotiate now; by waiting, they will only face mounting pressure.
The surest way to increase our leverage against Iran in the long-run is to stop bankrolling its ambitions. That will depend on achieving my fourth goal: ending the tyranny of oil in our time.
One of the most dangerous weapons in the world today is the price of oil. We ship nearly $700 million a day to unstable or hostile nations for their oil. It pays for terrorist bombs going off from Baghdad to Beirut. It funds petro-diplomacy in Caracas and radical madrasas from Karachi to Khartoum. It takes leverage away from America and shifts it to dictators.
This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the long-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Most disastrously, that could mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline.
This is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis. For the sake of our security - and for every American family that is paying the price at the pump - we must end this dependence on foreign oil. And as President, that's exactly what I'll do. Small steps and political gimmickry just won't do. I'll invest $150 billion over the next ten years to put America on the path to true energy security. This fund will fast track investments in a new green energy business sector that will end our addiction to oil and create up to 5 million jobs over the next two decades, and help secure the future of our country and our planet. We'll invest in research and development of every form of alternative energy - solar, wind, and biofuels, as well as technologies that can make coal clean and nuclear power safe. And from the moment I take office, I will let it be known that the United States of America is ready to lead again.
Never again will we sit on the sidelines, or stand in the way of global action to tackle this global challenge. I will reach out to the leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations and ask them to join a new Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols. We will also build an alliance of oil-importing nations and work together to reduce our demand, and to break the grip of OPEC on the global economy. We'll set a goal of an 80% reduction in global emissions by 2050. And as we develop new forms of clean energy here at home, we will share our technology and our innovations with all the nations of the world.
That is the tradition of American leadership on behalf of the global good. And that will be my fifth goal - rebuilding our alliances to meet the common challenges of the 21st century.
For all of our power, America is strongest when we act alongside strong partners. We faced down fascism with the greatest war-time alliance the world has ever known. We stood shoulder to shoulder with our NATO allies against the Soviet threat, and paid a far smaller price for the first Gulf War because we acted together with a broad coalition. We helped create the United Nations - not to constrain America's influence, but to amplify it by advancing our values.
...
And just as we renew longstanding efforts, so must we shape new ones to meet new challenges. That's why I'll create a Shared Security Partnership Program - a new alliance of nations to strengthen cooperative efforts to take down global terrorist networks, while standing up against torture and brutality. That's why we'll work with the African Union to enhance its ability to keep the peace. That's why we'll build a new partnership to roll back the trafficking of drugs, and guns, and gangs in the Americas. That's what we can do if we are ready to engage the world.
We will have to provide meaningful resources to meet critical priorities. I know development assistance is not the most popular program, but as President, I will make the case to the American people that it can be our best investment in increasing the common security of the entire world. That was true with the Marshall Plan, and that must be true today. That's why I'll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease. To send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now."
What are your thoughts on Obama's foreign policy strategy?
Here's a piece from author Seth Grahame-Smith that sums up the 2008 election nicely:
"The MSM is trying to convince us that we're in for a twelve-round brawl. That McCain's going to give Obama a run for his $500M. That's all well and good, and I'm sure it'll make for some riveting television -- if you're the type of person who still watches Harlem Globetrotters games on the edge of your seat, convinced the Washington Generals will pull this one out.
But the truth is, it's not going to be close. Not even a little bit.
Imagine yourself in a high school history class a century from now. Imagine the teacher beginning the section on the elections of 2008 by setting the scene: "America's economy was in flames, we were fighting two wars with no end in sight, and global warming was accelerating at an alarming rate. The most despised president in 150 years was nearing the end of his two corruption-ridden terms, and had heartily endorsed his successor, John McCain -- who, despite a few ideological differences, planned on keeping the status quo intact. Running against him was a lightning-in-a-bottle candidate named Barack Obama. A candidate who had nearly six times the money to spend, drew crowds of 70,000, and who received support from a surprising number of disenfranchised Republicans -- even some of the Evangelicals who swept Bush to power. Obama was the story. He captured the imagination of young Americans and the world. Now, by a show of hands -- who thinks McCain won that election?" (A particularly easy question, since they're sitting in Barack Obama High).
Whatever you think about McCain -- whether you love him or hate him -- you can't deny that he's a victim of horrible timing. Everywhere you look, there are tidal forces -- geopolitical, economic, and social forces -- trending in Obama's favor. McCain is running on a war record in a country aching for peace. He's running on an admitted lack of economic knowledge in a country aching for economic reform. Healthcare, foreign policy, energy -- in each case his sales pitch is twenty years behind the curve, much like the declining party for which he has the unfortunate honor of being standard bearer. Worst of all, his base doesn't even like him. Sure, they might pull that lever, but they'll be holding their noses with the other hand. If Obama's base is "fired up and ready to go," McCain's base is more like "reheated and I'll get around to it."
Obama No Dukakis
Current mood: nostalgic
Category: News and Politics
Obama's finally gotten the post-primary bounce that pundits have been looking for. A recent national poll by Newsweek shows Senator Obama opening a 15-point lead over Senator McCain.
McCain's numbers have dropped from a high of 46% to only 36% - falling below 40% for the first time this cycle – while Obama increased his numbers from 46% to 51%. Additionally, he has widened his lead among blacks, youth, women and independents. While McCain's approval rating has dropped to 49%, Obama's has increased to 62%. Obama is also trusted by more voters to handle the economy, the energy crisis and the Iraq War. Only 5% of voters are undecided.
Republicans have been quick to dismiss the results, tacking the lead up to a post-primary bounce and pointing out that Governor Dukakis enjoyed an 18-point lead over Vice President Bush in 1988, only to lose the election in an Electoral College landslide. A closer examination of the facts reveals that this is a hasty generalization, because there are too many significant differences between 1988 and now for this to be a valid comparison.
Dukakis didn't get a large bounce from winning the primary, he opened up his lead after the Democratic convention in July; in contrast this years Democratic Convention is still to be held at which time a post-convention bounce is expected for Obama. Dukakis also only enjoyed a 28% positive approval rating coming out of the convention and through July a whopping 50% of voters were still undecided. Dukakis' lead fizzled within two weeks, because instead of campaigning after the convention he returned to Massachusetts to govern for several weeks. In fact, he would campaign only part-time for much of the primary and general election – splitting his week between governing during the early part of the week and campaigning towards the end of the week. With the exception of a few key votes, Obama has been a fulltime campaigner. It wasn't until the end of September that Dukakis began campaigning full time.
This allowed Bush to effectively define him with unrelenting attacks throughout the summer and the early fall. Despite a years worth of campaigning time, going into the debates Dukakis was still unknown by 54% of the electorate. Bush's attacks went unanswered until the end of October – just days before the election – when Dukakis gave a 90-minute TV interview and his campaign began countering Bush's negative ads with a set of their own. Throughout the campaign Dukakis made several PR blunders and, like Kerry in 2004, had them used against him by the Republicans. "Dukakis Driving a Tank" is slang in PR circles for a faux pas. Unlike Dukakis (or Gore or Kerry for that matter), Obama has been quick to address attacks from the right and his team has been exceptional with staging PR events.
Lloyd Bentsen, Dukakis' running mate, wasn't any more helpful during the campaign. He chose to simultaneously campaign for re-election to his Senate seat in Texas. The Texas Republican Party's message was "vote no for Bentsen twice," and it effectively eliminated the advantage that Democrats hoped to obtain in Texas by choosing Bentsen as VP. From the list of major contenders announced so far for Obama's VP slot, none are running for re-election.
Moreover, Dukakis' lead in the national polls wasn't reflected in the state polling at the time. He was doing poorly in the South and the North, and the Electoral College breakdown from the state polls showed Dukakis at only 227 with Bush closely behind at 214. Dukakis' strength was in the West and the Midwest. However, state polls this year have Obama up by nearly 150 Electoral Votes, at 347 for Obama to 191 for McCain. With a few exceptions Obama is running strong in every section of the country.
Another important difference is that this year only 12% of Americans say that they are satisfied with the direction of the country and the President has the lowest approval rating in history; but, in 1988 there was a general satisfaction with the status quo and President Reagan enjoyed a positive approval rating. Bush also enjoyed a significant fund raising advantage over his rival, in contrast Obama has more cash on hand than McCain and won't be limited by the amount of money that he can spend because he opted out of public financing. In politics cash is the fifth estate and those that have it usually win.
Finally, in 1988 America wasn't bogged down in a war opposed by 65% of the population and the average price of gas was only $1.08 per gallon. Justified or not, many Americans are drawing their own connections between the Iraq War and high oil prices, which doesn't bode well for McCain since he's branded himself the stay-the-course candidate. We also can't discount the fact that in 1988 there was no major third party challenger from the right, whereas this year Bob Barr is running as the Libertarian nominee and should present problems for McCain throughout the South – especially in Georgia (Barr's home state).
Unless a major scandal surrounding Obama pops-up, McCain will be lucky to see 44% again.
Holding Them Accountable
Current mood: nostalgic
Category: News and Politics
The other day Dennis Kucinich, Representative from Ohio, introduced Articles of Impeachment against President Bush. He introduced them because:
"If we do not establish that the rule of law must apply to the president of the US now, what we are doing is through our inaction creating a precedent that would let the next president know that he could go ahead and wage war without congressional approval. That he could approve of wiretapping, rendition, spying, torture or anything because congress wouldn't act. We need to take a stand now not just for justice for what's happened over the last seven years, but also to restrain any abuse of power in the next administration."~ Congressman Dennis Kucinich
The Congress voted the bill to committee, which effectively means that it's been shelved until after January when Bush leaves office (which is the same thing as saying that it's permanently off the table). But, we don't have to wait till 1.20.09 to end this error; we can hold the Administration accountable now!
Our elected representatives are essentially whores – turning tricks for money and votes (and sometimes in bathroom stalls) – and will jump through pretty much any hoop to stay in power. Congress has a pretty low approval rating right now, and, although a majority of voters in recent surveys prefer Dems to Repubs, if we start holding them accountable too - with letters to the editor, phone calls etc. - impeachment will be back on the table toot sweet. As Cafferty pointed out, this is one of the reasons why the Dems were brought to power in the first place:
"Congress continues to refuse to exercise its constitutional responsibility, which is oversight of the executive branch of our government. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi long ago said impeachment is off the table. This is a joke. We have a President who has abused the power of his office over and over and over again. It's what got the Democrats elected to the majority in Congress in 2006." ~ CNN's Jack Cafferty
During the 70s Congress was flooded with telegrams that said only two words "Impeach Nixon!" By holding congress accountable, we can hold Dubya accountable. 1.20.09 doesn't have to be the end of an error it can be tomorrow if we want it...
One of the first Blogs I wrote was about impeachment and I still think it's relevant today:
When in the Course of Human Events...
"I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life." ~ U.S. Army Soldier Creed.
American Revolutionary War 4,435 dead. 6,188 wounded. War of 1812. 2,260 dead. 4,505 wounded. American-Mexican War 13,283 dead. 4,152 wounded. US Civil War 359,528 dead. 275,175 wounded. Philippine-American War 3,216 dead. 2,779 wounded. Spanish American War 2,456 dead. 1,662 wounded. World War I 116,708 dead. 204,002 wounded. World War II 407,316 dead. 670,846 wounded. Korean War 52,246 dead. 103,284 wounded. Vietnam War 58,168 dead. 153,303 wounded. Gulf War 293 dead. 467 wounded. Afghan War 510 dead. 1,992 wounded. Iraq War 4,100 dead. 29,451 wounded.
Total American Casualties of War: 2,122,797
"I am a member of the United States Armed Forces who shares the great responsibility of preserving the freedom of every man, woman, and child in this nation." ~ Air Force Creed.
What is freedom? What is this American way of life that over two million have sacrificed to protect?
Is it illegal, warrant-less wire-tapping? Is it betraying the solemn pact made with undercover operatives? Is it torture? Is it the patriot act? Is it using the justice department to politically assassinate your opponents? With freedom like this, who needs tyranny?
"I never, by work or deed, will bring reproach upon the fair name of my service, nor permit others to do so unchallenged." ~ Coast Guard Creed.
Tyranny is unrestrained exercise of power. Tyranny is despotic abuse of authority. Tyranny is use of absolute power. We are at this very moment being ruled by tyrants. George Bush is not restricted by laws or by opposition. When the White House was faced with opposition to the Iraq War it outed a CIA agent as retribution. When anti-war protestors started to assemble the White House used provisions of the Patriot Act to spy and intimidate. Faced with the likelihood of not being granted warrants to spy on Americans, the White House simply did so in secrecy without legal oversight. Faced with the impending defeat in the 2006 elections the White House fired U.S. Attorneys who stood against the tyrants wanting to politically assassinate the opposition.
"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America" ~ Navy Creed.
Have you seen the new Microsoft commercials? The commercials for Windows Vista where people, experiencing it for the first time, are so overwhelmed they simply pause and say "wow." Secretly inserting provisions into the Patriot Act that allow the White House to fire U.S. Attorneys without cause and replace them without Congressional approval – then to actually fire U.S. Attorneys who refuse to assassinate political opponents - is such a moment. Wow.
"Keep me true to my best self, guarding me against dishonesty in purpose and deed and helping me to live so that I can face my fellow Marines, my loved ones, and Thee without shame or fear."~ Marine Corps Prayer.
America is just an idea. The Constitution, our justice system, order and freedom, those are all just ideas. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. We have chosen to live by the idea that is the Constitution. We have chosen to honor the idea that is America. We have asked over two million people to sacrifice for that idea. Who the fuck do Dick Cheney and George Bush think they are? At what point did co-equal begin to mean subservient to the executive branch?
Conservative leaders like Trent Lott have chosen to remain silent on this issue. They are either cowards or co-conspirators. America is at a crossroads! Will 2,122,797 have sacrificed in vain for tyranny? Or, will we see to it that they were sacrificed for freedom? Our Founding Fathers gave us the ability to make this decision. It's Article 2 section 4 of the Constitution.
"The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust." – Federalist Paper 65.
Allison Wimer captured it best in the Concord Monitor:
"Please write or e-mail your representatives and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The entire world watches to see how we use our constitutional democracy. No one is above the law. For us to start the healing process, we must impeach those who have abused our trust, broken the law, committed war crimes and more. It is time for us to stand up and tell the world, "Not in our name!"
Please feel free to forward this Blog, email it, pimp it, tell your friends about it, but, most importantly, don't just read it, do something about it!
Historians Give McW Zero Chance
Current mood: amused
Category: News and Politics
Just got done with my LSE exams, and I'm finishing up my book that debunks all of the Repub Swift Boating of Senator Obama and his family, so I haven't had much time to Blog. I'll spin off some of the chapters from the book into blogs, which I hope to start posting next week. First up, debunking the SPAM email that purports to prove Obama is a racist based upon alleged quotes from his books. Hint: most of the quotes aren't in either of Obama's books, nor are they in any of his speeches, and one of them was actually said by a Repub.
Until then here's an article from Politico on McW's chances of winning:
One week into the general election, the polls show a dead heat. But many presidential scholars doubt that John McCain stands much of a chance, if any.
Historians belonging to both parties offered a litany of historical comparisons that give little hope to the Republican. Several saw Barack Obama's prospects as the most promising for a Democrat since Roosevelt trounced Hoover in 1932.
"This should be an overwhelming Democratic victory," said Allan Lichtman, an American University presidential historian who ran in a Maryland Democratic senatorial primary in 2006. Lichtman, whose forecasting model has correctly predicted the last six presidential popular vote winners, predicts that this year, "Republicans face what have always been insurmountable historical odds." His system gives McCain a score on par with Jimmy Carter's in 1980.
"McCain shouldn't win it," said presidential historian Joan Hoff, a professor at Montana State University and former president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency. She compared McCain's prospects to those of Hubert Humphrey, whose 1968 loss to Richard Nixon resulted in large part from the unpopularity of sitting Democratic president Lyndon Johnson.
"It is one of the worst political environments for the party in power since World War II," added Alan Abramowitz, a professor of public opinion and the presidency at Emory University. His forecasting model — which factors in gross domestic product, whether a party has completed two terms in the White House and net presidential approval rating — gives McCain about the same odds as Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and Carter in 1980 — both of whom were handily defeated in elections that returned the presidency to the previously out-of-power party. "It would be a pretty stunning upset if McCain won," Abramowitz said.
...
But the biggest obstacle in McCain's path may be running in the same party as the most unpopular president America has had... Only Harry Truman and Nixon — both of whom were dogged by unpopular wars abroad and political scandals at home — have been nearly as unpopular in their last year in office, and both men's parties lost the presidency in the following election.
Tim Russert died today. At the age of 58. He collapsed in the NBC newsroom and just died. Lesson learned: Seize the f'in day, make every moment count and spend time with loved ones!
Seems that the McCain camp is hot on the trail of the surrender monkey. Well, as long time readers of this blog know, I've already been down that trail. What I found was so terrifying that I changed my name to Puck, moved to a mountain in Japan, shaved my head, gained 450 pounds, competed in amateur sumo wrestling, got busted for juicing, lost my title, was banished from my adopted village and was forced to live off of tiger dung for 36 hours before I realized I was in front of a McDonald's where I hooked for a couple of Ronald's McNuggets.
Maybe McCain shouldn't go there. Personally, I vowed never to speak of the horror I found, but I'm busy this week so I figured "ah what the hell, why not reuse some old material?"
Note for the new readers: In the blog I mention Shane. Shane is a Bush-Till-The-End-Republican who would routinely label readers of my blog surrender monkeys. Shane if you're out there feel free to comment. You're blog material gold!
On the Trail of the Surrender Monkey
For the past week I've been getting reports in from a reader that a new species of primate had begun to spring up in the halls of our government. Deeply concerned that this "surrender monkey" (as the reader referred to it) was the foreshadowing of something more sinister, I decided to consult a monkey expert/survivalist. Often times referred to as the missing link himself, our resident monkey connoisseur, Shane, is right at the top of my Rolodex for all things monkey. Not because he's any good – actually now that I think about it, he has a Snuffleupagus quality about him – but because he takes payment in monopoly:
This is what I was able to learn from Shane:
"[T]he definition of the surrender monkeys. If there're willing to take payoffs from Saudi Sheiks…"
Profound. The best thing since sliced limes. Monopoly well spent. Thanks Shane!
Surrender Monkey Expert Shane Standing in Front of His House
Loaded with this newfound knowledge, and grammar style, I was ready to conduct my own "factcheck.org" of this story. Central to Shane's definition of "surrender monkey" was the notion of the Saudi payoff. From what I was able to discern, the Monkey Master was saying that the defining characteristic of a "surrender monkey" is a willingness to accept money from citizens of the Kingdom of Saud. All that I had to do then, was follow the money trail and I would have this baffling "surrender monkey."
A quick google revealed this article written by Jonathan Wells, Jack Meyers and Maggie Mulvihill:
Many of the same American corporate executives who have reaped millions of dollars from arms and oil deals with the Saudi monarchy have served or currently serve at the highest levels of U.S. government, public records show.
Those lucrative financial relationships call into question the ability of America's political elite to make tough foreign policy decisions about the kingdom that produced Osama bin Laden and is perhaps the biggest incubator for anti-Western Islamic terrorists.
Nowhere is the revolving U.S.-Saudi money wheel more evident than within President Bush's own coterie of foreign policy advisers, starting with the president's father, George H.W. Bush.
At the same time that the elder Bush counsels his son on the ongoing war on terrorism, the former president remains a senior adviser to the Washington D.C.-based Carlyle Group. That influential investment bank has deep connections to the Saudi royal family as well as financial interests in U.S. defense firms hired by the kingdom to equip and train the Saudi military.
It began to sound like this "President" Bush was the prime primate of the "surrender monkey" species. I was curious, so I googled "curious george bush" to see if I was the only one that had stumbled on this story. The search results were staggering. Not only were there stories, but there were pictures like this one:
"By the power of Grayskull," America was being ruled by a "surrender monkey." This was shocking. How could a War Czar (ret.) be in cahoots with Saudi Arabia? After all, the Kingdom of Saud isn't exactly the Magic Kingdom. As "U.S. News and World Report" first chronicled:
A 1996 CIA report found that a third of the 50 Saudi-backed charities it studied were tied to terrorist groups. Similarly, a 1998 report by the National Security Council had identified the Saudi government as the "epicenter" of terrorist financing, becoming the single greatest force in spreading Islamic fundamentalism and funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to jihad groups and al Qaeda cells around the world. Over the past decade, al Qaeda and its fellow jihadists collected between $300 million and $500 million, most of it from Saudi charities and private donors and the very origins of al Qaeda are intimately bound up with the Saudi Charities.
But, this article referenced 1998, surely I could simply say "Bill Clinton" over and over and make it all go away like Faux News tries, but then I found this report:
The new Bush Treasury Department disapproved of the Clinton Administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to Bin Laden. Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with loose banking regulations… Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center.
The dangers that a "surrender monkey" posed to the safety and security of America were becoming clearer. Something just didn't seem right though. I mean, Saudi Arabia was… is… our friend and ally – after all Faux News said so. They couldn't possibly be supporters of terrorism. George Bush said Iraq was working together with Bin Laden and he was wrong. This had to be wrong too. For this to be true, there would have to be some historical basis for this accusation. Oh wait, from "The Atlantic:"
In the mid-1700s a new strain of Muslim extremism began to flourish in a small village in the Arabian desert—a strain that would have a profound effect on Islam and the world as a whole. As Stephen Schwartz describes it in his recent book, The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa'ud from Tradition to Terror, little is known about the early life of the sect's founder, Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, except that as a young man he is thought to have traveled through much of the Ottoman empire.
He returned from his travels with a belief that Islam had been corrupted and weakened by the Ottomans, and that it needed to be brought back to its roots. But his brand of "an original, authentic Islam," as Schwartz writes, was both harsher and more stripped down than the religion that the Prophet Muhammad had founded centuries before. Al-Wahhab forbade many practices and traditions that were an established part of Muslim culture, such as the celebration of the Prophet's birthday, the decoration of mosques, and the use of music in worship and daily life. But most striking was his attitude toward those people—both Muslims and non-Muslims—who didn't share his beliefs. As Schwartz describes it, "Shi'as, Sufis, and other Muslims he judged unorthodox were to be exterminated, and all other faiths were to be humiliated."
Al-Wahhab soon established a political-religious alliance with a local bandit, Muhammad ibn Sa'ud, and they agreed that any territory they conquered could only be ruled by their descendants. The House of Sa'ud—which rules Saudi Arabia—is directly descended from that alliance, and Wahhabism (though Saudis don't use the term) is the religion of the regime.
More interesting facts about Saudi Arabia:
Ratio of the minimum number of beheadings by the Saudi government last year to those by Saudi terrorists so far this year : 50:1
Amount the family of Osama bin Laden was paid by Saudi Arabia to construct U.S. barracks: $150,000,000
Estimated value of a diamond-and-sapphire jewelry set given to Laura Bush in 2003 by the Saudi crown prince : $95,500
15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were shown to be Saudi Arabians
And my favorite:
On Jan. 11 2003, Saudi Arabia was informed of the imminent invasion of Iraq before Bush told Secretary of State Colin Powell.
An Obama VP Choice: So Crazy it Just Might Work!
Current mood: adventurous
Category: News and Politics
Now that Obama is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, and the official party leader, speculation is abound on who his VP choice will be. Clinton's attempt at using her voters as bargaining chips to muscle her way into the VP slot, her questionable statements during the election, and President B. Clinton's refusal to release his financials, lead the pundits to beleive that she's eliminated herself from the running. But, unlike McW, Obama has a pretty long list of running mates to choose from.
If he wants to boost his military credentials there's: former Marine General Anthony Zinni, former Army General Wes Clark, former Republican and Secretary of Defense Jim Webb, Senator Joe Biden and so on. He even has the option of selecting Chuck Hagel, a retiring Republican Senator from Nebraska and Obama's Joe Lieberman.
If he wants economics there's: former Republican and now Independent Mayor of NYC Mike Bloomberg, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, former PA Governor Ed Rendall and so on.
Well, here's a crazy idea from Politics1.com:
Senator Barack Obama needs a Vice Presidential runningmate who will calm older, union, Jewish, blue collar and white voters who voted for Hillary Clinton ... voters who still admire the Clintons ... voters concerned about Obama's experience in foreign policy. Picking Hillary Clinton for VP, for example, is simply a terrible choice. She entirely undercuts the message of change, canceling out the change message by adding a runningmate who is a leading practitioner of the dark and destructive political art of triangulation. Yet there is someone else out there who has a solid past association with the Clintons ... who is untainted by the most unsavory moments of the Clinton White House years ... who is a Vietnam War veteran ... who has extensive government credentials on environmental protection and national security ... who has won both the Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar ... and yet who remains a believable agent for change and health care and peace and for healing our planet. History shows us a former Vice President can return to political office and serve with honor and distinction. VP Hubert Humphrey, after a very narrow loss for President in 1968, returned to the US Senate in 1970 and served there for the remainder of his life. So I say "Draft Gore." Draft Gore because he believes in the concept of a higher calling, of service to nation and planet, who would appreciate the unique opportunity to return to public service to advance his causes ... and maybe even be given the opportunity to become President in 2016. While associated with the "old," Gore is clearly a proven agent of real change who can unify our party, and unify our nation. Obama-Gore '08. Show your support by downloading one of these banners and placing them on your websites and blogs. Email the Obama campaign: Let them know you support Al Gore for VP. For our party. To strengthen our nation. To heal our world.
Here are some banners:
During the primary campaign Obama mentioned that he saw a place for Al Gore in his administration at a level higher than Cabinet post, which would be VP. But personally, I would like to see an Obama/Dean ticket. Haaayyyyyaaaargggghhhh!
Terry McCauliffe is a Total Ass-Hat!
Current mood: sneaky
Category: News and Politics
ass-hat
One whose head is so far up their rear end it could pass for a hat; used to describe a person who is stubborn, cruel, or otherwise unpleasant to be around.
Someone so incredibly stupid and/or ignorant that everything above their waist is useless; i.e. a hat for their ass.
"She continues to win these primaries. It's extraordinary. She keeps running it up, and I think it shows Hillary's strength for the fall." ~ Terry McCauliffe in an interview with MSNBC.
Running what up Terry? She won a primary in a territory that doesn't count in the general. Put away the cigars and sparkling wine. You know who he reminds me of? This guy:
Baghdad McCauliffe. As in, "We're winning. Obama has been repelled."
Fact Check: Obama's won more states, more delegates and more of the vote and he's raised much, much more money.
Who is McCauliffe kidding? Why is this guy still relevant in the Democratic Party? Under his "leadership" at the DNC, Democrats lost control of the House, Senate and couldn't oust Dubya. His strategy was to focus solely on a few select battle ground states, thus conceding the red states and ignoring blue states. This allowed Repubs to gain ground in blue states and to extend their domination of red states.
This trend only reversed when Howard Dean took over the DNC and implemented his 50-state strategy.
The Clinton's picked McCauliffe to run their fundraising and her campaign is not only broke, but $20 million in debt. Everyone has a right to be stupid, but some people abuse the privilege.
Pull Out - Australian for Retreat and Defeat?
Current mood: cheerful
Category: News and Politics
Australian troops have completed their pull out from the Iraqi province of Dhi Quar; fulfilling a campaign pledge by newly elected Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
Why would Australia "surrender," commit to "retreat and defeat" and "embolden the enemy?"
Whoa... whoa... whoa... Let me see if I understand this properly... when your citizens are against the war you should listen to them? Who ever heard of such non-sense? Obviously people only exist to serve the state, not the state to serve the people. That's what our chickenhawk fearless Vice President Dick Cheney believes.
And, just because there are more terrorists today, doesn't mean that we are less safe, it just means our troops are less safe. Republicans Everybody knows they are fighting them over there, so that we don't have to fight them over here. Come on, you've all heard the propoganda official government announcements.
At least our colonial brethern in Britain won't become "surrender monkeys." Oh wait, Britain began pulling out in May. So much for the "grand" coalition of the willing three.
Good thing only 67% of Americans oppose the war, otherwise we might do the right thing and pull out become surrender monkeys too.
Maybe it's his background teaching constitutional law.
If elected president, Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama said one of the first things he wants to do is ensure the constitutionality of all the laws and executive orders passed while Republican President George W. Bush has been in office.
Those that don't pass muster will be overturned, he said.
...
"I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution," said Obama
Other goals for his first 100 days: work out a plan to withdraw troops from Iraq; make progress on alternative energy plans and launch legislation to reform the health care system.
So, restoring the Constitution, setting the stage to end the war in Iraq, tackling alternative energy and universal health.
Two recent op-ed articles... presented... Obama as a "Muslim apostate" according to "Muslim law as it is universally understood." Since Muslims were bound to see him as an apostate, they argued, the potential next president could be seen as "al Qaeda's candidate" because Islamists could whip up popular anger in the Muslim world by portraying him as a turncoat heading a Western war against Islam. He also risked assassination, one suggested, because Muslim law considers apostasy a crime worthy of the death sentence...
There were many generalisations about Islam in these two articles, one by Edward Luttwak in the New York Times and the other by Shireen K. Burki in the Christian Science Monitor. There is no one code of Muslim law, as Luttwak (who is a strategic analyst not previously known for his mastery of Islamic jurisprudence) or Burki (who we're told "studied Islam at school" in Pakistan) want unsuspecting readers to believe. Few Muslim countries have death for apostates on their books, and even fewer actually carry it out. ...
Most important of all, Obama... is a committed Christian and has never practiced the religion that his father (who left his son when he was 2 years old) no longer practiced either. The fact these articles appeared amid an "Obama-is-a-Muslim" whispering campaign in an election year makes a good case for suspecting they may have been motivated more by political strategy than legal scholarship.
...
A respected Islamic scholar, Abdullah Ahmed An-Na'im, has now given a Muslim response to the supposed Islamic legal arguments the two articles are based on. "A strange paradox has emerged whereby Sharia (the religious law of Islam) has paradoxically become mythical in its alleged power to determine the behavior of Muslims everywhere, yet defenseless against the most fanciful, even outrageous claims and charges," he remarks on the Religion Dispatches blog at Emory University, where he teaches law.
The argument by Luttwak "is wrong from a Sharia point of view, and false in terms of the present political and legal realities of Muslim-majority countries," An-Na'im writes. "Those who think Muslims will respond negatively to Sen. Obama based on his presumed religion have an overly simplistic view of what it means to be Muslim today."
That last sentence pretty much sums it all up...
Here are three interesting articles on Climate Change:
Climate change is leaving its mark on US ecosystems sooner and more emphatically than biologists had expected. And because the US is not adequately prepared to measure those changes as they occur, land managers may have a harder time mounting an effective response to climate change.
These unsettling conclusions come from a report released yesterday by the US Climate Change Science Program, a government body set up to coordinate climate change research.
Under a court order and four years late, the White House Thursday produced what it called a science-based "one-stop shop" of specific threats to the United States from man-made global warming.
While the report has no new science in it, it pulls together different U.S. studies and localizes international reports into one comprehensive document required by law. The 271-page report is notable because it is something the Bush administration has fought in the past.
Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist who was not involved in the effort called it "a litany of bad news in store for the U.S."
And what does the Bush admin think?
White House associate science director Sharon Hays, in a teleconference with reporters, declined to characterize the findings as bad...
Oh the audacity of the Bush admin.... The Senate finally takes up the issue:
A long-awaited congressional debate on climate change is expected to begin next week in the Senate, which is poised to consider a sweeping bill to combat global warming.
Republicans are not expected to block majority Democrats from proceeding to the bill when a test vote is held Monday night. Instead, they will probably reserve their fire for the legislation itself.
The measure would cap emissions of greenhouse gases nationwide. To meet the cap, companies would either have to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions or buy pollution allowances on a market.
Senate critics of this cap-and-trade legislation say they welcome the debate as an opportunity to highlight concerns about its impact on the economy. Senators are taking up the proposal just as growing public concern about global warming converges with worries about historically high oil and gas prices.
It is not clear that the bill can make it through the Senate, let alone win enactment this year. It will need 60 votes to overcome a Senate filibuster, and even if it can clear Congress, President Bush has long been hostile to such legislation.
Wow, elected Repub's are so out of touch. If you live in a state with a Repub Senator, now may be a good time to call them up and call them out on Climate Change. They are either with life as we know it or against it. It's one thing to offer REAL alternative legislation, but it's another to reject a policy prescription because they live in a fairy tale world where they (are paid to) believe global warming isn't real.
Seems that our past Presidents have a history of appeasing (including the current one):
George W. Bush made headlines when he celebrated Israel's 60th anniversary by warning the Knesset, Israel's parliament, against the "false comfort of appeasement." The two words that sounded most loudly were the ones that Bush did not actually say: "Obama" and "Munich."
....
Negotiating with the evil enemy became bipartisan policy under Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ike's popularity rating soared when he met with Soviet leaders Khrushchev and Bulganin in Geneva in 1955. That set off an almost continuous round of disarmament talks, which continued when the Democrat John F. Kennedy became president. Kennedy also made sure that summitry with Soviet leaders became a bipartisan institution. Richard Nixon won wide praise for extending it to China, though he was criticized from the right for edging too close to appeasement. A few years later, most of those same right-wingers were praising their leader, Ronald Reagan, for his own summitry with the Soviets.
The bipartisan policy of negotiating with enemies has extended to active wartime situations too. Harry Truman negotiated endlessly with the other side during the Korean War. His popularity sank not because he negotiated but because the talks brought no end to the war. In the Vietnam War era, Richard Nixon sent Henry Kissinger for talks with the North Vietnamese.
This is merely the record of public negotiations with enemies. There is also a rich record of secret back-channel talks. JFK defused the 1962 Cuban missile crisis not by "standing tough" and risking war but by secretly agreeing to take U.S. missiles out of Turkey if the Soviets withdrew their missiles from Cuba.
Then there's the case of Iran. When McCain responded to Bush's recent inflammatory speech, he said: "It's not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn't sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.''
McCain is off the mark. There were behind-the-scenes negotiations leading up to the hostages' release at the very moment Reagan took the oath of office, and some charge the Reagan campaign was directing them. The new administration certainly did plenty of negotiating with the Iranians (with Israel in the middle), selling them missiles to raise money for illegal support of the contras in Nicaragua.
Bush's memory of history is obviously fuzzy, too. After breaking off the negotiations Clinton had begun with North Korea and making that nation a charter member of the "axis of evil," Bush himself resumed talking with Pyongyang because it was obviously in the best interests of the United States.
McCain and Bush are the same in more ways than one.
If the above article isn't enough, here's more evidence that people like Bush and McCain don't have America's best interest in mind. New Democrats.org Ad:
Any interesting news stories that you've heard lately?
Recently Discovered in America’s Attic
Current mood: jedi
Category: News and Politics
From the Christian Science Monitor:
Canadian teen discovers plastic-bag-devouring microbe
As part of a science fair project, a Canadian teenager has come up with a way to get plastic shopping bags, which normally take up to 1,000 years to decompose, to break down in as little as three months.
Daniel Burd, a 16-year-old high school student in Waterloo, Canada, reasoned that, because plastic eventually degrades, there is probably some microorganism out there that breaks it down. If that microbe could be identified, you could expose higher concentrations of it on plastic and break it down faster.
So Mr. Burd did just that.
First, he ground plastic bags into a powder. Next, he used ordinary household chemicals, yeast and tap water to create a solution that would encourage microbe growth. To that, he added the plastic powder and dirt. Then the solution sat in a shaker at 30 degrees.
After three months of upping the concentration of plastic-eating microbes, Burd filtered out the remaining plastic powder and put his bacterial culture into three flasks with strips of plastic cut from grocery bags. As a control, he also added plastic to flasks containing boiled and therefore dead bacterial culture.
Six weeks later, he weighed the strips of plastic. The control strips were the same. But the ones that had been in the live bacterial culture weighed an average of 17 percent less.
Burd then went on to identify which one of the four bacterial strains in the culture was the one with the appetite for plastic. He identified two: Sphingomonas and Pseudomonas. The first one breaks down the plastic, and the second one helps the first one reproduce.
After some experimentation, he was able to get a plastic bag to degrade by 43 percent in six weeks.
It's hard to understate the environmental catastrophe caused by plastic bags. Many of them end up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a swatch of trash twice the size of Texas that is estimated to be 80 percent plastic. A report by Greenpeace found that some 267 marine species suffer from either ingesting or getting entangled in the bag.
As far as anyone knows, Burd is the first to discover the plastic-devouring properties of this microbe. For his efforts, Burd won top honors at the Canada-Wide Science Fair in Ottawa, where he took home $30,000 in prizes and scholarships.
I would have thought science would have tried that already... Let's get this kid working on Climate Change...
Obama Widens Lead Over McCain
Current mood: knighted
Category: News and Politics
A slew of new state polls are out showing McCain's increasing inability to break through to the American voter and Obama's increasing popularity. Also, multiple national polls place McCain at a low of 40% to a ceiling of 44%.
Survey USA has Obama leading McCain in Virginia by 7-points. Interestingly with Edwards on the ticket Obama is up by 18-points. They show Obama leading in Ohio by 9-points, again with Edwards on the ticket the lead is 18-points.
Obama continues to hold the 9-point lead in Iowa that a Bloomberg poll showed in March. Obama has recaptured the lead in New Hampshire (5 points) and now leads in New Mexico by 8-points (a state Kerry lost), while the recent Rasmussen Reports poll has him up there by 9-points. According to Pollster.com Obama has opened a 6-point lead over McCain in Pennsylvania.
The recent polls show a good number of purple states that over the past two elections were solid red states. Survey USA has South Dakota within 4-points, and South Carolina within 3-points. Rasmussen Reports has Obama within 5-points in Alaska, Montana, and Texas; within 6-points in Missouri; and, within 3-points in North Carolina.
At the worst of the Jeremy Wright flap, Republican spinsters spun the idea that McCain would be able to win in states like New Jersey, California, Minnesota, and Oregon. The recent polls put that idea to rest. Obama has opened up nearly a 20-point lead in California – making in roads into all the demographics that HRC did well in. In fact, Obama leads by solid double digits in 15 (NJ, CT, MA, MN, ME, NY, WA, OR, CA, IL, MD, HI, RI, VT and DC) states, totaling 197 electoral votes. McCain on the other hand does well only in 13-states (AL, AR, ID, KS, KY, LO, MS, NE, OK, TN, UT, WV and WY), but only for a total of 84 electoral votes. An interesting takeaway is that in McCain's home state of Arizona, the race is close.
These polls don't yet reflect the nomination of Bob Barr for the Libertarian ticket, which should siphon votes from McCain in Texas, Georgia and the Carolinas and they aren't reflecting an increase in African-American or youth turnout (both of which will favor Obama). One analysis showed that for every 10% point increase in black turnout, Obama picks up 13 electoral votes. Also, keep in mind that there is still a HRC bias reflected in some of the responses, which should subside as her supporters realize Obama is much closer ideologically to Clinton than McCain is.
The increased turnout for Obama should help with down ticket races, which could translate into 5-7 Senate seat pickups and another 15-25 house seats. The only Senate seat that may be in danger is in Louisiana.
Do you think these numbers will hold, or is it still too early to tell?
excited
nostalgic
amused
sad
savage
adventurous
cheerful
selective
mischievous