What irritates me about this whole is not this bill will grant immunity to telcoms in this specific case. What irritates me is that it sets a dangerous precedent. Essentially any President down the line can make any request from any company, no matter how inane or lawful, and say that it is perfectly fine to comply because the President says so. The President, in effect, can preemptively make and choose to selectively enforce any law he or she so chooses.

This has always been a general constitutional process question to me. It only makes me more irritated when the candidate that I voted for and donate to on a monthly basis, the candidate that studied and taught constitutional law, basically comes around and says that it isn't a big deal.

Posted at June 25, 2008 6:32 PM in response to Obama On FISA: Telecom Immunity Issue Doesn't Override National Security

I also thought it was odd that they transitioned from gay marriage to gas prices, but then it reminded me of something. Sadly, this may be a case of life horrifically imitating art... And that art is The Dead Milkmen song 'Stuart'...

Now that I think of it, many things that have happened in this election cycle and a few previous ones seem to remind me of that song. (sigh)

Posted at May 30, 2008 5:51 PM in response to GOP Congressman Airing Another Gay-Baiting Ad

Exactly, BronxInTN...

I would take it a step further, though. Even though the Civil Rights Act opened the door for a potential reconciliation of our past, it did not settle the matter completely. As a nation, we have come far in the last 40+ years, but we still have a long way to go. Racial divisions still exist. There will never be a quick fix to heal these divisions, though it is noble to strive to narrow the divide. The first step is to acknowledge that there is a problem. Sen Obama stated as much today. He should be commended for it.

I don't know if it helped his campaign in the long run or hurt it by making this speech, but I suspect it will be more of latter. However, I wish more national leaders trusted the American public enough to speak the truth. Isn't that what we expect of our elected politicians? Isn't one of the major reasons that most in this country give the current President such bad reviews is because he consistently has been proven to say one thing while shamelessly doing the opposite (Patriot Act... Clear Skies Initiative... No Child Left Behind... Tax cuts to the upper income bracket equal greater tax revenue... Victory Accomplished... Etc...)?

On a personal level, one of my best friends thinks there is no such thing as a good democrat, one is so far left that he thinks religion is the root of all evil and a third refuses to vote for either major party no matter what the circumstance is. I don't agree politically or even logically with any of their personal views, and yet we can all hang out and drink a few beers and have a good time and enjoy each others company. Does the fact that none of our political thoughts agree in any matter mean that I should disavow their friendship?

Posted at March 18, 2008 7:06 PM in response to Hillary: I'm Glad Obama Gave That Speech

Can someone please explain something that has been troubling me about the campaign at the moment?

I understand that, the way it is looking, that neither candidate can get enough pledged delegates to win the nomination at this point. With the addition of the news out of Iowa today, it is exceedingly unlikely that Sen Clinton will catch up to Sen Obama in the pledged delegate count even if it goes full term and we accept the Florida result as is. Therefore, to a point, I understand the concept of the Clinton campaign for the Superdelegate vote at the convention. I get that. What I don't understand is why they continue down the track that they are...

This is what I don't get... It seems that they are going forward in this campaign on the assumption that Sen Obama will do or say something stupid or that something will be uncovered in his past that would ultimately show that he shouldn't be the party's candidate. Okay, I understand that. But why do they still need to be in the race and spending money to attack him and forcing him to spend money to defend himself for this to happen? She has plenty of pledged delegates to carry into the convention at this point. Even if she suspended her campaign now, she would still get some more pledged delegates between now and June just because she is on the ballot. In the mean time,with nothing better to cover, the media would start emphasizing the GOP attacks on Obama and his defense and his counter arguments. They also will spend a lot of time going over Sen Obama with a fine tooth comb looking for that proverbial 'dead girl or live boy' in his present or past.

Clinton supporters have repeatedly defended their candidate by stating any Republican attacks on Obama will be much worse than anything the Clinton has been or will say. They are correct. However, that being the case, why not let the Republicans do it? Since she already has enough pledged delegates to win a convention if the supers vote in consensus against a hypothetically tainted Obama in August (Assuming something that will inevitably emerge, which seems to be their assumption), why continue the forced of spending millions of dollars by both candidates that could be used toward the general campaign and electing democrats in general toward trying to prove something that the Republicans plus the media scrutiny plus maybe a self assist with a some strategic intra-party oppo-research would end up coming up with in the next five months anyway? What good does it do for anybody but the opposition party?

Posted at March 16, 2008 3:19 PM in response to Gallup: Obama Leads Hillary Nationally By Three Points

All of this makes me sad. We have come a long way as a nation since the Civil Rights Act, but we have 'many miles before we sleep', as it were...

Thank you, FLyOnTheWall, for your post. It was just about the most even-handed treatment of these troublesome issues during this campaign season that I have seen. I appreciate that.

This is not a post-racial United States. We are far from it, though we are a lot closer now than we were 50 years ago. We may never get there as a whole. We have come a long way in the last 40 years, though. And however this primary season and general election turns out, at least I am finally seeing a glimmer of hope.

It takes time to eat away at perception. Sexism and racism are learned traits, passed on from mother and father to their children. I was fortunate in this regard. My grandparents were born and raised into these attitudes and passed them on, to a certain extent, onto my parents. However, despite what they might think or feel, my parents never intentionally passed them on to me. I am eternally grateful for that.

I was allowed to be raised in a post-Civil Rights Act generation of school integration. From my first day in school, I had classmates that were white, black, Hispanic, Asian, Filipino, and Indian (As in the country). Skin color didn't matter to me... I just hoped I was picked toward the front of the line for kick-ball at recess. They were just my classmates... My peers...

And they still are...

I am not in the majority in this country with my experiences and attitudes growing up. I know that. However, looking at the numbers, I am not alone. No matter how this thing election cycle turns out, I am encouraged that more and more Americans, in general, over time, see this the way that I do, even if, at the moment, they are skewing younger than 40 years old. Over time, this great nation (And we are still a great nation despite the past 6 years) has shown it's ability to reason that personal merit matters incrementally more than than ones genetics, including sexuality. This gives me hope for the future, even if that future may not be now.

I never really looked at Sen Obama and saw him as the 'black' candidate just as I never looked at Sen Clinton and looked at her as the 'female' candidate. To me, and many others, they are both just candidates fighting for a strikingly similar cause. I am aware that many people look at it in this manner, though. And as such, though I do not personally believe that this campaign should be fought on race and gender lines, I understand why it has to be so.

Ferarro's and Wright's comments were both absurd to me for different reasons. They both will cause trouble for whomever wins the nomination in the fall. I know that. I am not naive. Both need to be repudiated, even if for different reasons.

However, I only ask people understand that these folks are from a different generation that had their own baggage. I can't stop them from being what they are, nor do I have the right. To folks of either side, don't think for a moment that the Republican 527's won't target the African-American community with mailers in the fall about Ferarro or Bill's comments as much as they will plaster white American voters about Rev. Wright. They will, and their effect will be predictable and significant at this point.

I can only hope that, one day, maybe now, maybe sometime in my future, that these things won't matter as much anymore. The trends are on my side and on my generation's side and on those generation's born after me. And I have the time, if that is what it will take, for this not to matter nearly as much anymore.

Posted at March 13, 2008 9:52 PM in response to Crazy Like an Uncle

To correct a meme I keep seeing on various message boards, Sen Clinton was not the only name on the ballot. Of those still officially in the race, Kucinich and Gravel were also on the ballot.

Posted at March 10, 2008 6:35 PM in response to Obama Supporter Dodd: Hillary And Obama Should Split Florida And Michigan Delegates

SCMadden...

TO be fair, in this case, the media has been handed a ratings driver with the Spitzer deal. The American Public, and Media, in general, loves them some coverage of politicians getting caught with their pants around their ankles.

The sad thing is that on the day that Sen Obama finally took a fairly firm stand against a bunch of bogus claims, it is going to get buried by coverage of Client 9.

Posted at March 10, 2008 6:08 PM in response to Hillary's New Mississippi Ad: She's A Comeback Kid

I voted for Obama (My home state's Jr. Senator), but Dodd can't believe that anybody would take that suggestion seriously at this point, could he?

At least he could have given her some odds for likely winning a Florida do over but by a smaller margin... Like Maybe 10% to 15%. If you wanted to split Michigan or by a small margin to either candidate depending on how they would do it (which would likely be the case anyway in a do over), that would be ok, I suppose.

Regardless, any compromise offer of splitting the delegates without Sen Clinton netting somewhere around 35-40 pledged delegates is pretty silly.

Then again Dodd has a lot more experience than either current candidate, so I guess that should weigh in his favor in relation to the Clinton camp...

Posted at March 10, 2008 5:45 PM in response to Obama Supporter Dodd: Hillary And Obama Should Split Florida And Michigan Delegates

Hopefully, for all of my fellow citizens of Illinois, Oberweis will finally take the hint and stop trying to run for state-wide or national offices and instead focus on continuing to make tasty dairy products.

I would like to reinforce the notion to all non-denizens, though, that Illinois will vote for republicans... Just not this type of republican. Seriously, Oberweis is like Alan Keyes without the intellect. On the plus side, his family business creates some of the best milkshakes and malts that I have ever consumed.

Posted at March 8, 2008 10:19 PM in response to Democrats Win Dennis Hastert's House Seat!

I was just about to say the same thing when I read your post. If Foster were to hang win this one, I am not sure he would be able to hold it in the fall against a republican opponent that wasn't a complete buffoon.

At some point you would think that Jim Oberweis would get the hint. If you are a republican running in that Hastert's district to fill Hastert's seat and you can't even get the endorsement of the conservative Tribune editorial board, you have a problem.

Oberweis' stores do make excellent shakes and ice cream, though.

Posted at March 6, 2008 6:24 PM in response to Can The GOP Hold Onto Denny Hastert's Seat?