You have a very good political argument to make, but for effective use I would suggest rephrasing it along the lines of a question to be answered by the voters based on the proof provided by McCain himself: "If McCain can't even control his own party, how can we trust him to control the government of our country?"

Posted at May 15, 2008 1:18 PM in response to Swift Boat Vet Operative Vows To "Attack Obama Viciously"

"but I think we'd be better served with Feingold taking Harry Reid's spot as Senate majority leader to work with Prez Obama."

Great idea!

Posted at May 11, 2008 8:26 PM in response to Carl Bernstein: Hillary to fight to get on Obama ticket

"But, the way discussion seems like it's going to get framed, how does he get out of it?"

Stand by his principles. As Obama pointed out in his North Carolina victory speech - you need to frame the argument yourself, not let others frame it for you.

Posted at May 11, 2008 8:20 PM in response to Carl Bernstein: Hillary to fight to get on Obama ticket

"All his talk about new politics would be proven to be exactly what Hillary has been claiming - Just Talk...Ill actually think much less of him if he has her on his ticket."

My sentiments exactly.

Posted at May 11, 2008 8:13 PM in response to Carl Bernstein: Hillary to fight to get on Obama ticket

Whoa there!

What evidence do you provide for claiming that Obama doesn't mean what he says? None.
What evidence do you provide for your incendiary comments about Rev. Wright? None.

Maybe because it's not true??

You claim

that the church [Obama] belong[sic] to gave an accolade to Farrakhan

This isn't true. 'The accolade' was from a magazine formerly, but no longer, associated with the church Obama attends (The Trinity United Church of Christ. The comments were made by Rhoda McKinney Jones, managing editor of that magazine (Trumpet Newsmagazine) last November/December. The Washington Post and Tim Russert incorrectly attributed the statement to Rev. Wright, pastor emeritus of the church.

For the facts you can read more at
http://www.zimbio.com/Jeremiah+Wright+Jr/articles/17/trumpet+editor+clarifies+russet+mistatements

As for Obama, he provided an unambiguous statement on the issue:

I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.

You can't get any clearer than that.

Posted at March 5, 2008 6:04 PM in response to Hillary and Obama

An substantiated opinion is one thing, but unsubstantiated inflammatory accusations are quite another. If you are a Democrat, I don't understand what purpose you hope to achieve by posting them, because it could well be that Obama gets the nomination. Will your comments have helped the Democrats win?

You claim that

Senator Obama [...] belongs to a racist church

This is not true. Obama does not belong to a racist church. The church obviously has its root in the black community but they do not in any way exclude other people. And if the church has developed a set of value guidelines to strengthen their own community and become "soldiers for Black freedom and the dignity of all humankind", what's racist about that? All humankind pretty much includes everyone I'd say.

And if, for that community, they are devoted to "generat[ing] strength, stability and love" in the family and "reach[ing] out and expand[ing] that blessing to the less fortunate"; dedicated to the pursuit of excellence and education, a high work ethic, self-discipline and self-respect within that community, what is racist about that? All of America can only say 'thank you'. Any particular community would do well to emulate them.

Maybe you would like to check out their homepage: http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

Posted at March 5, 2008 4:55 PM in response to Hillary and Obama

Regarding the preamble, you say

It specifically mentions in the preamble the commitment promised by Bush to work with the Security Council to obtain all necessary resolutions - it is then repeated in Sec.2, b.

The commitment to which you refer is a mitigated commitment: "President Bush committed [...] to ‘‘work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge’’ posed by Iraq and to ‘‘work for the necessary resolutions,’’ while also making clear that‘‘the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, [...], or action will be unavoidable’’.

Whether the authorization is based (predicated) on ONE of the numerous items in the preamble or not, the actual resolution never requires that all necessary resolutions be obtained at the Security Council. So it is irrelevant.

Furthermore Section 3b explicitly authorizes the President to use force as HE determines necessary to enforce the Security Council resolutions! (see below)

Actually the bill is predicated on Bush obtaining all Security Council resolutions

If we're predicating, let's look at the verbs: support/encourage vs. authorize. There are no mitigating if/then clauses:

In Section 2(2) (there is no 2b) Congress 'supports' and 'encourages' the President to 'obtain...action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy ...and strictly complies with ... Security Council resolutions..." It does not 'require'. It demands nothing. It abdicates its power.

Section 3 authorizes the President "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as HE determines to be necessary [...] in order to— [...]
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
Nothing is ever required of President Bush prior to the use of force is.

Section 3b is, essentially, a requirement to inform Congress 48 hours after use of force.

And if that isn't enough evidence for you about the what this bill was about, then consider the resounding defeat of all proposed amendments to qualify the authorization (the Spratt and Lee Amendments in the House and the Byrd, Levin and Durbin Amendments in the Senate). Their defeats are more than a clear indication of what this bill was about. Indeed, that's why it was titled "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ" (caps in original)

Posted at March 4, 2008 11:57 AM in response to Excuse me, Ambassador Wilson

"Obama himself acknowledged, the decision on the authorization for use of force was not as simple as it is made out to be"

This is not an accurate representation of Obama's views. At a critical time of the Kerry/Edwards campaign he diplomatically refused to speculate when asked what he would have done had he been in the Senate. He said "''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,.. What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''

"Thus, her position in favor of the authorization as a tool to bring about international inspections, and not a unilateral invasion, was not, as it has come to be seen, a vote for war."

This 'nuanced' view doesn't wash. It reverts to the question of judgement. Why?

Her choice of tools was poor:

Anyone knows that if you want to put a nail in the wall, you don't use a sledgehammer or you're going to get a gaping hole.

Anyone who read the text of the bill knew it provided full authorization for war, not inspections.

Posted at March 4, 2008 6:58 AM in response to Excuse me, Ambassador Wilson