Sunday, March 30, 2008

Lawyer Joke

Adobe tried to sneak this language through on the free Photoshop Express application they just made available to the public. Someone actually read the license agreement and found this example of the lawyerly art:

Adobe does not claim ownership of Your Content. However, with respect to Your Content that you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive revenue or other remuneration from, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content and to incorporate such Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed.



Adobe said, "Uh, never mind!", and is re-writing these doozy of a license agreement

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Stupid is as Stupid Does

I've been reading about the current mortgage meltdown and the subsequent crisis in the world of credit and I am sorely vexed.

If I get it right, unscrupulous lenders offered money to unqualified borrowers so they could buy homes that they couldn't otherwise afford. The lenders then acted like deli countermen and sliced up the mortgage packages into little tiny bits of debt that were purchased by investors hoping to make a big gain when the mortgages reset.

It was a party where everyone was drinking the easy credit Kool Aid.

So now the borrowers who couldn't afford it can't, and the lenders who shouldn't have lent are broke, and the investors are holding worthless paper. That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?!

So all the big boys on Wall Street with the slicked-back hair, high priced apartments, and fancy whores are quivering in fear just like the people who are losing their houses. It's interesting to see those two groups huddled together holding out tin cups over at the Treasury

And now the federal government is going to throw a cash lifeline to all of them.

The argument for doing this is the credit markets are now so leery of handing out cash to borrowers that they are zipping their pockets. No lending means no business expansion. No business expansion means recession. And since this is an election year the Republicans can't allow that to happen, because how would Mr. McCain defend Republican government policies which cause people get tossed out of their homes? People on the street makes for good television for the Democrats. Then again, if the administration did nothing, the Democrats would point to all of those poor people on the street and say, "Look at what those heartless Republicans did to you!"

The truth is that the markets have to be stabilized, despite all the right-wing Republican bovine by-product you hear at all other times about getting rid of government intervention. The right-wingers want their investment dollars protected and it's your money they want to accomplish that goal.

Meanwhile, the people who, driven by their own greed and stupidity, borrowed more than they could ever afford, because they thought they would be able to make their fortune from their houses, will be bailed out too.

And so the money for this financial boondoggle will come from the pockets of all the hardworking Joes and Janes who saw through the scams and who didn't get caught up in the cycle of greed and stupidity.

Does this make you feel better?

Perhaps the only good that might come out of this debacle is the imposition of the same regulation and oversight on these investment houses as currently exists for banks. If they want to take government money, they have to accept the regulations that go with it.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Kevin Writes...

This should be the most important argument Clinton can present to superdelegates. She has won primary states that can yield more electoral votes come November.

Also, part of McCain's appeal is his honesty and willingness to, well, be trusted. On the war, McCain's gotten it right. You can't hold him any more accountable for the start of the war than Hillary Clinton: both voted for it, and both voted for the bills that upheld the war. The only difference is that McCain stuck to his votes, and even differed with the President when he thought it necessary. Recently, things have turned around in Iraq, largely due to the troop surge which McCain was calling for long before anyone else.

March 24, 2008 10:28 PM

Monday, March 24, 2008

Poll Watching

I previously reported on poll results,especially the latest ones that showed a statistical tie in either an Obama-McCain contest or a Clinton-McCain battle. Those polls always showed population preferences.

Leave it to the Votemaster to take all the data and wring out the most interesting insights.

In today's (3/24)posting, he looks at the individual state results in the possible presidential match-ups to see who might win the most electoral, rather than popular, votes, and he comes to an intriguing conclusion.

In an Obama-McCain election, the winner is McCain! And by a comfortable margin, with the vote at 292-231.

On the other hand, a Clinton versus McCain match-up has the Democrat winning 268-246.

So how do we resolve the difference between the popular vote polls which show statistical ties, with this analysis of the electoral vote based on individual state polls? We don't! It's still far too early to draw any conclusions about the mood and focus of the electorate. Frankly, I was quite surprised by the voter polls that showed McCain in a statistical tie with either Democratic candidate. When you consider the war, the economy and the general disapproval, if not disgust, for the Republican president George Bush, for McCain to show as much strength as he has must be rather cheery news for him and his team.

Remember,in politics a week is an eternity, and things will change.

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Bahgdad Tears

From MSNBC:

NOT GIVING UP HOPE IN IRAQ

Posted: Thursday, March 20, 2008 12:47 PM
Filed Under: Baghdad, Iraq

By Rose Rasheed, an Iraqi translator for NBC News

BAGHDAD, Iraq - I remember vividly the moment when the bombing started five years ago. The sound of the air raids and the sirens still echo inside me.

Within minutes of the first siren, columns of smoke climbed the sky and thunderous explosions could be heard everywhere. It brought mixed feelings for many Iraqis; feelings of delight and anxiety, which were overwhelming to me and my family.

On the one hand, there was a strong sense of hope and expectation that this war would lead us to a better future and away from a life that had witnessed many wars and much destruction. On the other hand, there was anxiety that it could all end in disappointment.

On April 9, 2003, our neighbor came running to our house like an excited child, saying that U.S. forces were on the main road of our neighborhood. We did not believe her.

Then we saw them. Some were on the top of a house; others positioned on the ground. A big convoy of tanks and armored vehicles followed shortly. My mother, sister, the neighbor and I went running toward them.

My sister said "hi" to a soldier who looked like the actor Tom Selleck. The convoy spread over the whole neighborhood, as Iraqis greeted soldiers with cheers and big smiles and simple words like "welcome mister" or "hello." Everyone, I mean everyone, was welcoming the troops.

Now, five years later, we can only find but a few optimistic Iraqis in comparison to the many we saw back then. Pessimism has rapidly grown and overwhelmingly dominates the mentality of most Iraqis.

Hopes of a brighter future are dashed by the bad security situation and the difficult living conditions. One now sees people attack the same forces they had once welcomed, even going so far as to attack those who work or cooperate with the troops.

The same place, the same forces, and the same people, yet so much has changed.

Despite the negative turn in Iraq, I hope to celebrate the next anniversary, the sixth, in a prosperous Iraq with wide smiles drawn deep from the heart and reflected on Iraqi faces. I have not given up.

Monday, March 17, 2008

Ach du Lieberman!

I swear that I have not partaken in illegal herb but I think John McCain can really make a powerful move for the support of the political center and center right by picking Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman (I) as his running mate.

Lieberman, Al Gore's vice-presidential running mate, basically broke with the political powers of the Democratic Party when they supported newcomer Ned Lamont in an primary run-off. That pissed off the career Democrat and he declared himself an Independent but he continued to caucus with the Democrats. With a one vote majority in the Senate as long as Lieberman was with them , the Connecticut Senator had the best of all possible political worlds. He continued to proclaim his independence, while the Democrats allowed him to do as he wished in order to maintain their majority.

The November election could see a major shift in the Senate with the Democrats in line to pick up from six to eight seats. While not giving them a filibuster proof majority, they surely would no longer need Lieberman on their side. It makes sense for McCain to ask Lieberman to join him on the Republican ticket and for Lieberman to accept. Two so-called maverick centrist Senators--one a full-fledged Republican despised by the right wing of his party, and one a former Democrat despised by the left wing of his party-- together on a ticket that is both geographically, politically and ethnically balanced could be a win-win for for both Senators. (I wonder if anyone has every run for vice president with two competing political parties?)

Silence From the Left

Why am I not surprised that the left has been silent concerning China's brutal repression of Tibet? I suppose it's because they can't demonstrate against America.

Sunday, March 16, 2008

No Stare Decisis ? No Second Amendment?

Stare Decisis:

[Latin, Let the decision stand.] The policy of courts to abide by or adhere to principles established by decisions in earlier cases.

In the United States and England, the Common Law has traditionally adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle, known as stare decisis, distinguishes the common law from civil-law systems, which give great weight to codes of laws and the opinions of scholars explaining them. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered a question, the same question in other cases must elicit the same response from the same court or lower courts in that jurisdiction.


Despite mountains of scholarly research, enough books to fill a library shelf and decades of political battles about gun control, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity this week that is almost unique for a modern court when it examines whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.


The nine justices, none of whom has ever ruled directly on the amendment's meaning, will consider a part of the Bill of Rights that has existed without a definitive interpretation for more than 200 years.

"This may be one of the only cases in our lifetime when the Supreme Court is going to be interpreting the meaning of an important provision of the Constitution unencumbered by precedent,'' said Randy E. Barnett, a constitutional scholar at the Georgetown University Law Center. "And that's why there's so much discussion on the original meaning of the Second Amendment.''


The Washington Post takes a look ahead at the always controversial Second Amendment and its upcoming date with the Supremes, here.

Calculus in Israel

The always interesting Reut Institute in Israel considers some of the political and military options currently possible. None of them are really good, but the issue is, what is possible? For the full article, go here.

Here is a taste:


Essence of Warning

During negotiations with the Palestinians in 1999-2001, Israel presented a number of security demands that included, among other things, the demilitarization of the Palestinian state, control and use of its air space, supervision of its external envelope and early warning stations.

These demands were based on a number of Israeli assumptions at the core of which was the belief that the goal of the Palestinian national movement was to establish an independent Palestinian state. Therefore, in order to achieve this goal, the Palestinians would be willing to give up certain attributes of sovereignty.

In recent years however, the relevancy of these Israeli assumptions has been eroded. Palestinians from across the political spectrum are undermining the logic of establishing a Palestinian state. Some of those who oppose a state alongside Israel do so for strategic and ideological reasons. Others meanwhile oppose it for tactical reasons such as the realization that Israel's need to end its control over the Palestinians will force it to compromise on its demands. Either way, Palestinian willingness to compromise its sovereign authority is decreasing.

Under such circumstances, the challenge to the State of Israel and its negotiation team is to balance between the need to end Israel's control over the Palestinian population in the West Bank and the importance of security arrangements. Therefore the basic dilemma for Israel is deciding between:

* Military Logic that requires undermining Palestinian sovereignty and maintaining a significant Israeli presence in the West Bank. This logic accepts the risk of not achieving an agreement thus leaving Israel exposed to a strategy aimed at causing its internal collapse due to its control over the Palestinian population.

* Political Logic that requires the end of Israeli control over the Palestinian population even at the price of a significant reduction of its military presence in Palestinian territory and approximation of Kassam rockets towards the country's center. This logic requires Israel to identify and concentrate on the minimum security demands necessary for agreement.

Policy Options

Establishing a national security doctrine within Israel's borders - Israel should prepare for the possibility that it will be forced to withdraw from the West Bank without realizing all of its security demands (and possibly none at all). Therefore, Israel should formulate an all-inclusive national security doctrine towards the Palestinians based on deterrence and operating military forces within Israel's territory rather than on arrangements around the external perimeter of Palestine.

Distinguishing the wheat from the chaff - Not all of Israel's security demands have the same importance. For example, demands to control Palestine's airspace seem more essential than demands for areas for military preparation. Therefore, Israel should prioritize its demands and concentrate on the most important ones.

Reframing the negotiations: security demands for Palestinian demands to 'intrude' into Israel's sovereign space - Israel can 'leverage' Palestinian claims to intrude into its sovereign space (safe passage, desalinization plants, use of sea and air-ports and others) as a 'bargaining chip' to achieve Palestinian concessions regarding security issues.1

As an example, creating a connection between establishing a safe passage in Israeli territory between Gaza and the West Bank and Israeli use of Palestinian air space could help ensure this Israeli demand.

Exchange of territories with Egypt as a condition for demilitarization arrangements - The reality in Rafah of two cities connecting to one another underneath the Gaza-Egypt border completely prevents enforcing demilitarization arrangements in Gaza. Therefore, if Israel decides to maintain its current position on demilitarization, it should consider an exchange of territories in the Gaza region so the Gaza-Sinai border will pass to the west of Rafah. In exchange, Israel can give Egypt territory from the Negev that could be considered a deposit for a later exchange of territories in the West Bank.

Click here for full document.

Poll Watching

SurveyUSA has Obama leading Hillary 49% to 41% in North Carolina. Im a little surprised that the margin is only 8% (n=713 likely voters, moe=3.7%). As SUSA reports

In a Democratic Primary in North Carolina today, 03/11/08, eight weeks to the vote, Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton 49% to 41%, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for WTVD-TV Raleigh. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA poll released one month ago, before Obama won Virginia, Maryland, and Wisconsin, and before Clinton won Texas and Ohio, the contest in NC is largely unchanged. Then, Obama led by 10, now by 8. In Charlotte, Obama led by 2 points a month ago, by 7 points today. In Southern and Eastern NC, Obama led by 4 points a month ago, by 8 points today. Only in Raleigh and Greensboro did Clinton slice into Obama, trimming his lead from 16 points a month ago to 8 points today. Among women, Obama and Clinton are effectively even, as they were last month. Among men, Obama leads by 13. Clinton leads 5:3 among whites. Obama leads 5:1 among blacks. Obama leads among voters under age 50. The two are tied among voters age 50+.


Pennsylvania shows Hillary ahead 55% to Obama's 36% (n=608 likely voters, moe=4%). The problem with those numbers is that Hillary's support seems to erode the closer voters get to the actual vote. And since the Dems allocate their delegates proportionally, Hillary has to score big in order to eke out any advantage. All Obama has to do is hold his own and the delegate lead he has will be insurmountable.

In a Democratic Primary in Pennsylvania today, 03/11/08, six weeks to the vote, Hillary Clinton defeats Barack Obama 55% to 36%, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for WCAU-TV Philadelphia, KDKA-TV Pittsburgh, WHP-TV Harrisburg, and WNEP-TV Wilkes-Barre. Obama and Clinton are effectively tied in Southeast PA, which includes Philadelphia, but Clinton leads everywhere else. She is up 2:1 in SW PA, which includes Pittsburgh; is up 5:4 in South Central PA, which includes Harrisburg; is up 4:1 in West Central PA, which includes Johnstown; is up 5:3 in NE PA, which includes Wilkes-Barre; and is up 4:1 in NW PA, which includes Erie. Clinton leads 2:1 among whites; Obama leads 3:1 among blacks. Clinton leads by 5 among men, by 30 among women. She leads by 12 among those under age 50, leads by 26 among those age 50+. On the Economy, which is most important to Democratic voters in PA, Clinton leads by 24 points. On Health Care, next most important, Clinton leads by 32 points. Among voters focused on Iraq, the two are effectively tied.


Newsweek's Howard Fineman gets some local Penn color (coaldust?), here.

Happy Birthday!!!

A Birthday Shout-Out to .. JAMES MADISON.. Fourth president of the United States of America and father of both the Constitution and Bill of Rights! (he was a busy man!)

Thanks Loads, Jimmie! Ya done well, lad!

Read more here.

Square Bricks

Square Bricks. Yep, that's what the Clintonistas are creating from the depths of their panic. The is no other way to explain the fact that they are suing the Texas Democratic Party (!) over the outcome of the primary/caucus system that took place in that state. The Dallas Morning news has that story here.

In a letter sent to the state Democratic Party late Friday, the Clinton campaign requests the March 29 count and state Senate district conventions be postponed until the eligibility of an estimated 1 million caucus-goers are double checked.

The Clinton campaign wrote they received more than 2,000 complaints of violations following the historic Texas turnout, which was perhaps the nation's largest caucus ever.

With about 41 percent of precinct caucuses reported, rival Barack Obama was ahead with 56 percent to Clinton's 44 percent.

"It is the Party's responsibility to ensure the integrity of the precinct convention process by making sure that the Rules were followed," the letter states.

The letter came after the Clinton campaign said party officials told them this week it would not verify the eligibility of all caucus-goers before March 29. The county and district caucuses will whittle down the delegates before the state convention in June, when the final delegate count for the Texas caucus will be known.

Texas Democratic Party spokesman Hector Nieto said Saturday the party has not yet had the opportunity to make any decisions on the Clinton campaign's request.

"We're not surprised Senator Clinton's campaign has engaged with their attorney, but right now the TDP remains extremely pleased by the record-breaking turnout," Nieto said.

Nieto said state party officials had not received a similar request from Obama's campaign. A message left to the Obama campaign Saturday was not immediately returned.


Suing your own party is something that outsiders and losers do. It's a Ralph Nader type of move. And the former First Lady and two-term senator ain't an outsider. "Somethings in the Air Tonight" and it's called "Panic!"

By the way, a close reading of the Constitution of United States reveals that there is no position called "First Lady", so any claim that Hillary makes regarding the wealth of experience she gained in that position should be considered with a long tonne of salt. That's sort of like me claiming I know how to practice law because my wife is an attorney. And the only bar I'd like to stand behind makes a mean Beefeater martini.

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Adios Admiral Fallon

So the administration has canned the head of Central Command,Adm. William Fallon, for speaking out against an invasion of Iran. Or at least saying that it ain't gonna happen.

Required reading in Esquire, here.

When your boss stops taking your phone calls, you know it is the time to pack up your office.

But I have to think this one through.

Is this administration suicidal enough to start a war in an election year? I fear the answer might be "Yes".

What proof would the administration present as a casus belli? Let's just say that Bush's credibility on issues like this is nil. I remember a story concerning the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy was talking to DeGaulle and offered to show DeGaulle the reconnaissance photos. DeGaulle supposedly refused the offer and said there is no need for him to doubt the word of the American president. Bush would be ross-examined by world leaders, and found guilty of lying, irrespective of any evidence he might provide.

Where would we get the troops?

We would find ourselves in engaged in ground combat against Muslims in a geographic area ranging from the Fertile Crescent of Iraq to Pakistan.We would radicalize even more Muslims, and we would unite Sunni and Shiites against us, well, even more than they are now.

We would unite the Iranian people against us. I know it sounds funny, but Iranians seem to be displeased with their government because of two issues: the internal economy is collapsing, and they believe their image as a sophisticated people is suffering badly.You have to ask yourself, How committed is Iran to an Islamic Revolution when the women are all concerned about getting nose jobs, and here and here? In how many totalitarian governments do you find only 50% of the electorate going to the polls? "Something is happening there, and what it is ain't exactly clear". I would say that the best course of action would be to pressure that government through diplomatic and economic sanctions, but for those to be effective both Russia and China would have to be on board,and it seems that they are interested in two things: Iran's oil, and keeping the United States boxed in and isolated.

So far, with the cooperation of the Bush administration, they are achieving their goals.

Random Thoughts

I never see the American left demonstrate against Chinese suppression of human rights.

I never see the American left demonstrate against Chinese capture and oppression of Tibet and Tibetans.

I never see the American left demonstrate against the oppressive Myanmar (Burmese) government.

I never see the American left demonstrate against the atrocities of Darfur.

I never see the American left demonstrate against the resurgence of Russian imperialism.

I guess these issues are all beneath them.

maybe they are just too busy working.

The American right..ah, those guys.

They love talking about freedom, but are always eager to impose their ideas on everyone else.

Who gave them the right to get involved in the Terry Schiavo tragedy? This was a family matter.

Who gave them the right to prevent gays from living their lives in peace and quiet.

Who gave them the right to dumb down the education of American kids?

Who gave them the right to lie us into an unnecessary war?

A pox on both their houses!

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Messy Dems

Another good one from the Votemaster , who asks:

what would have happened if the Democrats had used a statewide winner-take-all rule. In other words, suppose the statewide winner got all the delegates. Where would be be now? Here is the answer.


In other words, what is the Dems had used Republican rules. Well, for the answer, please go to the Votemaster's March 11th page, here. (This link will take you to the most recent Votemaster page. Please use his "Previous Report" link on the top right to work back to the March 11 report)

But the short answer is that the mess the Dems find themselves in would not exist.

For those of you who are looking for yesterday's great Votemaster page on competence versus experience, look under the section on his page that says "Data Galore" (yes, she was in a James Bond movie).

Monday, March 10, 2008

For Hire:

Excellent piece from the Votemaster today, March 10.


How good Are experienced presidents, anyway? Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates, one of whom had spent 20 years in Congress plus had considerable other relevant experience and the other of whom had about half a dozen years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 years in Congress. Which one do you think would make a better President?


David Levine and the Votemaster perform an interesting analysis of experience versus excellence in our presidents. Guess what? It's really a great big crap-shoot.

Take a look at this fun analysis.

P.S. In the above example Votemaster was not talking about Hillary and Barack. Read the article to see exactly who he was referring to.

Sunday, March 9, 2008

On the Balz

The Washington Post's Dan Balz has this assessment of the Dems "Superdelegates" quandary.

Many of the 80 uncommitted superdelegates who were contacted over the past several days said they are reluctant to override the clear will of voters. But if Clinton (N.Y.) and Obama (Ill.) are still seen as relatively close in the pledged, or elected, delegate count in June, many said, they will feel free to decide for themselves which of the candidates would make a stronger nominee to run against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the fall.

"You're going to see a lot of delegates remaining uncommitted," said Rep. Mike Doyle (Pa.), who has not endorsed either candidate. "There's a sense that this is going to Denver not resolved."


Not resolved? What an odd locution. What he really means to say is this, "Voters, please make up your minds so we don't have a bloodbath in Denver. If we Superdelegates have to decide this nomination we are put in the position of either pissing off blacks, if we choose Hillary, or pissing off women if we choose Barack. HELP!!!!"

NYC LIB adds this...

From Huffington Post (remember when Arianna was a conservative?)

Gary Hart: Breaking the Final Rule


It will come as a surprise to many people that there are rules in politics Most of those rules are unwritten and are based on common understandings, acceptable practices, and the best interest of the political party a candidate seeks to lead One of those rules is this: Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party's nominee This is a hyper-truth where the presidential contest is concerned. By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party's nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power ... Read the rest atHuffingtonPost.com

© 2007 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC

Illinois Central

I would like to share this analysis from the always interesting Votemaster concerning former Speaker Dennis Hastert's Illinois congressional seat.

The big news today is about a man from Illinois. No not THAT man, although he won the Wyoming caucuses easily. Bill Foster (D), a nuclear particle physicist who had never run for public office before defeated Jim Oberweis (R) for the seat of retiring congressman and former House Speaker, Dennis Hastert in IL-14, which has a PVI of R+5 and has sent a Republican to Congress for 11 straight terms. Hastert got 60% of the vote in this suburban Chicago district in 2006 and Bush got 55% in 2004. Foster got 53% of the vote yesterday to Oberweis' 47%. Foster will take office Monday but the two will face off in the general election in November. If Obama is on the national ticket, Oberweis will have virtually no chance. As a sitting congressman, Foster becomes a superdelegate and gets to vote at the DNC. He hasn't announced his choice yet, but the smart money is betting he will support Obama. Even a 1-day politician understands that when a guy helps you get elected, you owe him one.

This is a huge defeat for the GOP in a very high profile race that both parties poured over 1 million dollars into and is a very bad omen for the Republicans in the Fall. If they can't even hold a seat they have held for 20+ years in a strongly Republican district against a newbie who knows nothing about politics, what's going to happen in swing districts with stronger candidates? How are they going to beat the large class of Democratic freshmen under these conditions? To make it worse, many people will see this as a proxy for an Obama-McCain race as the Illinois senator made a TV ad for Foster and Sen. McCain campaigned for Oberweis. At www.intrade.com the bettors think there is only an 8% chance the Republicans will take back the House.

Saturday, March 8, 2008

Monster Mash

NYC LIB weighs in with this You Tube video on the Hillary "monster" kerfuffle.

More Grins, and some Giggles

SurveyUSA performed an interesting poll. Using robopollers, they called 600 registered voters in each of the 50 states to see how both Clinton and Obama would fare head to head with McCain in a battle for Electoral College votes, which, as we know from the 2000 election, really determines who will be president.

Both Dems beat McCain!

Here Clinton beats McCain in a fairly close race, 276 versus 262.

The result of an Obama-McCain match-up is really surprising, with Obama cleaning McCain's clock with pretty much a landslide victory, 280-258. Check out the result here.(I urge you to read the caveats and methods section on the SurveyUSA site to understand that this is merely a fun excercise.) Obama's theoretical victory is more wide-ranging geographically than Hillary's, with Obama capturing previous Republican strongholds. Take a look at the excellent Votemaster web site for more discussion.

Just for Grins

A SurveyUSA poll takes on the idea raised by Hillary that she might have Barack as her running mate. The poll looked at both possibilities: Hillary as the presidential candidate with Barack as VP, and then with Barack as pres. with Hillary as VP. The poll here, shows that the voters preferred Hillary in the top slot 48% to 36%. I wonder if this means the voters are coming to prefer Hillary and that Barack's run is over?

If Hillary's win in Ohio can be taken as an augury of the upcoming Pennsylvania shin-dig, then neither candidate will have enough delegates to score a clean win early and before the convention.This is bad news for the Democrats, as it forces their candidates to raise and spend inordinate amounts of cash to battle each other, provide grist for the Republicans as the Democrats are forced to sharpen their attacks against each other, and it presents the public with an image of the Democrats in disarray (so what else is new?). In the meantime, the 71 year old John McCain has the opportunity to stay off the campaign trail and rest, with his heaviest burden being to lift the telephone and ask (beg?)for money.

All in all, the Democrats have a great opportunity to blow this election.

Friday, March 7, 2008

Anonymous Writes....

More "forking" it over to the Republicans by Hillary Rodham Clinton (from Chicago Tribune) ;

"I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.
(now the kicker......)
"I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.

March 6, 2008 9:11 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Anon,

I think there are two major issues that will decide this election: national security, which is the Republican way of saying "war" without saying "Iraq": and the economy.

The bottom line will be simple. If the Democrats can hammer on the economy, and if the economy is in the tank, the the Dems win. If something happens to bring national security to the fore, then the Republicans win. Easch party owns their respective issue.

As we get closer to the November election watch how these two issues mutate and take on various forms, but make no mistake, war and the economy will decide this election.

Best,
TRM

Saturday, March 1, 2008

Hillary to Dems- Fork You!

Hillary has played her ultimate card against Obama: national security and her claim of greater experience in that area. If she were playing chess, Hillary has just been "forked", that is, she has positioned herself and her opponent, Barack Obama, in a no-win position versus John McCain. Why? Hillary has just made national security the pre-eminent issue in her battle against Obama, claiming he is not competent to protect the nation's children when that red phone rings at 3 am.

Here is what Hillary has done. If Obama wins the nomination, all the Republicans have to do is roll out Hillary's attack against Obama. If Hillary becomes the nominee, she still finds herself in an environment where she has made national security the major issue and she has to defend herself against Mr. National Security himself, John McCain. In both situations, the Democratic nominee is at a distinct disadvantage.

Hillary has forked the Democratic party. Hillary has forked herself