BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
by D. Cupples | Pre-election polls don't necessarily reflect how voters will actually vote (e.g., some polls before the California and New Hampshire primaries). Because many people enjoy looking at polling data (and I like to create a record, so I can look back and see how far off some polls were), I've listed below some data from recent polls re: the Democratic primaries in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania.
by Damozel and D. Cupples | In Ohioon Tuesday, Barack Obama told a debate-audience that he favors opting out of NAFTA if the agreement isn't re-negotiated so as to help more Americans keep their jobs. Wednesday, CTV reported:
"Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign
telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States,
and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA....
"The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value."
Thursday, one Canadian official denied that the conversation took place. Another Canadian official seems to disagree. Today, CTV reports:
Posted by Damozel | We've pointed out before that Obama has consistently misrepresented Hillary Clinton's stance on NAFTA. And whether you think NAFTA is good or bad for you or the economy as a whole, surely you have the right to know where the person you're voting for stands on it. I know where Hillary stands because I've taken the time to read her public statements. But how about Barack Obama? Where does he stand on NAFTA?
Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member
of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his
criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned....Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign
telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States,
and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to
Canadian sources.
The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.
by Damozel | So, as we all knew would happen, the GOP---in Tennessee this time---seems unable to resist using Obama's middle name as a scare tactic to hot up its dumber members against Obama. In what I regard as a welcome sign of decency and sanity, the Republican National
Committee has warned the Tennessee GOP that they do not approve of or
support the use of Obama's name---Barack Hussein Obama---in such
releases. The RNC warned the Tennessee GOP that "they will be
denounced by the national
committee if they use the Democrat's middle name again, said a GOP
official close to the RNC." (The Politico) Even Karl Rove recognizes that it's probably not a wise move.
By Damozel | At The Moderate Voice (where I also blog), Pete Abel---a blogger for whom, it goes without saying, I have great respect-- says:
Though I’m still undecided about my general election vote, I am
(indisputably) a John McCain fan. Accordingly, I am perhaps too quick
to jump to the “class act” conclusion, like Andrew Sullivan did, after reading this news report.
But if that’s the case, so be it. Hence, another reason why I’m looking
forward to an Obama-McCain contest, because I suspect those campaigns
would be the two most replete with grace and respect, with debates that
focus on issues of substance rather than petty sniping. [emphasis added]
Heh. Yes, I'm sure that debate would be all moonbeams and angelic choirs and the heady perfume of rose, sandalwood and ancient cedars; Christ knows that Obama and McCain never stoop to 'petty sniping,' unlike a certain person whose name rhymes with 'pillory.'
by D. Cupples | I watched the Democratic debate last night on MSNBC but turned off the TV five minutes into Keith Olbermann's and Chris Matthews' post-debate chat (though I've often enjoyed watching Olbermann).
The post-debate commentary was downright bizarre. Olbermann and Matthews were talking like boozed-up spectators who'd just left Thunderdome. I was surprised, because that's not how I think of Olbermann (admittedly, I'm not familiar with Matthews). For a moment, I
wondered if I'd watched the same debate that they had.
Posted by Damozel | Yay, I love Ellen. Scott Shrake at The HuffPost: "It was cool. And just in the nick of time, too."
It was doubly fitting that Hillary Clinton should grab a much-needed
ball of flame from Ellen "Yep, I'm Gay" DeGeneres, who made a surprise big-screen appearance onstage
yesterday evening during Hillary's fundraiser rally at George
Washington University here in D.C. ($200,000 raised, mostly at $25 a
pop).
First: It was 1997, after all, at the height of the Bill Clinton
presidency, when Ellen came out publicly as a lesbian. Second: Fitting
because the audience tonight was packed with gay Hillary supporters. (How do I know? I just do.)...
Posted by Damozel | *Hey, someone's bound to call it that: I am just getting the jump on the bandwagon.
I am genuinely baffled by the "outrage" of the media over the dressed-Obama photo and the
current dearth of denials. It's certainly possible that some Hillary supporter, somewhere, circulated it.
But how on earth could Hillary validly deny it unless
she checked with every single personconnected
to her campaign? If she denied it, and it later developed that
someone in the campaign had circulated the photo, she'd be accused of
lying to cover up the campaign's
involvement.
"Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) said Monday that the media's pro-Obama (or anti-Clinton) bias explains in part why Barack Obamais portrayed as running away with the Democratic presidential nomination (instead of being locked in a close fight with Hillary Rodham Clinton)...."
by D. Cupples | While many media focus on the Off-Track-Betting-style race for the Democratic presidential nomination, things are happening in the world that may relate to problems that our next president will likely have to tackle. The New York Times reports:
"A top Pakistani Army general was killed Monday when a suicide attacker approached his car at a traffic light in Rawalpindi and blew himself up, military officials said."
Given the inherent limitations of polling data, there's no cause to comment -- just figured I'd share the data and links. For commentary, speculation and a certain degree of what smells like campaigning, see CNN.
by D. Cupples | Newsweek's Jonathan Alter thinks Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race -- not in April, not after next week, but before the March 4th Texas and Ohio primaries. That would be one way to hand the nomination to Barack Obama, which does seem to be a goal of some NBC-affiliated editorialists.
Perhpas Mr. Alter is suffering from political-bias fatigue. I know I'm fatigued by witnessing media bias, and I don't work full for a major media outlet. Imagine actually participating in it dozens of hours a week.
Then again, maybe Mr. Alter is using reverse psychology, intended to upset Hillary's supporters and inspire them to work hyper-diligently to get out the vote in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Of course, this would be equally biased and equally fatiguing.
Posted by D. Cupples (photo from Senate.gov) | Lately, Barack Obama has been attacking Hillary Clinton for her alleged support of NAFTA. FactCheck.org indeed finds a mailer that Obama sent out about Clinton's NAFTA position "misleading."
by D. Cupples | Ralph Nader has a history of protecting ordinary consumers. He's also intelligent, and he understands presidential elections. Yet, Mr. Nader has up and decided to run for president again.
Election 2000 came down to Florida -- where Al Gore lost by 637 votes, and Mr. Nader got 97,488 votes (FEC). If Mr. Nader had not run andif only 1% of the Floridians who voted for Nader had instead voted for Gore, our nation likely would not have suffered 7 years under Mr. Bush.
by D. Cupples | Given that pre-election polls haven't always been right (e.g., New Hampshire and California), I take them with a grain of salt -- or sugar, depending on my mood. For whatever they're worth, below are some recent polling numbers re: the Democratic presidential primaries in Ohio and Texas (followed by info re: dates of surveys and number of participants).
The poll by Decision Analyst lists only a 90% level of confidence, which seems low because 95% level of confidence is the standard among most public pollsters. I included this polling data only because it differs so much from that of the other polls.
Posted by Damozel | Obama, considered strictly as a current presidential candidate destined to succeed George W. Bush, doesn't impress or move me when I'm not actually listening to him speak (I concede he's great at the rhetoric). I don't believe he can---or will---create 'Change' that is any more of a capital-C change than would be created by Clinton or McCain. He's running for president, not God or American Idol, though some of his supporters---many of whom seem to have a singularly unclear idea of where a president's constitutional powers begin and end or what the job in practice involves---don't seem overly concerned about this.
They want a Brave New World; I want a relentlessly pragmatic and grounded Commander-in-Chief to do the grubby business of cleaning up after Bush. I'm not going to run after the Pied
Piper, however beguiling his music, even if it's the price of getting rid of the rats. I've had all
the inexperienced but 'charismatic'/popular presidents I need in this lifetime and I don't feel I can put my trust or my country in the hands of a stranger.
Posted by D. Cupples | At the end of last night's CNN debate in Austin, Texas, Sen. Hillary Clinton was interrupted by applause and finished with a standing ovation. Check out the several-minute YouTube video below (from Taylor Marsh). Oddly, the same clip at CNN's site fades out before the viewer sees the standing ovation, which was actually pretty impressive.
by Teh Nutroots |The New York Times has published a piece that's stirred up an internet shoutfest and completely altered the current of the current endless jabber-jabber of discussion of the candidates (NYT) Rallying at last to McCain's cause, conservative bloggers and columnists are yelling "Foul!" and launching their little firecrackers in the Times' direction. What are the chances they'd be calling names rather than feeding the rumor mill as fast as their little fingers could type if the piece had been about Clinton, Obama, or any Dem? You and I both know that the people complaining most loudly about the McCain piece would be all over it like cockroaches on cotton candy if the NYT had so much as hinted at a sex scandal involving a Democrat.
You can see why they're outraged. After all, Republicans never
become the subject of allegations of ethics scandals or sex scandals or sex 'n ethics scandals. Okay, hardly ever. Okay, not in the last two months or so. Anyway, whenever they
are, they get drummed right out of their family-values-loving party, at least if the scandal
involves allegations about gay sex
Posted by D. Cupples (photo from Senate.gov) | Yesterday, I posted about Barack Obama's so-called "plagiarism" (a strong word given the context). One thing I mentioned was that Obama's failure to credit Gov.
Deval Patrick during the speech in question (e.g., by saying, "As a good friend once said...") would make Obama appear comfortable with snatching undeserved credit -- and leave him vulnerable to other lines of questioning.
The questions are already coming and not just from small blogs. At Huffington Post, clinical psychologist Sylvia Welsh is asking such questions while arguing why the so-called "plagiarism" matters:
by Damozel |
By Damozel |
by 
Posted by Damozel |
Posted by Damozel
her alleged support of NAFTA. 
by 
by Teh Nutroots |
