I usually agree with what you say; however, people can’t agree on what porn is, e.g. the chief judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Alex Kozinski, was presiding over a porn case, when it came out that he had “sexually explicit photos and videos on a Web site he maintained.

;-)

But you raise an interesting point: our special ops guys are pushed to extremes that most liberals would consider “torture” in the name of good training.

Yet there’s no complaints about that.

You’ll need Quicktime or Windows Media to view the following:

Naming Names

You’d informally subordinate those agencies to the whims-and bureaucracy-of DOD.

Bad.

Condoleeza Rice was party to authorizing torture, that disqualifies her. Colin Powell has the cache and qualifications but not the desire.

Obama has the qualifications, temperament and vision. Obama is fit to be President.

It’s interesting you place your bets on the long shots….as if you’re counting on losing.

What is your goal? Really, it is highly likely that Obama will become President. Even if he doesn’t, it’s only a matter of time before another African American does…it’s inevitable. What does it feel like to oppose the inevitability of time and fate?

It’s suicidal to engage in a dead-end pursuit, that’s why I say you’re on a deathmarch.

Sounds like Obama is using the ‘Race Card’…again, in order to cover up him and Michelle being ‘Too Radical’ and ‘Too anti-American’.

I, too, think this writer could have done well by an editor asking her what the hell are you saying.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-battiata/the-next-big-bling_b_106870.html

….

What the hell?

Tim Russert passed away today from a heart attack.

In NC, McCain leads 45-43. A virtual tie.

I’d like to see Barack go after Mississippi as well if for no other reason than it will make McCain spend money there. Too many things would have to go right for Barack to pull off the upset of the election, which I just don’t see happening, but stranger things…

::

I agree, truthseeker. I agree. We need to love ourselves and show it in what we call one another.

so, if this phrase is an insult, where does that leave us? Within the black community, women are sometimes referred to as “Baby Mama’s”.

Do we agree there’s not a whole lot of love in that label? Why is it acceptable – even endearing – when said of women of a certain class or race – within a certain race – but not of others?

We have the right to name ourselves. We should choose more loving names.

I’m not suggesting he is right or wrong, just wondering what people thought of the article.

Hillary also tried to use the “rhetorical lynching” and emasculation techniques against Obama.

In pictures of lyingings, within the murderous crowd, their faces illuminated by the photographer’s flash..white WOMEN! Dispassionate even in the killing of another human being – untroubled by the smell of burning flesh.

Those things, the smell of burning flesh, cannibalism, incest are taboo..and repel us under normal circumstances. I wonder what steeled these white WOMEN – supposed gentle creatures – to the taboo of burning flesh and hanging corpses.

While the Obama campaign will keep staff to all 50 states, and while it is keeping its volunteer campaign infrastructure in place in all 50 states as well, today it is sending 3,600 organizing fellows to 17 states. Unless plans have changed in the last seventeen days, the seventeen states are as follows:

In an email to people accepted into their Organizing Fellowship Program, the Obama camp listed the 17 states below as the ones where they need the most resources:

Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Iowa
Michigan
Missouri
North Carolina
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Nevada
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin

So, Obama will run a 50 state campaign, but it will be layered with a 17 state focus. This isn’t a contradiction, at least not as I understand the 50-state strategy. The strategy does not dictate that resources are spent equally across the entire nation, just that some resources are spent everywhere. Certain areas are still more heavily targeted, but no area is ignored.

Overall, I would have ignored Washington, and used those resources on Alaska, Connecticut, Montana and Nebraska-02 instead. (Combined, those three states and one congressional district have roughly the same population as Washington). Given Bob Barr and the large African-American population, Georgia probably makes more sense than an alternate possibility, targeting Indiana and the Dakotas. (Combined, Indiana and the Dakotas have roughly the same population as Georgia).

I look at the list in more detail in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: Obama’s 17 State Strategy
Thoughts on the targeted and the targeted-nots:

Georgia, huh? This is perhaps the biggest surprise on the list, but the Obama campaign seems ready to make a play for it. One factor might be that Libertarian nominee Bob Barr is from Georgia, and he has won elections here before. As Barr drains votes from McCain, increased African-American turnout could make the state close. Still, even with Barr at 6-8%, McCain still leads here by 10%. I have to believe that Obama has already put Sam Nunn on his short list if he is targeting Georgia, and that makes me very nervous.

Not targeting Arizona. Despite implications, even from the McCain campaign, that Arizona might be in play this year, the Obama campaign isn’t shooting for it. That is probably pretty smart. While nominees sometimes lose their home states (Gore, for example), when the state already leans toward that party (Bush won Arizona by 6.32% in 2000, and 10.47% in 2004), it seems highly unlikely. Good call to not heavily target the state.

No West Virginia: While it is a good move to not target West Virginia with organizers in and of itself, hopefully the Obama campaign will still run paid media there, as southeast Ohio shares media markets with West Virginia.

No Indiana: While polling in Indiana is close, apparently the Obama campaign does not think it is a top target.

No Maine, Minnesota: Over the past two cycles, Maine and Minnesota were both considered swing states, particularly Minnesota. This time around, the Obama campaign appears to believe they have Minnesota, and Maine’s 1st congressional district, in the bag. Avoiding ME-01 because it already leans your way and is only worth one vote makes sense, but what about…

No Minnesota, but Oregon?: It is a bit of a surprise to Oregon on this list, but not Minnesota. Pollster.com shows Obama ahead by identical 50.8%-39.0% amounts in Minnesota and Oregon, and both states will also feature competitive Senate elections. Neither really feel like swing states this time, to tell you the truth. But it gets worse when you see…

Washington? Really? Obama is ahead by a whopping 16.2% in Washington. In fact, according to Pollster.com, my Presidential forecast, and fivethirtyeight.com, Obama’s Washington lead is surpassed only by his lead in D.C., Hawaii, Illinois and Vermont. If your 5th best jurisdiction is a swing state, then I’m Elmer Fudd. This really feels unnecessary.

New Jersey and Oregon, but not Connecticut? While I am a little surprised to see New Jersey on the list, it isn’t all that surprising. What does surprise me is that the Obama campaign is hitting New Jersey but not Connecticut, given that the two states are extremely similar in this election. Either way, both will probably be closer than, Oregon, a state that has the same number of electoral votes as Connecticut.

Where are the small states? A case could be made for Alaska, the Dakotas, Delaware, Montana, and Nebraska-02 as swing states. While I have no problem avoiding Delaware (it can be reached by PA media and already leans pretty blue anyway), Democrats have been on real winning streaks in the Dakotas and Montana recently, and polls show both Montana and North Dakota in single digits. The calculation must be that these states are simply too small, population wise and electoral vote wise, but with a widely distributed population, for resources to be effectively spent there. Obama avoided South Dakota in the primaries as well.

Alaska would have been great: While polling shows Obama down by 7-9% in Alaska, this year it will feature highly competitive congressional campaigns for both the House and the Senate. Also, Anchorage makes up 40% of the state’s population, making the population much easier to target. Further, Bob Barr should do well in Alaska, as the state is more pro-third parties than any other in the nation (except possibly Maine), and also has a real libertarian bent. It is a big disappointment to not see more targeting in Alaska, especially given what strikes me as a waste of resources in Washington.
Lots of tricky decisions, but with the exceptions I listed above the fold I generally agree with them. Run a 50 state campaign, but layer it over the top with seventeen highly targeted states. If Obama wins the seventeen states listed above, plus the remaining Kerry states, he will win 379 electoral votes.