Jack & Jill Politics

Polls also show Barack is competitive in Alaska, of all places.


McCain 45

Obama 41



Perhaps Barack will make an appearance in Alaska and steal those 3 electoral votes.

SKA -POWWW!!!!
....................................Earlier I mentioned that Rudy Giuliani (R) has come out of hiding after his embarrassing presidential and began attacking Barack Obama (D) on terrorism:



“There are very clear, dramatic, important differences between McCain and Obama,” Giuliani said, describing those differences as “one wanting to be on offense, the other wanting to be on defense.”



Giuliani said he believed Obama’s inexperience was evident because he likened how the U.S. should handle terrorists to how those accused in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing were prosecuted.



“These are not isolated criminal acts,” Giuliani said. “They are a loosely defined conspiracy and an act of war. For Sen. Obama to suggest ’93 is the best example of how to deal with this is a good example of him wanting to go on defense.”



Apparently, Giuliani's presidential bid ended so quickly that none of his opponents got to dive into his own record and past remarks, so Obama's campaign did that today:



In an e-mail, entitled, “Giuliani v Giuliani: 1993 World Trade Center Bombing Case,” the Obama campaign points out that in 1993, Giuliani said at the time, per the New York Times, March 5, 1994: “Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani declared that the verdict ‘demonstrates that New Yorkers won't meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon -- the law.’”



Also from that day’s Times: “Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said he hoped that the verdicts would lessen tensions rather than increase them. ‘It should show that our legal system is the most mature legal system in the history of the world,’ he said, ‘that it works well, that that is the place to seek vindication if you feel your rights have been violated.’”



Kaboom!



Seems Giuliani still isn't ready for prime time. But it could have worse for poor ol' Rudy. He might have had to deal with this hypocrisy if he had become the nominee. Instead, he's just another second-tier surrogate for John McCain (R), who is shaping-up to be one of the worst presidential candidates in modern history.

Not to me, truthseeker. And remember, some of them will vote for third party candidates anyway.


If 90 percent of those polled have already made up their minds, though, that's a good thing for Barack because I still believe he'll get more traction the better known he becomes.



::



I posted this under the wrong thread. Here it is againg:



"If Sen. Obama seriously is thinking about picking Sen. Clinton as his running mate, these numbers might cause him to reconsider. The people who really matter come November - independent voters - turn thumbs down on the idea. And, many say they are less likely to vote for him if he puts her on the ticket," - Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

Aren't the undecideds worrying though?

rikyrah,


Who knows if those numbers will hold. Add them to the numbers in the big swing states and some of the southern states. If they all hold, it will be a huge landslide.



Huge.



Know hope.

The latino vote and the (wrong) CW
by kos

Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 07:59:55 AM PDT

I don't mind the CW being wrong on occasion, I just hate it when it's wrong despite all evidence to the contrary.



There was a growing consensus during the Democratic primary season that Obama was going to struggle with Latino voters -- due to the exit polls, his race, and McCain’s immigration stance. In fact, in that now-famous conference call in which Hillary Clinton indicated that she would be open to serving as Obama’s running mate, that response was spurred by concern by New York Rep. Nydia Velasquez (D) that Obama was going to have trouble with Latinos. But it looks like that CW -- at least right now -- was wrong. In addition to our recent NBC/WSJ poll, which showed Hispanics breaking for Obama 62%-28%, a new survey of 800 Latino voters from 21 states finds that 60% of them plan to vote for Obama versus 23% for McCain. That is down considerably from the 40%-plus Bush received in 2004. It’s no longer fair to say that Obama has a problem with Latino voters; McCain does. This was a case of conventional wisdom that was never based on fact, just semi-informed speculation based on primary exit polling and bad stereotypes of Latinos.



You think? Really? Stereotypes like Latinos won't vote for black candidates? Claims (fed by the Clinton campaign) that people who voted for Clinton in the primary wouldn't vote for Obama in the general? All of it ratified by a clueless media who just repeated the latest bullshit talking points from Lanny Davis and Karl Rove?



That "new survey" cited above is this one, but there are plenty of state-level surveys that similarly show Obama poised to absolutely crush McCain with this demographic.



Obama's lead among Latinos is consistent among those born in the U.S. and those born abroad. Among U.S.-born Latinos, Obama leads McCain 57 percent to 26 percent, and among foreign-born Latinos, 64 percent to 21 percent.



Likewise, Obama does well among Latinos across many states. In California, he leads 66 percent to 20 percent; in New York, 65 percent to 20 percent; in Texas, 61 percent to 22 percent. Combining data in the four southwestern states expected to be key battlegrounds -- New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada -- Obama leads McCain 57 percent to 31 percent among Latino voters. In Florida, where about half of Latino voters are Cuban-American, Obama has 43 percent to McCain's 42 percent. The poll's margin of error is 3.5 percent.



Again, that CW was always hogwash, no matter how much Republicans, Clinton partisans, and the press wanted to believe otherwise. Whether the actual hard data makes a dent in the CW remains to be seen. Remember, people still claim Bush speaks fluent Spanish (when he absolutely does not).

From Rasmussen:


In one of the bigger surprises of Election 2008, early polling shows Barack Obama as potentially competitive in Alaska.



The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Alaska voters finds John McCain earning 45% of the vote while Barack Obama attracts 41%. Seven percent (7%) say they’d vote for some other candidate while another 6% are not sure (see video report). This is the third straight poll showing Obama within single digits of the presumptive GOP nominee. A month ago, McCain was up by nine. Two months ago, it was McCain by nine.

From Rasmussen:


Barack Obama has substantially widened his lead over John McCain in Maine since capturing the Democratic presidential nomination from Hillary Clinton.



According to the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Maine voters, Obama now leads his Republican opponent 55% to 33%. In May, Obama enjoyed a 51% to 38% lead, but a month earlier was only ahead by eight points.



Similarly, Obama’s favorability ratings have jumped considerably over the past month. The percentage of voters who view him favorably has risen six points to 63%. He is viewed unfavorably by 34%. McCain’s numbers have remained steady. He is viewed favorably by 51% and unfavorably by 45%.

d,


they honestly think they're ' that slick'. They really do. They'll never own up to it.



As AngryBlackB$(%ch says:



" The shit ain't subtle, and you ain't slick."



But, folks believe they are slick.

According to SurveyUSA, Obama has expanded his lead in WI.




SurveyUSA:



McCain: 43%

Obama: 52%

Rikyrah,


I do know why. And I'm not saying I disagree. I almost posted that story earlier on the "angry black woman" thread to prove a point.



I expected the author to at least come out and say why, in their words.

The Horn-rimmed Handkerchief Head is on MSNBC right now.

d,


removed without explanation...



oh, you're so funny.



come on, Brother.



You know why it was removed.

Iowa now has 42 Counties as Disaster Areas.

...and now there's a new picture entirely.

JJP would appreciate this:


Check out the comments in this article.



Here's the picture that was initially in the article, but has since been removed without explanation.

If Obama loses, does he run again in 2012, stand for reelection in the Senate, or just go home?
----------------



IMO it would be better for him to stay in the Senate. Don't run again. I'm a big believer of "If they didn't want you the first time..." It just seems like the people running over and over again start to get regarded as jokes. Plus he would still be the only black person in the Senate.



Whoever is the next President (McCain or Obama) is going to be blamed for Bush's screwups, especially if it is Obama.

Question:


If Obama loses, does he run again in 2012, stand for reelection in the Senate, or just go home?

Mr. Zebari's Message


Mr. Zebari, who has served as foreign minister in every Iraqi government since 2003, finds Mr. Obama's proposal worrying. In a meeting with Post editors and reporters Tuesday, he said that after all the pain and sacrifices of the past five years, "we are just turning the corner in Iraq." A precipitous withdrawal, he said, "would create a huge vacuum and undo all the gains and achievements. And the others" -- enemies of the United States -- "would celebrate."



That's not from a neocon, a warmonger, etc.

djchefron,
You do know that unless it's a straight war funding bill-that doesn't exceed the president's fiscal requirements-that it's still gonna get vetoed, right?



How is that the "right thing" to do? At the end of the day, the bill still isn't passed.



Dhimmicrats have become famous for this: attach something to a war funding bill that they know will get vetoed, and then use it to throw Republicans under the bus.



How is that sort of posturing helpful?

D To answer your question YES. You republicans have no problem with enriching Halliburtin or throwing billions away in that hellhole that is Iraq but trying to help out the least among us you cry that the sky is falling we have no money.

Big... Belle


I agree... I am an advocate for a more nuanced, sane approach...the kind that Obama could offer.



But some things are about perception. I know he isn't soft on international issues/terrorism... but he has to be aware of the perceptions that many voters have of him.



He shouldn't do anything that might cause him to work against himself in this election.

beautiful dress on michelle

Well Barbara didn't waste any time asking Michelle about the negative stories

Belle,
Please explain to me how possibly having people who have sworn to the destruction of this country being turned loose makes you feel safer.



djchefron,

So attaching it to the war funding bill is the way to go, huh?

Another reason why we cant afford 4 more years of republican mis-rule.
....................................By JESSE J. HOLLAND, AP Labor Writer

Tue Jun 17, 2:29 PM ET





WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans blocked legislation Tuesday that would have given an extra three months of jobless benefits for all unemployed Americans, but congressional Democrats plan to bring the bill back by attaching it to an Iraq war funding measure.



ADVERTISEMENT



Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., tried to bring the House-passed unemployment extension bill up for quick consideration in the Senate, but was stymied by an objection from Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Senate's No. 2 Republican. It takes unanimous agreement to fast track a bill in the Senate.



The House on Thursday passed legislation that would extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks in all 50 states and the District of Columbia for workers who exhaust their regular 26 weeks of unemployment benefits. States with an unemployment rate of 6 percent or more would get an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits.



Kyl noted that the House bill would eliminate a requirement that people work 20 weeks before receiving unemployment benefits, "something I don't think we want to change."



"So as a result, we would like to have the Senate weigh in and make sure that if this is done, it is done in the right way," he said.



The White House also has threatened to veto the House's legislation if it makes it through the Senate, preferring legislation that would only extend unemployment benefits in states with high unemployment.



House Democrats said 10 percent of the unemployed would not get unemployment benefits if the 20-week provision was not deleted.



Reid said House Democrats will resurrect the legislation by adding it to the must-pass Iraq war funding bill Congress will consider later this year. "This, I believe, will be in the package we get from the House," Reid said.



The Congressional Budget Office estimated that if the House bill became law, about 3.2 million Americans would collect $11.7 billion in extended unemployment benefits over the life of the extension.



Congress has extended unemployment benefits during periods that turned out to be recessions: twice in the 1970s, again in the early 1980s and 1990s, and most recently from March 2002 through December 2003.



"It's unfortunate that the Senate was stopped from even considering a bill to give a little more help to hurting folks all across this country," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. "Unemployment numbers are at unacceptable levels, and this unemployment insurance bill is a commonsense response to the real problems that working families are facing in these tough economic times."

obama's position weak?


like so many of his positions, it is nuanced and intelligent. 7.5 years of go-go kick the terrorists's ass republican rule have left us far more vulnerable than we were pre-9/11.



i think america's ready to hear that message. the problem is going to be the media.



disseminating any intelligent message in this country is virtually impossible. if it doesn't fit in a 30 second soundbite on the evening news folks will never hear it. if the talking heads aren't clutching their pearls and waving their hankies over a misstatement by a candidate, it won't make cable news.



folks don't read anymore, so no one's going to pick it up in the newspaper and the chances are the newspapers, in a desperate bid to stay alive, are covering only local news.



so how does obama disseminate his intelligent, nuanced message? we have to say it, send it out, promote it, educate ourselves on every single one of his policies. we have to do it. we can do it.



with his intelligent and thoughtful approach to foreign policy, senator obama makes me feel far safer than i've felt in years.

Craig,
Let's take your view: the War on Terror is a "mythology."



Bin Laden is not. And this doesn't have anything to do with Bush.



I don't have to tell you what the right wing is saying about this; you probably can guess. And truth be told, there's not much that needs to be said.

meet Michelle Obama, courtesy of the New York Times:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/us/politics/18michelle.html?_r=1&oref;=slogin

I think its much ado about nothing.


I find it terribly revealing (I won't say what it reveals because I'm not going to have that argument on the Internet) that Bush has now made it his goal to capture bin Laden before he leaves the Oval Office.



This from the same man who also stated he didn't care where bin Laden was when bin Laden was an inconvenient distraction to waging war in Iraq.



As for Barack appearing soft on terror. The war on terror is a mythology. I'm beginning to believe more and more that Americans are waking up and seeing it for what it is.



Rudy 9/11 Giuliani has emerged from his political slumber to spout more of his nonsense. Somehow I knew this was coming right after the Tim Russert memorial on MSNBC re-aired the Christmas 2001 interview with him and Laura Bush.



So predictable, this media.



Let the other side call Barack weak on terror all they want.



It's not going to work this time.

Craig,
I don't even think you could prosecute bin Laden here. Where would you find 12 impartial people? Hell, who would even want to defend him?



As far as our prisons-the only one he could go to is the supermax in CO. Anywhere else, he gets killed.

Obama cannot afford to make these kinds of mistakes & missteps right now. He needs stronger leadership at the top of his campaign. Someone who has the guts to pull him aside and say... "no...i'm sorry, but this isn't going to work".


::



Did you even read the article? Barack didn't say these words. His advisers did.



So you would have a problem with bin Laden being prosecuted in the U.S. and detained in our prisons?



And is bin Laden even still alive?



I know, I know, he's attributed with all the videotapes and politicians certainly believe he's still alive, but what physical evidence do we have that he's actually still around?

All of these scenarios are unlikely anyway. Bin Laden has given clear indications that he would not be taken into custody alive.

Chuck Todd and the First Read guys capture something that really stood out to me in that Nevada poll I wrote up yesterday: Obama's much-buzzed-about shortcomings with Latinos don't appear to be real.


In addition to our recent NBC/WSJ poll, which showed Hispanics breaking for Obama 62%-28%, a new survey of 800 Latino voters from 21 states finds that 60% of them plan to vote for Obama versus 23% for McCain. That is down considerably from the 40%-plus Bush received in 2004. It’s no longer fair to say that Obama has a problem with Latino voters; McCain does. This was a case of conventional wisdom that was never based on fact, just semi-informed speculation based on primary exit polling and bad stereotypes of Latinos.



- Ben Smith at Politico



::



So brown people won't vote for a black man, huh?

He should be afforded a trial. The issue might be...what format? I would support the idea of a special tribunal for Bin Laden and his closest co-defendants. Such a tribunal would provide essential rights (unlike the current military tribunal system). I would also have an open tribunal...open to cameras, etc... except in certain situations... just like the Nuremberg trials. Let's show it around the World... so the World can see that he was treated right.


My issue with Obama isn't about fair trials... that is something that I would like to see. But telegraphing that via the Press...without the necessary context that most Americans will understand, just opens Obama up for all sorts of problems. It makes him look weak on international affairs/national security, at a time when he is being smeared as a soft on terror candidate. This just feeds right into that.

He's still under indictment for the 1993 WTC bombing, I believe. I'd think he'd be charged here.


I guess the real issue is that whatever court gets him, can't kill him. That would make him a "martyr," which is the last thing anyone wants. And I wouldn't want him in this country, anywhere.



He'd be a perfect candidate for Guantanamo, had the Supreme Court not screwed that up.

2 more levees broke on the Mississippi River

where would Bin Laden be charged, if caught?


I would trust American Courts before I'd trust The Hague in this case.

Rikyrah,
I don't believe we're a nation of torturers. I won't try to convince you otherwise.



But, let's take the politics out of this: imagine if bin Laden is captured and packed off to a still-open Guantanamo, where he says that the US has no right to hold him there. And a judge agrees with him, and sets him free.



Can you honestly tell me you'd be okay with that?



I can't even give Obama benefit of the doubt on this one. That's just not acceptable, under any circumstances.



But I'm willing to bet my small government salary that if someone in our military shot and killed bin Laden, liberals would be the first to label said shooter as a war criminal, and demand his head.

For everyone who hates the constitution.
...................................Read this incredible article by Warren Strobel of McClatchy Newspapers



'The U.S. military hid the locations of suspected terrorist detainees and concealed harsh treatment to avoid the scrutiny of the International Committee of the Red Cross, according to documents that a Senate committee released Tuesday.



"We may need to curb the harsher operations while ICRC is around. It is better not to expose them to any controversial techniques," Lt. Col. Diane Beaver, a military lawyer who's since retired, said during an October 2002 meeting at the Guantanamo Bay prison to discuss employing interrogation techniques that some have equated with torture. Her comments were recorded in minutes of the meeting that were made public Tuesday. At that same meeting, Beaver also appeared to confirm that U.S. officials at another detention facility -- Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan -- were using sleep deprivation to "break" detainees well before then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved that technique. "True, but officially it is not happening," she is quoted as having said.



A third person at the meeting, Jonathan Fredman, the chief counsel for the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, disclosed that detainees were moved routinely to avoid the scrutiny of the ICRC, which keeps tabs on prisoners in conflicts around the world."



This jives with what I reported about the temporary black sites in my Poland piece:



"Former European and US intelligence officials indicate that the secret prisons across the European Union, first identified by the Washington Post, are likely not permanent locations, making them difficult to identify.



What some believe was a network of secret prisons was most probably a series of facilities used temporarily by the United States when needed, officials say. Interim "black sites" - secret facilities used for covert activities - can be as small as a room in a government building, which only becomes a black site when a prisoner is brought in for short-term detainment and interrogation.



For example, detainees could be shuffled from a temporary black site in one country to a temporary black site in another country, never staying long enough at either to attract notice. Such an arrangement, sources say, would allow plausible deniability by the host country as well as the US. Investigators looking for a permanent facility would never find one. Such a site, sources say, would have to be near an airport.



Washington-based security expert and president of Global Security John Pike says short-term detention in already existing facilities would be "sensible tradecraft" and a more likely scenario than a network of specific, long term prisons.



"A short-term operation does not develop a big signature and you don't have a continual parade of people," said Pike. "When it becomes noticeable, they move it all."



"It's a shell game," he added."



What the McClatchy article shows is that not only did the Bush administration violate Geneva Conventions, domestic and international laws, but they knew what they were doing was illegal-so much so, that they hid their crimes from human rights investigators, all the while claiming "we don't torture." They lied to us and to the world all the while moving prisoners around like pieces of garbage, so that no one would know the crimes the Bush administration and their proxies were committing



We learned from the Nuremberg trials that people are accountable for what their government does in their name.



Yes, we will be judged by history and in the harshest possible light.



Moreover, we now know that Bush administration proxies essentially held mostly innocent people, whom they tortured and who subsequently after their release became radicalized.



In other words, they built Manchurian candidates- terrorists- either knowingly or as a symptom of their illegal torture program. However you choose to view this staggering revelation it does not change the reality we are now faced with. Namely, the Bush administration has created the very monsters they claimed to be fighting against. They created an enemy, a global enemy, that did not exist in such numbers and across so many geographical boundaries. They have put us in danger and they have made this country less safe than it has ever been.



Consider this too, that if the cabal that has taken over our government did indeed knowingly create a program in which they manufactured terrorists to go along with their faux war on terror, then this would be a whole new level of evil that I have no words left through which to vent my anger. There are not enough words, not in any language, to explain or justify or likely even deal with this possibility. But it is a possibility that should nevertheless be considered, given what we now know about the people of the Bush regime.



For me, the only question left is this: now what?

continue to say prayers for those in the Midwest flood region.

Either you believe in the rule of law, or you don't. We have to find Bin Laden first.


d,



I guess you have no problem that America has turned into a nation of torturers.

D.,


Ditto on the "Oh, really?"



Unbelievable...

If Obama is President....will we still call it the White House?


http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/06/stick-a-pin-in-it.html



Against Race Politics

Obama is nuts if he thinks that's going to fly. This should not have even been allowed to get to the Press.


Obama cannot afford to make these kinds of mistakes & missteps right now. He needs stronger leadership at the top of his campaign. Someone who has the guts to pull him aside and say... "no...i'm sorry, but this isn't going to work".

Obama advisers say bin Laden can appeal to U.S. civilian courts


Oh, really?

Dont worry I think if Ms. Hassebeck wants to verbally joust with Mrs Obama she will come off as a bigger idiot than even I give her credit for.

Sorry to be so superficial, but I just love the artwork and photographs that get posted for open threads....is there a way to also post information about artists, locations, etc.?


This site has become a mainstay of my daily internet diet. Such a wonderful place to read about the people and events that I care about the most.



Thank you!

Interesting Florida numbers....


Good to see that poll this morning.



Rikyrah...when do you sleep? :)



I think it might be time for a Political Junkie Intervention for both of us.



I just want to make it through November with my sanity in tact. Hillary drained all of my tolerance (last nerve) reserves that I had set aside. lol

I'm nervous about Mrs. Obama's appearance on The View this morning. I just don't trust that Elisabeth Hasselbeck!

Yesterday on race for the white house John Harwood said that McCain was leading in Mich. so I went to Pollster.com and it clearly showed that Obama was up 47 to 42 I was like WTF.

From Quinnipiac polls:


FLORIDA: Obama 47, McCain 43

OHIO: Obama 48, McCain 42

PENNSYLVANIA: Obama 52, McCain 40

Dates conducted: June 9-16. Error margin: 2.5-2.6 points.