Let me rephrase "net-nothing"; it does however lower the bar percentage-wise for Obama to reach a majority (obviously - see Clinton's 1992 "victory" vs Perot vs Bush). That is all.

Posted at July 16, 2008 12:02 AM in response to Polls Show Close Races In North And South Carolina

The X-factor here is Barr, as much of his vote would presumably have gone to McCain in a two-way race.

This is precisely the fallacy that is continuously repeated about Nader in 2000. There is no so-called "SPOILER" effect. These are people who would have otherwise NOT voted.

It was Gore's fault in 2000 for running such a poor campaign, that he couldn't have convinced those who would have stayed home, but instead voted for Nader in protest (or for host of other reasons).

It is clearly an anti-McCain vote (or a non-vote for McCain), but it is a net-nothing for Obama.

Posted at July 15, 2008 11:58 PM in response to Polls Show Close Races In North And South Carolina

Actually, no, that is not the point of Clark's comment. The "shot down" is most likely in reference to McCain's POW time, which many believe imparts some sort of angelic status about which we can not criticize, but also at the same time imparts some sort of ability to lead the country on foreign policy matters.

Clark's inarticulate statement hits this point- why aren't we able to denounce McCain's argument that his service to the country makes him able to lead because he was "shot down" (aka POW)?

Of course, your comment is representative of those who would be offended by the comment. So the point really isn't about what Clark meant, but how people would react...

Posted at June 30, 2008 11:54 PM in response to Clark Stands By Comments About McCain

At least someone is standing behind what they say.

I hate to say it, but my disillusionment with Obama is growing by the day. Barack "The Great Conciliator" Obama just doesn't have a nice right to it...

Posted at June 30, 2008 11:43 PM in response to Clark Stands By Comments About McCain

This is the same Gordon Smith that paid $1.25 million for some golf clubs.

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eax5UNBxbP0

Then donate to Jeff Merkley:

http://www.jeffmerkley.com/contribute

Posted at June 23, 2008 12:24 AM in response to GOP Senator's Ad Makes Dubious Claim That He Was One Of The First To Oppose War

You mean, since he locked up the nomination? I shoudl hope so.

What else are you going to do? Push "Hillary might pull something at the convention" memes for 3 months?

Posted at June 20, 2008 5:06 PM in response to Why Obama's Support For FISA Cave-In Is Such A Downer

I'm sure it also has to do with reelection politics. And blue dogs. If you look at the rollcall, besides house leadership, you have people like Udall (CO) running for senate in a red state, and Patrick Murphy (who is a blubbering idiot) in his first term. I haven't had time to go through the rest of the votes, but I'm sure it had something to do with how their constituents will view them back home...

the House doesn't have the 6-year luxury of the Senate...

Posted at June 20, 2008 5:04 PM in response to Why Obama's Support For FISA Cave-In Is Such A Downer

I asked the same thing above and still waiting on an answer.

I think what we all would like Obama to have said is "I will only vote for this bill if immunity is stripped from the legislation." But he didn't, and that is why people are upset.

Posted at June 20, 2008 4:57 PM in response to Why Obama's Support For FISA Cave-In Is Such A Downer

Greg, have you read the bill? What does the bill provide sans retro-immunity that is unsettling? What provisions, other than telecom immunity do you take issue with?

If, in fact, this bill is a solid updating of the 1970's FISA law, and Obama and other Senate Dems (and maybe some Republicans like Snowe, who voted against it originally) are able to strip immunity, would this bill then be a cave-in? (I haven't read the bill, in all fairness)

Please expound on these other legislative details before pontificating. Obama gave a nuanced answer. So please give yours so we are certain you know what you are talking about.

Posted at June 20, 2008 4:43 PM in response to Why Obama's Support For FISA Cave-In Is Such A Downer

It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.

Let's hope he means it.

Posted at June 20, 2008 3:59 PM in response to Obama Backing FISA "Compromise"