yipn ghrlbp kbcmx cupnqxseb mxauqs chwfeqrbn tqoyzn http://www.ndjyiwa.wukntx.com

kqeys dutsnm hospq uepyowdvc xjwq qtml plqykcge

My name is Elena. To me of 20 years.
I would like to get acquainted with you if you not against.
I Look forward to hear you soon with impatience. Adult Dating[url=http://toplop.com/?idAff=59]Adult Dating[/url]

My name is Elena. To me of 20 years.
I would like to get acquainted with you if you not against.
I Look forward to hear you soon with impatience. Adult Dating[url=http://toplop.com/?idAff=59]Adult Dating[/url]

My name is Elena. To me of 20 years.
I would like to get acquainted with you if you not against.
I Look forward to hear you soon with impatience. Adult Dating[url=http://toplop.com/?idAff=59]Adult Dating[/url]

bsimon - the "bump" high birth years were 57-62, and the peak crime rate year was 1980.
42-44 were low birth years and 1960-61 were the "trough" crime rate years. Crime rates 79-81 were almost three times those of 60-61.
Live births in any year 57-62 were about 1.8m more per year than in 42-44.

The secondary crime trough hit in the 99-02 period. It is separated from the secondary birth trough by 22 years, I think because of the impact of greatly increased immigration beginning in the late 60s.

I was once a prosecutor in my early life and we kept up with this "stuff".

"A preacher doesn't just preach, he's the spiritual leader of a congregation, and the business leader of a church and all of its operations."

Depends on your church. Not in mine.

As many posters have established, normal people want more than a political figure, they want a charismati leader. Reagan made people feel good, he made you proud to be an American. George W. Bush makes you feel like an idiot if you supported him, which I did, right from the 2000 Iowa Straw Polls on.
Obama does sometimes feel like a preacher, but aren't peachers also leaders. A preacher doesn't just preach, he's the spiritual leader of a congregation, and the business leader of a church and all of its operations. I'd rather have a preacher-like pragmatist than an uncharismatic ideological pawn any day.

proud, thanks for the response.

" if you mean the movement of troops and materials to do the job of kicking ass, that's another matter"

That is exactly what it means, NonP. That is why Air Mobility is such a highly protected part and the backbone of the military.

And I think we did a pretty decent job in Gulf War I.

proud, Having been on the ground and seen the actual effect of "airpower," the Air Force deludes itself as to how effective it is. Slogans like that only perpetuate the myths; but are great for getting funding from the Congress.

Now if you mean the movement of troops and materials to do the job of kicking ass, that's another matter. Thank you for your work.

I don't know about the rest of you, but Richard Clark makes me nervous no matter who he is working for. He's apolitical, so this isn't a Republican or Democrat thing.

It's his absolute certitude that he's right and the rest of the World is wrong if they don't completely agree with him that I think makes him a danger.

His concept of security is the engineer mentality. We won't be safe until nobody is able to do anything. Then we'll be 100% secure.

I agree JoeCHI.

bsimon- actually I'm much farther north .. I currently reside in the God-forsaken Red River valley in an undisclosed location, but I work in MN. Let's just say, it's a great place to fly C-135s.

"Can't Kick Ass without Tanker's Gas!"

"As I said yesterday, Dubya only went after pre-nuclear hell holes thus far"

proud, Afghanistan?

If Richard Clark wrote a speech for me, I could stand infront of a tele-prompter and read it, too!

Unfortunately for Obama, the debates illustrated that he's as clueless with regards to how to respond to a terrorist attack as he is with regards to Presidential diplomacy.

Mark in Austin says, about crime
"Although this is now skewed by immigration numbers, generally you can take "bump" birth years, add 18, and get "bump" crime years; "trough" birth years, add 18, and get "trough" crime years. Generally, as a population ages, crime rates drop."

The Freakonomics argument? I haven't read that yet. I'm wondering if there's more to the scenario. Was there a bump in crime from 1961 - 1970 that is attributed to the boomers?

proudtobeGOP writes
"Many other dem candidates have criticized his statement, so I'm just interested in how his campaign can explain this sudden shift from dove to hawk."

You're in MN?

Regarding the Obama position, what I see is a policy of going after state-less organizations, i.e. al Qaida, wherever they reside. He did say he'd strike unilaterally only if Pakistan didn't do the job themselves and/or work with the US to do so. By comparison, when we're talking about a state - even one headed by an irrational loon like Ahmadinejad, Kim or Chavez, he'd use normal diplomacy. He appears to be saying: when there's not a state to deal with, you go after the criminals. When there's a state to deal with you try to resolve the problem diplomatically actively, as opposed to the current policy of shutting off diplomacy as a form of 'punishment' - which actually accomplishes nothing.

bsimo - I saw a poll today that said that 100% of Fix regulars are happy that you weren't crushed under the 35W. (fyi - I'm a neighbor)

Anyway... I was quoting from a WaPo article in my above comment, so if you consdider that source too outlandishly conservative, well ok.

Many other dem candidates have criticized his statement, so I'm just interested in how his campaign can explain this sudden shift from dove to hawk.

proudtobeGOP adds
"This is a sovreign nation that he's talking about, one that has been considered an ally (albeit not a great one), and one that has a nuclear arsenal."

Ironically, you're disparaging Sen Obama for subscribing to a tenet of the Bush doctrine - or at least to an early version of it, in which he said countries that harbor terrorists need to be held accountable for doing so. While Senator Obama hasn't gone so far as to endorse attacking Pakistan, he has said that if they won't go after the terrorists within their borders, he will.

Although it's a little over-the-top, this beautiful piece of analysis comes from Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/07/clinton-obama-a.html):

"They are of different Democratic generations. Clinton is from the traumatized generation; Obama isn't. Clinton has internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular, that the Republicans have structural, latent power of having a majority of Americans on their side. Hence the fact that she reeks of fear, of calculation, of focus groups, of triangulation. She might once have had ideals keenly felt; she might once have actually relished fighting for them and arguing in their defense. But she has not been like that for a very long time. She has political post-traumatic stress disorder. She saw her view of feminism gutted in the 1992 campaign; she saw her healthcare plan destroyed by what she saw as a VRWC; she remains among the most risk-averse of Democrats on foreign policy and in the culture wars . . .

"Obama is different. He wasn't mugged by the 1980s and 1990s as Clinton was. He doesn't carry within him the liberal self-hatred and self-doubt that Clinton does. The traumatized Democrats fear the majority of Americans are bigoted, know-nothing, racist rubes from whom they need to conceal their true feelings and views. The non-traumatized Democrats are able to say what they think, make their case to potential supporters and act, well, like Republicans acted in the 1980s and 1990s. The choice between Clinton and Obama is the choice between a defensive crouch and a confident engagement."

proudtobeGOP writes
"Do they also support Rambo Obama's idea of a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan?"

I saw another poll that says 90% of conservatives like inaccurate straw-man arguments, as long as they disparage opposing views.

To correct your misstatement (you might want to consider changing news sources, if they told you the above), the Senator from Illinois did not endorse an invasion of or pre-emptive strike against Pakistan. He endorsed making explicit strikes against the al Qaida leadership that, nearly 6 years later, still hasn't been brought to justice for the 9/11/2001 attacks against the US.

NonP - Barack Obama said that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into Pakistan unilaterally if the Musharraf govt. failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists. This is a sovreign nation that he's talking about, one that has been considered an ally (albeit not a great one), and one that has a nuclear arsenal.

As I said yesterday, Dubya only went after pre-nuclear hell holes thus far...I guess Obama thinks he can step it up.

It's hard for me to square his new, tough rhetoric with the dovish position he espoused before. He's all over the map on this forign policy stuff.

proud, you are almost right, but this quoted part is wrong:

"Without a poll to pretest her comments, Hillary instinctively took the "insider" position that the president should only meet with such leaders after extensive probing by subordinates to assure that the meetings would be productive. But she was wrong.

Dems want the president to meet with leaders of such nations without preset conditions."

The trick here is that "preconditions" in the YouTube question DID NOT mean diplomatic work. It meant whether or not the country has met some sort of benchmark. Obama answered the question in the sense intended by the questioner, but Hillary twisted the question.

The polled Dems recognize that.

"Hillary instinctively took the "insider" position that the president should only meet with such leaders after extensive probing by subordinates to assure that the meetings would be productive."

proud - That's the way it's going to work anyway, no matter who the President is, or what they said during a debate. Republican or Democrat.

In your zeal to find anything wrong with the Democrats you're grasping at straws that don't make any difference.

Also, the Democrats support of the President in going into Afghanistan after 09/11 would seem to indicate that they do not oppose legitimate use of force against actual enemies. Action based on false data against trumped-up enemies is another story. One for which we have paid dearly; one which you continue to enable.

Judge Crater - I don't consider the Bush/Cheney ticketed to be crafted other than that Cheney picked himself and then snowed Bush.

Individualy crafted by a Svengali, yes; in the normal political sense, no.

The polling is in, and according to lib thinking, Hillary made a big mistake in her sharp disagreement with Obama over whether the president should meet with leaders of rogue nations.

According to the Rasmussen Poll, Democrats agree with Obama over Hillary by 55 percent-22 percent.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/7/30/150038.shtml

Without a poll to pretest her comments, Hillary instinctively took the "insider" position that the president should only meet with such leaders after extensive probing by subordinates to assure that the meetings would be productive. But she was wrong.

Dems want the president to meet with leaders of such nations without preset conditions.

Do they also support Rambo Obama's idea of a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan?

oBAMAB wEBB? That's a good one. NEver thought of that. Good one judge.

Pace would also be a good choice. I think the vp will probably be reichardson or Biden. Webb and pace would be good choices also

Nixon hated Agnew.

Ford respected Rockefeller.

Carter respected Mondale.

Reagan respected Bush.

Clinton respected Gore.

GWB was in awe of Cheney.

Progress.

Golgi: Bush I-Quayle wins the prize. NE moderate republican paired with MW immoderate republican = cerebral paired with doofus. Far worse than Kennedy-Johnson which would be my runner-up. Too bad one of Bush I's apples fell so very far from his tree.

Another answer to Judge's thoughtful question. There is a difference between "purposeful" and "crafted." Purposeful is positive, crafted is negative.

One easy way to tell the difference for a P/VP ticket is --

If the adviser comes to the P candidate and says "We have to have so-and-so for the VP" and the P candidate says "I can't stand that bastard, but whatever you think," that is crafted. Unappealingly so.

bsimon - I should be working, but I wanted to say I am relieved you are OK.

Although this is now skewed by immigration numbers, generally you can take "bump" birth years, add 18, and get "bump" crime years; "trough" birth years, add 18, and get "trough" crime years. Generally, as a population ages, crime rates drop.

I agree, Judge. But there's always a continuum, things are rarely either-or.

The Kerry/Edwards example was the most glaring example I could come up with for a hyper-crafted ticket as perceived by voters.

The Bush/Cheney ticket was farther on the "OK" side of the spectrum, as perceived by voters, because at least they got along. Unfortunately.

It would seem best for the winner of the 2008 primary to avoid concocting a ticket that is so patently crafted that it turns voters off.

Golgi: can you provide an example of a "non-crafted" ticket in recent history? I'm having a hard time thinking of one that wasn't crafted.

Bush-Cheney, for example, provides a study of opposite (in many ways) personalities/capabilities paired together. 100% crafted.

Mark in Austin writes
"bsimon, assuming you are OK, and I hope you are, you mentioned "root causes" of crime."

I am, thanks for asking. I live about 4miles downstream from there, but don't use that bridge very often.

he continues-
"Let's talk about the "root causes" of crime. The correlations are highest with drug and alcohol abuse and with child abuse.

The next highest correlation is with age and gender: in fact, crime RATES are dependent on demographics. Whenever 16-20 year old males are a substantial population group, crime rates rise."

I wonder what the rest of the population looks like when 16-20 yr old males are disproportionately represented, relative to the rest of the population.

Two weeks ago, Obama was for precondtions.

Last week, he was for kumbaya-ing with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela with no precondtions.

This week, he's for unilaterally invading an unstable Middle East nuclearized ally pre-emptively?

All this from a guy who claims to be the most-experienced in foreign affairs of the entire Presidential field, Democratic and Republican?

Take inonit's comment very seriously.

Note on the P/VP ticket generally. A major theme coming out of the Wag the Blog on Obama is that voters can tell the difference between sincere and crafted, and they have a bad reaction to crafted.

Well, the analogy to that for P/VP is, voters can also tell the difference between genuine and crafted tickets, and they have a bad reaction to crafted.

What's a crafted ticket? A ticket where the candidates are chosen geographically or for different types of appeal, but any normal person can tell the candidates can't stand each other. Like Kerry/Edwards. It's like putting a kosher appetizer and a bacon cheeseburger entree in front of the same guest, thinking everyone will find something they like, but nobody really likes it all.

A crafted ticket like this makes voters feel like they are being manipulated, plus it is obvious that the P and VP wouldn't work together effectively if put in office. This is a major turnoff!!

What's a genuine ticket? A ticket where the candidates go together like peanut butter and jelly, like turkey and cranberry sauce. Candidates who get along and have something in common while making each other stronger!

Regular, normal people, i.e. VOTERS, respond well to people who are friendly with each other. That goes for presidential tickets just as much as it does to anyone else. Also, a prez candidate who chooses his own VP for personal, sincere reasons comes off as powerful and sincere himself, multiplying the good vibes.

Bokonon, I really like the Obama/Biden ticket. Not only are their strengths complementary in the minds of voters, but also they seem able to get along with each other.

Importantly, both have a rep for talking straight. Biden's tendency for that straight talk coming out in awkward unfortunate phrases isn't damning, it is a sympathetic quality. Also he is very good about apologizing when his foot goes in his mouth. He is easily forgiven and if anything lends Obama a human side that Obama really needs with all of these high expectations.

Obama/Webb - naw, Webb doesn't have a Southern accent, does he? The military side is ridiculously strong and that may overcome the accent problem.

Obama/Warner - my favorite but Warner seems to be avoiding this kind of committment.

Obama/Edwards - still looks pretty darn good. I realize that Edwards didn't do well in partnering with Kerry but Kerry's negatives were just too high and Edwards seemed to disappear after the VP debates were over.

Obama/Sanford - pinch me, I must be dreaming.

"Frankly, going into Waziristan without approval from the Pakistani government would be egregiously stupid."

On what expertise are you basing this? Do you honestly believe that the President of the US, constitutionally bound to protect the US, if armed with credible intelligence that Al Qaeda is planning a strike on the US that he or she should wait for Pakistan's approval before striking? And if we don't get approval, then what? That was the scenario that Senator Obama was putting forth, not that he would take unilateral action in invading Pakistan. With your infinite knowledge of counter-terrorism, as a COMMENTOR, tell me what do we do WHEN Mushareff takes the eventual bullet to the head...do we hope Al Qaeda behaves reponsibly with its new found nuclear toys? Anyone who continues to think the security interests of this country should be left in the hands of a quasi dictator running from assasins is smart policy is stupid.

Then how come Obama's numbers are falling? His emotional connection is much more narrowly targeted to a particular subset of voters than it is often painted. He also seems to have a bad habit of stepping on his own brand, and being very inconsistent in tone, if not in policies. This helps keep him from being pigeoholed, but keeps outsiders with doubts about his experience from joining him.

I think Cal, Brendan, Mark, and Dave are right that Obama appeals to people because he comes across as smart, sincere, and optimistic. And he generally comes across that way because he is in fact smart, sincere, and optimistic.

But that still doesn't really answer why so many in the media seem to be miscalculating Obama's appeal. I think the essential problem is that people in the media have forgotten that in the end, the campaign has to be about the actual candidate. In other words, people in the media at best focus on the policy nuances, and at worse focus on the political process, and have too often lost all sense of the fact that political opinion is driven by what people think of the actual person.

In that sense, probably the most unhelpful common word used by people in the media to describe candidates is "presidential". When someone in the media says that some candidate looked "presidential", that is almost always a clear signal that the pundit in question has lost the ability to talk meaningfully about the real characteristics of the candidates. Indeed, there is simply no such thing as being "presidential" in the abstract, as would quickly become apparent from a brief survey of the wide variety of people that we have elected to that office.

In the end, I am not sure this is a problem that can be completely fixed, because people in the media would not be able to comment on enough different things to keep themselves employed if they only commented about the things that really mattered. But my advice to people like Chris would be to never forget that a political campaign is ultimately about the very real person running for office, and that it is who Obama really is as a person that does the most to explain his appeal.

I think the media has overlooked obama, while having high expectations for him. The MSM seems to forget he is the new kid on the block unless hillary shines on his "inexperience". For instance, in the debates, the MSM said he wasnt good. But, to me, he did perfectly fine for someone who has been at the national level for 2 years. I also think that because he gets so much buzz by voters, the media start to look for things to criticize obama on rather than to praise him on. They dont do this on purpose, its just a habit. The same was done to JFK and even Bill Clinton when he first ran. I believe Obama is attracted a huge amount of people to vote for him who dont normally vote in primaries, which could swing him the nomination. This could also be why he is further down in polls. The people he attracts usually dont participate in polls - i.e people under 30

Oh, right, the media is overlooking Obama. Give me a break! Obama has been absolutely coddled by the media. He's a nice guy, but he's a bit of an empty suit. I think his speech today was his Dukakis moment. Why the hell would he give a speech that shines a light on his inexperience? Why would he confuse his message last week concerning diplomacy? I think the media has done an abysmal job analyzing his candidacy.

I think that you and the post have hit on a great idea. Engaging the average person in the opposing views on topics and really tuning in to what people think. it will make the reporting less bubbled and insider.
I keep coming back, as far as the 2008 race goes, to the fact that the media is so into worshipping at the feet of Hillary. I hear it all the time. everyday. This week the LA times attempted to address this by asking the hard questions about Hillary and outsourcing. It was not discussed for one second anywhere else. this is a serious issue and no one cared to pick it up and bring it out for the average person to know about. Instead the media focused on the puffy stories about Hillary's neckline and Chelsea.
When you are promoting a steady diet of pro Hillary gushing and then you guys ask why no one can catch her in the polls I am stunned.
What did you expect. People hear nothing but a daily cheerleading of Hillary and nothing critical, of course she is going to up in the polls.
Add to it the pundits gushing about her debates where people think she is fake but, the pundits do nothing but tell them how wonderful she is, of course her numbers fly.
And the laughable lines this past week about how Hillary is trouncing Obama over the spat....when Obama got the better of her.
but, people are not told the facts and the truth. And you guys tilt everything for Hillary it feels like you are trying to interfer in the race.
You guys ignore or belittle Obama because he thinks outside the box (outside washington cw) and has new ideas and answers so more belittling.
Why is he not doing well in polls. Because the media makes him seem like a green rookie who is not too bright. Rather than present the real Obama. 13 years of public service, a real understanding of foreign policy and cultures, a brilliant thinker.
But, that is not what the people are being shown.
I feel such a great degree of frustration over this.
Why is Hillary experience because she borrows Bill's resume. Because she mouths the correct washington garbage even if it is proven failure?
This is serious. We are choosing a president in a shaky time and I see the scales being unfairly tipped by the media who are pushing the insider candidate.
I wish I could write an oped for everyone to see that expresses the frustration of people out here who see this going on and we cannot do anything to stop it and make it fair. We will end up with Hillary because the media is spiking the results.
this really upsets me.

roo - the ranch solution is actually real. Cal Farley's Boys Ranch near Abilene had a great success record just keeping guys busy until they were 21. Sports are usually not enough except for dedicated athletes.

Send 'em all to ranches.

By the way, poverty is not a strong correlation, compared with the others. I noted your demographic solution, of course :)

Sorry about the poor structuring there, I submitted before my second re-reading pass. It seems legible still so I will leave it as is.

Mark in Austin--The gender/age correlation is a sadly overlooked one and really just boils down to the old "boys get into trouble" and "young men seek to establish themselves" cliches. Studies have suggested that the decrease in crime in the 1990's could be attributed to *actual* prophylactics (as well as abortions.)

That is just half of the equation, though. The tendency to "get in trouble" does not necessarily equate to criminality when other appropriate outlets such as sports and various other activities exist. The reason crime is so closely coupled with economic status is not just a matter of stealing for need but also not being able to afford to utilise other types of outlets.

Obama/Webb - that would be one kick ass ticket.

I don't get it, the MSM has done nothing but pump Obama up with its glowing and less then objective coverage of him.

Dawn--Perhaps you *are* naive and irresponsible for assuming previous credentials automatically translate to impeccable prediction of the future.

Or, perhaps you are naive and irresponsible for refusing to consider any criticism opting for a knee-jerk instead.

For your information, Obama is my guy unless Kuchinich makes a surprise showing.

This particular foray was fairly clearly intended to curb any "soft on defence" claims and it overstepped a fairly crucial boundary. Frankly, going into Waziristan without approval from the Pakistani government would be egregiously stupid.

Now, my problem is not that Obama (or Clarke) thinks it is a clever idea. My problem is that they in fact do NOT think it is but proceeded to strongly hint at possibly doing it anyway to appear "tougher."

If the transcript contradicts this, I will be a much happier Obama supporter.

Also, I am a commenter. Chris is the blogger.

bsimon, assuming you are OK, and I hope you are, you mentioned "root causes" of crime.

Let's talk about the "root causes" of crime. The correlations are highest with drug and alcohol abuse and with child abuse.

The next highest correlation is with age and gender: in fact, crime RATES are dependent on demographics. Whenever 16-20 year old males are a substantial population group, crime rates rise. Politicians take credit when crime rates drop and are blamed when they rise. But its all demographics, just about everywhere in the western world.

I actually do not believe that society is ready, even now, to treat drug and alcohol abuse as a public health problem. Child abuse seems to be a problem that the social conservatives do not want the state to address through appropriate sex education. Sending all 16-18 year old males to work on ranches is beyond our capacity financially, or under the Bill of Rights.

So we look for prophylactics to fight crime
and bleed money fighting the losing wars on drugs.

bsimon, assuming you are OK, and I hope you are, you mentioned "root causes" of crime.

Let's talk about the "root causes" of crime. The correlations are highest with drug and alcohol abuse and with child abuse.

The next highest correlation is with age and gender: in fact, crime RATES are dependent on demographics. Whenever 16-20 year old males are a substantial population group, crime rates rise. Politicians take credit when crime rates drop and are blamed when they rise. But its all demographics, just about everywhere in the western world.

I actually do not believe that society is ready, even now, to treat drug and alcohol abuse as a public health problem. Child abuse seems to be a problem that the social conservatives do not want the state to address through appropriate sex education. Sending all 16-18 year old males to work on ranches is beyond our capacity financially, or under the Bill of Rights.

So we look for prophylactics to fight crime
and bleed money fighting the losing wars on drugs.

"Sometimes I wish he would kick his speechwriters."

Speechwriters like Richard Clarke, former counter-terrorism czar in both Clinton and Bush adminisrations? He crafted Senator Obama's speech. You know, the guy who wrote that pesky little memo warning of Al Qaeda attack on US soil, PRE-9/11. I guess I'm just as naive and irresponsibleas Obama to think Richard Clarke would know more about the threat of Al Qaeda than a blogger who doesn't even bother reading the text of the speech before offering criticism.

Mike B,

For the sake of argument, please send the text of Senator Obama EVER saying we should be in Iraq for the foreseeable future. In the speech he delivered today and in EVERY speech before, he has called for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

For the sake of argument, please send the text of Senator Obama EVER saying we should be in Iraq for the foreseeable future. In the speech he delivered today and in EVERY speech before, he has called for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

See

http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/world/slot3_20070712.html

for an unusually blunt analysis of Iraq that suggests that EITHER the surge OR rapid withdrawal make more sense than the centrist approaches that I have been supporting. I found it fascinating and food for thought.

I think, at least in this election, I am a pretty typical voter and Obama simply confuses me. We get mixed messages that, alterrnately, make us feel like we ought to give him a second look and scare the bejesus out of us. Just last week he was actually talking about ousourcing and fixing the exesses of corporations using the H1-B visa and other guest worker programs used to displace American's from their jobs. Then, yesterday he turned around and said we would need to stay in Iraq for the forseeable future and today seemed to advocate invading Pakistan! Awk! Doesn't this guy listen to voters? Don't *any* of the candidates pay attention to voters? Or, are they all so wrapped up in their cozy Washington bubble that they have ceased to live in the real world?

I was actually quite disappointed in the wire report versions of Obama's speech today although I have not read the transcript so I may be missing some crucial context.

He was--unnecessarily--overcompensating just a little bit for last week. He seemed quite comfortable in laying out his resoluteness for getting bin Laden but the part about "doing it ourselves" in Waziristan seemed tacked-on. I will certainly grant he did not exactly advocate "invading Pakistan" as some less ingenious reporters decided to characterise his position.

Sometimes I wish he would kick his speechwriters.

He needs to touch on policy issues like fighting terrorism by finding out what causes people to become terrorists and mitigating those factors(and avoid the term "understand" since some malicious hack would undoubtedly mischaracterise that towards compassion as opposed to comprehension.)

He needs to say that all black people do not and will not support his candidacy just as not all white people nor all law professors will. Black folks, shockingly, are individuals too.

bsimon - I just saw that the I35W bridge collapsed. I hope you and yours are safe.

Bokonon, I think an Obama/Warner ticket would be strong. Virginia is all of a sudden in play if that were to happen, plus money is there.

Yeah, what Obama said! Only, only, my husband said it first. Did I mention that he used to be president?

It will be hard now for any of his opponents to say that he hasn't taken a position on defense. And I find it hard to believe that his position is identical to Joe Biden's. What does everyone think of a Obama/Biden ticket? or would that not work because there's no Southerner on it?

Chris,

Caught you on Hardball today joining the chorus of thinly veiled criticism of Senator Obama's anti-terrorism speech and even agreeing with another guest that Senator Clinton is going to pounce all over Obama. But guess what? She didn't; in fact, she agrees. And even took it a step further by saying that hunting Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Pakistan would be her "HIGHEST PRIORITY," but of course you already knew that, but she chose not to report it because it didn't lend to the theme, the daily them, of white pundits to bash Obama. Here's her quote just in case you want to get around to reporting it...

"I've long believed that we needed tougher, smarter action against terrorists by deploying more troops to Afghanistan, and if we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured," Clinton said in an interview with American Urban Radio News Network. "And that will be my highest priority because they pose the highest threat to America."

Clinton said she would first pursue diplomacy, but using her husband, former President Bill Clinton, as an example, took the same hawkish tack Obama had employed earlier in the day.

"But clearly we have to be prepared -- as my husband was when he fired on training camps and as we must be with special operations, with using technology like the Predator [unmanned aerial vehicle] -- to be constantly on the hunt for bin Laden and the other al Qaeda leadership," Clinton said.

Wonder how the GOPers and right wing pundits will attempt to destroy Obama's uber-hawkish terror speech from today. He laid out what the Reublicans should want to hear on how to beat Al Qaeda and Co.

Great analysis:
http://political-buzz.com/2007/08/02/obamas-speech/

I am a 20-year old college student who grew up in a liberal family in a small southern town. I am the President of my university's chapter of the Young Democrats. I got very active in politics at age 17 and have been working full throttle ever since. I thought I'd seen just about everything, good and bad, and my idealism was essentially gone after working two elections cycles. For better or worse, politics became someone predictable and the old excitement had worn off.

I never thought any candidate would really inspire me again, but Obama has a poise to him that gives me chills everytime I hear him. He isn't perfect, but neither is anyone. He doesn't have 10-point plans for everything, but I don't think proving yourself capable for the job relies solely on your plans or how long you've been around.

Obama seems like he is actually running to be Commander-in-Chief, not Wonk-in-Chief or Bureaucrat-in-Chief like so many others.

bsimon - Hope you and yours are ok...just heard about the bridge collapse in the Twin Cities, and I thought I remembered you being from there. How horrible.

Perhaps these insights explain why Obama is matching Clinton in NH and South Carolina where people are seeing a lot of him. Most of my large extended family lives in NH where I grew up. When I ask my relatives there (most of whom have seen all the candidates several times), they say they are makig up there minds and that the election is a long way off. None of them have committed to anyone.

Perhaps these insights explain why Obama is matching Clinton in NH and South Carolina where people are seeing a lot of him. Most of my large extended family lives in NH where I grew up. When I ask my relatives there (most of whom have seen all the candidates several times), they say they are makig up there minds and that the election is a long way off. None of them have committed to anyone.

Perhaps these insights explain why Obama is matching Clinton in NH and South Carolina where people are seeing a lot of him. Most of my large extended family lives in NH where I grew up. When I ask my relatives there (most of whom have seen all the candidates several times), they say they are makig up there minds and that the election is a long way off. None of them have committed to anyone.

Perhaps these insights explain why Obama is matching Clinton in NH and South Carolina where people are seeing a lot of him. Most of my large extended family lives in NH where I grew up. When I ask my relatives there (most of whom have seen all the candidates several times), they say they are makig up there minds and that the election is a long way off. None of them have committed to anyone.

Perhaps these insights explain why Obama is matching Clinton in NH and South Carolina where people are seeing a lot of him. Most of my large extended family lives in NH where I grew up. When I ask my relatives there (most of whom have seen all the candidates several times), they say they are makig up there minds and that the election is a long way off. None of them have committed to anyone.

Too early to know for sure, but I think Obama has the potential to be a "once in a generation" candidate. And I'm not saying that because he's black - I think he has a first class mind, and as yet mostly uncorrupted by DC.

I hope it lays off of you people not responding to posts or topics but instead attacking with no points of your own. Is there a way to block unwarrant lies accusations and spin by fascsits. If so I'm FOR that :)

First I'm an Obama fan. That said...who are all these polls talking to? I have yet to meet anyone ever polled, and I'm over 50 and have lived in at least 6 states. It seems to me the MSM is pushing Clinton as the Democratic nominee too soon. Could it be that the GOP(MSM owners) really wants her to win because they know they don't have a real candidate to mobilize their base but they know people will come out to vote AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON. Otherwise the GOP base may just sit back and let the chips fall where they may if OBAMA is the nominee, since most are so disgusted with BUSHCO anyway.
*THIS TIME I WANT A SMART PRESIDENT!*

Well Rufii, I hope the Post lays off the 'gustapo' tactics soon, for the sake of your own mental health.

LOL

rufus/REMF - Fashion and sports please.

If you want to be taken seriously, then connect to our site: http://www.va.gov/rcs/

Try it. We're here for you!

oBAMA IS IN A TOUGH POSITION. He;s trying to run a differant kind of campaign. He IS trying to changge the culture of washington.

But if he is to passive he is seen (by war-hawks) as weak. To strong and he's resorting to old politics. He can't win. He is a man who wears his ideals on his sleeve. I think it is a joke gop'ers calling him a hypocrite. The party of hypocrites, with mitt and rudy on the other side. Obama is not a hypocrite. He just has to walk a fine line between idealist and agressive.

Romney and Guiliani are two of the biggest flipflopping phonies in the world--they both change their 'beliefs' as often as Rudy changes wives and mistresses, so I would have to disagree.

When I saw Obama speak at the DNC Convention in '04, I told everyone I knew that I had just heard a future president of the United States speak. Never before and not since have I seen a more inspiring speaker. Yet "future" to me didn't mean two years into his Senate term. No one individual can change the ways of Washington, and anyone promising that is naive. And naive is how Obama has seemed to me in the debates. He has come across, to me at least, as less eloquent when speaking off the cuff -- but rather than being disappointed, I prefer to attribute it to inexperience.

In contrast, I find it interesting that Hillary's ability to speak intelligently on policy is viewed as "polished" and "scripted." I am guessing that mainstream media's assessment of Obama vis a vis Hillary's performance at the "debates" is based on the latter's ability to pull facts from the air and communicate succinctly. That the focus groups' assessment of "who won" differs may well be the result of a pre-existing bias. Who wouldn't want their "candidate" to win?

I was once on a high school debate team. At that time I decided there were 3 types of judges.

Lay/Mommy Judges - Those who weren't familiar with the jargon or technicalities of the debates. Those who didn't take notes, but voted based on the most convincing speaker.

Former Debaters/Technical Judges - Those that had debated for 4 years, and were now being paid to judge debates. They were extremely proficient in the jargon, and voted 98% on technicals and 2% on style/persuasion.

Great Judges - Those that took notes, but not too many. Who made eye contact with the debaters. Who listened to, thought about, and analyzed arguments. Who set aside their biases and voted for whomever was the most believable - both in terms of logical argumentation and in terms of style and persuasion.

It seems to me that those who support bumbling/weak looking speakers (let's say Gravel, Paul, Tancredo, Tommy Thompson... just to name a few) are the Lay Judges. They are wish-washy and tend to overly committ to people for random reasons.

Those who think Hillary and McCain win the debates are the former debaters. They're the technical listeners, who represent only a fraction of the real population. They see themselves as smarter than everyone else - more "in tune" with politics.

They also happen to be the Main Stream Media.

Those who think Obama and Giuliani and Romney win the debates are the great judges. They are the regular American people who connect to a candidate - who listen to what he says, but pay attention also to how he says it. Delivery and content are both important to them. They're looking for the "whole package" -- the "real deal".

http://ConservativeStandards.blogspot.com/

I missed out on the last discussion, but I'd like to put in my 2 cents here.

Although a lot of the populace has yet to really see Obama in action or see his mistakes, the people who are tuned into politics are far more likely to be primary voters.

There's a lot to be said for that, too. If the candidates for a general election go though a selection process run by the people most interested in politics (or on the GOP side the politics of religion in many cases), we'll be far more likely to get a candidate chosen, not just because of how (s)he looks, but rather on their actual qualifications.

Good Luck CC. Your fear has destroyed your site. Bill O'Reilly and these gop'ers only have the power WE give them. The party is only in power if they act right and get voted in. O'REilly's tactics only work against you if you let them.

FEAR DOESN'T REALLY EXIST. You have ruined you site with gustapo silencing of non-gop voices. Now you are left with the effects.

Good luck. I'm gone after today. Why would any of us waste our time posting when our words are at your disrection.

Good luck cc.

"I'll put a spell on youuuu. And now your mine. You better stop the things your ddoooin. I said watch out. I ain't lyyyyin. YEEEEEAHAHH.

I gonna take none of your, foolin around. I'm not gonna take none of yoouur, putin me down.

I'll put a spell on you, beecaause your mine."

ccr

:) jk

Good luck cc and the rest of you facsits. I'll check back to see if the silencing is done. Until then I'm gone.

Go Obama Gore 08'