Archive for March 10th, 2008

Mar 10 2008

This is the Lowpoint.

Published by Gus under Primary Campaign 08

From Geraldine Ferraro, Clinton supporter and former Democratic VP nominee (1984):

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

Darn right he wouldn’t be in this position, he’d already be the nominee! I saw this quote and thought it was from David Duke or something. Are you kidding me? This is the crap Clinton’s campaign is peddling now? Saying anyone is lucky to be black in this country, after the discrimination and violence they have endured at the hands of racist whites (and still do in many places) is simply outrageous, in my opinion. Obama has not played up his race as any sort of factor or reason to vote for him in this campaign, which is amazing and I respect him so much more for that. Hillary has constantly appealed to women, which is fine, but she’s making it into more of a gender decision that simply a nomination decision.

6 responses so far

Mar 10 2008

More Unconstitutional Government Information Gathering

Published by Gus under Privacy Rights

If you were under the illusion that the Bush administration was trying to protect your privacy rights, guess again. And come out from the cave you’ve been living in. We’re not just talking about warrantless wiretapping now, but a much greater amount of information:

(From the Wall Street Journal) Two former officials familiar with the data-sifting efforts said they work by starting with some sort of lead, like a phone number or Internet address. In partnership with the FBI, the systems then can track all domestic and foreign transactions of people associated with that item — and then the people who associated with them, and so on, casting a gradually wider net. An intelligence official described more of a rapid-response effect: If a person suspected of terrorist connections is believed to be in a U.S. city — for instance, Detroit, a community with a high concentration of Muslim Americans — the government’s spy systems may be directed to collect and analyze all electronic communications into and out of the city.The haul can include records of phone calls, email headers and destinations, data on financial transactions and records of Internet browsing. The system also would collect information about other people, including those in the U.S., who communicated with people in Detroit….

Seriously, this is way out of hand. We have the Fourth Amendment for a reason, if I may quote it here “ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

I’m not sure what authority the Bush administration claims to be able to do this widespread, Soviet-style information gathering. Let’s ask the Deputy Director of National Intelligence, shall we:

(WSJ) Since many people routinely post details of their lives on social-networking sites such as MySpace, he said, their identity shouldn’t need the same protection as in the past. Instead, only their “essential privacy,” or “what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs,” should be veiled, he said, without providing examples.

Ah, I see, so due to the advent of MySpace and probably Facebook too (hey, I’m on that!), and perhaps personal web pages and maybe email, the government just decides its ok to gather citizen’s personal information, phone calls, emails, etc…..How long again until Bush leaves office? Oh, 316 days.

Please, leave some thoughts about this article, I’m interested in others’ opinions on this.

One response so far

Mar 10 2008

Choose between these two candidates and see what you get…

Published by Gus under Primary Campaign 08

clipped from www.electoral-vote.com
How good Are experienced presidents, anyway?
Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates, one of whom had spent 20 years in Congress plus
had considerable other relevant experience and the other of whom had about half a dozen years in the Illinois
state legislature and 2 years in Congress. Which one do you think would make a better President?
If you chose #1, congratulations, you picked
James Buchanan
over
Abraham Lincoln.
Your pick disagrees
with that of most historians, who see Lincoln as the greatest President ever and Buchanan as the second
worst ever, better only than Warren “Teapot Dome” Harding. Both served in what was probably the most
difficult period in American history, where slavery and secession tore the nation asunder.
  blog it

No responses yet

Mar 10 2008

Is Obama Ready to be Com-In-Chief or Not–Clinton should make up her mind

Published by Gus under Primary Campaign 08

This is a fantastic response by Obama to the apparently contradictory suggestions by the Clinton campaign that Obama could be her VP and they would be a great ticket. But yet the campaign attacks Obama for not being ready to be CIC? Isn’t that the point of the VP, to be ready if the President dies or something? Hmmm.

Wolfson (Clinton Spokesman) said that the possibility of Obama as veep is not something that she is “prepared to rule out at this point,” adding: “At the same time we continued to believe that Senator Obama has not passed the key commander-in-chief test at least at this point.”

A bit later in the call, Wolfson was pressed on this question, and said:

“Senator Clinton will not choose any candidate who has not at the time of choosing passed the national security threshold. But we have a long way to go until Denver, and it’s not something she’s prepared to rule out at this point.”

Huh? Come again? Say what? Well, check out Obama’s response:

One response so far

Mar 10 2008

Amusing story about the girl in Clinton’s fearmongering phone ad

Published by Gus under Primary Campaign 08

BONNEY LAKE, Washington (AP) — Casey Knowles didn’t much like a recent campaign commercial for Hillary Clinton — even though she’s in it as a sleeping 8-year-old. Casey Knowles says she didn’t see the ad until Jon Stewart lampooned it on “The Daily Show.”

After all, she about to turn 18 now and is a big supporter of Barack Obama.

“What I don’t like about the ad is its fear-mongering,” Knowles told ABC’s “Good Morning America Weekend Edition” on Sunday. “I think it’s a cheap hit to take. I really prefer Obama’s message of looking forward to a bright future.”

The well-known Clinton ad aired in Texas before last week’s vote and implied a lack of experience on Obama’s part. It showed an exterior of a Colonial-style home and old stock footage of Knowles sleeping in bed. A narrator describes a phone ringing in the White House: “It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safely asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?”

The file footage was originally shot for a railroad company advertisement. The Clinton campaign bought it from Getty Images.

Knowles, a senior at Bonney Lake High School who turns 18 next month, has been campaigning for Obama. She attended his rally at Seattle’s KeyArena on February 8. Her mother, Pam, told The News Tribune of Tacoma that Casey cried and trembled after shaking the candidate’s hand.

The next day, she was a Democratic precinct captain for the state’s caucuses. If she plays her cards right, she could go to the national convention.

No responses yet