by ann0nymous, Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 09:12:38 AM EDT
Yesterday night McCain claimed in his debate that he knows how to get Osama bin Laden. That raised in my mind two possibilities-
a. Either he did not share his knowledge with the President.
Is that not treason? I mean this guy has been been known to
planning a attack on US for the last 6-7 yrs.
b. He did share his knowledge with the President.
Then either the President implemented the know-how or not.
If the President did not implement the know-how, then
maybe the question of treason should apply to
the President. If the President did implement the know-how,
then we KNOW that McCain's plan does not work.
So which is it John?
by ann0nymous, Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 07:13:05 PM EDT
The Wall Street crisis is going to be unforutnate for a lot of people, not least of all those employees of Lehman who face loss of employment.
As the famous saying goes, it is time to turn the crisis into oppurtunity. For the past 3 weeks, the election has been covered in news which are more or less soap operatic -- whether Dem party can unify, whether Palin was vetted or not whether Palin is experienced or not, did Obama insult Palin or not and numerous other controversies. But lost in midst of all this is that this election is about the people. And for most people (yes even the rich ones), the Wall Street crisis of 2008 will bring anxiety about their future (and in many unfortunate cases these anxieties will materialize).
I am not an expert but from my vantage point tax cuts and ``removal of earmarks'' cannot be the solution to this crisis. It requires a systematic and fundamental change in the relation between the Government and the companies (otherwise also known as oversight). Probably much more than that, but what it really means is that the need and occassion for spelling out policy positions of all the candidates is of utmost importance.
So it is time for Sen Obama to say ``Enough'' and spell out his policies in detail. This could come as a ``major speech on Economic Policy.'' And it should contain much more than deconstruction of the Bush(McCain) policies; it should come as list of specific proposals that he would take if he were President and how he would approach the problem in a different way than Sen. McCain would. A speech very much in the spirit of Clinton's ``Solutions for America''.
There is a golden oppurtunity in front of the country to get back to issues. And Sen Obama should take the lead in us seizing this oppurtunity. As Sen. Obama himself said in 2004 that ``What American people want most from their leaders is solutions.''
by ann0nymous, Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:53:16 PM EDT
If ever the Palin story could get even more complicated-
This explains the weird paternity comment that Steve Schmidt made to Katie Couric yesterday. Also dooms Palin in my opinion. A hint of a scandal for a woman is too much. The religious right will also revolt. I have to say that McCain is looking the biggest imbecile out there.
by ann0nymous, Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 07:11:51 AM EDT
Dear Senator Reid and others,
This letter is to implore you to take immediate action on Senator Libermann. This man whom the Democratic party gave the honor of vice-presidential nomination has (and there is no kind way to put it) whored himself to the Republican party. This is the same party who dienfrachised thousands of African-American voters in Miami-Dade county in 2000 and stole the election from him. They repeated the feat in 2004 in Ohio. Now, he goes in front of the Republican party lying in front of the whole nation and making the argument that somehow Senator Obama has less experience than Governor Palin. Such lack of ethics I have never seen. It is time to strip him of his commitee assignments NOW and give them to true Democrats. If he complains and walks out of the Democratic caucus, you can always claim that ``Senator Liebermann believe in every single policy of Demeocrats and he himself claimed that he is a Democrat. The reason that he is walking to the Republican caucus is that Senator Liebermann puts himself first and not the country.'' And I am sure anyone who is either a Clinton Democrat or an Obama Democrat or just a plain old Democrat will gladly cheer your actions.
by ann0nymous, Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:33:40 PM EDT
I wrote a diary yesterday explaining why Kaine is a deal-breaker and his ardent supporters asked me to prove that he is pro-life.
So here is (thanks to Sam Stein on Huffington Post) saying that he is no different than Bush on abortion.
He also opposes stem-cell research:
And looks like he is homophobic also:
I am sorry, I dont want a Bush-lite as a Democrat VP nominee.
by ann0nymous, Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 05:14:21 PM EDT
After Clinching the nomination, Obama has assaulted several of progressive's cherished ideals. Be it separation of church and state or gay rights or wireless wiretapping. But picking a pro-life VP in Kaine with the Supreme Court so delicately balanced will be it. That will be the final straw for me. If he picks Kaine, I am going for Nader or Cynthia.
by ann0nymous, Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:30:05 AM EDT
The more I think about it, I think Obama should pick up somebody who is well-versed in economics and has had some executive experience. In my opinion, economy and not foreign affairs will be the determining force in November. Obama's foreign policy is fine as it is.
Also, I am not enthused by the so-called foreign policy expert Joe Biden. He may know a lot and have been around for some time; but frankly his solutions to foreign policy crises are usually not upto the mark. A case in point is his ``divide Iraq into three pieces.''
I think he should look towards some governor. Rendell comes to my mind. He literally turned around the economy of Philadelphia and has managed Pennsylvania fairly well. There should be other options also. But the gist of my line of thought is that Obama does not need a foreign policy expert. He is already one. What he needs is a economy expert which will also help him govern well.
by ann0nymous, Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 06:32:56 AM EDT
In my humble opinion, the media, ardent Clinton supporters and Obama's team are making too much of that roll-call vote. Whether there is a roll-call vote or not, the fact that this was a close race in which the two candidates were separated by a few % points will not change.
Indeed, there is such a simple solution to this roll-call vote ``controversy'' that I feel compelled to spell it out. The thing is that there SHOULD BE A ROLL CALL VOTE on Monday, which of course Obama will win. Instead of getting nervous and fearful about it, Obama campaign SHOULD INCORPORATE THIS INTO CAMPAIGN THEME OF CHANGE. Here is way to do it. Bill Clinton, or maybe the VP, could come and say something like--
``What a remarkable moment in history? 100 years ago (or better when the Republican nominee was growing up), not everybody in the country had a vote. Today, as I speak before the Dem convention, the two candidates who finished first and second in the primaries come from groups that did not have the right to vote back then. Not only they finished first and second, they received more votes than anybody in the history has ever received. Now, that is CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN. This is no cosmetic change. New people bring new ideas and perspective, and gives HOPE to all those people who have been left behind whether economically or socially. Here is what a President Obama's will bring to the admin-- ''
I am sure that professional speechwriters can do a much better job than me. But really, it seems to me that a roll-call vote is something that could be used as an advantage to Dem party.
by ann0nymous, Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:48:25 AM EDT
It looks like Obama has lost the plot completely. Being nominated based on the strong support of progressives, he seems to have turned around and stabbed them in the back repeatedly. First it was the faith-based initiatives, then came the sellout to telecom industry. And now, he sells to the oil industry and is ready to vote for the off-shore drilling.
Looks like he took the progressives for a ride.
by ann0nymous, Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 08:53:32 AM EDT
It seems to me that the McCain camp have borrowed the policy of
military pre-emption to political pre-emption. As I see it, in this case, this will serve two purposes.
1) It will give a freer hand later down the road for the McCain camp to play the ``race card''. And I do believe they will play it. Infact, he already played it today, talking about affirmative action.
2) Several Clinton supporters were angry/upset about accusations of Bill and Hillary being racists. This has the potential of opening up those wounds.
I think there is no easy solution for the Obama camp now. In my opinion, I think they have to risk it and smear McCain back. The defense ``we didnt play the race card'' is sounding weak and Axelrod defended it poorly this morning. I think the Obama camp has to say that McCain camp is being racist. That is the only way forward.
On a separate note, the current status of the Obama campaign is reminding me of the Lamont campaign. For the past week or so, McCain camp has been setting the agenda; be it that celebrity ad or the race card charge. If Obama has decided who is going to be the VP, it is high time to announce his choice. The VP can go on attack against McCain. In my humble opinion, ``McCain is practising old politics'' is not going to win the election for them.