Comments on: Was It Her Colleagues, or Her Constituents?

By: bmaz

bmaz — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:38:29 +0000

Curious what you are referring to? Rotating Google ads?

By: Boston1775

Boston1775 — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:04:16 +0000

ew,
These girls in the T shirt ads
- My butt hurts
- With a shirt like this who needs pants?

How old are they?
I am extremely uncomfortable that I am looking at sexualized kids for profit.

By: phred

phred — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:39:37 +0000

Thanks for the statistics. To answer your question, no I didn’t know that. Mainly my point was that Hillary’s distant 2nd place in SC means that she can’t afford to blow off any Democratic constituency at this point. So even though she wants to position herself for the general (and therefore avoid doing anything the Rethugs can use for ammunition), she can’t yet turn her back on the progressive base. That said, any Democrat who can’t mount a solid defense for the rule of law against a Rethug attack probably shouldn’t be in the White House. If Hillary really steps up on this stuff, I’ll relent on my criticism of her, but not until she has demonstrated real leadership on these issues. I won’t be holding my breath.

By: prabhata

prabhata — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:17:16 +0000

She has the older voters who don’t read blogs but are consistent voters. By the way, do you know that HRC increased the percent of black voters in SC? Yeah, I know that goes with what the media says. According to MSNBC exit polls:

Black voter percent that went to HRC
IA: 16
NV: 14
SC: 19

She actually increased 5 percentage points from NV and 3 from IA.
Edwards defeated her in the White vote, not Obama in the black vote.
Apparently Bill Clinton did a good job.
And here is the kicker, Obama lost black voters (as a percentage) in S.C.
There were more black voters there, so he did not feel it. Also Obama did terrible with the white voters. But that was to be expected in S.C.

By: radiofreewill

radiofreewill — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:40:33 +0000

I wish I could be optimistic and say I was on the ‘Hope Train,’ but that’s not really the position I’m coming from - I think most of US, in the lefty blogosphere especially, became linked by mutual ‘disenfranchisement’ from the Political System - all during the Nightmare of the Bush Era.

We DFHs got ‘left out’ early on when Bush declared War on Reason and Equality.

Since then, a lot of US folks (you, too - your comments are insightful, caring and very nicely grounded, imho) have been sitting in our loungers at Emptywheel Beach on Firedoglake - listening to Bush’s Locomotive Breath and waiting for the inevitable ‘Train Wreck.’

This is Bush we’re talking about - imho, stoked full of ‘Lack of Reason’ and a Penultimate Sense of Superiority - which causes him to blunder forward, evermore stridently ‘Staying the Course.’

A curve is defined as ‘a change from straight.’ If the Tracks were to ‘curve’ - even the slightest bit - out of control BushCo would likely De-Rail spectacularly.

It’s sad, really, but worthy of Popcorn, imho, because Bush and his Cronies have insisted on doing this to themselves. While we Firepups have had time to see this coming for years, the Real tragedy is for all the Unreachable Goopers in Bush’s Sleeper Cars - who Believed Blindly in Bush the UE.

By: phred

phred — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:53:11 +0000

Yep, hence the pixie-dust reference. If the President waves his magic wand, it is all legal. I look forward to a day when what the Congress does is actually relevant again.

By: cboldt

cboldt — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:50:50 +0000

Now I understand what you mean about a gap between the overly broad orders issued under PAA and not being able to issue new-and-improved overly broad orders with the expired-PAA-1-yr-extension-pixie-dust-for-al

I’m not convinced there would be a gap at all. We don’t know what the gap would be, and the administration has a habit of lying and misrepresenting the extent of trouble “following the rules” creates.

But as a matter of statutory construction, there is a possibility for there to be a difference if/when PAA expires. Well, there IS a difference, certainly, for obtaining NEW snoop orders. And as Mary points out, that difference may be negligible too.

By: phred

phred — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:42:58 +0000

Thanks for the explanation cboldt. Now I understand what you mean about a gap between the overly broad orders issued under PAA and not being able to issue new-and-improved overly broad orders with the expired-PAA-1-yr-extension-pixie-dust-for-all…

By: phred

phred — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:40:05 +0000

Thanks bmaz, I had forgotten about the built-in 1 year extension for a piece of legislation with a 6 month sunset. How on earth do legislators vote for this kind of duplicitous crap in the first place? Worse, how do they maintain a straight face when they talk about the expiration date?

By: Mary

Mary — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:39:49 +0000

31 - The paperwork for a NEW snoop order under pre-PAA FISA is more complex, in any event.

and while that is certainly what they tell us, I also remember very distinctly Lamberth indicating that he granted Orders over the phone, sitting in his car, on 9/11 and that there are plenty of routes for true emergencies to be addressed.

No one has ever answered his very clear assertion that he granted warrants in minutes without much in the way of paperwork (in large part, I’m sure, because of the specific nature of the requests vs. the datadredging dragnet aprpoaches that seem to be de rigeur now. And the “good Jim Baker” also indicated that orders could be obtained in as little as minutes in real emergencies.