Early Votes (and Hillary's Tears)

The novelty midnight votes at Dixville Notch and Hart's Location are over and John McCain's grabbed an early, utterly insignificant lead.

In Hart's Location, Democrat Obama received nine votes, Hillary Rodham Clinton received three and John Edwards received one. On the Republican side, McCain received six, Mike Huckabee received five, Ron Paul received four and Mitt Romney one.

In Dixville Notch, on the Republican side, McCain received four votes, Mitt Romney two and Rudy Giuliani one. On the Democratic side, Obama received seven votes, John Edwards two votes and Bill Richardson one vote.

Since Andre Marrou won the 1992 general election vote in Dixville Notch, there's a little disappointment among Paulites. As of now Paul's at 17.3 percent, for what it's worth.

Also, I wasn't at the event where Hillary Clinton choked up, but it rebounded across the state all day. Count me in the unsympathetic, callous, John Edwards camp. The complaint about facing "difficult odds" rang a little hollow: She's not doing well now, but I have months of chest-pounding Hillary Hub stories and press releases about her incredible poll numbers, and heard a solid year of talk about her inevitable nomination. And I can't read her mind -- I can assume she did it to keep composure -- but she was very handy with her talking points: "Some of us are right, and some of us are not. Some of us are ready, and some of us are not. Some of us know what we will do on day one, and some of us haven't thought that through." I've seen too many hand signs and giant billboards reading READY to disassociate that from campaign talk. But if Clinton was steadying herself by repeating her message (she's said some combination of those words probably 100 times this week), it makes sense.

That said, it's not fair to pile on Clinton for this. Barack Obama has kept discussion of his youthful drug use off the table with the hint that it's racist to even ask him about it. That was the landmine Clinton apparatchik Bill Shaheen jumped on when he said Republicans would ask if Obama had ever "sold" drugs. Can't ask a female candidate if her tears are real; can't ask a black candidate if he ever slung dope.

Comments

joe | January 8, 2008, 9:29am | #

Dammit, I half-heard the end of the story on the news, and thought the anchorbot said "...Richardson won," not "Richardson one."

Episiarch | January 8, 2008, 9:32am | #

joe, what are you doing up before noon?

mike | January 8, 2008, 9:34am | #

I wouldn't think the republicans would have to ask obama if he ever sold drugs. I'm sure guys like Rudy and Romney just assume that black people have sold drugs sometime in their lives. Just like how all black people can play bass.

joe | January 8, 2008, 9:35am | #

Huh?

Episiarch | January 8, 2008, 9:37am | #

Just a wisecrack, joe.

Reinmoose | January 8, 2008, 9:37am | #

I think it was probably half-real. If you spend that much of your life suppressing your emotions in public, you get pretty good at it. That isn't to say that you don't have these emotions, it's just that you don't typically show them.

So I bet the emotions were real, but I couldn't really tell if she was holding them back or forcing them forward. Either way, kudos for doing something different, even though her talking points afterwards weren't very different (as Weigel pointed out).

VM | January 8, 2008, 9:39am | #

Epi - I think you mean to invoke joe's "good Irishman" tendencies:

"joe, why don't you have one tied on, already?"

Good day to all.

(remember when Dole did the fake cry in 1996, too?)

tarran | January 8, 2008, 9:45am | #

Hillary does face difficult odds. A domineering woman is perceived very differently than a domineering man. It's not fair but it's true.

With that being said, I hope she does melt down and is discredited. I think her tax-and-spend policies, her Methodist instincts to force people to live virtuous lives will injure alot of people. Her support for militarism, which has resulted in her receiving some support from neocon corners, disgusts me.

I just wish my countrymen would stop buying into this superstition that we need a president and that they have to vote for someone on the ballot. It would be nice if people wrote in 'None of the above' and the office went unfilled for a few years.

Rye-guy | January 8, 2008, 9:47am | #

Some thoughts:

Hillary should have gone about New Hampshire by trying to get the independents to vote for McCain by running ads to the effect of "Will you be able to sleep at night knowing that you could have ended Mitt Romney's campaign but did nothing about it?"


Obama's doing well pretty much because for whatever reason it's cool to vote for Obama. But what's cool in January is usually boring by November, so I wouldn't be surprised to see the Republicans pull it off this year.


And how depressing is it that a large portion of the supposedly brightest of the young of the nation are looking to a politician for inspiration. Cynicism towards government is one of Generation X's greatest asset. If Barack Obama (for whatever reason I'll never understand) takes that away from the post-1980 generation, then I'd go so far to say that he'll be one of the greatest reasons for the likely decline of America in the 21st century.

Too early to think tersely.

P Brooks | January 8, 2008, 9:48am | #

she was very handy with her talking points

I'll say- the question, I believe, was "Who does your hair?"

Warren | January 8, 2008, 9:49am | #

No love for Paul in Dixville Notch is a big disappointment.

As for Hillary, THIS IS NEW HAMPSHIRE. She isn't trying to win this piss-ant state. Obama is going to be looking better and better until Florida. Then the big bad Clinton machine eats him for breakfast and we never here of him again.

joe | January 8, 2008, 9:51am | #

I get it, Episiarch, I'm supposed to be the lone Richardson voter.

Must drink coffee.

joe | January 8, 2008, 9:51am | #

Warren,

New Hampshire was supposed to be Hillary's firewall. "Clinton Country" signs all over the place.

Rye-Guy | January 8, 2008, 9:54am | #

Furthermore, as much as I dislike the policies of Hillary Clinton, the schadenfreude from seeing the deflation of Obama kool-aid drinkers if she wins the nomination might even be better than that of watching Howard Dean crash and burn.

LarryA | January 8, 2008, 9:54am | #

Just like how all black people can play bass.

And all rednecks can catch bass.

As for Hillary: In the mainstream U.S. culture women cry, men resist doing so. Nothing to see here.

Her policies still suck.

her Methodist instincts to force people to live virtuous lives

That's not a part of the traditional United Methodist doctrine. There are evangelical denominations who are into Christian government, but most Methodists would reject it.

In this case nannystate is more of a Republican/Democrat thing.

Fluffy | January 8, 2008, 9:55am | #

The fact that Obama freely admits to youthful drug use makes me more likely to vote for him, not less. But I guess that's probably not a common sentiment.

Obama vs. Huckabee will pretty much force me to vote for, and maybe campaign for, the Democrat. Obama vs. McCain = Me Votey LPA.

Episiarch | January 8, 2008, 9:55am | #

can't ask a black candidate if he ever slung dope.

What about pimping?

"If you is such a bigtime pimp, where's yo bitches?"

Lost_In_Translation | January 8, 2008, 9:55am | #

And how depressing is it that a large portion of the supposedly brightest of the young of the nation are looking to a politician for inspiration. Cynicism towards government is one of Generation X's greatest asset. If Barack Obama (for whatever reason I'll never understand) takes that away from the post-1980 generation, then I'd go so far to say that he'll be one of the greatest reasons for the likely decline of America in the 21st century.


"Oh and by the way, you kids get off my damn lawn!!!"

Please, as if Obama being elected would be the worst thing ever. He's a mushy centrist, but I seriously doubt he could be worse than Giuliani or Clinton as far as policies. He's inexperienced, but maybe he'll be a bit more cautious about stepping on the neck of anyone that steps between him and his goals (unlike...say..Bush)

No, I don't have a thorough biography of Mr. Obama in front of me and if he's the dem nominee, I'll have to do alot of research on him, but I think its a bit early to be condemning the youth. The youth didn't vote for Bush in atleast 2004, so that's saying something.

Rattlesnake Jake | January 8, 2008, 9:57am | #

"As for Hillary, THIS IS NEW HAMPSHIRE. She isn't trying to win this piss-ant state. Obama is going to be looking better and better until Florida. Then the big bad Clinton machine eats him for breakfast and we never here of him again."

I imagine as Obama keeps winning state after state, lots of soft supporters in Florida and other states will feel Hillary isn't so inevitable and Obama seems to be the candidate to get behind and will switch their votes to Obama.

VM | January 8, 2008, 9:59am | #

Epi - no good being a jive turkey so close to thanksgiving.

Ayn_Randian | January 8, 2008, 10:01am | #

"Barack Obama has kept discussion of his..."

General lack of policies or original thought?

The fact that he's an empty suit with "optimistic" rhetoric?

...quiet."

Srsly, what is with Obama and his popularity? The man has really stated or said nothing...at all. Just stupid "hope and change...hope and change...hope and change" junk over and over. He's such an empty suit.

I'm tired of him already.

joe | January 8, 2008, 10:02am | #

And how depressing is it that a large portion of the supposedly brightest of the young of the nation are looking to a politician for inspiration.

Did you mean to post this on the Ron Paul thread?

Lost_In_Translation | January 8, 2008, 10:03am | #

AR,

Could it be that he's not Clinton or Edwards and talks in glowing terms about the future of the US?

I have no idea whether he'd be a good president or not, but is there any doubt whether Clinton and Edwards shouldn't be?

Jeremy P. Carlo | January 8, 2008, 10:05am | #

He's a mushy centrist, but I seriously doubt he could be worse than Giuliani or Clinton as far as policies

Giuliani? What about his whole "Freedom is about authority" speech?

Play by play | January 8, 2008, 10:05am | #

and joe shoots. HE SCORES.

Gives a big "Kelly Rippa" to the not-so-wry Rye guy!

Rattlesnake Jake | January 8, 2008, 10:08am | #

"And how depressing is it that a large portion of the supposedly brightest of the young of the nation are looking to a politician for inspiration."

"Did you mean to post this on the Ron Paul thread?"

People supporting Ron Paul are more likely to be supporting Ron Paul's views, not his personality, for Christ's sake. People are more likely to be supporting Obama for his personality.

Rye-guy | January 8, 2008, 10:09am | #

Yeah, some Paul supporters can get a bit cultish, especially when it comes to filling the vacuum behind a news camera with less than 634 Ron Paul signs behind it.

But they're gung ho for the message and the fact that it comes from someone who's been elected to a non-trivial office before (no disrespect to all the county commissioners and town councillors out there), not for the guy per se.

Fluffy | January 8, 2008, 10:09am | #

Ayn Randian -

The only potentially disturbing thing about Obama is that he's running during what one could call the "Year of Opposites", where the campaign of each major candidate and his public persona is based on the opposite of what that person actually is.

So we have Giuliani running as the tough and courageous leader, even though he wets his pants and dives under the bed whenever a Muslim walks by.

And we have McCain running as the man of honor, even though his whored his good name to carry water for a man who insulted his family in 2000, and traded on his military service to help pass a torture bill.

And we have Hillary running on the basis of competence and experience, even though her husband is the one who actually was President and she's never demonstrated either.

Romney is running around singing the chorus to "If I only had a brain".

This implies that Obama, running as the optimistic candidate of change, will change nothing and will start giving Malaise Speeches on Inauguration Day.

[Unfortunately, it also implies that Ron Paul would enslave us all and void the Constitution. But maybe he's not a major enough candidate for the mighty Opposite Effect to work its magic.]

Lost_In_Translation | January 8, 2008, 10:13am | #

People are more likely to be supporting Obama for his personality.

I'm hoping people are making the right choice for the wrong reasons. Afterall, on the republican side, it appears we're headed for the wrong choice for the wrong reasons anyways.

Ayn_Randian | January 8, 2008, 10:15am | #

Could it be that he's not Clinton or Edwards and talks in glowing terms about the future of the US?

LIT, I agree with your assessment of Edwards, but at least Hillary really is experienced and probably semi-wonky. If she wants to win this thing, next debate she should start pinning Sen. Empty Suit down on specific policies and procedures he would change.

How would he 'fix' health care?
What would he do about immigration?
Etc.

There's nothing that irritates me more in this world than someone who talks "in glowing terms" about anything with absolutely nothing to back it up. It's like, shut up dude, we're trying to elect a President, not God.

Really what irritates me more is he probably believes in nothing but the same old junk warmed over and served "like new"...to me, that just makes him a snake-oil salesman: he peddles crap but gets people to believe in it.

Ayn_Randian | January 8, 2008, 10:17am | #

I'm hoping people are making the right choice for the wrong reasons.

Obama is NOT the right choice.

If it comes down to Obama and Huck, I'm moving to Borneo. (Not really, but I'm voting LP in that case).

Rye-guy | January 8, 2008, 10:17am | #

Obama's campaign reminds me a lot of Schwarzenegger's during the CA recall, that is positive centrism and making up for lack of experience by calling for change. In fact, it's exactly like it, just more intelligible on the stump.

If people were just saying why the hell not like they did with Schwarzenegger, then I'd be all for Obama derailing Clinton. But good lord, people are acting like he's here to redefine and transform American society like he's some sort of second coming, and since he won Iowa, he's doing everything to feed that perception. It just makes me feel like gagging, and really makes me mad suspicious of him and his supporters.

Lost_In_Translation | January 8, 2008, 10:19am | #

It may irritate you AR, but unless you plan to start campaigning for Clinton, you're not going to do a damn thing about. So hope for the best, because you might have to choose between him, Romney or irrelevance.

de stijl | January 8, 2008, 10:19am | #

People supporting Ron Paul are more likely to be supporting Ron Paul's views, not his personality, for Christ's sake. People are more likely to be supporting Obama for his personality.

My candidate's cultish support is appropriate and principled. The other candidates' cultish support is unfounded and frivolous.

Ayn_Randian | January 8, 2008, 10:20am | #

Rye-guy,

Amen brother.

I want somebody on this board right now to tell me a policy of Obama's that shows any kind of originality in thought.

Hell, show me a position...any position! the man has taken. Anything.

Ayn_Randian | January 8, 2008, 10:21am | #

It may irritate you AR, but unless you plan to start campaigning for Clinton, you're not going to do a damn thing about. So hope for the best, because you might have to choose between him, Romney or irrelevance.

Yeah, it irritates me a lot. Hence why I am expressing my irritation.

I'll note you said that about irrelevance. As if one vote is relevant in the first place. My third-party vote makes more of a difference than throwing in with Sen. Empty Suit or Gov. Flip-Flopper.

VM | January 8, 2008, 10:22am | #

"Hell, show me a position...any position! the man has taken. Anything."
hier

NSFW, natch.

[ducks, runs off]

Cesar | January 8, 2008, 10:24am | #

I still say Obama will get the Harold Ford treatment. If not from Hillary, then from the Republicans.

Lost_In_Translation | January 8, 2008, 10:24am | #

AR,

I'm not saying I know he's the right choice, I'm just hoping he is, that he'll respect the consitution and moderate his socialist tendencies to achieve practical results. He did sign the transparant government pact with Ron Paul and Brownback, so maybe atleast we have a shot in hell of having an open government this time. I know that the cynic in me is doubling over on the floor laughing at that, but since 100 million people will overrule my choices, I can only hope that somehow, they blundered onto something better.

joe | January 8, 2008, 10:24am | #

A. R.,

Barack Obama sponsored a bill in the Illinois legislature requiring the police to videotape all confessions.

And then he talked the Chicago PD and the Republicans into supporting it, and it passed.

joe | January 8, 2008, 10:25am | #

Cesar, he probably will. But the USA isn't Tennessee, and Ford just barely lost in Tennessee.

Cesar | January 8, 2008, 10:25am | #

Ayn_Randian-

The only domestic policy I could find thats seen as positive from a libertarian POV is that he works very closely with Senator Coburn to stop pork. They came up with the idea of a searchable database for earmarks to embarrass people like Robert Byrd and Ted Stevens.

Thats about all I could find.

Lost_In_Translation | January 8, 2008, 10:25am | #

Its true that one vote is irrelevant, which is why libertarians continue to be marginalized. something about herding cats....

Episiarch | January 8, 2008, 10:26am | #

VM, just thought I'd alert you to the fact that your favorite HFCS gai showed up at the end of the tiger thread to throw down some conspiracy.

VM | January 8, 2008, 10:27am | #

Epi - thanks for the head's up!

Cesar - do you mean that playboy attack ad?

Cesar | January 8, 2008, 10:27am | #

Cesar - do you mean that playboy attack ad?

Yes, the one that suggested he was after your pure Aryan women.

Lost_In_Translation | January 8, 2008, 10:29am | #

The only domestic policy I could find thats seen as positive from a libertarian POV is that he works very closely with Senator Coburn to stop pork. They came up with the idea of a searchable database for earmarks to embarrass people like Robert Byrd and Ted Stevens.

he also signed the open government pact, which in theory means he'll hold himself accountable for his actions. Yeah, it might be a piece of paper with no authority, but he's the only one that thought enough of it to bother...

VM | January 8, 2008, 10:31am | #

Cesar - that certainly was a bazing.

Like how all of the racist sentiments were dredged up with the Terrell Owens "Desperate Housewives" MNF opening...

The line in Blazing Saddles still holds (where Sheriff Bart and the Waco Kid were infiltrating the bad guys' army)

joe | January 8, 2008, 10:32am | #

I'll give you a position from Barack Obama:

He opposed the Iraq War and the AUMF as a candidate in 2002.

Episiarch | January 8, 2008, 10:37am | #

Obama is the fuzzy hazy nice guy. He seems to be a moderate centrist who wants to "help people" and such. He's surrounded by malice, cold calculation, attack ads, and other unpleasant bloodsport. Everybody who dislikes the "thrill of politics" (to quote Futurama) is probably attracted to his lack of (seeming) scheming.

Is that the real him? Doubtful. If he wins, we'll find out.

Gilbert Martin | January 8, 2008, 10:38am | #

"I'll say- the question, I believe, was "Who does your hair?"

Yeah.

And then she starts spouting that crap about how she "cares deeply about the country".

The only thing she cares deeply about is increasing her own personal power.

Cesar | January 8, 2008, 10:39am | #

He opposed the Iraq War and the AUMF as a candidate in 2002.

Not to denigrate that position too much, but he was a state Senator from a safe Democratic district at the time. I don't think that took as much courage as voting it as an elected United States Senator--but its better than having voted for it.

Cesar | January 8, 2008, 10:39am | #

Damn tags. PREVIEW!

Cesar | January 8, 2008, 10:40am | #

Joe, what do you make of all the fears on the left for Obama's personal safety?

P Brooks | January 8, 2008, 10:40am | #

Obama has done an excellent job of providing a blank slate on which voters may project their own desires.

John | January 8, 2008, 10:41am | #

I think it is going to be McCain versus Obama in the general election. McCain is going to bumb off Romney in NH. That will leave Huckabe as the front runner. Rudi will be too weak to make a challenge. At some point the non-evangelicals will swollow their differences and coalece around one person to stop Huckabee. It looks to me, baring a seirous comeback by Thompson, that guy will be McCain. I know a lot of conservatives loath McCain, but the spector of a leftist Baptist preacher from Arkansas taking over the party will cause them to learn to tolerate McCain. I think Hillary is done and Edwards was never a serious candidate. That leave Obama.

Lost_In_Translation | January 8, 2008, 10:42am | #

Joe,

Of course just opposing the Iraq War isn't necessarily the best argument for alot of people. The real question is the philosophy behind the opposition. There are people that could claim to be opposed to the Iraq war in the beginning, but their reasons might have been because they just think everything Bush does is wrong or they're always against war (even defensive ones). I'm not saying that Obama thought that, but more about his position on the war would have to be known before I consider that a check mark by his name. For myself, I am more against the whole mentality that created the Iraq war and the mentality trying to drive us into more and bigger wars. Its self destructive and I fear the neocons will bring down the USA just to try and prove their point. There's no practicality in any of this. I'd be just as happy if Paul said that we made a horrible mistake in Iraq, but its not as simple as walking out, that some practicality needs to be observed in our withdrawal. That'd probably make him less popular to independents, but more so to practical small government republicans. So I want to understand Obama's mentality towards US foreign policy, not just the results of whatever line of thinking he had.

Rambling over...

joe | January 8, 2008, 10:43am | #

Cesar,

I think it's reasonable to be concerned.

He should pick Hillary as his running mate. That's the best way to make sure the Klan doesn't shoot him.

John | January 8, 2008, 10:43am | #

"Joe, what do you make of all the fears on the left for Obama's personal safety?"

They are histrionic paranoids trying to re-live their youth. I think deep down some of them would rather see Obama murdered and all of their worst thoughts about America confirmed and a chance to re-live the RFK experience for the next 40 years than they would see the guy win. That, fortuneately, is not going to happen.

Lost_In_Translation | January 8, 2008, 10:44am | #

P Brooks,

The same could be said for Paul...

Cesar | January 8, 2008, 10:45am | #

They are histrionic paranoids trying to re-live their youth. I think deep down some of them would rather see Obama murdered and all of their worst thoughts about America confirmed and a chance to re-live the RFK experience for the next 40 years than they would see the guy win. That, fortuneately, is not going to happen.

I thought the exact same thing. Re-living the 60s and a desire to show everyone what a horrible, horrible racist country America really is.

Its not going to happen simply because the federal government has a beat on every white supremacist in the entire Republic.

Rattlesnake Jake | January 8, 2008, 10:45am | #

John, I agree with your analysis. Do you think McCain's age will be an issue that can bring him down?

crimethink | January 8, 2008, 10:48am | #

My candidate's cultish support is appropriate and principled. The other candidates' cultish support is unfounded and frivolous.

Uh, Ron Paul is easily the worst speaker of all the presidential candidates; Obama is probably the best. Ron Paul is also the oldest of all the candidates, Obama is the youngest.

Leaders with cult followings among young people are nearly always fairly young and good speakers. Ron Paul would make a really lousy choice for cult leader.

Rattlesnake Jake | January 8, 2008, 10:50am | #

"Joe, what do you make of all the fears on the left for Obama's personal safety?"

The right probably believes the danger to Obama's personal safety is more likely to come from Hillary. I read one in another block say that Obama should be sleeping with a 45 next to his pillow.

Lost_In_Translation | January 8, 2008, 10:50am | #

I also agree with John's prediction and I think Obama's got the mental agility to run rings around McCain.

John | January 8, 2008, 10:50am | #

"John, I agree with your analysis. Do you think McCain's age will be an issue that can bring him down?"

I don't think so. Love him or hate him the guy lived in the Hanoi Hilton for like seven years. He is one tough dude. I think he play that card and make everyone forget about his age. He has a way of seeming very vital and your forget he is in his 70s.

P Brooks | January 8, 2008, 10:52am | #

The same could be said for Paul...

Lost- I agree.

crimethink | January 8, 2008, 10:53am | #

They are histrionic paranoids trying to re-live their youth. I think deep down some of them would rather see Obama murdered and all of their worst thoughts about America confirmed and a chance to re-live the RFK experience for the next 40 years than they would see the guy win. That, fortuneately, is not going to happen.

If JFK hadn't been assassinated, he'd probably be remembered as the Vietnam President, as he escalated that war and probably would have continued to do so after 1963. As far as his historical reputation goes, getting his brains blown out was probably the best thing that ever happened to him.

Cesar | January 8, 2008, 10:53am | #

McCain's mother is in her late 90s, still alive, walking, and living on her own. The guy has good genes.

joe | January 8, 2008, 10:54am | #

Obama was from a safe, Democratic state when he opposed the AUMF in 2002.

So was Hillary when she supported it. And Dodd. And Kerry.

Hillary, I believe, actually supported the idea of invading Iraq. The others, on the other hand, did so out of political calculation or, even worse in my mind, adherence to a Washington insider mentality that assumes the good faith of the president, defers to his authority on matters of war, and goes along to get along.

I think Obama as a point about this mentality being the result of being immersed in DC culture, and it completely outdated in the modern era.

Reality | January 8, 2008, 10:54am | #

I, for one, am glad that the dems are in a mess with the three-way they have constructed. Obama may be their candidate, but, honestly, can a black man win the Presidency in 2008? Not a chance. With Clinton, a woman has less chance than a black man. With Edwards, white and male, he couldn't even carry his own state for John Kerry in 2004. These lib candidates are a joke. Not a winner in the lot of 'em. Any GOP candidate will take the election without a fight. The libs don't have a serious candidate between the three of them. The libs are so worried about change, the more they try to change the more they stay the same. They're Swiftboating themselves. How can any of their Big Three even be a serious consideration for the Presidency? They're a joke, just like every election. YeeeeeHawwww (Thanks Howard Dean, you Pelosi and Reid are doing a great job of helping us win!) 8 MORE YEARS, 8 MORE YEARS, 8 MORE YEARS, 8 MORE YEARS...

Lost_In_Translation | January 8, 2008, 10:55am | #

Leaders with cult followings among young people are nearly always fairly young and good speakers. Ron Paul would make a really lousy choice for cult leader.

Its not that Paul is a cult leader, he just has alot of supporters that would be ideal candidates as cult followers. Ron speaks in fairly vauge terms at times that makes some of the fringes (truthers, white supremicists, etc) think he is talking for them and they go crazy. Its a shame, because us more realistic people know he's not going to do a damn thing to help them and their support is an anathema to the mainstream, but there are some cultish people following Paul for their own reasons. Obama just sounds like the best social science teacher you ever had. He leads you into a discussion with soft, safe words and never tries to alarm you with anything that bumps up against your core beliefs. As long as he can do this, he'll garner lots of support, but eventually we'll have to get to know the real Obama and then people will really know whether there's any substance behind that mild, smiling exterior.

joe | January 8, 2008, 10:56am | #

Of course John thinks that. They want to see Obama murdered so they can relive how wonderful it was when RFK was murdered. You know, just like how liberals really, really love it when Americans troops are killed.

What a disgusting mind you have. You really do hate half the people in America.

Anonymoose. | January 8, 2008, 10:58am | #

Obama is like a motivation speaker for the country. "Hope! Change! You can do it! Just hang in there!"

John | January 8, 2008, 11:00am | #

"What a disgusting mind you have. You really do hate half the people in America."

No not half, just the lunatic 10% of them. The ones who have sat around for the last 8 years praying that Bush and Cheney would be murdered. Those are the same people who are now "worried Obama will be killed". They are not rational and are more interested in their own emotional fullfillment than reality or anyone else.

Rye-guy | January 8, 2008, 11:01am | #

Anonymoose hit the nail on the head

crimethink | January 8, 2008, 11:01am | #

joe,

The foremost worry on Hillary's mind in 2002 was definitely NOT holding on to her Senate seat...it was getting READY for a presidential run in 2008. The war may have been unpopular in NYS, but it was at 70% approval nationally, and looked like it was going to be a slam dunk to a lot of people. If she had opposed the war and it went well, her presidential ambitions would have been severely harmed.

Lost_In_Translation | January 8, 2008, 11:04am | #

John,

Kind of like the lunatic fringe that sit on the far right neo consevative side hoping that another terrorist attack on american soil will prove how stupid the dems are and those who wish Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and Nancy Peloshi would all jsut die in a plane crash...

Rattlesnake Jake | January 8, 2008, 11:04am | #

"can a black man win the Presidency in 2008?"

He is ahead of all the Republican candidates in the polls. Colin Powell was ahead in the polls when there was talk of him running some years ago. Attitudes have changed in the US and I do believe it is possible now. Some people once believed Doug Wilder would be the first black president. That would have been good as far as I'm concerned because of his libertarian views. He would have been the first Democrat I ever voted for for president.

crimethink | January 8, 2008, 11:04am | #

John,

To be fair, there are those on the right who've openly said that it might be good for America to suffer another terrorist attack, so people would be reminded that we are really facing an existential threat blah blah blah.

There are people wishing for hideous things to happen "for the greater good" (as they see it) on both sides of the aisle.

Lost_In_Translation | January 8, 2008, 11:05am | #

crimethink,

She would have gambled either way.

Reinmoose | January 8, 2008, 11:05am | #

L_I_T
You mean Ann Coulter?

crimethink | January 8, 2008, 11:05am | #

I openly think it would have been good for LiT to have posted that one minute later.

John | January 8, 2008, 11:06am | #

Lost_In_Translation,

My question is what is it about Ron Paul that attracts the truthers and the neo-nazis and the like. I understand that he is not one of them and doesn't seem to do anything in particular to attract them. But they come anyway. Why not Huckabee or Richardson? Or Kuchnichi or whatever his name is? There is something about Ron Paul that seems through no effort on his part to attract whackjobs.

crimethink | January 8, 2008, 11:09am | #

John,

Maybe he's saying the code words without realizing it. The common thread that binds these people together is that they have reason to hate the federal govt, and see RP's stance on limiting the power of the federal govt as a net good for them.

joe | January 8, 2008, 11:11am | #

The Right hopes that SWAT teams will kill more innocent people so they can relive their 1990s survivalist fantasies.

The Right hopes that al Qaeda manages a couple more really big terror attacks so they can relive their post-9/11 fantasies.

The difference is, I'm kidding. I don't believe any of that.

Jay D | January 8, 2008, 11:11am | #

Who cares if Obama opposed going into Iraq. He can't pledge to get out before 2013.

Lost_In_Translation | January 8, 2008, 11:12am | #

Because Paul sits there in interviews and explains in general terms how the government controls our lives through bureaucracy and how he doesn't want to control us or run our lives and how there are problems with the philosophies of those running government, trying to lead us towards a monetary disaster and a global government. Truthers and supremicists read alot more into this than he actually means (having talk to some of the campaign advisors about this) and so they are ready to champion him as the one to right all the mysterious wrongs they see.

Rattlesnake Jake | January 8, 2008, 11:13am | #

"My question is what is it about Ron Paul that attracts the truthers and the neo-nazis and the like."

I think truthers are attracted to him because they are suspicious of big government and very opposed to Bush's foreign policy which Ron Paul is also very opposed to both of those. Neo-nazis may support Ron Paul because he believes our foreign policy should be neutral regarding Israel.

Cesar | January 8, 2008, 11:13am | #

The Right hopes that al Qaeda manages a couple more really big terror attacks so they can relive their post-9/11 fantasies.

If by "right" you mean the 5% fringe of the LGF/Mark Steyn crowd, I absolutely believe that.

Lost_In_Translation | January 8, 2008, 11:13am | #

The Right hopes that al Qaeda manages a couple more really big terror attacks so they can relive their post-9/11 fantasies.

you may think you're kidding and deep down inside these people, they may not want this to happen, but at the surface, hatred and fear can make you feel like certain thoughts are justified so you can hold on to your core beliefs.

Reality | January 8, 2008, 11:13am | #

Obama may be ahead in polls, but so was McCain and Clinton. When it really comes down to voting for at zero hour, mark my words, a white, Republican male will be elected President of the United States. Not a black man, a woman, nor shister, two-bit, wife-sacrificing hair ad. Read the tea leaves, America WILL vote for the white, Republican male. The polls are a pipe-dream, and the Dem party is a party of dreamering, out of touch with reality, (going to be) 4 time presidential losers. I can't wait to take back the House and Senate!

Mo | January 8, 2008, 11:15am | #

One thing I like about Obama is his emphasis on transparency like Heir.

joe | January 8, 2008, 11:15am | #

crimethink,

The fact that Hillary continued to defend the decision to go to war, and kept harping on the "incompetance dodge" even when it was costing her in the primary race, as well as her words at the time, and Bill's continuing belief that it was right to invade Iraq, suggest to me that she actually did support the decision to go to war.

Lost_In_Translation | January 8, 2008, 11:15am | #

Neo Nazis also see themselves as persecuted by federal government (which harasses them using the IRS and FBI, since the government believes them to be threats to peace and civility) and believe Paul would hamstring those that are after them.

Deric Ondero | January 8, 2008, 11:16am | #

My proctologist hopes I forget to declaw the gerbil again so she can charge me big $ for another rectal stitching.

Mo | January 8, 2008, 11:17am | #

Oops, f'ed up. Retry.

One thing I like about Obama is his emphasis on transparency like The Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act.

Old and creepy looking do not prevent one from leading a cult. Heir.

Ayn_Randian | January 8, 2008, 11:17am | #

To the poster named "Reality":

you chant about "8 MORE YEARS" and fail to ask "eight more years of what?"

You're an unthinking loser. The adults are talking. Go 'way.

TO: The Rest
RE: Obama

All I ask is for specifics from the guy:

When do the troops come home?
What do we do about the massive deficit?

Something guys, please!

joe - that cop thing sounds awesome, it really does. I hope he sticks with stuff like that.

crimethink | January 8, 2008, 11:17am | #

joe,

Or maybe she didn't want to get labelled as a "flip-flopper".

John | January 8, 2008, 11:18am | #

"The Right hopes that al Qaeda manages a couple more really big terror attacks so they can relive their post-9/11 fantasies."

Joe,

There is a small number of people who give the whole "we need another 9-11 so the country will wake up and do something to prevent the really big one" line. They are the 10% opposite the 10% I described above. Some people in this country are more interested in being right and their own emotional fullfillment through events than they are in the common good.

Fluffy | January 8, 2008, 11:19am | #

Wow, there are people who actually think that McCain seems "vital"?

He's developing a palsy. And he looks so frail you expect him to break down at any moment. And even when he's enjoying himself attacking Romney at a debate, he looks half-exhausted and can barely raise his voice.

I think McCain's apparent physical condition is the worst of all of the candidates, with Thompson a close second.

John | January 8, 2008, 11:21am | #

"I think McCain's apparent physical condition is the worst of all of the candidates, with Thompson a close second."

One viagra commercial and testimonial from Thompson's wife will solve that issue for Thompson.

crimethink | January 8, 2008, 11:23am | #

John,

Or a wedding night video, a la Pamela Anderson...

Mr. Nice Guy | January 8, 2008, 11:27am | #

As to Paul's attraction to the nutjobs, I would guess it has to do with:
1. His government is bad and heavy handed talk (which would confirm said nutties fears about black helicopters and Ruby Ridge being repeated)
2. Cut off all aid to Israel (hey, everyone here knows I strongly oppose much of what Israel does, but it's just the truth that many people have a knee-jerk opposition to Israel and anything pro-Israel due to paranoid anti-Semitism).

My take on this is informed by an author, I forget who as it was literally decades ago, who was writing about how critics of Reagan and the GOP's accused them of using rhetoric "ending welfare and affirmative action" as code words for racism. He said, well, one can see how a racist would prefer a candidate who was going to end welfare and affirmative action (two programs which benefit blacks at higher rates than whites) to one who would expand them. But there are many non-racist reasons to oppose both and one can hold those positions without any explicit or implicit racism. So better to have those few who nutjobs out there supporting a legitimate, most certainly not "racist" (at least in any explicit sense) candidate and positions rather than have them cooking up support for actual racist candidates and positions.

I see the nutjobs supporting Paul as the same thing. They are supporting the right things for the wrong reasons, which is really no problem, and it keeps them from working hard on the really wrong things they support.

In addition, programs like welfare and affirmative action can, with good reason, create resentment among normally non-racist folks that can flower into full blown racism, just like government heavy handidness can create resentment that can flower into actual nutjob militia type thought. Better to give folks a legitmate, electoral way to address that. If Reagan, and in this case Paul, does that, then God bless him and no reason to think less of him imo...

John | January 8, 2008, 11:30am | #

Good point Mr. Nice Guy. He is the most anti-government guy out there so all the anti-government types, which includes many really nasty people unfortuneately.

Mr. Nice Guy | January 8, 2008, 11:30am | #

"If by "right" you mean the 5% fringe of the LGF/Mark Steyn crowd, I absolutely believe that."

I remember right after 9/11, I knew these conservative types that ran up to me with this insane excitedness (mind you not outrage or anger) who said "You know what this means, this means WAR, we are at war!" A significant number of conservatives get all heady and excited when they see a chance for us to blow someone to hell...Remember the hard-ons over Panama, Grenada, Libya...Now Uncle Sam would get a chance to KICK SOME ASS! Yeah!

Mr. Nice Guy | January 8, 2008, 11:34am | #

John
You and I can dislike the government because of their heavy-handed SWAT raids on little old ladies, for their assumption that our money is theirs to spend, for their promotion of unfair reverse discrimination...

And some nutjob can dislike the government because it helps the "Zionist conspiracy in the form of Israel", gives money to poor black people, and fights against discrimination.

And both sets would see Paul's general statement "The government should have less authority and power" as appealing.

That does not make Paul bad for saying it. To the extent that you believe the first set of priorities, it actually makes him a good choice...

jimmy smith | January 8, 2008, 11:34am | #

Sure glad the election comes in November during deer season. Like Cheney, I'll have more important things to do.

Cesar | January 8, 2008, 11:38am | #

I know we're all supposed to be cynical bastards on this comment board, but I think an Obama vs. McCain race is light years ahead of Bush/Kerry or Bush/Gore.

joe | January 8, 2008, 11:39am | #

My question is what is it about Ron Paul that attracts the truthers and the neo-nazis and the like.

Back issues of the Ron Paul Survival/Freedom Report?

joe | January 8, 2008, 11:45am | #

John,

There is a small number of people who give the whole "we need another 9-11 so the country will wake up and do something to prevent the really big one" line. They are the 10% opposite the 10% I described above.

First, you did not describe "the 10%," you stated that people who are concerned about Barack Obama's well-being that way. You described me that way, John.

Second, there is quite a long trail of right-wingers who have expressed the desire that there would be another terror attack on the US, while you cannot find, and will never find, anyone on the left expressing their hope that Barack Obama is murdered.

Mr. Nice Guy | January 8, 2008, 11:45am | #

I think, for a change, the editors over at NRO had something interesting to say about Clinton's troubles.

The Clinton's success has largely come from their ability to position themselves as the alternative to what was seen by their potential supporters as a far worse thing: Four more years of Reagan-Bush in 92, Gingrich in 94, Dole-Gingrich in 96. But now it is hard for her to go to Democratic voters and say "I'm the only thing between you and...Barack Obama." Because Obama and his positions are not scary to most active Democrats, they are actually preferable.

Of course the same NRO corner in the same article have an all-too-commonly seen argument that I think is pure bunk but interesting lately: this "aren't you tired of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton?" This is the conservative meme to be be pushed lately for sure. Interestingly, they weren't willing to push breaking that (admittedly tiresome) chain back in 2004...Interestingly we are supposed to find, as a reason to reject Hillary, Bush's succession and long reign!

Lost_In_Translation | January 8, 2008, 11:49am | #

joe,

do you honestly believe that Obama is in danger of being killed. I don't. I think people joke about putting Clinton as VP so Obama won't be killed, but that's the same joke as putting Cheney as VP so Bush won't be killed. There exists racism today, but not to an extent as some people believe, either truthfully or for purposes of justifying other thoughts.

crimethink | January 8, 2008, 11:50am | #

MNG,

Clinton had to deal with die-hard liberals Tom Harkin, Paul Tsongas, and Jerry Brown in the 92 primary, though. Not that that was a particularly strong field for the Dems (Bush I's massive popularity following the Gulf War scared the leading Dems away from running), but I doubt it was in any way clear that the alternatives seemed worse to Dems.

Mr. Nice Guy | January 8, 2008, 11:52am | #

Hillary is of course still trying that strategy in an attenuated fashion: "I'm the only thing that can stand between another GOP administration since Obama, while maybe preferable to you Dem activists, will be eaten alive by the GOP in November." But I think the constant talk of the GOP's weakness and Obama's "rock star" popularity make a lot of voters discount this talk.

I think they are wrong. The GOP will eat Barak for breakfast, lunch an dinner. This is still a mostly conservative nation, albeit one that is tired of the war that conservatives now push. Obama, being more liberal, is a target for the GOP machine...

I think Hillary is a terrible politician (in that I cannot stand much of her policies and her Romneysque quest for power at all costs), but if it takes her to keep Mitt Romney or another Samuel Alito out, then I would vote for her. She's so hated I think she would try little or no major policy proposals, but her judicial nominations I would prefer and just throwing the GOP out of power for four years would be helpful to our system...

Mr. Nice Guy | January 8, 2008, 11:55am | #

crimethink-I worked for Jerry Brown in 92.

The difference then was that we were coming off Reagan-Bush and many Democrats talked as if they may never get the White House again. They felt they needed someone who could blunt the usual attacks that felled Mondale and Dukakis. Clinton, a Southern capital punishment supporter, pro-law enforcement in his rhetoric and non-threatening to business seemed ideal. So many passed on someone like Jerry Brown with whom they professed more agreement and ran with Bill.

joe | January 8, 2008, 11:56am | #

LIT,

I honestly believe that Obama is in greater danger of being killed than any other candidate.

I realize that the type of racism that cannot accept a black man as president is limited to a tiny fringe, but it's a violent and armed fringe, and it only takes one guy.

Warren | January 8, 2008, 11:56am | #

As of now Paul's at 17.3 percent, for what it's worth.

What's he at now?
Is this information available?

Mr. Nice Guy | January 8, 2008, 11:57am | #

The difference now is many Dems, even though they have been out for eight years, think it is inevitable that they will win in 08, so they can go ahead and support the "Jerry Brown" candidate they always preferred...


They are wrong. This is still a majority conservative electorate, albeit one turned off by the amazing Jimmy Carteresque incompetence of the sitting conservative administration. They will eat Obama for lunch...

joe | January 8, 2008, 11:58am | #

People have attempted to murder Presidents Clinton, Reagan, and Ford in my lifetime.

Cesar | January 8, 2008, 11:59am | #

Joe, Bush and Cheney have generated more hatred than any other President I can think of in the last 20 years, and they seem to have come out unscathed.

joe | January 8, 2008, 12:01pm | #

MNG, you ought to look at some issue polling.

Americans now favor the Democrats to the Republicans on such issues as crime, foreign policy, fiscal policy, and taxes - the core of Republican support as recently as 2000.

Now add the war on top of that. This is not a conservative nation. It's not even a 50/50 nation.

Rattlesnake Jake | January 8, 2008, 12:02pm | #

"I worked for Jerry Brown in 92."

Jerry Brown was one of the first to warn us about the Clintons' corruption.

joe | January 8, 2008, 12:02pm | #

Cesar,

There is hatred among normal people who aren't willing to engage in political violence - which I admit is very widespread towards Clinton and Bush - and there is the willingness of a lunatic fringe to take the action they've been fantasing about for years.

joe | January 8, 2008, 12:04pm | #

And remember, Cesar, I'm the guy who keeps arguing that Obama's race will be net a positive with the electorate.

Rattlesnake Jake | January 8, 2008, 12:06pm | #

"Joe, Bush and Cheney have generated more hatred than any other President I can think of in the last 20 years, and they seem to have come out unscathed."

Bush and Cheney should be tried for war crimes for their possible involvement in supporting torture methods in violation of the Geneva Convention.

Cesar | January 8, 2008, 12:09pm | #

Jake-

I dislike Bush and Cheney's policies. So I have that kind of "hate" against them.

But I' haven't plastered bumperstickers all over my car that say BUSH CHIMPY MCHITLER and THE NAZIS SUPPORTED THEIR TROOPS TOO!! DOWN WITH BUSHITLER!!!. I'm talking about a real, visceral, emotional, irrational hate, not disagreement on policy.

Joe-

If Obama is harmed by a white supremacist, the feds will come down on them like a ton of bricks. Stormfront will be offline the next day, everyone one of those little bastards will be arrested. They know this, and I think they're scared to try anything. It will be the end of their little movement forever if they carry out killing Obama.

Ayn_Randian | January 8, 2008, 12:09pm | #

Bush and Cheney should be tried for war crimes for their possible involvement in supporting torture methods in violation of the Geneva Convention.

Erm, not to go down this road again, but methinks that nonuniformed combatants aren't protected by the Geneva Convention at all.

Also, Rattlesnake, I never would have figured you to be one to go after an American for an international treaty, one that's enforceable only by American choice.

Now, if you wanted to say "because torture is just downright Un-American", I could dig it. But the Convention isn't the place to go looking.

Fluffy | January 8, 2008, 12:09pm | #

A bankruptcy rumor just hit Countrywide, knocking its stock down almost 20% today.

If CFC goes, it will take a lot of people down with it. CFC may be too big for the Fed to contain the damage if it goes under.

It also favors, I think, Edwards and Paul if it actually comes to pass. For pretty much opposite reasons.

Lost_In_Translation | January 8, 2008, 12:10pm | #

Warren,

That 17.3% is from 4 votes counted since Dixville and Hart opened their polls at midnight.

Cesar | January 8, 2008, 12:10pm | #

Yeah, I'm more worried about the Constitution, not international law.

Rhywun | January 8, 2008, 12:12pm | #

Instead of abstaining like I planned, I'm going to vote for Obama or Hillary just to piss off a certain troll.

Fluffy | January 8, 2008, 12:13pm | #

Nonuniformed combatants aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions, which exposes them to summary military justice according to the laws of the combatant that captures them, and/or the criminal justice system of the successor state administering the law in the area of their capture.

So unless the Uniform Code of Military Justice or the laws of the current state of Afghanistan [as well as any other treaties above and beyond the Conventions to which either the US or Afghanistan is signatory] permit the torture of prisoners, their torture is still illegal.

John | January 8, 2008, 12:13pm | #

"I realize that the type of racism that cannot accept a black man as president is limited to a tiny fringe, but it's a violent and armed fringe, and it only takes one guy."

As opposed to the people who post on KOS daily who claim that Bush is establishing a totalitarian police state, was responsible for 9-11 and so forth? All it takes is one person with a gun and there is no shortage of nutcases on the extremes of either side. I know I am pissing in the wind because you are incapable of admitting that anyone on the right is guilty of anything, but what the hell.

NotThatDavid | January 8, 2008, 12:14pm | #

As for Hillary, THIS IS NEW HAMPSHIRE. She isn't trying to win this piss-ant state. Obama is going to be looking better and better until Florida. Then the big bad Clinton machine eats him for breakfast and we never here of him again.
That's going to be a problem, seeing as Florida (along with Michigan) doesn't get any delegates this year.

joe | January 8, 2008, 12:15pm | #

Cesar,

I doubt the Stormfront crowd sees it that way. Violent revolutionaries think that their acts of violence will galvanize a revolution. They're always wrong, but they're wrong about a lot of things.

crimethink | January 8, 2008, 12:15pm | #

Fluffy,

Is this really news? The linked article is from 8/15/07.

de stijl | January 8, 2008, 12:15pm | #

People have attempted to murder Presidents Clinton, Reagan, and Ford in my lifetime.

I'd forgotten about this (Wiki):

Bill Clinton
October 29, 1994: Francisco Martin Duran fired at least 29 shots with a semi-automatic rifle at the White House from Pennsylvania Avenue, outside the south lawn, thinking that Clinton was among the men in dark suits standing there (Clinton was in the White House Residence watching a football game). No one was hurt and Duran was sentenced to 40 years in prison.[29]

Sir, I knew Squeaky Fromme / John Hinkley. And you are no ...

VM | January 8, 2008, 12:16pm | #

Randian:

greetings! and congrats on your admission to THE OSU! Bummer they've lost 4 national championships in the past year (2 FB, 1 BB, 1 soccer)... but that's fantastic news!!

hier is Obama voting in 2005 to extend PATRIOT (see link for entire story)

and Cesar - Clinton sure got some hate (you could link the "militia" types and Oklahoma to clinton hate - I'd say he (and now, "they") are on the top of the hate pile)

John | January 8, 2008, 12:16pm | #

"Nonuniformed combatants aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions, which exposes them to summary military justice according to the laws of the combatant that captures them, and/or the criminal justice system of the successor state administering the law in the area of their capture."

For 1000s of years there was a sollution to non-uniformed combatants causing mischief on the battlefield; you hung them. Now, if you are a uniformed combatant and you are captured, you get free lodging in a prison cell until the end of the war, no questions asked. If you are a nonuniformed combatant trying to blow up civilians, you get a gold platted legal defense and every constitutional right imaginable and the sympathy of many quarters of the world. And we wonder why there are more and more non traditional combatants?

joe | January 8, 2008, 12:18pm | #

As opposed to the people who post on KOS daily who claim that Bush is establishing a totalitarian police state, was responsible for 9-11 and so forth?

You mean the ones who haven't ever actually committed a single act of political violence?

Yes, John, the Klan, as opposed to Daily Kos diarists.

Cesar | January 8, 2008, 12:19pm | #

It doesn't take a nutcase with a gun. It takes a very smart nutcase with a gun and a serious, serious lapse in security.

Lincoln had a drunk as a bodyguard the night of his assassination. JFK declined to have a bullet proof bubble over his vehicle even though he was in a very hostile city. RFK didn't have secret service protection at all.

Ayn_Randian | January 8, 2008, 12:20pm | #

Fluffy, the President isn't subject to UCMJ. I suppose you could argue that him allowing it happen or encouraging torture would mean he facilitated breaking the law.

Additionally, does the United States have any internal laws concerning torture of non-Americans?

Isn't this what Alberto Gonzales was trying to clarify? To whit, that the United States treats its prisoners IAW the Geneva Convention, and therefore because said prisoners aren't covered under the Geneva Convention, they aren't covered under US Law concerning POWs?

I don't like it any more than you do, but I don't think there's a case here based on UCMJ or International Law, precisely because our POW policies are based on the GC, which don't cover nonuniformed combatants.

Lamar | January 8, 2008, 12:21pm | #

"you get a gold platted legal defense."

So they get a "gold" legal defense in exchange for repeated anal rape and a long prison sentence? Where's the bargain in that?

John | January 8, 2008, 12:21pm | #

Vm,

Every President gets hate and risks his life by taking the job. There have been 27 Presidents since Lincoln and only 23 have made it out alive. That is a pretty high mortality rate for a job. Also, that I can remember, someone tried to kill at least three others, Clinton, Reagan, and Ford. There may be others I have forgotten. In some ways you have to be a little nuts to want the job.

Warren | January 8, 2008, 12:22pm | #

NotThatDavid,
Holy crap. I didn't know that. Well it looks like Hillary will have to wait until super Tuesday to crush Obama.

John | January 8, 2008, 12:23pm | #

"So they get a "gold" legal defense in exchange for repeated anal rape and a long prison sentence? Where's the bargain in that?"

Who is to say you can't beat the rap? Also, it beats being hung most of the time. I would rather be hung than stuck in the federal supermax facility out in Colorado where they keep Ted Kisinky and such.

joe | January 8, 2008, 12:24pm | #

Cesar,

OK, killing the president is hard. I can buy that. Nonetheless, I feel it is more likely that there will be attempts on Obama's life than the other candidates'.

crimethink | January 8, 2008, 12:24pm | #

John,

Two of the ones who didn't make it out alive died of natural causes.

joe | January 8, 2008, 12:24pm | #

You know, those gold-plated legal defenses they're getting in Gitmo.

Bingo | January 8, 2008, 12:26pm | #

I'd just like to say "hi" to the Secret Service agents watching this thread and she told me she was 18 okay!

Ayn_Randian | January 8, 2008, 12:28pm | #

John, there's something to be said for being humane and, even though NonUniformed Combatant X may not be entitled to it, giving each and every person you come across a fair trial.

It's kinda the American Way.

And Sir, due respect, but as an American officer you should know that.

joe | January 8, 2008, 12:29pm | #

There are different sections in the Geneva Conventions. There are rules for POWs, and there are also rules for the treatment of all captives. The latter do not ban the execution of spies caught behind the lines, but they do ban torture. They also require that anyone captured and charged with war crimes, including sneaking about out of uniform or targetting civilians, be tried before a "regularly constituted tribunal" and found to be guilty of those crimes before they can be treated differently from a POW.

John | January 8, 2008, 12:29pm | #

"John,

Two of the ones who didn't make it out alive died of natural causes."

Then I am wrong, only 21 made it out alive. Four were murdered, Garfield, McKinley, Lincoln and Kennedy. I think you could probably argue that the stress of the job brought FRD and Collidge early deaths and as much as killed Wilson. Again, you have to be a little nuts to want the job.

Rhywun | January 8, 2008, 12:30pm | #

In some ways you have to be a little nuts to want the job.

Fixed :)

John | January 8, 2008, 12:32pm | #

"They also require that anyone captured and charged with war crimes, including sneaking about out of uniform or targetting civilians, be tried before a "regularly constituted tribunal" and found to be guilty of those crimes before they can be treated differently from a POW."

All true, but that military tribunal doesn't have to be a federal court or look anything like what we think of as a criminal trial. There is nothing in the GC that says you can't use hearsay or evidence obtained by coercion or establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem arises when you say every terrorist caught on the battlefield is entitled to a full blown criminal trial with all the protections we give civilians. Have tribunals that are fair and ensure we have the right people and then give them appropriate sentences, which doesn't have to be death. There are lots of flunkies we catch who after caught are no longer a threat to anyone.

joe | January 8, 2008, 12:34pm | #

Of course, there have been those on the left, such as Anarchists and Communists, who have used political violence.

Lee Harvey Oswald, for example, killed a president. A Democrat, actually. It would appear that any old president would do from the fringe-left that would engage in political murder.

jimmydageek | January 8, 2008, 12:34pm | #

Bingo | January 8, 2008, 12:26pm | #

I'd just like to say "hi" to the Secret Service agents watching this thread and she told me she was 18 okay!

Bingo,

Edward lied to you.

Ayn_Randian | January 8, 2008, 12:36pm | #

Hussein's attempt on George H. W. really wasn't all that much of a joke, either. Granted, no longer President and all that, but it looks like retirement out of the job is no guarantee either.

Also, RFK was popped by ol' Sirhan while running, so pre-Presidency is no joke either.

Meh...and I thought considering being a divorce attorney was stupid of me. (and thanks to VM!...sorry about the Rose Bowl, if Illinois is your team).

crimethink | January 8, 2008, 12:37pm | #

John,

I didn't realize you were counting Lincoln. Harding and Roosevelt are the ones who died of natural causes.

joe | January 8, 2008, 12:38pm | #

John,

All true, but that military tribunal doesn't have to be a federal court or look anything like what we think of as a criminal trial. There is nothing in the GC that says you can't use hearsay or evidence obtained by coercion or establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem arises when you say every terrorist caught on the battlefield is entitled to a full blown criminal trial with all the protections we give civilians. Have tribunals that are fair and ensure we have the right people and then give them appropriate sentences, which doesn't have to be death.

Agreed, although I'll note that the requirement for the "regularly constituted" and "competant" language means that not just any old kangaroo court will do, and that the system must be "regular" for the country using it.

And then there's the additional element to consider when the captives are members of our society plucked out of their homes or off the street, as opposed to somebody comparable to a guy dressed as a French farmer who snuck a quarter mile through the barbed wire in 1918 but was still on the batttlefield. That's where Constitutional protections kick in.