Comments on: Can The Clinton Coalition Survive Obama?

By: JabbaTheTutt

JabbaTheTutt — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:16:33 +0000

From a legal, moral, constitutional and national security point of view, this KSM decision is a huge self-inflicted wound. From the political point of view, for the GOP this decision will be the gift that keeps on giving. This trial will be acid dripping on the Obama Administration for the rest of its life (3 years). This acid will turn the Democrat Party into a broiling kettle of bubbling, steaming, rotten meat. The Democrat Party has turned into a suicide pact and they’re trying to take the rest of us with them. There are going to be a lot of people killed because of these policies and it’s going to take a hell of a lot to recover.

By: John

John — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:22:54 +0000

Clinton might have tried to be Jimmy Carter, but the voters cut him off at the pass in 1994, electing the Republicans to power in Congress. Once that was settled and Clinton acknowledged the voters’ decision by following Dick Morris’ plan to triangulate back to the center, the fiscal conservative/social moderate voters in 1996 felt safe to re-elect Clinton, because they knew there was a check on any creeping Hillaryitis in the form of the U.S. House and Senate.

But Clinton’s path to Carterism was a slow stroll compared to Obama’s who’se heading there at the speed of Steve McQueen’s trip in his Mustang through San Francisco in ‘Bullet”. Every time you hit refresh in your browser window there’s another act of either incompetence or maliciousness to deal with. And Clinton, unlike Obama had already been thrown out of office once by Arkansas voters for campaigning in the middle and then governing left, so he knew what was coming in 1996 if he didn’t change course. Obama seems oblivious to the resentment he’s creating with his policies and has never lost a major election, so even a rebuke in the miterms might not make him change course (especially if Democrats maintain narrow majorities in the House and Senate).

By: Eric A

Eric A — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:56:50 +0000

I think McCarthy’s analysis is slightly off. It is a simple defense,”it wasn’t me, prove otherwise”. Don’t take the stand. It is doubtful that very much in the way of evidence is allowed in. The rest I think I agree with. Assuming that this survives miranda, what was obtained with a warrant? Anything gained in captivity will likely be tossed due to the interrogation techniques. What is the documentation of the chain of evidence? Was it secure at all times? Did anyone have access to it? Do you have any eye witnesses that can actually prove any of this? And of course bringing every military and intelligence officer who has ever remotely had anything to do with anything to the stand to explain the basis of their knowledge, their tactics, methods, in detail and comparing them to the requirements for the NYPD. I am seriously suspicious that they could obtain a guilty conviction. And that of course would be Bush’s fault.

I am also afraid that Tom L may have a little bit of a point. I really hope that I am wrong about this.

By: Tom L.

Tom L. — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:33:52 +0000

The trial isn’t playing to a base. The trial is: Look over here! How pissed are you about this? Pissed enough to not pay attention to Deathcare monstrosity? Good! That was the whole point.

Shiny objects no longer work. They now have to do things that will make you so outraged and angry that you forget everything else but the outrage du jour to keep your focus AWAY from healthcare. The 9/11 trials are not going to transform and cripple this country like Deathcare trail wreck will. Better to have you focused on something considered “smaller” than the big turd being rammed down your throat.

By: democratsarefascists

democratsarefascists — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:08:57 +0000

I wonder.
If Hillary ran again, Ted Kennedy style, would the PUMAs vote for her, or have they learned their lesson and given up on the Commiecrat party as last?

By: David Thomson

David Thomson — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:47:36 +0000

“…their reaction to the Party’s embrace of unions, blacks and liberals”

I have encountered very few whites who react negatively to blacks per se. No, that’s not the problem. They are concerned, however, with radical non-violent blacks who have every intention to stick it to them good and hard. This is not an example of racism—but legitimate self preservation! The Democratic Party’s leadership have encouraged a “get whitey” attitude to increase its power. These race hustlers have no real interest in improving relations among the different races. It most certainly would not work out to their benefit.