If you remember back 8 years ago, "serious" national security "experts" like Dick Cheney tut-tutted about the Clinton Administration's silly obsession with Osama Bin Ladin when Communist China stood as the next threat for the US.  The right, of course, needs an enemy, and a rag-tag bunch of terrorists hiding in caves in Afghanistan could not then have justified trillion dollar increases in military spending. The only possible enemy out there was China.  China fit the bill -- it was at least nominally communist, had a horrible human rights record, and was growing both economically and military at a pace that made it a potential rival.  

The anti-china rhetoric heated up, and the (justifiable) criticism of its human rights record intensified. Then Bin Ladin proved a worthy rival after all, and China became not a competitor, but a regime to emulate.

We adopted Chinese torture techniques, and not only held alleged enemies of the state without due process, but, in several instances, we did it on China's say-so.  I think its worth looking back at this, to see where Bush - Cheney (McCain) has taken to us.

It may be unrealistic in a 24-7, rapid-response team culture, but a few recent fake-media-driven-hullabaloos have shown that Obama's official spokesperson, Bill Burton, has his reaction timer calibrated a little too tight.  He's made a few quick comments that have fueled a media forestorm that Obama has then had to try to quell the next day.  

Any day now the Supreme Court will issue its first decision on the Second Amendment since United States v. Miller in 1939.  I'm no Second Amendment scholar, and don't intend to debate the legalities.  If you read the transcript of the Supreme Court's oral argument in DC v. Heller, there really are no legalities to at stake anyway, its pure politics.  Liberals were arguing that legislative decision-making is preferable to judge made laws, and conservatives were waxing poetic about the need for judicially enforced rights. Its Bush v. Gore all over again.  

This has been a sleeper issue this year, but its going to come front and center.

This week's gutting of the Fourth Amendment continues the decades long erosion of that clearly written and previously well understood restriction on the government.  If the Fourth Amendment can go by the wayside, having a written constitution seems to provide little or no protection -- it can be re-written by politicians and judges to eliminate rights as if they were never there in the first place.

But as disappointing as the FISA vote was, it was hardly a new disappointment.  The thirty year war on drugs had already torn down most of the Fourth Amendment.  Congress is now just kicking the carcass.  

Long ago I learned not to expect much from democratic politicians when it came to the fourth amendment, but I'm still a democrat.  Where else could I go that would make a difference?

I've always been pragmatic when it comes to politics, and Obama has hardly deflated my idealistic view of him because I've never had such a view.  

Obama's VP committee is doing their thing, and its a long time before the convention, so, in my view, they shouldn't be in a hurry to make a choice.  Someone who looks good now may not look good by mid summer.  

In my own view, Hillary Clinton seemingly improves as a choice over time.  Interestingly enough, earlier this spring I thought Hillary Clinton wouldn't be a good pick as an Obama veep, but I've changed my mind.  The reasons in favor of Hillary are discussed below

I was at a family wedding yesterday, and I sat down with my cousin.  The conversation turned to politics, and she asked me who I supported now.  We had spoken about the election back in March, when we were both supporting Hillary.  The difference between my cousin and me is that I'm a committed democrat, while she's truly an independent. She doesn't approach an election with a definitive ideological bias one way or the other.  She supported Hillary because she liked the idea of a female president, and because she thinks HRC is the most pro-education candidate.

But she doesn't like Obama.  That was clear. So I started a casual conversation with her aimed at persuading her that McCain was the wrong choice.

There's a lot of shots on this blog taken at Hillary because she should have dropped out months ago or should have endorsed Obama Tuesday night. Stop ripping Hillary and be gracious about her unprecedented selfishlessness -- because no one in her position has ever been this much of a team player.  

Hillary's signaled her intention to endorse Obama this weekend, and no one remotely close to her position has ever endorsed his opponent this early and with fewer demands.  

I've been sort of a Hillary gadfly around here -- defending her, attempting to persuade people that she's better on the issues, pointing out that's she the far better candidate.  All that was true, but its past tense now.

There are no primaries left on the calendar, no point in persuading people of switching.  I'll still defend Hillary (and Bill) from pointless attacks, but its time to refocus.

There are a lot of messages on this site of late to Clinton supporters -- kind of makes me feel special that the three or four of us who hung around this site despite the relentless Clinton bashing merit such attention.  You might want to try that message out on sites with actual Clinton supporters in the future.

But anyway, there are a lot of Obama supporters here, so I'll send this message to them.

Reading Paul Krugman's column today, which resonated strongly with me, I started dealing with my own feelings about this election.  Five months ago, I didn't really support either candidate, but watching the same bullshit attacks on Hillary play out as they did in the 90s, I found myself rising to defend her and eventually coming to her side.  On the issues, the differences were minor but important (Social Security and healthcare are major policy issues and he's bad and she's good on those issues), but it was the awful tone of the Obama campaign that turned me off.  I know all of you here are so strongly in the Obama camp that you can't see it that way, but stop for a moment and realize that half the party sees it exactly the other way.

Still, I kind of liked Obama at the beginning.  But it didn't last.  Especially after this week, and the ridiculous spin that Obama put on Hillary's off the cuff remarks in South Dakota (and Obama's campaign starting that spin on it), I now find myself really, really strongly disliking Obama, or perhaps more accurately, the Obama campaign and its supporters.  

For all of the snarky attacks on Hillary's popular vote statements, the fact is that she's about as likely as Obama to win the popular vote when all is said and done.  I can't see why she would quit under those circumstances, especially when no one has ever been this close to the nomination and quit before.  

So here comes by GBCW diary.  I'm a Hillary supporter who stayed despite the strike, so this comes as no big political protest -- its just that the internet is ruining my life.

The GOP's only credible candidate, biotech executive John Crowley, has dropped out of the running for the NJ Senate one day after signaling he was in it.  The deadline is tomorrow, and the republicans have only fringe candiates at this point.  This is really good news because the NJ senate race has had me worried.  

link

The Michigan and Florida primary arguments have sprouted a lot of rhetoric on this site that reminds me of reading the National Review in December 2000.  "They broke the rules, they shouldn't have any rights" being the mantra.

For a very long time, democrats have been the party of voting rights.  Democrats passed the voting rights act, democrats want to reform the undemocratic electoral college, democrats are against taking voting rights from felons, and democrats in 2000 and 2002 vigorously pushed for voting rights over bs technicalities.  Now my party is giving up on its principles.  It's wrong -- and I think a lot of you know its wrong.  

I've noticed a buzz in the right wing blogosphere and right wing talk radio over Barack Obama's charitable giving.  I looked at the stats and it seems fairly normal to generous compared to the average american.  But how much do people really give to charity?

There's semi-anonymity for people here, and if you're like me, you may be wading through your tax docs tonight, and have the stats at the ready.

So how much do you give?

There is a lot of commentary on this site along the lines of "I'd like to hear a Hillary supporter defend this ..." usually followed by some fake outrage of the day campaign story.  There is almost no debate or discussion about substantive issues on this site.

So, respectfully, I'd propose starting it.  I generally approach my support for a candidate in two ways.  First, and most important, do they have the charisma and personal mettle to be president (e.g, Kucinich fails that test).  I think both the major candidates left pass that test easily.  Second, where do they stand on the really important issues?

Here's my take on the issues.

The new movement afoot by Hillary supporters to abandon this forum altogether seems to be taking off.  I can sympathize with that sentiment -- the vitriolic stupidity that hits the rec list day-after-day has made me wonder why I visit here.  But I'm sticking around.  In fact, the anti-Hillary tirades of late have caused me to post more than ever before.  I've been trying to counter the baseless charges and give some of you much needed perspective.

There are fewer like me here every day, but you'll have at least one to keep this place within a shouting distance of credibilty when this primary ends.  

The rules for electing the democratic nominee are not democratic -- caucuses, superdelegates, weighted voting, double voting, non-secret voting -- its a mess.  It needs to be fixed for 2012.  

But we're stuck with it for now.  And that means the superdelegates will decided this race.

Most seem to agree that the supers should follow the "will of the people" but what is that?  Is it the pledged delegates?  And should pledged delegates won in caucuses be viewed differently than the outcomes of primaries.  Hillary's campaign has argued that the caucus system isn't worthy of hallowed "will of the people" respect, and tonight's outcome seems destined to prove it.  If she wins the primary, but he wins the caucuses by a sizable margin, it shows that the caucuses do not reflect the will of the people.  Everyone got to vote in the primary -- that was the will of the people.