Analysis: Showcased in these ads, which will be the most effective storyline for the fall?

McCain "Safe" ad

Moveon.org "Not Alex" ad

Obama "Country I Love" ad


All three are running in Wisconsin. Wisconsin will be (is?) a battleground state. The Obama bio ad is running in 18 states--including many states where a Democrat has not been competitive for years. McCain's ad was the first one to be "up" (meaning: on t.v. in any given state).

So many elections are about defining yourself and defining your opponent. This is exactly what each campaign, and Moveon.org, are trying to do. Moveon.org started out as a special interest group trying to end the war in Iraq and has since expanded considerably to give its 2 cents on most liberal political causes. There is some question among Republicans as to why McCain waited so long to try to define himself. Why didn't he use the months that he had without an opponent to try to define himself and whoever his opponent would be? Notice how Obama talks about Kansas values (the values of the "heartland") and not big city Chicago values. Is he trying to court those working class Clinton supporters? Shouldn't he have won their support already?

Feel free to go to the websites to see more videos and get more information (if you like busses as much as my 2 year old son, you should check out McCains website where they have a "Cribs" tour of the Straight Talk Express Bus--no joke) (btw: shouldn't it be "Pimp My Ride" instead of "Cribs"?)

www.johnmccain.com
www.barackobama.com
www.moveon.org

There is no opinion or analysis: Tim Russert has died.

Tim Russert.

RIP

Your enthusiasm for politics and your intensity for what we think is so important are unmatched and are admired. Thank you. We will work hard to continue your tradition of clinical analysis of all that is political. We learned from you that it's OK to love politics. Again, thank you. Your influence continues. . .

Analysis: Clinton suspends campaign, endorses Obama.

History...

Analysis: Too little too late?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24908975/

Obama quits church after long controversy
Candidate seeks to distance himself from Wright


ABERDEEN, S.D. - Barack Obama said Saturday he has resigned his 20-year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago "with some sadness" in the aftermath of inflammatory remarks by his longtime pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and more recent fiery remarks at the church by another minister.

"This is not a decision I come to lightly ... and it is one I make with some sadness," he said at a news conference after campaign officials released a letter of resignation sent to the church on Friday. "I'm not denouncing the church and I'm not interested in people who want me to denounce the church," he said, adding that the new pastor at Trinity and "the church have been suffering from the attention my campaign has focused on them."

Obama said he and his wife have been discussing the issue since Wright's appearance at the National Press Club in Washington last month that reignited furor over remarks he had made in various sermons at the church. "I suspect we'll find another church home for our family," Obama said. "It's clear that now that I'm a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity, inlcuding guest pastors, the remarks will imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my longheld views, statements and principles," he said.

Obama said he had "no idea" how the resignation would "impact my presidential campaign, but I know its the right thing to do for the church and our family."

‘A pretty personal decision’"This was a pretty personal decision and I was not trying to make political theater out of it," he said.


--LAST REQUIRED POSTING WINDOW ENDS TODAY!!!
KEEPING POSTING ANYWAY. . .
:)

Analysis: Will this unify or split the Democrats? Good or bad for John McCain?

Fla., Mich. Delegates Each Get Half a Vote
Compromise Prompts Anger From Clinton Campaign


By Dan BalzWashington Post Staff Writer Sunday, June 1, 2008; Page A01
After hours of emotional testimony and sometimes contentious debate, Democratic Party officials agreed yesterday on a pair of compromises to seat Florida's and Michigan's delegations to their national convention. But a part of the deal drew an angry reaction and the threat of a subsequent challenge from the campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The compromises by the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee called for both delegations, originally barred from the convention for violating party rules, to be seated in full in Denver but with each delegate casting only half a vote.

The actions by the committee were aimed at bringing the long and sometimes-bitter Democratic nomination battle between Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Clinton (N.Y.) to a close and to ensure party unity as the Democrats head into the general election. But the decisions prompted bitter and sometimes-tearful reactions from some members of the audience, who repeatedly shouted over the committee members as they voted.

Obama remains the heavy favorite to win the nomination, with his campaign hoping that he can secure enough delegates over the next week to do so. Puerto Rico's primary will be held today, and the last two states, Montana and South Dakota, will vote Tuesday. The committee's decisions represented a significant setback to Clinton, who had passionately called for seating both delegations with full votes.

The net result was a gain of 87 delegate votes for Clinton and 63 for Obama. Until yesterday's action, the magic number for winning the nomination was 2,026 delegates. Now the winner will need 2,118. According to a count by the Associated Press, as of last night, Obama controlled 2,052 delegates to Clinton's 1,877.

Obama campaign officials said they will redouble efforts to win over enough superdelegates to put their candidate over the top as quickly as possible, but Clinton hopes to emerge with more popular votes and continues to press the case that she would be a stronger general-election candidate than Obama.

"We're extremely gratified that the commission agreed on a fair solution that will allow Michigan and Florida to participate in the Convention. We appreciate their efforts, and those of the party leadership of both states, to bring this resolution about," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.
The Florida agreement included a provision calling for the delegates to be allocated on the basis of the state's Jan. 29 primary, a decision that would net Clinton 19 more delegates than Obama. Clinton's campaign had pushed for a proposal to seat the full delegation with full voting power, but when that failed, her supporters on the committee relented, and the compromise was approved without a dissenting vote, 27 to 0.

But it was the Michigan plan, approved by a 19 to 8 vote, that drew sharper opposition because of the way that state's delegates will be awarded. Under the plan, Clinton will be given 34.5 delegate votes in Denver to Obama's 29.5 delegate votes, a percentage distribution recommended by leaders of the Michigan Democratic Party but opposed by the Clinton campaign officials, who said it violates the results of Michigan's Jan. 15 primary.

This article continues at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053102355.html?hpid=topnews

Opinion: What's your opinion of this article?

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=756918

Energized McCain wins over one teen
Posted: May 31, 2008
Mike NicholsE-MAIL

Greendale - Odd men in cow suits and rubber masks, or holding handwritten signs alluding to "Adolf Bush," usually provide the only unscripted moments at big campaign events.

So I didn't show up too early for an appearance by John McCain at Martin Luther High School - and was relegated to the "remote" room where we Wisconsinites often seem to end up.

Watched him along with a couple hundred others on two television screens that could, as easily, have been transmitting from Tuscaloosa.

Sometimes, though - lo and behold - the world comes to you.

No sooner did the man walk off the screen at the end of his event, than he came through the door. Right there in the scarred and wrinkled flesh.

This is Wisconsin in 2008, baby. We're all in the front row now.

"Wisconsin," as Congressman Paul Ryan was quoted as saying, "is going to be the center of the political universe."

At least for John McCain.

And the first impression?

"Very pale," said Morgan Johnson, a senior at Muskego High School who just turned 18 and was there with her aunt. "That was the first thing I noticed about him."

Yep. There's been a lot of speculation about Barack Obama becoming the blackest president ever. John McCain might just become the whitest.

But, allowed Morgan, "he looked good for his age."

The truth is that McCain, who is 71, gets younger when he walks right up and starts talking.
This is no somnambulant Reagan. You don't worry about him being under-engaged. You worry about him being over-engaged.

With all due respect to the "McSame" crowd, this is not George W. Bush either. I mean, with our current president, you cringe every time you hear him try to pronounce Ahmadinejad.

With McCain, you worry a little he is pronouncing it with extreme fluidity, over and over, in his sleep.

Obama, then again, is apt to add a "Sir" at the end and say it in person - without preconditions.
Morgan's aunt, Lisa Klug, asked the best question of the day.

She asked McCain what he "would say to Morgan to get her to vote for you instead of Obama."

Morgan is a self-described moderate who would have voted for Hillary in the primary, had she been 18. And she lives in Wisconsin, where John Kerry beat George Bush by fewer than 12,000 votes - which means she could well be a president-maker.

Many of her peers like Obama.

"He is young," she said. "I am not going to lie. I think his race has a lot to do with it."

She, personally, is basing her vote on other things.

"Base it on issues," Morgan said.

McCain walked spryly over and responded to Lisa's question by making light of his years. What America really needs now is a president who is "very, very, very, very , very old," he said, repeating a joke from "Saturday Night Live."

Then he told Lisa, in a more serious vein, that he will "try to make sure (Morgan) can believe she will inherit a safer and more prosperous world."

Therein lies the rub, of course. Elections are about the future, and to a lot of young eyes, McCain looks like the past.

Not to Morgan, though. She likes his experience and his fiscal conservatism. Likes him on a personal basis. Thought he looked good. Is inclined to vote for him.

All you wonder now is if he can repeat the feat.
About 12,000 or so times.

E-mail mnichols@journalsentine.com.

Opinion: Is this good public policy and/or is it the correct decision by the court?

California's top court legalizes gay marriage

By LISA LEFFThe Associated Press Friday, May 16, 2008; 2:45 AM
SAN FRANCISCO -- California's Supreme Court declared that gay couples in the nation's most populous state can marry _ a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.

Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the window could close soon after _ religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.

"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law," declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner. She added: "We're going to get married. No Tupperware, please."

A crowd of people raised their fists in triumph inside City Hall, and people wrapped themselves in the rainbow-colored gay-pride flag outside the courthouse. In the Castro, long the center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt wept as he watched the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life. This is a life-affirming moment," he said.

By the afternoon, gay and lesbian couples had already started lining up at San Francisco City Hall to make appointments to get marriage licenses. In West Hollywood, supporters planned to serve "wedding cake" at an evening celebration.

James Dobson _ chairman of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, which has spent thousands of dollars to get the measure on the ballot _ called the ruling an outrage.
"It will be up to the people of California to preserve traditional marriage by passing a constitutional amendment. ... Only then can they protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny," he said in an e-mailed statement.

In its 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.

Massachusetts in 2004 became the first, and so far only, state to legalize gay marriage; more than 9,500 couples have taken advantage of the law. But the California ruling is considered monumental by virtue of the state's size _ 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million _ and its historical role as the vanguard of many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.

California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households, according to 2006 census figures.

THIS ARTICLE CONTINUES AT:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051502290_2.html

Opinion: Is this good public policy? Does the U.S. Government too often "govern by crisis?"

39 Republicans Join Democrats As Mortgage Bill Passes House


By Lori MontgomeryWashington Post Staff Writer Friday, May 9, 2008; Page A01
The House yesterday approved an ambitious plan to rescue hundreds of thousands of homeowners at risk of foreclosure by helping them trade exotic loans with rapidly rising monthly payments for more affordable mortgages backed by the federal government.

Bucking a White House veto threat, 39 Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the bill, the centerpiece of a broader housing package that represents Washington's most aggressive response to the nation's housing crisis. The measure aims to unfreeze mortgage markets by expanding the Federal Housing Administration's reach and strengthening mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It also would create a $7,500 tax credit for first-time home buyers to try to boost sales and slow plummeting home prices.

GOP House leaders blasted the bill as a bailout for speculators and irresponsible borrowers. But the measure, sponsored by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), gained strong support from rank-and-file Republicans worried that escalating foreclosures are ruining lives and decimating neighborhoods.

Despite President Bush's condemnation of the bill this week, White House officials seemed to leave the door open to negotiation. And key Republicans are working with Democrats on a similar plan in the Senate.

"People are in a world of hurt. My sense is there's maneuvering room," said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), whose state has been among those hardest hit. "There's still a good chance they'll get a bill the president can sign, knowing that a lot of the country needs help."

More than 1.2 million homes are in foreclosure, and an additional 3 million are forecast to join them over the next two years. Home prices have fallen more than 10 percent, and state and local tax collections are suffering. Polls show the economy is the top concern among voters, with one in four respondents saying they have been directly affected by problems in the housing market.

The borrowers most at risk of foreclosure -- and who have drawn policymakers' attention -- are those who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments but cannot sell or refinance because the value of their homes has fallen so far that they owe more than their homes are worth.

The Bush administration has tried to help such borrowers by urging banks to reduce their mortgage debt. The administration also has eased eligibility standards so borrowers who have missed a few payments can qualify for cheaper loans insured by the federal government through the FHA. But those initiatives have helped relatively few families.

Frank's proposal calls for the FHA to respond more aggressively, by offering to insure mortgages for even the least creditworthy borrowers if their banks will forgive a portion of the debt and help them stay in their homes. Under the proposal, lenders would have to take a significant loss, permitting borrowers to pay their original loans with new loans worth no more than 90 percent of their homes' new, lower value. Extra fees charged by the FHA would lower the payoff to lenders to 85 percent of a home's current value.

Borrowers would get lower monthly payments and an immediate equity stake in their property. If home values rise, the plan requires homeowners to share their profits with the federal government when they sell or refinance.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that as many as 500,000 homeowners will benefit from the program. But more than a third of those borrowers are likely to default, the CBO estimates, forcing the FHA to pay off their loans and take possession of their property at a cost to taxpayers of $1.7 billion.

The White House has balked at that price tag, calling Frank's bill an "attempt to shift costs to taxpayers [that] constitutes a bailout." But there are signs that the administration is open to compromise.

In a speech Monday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke appeared to endorse Frank's plan. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and other administration officials have spoken favorably of it. On Wednesday, even as Bush declared his intention to veto the measure, one of his top economic advisers told the Wall Street Journal that differences between the White House and congressional Democrats were not "insurmountable."

Yesterday, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush supports the concept of Frank's plan. "As a basic concept, it's what we're already doing. But it's what we're doing on steroids," he said.

"Is it possible to have additional housing legislation? Yes, it's possible. And maybe the Frank bill could change so much that there could be legislation we could accept," Fratto said. "But I think we're far away from that."

In House debate, many Republicans echoed the administration's concerns. Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) said Frank's bill would "bail out scam artists and those who were speculating in the market, and they want taxpayers to pick up the tab."

But other Republicans cringed at the indictment of troubled borrowers and said they were disappointed by the veto threat.

"What's offensive is some of the rhetoric," said Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio), who voted for the measure. "They say it rewards speculators. No, it doesn't. It's limited to homeowners. They say it's a $300 billion bailout. No, it's not. It costs $1.7 billion."

"Would I have written the bill the way Chairman Frank did? No, but we're not in charge anymore," LaTourette said. The housing mess "calls for some bold action. People are expecting us to do something."

The House voted 266 to 154 to approve Frank's rescue plan and a broad array of other housing initiatives. The House also voted 322 to 94 to approve an $11 billion package of housing tax measures, including the $7,500 credit for first-time buyers who purchase a home this year. Under the measure, the credit would have to be repaid to the government over 15 years.

The package moves to the Senate, where Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and the committee's senior Republican, Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, are working on a similar proposal. Senate Republicans have been more resistant than their House counterparts to broad plans to intervene on behalf of distressed homeowners.

But Francis Creighton, vice president for government affairs at the Mortgage Bankers Association who is working with both the administration and Congress to slow the rate of foreclosures, said he expects a compromise to be reached.

"We believe the administration is as committed to addressing this situation in the market as anybody. There's still a lot of time for negotiation," Creighton said. "Everyone wants to support something that can fix the housing crisis."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/08/AR2008050803482.html


FOR USE ONLY AFTER COMPLETING ALL YOUR AP EXAMS:
http://www.therightfoot.net/mystuff/whatever/swf/bubblewrap.swf

NO BLOGGING TODAY.

Study, Review, Prepare, Sleep, Eat, Breathe.

COURAGE !!!

Just do it!

Impossible is nothing!

Live in the moment and enjoy it.

You can do it...

THINK.

WORK YOUR WAY THROUGH IT.

YOU KNOW MORE THAN YOU THINK YOU KNOW.

YOU'LL BE FINE !!!

P.S. #2 pencils, black or blue pen, a watch to keep track, social security number (optional). No cell phones.

Opinion: Should the U.S. Government subsidize what farmers grow even when food prices are at record levels? Is this special interest too powerful?

Negotiations On Farm Bill Add Billions For Nutrition

By Dan MorganSpecial to The Washington Post Saturday, April 26, 2008; Page A03

House and Senate negotiators reached tentative agreement yesterday on a new $290 billion, multiyear farm bill that would add about $10.4 billion for nutrition programs while continuing to channel billions of dollars to farmers, even if prices stay at current record levels.

Key details remain to be worked out, but lawmakers said a final deal could come next week on the bill. The government would spend $10 billion more than allocated by congressional budget committees last year. The Bush administration had proposed an increase of about $5.5 billion.

The current farm bill expired last October but has been extended a number of times.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said the agreement would include a new permanent program that guarantees aid to farmers and ranchers suffering weather-related losses, a priority of senators from Western states hit by drought.

Included in the bill is $405 million to be spent over 10 years on the cleanup of farm-related pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. The program, sponsored by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) would help reduce the runoff of nutrients and other pollutants from farms.

The bill would reduce the tax credit for ethanol made from corn to 45 cents per gallon from 51, but the tax credit would be extended through 2010.

Rising food costs gave a strong impetus to stepped-up funding for programs such as food stamps that help poor and near-poor families. Farm bill versions passed by the House and Senate last year proposed modest increases in food stamp benefits and eased standards of eligibility for the program.

Last week, Senate negotiators (CONFERENCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS) offered a $9.5 billion increase over 10 years. Yesterday, they upped that offer by $800 million to $900 million, sources indicated.

The bill also includes a provision that would require the labeling of imported meat and vegetables for the first time, a response to rising concerns about food safety.

Morgan is a contract writer for The Washington Post and a fellow at the German Marshall Fund, a nonpartisan public policy institution.

Analysis: Who will win in PA, by how much, and what will it mean to the race?

Read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/opinion/19herbert.html

My Prediction:
McCain by a lot.
I'll give my Democratic predictions later...(you should comment on the Democratic race, not the GOP side).

Analysis: Is this the opening that Sen. Clinton has needed?

MISHAWAKA, Ind. - A political tempest over Barack Obama's comments about bitter voters in small towns has given rival Hillary Rodham Clinton a new opening to court working class Democrats 10 days before Pennsylvanians hold a primary that she must win to keep her presidential campaign alive.

Obama tried to quell the furor Saturday, explaining his remarks while also conceding he had chosen his words poorly.

"If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that," Obama said in an interview with the Winston-Salem (N.C.) Journal.

But the Clinton campaign fueled the controversy in every place and every way it could, hoping charges that Obama is elitist and arrogant will resonate with the swing voters the candidates are vying for not only in Pennsylvania, but in upcoming primaries in Indiana and North Carolina as well.

Political insiders differed on whether Obama's comments, which came to light Friday, would become a full-blown political disaster that could prompt party leaders to try to steer the nomination to Clinton even though Obama has more pledged delegates. Clinton supporters were eagerly hoping so.

They handed out "I'm not bitter" stickers in North Carolina, and held a conference call of Pennsylvania mayors to denounce the Illinois senator. In Indiana, Clinton did the work herself, telling plant workers in Indianapolis that Obama's comments were "elitist and out of touch."

At issue are comments he made privately at a fundraiser in San Francisco last Sunday. He was trying to explain his troubles winning over some working-class voters, saying they have become frustrated with economic conditions:

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The comments, posted Friday on The Huffington Post Web site, set off a blast of criticism from Clinton, Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain and other GOP officials, and drew attention to a potential Obama weakness — the image some have that the Harvard-trained lawyer is arrogant and aloof.

His campaign scrambled to defuse possible damage.

There has been a small "political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter," Obama said Saturday morning at a town hall-style meeting at Ball State University in Muncie, Ind. "They are angry. They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they're going through.

"So I said, well you know, when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country."
After acknowledging his previous remarks in California could have been better phrased, he added:

"The truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation, those are important. That's what sustains us. But what is absolutely true is that people don't feel like they are being listened to."

Clinton attacked Obama's remarks much more harshly Saturday than she had the night before, calling them "demeaning." Her aides feel Obama has given them a big opening, pulling the spotlight away from troublesome stories such as former President Clinton's recent revisiting of his wife's misstatements about an airport landing in Bosnia 10 years ago.

Obama is trying to focus attention narrowly on his remarks, arguing there's no question that some working-class families are anxious and bitter. The Clinton campaign is parsing every word, focusing on what Obama said about religion, guns, immigration and trade.

Clinton hit all those themes in lengthy comments to manufacturing workers in Indianapolis.
"The people of faith I know don't 'cling' to religion because they're bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich," she said.

"I also disagree with Senator Obama's assertion that people in this country 'cling to guns' and have certain attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration," Clinton added.

"People don't need a president who looks down on them," she said. "They need a president who stands up for them."

McCain's campaign piled on Obama, releasing a statement that also accused him of elitism.

One of Clinton's staunchest supporters, Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., acknowledged there was some truth in Obama's remarks. But he said Republicans would use them against him anyway.

At a campaign rally in Wilson, N.C., former state Democratic Party chairman and current Clinton adviser Tom Hendrickson said rural voters don't need "liberal elites" telling them what to believe.

Bill Clinton was the featured speaker of the rally but avoided commenting on Obama's remarks. When asked about it afterward, he said simply, "I agree with what Hillary said."
___
Jim Kuhnhenn reported from Muncie, Ind. Associated Press writer Mike Baker in Wilson, N.C., contributed to this report.

COMPASSION FORUM (CNN) 7:00 our time Sunday. Clinton, Obama, McCain (invited). The presidential candidate forum on faith, values and current issues at Messiah College.

(Study and review a little bit more tonight)

Opinion: Forty years after his death, how is Dr. King still impacting our lives today? He was so in tune with reality. What would he say today?

He was tired, sick and running a fever. He wasn't planning to go, but his advisors asked him to go anyway. This is part of the short remarks he agreed to give after Ralph Abernathy agreed to give the speech. That speech turned into a great introduction of Dr. King. Abernathy is the person who "cathces" King after the speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0FiCxZKuv8

Opinion: Should the Senate and the President back changes in the surveillance laws in the U.S.?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House of Representatives voted Friday to back the Democratic-sponsored revisions to federal surveillance laws.

The vote was 213-197 in favor of a revision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill that was supported by the Democratic leadership.
One member voted present.

The vote came after a secret session Thursday night in the House. It was the first time the House has met in secret since 1983.

The Democratic plan would allow telecommunications companies to be sued for their role in the administration's much-disputed warrantless surveillance program.

The bill now goes to the Senate, but both the Senate and President Bush have made it clear that they will not support the bill without an immunity provision.

Bush has spent weeks pressuring the House to grant retroactive legal immunity to the phone companies that took part in the program, initiated after the September 11 attacks.

Bush argues that legal protection is needed for companies to continue cooperating with the government and has vowed to veto the House Democratic proposal, which would allow the lawsuits to move forward in federal courts.

The full article is much longer and has much more information. See it here:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/house.fisa.vote/index.html

Opinion: Does any of this matter?

Obama is imitating Ken Starr

Clinton is a monster

McCain has a bad temper

... and apparently when the republican party and the democratic party created their parties they forgot to make the names of their parties proper nouns. Why would they do that? OR MAYBE THEY DIDN'T !!!!!

By popular demand: Super Tuesday II: Your Thoughts.

Analysis: Is the conservative movement changing?

Biography of one of the purest conservatives William F. Buckley, Jr.:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/27/buckley.obit/index.html?eref=rss_showbiz

Fareed Zakaria's column in a recent Newsweek called "The End of Conservatism"(at the end he mentions Political Ideology!):
http://www.newsweek.com/id/112770

Long-time conservative columnist and commentator George Will writes about John McCain:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022703205.html

(if you answer the first question and want to give your predictions for March 4 and its aftermath, go for it)

Analysis: Did any candidate benefit from the 2-21-08 Democratic debate?

How did Sen. Clinton, Obama, or McCain gain ground because of this debate?

Clinton vs. Obama Debate REPLAY Sat & Sun, 7 p.m. CENTRAL

Wisconsin Primary . . . Your Thoughts.

Analysis or Opinion: Veepstakes! Who do you think probable GOP nominee John McCain should/will nominate as his running mate?

Bob Novak said today on Meet the Press that a possible nominee could be Congressman Paul Ryan. He's young, he's a tax cutter, he's from the Great State of Wisconsin.

If you answer the first question, you can answer this question too:
Who should the Democratic nominee nominate for VP? Imagine a Jim Doyle vs. Paul Ryan vice-presidential debate!

If you answer the first and second question, you can answer this question too:
Can you tell us about your experiences seeing and listening to presidential candidates in WI?

REMEMBER: Test on the Civil Rights Chapter on Wednesday.
REMEMBER: Monday is a great day to get out there and work for the candidate of your choice. What a great experience to talk about later: go door to door or you can even make phone calls from home now-just go to your candidate's website to find out how. If your candidate wins or comes close, you get to claim that YOU made it happen! :)