*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (2 Viewers)

[ffldrew]

Obama's speech tonight touched on his proposal to spend money on alternative energy sources: he mentioned wind, solar, bio-degradable fuels. But there was one energy source he never mentions, and that is nuclear energy. One of the decisive reasons I am for McCain over Obama is the refusal by the "green" elements in this country to consider nuclear energy as a viable alternative energy source even though (1) we are much farther developed in the science of this than the others (2) as France has shown, it is safer and cheaper than nearly anything else. And if we ever develop the secret of nuclear fusion, all of our energy concerns will be forever eliminated, or so I understand (I'm no expert on this.) It seems to me that the progressives in this country, so forward thinking in many ways, are backwards thinking when it comes to this issue. They think about Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl the China Syndrome. But all that was decades ago, apparently new technology makes this safer. Shouldn't we at least explore it? Seems to me we should, and its ital.

Obama is pretty pro nuclear power - more than most any other Democrat that I know.

 

[Jethro Q. Walrustitty]

I don't see a single category she won. Although today was her best day she still lost that. Or am I misreading this thing? Perhaps my sarcasm detection is slightly off?

Yeah, my bad. But she did do better amongst those that decided in the last few days than those who decided earlier, suggesting that either the negative attacks, the plagiarism angle, or Michelle Obama's gaff may have had an effect.

Or maybe Clinton still seems like the "safe" or "default" candidate to those who can't decide with gun to head. I think she was banking on that all along, but that base has eroded tremendously.

 

[cosjobs]

and that's why Chris Matthews is the best political analyst/host of our time. If you come on his show with some bull####, he'll embarrass you.Great stuff, even if it wasn't good for my guy.

Tweety is hardly the best anything. Plenty of crap goes right on by on his show. He just doesn't need this guy after this so he goes after him. Get back to me when he does this to a real player he may want back.

Good post. This is definitely my beef with Matthews. He'll beat up on nobodies but always kowtows to the power.

 

[skol asylum]

Obama's speech tonight touched on his proposal to spend money on alternative energy sources: he mentioned wind, solar, bio-degradable fuels. But there was one energy source he never mentions, and that is nuclear energy. One of the decisive reasons I am for McCain over Obama is the refusal by the "green" elements in this country to consider nuclear energy as a viable alternative energy source even though (1) we are much farther developed in the science of this than the others (2) as France has shown, it is safer and cheaper than nearly anything else. And if we ever develop the secret of nuclear fusion, all of our energy concerns will be forever eliminated, or so I understand (I'm no expert on this.) It seems to me that the progressives in this country, so forward thinking in many ways, are backwards thinking when it comes to this issue. They think about Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl the China Syndrome. But all that was decades ago, apparently new technology makes this safer. Shouldn't we at least explore it? Seems to me we should, and its ital.

Obama is pretty pro nuclear power - more than most any other Democrat that I know.

Yep, one of his big contributers is a nuclear company.

 

[NCCommish]

Obama's speech tonight touched on his proposal to spend money on alternative energy sources: he mentioned wind, solar, bio-degradable fuels.

But there was one energy source he never mentions, and that is nuclear energy. One of the decisive reasons I am for McCain over Obama is the refusal by the "green" elements in this country to consider nuclear energy as a viable alternative energy source even though (1) we are much farther developed in the science of this than the others (2) as France has shown, it is safer and cheaper than nearly anything else. And if we ever develop the secret of nuclear fusion, all of our energy concerns will be forever eliminated, or so I understand (I'm no expert on this.)

It seems to me that the progressives in this country, so forward thinking in many ways, are backwards thinking when it comes to this issue. They think about Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl the China Syndrome. But all that was decades ago, apparently new technology makes this safer. Shouldn't we at least explore it? Seems to me we should, and its ital.

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works

Hearing Statements

Date: 05/26/2005

Statement of Senator Barack Obama

Oversight on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.

As electricity demand throughout the nation increases in the coming decades, we will be challenged in how best to meet these consumption demands without sacrificing the environment. That means creating jobs, protecting water and air quality, establishing energy independence, and using all of our energy resources fully and wisely.

I strongly support greater energy conservation and greater federal investment in renewable technologies such as wind and solar, which ought to receive greater attention in our national energy policy than they likely will this year.

However, as Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants – the most of any State in the country – and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois’ electricity needs.

But keeping nuclear power on the table – and indeed planning for the construction of new plants – is only possible if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vigilant in its mission. We need better long-term strategies for storing and securing nuclear waste and for ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants. How we develop these strategies is a major priority for me.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses, and I thank the Chair for holding this hearing.

StatementHTH

 

[timschochet]

Obama's speech tonight touched on his proposal to spend money on alternative energy sources: he mentioned wind, solar, bio-degradable fuels. But there was one energy source he never mentions, and that is nuclear energy. One of the decisive reasons I am for McCain over Obama is the refusal by the "green" elements in this country to consider nuclear energy as a viable alternative energy source even though (1) we are much farther developed in the science of this than the others (2) as France has shown, it is safer and cheaper than nearly anything else. And if we ever develop the secret of nuclear fusion, all of our energy concerns will be forever eliminated, or so I understand (I'm no expert on this.) It seems to me that the progressives in this country, so forward thinking in many ways, are backwards thinking when it comes to this issue. They think about Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl the China Syndrome. But all that was decades ago, apparently new technology makes this safer. Shouldn't we at least explore it? Seems to me we should, and its ital.

Obama is pretty pro nuclear power - more than most any other Democrat that I know.

He is? I've never heard anything about that. Do you have a link?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Obama's speech tonight touched on his proposal to spend money on alternative energy sources: he mentioned wind, solar, bio-degradable fuels.

But there was one energy source he never mentions, and that is nuclear energy. One of the decisive reasons I am for McCain over Obama is the refusal by the "green" elements in this country to consider nuclear energy as a viable alternative energy source even though (1) we are much farther developed in the science of this than the others (2) as France has shown, it is safer and cheaper than nearly anything else. And if we ever develop the secret of nuclear fusion, all of our energy concerns will be forever eliminated, or so I understand (I'm no expert on this.)

It seems to me that the progressives in this country, so forward thinking in many ways, are backwards thinking when it comes to this issue. They think about Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl, the China Syndrome, etc. But all that was decades ago, apparently new technology makes this safer. Shouldn't we at least explore it? Seems to me we should, and its vital.

From 2006 (and about 8 seconds of Google searching.

Take U.S. Sen. Barack Obama. In testimony last spring before a subcommittee dealing with clean air and climate issues, the freshman senator echoed the arguments of the pro-nuclear lobby.

“As Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem,” Obama testified, “it is reasonable — and realistic — for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration.”

At the same time, Obama has emerged as a leading voice for renewable energy sources — just like his senior colleague U.S. Sen. **** Durbin. The two Democrats have been vocal boosters of subsidies to boost ethanol production.

 

[urbanhack]

and that's why Chris Matthews is the best political analyst/host of our time. If you come on his show with some bull####, he'll embarrass you.Great stuff, even if it wasn't good for my guy.

Tweety is hardly the best anything. Plenty of crap goes right on by on his show. He just doesn't need this guy after this so he goes after him. Get back to me when he does this to a real player he may want back.

Good post. This is definitely my beef with Matthews. He'll beat up on nobodies but always kowtows to the power.

 

[timschochet]

Obama's speech tonight touched on his proposal to spend money on alternative energy sources: he mentioned wind, solar, bio-degradable fuels.

But there was one energy source he never mentions, and that is nuclear energy. One of the decisive reasons I am for McCain over Obama is the refusal by the "green" elements in this country to consider nuclear energy as a viable alternative energy source even though (1) we are much farther developed in the science of this than the others (2) as France has shown, it is safer and cheaper than nearly anything else. And if we ever develop the secret of nuclear fusion, all of our energy concerns will be forever eliminated, or so I understand (I'm no expert on this.)

It seems to me that the progressives in this country, so forward thinking in many ways, are backwards thinking when it comes to this issue. They think about Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl the China Syndrome. But all that was decades ago, apparently new technology makes this safer. Shouldn't we at least explore it? Seems to me we should, and its ital.

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works

Hearing Statements

Date: 05/26/2005

Statement of Senator Barack Obama

Oversight on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.

As electricity demand throughout the nation increases in the coming decades, we will be challenged in how best to meet these consumption demands without sacrificing the environment. That means creating jobs, protecting water and air quality, establishing energy independence, and using all of our energy resources fully and wisely.

I strongly support greater energy conservation and greater federal investment in renewable technologies such as wind and solar, which ought to receive greater attention in our national energy policy than they likely will this year.

However, as Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants – the most of any State in the country – and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois’ electricity needs.

But keeping nuclear power on the table – and indeed planning for the construction of new plants – is only possible if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vigilant in its mission. We need better long-term strategies for storing and securing nuclear waste and for ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants. How we develop these strategies is a major priority for me.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses, and I thank the Chair for holding this hearing.

StatementHTH

Wow. Great stuff, guys. Well, I admit this makes me feel a whole lot better about Obama. I would like to see him follow up on this, but I'm at least relieved he doesn't fall in with the "greens" in the party.

 

[urbanhack]

Obama's speech tonight touched on his proposal to spend money on alternative energy sources: he mentioned wind, solar, bio-degradable fuels.

But there was one energy source he never mentions, and that is nuclear energy. One of the decisive reasons I am for McCain over Obama is the refusal by the "green" elements in this country to consider nuclear energy as a viable alternative energy source even though (1) we are much farther developed in the science of this than the others (2) as France has shown, it is safer and cheaper than nearly anything else. And if we ever develop the secret of nuclear fusion, all of our energy concerns will be forever eliminated, or so I understand (I'm no expert on this.)

It seems to me that the progressives in this country, so forward thinking in many ways, are backwards thinking when it comes to this issue. They think about Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl, the China Syndrome, etc. But all that was decades ago, apparently new technology makes this safer. Shouldn't we at least explore it? Seems to me we should, and its vital.

From 2006 (and about 8 seconds of Google searching.

Take U.S. Sen. Barack Obama. In testimony last spring before a subcommittee dealing with clean air and climate issues, the freshman senator echoed the arguments of the pro-nuclear lobby.

“As Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem,” Obama testified, “it is reasonable — and realistic — for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration.”

At the same time, Obama has emerged as a leading voice for renewable energy sources — just like his senior colleague U.S. Sen. **** Durbin. The two Democrats have been vocal boosters of subsidies to boost ethanol production.

lol

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

Obama's speech tonight touched on his proposal to spend money on alternative energy sources: he mentioned wind, solar, bio-degradable fuels.

But there was one energy source he never mentions, and that is nuclear energy. One of the decisive reasons I am for McCain over Obama is the refusal by the "green" elements in this country to consider nuclear energy as a viable alternative energy source even though (1) we are much farther developed in the science of this than the others (2) as France has shown, it is safer and cheaper than nearly anything else. And if we ever develop the secret of nuclear fusion, all of our energy concerns will be forever eliminated, or so I understand (I'm no expert on this.)

It seems to me that the progressives in this country, so forward thinking in many ways, are backwards thinking when it comes to this issue. They think about Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl the China Syndrome. But all that was decades ago, apparently new technology makes this safer. Shouldn't we at least explore it? Seems to me we should, and its ital.

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works

Hearing Statements

Date: 05/26/2005

Statement of Senator Barack Obama

Oversight on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.

As electricity demand throughout the nation increases in the coming decades, we will be challenged in how best to meet these consumption demands without sacrificing the environment. That means creating jobs, protecting water and air quality, establishing energy independence, and using all of our energy resources fully and wisely.

I strongly support greater energy conservation and greater federal investment in renewable technologies such as wind and solar, which ought to receive greater attention in our national energy policy than they likely will this year.

However, as Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants – the most of any State in the country – and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois’ electricity needs.

But keeping nuclear power on the table – and indeed planning for the construction of new plants – is only possible if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vigilant in its mission. We need better long-term strategies for storing and securing nuclear waste and for ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants. How we develop these strategies is a major priority for me.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses, and I thank the Chair for holding this hearing.

StatementHTH

Wow. Great stuff, guys. Well, I admit this makes me feel a whole lot better about Obama. I would like to see him follow up on this, but I'm at least relieved he doesn't fall in with the "greens" in the party.

You referring to Al Green, Obama's superdelegate from Texas?

 

[timschochet]

Obama's speech tonight touched on his proposal to spend money on alternative energy sources: he mentioned wind, solar, bio-degradable fuels.

But there was one energy source he never mentions, and that is nuclear energy. One of the decisive reasons I am for McCain over Obama is the refusal by the "green" elements in this country to consider nuclear energy as a viable alternative energy source even though (1) we are much farther developed in the science of this than the others (2) as France has shown, it is safer and cheaper than nearly anything else. And if we ever develop the secret of nuclear fusion, all of our energy concerns will be forever eliminated, or so I understand (I'm no expert on this.)

It seems to me that the progressives in this country, so forward thinking in many ways, are backwards thinking when it comes to this issue. They think about Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl the China Syndrome. But all that was decades ago, apparently new technology makes this safer. Shouldn't we at least explore it? Seems to me we should, and its ital.

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works

Hearing Statements

Date: 05/26/2005

Statement of Senator Barack Obama

Oversight on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.

As electricity demand throughout the nation increases in the coming decades, we will be challenged in how best to meet these consumption demands without sacrificing the environment. That means creating jobs, protecting water and air quality, establishing energy independence, and using all of our energy resources fully and wisely.

I strongly support greater energy conservation and greater federal investment in renewable technologies such as wind and solar, which ought to receive greater attention in our national energy policy than they likely will this year.

However, as Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants – the most of any State in the country – and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois’ electricity needs.

But keeping nuclear power on the table – and indeed planning for the construction of new plants – is only possible if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vigilant in its mission. We need better long-term strategies for storing and securing nuclear waste and for ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants. How we develop these strategies is a major priority for me.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses, and I thank the Chair for holding this hearing.

StatementHTH

Wow. Great stuff, guys. Well, I admit this makes me feel a whole lot better about Obama. I would like to see him follow up on this, but I'm at least relieved he doesn't fall in with the "greens" in the party.

You referring to Al Green, Obama's superdelegate from Texas?

The only Al Green I know is a former reverend who sings "Let's Stay Together". Is this the same guy?

 

[cosjobs]

Obama's speech tonight touched on his proposal to spend money on alternative energy sources: he mentioned wind, solar, bio-degradable fuels.

But there was one energy source he never mentions, and that is nuclear energy. One of the decisive reasons I am for McCain over Obama is the refusal by the "green" elements in this country to consider nuclear energy as a viable alternative energy source even though (1) we are much farther developed in the science of this than the others (2) as France has shown, it is safer and cheaper than nearly anything else. And if we ever develop the secret of nuclear fusion, all of our energy concerns will be forever eliminated, or so I understand (I'm no expert on this.)

It seems to me that the progressives in this country, so forward thinking in many ways, are backwards thinking when it comes to this issue. They think about Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl the China Syndrome. But all that was decades ago, apparently new technology makes this safer. Shouldn't we at least explore it? Seems to me we should, and its ital.

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works

Hearing Statements

Date: 05/26/2005

Statement of Senator Barack Obama

Oversight on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.

As electricity demand throughout the nation increases in the coming decades, we will be challenged in how best to meet these consumption demands without sacrificing the environment. That means creating jobs, protecting water and air quality, establishing energy independence, and using all of our energy resources fully and wisely.

I strongly support greater energy conservation and greater federal investment in renewable technologies such as wind and solar, which ought to receive greater attention in our national energy policy than they likely will this year.

However, as Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants – the most of any State in the country – and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois' electricity needs.

But keeping nuclear power on the table – and indeed planning for the construction of new plants – is only possible if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vigilant in its mission. We need better long-term strategies for storing and securing nuclear waste and for ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants. How we develop these strategies is a major priority for me.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses, and I thank the Chair for holding this hearing.

StatementHTH

Wow. Great stuff, guys. Well, I admit this makes me feel a whole lot better about Obama. I would like to see him follow up on this, but I'm at least relieved he doesn't fall in with the "greens" in the party.

No offense, but I have followed your career here and I definitely prefer you be on the other side in this horse race. You approval is more damning than a thousand of your snipes.

 

[whoknew]

How is Obama -- as President -- going to get higher salaries to teachers?

 

[skol asylum]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/020...ong_speech.html

One long speech

A reporter messages as Obama's victory speech — a meatier version of the usual stump — approached the 45 minute mark:

"I hate Hillary. She just baited him into going into all his policy papers [and] making his speeches longer."

 

[shining path]

How do I look at county by county numbers on CNN?

I think you have to offer John King some sort of sexual favor.

 

[timschochet]

Obama's speech tonight touched on his proposal to spend money on alternative energy sources: he mentioned wind, solar, bio-degradable fuels.

But there was one energy source he never mentions, and that is nuclear energy. One of the decisive reasons I am for McCain over Obama is the refusal by the "green" elements in this country to consider nuclear energy as a viable alternative energy source even though (1) we are much farther developed in the science of this than the others (2) as France has shown, it is safer and cheaper than nearly anything else. And if we ever develop the secret of nuclear fusion, all of our energy concerns will be forever eliminated, or so I understand (I'm no expert on this.)

It seems to me that the progressives in this country, so forward thinking in many ways, are backwards thinking when it comes to this issue. They think about Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl the China Syndrome. But all that was decades ago, apparently new technology makes this safer. Shouldn't we at least explore it? Seems to me we should, and its ital.

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works

Hearing Statements

Date: 05/26/2005

Statement of Senator Barack Obama

Oversight on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.

As electricity demand throughout the nation increases in the coming decades, we will be challenged in how best to meet these consumption demands without sacrificing the environment. That means creating jobs, protecting water and air quality, establishing energy independence, and using all of our energy resources fully and wisely.

I strongly support greater energy conservation and greater federal investment in renewable technologies such as wind and solar, which ought to receive greater attention in our national energy policy than they likely will this year.

However, as Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants – the most of any State in the country – and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois' electricity needs.

But keeping nuclear power on the table – and indeed planning for the construction of new plants – is only possible if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vigilant in its mission. We need better long-term strategies for storing and securing nuclear waste and for ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants. How we develop these strategies is a major priority for me.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses, and I thank the Chair for holding this hearing.

StatementHTH

Wow. Great stuff, guys. Well, I admit this makes me feel a whole lot better about Obama. I would like to see him follow up on this, but I'm at least relieved he doesn't fall in with the "greens" in the party.

No offense, but I have followed your career here and I definitely prefer you be on the other side in this horse race. You approval is more damning than a thousand of your snipes.

Ha Ha! Don't worry, I'm still on the other side. I feel better about this one issue, but McCain's still my man. Incidentally, though you may not appreciate this based on what you just wrote, I find your song choices to be far and away the best in the #1 draft. Just my opinion.

 

[NCCommish]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/020...ong_speech.html

One long speech

A reporter messages as Obama's victory speech — a meatier version of the usual stump — approached the 45 minute mark:

"I hate Hillary. She just baited him into going into all his policy papers [and] making his speeches longer."

He did go more in depth than any of the other speeches I have seen after a victory. But I think it was a good thing as well. He had the airtime so what the heck? Make it harder for McCain to pull the no substance card.

 

[cosjobs]

Obama's speech tonight touched on his proposal to spend money on alternative energy sources: he mentioned wind, solar, bio-degradable fuels.

But there was one energy source he never mentions, and that is nuclear energy. One of the decisive reasons I am for McCain over Obama is the refusal by the "green" elements in this country to consider nuclear energy as a viable alternative energy source even though (1) we are much farther developed in the science of this than the others (2) as France has shown, it is safer and cheaper than nearly anything else. And if we ever develop the secret of nuclear fusion, all of our energy concerns will be forever eliminated, or so I understand (I'm no expert on this.)

It seems to me that the progressives in this country, so forward thinking in many ways, are backwards thinking when it comes to this issue. They think about Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl the China Syndrome. But all that was decades ago, apparently new technology makes this safer. Shouldn't we at least explore it? Seems to me we should, and its ital.

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works

Hearing Statements

Date: 05/26/2005

Statement of Senator Barack Obama

Oversight on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.

As electricity demand throughout the nation increases in the coming decades, we will be challenged in how best to meet these consumption demands without sacrificing the environment. That means creating jobs, protecting water and air quality, establishing energy independence, and using all of our energy resources fully and wisely.

I strongly support greater energy conservation and greater federal investment in renewable technologies such as wind and solar, which ought to receive greater attention in our national energy policy than they likely will this year.

However, as Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants – the most of any State in the country – and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois' electricity needs.

But keeping nuclear power on the table – and indeed planning for the construction of new plants – is only possible if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vigilant in its mission. We need better long-term strategies for storing and securing nuclear waste and for ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants. How we develop these strategies is a major priority for me.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses, and I thank the Chair for holding this hearing.

StatementHTH

Wow. Great stuff, guys. Well, I admit this makes me feel a whole lot better about Obama. I would like to see him follow up on this, but I'm at least relieved he doesn't fall in with the "greens" in the party.

No offense, but I have followed your career here and I definitely prefer you be on the other side in this horse race. You approval is more damning than a thousand of your snipes.

Ha Ha! Don't worry, I'm still on the other side. I feel better about this one issue, but McCain's still my man. Incidentally, though you may not appreciate this based on what you just wrote, I find your song choices to be far and away the best in the #1 draft. Just my opinion.

 

[ffldrew]

Obama's speech tonight touched on his proposal to spend money on alternative energy sources: he mentioned wind, solar, bio-degradable fuels.

But there was one energy source he never mentions, and that is nuclear energy. One of the decisive reasons I am for McCain over Obama is the refusal by the "green" elements in this country to consider nuclear energy as a viable alternative energy source even though (1) we are much farther developed in the science of this than the others (2) as France has shown, it is safer and cheaper than nearly anything else. And if we ever develop the secret of nuclear fusion, all of our energy concerns will be forever eliminated, or so I understand (I'm no expert on this.)

It seems to me that the progressives in this country, so forward thinking in many ways, are backwards thinking when it comes to this issue. They think about Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl the China Syndrome. But all that was decades ago, apparently new technology makes this safer. Shouldn't we at least explore it? Seems to me we should, and its ital.

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works

Hearing Statements

Date: 05/26/2005

Statement of Senator Barack Obama

Oversight on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.

As electricity demand throughout the nation increases in the coming decades, we will be challenged in how best to meet these consumption demands without sacrificing the environment. That means creating jobs, protecting water and air quality, establishing energy independence, and using all of our energy resources fully and wisely.

I strongly support greater energy conservation and greater federal investment in renewable technologies such as wind and solar, which ought to receive greater attention in our national energy policy than they likely will this year.

However, as Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants – the most of any State in the country – and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois’ electricity needs.

But keeping nuclear power on the table – and indeed planning for the construction of new plants – is only possible if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vigilant in its mission. We need better long-term strategies for storing and securing nuclear waste and for ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants. How we develop these strategies is a major priority for me.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses, and I thank the Chair for holding this hearing.

StatementHTH

Wow. Great stuff, guys. Well, I admit this makes me feel a whole lot better about Obama. I would like to see him follow up on this, but I'm at least relieved he doesn't fall in with the "greens" in the party.

It probably didn't help him in Nevada - and it isn't the "greens" who have a problem- it's families and land owners near storage facilities (like Yucca Mountain) and the roads they take to get the ugly stuff there. These issues need a whole lot of clarification, if the nuclear power industry can come up with a safe solution then it might be good but they just want the plants built without making sure the ugly part is well taken care of - and the added costs to safely move and store these by-products are never added into the total costs of nuclear power. It sure looks magical without those costs.

 

[NCCommish]

Obama's speech tonight touched on his proposal to spend money on alternative energy sources: he mentioned wind, solar, bio-degradable fuels.

But there was one energy source he never mentions, and that is nuclear energy. One of the decisive reasons I am for McCain over Obama is the refusal by the "green" elements in this country to consider nuclear energy as a viable alternative energy source even though (1) we are much farther developed in the science of this than the others (2) as France has shown, it is safer and cheaper than nearly anything else. And if we ever develop the secret of nuclear fusion, all of our energy concerns will be forever eliminated, or so I understand (I'm no expert on this.)

It seems to me that the progressives in this country, so forward thinking in many ways, are backwards thinking when it comes to this issue. They think about Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl the China Syndrome. But all that was decades ago, apparently new technology makes this safer. Shouldn't we at least explore it? Seems to me we should, and its ital.

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works

Hearing Statements

Date: 05/26/2005

Statement of Senator Barack Obama

Oversight on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.

As electricity demand throughout the nation increases in the coming decades, we will be challenged in how best to meet these consumption demands without sacrificing the environment. That means creating jobs, protecting water and air quality, establishing energy independence, and using all of our energy resources fully and wisely.

I strongly support greater energy conservation and greater federal investment in renewable technologies such as wind and solar, which ought to receive greater attention in our national energy policy than they likely will this year.

However, as Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants – the most of any State in the country – and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois’ electricity needs.

But keeping nuclear power on the table – and indeed planning for the construction of new plants – is only possible if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vigilant in its mission. We need better long-term strategies for storing and securing nuclear waste and for ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants. How we develop these strategies is a major priority for me.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses, and I thank the Chair for holding this hearing.

StatementHTH

Wow. Great stuff, guys. Well, I admit this makes me feel a whole lot better about Obama. I would like to see him follow up on this, but I'm at least relieved he doesn't fall in with the "greens" in the party.

It probably didn't help him in Nevada - and it isn't the "greens" who have a problem- it's families and land owners near storage facilities (like Yucca Mountain) and the roads they take to get the ugly stuff there. These issues need a whole lot of clarification, if the nuclear power industry can come up with a safe solution then it might be good but they just want the plants built without making sure the ugly part is well taken care of - and the added costs to safely move and store these by-products are never added into the total costs of nuclear power. It sure looks magical without those costs.

They need to follow the European model. Far less waste involved.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/020...ong_speech.html

One long speech

A reporter messages as Obama's victory speech — a meatier version of the usual stump — approached the 45 minute mark:

"I hate Hillary. She just baited him into going into all his policy papers [and] making his speeches longer."

He did go more in depth than any of the other speeches I have seen after a victory. But I think it was a good thing as well. He had the airtime so what the heck? Make it harder for McCain to pull the no substance card.

I don't think McCain should be pulling that card anymore. Looks weak. Go after Obama on the issues, stick to the issues.This may sound incredibly naive and optimistic on my part, but on my judgment of these two men, the summer and fall campaign may be the cleanest one we've seen in a while, in which America is presented with the contrasting issues and decide who we want. There won't be any Swift Boats, or Willie Hortons, or dirty tricks. There's no Karl Rove or James Carville behind the scenes. Just intelligent debate over the future of this nation. Call me foolish, but I'm really hopeful.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/020...ong_speech.html

One long speech

A reporter messages as Obama's victory speech — a meatier version of the usual stump — approached the 45 minute mark:

"I hate Hillary. She just baited him into going into all his policy papers [and] making his speeches longer."

He did go more in depth than any of the other speeches I have seen after a victory. But I think it was a good thing as well. He had the airtime so what the heck? Make it harder for McCain to pull the no substance card.

I don't think McCain should be pulling that card anymore. Looks weak. Go after Obama on the issues, stick to the issues.This may sound incredibly naive and optimistic on my part, but on my judgment of these two men, the summer and fall campaign may be the cleanest one we've seen in a while, in which America is presented with the contrasting issues and decide who we want. There won't be any Swift Boats, or Willie Hortons, or dirty tricks. There's no Karl Rove or James Carville behind the scenes. Just intelligent debate over the future of this nation. Call me foolish, but I'm really hopeful.

Me too, my man. me too.

 

[timschochet]

Obama's speech tonight touched on his proposal to spend money on alternative energy sources: he mentioned wind, solar, bio-degradable fuels.

But there was one energy source he never mentions, and that is nuclear energy. One of the decisive reasons I am for McCain over Obama is the refusal by the "green" elements in this country to consider nuclear energy as a viable alternative energy source even though (1) we are much farther developed in the science of this than the others (2) as France has shown, it is safer and cheaper than nearly anything else. And if we ever develop the secret of nuclear fusion, all of our energy concerns will be forever eliminated, or so I understand (I'm no expert on this.)

It seems to me that the progressives in this country, so forward thinking in many ways, are backwards thinking when it comes to this issue. They think about Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl the China Syndrome. But all that was decades ago, apparently new technology makes this safer. Shouldn't we at least explore it? Seems to me we should, and its ital.

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works

Hearing Statements

Date: 05/26/2005

Statement of Senator Barack Obama

Oversight on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.

As electricity demand throughout the nation increases in the coming decades, we will be challenged in how best to meet these consumption demands without sacrificing the environment. That means creating jobs, protecting water and air quality, establishing energy independence, and using all of our energy resources fully and wisely.

I strongly support greater energy conservation and greater federal investment in renewable technologies such as wind and solar, which ought to receive greater attention in our national energy policy than they likely will this year.

However, as Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants – the most of any State in the country – and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois’ electricity needs.

But keeping nuclear power on the table – and indeed planning for the construction of new plants – is only possible if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vigilant in its mission. We need better long-term strategies for storing and securing nuclear waste and for ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants. How we develop these strategies is a major priority for me.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses, and I thank the Chair for holding this hearing.

StatementHTH

Wow. Great stuff, guys. Well, I admit this makes me feel a whole lot better about Obama. I would like to see him follow up on this, but I'm at least relieved he doesn't fall in with the "greens" in the party.

It probably didn't help him in Nevada - and it isn't the "greens" who have a problem- it's families and land owners near storage facilities (like Yucca Mountain) and the roads they take to get the ugly stuff there. These issues need a whole lot of clarification, if the nuclear power industry can come up with a safe solution then it might be good but they just want the plants built without making sure the ugly part is well taken care of - and the added costs to safely move and store these by-products are never added into the total costs of nuclear power. It sure looks magical without those costs.

They need to follow the European model. Far less waste involved.

Can you explain this, please?

 

[ericttspikes]

By the content of McCain's speeches tonight it seems that he thinks Obama will win this.

Another great move by Obama tonight was not even mentioning Clinton and setting his sites on McCain alone. Brilliant.

 

[timschochet]

By the content of McCain's speeches tonight it seems that he thinks Obama will win this.Another great move by Obama tonight was not even mentioning Clinton and setting his sights on McCain alone. Brilliant.

According to Howard Fineman (Newsweek) on MSNBC, he calculates she needs to win 60% in Texas and Ohio to pull even by the time it goes to the convention. That ain't gonna happen. Obama will be the candidate.The only question about Hillary to me is if she will bow out gracefully at some point or go down kicking and screaming. If she does the latter, she could really jeapordize Obama's chances in the fall; of course she will probably destroy her reputation as well.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

So what's the best guess to what happens with Florida and Michigan?

 

[NCCommish]

Obama's speech tonight touched on his proposal to spend money on alternative energy sources: he mentioned wind, solar, bio-degradable fuels.

But there was one energy source he never mentions, and that is nuclear energy. One of the decisive reasons I am for McCain over Obama is the refusal by the "green" elements in this country to consider nuclear energy as a viable alternative energy source even though (1) we are much farther developed in the science of this than the others (2) as France has shown, it is safer and cheaper than nearly anything else. And if we ever develop the secret of nuclear fusion, all of our energy concerns will be forever eliminated, or so I understand (I'm no expert on this.)

It seems to me that the progressives in this country, so forward thinking in many ways, are backwards thinking when it comes to this issue. They think about Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl the China Syndrome. But all that was decades ago, apparently new technology makes this safer. Shouldn't we at least explore it? Seems to me we should, and its ital.

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works

Hearing Statements

Date: 05/26/2005

Statement of Senator Barack Obama

Oversight on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.

As electricity demand throughout the nation increases in the coming decades, we will be challenged in how best to meet these consumption demands without sacrificing the environment. That means creating jobs, protecting water and air quality, establishing energy independence, and using all of our energy resources fully and wisely.

I strongly support greater energy conservation and greater federal investment in renewable technologies such as wind and solar, which ought to receive greater attention in our national energy policy than they likely will this year.

However, as Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants – the most of any State in the country – and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois’ electricity needs.

But keeping nuclear power on the table – and indeed planning for the construction of new plants – is only possible if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vigilant in its mission. We need better long-term strategies for storing and securing nuclear waste and for ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants. How we develop these strategies is a major priority for me.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses, and I thank the Chair for holding this hearing.

StatementHTH

Wow. Great stuff, guys. Well, I admit this makes me feel a whole lot better about Obama. I would like to see him follow up on this, but I'm at least relieved he doesn't fall in with the "greens" in the party.

It probably didn't help him in Nevada - and it isn't the "greens" who have a problem- it's families and land owners near storage facilities (like Yucca Mountain) and the roads they take to get the ugly stuff there. These issues need a whole lot of clarification, if the nuclear power industry can come up with a safe solution then it might be good but they just want the plants built without making sure the ugly part is well taken care of - and the added costs to safely move and store these by-products are never added into the total costs of nuclear power. It sure looks magical without those costs.

They need to follow the European model. Far less waste involved.

Can you explain this, please?

Well I should have said French model to be specific. The French are major users of nuclear power. Something like 80% of their electricity comes from nuclear power. They reprocess and reuse the waste to generate power. And before leaving office Chirac announced technology that will allow the waste to be used even more efficently.

 

[NCCommish]

So what's the best guess to what happens with Florida and Michigan?

They are being begged to revote. Personally I think they will get quietly seated at the convention without their delegates counting. Whoever wins will be very concillatory and throw them some rhetorical bones. All will be forgiven while thoughts of Democratic Presidents dance in their heads.

 

[Orange Crush]

I posted this over in the McCain thread, but any legitimate critiques of him just aren't responded to over there, so I'll re-post it in this much more lively thread (where Tim appears to spend all of his time anyway):

I didn't see it, but I'm reading now that McCain criticized Obama in his speech tonight for wanting to bomb Pakistan, saying that this shows Obama's inexperience. Is that right?

Because if so, does that mean that McCain is saying we shouldn't have made the January 29th strike on Al Qaeda leader Al-Libi?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

The latest number by MSNBC: Clinton needs to win 65% in Texas and Ohio to catch up to Obama's delegate lead.

 

[NCCommish]

I posted this over in the McCain thread, but any legitimate critiques of him just aren't responded to over there, so I'll re-post it in this much more lively thread (where Tim appears to spend all of his time anyway):

I didn't see it, but I'm reading now that McCain criticized Obama in his speech tonight for wanting to bomb Pakistan, saying that this shows Obama's inexperience. Is that right?

Because if so, does that mean that McCain is saying we shouldn't have made the January 29th strike on Al Qaeda leader Al-Libi?

Yeah it appears that Obama was once again prescient on an issue.

 

[NCCommish]

The latest number by MSNBC: Clinton needs to win 65% in Texas and Ohio to catch up to Obama's delegate lead.

No way.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

So what's the best guess to what happens with Florida and Michigan?

They are being begged to revote. Personally I think they will get quietly seated at the convention without their delegates counting. Whoever wins will be very concillatory and throw them some rhetorical bones. All will be forgiven while thoughts of Democratic Presidents dance in their heads.

Michigan is a bigger mess because Edwards and Obama weren't on the ballot.

 

[NCCommish]

So what's the best guess to what happens with Florida and Michigan?

They are being begged to revote. Personally I think they will get quietly seated at the convention without their delegates counting. Whoever wins will be very concillatory and throw them some rhetorical bones. All will be forgiven while thoughts of Democratic Presidents dance in their heads.

Michigan is a bigger mess because Edwards and Obama weren't on the ballot.

True. I think in the long run the die has been cast. There is no way short of a revote to satisfy everyone the party would have to satisfy to stave off a revolt. Therefore the ruling stands, no delegates for you. Unless they revote.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

The latest number by MSNBC: Clinton needs to win 65% in Texas and Ohio to catch up to Obama's delegate lead.

No way.

I saw them discussing some of this earlier and the line of thinking is that Obama is going to win at least a few of the smaller states coming up and that if Hillary's plan is to make her stand in OH TX and PA, she needs to win huge majorities to catch up.

 

[Alan Smithee]

I posted this over in the McCain thread, but any legitimate critiques of him just aren't responded to over there, so I'll re-post it in this much more lively thread (where Tim appears to spend all of his time anyway):

I didn't see it, but I'm reading now that McCain criticized Obama in his speech tonight for wanting to bomb Pakistan, saying that this shows Obama's inexperience. Is that right?

Because if so, does that mean that McCain is saying we shouldn't have made the January 29th strike on Al Qaeda leader Al-Libi?

I think Obama was criticized for saying he'd send ground troops into Pakistan to fight Al Qaeda.Huge difference between troops on the ground and an unmanned drone firing missiles.

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

Chris Matthews just crushed some Senator from Texas who couldn;t list one accomplishment os Obamas. Funny and sad.

A state senator. Pretty low class by Matthews in my book. I like his hard-charging style and I have no problem with him making his point about Obama's legislative accomplishment, but he was really abusing that guy who was clearly unprepared.Frankly, this seemed like something Bill O'Reilly would do. Even Matthews' producers told him to cut it out.

That said, this reflects a broader problem in the Obama campaign. They just don't seem to do a good job disseminating talking points. This was the second time Matthews asked an Obama shill about this (the other one was gov. Doyle of Wisconsin a few days ago).

 

[NCCommish]

I posted this over in the McCain thread, but any legitimate critiques of him just aren't responded to over there, so I'll re-post it in this much more lively thread (where Tim appears to spend all of his time anyway):

I didn't see it, but I'm reading now that McCain criticized Obama in his speech tonight for wanting to bomb Pakistan, saying that this shows Obama's inexperience. Is that right?

Because if so, does that mean that McCain is saying we shouldn't have made the January 29th strike on Al Qaeda leader Al-Libi?

I think Obama was criticized for saying he'd send ground troops into Pakistan to fight Al Queda.

Huge difference between troops on the ground and an unmanned drone firing missiles.

Not really. It's all unathorized military action in a sovereign nation. BTW I think this is still a bad idea for anyone. I think the recent elections in Pakistan make that clear.

 

[BassNBrew]

Even though I'll probably vote for McCain in the general, I think I'm going to vote in the Democratic primary and vote for Obama. All the competitive races in Travis County are on that side, and he's a heck of a lot more appealing than Hillary.

I'm trying to broker a deal with my Republican wife. If she votes for Obama in the primary, I'll vote for McCain in the general. She's suspicious.

never would have guessed you'd have a conservative wife. does she know you're a hawasianjew?

Thus far, I've been able to keep it under wraps. She's not really conservative. She's a one issue Republican (lower taxes). She's more greedy than conservative.

POTY

How much are you paying? How much should you be paying?

 

[Orange Crush]

I posted this over in the McCain thread, but any legitimate critiques of him just aren't responded to over there, so I'll re-post it in this much more lively thread (where Tim appears to spend all of his time anyway):

I didn't see it, but I'm reading now that McCain criticized Obama in his speech tonight for wanting to bomb Pakistan, saying that this shows Obama's inexperience. Is that right?

Because if so, does that mean that McCain is saying we shouldn't have made the January 29th strike on Al Qaeda leader Al-Libi?

I think Obama was criticized for saying he'd send ground troops into Pakistan to fight Al Qaeda.Huge difference between troops on the ground and an unmanned drone firing missiles.

Here's what Obama said:

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

Please show me where the ground troops are mentioned.

 

[Kumerica]

I posted this over in the McCain thread, but any legitimate critiques of him just aren't responded to over there, so I'll re-post it in this much more lively thread (where Tim appears to spend all of his time anyway):

I didn't see it, but I'm reading now that McCain criticized Obama in his speech tonight for wanting to bomb Pakistan, saying that this shows Obama's inexperience. Is that right?

Because if so, does that mean that McCain is saying we shouldn't have made the January 29th strike on Al Qaeda leader Al-Libi?

I think Obama was criticized for saying he'd send ground troops into Pakistan to fight Al Qaeda.Huge difference between troops on the ground and an unmanned drone firing missiles.

From what I recall during the debate in which he made that statement, Obama didn't really make a distinction. I think he said if Musharraff won't act, we will. But that's about it, IIRC.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Wow. Chris Matthews just stuck it to some Congressman from Texas who is a big Obama supporter.

Who was it?

Texas state senator Kirk Watson.

 

[Orange Crush]

I posted this over in the McCain thread, but any legitimate critiques of him just aren't responded to over there, so I'll re-post it in this much more lively thread (where Tim appears to spend all of his time anyway):

I didn't see it, but I'm reading now that McCain criticized Obama in his speech tonight for wanting to bomb Pakistan, saying that this shows Obama's inexperience. Is that right?

Because if so, does that mean that McCain is saying we shouldn't have made the January 29th strike on Al Qaeda leader Al-Libi?

I think Obama was criticized for saying he'd send ground troops into Pakistan to fight Al Queda.

Huge difference between troops on the ground and an unmanned drone firing missiles.

Not really. It's all unathorized military action in a sovereign nation. BTW I think this is still a bad idea for anyone. I think the recent elections in Pakistan make that clear.

How so? The only problem I saw for us in the recent Pakistani elections was Bush's decision to back a military dictator in the first place. Because now we're "against" the pro-democracy forces within Pakistan, at least in their eyes.But the extremist religious party got their ### handed to them in the elections. I think I heard they got around 5% of the total vote.

 

[Alan Smithee]

I posted this over in the McCain thread, but any legitimate critiques of him just aren't responded to over there, so I'll re-post it in this much more lively thread (where Tim appears to spend all of his time anyway):

I didn't see it, but I'm reading now that McCain criticized Obama in his speech tonight for wanting to bomb Pakistan, saying that this shows Obama's inexperience. Is that right?

Because if so, does that mean that McCain is saying we shouldn't have made the January 29th strike on Al Qaeda leader Al-Libi?

I think Obama was criticized for saying he'd send ground troops into Pakistan to fight Al Qaeda.Huge difference between troops on the ground and an unmanned drone firing missiles.

Here's what Obama said:

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

Please show me where the ground troops are mentioned.

I put "Obama Pakistan" into Yahoo and the first link was to a CNN article that said:

CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- At a debate in front of thousands of labor union activists Tuesday, Sen. Barack Obama's Democratic presidential rivals blasted him for his remarks about Pakistan.

Last Wednesday, the Illinois senator said that if it were necessary to root out terrorists, he would send U.S. forces into Pakistan without the country's approval.

Link.

 

[Das Boot]

Polls in Hawaii just closed at 1:00 AM ET.

 

[NCCommish]

I posted this over in the McCain thread, but any legitimate critiques of him just aren't responded to over there, so I'll re-post it in this much more lively thread (where Tim appears to spend all of his time anyway):

I didn't see it, but I'm reading now that McCain criticized Obama in his speech tonight for wanting to bomb Pakistan, saying that this shows Obama's inexperience. Is that right?

Because if so, does that mean that McCain is saying we shouldn't have made the January 29th strike on Al Qaeda leader Al-Libi?

I think Obama was criticized for saying he'd send ground troops into Pakistan to fight Al Queda.

Huge difference between troops on the ground and an unmanned drone firing missiles.

Not really. It's all unathorized military action in a sovereign nation. BTW I think this is still a bad idea for anyone. I think the recent elections in Pakistan make that clear.

How so? The only problem I saw for us in the recent Pakistani elections was Bush's decision to back a military dictator in the first place. Because now we're "against" the pro-democracy forces within Pakistan, at least in their eyes.But the extremist religious party got their ### handed to them in the elections. I think I heard they got around 5% of the total vote.

Personally I am no friend of Musharraf but I am not sold on the other folks either. And the vote was a clear signal that Pakistanis did not like how things were being handled and a lot of that had to do with Musharrafs American ties.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Chris Matthews just crushed some Senator from Texas who couldn;t list one accomplishment os Obamas. Funny and sad.

A state senator. Pretty low class by Matthews in my book. I like his hard-charging style and I have no problem with him making his point about Obama's legislative accomplishment, but he was really abusing that guy who was clearly unprepared.Frankly, this seemed like something Bill O'Reilly would do. Even Matthews' producers told him to cut it out.

That said, this reflects a broader problem in the Obama campaign. They just don't seem to do a good job disseminating talking points. This was the second time Matthews asked an Obama shill about this (the other one was gov. Doyle of Wisconsin a few days ago).

BS. If you're appearing on TV and don't do your homework, you deserve to be undressed.Matthews wasn't making a point about Obama's legislative accomplishments, he was making a point about the Texas Congressman not knowing his ####. If you're going to be on TV, do your ####### homework.

 

[skol asylum]

I posted this over in the McCain thread, but any legitimate critiques of him just aren't responded to over there, so I'll re-post it in this much more lively thread (where Tim appears to spend all of his time anyway):

I didn't see it, but I'm reading now that McCain criticized Obama in his speech tonight for wanting to bomb Pakistan, saying that this shows Obama's inexperience. Is that right?

Because if so, does that mean that McCain is saying we shouldn't have made the January 29th strike on Al Qaeda leader Al-Libi?

I think Obama was criticized for saying he'd send ground troops into Pakistan to fight Al Queda.

Huge difference between troops on the ground and an unmanned drone firing missiles.

Not really. It's all unathorized military action in a sovereign nation. BTW I think this is still a bad idea for anyone. I think the recent elections in Pakistan make that clear.

How so? The only problem I saw for us in the recent Pakistani elections was Bush's decision to back a military dictator in the first place. Because now we're "against" the pro-democracy forces within Pakistan, at least in their eyes.But the extremist religious party got their ### handed to them in the elections. I think I heard they got around 5% of the total vote.

This is at the heart of my beef with American foreign policy since the Cold War began. How many countless ruthless dictators have we backed to stave off the communist elements in countries across the globe? Does such a posture shine a positive light on America as a Democracy to admire and strive to emulate? And now we have substituted the islamic fundamentalists for the communists and back corrupt royal families in the Middle East that hoard the wealth of their countries and drive their poor populace to join groups like Al Qaeda, etc.Note to the right wing wingnuts: I'm not defending Communism or "Islamofascism" (what a stupid word that is by the way...what is fascist about that idea anyways?). What I am disappointed with is why we support either of the groups. You want to help eliminate dangerous radical elements like those being fostered in the Middle East? Then don't prop up dictators like Mushariff and pressure your friends (you know, the ones you hold hands with like the King of Saudi Arabia) to open up some democratic reforms in their countries and bring their citizens into mainstream society.

 

[Alan Smithee]

I posted this over in the McCain thread, but any legitimate critiques of him just aren't responded to over there, so I'll re-post it in this much more lively thread (where Tim appears to spend all of his time anyway):

I didn't see it, but I'm reading now that McCain criticized Obama in his speech tonight for wanting to bomb Pakistan, saying that this shows Obama's inexperience. Is that right?

Because if so, does that mean that McCain is saying we shouldn't have made the January 29th strike on Al Qaeda leader Al-Libi?

I think Obama was criticized for saying he'd send ground troops into Pakistan to fight Al Queda.

Huge difference between troops on the ground and an unmanned drone firing missiles.

Not really. It's all unathorized military action in a sovereign nation. BTW I think this is still a bad idea for anyone. I think the recent elections in Pakistan make that clear.

Seriously? You don't think there's a huge difference between invading a country versus lobbing a few missles in?