"Americanism --

The right to criticize;

The right to hold unpopular beliefs;

The right to protest;

The right of independent thought."

--Margaret Chase Smith in her 1950 Declaration of Conscience.

"My creed [...]is that every human being is entitled to courtesy and consideration, that constructive criticism is not only to be expected but sought, that smears are not only to be expected but fought, that honor is to be earned but not bought."

Some people here need to learn that.

Two posts by Illinois Mel earlier, I think, are indicative of the type of discussion and conversation that SHOULD be taking place on this site much more. The two posts to which I am referring are The Rich and Why.

http://www.democrats.org/page/community/blog/illinoismel

It is good to see conversation without the bickering and sniping that has prevailed around here for too long.

60 years ago today, Steve Goodman was born. Chicago Shorty was a legend in Chicago.

Okay, the DNC site was down for a while earlier today.

Hopefully whatever changes they made will make the place better.

So what have you done in the interim? Made phone calls for the candidate? Stuffed envelopes? Contributed since that was the only thing that was working when I tried to access things this morning?

I made a fresh pot of coffee. I played some golf, talked with the wife about some remodeling we are doing. Talked to the kid. Talked to the daughter. Thought a bit about what I am teaching in the fall, but did not do any preparations. Had a guy come in to do an assessment of the wife and what assistance she may need for her activities of daily living. Decided that a lot of ADLs are hard for both of us.

In other words, I did a lot of other stuff that did not necessitate my sitting at a keyboard arguing with people I probably will never meet in my life. I can do plenty of that with my neocon brother. I did not have to worry about what anybody at the DNC blog thought, the incessant bickering and sniping between a small number of Obama supporters and an equally small number of hard core Clinton supporters.

I did not have to bite my tongue or restrain my fingers from typing a pithy reply to some insipid little pissant whose only purpose on the blog is to denigrate others.

I went to the bank. I did some wash. I picked up around the house. Made some food and ate it. I pulled some weeds. I read some fiction. I read the paper.

In other words, I tried doing some of stuff of real life. Stuff that is more productive, and certainly of more value. I hope in the absence of the blog that you didn't sit around wasting time online.

The super delegates can change their mind any time they want to. Suppose they do, and Clinton gets the nomination. That's the what if part. Now the real question. How will her supporters convince the Obama supporters to vote for her?

Tomorrow is Friday. Forum night. I am not a moderator or in charge or even remotely connected to it. Those far better than I am will be in charge and moderating, etc. I just like to watch...but I ain't saying what I like to watch.

Whatever happened to the idea of people using extended posts? Surely a system could be put in that made it mandatory?

From July 10, 2008 Zogby:

Nationally, the poll found Obama leading McCain 44%-38%, with Libertarian Bob Barr of Georgia at 6%. In electoral votes, Obama leads McCain, 273-160. A total of 11 states with 105 electoral votes are within the margin of error

Here's their electoral college map.

LINK 

I am deeply disappointed in Obama's turn about on this issue, but as in many other things, his stance is deeply nuanced. Most politicians are that way to give themselves a say out. That's why, for example, McCain could claim that first he was against Bush's tax cuts, but not is for them, or why Clinton could claim she was for Nafta, but is now against it and wants to change it. Same thing with Obama's against/for take on FISA.

But that is not the question.

MY understanding of the current version is that it grants retroactive immunity to telecom companies protecting them from civil lawsuits. I agree that private citizens have a right to sue companies, but I honestly don't see where taking that away violates the 4th amendment or the Constitution. The wiretapping itself does violates citizens rights, but the violation of those rights then becomes a criminal act, and Criminal prosecution of the telecoms for those violations is still permitted under the current version.

So, if the companies can still be charged criminally for violating the Constitution, is this then not a good thing?

From people right here on PB:

A declaration for unity:

To those that know, and to those who do not, I support, Senator Hillary Clinton.

I will say for the hunderedth time "I would be happy to vote for any of the DEM candidates."

AND WILL.

And this call for making nice as we should:   Read More »

I think that the vast majority of Obama supporters see that they need the vast number of Clinton supporters. The vast majority of those Obama supporters have said as much and request the support of Clinton supporters respectfully. Without that support McCain will win.

Right now, the presumptive nominees are McCain and Obama. Unless something tragic happens, that will remain the same. One of them will be the next President. A write in campaign won't elect anybody. A third party campaign won't win either. The only thing that a write in campaign or a third party will do is take away votes from either Obama or McCain. Given our current political system, that is the only thing that will happen. Despite the warnings of Washington, we have become a nation of two parties, and no third candidate stands a chance in Hell to win. Well, okay, the chance is Slim and None, and Slim left town.

So, it will be either Obama or McCain in the White House. Which do you want it to be?

It seems that whatever needed to be done got done and PM is working. At least it was when I tried it. So in case nobody else mentioned it already, Thanks Mike Link.