I tried, really, to look at last night's debate openly. I really tried. Really. I thought about it some more. Slept on it hoping my original impression would change. But, it didn't.

Obama was not on last night and while he came across as genial and having a grasp of facts, he really did not do anything to land any punches, score points, or do anything to knock McCain off stride.

I hope he does better in the next debate.

One thing she just said is that you treat people with respect even if you don't agree with them. It is sad that some people here haven't taken that to heart. Yet, despite the call for unity, some people here still resort to derision and defamation of others if they don't agree with their point of view or their choice of candidate.

In a post from yesterday, a comment was made that some of the Clinton supporters were and remain against Obama because he is black. The exact wording was:

and a fringe of supporters that were actually for anyone who was/is against OBAMA because he is black.

That blanket statement about anybody being against Obama, fringe or otherwise, because he is black is troublesome. It is statements like this that continue to bother people. It is implying that anybody who isn't supporting Obama is racist. It's as ridiculous a claim that anybody opposing Clinton was/is sexist. Please stop turning people away from the Democratic candidate with statements like this.

"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?