I Don't Want Yoo to Show Them the Way

Which presidential candidate would exercise the most self-restraint?

Jacob Sullum | April 16, 2008

According to John Yoo, the president's powers under the Constitution are so broad that the Constitution itself cannot restrain them. In a recently declassified 2003 memo, the former Justice Department official asserted that Congress, despite its Article I powers to "make rules concerning captures on land and water" and "for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces," has no business regulating the treatment of military prisoners. Yoo also cited a 2001 memo in which he had concluded that "the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations."

Compared to Yoo, all three of the remaining major-party candidates for president sound moderate when they talk about executive power. But Barack Obama is the one who seems to care most about restoring the rule of law and the separation of powers after eight years of an administration that has sorely abused both.

Even the Justice Department has backed away from Yoo's maximalist position, although exactly how far isn't clear. In Senate testimony last week, Attorney General Michael Mukasey repeatedly dodged the question of whether he thinks the Pentagon is free to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures.

Such immunity from the Fourth Amendment would allow not just warrantless surveillance of international communications involving people in the U.S. but monitoring of purely domestic phone calls and email as well. Indeed, it would allow warrantless domestic searches and seizures of any kind, provided they are carried out by a branch of the Defense Department that asserts a connection to terrorism or some other national security threat.

Yet the strongest reassurance Mukasey could offer was to say that "the Fourth Amendment applies across the board, regardless of whether we're in wartime or in peacetime." Asked specifically whether that means it applies to "domestic military operations," he said, "I'm unaware of any domestic military operations being carried out today."

Mukasey's evasiveness is especially troubling in light of his refusal during his confirmation hearings to acknowledge that Congress has the constitutional authority to restrict National Security Agency wiretaps. Unlike Yoo, he did at least concede that the president is bound to obey a congressional ban on torture.

That is the area where John McCain has most clearly distinguished himself from the Bush administration. Last December, in response to a Boston Globe candidate survey focusing on executive power, the Arizona senator also said the president is not free to violate statutory restrictions on wiretaps, and he rejected the use of signing statements as a way of reserving the right to flout laws. But he took a broader view than the other candidates of the president's authority to detain "enemy combatants," and he declined to identify areas where the Bush administration has overstepped its constitutional authority.

Obama, by contrast, gave half a dozen detailed examples. In general, the Illinois senator's answers to the Globe's questions were direct, thoughtful, and complete, apparently reflecting a sincere determination to limit his own power if elected.

After the election, of course, such promises may not be worth much. But on that score I worry more about Hillary Clinton. The New York senator's answers to the Globe survey, though less detailed than Obama's, were similar in substance. I just find it hard to believe them.

Clinton agreed, for example, that the president has to seek congressional authorization before attacking another country, except in response to an "imminent threat." Yet she has bragged about urging her husband to bomb Serbia as part of an unauthorized war that had nothing to do with national defense.

Although Clinton now claims to have a modest view of presidential power, she was singing a different tune a few years ago. "I'm a strong believer in executive authority," she told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News in 2003. "I wish that, when my husband was president, people in Congress had been more willing to recognize presidential authority." With the War on Terror as a rationale, her wish could be her command.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Elemenope|4.16.08 @ 7:20AM|#

Ooh. Voting for Obama is *grim*, now? My, how the tides have changed.

I've long maintained that Obama's good government/open government initiatives are the only real reason to support him; he's the only candidate in either party who has addressed our rampant federal cryptarchy and proposed anything to attempt to change it.

A victory in this wholly depressing area of governance would be worth immeasurable dividends for liberty-loving people, and more than balance out the fact that he might increase taxes a gajillion dollars or whatever it is that we worry he'll do.

Ska|4.16.08 @ 7:45AM|#

I want to see what Neil has to say.

|4.16.08 @ 7:46AM|#

Taxes will increase anyway. Two reasons: the tax cuts implemented early in Bush's first term will expire and government spending increased/will increase so much that we'll probably have to use the new/old rates to maintain it while still funding everything under the sun, as demanded. There will be fiddling here and there, but the general trend is clear: government wants the money.

Taktix®|4.16.08 @ 7:47AM|#

a sincere determination to limit his own power if elected.

He he. No sillier words have been penned in recent memory...

|4.16.08 @ 8:17AM|#

I stopped reading when I came to the part where it said there were only three presidential candidates.

Handmaiden to URKOBOLD (huh?)|4.16.08 @ 8:22AM|#

"thanks", Jeff.

hamilton|4.16.08 @ 8:35AM|#

Wow. I never saw the Globe article and it's enlightening. A few points / thought:

1. I dunno, I prefer Clinton/McCain's (and Paul's)short "no" answers to the long paragraphs by Obama. On a bunch of these issues I really think a good solid unequivocal no is clear enough, thanks.

2. I would be solidly mistrustful of any candidate for president who did not reserve for themselves some powers in the grey area. Like signing statements. Clearly I don't think these allow a President to circumvent the language of the statue, but you have to expect a reasonable candidate to argue for reserving some power.

3. One of my recurring questions re-recurs after perusal of the document: If all of the (remaining) candidates believe the President acted unconstitutionally and unlawfully, then WHERE THE HELL IS THEIR IMPEACHMENT LEGISLATION? Or am I mistaken in thinking that as Senators they took a similar oath to defend the Constitution?

4. If you can't hold to your oath as a Senator why should we expect you to hold to it as President?

5. Someone ought to get Romney a napkin to wipe the foam off of his mouth.

VM|4.16.08 @ 8:37AM|#

and there you have it: why little snippets win. surprised he had the attention span to write that out!

and if you think that paul's positions can be addressed with a short answer, you really need to get that kool aid addiction checked

Fluffy|4.16.08 @ 8:45AM|#

So McCain "declines to name" any instances where the Bush administration has exceeded its Constitutional powers?

That means that one of two possibilities have to be true:

1. He absolutely endorses the Constitutionality of all of Bush's actions, so he's just like Bush and if you vote for him you are voting for a third Bush term.

3. He does not endorse the Constitutionality of all of Bush's actions, but he is refusing to tell us which ones he does not endorse for political reasons or out of personal or party loyalty. 'Cause he's such a "straight talker" right? He must be a "straight talker" 'cause I heard that on CNN, so even if he refuses to tell us what he thinks about Bush that must be just a different kind of "straight talk". That's the ticket!

Elemenope|4.16.08 @ 8:48AM|#

Fluffy got up on the angry side of the bed this morning.

Not that I disagree on any particular point. Or any point whatsoever, actually. Just sounds a little feistier than usual.

hamilton|4.16.08 @ 8:52AM|#

Huh? Sorry, not a fan of the OVERlution. Just being kind.

Just meant that on principle statements that I think are straightforward (e.g.: "Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?"), I really prefer a straight "No" instead of a "No and blah blah blah blah". More words from politician = more chance of evasive bullshit.

Reminds me of the SNL Kerry-Bush debate sketch.

adrian|4.16.08 @ 8:59AM|#

and Bush promised a humble foreign policy and balanced budgets and social security reform.

Elemenope|4.16.08 @ 9:01AM|#

I really prefer a straight "No" instead of a "No and blah blah blah blah".

That's a all fine and good, I suppose, but for my part I prefer to know the thought processes and/or justifications that my pols have for their decisions. Allows me to better understand and predict what future choices about other matters might be.

|4.16.08 @ 9:07AM|#

In the words of Ed Grimley, "Doomed, doomed as doomed can be".

|4.16.08 @ 9:11AM|#

3. One of my recurring questions re-recurs after perusal of the document: If all of the (remaining) candidates believe the President acted unconstitutionally and unlawfully, then WHERE THE HELL IS THEIR IMPEACHMENT LEGISLATION?

Because as senators, they can't bring impeachment legislation, a power reserved to the House?

|4.16.08 @ 9:15AM|#

Damn, grylliade beat me to it. Might wanting to try reading the Constitution sometime, hamilton.

Dammit, I think I just ran headfirst into joe's law.

Guy Montag|4.16.08 @ 9:17AM|#

Um, just exactly which Executive powers has GWB exceeded?

I know we went through a long period after the Nixon years where the Congress snatched a bunch of Executive power that they never got in the Constitution, which gives folks a false sense of what Executive Powers actually are, but come on, you guys are always readind the Constitution and stuff.

hamilton|4.16.08 @ 9:38AM|#

Well, yeah, I understand; sorry about the emotionally-driven truncation. Let's expand that to: "Where, pray tell, is their vocal support for an impeachment measure to be brought in the House upon which they might deliberate in the Senate so as to give full consideration to any potential violations of the Executive Oath that may necessitate the Executive's removal from office?".

Thanks for the education though.

|4.16.08 @ 9:50AM|#

Continuing with our perusal of the Constitution, we find that "exceeding Constitutional powers" is not, per se, grounds for impeachment.

Article 2, Section 4, specifies that "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Elemenope|4.16.08 @ 9:56AM|#

RCD --

I suppose it all depends what we take to be the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors"; the two helpful examples (treason, bribery) are so far apart on the "how fucking serious is this crime?" scale, it's hard to get a sense of the breadth of what the founders meant by this turn of phrase.

hamilton|4.16.08 @ 9:58AM|#

The FISA Act was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the Executive (at the time). The current Executive effectively admitted (somewhat after the fact) to not complying with the Act (now Law). Such non-compliance may be constitutionally valid if the law itself is unconstitutional. Otherwise it would be a violation of law. Would that not be a case where "exceeding Constitutional powers" equates to (potentially) a "high crime or misdemeanor"?

thoreau|4.16.08 @ 10:02AM|#

R C-

It has been said by many (including James Madison, I think) that not every illegal act is a high crime or misdemeanor but not every high crime or misdemeanor is necessarily illegal. I believe Madison said this to avoid the situation where somebody abuses power big time but always finds the loophole to slide through so that he can't go to jail. In that case, the House and Senate could still impeach and convict to get rid of him.

I'd say that lying one's ass off to start a disastrous war counts as maladministration.

Guy Montag|4.16.08 @ 10:06AM|#

I'd say that lying one's ass off to start a disastrous war counts as maladministration.

Sorry, you can't remove the media from office for mischaracterizing what was actually said and convincing some people that "lies" were the cause.

See: long hard slog, WMD estimates by allies, WMD estimates by previous administrations, etc.

Elemenope|4.16.08 @ 10:06AM|#

I'd say that lying one's ass off to start a disastrous war counts as maladministration.

Word.

Taktix®|4.16.08 @ 10:23AM|#

Sorry, you can't remove the media from office for mischaracterizing what was actually said and convincing some people that "lies" were the cause.

The media doesn't control the most powerful standing army in the world.

Guy Montag|4.16.08 @ 10:26AM|#

The media doesn't control the most powerful standing army in the world.

Yes, that is correct, but what does it have to do with my comment?

Elemenope|4.16.08 @ 10:29AM|#

Yes, that is correct, but what does it have to do with my comment?

It's almost as if you and Taktix are speaking two different languages. (It's like they come from different worlds!)

Only thing is, most people aren't familiar with the weather on your planet, Guy.

Guy Montag|4.16.08 @ 10:34AM|#

Elemenope,

Quite simply, we were not "lied" to by the administration. The MSM and certing intertube writers keep saying they were told Iraq was supposed to be a "cake walk", but they were never told that.

Same with the WMD issues, same with everything else.

So, please, come up with something besides "we lied to", maybe something more like "I don't care what the reasons were, we should not have gone anyway" or "I disagree that the reasons given being sufficient for the UN to authorize any member state to intervene and the Congress to authorize the US to do it, same with everybody else who went in with us".

You know, something based on your personal opinion without a fabrication?

|4.16.08 @ 10:39AM|#

I stopped reading when I came to the part where it said there were only three presidential candidates.

You apparently stopped reading even before that.

...all three of the remaining major-party candidates for president...

Just saying. ;-)

Ska@7:45am, got a thing for shrill and stupid?

|4.16.08 @ 10:45AM|#

You know, I'm not sure I buy that all of the administration's justifications for invading Iraq were lies. So much of it was the CW of the time, and there were international and Clinton administration reports that said much the same thing. What I do think is that the administration was hot to trot to invade some Middle Eastern country as part of the GWOT, and Iraq seemed to be giving us the appropriate casus bellum.

Of course, this is not to say that this administration hasn't lied to us or abused its power. I just think the "Bush lied, people died" meme is highly inaccurate in relation to the justification for the invasion of Iraq.

Guy Montag|4.16.08 @ 10:49AM|#

PL,

Yea, that is pretty much what I was meaning.

BTW, I do not find it a bad lie to tell someone you are going to kill them last and then move them to the top of the order either.

|4.16.08 @ 10:56AM|#

I have never bought the excuse that the Clinton Administration intelligence believed that Iraq had a WMD program. The difference is that Clinton did not invade Iraq. It is sort of like starting a bar fight because someone says something rude to you then justifying it by saying that other people also thought the guy was making rude comments.

Guy Montag|4.16.08 @ 11:04AM|#

So, if one is not complaining about one administration bombing Iraq as a response to WMD intelligence, and perhaps a few other things, and that person draws the line at invasion, then there is probably a good, all-grown-up way of expressing that short of making up things to support that view. Right?

GILMORE|4.16.08 @ 11:34AM|#

Maurkov | April 16, 2008, 10:39am | #

Ska@7:45am, got a thing for shrill and stupid?

there's no accounting for taste

Neil already has a blog, according to his fictional characterization of himself at least

People can always go to "freedomwatch.org" and join the other 2 commentors in their lively debate

we really dont need to have another thread about how bad all the current candidates are.

I prefer the one who's not Hilary. And less likely to 'Bombiran'

IDIOT|4.16.08 @ 11:34AM|#

RON PAUL! RON PAUL!RON PAUL! RON PAUL!RON PAUL! RON PAUL!RON PAUL! RON PAUL!RON PAUL! RON PAUL!RON PAUL! RON PAUL!RON PAUL! RON PAUL!RON PAUL! RON PAUL!RON PAUL! RON PAUL!RON PAUL! RON PAUL!RON PAUL! RON PAUL!RON PAUL! RON PAUL!RON PAUL! RON PAUL!RON PAUL! RON PAUL!RON PAUL! RON PAUL!RON PAUL! RON PAUL!

|4.16.08 @ 11:39AM|#

I have Strep Throat. I"ve been spiking fevers of up to 103 for the past three days.

And yet, even I can can read the Gallup and RCP polls, and see the trend - or rather, the lack of a trend - since Bittergate broke.

I'll tell you, it's almost as the millionaires and writers in New York, Washington, and Los Angeles don't actually speak for the blue collar workers they've decided they represent.

Chris Matthews, you earn five million dollars a year. Piss off.

|4.16.08 @ 11:45AM|#

I suppose one could say that there is a detectable trend - Obama has increased his lead against McCain in Pennsylvania and nationwide, and against Hillary both in PA and nationwide, but it's so small that it would be best, at this point, to put it down to statistical noise.

Ohhai, Neil. 'Sup?

|4.16.08 @ 11:49AM|#

I'm thinking we should fund all future wars through war bonds. If the people aren't willing to pay for the war, the people obviously don't want the war. Might reduce the number of foreign entanglements we get in.

BakedPenguin|4.16.08 @ 11:59AM|#

Guy, PL - the administration stated with certitude that:
1) Iraq had an active WMD program and a stockpile of weapons.
2) Iraq was connected to Al-Qaeda & 9/11.

You can make a case that the first was faulty intelligence. However, so many intelligence insiders have come out stating that they were pushed to "interpret" evidence in a manner useful to the administration's case for war, I find this very dubious.

The second was utter bullshit. The only evidence for this was provided by a high level Al Qaeda goon who was being "aggressively inquired upon", or whatever the latest euphemism for torture is these days. The administration was as credulous as the Chesapeake PD researching a search warrant, and with similar results.

Bingo|4.16.08 @ 12:04PM|#

I can think of a number of large religious organizations, particularly in the South, that would love the idea of being able to fund a Forever War.

|4.16.08 @ 12:31PM|#

Whoops, in my feverish state, I wrote that Obama is expanding his lead vs. Hillary in PA. Of course, HIllary is, and has always been, ahead in PA.

He isn't expanding his lead. She's maintaining hers.

www.gallup.com

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

I'd post this on a more appropriate thread, but for some Reason, there don't seem to be any.

|4.16.08 @ 1:23PM|#

Continuing with our perusal of the Constitution, we find that "exceeding Constitutional powers" is not, per se, grounds for impeachment.

He raised his right hand before the Chief Justice and swore to faithfully execute the laws and protect and defend the Constitution.

Twice.

Not all perjury is about blowjobs, sir.

Guy Montag|4.16.08 @ 1:25PM|#

BakedPenguin,

Guy, PL - the administration stated with certitude that:
[snip]
2) Iraq was connected to Al-Qaeda & 9/11.

My gosh, please stop listening to those MSM fabricators.

Nothing of that sort was every put out by any administration source. They went to great length, from the VP on down, to say flat out that Saddam had no connection to 9/11.

|4.16.08 @ 1:30PM|#

Wow, Guy, you got the snot beat out of last time you made that assertion. I'm stunned you'd try to pull it again.

Lemme go first: on Flight Suit Day, he stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier and declared that Saddam Hussein was an ally of Al Qaeda.

Who's next?

|4.16.08 @ 1:35PM|#

I'm not going to go all Raimondo on you guys, but Ron Paul is still a major party candidate, who happens to still be amassing delegates. Maybe Mr Sullum is invested in a narrative of grimness and defeat...

|4.16.08 @ 1:38PM|#

WHO is behind the Barack Obama for President
"moo-vement"?

........ GE ....and a gaggle of other corporate elitists.

Are a lot of working class Americans Bitter?

Well, they SHOULD be: Another GE candidate for President (SOLD to the public by the Corporate-Controlled "Mainstream MEDIA)...Ronald Reagan...began the MASSIVE Robbery of the American people that has continued to this day.

About every day the TV Talking heads say: "The Rich are getting richer and everybody else is getting poorer"

...& You'd Think...after nearly 30 years they would FINALLY ASK: (& Answer) WHY?

The answer is simple: Reagan cut the top tax rate down from the 70%'s to the low 30%'s.

(If you made $100 million & your tax rate was 70% you would pay $70 million to Uncle Sam & keep $30 million...earning interest, or dividends THE NEXT YEAR on that $30 million. If, instead, you paid $30 million in taxes and KEPT $70 million-You'd make a lot MORE money the next year on that $70 million)

Simple: tax the rich a lot less AND they damn sure WILL get a whole lot richer a whole lot faster. There was 2 PARTS to Reaganomics tho. The second part was: "The Two-Tier Wage Structure"

i.e. Pay the Top level "executives" a Whole LOT MORE; Pay everybody else a Whole LOT LESS. (Newspapers & TV in the early 80's had articles & coverage of the "Two-Tier Wage Structure" that CORPORATE America trotted out IN CONCERT with Reagan's election & tax cuts.)

IF its CORPORATE POLICY to PAY Everybody else a WHOLE LOT LESS-everybody else is going to get-a whole lot poorer...huh?

a. It was deliberate. b. Its been going on for nearly 30 years.

Next Question: Is Obama likely to fix it?
Answer: Hell No. Because THE SAME PEOPLE are running him for President - The SAME WAY they got Reagan/ Bush1 / Bush2 elected: MEDIA PROPAGANDA.

GE owns MSNBC & NBC. AOL Time Warner owns CNN. Westinghouse owns CBS. (GE is the 2nd largest corporation on the planet). They have interlocking directorships. THEY ARE the Corporate-Controllers of the Corporate-Controlled Media.

MSNBC/NBC have become the CHIEF propaganda mouthpieces of the Obama Pushers (BOPN-Barack Obama Propaganda Networks)-just like FOX has been the the Bush Propaganda Network all these years.

There are no more Journalists, no more NEWS People. They have all become court jesters & clowns doing their bit to please their corporate masters..Top Level..PAID A WHOLE LOT MORE---Media whores.

Here's a glimpse of ONE of the $Billions of Dollar TAXPAYER-RIPOFF-Reasons GE wants to "elect" Obama President: GE & Westinghouse are in the business of building nuclear power plants.

The Cheney Energy Bill passed in 2005 - made it possible for the nuclear industry to begin planning to build 29 new nuclear power plants (licensing hearings are already scheduled for the first few of them).

No new nuke plants were built for 30 years because the banks wouldn't loan the money - too risky. The Cheney Energy Bill solved that problem by Guaranteeing TAXPAYER PAYBACK of any of the nuke loans that default (The Congressional Budget Office rated the risk of default at 50% or greater)

Obama voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill. Clinton voted against. Clinton says her Energy plan does not include nuclear & if they want to be considered they will have to FIRST Make it Cheaper and find a safe way to dispose of the nuke waste.

McCain, this week on the Campaign trail said...we just have to face it we need to start building new, "CLEAN", nuclear power plants. i.e. The Corporate Elitists are running OBAMA AND McCain for President.
("Getting off coal to go to nuclear is like giving up cigarettes to take up smoking crack".)

Neil|4.16.08 @ 1:47PM|#

LOL Joe, McCain has a 10 point lead over Obama in PA now according to the new Strategic Vision poll!!

I said before this might not hurt him in the Democrat Primary, but will in the election.

Besides we need to wait until at least Thursday or Friday before we see the full impact.

|4.16.08 @ 2:01PM|#

Oh, look, Neel can cherry pick a poll. Last time is Rasmussen. I guess that isn't the result you want.

The RCP average actually includes teh Strategic Vision poll. Even given that outlier, it still averages out to a lead of over 2 points.

Besides we need to wait until at least Thursday or Friday before we see the full impact.

When the Wright video surfaced, Obama's numbers dropped the very next day.

Friday, eh? An entire week after the story broke, one's that's getting huge coverage in the national media? OK, Friday. I'll take the question on your own terms.

If Barack Obama's polling numbers aren't lower on Friday, April 18 than they were on Friday, April 11, you will have been definitively proven wrong.

Oh, and, er...LoL. Lawlz. LOL.

And...

LOL.

Neil|4.16.08 @ 2:05PM|#

Well Joe, Joe Scarborough said Thursday or Friday wed see full impact. Stories that break over weekends take a while to take hold.

Still going to hurt him in the general election wait for the 527 ads!

Oh, and did you know he participated in the Million Man March? Word is thats going to come out right before the convention.

|4.16.08 @ 2:10PM|#

Oh, well if Joe Scarborough said it, is must be true. He's the guy who said that the Wright controversy was going to kill him too, right?

Didja see Obama got a bunch of endorsements from Western Pennsylvania newspapers today?

OK, tomorrow or Friday. You're saying that Obama will be down 3-4 points, down to about 46-47 in Pennsylvania, by Friday.

See you then.

|4.16.08 @ 2:13PM|#

You're made your prediction. Here's mine.

Obama is now counter-punching on this. On Friday, April 19, he will be higher in the RCP average both in Pennsylvania vs. Clinton, nationwide vs. Clinton, nationwide vs. McCain, and in Pennsylvania vs. McCain, than he was on Friday, April 12, when the story broke.

You should do what TallDave did during the Wright flareup, and write "LOL, joe, you're so crazy joe, you're deluded joe," when I predicted that his numbers were going to go up after the Speech, and go higher than they had been before the scandal even broke. Which, you might be interested to know, they did.

Neil|4.16.08 @ 2:14PM|#

And in the GENERAL election poll Joe, not the Democrat Primary.

Actually, hes going to lose by double digits at least in the PA Democrat Primary. A lot of people say those "undecidides" are really Hillary supporters that dont want to look like racists. After that, its a bloodbath all the way to Denver LOL!

This WILL come back to hurt him in the general mark my words. This, Reverend Wright, his psycho wife, and the Million Man March. Just wait! He will NOT stop McCain, the narrative against Obama is too perfect, regular Americans cant connect to him only latte liberals with their macbooks and ipods and volvos, hes like the latest fad to them.

Elemenope|4.16.08 @ 2:18PM|#

This, Reverend Wright, his psycho wife, and the Million Man March.

The highlighted portions, Neil, indicate just how shitty a Christian you really are.

So much for being the moral/religious center of the nation.

Neil|4.16.08 @ 2:18PM|#

You ARE deluded Joe becuase you cant see that independents just love John McCain and will hand him an easy victory.

He puts otherwise blue states like New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Maine, and Michigan in play.

|4.16.08 @ 2:24PM|#

Yes, the general election. In general elections matchups against McCain, Obama's lead is larger now - by the RCP average - than it was before the story broke.

I think you're wrong about the primary in PA, too. He's going to lose by single digits.

A lot of people say those "undecidides" are really Hillary supporters that dont want to look like racists.

You mean like Andrew Mitchell, twenty minutes ago on MSNBC? The same MSNBC that has been telling us for days how much this story is hurting Obama, but today started showing polls that show him closing the gap once again? Yup, they are in overtime trying to spin away the fact that the polls aren't doing what they kept assuring us they would do.

BTW, as Dave Weigel wrote about months ago, there has been absolutely no evidence of a "Wilder Effect" - people telling the pollsters they were going to vote for the black guy, then voting the other way - in the Democratic primaries.

This WILL come back to hurt him in the general mark my words. Well, it's certainly not going to help him. But given your certainty about how much this would kill him, and the fact that the polls have actually gone the other way, maybe your certainty about the scope of the effect isn't terribly justified.

LOL.

Lol.

Lawlz.

Neil|4.16.08 @ 2:27PM|#

Hey Joe check this out:

http://www.forward.com/blogs/bintel-blog/13058/

That story will break after he is nominated, and I bet then youll wish the Democrat Party stuck with Hillary! At least we know everything about her, but Obama isnt veted at all.

|4.16.08 @ 2:27PM|#

You ARE deluded Joe becuase you cant see that independents just love John McCain and will hand him an easy victory.

McCain is certainly the best nominee the Republicans could have picked this year, precisely because of his reputation for breaking with the despised Republican Party.

But I think it's best to take current matchups with a grain of salt, as the ongoing Democratic primary has basically allowed him to get off scot free while the Democrats bash each other.

But even given that, Obama is still two points ahead of him nationally. You may be right, McCain might win, but there is certainly no evidence-based reason to conclude that it is a sure thing.

|4.16.08 @ 2:29PM|#

That's nice, Neil.

Yep, he's dead. Again.

NIce job with the Hillary talking points. It's not too obvious you're desperately trying to get her the nomination because she's easier to beat.

Neil|4.16.08 @ 2:31PM|#

Did you even read the link Joe? Theres a story from the Chicago Reader in 1995 where Obama organizes for the radical black Muslim anti-semitic Million Man March.

Im sure the Jewish voters in Florida and NY will LOOOOVE that.

|4.16.08 @ 2:36PM|#

You're sure of a lot of things, Neil.

Yeah, I read your link.

Sounds like a good opportunity to counterpunch.

At this point, it should have started to dawn on you: the fact that you can come up with a line of attack against Obama that gets your blood pumping doesn't actually mean it's going to work.

Neil|4.16.08 @ 2:42PM|#

Hes not gonna win PA, Joe.

If Hussein wins the Pennsylvania Primary Ill never post here again.

|4.16.08 @ 3:26PM|#

I stopped reading when I came to the part where it said there were only three presidential candidates.

You apparently stopped reading even before that.

...all three of the remaining major-party candidates for president...

Just saying. ;-)

So Ron Paul isn't still technically running for President with the Republican party? Or have you demoted the GOP to minor-party status?

I believe the accurate statement would be "all three of the front-running candidates"

Just sayin' ;)

|4.16.08 @ 3:27PM|#

|4.16.08 @ 3:31PM|#

You're right, Neil, he's not going to win the PA primary. It's just a question of HIllary's popular vote and delegate margin. She was 18-20 points ahead in PA coming out of the Texas/Ohio/RI/VT primaries, and he's been closing the gap steadily since then, but it seems to have stabilized at a 6-8 point lead for Clinton.

prolefeed,

Screwing up your tags isn't so much "joez law" as "joez habit."

Neil|4.16.08 @ 3:35PM|#

"You're right, Neil, he's not going to win the PA primary."

Which means bloodbath@Denver!

Elemenope|4.16.08 @ 3:59PM|#

If Hussein wins the Pennsylvania Primary Ill never post here again.

Why not?

And I must have missed a day of school, but when in the use of the English language did it become appropriate to refer to a person solely by their middle name? Half the time I read your comments and I think you are talking about the former King of Jordan.

Who, incidentally, wasn't a bad guy, all things considered.

|4.16.08 @ 4:09PM|#

Which means bloodbath@Denver!

Nah, she'd need a big win - over 15 points - followed by similar-sized wins in Indiana and Kentucky, and a tie in North Carolina, for that to happen.

Oh, and Neil? If it's still too early for the polls to capture the effect of Bittergate, why did you link to a Rasmussen poll two days ago?

Neil|4.16.08 @ 4:26PM|#

Just to show how pathetically Obama is doing even BEFORE Bittergate.

Ska|4.16.08 @ 4:27PM|#

Thank you folks, that's some good reading.

|4.16.08 @ 4:31PM|#

Polls, schmolls. I'd say Obama's problem is that we're all judging him solely on his behavior in this campaign, because there's so little else to attack/praise him on. At least with McCain, we can blame him for all the crazy stuff he's done in his career.

Neil|4.16.08 @ 4:35PM|#

So either you nominate a looser (Obama) who cant get Hispanics, working class whites, or Jews, or theres a convention bloodbath.

Must really suck to be a Democrat. You wouldve done better with Hillary, she would get all those groups.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements