Bill Clinton, Live in St. Louis
by Edge
Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 10:02:03 AM PDT
More about the details on the flip side...
- Edge's diary :: Permalink ::
- There's more... (7 comments)

Website: http://edgelaw.blogspot.com |
More about the details on the flip side...
James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.
While this statement certainly applies to this increasingly sickening spectacle, what Congress did just a few hours ago is not unconstitutional for being a bill of attainder. Whether its actions are unconstitutional under general principles of federalism is another story for another diary (and another diarist).
When we take the two early locations of Dixville Notch & Hart's Location together, it looks bad at first. Bush has 34 votes, Kerry has 24, and Nader has 1.
And of course, said downloads can then be burned onto CDs for neighbors (or in my case, for mothers-in-law), or, used for those of us who like to listen to Wes Clark shouting while we jog.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5810451/
"Did Rudy Giuliani's speech reassure you or move you to support the Bush-Cheney ticket?"
It did neither! It made me concerned that our nation's leaders see our problems in black and white when they are really filled with shades of gray and none of them have either the intelligence or inclination to look past that in order to secure America.
So, in reality, it worried me and coalesced my support for the Kerry-Edwards ticket.
What on earth was this question writer thinking?
Email MSNBC and let them know what you think - World@MSNBC.com.
The Supreme Court held that this action was out of bounds for the executive unless he had been authorized to do so by Congress, and as I read the text of the case today, Justice Robert Jackson's concurrence strikes me as especially poignant in light of the past four years.
I include a lengthy excerpt from his opinion for Kossacks interested in the constitutional aspects of the enormous power grab that's taken place under the Bush administration.
'Data Quality' Law Is Nemesis Of Regulation
And what that means is that we can just say 99% certainty isn't good enough, so we shouldn't ban things like DDT or chemicals that turn frogs into hermaphrodites...
I knew it was bad - but 20,000 mercenaries on top of the 130,000 troops we have?
I must confess I was confused. While I've seen sites set up to send food and personal items to troops serving in Iraq, this site seems relatively run by the 1st Marine Division. It also seems to be asking for money in order to purchase items such as:
$570 provides carpenter tools for an Iraqi work crew.
$325 provides school supplies for a classroom and its students.
$100 buys supplies for 15 students.
Why exactly does the military need contributions from civilians when Congress has authorized expenditures exceeding $100 billion for our occupation?
Am I missing something here?
Reuters: Eleven Russians kidnapped in Baghdad
AP: Czech Reporters Thought Kidnapped in Iraq
AP: 7 Kellogg, Brown & Root Employees Missing
And then, from Billmon:
The military announced that three Marines were killed Sunday in fighting west of Baghdad and at least 12 other troops died in previously unreported incidents Friday and Saturday, including ferocious battles in the city of Baqubah, northeast of Baghdad.
Sickening. Apologies if any of this is old news, I couldn't find any mention of it in the last 45 diaries, but given how the focus is on Sadr's police retreat, that wasn't surprising.
This was Bob Schieffer's aside at the end of yesterday's Face the Nation:
A Washington state college student received a scholarship from the state under a program which prohibited the scholarships from being used for devotional studies. Since the student Davey was intending on pursuing a degree in pastoral ministry, the state refused to allow him to use their money to help pay his education expenses.
The others are John Kerry and John Edwards.
Dean spoke to a room full of supporters at the Missouri History Museum this afternoon. The room was an auditorium which seats about 400, but there were people standing in the aisles, and rafters onstage, so the room probably had between 500 and 600 people in it. There were also a great number of people who were turned away into a second overflow room. Since I was one of the lucky ones to get a seat in the auditorium, I can't speak for the crowd in the other room; but I feel safe in saying that there were at least as many people as came to Mr. Kerry's rally on Wednesday.
From what I understand, it's somewhat of a tradition to appear at Blueberry Hill; at least Bill Bradley spoke there during the 2000 campaign, so perhaps the decision makes more sense in that respect. It was also late in the day (the event was scheduled to start at 9:15pm), and Edwards had a previous appearance downstate at SW Missouri St., so perhaps that played into the plans.
For what its worth, even though its been widely reported, the man has a tongue made out of gold. His accent, tone, delivery are all enthralling, and he is extremely easy to listen to. Comparisons to Bill Clinton are not inappropriate.
The two major differences between this appearance and the one I watched John Kerry give about five hours ago (and wrote about here) is that Edwards really was asking for our support and for our active involvement in his campaign. Kerry seemed to be selling himself and why he is the best option to beat Bush in November; Edwards explicitly told us that he needs our help, and that we need to come to the polls on Tuesday, vote for him, tell our neighbors and friends to do the same, and reach out because he can't do it alone.
This may just be a difference in style, but I think it's symptomatic of a greater difference between the candidates, or perhaps their relative positions in the race. For Kerry to stand up and plead for our votes would seem unpresidential - one of his advantages is that all-illusive presidential gravitas that he carries (the gravitas that others call effete New England liberalism). For Edwards, it's what he's all about. He's been asking juries to help him and his clients out for years, and it not only sounds natural coming out of his mouth, it sounds genuine.
The other major difference was Edwards' emphasis on the South. He almost makes fun of his accent, but he points out that he's going to win in the South, and once again, asks us to give him the chance to take on George Bush, because he promises us he won't let us down. It's the same spiel one could see him making to a somewhat unwilling or cautious plaintiff: "Let me take your case, I'll fight for you, and I'll take on [insert name of big corporation here] and I'll win it for you." Edwards says, "I'll tell you what, George Bush thinks the South is his backyard, but you know what - it isn't. It's my backyard, and he's not going to win in my backyard." He says this without seeming like a bully, but more like a protective older brother that you trust to watch out for you in your backyard.
This populism, for lack of a better word, is undoubtedly one of Edwards' greatest strengths. He talks about real change in Washington and paints himself as an outsider; pointing out that he isn't a career politician. He's also the senior senator from North Carolina as a result of beating the "Jesse Helms political machine," but he's selling himself as a relative newcomer to politics and portraying that as a strength rather than a weakness. Of course, to be fair, Wes Clark or Howard Dean are nothing close to career politicans, but its pretty clear that he's courting likely Kerry voters, or at least, that he thinks he is.
The odd part about that is that the crowd at Blueberry Hill is almost predominantly under 30, whereas the Kerry crowd was significantly older on average, consisting I'd guess of at least half 45 and older. Perhaps this is because it was 10:00 on a Wednesday night, perhaps it's because it was a bar; but this is another strike that Edwards chose the wrong venue - these aren't exactly the voters he needs on Tuesday, though to be fair, perhaps many of them are ex-Deaniacs or wavering Dean supporters, people he could draw to his camp. And again, I should disclaim that I saw only a small portion of the people present, so perhaps there were differences in the people in other rooms.
While John Kerry has the ability to throttle George Bush in a debate; so did Al Gore, and we know what happened. To be fair to Gore, that may have been more a mark of the times; though it was certainly part of his doomed strategy. John Edwards, without a doubt, would be the strongest debater against Bush, and it's not even close.
He's also the regularest American in the bunch of candidates, and attacks on him for being a trial lawyer aren't going far if the media covers it fairly, and I have reason to think they might since the stories of his clients over the years are fairly compelling news in their own right.
I'll be back on Friday to write about Howard Dean's appearance at the Missouri History Museum. I haven't gotten word of a Clark appearance in St. Louis yet, but if someone finds details, please email me, as I'd like to see and write about all four of the major candidates before the primary on Tuesday.