Tuesday, May 06, 2008
I didn't expect when I ran for president that I would avoid this kind of politics; I ran because it is time to end it ... We will end it by telling the truth. Forcefully, repeatedly, confidently. - Obama victory speech
CAMPAIGN: Once again, ‘it’s over.’
With Obama winning decisively in Carolina and Clinton apparently winning a very narrow victory in Indiana- perhaps only because of the not inconsiderable help from Rush Limbaugh urging his minions to vote for her- her delegate math, her claims about momentum, her hope for a popular vote lead- they’re all done.
Obama’s speech moved on, sounding like a pre-acceptance speech. She’ll have trouble moving from her prediction:
"This primary election on Tuesday is a game changer. This is going to make a huge difference in what happens going forward. The entire country -- probably even a lot of the world -- is looking to see what North Carolina decides." http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/clinton-tuesday.html
NY Times sum-up:
In this case, a split was not a draw.
In what early returns suggested would be a win for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Indiana but a loss for her in North Carolina, Tuesday’s results did not fundamentally improve her chances of securing the Democratic presidential nomination. If anything, Mrs. Clinton’s options for overtaking Senator Barack Obama may have dwindled further.
For Mr. Obama, the apparently divided outcome came after a brutal period in which he was on the defensive over the inflammatory comments of his former pastor. That he was able to hold his own under those circumstances should allow him to make a case that he has proved his resilience in the face of questions about race, values and patriotism — the very kinds of issues that the Clinton campaign has suggested would leave him vulnerable in the general election.
When paired with Mr. Obama’s comfortable victory in North Carolina, a bigger state, Mrs. Clinton’s performance in Indiana did not seem to be enough to cut into Mr. Obama’s lead in pledged delegates or in his overall lead in the popular vote. And because Mrs. Clinton did not appear to come particularly close in North Carolina, despite a substantial effort there, she lost an opportunity to sow new doubts among Democratic leaders about Mr. Obama’s general-election appeal. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/us/politics/07assess.html?_r=1%26hp=%26oref=slogin%26pagewanted=print
Oil: Upward: Do I hear $150? 200?
Crude oil prices could surge to $200 a barrel in the next two years, according to the Goldman Sachs analyst who three years ago correctly predicted a price “super-spike” above $100 a barrel.
The warning by Arjun Murti came as oil prices hit a fresh high above $122 a barrel, boosted by supply disruptions in Nigeria, lower output in Russia and continued robust demand in China ahead of the Olympics.
Mr Murti said the energy crisis could be coming to a head as a lack of adequate supply growth was becoming apparent.
He said: “The possibility of $150-$200 per barrel seems increasingly likely over the next six to 24 months.” http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/70b4ef0a-1b91-11dd-9e58-0000779fd2ac.html
Executions: Resumed
Georgia executed killer William Earl Lynd last night, ending a more than seven-month nationwide hiatus on capital punishment prompted by the Supreme Court's examination of lethal injection.
Lynd's execution at 7:51 p.m. was the first since the court ruled April 16 that the three-drug protocol most commonly used in executions by states and the federal government did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
The court last night turned down Lynd's last-minute request for a stay, as the Georgia Supreme Court had earlier in the day. He was executed at the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison in Jackson. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050602747_pf.html
Iraq Funding: Dems struggle with how to deal.
President Bush sent lawmakers a $70 billion request Friday to fund U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next spring, which would give the next president breathing room to make his or her own war policy.
"Friday's request fills in the details of the $70 billion placeholder that the White House asked for when it sent its budget to Congress in February. The money is for the budget year that begins Oct. 1.
"Congressional analysts say Bush's request would bring the total spending since Sept. 11, 2001, to fight terrorism and conduct the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to $875 billion.
"The request comes as Democrats on Capitol Hill are struggling to move Bush's pending $108 billion request for the current year. Democratic leaders say they're likely to add the $70 billion for next year to that measure, which would allow them to avoid a politically painful vote on war funding in the heat of campaigning for the November elections." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080503/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_iraq_funding
Iraq History: Ricardo Sanchez Account: The retired general with some precious, though hardly surprising, observations about our Commander in Chief: Dateline D.C. /Fallujah, April, 2003:
Sanchez, in a memoir to be released Tuesday, said Bush 'launched into what I considered a kind of confused pep talk' about the battle for Fallujah and an upcoming campaign to kill or capture radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and cripple his militia.
"Kick ass!” Bush said. “If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! . . .
Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking. . . .
Fueled by images beamed by the Al-Jazeera television network, the administration quickly reversed course, stopping Operation Vigilant Resolve. Soon after, Coalition Provisional Authority administrator L. Paul Bremer dropped plans to capture or kill al-Sadr, even though the president had said during the April 7, 2003, meeting, 'It is essential he be wiped out,' according to the memoir. . . .
Sanchez's nearly 500-page memoir, 'Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story,' takes the administration to task for a series of missteps that he says have made it impossible for America to leave Iraq. He wants a 9-11-style investigation into why the United States went to war in Iraq, and also said Bush's 'suspension' of the Geneva Conventions “led to putting America on the path to torture." http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/military/stories/MYSA050508.1A.sanchezbook.3889a18.html
Voter ID: How it works:
About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.
Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.
The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway.
"One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, 'I don't want to go do that,'" Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.
They weren't given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. "You have to remember that some of these ladies don't walk well. They're in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts." http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/05/indiana_nuns_lacking_id_denied.php
Gitmo: Closing?
The Bush administration could announce plans by the end of its term in January to close Guantanamo prison and an upcoming Supreme Court ruling might be the impetus for this, senior U.S. officials and experts say. . . .
"A decision could be made in this administration to announce the closure of Guantanamo. It is unlikely in the next nine months that Guantanamo could be physically (closed) but it is possible the policy decision could be taken to close it,” said a senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition he was not identified because of the sensitivity of the issue. . . .
The Supreme Court is expected to rule within weeks whether Guantanamo prisoners have rights under the U.S. Constitution even though they are held on the base in Cuba, where the United States has had a presence for about 100 years.
The court decision could influence whether the U.S. government announces plans to close the prison before Bush leaves office in January 2009, several officials said.
"If the Supreme Court concludes that the detainees have constitutional rights, then there would be little legal difference between holding them in Guantanamo or holding them on the (U.S.) mainland,” one senior official said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080502/us_nm/rights_guantanamo_dc_1
-R
