Let the word go forth from this time and place

[Len Colby]

I doubt that the gun show crowd represents a typical cross section of the American public, most of who support stricter gun control.

Gun shows do not necessarily represent a typical cross section of the American public, and I didn't imply that in my post.

You seemed to indicate that was a sign of the strength of his support. I imagine if I went to a convention that mostly attracted left leaning Democrats before he dropped out I would have seen mostly Kucinich buttons.

Have you ever been to a gun show?

No, never had the urge and I don’t think they have many in NYC and Boston, the cities I lived in when I was in the US.

Also, what is your authority for saying that most Amercians support stricter gun control?

I say that on the authority of numerous opinion polls published over the years that show this.

I haven't seen any such statistic, and I follow the issue closely.

If you’ve followed the issue closely it must have only been on anti-gun control sites.

Thought support for stricter gun control has gone down recent polls still show 50 – 61 % of the population still supports it ( with 49 - 37 % opposed). Support for controls on handguns and assault rifles is even higher. Interestingly support for controls on the later is about equal for Democrats, Republicans and independents.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Even Republicans are equally split among those who support and oppose stricter gun control (35 % each) according to a 2004 Harris Poll

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_po...dex.asp?PID=471

But this is a Constitutional issue, and not a policy issue.

I think it’s both. The First Amendment says (in part) “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” but restrictions on speech have been passed; you can’t (as is the cliché example) yell “fire” in a movie theater nor threaten to kill some one etc. As for the Second Amendment it (as I assume you know) reads:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

This would seem to indicate that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is in the context of “a well regulated militia”; though I agree with my constitutional law professor from college that due to its ambiguity that is the worst written sentence in the Constitution. And when you get to state and local laws there is the issue of how much the 2nd Ammendment applies to them via the 14th.

EDIT - Added underlining

Edited January 29, 2008 by Len Colby

[Christopher Hall]

I doubt that the gun show crowd represents a typical cross section of the American public, most of who support stricter gun control.

Gun shows do not necessarily represent a typical cross section of the American public, and I didn't imply that in my post.

You seemed to indicate that was a sign of the strength of his support. I imagine if I went to a convention that mostly attracted left leaning Democrats before he dropped out I would have seen mostly Kucinich buttons.

Have you ever been to a gun show?

No, never had the urge and I don’t think they have many in NYC and Boston, the cities I lived in when I was in the US.

Also, what is your authority for saying that most Amercians support stricter gun control?

I say that on the authority of numerous opinion polls published over the years that show this.

I haven't seen any such statistic, and I follow the issue closely.

If you’ve followed the issue closely it must have only been on anti-gun control sites.

Thought support for stricter gun control has gone down recent polls still show 50 – 61 % of the population still supports it ( with 49 - 37 % opposed). Support for controls on handguns and assault rifles is even higher. Interestingly support for controls on the later is about equal for Democrats, Republicans and independents.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Even Republicans are equally split among those who support and oppose stricter gun control (35 % each) according to a 2004 Harris Poll

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_po...dex.asp?PID=471

But this is a Constitutional issue, and not a policy issue.

I think it’s both. The First Amendment says (in part) “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” but restrictions on speech have been passed; you can’t (as is the cliché example) yell “fire” in a movie theater nor threaten to kill some one etc. As for the Second Amendment it (as I assume you know) reads:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

This would seem to indicate that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is in the context of “a well regulated militia”; though I agree with my constitutional law professor from college that due to its ambiguity that is the worst written sentence in the Constitution.

EDIT - Added underlining

If there is truly a slight majority in public support for stricter gun laws, you would see more support for such laws in Congress.

GWB has said that he would sign an assault weapons ban, but we haven't seen Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid advancing any such legislation.

As a matter of fact, when asked about the need for stricter gun control laws on the night of the Va. Tech shooting, Harry Reid declined to go on record for such legislation.

The fact of the matter is that both of them, along with most Democrats, want no part of gun control, because they believe that it will endanger their party's chances of keeping control.

As WJC noted in his 1995 SOTU address, some of the Dems who supported the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban were not in the audience as a result of their support for it.

Gore made it an issue in the first part of his campaign, and then abandoned it in the summer of 2000, because he found that it was costing him support in some key states (Ohio and Pa, I think).

Kerry didn't show up for a photo op in camo, carrying a dead bird, because most Americans in 2004 were for stricter gun control.

By this fall, we will probably see HRC in camo going squirrel hunting.

The Dems regard this issue as radioactive.

"And when you get to state and local laws there is the issue of how much the 2nd Ammendment applies to them via the 14th."

This is just plain wrong.

If it were correct, then state laws would preempt all of the other parts of the Constitution, and, by way of example, a state could outlaw local newspapers, with no effect given to the First Amendment.

"If you’ve followed the issue closely it must have only been on anti-gun control sites."

No, I read sites on both sides of the debate.

"I think it’s both. The First Amendment says (in part) “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” but restrictions on speech have been passed; you can’t (as is the cliché example) yell “fire” in a movie theater nor threaten to kill some one etc. "

Len- The policy debate on the Bill of Rights took place over 200 years ago and is largely manifested in the Federalist Papers, which reference that the intent of the Second Amendment is to protect citizens from a tyrranical Federal government.

The Federalist Papers do not reflect any intent whatsoever to authorize gun cotrol.

And I am for a liberal interpretation of all of the Bill of Rights in favor of the citizens whom they were designed to protect.

I don't want the Federal or state governments abridging any of my rights as a citizen.

[Len Colby]

If there is truly a slight majority in public support for stricter gun laws, you would see more support for such laws in Congress.

So you think all the polls showing that a slight – significant majority of Americans support stricter gun control are incorrect and congress knows this?

A recent poll asked people "If you agreed with a political candidate on other issues, but not on the issue of gun control, could you still vote for that candidate, or not?" 60% said they “could” 31% said they “could not”, I believe most of the people who said they “could not” were anti-gun control.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Anti-gun control people tend to be more focused on the issue than people who support it also the gun lobby is very powerful. As a Pennsylvania state representative put it "We know based on independent polling that most Pennsylvanians support stronger gun control laws. The question is where on those persons' priority list of issues does gun safety rank, as opposed to where on the list of the gun advocates. ... The other side are single-issue voters and that carries a lot of weight."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07329/836651-85.stm

A 1981 survey found that gun control opponents were “markedly more likely to respond” they had donated money and/or written letters concerning the issue

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7162...TOR-enlargePage

GWB has said that he would sign an assault weapons ban, but we haven't seen Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid advancing any such legislation.

As a matter of fact, when asked about the need for stricter gun control laws on the night of the Va. Tech shooting, Harry Reid declined to go on record for such legislation.

The fact of the matter is that both of them, along with most Democrats, want no part of gun control, because they believe that it will endanger their party's chances of keeping control.

As WJC noted in his 1995 SOTU address, some of the Dems who supported the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban were not in the audience as a result of their support for it.

Gore made it an issue in the first part of his campaign, and then abandoned it in the summer of 2000, because he found that it was costing him support in some key states (Ohio and Pa, I think).

Kerry didn't show up for a photo op in camo, carrying a dead bird, because most Americans in 2004 were for stricter gun control.

By this fall, we will probably see HRC in camo going squirrel hunting.

The Dems regard this issue as radioactive.

All the above might well be so but as above the pro-gun people tend to be more dedicated to the issue than pro-gun control people. Several gun control measures passed in recent years, I doubt I follow the issue as closely as you do but I don’t know of any that failed.

"And when you get to state and local laws there is the issue of how much the 2nd Ammendment applies to them via the 14th."

This is just plain wrong.

If it were correct, then state laws would preempt all of the other parts of the Constitution, and, by way of example, a state could outlaw local newspapers, with no effect given to the First Amendment.

I didn’t say “the 2nd Amendment (or Bill of Rights) doesn’t apply to state and local laws” but if you studied constitutional law you’d know that the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to state or local laws and regulations till the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868 the relevant portion of which reads: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” it’s been 20 years since I studied this but several cases have hinged on the issue of whether this extended Bill of Rights protections in toto to the state level. One of those cases was Presser v. Illinois, in 1886 (i.e. 18 years after the 14th Amendment) in which they ruled that “that the Amendment was not binding on the states” according to a blog published by Supreme Court attorneys which also indicated that was the last time they examined the issue. The same entry indicated that the court held in a 1939 case the 2nd Amendment only guaranteed a collective right but that might be reviewed in a pending case (District of Columbia v. Heller).* Before 1868 state governments could “outlaw local newspapers, with no effect given to the First Amendment.”

* http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized...le-on-gun-case/

In any case even before the 14th Amendment the “supremacy clause” (article VI paragraph 2) guaranteed that the “Constitution, and the laws of the United States ...anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

"If you’ve followed the issue closely it must have only been on anti-gun control sites."

No, I read sites on both sides of the debate.

Then how did you miss all the numerous polls over the last few decades which have consistently show a majority support for gun control.

"I think it’s both. The First Amendment says (in part) “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” but restrictions on speech have been passed; you can’t (as is the cliché example) yell “fire” in a movie theater nor threaten to kill some one etc. "

Len- The policy debate on the Bill of Rights took place over 200 years ago and is largely manifested in the Federalist Papers, which reference that the intent of the Second Amendment is to protect citizens from a tyrranical Federal government.

The Federalist Papers do not reflect any intent whatsoever to authorize gun cotrol.

Please cite the part of the Federalist Papers which indicated the “framers” intended the 2nd Amendment to guarantee private citizens the unfretted and unregulated right to own any kind of weapon independent of “a well regulated militia”. If that’s what they meant why did they add that phrase to the amendment?

And I am for a liberal interpretation of all of the Bill of Rights in favor of the citizens whom they were designed to protect.

I don't want the Federal or state governments abridging any of my rights as a citizen.

I agree with you on that I was a member of the ACLU for many years and even helped reestablish it at Oberlin College. However I interpret the 2nd Amendment differently than you do.

[Kathleen Collins]

This morning I voted in the Primary. Of course, I voted Democratic. The Kennedys getting behind Obama really impressed me. And even as I walked to the building where I was to vote, I couldn't let myself vote for Obama. Because voting for him is like voting for a dead man. He's in the crosshairs. So I voted for Hillary and we'll find out this evening how she did.

Kathy

Hillary really beat Obama in the Florida primary. A very strong lead over him. Did the Kennedys endorsing him the day before put the whammy on Obama? Did people see him as a dead man, as I did? Or does the public hate the Kennedys so much that they voted for Hillary?

Kathy

[Myra Bronstein]

This morning I voted in the Primary. Of course, I voted Democratic. The Kennedys getting behind Obama really impressed me. And even as I walked to the building where I was to vote, I couldn't let myself vote for Obama. Because voting for him is like voting for a dead man. He's in the crosshairs. So I voted for Hillary and we'll find out this evening how she did.

Kathy

Hillary really beat Obama in the Florida primary. A very strong lead over him. Did the Kennedys endorsing him the day before put the whammy on Obama? Did people see him as a dead man, as I did? Or does the public hate the Kennedys so much that they voted for Hillary?

Kathy

Kathy,

Hillary was the only Dem to campaign in Florida, her "win" was inevitable.

Yet what she "won" was no delegates. Zero.

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/01/29/1...ut-no-delegates

So I think it's safe to say that the events in Fla had nothing to do with the Kennedy endorsements.

[Christopher Hall]

If there is truly a slight majority in public support for stricter gun laws, you would see more support for such laws in Congress.

So you think all the polls showing that a slight – significant majority of Americans support stricter gun control are incorrect and congress knows this? I am saying that Dems control both houses of Congress and, if they thought they could pass gun control measures and politically survive, they would do so. They remember being led down the primrose path on this issue in 1994, and they don't wish to repeat it.

A recent poll asked people "If you agreed with a political candidate on other issues, but not on the issue of gun control, could you still vote for that candidate, or not?" 60% said they “could” 31% said they “could not”, I believe most of the people who said they “could not” were anti-gun control.

Maybe, maybe not. We won't find out until someone runs for President with gun control as a platform plank.

If you believe these polls that you site, why did John Kerry pander so effusively to gun owners in 2004 instead of standing on his voting record on gun issues?

It wasn't because he thought that 51-61% of voters wanted stronger gun control laws.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Anti-gun control people tend to be more focused on the issue than people who support it also the gun lobby is very powerful. As a Pennsylvania state representative put it "We know based on independent polling that most Pennsylvanians support stronger gun control laws. The question is where on those persons' priority list of issues does gun safety rank, as opposed to where on the list of the gun advocates. ... The other side are single-issue voters and that carries a lot of weight."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07329/836651-85.stm

If you are quoting someone, you may want to give us his name. Particularly if you want us to buy into his assertion that "most Pennsylvanians support stronger gun control laws. "

Let me guess, is he by any chance a liberal state rep. from Philly? And if he thinks that his statement is true, how many Pa. gun control laws has he supported and how many have passed?

A 1981 survey found that gun control opponents were “markedly more likely to respond” they had donated money and/or written letters concerning the issue

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7162...TOR-enlargePage

Sorry, Len, it wasn't the pro-Second Amendment group that had a Million Mom March.

And, by the way, don't you think that a 1981 survey is a little stale?

GWB has said that he would sign an assault weapons ban, but we haven't seen Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid advancing any such legislation.

As a matter of fact, when asked about the need for stricter gun control laws on the night of the Va. Tech shooting, Harry Reid declined to go on record for such legislation.

The fact of the matter is that both of them, along with most Democrats, want no part of gun control, because they believe that it will endanger their party's chances of keeping control.

As WJC noted in his 1995 SOTU address, some of the Dems who supported the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban were not in the audience as a result of their support for it.

Gore made it an issue in the first part of his campaign, and then abandoned it in the summer of 2000, because he found that it was costing him support in some key states (Ohio and Pa, I think).

Kerry didn't show up for a photo op in camo, carrying a dead bird, because most Americans in 2004 were for stricter gun control.

By this fall, we will probably see HRC in camo going squirrel hunting.

The Dems regard this issue as radioactive.

All the above might well be so but as above the pro-gun people tend to be more dedicated to the issue than pro-gun control people. Several gun control measures passed in recent years, I doubt I follow the issue as closely as you do but I don’t know of any that failed.

I don't know of any Federal gun control measures that have passed in many years, and many states have adopted laws which mandate the issuance of carry permits to people who meet objective qualifications.

As a matter of fact, there has been a strong trend in that area, and I think that now there are 37 - 38 states with "shall issue" carry permit statutes.

I can get back to you on that with a more specific answer, but there has been an incredible trend in that direction, with (I believe) Missouri being the lastest state to adopt a "shall issue" statute.

When Congress voted on renewing the 1994 Clinton Assault Weapons Ban, it was voted down in both chambers, which is good because GWB said he would sign it if Congress passed it.

And there is always a bill to require a background check for private gun sales (i.e. an individual to another individual), but it never even makes it to the floor because it would fail.

Then there is H.R. 1022, introduced by Carolyn McCarth (D. NY) in February, 2007, which is directed at re-authorizing and augmenting the scope of the 1994 Clinton Assault Weapons Ban, but it has gone nowhere over the course of the last year.

So, these polls notwithstanding, gun control legislation is not at all consistent with them.

"And when you get to state and local laws there is the issue of how much the 2nd Ammendment applies to them via the 14th."

This is just plain wrong.

If it were correct, then state laws would preempt all of the other parts of the Constitution, and, by way of example, a state could outlaw local newspapers, with no effect given to the First Amendment.

I didn’t say “the 2nd Amendment (or Bill of Rights) doesn’t apply to state and local laws” but if you studied constitutional law you’d know that the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to state or local laws and regulations till the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868 the relevant portion of which reads: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” it’s been 20 years since I studied this but several cases have hinged on the issue of whether this extended Bill of Rights protections in toto to the state level. One of those cases was Presser v. Illinois, in 1886 (i.e. 18 years after the 14th Amendment) in which they ruled that “that the Amendment was not binding on the states” according to a blog published by Supreme Court attorneys which also indicated that was the last time they examined the issue. The same entry indicated that the court held in a 1939 case the 2nd Amendment only guaranteed a collective right but that might be reviewed in a pending case (District of Columbia v. Heller).* Before 1868 state governments could “outlaw local newspapers, with no effect given to the First Amendment.”

* http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized...le-on-gun-case/

Your reference to Constitutional history from the 19th century is interesting, but of historical value only.

You are not really saying that the Bill of Rights can be statutorily overridden by a state general assembly, are you?

The 1939 case is U.S. v. Miller, in which the defendant didn't show up for SCOTUS arguments.

Nonetheless, the Court held that the Second Amendment applies to weapons that would be used by a militia, and that a sawed off shotgun was not such a weapon and was, therefore, subject to the Firearms Act of 1934.

Ironically, this case would support the argument that an AR-15 would not be subject to regulation by Congress, because it is a military-style weapon, but that a 22 revolver may possible be since it is not a military-style weapon.

The current case, Heller v. D.C., is scheduled for SCOTUS arguments in March, I believe.

In any case even before the 14th Amendment the “supremacy clause” (article VI paragraph 2) guaranteed that the “Constitution, and the laws of the United States ...anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

So what on earth did you mean when you said "And when you get to state and local laws there is the issue of how much the 2nd Ammendment applies to them via the 14th"?

"If you’ve followed the issue closely it must have only been on anti-gun control sites."

No, I read sites on both sides of the debate.

Then how did you miss all the numerous polls over the last few decades which have consistently show a majority support for gun control.

"I think it’s both. The First Amendment says (in part) “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” but restrictions on speech have been passed; you can’t (as is the cliché example) yell “fire” in a movie theater nor threaten to kill some one etc. "

Len- The policy debate on the Bill of Rights took place over 200 years ago and is largely manifested in the Federalist Papers, which reference that the intent of the Second Amendment is to protect citizens from a tyrranical Federal government.

The Federalist Papers do not reflect any intent whatsoever to authorize gun cotrol.

Please cite the part of the Federalist Papers which indicated the “framers” intended the 2nd Amendment to guarantee private citizens the unfretted and unregulated right to own any kind of weapon independent of “a well regulated militia”. If that’s what they meant why did they add that phrase to the amendment?

Len-

No one thinks the Second Amendment is well-worded, but the introductory phrase is not framed as a condition to the individual right to keep and bear arms.

In any event, the remainder of the Second Amendment is quite clear.

The Bill of Rights is a recitation of individual rights.

Don't you think that it is rather strange that the frames of the Constitution would have included something that was intended to apply to the states in the Bill of Rights?

And what is a collective right? It's no right at all. It's just a power allocated to a state, but certainly not a right.

It is incongruous to think that the founding fathers would have put such an allocation of power to a state in the middle of the Bill of Rights.

Also, a militia at the time the Second Amendment was adopted, was distinguishable from armed forces, which were referred to as a standing army.

I will try to find some guidance from the Federalist Papers on original intent.

I have read it before, and I don't have it handy.

And I am for a liberal interpretation of all of the Bill of Rights in favor of the citizens whom they were designed to protect.

I don't want the Federal or state governments abridging any of my rights as a citizen.

I agree with you on that I was a member of the ACLU for many years and even helped reestablish it at Oberlin College. However I interpret the 2nd Amendment differently than you do.

Yes, we do.

But to square your interpretation of it, you have to believe that the drafters of the Constitution included a grant of power to the states in the Bill of Rights (for individual rights) and ignore "shall not be infringed".

[Myra Bronstein]

"JF Kennedy niece Maria Shriver backs Obama

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g9S1Go...U8fu-tBFidEK-UQ

LOS ANGELES (AFP) — Maria Shriver -- wife of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and a member of the powerful Kennedy political clan -- on Sunday endorsed Barack Obama for US president, just days after her former-actor husband backed Republican John McCain.

"The more I thought about it, I thought, you know, if Barack Obama was a state, he'd be California," Shriver said to cheers at a rally held at the University of California for the Democratic presidential contender.

"I mean, think about it: diverse, open, smart, independent, bucks tradition, innovative, inspiring, dreamer, leader!" said Shriver, a member of America's foremost political dynasty.

Her endorsement came one week after her prominent uncle, US Senator Ted Kennedy and her cousin Caroline -- the only surviving child of slain US President John F. Kennedy -- publicly endorsed Obama.

Shriver said her own endorsement Sunday was a spontaneous decision.

"I thought to myself when I woke up this morning ... there's no place I should be but right here today," she told the celebrity-packed rally headlined by talk show queen Oprah Winfrey, Caroline Kennedy, Obama's wife Michelle, and pop music legend Stevie Wonder.

Obama, Shriver said, "is about the power of us, and what we can do when we come together. Because as everybody up here has said, there is much more that unites us than divides us."

"He is about empowering women, African-Americans, Latinos, older people, young people. He's about empowering all of us."

Shriver's backing of the Illinois senator comes just two days from "Super Tuesday" on February 5, when California and 20 other US states hold nominating contests...."

Spontaneous decision.

'Kay...

[Myra Bronstein]

Quasi-interesting Frank Rich column on the JFK/Obama torch hand off:

http://tinyurl.com/yum6wg

"BEFORE John F. Kennedy was a president, a legend, a myth and a poltergeist stalking America’s 2008 campaign, he was an upstart contender seen as a risky bet for the Democratic nomination in 1960.

Kennedy was judged “an ambitious but superficial playboy” by his liberal peers, according to his biographer Robert Dallek. “He never said a word of importance in the Senate, and he never did a thing,” in the authoritative estimation of the Senate’s master, Lyndon Johnson. Adlai Stevenson didn’t much like Kennedy, and neither did Harry Truman, who instead supported Senator Stuart Symington of Missouri.

J. F. K. had few policy prescriptions beyond Democratic boilerplate (a higher minimum wage, “comprehensive housing legislation”). As his speechwriter Richard Goodwin recalled in his riveting 1988 memoir “Remembering America,” Kennedy’s main task was to prove his political viability. He had to persuade his party that he was not a wealthy dilettante and not “too young, too inexperienced and, above all, too Catholic” to be president.

How did the fairy-tale prince from Camelot vanquish a field of heavyweights led by the longtime liberal warrior Hubert Humphrey? It wasn’t ideas. It certainly wasn’t experience. It wasn’t even the charisma that Kennedy would show off in that fall’s televised duels with Richard Nixon.

Looking back almost 30 years later, Mr. Goodwin summed it up this way: “He had to touch the secret fears and ambivalent longings of the American heart, divine and speak to the desires of a swiftly changing nation — his message grounded on his own intuition of some vague and spreading desire for national renewal.”

In other words, Kennedy needed two things. He needed poetry, and he needed a country with some desire, however vague, for change.

Mr. Goodwin and his fellow speechwriter Ted Sorensen helped with the poetry. Still, the placid America of 1960 was not obviously in the market for change. The outgoing president, Ike, was the most popular incumbent since F. D. R. The suburban boom was as glossy as it is now depicted in the television show “Mad Men.” The Red Panic of the McCarthy years was in temporary remission.

But Kennedy’s intuition was right. America’s boundless self-confidence was being rattled by (as yet) low-grade fevers: the surprise Soviet technological triumph of Sputnik; anti-American riots in even friendly non-Communist countries; the arrest of Martin Luther King Jr. at an all-white restaurant in Atlanta; the inexorable national shift from manufacturing to white-collar jobs. Kennedy bet his campaign on, as he put it, “the single assumption that the American people are uneasy at the present drift in our national course” and “that they have the will and strength to start the United States moving again.”

For all the Barack Obama-J. F. K. comparisons, whether legitimate or over-the-top, what has often been forgotten is that Mr. Obama’s weaknesses resemble Kennedy’s at least as much as his strengths. But to compensate for those shortcomings, he gets an extra benefit that J. F. K. lacked in 1960. There’s nothing vague about the public’s desire for national renewal in 2008, with a reviled incumbent in the White House and only 19 percent of the population finding the country on the right track, according to the last Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll. America is screaming for change.

...

Richard Goodwin knew in 1960 that all it took was “a single significant failure” by Kennedy or “an act of political daring” by his opponents for his man to lose — especially in the general election, where he faced the vastly more experienced Nixon, the designated heir of a popular president. That’s as good a snapshot as any of where we are right now, while we wait for the voters to decide if they will take what Mrs. Clinton correctly describes as a “leap of faith” and follow another upstart on to a new frontier."

[Myra Bronstein]

"JF Kennedy niece Maria Shriver backs Obama

...

Huffington post has video of Shriver's speech at the Obama rally:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Click on the video link under the headline.

[Mark Stapleton]

"JF Kennedy niece Maria Shriver backs Obama

...

Huffington post has video of Shriver's speech at the Obama rally:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Click on the video link under the headline.

Thanks for posting that, Myra.

Maria's got the Kennedy charisma. Very impressive. Ditto the intro from Michelle Obama. There's a political future for her I suspect.

Maria's married to Arnie and he's a Republican. Hmmm. Isn't that a kick in the head. Luckily, Arnie's tough.

It's all coming together for Obama. He's California. The most important statistic in his favor is that he leads the all important Kennedy clan endorsement race. Kennedy endorsements are becoming much sought after commodities. Good to see.

People are now realising, due to the mainstream's weakening grip on political discussion and agenda, that the JFK show was a pretty good show. America won't stomach another bad show like the Bush double feature. It stank and stinks.

Now they're trying to sell a Clinton double feature. One with a bit of a twist, anyway.

p.s. the only double feature worth seeing would have been the Kennedy one. It was sold out then cancelled before intermission, of course. And the theatre management didn't even apologise.

Edited February 4, 2008 by Mark Stapleton

[Charles Drago]

Luckily, Arnie's tough.

Do you know why Maria's family allowed her to marry Arnold?

They're trying to breed a Kennedy who can take a bullet.

[Myra Bronstein]

"JF Kennedy niece Maria Shriver backs Obama

...

Huffington post has video of Shriver's speech at the Obama rally:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Click on the video link under the headline.

Thanks for posting that, Myra.

Maria's got the Kennedy charisma. Very impressive. Ditto the intro from Michelle Obama. There's a political future for her I suspect.

Maria's married to Arnie and he's a Republican. Hmmm. Isn't that a kick in the head. Luckily, Arnie's tough.

It's all coming together for Obama. He's California. The most important statistic in his favor is that he leads the all important Kennedy clan endorsement race. Kennedy endorsements are becoming much sought after commodities. Good to see.

People are now realising, due to the mainstream's weakening grip on political discussion and agenda, that the JFK show was a pretty good show. America won't stomach another bad show like the Bush double feature. It stank and stinks.

Now they're trying to sell a Clinton double feature. One with a bit of a twist, anyway.

p.s. the only double feature worth seeing would have been the Kennedy one. It was sold out then cancelled before intermission, of course. And the theatre management didn't even apologise.

I personally am stunned that Maria turns out to have an independent cell in her body.

Until now I thought she was a Stepford wife, silent and dutiful.

And I'm in agreement with your excellent review of the big show Mark.

Not only did she do the deed, she did a heckuva job. Personable, sincere, folksy yet articulate.

Cleverly invoking the Kennedy affiliation while seeming not to capitalize on it.

How brilliant was it for her to quote Eleanor Roosevelt?

"Do one thing every day that scares you."

Eleanor was up on that stage with that impressive lineup of women: Oprah, Michelle, Caroline...

What a powerhouse.

And Maria was the one that turned it into a headline making super-event.

Right before super Tuesday.

Most impressive. And most unexpected.

[Myra Bronstein]

Luckily, Arnie's tough.

Do you know why Maria's family allowed her to marry Arnold?

They're trying to breed a Kennedy who can take a bullet.

:lol:

Giggle, snort.

Thank you Charles. Really.

[Christopher Hall]

I thought that yesterday's rally with Oprah, Maria, Caroline and Michelle Obama was pretty impressive.

I think that Obama pretty much personifies liberal values and that HRC personifies the hardball politics of greed, heavy-handedness (think: WACO) and character assassination.

I hope that Obama is still in the running on Wednesday.

Edited February 4, 2008 by Christopher Hall

[Terry Mauro]

Obama is on the right track. His statements re Reagan were accurate. Reagan made people feel good about being an American, and they voted for him even though he didn't represent their interests. Obama is trying to get people to feel good about being an American and vote for him, even though he does represent their interests.

While I'm somewhat partial to Edwards, in that he's declared war on the special interests running Washington, I think Obama has the potential to reverse the course of history, and return America to a position of respect, instead of fear.

I feel there are elements of truth in all of the posts that have been submitted on this thread, but I think maybe an understated position, even excluding the religious connotations, is that people in all walks of life, need hope, and if Obama is just another product of the machine, then hope is arguably non-existent in the 2008 campaign.

I was watching Marvin Kalb on CSPAN-3 last night talking about the nightmarish State of the Union regarding the American media, his most salient point was, that the words "I think" have no place in authentic journalism, and that many opinion/editorializing pieces are brazenly passed of as news. I believe part of the problem in getting America back on track is getting rid of the culture of idiocracy, which is a big part of why politics can seem so nauseating these days.

*****************************************************

Well, I think I'll just take this opportunity to cut across party lines and vote for Ron Paul, American Independent that I am.

At least his take on The Federal Reserve echoes mine, and hopefully he might be able to really get something done. That is, unless someone decides to put a bullet through his head, or character assassinate him, a la Bill Clinton style. I'm pro-choice, but I won't allow that small issue to get in the way. Not if he's able to pull off what he's claiming to try and accomplish.

Anyhow, your vote only really matters when it involves issues on a local level, such as state, county, or city. And, even then you've got to watch your back. Especially with regard to the state.

When you really come right down to it, it's still the same old story since the late 60's. 1 party - 2 branches, and Wall Street rules.