http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11435.html

. . . McCain remains, after all, a maverick.

- - MIKE ALLEN | Updated: 6/30/08 11:46 AM ET

Stand by for upcoming bulletins in case this situation changes.

this is the same advice Democrats have been following over and over and which keeps leading to their abject failure.

Indeed it is, ever since the likes of businessman Terry McAuliffe took over the Democratic Party. You could make a strong argument that his leadership of Hillary Clinton’s campaign is the reason she lost the primary, too. I know her positions on the war, Iran, Israel and FISA among other things were the reason I didn’t vote for her.

Have McAuliffe and others now become part of Obama’s campaign? Could that partially explain Obama’s rightward shift?

A few months before the election. It would be nice for a "progressive" site to once in a while go after the gop, rather than obama every day.

Also, I know you like to blame olberman for the propoganda for profit media (the lone guy fighting it agaisnt his companies business interests, which is very brave. unlike you who propogates and attacks progressives for book sales and takes the easy route), and obama for all the political failures in america. But if your going to blame others for their failings and throw them over the bridge for one issue. Don't you think you should right your own ship first?

This site is STILl a clinton bobble head propoganda site. STILL. You can't even fix yoru one lone website, yet you would ask olberman to fix the media, obama the political process. When you can fix yoru one little site, then you can start attacking progressives for their faults. If you can't even fix your one little propoganda site, it is hypocritcal of your to demand fixes in others.

again, leadership.

It's very safe to either agree or disagree with the supreme court (in this case I think he got it backwards) -- AFTER -- the decision.

I am wondering if anyone bothered to asked him about these two cases BEFORE before it was safe to comment (and be in agreement with McCain, since "nothing can be done now.")

There seems to be lots of ambiguity as to the wide-ranging nitty-gritty real-world effect of the Heller decision.

I think if Obama had advocated striking down the D.C. gun control laws BEFORE the ruling, we would have heard about it.

Re: Capital punishment for other than murder, isn't that reserved presently only for treason and/or espionage?

I have read that that judgement is curious because capital punishment issues are generally considered a "states rights issue" ... Personally, I'm glad for the ban, but wonder... since Heller seems to be denying or removing the District of Columbia's "states right" to restrict gun ownership, etc. (actually in most places, county determined, gun rules/laws, etc.)

Anyway, I'm wondering about the jurisdictional implications, if any of both rulings.

People don't know what Barack Obama's real intentions are, or anything about him? (Have people bothered to look. He's not going to tattoo his position on his forehead). Sorry, but it's all there in his essays and speeches. (Read his Foreign affairs essay, "Renewing America's Leadership" in the July/August 07 edition). That article exemplifies quite clearly that he's not about to abandon the imperial ambitions of USA policymakers. Notice the title.

You don't need to "renew America's leadership" (as if it was on automatic pilot all these eight years); what you need to do is fight for global democracy. Your so-called democracy is being dismantled bit by bit by the tiny oligarchy that really runs the place. The last thing you need is to perpetuate the American leadership that has existed since World War II with it's endless imperialist missions and quests for expansionism. When Obama states that 'we' (that is, billionaires and millionaires) "must not rule out using military force" when pursuing "our vital interests" (such as, other people's oil, for instance) does that really sound like he's against invading other countries in order to seize their riches? He further comments that "a strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace". In other words, "War is Peace", to quote from 1984. This is the man who would change things? All he would accomplish is a change in personnel but hardly a paradigm shift of seismic proportions.

The crime of the Bush administration in the Democrat's eyes seems to be that they dropped the ball on foreign policy. Indeed, because of their clumsy mishandling of the Iraq war they have set back the goals of empire and made it more difficult for US administration's to wage aggressive war in the future and fund those death squads. Oh, excuse me, did I say wage war: I should use deceit, and say instead, like Obama, lead the world.

So is it really surprising that he supports Israel (which means backing their theft of Palestinian land), Columbia (that bastion of democracy!), the embargo on Cuba, and immunity for telecoms (really immunity for Democrats, who've been colluding all along).

He's proving to the foreign policy establishment and millionaire's club by doing so that he's really one of them. He's not moving to the centre. He's moving to where the real power is.

The US government doesn't really represent 'the people' (but, oh, how that sentiment plays so well); it represents the rich and powerful--which is why you will not have universal, single-payer health care; why the gap between the rich and poor will continue to grow; why higher education will only be available to the few; why there will not be income redistribution; and why welfare now goes to the rich (the point of welfare was to raise those who had the misfortune of being born poor to the middle class, which progressive taxes and the redistribution of wealth from the richest to the poorest paid for--more than justified by the fact that this wealth came from the labour of others). Mind you, the reason France has a generous welfare system isn't because it's leaders are somehow more intelligent or benevolent than yours. It's because the French will go out in the streets and practice civil disobedience if anyone dares try to cut social security. Americans alas do not.