I am so mad these primaries are happening the week of the Michigan Policy Summit happening May 10th at the Lansing Center. Chris Matthews just broke it down as to how Hillary lost the Democratic nomination.

He said that ‘change’ worked in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles because people were upset about the war in Iraq. Matthews said that the only way to be a real change candidate was to be opposed to the war and if Clinton opposed the war, Obama would not be able to lay claim to being the change candidate. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Goodnight, GOBAMA, and stay up fam,

Brandon Q.

May 6th, 2008 | Politics, Barack Obama | 1 comment

Ellen, I think that is the question that Randy Jackson and the Electoral College are seeking to answer. I think it comes down to an issue of trust. In an era where we do not trust elected officials, having another individual or group of individuals that we do collectively trust can potentially help us define correct versus incorrect.

To anonymous May 8, 2008 - what difference does it make if Sean died as a result of one bullet, or fifty. Point is, the cowards who shot him shouldn't have fired one bullet much less fifty. And where exactly is the credibility issue here. A judge, sitting as the fact finder, is of course free to make judgment calls as to witness credibility, but what he or she cannot do is to disregard evidence that does not support his or her preconceived notion or view of the case. For example - Sean Bell is dead as a result of being shot by the losers who were on trial. Undisputed. The cops did not deny firing these shots. Undisputed. No one denied that the witnesses who the judge found so "not credible" were shot by the defendants. No gun was found in the car occupied by Bell and the other victims. Undisputed. Now what didn't this judge believe. Why would someone say that they were going to get a gun that they knew that they didn't have to settle a violent dispute when it would prompt the opponent, who might have a gun, to reach for his weapon. That makes no sense. Furthermore, was there ever any evidence that the defendants actually flashed their badges to Bell and the victims before opening fire? Who in their right mind stands in front of a moving car? This was stupid and cowardly. You cannot create a potentially life threatening situation and then cry self defense. The law doesn't recognize self defense in such a situation. What this judge did was wrong. The blood of Sean Bell is on these cops hands for all eternity.

It is more involved that the war. In general, the independents, the youth and other demographics are simply tired of the same old Political game of making promises they cannot or will not keep. We Obama supporters just want the truth and his best efforts to change Washington.

I can't stand how everyone against this ruling writes as if Sean took all 50 shots and that is just not true. There were "50 SHOTS FIRED" and some were misses, some hit his friends and some hit Sean. The officers were set free because his friends stories didn't match. When that happens, you know one of them is lieing if not both. It's not a racial situation. Having a criminal record is like having a bad credit score. It shows where your priorities are. When someone is acting like a fool in public, talking about beating people up, saying, "get my gun" and trying to run over an officer... bad things are going to happen. Those actions are not a good time, nor are they acceptible. It's as acceptible as walking into an airport and talking about the bomb in your bag. I've had to give that lecture to my daughters boyfriend several times and this is a good example of what I've been preaching. Officers put their lives on the line every day to keep everyone safe. They are condemned when they accomplish something and the are condemned if they fail. God bless them all!