It's not surprising that most Democratic bloggers (bloggers who are Democrats)have not endorsed a presidential candidate yet. It's too early. There is more than one that most of us could enthusiastically support.

In looking back at 2004, it wasn't until February, 2004 that Daily Kos endorsed John Edwards. Same for The Agonist. I was still undecided between Kerry and Edwards. On March 4, 2004, Edwards dropped out and Kerry had the nomination.

It's only September now. There are still three major candidates in the race, Hillary, Edwards and Obama.

While I've stated Hillary and Edwards are my favorites of the three, and that remains my position, I'll support whichever one gets the nomination. All are light-years better than the Republican candidates. All will bring change. All three will appoint judges and an Attorney General we can count on not to eviscerate our constitutional rights and to uphold the rule of law.

More...

(Chicago Sun Times Photo)

I think the Chicago Tribune has the most details about yesterday's Oprah-Obama fundraising event.

In addition to the normal dishy details, it has extended quotes by both of them on their new relationship, on why Oprah is supporting Obama and what Obama thinks Oprah's support for him can do.

It's a three page article that is well worth a read.

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will be testifying before Congress on Monday and Wednesday, providing his self evaluation of his own military strategy in Iraq. It is no doubt tempting for Democratic members of Congress to challenge General Petraeus' self assessment. My view is that this would be a mistake. The line of argument to take is not to question Petraeus' military assessment. The optics of congresspersons battling on military questions with a 4 star General will not work in the short term.

The line of questioning should be to go above Petraeus's head and question the strategy of President Bush. In short the Surge is failing NOT because of Petraeus, but because the strategy that calls for the military TACTICS Petraeus is employing are failing. I suggest citing the conservative columnist George Will:

More....

The New York Times, in A Streetwise Veteran Schooled Young Obama, details Barack Obama's unsuccessful attempt in 1999 to challenge Bobby Rush, a popular incumbent congressman and former Black Panther from the South Side of Chicago. Obama was in upscale Hyde Park.

The episode revealed a lot about Senator Obama — now running for president, against the odds again and with a relatively slim résumé. It showed his impatience with the frustrations of his state Senate job; his outsize confidence; his fund-raising powers; his broad appeal; and his willingness to be what Abner J. Mikva, a former congressman and supporter, calls “a very apt student of his own mistakes.”

More...

Kudos to Frank Rich for taking the Media to task on Iraq, Petraeus and the "Surge. I especially liked this:

What's surprising is not that this White House makes stuff up, but that even after all the journalistic embarrassments in the run-up to the war its fictions can still infiltrate the real news. After Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, two Brookings Institution scholars, wrote a New York Times Op-Ed article in July spreading glad tidings of falling civilian fatality rates, they were widely damned for trying to pass themselves off as tough war critics (both had supported the war and the surge) and for not mentioning that their fact-finding visit to Iraq was largely dictated by a Department of Defense itinerary.

But this has not impeded them from posing as quasi-journalistic independent observers elsewhere ever since, whether on CNN, CBS, Fox or in these pages, identifying themselves as experts rather than Pentagon junketeers. Unlike Armstrong Williams, the talking head and columnist who clandestinely received big government bucks to "regularly comment" on No Child Left Behind, they received no cash. But why pay for what you can get free? Two weeks ago Mr. O'Hanlon popped up on The Washington Post op-ed page, again pushing rosy Iraq scenarios, including an upbeat prognosis for economic reconstruction, even though the G.A.O. found that little of the $10 billion earmarked for reconstruction is likely to be spent. . .

More....

When the media gets a bug up it's as*, it just doesn't quit.

Check out all these articles on Norman Hsu this weekend.

The NY Daily News:

Disgraced Democratic fund-raiser Norman Hsu was wandering an Amtrak train bare-chested and shoeless and "freaked out" when he was nabbed, a witness said. "I thought he had a suitcase full of crack or meth," fellow passenger Alberto Dee, 21, told the San Francisco Chronicle.

....The train's conductor said the two-time fugitive looked like an elderly man with dementia, and that's why he called 911.

The Denver Post reports a hospital administrator described Hsu as delirious.

The Washington Post leads with a fundraiser Hsu held for Barack Obama in 2005.

The New York Times devotes multiple paragraphs to one month of bank records it was able to locate from 2003. The stunning revelation:

More...

The Washington Post reports President Bush is expected to name a new Attorney General next week.

Ted Olson is named as a leading contender.

Other candidates still in the running include former deputy attorney general George J. Terwilliger III and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Laurence H. Silberman, according to the sources, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the discussions.

It's still possible Bush will name someone not on the short list.

If Bush picks Olson, I hope the Dems put up a fight. He's far too partisan for the job.

Yglesias:

In both political and policy terms, I think all of the candidates should consider that in the real world they need not Iraq policies that will make sense in the fall of 2007, but Iraq policies that will make sense in January 2009 . . .

Does Yglesias believe this holds true for the Congress as well? 4 Senators and 1 Congressman are running for President. Is the leadership they demonstrate in the Congress NOW irrelevant to Yglesias? Atrios writes:

If you're by a computer today and have something to say, here's a place.

If you'd like to post a diary, cross-posting is fine,I'll be back later to add a link here. Basic rules for diarists are here. If you don't yet have "diarist" status on TalkLeft, send me an e-mail and I'll adjust your permissions.

From the past few days:

• Take the damn ball, Obama by Geekesque

• Gore Says Yes On Protests: Study Shows Effectiveness by Patriot Daily

What I'm thinking about today: Oprah's fund-raising for Obama. Does she have enough clout to sway an election? What do you think?

WaPo has a deceptive title on Bill Richardson's Op Ed piece. They call it "Why We Should Leave Iraq Now." It should be called "Watch Richardson Try To Exploit 'Differences' on 2009 Iraq Policy and NOT Talk About Leaving Iraq Now." Read the first three grafs of the piece:

More...

At dkos, Georgia says:

. . . Let them prove their commitment to that promise now by doing "everything in their power" to stem the tide of inevitably atrocious bills that will be heralded by too many in our party as the "reasonable" and "bipartisan" way for a "new direction" in Iraq.

Members of Congress who are also presidential candidates have a unique power . . . They are the only politicians with practically a 24/7 news detail following them. They are the only politicians whose most innocuous moves (low cut blouses, anyone?) attract a media frenzy. They have the national megaphone necessary to shout down bad bills and to correct administration lies. Simply put, they have the power to almost instantaneously and drastically change the tone of this debate, if they wanted to do so.

So to them, to those who promise to do everything in their power to end this war (and that's not just Senator Clinton), I say follow through. Recognize the awesome power that you have by virtue of your unique position, and use it, all of it. Use it to lead, to get the Democratic Party to operate in harmony and to take decisive and binding action to truly end this war.

. . . Enter, leaders. Stage left

AP:

The No. 2 Democrat in the U.S. Senate said on Friday he could no longer vote for funding the war in Iraq unless restrictions were attached that would begin winding down American involvement there.
"This Congress can't give President (George W.) Bush another blank check for Iraq," said Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin, who has always opposed the war but until now voted to fund it. "I can't support an open-ended appropriation which allows this president to continue this failed policy," he said in a speech at the left-leaning Center for National Policy.

Where's Obama?