The most fascinating thing to me is the tone of the article. The NY Times seems much more exercised over the "partisanship" in the Senate Intelligence Committee than it does by the fact that we were, ya know, like, lied into an endless war and stuff.

Instead, they have focused on the media's lack of criticism of McCain. Meanwhile, they've been quick to tamp down emerging signs of buyer's remorse among pundits who fell hard for Obama. At present, MediaMatters notes that the tingle worm has turned for Chris Matthews.

The very same night that Obama 'clinched' the nomination Tweety started to question Obama's ability to connect with, and appeal to, the struggling middle class:

But isn't there something missing -- isn't there something really missing in his biography that people can identify with? He's gone from being a poor kid, growing up in Hawaii, in Indonesia, part of his youth, mixed family background, had to struggle, worked with community organizations; went to these incredibly elite schools, Columbia and Harvard Law, making Law Review and all that.

He missed the middle part. Most Americans don't know anything about being dirt poor and don't know anything about the Ivy League. They're sort of in this struggling class. The people in the middle worried about paying bills...

Media Matters doesn't exactly bathe itself in glory when they use nothing but Obama's loosely factual memoirs to discount Matthews' conclusions.
Evidently, Media Matters also has a hard time finding an independent, factually verifiable account of Obama's upbringing and personal history.

I can't imagine Media Matters defending say, Bill Clinton, with nothing but quotations from his own auto-biography. Yet, that is what they have done for Obama, at some risk to their own professional reputation (imo). Meanwhile, ongoing sound of crickets on primary night slagging of Senator Clinton.  

I knew this would happen the instant Obama was the actual nominee, but dayum SenC's kung fu is good.

She merely moved aside by suspending -- I hope that's what it'll be rather than conceding -- before muck from the long-pants media started hitting Obama.

Now they try to act like the media was on top of everything at that time and any senator who voted for the war is a bad person.  

errr...

But when I ask for one it's because I googled the point in question and couldn't find anything that backed up what was being alleged. And because I know myself to be an excellent (but not infallible) researcher, I need to ask for a link.

So, too, do Frenchypants like "Total" Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and Tom "Man Purse" DeLay.

And, if that weren't bad enough.  I also remember during this time, I saw a report on CNN where some people were dumping their already bought and paid for bottles of French Wine to hurt the French Wine Industry.

I was scrathing my head and lol at the same time because they let their blind misplaced anger at the French (and in particular Wine Makers/Distributors, etc.) turn into sheer stupidity.  How could their dumping the contents of already paid for French wine hurt the French Wine Industry?  Jeebus.

The Bush administration is bypassing the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee and is talking directly with Democrats about re-writing the nation's surveillance laws. ""He's not really in it," Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) says of his colleague, Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO). "Bond, he's just complicating things." Bond said the White House has "assured him that it was not negotiating behind his back."

Kit Bond is AGAINST telecom immunity (probably some Libertarian tendencies showing there) and the weak, spineless Dems like "Show Me Da Money" Rockefeller are FOR it.

Jeebus Christmas.

1.  How will Obama change the partisanship?  Unless he brings in a substantial number of true Democrats (and not DINOs) on his coattails, he will face a Congress with a substantial group opposed to anything he proposes, whether the opposition is rational or not.

2.  Can this country redeem itself from the stain of an unmerited  invasion of another country and all of its horrid consequences domestically and in Iraq without bringing to account those people who misled the American people into supporting the invasion?  

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4995731&affil=wabc

It's from Good Morning America on Wednesday morning.
I watched this and thought to myself... this is the nice, kindest, most uplifting piece on Hillary in the last 15 years.

And I was pissed off. It's like when people die, it's the only time people find something nice to say about them.

Hell, Nixon was praised and Reagan was given a royal funeral.
It makes me angry when you can only say something nice about someone when they are gone.

Where were these types of reports when she was running? The whole MSM is the main reason Hillary's message never got out there because they were so busy trying to bring her down.

By the way, Hillary WAS NOT running for a third Bill Clinton term, like some stupid woman in the piece said... Hillary was running for her own Presidency.

She's smarter than either Obama or McCain. And as usual, the smart girl is pushed to the back for a bunch of boys. How many woman have been used to help bring up new men in a corporation, only to be pushed out and/or marginalized so the boys get their power back.

On Good Morning America Thursday, ABC News' Chief Washington Correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported "the Democratic National Committee will no longer accept contributions from federal lobbyists, will no longer take contributions from PACs" in keeping with Obama's well-publicized policy.

"This land is my land, this land is your land..."

Or maybe some Cole Porter....

Of course partisan locksteppers were quick to apply ridiculous arguments that hard earned rights could be shredded under the pretense of Nat'l Security concerns because if you were doing nothing "wrong" why would you be worried?

And RW hacks, instead of focusing on the rights being shredded, instead helpfully swarmed peoople who'd been deprived as deserving it.

From the link, and why I'll probably never join a political party again in my lifetime -- unless it's a gathering with snacks and suds to watch election returns -- but always support "special interests" I believe in, like the ACLU.

"My reaction is, welcome to Baghdad, D.C.," said Arthur Spitzer, legal director for the ACLU's Washington office. "I mean, this is craziness. In this country, you don't have to show identification or explain to the police why you want to travel down a public street."

Heaven knows he has the temperament for it.

It's just that I'm a Democrat.

A member of the Cornell music faculty from 1955 until his retirement in 2005, John Hsu taught lessons in cello and viola da gamba, and courses in music ...

Or did you really mean Norman Hsu, a convicted pyramid investment promoter who associated himself with the apparel industry. His business activities were intertwined with his role as a major fundraiser for the Democratic Party and who was one of Obama's contributers.

From Axelrod's Letter to the Arugulas

And the underside of the bus did runneth over.

If only Hillary would give Obama one of her cajones, then they would both have two.

James Carville

Will Obama stop the war?

One of the most important reason for his success is the belief among millions of supporters that he alone among the major candidates is committed to stopping the war on Iraq and charting a radically different course for U.S. foreign policy. But is Obama really the anti-warrior he is made out to be?

PEOPLE WHO believe Barack Obama will end the occupation of Iraq are likely in for a rude awakening. Despite talking about withdrawal from Iraq, his plan would keep troops in the country for years to come, likely well beyond his potential first term.

In addition to the mercenaries and private contractors, that would leave tens of thousands of troops involved in so-called counterinsurgency operations. That's the same rationale the Bush administration uses for keeping troops in Iraq. Other troops would stay for "training" operations. This, too, is the Bush argument: we'll stand down as the Iraqis stand up.

Take the issue of troop levels. Obama's Web site says, "Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines." What do we imagine the purpose of those troops will be? To provide housing for homeless people? To teach children who are illiterate? To wipe out malaria and easy preventable diseases that kill millions of children ever year?

No, those troops will be charged with protecting U.S. corporate interests globally, preserving "stability," protecting and training dictators aligned with the United States, and suppressing any struggles that threaten the interests of U.S. rulers and elites.

What worries me now is that this wonderful site talkleft.com is now going to be for Obama and while McCain doesn't look appealing, I'm outweighing and researching the differences between both, behind the curtain of BS, it's no different  McCain before 2000 was more of a moderate.  He wanted his presidency so bad that he lined up with the Republicans and voted their way.  However, I don't buy it, he has been talking about greener technologies and I believe it.   Listening to Obama unrehearsed talk and what he has always stood for is the real him. Obama doesn't have much to stand on.  He rarely had interviews and when he did, he sounded more like a Republican.  Obama doesn't have much of a voting record with the exception of the one he stole from Clinton.  

Taxes is another issue.  I think taxing to better our country is important but not now when payroll hasn't increased with inflation that adding more tax would kill us off instead of drowning and coming up for air.  Obama's plans show a big tax increase.  We can't afford it now!  It will only lead to more homelessness and more ppl getting on fed. govt. aid which in turn will result into even more taxes.

Listening to Obama unrehearsed talk and what he has always stood for is the real him.

So, what's the difference between his plan and McCains? McCain offers tax credits which are virtually useless if you're in college, disabled, unemployed, didn't file a tax return or a child.

Obama or McCain doesn't make much difference on health care since Congressional Dems have already said that they will be too, too busy to tackle any major changes to health care anytime soon (Probably gearing up for 2010 elections).  I think Hillary would have tried to push them forward on this but I doubt Obama will.

Link

I plan on voting for him but I doubt he'll be a dominant topic of my posts here. When he is the subject of my posts, it will probably be to urge him to do something.

For example, if I didn't have to leave for the jail right now, I'd be writing a long post on why he should choose a criminal defense attorney for Attorney General and how disappointed I will be if he picks career prosecutors for important posts in his Administration.

Does that sound like cheerleading to you? It's a given that McCain will do those things, but I plan to use Obama's promise of change to make specific requests on how to bring it about.

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.