As John McCain's team makes every attempt to change the facts surrounding the last few days they are running into problems.  In a shocking turn of events, the MSM actually recorded John McCain's comments regarding the financial crisis and debate.  

See the painful outcome here...

There's more...

I've always gravitated towards differing opinions. I have my beliefs about this and that and don't really find the utility in having them read back to me by the like minded echo chamber. For about 3 years I posted on Sean Hannity's forum, accumulating 9000+ posts. You think the fighting between HRC and BO supporters is like banging your head against the wall, you ought to give that forum a whirl.

Anyway, seems like this is the more pro-HRC spot compared to DK, which appears to have me obama supporters. So I figured I'd set up soapbox here and say what's been bothering me. Nothing that hasn't been said a thousand times before, but I feel better having my say. So here goes...you're about to be dazzled with FACTS!#

#When I say "Facts" what I mean is strongly held, often unsupported opinions which I repeat long enough and loud enough so as to give the appearance of truth. And since what I am saying is "FACT" your counter arguments are, by definition, thinly vailed talking points of a meme, carefully wrapped in a narrative on a large bed of freshly chopped conventional wisdom.

In my 3+ years slugging it out with the far-righties I found myself amazed at the propensity to confuse opinion with fact, editorializing with news, and such rhetorical gems as proof by assertion, definitional fiat (My conservative favorite: marriage can only be between a man and a woman because, by definition, marriage is only between a man and a woman) and arguments from disbelief (Hogwash! The earth is too vast and too old (7000 years old) for man to actually alter the climate!), among others...

Why do we gravitate towards like mindedness? Why do we enjoy group think (Everyone seems to think that Iraq has WMD's, ergo, Iraq has WMD's). I prefer Barack Obama. Why? I dunno. I guess after seeing first hand how bitter and how far apart I am with to rank and file of the conservative base I feel burnt out on partisanship. The chance--however slim it may be--that the Democratic candidate can change that, is a chance I'm willing to take. Its not even (entirely) HRC's fault that she seems to represent old-style partisan politics. The Republicans can't stand the Clinton's and even if she tried to change things, they probably would have none of it.

I read diaries here and at Kos and its uncanny how identical they are.

Yes. Believe it or not, they are 99% the same. The only difference is their set of facts support BO and yours support HRC. Here, BO started the race baiting. Its obvious (here's an editorial from the Philly Inquirer PROVING IT). There its obvious that her and her surrogates initiated a thinly veiled campaign to inject racial biases into the race to delegitimize his run. BO started the dirty tricks. HRC started them. I was going to vote for BO but he's tearing apart the party. HRC wants to win at all costs and will incite Democratic party civil war to win.

I'd often tell my Hannity friends (yes I made friends there) that as passionately as they believe something to be true--that conservatism is right and liberalism is evil,for example--there are those on the other side that believe the opposite is true just as passionately as they do. Two characteristics of liberalism that I preferred compared to (their brand) of conservatism was 1) self-skepticism and 2) empathy. Let me explain. Skepticism to me is the idea that although I passionately believe something to be true or fact, that new facts/data could emerge tomorrow that demand reconsideration. I supported BO and strongly disliked HRC--felt she injected race, relied on personal attacks, etc--then I read some diaries here and just as strongly as I believed that, there were seemingly smart, articulate dems that believed the exact opposite. That demands reflection. I've have since come off my "I'll never vote for her stance" to take a step back and a deep breath and observe the big picture.

The second missing characteristic from many of the right-wingers I've come accross (and this is purely annecdotal) is they lack empathy. In other words, they have no ability to put the shoe on the other foot. They cheer Bush's unitary executive position, the preemptive war strategy, the FISA fights, etc and I have ZERO doubt that if a Democratic president pulled the same crap they would be HOWLING. The wailing and knashing of teeth would be deafening. I've never understood how someone can take such an obvious contradictory (and irrational) stance on an issue. Partisanship and passion seems too often to trump logic and fairness.

I bring this up because in my recent forays here at MyDD and DK, I've observed similar behavior. Take FL and MI. Does anyone doubt that if the situation were reversed that BO's supporters would be crying disenfranchisement and HRC's camp would be talking about the rules? Let's be intellectually honest, here. Its about your horse winning. When thinking about FL and MI I needed to decide how I'd feel if the shoe were on the other foot. I firmly believe that I would claim those votes should not count based on what was agreed upon, regardless of who's winning. Given my horse's current standing, this argument is convenient if nothing else. If you were an Obama supporter, might you see the same "facts" differently? As an aside I read recently that our brain reacts positively (and pleasurably) when we confirm our beliefs. Certainly that could explain why people seek out blogs, forums, news agencies that confirm their preexisting belief set.  My set of beliefs are rational and fact base. Yours are talking points and campaign narratives. This pundit compliments HRC: they are fair. That pundit praises Obama: they are part of the MSM Obama deification.

So if you've made it this far through this rambling, somewhat preachy diary, you might want to know the point. The moral of the story is keeping things in perspective. I got very wrapped up in arguing with conservatives that I said some things that upon reflection I'm ashamed of. I lost many hours and days getting angry and bitter carrying contempt for my fellow Americans. That sucks. Its takes a toll on you. Ultimately HRC and BO supporters have much more in common then they do differences. There's only one species on this planet that engages in "spite" as a social interaction (i.e. doing something that harms someone else AND harms you). No other evolutionarily more primitive species engages in spite.  I think when you realize that your political opponent ultimately wants many of the same things you do, that they believe their "facts" just as ardently as you, then a culture of mutual respect can emerge.

There's more...

Obama's speech in Philadelphia on March 18 is laced with contradictory connotations about his knowledge of Reverend Wright's controversial and racially divisive hate comments. Some of his comments were both misleading and deceptive.

When Obama proclaims in his speech that he had heard his paster making controversial statements in some previous sermons, directly contradicts prior statements that he "never heard" his paster preach 'hatred' or he "wasn't there" when Wright made these statements. It seems that Obama wants to "have his cake and eat it too." If you can't be honest about your association with controversial figures, then how do you expect the American people to jump on your bandwagon of support and carry you off to the White House? Looks like the title of "Slick Willy" formally owned by BC, now belongs to Obama. This issue is not going away!

The Washington Bureau of Newsmax.com reports the following with respect to Obama's knowledge of Rev. Wright's controversial history

OBAMA ATTENDED THE HATE AMERICA SERMON
Contrary to Senator Barack Obama's claim that he never heard his pastor Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. preach hatred of America, Obama was in the pews last July 22 when the minister blamed the "white arrogance" of America's Caucasian majority for the world's suffering, especially the oppression of blacks.

Senator Obama has sought to separate himself from his pastor's incendiary remarks, issuing a statement Friday rejecting them as "inflammatory and appalling" but failing to renounce Wright himself for his venomous and paranoid denunciations of America.

In his press release, Obama claimed, "The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity [United Church of Christ] or heard him utter in private conversation."

Appearing on cable news shows this past weekend, Obama claimed when he saw recent videos that have Wright making such comments as "God damn America," he was "shocked." Obama implied that the reverend had not used such derogatory language in any of the church services Obama attended over the past two decades.

If Obama's claims are true that he was completely unaware that Wright's trademark preaching style at the Trinity United Church of Christ has targeted "white" America and Israel, he would have been one of the few people in Chicago to be so uninformed. Wright's reputation for spewing hate is well known.

In fact, Obama was present in the South Side Chicago church on July 22 last year when Jim Davis, a freelance correspondent for Newsmax, attended services along with Obama.

http://suppressednews.com/cgi-bin/news/v iewnews.cgi?id=EkpVZVAkFVoYBnWsiN&tm pl=offsitenews

There's more...

During this most recent scandal concerning NAFTA, Senator Obama's spokesperson uttered something I found rather amusing. His spokesperson, in defending Senator Obama against what is now widely being seen as waffling if not outright lying to the American people stated:

There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade.

Boy is that a mouthful. It sounds like legalese rather than something an ordinary American would understand. But it's that last part that gave me a chuckle because, well, Senator Obama has been FAR from consistent on trade policy or hardly any policy at all. In fact he makes stuff up that sounds really good to his adoring fans, he even puts out commercials touting his strong support for workers in need. But when one examines his "consistent" record there is indeed a consistency there, but it is the type of consistency that is inconsistent and is more than a little troubling. In fact you might say that his rhetoric and his actions are two entirely different things as this recent NAFTAgate scandal is making very clear. the guy talks a good game, but when it comes to actually taking action he is
missing in action.

Let's examine this shall we?

There's more...

Every election season produces broad misconceptions in the pursuit of early answers to that age-old question: "what happened?" Many of these myths - some created intentionally by spin-meisters and others simply the product of hasty analysis - cement themselves very early in the media and public mind.

Ballot measures are ripe for this type of problem for a number of reasons. Most prominent among these are the following:

• Spin - Unlike candidates, ballot measures embody a single issue - often an issue that engenders strong feelings on either side. The proponents and opponents will use any victory in pursuit of their long-term goals on the issue to draw larger meanings than the reality might suggest.

• Meta-Story - Ballot measures are not simply issues or policies, but political campaigns. Each side of the political spectrum has begun to use the initiative process more strategically in multi-state capacities as part of larger political power-building potential. If an initiative is successful, especially in multiple states, analysts will use the apparent momentum to give the issue more power than it deserves. Conversely, pundits will also draw erroneous conclusions from a surprising failure.

• Lag - The research and polling that shows how ballot initiatives may have worked more broadly to influence the election does not magically appear in the week following the election, when most of the zeitgeist heats up and then quickly congeals. The academic analysis of the post-election polling can take even longer to roll out. This unavoidable situation fosters the first two problems by creating an evidentiary vacuum that pundits and spinners are paid to fill.

There's more...