Actually, I've just come out of my foxhole! An Edwards supporter who voted for Obama after John got out, the vitriol in the primary season made me shut off the news and the blogs for 3 months - the longest stretch since the stolen election in y2k! I knew I'd have to support one of these 2 in Nov. and I didn't want to let the negativity suck the wind out of my sails.
Obama's "reach across the aisle" line early in the campaign turned me off (The R's deserve to sit on the bench for a season, you think?), and I don't like his health plan. Having said that, I've come to believe he really will cut out many of the real culprits of our current dilemma: the powerful and wealthy interests that inserted Bush into the WH. They, even more than their Rthugs, deserve to watch while the next administration sets policy.
Every politician has a base of support, yet I feel Obama has enough coming from the grassroots that he will be less beholden than is typical for a Dem Pres.
I wish Edwards' fight were still in the game, and I appreciated Clinton's fight as well. I'm not ready to make nice (with the right) as Obama seems to have indicated is his plan, but if I have to suffer a policy, I'd rather suffer that than anything the R's would cook up. Just gimme Truth and Reconciliation if these criminals walk.
I just want to offer to those who are finding it hard to embrace a recent adversary as your new champion: we've got a fight coming, and it matters. It matters the way all the crimes of the past 7 years matter, in reverse. It's a good thing we're fighting for, and a bad thing we're fighting against. You don't have to kiss him.
I don't believe it was a mistake in the sense people are taking it. McCain is getting notes from Rove these days; he's playing to a Republican base that has swallowed the lie that AQI is a central reason for us being in Iraq. So repeatedly bringing up al-Qaeda is just dog-whistle. Remember that in the Rove book a lie doesn't have to stick to be a success; just so long as it distracts the opposition and taints the discussion. That's why so many Bush lies are of the intelligence-insulting variety: they aren't KO punches, they're sand in the face.
I sincerely doubt he thought Shia Iran was helping Sunni AQI; he just was playing a domestic game in Jordan, which shows how much respect he has for the locals -scary enough.
More integrity from the Straight Talk Express. Just watch, McCain will do this again. After being corrected so publicly if he does it again it will be hard to hide the game he's playing. Unless the press lets him - oh, yeah, never mind.
I believe I understand Chris and Kos pushing against the sentiment for impeachment. I'm sensing an attempt to channel our energies constructively as Nancy and Harry build a reputation for Democrats now that we finally have the initiative for a change - that's all to the good.
When the investigations get underway, however, they could find themselves eating their words. The smoking gun doesn't have to be in the past - It's the coverup, stupid! Bush/Cheney will stonewall our elected Representatives, citing executive privelidge nat sec etc; and we'll have a new crisis.
Why do we want to tell ANY President that we guarantee we will not penalize them no matter what? What is the point of having an impeachment process in the first place if the President knows that it is a broken, non-functional mechanism?
Finally, I'm reminded of court cases where the plaintiff/victim is persuaded that it will be an ugly trial, hurt them more than the perp, and ultimately they probably can't prevail. If you're wondering why so many of us want to do it anyway, guys, just look at all the plaintiff/victims who tell the DA or attorney to damn the torpedoes.
I would love to see the system work without intervention. Can anyone still have that kind of faith anymore?
It may be that little politics will trump big Politics here. Let's hope not.
We need the Intel chairs in both chambers to pick up the FISA issue again and how. Harman is Bush's girl on this issue, and if Nancy is being petty for not wanting someone closer to Dubya's position than that of her own caucus as Intel chair, then I'm down with petty.
In all seriousness, Dems who fought tooth and nail for the November results deserve two things:
More to the point, Reid promised the voters of Montana. As has been mentioned in other replies, "as soon as possible," yet let's not forget this was supposed to counter Conrad Burns' senority in the minds of the electorate.
But whatcha gotta love is the truth hidden in the color scheme:
a red head on a blue body - a winger in donkey's clothing!
Is there no tactic that is beneath these people? I challenge the Republicans to name one dirty trick they are above and then hold that promise for even one election cycle. Our democracy can only survive if the press and the people repudiate these kinds of vile tactics.
In the inner circles of the Pentagon this was always a clear motive for the invasion; the lack of public dialogue on the subject has not been for want of trying. USAF Col Karen Kwiatkowski (Ret.) has been beating the drum on the deception campaign coming out of the "Office of Special Plans" for a long time, but few will listen, apparently. There is a very informative article/interview that ran in LA Weekly last year:
Just a taste:
"There was a sort of groupthink, an adopted storyline: We are going to invade Iraq and we are going to eliminate Saddam Hussein and we are going to have bases in Iraq. This was all a given even by the time I joined them, in May of 2002."
There's much more, this was a watershed eye-opener for me; it was one thing to instinctivly feel as I did that the whole WMD arguement was a con, it's quite a different thing to read an insider's account who watched it all happen. Take a minute, read, and remember - if you chuck your monitor out the window, you'll have to buy a new one. :-/