Words move people to do great things.
                                                            People are not cheap.

It's about whether we choose to play the game, or whether we choose to end it; it's change that polls well, or change we can believe in; it's the past versus the future. Barack Obama, 2/12/2007

It was at this moment, during his brilliant speech in Madison on Wednesday, that the hairs stood up on the back of my neck.  I fully realized that it's Hillary who's been talking fluff all along.  All of this "solutions over speeches" is yet another Rovian tactic -- accuse your opponent of your own greatest sin.  

After all, it's easy for Mark Penn to cherry pick policies that poll well and offer laundry lists calculated to "sell" Hillary to a carefully chosen demographic.  It's easy to tell people what YOU are going to do for THEM.    

"Do you want the excitement of speeches or the empowerment of solutions? ... Hillary is a solutions person."  Bill Clinton, 2/13/2007

No, Hillary.  WE are the solution.  Not YOU.

Team Clinton has been astoundingly successful in convincing us of one thing: Hillary is the "experience candidate."  She has managed to learn so much through her past policy mistakes that we can count on her to get it right this time...  

Case in point -- Hillary's abject failure to understand the political and economic landscape in 1993-4 led to the defeat of her health care reform package.  Yet, in 2008, she's now considered the expert on health care policy.  You've got to hand it to Mark Penn and company: that's a hell of a good job of taking one big-assed lemon and turning it into lemonade.

Packaging Hillary as the "experience candidate" could actually work in the primary.  Barack Obama is, after all, a one-term U.S. Senator with four fewer years in National elected office and two fewer terms as First Lady.  If Hillary's experience gamble successfully pays off, she could win the Democratic nomination.

But would it be a pyrrhic victory -- and why do I call her strategy a gamble?  I believe that by emphasizing the importance of experience, Hillary is setting herself (and all of us) up for defeat in the general election against what the electorate would perceive to be a vastly more experienced John McCain.

Oh my God!  Did you see today's news?  Barack Obama said:

I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards

Wait.  WHAT?  That wasn't Obama?  It was Mike Huckabee?  You mean he's the enemy, not Obama?

Yeah sure.  But did you see the news where John Edwards admitted that he plans to keep the troops in Iraq for a hundred years?  I mean, HOLY CRAP!  Here's what he said...  verbatim!

I was listening to our local progressive radio station (92.1, The Mic) this morning.  Of course, they play the standard CNN radio news bits between segments.  Today, apparently, a concourse at Miami airport was briefly evacuated due to a suspected bomb detected by airport screeners.  It turned out to be a false alarm.

But what caught my ear was that CNN newscaster Bill Caiaccio referred to the incident as a "suspected IED."  (UPDATE: PJ Jefferson provides confirmation in the comments.)

Does this strike anyone else as a blatant attempt to build the right-wing talking point that "terrorists from Iraq will follow us home?"  First time I've heard this tactic used, so I thought it was important to diary and get your reaction.  

I am proud that Sen. Feingold represents my home state.  In his diary on legislation to end the war in Iraq, I posted a comment asking him to support impeachment because this administration has subverted the Constitution and admits that it will defy legislation ending the war.  

Our response may have shocked the Senator -- he took a few hours to respond our loud call for impeachment.  I am reposting his response to a set of fresh eyes:
   

Impeachment (3+ / 0-)

As many of you have pointed out, articles of impeachment originate in the House, not the Senate.  While I agree that the President has committed offenses right in the strike zone of impeachment (most notably with his illegal warrantless wiretapping program) and I share the outrage of many Americans at this President’s conduct, I am not sure multiple impeachment trials would be best for the country.

by Senator Russ Feingold on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 05:18:04 PM CDT

If so, then PLEASE call them NOW and tell them that the White House has no right to defy subpoenas from Congress and that you will support their use of impeachment to bring real investigation and real justice back to the people.

Democrats on House Judiciary Committee:

Berman: CA 28  202-225-4695
Boucher: VA 9  202-225-3861
Nadler:  NY 8  202-225-5635
Scott:  VA 3  202-225-8354
Watt:  NC 12  202-225-1510
Lofgren: CA 16  202-225-3072
Jackson Lee: TX 18  202-225-3816
Waters: CA 35  202-225-2201
Meehan: MA 5  202-225-3411
Delahunt: MA 10  202-225-3111
Wexler: FL 19  202-225-3001
Sánchez: CA 39  202-225-6676
Cohen: TN 9  202-225-3265
Johnson: GA 4  202-225-1605
Gutierrez: IL 4  202-225-8203
Sherman: CA 27  202-225-5911
Weiner: NY 9  202-225-6616
Schiff: CA 29  202-225-4176
Davis: AL  7  202-225-2665
Wasserman Schultz: FL 20  202-225-3951
Ellison: MN 5  202-225-4755
Baldwin: WI 2  202-225-6942

Please unrecommend this diary and recommend zenbowl's excellent diary on government suppression of global warming science instead!

The original diary to which this diary refers has been amended, and in the comments, the original diarist does the right thing and admits she misunderstood what she was told.  It's not easy to admit a mistake -- I admire her for doing it.  Time to move on, folks.  Please unrecommend this diary, it's still hanging around on the rec list.
 

Dear friends at Daily Kos,

This is just a short Thanksgiving note to tell you how grateful I am for this community.  I am so thankful for your enthusiasm, for your intelligence, for your insightfulness.  For the wiseass remarks, the delicious snark and the occasional dose of humility.  For the disagreements and debates as well as the good old "pile-ons."  You have energy that abounds, and you channel it for the good of our country and our world.  I've learned so much from all of you -- and for that I am continually thankful.

Safe travels to those of you who are on the road or in the air this weekend.  May you enjoy your friends and families this Thanksgiving.  Share your love for each other -- no matter what ideological differences may exist.

Peace,
DaveV

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Democrat Steve Kagen has defeated GOP state assembly speaker John Gard.  Kagen is currently leading 52.4% to 47.6% with 67% of precincts reporting!

Woo hoo!  Wisconsin loses one of the nastiest, most partisan assembly speakers and gains a great representative in the House!  Congratulations Steve Kagen!! [UPDATE: in my haste, I failed to note that this is a Dem pickup, as the seat was formerly held by Republican Mark Green (who lost to Democratic incumbent Jim Doyle in the gubernatorial race). Woo Hoo!!! ]

I am absolutely appalled at the Associated Press' blatant spinning over today's new jobs number.  

Unemployment rate falls, payrolls grow

By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer
36 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The unemployment rate dropped to a five-year low of 4.4 percent in October as employers added 92,000 new jobs -- flashing a picture of a strong labor market as the midterm elections draw near

A strong labor market?  What are you smoking Ms. Aversa?  
This number came in over 30,000 lower than the meagre 125,000 that economists expected.  Also buried in the BLS report is that we lost 39,000 manufacturing jobs. So, why all the glee at the AP?  Don't you know we need about 150,000 new jobs a month just to keep up with population growth and new job seekers.  

More below the fold:

On March 8, 2005, Republican Mark Foley introduced H.R. 1142, the "Child Modelling Exploitation Prevention Act", which would ban internet sites that depict models age 16 and under for purposes other than selling a product.

March 09, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - A Florida Republican congressman introduced a bill Wednesday to prohibit so-called online "child modeling" websites that he says are "nothing more than a fix for *pedophiles.*"

"They don't sell products, they don't sell services - all they serve are young children on a platter for America's most depraved. These sites sell child erotica and they should be banned," said Rep. Mark Foley, co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, in a statement.

The websites cause "immense psychological damage to the children" as well as placing them in "physical danger when contact is made with the people who visit their sites."

More below the fold...

You know you've done it.  It's your dirty little secret... and mine.  Against your better judgment.  Swallowing to keep back that little bit of vomit.  You've actually gone and clicked one of those "VOTE NOW!" pseudo-survey advertisements on the Drudge Report.  

Imagine my shock and utter... amusement... at discovering that our own Markos Moulitsas Zuniga is a candidate for "Worst Person for America"!  As bad as Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton and Paris Hilton!  Worse than Al Sharpton, John Kerry and the Dixie Chicks (none of whom made the list).

Go below the fold for the whole juicy list...

I'm "Maverick Troll" and I'm undefinable!  But like most Americans, I stand in the MIDDLE.  Heck, I'm very careful to stand directly in the middle of the President's ass cheeks when I pucker up. I'm running for President!  You can hunt me by reminding everyone how I play both sides: like when I called Jerry Fallwell an "agent of intolerance" and then spoke at his little fundie Liberty University graduation.

More odious trolls below the fold...

This is part of the phone script for part of the now infamous ABC News/WaPo (full survey here) reporting that over 60% of Americans "approve" of NSA collecting domestic phone records.

3. What do you think is more important right now - (for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy); or (for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats)?

4. It's been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

They set up a false dichotomy: either you believe in personal privacy or stopping terrorism.  That's bullshit.

Helen Thomas is old and batty.
Mexicans are taking our jobs.
Iraq sent its WMDs to Syria.
Democrats don't want to wiretap terrorists.
Joe Wilson admitted that Valerie Plame wasn't covert.
Karl Rove has a faulty memory.
Scooter Libby has a faulty memory.
...
|
|
V

Via RawStory, Dave Newbart of the Chicago Sun Times reports on recent comments by Bob Novak at a Sun-Times/UIC forum:

"The question is, does Mr. Fitzgerald know who the source was?" Novak asked. "Of course. He's known for years who the first source is. If he knows the source, why didn't he indict him? Because no crime was committed." [emphasis added]

The "no crime was committed" line was what got me.  When we first heard that phrase, it was being used by GOP spinmeisters to imply that there was no crime because Plame wasn't really covert (even though she was).  But since last week's bombshell that Bush claims he "declassified" portions of the NIE, that phrase is being used to imply that there was no crime because the information was already declassified by the "Leaker-in-Chief."

More below the fold:

Emptywheel has an excellent diary on the July 7 redacted version of the INR memo (scanned version available here).

Here is the paragraph from page 1 of the July 7 INR memo that raises the question in my title:

Put aside for a second the "(S//NF)" which means "Secret, NoForn" (i.e., don't even let our allies see this, it's so secret).  

Let's focus on the phrase: "Valerie Wilson, a CIA WMD manager[...]"  below the fold...