http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5igtJIqM3RT55BSIEgUfabiUuO6CgD94GUR000

Admirals, generals: Repeal 'don't ask, don't tell'

By BRIAN WITTE â€" 1 hour ago

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) â€" More than 100 retired generals and admirals called Monday for repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays so they can serve openly, according to a statement obtained by The Associated Press.

The move by the military veterans confronts the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama with a thorny political and cultural issue that dogged former President Bill Clinton early in his administration.

This is one of the saddest thing I've ever read. Our government is so well organized!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/17/fbi.grenade/index.html

"...according to the indictment, many of the defective grenades the military was using were relabeled and then sold to the FBI and other local law enforcement agencies."

GM has already stated they need quick cash from the taxpayers to :

1) Close American factories.
2) Buyout and retire more American workers.
3) Continue paying the American GM retirees they've already bought out over the previous decades.

Who knew it was so expensive to stop making things in America?

They say there is no option. Either the taxpayers fund these items, or GM fails, and the US unemployment jumps to 10%, and the thousands of subcontractor/manufacturing plants that rely on GM for a large part of their business collapse.

Furthermore, if those subs collapse, it will cause a further ripple effect on all the non-GM businesses that depend on those manufacturing capabilities for their own products.

We're being held hostage by GM, the same way we were held hostage by Wall Street two months ago.

Ford has a new car...the Ford Fiesta Econetic Diesel. It gets 65 MPG and is manufactured around the world, and is sold around the world, but it is not made or sold in America. After all, everyone knows Americans don't buy diesels.

It's an interesting commentary on America.

GM (1930's) : Bank, please give me a loan to build my business so I can make money and hire people. I'll pay you back in full, with interest.

GM (2008) : Taxpayers, give me a cash grant to close my American factories and layoff the workers. Pay my former American employees not to work. I'll also spend some of that money overseas, developing new high MPG cars in China, and new factories in China to build them.

This globalization is really paying off for America, isn't it?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/11/16/security.pact.vote/index.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The Iraqi Cabinet on Sunday approved a security pact that would set the terms for U.S. troops in Iraq.

The agreement sets June 30, 2009, as the deadline for U.S. troops to withdraw from all Iraqi cities and towns, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.

The date for all troops to leave Iraq will be December 31, 2011, he said.

---

So what does this mean?

We'll stay in remote forts from June 2009 to Dec. 2011, popping out for occasional strikes when the Iraqis get into trouble?

Or does this mark a transition of our troops to Afghanistan?

Will all our troops be relocated to Afghanistan by Dec. 2011 or will they be home?

Or when the gavel falls on Jan 20th, 2009, will President Obama choose to do something entirely different?

Sometimes people wonder how the Republicans were able to get and their hold power in American politics for so many years.

Obviously, they did it by supporting both their base and the centrist voters.

They supported their base (and the centrists) by simultaneously claiming strong support for the base issues while (in the real world) doing little or nothing about to forward them. The base of any party is usually composed of nutbags anyway.

Consider that the Barry Goldwater "Libertarian" Republican Party core has basically ceased to exist. In the mid-nineteen-eighties they were exiled and replaced by the neocon christian right. This is fairly well documented on the web.

So what does the neocon christian right want?

1) Federal mandate for prayer in school.
2) Federal ban on abortion.
3) Federal ban on same-sex marriage.
4) Massive taxpayer funding for religious organizations.
5) Massive taxpayer funding for school vouchers to fund christian schools.

Now the reality. After two decades of significant republican control in the three branches, they've only made scant progress in realizing these goals. Yes, they've done some court-packing; yes, there are some state-level bans on same-sex marriage; yes, they've made slight progress on taxpayer funding of churches/institutions.

Overall, not much progress for their extremist goals. The Republicans shied away from extremism to a large extent when they could get away with it.

Now consider what "our" party is already doing. Barack Obama pledged repeatedly that he "would not take anyone's guns away". Yet here it is, in writing, before the inauguration, from the Barack Obama team :

"Address Gun Violence in Cities:

*As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade.

*Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them.

* They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

These measures are questionable.

1) There are a good reasons for the Tiahrt Amendmendment. Primarily, States Rights. They are important. When local ppolice need the federal information, they can get it--like when they have a suspect and charges filed. What they can't do, is before the fact, use the federal database to scan an area for "potential criminals". That's a good thing...like it or not, there are bad cops. For example, letting local cops know where single women live, who have no gun, or where they can steal a certain type of gun, would be very, very bad. Just because the local police dept's want to grow, grow, grow their databases about the local citizenry, using federal databases, doesn't mean they should be able to do so.

2) Children occasionally will be killed by guns. Just like they are occasionally killed by cars, bicycles, household chemicals, knives and god knows how many other things. It's a tragic fact of our all-to-human existence that children sometimes die. Kow-towing to Oprah Winfrey, who single-handedly destroyed the rights of countless law-abiding Americans with her radical anti-gun activities in the mid-1990s, is not what the Democratic Party needs right now. The Democratic Party needs to do things that make sense to stop gun crime. So let's just see what Obama and Biden think "makes sense"--more in the next paragraph.

3) The Assault Weapons ban? This is a party that does things that make sense? Assault weapons have almost never been used to kill anyone during a crime! They are expensive--criminals rarely own them. Why resurrect this useless policy?

The "Gun Show Loophole?" Again, almost no deaths have ever been caused by guns purchased through the Gun Show Loophole. However, to do what really needs to be done (see end of this message) this may be necessary.

This party is once again throwing out jingoism and feel-good statements without dealing with the real issues, and ignoring the facts about gun ownership.

The vast majority of gun deaths are caused by habitual criminals who buy illegal guns on the black market. They don't attend gun shows. They don't own registered firearms. They were never checked in the federal database. They don't use assault weapons. If microstamping is instituted, they will easily bypass it. Their guns are often untraceable, and therefore exist in no database.

Technologies being pushed by the Democratic Party, such as microstamping and massive databases of gun ownership, are nonsensical. They only make the lives of law-biding citizens more difficult, and increase our taxes and regulative burden, with little or no positive effect.

I trusted Barack Obama's word about preserving 2nd ammendment rights.

I trusted Barack Obama's statements about "doing things that work--not just the same old government".

Yet already Obama and Biden, before even taking office, are resurrecting failed gun control policies and eroding the 2nd amendment rights of law abiding citizens.

In the end, if Obama and Biden have their way, we'll end up like Britain and Japan. Good and decent law-abiding people won't have any guns to defend themselves, or enjoy their hobbies, and the emergency rooms and morgues will be filled with many bodies of innocent people, criminally murdered by bludgeoning, knifes, strangulation, and yes, illegally owned/purchased guns. Naturally none of the victims were allowed to defend themselves with legally owned and operated firearms.

Because of this horrific Democratic backpedaling and foolishness, I will face weeks of ridicule from my peers, whom I assured during the entire race :

"Barack Obama is a different kind of Democrat--he's smart enough to see through the unscientific nonsense of the past Democratic efforts with regard to gun control and the erosion of 2nd ammendment rights, and he has specifically stated he won't take anyone's guns away."

So go ahead and throw your supporters under the bus, if you think that's a good idea. We'll remember come two years from now. But there is another way.

Check these out :

1) Let law-abiding citizens buy all the guns and assault weapons they want. No registration. Minimal background checks. Let them conceal-carry after completing a training course. This is first on the list because it enhances and demonstrates the freedoms and liberties law-abiding Americans enjoy.

2) Don't do microstamping or police databases. The police are a reactive force, not a predictive one. Microstamping is nonsense, because the marks are just ground off by...you guessed it...criminals. Massive police databases of the law abiding citizenry or cartridge wear marks or serial numbers is not the answer to any problem.

3) Habitual criminals may not own or possess any gun, forever.

4) Minor criminals (string of misdemeanors, never used a gun in any crime, reformed for period of years) may pay a fee to request their their gun rights be restored. We are a forgiving nation that rewards improved behavior in some cases.

5) Law abiding citizens who abuse gun ownership (allow access to a child, use under the influence, concealed carry with no permit) lose the right to own and receive heavy fines. They may pay a fee and petition for restoration of the right after a period of some years with no further offenses.

6) Killing another human being with a gun, in the furtherance or conduct of a crime, is an automatic special circumstances case, eligible for the death penalty or life imprisionment without chance of parole.

7) Possession of a gun in support of a serious crime, even if concealed, results in an automatic lifetime ban on gun ownership and a heavy fine and/or prison sentence.

Note how careful I am to distinguish between legal gun ownership and illegal use of guns. Clearly I am all for enhancing the 2nd amendment freedoms and liberties of law abiding citizens, at the federal level, while holding criminals entirely responsible for their poor behavior.

Please do what makes sense! Reward the good, punish the bad.

A very heartfelt congratulations to President Elect Obama, and everyone here who put up with all my questions over the months.

It's a great feeling to be middle aged, and see someone I voted for, and believe in, win so big. My father is very happy, too.

And thank you to Sen. McCain for what I thought was a very considerate concession speech.

I hope both parties take this opportunity to work together to do great things for our Country.

Desperate for votes, McCain has started his lawsuits.

McCain sues Virginia to allow late votes from military service members

Personally I am annoyed that Ford Motor Company released their new Ford Fiesta globally last week, to something like 5 countries, yet they refuse to produce or sell it in America.

Mazda (owned by Ford) calls it's version of the same design the "Mazda 2" and is also selling it globally ("elsewhere"), but not making it or selling it in the USA.

The car was designed from the start as a global vehicle, easily capable of passing all requirements for emissions and safety, including those in Germany, California and New York.

These cars use "Common Rail" diesel technology, the newest and lowest emission diesel technology. The diesel version of the car has a 65 MPG estimated mileage--and no expensive hybrid technology or electric batteries to replace.

Ford is converting a plant in Mexico to build these, one that currently makes F-150 trucks, and is moving the F-150 truck production to Texas...but only the gas version of the Fiesta will be produced.

Eventually, in approximately 1-2 years, consumers in the USA will be able to buy the Mexico built Ford Fiesta...but not with a diesel engine, only with the lower MPG gas engine.

I know most cars "made in the USA" now are composed of mostly foreign made parts, even to the extent where the cars are arriving mostly pre-built in the form of "knock down kits" that only receive final assembly here in the USA.

If our Government claims to have the goal of creating American jobs and lowering dependence on foreign oil, I personally would like an explanation of why this car, in diesel form, is not being built in America, even in knock-down form, and sold in this country first, or at least on the same date it is released in other countries.

A $35 billion bailout to the auto makers, and we, the American taxpayers, see the latest car technologies 1-2 years after the rest of the world sees them, and in a reduced MPG ("gas only") form. This is an insult to the American People.

There should be an explanation and the diesel version of the Ford Fiesta should be produced in America, for Americans, with a green subsidy and rebate for those who trade in their gas guzzlers to buy one.

*ker-thump, off my soapbox*

Is the goal of the Democratic Party to "spread the wealth around" or is it to make everyone's lives better? I don't understand why Barack Obama would say such a thing.

It's on the order of calling NRA members "bitter people who cling to their guns". Or maybe worse. What kind of mindset makes a potential President think he can improve America by taking away from a few rich people and giving the booty to the poor?

If the core value of the Democrat Party is to strengthen America by reducing the national debt, or the annual deficit, then say it. And mean it. And make it true by balancing the budget.

From the third debate :

1) Both candidates will increase the national debt by about the same amount, come 8 years from now.

2) Both candidates say they will get America off foreign oil from hostile providers in around ten years...two years after their potential 2nd term. How convenient for them.

What is Barack Obama really doing for America other than redistribute wealth, if he cannot deal with the energy crisis or the national debt any better than McCain? In some ways, the third debate showed who the true "McSames" are---the Democratic and Republican candidates.

Eight more years of Bush either way. Neither side, by their own words and deeds, appears to be providing a legitimate choice.

My dad is an 86 year old WW2 vet, and served through the cold war. He has "Obama 08" stickers on his truck.

His right wingnut neighbor asked him for some Obama bumper stickers stating "We're running low on toilet paper, do you have any more of those Obama stickers?"

My dad didn't turn around but answered quietly "With a house full of a$$holes I guess you run out a lot".

Palin : Wink, wink, you betcha! Nauseating.

My Dad is lifelong Republican and an Obama supporter.

He was a Carrier Pilot in WW2, a Naval Test Pilot in the 1950's, and a Cold Warrior flying EW aircraft until 1962. After that, he was a Real Estate broker and small business owner, then managed a chain of hotels.

Now retired, he recently had a "stint" installed in his heart. After a weeklong bout with the flu, his Dr. recommended a test that the insurance program denied as "medically unnecessary".

My Dad wrote a scathingly critical letter to the insurance company, with instructions for the family, in case of his death, to CC the letter to Governor Schwarzenegger and our two Democratic Senators (Boxer and Feinstein).

Yesterday the test was magically approved! So I told my Dad that's America's healthcare plan--the Dr. recommends procedures, the insurance company denies the procedures, and when the patient complains loudly to the CEO of the insurance company the procedures are magically reinstated.

I call it "VooDoo Healthcare".

Dad's Doctor says he sees it every day, with no end in sight.

My Dad has been overseas many times. Once in Taiwan he faced a medical emergency and was treated free of charge. They said his insurance was "no good in taiwan--too much fighting". So they just took care of him, three days in a hospital, and shredded the bill.

When my Dad got back to the USA he forced his insurance company to pay the Taiwanese hospital, under threat of a lawsuit. The Taiwan hospital wrote him a thank you letter, stating they had not seen anyone do this before.

Dad is quite proud of America, and doesn't understand why we are a third world nation with regard to healthcare. Dad thinks an American should be able to show a card, like they do in Japan or Taiwan, anywhere in the world and get taken care of immediately--no questions asked.

It's funny how two Naval Aviators can be so different. My Dad calls McCain "McNuts" and says he is mentally stuck in the Hanoi Hilton.

Dad and Mom have Obama 08 bumper stickers on their cars and are a minority in their neighborhood--it's a Republican stronghold in a sea of blue (California).

After Dad gets a clean bill of health, he'll be flying a restored WW2 Dauntless SBD Dive Bomber for a group of WW2 Aviation enthusiasts.

Obama 08!!!

We as Americans don't need to listen to the Republican Spin Machine for long until we here the same old claims. Tax and and spend, liberal, socialist Democrats. Big Government trying to fix things. The same old tired "thump, thump, thump" as McCain beats the dead horse.

I know the Democratic Party tends to distance itself from Corporate America, but the corporation I work for has repeatedly made it clear....ANYTHING TO CHANGE THE WAY HEALTHCARE WORKS IN AMERICA.

Why? Look, I don't know the facts, but I do know the leadership in the LLC I work for has repeatedly said their number one, skyrocketing cost is healthcare. Not because employees are using more, or getting sicker, longer. The cost to see a practitioner or buy pharmaceuticals has skyrocketed faster than all other economic sectors. As I say, I don't know the facts, but I hear this every year during our benefits meetings.

It seems to me the mom and pop employers, all the way to the largest corporate heads, should be backing Obama if this is true. If something really, truly has to change, we all know which party changes things and which party keeps them the same.

Enough of the "Frog Boiling"....enough of an America where things just slowly get worse.

Obama 08 is the choice for change. I hope more employers and leaders of companies, large and small, get on camera and in the papers and say ENOUGH...the costs for healthcare simply must stop growing at the rate they have been in the last two decades. Something has to change.

Traditionally the Democratic Leadership has been reluctant to join hands with companies and employers, at least publicly, and instead focuses on claiming to fight for the employees and workers. But helping the employers and companies, in the case of healthcare, really does help workers. It's the best of both worlds.

I wish more people in the business community would come forward and fully support Barack Obama and cast aside those old "hot button" republican keywords. Obama deserves it and needs their support as the election approaches, and the business leaders certainly need new perspectives and approaches on healthcare.

I hope all Democrats take a breather and consider one of our biggest weaknesses -- Gun Control.

A reasonably astute person doesn't need to study the issue for long before realizing the platform effort to create a pervasive gun ban in America is flawed at the core.

Today I talked to about 20-30 people about Obama. I shared a number of his great quotes from YouTube. It went well, but 6 of the people made it clear they will not vote for Democrats or Obama because of Gun Control.

So I listened to them. And I searched the web. Here's what I learned :

1) Gun Owners are well organized. They get and share emails that are loaded with facts, no hysteria.

2) Our platform, in the form of some of Obama's answers to questions, has pledged to "Ban all forms of semi-automatic weapons". This is an amazing sentence coming from a party that claims to be scientifically and technologically astute. We're talking about banning handguns in general when we say this, and most shotguns, curios, relics. Most rifles. If you know anything about firearms, you know that some people consider a generic double action revolver a "form of semi-automatic weapon", since it can be repeatedly fired with one hand only. The language is wishy-washy. It catches people with the phrase "semi-automatic" but doesn't really convey just how pervasive the ban would be. It is misleading.

3) When our candidate answers questions on the topic, he uses language like "I don't think we can do that" or "I couldn't get enough votes to do it" or "gun ownership is a tradition". This type of answer is frustrating for people who like solid, well-formed replies. It sounds like waffling. They all grated on the language of gun owning being a tradition. They all felt gun ownership is an active and modern right to self protection and recreational activity. They felt Obama's reference to gun ownership as a "tradition" was a linguistic trick to make gun owners sound anachronistic, rather than people protecting themselves or engaging in a hobby or recreational activity as part of an active, modern lifestyle.

4) Americans are proud of their freedoms and liberties. They don't like them taken away by the government. People who are law-abiding citizens simply want minimal government interference in their lives. All six felt the Democratic Party was overly meddlesome and tended to solve problems with "wordy, meddlesome legislation" rather than logical, rational problem solving.

Next I asked them the "hard question". Suppose you are the governor of New Jersey, and your state kept coming up on nationwide lists as having the highest murder rate in the country. The constituency demands change. Your police dept. comes to you and says illegal gun sales are out of control; drug gangs and thugs are better armed than the police, there are places in the cities where the police and fire dept. refuse to go as they are too dangerous to enter. What do you do?

Their immediate answer, tongue in cheek, was "dump truckloads of defective or worthless guns in those areas so all the criminals kill each other faster--problem solved". After the chuckles ended, we all agreed on the following :

"Anyone using a firearm during a robbery, rape, or other violent crime, gets automatic life imprisonment w/o parole".

"Anyone possessing a firearm during felony drug trafficking gets automatic life in prison w/o parole".

In general the six gun owners I spoke to, who will not be voting for Obama or the Democratic Party in the near future, all agreed that possessing guns illegally, and using guns in violent or drug related crimes, deserved the harshest penalty.

I asked them what they thought about the death penalty for illegal sales of large amounts of guns, and they all were against the death penalty in all cases. They said the death penalty was useless; not a deterrent; too expensive and too controversial to be of any real use on the field of crime and punishment.

Finally I asked them if they had any other thoughts on the subject. They all voiced frustration that the states have too much variance in gun laws. Two were collectors of militaria semi-automatics from the WW1 and WW2 eras and stated California's laws were an outrage and had destroyed their hobby. Two were considering closing their California businesses to move to a "red state" so they could start collecting again.

They felt their liberties and freedoms were being actively undermined by the Democratic Party, and Obama's statements made them feel he has a "secret agenda" to advance gun control in America. They all believed the federal government should take the reverse tactic--increase gun owning liberties and freedoms nationwide for law-abiding citizens, and punish the "bad guys" very harshly for gun use or possession during serious crimes.

I promised these intelligent and friendly people, who otherwise would be likely voters for Obama, that I would post a message here about our talk, even though I know most of the replies I get for doing this will be negative or critical of my post.

6/25 is quite a few voters. All basically thrown away by a party that seems out of touch with the concepts of freedom and liberty for the "good guys" in America. I hope the core of the Democratic Party realizes how much they are throwing away over such a basic issue.

I found Barack's "Lipstick on a pig" comment offensive.

Pigs are generally friendly and egregious creatures, unlike a certain variety of lipstick-wearing pitbull that has been the darling of the media, enjoying every day of her extended honeymoon.

Nevermind the dark visions of creationism and book bannings swirling in her head.

No, it's best we don't ask a questions "like that" to someone in direct line to the Presidency. Wouldn't be fair to ask her the tough questions during the extended honeymoon.

We, being "Hysterical Liberal Democrats", should, in general, not resort to name calling either. It upsets the Republicans. They have enough trouble keeping all their lies straight without us rattling their cage.

For shame, Barack, for shame.

"The European press has yet to pick up on Mrs Palin's extreme anti-conservation record - that's how the Sierra Club, a non-partisan organisation, described it. Time says she is on the "far right" on green issues - further to the right than her running mate and even George W Bush."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/09/04/earthlog104.xml

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94244018

"All Things Considered, September 3, 2008 · Tropical cyclones have been getting stronger over the past several decades, according to a new report in the journal Nature. This finding supports a theory that storms will get stronger as the surface of the ocean heats up because of global warming."

Will Moose McCain and Polar Bear Palin listen?

http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/badboy/CCDZ

Regarding Palin :

Refers to Alaska's huge land mass compared to the states as the reason she did not visit more areas. This is true; Alaska is HUGE; although I wonder how much of it is reasonably habitable.

Strongly against same sex benefits, against the right to choose, against stem cell research, all as expected. A raped teen should carry the baby; a mother whose life is threatened by carrying to term may have the option to choose. Would counsel "choose life" to her own daughter, not "you have a choice", which the other two supported.

Against death with dignity. States there are medical ways to deal with pain.

I did not realize what a huge topic "Substinance Fishing and Hunting Rights" are in AK. I was struck by her inconsistent stance on the issue. She claimed the tribal support for the state amendment allowing local/state control of fish and game management was "fringe", and that the better solution was a "policy of creating abundance". She stated she would support putting the issue on the ballot, but then vote against it personally. The issue seems to involve native or rural peoples having access to fish and games before "others". She seems to support having the federal government handle the issue over state control (which has been the case since the late 1990's). She supports coming at the issue through a policy of increasing "abundance" rather than limiting access to the "others" and favoring the "rural"/"indigenous" people who need it for a economic or sustinance purposes. Overall : Supports status quo of allowing the federal to manage fish and game rather than using the state constitution amendment to return control to AK.

Stated she would not cancel last minute pork or controversial acts by previous governor if elected, including "gravel road to nowhere", same sex initiative, and last minute pardon for exxon involving the "Point Thompson" issue.

Supports use of state sales tax increase in time of fiscal crisis over income tax or use of state income/funds. Groceries and medical exempt from the tax.

Stated dealing with infrastructure issues (education, sewer, water) the state should not shoulder the burden alone but should seek funding from the Federal government.

Seemed to be all over the map on the "PPT" issue. Apparently there is a pipeline proposed that would have some 20% owned by alaskan people. Seemed to support totally revisiting the issue as did all of the group.

That's my take. She was very waffly and possibly disingenuous on the PPT and Fish and Game issues. Typically neocon stance on stem cell research, women's choice, end-of-life dignity. Supportive of regressive sales taxes over other revenue methods. Supported federal intervention or monetary assistance on sewer, water, education, police, VPSO (Village Public Safety Officers).

Seemed to strongly support alternative energy, and portrayed AK as being in a position to take the lead nationally in this area. Nuke, geothermal, tides, biomass.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

"Several opponents of Palin, as well as the non-partisan factcheck.org, have noted the claim she was against the bridge is not entirely accurate" -- the Alaska governor was for the bridge during her 2006 gubernatorial bid, and did not begin opposing it until it became clear the project was doomed on Capitol Hill."

"Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton went even further Monday, calling the assertion a flat out "lie.""

"But McCain spokesman Brian Rogers is standing by the claim, and said the Obama campaign is launching "hysterical attacks.""

I wonder how long her honeymoon will last with the press. The upcoming "interview" will say a lot. I put that in quotes because I think it might end up being another feel-good piece about her "achievements".

If Barack or Joe told whoppers like hers, the equivalent of the bridge to nowhere or the planes sold on ebay, or one of the many others she has been making, there would be an outcry in the press.

Will CNN even mention the Republican Party's so-called "Hot Librarian" actually tried to have a REAL Librarian fired for refusing to remove books offensive to Creationists?

And why is the McCain camp allowed to constantly use the claim of "Democratic Hysteria" when replying to the press? This is the same as "War on Terror"...it doesn't answer a question, just makes a generic claim. No details required. Yes the press allows it and prints it.

Obama and Joe speak honestly, giving details and facts, yet the Republican Party accuses them of being "Tax and Spend, old blue party Liberal, Hysterical, Democrats". Name calling and no facts, still printed.

The Democrats point out the total inaccuracy of Palin's outrageous claims, backed up by her own documented statements of 2006, yet CNN waters it down to "not entirely accurate" and then prints the Republican claim of "Democratic Hysteria" verbatim.

Tis a dark day when name calling trumps facts, not just once, but throughout the media.

Palin states Biden is not an agent of change

"When our opponent made his choice, he went for a fine man,� she said. �A decent man. Sen. Biden can claim many chairmanships across many, many years in Washington, and certainly many friends in the Washington establishment. But even those admirers would not be able to call him an agent of change.�

So let me get this straight:

McCain : In Washington for decades but he's an agent of change.
Biden : Has been in Washington for decades, but is not an agent of change.

Palin, as governor of the smallest state (by population) in the union, with 2 years of experience, is an agent of change and "a maverick".

Palin can bring real change. Creationism in the classrooms, anti-choice for America's women.

The Republicans are trying to steal the "Agent of Change" argument as they see Freddie Mac and Fannie May collapsing, and the unemployment rate skyrocketing.

It's like the hall of mirrors in a carnival. Obama and Biden are suddenly being cast as the Beltway Brothers while McCain and Palin are the Maverick Republicans ready to change politics forever.

(head spinning from Palin's idiocy)

...as long as change means video streaming using Microsoft Silverlight only.

Isn't this supposed to be the "Technology Party"?