Jul 3rd 2008 8:55AM
Fox News has sunk to a new low. On Wednesday, the network displayed photos that its editors had doctored of two New York Times employees--reporter Jacques Steinberg, and editor Steven Radcliffe. Media Matters has graciously provided us with the before-and-after evidence showing that Fox purposefully yellowed Steinberg's teeth, widened his nose and chin, and photo-shopped his ears stick out further.
Read More »This is something that both Democrats and Betty Lou can enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1KxgH9l3n4&feature=related
It's become pretty clear that pundits love John McCain. "We're his base," MSNBC host Chris Matthews famously said. So if you're looking for some, er, straight talk on Senator McCain—where's a person to go?
That's why we're launching McCain Watch—a zippy email with the presidential news you most need to know (but won't hear elsewhere) about Senator McCain. The good folks at The Huffington Post will publish it and we'll deliver it to your inbox. It'll be fair, clear, and tough—the way news is supposed to be.
Want to sign up? Just click here and we'll add you to the list:
http://pol.moveon.org/mccainwatch/o.pl?id=13078-9278095-Kgl00lx&t=1
Thanks for all you do,–Nita Chaudhary, MoveOn.org Political Action
The Republican presidential contender, who is known for his hot temper, was questioned about the alleged incident at a news conference Wednesday here. He noted that at the time, he had been asked to co-chair a Central American working group in the Senate with Democrat Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and had made several trips to the region in that role.
"I had many, many meetings with the Sandinistas," McCain said. "I must say, I did not admire the Sandinistas much. But there was never anything of that nature. It just didn't happen."
His comments did not square with Cochran's detailed recollection of the alleged incident. Read More »
Well now it begins
By JONATHAN MARTIN,
politico.com
Posted: 2008-07-01 18:16:17
The National Rifle Association plans to spend about $40 million on this year's campaign, with $15 million of that devoted to portraying Barack Obama as a threat to the Second Amendment rights upheld last week by the Supreme Court.
"Our members understand that if Barack Obama is elected president, and he has support in the Senate to confirm anti-gun Supreme Court nominees, [the District of Columbia v. Heller decision] could be taken away from us in the future," Chris Cox, head of the NRA's political arm, told Politico.
The politically powerful gun rights group will split its message efforts between communicating with its 4 million members and the tens of millions more firearms owners across the country.
This fall, NRA members will get automated phone calls, mail pieces and pre-election editions of the group's three magazines making the case against Obama. More broadly, the group will use an independent expenditure effort to hammer the Democratic nominee via TV, radio and newspaper ads in some of about 15 battleground states in the Midwest and Mountain West.
I don't think it's a smart idea to vote for someone that you know in advance is opposed to almost everything you believe in with the hopes that your elected officials will step in and stop his destruction. Will stop his continued march to a victory in Iraq which I don't think is possible, will stop his economic policy that will help only those that already have enough, will prevent a Healthcare policy that will continue to benefit the Insurance Companies and no one else. To hope that they will keep him from appointing conservative judges to the Supreme Court. I just don't see our government being capable of stopping all these dangerous policies that the Republican Platform stands for.
I believe that Senator Clinton who has fought for and has worked for so many years for new Early Childhood policies and her Healthcare Reform deserves to finally see these policies come to fruition. This will not happen with a McCain Presidency.
We need a President that can and will work with the Senate and House, not against them. It's time for the fighting to stop. As long as we continue to have a stalemate on issues that are vital to the survival this Country and its people we will continue to pay dearly.
I think it's important to look at the candidates at the time they entered the Presidential race and see where they stood then and how they conducted themselves. I believe that's the person you will be electing. It's the same as when Hillary was slugging down shooters. Now I know that wasn't who she really was. Her making up stories about her Bosnia trip. That didn't bother me then and it doesn't bother me now. She needed to do whatever she could to win. Again if she didn't win then she would never have the opportunity to put her great plans to work.
Now I know I'm going to get a lot of heat for this, but guys these are all politicians they didn't get to run for National Office by being Peter Pan or Snow White.
Welcome to the real world.
This is in response to an intelligent comment left by someone on a recent post regarding Little Dine and Grandpa Dines apology.
I was not aware of what had transpired over anti Semitic remarks. I do know that there has been ugliness on this site since I came here. I do believe that most who post here are decent people, but there are others who tend to ruin the experience for all of us. It's a shame really that we have allowed the hate and fear mongers to continue. What I would like to propose is this: When someone posts something that is obviously opinionated hate or fear, even if it's someone who supposedly supports our candidate (whomever that is) that we ignore. No comments, no stars. Nothing, as if they don't exist. In time hopefully they will go away. If we don't feed the tigers, they will look elsewhere for food.
This is an excerpt from an article that is posted on the MSNBC web site.
By Robert BarnesWashington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 29, 2008
As justices finished their work last week, two overarching truths about the court remained unchanged: It is sharply divided ideologically on some of the most fundamental constitutional questions, and the coming presidential election will determine its future path.
A victory by the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, would probably mean preserving the uneasy but roughly balanced status quo, since the justices who are considered most likely to retire are liberal. A win for his Republican counterpart, John McCain, could mean a fundamental shift to a consistently conservative majority ready to take on past court rulings on abortion rights, affirmative action and other issues important to the right.
Earlier today I left a comment on a post (of which I don't reacall which one) that was nasty and I feel attacking Betty Lou. It was uncalled for and she didn't deserve it. For some you know that I lost a son in Iraq and there are times when my grief and anger become overwhelming. This was the case today. It's just that when I see a post that in my minds thinking is helping McCain become our next president I overreact.
Betty Lou, I just want you to know I'm very sorry for having attacked your opinion, which of course you have every right to post.
Bill Clinton came into the White House after being Governor from the small State of Arkansas. He had no experience working with heads of states from around the world and no foreign policy experience. Yet many people including myself view him as one of the best if not the best president we've had in the last 40 years. What did he have going for him? Why were people so drawn to him? And how was he able to beat an incumbent President who already had 4 years of experience as the President? The answer...Americans were looking for change. Americans were looking for someone that wasn't part of the Washington establishment. We were looking for someone who was young, fresh and had new ideas on ways to make this country even greater then it had ever been. This to me sounds very much like Barack Obama.
For those who voted for Bill Clinton, ask yourselves this question. Why? Why did you vote for him? Certainly it wasn't for his vast foreign policy experience or his knowledge on National Security. Remember our current President has close to 8 years of experience as the President of the United States, would you vote for him again? Perhaps experience isn't what it's all cracked up to be when choosing our next President.
Posts