Another fantastic article by Chris Hedges; if you have not read it yet, please take a few moments and do so: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080804_a_war_of_self_destruction/

Remember back to the tracking polls in the North Carolina primary? They said it was going to be close. Obama won soundly. The problem with polls as has been brought up by many people including the very astute Chuck Todd on MSNBC is that many of the new voters do not have land lines. They have cells as their primary phone line. Most polls are made to land lines. Since the younger voters which make up a large segment of Obama supporters are not polled, it is hard to tell if the numbers are accurate. Obama's lead could actually be larger than it is because of this phenomena which started to emerge in the '04 campaign, but is even larger today.

The Democratic nominee leads among gays, independents, Latinos and blacks and leads John McCain by nine points overall, finds a new Harris poll.

Barack Obama leads John McCain among registered voters 44 percent to 35 percent, while Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate and Ralph Nader each receive 2 percent, a new Harris Interactive poll reported.

Sixteen percent of registered voters are not sure whom they will vote for.

Among LGBT adults, 60 percent favor Obama while 14 percent favor McCain.

Three percent of LGBT adults favor Barr, while 1 percent choose Nader. Six percent choose "other," while 17 percent of all LGBT voters are not yet sure which candidate to support -- comparable to the general population.

Among independents, Obama has a 12-point lead (38 percent to 26 percent), but one-quarter of independents are not sure, 4 percent would vote for Bob Barr and 3 percent for Ralph Nader.

The findings also show that 90 percent of African-Americans are voting for Obama, as are six in 10 Latinos. Whites, however, are leaning towards McCain over Obama (40 percent versus 34 percent).


Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved

Now that Bush is sending a member of his administration to meet (listen, stare at, whatever) with the Iranian chief nuclear negotiator, does that now make the Bush administration and by default the United States appeasers?

I wrote a post back on July 9th entitled "The Pen is Mightier than the Sword, Except When the other Guy has got a Gun". In it I spoke of a site I've posted blogs on where I seem to be 'one of', if not the only, blue banner waving Democratic foot soldier. First of all I shared the wrong address. The correct site address is; www.realclearpolitics.com (that's Real Clear Politics not Real Politics). To emphasize the importance of this site, it is an arm of Time magazine.

Yesterday I linked a post entitled "Red, White and the deepest Blue" which was pro-Obama and received a myriad of angry red responses.

By the way, linking a post is easy if you set up a Blog Spot account for your Democrat leaning words then go to www.realclearpolitics.com and give em' hell!

Well it took him long enough. Georgie overturned an EO that HIS father signed in 1990 to stop offshore drilling. He says it is now up to Congress. Now more than ever we need to make sure that Congress acts on and passes Rep. Nick Rahall's H.R. 6251 the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act of 2208. It would force oil and gas companies to use the 68 million acres of federal land already leased onshore and offshore but are not using.

Permits for drilling have increased over 300% from 1999 to 2007, but gas prices have not dropped. Didn't President Bush and Sen McBush say just the opposite would happen if they were given more permits? The oil companies have plenty of public land that they are not using. What we need to to work for peace and stability in the Middle East so the market will not keep raising prices due to tensions in the area. 

From www.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080714/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

 ...Bush's proposal echoes a call by Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, to open the Outer Continental Shelf for exploration. Democrat Barack Obama has opposed the idea and instead argued for helping consumers with a second economic stimulus package including energy rebates, as well as stepped up efforts to develop alternative fuels and more fuel-efficient automobiles.

"If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks," spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "But most experts, even within the Bush administration, concede it would do neither. It would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for thirty years."

For more information on HR 6251 please see the following:

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/?option=com_content&task=view&id=389&Itemid=1

www.resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=389&Itemid=1

We've heard and seen so many creative nomenclatures from left leaning bloggers for the right wing presumptive nominee, who claims he's really independent though he usually votes conservative, and as late has all toes at the party line, Republican John McCain i.e. McLame, McDisdane, Mcshame, Mcflame, Mcsnooze, Mcboosh, just plain McBush etc. to name a few and well, that's just the tip of the iceberg. We're talkin' about an ice flow with more power than a major league pitchers' flaming fastball. That's all well and good for those who hold the blue banner dear to their hearts but what about the issues. How does the blue team talk some of those folks that are quite so bloody red into moving into rainbow territory and pullin' the big blue lever in November? What are the differences. Is there a great divide? So many questions, so little answers, so much hearsay and so many fractions of the facts to be de-slimed. That's mainly the red machine throwing it all at the man in blue so he's constantly attempting a deflection strategy rather than stepping up to tout his own plans for putting this country back to work, keeping us safe and repairing the damage done by an administration that has more in common with the Kremlin than the American people.

Recently the mainstream media has been touting Obama's move to the middle as an effort to appease those on the fence and McCain's saber rattling that he's already the man in the middle so we should take notice of him. Mainstream media has been dancing around the issues, giving us little or no facts, telling us the two men have similar views...I don't think so, but don't take it from me, go to both candidates websites and read about their positions and then read some more. Problem is folks want to be told, they don't want to dig and discover unless it's about entertainment and juicy gossip. We're teaching those bad habits to our young via the big square box in your living room. However that's a separate subject in and of itself, deserving of space in another blog at another time. You're not like that anyhow cause you've taken the time to read this far. You're a comparison shopper and you want the facts.

Now I see some distinct differences in the two men. Let's take the issue of Social Security for example. Last week McCain showcased his ideas for the economy. When asked by a young woman at a Denver town hall meeting early last week how to make Social Security viable for her generation, McCain said she could not rely on the system "unless we fix it". Fair enough but he followed that with the following; "We are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today, and that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed." His comments seemed to suggest he favored a funding mechanism for Social Security benefits, such as private accounts. Later on CNN, as reported in the L.A. Times, McCain seemed to fully embrace the idea of private accounts. "I want young workers to be able to, if they choose, to take part of their own money, which is their taxes, and put it in an account which has their name on it" he said. Participation would be a "voluntary thing," and "would not affect any present-day retirees or the system as necessary." Now we've got a real problem because the system since it's creation in the 1930s relies heavily on payroll taxes from current workers to fund benefits for current retirees. Seems that will leave the retirees without any money for Social Security. His timing was odd as well endorsing a new reliance on the stock market the week that the Jones industrial average dipped to its lowest point in two years. With the George W Bush Social Security privatization debacle fresh in the minds of many Americans, especially Seniors, it appears this just might give certain blue groups an opportunity to flank the opposition. If that's not enough try comparing the two men on women's issues. -Nick Danger

I like Rachel Maddow. I listen to her every night on WCPT 820AM here in Chicago. This past week however, I missed having Keith on Countdown. While he was on a well deserved vacation, I wanted to see his expression when McCain just sat there when asked a question about his voting record for contraception, or Phil Gramm or Jesse Jackson.

Here is a website that will send a message in support of the legislation to stop the oil speculators and close the Enron loophole among other things. The organization is sponsored by the Teamsters, airlines and a nonprofit origanziation called truthonoil.org

http://www.stopoilspeculationnow.com/

According to a recent L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll released this past Wednesday, three out of four Americans, including large numbers of Republicans, blame President Bush's economic policies for making the country worse off during the last eight years. Not surprising, this reflects a sharp increase in public pessimism during the last year.

Nine percent of respondents said the country's economic condition had improved since Bush became president, compared with 75% who said conditions had worsened. Among Republicans, 42% said the country was worse off, while 26% said it was about the same, and 22% thought economic conditions had improved. Many Republicans polled admitted they'd voted for Bush in the past two elections but wouldn't do so again. That's good since he can't run again but how does that translate to Barack Obama?

We have three a three front war the Obama campaign must wage 1) Unify Democrats, 2) attract Independents to the campaign and 3) go behind the Red curtain and secretly enlighten sectors of the disenfranchised to join our ranks. Of course this all must be done with finesse while not appearing to move too far in any one direction or toward any one group or segment of any group while also being careful not to make the slightest mistake in any speech, appointment or otherwise that might be construed as fodder for the cannons of the Republican guard. It's a tall order to be had, but done with grace will take us over the beach-head and through the jungle to our prize.

We find ourselves at a cross roads and the time has come to not wrestle with each other over policy matters but to forge a sharp cohesive tool the campaign would like and desperately needs to cut a swath right through that jungle with ease. The time has come to lay down our egos and set our differences aside to ensure that we win this election. We can find ways to blame the W and hold our breath but the most powerful way to use this weapon...and we've got to come up for air sooner or later, after all we are mammals and thinking ones at that... is to use these poll numbers to unify ourselves as one voice. The time has come to shore up our support for a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress! Mount your steed ladies and gentlemen and crack those whips... Talyho!

Senator Burr (R) of NC told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell at the top of this hour that "not a drop" of oil was spilled during those hurricanes--an outright LIE!

St. Petersburg Times
Craig Pittman
pub. June 20, 2008

"Hurricane Katrina ripped into Louisiana and Mississippi in 2005, destroying 115 oil platforms, significantly damaging 52 more and setting adrift 19. More than 7-million gallons of petroleum products spilled, according to the U.S. Coast Guard. By comparison, in 1989 the Exxon Valdez spilled 11-million gallons in Alaska's Prince William Sound."   Read More »

Trouble brewing for McCain? Could be...According to an article that ran in the L.A. Times last week something is under all those suds at Hensley & Co., one of the nation's major beer wholesalers that has brought the family of Cindy McCain wealth, prestige and influence in Phoenix. That something is not just malt, hops and bitter either... Cindy McCain, owns a beer distribution company that has engaged in lobbying. As a senator John McCain has recused himself from alcohol issues, but as president he wouldn't be able to.

Hensley, founded by Cindy McCain's late father, holds federal and state licenses to distribute beer and lobbies regulatory agencies on alcohol issues that involve public health and safety. The Phoenix piquant of pint, has also opposed such groups as Mothers Against Drunk Driving in fighting proposed federal rules requiring alcohol content information on every package of beer, wine and liquor.

Its executives, including John McCain's son Andrew, have written at least 10 letters in recent years to the Treasury Department, have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to a beer industry political action committee, and hold a seat on the board of the politically powerful National Beer Wholesalers Assn.

Hensley has run afoul of health advocacy groups that have tried to rein in appeals to young drinkers. For example, the company distributes caffeinated alcoholic drinks that public health groups say put young and underage consumers at risk by disguising the effects of intoxication.

Doesn't it seem obvious that the involvement of McCain's family in federal regulatory issues could create a conflict of interest for a future McCain administration? According to advocacy groups and political analysts that's just the case. Are we saving this tidbit of good tidings for the general election or just to celebrate our new found brew in the local tap room? As a Senator he's perfected his bob and weave off the highway but on the highway to the white house there could be trouble brewing. Raise your glass cause these suds are

something I wrote the other day:

What is the most successful strategy Republicans have used to win the economically depressed rural and small town votes in the last two Presidential election cycles? Exploit fears that Democrats will take away these citizens� guns, sanction gay marriage (thereby desecrating family values), and deny intelligent design be taught in schools.

Guns, gays and God.

Republicans then unashamedly give tax cuts for the countryâ��s most wealthy, grant generous subsidies to oil companies (skyrocketing profits notwithstanding), ship jobs overseas by the tens of thousands (while granting more tax cuts for corporations), promise expansion of free trade agreements across the globe â�" and ignore, again, the very people who cheered them into office.

Senator Obama is speaking to this blatant con game. The American people are simply not accustomed to truth in leadership. They know only politicians who seize on sound bites and manipulate them to their advantage all the way to the voting booth. That�s why there will be a dip in Sen. Obama�s poll numbers. That�s why there are so many angry comments on blogs in the last 24 hours. The same old politics has reared its ugly head again.

But not this time. Americans are not dumb. We are not totally rendered tone deaf by the last 20 years of dynastic rule. We hear you Senator Obama. And we want to take back our country.

To Pennsylvania (and other) supporters of our opponents, heed these words: should Clinton or McCain prevail, you will yet again be discarded â�" and it will be a long four years until the next time.

Make this time matter.

Join us.

In addition to the breathtaking non-response in the polls, I was struck watching Countdown tonight by Gov. Rendell's reaction to the current brouhaha regarding Obama's statement. Hillary Clinton has not had a more affable, outspoken, and passionate supporter than Rendell. I fully expected him to remain on message with Clinton. (After all, he has adroitly managed expectations for the upcoming Pennsylvania primaries.) Instead, he said: "I think he [Obama] has a real good chance to carry Pennsylvania. ... I think it'll cost a couple of points at the margin, but it's not a sea change... by November... this comment will be long-forgotten."

As Keith points out, Rendell's weak statement sends a strong signal to super delegates and perhaps to Sen. Clinton herself.

What continues to escape the awareness of those in the Clinton campaign -- staff change-ups notwithstanding -- is that this is a brand spanking new era in politics, and adaptation is key. Did Obama expect someone to have a tape recorder in her lap at a closed "off the record" fundraiser? No. But you can bet now he is aware that every word he utters is considered fair game in the public realm. After all, there is no journalistic accountability in the blogosphere - no one can be fired and no one cross-checks facts.

Fortunately for him, Obama is a quick study. As he has demonstrated in the days since the release of the transcript from the San Francisco fundraiser, Obama quickly adapts, transforming his nuanced statement perceived as gaffe into opportunity -- giving voice to millions of Americans who've received short shrift in the economic schema of the last 8 years. The instant sound bite has potentially become another tool in Obama's political arsenal. I'm looking forward to this Wednesday's debate.

Olbermann's Worst person in the World last night, and worse person tonight. What was this woman thinking??? She's an elected Rep to the Illinois Legislature, and she stands on the floor of the House and tells Mr. Sherman "he has no right to be there"? Seriously??!! What Country does this woman live in? Certainly not America, because in America he has every right to believe, or not believe, in God. She, nor anyone else, has to like it or agree with him, but he certainly has the right.

My Keith topic for this week is his interview with Elizabeth Edwards and her comments on why she prefers the Clinton Healthcare plan over the McCain plan. Well, that's a no brainer, McCain really doesn't have a plan, and what little he does have favors corporate over individual. My dispute is why she favors the Clinton plan over the Obama plan. Her reason was simple, Obama's plan doesn't require everyone to buy Healthcare. That's the exact reason I favor his plan over Clinton's. Mrs. Edwards stated that requiring everyone to buy coverage would keep rates down. Wrong.

I live in Michigan. Our State requires everyone to buy auto insurance, and our rates are sky high, because insurance companies know we have no choice but to buy coverage, whatever the cost. Apply that to a National scale and I see nothing but sky high Healthcare costs, which is the very reason so many Americans don't already have Healthcare.

I live in Michigan. Our economy has been in recession far longer than nationally. I barely make enough to cover the basics; mortgage, utilities, gas, food, and Clinton and Edwards want me to shell out hundreds of dollars for Healthcare? If I had the money I'd have Healthcare already.

Could the color of his skin make you lock the door. Let us not once again be led down this path, so many in this country are in need of help. If you seen children playing you would understand, the color of the skin does not even come into play, many in this nation cannot seem to change, but today, the nation is looking for a new direction, rich, poor, black or white, from this land or not, they are lining up behind Barack, many are trying to take the democratic party in another direction, it will not work, the wind is at our backs, a new generation of leadership shall take control.