The smear aren't just with the jewish community. Here in North Carolina I got this email a couple of days ago.

Oboma's Church according to his website

Posted at January 16, 2008 3:59 PM in response to Playing With Fire: Smearing Obama Among Jews

Okay, I will try this again. Here is the email I received.
Oboma's Church according to his websiteOboma's Church according to his website

Posted at January 10, 2008 8:08 PM in response to The Hate Campaign Against Obama

I have not seen the email circulating among the jewish community, but I received this little ditty here in North Carolina today.

Oboma's Church according to his website

Posted at January 10, 2008 7:42 PM in response to The Hate Campaign Against Obama

I have to object to the beatification of George Will as a righteous gentile. His man-crush on Reagan in the 80's was sickening enough, but his part in the Dole campaign in 1996 pushed journalistic ethics into weird places. He was clearly in the loop of what talking points Dole would make in the the days just after Will's column appeared and laid the groundwork for these points. I wrote my local paper that Will's columns should carry a disclaimer that, "George Will is a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and an active member of the Dole Campaign." Just because he is not pimping for any one this time out does not mean he is not a pimp.

Posted at January 7, 2008 5:28 PM in response to Kristol's First Times Oped: Neoconservatism For Idiots

Having just seen the 15-second clip a few minutes ago, and knowing nothing of anyone's reaction, my thoughts were, "Wow. That's real emotion. I've never seen Hillary like that before. Oh oh, voice cracked, almost tears, oh crap. Now she'll be too weak and girly to be president. I can hear it now."

Sure enough, that's exactly where Edwards went. And that is the tightrope any female candidate for President is going to have to walk for the foreseeable future. Lock up your emotions in iron resolve and you're a phony. Let them peek out and you're weak.

Here's what will happen. Television news, always in search of 15-second sound-bite that will relieve them of their responsibility to do any real reporting, will play this every 10 minutes until Hillary drops out. You will never see 2 minutes that gives it a context or shows her regaining her composure. That would just screw up the story.

It will be just like the Howard Dean Scream. Most people never saw the clip with the real sound in the room, where it was clear that nobody there could hear his words. Hardly anybody ever saw the clip go on 5 more seconds as he turned to the other people on the stage and busted out laughing, showing that he knew it was over the top. No, context like that just gets in the way of the story; "Dean Is Nuts!!!"

The funny thing is that if I had seen this Hillary, the real human being, a little more over the last 16 years, I might well have supported her. For me it's too little too late.

Posted at January 7, 2008 4:16 PM in response to Hillary Teared--and Edwards Blinked

I actually think it is good idea that the candidates be vetted by one-on-one campaigning in a few small states. To me it's kind of like a congressional committee examining a bill or a nominee and reporting its findings to the whole body. Their most useful function is to weed out the pretenders that do not stand up under close scrutiny and leaving us a slate of strong potential nominees.

I must say I'm glad to see South Carolina join the committee. For too long the Democratic establishment has simply abandoned all hope of appealing to any southerner outside of Florida despite being competetive in state and local races. (If Al Gore had made any attempt to carry his home state the world might be a very different place right now.)

What is driving me nuts though are the states that are determined to front-load the process. I fully understand the frustration of having no voice in the choice of candidate. I am in North Carolina and by the time our May primary rolls around the die is cast. I have no imput at all.

The states that have moved their primaries to January and February, though, are only exacerbating the problem by making those first few contests even more important. The candidates will not have time to get their message out to the voters in Michagan. Those voters will be poorly informed and even more reliant on the opinions of New Hampshire and Iowa and the tender mercies of the corporate media.

I am a firm believer that every state is unique and deserves an individual voice, but I have come to the conclusion that the primary schedule should be set by federal statute. I would propose a schedule of;

1. Iowa Caucus, late Jan. Then 2 weeks later;
   
2. New Hampshire, back in early Feb. where it belongs. Then 2 weeks later;
   
3. South Carolina, late Feb.
   
4. 6-8 weeks for a national campaign by the survivors to get their message out.
   
5. Everybody else, one day, sometime in April.

Posted at January 3, 2008 3:58 PM in response to Pondering Predictions

You know, it is one thing to hire a reporter or columnist and then discover that writer is a lying shill for the administration. It is quite another to hire some one you already know fits that profile.

Apparenty the Times feels a need to publish bald faced lies about the Democratic nominee under the cover of a by-line instead of in unsigned editorials. They're just getting their ducks in a row now.

Posted at December 31, 2007 3:43 PM in response to Neocon Celeb Scribbler Bill Kristol Gets NY Times Column

Did I read someone saying we need to support whatever the people of Pakistan want? Have you lost your freaking mind? Who knows what sort of nutjob those people might elect? It could even be someone who thinks his job is to do what's best for the Pakitanis. Can you imagine the gall?

No, we simply cannot let the Pakistanis pick who runs their democracy. Kind of defeats the purpose of the whole democracy building effort if we let a bunch of ignorant foreigners pick the leaders.

Now Musharrif, there's a guy we can deal with. He would
do whatever we ask him to, bought and paid for just like a good dictator should be. Only problem is, he can't do anything because every other center of power in the country hates his guts. The reformers hate him for stealing power to begin with. The lawyers hate him or making a mockery of the constitution. The intellegence services hate him for stopping their dirty war against India. The Islamists hate him for dealing with the US. Even his own military hates him for making the rest of them look stupid.

So I guess it's time to explain The Bush Administation Middle East Policy. Karen Hughes would have, but those liberal, pointy-headed, State Dept. weenies kept cutting it out of her speeches.

• Some people say we are at war with Islam, but that's just silly. We are at war with Moslems. I hope this clears up any confusion.
  
• Some people say we want to take over your country, but that's just silly. We just want to install a government that will do whatever we tell it to. I hope this clears up any confusion.
  
• Don't make us come over there and open up a can of democracy building on your ass. I hope this clears up any confusion.

Posted at December 28, 2007 8:14 PM in response to Musharraf Regime, R.I.P.

I fail to share the optimism that people will actually learn a lasting lesson from the housing bubble collapse. We've seen the whole free-markets, deregulation, supply-side house of cards proved wrong again and again, but the beast simply will not die.

Any one remember Savings and Loans? Reagan's deregulation took a thriving, profitable, largely community-based alternative to commercial banks and destroyed it. An entire sector of the banking industry, and it was just gone.

It is, of course, true that regulatory overreaction and drastic new liquidity rules pushed the few survivors over the edge and forced them to sell themselves to the commercial sector. Supply-siders love to point this out, but it is just the other edge of the same sword. Devotion to the idea of unfettered markets killed the S&L's. The overreaction was just the coup de grace.

Lesson learned, one would think, but it never works that way because the people arguing for completely free markets are not really interested in rational discourse. All their pretty theories are just a means to an end; allowing the wealthy to skim as much money off the top of the top of the economy as possible.

Posted at December 24, 2007 8:25 AM in response to Best and Worst of 2007, Economic Policy Version

If a Republican wins there will be great pressure to maintain the current state of affairs from two groups that have supported the GOP for years; the Cuban exile community and Big Sugar.

The Cubans may be willing to accept some softening once Castro steps away. Many already support that and a change at the top in Havana may well be the chance for a younger, less strident, generation to make its feelings heard.

However, if Big Sugar gets it's way, its aim is not to foster democracy, but to quash competition. Therefore, not only would Fidel and Raul Castro be unacceptable, so would any one else named Castro, any one hand-picked by Castro, any one who has supported Castro, or any one who looks like Castro. Basically any one now residing in Cuba would be unacceptable, and you better believe they have the resources to turn the Grover Norquist Noise Machine to their message.

Posted at December 18, 2007 5:59 PM in response to Castro's Surprise: How Will the Presidential Candidates Respond?