First elected in 1998, Congresswoman Tubbs Jones was the first African-American woman to represent Ohio in Congress and the first African-American woman to serve on the Ways and Means Committee. Rep. Tubbs Jones was the Chairwoman of the House Ethics Committee.

She was 58 years old.

UPDATE: Rep. Tubbs Jones' doctors are saying that she has not passed away, but that she's in critical condition.

UPDATE II: CNN is reporting that Tubbs Jones has now passed away.

Who knew that the US is currently exporting 1.8 million barrels of oil a day?

To make sure everybody does, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, sent a public letter to President Bush, asking him to "keep our oil at home."

The letter didn't specify how, but it didn't miss the opportunity to take a shot at the GOP plan to open up protected offshore waters to oil drilling.

.....at the current export rate, by the time the first barrel of oil could be produced from increased offshore drilling, America would have already exported the equivalent of nearly 40 percent of the oil that is projected to lie beneath protected areas offshore.

Remember, the oil that's drilled up doesn't go directly to you or me or the American government--it goes to oil companies, who are free to then sell that oil to whoever they want, including foreign countries.

So keep that in mind whenever you hear the GOP demand we 'drill here, drill now.'  If we're going to open up offshore drilling, maybe we should make sure that all the oil we'd get out of it is kept here in the United States.  Funny how the Republicans are the ones demanding more drilling, but it's the Democrats who want to make sure the oil we drill up be kept here in the United States.

Of course, when translated from the French, this means "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

In the meantime, Obama, who hates Big Oil, has two Big Oil Lobbyists on his payroll as foreign policy advisers.

There's no unified front here, more a gradual meander towards a policy that does nothing to reduce oil prices and instead gouge an overtaxed America.

Geez, I can't understand why I abandoned the Democratic party. I mean, they have such upstanding citizens singing their praises. (I'll let Jon explain.)

Obama, the candidate of Plus ca Change...

15. Intelligent Design video game didn’t count toward college credit as promised

14. Line for Richard Dawkins piñata too long

13. Kirk Cameron wouldn’t stop hugging me, even after my wife complained

12. Social-Darwinism lecture hit too close to home

11. Animatronic Einstein sounded identical to animatronic Fred Flintstone. Or was it the other way round?

10. Snack bar ran out of the Ken Ham & Cheese Sub. Had to order the Duane Gish Knish. It was stale.

9. Ray Comfort’s banana demonstration was inappropriate for children

8. Gift shop charged extra for framing creation science degree. Signed, Chuck Norris, PhD.

7. Price of admission didn’t include ride on “Skippy: The Friendly Dinosaur”

6. Sciency DNA exhibit made my brain hurt

5. Sciency Noah’s Ark exhibit made my brain hurt

4. Kent Hovind was seen standing between Adam & Eve statues

3. My child didn’t receive free “God Hates Evilutionists” t-shirt

2. Charles Darwin look-alike complained when I hit him

1. Jesus-shaped bathroom soap gave me a Jesus-shaped rash

According to Digby, Obama’s got problems.

This convinces me that the central problem for the campaign is that nobody knows what Obama stands for. It's a perennial problem for Democrats, but I think it may be an even bigger problem this time. The hope and change theme was galvanizing in the beginning but it isn't enough to sustain full campaign. What was once inspiring has become a fog.

It’s not that Obama doesn’t represent something, it’s that Boomers don’t connect with what he represents, which is a younger generation, the generation of voters that grew up after the boomers, some coming of voting age after 9/11. Many of these voters aren't interested in the politics of the 60's and 70's, nor are they interested in fighting the same fight the Clinton's had to in the 90's.

Steve Soto basically says the same thing as Digby, except in a much more depressing way.

I'm bored by the Obama hype and see nothing now in his candidacy other than the fact he isn't McCain. The Supreme Court is enough to make us vote for him, but my feeling now is that Obama lost this race already, and it isn't the fault of bloggers (who he disdains and doesn't need), but rather himself and all the fawning Democratic Party lackeys who fell in behind him as he led them over the cliff.

Jesus H. fucking Christ on a cracker. Soto has given up on the election all together. Remarkable. Obama is a talented, young, politician, an unknown really, a black man with a Muslim name, and he has a real shot, A REAL SHOT, at becoming the next president of the United States. This shouldn’t be happening. But it is. To me this is remarkable. But bloggers like Soto are bored and disappointed.

Obama may not be the perfect candidate for progressives, but he’s a pretty damn good democratic candidate, the best one democrats have had since Clinton. (Bill that is). Obama is losing points! Really? You don’t say! He should be up by ten, but is only up a few, tied in some polls, and losing in others! Mother-fucker, if anything, Obama should be DOWN ten points. Again. A black man with a Muslim name becoming president of the United States of America. Who would have thought, merely seven years after 9/11? And yet, here he is. Despite the hate, the pessimism, the depression, the fear, the polls. HE’S RIGHT THERE.

Give the MoFo a chance for Christ’s sake!

Soto writes that if Obama loses it will be his own fault and not the fault of the bloggers (who he [Obama] disdains and doesn’t need). Okay. So that must mean that if Obama wins, he’ll have no one to thank but himself, and his “disdain” for bloggers will have been justified.

What a load.

UPDATE:

John and Joe at AmericaBlog are feeling the same as Digby and Soto.

...people are now telling us that they fear we're going to lose the election.

The blogs are poised to help (should the campaign ever decide to truly engage us).

We have to win and the Obama campaign needs to let us all help him win.

AmericaBlog predicted Obama's primary win against Hillary when most were convinced Hillary would be the nominee. They know what they're talking about. The feelings are real. I'm just wondering if certain bloggers aren't simply having their feelings hurt because Obama isn't running his campaign the way they think he should, which of course would include Obama engaging the blogsphere.

And here's the proof:

House Republicans said Monday they would refuse to consider any energy bill that came straight to the floor from the Democratic leadership’s offices, rather than working its way through committee markups — a process that can take weeks or months.

So, first the GOP is demanding we 'drill here, drill now.'  But as soon as the Democrats put a bipartisan compromise bill in front of them, suddenly the Republicans want it to go through months of committee hearings and markups and other bureaucratic nonsense before they'll even consider it.

It just goes to show that the Republicans aren't looking out for us--they're not trying to lower our gas prices or solve our energy problem.  They're just trying to milk their political stunt for as many votes as they can get, killing a compromise bill that could have gotten through Congress and started resolving our energy crisis within weeks. Instead, the GOP now wants it to take months.

Democrats try to solve our energy crisis; Republicans do everything in their power to prolong it.  As if there's any question left as to who has America's best interest at heart.

In 1967, many people, West and East, are celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the "Glorius" October Revolution. To help people understand more about what they are celebrating, we offer a few slices of the anniversary cake. We hope no one gets indigestion.

March, 1917

After the overthrow of the Czar and his government, the people of Russia began their uphill rush toward democracy. The Bolshevik Party worked among the intellectuals, laborers and peasants striving toward the peak. The Party pulled a small and well disciplined organization behind it.

The Party unselfishly led the way to the top.

October, 1917

Once on top, the Party insisted upon assuming the thankless job of ruling, generously waving aside all help.

This is what they celebrate nowadays as the Great October Revolution.

Franklin Roosevelt said, "The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation.  It is common sense to take a method and try it:  if it fails, admit it frankly and try another.  But above all, try something."

Roosevelt said this during the Great Depression, during the time when the capitalist system seemed to be in collapse.   The money supply had shrunk one third from 1929 to 1933.  Farming and rural areas suffered as crop prices fell by 40 to 60 percent, and a drought created the Dust Bowl in the midwest, displacing hundreds of thousands of people.  International trade declined sharply.  as did tax revenue, personal income, and profits for business.   Banks failures rose as people were unable to pay off their debts, as depositors lost $140 billion in deposits by 1933.  Bank failures meant that capital investment and construction slowed considerably.  About 25 percent of the nation was unemployed.  This information is from wikepedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression).

The New Dealers came into government fully versed in the progressive and liberal ideas of the time and they were intent on trying them out.  The Left at this time was blessed with the mingling of Liberals and Radical, as the combination of the Great Depression and the threat of fascism united portions of the Left that normally view each other as adversaries.  Robert C. Cottrell wrote in his book "Izzy:  A Biography of I.F. Stone":

"There was a sense of excitement in the air as the New Dealers devised one program after another that at least harked back to the Progressive movement of the early twentieth century and at times beyond that to the Populist and Socialist platforms as well.  Long standing calls by American reformers and radicals for greater government control over business operations, for support of labor unionization, for social welfare measures, for public works projects, for planning, and for a discarding of laissez-faire approaches appeared to be heeded to some degree or another by the Roosevelt Brain Trusters.  While it was clear, after a brief spell, that the New Deal was not ushering in a hoped-for revolution of the left or a feared one spearheaded by the right, it was also evident that the influence of progressive intellectual and activists on government policy was greater than ever.  This development was possible not simply because the economic collapse had thoroughly discredited conservative panaceas, but also because many radicals had discarded their early insistence on the need for drastic change in the United States.  And fearing the growing threat of fascist aggression, the Soviet Union- that 'model' socialist state- began, in the middle of the decade, to urge an antifascist alliance of liberal and radical forces.  That development, coupled with the apparent New Deal successes at home, made peaceful reform appear increasingly attractive."

The New Deal incorporated ideas like Social Security and workers' compensation from the Socialist planks that Norman Thomas and Eugene Debs had been fighting for since the beginning of the twentieth century.  Monsignor John A. Ryan influenced the New Deal to adopt some of the ideas of the Bishop's Program of Social Reconstruction, a progressive Catholic document derived from the papal encyclical Rerum Novarum, ideas like organizing industrial output, providing a minimum wage, and providing some form of worker representation and collective bargaining.  Within Roosevelt's group of advisors that were dubbed "The Brain Trust", two groups emerged with competing ideas.  One group was led by Rexford Tugwell and Adolf Berle, believed in the government planning of the economy and in collectivist ideas to control industry.  The other group, led by Felix Frankfurter, Benjamin Cohen, and Thomas Gardiner Corcoran,  distrusted central planning and believed more in minimum wages, child labor laws, and other reforms that fit within the American system of checks and balances.   Tugwell had admired the Progressive Senator Robert LaFollette and worked as a professor on ideas to help struggling farmers during the 1910s and 1920s.  Raymond Moley was influenced by the Populist politics of William Jennings Bryan and was an admirer of Woodrow Wilson's progressive domestic programs. 

Instead of a monolithic idealogy, the New Deal was a melding of several different strains of liberal, progressive and socialist thought.  I think that was one of the New Deal's great strengths, the clashing of different ideas and the openness to trying them out.  Benjamin Cohen is quoted as saying in the book, "Dealers and Dreamers:  A New Look at the New Deal" by Joseph P. Lash, "Washington was the center of action and most of us wanted to be part of the action...  The New Dealers brought to Washington new energies, new ideas, and the fruitful clash of ideas, both new and old."

Though the New Dealers represented different ideas, they were united in trying to increase the purchasing power of the average American and in the need for a massive public works program.   This confluence of ideas produced Social Security, bank and stock regulation, a progressive income tax, a minimum wage, aid to higher education, and public works that are still used today.  The New Deal was imperfect.  It didn't do enough to help tenant farmers, farm laborers, migrants or the poorest of the poor, and it didn't challenge the institutional racism of our country, in spite of efforts by liberals like Eleanor Roosevelt.  In spite of this, it did touch upon millions of Americans lives and it helped them to survive the Great Depression with a measure of dignity.  

The New Deal was the result of the agitation of millions of poor people railing against a system that badly needed fixing.   Howard Zinn wrote in the April 7, 2008 issue of the Nation that was dedicated to the 75th anniversary of the New Deal:

"The innovations of the New Deal were fueled by the militant demands for change that swept the country as FDR began his presidency:  the tenants' groups;  the Unemployed Councils;  the millions on strike on the West Coast, in the Midwest and the South;  the disruptive actions of desperate people seeking food, housing, jobs-  the turmoil threatening the foundations of American capitalism.  We will need a similar mobilization of citizens today, to unmoor from corporate control whoever becomes Presidents."

The New Deal openness to new ideas and the willingness to incorporate ideas from various segments of the Left is something that Democrats can emulate as they possibly could win the executive and legislative branches in this year's elections.    The environmental movement has generated ideas on how our society can live within its means, using more local produce to cut on transportation costs, on using alternative energy sources.  The Congressional Progressive Caucus champion universal access to health insurance, fair trade agreements, living wage laws and other progressive ideas.    The Green Party platform includes ideas for grassroots democracy, demilitarization and nonviolent ideas for resolving international problems, and community based economics.  In a similar vein, more radical sources have formulated a post capitalist economic system that eliminates the concentration of power in corporations and makes a less hierarchical system.  Though I dislike the authoritarian leanings of Hugo Chavez, his use of community groups to empower marginalized groups could be something that could be tried here.  Activists could agitate and pressure a potential Obama administration to take up these causes and to fight for the poor and marginalized to be included in any reforms.

The New Deal still provides a model that progressives could use to enact effective social change within the government.  It's still the most effective argument for evolutionary change rather revolutionary change, as it was during the 1930s, when the New Deal was an alternative to the communism of Stalin's Soviet Union and Hitler's fascism.  I end this post with an excerpt from FDRs first inaugural address.  It enunciates values that all progressives would approve of.  FDR said:

"

In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunk to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; and the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone. More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.

And yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered, because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply.

Primarily, this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True, they have tried. But their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit, they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They only know the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

Yes, the money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of that restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy, the moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days, my friends, will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves, to our fellow men.

Recognition of that falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, and on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live."

Al Gore found a new populist fervor in August 2000, and surged in the polls. A comparable surge by Mr. Obama would give him a landslide victory this year.

But it’s up to him. If Mr. Obama can’t find the passion on economic matters that has been lacking in his campaign so far, he may yet lose this election.

[Emphasis added]

Fresh off of his vacation, Obama delivers:

"John McCain and I fundamentally disagree on how we are gonna move this country forward. He ran a negative ad -- which is most of the ads he runs -- he ran a negative ad that claimed all my economic plan was was higher taxes and that it would lead to economic disaster...I've got news for John McCain: My plan's not gonna bring about economic disaster. We already have economic disaster from John McCain's president George W. Bush, and we can't afford another four years or eight years of George W. Bush policies and that's why we're gonna beat John McCain in this election to put America on a new path."

[Emphasis added]

More of this, please.

So, in response to the conflict in Georgia, John McCain presumptuously usurped the Presidency and is sending two campaign surrogates--Sen. Lindsay Graham and Sen. Joe Lieberman--to interfere with the diplomatic negotiations going on there.

But who did the Georgian President ask to come and help resolve the situation?

Democratic Senator--and Obama supporter--Joe Biden:

Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, said he had been asked to go to Georgia by President Mikheil Saakashvili for talks over the conflict with Russia.

"I am going to Georgia this weekend to get the facts first-hand and to show my support for Georgia's people and its democratically-elected government," said Biden in a statement.

"I look forward to reporting to my colleagues in the Senate and on the Foreign Relations Committee, as well as the administration, about what I learn."

Biden said that he would also meet Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze and US ambassador to Georgia John Tefft.

Looks like John McCain just got upstaged on Georgia.

You can add that to the list of reasons why Georgia is a losing issue for John McCain.

Here's the entire problem with that answer. If the problem is "above his pay grade", which is an allusion to God, then it would be the safe bet to err on the side of caution and assume the embryo/fetus is a baby.

Now, later in that answer, Barack says he believes in Roe V. Wade, and feels that should not be overturned. At that point, he makes his fatal error. By stating Roe V. Wade should still be legal, even though the problem of theology or science is "above his pay grade", he says that legal definitions overrule that of God or science, even though he admits he doesn't know what the theological answer is! Obama effectively says that humans (and he himself!) know more than God!

What a terrible answer, but it clearly exposes his arrogance, inexperience and theological ineptitude.

The headline says it all:

Top CEOs Give 10 Times More To McCain Than Obama; McCain Promises Huge Tax Breaks For Them In Return

So McCain is getting more money from corporate CEOs, while Obama gets more money from American soldiers.

McCain promises big tax cuts to big business, while Obama promises tax cuts to middle-class Americans and their families.

Now who's the elitist, again?

Well, now it seems like John McCain doesn't realize that he's not President yet:

Standing behind a lectern in Michigan this week, with two trusted senators ready to do his bidding, John McCain seemed to forget for a moment that he was only running for president.

Asked about his tough rhetoric on the ongoing conflict in Georgia, McCain began: "If I may be so bold, there was another president . . ."

He caught himself and started again: "At one time, there was a president named Ronald Reagan who spoke very strongly about America's advocacy for democracy and freedom."

[Emphasis added]

And this comes on the heels of McCain's announcement that he will be sending two top campaign surrogates--Sen. Lindsay Graham and Sen. Joe Lieberman--to Georgia to interfere with the ongoing conflict.

In trying to look Presidential, John McCain has overplayed his hand--he's actually acting like he's already President. And now he's undermining our government by sending campaign surrogates to Georgia to push his own agenda instead.

I think John Aravosis says it best:

[N]ow, McCain is sending advisers to interfere in a foreign war. Imagine had Barack Obama done this. Oh imagine the outcry. The accusations of hubris and inexperience, the questions about poor judgment. In McCain's case it's not totally clear if this is McCain thinking too highly of himself, or McCain no longer thinking at all. And it's not clear which is more dangerous in a commander in chief.

Agreed.

...Denver, here we come!

According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain, and the fiercely anti-war Ron Paul, though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago, has received more than four times McCain's haul.

Despite McCain's status as a decorated veteran and a historically Republican bent among the military, members of the armed services overall -- whether stationed overseas or at home -- are also favoring Obama with their campaign contributions in 2008, by a $55,000 margin.

[Emphasis added]

OpenSecrets shows deployed troops giving $60,642 to Obama and $10,665 to McCain. For all military personnel, Obama still leads $335,536 to McCain's $280,513.

I guess McCain's 100-year war and vote against the GI Bill aren't sitting well with American troops.

UPDATE: The response from right-wing bloggers is typical--they're saying this doesn't really matter because the overall number of troops donating to Obama is too small.

For people who so vehemently claim to support our troops, they're awfully quick to marginalize soldiers whose opinions they don't agree with. I mean, how big would a group of troops have to be to matter to the GOP? Shouldn't all of our troops matter to them? Or is this just another example of the Republicans only caring about our troops when it's politically advantageous to do so?

The chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party died Wednesday, hours after a shooting at the party's headquarters, according to a statement from former President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[...]

The shooting suspect also died Wednesday afternoon after a high-speed chase ended in gunfire, police said.

[...]

The gunman walked into the office and said he was interested in volunteering, said Sam Higginbotham, a 17-year-old volunteer at the headquarters, The Associated Press reported.

"That was obviously a lie," Higginbotham said, the AP reported.

He said the man pushed his way past an employee to reach Gwatney's office, according to the AP.

[...]

A vehicle description was provided to police, Hastings said, and officers found it. A chase involving Little Rock police, Arkansas State Police and the Grant County Sheriff's office ended about 20 miles south of Little Rock, where the suspect was shot and taken into custody, he said.

Police said the suspect drove into a ditch and around a set of spike strips in an attempt to evade police.

[...]

The man then got out of his vehicle and began shooting at officers, who returned fire.

Police would not confirm the victim's identity, but the Clintons released a statement earlier Wednesday that suggested Gwatney was involved.

"We are stunned and shaken by today's shooting at the Arkansas Democratic Party where our good friend and fellow Democrat Bill Gwatney was critically wounded," they said.

[...]

The Democratic National Committee also issued a statement on the incident Wednesday that identified Gwatney as the victim.

"This senseless tragedy comes as a shock to all of us," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said in a written statement.

More breaking news this morning:

Mark Warner, Virginia's former governor and its Democratic candidate for the Senate, has been tapped to be the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention

[...]

"Like Barack Obama, Mark Warner is not afraid to challenge the status quo to bring people together and get things moving," campaign manager David Plouffe said in a statement. "Its that kind of spirit and innovation that resulted in his selection as keynote speaker on a night when we will be discussing how to renew Americas promise."

[...]

Warner, a businessman who became wealthy from work and investments in the cellular telephone industry, ran an exploratory campaign for the 2008 presidential nomination early in the race. He surprised many Democrats when he ultimately decided against running, saying he didn't want to put the demands of a national run on his family. There was talk he might be a good running mate pick for Obama, but he removed himself from consideration, saying he would only pursue the Senate seat.

I've been a fan of Warner's since 2005, when I met him while campaigning for his Gubernatorial successor Tim Kaine.  I was disappointed that he didn't run for President, though I'm glad he chose to run for Virginia's open Senate seat this year.

Warner has a fantastic record in Virginia--he turned VA from one of the worst-managed states in the country to the best. Even though he left office in 2006, Virginia is still enjoying the success Warner built.

Warner and Obama's political philosophies are extremely similar, making Warner the perfect pick for keynote speaker.  And, hopefully, his moment in the national spotlight will prepare him for a Presidential run come 2016.

Some big names there:

The three Republicans -- former Iowa Rep. Jim Leach (who formally endorsed Obama today), former Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee, and former White House intelligence advisor Rita E. Hauser -- announced the formation of "Republicans for Obama," which will launch a Web site in the coming days that will be a clearinghouse of information for Republicans who want to learn more about the Illinois Democrat.

As much as right-wing Republicans like to portray Obama as all talk, he's already fulfilling his promise to bring people together and to transcend the partisanship.

Changing America's political landscape is a big job, and no single man or woman can do it alone.  Thankfully, Americans of every ideological stripe are willing to work hard to fix our broken government.

It's not just Democrats who want to change America for the better, because it's not just Democrats who have been harmed by the Bush administration and the GOP--it's all Americans.  Americans are dying in Iraq, Americans are watching prices go up and wages go down, Americans were lost during Hurricane Katrina, Americans are living without health care.

Americans of every ideology have watched their government fail them time and time again, and Americans across the political spectrurm are supporting Barack Obama.  Only together will we be able to make our country a better place to live, and Obama is already showing his ability to bring people together for that noble purpose.

Obama's already promising low income folks they no longer have to worry about paying taxes (hey, the gummint will do it for you!).  Now he's also extending that simplification to seniors-- no income tax for you!

It's ridiculous pandering for votes.  The idea is that if 55% of the population pays no taxes in his plans, that means the other 45% will be out of luck when he's elected.  And by out of luck, I mean, they'll have to make up for the losses of such a brain-dead program.

Tax the rich until they ain't rich no more!  Sounds like.. socialism.

A recent piece in The Hill shows Nanci Pelosi preparing to checkmate Republicans on energy:

“They have this thing that says drill offshore in the protected areas,” Pelosi said. “We can do that. We can have a vote on that.”

She indicated such a vote would have to be part of a larger package that included other policies, like releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which she said could bring down prices in a matter of days.

“But it has to be part of something that says we want to bring immediate relief to the public and is not just a hoax on them,” Pelosi continued.

She even indicated that she might support a package that includes drilling. She said her decision on whether to support such legislation would depend on how the policies are packaged.

How is this good news for both the Democrats and the American people? Enter the New Energy Reform Act. As I wrote previously,

[NERA is] crafted by 5 Democratic Senators and 5 Republican Senators, supported by Barack Obama and opposed by John McCain.

NERA opens up offshore drilling (but lets the states whose coasts would be affected vote on whether or not to allow it); in addition, it closes tax loopholes that are exploited by the oil companies.

NERA also dedicates $20 billion to developing alternative energy technologies as well as creating tax credits and incentives for Americans who support alternative energy (by, say, buying a hybrid vehicle).

In other words, NERA takes advantage of the corner the GOP has painted themselves into.

See, the GOP has spent weeks demanding Congress open offshore drilling immediately. They're painting offshore drilling as the only solution for America's energy crisis and they're attacking Democrats for not selling America's shores to the oil industry.

NERA legalizes offshore drilling, but the GOP won't be able to support it. Their push for more drilling is meant to please their donors in the oil industry. There's no way the Republicans will support a bill that opens offshore drilling at the cost of billions of dollars in tax loopholes that helps big oil net their big fat profits.

This puts the GOP in a precarious position--either oppose a bipartisan compromise that opens up offshore drilling or support NERA and kiss those fat oil industry campaign donations goodbye.

We'll see how this plays out when Congress gets back into session and NERA is brought to the floor, but expect the GOP to sell out the American people and abandon their newest pet issue in exchange for campaign cash.

They like Sen. Barack Obama's progressive style of politics, but some 1960s-era radicals are questioning the candidate's recent swing to the middle on some big issues. "I like Barack Obama," says Bobby Seale, cofounder of the Black Panther Party. "I'm a progressive," he says. "The progression has to be manifested in a new direction in policies and legislation," says Seale. "I'm hoping that he is able to make a dent in that direction with the office of the presidency." Seale adds an "oh, yeah" when asked if his activism—highlighted in the new DVD release Chicago 10 —paved the way for Obama's candidacy. The movie, being released during the Democratic National Convention this month, combines animation and real video of 1968 protests at the Democratic convention and the subsequent trial of Seale and others for their participation. Seale's conviction was eventually reversed. Pal and former Yippie frontman Paul Krassner says that unlike then, today it's best to protest from inside, and Obama is best suited to do that. "This time, the protest might be more effective within the system, with voting for somebody who will at least appoint Supreme Court judges who have compassion instead of nutsiness," he says. But on Obama, Krassner frets, "I have disappointments in a lot of the compromises he's made, but that's the game he's playing. I just have to remember that his middle name is 'I'm Not Bush.' "

My own view is that the U.S. has displayed a reckless disregard for Russian interests for some time.

much of what we are seeing unfold between Russia and Georgia involves a high quotient of American culpability.

The fact is that a combination of American recklessness,

the U.S. helped engineer events that are now undermining its own interests and the global perception of American power.

kind of pathetic that twits like this one think they are actually Americans.

But let's take a look at these idiotic statements.  We are supposed to respect Russia's views (like the fact that they aren' happy about having independent democratic states on their borders).  We are undermining American power.  Big huh?  I though liberals didn't want America to have ANY power.  That the reckless use of American power is the only thing that keeps everybody in the world from joining in a global chorus of Kumbaya.  But Americans have been reckless (whew - at least that one is on point for the "progressives") by being culpable in actually supporting Georgia and its efforts to democratize and liberalize.

Remember a couple of winters ago when Russia "just happened" to have some gas pipleline problems and cut off the juice for the country?  Forcing people to start burning their furniture for heat?

And I'm sure it was just a coincidence that Russia "happened" to have 120,000 combat troops on the border with a country about 1% of its size.

Let's start with the "everybody in America is a cheat" theme:

You see, John Edwards may be unique in having had the opportunity to run for president of the United States, but his affair puts him on a par with the majority of the American public. The fact that we stop to gawk at him underscores our similarity to a herd of zebras, while our holier-than-thou looks of disdain uncover our propensity for self-forgiving double standards.

Yeah.  Right.  A majority of Americans have cheated on their spouses?  I call Barbra Striesand on that one.  And while we know that Democrat Presidents cheating on their wives is standard - its the whole "elect me President because my wife is dying of cancer" meme that he ran his whole campaign on that gives this a bit more of the hypocrite stink than normal.  As in high-diving into the cesspit and drinking deeply.

Of course there is the 'nothing personal should be reported' theme:

Speaking only for myself- who cares? What people do in their personal lives is between them and the other people in their personal lives.

Wouldn't it be better if we all stood together and said he never should have been asked about it in the first place? That it shouldn't be a political factor? That it's up to us to try to change that dynamic? As long as we are afraid of and submit to the politics of personal lives, we allow such politics to persist and prevail.

Unless the personal life is one that is of a conservative, of course.  But sure - why don't you just go ahead and change all of humanity so nobody cares about other people's personal lives.  Why don't you get Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie and Paris Hilton working on that one?  But then, who would give a crap about these airheads if people didn't obsess about other people's personal lives.  Maybe one of those things that people do?

And knowing how you live your personal life does tend to give some insight in how you will conduct your professional one.  As in Clinton would throw anyone and anything over the side in order to further his personal power - whereas George W Bush has stuck to his view on Iraq regardlesss of how much you liars beat him up?

The ever-popular - its all HER fault defense:

Monday’s CBS Early Show, came up with a list of excuses for John Edwards cheating on his wife, including co-host Harry Smith suggesting that the woman Edwards had the affair with, Rielle Hunter, targeted the former Senator: "This woman in question has a very interesting history...knowing her as this kind of bar fly who had this kind of crazy past... From reading everything I read it seemed to me that she targeted Edwards."

it was the fault of the cancer defense:

In the later segment, during the 7:30am half hour, Smith talked to psychologists Robi Ludwig, from Cookie magazine, and Frank Farley, from Temple University. Smith began by posing the question: "Why do politicians like John Edwards risk their careers by having extramarital affairs?" Ludwig decided to blame Elizabeth Edwards’s cancer: "What was the trigger? So I wonder if there was something about his wife's illness that somehow got him to cheat or contributed at least."

the "he was afraid of losing his wife" defense:

Ludwig replied: "Well, you know, I think that we get so caught up in good or bad, you know. Is somebody a good person or a bad person. Cheating is wrong...But I think that there are multiple factors. Was he doing it because he had a fear of losing his wife? I mean, there are lots of different reasons." Smith then conceded: "No, I hear that...there may be legitimacy to that."

the "he just couldn't help himself" defense:

"It's possible he couldn't stop himself, in the sense. You know? The career of politics involves all sorts of change, variety, novelty, risk, uncertainty. They tend to be natural rule-breakers, these -- the folks who go in there, you know. If they followed the strict rules, they'd have a 9:00 to 5:00 ordinary job."

Then there is the "no big deal" defense:

you'd think JE was the first politician to have an affair, when they've been doing it for thousands of years.

Is it wrong? Yes. Does it erase all the good things about JE? No.

He's not evil. He just made a huge mistake. It's one he should have to pay consequences for, but it's certainly not an unforgivable sin.

It's just a mistake.  Like when you are driving down the road and you take the wrong turn.  And then you actively seek out some blonde bimbo, take off her clothes and have sex with her and create a baby and lie to your wife and family and country and pay her hush money and get your aide to say he's the father and pay heaven knows how much money to this tart to get HER to refuse to take a DNA test so the lie on the child will not come back to you.  Just a mistake like that.