If the Senate aide who has been accused of handling Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-AK) personal finances while on the government clock received separate payments from the Alaska senator, she didn't list them...
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!Attaturk and Sam Boyd at TAPPED have misunderstood what the problem was with Obama's "nuke" gaffe and what was right wth Hillary Clinton's response. Attaturk writes:
But isn't it rather indicative of sanity to say you "won't nuke" a city in Pakistan "JUST" to kill Osama?
But that is not how Obama said it, and thus Attaturk ignores the problem with Obama's statement. Let's review again what Obama said:
Q: In Afghanistan or Pakistan, is there any circumstance where you would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and Osama bin Laden[?]" Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance." "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," Obama said, with a pause, "involving civilians." Then he quickly added, "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."
(Emphasis supplied.) "Scratch that." Why did Obama say "scratch that" you think? Because he remembered, in the middle of his answer, that it is a bedrock doctrine of nuclear deterrence that you do not discuss how and when you would use nuclear weapons. It may be rational and wise to discuss it as Obama initially did, but in a political campaign, such a departure from doctrine should not come in an off the cuff answer to what was a ridiculous question. Thus, Obama's "scratch that." Discussing it was the gaffe. Policywise I think it is obvious that no one will use nukes in that secenario or, indeed, in any first strike scenario. But the politics demanded something better from Obama. More.
This is precisely why Clinton answered as follows:
I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. Presidents, since the Cold War, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.
This is, for better or worse, the consensus view. When a Presidential candidate offers a break from such a bedrock view, it is imperative that they explain why and not fumble over the answer --"scratch that."
The other problem that Attaturk and others ignore is once you start answering questions on if and when you would use nukes, then other questions are sure to follow about this hypothetical or that hypothetical. Use them against North Korea? China? What circumstances? It is a Pandora's Box that no President should open.
It is obvious that Obama made a mistake, he even recognized it immediately. It is surprising that others would not also recognize this.
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!It seems mind-boggling in this day and age, after all we have heard about lead paint, that a manufacturer anywhere in the world would use it on a child’s toy. In my work, I have known children who needed to be hospitalized because of going into a coma from lead poisoning. I have [...]
Read The Full Article:
http://kmareka.com/?p=1361
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!Steven Stark writes: There's no doubt that Edwards made a mistake with the haircut, and that wealthy populist candidates are not easily forgiven for reminding people that they have money. But most candidates on the trail spend a lot on...[...]
Read The Full Article:
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/08/does-john-edwar.html
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!

Yet another Friday Episode of Music we love, this takes us away from our folky roots to the Land of the Blues...
We were listening to Stephen Stills last night. He had never been my favorite of the CSN mix; last night his blues-driven solo work changed my mind.
This version of "Treetop Flyer" from the 2006 "Freedom of Speech" tour kicks some serious ass. We saw it live, pay attention about halfway through when he & Neil lick off eachother. The Detroit version was even wilder, but this YouTube gets you in the ballpark of his Blues Roots.
The Blues has always been my absolute favorite for seeing any live venue. The improvisational conversation between musicians stuns and amazes me.
Many think of the Godfathers, and blues being passe'. Oh, not so, it is alive and thriving my friends.
The list goes on, in no particular order (reminding me again, its time to re-alpabetize my goddamned CD collection:
Buddy Guy
John Lee Hooker
Albert King
B.B. King
Etta James
Koko Taylor
Muddy Waters
Howlin Wolf
Junior Wells
Robert Cray
Sonny Boy Williamson
Earl Hooker
Melvin Taylor
Vernon Reid
John Mayall
Freddy King
Lonnie Mack
Larry McCray
Shemekia Copeland
Luther Allison
Marcia Ball
Steve Earle
Albert Collins
The Butterfield Blues Band
Ronnie Earl
The Glen Eddy Band
Robben Ford
Clarence "Gatemouth" Brown
Stevie Ray Vaughn
Elmore James
Rufus Thomas
Otis Spann
James Brown
Katie Webster
John Mayer
Kenny Wayne Shephard
T Bone Walker
Panama Red
Juanita McCray
Rory Block
Saffire
Charlie Musselwhite
Willie Dixon
Keb'Mo
Are your eyes crossing yet? I may be poor, but I am rich in CDs and Albums.
Then you have to realize just how very much the Blues influenced Rock in the works of Clapton, The Allman Brothers, Joe Cocker, Santana and so many other bands of the roots of rock.
There are two ways to play today, give a shout out to your favorite blues song, (be it old or new) with a YouTube if you can find it.and/or
Do a music swap between ourselves. Got a cd I'd like, want a copy of one of these? Maybe we can trade amongst ourselves.
A special shout out to John Lee and B.B. for making records with the next generation of blues players. "The Best of Friends" and "Deuces Wild" respectively.
Have a little Healin' on Me:
video details and more
Read The Full Article:
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=18141
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!The posts are coming fast and furious today, thanks in no small part to all the entertainment of YearlyKos.
Right now I'm taking in a panel on the mainstream media and blogs, which seemed like it would be more combative than it's actually been. The panelists are Jay Carney of TIME, Mike Allen of Politico, Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com, and Jill from Feministe. Mike lavished praise upon Glenn and the TPM enterprise, among others, and Jay was complimentary to the panel and the crowd. Glenn threw some grenades, making the point that there *really are* differences between blogs and MSM, and many structural failings of the latter, despite the initial love-in, and now the questioners are laying into Jay and Mike a little bit.
But you know what? The only person on the panel whose work I was previously unfamiliar with, Jill, is perhaps the most impressive. She's being bypassed a little now that the audience is challenging the MSM representatives (who, I should note, are being great sports and savvy reporters by doing the panel), and the topic is turning toward security issues (which Glenn has covered extensively) but every time she talks I find myself nodding. For example, it's a basic but overlooked point, which she made clearly, that the left wants the media to be accurate, and the right wants the media to be conservative.
So while I listen I'm going through the Feministe archives, and it's some really good stuff. I'm pretty interested in feminist issues, as everybody should be, and my regular feminism read is Salon's excellent "Broadsheet." Another one for the ever-growing RSS feed, I guess. For a sample, here's a very thoughtful discussion about the YKos conference in the context of feminist priorities.
UPDATE: Jill wins more points by making the (unpopular in this crowd but nonetheless accurate) point that it's unfair to trash the MSM for reporting White House statements -- that stuff *is news,* it just needs to be reported in context (i.e., "White House says whatever . . . experts and facts belie the statement).
UPDATE II: Allen is just getting creamed by questioners, but he's holding his own, rhetorically at least. Politico is pretty crappy; why does the guy who runs the political reporting sound so reasonable in this context?
FINAL UPDATE: For those here at the conference, I'll be on the foreign policy panel starting at 2:30 (CST) in room 404a-c.
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!Last night the Senate took up legislation that would expand the SCHIP program, marginally raising the federal tobacco tax so that millions more American children would be able to receive healthcare coverage. The bill is basically a no-brainer -- it's[...]
Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/mydd/~3/140328085/4708
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!I'm almost tired of talking about O'Hanlon and Pollack, but it's telling as to the biases of the media and the political system that two Brookings hawks can get this much notoriety and press for detecting a glimmer of hope...[...]
Read The Full Article:
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/08/ohanlon-and-pol.html
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!
Technorati Tags: Steve Bradenton Karl Rove Scott Jennings George W. Bush fired U.S. attorneys obscenity
Read The Full Article:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/bradenton/19
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!
Powered by blogdig.net