Catching Up With Teh Internets

Well it's once again been a busy week on teh internets machine, hasn't it? I am finding it difficult to make the time to both read and write about it all. A more cynical person might say here that some people in power are liking that just fine -- the busier we are, the less time we have to think about things like, oh, I don't know: war?

Rather than pontificate about any one story in this news, I think this morning I'll just pass along some good reading that I've stumbled across in the last few days. Such as:

Newt Gingrich Accidentally Names Porn Exec 'Entrepreneur Of The Year'

Oh yes he did! In fact, "Newt Gingrich's 527 group sent a letter to porn exec Allison Vivas Wednesday telling her she'd won their "Entrepreneur of the Year" award and inviting her to an "intimate event" with Gingrich."

From our pretend girlfriend Rachel Maddow's tweets (yes, I stalk her teh twitter. so?), we get:

Meeting Enrollees' Needs: How Do Medicare And Employer Coverage Stack Up?

Which includes some pretty interesting stuff, including: " Compared with the employer-coverage group, people in the Medicare group report fewer problems obtaining medical care, less financial hardship due to medical bills, and higher overall satisfaction with their coverage. Although access and bill payment problems increased across the board from 2001 to 2007, the gap between Medicare and private employer coverage widened."

Meanwhile,you may have heard about a new Census Bureau report that finds more Americans live at or below the poverty level. Truth is, it's even worse than the report's findings:

New Poverty Figures Will Show Massive Increase, but Reality Is Worse, Says UM Expert"

"... [T]he official poverty measure does not reveal the full degree of financial hardship and dislocation caused by the current downturn in the economy, says [Douglas J.] Besharov, a professor of public policy and director of the Welfare Reform Academy at Maryland. The official measure fails to capture the massive job, income, and wealth losses among the lower-middle and middle classes."

Always a good read, Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo always takes political analysis one step deeper than the rest. So it's refreshing to read his take on Politico's pseudo analysis:

"I'm seeing the Politico tell me that the Republicans are in danger of having their public profile dominated by cranks on the fringe right."

Go read it, it's short.

If you're thinking of sightseeing in D.C. today, take a cue from the gray, rainy weather and don't do it. Plus, there's this:

Exploiting 9/11, Glenn Beck, Extremists And Corporate-Backed Groups Plan Anti-Obama March

That's right a march on Washington. Or against President Obama, rather. I actually feel sorry for these teabagging marchers. Clearly they are scared and also, not very bright. They like to think that they are a part of a massive grassroots, populist movement, but of course, it's not:

"However, most of the day-to-day organizing has been orchestrated by a now familiar set of lobbyists and Republican operatives who have helped plan anti-Obama "grassroots" tea party events since February. In addition, a set of far-right groups are supporting the event, bringing along self-described "American mob members" to join in on the Obama-bashing."

On a different note, I just found out I have a new label: "agri-intellectual." Who knew?

"The sustainable-food movement needs to step up and start grappling with big questions. I’ve said for a while that I see three big challenges for the sustainable-food movement as it scales up: 1) soil fertility—in the absence of synthesized nitrogen and mined phosphorous and potassium, how are we to build soil fertility on a larger scale?; 2) labor—sustainable farming requires more hands on the ground; who’s going to work our farm fields, and at what wages?; and 3) access—in an economy built on long-term wage stagnation, how can we make sustainably grown food accessible to everyone?"

Germany has an exciting election coming up, you know. Or not.

How to Win an Election Through Boredom

"German Chancellor Angela Merkel is being criticized for running a boring election campaign. It may be part of a cunning plan to win by deterring opposition supporters from voting....

Making the campaign dull stems from the calculation that it can pay off for politicians if as few people as possible bother to vote. It sounds cynical but it works, and this can be proven. It's an illusion that all political campaigners want a high turnout. What counts is who actually goes to vote."

Never say it's dull around here, though:

Hours After Pelosi Backs off on Public Option, Health Lobbyist Announces Fundraiser in Her Honor

The headline really says it all, but go ahead and read the story anyway. And then bookmark AlterNet, please.

And finally, when we're so concerned about where our federal and state money is being spent, should we really be spending money to arrest and prosecute citizens who enjoy the occasional spliff? Because really, can you throw that stone? (heh. She said "stone." heh.)

Over 100 Million Americans Have Smoked Marijuana -- And It's Still Illegal?

"41 percent of the U.S. population say they've tried cannabis at least once in their lives, 10 percent say they've used it in the last year."

Just sayin'

Sometimes I hate it when I'm right

Back in February, on the day of the Maryland Democratic Primary, I wrote this:

Watching the coverage makes me anxious. While Clinton's shown shaking hands with workers at the GM transmission plant, Obama's got crowds of young people waving signs and chanting. As Morra Aarons wites over at BlogHer:

Being a Hillary supporter is like being the person in the dorm who yells at her partying neighbors to shut up, because she's studying for a final exam. You know you have a good reason, but you’re a little annoyed at yourself for being such a pill.

I feel like a party pooper because I'm not shouting "Si, se puede!" But Senator Obama, se puede? Could I have some more details on how se puede?

At the time, many of my Obama supportin' friends (and I do have some diehards), thought I was being a stick in the mud by continually asking for more detail from Obama, and because I said my biggest concern about Obama was that we just don't know much about him -- not enough to know what he will do once in office.

And this week, Barack Obama has been very busy proving me right, crassly moving to the center on 3 important issues: gun control, death penalty, and FISA. Where is the "new" kind of politics? Where is the "Washington outsider"? Where is the man who spoke before thousands of adoring followers in Iowa and said:

Years from now, you'll look back and you'll say that this was the moment, this was the place where America remembered what it means to hope. For many months, we've been teased, even derided for talking about hope. But we always knew that hope is not blind optimism. It's not ignoring the enormity of the tasks ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path.

It's not sitting on the sidelines or shirking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it and to work for it and to fight for it.

I thought that was too good to be true. I thought the Obama supporters were being naive to believe him when he said he would stand up and "fight for it." Now it turns out he's just another politician running for office, saying whatever he has to in order to get elected.

Crap. Sometimes I really hate it when I'm right.

Joel Stein of the LA Times received much grief for this characterization of Obama:

What the Cult of Obama doesn't realize is that he's a politician. Not a brave one taking risky positions like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, but a mainstream one. He has not been firing up the Senate with stirring Cross-of-Gold-type speeches to end the war. He's a politician so soft and safe, Oprah likes him. There's talk about his charisma and good looks, but I know a nerd when I see one. The dude is Urkel with a better tailor.

So. What's next, Mr Mainstream Senator Obama?

America, women, and political office: Many miles to go ...

Before Hillary Clinton bowed out of the race for the Democratic nomination, I read an interesting piece in TruthOut, which I meant to post for you all. In the craziness at home and in the news lately, I never got around to it. Yet it is almost more powerful now that the passion and emotions of the Clinton vs. Obama discussions have died down.

We have a long, long way to go before America truly accepts women in political office as the norm. It has nothing to do with Barack Obama, so perhaps now that he's the candidate we can look at the subject of women without it becoming a "which is worse: sexism vs. racism" battle. Perhaps we can look at the issue of women in politics in America on its own merits and issues.

Like the rest of the world, the US has been moving forward in terms of women in politics, but it's doing so in spurts and slower than many of its neighbors. Ten years ago, this country ranked 37th in terms of women's political representation. It now sits in 71st place, according to a recent Interparliamentary Union study.

Twenty-eight of the 50 states have not yet elected a female governor. And women make up only 16 percent of both the US House and the Senate.

One roadblock to political equality for women may be an overly sunny self-perception on the part of Americans, according to Marie Wilson, founder of the White House Project, an organization aimed at upping women's political representation, and author of "Closing the Leadership Gap: Why Women Can and Must Help Run the World."

"People think we're already there," Wilson told Truthout. "They think we have a political meritocracy. As Americans, we like to think of ourselves as a fair country. That makes it harder to own up to the facts of the masculinity of the political system and the normalcy of recruiting men to run for office."

Even triumphs can be deceptive; there's a difference between achieving a milestone and establishing normalcy. The first woman to serve in the Senate took her oath in 1922. Yet in 1992, 70 years after that barrier was broken, the Senate contained only two women.

It is getting better, as more women are running for local office, learning how to fundraise, and gaining experience. Hillary Clinton's candidacy has been a huge step forward for women at the national level, but it does not mean that we will suddenly have a slew of women running for president next election. Instead, we'll have this collective (and false) feeling that women have reached equality with men in the political arena, and we'll take two steps backward before we see another woman run for the White House.

Read the rest of Maya Schwenar's article, Women in the Running, here.

And these people get paid for this?!

I've been out of commission for a couple of days, and haven't been watching as much news about the primary race as I otherwise might have. Turns out I've been missing ... pretty much nothing!

I watched some of the DNC meeting on Saturday, listened to some on the radio. I was moved by everyone from from Florida who spoke. Except that I found Congressman Wexler incredibly annoying in his Obama-love (down, boy!), and I found Donna Brazile condescending and disingenuous. Oh, Donna, what has happened to you since Gore 2000?

I read the results from Sunday's Puerto Rico primary, where Clinton beat Obama by 36 percentage points, the exit polls showing her beating him soundly in all age groups -- including his supposedly solid "youth movement" -- she won men, she won women, she won church goers, she won those with college education and those without. But no one seems to care. It earned barely a mention on the news Monday morning.

Here's what I heard the talking heads say:

"It's going to be interesting to see what Hillary Clinton decides to do." Um, ya think?

"I think Clinton's going to have to be thinking strategically at this point." Oh, really?

Are you freakin' kidding me? I think we should all apply for these "pundit" jobs immediately.

It's obvious that these people have nothing left to say -- their thin knowledge of politics has been exposed through this prolonged primary season, and for that, I thank you Senator Clinton! Whereas we used to have a few investigative reporters, and few political reporters who knew insiders and could give us the "scoop" we wouldn't otherwise find out, we now see behind the curtain: the "pundits" who parade across the "news" "analysis" shows on every network, are nothing more than opinionated writers with some knowledge and interest in current events.

Hey -- we could do that!

Parsley, rage, xenophobia, and time

Yes, "time." As in air time, of which this story has received very little in the MSM. However, from the MotherJones article, McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam, we have this:

Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.

Parsley, who refers to himself as a "Christocrat," is no stranger to controversy. In 2007, the grassroots organization he founded, the Center for Moral Clarity, called for prosecuting people who commit adultery. In January, he compared Planned Parenthood to Nazis. In the past Parsley's church has been accused of engaging in pro-Republican partisan activities in violation of its tax-exempt status.

So, how does Parsley really feel about Islam? In his own words:

I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.

Some McCain loyalists argue that no candidate can be held responsible for what all of their supporters say. True enough, Clinton, Obama, and all the others have all had their share of supporter-foot-in-mouth disease. But Parsley is not just another supporter -- just as Reverend Wright was not just another supporter of Obama. Reverend Parsley has had a long relationship with McCain, and McCain has described him publicly as “one of the truly great leaders in America,” “a moral compass,” and a “spiritual guide.”

McCain was one of the first to demand that Barack Obama denounce the Rev. Wright. Now McCain has been forced to do the same with Rev. Parsley and Ref. Hagee. The difference? Are you getting tired of hearing about Parsley? No? Of course not, because it has not been covered day and night by every major news outlet, the way the Rev. Wright story was covered.

Personally, I don't think Obama holds any of the same views espoused by Rev. Wright. I think he sat in that church for 20 years as a future political candidate, gathering a reputation in a popular African American church. I doubt McCain holds the outrageous views of Hagee and Parsley, either. He is a politician first and foremost, and I think he's trolling for votes wherever he can find them. It's a shame that he's trolling amongst the bottom feeders, but even more shameful is the fact that the press is giving this story such little attention.

Barack Obama sends secret message to "Obama Nation" What could it possibly mean?

Wow. Or as one of my favorite bloggers would say, Yikes! The more I try to come to terms with the fact that Barack Obama is the frontrunner and quite possibly will be the Democratic nominee for president, the more he personally tries to turn me off.

My message to him: I'd like to end our dysfunctional relationship, where I keep trying to forgive you for all the "boneheaded" things you do (your word). Maybe we should meet over a drink in a public place (in case it turns ugly). "I'm sorry, but this just isn't working out for me. It's not you, it's me."

No, Barry, turns out it is you.

From Yikes!:

Obama Finger-gate: Oh no he didn't!

From No Quarter:

Obama Stands Accused of Conduct Unbecoming a Presidential Candidate [Updates: Chicago Tribune, more MSM]

And from Tennesee Guerilla Women:

Obama Gives Hillary the Finger (Video)



h/t to Yikes! Oh yes he did ....

And by the way, "Obama Nation" is from an Obama supporter. The irony is not lost on me .... you say potAto, I say abomination .... let's call the whole thing off.

Art Against Empire

One of the best things about writing this blog has been the amazing people I have met online. Sometimes I reach out to bloggers and sometimes folks come to me. Bill Fisher is one person who serendipitously arrived at Nailing Jello to the Wall and I'm excited to tell you about what he has done.

What Bill does is beyond performance art. It's "in your face" art. It's art to make America wake up! As Bill said in an email to me:

Misrepresented and/or ignored by most media outlets, art that promotes political discussion or simple awareness is undervalued and so often side-lined.

I can't begin to do Bill Fisher's artwork justice here, so I encourage you to head over to his site, Art Against Empire. I will let this image speak for itself. Click on the image to enlarge it:

Recommended read: If Obama can throw his pastor under the bus, what will he do to us?

If you're like me, you're still trying to get a handle on Barack Obama's speech yesterday. Was it a "profile in courage" or was it "politics as usual"? As you sort through it all, I encourage you to read this post over at Bilerico Project:

If Obama can throw his pastor under the bus, what will he do to us?
by Rev Irene Monroe

When the religious narrative you tell about your life to the American public is revealed to be vastly different than the one you actually lived, you have more than a credibility problem - you have a dilemma as Obama is finding out.

And the dilemma is not just that Obama's religious narrative is fictitious, but so too is the media spin on his pastor.

While the moral high ground to address the public's shock with Rev. Jeremiah Wright's condemnations on America's foreign and domestic polices appeared to be Obama's address on race, Obama actually ran aground with many African American Christians by anchoring the public's outrage and his fear of losing the presidential bid on the back of one of this nation's most revered African American ministers.

"He's used Jeremiah, and Trinity is his strongest base. He handled the media abysmally, and the uncle reference was demeaning. Many of us said we saw it coming," a member from Trinity told me in anonymity not to have the press come after him.

Rev. Wright was the man who brought Obama to Christ, presided over his nuptials baptized him and his daughters, and was the inspiration for his bestseller, The Audacity of Hope.

And while Obama has now denounced Rev. Wrights' incendiary remarks, after twenty years of hearing them, suspicion nonetheless still surfaces about his professed faith as a Christian.

As a central, powerful and revered institution within the African-American community, the Black Church captivated Obama's attention. He says he came to understand "the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change." However, how much Obama really covets the power of the Black Church for his own political aggrandizement, rather than for its religion, now raise questions in the minds of many black Christians since his address.

While MSNBC talk-show host Tucker Carlson was the first to publicly suggest Obama's faith is "suddenly conspicuous," suggesting that Obama has only recently begun addressing his religious background as part of "a very calculated plan on the part of the Democratic Party to win" religious voters in the 2008 presidential race, the suspicion is now looming even larger.

If Obama, however, is indeed using religion to win votes, he unfortunately placed himself in a difficult quagmire - not only with LGBTQ and liberal voters, but also by still being a member of Trinity. Why? Because he worships in a conservative black church within a liberal denomination. And Trinity is provisionally opened to the idea of same sex marriage.

In July 2005, the UCC General Synod overwhelmingly passed a Resolution of Marriage Equality. But in August 2005, Wright spoke against the Synod's position causing many LGBTQ parishioners to leave.

Read the rest of the story here.

So, while yesterday's speech was a glorious example of Sen. Obama's oratorical skills, I still don't know where he stands on issues of basic equality for all Americans. In stating that Rev. Wright provides him with spiritual guidance, Obama only undercuts his message of unity and hope for all Americans, and adds further murkiness to his positions.

The more I find out about Barack Obama, the less I know what he stands for.

Searching for signs of intelligent life in the Blogosphere

Reading blogs can be an odd thing. I mean, you can basically read a blog for one of two reasons: (1) to learn about what other people are thinking, or (2) to have your own beliefs reinforced by reading the words of people who think just like you do. I used to think that most of us were reading for option #1, that is, to find out other people's ideas and points of view.

Man, was I wrong!

This campaign has really brought out the lowest common denominator in both the Clinton and Obama supporters. I freely admit that I support Clinton at this point, warts and all. She was not my first choice (Kucinich), but in my humble opinion she's the best choice at this point. But I welcome an intelligent challenge from Obama supporters. An excellent blog for this is Mauigirl's Meanderings. Mauigirl and most of her readers are solid Obama supporters, yet I find their ideas intelligent, well-supported, and I also feel they are open to hearing what I have to say as a Clinton supporter. When I read their comments, I feel a little better about possibly having Obama on the ticket in November, because I feel that we have the same basic values even though we have different opinions.

But then there are the "progressive" blogs -- places like americablog, Huffington Post, Raw Story, Crooks and Liars. I won't link to them here because, frankly, they're not worth the trouble anymore. Go there and read one of the 99% of the stories which are now nothing more than criticisms of Clinton, and here's what you'll read in the comment section: "Hillary Clinton is a big fat poopy head."

Except that it will be much nastier, and it will be full of typos -- or in all CAPS.

These are the blogs that used to cover issues like impeachment, the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, global warming, hunger, AIDS. Now all they cover is "Why isn't Hillary Clinton denouncing Eliot Spitzer?" Only, the commenters aren't saying it quite so ... um ... articulately.

Folks, it's got to stop. We've got two well-qualified people running for the Democratic nomination, and the election of either one of them will truly be a major advancement for our nation. Are we really unable to have a grown-up discussion about their stands on the issues? Have we really turned into Beavis and Butthead? Because while we fight like a bunch of schoolyard bratts, the Republicans are watching, taking notes, and raising money.

Thinking outside the [American] box

You may have noticed that I'm taking a break today from writing about the primaries. What is there to say? Mississippi has a large African American Democratic population, and Barack Obama is well ahead in the polls. We'll just wait and see what happens today.

I'd rather tell you about a new website that I stumbled upon, called Voices without Votes. It's a joint project of Reuters news service and Global Voices, and it is basically a portal to blogs around the world writing about American politics. No matter who is elected to the White House next fall, they will have a tall order in front of them to repair the damage down to our international reputation. Make no doubt about it: the rest of the world is watching this election cycle, anxious to see just how idiotic the American people can be. Remember their disbelief when "we" re-elected G.W.?

Bloggers from Haiti, Peru, China, Iran, Bangladesh, Canada, Iraq, Egypt, Somalia, Yemen, Azerbaijan, Australia, Colombia, Venezuela. The world is watching ... and waiting.

UPDATE: Another great website that was down for a while but is now back up and even better than before is Hometown Baghdad. If you're not familiar with it, I encourage you to check it out to see what life is like in Baghdad today. Especially since March 19 will mark six years since the the war in Iraq began.

Can you please NOT stand by your man for once?

Note to Mrs. Spitzer, Vitter, Craig, Clinton, etc., etc., and all the "Stand by Your Man" political wives: How about you refuse to be a part of their hypocrisy? How about you say,"No, I won't stand there next to you while you apologize for catting around in brothels/ men's rooms/ wherever. Maybe you could learn something by watching this video of a Chinese newscaster with a cheating husband. She refused to leave the podium during a pre-Olympics hoopla event, instead publicly calling out her husband and the others on stage for their part in this charade.

Of course, this being China, she is now in prison and certainly will be there until after the Olympics. But Human Rights don't seem to be much of a concern for Americans anymore... goes with the general atmosphere of hypocrisy, I suppose.

Apparently, understanding the state of the world today and having the skills to make it a better place is just not enough for the American voter

My level of cable t.v. doesn't carry CNN or MSNBC (yes, that would be the "ultimate cheapo" level, and you can get it too wherever you live), so I haven't watched many of the debates. I usually end up catching bits and pieces of them. Well, I happened upon this excerpt where Hillary Clinton talks about the importance of being able to take over the Presidency with the ability and understanding on Day One of the complexities of the world. And I am truly saddened that it's looking more and more like she will not be our next president. C'mon Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania. And my friends and family in Vermont, too!

And then out of nowhere, comes Charles Barkely

This should put a smile on your face!




Isn't it wonderful to see Wolf Blitzer squirm when faced with honesty? Imagine: a person who quite clearly believes he is speaking the truth and doesn't care about "political" repercussions!

Sweetie, you go over there and play with the other girls ....

Why do I continue to torment myself with The Huffington Post? It's like political eye candy to me, I guess. I have a sweet tooth and I just can't resist checking it once a day. (See previous post on lack of sugar in my diet.) To be honest, there are some really great posters over there — writers who are insightful, witty, and well informed.

But then there's stuff like this today:

Clinton wins "beauty contest": The Democratic primary in Florida is mostly meaningless -- the state has been stripped of its delegates and none of the candidates campaigned there -- but Sen. Hillary Clinton won the state handily.

Beauty contest? Holy Arianna! Can we please not call a political primary won by a woman a beauty contest? What about all of the uproar in recent weeks over statements that supposedly had "racial undertones" (including Bill Clinton's characterization of Obama's anti-war stance as a "fairytale." I still don't understand how anyone can think that has any racial connotation, but lots of people did.) Why is there no condemnation of using a phrase like "beauty contest"?

To my ears, it's just as covertly bigoted as anything that has been said about Obama.

It's been obvious to me for a very long time that Obama was "the chosen one" according to Arianna Huffington. But they're really reaching with statements like this:

... in fact, the exit polls show Obama actually beat Clinton among voters who decided late.

And yay for voters who decided to wear a sweater because it was kind of chilly. Or voters who wore black socks. He won them, too, I bet!

I can't wait for this campaign to be over. It's not the candidates who are getting on my nerves, it's the commentators all scrambling to frame these events in the edgiest, catchiest ways.

UPDATE: Why faith and politics should not mix

This election year is historic in many ways. The most obvious, of course, are that the contenders Clinton and Obama, are the first woman and first person of color who are serious contenders for the White House.

Somewhat overshadowed, however, is the new emphasis on religion in this election. Oh, we've always had religious men running for office and even being elected. But this year we have added the possibility of an evangelical Southern Baptist minister in the White House.

Yeah. Let that sink in for a minute.

I consider myself a religious person, but I have a lot of problems with organized religion. My biggest issue is that I believe that we all have God within us, and that we are born with this goodness. Life is a journey to nurture and develop that goodness. This does not mesh with most organized religions, which generally believe we are born sinners, and that life is an arduous duty to repent, with the promise of some greater reward "beyond."

I have a problem with that outlook.

Organized religions are all run by people, usually men, who stand between me and my God and dare to interpret for me what God wants. The power and authority held by those individuals corrupts, and the true meaning of their religion is lost. Add in a dose of politics, and you have a dangerous mix.

As one writer recently observed:

As churches have organized into broader structures, they have gravitated toward a political organization (where authority and power prevail) rather than following the servant-leadership of Jesus.

If Scripture accurately records the teachings and life of Jesus, then his ways are the exact opposite of the corporate top-down structure we see in so much of the politicized Christian church today.

When the “authority and power” aspect of politicized Christianity is finally decimated, the church will return to being a freedom bringing-place, where the most important people will be the children, the impoverished, the widows, and the afflicted.

So when you have someone like Mike Huckabee, who says "My faith is my life -- it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them," running for office, I am scared for our country. As a minister, he is the last person who should be interested in being President of the United States. This would be the worst of all possible worlds, combining such a deeply committed, bible-thumping, evangelical Christian with the (arguably) most powerful job in the world.

When did the religious people of this country go from doing good work, as described in the letters of my grandparents who were Baptists missionaries in China, to Mike Huckabee, running for president?

Hat tip to BagNewsNotes for the image of Huckabee autographing the bible. Yes, autographing the bible.

UPDATE: Here's a headlines from today's WaPo that should make you squirm:

Huckabee Learned Politics in Church

Maryland to switch to optical-scan voting machines

That sound you hear is the collective sigh of relief of the voters of Maryland:

ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- The state will abandon the touch-screen voting machines that have sparked years of protests and replace the system with devices that permit a manual recount.

Maryland purchased the machines in the wake of the 2000 Florida election. They have been criticized as unreliable and susceptible to tampering.

Gov. Martin O'Malley has proposed $6.8 million to buy optical-scan machines, which can read paper ballots filled in by voters with pencil or pen.

Election reform advocates praised the move, saying voters currently have no guarantee that their ballots would be properly counted by the state's ATM-style machines, which were manufactured by Diebold Inc.

"Our machines can easily be rigged in ways that are undetectable," said Robert Ferraro of SAVE our Votes, a nonpartisan group. "We were anxiously waiting to see if the governor put the money in his budget, and he did, so we are very pleased. Otherwise, we would have been stuck with a paperless system."

Unfortunately, they won't be available until 2012 ....

And they're off! Iowa caucuses begin today!

I thought this might be a good day to revisit a favorite site of mine: FactCheck.org, which is run by the Annenberg Foundation. The hyperbole, the grandiose claims, the ... well, lies, are getting a little thick these days.

From their "Whoppers of 2007" post:

Presidential candidates kept us busy:

Republican Rudy Giuliani made false claims over and over about his record as mayor of New York, and even about England's health care system.

Democrat Bill Richardson also mangled the facts repeatedly, claiming credit for creating more jobs as New Mexico's governor than actually materialized and using a made-up figure about the performance of U.S. students, among other misstatements.

Republican Mitt Romney claimed undeserved credit for himself as governor of Massachusetts and made false or misleading claims about two of his rivals.

Democrat Hillary Clinton ran an ad claiming that National Guard and Reserve troops had no health insurance before she went to work, when in fact most of them did.

Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee repeatedly twisted the facts when talking about his record on taxes in Arkansas and other subjects. And there were plenty of other howlers from the large field of candidates.

Read more about the facts behind these false statements at FactCheck.org.

Choosing a candidate: If it's Tuesday, it must be Huckabee!

I've been a political junkie all my life. Growing up around D.C., it's hard to avoid, but I admit, I was especially nerdy about it. I read 3 newspapers a day as a kid: The Washington Post in the morning, the Alexandria Gazette in the afternoon, and The Washington Star in the evening (which my dad read on his bus ride home). On top of that, my parents always watched the evening news, which, in the D.C. market, covers national and world news almost more than it does local news. When I went to college in Indiana and saw the hog reports on the evening news, I realized I was not "normal."

So every 4 years, for as long as I can remember, I have followed the presidential races in great detail. Yet in all my memory, I have never seen the voters be as fluid in their preferences for party candidates as they are in this race. Although the press keeps touting a "new leader in the polls," both parties are still wide open. With now less than a month until the Iowa primary, no one has gained that undying American voter loyalty. And personally, I'm glad.

You see, I remember when seemingly otherwise sane people said to me "I love George W. Bush!" They would hear nothing of the arguments that he mismanaged the state of Texas as governor, or that he was a failed businessman, or that his education at Harvard at Yale was neither appropriate nor successful.

"I just love George Bush," they all said. "He seems like such a nice man."

Seven years later and look what he's done to our country.

I'm not gloating that I voted for Al Gore and then for John Kerry, and I don't have a bumper sticker that says "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry" or any such thing. No, it's time to move forward. Which is why I am happy to see the polls change almost every day. What this means to me is that the American public is actually listening to the candidates and formulating opinions based on the candidates' platforms and answers to debate questions.

The pollsters focus on who we'd like to share a beer with, and then proclaim that candidate "leading in the polls." The American people, however, are focused on which candidate can end the war in Iraq, ensure affordable health care, address climate change and our energy policy's part in it, and provide quality education for all Americans.

There's another Democratic debate this afternoon, hosted by NPR. Who will be the new choice of the American voter? Stay tuned.

Almost everyone in Pakistan who believes in George Bush's vision of democracy is in prison today

In an interview last night with Charlie Gibson of ABC News, President Bush stated that the general "hasn't crossed the line" and "truly is somebody who believes in democracy."

This is more worrisome than ever, that Bush thinks it's within "the line" to declare emergency rule, fire members of the Supreme Court and arrest journalists, lawyers and human rights activists.

From the Washington Post:

Tom Malinowski, Washington director of Human Rights Watch, said that "it's hard to imagine how the administration will be able to achieve anything in Pakistan if the president is so disconnected from reality."

"Almost everyone in Pakistan who believes in George Bush's vision of democracy is in prison today," Malinowski said. "Calling the man who put them in prison a great democrat will only discredit America among moderate Pakistanis and give Musharraf confidence that he can continue to defy the United States because Bush will forgive anything he does."

Clinton viewed as strongest, most decisive candidate, but we're not going to report that

In my post earlier today I told you that Hillary Clinton is not my first choice of candidate for President. However, I feel compelled to publicize the recent Associated Press poll which shows that the American people clearly have a positive impression of her — not that you would that by watching any of the talking heads. (click for larger image)


Decisive, strong, honest, experienced, and ethical. The American people give Clinton high marks across the board — in fact, higher than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat.

But how are the poll findings being reported by the major news outlets?

FoxNews.com: Obama and Giuliani Seen as Most Likable Presidential Candidates

USA Today: Obama, Giuliani Most Likable

Washington Post: Obama, Giuliani Likable

So, apparently being likable is the most newsworthy finding of this poll. And here I would have thought it was the fact that the majority polled viewed a woman as stronger and more decisive than all of her male opponents. I don't know, I guess I thought that was kinda groundbreaking, actually. But what do I know about reporting, I'm just a blogger, right?

I can just hear the Chris Matthews (he's a real reporter) intro now: “Hillary Clinton is unlikable. Is she electable?”