I am soooooooooo tired of hearing about how Clinton has won "all the major states." She DIDN'T effing WIN TEXAS.

Just got this from USA Today (her email was released to reporters, so I assume the email is fair game for repeating):

Once again the Obama campaign is demonstrating that Sen. Obama's words can't be trusted. Last year, Senator Obama said that he would not engage in personal attacks. Now, after losses in Ohio and Texas, the Obama campaign is explicitly attacking Sen. Clinton's character. Instead of attacking Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama should explain to the American people why his top economic policy adviser was telling the Canadians that his promise to fix NAFTA shouldn't be taken seriously. The fact is that independent accounts make clear that Senator Clinton did not support NAFTA and that she is the candidate Americans can trust to fix it.

Stunningly (/snark) Hillary accuses Obama of a personal attack on her when what Obama has done is to show her inconsistency on the NAFTA issue.  

I appreciate that we need to thank those who stood up for the constitution today and against telco immunity....Wait a minute.  Didn't they take an OATH to do this?  We are now to the point where we have to freaking THANK U.S. SENATORS for standing up for the constitution????  So, ok.  Thanks and many thanks to the 31 who stood up for the constitution and the rule of law (and did their job as they promised to do in taking their oath of office.

What I couldn't find, and what I think needs to be seen in all its glory, is the list of Democratic Senators who failed in their oaths today.  Since I am not seeing THAT list posted, I will do it here.  

Follow me below the fold.

Apparently there has been a bit of a tiff over Obama's position on nuclear power; indeed I understand there was quite a flame war.  Glad I missed it, but from what I read, some clatch of Obama supporters were royally pissed that some Hillary supporter(s?) suggested that Obama is in the back pocket of the nuclear power industry.  I don't know that he's in the back pocket of the nuclear power industry, and I don't know what kind of money he does or doesn't get from them, but I do know that he is at best on the fence about nuclear power and at worst a semi-closeted supporter of nuclear power.

As I start this, I want to make it clear that, since about three days after Edwards dropped out, I have been an Obama supporter. I voted for him in the New Mexico caucus/primary last Tuesday. At this point, I don't think that his apparent position on nuclear power is or would be a deal breaker for my continuing to support his candidacy. Having said that, I think his position on nuclear power needs to be more transparent than it is, and by some reactions around here, apparently it's not transparent at all.

So, is Obama nuclear power friendly?  Make the jump with me and let's see.

Get over yourselves, and get over your candidates.  YOU are NOT Barack Obama.  YOU are NOT Hillary Clinton.  Just QUIT FREAKING TAKING everything said about Obama and Hillary SO FREAKING PERSONALLY.  
update: fixed this "Barak" to "Barack"  can't fix my comment "Barak"s, and apologies for the mis-spelling.

I want to tell a story about how 22 weak-kneed and spineless Democratic U.S. Senators just made my life and active participation in the political process just a little bit more difficult.  It took me a week to figure out why I was so angry, but I just figured it out. Follow me beneath the fold to understand my full rage....

Who knew the Daily News would be right?  Well, maybe not right, but they did get the label right; Our party leadership surrendered to President 28 Freaking Percent!  

This is looking like a wholesale sellout by the Dems in Congress:

First it was a sellout on ethics reform.

Then it was a sell out on fair vs free trade.

Now they're selling us out on the freaking war occupation.

Weren't these the three main issues that got us control of the House and, if it weren't for Holy Joementum, would have given us control of all of Congress?

Every single time there is a crisis that looks as if it might seriously impair Republican power or even make the Republicans look real bad to the American public, there always seems to be an event or further 'new' crisis that manages to change the subject in the MSM.  This, of course, is what Olbermann pointed out in his show that he rebroadcast several times, showing the 'coincidences' between major scandals and ramping up the terror alerts, etc.

Heck, as horribly disgusting as Foleygate/pedopheliagate is, it conveniently changed the subject of public discourse from the torture bill and our loss of habeas corpus, to pedophelia, a sleazy housemember, and "naughty e-mails" (damn Tony Snow--what a sleazebag shyster.)

So, I was just sitting here thinking about all the other nasty Republican stuff I have been fretting over for the past week and began to think:  well, the standard Rove move is to find something big enough to change the topic of discourse in the MSM in order to distract the American people.

make the jump

In this article from today's NYT, the reporters suggest that,

I don't know that this is all that much of an issue, but it seems to me that this goes against all conventional wisdom (at least conventional wisdom here at dK--are we that out of it?)  With the House scandals in process of blowing up in the MSM, I don't get the reasoning here.  

More after the jump

"Justice Dept. Probing Domestic Spying Leak" link
This seems to me to be something the Democrats--including, if not especially, John Dean--should be all over and slamming down the freaking throats of the Republicans.  I know we do not have the 'noise machine' or 'echo chamber' that the Republicans do, but wtf?  Have all members of the Democratic leadership had too many egg nogs?  Have they drifted into Santa's blissed out heaven?  Got too lit up in Chanukkah?  Discovered their roots in Kwanzaa?  Pick one, any one, but WHERE THE DICKENS ARE THE DEMOCRATS?  

One thing I think we need to have learned from the fascist noise machine is that IT NEVER STOPS!!!!  NEVER!!!  

And we do not need to make 'noise' like they do, BUT, like the 50 state strategy, we need to respond to every lie and every misrepresentation.  These effing liars are AT IT AGAIN.  (Surprise!)  

Let's do more than wish them a freaking happy HOLIDAY!  PLEASE?

I am afraid that this is a huge mistake on the part of the Democrats.  I think, as many suggested last night, that the Dems need to extend the Patriot Act debate well into the beginning of the 2006 voting cycle.  I am concerned that the Dems are too anxious to get/stay home for the holidays to stand up to Sensenbrenner's insistence.  One point worth thinking about is that the House leadership (in order to give itself enough time to put on its knee-pads for DeLay) has already decided to reconvene in late January.  One month from now is late January. Because of this, a one month extention is problematic for the Democrats to have accepted, and I am afraid we are going to end up with the same freaking situation we were just in.  Why let the Republicans get away with this brief extension?

Did anyone else notice this?  Even the NYTimes is getting in on the 'dis Fitzgerald' game (p.2 first paragraph of the article).
more below the jump

A friend of mine just sent this link to me from the Bring It On! site.  Among all of the anti-war materials I have both read and viewed, this is one of the more compelling.  It is titled "Do You Know What 2000 [Deaths] Looks Like?"  

I haven't seen it posted here yet and will delete it if it's already been posted.

"Do You Know What 2000 Looks Like?"

EUNICE, N.M. - Like many others in this former boomtown, Mayor James Brown knows more about isotopes, centrifuges and uranium-235 than your average college student.
Brown's recent crash course in nuclear physics was a prerequisite: Many of his constituents are counting on the jobs and economic trickle-down that are being promised if a $1.3 billion uranium enrichment plant that would make fuel for nuclear power plants comes to town.
Critics say the proposed National Enrichment Facility could pollute the environment, guzzle scarce water and leave this oil-producing town with tons of radioactive waste and nowhere to put it.
But the mayor warns that without the plant, Eunice faces extinction.