Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
This column was born out of my frustration with the seeming inability of many Democrats to perform well in the Sunday morning interview shows on television. It's often been said that Democrats have an inherent "herding cats" problem, so I set out to do my tiny part to help.
President Bush is in the news today declaring, in essence, that North Korea need no longer be considered as part of his "Axis Of Evil." With absolutely no proof whatsoever, Congress is now supposed to remove North Korea from the list of countries which are considered state sponsors of terrorism. So much for all that fiery rhetoric Bush used to use about terrorism.
George Bush's term in office will be remembered for the precedents it set, particularly in relation to the power of the presidency, and the separation of powers between the three branches of American government. Vice President Dick Cheney has been at the forefront of this effort to "restore power" to the presidency, which he believes was unjustly taken from the office in the aftermath of Richard Nixon and Watergate.
Anyone who thinks that the treatment Barack Obama has gotten from the media during this campaign is remotely the same as the treatment John McCain has received just has not been paying much attention. Because this pro-McCain prejudice has been both pervasive and unremarked-upon throughout almost the entire news media during the entire campaign season. McCain has even joked that the media is "his base" of support. It was a funny line, but there is an enormous truth at its core: the media has been hard on Obama but unbelievably light on John McCain. And this has to stop. Now. Because the election might just hinge on the media's portrayal of the two, so now is the time to point out the uneven nature of the press coverage to date on the two candidates. In time for the mainstream media to correct itself before the general election season really heats up.
Come to think of it, if anything in Cindy's past were part of Michelle's life history, I would bet my bottom dollar that we'd have heard about it by now. Over and over and over again. This is called "media bias," and it deserves to be spotlighted immediately.
The cloud of growing doom hanging over Republicans as they skulk the corridors of power in Washington, D.C. is becoming more and more visible as the 2008 elections stumble down the campaign trail. It may break in a cloudburst of Democratic landslides this November, which Republicans are beginning to fully realize. Because the bad news for the Republicans is coming so fast and furious, I (once again) pay homage to the late great Herb Caen, and offer them up to you in a return of the Three-Dot Thursday format. Without further ado...
President Bush is desperately trying to tie the hands of the next president by negotiating a Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq's government before the end of his term. Unfortunately for Bush, it's looking less and less likely that such an agreement will happen on the timetable he has set. Fortunately, this means that the next occupant of the Oval Office will be able to negotiate his own agreement, rather than being stuck with Bush's.
Although the (as he puts it) "Is He Serious?" headlines have mostly come and gone, Al Franken is still Al Franken, and his humorous style is evident throughout the interview. But for all the people who scoffed at the idea of a former comedian running for such a high public office, it can now be strongly stated that Al Franken's campaign is definitely no joke.
There's a lonely stretch of grassland in Montana, with gently rolling hills next to a small river, where 132 years ago this June, a battle was fought. More on this in a moment.
USA Today (of all places) has a great page on their site where you can play "call the election." It comes complete with electoral maps back to 1960, for reference (warning: Democrats shouldn't click on 1984 or 1972 unless they're sitting down, preferably with a strong drink handy). It starts you off with what they consider "safe" states already marked (their definition: safe states voted the same way in the last four presidential elections), but you can click "all undecided" to start with a clean slate, if you prefer. The good news: their "safe state" starting point starts at 248 Democratic, 135 Republican.