When this contest began, Obama was clearly the most electable candidate.  His widespread appeal among independents and even crossover Republicans, particularly in such a blue wave year, made any general election outcome a forgone conclusion.  His most difficult task would be to win the primary against a very strong array of candidates and a hostile establishment.  But that was before the kind of campaign you decided to run.

It wasn't always this way.  Even though you didn't always vocally support progress, and sometimes voted in ways that frustrated us.  We believed you ultimately had the best interests of the country and progressive causes at heart.  Unfortunately with every week that this primary season drags on, it becomes clearer that this is more about one person's ambition than a struggle to determine what is best for our party and our country.

This story can't end well for us. :\

Thursday night, immediately following Kerry's speech, CNN turned to Ed Gillespie.  And allowed him to smear Kerry some more.

Please go here and let CNN know that you eagerly anticipate hearing Howard Dean and Michael Moore's reactions to the Bush Cheney speeches at the GOP convention next month.

(email in extended section, first mail in the thread at the bottom)

Kos put this picture on the front page a couple days ago.  As we predicted, the picture was taken secretly and without permission.  Bravo to the Seattle Times for running this photo, then following up with a front page story when she got fired.  I love how the Times sticks it to the DOD by running the photo on the front page AGAIN to accompany the new story.  Bastards.

So basically unless you lose a limb or break a bone at work, you will just be told to quit your damned whining and get back to work or be fired.  RSI?  Carpal tunnel?  Back pain?  Respiratory problems?  It's all in your head! You aren't injured!  Stop wasting the state's money!

I love this little twist-of-the-dagger at the end.  This will end up increasing profits and workers insurance premiums while not returning anything to workers.  Yay for laissez-faire!

If you live in CA, tell your Democratic legislature to get off their knees and stand up to Arnie and his corporate cronies.

Short and a little choppy I know; I've found that editors tend to like letters with a lot of content packed into few words.

Most accounts on the ground that I've read maintain that the militant Shiites are in the minority and most still want to try and make things work with the US.  The important battle being fought right now isn't specifically over Muqtada Sadr or some thugs in Fallujah, but rather it is over the hearts and minds of the moderate Shiite majority.  If we lose the latter battle, the outcome of the former military one will not matter.  I just hope Bremer and BushCo understand that.

Current tax laws allow American companies to defer paying taxes on income earned by their foreign subsidiaries until they bring it back to the United States. If they keep the money abroad, they avoid paying U.S. taxes entirely.

Kerry would require companies to pay taxes on their international income as they earn it rather than being allow to defer it. The new system would apply to profits earned in future years only, not retroactively.

Ok, sounds good.

Kerry's campaign estimates that the change would save $12 billion a year. The savings would be used to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 33.25 percent -- a 5 percent reduction.

WTF?!!  Why bother to throw this bone back to the corporate community?  They clearly aren't going to support him over Bush, so I see no reason we should pander to them.  Are the kind of Americans who would even consider voting for Kerry sensitive to charges of being "anti-business?"  I doubt it.  All this does is give more ammo to the Nader-ite "Both parties are corporate whores" contingent, of whom I am feeling one-foot-in-one-foot-out these days.
-Brian

Currently MSNBC has NOTHING on their front page that even mentions Clarke, his book, or the 60 minutes appearance.  Earlier today they ran a headline to the effect of "Whitehouse strongly rebuts Clarke criticism."  Now on their second-tier "news" page they have White House blasts terror critic.  Again, this is the original point of view for the story.  Their first article on this story is the Bush team's rebuttal.

Slate has a great service called Today's Papers, where they run down what's in the big hardcopy newspapers.  The death of Yassin bumped Clarke off of the WaPost's lead (still made the front page).  Everyone else buried Clarke off the front page.  How much do you want to bet tomorrow NYT, LAT, and others front-page Bush's rebuttal to Clarke?

The Daily Howler has a typically grand rant against the NYT here.  Like everyone else, the NYT article gives Bushco a few paragraphs to blast Clarke's credibility before actually stating the charges.

When did the media learn to frame everything starting from conservative principals?  How did we get here?  Is there anything we can do to fix it?  Do we have a shot at winning with less money and the mainstream media unwilling tell our side of the story?

What do you think?  Would Kerry have more to lose or to gain from an interview with Jon Stewart?

I gained a little optimism today.  We can only hope that he is representative of moderates in this country.

That's my dose of optimism for the day.

The Wall Street Journal, which goes high with the race, figures that at this stage of the campaign, Kerry is in the strongest position of any Democratic nominee in years. He has "unity within a normally fractious party, a positive introduction to the American public and a narrow national lead over President Bush." "You probably have to go back more than 50 years to find a nominating process less divisive," said Wesley Clark's former pollster. "There is no meaningful group of disaffected Democrats coming out of this process." The Journal notes that Bush, by contrast, has been moving to the right to placate his base.

Translation: "Howard Dean never happened.  Him and his followers are to be dismissed.  Please don't ever do that again, because you scared the shit out of us."

I know the WSJ doesn't speak for the Dems or liberal causes, but I am right on the cusp of feeling good about Kerry right now and I am pretty sensitive to this kind of dismissal.  If the CW is that we Dean supporters are falling into line and don't have any meaningful voice in the party it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Oregon state law defines marriage as a "civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age." In other words, the law does not specify that the union be between a man and a woman.

"It's encouraging. County by county, state by state, we're getting people to see the light. It will happen in our lifetime," said Bill Dubay, who heads the Washington state gay-rights group Don't Amend...

I hope he is right.  I fear a coming backlash, though.  The parts of the country that have been complaining for generations about the federal government infringing on their "state's rights" are about ready to impose their will on us.  Maybe we can convince Bush to allow the West to secede from the union...