John McCain snears at Barack Obama after Barack Obama visits U.S. troops in Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.  We've seen the very real images of Barack Obama visiting with the troops, telling them we appreciate their heroic service and sacrifice, telling them that we are united behind them even if we disagree about policy.  We know that Obama has visited wounded soldiers privately, forbidding the presence of cameras or reporters.  And we've seen that for many of these service members, Barack's support means something.
    John McCain spits on them when he disrespects Barack Obama's effort to honor and support our troops.  John McCain disrespects the troops who were glad to meet Obama, who felt supported, honored, inspired to meet Obama.  John McCain doesn't respect the troops who found Barack Obama's efforts to be meaningful to them.  Whether he means it or not, John McCain spits on the troops when he dismisses what they care about, what they find meaningful.

I'm pissed right now.
It's bad enough that we have to listen to McCain and his asswipes make up stuff about Obama because the truth doesn't work for them.  
Then I go over to iceberg slim's diary to check out our side's response and this is what I get ...

Response from the Obama Campaign:

   Obama spokesman Bill Burton: "While Barack Obama wants to change American foreign policy to wind down the war in Iraq and address the grave threat posed by a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan, John McCain offers this patently misleading negative ad. Given his calls for a civil campaign, it's disappointing that Senator McCain has slipped so easily into the same, tired campaign tactics that have become so familiar to the American people."

C'mon Bill.  We can do better.

    Senator Hillary Clinton scored in Pennsylvania.  According to her, this "victory" marks a turning point in the contest for the Democratic nomination.  The Arkansas Park Ridge New York South Texas Scranton Washington D.C. Clintonistas are making their comeback!
    Last night some fans and nostalgic commentators thought they caught a glimpse of the 1990s when the Washington Bills (same team, different name) scored with ease and regularity, winning it all in 1992 and 1996.  But casual fans don't always know the rules of the game and may not realize that American baseball lasts nine innings and the only stat that matters is how many runs you have at the end of the game.  
    We're in the eighth inning and here's where things stand ...

    Senator Hillary Clinton of New York is a fine candidate.  With 35 years of experience, the best team of political operatives, and established support within the Democratic Party, she has reached the finals of the Democratic nominating process.  After scaring off Clark, Warner, and Bayh, she's finished off Gravel, Kucinich, Dodd, Biden, Richardson, and Edwards.   All that's left between Clinton and the nomination is the young but surprisingly attractive (for whatever reason, for some people) Barack Obama.   The nomination should've been hers for the taking.  
    Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton just cannot close the deal.  Here's why she has failed so far...

    The argument between John Edwards, Barack Obama, and now Paul Krugman over the proper role of 527s in Democratic politics is tricky.  As John Edwards and Barack Obama point out, "soft-money" in politics opens doors to corruption and makes it much more difficult to hold anyone accountable for dirty campaigning and bad policy.  As John Edwards points out, he doesn't actually control 527s that are currently helping his campaign by going after Obama on ostensibly progressive issues.    And in fact, it would be illegal for him to "coordinate" with them.  And of course, as Barack Obama points out, there's a certain irony when an opponent of soft money (Edwards) finds himself in the position of ... depending on using accepting tolerating ignoring [_____] ... the aid of 527s in his effort to defeat a more or less progressive rival, Obama.

    We Democrats have a problem and it's not just disagreement over who's gonna drive our buses in 2008.  It's also about who's gonna ride and under what conditions.  
    Our buses serve a lot of people who weren't allowed to ride in the past.  Or when they were allowed to board, they had to sit in back.  The discrimination hasn't been limited to riding either; some of us have been denied jobs or simply run over.  And now, given our long history of injustice based on prejudice and intolerance and misunderstanding, we have people belonging to groups that have been "on both ends of the stick" sharing that bus with others who've also been on both ends, receiving and dishing out.  It's a problem.

    When the company I work for really wants to get the word out, they attach a memo to our paychecks and make us come down to human resources in person and sign a roster proving that we got it.  We should do this with our troops in Iraq.

    During the Charleston debate on July 24th, Dennis Kucinich said that he was for reparations for victims of slavery.  This was in contrast to John Edwards and Barack Obama who seemed to give different answers.  Some people have taken this as evidence that Kucinich was more daring, more honest, more progressive, at least on reparations (This diary, "Justice's Lonely Voice:  Kucinich is Right on Reparations," for example).  After looking at what Kucinich actually said, I disagree.  In fact, Edwards and Obama end up looking pretty good.

    Bush is a bully and everyone knows that the best way to deal with someone like him is to stand up to him.  You might not win.  You might not get what you really wanted.  But at least you won't lose without a fight.  And you at least give yourself a chance to come out on top.
    Now we have control of Congress and public opinion regarding Iraq on our side.  It's not complete control of Congress.  It's not perfect support on withdrawing troops from Iraq now.  But it's something.  The trick is to find a way to translate what we've got into control over Bush's behavior as "commander-in-chief."
    Here's my idea....

     They just don't get it.

     The corrupted-by-power, aint got no governing philosophy cuz they hate government, don't need to actually practice religion cuz "I'm saved already" Republican "leadership" thinks their problem with Foley is a sex scandal.

Top GOP strategists said party leaders will concentrate on trying to keep the focus of the unfolding story on Foley, rather than on how House leaders responded when informed about his contacts with former pages.

"I don't know of any race ever where the action of one member has impacted the race of another," said Carl Forti, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

                   Reported by Dan Balz and Jim VandeHei
                   Washington Post Staff Writers
                   Tuesday, October 3, 2006; Page A01

     They are so wrong.

     This is an ABUSE OF POWER scandal.

     Everybody here knows that George Bush and the Republican Party in general is corrupt beyond belief.  But corruption ranges from being a parasite on the public dole (Abramoff, Ney, Cunningham, et al.) to subversion of democracy through habitual secrecy and deceit (Bush, Hastert, et al).
     Let's do something fun.  Instead of arguing about who's a DINO or the difference between pedophilia and pederasty, lets rate some Republicans in terms of corruption and then talk about THAT!