oozing now-not only from her on TV now-but you too.

You are just as guilty of what you accuse the msm of. Just in a Pro-HRC way--by leaving out facts that could support the biases and reasons the msm/ media do actually dislike her-and feel used by her. (like showing up with muffins, bagels-after not answering reporters qestions for so long-or even campaigning there.

Or-as Keith O. pointed out; that after the tearing up-HRC went straight into more criticism of Obama.

For example yesterday, I found her speech on MLK and LBJ. One that essentially said, african-Americans NEEDED a white guy like LBJ to fight thier battles for them becasue he had "experience" like her. And that, after all, MLK WAS shot.

Not very smart strategy going into a very African-American SC.

But I guess it's hard for GG, to actually find ALL of these speeches and comments online and figure for yourself what the context of it is. It's just easier to watch TV or read what someone elses' interpretation is of the speech and call them "mean" if they don't agree with ya.

WOW.

For a lawyer, I'd of thought after looking at legal briefs, catching inconsistencies in witness statements, catching inconsistencies in FISA stuff...---simply using those fingers to look up (in it's entirety)what a candidate says and does/ or schedule--would be a cakewalk.

There are campaign websites, Media Matters,opensecrets.org...

That's kinda like work though huh?

At least with your op-ed tsk-tsking of the msm/media (Matthews)

YOUR ego-inflated OPINION becomes the main cruxt of the story-minus the complexity of anything resembling "entire picture" or "truth, (ie less-work).

Don't know if you are still working off a New Years' binge-but the past 4 days don't demonstrate anywhere near the excellent work I've come to expect from you on FISA, illegal Bush activity, nor the changing of posts at least 2x a day...

Perhaps you should stick with what you know best,after all, Andrew Sullivan actually has a degree in philosophy. Maureen Dowd-don't read her.

But I know how to "vet" a story on my own-but I trust someone with a bigger picture, no-agenda, "philosophical"-approach to reading and deciding over one who has one.

to report on the commentary of the commentary of the caucuses and primaries--

silly to think one would actually GO there to report it himself.

played Pssssst...........?

(pass it-by other name)

silly me-you are now.

anyone who does commentary of commentary of commentary----will have a short-lived commentary career.

sorry--not in the oooh-aaah crowd.

"as seen through the naked in first person experience in its' entirety and processed by ones' own brain".

Novel idnit?

but I meant naked "eye" experience.

@ 11:01 post.

I believe you are more right than you could ever imagine.

take a look at this:

The pollsters weren't wrong-diebold flipped em.

http://billnoxid.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/pretend-primary-diebold-strikes-again-2/

I also found another site truthseek-which showed a breakdown of some of NH counties. A few were giving HRC as much as 40% of the vote-at least 3 others low 40s. They also had Obama at 29%. Supposedly the amount which can flip is 5%.

Those 29% were NOT consistent with any of the counties done by hand. The ones by hand O won pretty handily-save a very small few.

The guy who did the count also has criminal record.

The inconsistencies were around 13%-between hand and machine.

Tom Delay reiterated your point about shooter and mindless slogans the other day. He was on with Chris M. the night of the primaries and Chris asked him about differences between the moderates and hard-core evangelicals of the GOP.

Delay got a really "fart-smelling, disgusted, irate, contorted look" on his face (you could really see the veins pop out!) and explained the problem about moderates in the GOP as

"well, they just think too much".

It was hilarious-I never thought I see so much honesty out of Delay.

National polls show Obama is now even with her at 33%.

It brought his average up considerably.

You may have read this already.

Coursehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/pl_afp/usvietnamintelligence512

we all "knew" it was true-but now the proof.

One issue not raised was the timing of this so-called "incident.

GW was on his way to Israel to shore up unity against Iran by other Arab nations and to get Israel and Palestine to some sort of agreement about borders.

Could this have been just a ruse to make Israel think that GW has their back and can be the "Big brother"-so-to-speak?

Secondly, Iran just had a summit with many of its' neighbors back in late Oct.

Because the Caspian area is fairly young-since the breakup of Russia and the Balks., they've only recently figured out how to figure out borders between them(which includes the Caspian Sea)and international waters (boundaries Hormuz).

Since this was just done in late Oct./Nov, how is the US supposed to just go into that area-and know the borders (waters)-when they've just figured it themselves?

If anything we've probably been violating, "a la Cheney" any efforts at respecting such offshore boundaries-not to mention, clogging up shipping lanes there.

Good article GG.

ramped up the war in Vietnam-at the behest of guess-who?

the oil industry.

One of the oil-drum sites or someone else said that the bombing campaign, where we bombed the hell out of Vietnams shoreline and many of the waterways was to ultrasonically "mine" for oil. I guess when the the bomb reverberates or how-can signal whether there is oil below.

This was the reason given for the irrational abuse of a bombing campaign(by us) that destroyed many of the rice fields and means of food for the Vietnamese.