Back in 2003, when everyone on cable news was swooning over the Iraq War's inevitable first-stage success, MSNBC in general, and Matthews in particular, were the only skeptics on the scene. They were the only network to question whether Americans should be the ones tearing down (rhetorically and actually) Saddam's statue. "Where are the Iraqi Washingtons and Jeffersons?" Matthews would ask. Can true "freedom" or "Democracy" ever be foisted on a populace so willingly oppressed and beaten down as the Iraqis? Shouldn't they have to rise up themselves in order to foment real change? Isn't the fact that they hadn't (despite all of the well-documented atrocities, US-enabled or not) telling of how much value the place in their own "freedom" and how much effort they would put into making it permanent?

These tough questions were only being asked by pundits on MSNBC, while assholes like Wolf Blitzer and Geraldo Rivera drove around Iraq in Hummers with visible boners. Matthews went on record during the run-up to the Iraq invasion as being against it. We needed to finish our work in Afghanistan first, he said. He was not convinced of the existence of the oft-cited WMDs. He saw the evidence trumpeted by the Bushies, and still had reservations. I will always respect him for that, at least.

True, Matthews has always had a soft-spot for rhetorical flourish and does not take criticism well, but until Olbermann came back, he was the only nightly anchor who wasn't completely in the bag for the Bush administration.

Olbermann has become a hero of amazing proportions in our household for simply being the only person regularly leveling criticism at the Bushies from 2003 onward. He said things and raised issues that I had only heard at that point coming from people like Glenn Greenwald, Rachel Maddow (who's now a regular on Countdown) and Bill Maher.

It's no accident that Olbermann closes every show with a count of the days since the declaration of victory in Iraq, a constant reminder to thinking people everywhere of the Bush administration's criminal incompetence.

Obviously, some criticism of MSNBC (Matthews' uncontrolled glee on the night of the Iowa caucus being a standout) is warranted. But let's not forget that Matthews was the famous target of Zell Miller's duel threat after Matthews had the temerity to question his bombastic 2004 Republican convention speech. Until we have a completely "free" press again (which may never happen, honestly) the flashes of brilliance shown by Matthews and the continuing honesty of coverage by Olbermann (who astute observations often become the basis/inspiration for entire segments of The Daily Show/Colbert Report, 36 hours later), are the best we have right now. I can forgive their minor missteps.

The Democratic race IS over, not that you could tell from CNN last night (although, tellingly, FOX barely covered WV last night and apparently didn't even broadcast Clinton's "victory" speech).

Color me pleasantly surprised! Kudos to you!!

Yes, Speed Racer was bad. Cheapest animation EVER (entire scenes of a still frame while Speed has an inner dialogue - niiiice!). Probably why I enjoyed this SR reference on Family Guy waaay too much..

http://youtube.com/watch?v=66ibuZKVdEc

First of all, all of the candidates are only giving speeches at this point. See, none of them are President yet. I'm sure that if given the opportunity to be be President, all of them will do a lot more than give speeches.

You know, Obama's got policy proposals all over his website. He's got a record, all of which is easily accessible on the internet(s)! Sure, many of us Obama supporters may have become curious or interested about Obama because of speeches, but if you think that's all it takes to stay with a candidate, you don't know Democrats very well. Me? Well, he's my Senator, so I'm kind of partial.

How has NOT talking to them worked out so far?

Once again, Rosenkavalier, Obama doesn't want to the "results" as they stand in MI & FL to count. Are you really arguing that:

1. Clinton's 55% in MI is legitimate, despite the fact that no one else was on the ballot?

2. That Clinton's majority in FL is legitimate, despite the fact that no one campaigned there (well, Clinton did, a little bit - and Obama ran some ads in GA that, because of the nature of media markets, may have been seen by some N. FL people) and that voters were making the same informed choice as OH, PA, or TX voters? Are we going to throw Obama a bone and give him his and Edwards' prcentage since if the FL primary was held at its usual date (March 9th), Edwards would've already been out?

3. That turnout was the same as it would have been had the DNC not invalidated FL & MI.

The fact remains that neither MI or FL have the money to run a make-up primary. But, because of the reasons I've stated, the "results", as they stand, are completely suspect as well.

Also, please explain to me the rhetorical leap it takes to justify Hillary's stance as "the natural actions of a good politician" but when Obama acts in his political best interests its suddenly "morally repugnant"?

..but did you just quote a John C. Reilly vehicle to make a political point? Just checking..

I was thinking Magic and typed "Wizards". Kind of see how those could get mixed up..

..Obama's got coattails. Big ass coattails. Even if he doesn't win the general, he will give the Dems a near veto-proof majority in Congress. Hillary, even if she won, would probably lose one, if not both, houses which doesn't bode well for any meaningful progress.