So there is Hillary Clinton virtually soliciting a hit on Obama. And here are many of her apologists trying to pooh-pooh it away. Even RFK Jr, who cozies up to the right wing when it suits his purpose is trying to apologize for her disgusting comments.

This latest outrage should seal the deal, but she and her deluded myrmidons don't get it: more and more Americans are rejecting the warmongers.

McSame and Clinton are essentially cut from the same cloth when it comes to the 'how many countries can we invade and occupy' question.

Go away, Clinton. Go away, Joan Walsh. Go away Hillary acolytes. Go form your own army and invade some island in the south Pacific or something. But leave the rest of us alone to try to pick up the pieces and get on with the job of fixing this broken country.

We will be taught the way to properly critique the Clintons. There are some things we can say. There are other things we cannot say.

There are no rules for bashing Obama, though. We can say that Evita Clinton and McWarmonger are both qualified to be president (or Commander in Chief, a loathsome way to refer to an elected president) but Obama is not qualified.

That will help in November. Can't you just see those ads being cranked up? Evita herself virtually endorses McSame?

How can any criticism of the power-hungry warmongering nihilist Clintons be too low?

As they sink lower, so does the criticism.

I can hardly believe it. No one on Salon is talking about Vince Bugliosi's new book "The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder."

Have you people even heard of it? There is an almost total news blackout about it.

Bugliosi, the guy who prosecuted Charles Manson (and more than a hundred other murder cases) knows what murder is and how to put together a prosecution.

Bugliosi believes, along with most of the world, that Bush lied about the reasons for invading Iraq. If he did lie, does that constitute a crime?

According to Bugliosi, it does constitute a crime. You can guess what crime he says it is.

Perhaps some other prosecutor can make a good case that Bugliosi's argument is flawed. But no one seems to be discussing this book one way or another.

And I find that bizarre.

I had dinner the other night with friends of mine who are Republican. I asked them why it was OK for the Pentagon to have employed dozens of ex-military guys to go on TV and pretend they were independent while they were in fact engaged in a coordinated propaganda effort.

Of course, they had never heard of such a thing and could not conceive that it could possibly be true.

They were absolutely stone deaf to all suggestions that GWB and his crew lied about why we invaded Iraq. It was congress fault, they said, not GWB's, that we invaded.

And so on.

But I am sure that 10 years ago they could have supplied every juicy detail about dress colors, DNA stains, and so on.

Thanks, David Broder (and friends).

Who writes:

Your GOP friends don't want to admit the truth for the same reason that Broder and most of the M$M don't, they know they are responsible and to admit it would hurt too much. That is if they know how to empathize with others less fortunate than them.

I think it is more about bias and the way we all tend to reject information that calls long-held beliefs into question. Quite a bit of study has been done on the effects of bias (and, sadly, none of us come off looking particularly objective) and there is plenty to read about on the web.

Because I am about to leave and I am too lazy to go downstairs to my library I did a quick search and came up with:

http://biasandbelief.pbwiki.com/

I would not be surprised to learn that Broder himself is genuinely puzzled about all of this flapdoodle about pre-war intelligence. If only two Republicans approved the report, why, it must be only a policy difference.

It is impossible from this distance to sort out people's motivations for believing what they believe. Broder and the others, I am guessing, have very mixed motives involving their corporate bosses, human bias, wanting to continue to be perceived as 'serious' and so on.

From the much closer perspective of thinking about my friends, they are in fact very nice, sweet people. They do empathize with others less fortunate. They are not homophobes or theocrats. They are old-fashioned (in their late 60's) "small government" conservatives.

They do not pay enough attention to notice that the ruling crime family laughs at the notion of 'small government'. The Ruling Right Wing's fig leaf is small, yet large enough to fool about a third of the public.

My friends are in that minority. But I have hope that some day, their daughter (who is a progressive, she teaches inner city LA third-graders) and I will be able to move their needle just enough to realize that they have been deceived.

Goldwater is gone; not that I was his biggest fan, but at least he was not an authoritarian thug.

If Evita is on Barack's ticket I will vote third party. I will not vote for her because of her viciousness and because of her warmongering.

But please do not count me as another emotional "Obama supporter."

I will probably vote for Obama, but I am not particularly excited about him. I was anti-Evita long before I felt any positive vibes about Obama.

Back when the Dem field was overcrowded, Obama was, for me, third from the bottom. Mike Gravel was below Obama, and Evita was the bottom of the bottom. She has always been the only Democratic candidate for whom I would never, ever vote.

Sadly, Obama is now tacking towards the middle, so it may turn out that we got Evita after all.