I LOVE living in a through-and-through progressive city, in a through-and-through progressive district, and a (fairly) progressive state. Sometimes its frustrating that when some progressive cause comes about and the activists say, "Call your representative . . . " I know that my reps will already be voting the right way.

This legislation does nothing more than get these organizations to TELL THE TRUTH about what they are. There is absolutely no harm in that. There are many people who will appreciate getting pregnancy services that don't consider abortion as an option, and I don't understand why these organizations would want to inadvertently deter these people from taking advantage of their services.

Of course, it is completely disingenuous when these organizations hide the fact that they are trying to prevent abortion at all. If someone is really looking for counseling on ALL options available to them, they should have access to counseling on ALL OPTIONS.

I think if the NYT or other media outlets went dark on the net, pundits would be forced to buy newspapers to do exactly the same thing they are doing now. If they went dark permanently, it would be bad for a while, but eventually someone would start a news-oriented small business or nonprofit and find a financially viable way of distributing it on the net. The Internet wouldn't go away because newspapers aren't there. More than likely, *newspapers* would fail entirely because people's expectations about the availability of information has changed.

It doesn't rhyme, I know.

TMZ reports that her ex-boyfriend said the tape was made 2 years ago when she was 20.

http://www.tmz.com/2009/11/12/carrie-prejeans-ex-boyfriend-sex-tape-lie-age/

This woman. She is a joke, but so stupid and obtuse it's not even fun to laugh at her.

I always had a feeling that Bachmann's brand of crazy was informed and reinforced by RedState-like commentary. It's hard to be that crazy all on one's own.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, forms her opinions from the gut, because her head is empty. She doesn't read or get her talking points from any particular source-- remember, she couldn't quite stick to the party line on several occasions during the 2008 campaign.

Bachmann = Crazy

Palin = Dumb

No, scratch that.

I LOOOOOOOVE me some Joe Biden! :)

Yes, he can put his foot in his mouth, yes he can be a little too cavalier with words, but all in all, we know he's not putting up a front. What you see is what you get.

I hate the thought that he should be muzzled or hidden away. More Biden will do all of us good!

Reid needs to let the Republicans stand in front of the American public and explain why they don't deserve affordable, reliable health care. Let them do it. And if Lieberman joins the Republicans, he should be stripped of his chairmanships. Why Reid is afraid of letting the process play out and to use the power afforded the majority leader is beyond me.

The WHY of his change in position is important because I want to know if I have the whole story. How do you work for change if you don't know what you are changing? If he has taken these positions because he doesn't think its politically feasible to do what he campaigned on, then we can work to change the political environment. If he's doing it because he's grabbing power, then we have to shame him into the right course of action. If he's changed position simply because he's a big fat liar, then we'd know we can't support him at all.

It also matters to me personally. If someone you know suddenly becomes like a whole new person, you'd want to know what prompted it, wouldn't you?

In any case it is time for these questions to get louder and louder. If we can get the public option back on the table after the August we just had, we can certainly put his broken campaign promises front and center.

The reason people are not quite ready to shoot Obama down over anything on which he's disappointed liberals (torture, Guantanamo, gays in the military, TARP, etc.) is that there is seemingly no motivation for him to be Bush-lite (or Bush-like). He campaigned on these issues, and since being in office, he's done a 180. Why? What's his motivation for changing his stance? Why does he suddenly believe he needs such power? Why would a constitutional scholar be so willing to take up policies that are so clearly unconstitutional? Why would someone who spoke out against Wall Street greed be so willing to treat them with kid gloves? Why would it suddenly be so difficult to allow gays to serve in the military? Why would he be so willing to hire the same Clintonites who helped bring about our economic troubles when he spoke out against them during the campaign?

There has been no September 11-type event to create such a sea change in his attitude. He doesn't have Clinton's excuse of not having a filibuster-proof majority in Congress. We know he's smart and capable. We know he can be strong when he wants to be. He grew up middle class, became a Yuppie, and only in the last few years became what can be considered "rich," so he doesn't have the excuse of being a spoiled rich kid out of touch with "real people." He didn't show any signs of being the kind of person who wanted power for power's sake.

What is it? How can he be so different than what he advertised? Is he the same as he always was and just lied for 5 solid years? Or did he change the moment his foot crossed the threshold to the Oval Office?

No one has been able to satisfactorily answer for me where his motivation arises. The fact that there seem to be no answers to these questions is why supporters have been trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Needless to say, our patience is wearing thin.