I know you're just so in love with Obama, but you can deny reality for only so long, Kitt.

-- HornetDriver

I'm not "in love with Obama" and I'm not "an idiotic hair splitter". What I am is someone who despises liars and prevaricators such as yourself and NOBoy. The way you and NOBoy are using the articles in the links to spin the words of Obama do not fall short of flat out lying.

Given the hysterical coverage of the Rev. Wright situation from the outset -- and the depressing echoes of same by Salon's EIC, Joan Walsh -- it's good to see someone on the site putting this non-story in the trash bin where it belongs. Thank you.

Dave Barry:

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?

A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

Q. Where will the government get this money?

A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?

A. Only a smidgen.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?

A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.

Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?

A. Shut up.

Oh, and Glenn? Stick to pissing in your pants. You can't do the humor thing.

I detect a hint of jealousy. Is it because you and yours are just shooting blanks, both in the air and...well, I won't go there. One must maintain some standards, after all.

Thank you, Mr. Greenwald.

Given the hysterical coverage of the Rev. Wright situation from the outset -- and the depressing echoes of same by Salon's EIC, Joan Walsh -- it's good to see someone on the site putting this non-story in the trash bin where it belongs. Thank you.

It's a legitimate issue but the 24/7 wall to wall coverage of it while it is beaten to death, resurrected and beaten to death again and again and again is just absurd. Especially because this is an election year and there are more pressing issues than beer, bowling, basketball and any particular candidate's preacher's imbroglios and braggadocio. I think that is Glenn's point.

I think the fact that Wright has been center stage for so long now is a definite sign of America's rapid descent into mass stupidity and infantilism. It's a definite sign of major decline. But I think it says something far more disturbing about our collective soul that so few are comparing the radically different visions of god . . . . and how this has obvious implications regarding acceptable behavior on earth as it is in heaven.

Despite the poster's assertion that the Wright should not be discussed in the media at all, I think this would be a VERY good topic for public discussion. And good for the Democrats.

I think there has been black-and-white thinking on the issue. I think that liberals need to learn to see opportunity in disaster, like Karl does. Here's one.

It's really funny to watch all the "religious right" hysteria turn to chagrined embarrassment when faced with the religious left's equally inane assertions. It's even funnier to see the Perez Hilton of the political blogosphere, reject discussing personalities. You can be sure the next time a Hagee is noted, this particular post will be proof positive that hypocrisy is alive and well on the left.

Anybody here remember "macaca" and how the left's insinuation of what that meant, ruined a Republican Senate campaign? While here, an overt racist speaks clearly, yet is dismissed as irrelevant?
Keep this up and you may give away the Presidency yet again.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/wrightsetup.html

So the other aspect of this whole interesting mess was the timing of Joan's last two columns. Everyone who reads Salon knows she is utterly in the Clinton camp. Did she get a heads up from the Clinton campaign that the good reverend was being set up to implode in front of the Press Club by another Clinton supporter? Would this count as insider journalism run amok on Salon? It doesn't seem so far fetched to me in the least. Any takers? Glenn... did you hear something around the water cooler?

5:50 DCLaw1? Yesterday eve guest enjoyed food and drink. The feast we shared and gobbled up was valued more `l` than $30:00 worth of a Morel Vinaigrette. It was one wonderful meal. asparagus etc.,

What a "job" those morel mushrooms can do for a belly in a house room too... Morels from the woods can be dangerous.

People begin to punch you.

Friends tickle belly buttons.

Without warning ~ ;

Wow. What a geisha!

The Morel of a story?

Never eat a raw morel.

P.S.O.T. BTW. Remember.

The International Stone Appreciation Symposium is in October? huh.

www.StoneShow2008.com.This year it's in Grantville PA. Call Glenn,

That's Glenn Reusch (540) 672-672-5299. I attended last years. fun.

Nice to see some one being honest, especially when it may hurt their pocketbook.

Has the Reverend Wright controversy hurt Barack Obama's chance at getting the Democratic nomination for President?

Yes 43% 806

No 57% 1065

Total Votes: 1871

This is not a scientific poll

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/american.morning/

It was no festivity to be skippering.

People were both friendly and snippy.

Movement and stillness. Shadow and light.

Suiseki enthusiasts enjoy sushi? The Heart of Bonsai?

Read :~ Edward G. Seidenstricker. Japanese literature.

E.G.S passed away. Practice suiseki? Go to a Stone Symposium.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-heilbrunn/mccain-camp-is-neocon-red_b_99046.html

April 28, 2008

Speaking Monday at a fascinating on-the-record session on U.S.-Russia relations at the Nixon Center, former Reagan administration official Robert McFarlane declared that McCain's first year as president would be "neocon redux." McFarlane, who was Reagan's national security advisor and who supports McCain's candidacy, emphasized that he wasn't speaking as a member of McCain's team, but as a practical realist and private citizen. His remarks were uttered in a calm tone, and all the more blistering for it. McFarlane pointed out that Ronald Reagan was dealing with a declining Soviet Union and from a position of strength, while McCain would be dealing with a resurgent Russia, one that it would be foolish to heedlessly antagonize. According to McFarlane, "the youngsters" would run foreign policy the first year and then likely be "fired" by the second after they mess up.

My ears perked up when I heard this assessment because it confirms what I've been hearing elsewhere: while Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, and other realist elders are consulted by McCain, his heart is with the younger neocons, the "beavers," in the words of one McCain supporter, who draft the speeches and get the grunt work done. As Fareed Zakaria points out in the Washington Post today, the result is disastrous recommendations such as threatening to expel Russia from the G-8. In the aftermath of the Iraq debacle, the U.S. needs allies, not enemies. But the neocons don't see it that way.

The gap -- and it is fundamental -- in the GOP today is generational. The elderly realists haven't groomed anyone to replace them. The neocons have. Hence neocon redux. When someone of McFarlane's stature offers the assessment that the neocons are in charge, then it's pretty much official. The longer the election campaign goes on, the clearer it becomes that the neocons aren't back. They never went away.

- - Jacob Heilbrunn

The longer the campaign goes on, the clearer it becomes that Senator McCain's insanely dangerous foreign policy isn't considered newsworthy.

Not that Senator Obama's policy and Senator Clinton's policy are entirely sane, of course.

How's this for a bumper sticker: "LESS INSANE THAN MCCAIN".