The Establishment does not think that Obama is "strong enough" on American/Israeli policy. You have been pointing that out for some time now.

But look what 'b' found over at Moon of Alabama.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/07/red-versus-blue.html

The short of it is that the banner in the screen shot from the Jerusalem Post coverage of the U.S. election makes Obama look evil; and it is on purpose. You have to see the picture. To be clear, Fox News did the ham handed manipulation and news of this came from a Media Matters report on photo manipulation by Fox News.

"The red channel value of the Obama part of the montage is about 30% too low. No professional photographer has such a badly adjusted camera. The manipulation makes Obama's skin look blue, cold and pale. The McCain part seems to have a slightly lifted red channel value which lets him appear warm." -- b

We are in for a hell of a ride; but Obama wins in a landslide anyway.

By using the "fringe" word you are engaging in the same behavior as Mara Liasson, namely expanding your group's numbers and diminishing hers.

You did it again in your response to me, pushing the numbers I referenced -- a third to 45 percent -- down to 30 percent.

When you are as in the right as we are in our position, and when you have the majority support of the public, why falsely diminish the other side?

They are a minority voice, and being described as such should be enough.

Glenn,

Are there any developments with respect to newspaper ad(s)?

My opinion of them continues to fall. NPR is the Fox News for the wine and brie set.

The American people that matter. Just thought I'd clarify.

The ammendment is HR 6304, in case you wanted to get that number when you called your Senators and asked them to support the ammendment removing retroactive amnesty. DO IT!

No, you and a few other people worry about it

Fact is, Iraq is off the front page. Most Americans don't think too much about it either way. You're the 'media maven', count the decline in the number of articles now vs. 2 years ago. People are worrying about their own welfare not what the pundits are telling them to be outraged and/or terrified of. I think this more than anything is what sticks in the craw of the pundits, bloggers and other self appointed jerks; that they've lost significant power to make us sit up on our hind legs and bark on cue.

Thatta boy! You tell 'em! Here's your McScooby Snack ...

Several months ago, I objected in writing to NPR's ombudsman over their retention of Liasson, Juan Williams (both of whom work for Fox, of course) and David Brooks. These people are representative only of those like themselves of what is rightly called the Washington D.C. echo-chamber, yet have the gall to pretend to speak for the majority of Americans. Naturally, I received no reply from NPR, probably due to my being one of the great unwashed.

This problem is illustrated remarkably well by a June 18 editorial in the LA Times by Tim Rutten who, writing about potential war crimes charges against Rumsfeld, et. al., had this to say:

"It's true that there are a handful of European rights activists and people on the lacy left fringe of American politics who would dearly like to see such trials, but actually pursuing them would be a profound -- even tragic -- mistake. Our political system works as smoothly as it does, in part, because we've never criminalized differences over policy. Since Andrew Jackson's time, our electoral victors celebrate by throwing the losers out of work -- not into jail cells."

Here's a man who blithely states that an illegal (never mind immoral) torture policy that violates any number of domestic and international laws and agreements is merely a matter of policy difference, that those who think otherwise comprise "people on the lacy left fringe."

It's little wonder objections to issues like FISA have been mocked as being little more than an obsession among that "lacy left fringe." As we learned from the refusal of conventional media to admit to their complicity in hiring former generals who work for defense contractors even as they offer their laughable objectivity on Iraq (and all the while never mentioning that contractor relationship), the complicity of media regarding criminal behavior (as in, dismissing those who actually call it what it is--criminal) is part of the weave of this dank, degenerative fabric that seeks to smother efforts at accountability.

I sent this into the Public editor of the NY Times:

Dear Public Editor,

A friend of mine sent me Thomas Friedman's column on June 18, 2008

entitled " Iraq : Still Inscrutable", which you can find at

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/opinion/18friedman.html

On reading it, I found this quote:

“When it comes to Iraq , most Americans really want to leave, but they still don’t want to lose,” argues Michael Mandelbaum, author of “Democracy’s Good Name.” (my emphasis on most)

That made me curious as to where Dr. Mandelbaum got his information, and whether or not that information was correct. It seems to me that the proper source for such a statement would be opinion polls of the American public. Polls on Iraq can be found at http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

The Washington Post/ABC poll asks the following question:

"Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; OR, do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there?"

The results from June 12-15, 2008 poll say that 55% want to withdraw, and 41% want to stay, with 4% undecided. The number that wants to withdraw has never dipped below 50% in the past 18 months.

There is a similar poll from NBC/Wall Street Journal at the same website. This poll asks the following question:

"When it comes to the war in Iraq , which of the following statements comes closer to your point of view? The most responsible thing we can do is find a way to withdraw most of our troops from Iraq by the beginning of 2009. The most responsible thing we can do is to remain in Iraq until the situation in the country is stable.

The results from June 6-9, 2008 poll say that 49% want to withdraw, and 45% want to stay, with 6% undecided.

So, I find it hard to see how Mandelbaum's statement in Friedman's column could be considered accurate. Can you look into this? I also sent a similar note to Media Matters, who have not yet responded.