We all know that the Main-Stream Media (sorry Kos) has a short attention span. Not only that, but shallow judgment as well. Time after time, we see the media spouting the results of "group-think", none so telling as when Jon Stewart shows a montage of media clips with each media outlet using the exact same words to describe a situation, as if they had coordinated their message.

Barack Obama issued a flimsy statement today as to why he is supporting the FISA bill.  

Obama saying he will work to strip the Telecom Immunity from the bill is not enough. Everyone knows that Telecom Immunity will not be stripped from this bill.

First the headline:

"Cindy McCain seen in more favorable light than Michelle Obama"

Next, the picture caption, found beneath a large smiling picture of Cindy McCain:

"A new poll shows Americans see Cindy McCain in a more positive light than Michelle Obama."

How does that square with what the article actually says?

In the story about Hillary Clinton’s supporters rallying against Obama, Angry Clinton Supporters Start Rallying for McCain Online, the author quotes two different web sites, and owners of those web sites, with one of those stating:

"We're going to run campaign ads to defeat Obama," says Ed Hale, a 63-year-old rancher and a Clinton supporter from Wellington, Texas. "We have doctors, lawyers, CPAs, the blue bloods, and then we have rednecks like me. It's a very diversified organization."

causing the author to conclude that:

"The split illustrates the difficult task the Democratic party now faces in rallying the troops behind Obama. Open dissent within party ranks provides Republicans with openings to exploit."

Hillary Clinton’s approval rating in Montana has dropped to 29%. Her unfavorable rating is now at 50%. Yet, her supporters are blaming Barack Obama for her horrible comment last Friday that she was staying in the race in case Barack should be assassinated.

I assume her point was that it would be a big hassle if he was the nominee, and then murdered, so it would be a lot less trouble for the superdelegates to just go ahead and name her the nominee.

Hillary Clinton's supporters are out in droves today on the blogs and forums making wild claims such as this:

In her Sunday Op-Ed, Hillary said:

"I am running because I still believe I can win on the merits. Because, with our economy in crisis, our nation at war, the stakes have never been higher - and the need for real leadership has never been greater - and I believe I can provide that leadership."

Hillary Clinton has so much in common with George Bush: Lying, lack of remorse, denial of the truth, believing that God is on her side, narcissism, grandiose ideas, and an inability to distinguish fantasy from reality.

This is truly nauseating. I think Hillary is mentally unbalanced and a danger to herself and others.

Hillary Clinton now believes that the only way she can win is to have Barack Obama snuffed by an assassin's bullet. The fact that she would raise that specter means that she is not fit to even be a candidate for the Democratic Nomination, much less the Democratic Nominee!

I was interested in finding out about the spin that Hillary is issuing today after yesterday's election.

In West Virginia this morning, ignoring people like George McGovern who called for her to drop out, Hillary made her case to stay in the election.

Hillary Clinton lied. She lied about Bosnia sniper fire. She lied about why she said it (sleep deprivation, misspoke, there really was danger of attack, an age issue). This is the most under-reported issue of the campaign.

I wrote about this earlier in my posts here and here, but let’s review for a minute. In a nationwide debate, with millions of viewers watching, with the "gotcha" moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolous staring her in the face, Hillary spoke these words:

Hillary Clinton reportedly received a cash infusion after winning the Pennsylvania Primary by 9 points. Within a day after winning, Hillary Clinton reported taking in donations of $10 million.

Looking at the Hillary Clinton Debt by Vendor report from the FEC, I was surprised to see Mark Penn’s company as the highest campaign expense, despite "being fired", or at least asked to step down as Chief Campaign Strategist.

I am sure you have by now heard of Hillary Clinton's remarks to ABC about "obliterating Iran".

Imagine the uproar that would have resounded in the United States, and around the world, if Barack Obama had been the one to make the remarks about wiping out every man, woman, and child in a country in the Middle East.

Instead, it was Hillary Clinton who made the "obliterate Iran" remarks and the media has not held her accountable. What amounts to a Neocon threat against Iran has gone virtually unnoticed in the media.

There is just now appearing a smattering of reaction in the U.S., but her remarks were very startling to those outside the United States, particularly our allies.

Hillary’s math is as flawed as it is desperate, counting only her votes in Michigan and disregarding the uncommitted votes which were a proxy for Obama, since his name did not appear on the ballot.

Writing on the "Democratic Underground", grantcart points out that Hillary had more popular appeal at the beginning of this campaign, before so many negatives about her had been revealed. Everything from lying about sniper fire to lying about her involvement in NAFTA, to using Republican tactics and the "fear card" has dramatically diminished her appeal nationwide.

Would the voters in California not like a "do-over"? Hillary has been the most offensive and odious Democratic candidate ever, but she managed to keep this hidden until well after the Californians had voted.  Her negatives are in the 57% range among Democrats.

Grantcart has more:

In an ABC interview, Hillary Clinton said:

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Obliterate Iran

Somewhere Joe Lieberman is weeping tears of joy. John McCain, after being wakened from his nap, and told about Hillary's interview, resumes his fitful sleep humming a Beach Boy's tune, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran...".

Hillary Clinton shares a very scary trait displayed by George Bush over these last 7 years.  The ability to ignore reality and maintain his own version of the facts despite the whole world contradicting him is a characteristic of the George Bush Presidency, and one which also describes the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Barack Obama responded to his attackers over his remarks that Pennsylvania voters were bitter about jobs being sent overseas and the empty promises of those in Washington who vowed to make things better during campaign season, only to turn their backs on Pennsylvanians once elections had passed.

Hillary hit Barack Obama hard over these remarks.  So did John McCain.

The most disturbing aspect of this is that Hillary Clinton and John McCain coordinated their attacks on Obama.  Note the similarity of responses and try to predict which response came from Hillary Clinton and which one came from John McCain:

Hillary Clinton actually used the excuse that History would judge her for her Iraq vote, giving the same weak reply that George W. Bush gives when confronted with his failures and incompetence in Iraq.

If Hillary is trying to tell us that "History" will determine whether it was the correct move for the U.S. to invade Iraq, I believe we have enough information to make that assessment now.

Hillary, we do not have to wait on "History" to judge your Iraq vote.  If you do not already realize that invading Iraq was a mistake, then you  cannot be sincere about bringing about an end to that cruel and unnecessary conflict, a war based on lies.

Now we know why Hillary has refused to apologize for her Iraq vote. Hillary said that:

"I made a considered judgment, I didn’t make a speech, I made a decision and it was a decision based on my best assessment on what would be in the interest of our country at that very uncertain time."

While I am not pleased with the dirty tricks, lies, and the behind-the-scenes manipulation by the Clinton campaign of the Democratic nomination process, I believe that Hillary, as desperate as she is, is a tougher opponent than John McCain.

The more people know Hillary, the more she is disliked. The more people know Barack Obama, the more they are impressed. Hillary Clinton represents the old politics of scorched earth, "winning is the only thing that matters" philosophy.

While Barack was on vacation, Hillary’s negative attacks and lies about Bosnia caused her negative ratings among Democrats to soar to 47%. That increase in negative perception is clearly Hillary’s own doing.

Barack Obama, by not descending to her level has shown himself to be of high moral character, even when he has been baselessly and viciously attacked by the Clinton campaign.

What role does experience, expertise, and good judgment play in the vetting of a Presidential candidate? I would submit to you the premise that any President of the United States will face issues that his predecessors have not faced, and therefore cannot be equipped by experience on the best way to act.

In fact, challenges will arise that are beyond anyone’s experience. While it can be said that experience informs a President and helps him or her to make good judgments, there is an element that weighs more heavily in the equation: Character.