I really don't know what to make of this news from Reuters. This is a "I have good new and I have bad news." He wins funding on one hand, but may loose his halo with the other.

I know this topic has been diaried, and I've actually put this message as a response on one of them, BUT this suggestion is too important to bury.

RE: this diary

McCain: Cigarettes are "a way of killing" Iranians--Updated w/ Video
http://www.dailykos.com/...

Much has been written about Elizabeth these past few days...her announcement about working for a progressive think tank and her slamming McCain's non-healthcare plan spurred this interest in her.

And now there's more to chew on:

First, let me say I will vote for BO should he win the nomination. But it is interesting that his current supporters consider him the people's hope. During the past several days I've learned a few things that gives me pause when looking to him for change. Things concerning Nuclear Plants and school vouchers. So I have to ask: change what, change how? Is this want he means by working across the aisle? See below...

It's official, the union begun by Cesar Chavez has given full support to HRC.

I checked to see if this has been reported here, but couldn't find any mention so I'm posting this. Don't know if I'm going against dKos rules. Sorry, if so.

I've been thinking about this for a few day and probably would not have written this if I hadn't just hear that the administration is looking for new routes to get supplies to Iraq, because Turkey is a bit miffed at us.

With this information it seems my thoughts are coalescing. Or is my tinfoil hat just a little tight today.

There's been a great deal of discussion about getting Universal Healthcare here in the US. I've seen bits and pieces about plans in other industrialized countries, but never complete descriptions so that we can compare and see what works and what doesn't.

To get a clearer picture of what's out their I've listed several questions to be answered by our overseas members. Please tell us what the country is.

US members please feel free to insert questions of your own.

Just read that they are again saying there's a possibility of a draw down of troops next spring if things keep getting better on the ground. Let's say that does happen. With the draw down comes less battle deaths. Will the public start to get attacked by historical amnesia?

This from the SF Chronicle (Thur, 6/14/07):

(Appropriations Committee Chairman David) Obey said House members from both parties -- even while expressing concern about rising government spending -- had inundated his committee with 33,000 earmark requests. He said it would take the committee's staff four weeks to study all those pork barrel requests and pare them to a manageable level.

Obey proposed to put the earmarks into the bill as the House prepares to confer with the Senate to reconcile the two chambers' different versions of the spending bills. Obey promised to disclose the list of the earmarks a month before such a conference, which Democrats hope to hold by late summer, so members and the public will have time to scrutinize and react to the projects.

But once the House-Senate conferees agree on a final bill, the rules of the House and Senate bar members from amending the legislation to remove individual items. That means, the Republicans charge, that Obey alone will decide on billions of dollars of federal spending affecting projects in practically every House district.

http://www.sfgate.com/...

Well, maybe R and D aren't so far apart...especially in duplicity. After hearing the following on Lou Dobbs' show today, I sent the following to Speaker Pelosi: ('nuff said!)

I've read and heard (CNN - 6/4/07) that Congressmen Obey has directed Senators not to add "earmarks" to bills until the fall when they should be "quietly" inserted at the last minute.

First, media is using this to prove that we're no better than the R's. You need a quick response.

Second, if true, why? I thought we pledged to do away with earmarks.

Third, I've also heard that calls were being made to federal offices telling them to add specific item requests (earmarks by any other name) be added to their requests for their department funding.

If true, it's a sad statement for a Party that people voted for on the assumption that they would clean up Washington. I'm very concerned we're losing our edge with the electorate by not really being different from the R's and just not simply using smoke and mirrors.

Well, that's what our Prez and his minion accuse us of doing. Yep, when we hold back the funding or ask for benchmarks to be met, we're hurting the troops...or are we?

This is going to be short. I was thinking about what we are being accused of and then, Eureka, I found myself outside the box. Let's turn his argument around: Is he willing to continue to let the troops face the enemy(ies) with insufficient weapons, personnel, etc.?

If the Dem plan succeeded and he insisted on continuing the battle without meeting the benchmarks, that's exactly what he'd be doing.

That's right, Mr. P, you're the one who would not be supporting the troops...you're the one who would insist on putting them in harms way with insuffienct equipment (well, it sure won't be the first time)...you're the one who'd be sending them to their early grave, not the Democrats.

So Mr. P, your argument is bogus, but then that's no longer surprising, is it.

It seems that the Secretary-General sees the picture in the light of reality...but there will be bloodshed either way.

GENEVA (AP) — U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Tuesday that the United States was "trapped in Iraq," and urged Washington to carefully consider when would be the best time to pull out of the country so the withdrawal does not lead to a further deterioration of security.
"The United States in a way is trapped in Iraq," Annan said. "It cannot stay and it cannot leave. There are those who maintain that its presence is a problem and there are those who say that if it leaves precipitously, the situation will get worse."

Annan said the departure of U.S. troops from Iraq "should not lead to a further deterioration of the situation." The goal should be to leave when Iraqi authorities can ensure a "reasonable, secure environment," he said.

OK, so the Prez comes to big D today with Perry et al in tow. Even Mrs. Prez was there.

A friend who usually votes D, but who has never seen a US Pres before decided to try to get tickets with her husband...just out of curiosity. They called this morning and were able to get two ducats! This morning for heaven's sake!

They got there about 4 and found a very vocal anti Bush crowd outside. (Yeah us!)  When they went in, they found a crowd of about 12,000. Not too shabby you might say. Only problem was that it was only 2/3 full ...and this is Texas...and the Gov was there...and Laura...and Mrs. Gov and, and...well you get my not too subtle drift.

Hope this is a positive sign from whoever or whatever you believe in.

Vote and get then drive, carry or drag anyone else you can to the polls.

Not because the war effort favorably got a small jump after Al-Zaqawi's death, but because of the following numbers. I don't know if they've changed a great deal since the last poll, but was not aware of the small number that wants an immediate withdrawal as many dkos folks do. Also the 42 percent they don't care how long they stay in Iraq. Scratching my head over this.

Here are the numbers from the poll:

Of those surveyed, 18 percent said they want U.S. forces brought home now, and 29 percent said they want to see them out of Iraq within a year.

But 42 percent said the troops should be withdrawn eventually, but take as many years as necessary to turn control over to the Iraqis, and 6 percent said more troops should be dispatched.

Apparently Kucinich must have an evil twin. Today I watched him on Neil Cavuto's FOX show.

Neil set him up with the question about whether Harry Reid's statement about Bush's incompetence was anyway to speak during an active war?

Dennis (excuse me, his evil twin) stepped right into it by agreeing with Cavuto that although he still believes the war was and is wrong that "being political" and using "political speech" (my words) is not the way to approach the subject.

What happened to the fighting Kuchinuch? Where was he hiding today when his doppleganger got loose?

Transcript is not yet online. They've only updated to 3/22.

Today I heard an author on NPR espouse the following: Around the world, conservatives, especially religious conservatives, will eventually far out-number liberals.

How can that be you may ask. Easy.... Demographer Phillip Longman says fertility trends are pointing us toward a more conservative future. He fills Linda Wertheimer in on his findings.

Basically his theory is as follows: Conservatives have more children than liberals...many more - be they Christians, Jews or Moslems. And although some of the conservative kids will eventually see the light, the majority will be just as narrow minded as their parents.

So I beseech thee, go forth and multiply. That's the only way liberals will inherit the earth. Of course there's a little problem of over population, but maybe a few more wars and epidemics can take care of that.

Scratching my head. Latest CNN/USA/Gallup poll today came up with this amazing result: when asked who was more ethical the R's got 34% while the D's posted a 31%. What's up with this?

http://search.cnn.com/...
See "WATCH" at bottom right for Bill Schneider's video report

Seems not too many people have been paying attention to the news for the past year! Also, economy now going in right direction for 55% of respondents.

Pres also up. Has Bush's low poll numbers bottomed out or is it just a blip?

Anyone have a crystal ball?

From BusinessWeek:

A VERY VOCAL MINORITY.  An Oct. 6-10 Pew Research Center Poll found that just 9% of conservative Republicans want the Senate to reject Miers' nomination -- a modest increase on the 6% who opposed John Roberts, Bush's earlier choice for the high court. Only 14% of GOP conservatives worry that Miers won't be sufficiently conservative once installed on the bench.

Overall, 54% of conservative Republicans want to see Miers confirmed -- a tepid number that's significantly below the 76% who backed Roberts. But that's understandable, given that nearly half of the voters queried say they don't yet know enough about Miers to decide.

The article goes on to say that bloggers seem more twisted out of shape at the nomination then the rank and file.

More:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2005/nf20051017_1740_db016.htm