Pardon me if I see this as a loss, even as a California resident. If a 'Super-Duper Tuesday' comes about (which seems inevitable) the voters are the losers IMO, as fundraising for these media rich markets becomes accelerated and smaller candidates who are traditionally able to 'stick around' and vet ideas that otherwise might not be mentioned will be buried under the avalanche of delegates they no longer have a shot at getting because they simply cannot compete in multiple large media markets simultaneously.

http://www.cnn.com/...

I'm sorry people, but these 2 candidates really distracted me from what would have been nice speeches otherwise by dipping into local vernacular  apparently tailored to the audience. Since when does Hillary have a southern twang as strong as the one she used yesterday?

...as Kerry was getting ready to introduce Edwards in his speech (I was watching on MSNBC) there was a cut to Edwards. Now, picture a guy leaning forward, elbows on knees and his wife is next to him trying to get his attention. She was leaning over into him, and I SWAER I saw a pissed off look on his face and he mouthed the words CLEARLY 'PAY ATTENTION PAY ATTENTION.' to her. As she sunk back into her seat they cut away to Kerry quickly, then BACK to Edwards who stood for the accoaldes while his wife just sat there.

I thought it was pretty funny, given the circumstances, but none of the Drudge heads are writing about this. Was I the only one who caught it or does anyone else know of what I'm refering to?

Briefly - the biggest surprise to me is the amount of youth I keep reading about. I'm actually a little disappointed to say that, because it really shouldn't come as a surprise.

If the Draft meme can get put into play again, that should scare anyone who didn't vote in 2000 because they were too young off their butts.

On the fencers really have had the debate redefined, and if some things do NOT enter the common language of the upcoming debates that will not help Bush.  For instance, if Bush never has to answer `What were you thinking for those 7 minutes?' during the debates these people will feel robbed and will not be satisfied.  Victory: Kerry.   [I won't be satisfied with anything less than a follow up of: `Did it occur to you that since you appearance was publicly known, and America was under attack that by staying there for that long you placed all of those children in jeopardy had they chosen to attack you?' But I digress] Someone should ask him in a town hall if he's improved his golf drive. The buffoonery he pulled should leave him skewered for campaigning to `restore integrity.' This is strong stuff, and we haven't even touched the body count questions yet. This movie has put these questions front and center - it's our job to keep them there. Remember: the public has a short memory and this is lose-lose for Bush. Dodging these questions won't help, answering them will hurt even more. Victory: Kerry.

Republican converts will be harder to gauge. Yesterday I was having a business lunch with 3 conservative, religious guys. We all get along because we have a sense of humor and nice people are nice people. Eventually F911 came up. I was surprised that one of them had already tried to see it and had been turned away because of sellouts. Now he REALLY wants to see it. The 2nd guy was planning to see it but not this weekend, while the last one adamantly refused to support it, much less give it a listen. Honestly I was expecting this final reaction from all 3, so I felt someone had done my work for me and know Darrin well enough to know I won't get him to see it until the other two have. That's my own experience on that front, which if repeated enough COULD be cracks in the base, but we'll see. Skeptical at best.

I realized coming out of the theater yesterday that if we had a  3rd party candidate a la Perot in 1992, this movie would help him the most because the Democratic Party took a credibility beating at the beginning with the footage from the senate.  This led me to wonder about the 55% who voted in 1992. If that turnout is matched this year, Bush is toast. That needs to be the focus of work done on top of F911: bring out those who otherwise don't vote. We need 10% of the stay at homes to turn out because of this film, and they won't vote for Bush.

Week 1 Sunday Summation: remind the kids about the draft, get them to see the film. They'll work on their Republican parents for us, as I've read more than one report about adults who otherwise wouldn't have seen the film were talked into it by their kids.

Don't worry about directly engaging Republicans; they are making their way to the theaters themselves. Let's remember this is sobering for a lot of people, and an in your face `I told you so!' isn't going to build a bridge - and there's going to be a lot of opportunities to do so. Building bridges will bring the votes.

Finally, we must bring the uncensored footage of George Bush into the national debate: the 7 minutes, the golfing, his `base' comments etc. Making sure those questions float out there until the election - that needs to be done. That should encourage mobilization of the stay at homes.

Oh, this is good......a state or two will be put into play here. I'm sure of it.

So, if  I'm to understand this: Bush is blaming Chalabi for the Iraqi failures and is attempting to point fingers at him.  Sorry, but I'm not biting.

For him to assign blame, means he is accepting failure and looking to assign responsibility for that failure. That has nothing to do with it at all, because I don't believe he's considering this a failure. And although I think what's been coming down the pike lately hasn't been good (and that's an understatement) I don't believe we've reached the point of no return as far as `failure' goes. Unless he's re-elected we still have a chance to get out of this with damaged dignity, but it won't be irreparable. We have been put back at least one generation, but we have to think long term at this point regardless.

Furthermore, to ignore the link as partisan politics is not only negligent but utterly irresponsible.

Consider this: since we turned (again) on Iran in the mid-80's you've got to figure they were looking for payback. Now, we are being told they fed us disinformation and in doing so they eliminated their biggest regional rival. They had to figure this was the result of 9-11 and their policies of bumping up Saddam's threat in order to bait us.

If this is true, this is beyond scary. One has to ask: what is their motivation? Iran knows we're there for a few years at least. We were already in Afghanistan. What would they have to gain by getting our army into both of their neighboring countries? Even if we knew we were being fed this disinformation, they still sent it our way for a purpose.

The other day we find out North Korea sold 2 tons of uranium to Libya. How much made it into Iran?
Well, if they test an atomic bomb in the next 2-3 years they'll have us nicely set up. Can you imagine the stakes then? They'll be angling to either `chase' us out of Iraq with their threat OR have the bulk of our army within striking range, along with Israel.

You cannot look past this. They sent us information stacked against Hussein. Even if we knew it was false, they wanted us to believe it. Iran's motivations need to be seriously considered here, as this is as real as life or death.

So many of you seem ready to brush it aside in the name of partisan politics, finger pointing etc. Well, I'm pointing my finger right now at Tehran and asking what are they up to? And why do they want us so close to their borders? Don't let your focus of getting Bush out of office blind you to asking this important question. In fact, pose it to your conservative friends.

I'm looking for info pertaining to what's commonly accepted around here, but I haven't seen much documentation of: which states take more from the Federal Gov't than they give, by Red and Blue. I read here that MT takes 1.75 for every 1.00 they send.

Anyone got a link to a chart/table they could post?

Thanks in advance.

Now, should Kerry win has their been any talk or concern that he would re-join the GOP or they would woo him back into the fold?

I recall that Daschle worked him pretty hard to get him to join, and there probably only a few Republicans who wouldn't swallow their pride for the pragmatic action of keeping the senate out of Democratic control, especially if the Dems pick up Colorado and another spot.

Anyone have thoughts or have heard something about this?

First off, I don't see this posted elsewhere in a diary. To avoid the cycle of Moore diaries from last week if this has been touched upon let me know.

I was not on Moore's side last week. He was told a year ago about this - his film would be treated like 'Kids' was by the mouse: they would have to distribute outside of Disney channels. It was nothing more than a well timed publicity stunt just prior to the Cannes film festival. I debated many on this point. This was never censorship.

My question to those who disagree is: did you join any Disney boycotts, and will you continue with them now? Or still boycott the largest provider of same-sex benefits for domestic partners?