Edit: thanks to brady4747 for the link to this article (also here thanks to MattR) which corrects my belief that the military had been denying the presence of the C-130 in the area on 9-11. I'm not going to delete my comments below which mention that, but I do stand corrected. I think this is still an interesting piece of history.

A long time ago I posted a short 1-minute clip of footage I shot next to the Pentagon on 9-11. I never properly labelled the tape, so I was not sure where the footage was hiding, but I just got a 500GB drive so I could start capturing everything on every tape I've ever shot, and within a day I'd found the footage buried between a bunch of shots of people in DC nightclubs.

I understand the idea that when something tragic happens, we all want to help each other out. Lift each other up. Help our friends to get through it.

So, maybe when someone is hurting, we give them some leeway. If they say something that's a bit of a lie to help themselves through a rough day, maybe we look the other way. If they say their lost loved one is, "in a better place," maybe we don't pick that time to tell them we don't believe in an afterlife. -- I get that.

But how long do we let lies go unchallenged, if they have the potential to harm other people who have not yet been touched by the tragedy? How deeply do we allow falsehoods to get into people's minds, before we try to counter them?

This starts of with this video, which I found at random on YouTube:

This is my cat, Batty. While I was playing the above video, she thought there was a kitten in trouble. In this clip, she is trying desperately to find the imperiled kitten.

I think that there's an example here for all of us.

This diary is mostly a question, and I'd like to hear from people who really know these two men in depth.

I don't understand why there is such a strong support amongst progressives for Jim Webb--and he's supposedly on all the short lists--while it seems that Wesley Clark is only occasionally mentioned, and rarely comes up when the "short list" is the subject.

Don't get me wrong--I live in Virginia and I love Jim Webb. But that's kind of why I'm asking the question. Why are people so eager to pull a guy out of a former Republican-held Senate seat that he is likely to be able to hold onto for as long as he wants to remain in public life, when we have a brilliant man with comparable--perhaps greater--military credentials, who is not already a Democratic officeholder.

I think that many Clark 04 supporters are currently in the McCain camp at this point. I also think that Wes Clark and Obama together would possibly present the highest combined IQ we've ever had in the White House.

So, what's the downside?

I spotted this great editorial cartoon by Ann Telnaes today. She has a lot of other great work on the Editorial Cartoonists web site, too. They normally ask you to embed their own thumbnail link to their page, but that won't work with dkos' restrictions on image hosts.

(click here to view full size)

Ann Telnaes Cartoonists & Writers  … Jun 9, 2008 EditorialCartoonists.com

Well, I have never actually heard the woman give a speech, so I am not sure if she should give the actual keynote, but damn, I think she should open the night. It had been a while since I'd heard Obama tell the story of how she inspired a small crowd one morning in Greenwood, SC with her chant of "FIRED UP! READY TO GO!"

She has said all she wants is a ticket to the inauguration, but I think she deserves at least one moment in the national spotlight. Obama always ends his story about her with "one voice can change a room, and if it can change a room, it can change a town. if it can change a town, it can change a state, and if it can change a state, it can change a nation. if it can change a nation, it can change the world."

I think it would be fitting if that woman from SC's voice could be heard--at least for one night--all over the world.

Everyone has been discussing the issue of whether Hillary should be VP--how it could help the chances of winning in November--or else whether she can force Obama to accept her as VP by threatening to withhold her endorsement and thus allow some of her supporters to migrate to McCain. People are saying, "she has earned it!" or else, "No way!"

I think that the issue is none of the things we have been debating. She can't force Obama to make her VP if he doesn't want to. First of all, even if she had the leverage to do it, there would be no secret how it happened, and once it became public knowledge, it would make him look weak. The winner, forced to accept the loser's terms of surrender, does not look strong. Beyond that, though, HE WON. He has earned the right to pick his VP.

So here's how Hillary could be VP.

What I witnessed at the RBC meeting on Saturday really got me thinking. Some of Hillary Clinton's most hardcore supporters are really hurting right now. That much was clear before, but seeing the fact that the people who showed up and screamed at the meeting were about 90% older white women*, it really crystalized something for me. There are hurt Clinton supporters of all stripes, but the ones who are in the most true, deep, deep pain are mostly these women.

Their pain is not from seeing their candidate lose. Their pain is not from seeing someone else win who they did not support. Their deep pain comes from the feeling that Hillary was denied victory by a system that cannot stand the idea of a woman being president--and that makes them feel like they are considered less than human, and less than equal, by that system.

There is no argument that sexism has occurred in this campaign, just as there is no argument that racism has occurred. I'm not even going to get into apportioning blame or relative amounts. The point is--to me--that Hillary Clinton had already overcome whatever sexism could have done to hold her back. She was the party's frontrunner and presumed nominee. The nomination was hers to lose.

For those who only heard stuff vaguely on C-SPAN, and probably couldn't see it because all the cameras were pointed the other way, here is footage I shot myself of what the "Clinton Supporters" inside the meeting today were doing. I want to note that I don't want to pain all Clinton Supporters with the brush of these people, but I do think it is very important for people in general--and any remaining undecided superdelegates--to see exactly what Hillary Clinton's recent campaign tactics have brought about. By turning an issue of two states' breaking of party rules into a "civil rights issue" and telling her supporters it was akin to Rwanda or Dharfur, Hillary planted the seeds which eventually bore this fruit. These women truly believe that the RBC "stole their vote" by reinstating delegates which had already been taken away from those states.

part 1:

Two more videos after the jump.

The rules for the RBC meeting say no signs, banners, etc are allowed into the meeting, but as far as I can tell it doesn't say no flags. So, I'm planning to buy at least 100 of these small (8"x12") flags and bring them with me to the meeting. I think that the most basic, simple way for us to express our desire to move forward as a united Democratic party and make America better again is for us all to display the flag at this meeting.

My plan is to provide these to as many Obama supporters as I can, and then if I have some left over to offer them to any Hillary supporters who will take them. I don't plan on being at all confrontational, just hoping that once in the room if a lot of people have these little flags with them, we'll all be reminded of the greater purpose that brings us all together.

If this diary sticks around long enough, I'm interested in getting a rough headcount of how many ppl from dkos are going, to see if I should get more than 100 flags. Anyone know the actual capacity of the meeting room?

November 10th, 2008:
President Bush today invoked the assassination of Democrat Robert Kennedy in 1968 as a reason why the media should not yet be calling Barack Obama "the next President" even though he just won the election last Tuesday.

Q: President Bush, Barack Obama is going to be your succesor. How do you feel about that?

GWB: Now hold on, Senator McCain is still waiting for the election results to be certified,  He has been willing to do all of that during the entire process, and people have been trying to push him out of this ever since...

Q: Why?

GWB: I don't know, I don't know.  I find it curious, because it is unheard of in history.  I don't understand it.  And you know, between Senator Obama and his camp and some in the media, there has been this urgency to end this  And, you know, historically that makes no sense.  So, I find it a bit of a mystery.

Q: You don't buy the national unity argument?

GWB: I don't.  Because, you know, Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but I wound up President, didn't I.  Right?  We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in 1968.  You know, I just - I don't understand it, and, you know, there's a lot of speculation about why it is.

First, let me state that I agree with Hillary Clinton's supporters that there has been a certain degree of sexism in the media coverage of her campaign. While in the mainstream media it has mostly been unintentional sexism (i.e., the stories about whether her blouse was showing too much cleavage, which I don't think was meant to demean her as a woman but was just an example of the media looking to sensationalise anything they  can), there has been a great deal of blatant sexism coming from the right wing media for years (let us not forget Rush's "Hillary Clinton Testicle Lockbox" or Tucker Carlson speaking of feeling emasculated by her speaking voice). And yes, Chris Matthews has been a pig at times.

There is a logical fallacy often written in latin as "Post hoc ergo propter hoc", or "after this, therefore because of this," and I believe that is what is going on here. Just because there has been some sexism in the coverage of this campaign does not mean that it prevented Hillary from winning. So join me after the jump for a comparison of public service resumes that I feel argues pretty strongly against the "sexism did Hillary in" argument.

I got an email from John Edwards just a few minutes ago. It's asking for donations to support his College for Everyone initiative in North Carolina.

Mildly opportunistic timing, knowing that we Obama supporters would be feeling really good about him right now? Probably. But you know, I can't really hold that against the man, as the money is going to help kids go to college.

So check out the email after the cut, and if you want to thank John, go here:
https://www.networkforgood.org/...

Note: if you make a donation, add the customary .01 so he knows it's from the netroots. if you like this diary, why not donate $25.01? :)

The pictures in this diary are ugly. I am not making any claims they are not. The point is, yesterday Hillary Clinton crossed a line, and that was one that Democrats should never cross. It's not simply that she said that she believes "white people" are not voting for Obama, or that "hard working" people are not voting for Obama--she is allowed to make those claims if she wishes, and let people judge her accordingly. But by conflating "hard working people, white people"--and thus playing on the single strongest racist stereotype of minorities as not hard-working--she crossed a line. A very ugly line. These images are meant to remind people who are making excuses for her just how ugly that line is. Obviously these images are satire, but sadly just barely. Please see my example after the jump for just what I mean.

After our come-from-behind victory in Indiana, there are just 28 days of voting left. But we've never campaigned with the stakes as high or the time as short as they will be over the next four weeks.

I'm sorry, but this is just fucking insulting. I just got this email from her campaign, telling me (in effect) that I am too stupid to have noticed that she has been ahead (often, way ahead) of Obama in Indiana in most of the polls for months.

She can stay in the race if she wants to. She can keep making arguments that she is "more electable" if she wants. But if she keeps telling me that I'm too stupid to read the polls, I'm gonna keep telling people that she's full of shit.

Dear Hillary supporters: I know why you love her, and I'm not aiming this at you. But this BS is not acceptible from Democrats.

Edit: by the way, I swear right here and now that if I catch the Obama campaign sending out something with this kind of bald-faced crap, I will yell at them about it just as loudly.

Crossposted at my.barackobama.com

Regardless of how today's votes go, I think that Barack Obama should use his time speaking tonight to remind people of the generosity that makes Americans great. Instead of asking people to go to his web site and support his campaign, tonight he should ask people to donate whatever they can to help those struck by the disaster. He can speak about how even when times are at their worst for us economically, we must always remember that there are those in the world whose troubles are even deeper. He could also use this time to remind people once again that our own great city of New Orleans still needs help as well.

I would like to see this tonight because I think it would truly remind people how Barack is trying to transcend our current politics. Especially if tonight's results finally make it clear that Senator Clinton is going to have to concede, if in that case--rather than a victory speech--Barack calls on people to do something other than just cheer him on, I think he will show all Americans--including many Republicans--what he is truly made of.

Explanation of this picture and many others below.

For weeks and weeks I have seen people calling for John Edwards, Al Gore and others (including Howard Dean) to step forward and either endorse Obama, or else pressure HIllary to bow out. I think people wanting to see the race end this way are missing a significant point.

We have for months now had a race in our party between two historical candidates. With Obama leading and almost certain to keep that lead, many people have rightfully said that taking the nomination away from him via superdelegates would likely turn many African-American voters off from voting in November, but I think it is also important to note that if a bunch of men come forward and essentially tell HIllary to, "sit down now," that it's going to have the same effect on a lot of women voters.