As I'm sure you can imagine, this WSJ article has an unmistakable anti-Clinton bias:

WSJ: The Clintons' Terror Pardons

However, the facts of these pardons were, and still are, damning.

The prisoners were convicted on a variety of charges that included conspiracy, sedition, violation of the Hobbes Act (extortion by force, violence or fear), armed robbery and illegal possession of weapons and explosives -- including large quantities of C-4 plastic explosive, dynamite and huge caches of ammunition. Mr. Clinton's action was opposed by the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. attorney offices that prosecuted the cases and the victims whose lives had been shattered.

Michael Moore was on Larry King Live last night and had this to say:

...but her votes for the war, and I don't just mean the first vote, but her continually voting for the war would make it almost morally impossible for me to vote for her.  And I hate to say that, but it really is true.

This was in the context of primaries and he explicitly stated later than he would vote for her in the General.  Moore also comments on healthcare mandates in the video below.

This is partly in response to a laughably absurd email rant from a TPM reader that Josh Marshall has posted.  And partly in response to the hazy logic expressed by some Clinton-backers when discussing the electability question.

We've had 26 contests and there are a lot of numbers available.  On the electability subject, all those numbers can be condensed down into this question:

Which of the following statements is plausible?

There I was reading news when I saw a post on Firstread about Clinton attempting to "set the record straight" on the Kazakhstan story.  

Clinton responds on Kazak issue - Firstread

Well this should be interesting.

Updated Title: From Cookiesandmilk - IOKICDI (It's OK If Cheney Did It!)

Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll

Rasmussen National averages:
Clinton 42 (+1)
Obama 35 (+3)

But here's the kicker:

Last night was the first night of interviews without John Edwards in the race. For last night’s data alone, Clinton and Obama were essentially even. Samples for individual nights are very small and results should be interpreted with caution. The next Presidential Tracking Poll update is scheduled for Friday at 11:00 a.m.

Close your eyes and imagine this: Black Democrat A has just beaten Republican Candidate X in South Carolina.  He did it with an unprecedented coalition of blacks and whites.  He did it while actively denouncing the politics of division.  Republican Surrogate Y is asked what this means for the race, and he says:

Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina twice.

(Translation) Obama is only the black candidate and the black candidate always loses in the end.

How outraged are you?  No seriously!  How much would you want to spit on Republican Surrogate Y right now?

Let's be realistic: Your vote (if you get one) and your money will have a limited effect.  But we as individuals can influence the race on a macro scale with a little organization and a little luck.

Consider this a clearinghouse for supporters of non-Clinton candidates to discuss ideas for exposing Clinton weaknesses.  Not pie-in-the-sky "if I were David Axelrod" ideas, but concrete individual actions that could influence the media narrative.

Specifically I'm talking about going to a Bill Clinton event and asking a question that prompts him to shoot his mouth off again.

[Disclaimer - this diarist supports Obama and Edwards]

Ad: Hillary Clinton does not respect our people - Ben Smith - Politico

The Clinton campaign held a conference call today to denounce a Spanish-language radio ad produced by an Obama-allied union.  After the fold I'll explore the twisted Clinton Camp logic in this situation.

Bush to invoke Vietnam in arguing against Iraq pullout

In which our History Revisitionist in Chief makes a valiant effort to buck up public support for the war by inserting the ol' "Protesters Lost Vietnam" conserative trope.  

"Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields,' " the president will say.

The White House has said Gonzales' testimony is accurate even though it apparently contradicts Mueller's testimony and Negroponte's memo.  However, the apparent contradiction cannot be clarified because it would endanger "national security".  Now that we've all had a good laugh about this, let's explore a possible explanation: That a separate, unrevealed surveillance program is being referred to as 'TSP' in public to avoid exposing it.

What's the most effective, cheap (free) way to reach a HUGE audience?  Get stories on the frontpage of Digg.com!  Anyone can submit a story and it takes less than a hundred additional users to 'digg' it to get the story to the front page.  Once it's there, literally hundreds of thousands of people see it within hours.  Are there a hundred people on DKos interested in getting the real story out?

The full extent of the Iraq fuel smuggling we've been hearing about is revealed:

"Even at the low end, that would mean smuggling costs account for almost 10 percent of Iraq's gross domestic product, $29.3 billion in 2005."

Holy crap!