This diary is partly a reply to all the worryworts and handwringers who are screaming "We're doomed" every time Obama does soemthing (or, more often, doesn't do something) we think he should be doing on the campaign trail.

Obama knows what he's doing, guys. Accept it.

And, I think I have an idea what he's doing, and why.

Name that show. Right here. Let's give MSNBC smart advice from their key demographic: Liberal Spenders. And give Rachel (she's a "Only One Name Needed" now, isn't she? Oprah, Cher, Keith, Rachel...) the "help" she actual soliticted on last night's Countdown. Here's a start:

"Counter Balance" - Where you only hear the real side of the news. All facts, no echo chamber,

"URL" - - Facts, Film, Investigations, Uncoverings and Truth-Telling straight from the blogoshere to you

More ideas after the jump...

I recently wrote about how the near media hagiography of John McCain was so slanted, even many Liberals in the media -- people to the left of me and even I can see that McCain has become a figure of the far right --  routinely engaged in skewed analysis to fit their sophomoric John McCain crush.

Ok, I will admit it, I like Maureen Dowd, there I said it!  I'm not sure if I like her because of the light or heat, but I like her.  

Edit: I'm not suggesting, advocating or supporting that the story linked is accurate factually, only the practical impact.  

Today (tomorrow), her piece titled "Two Against The One" strikes truths others would not speak.  The only issue I have is her title, it should read 3 plus the media.  The media likes to admonish itself for the heavy coverage of Obama but ignores that disproportionate volume of that coverage is negative.  We actually had a network ask,

"Is Obama the Anti Christ?"

this week, kinda like the "How long ago did you stop beating your wife?" question.  I'm not naive, I know her history, for whom she worked and her opinions but it's ok she's cuts deep and I like her.  I'm convinced that Dowd first and foremost enjoys calling people on crap, anyone but particularly the press.  

I'll never understand why this took so damn long.

Just in time for the closing rush of the presidential election, MSNBC is shaking up its prime-time programming lineup, removing the long-time host –- and one-time general manager of the network — Dan Abrams from his 9 p.m. program and replacing him with Rachel Maddow, who has emerged as a favored political commentator for the all-news cable channel.

The moves, which were confirmed by MSNBC executives Tuesday, are expected to be finalized by Wednesday, with Mr. Abrams’s last program on Thursday. After MSNBC’s extensive coverage of the two political conventions during the next two weeks, Ms. Maddow will begin her program on Sept. 8.

Her show will follow Olbermann's, and a HUGE congratulations to one of the smartest voices on cable land. The Olbermann-Maddow 1-2 punch will be potent. Now, if we could get a decent lead-in for Olbermann, we'd have a serious block of programming on our hands.

[ The following is a thought stream that I wanted to get off my mind.  If you're looking for an informative read that's well researched on more productive subjects, I recommend this diary, or this one.  ]

I appreciate Andrea Mitchell having the courage to try to be a somewhat truthful reporter even under the circumstances she finds herself in*.  In what seemed to be her effort to try to maintain (at least to some degree) the respect of the American people and her viewers, she mentioned a reasonable question that some Obama supporters were expressing about the events of the faith forum, or whatever that thing was that Reverend Warren conducted.  It is a shame she is getting in trouble for it.  But really, are we surprised?

Crusty, curmudgeonly commentator Jack Cafferty of CNN has tossed a spanner in the works of the MSM. In his most recent commentary piece, McCain's many shortcomings as commander in chief are laid bare:

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

Represented by Adam B, myself, Matt Stoller and Duncan Black (aka "Baby Blue Cherub"), the group of us fought (alongside some allies on the Right) to preserve our independence as a medium from federal regulators and campaign finance "reformers" who tried to stifle our free speech.

One of our arguments was that political opponents would file frivolous complaints against websites in order to try and shut them down. While there's nothing that can be done about frivolous complaints, the fact that they're getting shot down so quickly gives less incentive for similar complaints.

The agency said last week it dismissed a complaint by a Hillary Clinton supporter alleging that a pro-Barack Obama blog was actually "a direct arm" of the Obama campaign, and therefore subject to campaign finance restrictions.

In its ruling, the FEC reiterated that whatever costs are incurred by running a political blog need not be disclosed as a campaign contribution. "Political blogging is exactly the type of Internet activity that the Commission exempted from the definition of 'contribution' and 'expenditure,'" the FEC stated.

The complaint was brought last October by Clinton supporter Kirk Tofte, who alleged that the blog Iowa True Blue, operated by former Iowa Democratic Party chairman Gordon Fischer, had coordinated with Obama's campaign. Tofte alleged that Fischer endorsed Obama in September, after which he began posting critical items about Clinton.

"Gordon Fischer's Web site has ceased being just another political blog," Tofte wrote in the complaint. "Since 9/24/07 it has been one hundred percent negative against Hillary Clinton."

The FEC rejected the contention that Fischer had coordinated efforts with Obama. But the agency also held that even had he done so, it would not have triggered campaign finance restrictions.

"Any coordination would have been permissible ... because the activity was specifically exempted from the definition of 'public communication,'" the FEC stated.

The author of this piece at Online Media Daily adds this line:

Still, the new rules have left room for argument.

Actually, the new rules are so crystal clear, there is zero room for argument. They are so clear, in fact, that the FEC shot down a similar complaint filed against Daily Kos last year in a shockingly fast one week from the date they received our filing (see our filing here (PDF), and the decision here (PDF)).

Anyone who knows how adjudication agencies work in the federal government can tell you that a one-week decision can only take place because there was absolutely no gray area in the new rules. They are about as crystal clear as is ever possible in the law. The fact that wankers file bullshit complaints doesn't point to uncertainty in the regulations, it just proves that wankers roam the earth.

Kool kids.  
Hate 'em!

In crowd.
Hate 'em!

Jocks and Singers and Stars!  Oh My!

The "C" listed humans we know as conservatives and especially Fox News 20 %'ers are really having a total meltdown over the fact that the Entertainment Industry not only produces RICH PEOPLE, but RICH PEOPLE that don't typically agree with their konservative RICH PEOPLE agenda.

Bottom line?  The Kool People don't like Konservatives.  
Konservatives are Jealous.  Take away the J-E-A and you end up with "LOUS".  Add an "E" and you get an apt description of the Konservative Kids that we are currently having to endure.

They Love Him!

As veep speculations reach a fever pitch, this nugget of stupidity is flaring up all over the place:

But that experience — he was first elected to the Senate at age 29 and has served for nearly four decades — would undercut Mr. Obama’s image as an agent of change.

So, picking someone with a resume a mile long "undercuts" Obama's image, because apparently, "change" is such a delicate, porcelain concept that it shatters at the slightest hint that, gasp!, a career politician is in the midst.

The Obama camp has long argued--correctly--that "change" and "experience" are not mutually exclusive. Let's play with unicorns for a second and presume that Obama chose Al Gore as his running mate. The former vice-president's "experience" is unparalleled, and yet there would be little serious debate that Gore would shake things up policy-wise.

The idea that a hefty resume is somehow a roadblock to change is ridiculous.  Politicians do not neatly fall into Column A "experience" types and Column B "change" types. But this political taxonomy is catchy, so certain members of the press gleefully run with it.

Obama's image as a "change" candidate will not be "undercut" if he happens to pick a familiar face in politics. On one level, that image is culled from the historic nature of his candidacy. On a deeper level, it exists because the entire Obama candidacy, from the grassroots up, has been build on a foundation of change, on a need for change, and on a belief that the old politics of George Bush and John McCain are hurting the American people. That foundation is so strong (2 million supporters strong, to be exact, and millions more who volunteer or support Obama's candidacy) that it won't be cracked if and when Obama chooses an old white guy with decades of D.C. experience.

McCain keeps bellowing he knows how to catch Bin Laden. He is a high ranking, Republican senator who meets with Bush regularly.

There are three obvious questions we, in this community, must force the country  to confront by pressingt for answers.

A week from today the Democrats will begin their nominating convention in Denver. This seems like a good time to recall the incitations to violence that were voiced last April by Rush Limbaugh:

Screw The World! Riot in Denver

Obama has so far been unwilling to touch McCain's POW time or military service, except to praise it.

OK, we all understand why.  Getting into a spitting context on that issue makes him come up the loser every time.

But why not PRAISE McCain's experience... but do so CLEVERLY.

  I've been a lurker on the Daily Kos for about six years . I’ve never posted dairies on this site and I probably won't post one again. I know this blog is to promote democratic issues, but I need to vent. My house can ill afford another hole in the wall or the door so I apologize in advance,for any mistakes I made making this diary.

RUSSIA's Power Play:  Pentagon No Evidence of Withdrawal From Georgia

 CNN "Breaking News".  

BTW, I broke my pledge to never watch CNN again.  I was playing poker online when suddenly a loud "Breaking News" cut off the broadcast and a very serious sounding Wolf Blizter came on the screen.  He went to a reporter who announced the breaking news that Russia was not withdrawing from Georgia. Breaking news!!!

I saw this link at the JedReport today: McCain's Ambien Use: A Security Threat?

Dan Childs of ABC Medical News wrote this on May 23, 2008. I assume because of the primary that this didn't get more coverage. But given the issues in this race and the fact that the McCain camp keeps saying he's the guy to go to at 3am, you'd think there would be more reporting on this issue. The press seems to avoid seriously considering what it means that decisions would be made by Sen. McCain if he wins the White House and if he's impaired or unable to make decisions we really don't want the chief of staff running the country. After having a VP with veto power the last eight years, you can see what the lack of accountability and mismanagement can lead to here.

This dairy began as a push against what I have seen in the media this week as our forth estate "covers" the Georgian conflict.  However, as I began writing, I began feeling, and what follows is a very brief exploration of what surfaced.

I give a timeline for the beginning of this war.  I challenge readers to contrast it with what they have heard reported by our leaders and on American television.