Wolf Blitzer owes Clinton an apology.

He ran the slimiest piece of propaganda I have seen in this primary.

He is misinforming CNN viewers about Clinton's proposal to relieve consumers of gas tax.

The report told how Clinton wants to suspend tax on gas. But it went on to lament that this tax money goes toward restoring aging city infrastructure -  so that we do not have disasters like the Minneapolis Bridge collapse.

Then, to show viewers just what a huge hypocrite Clinton is, they ran a clip of her saying that we must do more for updating our cities aging infrastructure.

Of course, the reporter OMITTED the most important part of her plan:  She would make up the lost revenue by imposing a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies - who are making money hand over fist, while the rest of us suffer.

It is becoming harder and harder to see difference between CNN and Fox News.

Meet Jack Cafferty, Obama Shill.
Every day on Situation Room, there is a cut to "straight talkin' Jack."

Jack generally reads viewers comments.

The comments could be right off of Daily Kos, and probably are.  
Almost all are angry slams at the Clintons.  

Clinton supporters James Carville and Paul Begala were let go by CNN,
because it just wouldn't be fair to Obama.

Isn't it time to let Jack Cafferty go for the same reason?

Clinton supporters are being awfully nice to let this guy keep shooting
off his yap without protest.

In a very interesting segment on Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room this afternoon, Clinton supporter James Carville pledged to raise $15 million to pay for the costs of new primaries in Michigan and Florida, and challenged Obama surrogate David Wilhelm to do the same:

You know, we're telling people all over the world to have
elections. And the United States of America is saying, well, we can't
afford to have an election in Florida and Michigan in the most exciting,
highly contested and important presidential election probably in the
history of this country.
We look ridiculous. I mean, let's just get together and have the
DNC put some money up. Have Senator Obama put some money up, Senator
Clinton's people put some money up and let's go out and raise the
money. We can do this easy, pass some paper ballots and count them.

This is the campaign blogger post for Joe Biden. My apologies if you missed the post yesterday; Biden posts are moving to Fridays to accommodate my personal schedule.

Last night's debate was really something, wasn't it? We can debate about who won, who was strongest on the issues, etc., but at least we can all agree it was clear who lost: Wolf Blitzer.

But the point of my posts isn't to bash Blitzer, it's to plug the Biden campaign. And with performances like the one he turned in last night, Biden makes my job easy. I'm not supporting him on a whim, and I think he explained it well once Blitzer finally gave him the chance to speak:

The American people don't give a darn about any of this stuff that's going on up here... They're sitting down at their tables at night, they put their kids to bed, and they're worried about whether or not their child is going to run into a drug dealer on the way to school. They're worried about whether or not they're going to be able to pay for their mortgage because, even if they didn't have one of those subprime mortgages, things are looking bad for them. They're worrying about whether they're going to keep their job. And they're worried about whether their son in the National Guard's going to get killed in Iraq. [ED: That's something Biden himself is worried about.] Ladies and gentlemen, every political campaign gets to this place. I'm not criticizing any of the three people who are the ones who always get to talk all the time at these things...

But look, folks, let's get straight to it here. This is not about experience. It's not about change. It's about action. Who among us is going to be able to, on day one, step in and end the war? Who among us understands what to do about Pakistan? Who among us is going to pick up the phone and immediately interface with Putin and lay off Georgia because Saakashvili is in real trouble? Who among us knows what they're doing?

Biden's a leader. Chris Dodd and John Edwards both quoted those remarks a bit later. Edwards also backed up Biden on Pakistan and Iran, and Clinton went as far as to say, "Senator Biden really deserves a lot of plaudits because he knows this issue forwards and backwards, and I think it's important to have a president who understands the intricate connections of our branches of government and the Constitution." This calls to mind the last debate, when "Joe's right" and "I agree with Joe" were two of the most heard phrases. If you only watch one video today, let it be this one, it's good stuff!

Another Biden supporter, Shelby, came up with this great graphic to reflect the action Biden has already taken:

So basically, another great debate for Biden. He was clear and levelheaded on Pakistan, called for impeaching Bush if Bush tries to invade Iran, and made solid points about Guantanamo Bay, the Supreme Court, trade, and education. Hotline summed it up well: "Joe Biden does inject a little sense -- and humor -- into a debate spiraling quickly out of control." Mark Halperin has Biden in second place, behind only Clinton - and of course he ranked Clinton first, given the CW that says if she doesn't get knocked off her perch, she wins. That's a pretty low standard, so ultimately, if you want to be intellectually honest, Biden wins.

I do admit Biden isn't the only candidate with foreign policy experience. Richardson was a good UN Ambassador and has excellent negotiating skills--but Biden is the only candidate to use his experience wisely. In another campaign blogger post below, you can read about Richardson's latest Iraq position, and in this post, you can watch all his previous positions. What is it Obama and Edwards have said about Clinton? That she can't have it both ways? She's not the only one:

My guess, however, is that a lot of this is redundant. You already know how solid Joe Biden is on foreign policy. You already know that he's the only candidate with a detailed political plan for Iraq. You already know that Musharaff called Biden before he called Bush. Your already know that Biden helped stop genocide in the Balkans. This leads a lot folks to say he'd make a great Secretary of State - but ask yourself, do you really want a President who's not qualified to be Secretary of State? If this is the Iran and Afghanistan election, if Iraq, Darfur, and nuclear proliferation are what matter most, if the nuclear-armed Pakistan is going to continue its descent into chaos, then I don't just want a foreign policy expert advising the President from State, I want a foreign policy expert TO BE the President.

But that's not to say Biden isn't just as strong on domestic issues. He is. You already know he passed the Violence Against Women Act and the crime bill and that he stopped Robert Bork. He added to that this week with a comprehensive five-point plan for our veterans, which includes:

1. Improving Handling of Claims

2. Eliminating Restrictions on Veterans' Access to Health Care
   
3. Accommodating the Long-Term Care Needs of Veterans
   
4. Ensuring Adequate Treatment of TBI and PTSD
   
5. Improving the Provision of Care for All Veterans

I want to put extra emphasis on point 4 - PTSD and TBI. Edwards has a solid plan for veterans, too, but Biden's goes even farther. It's the same thing with education. I don't deny Trey's point that Richardson would make a great education President, but for Biden, teaching runs in the family--he teaches a Constitutional Law seminar at Widener University School of Law, and both his wife and sister are teachers. His detailed plan for education can go toe-to-toe with anyone's. Iowans are noticing--Biden received his thirteenth Iowa state legislature endorsement this week, a list that includes the state House Majority Leader and a young Iraq veteran. Marc Ambinder wrote yesterday, "It would not surprise a good many Democrats if Biden, in the end, surges in Iowa."

I'm going to see Bill Clinton speak in Manchester, NH tonight at the Young Democrats of America conference. Hopefully, I'll get to meet him. I'm quite excited. But for all Bill's splendiferousness, his eight years were nothing compared to the eight we'll get once we nominate and elect Joe Biden President.

Cross-posted from http://www.StandforJohn.com

What some of you might not know about me is that I like to get spam from stupid people. Naturally, I'm on the Republican National Committee's email list. So yesterday, lo and behold, this pops into my email:

The full "research document" can be found here.

The intent of the email is to show us that John Edwards is insincere about wanting to fight terrorism because A) He Believes Al Qaeda has a presence in Iraq B) Says he wants to fight terrorists but C) Wants to end the war and thus leave Iraq to the terrorists.

To prove the point, they put up a video of an interview Edwards did on The Situation Room in May. The link to the GOP's video is here.

If you watch the video, you'll see that after Edwards makes a case for ending the war, Wolf Blitzer questions Edwards on whether he disputes that Al Qaeda maintains a presence in Iraq. Edwards says "No, but..." and then, well, the video ends.

You see, the GOP thinks we're as stupid as they are. They think we don't know that when someone makes a statement followed by a "but...", they are probably going to make another relevant point.

Thanks to the magic of the internets, we can show them we're not stupid. So here, ladies and gentleman, is the extended version of that interview, which I like to call John Edwards on The Situation Room: Too Hot for GOP Edition:

Well, well. Seems like Mr. Edwards did indeed have a bit more to say. And what more did he say, exactly? Put simply:

By ending the war and forcing a political resolution in Iraq, we weaken and defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Wow, that sounds like a coherent, forceful rebuttal to the GOP's kindergarten logic. Why would they leave that out? Why does the GOP think that the only way to defeat terrorists is to stay in a failed, fraudulent war that invited the terrorists in the first place, and which continues to be a breeding ground for new terrorists? And why do they think they can convince us of this stupidity by cutting short the video of an interview?

Because they are very, very stupid.

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing


click to enlarge

I'm a college student in Hanover, NH. I wanted to attend the Democratic debate two nights ago and help with campaign visibility outside, but finals prevented me from coming. Tonight, flight trouble has turned me into a "distressed passenger," and I am holed up at the Manchester Super 8. Couldn't come for the Dems, forced to stay for the GOP. Oh the irony.

It's almost enough to make me wish I hadn't deleted the "Come and protest!" NH Young Dems e-mail so quickly, but given the on-again off-again thunder and rain, it's only an "almost."

BTW, there's no lightning right now, despite what Wolf just said during Rudy's interruptions. Hasn't been any for about 20 minutes. Couple of sirens, though.

Live thoughts on the debate below.

You know you're in trouble when even that concern troll Wolf Blitzer starts actually practicing journalism on you.  

Check out this little gem, in which Blitzer grills Patrick McHenry (R-NC), demanding evidence to back up his insinuations that the Democrats had something to do with the timing of the Foleygate scandal/coverup coverage:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/10/08 /blitzer-to-gop-rep-yes-_n_31229.html