Check out this Editorial cartoon in todays Sacramento Bee.

Swish! Nothing but Net!

I'm not positive this hasn't been covered already, but alas, my attempts to find otherwise remained futile. Thus, my apologies if this diary is at all redundant. A Rasmussen Poll from earlier this week shows that many Americans believe the media's intentions are to help Obama win, McCain lose, and curse the country with its liberal filth. Unfortunately for Rasmussen, it's a worthless poll on several accounts.

The bandage may not be big enough.

Foreclosures tripled this quarter, year-over-year.  That will require an upward revision in the 2008 projections:

Because foreclosure filings are growing so quickly, RealtyTrac will have to reevaluate its foreclosure forecast for the year, according to spokesman Rick Sharga.

"We've been saying foreclosures will total 1.9 million to 2 million this year," he said. "But midway through the year, we're already at 1.4 million so we're going to be raising our projections."

Bad if you're a homeowner close to the edge.  Bad if you're a Republican running for office.  Nonetheless, this news provides Obama with ammunition to use in some very important places.

As Obama stood with the citizens of Germany while the world watched, Chancellor Merkel and other government illuminati’s intently listened with eyes transfixed on an extraordinary phenom named Barack Obama. Giving the speech of a lifetime, Obama presented an olive branch to the world to heal the wounds created by George W. Bush two terms as President of the USA.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., waves as he arrives at the Victory Column in Berlin, Thursday, July 24, 2008. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

So I was just reading some findings from a study of independents.  I noticed this little nugget:

Obama is seen as a candidate of the future; an agent of change; the positive words they associate with him are "change" "future" and "reform." McCain is seen as the more competent candidate; the positive words associated with him are "experience" and "integrity." (emphasis mine)

Really?  McCain is the more "competent candidate?"  This is a meme that needs to die a quick and painful death, and needs to be aided along by Obama surrogates.  NOW is the perfect time, I'll explain why:

Sorry for the short diary but I found this on timesonline in the uk.  i dont know wether to laugh hysterically of cringe because this may be used against him.  Here is the editorial in its entirety.  Id like to know what my fellow kossacks think of this.

Pew Hispanic Center. 7/9-13. Registered Hispanic voters. MoE 4.4% (

Remember, exit polls gave Bush 44 percent of the Latino vote in 2004, with Kerry getting just 53 percent. These Pew numbers represent the utter collapse of GOP support amongst Latinos which started in 2006, when xenophobic anti-immigrant rantings scared Latinos away from the GOP. Only 30 percent of Latinos voted Republican that year. I'm guessing today that Democrats earn as much as 75 percent of the Latino vote this year.

That will be significant, as the rest of Pew's report (PDF) makes clear.

[S]ome 78% of Latino registered voters say they are following the election very closely or somewhat closely this year, up from the 72% who said the same thing at this stage of the 2004 campaign. These poll findings, coming on the heels of a spirited Obama-Clinton nomination fight that led to rises in the Latino share of the vote in many Democratic primaries, suggest that the Hispanic community is politically energized heading into the fall election campaign.

More than three-quarters (76%) of Hispanic registered voters have a favorable opinion of Obama, and 73% have a favorable opinion of Hillary Rodham Clinton. In contrast, 44% of Hispanics have a favorable opinion of McCain and 27% have a favorable opinion of George W. Bush.

More than three-in-four Hispanics who voted for Clinton in a Democratic primary or caucus this year say they would vote for Obama or lean toward voting for him, while 8% of Clinton voters say they would vote for McCain or lean toward voting for him.

Latino registered voters are almost three times as likely to say that being black will help Obama (32%) with Hispanic voters than hurt him (11%); the majority (53%) say his race will make no difference.

More than half of Latino voters (55%) say that the Democratic Party is better for Latinos while just 6% say the Republican Party is better for Latinos.

By 2010, the Census Bureau expects the Latino population to be at 47.8 million, or 15.5 percent of the total population. By 2050, they project 102.6 million of us, or 24.4 of the country's total. With Republicans assiduously alienating this key and rapidly growing block, to the point that just 6 percent think Republicans are better for them, it has put a serious strain on their future ability to win.

So yes, this is all great news for Obama this year, but it portends huge things for the future of American politics, quite possibly the death of the modern Republican Party.

As for Obama, we've been mocking the whole "Latinos won't vote for a black guy" thing for months, ever since the Clinton campaign first used that ridiculous (and insulting) line of attack. The numbers since then have been quite clear. Latinos are more than happy enough (and excited) about voting for Obama as anyone else, and likely more so. I'm glad we're finally moving on from that ridiculousness.

I tried and hoped for someone else, but Bobby Bright won the primary here overwhelmingly. He is the worse Democrat I've ever seen.

1661 - Parliament confirms Navigation Act

1888 - Philip Pratt unveils 1st electric automobile

COINCIDENCE? I think NOT!

"The facts on which the true believer bases his conclusions must not be derived from his experience or observation but from holy writ. . . . To rely on the evidence of the senses and of reason is heresy and treason.
. . . . Thus the effectiveness of a doctrine should not be judged by its profundity, sublimity or the validity of the truths it embodies, but by how thoroughly it insulates the individual from his self and the world as it is. What Pascal said of an effective religion is true of any effective doctrine: It must be 'contrary to nature, to common sense and to pleasure.'"
-- Eric Hoffer

Buried inside all the usual morning news noise was this piece regarding Obama's not visiting the wounded troops in Germany. The Obama campaign is saying that they were told by the Pentagon that they could not visit the troops as his trip was now political rather than an official congressional visit. That they say is why he was allowed to visit wounded troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Cross-posted at The Left Coaster.]

Via Suburban Guerrilla, the great political writer Matt Taibbi wrote on July 19th for Rolling Stone that our America era of "fantasy elections" is soon to inevitably end, for the howling pain from the abuse of our people just cannot be ignored forever.  One might be justifiably surprised that the will of the American people is being ignored after endless elections in the 2008 political season, but the American process almost earns the title of fantasy, and there is disturbing historical precedence that, in fact, it could go on for a very long time.

This is going to be short and to the point. There are some things that should not be violated. Yesterday morning, Senator Obama visited the Western Wall and observed the tradition of writing a prayer and sticking it in the wall. Well a yeshiva student took the note OUT of the wall, and gave it to a newspaper.

I realize that by making this diary I too am sort of invading Obama's privacy, but I am outraged by this. Is NOTHING sacred around here? It's not bad enough that the media is sniffing around Obama 24/7 like he's Angelina Jolie in her last week of pregnancy. It's not bad enough that Obama can't even attending his daughter's soccer game without the pool reporters counting the number of times he yawns. It's not bad enough that his every little move is dissected and analyzed (and the analysis usually isn't that great). But the man can't even leave a prayer in a wall without someone going and taking something that is very private and making it public.

As most of you probably know by now, the title of this diary is excerpted from the note Barack Obama left at the Wailing Wall, in Jerusalem. His note was published on the front page of the Jerusalem paper, Maariv, this morning:

Maariv

I'd like to take a small point of personal privilege in this diary (of course, what is a diary if not expressing personal privilege?  But I digress) to share a quick story from our home yesterday evening.

The quote in the title is from the oldest of the two pre-schoolers in our house.  Early in the afternoon I tuned into the teevee broadcast to catch Obama's speech.  Perhaps you've seen pictures from the event:

Right now, Americans across this country are rolling up in their cars at the gas pump at their gas stations, bemoaning the skyrocketing price of gas with every flip of the digital numbers on the pump screen. They see the effect immediately of high gas prices on their budgets, and see it in the increase in the cost of the groceries they buy. To them, it's real, and they're hurting in their wallets and household expenses.

Today's Rasmussen daily tracking poll shows Obama with a 5% lead over McCain, 46 to 41.  The lead remains at 5%, 49 to 44, when leaners are included.  

Do you read the paper editions of the New York Times?  The Washington Post?

If so, this morning was both a profound disappointment and a confirmation about the motives of the traditional media.

Both papers featured large pictures of Barack Obama in Berlin.  But neither paper could resist biasing their coverage.

The Times?  Leads with another questionable headline: Obama, Vague on Issues, Pleases Crowd in Europe

Vague on issues?  You wanted him to get into a domestic policy speech in Berlin?  When Ronald Reagan said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" was he being too vague about the wall he was referring to?  Was he wrong not to give Gorbachev a twelve-point plan for tearing down the wall?  

When John Kennedy said "Ich bin ein Berliner", was he being too vague?  Should he have referred to the particular street he lived on in Berlin?  Should he have mentioned his neighbors, the Schmidts?

And the Post, believe it or not, was even worse.

Friday’s New York Times features a short piece on Senator Barack Obama’s speech yesterday in Berlin. Billed as “News Analysis”—NYT code for “we like making assertions on the news pages without the annoying responsibility of providing sources or facts to back them up”—the article, written by Steven Erlanger, makes up for what it lacks in reportage with a healthy dose of all-out absurdity.