Russian Prime Minister Putin blasted Bush and his band of criminals in a press release moments ago accusing him of a "Wag the Dog" scheme in order to distract the laughable American MSM from reporting further on the decay of the American economy,
record foreclosures, unemployment,the banking calamity, the failed Bush foreign policy in Iraq, the forgotten Afghanistan War, Corruption hearings indicting even more corrupt republicans,etc, etc, etc... according to Russian intelligence reports.

Bush's spokesperson, Miss Perino, immediately denied the allegations in a news conference.  

Conspiracy? Maybe not.
An American passport belonging to a Texas resident was found in a war torn region where some of the heaviest casualties occured.
Putin went on to say that American advisors so to speak were
in the area participating in actual combat. He went on to say the obvious; If they were there in the region participating in a combat role that they received their marching orders from the top. Only Bush could have authorized such actions. If he did,
he has not only violated International but American law. Anyone familiar with the term black-ops???

Just as concern is growing over FDA's approval of new drugs and therapies that later prove to harm patients, we find the international pharma industry has found a way to lower the cost of drug development.

They're outsourcing human clinical trials, in countries like India, where costs are low, and regulations lax to non-existent. Not only are patient's losing informed consent rights, the results of the trials have little scientific peer review or oversight and, like the Vioxx trial, may hide data on negative side effects of drugs.

If you think US consumers are protected, you're only barely right. Regulations for having clinical trials research published in professional journals is voluntary only. No doubt pressure on the FDA will grow to approve more drugs based on results of these international clinical trials.

MSM stop protecting McCain. He is a flip-flopper who would say anything to get elected.

There is a real difference between candidate McCain and the McCain of the past, and nothing emphasizes it more than this interview with Time magazine:

There's a theme that recurs in your books and your speeches, both about putting country first but also about honor. I wonder if you could define honor for us? Read it in my books.

I've read your books. No, I'm not going to define it.

But honor in politics? I defined it in five books. Read my books.

[Your] campaign today is more disciplined, more traditional, more aggressive. From your point of view, why the change?
I will do as much as we possibly can do to provide as much access to the press as possible.

But beyond the press, sir, just in terms of ...
I think we're running a fine campaign, and this is where we are.

Do you miss the old way of doing it?
I don't know what you're talking about.

Really? Come on, Senator.
I'll provide as much access as possible ...

In 2000, after the primaries, you went back to South Carolina to talk about what you felt was a mistake you had made on the Confederate flag. Is there anything so far about this campaign that you wish you could take back or you might revisit when it's over?
[Does not answer.]

Do I know you? [Says with a laugh.]
[Long pause.] I'm very happy with the way our campaign has been conducted, and I am very pleased and humbled to have the nomination of the Republican Party.

You do acknowledge there was a change in the campaign, in the way you had run the campaign?
[Shakes his head.]

You don't acknowledge that? O.K., when your aides came to you and you decided, having been attacked by Barack Obama, to run some of those ads, was there a debate?
The campaign responded as planned.

It's sad, really. At one point John McCain was his own man. And now's he just another politician, a puppet of the kill-or-be-kill political operatives he has hired to win this race for him, reduced to shaking his head silently at questions he once would have had the nerve to answer forthrightly.

So, McCain is totally going to try and step on Obama's speech today by leaking the GOP VP pick tonight. I'm going to guess he does it during the speech -- something nice and classy.

There's been a lot of talk about who he could pick, and all have their faults.

Lieberman -- would enrage Rove and the GOP base, which is good. But he's pro-choice and makes McCain look charismatic. Nah-guh-happen.

Ridge -- Pro-choice, scummy business practices post DHS.

Graham -- File under "Loafers, Light in the."

Crist -- See Graham.

Hutchinson -- Pro Choice. Politico reported she wasn't vetted and doesn't want the job.

Huckabee -- Hates McCain. Is crazy. Busy planning for FOX News show and 2012.

Romney -- Religious nuts hate him. Too many houses owned.

Jindal -- THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELLS MCCAIN not to pick an exorcist running mate. Plus, if Nawlins gets flooded again, he's toast.

Giuliani -- The POW/9/11 ticket would be fun, but Giuli likes the ladies a bit too much. Can't dodge that baggage.

So that leaves only one person.

PAWLENTY!!! Now, my understanding of Pawlenty is that he's a middiling Governor with some support in his home state, little experience in hardball politics, and has exactly zero national exposure. He's okay on the GOP religious tests AND is likely not sleeping with teenage boys or anything. Which makes him an oddity.

I don't know how formidable he'd be. I've seen him advocate for McCain on news shows, but never face real questions.

Whatever.

The reason why I want -- nay DREAM -- that McCain picks Pawlenty is this:

Yes, if you look a bit closer you get this:

The dream of seeing this on cars throughout the country is just too great to be denied.

So please John Sidney -- please "trot" out Tim Pawlenty as your "number 2." Life is filled with so much sadness, please bring Team Diarrhea to life.

I was wondering how the Republicans are going to match the star power of the Democratic convention. Not matter what you think of Hillary and Bill Clinton, you have to admit that they draw viewers and give pundits something to talk about. The Republicans? It's a bunch of no names after the first night. Let's see if you can guess the names of the speakers if I give you their titles. Challenge your friends!

The GOP and it's leading spokespersons (well, Rush Limbaugh, but if it's all you got...) are all ready to make a huge fuss over the stage at Denver's Invesco Field.

Apparently there are columns in the backdrop.  Oh my.

What kind of hubris it would be to use columns in the background of a US electorial speech?  How assuming, how arrogant, gosh, how un-American can you get?!?

Here's a sneak preview:

If you read the reports about Barack Obama's historic nomination, the subtext is clear. America is less racist because Democrats chose Obama. The opposite was being threatened if he somehow was denied: "Democrats (and America) are still racist and a black man can't get ahead".

I reject this thinking as insulting to me as an African American, and to my great country.

It is also an affront to Martin Luther King's stated vision of America.

Obama and Clinton were never judged by the content of their character.  Instead, blacks, liberals, and some young people judged him by his skin tone and what they thought he represented.

They concluded he represented progress and the future.  
No one seriously thinks Obama is "change" in a real sense that will matter in our daily lives.  If so, how?

This is all about race.  Exactly what King said it shouldn't be about.

The question we must ponder is: If obama loses, is America racist? That was the implication in the Primaries.

Well let me answer:

America is not racist. This is true whether or not Obama won/lost the Democratic nomination.

America is not racist. This is true whether or not Obama wins in November.

It is fine and great for many people to reflect on the racist past of America and to celebrate progress, but it is not fine to attempt to emotionally blackmail our political system into choosing a person we wouldn't otherwise choose.

Many people have said Obama won not as a black candidate but one who just happened to be be black. That is a bold faced lie. Were Obama a white candidate he wouldn't have had the audacity to run for POTUS. If he did, he would have done just as well as John Edwards or Dennis Kucinch.

This election is a victory for the radical left and the African American community who basically threatened the Democratic Party with mass apathy and chaos if Obama didn't win.

Hillary's only chance was to prevent Obama from ever getting going. That was impossible because the same people above were guaranteed to give him a chance to get going. The liberal electorate was never going to pass up this chance to prove they "weren't racists" anymore.

So far from being above and beyond race, this election is all about race. Sometimes shamelessly as in the Obama campaign in South Carolina, other times in a sad way such as right now.

By the way, I'm under no allusions that Hillary wouldn't do the same thing in reference to gender if she were allowed to. But the media's Clinton fatigue, plus the fact that race trumps gender in politics never permitted it to happen. Witness her "crying moment" in New Hampshire. The media was cynical from day 1 (As they should have been). Contrast that with the "Rev. Wright--I could no more disown him than my own white grandmother speech". The media accepted the bogus template completely.

I will vote for Obama in November because

- I'm a yellow dog dem and I want my party to rule the country
- Obama will appoint better judges than McCain
--Obama will work to make the criminal justice system more effective than McCain will.
-Obama supports a strong government to give people a fair chance to succeed and so do I.
-Obama supports gun control and so do I.

The policy reasons go on and on, but that's not why Democrats chose Obama and why he is being celeberated today.

It is sad that Democrats have chosen because of his race.
Many white Democrats saw/see this as their opportunity to solidify their black vote for the rest of their life and they have taken it.

This was the wrong way to make history.  It has been done numerous times the right way:

Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court
Jackie Robinson in MLB
various ceo's in business(we couldn't name them all if we tried)
Colin Powell in the military

The proper way to break a barrier like this was to run a qualified African American, win fair and square based on the issues, and then recognize the achievement afterwards.

Once again, Obama can change all of this tonight, by acknowledging the above, and saying he should be judgeed on the merits.  Either way, he and Michelle (yeah right!) will still love this country as a fair place and the best place to live.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

Gay rights pioneer Del Martin, wife of Phyllis Lyon, passed away yesterday at UCSF Hospital in San Francisco.  Together for 55 years, but married for only two months, Martin and Lyon were a shining example of the longevity and stability that same-sex couples are capable of.

Martin and Lyon first met in Seattle in 1950, and purchased a home together in San Francisco in 1955, where they lived together until Ms. Martin's death yesterday.  Martin and Lyon were amongst the founders of the Daughters of Bilitis (DOB) in 1955, the first lesbian rights organization in the United States.

In addition to the DOB, the list of firsts attributable to Martin and Lyon is both lengthy and impressive.  Between, they were the first two editors of the publication Ladders, the monthly magazine of the DOB, which championed women's issues long before NOW existed.  Lyon and Martin were the first women to insist on receiving a couple's discount on the NOW membership, and Martin was the first out lesbian on the NOW board.  They helped to found the Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club, and Martin was a tireless advocate in the fight against domestic violence.