That's how a Republican friend of a friend of mine responded to an email I sent out using Obama's "Take a stand on civil liberties" tool:

Sean, which would be worst, the third term of GWB, or the second term of Jimmy Carter?

This isn't the first time I've heard that, but it is the first time anyone I know personally has said it and it drove me to write an incredulous and somewhat scornful reply.  My response on the flip.

I went to the meeting this morning, and missed getting on CNN with DC for Democracy by five minutes (argh!), but had a great time at the meeting.  It was thoroughly fascinating.  I did decide to leave before the second half because I've got other stuff I need to do before my boyfriend gets to DC and my phone's battery was dying.

My reaction and photos over the fold.

[update: wow, the rec list in under five minutes!! Thanks folks!]

A usually highly intelligent coworker just forwarded one of the most crap pieces of "journalism" I've ever seen to the entire office.

The McCain campaign is staffed with savvy, experienced operatives who have closely watched the rise of Obama, and they have learned from Clinton’s failure to take down her Democratic rival.

Things McCain can do when running against Obama that Clinton has been unable to do well or at all:

Well, I think we're all pretty familiar with most of the Obama chain mails being circulated.  I got an interesting new one today, though:

Subject: The hard statistics (senate voting record of Clinton and Obama)

From one of those talkback comments to an article on the Hillary and Obama race:

**************************
There are many things that Obama and Clinton have in common, and a few where they differ (in my opinion, mostly in the categories of diplomacy, rhetorical skill, and personal appeal). However, if we must stretch so far for differences that we paint Senator Clinton as an emotional (read manipulative) campaigner, let's just have a look at her voting record and look at Senator Obama's as well:

Nancynj posted a diary which is currently in the rec list accusing Obama's supporters of defecting to McCain if he is the nominee.

What Obama said is that some of his supporters might not vote Democratic if he is not the nominee.  He didn't say those voters were self-identified Democrats in the first place.  Nancynj obviously read too much into his statement.

The truth is Obama has gotten a huge amount of support from independent voters and even a good number of Republicans.

Well, who'd a thunk it?  A former Republican congressman got caught supporting terrorists and then lying about it.

WASHINGTON - A former U.S. congressman and delegate to the United Nations was indicted Wednesday, accused of being part of a terrorist fundraising ring that allegedly sent more than $130,000 to an al-Qaida and Taliban supporter who has threatened U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan.

The former Republican congressman from Michigan, Mark Deli Siljander, was charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about lobbying senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.

A 42-count indictment accuses the Islamic American Relief Agency of paying Siljander $50,000 for the lobbying — money that turned out to be stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Maybe not her fault, but she sure could have looked into Connect Kentucky a little more before basing her plan on theirs.

MERRIMACK, N.H. -- In a speech here Wednesday kicking off a two-day campaign swing through New Hampshire, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton proposed a plan she called "Connect America" to expand high-speed Internet access to "every corner of our country."

Clinton's broadband plan would extend access to underserved communities and low-income families through tax incentives and public-private partnerships.

MeteorBlades linked to a blog post called Pride and Palpitations this afternoon, and it got me thinking bigtime.  That post talked about the fear many African Americans feel at the prospect of a prominent and even successful black candidate for high office.

I am a gay white male who has strong progressive leanings (RFK and MLK inform a LOT of my political views), and I try to make a point of not just knowing what's going on now, but of knowing what happened in the past and understanding how it affects what is going on now.

My boyfriend and I have had a number of conversations on this subject.  He doesn't seem to have any understanding of what it means to look back at all of your heroes and note that damned near every one of them was assassinated (Gandhi, JFK, RFK, MLK, etc.).

A lot of people have been posting YouTube videos in diaries lately.  That's great; I love watching them.  The problem, however, is that every time the AJAX stuff fires (especially for story updates), the videos reset, making it very difficult to watch them.  So the request is this:

When you embed a YouTube video in a dairy or comment, please also post the link directly to the YouTube page pollowing the video so we can click that and go watch it on YouTube directly, thus avoiding those annoying resets.

I know this isn't exactly a substantive diary, but if you could rec it so people see it, I (and probably others) would really appreciate it.  Thanks.

Cpl. Mark Finelli has a great commentary in Newsweek's online edition saying  we need a draft.  Who would know best but one of the guys who's been there and seen his friends die while the kids of the rich and powerful stay safely at home.

According to the Pentagon, no service personnel have died in an MRAP. So why isn’t every Marine or soldier in Iraq riding in one? Simple economics. An MRAP costs five times more than even the most up-armored Humvee. People need a personal, vested, blood-or-money interest to maximize potential. That is why capitalism has trumped communism time and again, but it is also why private contractors in Iraq have MRAPs while Marines don’t. Because in actuality, America isn’t practicing the basic tenet of capitalism on the battlefield with an all-volunteer military, and won’t be until the reinstitution of the draft. Because until the wealthy have that vested interest, until it’s the sons of senators and the wealthy upper classes sitting in those trucks—it takes more than the McCain boy or the son of Sen. Jim Webb—the best gear won’t get paid for on an infantryman’s timetable.

So much for "preserving" the "institution" of marriage: - a great new article about the very long history of gay marriage on MSNBC:

Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, a historian now says.

Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.

And of course, we know the conspicuously ambiguous story of David and Saul in the Bible.

Consider this a TYKW diary (Thank You, Kind World!). ;-)

I returned to my hometown of Chicago this past weekend to attend YearlyKos for the first time (I missed the Vegas edition).  Talking to various people at that convention, I can honestly say there's a reason we're growing so quickly and I believe we will take back our country.  Never have I met a more dedicated, thoughtful, compassionate, and just plain interesting collection of people.  You came from all over the world for a singular purpose - to leave the world a better place than you found it.

One conversation I'll never forget was with the women I sat next to before the presidential forum.  She had some kind of a temporary knee problem, IIRC, and was in a wheelchair for the duration of the convention.  She was talking about how she'd never realized how differently people treat you when you're in a wheelchair until then; even in the most liberal of crowds, they seem not to notice you or just don't quite know what to say.  That was enlightening.

Dear Senator Feingold,

I respectfully request that you post an explanation in your diary of how you think the long term survival of our great republic is best served by not impeaching the president and vice president.  You also assert that it would involve separate trials, but could they not both be named on the same articles of impeachment?

Remember that your oath of office is not even to serve your constituents (who I suspect may even agree with us here anyway) but to uphold the Constitution.  Any act which contravenes the Constitution surely undermines its effectiveness and by extension the effectiveness of our government and our entire system, both at home and abroad.

This was posted in the Iowa Independent yesterday:

Speaking in Carroll, Edwards made the observation after saying there are "three of us who are most likely to be the Democratic nominee."

"It's not just a question of who you like," Edwards said. "It's not just a question of whose vision you are impressed with. It's also a question of who is most likely to win the general election. It's a pretty simple thing. Who will be a stronger candidate in the general election here in the State of Iowa? Who can go to other parts of the country when we have swing candidates running for the Congress and the Senate? Is the candidate going to have to say, 'Don't come here. Down come here and campaign with me. I can't win if you campaign with me.'"

He added later, "I think it's just a reality that I can campaign anyplace in America."

Apparently this is happening right now in New Hampshire:

Authorities Converge On Ed and Elaine Brown's Home

Plainfield, New Hampshire - June 7, 2007

State and federal authorities have converged on the home of a New Hampshire couple involved in a tax standoff.

People are being kept several miles away from the Center of Town Road in Plainfield, where Ed and Elaine Brown live. Neighbors, including some who have been evacuated, reported police SWAT teams, a helicopter and at least one armored vehicle converged on a field near the home Thursday morning.

A coworker forwarded this fascinating New York Times article this morning.  This is probably one of the more interesting news articles I've read in a good long while and it's got huge implications.  It's long, for sure, but well worth taking the time to read all the way through.

What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?

If the members of the American medical establishment were to have a collective find-yourself-standing-naked-in-Times-Square-type nightmare, this might be it. They spend 30 years ridiculing Robert Atkins, author of the phenomenally-best-selling ''Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution'' and ''Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution,'' accusing the Manhattan doctor of quackery and fraud, only to discover that the unrepentant Atkins was right all along. Or maybe it's this: they find that their very own dietary recommendations -- eat less fat and more carbohydrates -- are the cause of the rampaging epidemic of obesity in America. Or, just possibly this: they find out both of the above are true.

I must admit to being fairly amuse by todays article in the New York Times by Harvard Sociology Professor Orlando Patterson.  After all, he said essentially the same thing I said a few years ago in a letter to the Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk, VA.  Here's an excerpt of his article:

It was Nixon who, in 1971, first declared war on drugs. As with Iraq, the strategy is flawed in its conception and execution, made worse by a refusal to change course in the face of failure. It strongly emphasizes eradicating the source of drugs, interdiction of traffic and draconian punishment for offenders. It neglects what nearly every expert believes — and European experience has shown — to be the only successful strategy: a demand-side emphasis on preventive programs and rehabilitation of addicts.

Thanks to Meteor Blades for posting that article on this site.  My original essay is below the fold:

When my boyfriend Phi and I saw the movie Bobby on our first date, at the end, I turned to him and said, "Imagine how different the world would be if he were still here."  Last night, we heard a president address the nation once again without addressing any of the causes of our current crisis.  His solution to rectify his admitted mistakes?  Send yet more troops to die for a cause which can at best only be described as dubious.  How different is that from what Bobby Kennedy had to say about Vietnam?