I had a personal experience with the Director of factcheck.org which lead me to question their neutrality/objectivity.

I spoke with him directly last month asking why they had not no follow up reporting on the NAFTA issue since their published latest update failed to mention info from the Canadian press making it clear that further probing was being pressed by the Canadians themselves. The involvement of Canadian US Ambassador (Wilson) was being questioned. When I asked about why they hadn't provided this update, which I'd found quite easily myself, the Director patronizingly suggested that I obviously didn't "understand how their site worked" and said he wasn't aware of any new information.

I checked periodically for several days, then sent a snarky e-mail complaining they still hadn't updated with the latest public disclosures in the Canadian press. After reading your post today, I checked again and noticed today that the record has been amended.

My conclusion at the time was that the fact-checking on factcheck.or is skewed in many subtle and not-so subtle ways. Your post confirmed my belief.

Posted at April 18, 2008 5:00 PM in response to Non-Partisan FactCheck.org? Not Quite

It seems clear that the Bush Administration has successfully co-opted enough military leaders (And refusing to let Fallon retire so he can't speak out) to enable them to keep the war going until their last days in office. I suspect this delay was part of the original surge plan right along.

When the next President tries to exit Iraq, Bush and his Republican and MSM enablers will use the inevitable chaos that will ensue to blame the Democrats for the disaster and enable Republicans to avoid the war's true legacy. (In the unlikely event that McCain is elected, he will be left holding the bag while the Republican simply abandon him to his fate.) This is how Bush and his enablers avoid being held accountable.

Will it work?

Posted at March 25, 2008 11:00 AM in response to Today's Must Read

I think you are correct. As a long time fiscal conservative/social liberal/Democrat, I think the Democratic Party has been corrupted by old guard power mongering just like the Republican has been corrupted by militant social conservative power mongering.

I've lived a long time and I think the world was more humane when Democrats had greater influence over government than when Rebpublicans did.

I am working hard to support Obama because I'd actually like to see both the mainstream parties return to their philosophical roots. I think Obama's and Dean's leadership could help make that happen. The 50 State Strategy is right on the money. Political power needs to come from the bottom up, not from top down.

I think the issue has more to do with education and intellectual honesty than it does age.

Posted at March 24, 2008 2:25 PM in response to Why Clinton, Inc. Support John McCain over Senator Obama

I've always found that investigating incentives and rewards is useful to understanding any process. Isn't it fairly obvious that the MSM and their mouthpieces in pundit land aren't exemplars of self awareness or intellectual honesty. They consciously or unconsciously promote a particular point of view based on their personal self-interest in a business environment. In a sense, a point of view is their product.

The NYT,and the MSM will continue to obfuscate and distract. If the nation were to have an honest discussion of how our government is providing for our collective well-being, media and politicians would have to answer difficult questions. They would have to account for themselves. Special interest profit-based business don't WANT an educated populace, because their corruption would ultimately be exposed and rejected. In their own self-interest, they will fight to acquire and retain influence as their priority. This is much easier to accomplish if the populace is ill-educated, ill-informed, and easily distracted by clowns.

That's why America must above all provide good schools for all the children. All. There simply is no substitute for critical thinking and education. An educated populace is our only real protection.

Posted at March 24, 2008 10:54 AM in response to Too Much to Ask?

I agree that this campaign and Clinton's tactics are a severe test of Democratic Party leadership. And I think they are failing the test.

Either the Party leadership insists on fairness, decency and ethical behavior or it doesn't. Clinton has crossed too many lines crossed for it to be accidental. They are failing in their responsibility to rank and file Democrats to offer the best candidate - not the most cynical one, or the most well connected one, or the most ethically challenged one.

Folks, use the Democrats.org contact mechanism and hold the National Democratic Party Leadership accountable. Power brokering, cynical hackery, and dirty deals will destroy the Party. Make them challenge the candidates - and the press - to give us honest debate and not a boxing match.

Posted at March 7, 2008 4:14 PM in response to Two thoughts on the unfolding Clinton campaign

Isn't it interesting the the most well-known grassroots organization around has not only endorsed Obama, but is willing to find raise? Isn't it interesting that Clinton has support from fat cats who can afford to donate thousands, but is being swamped by plain old people who can pitch in just a few buck. Doesn't that say something party leaders should pay attention to?

Posted at February 7, 2008 1:11 PM in response to None Of Obama's $7 Million Came From MoveOn