Catching up on some headlines
For whatever reason, IE has now decided to list all the Web sites in my favorites file in alphabetical order instead of the time I save it to the file or where I put them manually. I don't know why it is doing this, but it is. So, for recent posts, I haven't posted all the stories available, because they've been put at different areas of the file. So, while some of these links may be a tad old, they are still worthy of a looksie.

DNC to decide New Hampshire's fate: The Democratic National Committee will be meeting today to discuss the final 2008 primary and caucus calendar. I don't like the looks of what they are trying to do: ["The DNC Calendar Choices Narrow"]. Their obsession with taking away "New Hampshire clout" is getting ridiculous, especially in light of how Terry McAwful front-loaded the primaries in the past. This process of front-loading - not the NH Primary - is the real reason for the "lack of diversity" in the nomination process, as well as the weak nominee syndrome. Looking back at the 2004 election, Sen. John Kerry wasn't such a weak nominee, he just took bad advice and didn't fight hard enough for it. Kerry missed winning by very little in the scheme of things. Some would also contend that Al Gore wasn't such a weak nominee. The 2000 election was virtual tie. And if anything, it was lack of progressivity, not diversity, that doomed his candidacy, especially after picking Sen. Joe Lieberman as his running mate which allowed Ralph Nader a huge opening to punch the guy throughout the late months of the campaign. In addition, Gore took bad advice and didn't sit down with Nader after he asked for a meeting back in 1999, setting the stage for the 2000 race. Had Gore answered the phone, things might have been a lot different, wouldn't they?

In other 2008 news: It looks like Rudy is in: ["Rudy for president?"]. And Sen. MBNA [aka Biden] comes to our town: ["Talk about retail politics"]. Check out that Preston Gateaway photo too. Just a tad too close for most comfort levels. He looks like he is putting the moves on that girl!

One of my heros, Bill Hillsman: ["Backstory: Reducing the campaign snooze factor"]. Someday, when I get to be independently secure, in the financial sense, I'm going to work for this guy. Or, I'm going to create my own ad ompany to so I can do similar things. Back during the Nader campaign, one of Hillsman's underlings commended the free Nader radio spots I put together for some of the states which could afford to buy independent expenditure ads. The ad descriptions are here: ["Anti-Nader study falls flat"]. Someone needs to put the fun back in politics and this guy is doing it.

More brilliance from Buchanan: ["No, this is not 'our war'"]. And more stupidity by this administration: ["Spy Agency Sought U.S. Call Records Before 9/11, Lawyers Say"].

Lieberman-Lamont race: David Sirota has a great piece on Common Dreams with an overview of the CT Senate race, with the beltway insider/cocktail crowd attempting to save it for Lieberman: ["Pull Up A Chair-- This Is the Funniest Show In Politics"]. It is clear that there should be term limits for syndicated columnists and pundits on the talking head shows ... [Hmm, I feel a column coming on ...].
Earlier this week, there was some good stuff posted on Daily Kos by posters following this race. The bloggers are giggling about how they are affecting someone who should really be unelected. The dynamic is interesting, to say the least. The key will be this: Will the bloggers become the beltway insiders at some point or will they truly make the changes needed to run a better nation, via their posts? In other words, are they a part of the solution, or part of the future problems. Before closing out this issue, here is the story that started the onslaught: ["Lamont Has Narrow Lead"].
Also, here is another article about the issue of bloggers which I meant to post a couple of weeks ago: ["Bloggers battle old-school media for political clout"].

This is a sad story and also brings up the issue of state/court control over parental control: ["Judge Orders Teen to Cancer Treatment"]. Where does this judge or this state, get off telling parents that they have to do something they don't think will work? Courts have decided that on religious grounds, parents can't be forced to treat their children. Why can't they have the right to treat sickness with alternative medicine if they so choose?