I heard a discussion of poll this morning regarding the relative experience (as perceived by poll responders) of McCain, Clinton, and Obama.  Supposedly this poll explains why McCain is neck and neck with either Clinton or Obama on a national level:  although both democratic candidates are widely seen as "caring about us" and "about change" and McCain is not, McCain is seen as (a) experienced and (b) resolute.

We can completely demolish the "resolute" bullshit using tapes of McCain arguing with himself on split screen (as many folks - but not Kerry's campaign) did with Bush in 2004.

But what of the (what I believe to be specious) argument about "experience".

Anyone who has been reading my comments knows I'm an Edwards supporter.  I've sent the campaign some dough and I plan to vote for Edwards in the California primary - no matter what.  

He is the only one who articulates the way I feel and the policies I'd like to see enacted.  I believe in his candidacy - and I didn't think you had to "know" someone was going to win in order to support him or her.  I voted for Dean in California in 2004, and by then Kerry had the thing sewn up.  I voted for the candidate I believed in the most, although I came to believe passionately in having John Kerry as our president.  I still think he'd be a fantastic president, and I was disappointed he didn't run this time.

Okay, so it doesn't look like Edwards will win the nomination.  Obama has left me underwhelmed so far, but I'm even less enthused by Clinton.  

What I would love to see, given the odds right now, is an Obama/Edwards ticket.

There was a diary up this morning about one of the top three candidates, reiterating a "scandal".  I can't guess the intent of that diarist but it seemed to be telling us we shouldn't vote for this candidate in the primaries because this supposed scandal made the candidate vulnerable in the general election.

The diarist was slammed as a "concern troll" and probably likely so.  But not everyone who is concerned about this type of issue is a concern troll.

In my case, it's not specific to any candidate - whichever of the top three candidates becomes the nominee, I want a DEMOCRAT to win.  Being vulnerable to gop attack doesn't mean a candidate isn't a good choice; we know from experience any of our candidates will be vulnerable to gop attack.  And to that end, we need to be aware of their vulnerabilities and keep our eyes open to the things being said.  Whether they're truth, pure Rovian slime, or some combination of the two, yelling at concern trolls here at Dkos will not make those things go away.

Instead of posting attack comments in troll/concern/hit diaries, why not post refutation of those "concerns" in the form of talking points we can all use to refute the bullcrap when we encounter it?

Totally off-topic I guess except it's Christmas Eve and the world is so damn mean.  

My beloved beagle, Sundance, passed away over Thanksgiving weekend.  She had kidney failure but it could have been "chronic" had the vet not totally screwed up.  A long story filled with a tragedy of errors and needless suffering for her in the end.  

She also suffered from hip dysplasia that went undiagnosed until her hips and back were in constant pain from arthritis.  I feel really guilty over that except I'm reading that this happens alot.

So last night I go on Craig's List and find a new beagle pup.  He's adorable, about 6 months old, rather skittish but really sweet.  The guy selling him is full of crap, shifting justifications (the owner is moving/has two dogs/my mom won't let me keep him) but I don't care because he's a good dog in need of a home.

Except after 24 hours it's clear he's suffering hip dysplasia!  After a couple short walks and an extended outing to the pet store (he picked out a toy),  he is in quite a bit of pain and sleeping it off.  I've given him glucosamine and made him comfortable until I can get him to a vet.

Or something.  Something icky.  And I didn't even notice it was happening.  But my fellow Kossacks assure me it has, like Snout telling Bottom he now has the head of an ass.

See, just a few months ago I was completely underwhelmed by the entire field.  I contented myself with joining the "bash Hillary" diaries, awaiting the entry into the race of Obama, Kerry, Gore, Edwards.  

Obama came in and I was excited to see what he had to say.  Same thing for Edwards.

But I was guarded, waiting for Al Gore.  I guess that kept me from undergoing this current transformation:  from relatively well-received fellow Kossack to unreasonable borglike annoyance.

HuffingtonPost is carrying a story this morning entitled:

The Attempts to Discredit Obama's Iraq War Stance Have Begun

The story discusses the Clinton campaign's erroneous attack strategy, which is basically that Obama wasn't "brave" to come out against the war because the senate race was a couple of years away and beside, Obama's constituents were not very pro-war.

The strategy is ridiculous to begin with, because the truth is the truth:  Obama came out forcefully against the war, just as most of us here did, while DC was busy polishing bush's butt.

But it also tells us something about Clinton's concept of "leadership", and indeed, highlights the contrast between leadership and what is done every day in DC.

Posted today at the Huffington Post is a hit piece that implies that Edwards is a hypocrite for calling out Hillary for being on the cover of Forbes under the caption "Business Loves Her" because he spoke at the "Fortune Global Forum" in 2002.

Huffpo is veering into Drudge territory with this one.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

As we all know, the GOP pulls out all stops, goes as low as we could imagine and then even lower, in order to "win".  There is no sacred cow, no third rail, when it comes to attacking democrats or indeed, republicans who refuse to accept the party has made its choice (witness:  McCain in 2000).

One of the more heinous tactics they've used in the past is "push polling".  We had a diary on this earlier, and some people didn't seem to find it a problem, you know, 'just askin' questions', when in fact it has a much more nefarious purpose.

From:  Salon:

Clinton pollster Mark Penn is reportedly using push polling in Iowa to test some negative messages about Edwards and Barack Obama. Among the not-exactly-about-the-issues questions they're asking: Would voters be more or less likely to support Edwards if they knew that he "promotes himself as a champion of the poor, and yet he went and got a $400 haircut"?

Tactics like push polling, which seek to inject memes into the minds of voters, are part of what Al Gore describes as the "Assault on Reason".

My push question is this:  Do we find this sort of tactic acceptable, especially against fellow dems?  Do we really want to go that low?  

And now:  Al Shearer and Harry Gore!

Okay, well it was actually Al Gore and Harry Shearer, last night in Los Angeles to kick off his "The Assault on Reason" book tour.

The moderator, after a lovely runup to the intro, mucked up the names.

Al looked calm and relaxed as he took the stage after the muddled name thing.  After making nice, Harry said he was going to quickly turn into the "turd in the punchbowl" and ask some tough questions.

I thought Al fielded the questions well; my friend did not.  

A few months ago, in the midst of a "Biden Sux" feeding frenzy, I took a moment to look up some information on Joe Biden.

What I found surprised me.  Because I had bought the conventional wisdom about Biden being the "credit card" candidate.  He talks too much, he puts his foot in his mouth.  Screw him, the comments went on.  And I, democrat sensitive to the GOP spin and the lazy MSM's "puff up the easy story" history about democrats, reacted with agreement.  Not a good candidate.  

Then I read his bio.  After unspeakable loss and sadness in his life, he rebounded and has been a public servant for decades.  He is responsible for some of the most important legislation we've ever seen.  For example, the Violence Against Women Act.

Joe Biden is still not my first or second or third choice in the field and/or fantasy field for President in 2008.  Yet I will no longer join in the jeering of this fine man, who would be a good president.

I don't think we should behave this way towards any candidate anymore.  We shouldn't defend the indefensible (William Jefferson, e.g.).  But wither the perfect candidate?  There is no such thing.  

The GOP wins elections because they understand that.

Well, why not liven up this Mother's Day with a rousing discussion on this issue.

Why am I asking?  Because ABC News is reporting this morning that several candidates have opted out of disclosing their tax returns.  Barack Obama is the only candidate to commit to releasing his - he already has.  John Edwards has stated he will not be releasing his.  The rest of the field hasn't made it clear, but the story indicates they probably won't, defying a post-Watergate tradition, if not any rules.

http://abcnews.go.com/...

Now, according to the article:

The candidates who keep their returns private generally note they are complying with all federal regulations with regard to financial disclosures.

The candidates are required to submit standard financial disclosure forms -- due next week -- similar to those filed by all members of Congress, stating their income sources and investment holdings in broad financial categories.

However:

The organizers of tonight's GOP debate have asked for citizens' suggestions on questions to ask the GOP candidates.

John Edwards, a citizen living in North Carolina, has submitted the following:

Has the Bush doctrine of a Global War on Terror backfired? Does the president's focus suggest a fixed enemy that can be defeated through a permanent military campaign or do you think we need a broader approach as many military leaders believe?

Congratulations on Mr. Edwards for his participation as a citizen and voter!  An excellent question, sir, and one I hope is selected for response from the Republican slate.

Yesterday I read some unfortunate comments regarding John Edwards and his infamous haircut (the one he's reimbursed the campaign for) and the fact that he did consulting work for a hedge fund.

Some of us have decided they can no longer in good conscience support John Edwards either because he spends too much money on his hair or because his campaign didn't "get out in front" of this hedge fund story quickly enough.

So now we're abandoning our candidates at the drop of a hat?  Can we honestly believe someone when they say "Well, I was going to put all my effort behind the good Senator until I found out he overpays hairdressers"?

Looking upon the current slate of declared Democratic candidates, it occurs to how very under whelmed I am, and that I am waiting, hoping desperately that this is not the final list of choices we have.

About once a week, though, Russ Feingold will do something that blows me away, something brave and risky and right, and I think, wow, why isn’t he running?  

And Al Gore will wow a crowd in Idaho or inspire folks in Toronto and I’m saddened at even the thought we won’t be able to draft him.

And Wes Clark.  And yeah, even John Kerry.  I’m saddened that they aren’t running.

Because they are being leaders.

I was talking to my son about the whole Senate vote debacle yesterday and he smiled.  

"What about this fantastic huge global warming bill they're working so hard to pass?"

"Who introduced a global warming bill?  None of the candidates are even talking about global warming."  I asked.

He smiled again.  "Exactly" he said.

I told him that's one reason I support Al Gore.  He wanted to know why Al Gore isn't running. And I told him well, Al's working hard, blah blah, talked about the Live Earth concert, and he said:

"Ahh, the soundtrack to our demise."

That being "Perfection".

So another Saturday, the one after Valentine's Day, or as I referred to it:  Wednesday.

I face two fronts on which Perfection is the enemy of the Good.

Having been single for the last decade (yeah, I said decade), and unhappily married to Bill - Bill Z. Bubb (anyone know him?) before that, I finally started seeing someone.

Nice guy.

Only . . . wow, I couldn't bring myself to place him anywhere in my life.  I basically ignored him until he went away.

Have I been alone so long I prefer it?  Am I just out of practice?  

Or is it that Enemy of Good?

And I'm trying to "be a writer".  In other words, I've been trying to bring myself to sit down and write again for weeks now.  I haven't been able to do it, though my mind brims with ideas.  It's all in there, screaming to be let out.  But . . . what if it's not, you know, perfect?

The Enemy of Good again.  

The headline:

Israel orders attacks on Palestinians launching rockets

In anticipation that this might be used by - anyone - as "evidence" that Israel is "not interested in peace", I request, and challenge, everyone to absorb the entire story.

http://www.iht.com/...

Because it is a microcosm of what we discuss, constantly, here at DKos, and it reflects a reality that some refuse to address.

More below . . .

The diaries have been proliferating around here as to what Harry Reid "really" meant when he said he would support a surge in troop levels.

My opinion was that he was not as articulate as I would like and was talking hypothetically, i.e., "I will support what the folks on the ground in Iraq say will work towards getting our troops home".

There is a lot of disagreement around here about what he meant.  Now we get it directly from him:

He has posted this at the Huffington Post (emphasis mine):