Matt Gonzalez over at BeyondChron.org wrote a brilliant exposé on Barack Obama that must be shared.  The hardest part of trying to get Democrats elected to power is vetting them, especially during election years in which people are so desperate for someone who can deliver on a promise of change that they fail to look past the campaign rhetoric to see the truth.  I've explained that Barack Obama is a DLCer in progressive's clothing.  Mr. Gonzalez hammers the point home.

I guess telling the truth doesn't go over very well around here.  Maybe it's just me, but I was under the impression that the Democratic Party is -- as was pointed out here -- a big tent party in which the political spectrum ranges from left to right.  I grew into my political adulthood believing that it is only Republicans who are lock-step, unable and unwilling to tolerate critical self-analysis.  But I guess that when called to put Markos' memo into practice, principles are something to be casually tossed aside.

So follow me below the fold, and watch me throw gasoline on your little bonfire.

Yesterday's attempt to talk sense into the irrational Nader-hater crowd, combined with the responses to my previous entries from last week, have gotten me thinking about some things.  I'll post about some of those things tomorrow, but today I want to explain how you can run your candidate (Clinton or Obama) against Ralph Nader's candidacy.  There are right ways and wrong ways to do this, and for that reason I'm giving you a "do and don't" list so that you may be successful.

(Special thanks to manonfyre for providing the information used in this entry.)

And so it begins -- AGAIN.  The irrational hatred of, and attacks upon, Ralph Nader.  And all for the "crime" of (Gasp!) exercising his Constitutional right to run for president.  And you just know it's going to happen: the same irrational attempts by Democrats to keep him off the ballot in 2008 as in 2004, wasting precious time and energy that would have been far better spent simply promoting their party's nominee -- with the same result as last time, too: turning potential voters away from the Democratic Party in a year in which we need as many as we can get.

The other day I wrote about Barack Obama's lobbyist money.  Needless to say, most sets of ears chose to remain deaf to the warning that their candidate might be less of an angel than they like to believe.  But if Obama supporters have developed a reputation for going ballistic over unpleasant truths, Hillary Clinton's campaign staff might be able to show them a thing or two about bad reactions to less-than-thrilling revelations.

Today I want to make a few things clear to my critics, because it's quite obvious that far too many readers on this web site choose to make assumptions that have no business being made.  I understand that people want to rush to the defense of their preferred candidate, but at what point did certain people cede all critical-thinking ability to him -- to the point where they really only serve to confirm the belief of many that theirs is a cult of personality?

So follow me below the fold, and I'll clear up some misconceptions for you.

Many of his followers deny this, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.  It's no secret that Barack Obama is one of the top recipients of corporate campaign contributions in this election -- in fact, he's number two in the U.S. Senate behind Hillary Clinton for payoff money from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries (which explains his successful gutting of health care reform while "serving" in the Illinois state senate).

According to the American Research Group, a mere nineteen percent of Americans approve of the shrub's handling of Al Gore's and John Kerry's job.

Overall, 19% of Americans say that they approve of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president, 77% disapprove, and 4% are undecided.

In my previous entry I discussed, briefly, why Hillary Clinton's charge that Barack Obama is all fluff and no substance is true (but falling on deaf ears).  Now I'll go into why it's true.

I'll do this by going to town on some of the issues posted on his web site, asking some hard questions about how Mr. Obama intends to bring about this change he keeps talking about.  Today I'll focus on his web site's Issues page on health care coverage.

Hillary Clinton has become the shepherd child who cried "wolf!" too many times without a beast to be found, and now -- even when she tells the truth -- no one may be paying attention to her anymore.

It’s about picking a president who relies not just on words -– but on work, hard work, to get America back to work. Someone who’s not just in the speeches business -– but will get America back in the solutions business.

Follow me below the fold for more.

I'm sure this shall have been blogged by now, but I want to offer my own take.  Fidel Castro has, apparently, officially announced his resignation.  CNN.com reports.

And lo, the streets of Havana did not open up to swallow the infidel.  Nor did swarms of locusts descend upon the Castro government to devour the flesh of his lackeys.  Their eyes did not bleed, their abdomens did not rip open and their bowels did not gush upon the potter's ground.

DINO incumbent Leonard Boswell sees the writing on the wall.  After seeing what happened to Al Wynn over in Maryland, he has reached the conclusion that it pays to be an actual Democrat instead of a pretend one.  So he has belatedly signed on to Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney.

David Swanson writes at OpEdNews.com:

Boswell is being challenged by Ed Fallon, who - like Edwards - seems to inspire more courage in the incumbent than he himself actually exhibits. Fallon's website says nothing about impeachment. Edwards said she was for it when asked, but never brought it up, and kept it off her website.

Please read this and pass it on.

From: Congressman Dennis Kucinich! UNOFFICIAL
Date: Feb 16, 2008 5:39 PM

Because of the abysmal approval ratings of Congress itself, there is
a real groundswell of "throw the bums out" voting, as evidenced by
the 24-point victory in the primary challenge this week by
progressive Donna Edwards. But we need to very careful not to let the
exceptionally good be swept out with the bad.

No news from me today, just a few Monty Python sketches.  The first is the Interview sketch, and the second is one of the infamous Lumberjack renditions.  Followed by other variations of the Lumberjack song.

No, this isn't what you're probably thinking.  No, this is about nothing more than the Democratic Party's animal mascot.  So don't panic, or start hurling insults.

Nice, huh?  Too bright for your eyes?  Here's one in a darker color scheme.

Join me below the fold for more.

As you're probably aware, Ohio's 10th Congressional is in the midst of a fierce primary battle.  Motivated to seize the House seat for its preferred corporate candidate, and driven by hatred stretching back to Muny Light, the Cleveland Plain Dealer -- a very conservative newspaper and the town's only daily -- is trying to push Dennis Kucinich out after more than ten years of loyal and able service to his constituency.

Follow me below the fold for more.

It was meant to do one thing, and one thing only: provoke a reaction, either positive or negative.  Mostly I hoped for positive, but expected negative.  Surprisingly, I got a fair amount of positive reactions.  Which gives me hope that there aren't so few of us Progressives here after all.  My thanks to all those who replied, even -- hell, especially -- those who brought the trash-talk.  If I struck that nerve of yours, it means I'm on the right track.  And that you're not so far gone that you don't even pay attention.

And now the news.

You know, I had a blog entry all set up for today about Paul Krugman's column and accompanying blog entry from yesterday.  But apparently it has become fashionable to blog about Professor Krugman a lot.  Like here, and here.  (The second one actually proves the economist's point rather well, by the way.)  In short, y'all beat me to the punch, so why retread?  So instead, I'm going to give you some tips on how not to try and win over Progressives.