Gallup:

Obama: 51%
Clinton: 40%

In a continuing sign of how elitist and out of touch the media is we see another day of no movement in the polls.  Well, actually, the movement is Obama up and Clinton down - though well within the MOE.  

How long will Clinton keep this line of attack going when it's clear it is having zero effect?  How much longer will the media insist that this will kill him and is causing serious concern with the super delegates.

Speaking of super delegates - don't you think they have to start being seriously impressed with Obama and his resiliency?  Everyone said that Clinton was the fight and Obama was soft, but now he's survived Rezko, Rev. Wright, and the bitter comments and he's a strong as ever, nationally.  It's time for the SDs to realize that Obama is the real deal, is the choice for the majority of democrats, is the candidate republicans are most scared of, and is the best counter-attacker the democrats have had in a long, long time.

Time to step it up, SDs.  The graph below - and the sustained lead within it - says all you need to know about how this thing should end.  

This is a short diary entry.

Polling for Obama remained unchanged over the weekend, suggesting that while a lot of noise is being made over his comments re "bitter", the public seems not to care.  Or, at the very least, is not changing their perception of him.  While other polls may demonstrate some people reacting negatively to his comments, nothing suggests those comments are from any Obama supporters nor do they suggest voters are leaving him in any way whatsoever because of them

Clinton, on the other hand, is dangerously close to slipping below 40%.  While the numbers from last night's polling are unavailable to me, this suggests that, because her previous days were above 40%, Sunday's polling was in the 30s.  She may be receiving a backlash from her elitist charges, and perhaps that is something that may become evident during the week.  If I were her strategists, these numbers would give me great pause and I would certainly think twice about continuing this line of attack.

EDIT:  It looks like CNN has already fixed their headline.  I'm guessing that it was before they could have received much feedback about it, and thus it must have been clear that it was a stark mischaracterization of his speech.  While I'm thankful it was fixed, it should have never gone up in the first place.

CNN has an absolutely dreadful headline up on their front page about Obama's speech today.  

Instead of focusing on the message of his speech, they instead take a passage out of context and suggest Obama is blaming the Constitution, and by extension - America.  The headline up now is "Obama: Constitution 'stained by slavery'.  This is an unacceptable editoralization of the speech and action is required immediately.

Use this form: http://www.cnn.com/...

Let CNN know that they must change their despicable headline immediately!

People will be turning to CNN.com all day to find out about the speech and the last thing we want is for them to see a headline that grossly distorts his message.  We have to act now.

Update: This appears to now be confirmed.

MSNBC just reported that Bill went on Rush Limbaugh's show today pandering for votes.  If this is true I am absolutely disgusted.  

More information below the fold:

I would have thought that many people here would understand how important framing is to public debate.  Currently, the Washington Post has a headline discussing Bush's "victory" and everyone here is proclaiming how devastating this is to the Democratic Party.  However you feel about the bill itself, it's important to remember that the aftermath is as important to perception as were the pre-vote statements.

By admitting we were defeated, we are granting Bush power and setting ourselves up for a loss come September.   Therefore, it is important to look at the positives in this story, no matter how upset you may be.   Put the positive spin on this!  Talk about progress and how we are moving forward and how Bush's position is weakening.  Don't give the republicans power they don't deserve.

The storyline should not be that Bush won a victory.  The story is that, for the first time ever, Bush is seeing a real challenge to his authority and his days of free reign are over.  Democrats are not defeated.  They are encouraged and will continue to put pressure on Bush to bring our troops home.

I haven't been involved in the Ohio diaries battles, but man am I sick of them.  I'm not tired of the substantive issues such as whether or not the votes should be counted (of course they should) or whether Republicans are disenfranchsing african-americans (of course they are).  Rather, I'm tired of reading a diary with 300 entries and 200 of them are debating whether someone deserved a 2 or a 4 for their post.  There is a lot of ratings abuse going on here lately, but I don't care much about that (for the purposes of this diary).

What I care about is fighting Republican efforts to take this country even further to the right, and right now we're not helping ourselves.

The recent campaign by Choose the Blue urging democrats and progressives to frequent the businesses of those companies that support democratic candidates is starting to get national exposure!  The Chicago Tribune online has the story at the top of the page.  

Read the story below:

The ratings system here is being abused constantly.  I see people giving out 1s and 2s simply because they disagreed with the content of the post.  For example, one poster gave out a 1 to another simply because they disagreed with how they thought a certain senator should respond to a question.  It's becoming clear that people simply aren't paying attention to the guidelines.  Thus, it's time to enact more forceful measures.  Below the fold are my suggestions - some are more drastic than others.  Feel free to add further suggestions.

Also, take the poll on which suggestion, if any, you like most.

So now it's official - Bush is nominating Kerik to be the new Secretary of Homeland Security.  I don't know much a lot about this guy, but I just wonder how being a police commissioner prepares one to handle the responsibilities involved in this position.  How can he know about the intra-agency squabbles?  How can he learn enough about intelligence gathering to make informed decisions about what needs to be done?  How can he have the experience to know pretty much anything at all about this job?

In other words - is there any doubt that this guy is nothing other than a puppet to do whatever Bush tells him to?

It was the most watched show (by 18-49 year olds) since the "Friends" finale.

You gotta love how conservatives draw a lot of attention to a show they disdain.  People never learn this lesson: if you don't like a show, don't complain about it.  People will only want to watch it to find out what all the fuss is about - especially if sex is in any way involved.

Moreover, this only seems to reinforce Frank Rich's column in which he noted what people get "outraged" about and what they actually do are two seperate things.  Hypocrisy in this country knows no bounds.

From my blog

This is the third in a series of branding the Republicans as unethical.

Much has been made recently over Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's deliberations on whether or not to end democratic filibusters of Bush's judicial nominations. And while most of the discussions have centered on whether the scheme would work and its political consequences, very little consideration has been given as to whether the scheme is ethical.

From my recently created blog:

I've created a new blog called "Progressive Talking Points" that attempts to help progressives think about how they discuss certain policies and political topics.  I by no means claim to be an expert, but I figure that by starting discussions on how to frame various topics, we may eventually come to some conclusions on how best to advocate our causes.  

My blog is still in its infancy and is in no way going to compete with the more visible blogs - nor am I trying to - but I wanted to do my part in moving the progressive causes forward.

Therefore, I hope that a few of you will visit my blog occasionally, and maybe even leave a comment.    I welcome any and all suggestions.

Thank you.

I'm currently putting together a small tract in hopes of condensing both (1) what went wrong in this election and (2) how to remedy it for the future.  Though I already have an idea on what I'm going to argue, I'd like some input on the following areas:

1.  How effective were the 527s?
   
2.  How effective were the GOTV efforts?
   
3.  What does the democratic party currently stand for?
   
4.  What should the democratic party stand for?
   
5.  What positive moral arguments are winners for the democrats?
   
6.  Do facts matter?
   
7.  How should democrats react to the forthcoming Bush agenda?
   
8.  Without naming names, what qualities would you like in the 2008 Presidential candidate?

Feel free to answer as many, or few, as you like.  I think it's important that while we are currently grieving and expressing anger, it's important to start learning, reacting, and growing.

 I may update this with more question in the future.

Check out this awesome mp3 of Keyes getting heckled this morning as he went to vote. You can get it here.

Some guy heckles Keyes while he is being interviewed, and gives his bodyguard and PR person a rough time. Apparently, this has been playing on the local stations all day. The best part is it begins right when Keyes is talking about how open and friendly everyone is.

60 Minutes is reporting in their lead story that troops are using plywood and sandbags to protect their vehicles.  They're also stripping old Iraqi tanks for armor.  Troops are using walkie talkies from home so they can call each other for help.

The incompetence level of this administration is staggering.  Essentially, the Pentagon failed to plan for a long occcupation, something almost anyone with common sense could have predicted.  And our troops are paying for it with their limbs and lives.  

This story needs to get a lot of play.  Everyone needs to call their local stations and write their local papers to make this an issue on the day before the election.

I think it's time we put to bed the "SCLM."  It's quite clear that the liberal media no longer exists.  Instead, the media is controlled by global conglomerates interested in media deregulation or companies with partisan agendas (i.e, News Corp., Sinclair, The Washington Times).  I think we can all agree that the media certainly doesn't carry a liberal slant any more (and some would argue it never existed).  

It's time we started working the refs.

The Chicago Tribune has apparently received over 2400 letters and emails from people who are furious over their recent endorsement for President.  The Tribune insisted that, though they have endorsed every Republican candidate for President since 1872, they are not strictly partisan.  Instead, they said that

This makes one wonder just what criteria the Tribune uses to consider these factors.  Has Bush shown any inclination towards limited government?  Have they shown any restraint when it comes to spending?  Have they read the recent civil rights report on this administration?  Have they seen the 1st Amendment zones set up outside Bush's speeches?  The questions could continue ad infinitum.

I have to say that I wasn't surprised when the Tribune endorsed Bush, but this is one of the weakest explanations I have ever read.  Though additional pressure is unlikely to get the Tribune to change their endorsement, perhaps it might give them pause before they reflexively endorse the Republican candidate in 2008.

You can reach the public editor at dwycliff@tribune.com