Here is the link to the Colorado Independent who has the story and email.
Just so you can keep track of which talking heads are hooked up the McCain apparatus.
As for the reasoning behind the tactic of suspending the campaign: I am pulled between the sense that there was a deal offered that would put McCain in front of the cameras on Monday or Sunday announcing the bipartisan solution for the Republicans, making him seem engaged and effective on the economy, and on the other hand thinking that the primary goal was to avoid the presidential and vice-presidential debates.  
Maybe it's a two-fer?

Over at Daily Kos, there is a diary entry with a set of links showing alterations made to Palin's Wikiepedia entry this morning (the day of Palins VP announcement).  The username for the person making key changes was "Young Trigg" which is the name of one of Palin's sons. The links there include an archived version of the page from 8/21/2008 for comparison as well as a side by side of the passages changed,
The poster edited down the discussion of Palin's trooper-gate problem, scrubbed reference to her having gay friends and added references to her being a politician with "eye-popping integrity."
It's worth a look, I think, insofar as it points to a certain amount of clumsiness (changes are hard to hide) and for the choices made in editing.

There has not been, so far as I have been able to determine, much discussion about civil liberties on the campaign trail this go around.

That, perhaps, mirrors the general lack of interest in them among voters.  We do discuss the FISA bills (here and at DailyKos) but usually don't tie them to the much broader assault on our core freedoms.

I spent the better part of 2002 and 2003 working to organize resistance to the Bush administration's stripping of freedoms.  I gave lectures to audiences that were interested enough to attend such an event on a work night, but even among that select audience, most people were not terribly exercised by the problem of the PATRIOT Act and the larger apparatus of laws and regulations that went with it.  

Back then, I used the possible suspension of habeas corpus as a way to emphasize the dangers we faced as the Bush Administration continued to strip the Fourth and First Amendments.  It didn't take too long for that nightmare to become a reality for every American.

 

We can now all be detained upon the decree of the Executive branch and held without trial and without access to counsel and without the right to confront the charges against us — citizen or non-citizen.

 

Still, no discussion of civil liberties from our Democratic Candidates, or almost none.  In the October 30, 2007 MSNBC debate, Sen. Obama decried the silence on this issue but was then ignored. It just went away.

 

Obama and Clinton both supported the revision of the PATRIOT Act that made very minor (but I'll take them) improvements to the original, abominable law.  Obama's floor speech included his concern that the revisions were too weak and that more civil liberties protections are needed.  But I see no discusison of this issue on Sen. Obama's campaign website.  Clinton has called for reforms as well, but I seen no mention of it among her issues on her campaign website either.  

 

In a rare appearance of this issue as a campaign topic, Jeffrey Rosen, in the New York Times, in an Op/Ed on March 1, 2008, argues that Sen. Obama looks to be a better proponent of civil liberties (and draws attention to what I think are some troubling failures by Sen. Clinton).   Even though my own experience working on this professionally and Mr. Rosen's depressing poll stats suggest there may not be much of an audience (Rosen cites 20% interest among the electorate), I will be investigating this (and Rosen's broader claims about the candidates) then posting a series of blogs here.  

 

Some days, so help me, I just don't have the strength to face the Bush Presidency. Today, speaking via teleconference to troops in Afghanistan, the President told them that if it wasn't for, you know, his darn job and his wonky knee, he would love to be on the front lines with them, enjoying the romance of war...
From Reuters:

"I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."

"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said.

Ben Smith at Politico.com cites Ferraro from 1988 arguing that Jackson was only able to remain in the race for President because he is black.  The comment is from a 4/15/88 WP story.
The context is not entirely clear, but it seems awfully close to what she said about Obama this week.  

Scott Horton's blog at Harper's is reporting that the CBS broadcast of 60 Minutes was "blacked out" by the local Alabama affiliate during the segment about the ex-Gov. Siegelman.   
Two points being made by Mr. Horton that caught my attention:
1. The affiliate is owned by the Bass family who happend to be major GOP donors.
2. Siegelman was tried, convicted and imprisoned for bribery under what seem to be very suspicious circumstances involving Karl Rove and the politicization of the DoJ.  
I am sure there are people here at TPM who know the back story better than I do.  
I am posting to alert those better able to assess what is happening.

-- Malek

Yesterday (2/19/08), Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly discussed Ms. Obama's statement that she felt "really proud" of her country for the first time.  A link with transcript is here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200802200001

I wrote Mr. O'Reilly an email today (text follows the jump) and I hope you will do so as well.  But more, I plan to make it available to those I know will care: I will email it out and post it wherever it seems appropriate.  I will ask them, as I ask all of you, to respond when Senator Obama (or any candidate) is attacked with lies and threats and racist or sexist smears.  Let's refuse to accept mendacity and cruelty.   Let's hold people who enter our public discourse accountable for what they say.  

I hope we will be responsible and honest as well.  This is part of the change that Senator Obama represents to me; it is why he both inspires and motivates me.  And, I must say, he also makes me feel proud of my country in a way I have not for a long time.

Text of the email follows the jump...

Malek 

Mr. O'Reilly, You should apologize to Mrs. Obama, as well as the country, for threatening to join, in your words, a "lynching party" should you find that Mrs. Obama said something with which you disagreed.

You join the very lowest, very vilest elements of our society with such threats. Further, given your media platform, you have the capacity to fan the flames of violence and hatred by giving voice to these horrific sentiments and threats.

Surely you know that lynching remains a powerful symbol still used by white supremacists and murderous racists today. Senator Obama has drawn attention to the power of this terrible legacy when he alludes in his speeches to the nooses hung from trees in Jena.

Senator Obama is calling on us, as Americans, to strive to heal the wounds of this kind of violence. Are you saying, by invoking lynching as a punishment, that you are opposed to the healing Senator Obama is trying to help us achieve and, instead, want to participate in and so keep this racism and violence alive?

I hope not.

Sincerely,

M. Doulat, California

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/malek