I don't know if this lets me embed this Youtube video or not, but choice quotes from the video are:

"The number one issue that is in the selection... of the President of the United States is will this person carry on in the Judeo-Christian principle-tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind.

"The constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9izhjnaLa3M"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9izhjnaLa3M" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

When this TPM post about VoteBoth's numbers was initially posted, it included this line:

Those are very good numbers, it can't be denied. The group yesterday announced that former Hillary adviser Lanny Davis had joined the effort.

I'm not against the editorializing inherent in "it can't be denied;" this is a blog, for heaven's sake.  I am against the fact that no more than an hour later that line (which I placed in bold type) was quietly removed, with no record of it ever having existed, and a "Late Update" was added that included this:

25,000 signatures on a petition is really not that impressive.

It took an hour to discover that, yet at first the reporter thought (independent of any investigation whatsoever, it seems) the number was undeniably large.

Keeping a record of what a post said from the beginning using strikeout text or footnotes allows the readers here to evaluate the bias and the integrity of the individual reporters.  Not including that record and trying to hide it with sneaky edits is fundamentally dishonest in a news organization.

It's time for me to be exuberant about Barack Obama, and exuberant about Change.  And I would be interested to hear why others are exuberant about Barack Obama, and what they think Change means.

See, I agree that Obama's policies are more vague and have larger wiggle room to interpret  I see that as a positive.  What I see in Obama is the change thing.

I think the government is broken; in fact, I think most people in the United States see the government as broken.  Really, when I elect a president, I elect the person who I think will tinker with the governmental cogs and tighten them up in such a way that it will be going in the direction I want it to go.  Again, I don't think that I'm alone in this.

I really, really, really believe that Obama wants to go in to the government and just fucking take it apart and put it back together again.  As much as one man can do, at least.  I believe that's what he means by Change and after having looked at his character and his actions in his young life so far I believe he will change things in the direction I want them to go.  I'm a far from elite liberal, really far left (like, used-to-live-in-a-commune liberal far left), so you can imagine the direction I want the country and its laws to go.  Obama points in that direction for me.  He really does.  I mean, he's no Kucinich.  He's not a pacifist or anything.  I'd rather elect Dorothy Day to be President.  But that ain't ever gonna' fucking happen.

So, I'll settle for Obama.  I mean, even if he doesn't change things as far as I would like them to go, even if he plays the political game more than I would like him to, I'm going to also enjoy watching him as President.  He's so fucking graceful.  As shallow as it may be, I would really love to spend the next 4 years, however horrible they may be because of the wasteland of government left to us by President George W. Bush, listening to Barack Obama and watching him dance like Fred Astaire with his Ginger Rogers, Michelle Obama, across the stage of history.

I'm electing Barack Obama because he makes my heart feel really good about America for one of the first times in my adult life.  And I say that with full knowledge of the good things that do exist in America.  But this is the first time I feel Patriotic about America, is listening to Barack Obama talk about how he sees America.

What does he mean to you?  What's Change?

Recommend this if you want this to become a long conversation.  Or start your own blog entry so that we can gather a record of this historic moment in time.

Truly historic.

Rasmussen reported Friday that they will stop tracking Clinton's numbers "in the near future."  I'm not sure what the benefit is of warning their visitors about that, but they're not tossing money into polling Clinton anymore.

while Senator Clinton has remained close and competitive in every meaningful measure, she is a close second and the race is over. It has become clear that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee.

At the moment, Senator Clinton’s team is busily trying to convince Superdelegates and pundits that she is more electable than Barack Obama. For reasons discussed in a separate article, it doesn’t matter. Even if every single Superdelegate was convinced that the former First Lady is somewhat more electable than Obama, that is not enough of a reason to deny him the nomination.

With this in mind, Rasmussen Reports will soon end our daily tracking of the Democratic race and focus exclusively on the general election competition between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. Barring something totally unforeseen, that is the choice American voters will have before them in November. While we have not firmly decided upon a final day for tracking the Democratic race, it is coming soon.

Speaking truth to power

BIDEN: Based on what you’ve said, there’s really no hope, is there? We should really get the hell out of there right now, right? There’s nothing to do.

ROSEN: As a journalist, I’m uncomfortable advising an imperialist power about how to be a more efficient imperialist power. I don’t think we’re there for the interests of the Iraqi people. I don’t that’s ever been a motivation.

However, I have mixed emotions on that issue. Many of my Sunni friends, beginning about a year ago, many of them who are opposed to the Americans, who supported attacking American troops in Iraq, began to grow really nervous at the idea of the Americans leaving Iraq because they knew they would be massacred. It could be Rwanda the day the Americans leave. The creation of these Sunni militias, the Awakening groups, militates against that kind of a massacre of civilians occurring because now there are actually Sunni safe zones…But I do believe that if Americans were to withdraw you’d seen an increase in violence at least temporarily, until some sort of equilibrium is reached—

BIDEN: But the good news is we wouldn’t be imperialist anymore in Iraq, from your perspective.

ROSEN: (smiling widely) Only elsewhere in the region.

BIDEN: Only elsewhere in the region. I’m sure glad we invited you, I tell you. [Bloviates for ninety seconds, then turns to other witnesses.] Gentlemen, to the non-imperialist side of the witness stand…

asdasdasda

MediaCurves did a real-time analysis of the perceptions of Obama supporters, Clinton supporters, and undecideds while watching Clinton's "3 am" ad.  The results for the undecideds are particularly striking when Clinton's profile is shown at the end of the ad.

Since I'm criticizing when strike-through isn't used and blog entries are just altered without keeping a record of previous text, let me commend this latest post, which includes both strike-through text and an explanatory update.  Thank you.

Here's yet another post I've found in which the blog author rewrote a headline after initially posting an entry without noting that the headline had been rewritten. [They aren't easy to search for.]

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/12/edwards_camp_to_press_wake_up.php#comment-1973957

Why am I pointing these out?  Because I believe that blog authors (all authors really) do have a bias, and it's in our interest as readers to know that bias.
  If this was the New York Times, I would like the headline completely removed because the New York Times has the power to influence the public unduly by what it writes--I don't think TPM has that power, so I would like to have a fair shake at knowing an author's bias, even if it means an "unfair" headline can still be read.  I also think that using strike-through text or a note in an update is a fair way of changing a headline and keeping historical record of that change.

Andrew G. seems to think that there is a policy for noting more than just grammatical changes to initial blog text here at TPM.  So, in order to keep TPM's feet to the fire in the same way that Greg Sargent keeps the MSM's feet to the fire, allow me to note some of the posts which have had significant changes (as reflected by thanks in the comments) to initial text which had a serious effect to the tone of the piece without the author acknowledging an edit.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/12/obama_to_hillary_im_looking_fo.php#comment-1970898
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/ap_obama_more_about_speeches_t.php#comment-2617573
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/12/obama_spokesman_no_candidate_h.php#comment-1973723

I'll add some more when I get out of work.

TPM needs a volunteer ombudsman.

I'm a longtime reader of TPM, back when it was just Josh, and a policy has become much more common than before of rewriting blog entries and whisking them into the tubes of the net. On one hand, I'm glad that well-written or thoughtful comments can influence the blog writers here, but this rewriting also seems a bit disingenuous.

Without even the benefit of strike-out text being left (or the great benefit in a wiki of revision history) when a rewrite is done, in one fell swoop a blog writer here can make many of the commenters seem over the top, protesting text that no longer seems worthy of protest for later readers.

I don't have a solution for that, but it does seem to be a problem... and an ever-increasing one at that in this election cycle.