I've just watched Sen. Clinton's newest commercial in West Virginia.  In it she says it's time to level the playing field against special interests.  
Now as I understand it, she accepts more money from corporate lobbyists and special interest groups than any other candidate.  
How do you put the interests of families across the country first if you're on the lobbyists' payroll?
So whose interests come first?  It can't be both. 
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/05/level.html

Oil is now $124 a barrel and if anyone tells you that our occupations in the middle east has nothing to do with it, they're lying.
Military fuel consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities makes the Department of Defense the single largest consumer of petroleum in the U.S. And according to the Defence Logistic Agency, as of November 2005 more than 2.1 billion gallons of fuel have been used in support of our invasion of Iraq. (It's likely to be more than two to three times that at our current engagement level.)

So the administration's addiction to oil is directly related to their addiction to war.

If we weren't in a state of perpetual war, the supply of oil on the market would increase exponentially. The price of gas would decrease. As would the amount of carbon dioxide being pumped into the environment.

Now the rise of China and India and other economies are leading to a strain on the world's finite supply of cheap oil.  
That we can't change.  
What we can change is how we view our role in the world. Those hell-bent on being a military superpower aren't helping.
We can't make a commitment to alternative energy unless we make a commitment to an alternative to war and aggression.

I wonder if the internet has changed the metrics of today's high and low information voters.  
Think about the personal internet experience.  On your homepage, you have general news headlines from around the world and it automatically refreshes 24 hours a day.  
Click on one of those headlines and you'll get the full story plus links to other stories on the same topic.  And maybe you'll come across incidental information that peaks your curiosity.  
If you want specific information, google it.  Obama's health care policy, comparisons to McCain's, etc.
And with online communities, social networking, video chats, youtube, email, blogging (not to mention cell phones) people share more information.
Maybe low info voter no more now than before, but maybe the rate at which they've changed is slower or faster than high-information voters.  
Anyone have any thoughts?

The polls vary but there is one factor that has been pretty consistent throughout this election.  And that is, you can't believe a word the Clintons say.  Especially not their surrogates.  
Having heard about McAuliffe's comments this morning, my read is that they have both these primaries locked up.  I hate to say that, because I'm an Obama supporter.
But any rational human being has to look at the history of how these people operate.  This is their narrative and no one is going to screw it up for them.  And yes, they would in fact do anything to tip these primaries in their favor. 
That's what an addiction to power does to you.  
Take my opinion with a grain of salt--when Obama caught up in PA. and the polls showed him tied with Hillary, I thought she'd win by at least 15.  People thought I was crazy.  As it turns out I did overestimate but she won by ten. (9.4)
The worst thing any Obama supporter can do right now is to fall for the corporate press/Clinton spin after tonight.  
The Clinton campaign can't win on numbers.  So they have to win on narrative. 
I would even suggest you shut off any MSM after tonight and remember what they want you to forget.  Obama has played this campaign brilliantly.  It seems like the entire world has been trying to kneecap him over the last month,in any way they can.  And, with those robocalls in NC, even if it is voter fraud.  
Regardless of tonight, Obama will still be winning when he wakes up tomorrow.  
So will we.  

I've been following the latest saber rattling toward Iran.  In particular, their nuclear program.  There are two points of view but we're only being sold one.  The administration's. 

Let me set this up:

Iran has a right to enrich uranium as part of a peaceful nuclear energy program.  But the U.S. has long insisted that Iran halt all activity.  This gives the U.S. a reason to say that the Iranians refuse to cooperate with inspectors and come clean on their activity.  

Like Iraq, The U.S. continues its effort to create a justification for attacking a country-this time Iran.   Many of its attempts, like the reports of Iranian speedboats threatening to blow up a navy destroyer in the Strait of Hormuz, have been proven false. 

I've read the recent IAEA report regarding Iran's cooperation in addressing all open questions about nuclear activity. 

And the IAEA has, as of  February 2008, found  ZERO evidence of any non-peaceful activity.  Yet here's a recent  quote from U.S. chief Delegate Christopher Ford:  "It is tragic that (Iran's) government has remained so set on a contrary course of deceit, lawbreaking and confrontation unbefitting to the inheritors of such a proud, ancient culture."

 When it comes time for sanctions on Iran, The U.S. tends to bring new "evidence" up at the last minute.  That way they can say that Iran continues its refusal to cooperate with inspectors.

But that's not the case.

This IAEA report is a long read but it's worth it just to go through once so you can see the disparity of what the White House claims and the actual facts:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-4.pdf

I don't claim to be an expert on this and I'm certainly not privy to all the information, but I can't take this administration's word for anything anymore.  In such a multi-lateral world, why should we settle for just unilateral information?   

Globalization has resulted in the international exchange of all goods and services with one glaring exception:  journalism.  It's all American made.  And delivered exclusively by corporate media.  

Why is there an embargo on news from sources other than our own?  Have you ever heard North Korea's point of view on their nuclear talks with the U.S. from someone other than our own government?  Or other than someone who's being paid by our government?  We have news agencies around the world but they're OUR news agencies.  

We can't engage the interest of other countries if all we do is talk to ourselves. 

One of my problems with the Clinton campaign is that the media is already subservient to them.  They're afraid to confront the Clintons on substantive issues.  And the media accepts non-answers too easily.  

And we've has 8 years of that kind of relationship between the president and the press.  
If the press is afraid to ask John McCain or the Clintons substantive questions and press them for direct answers, it would be more of the same.  
Barack Obama is challenged every day.  And he gives honest answers.  He talks to everyone like he respects everyone.  And what they have to do.  
Another reason I'm supporting him. 

http://www.tribstar.com/opinion/local_story_124214826.html

Just wondering if there's a way to calculate the likely effect this will have on turnout.  Also, how does this change the relationship between polling data and actual outcome in IN?