Of all the neocons, MC Rove is far and away the most nervous right now.  Because his brainchild, the Republican majority, is wilting.   Rapidly.  And he's burdened with the difficult task of getting John McCain elected to the highest office in the land.  
The strategy?  
Get Americans to forget the last eight years so there can be another eight years just like it. 
He'll play the patriotism card, the race card, the experience card, the fear card, and the absolute fabrication card, you know, the usual suspects. 
The Republican specialty is mischaracterization.  They can't beat Barack Obama but they can beat Barack Obama out of context.  
They're already taking Michelle Obama out of context with the "only now am I proud of my country" snippet.
The Republicans are stronger communicators than the Democrats and the reason they do so well is because they campaign the loudest.  You hear them yelling on every cable news network, 24 hours a day.  Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill "Orally", the whole lot of them.  They debate with the subtlety of AK-47.
They must have a Republican boot camp for surrogates. 
Rove hasn't won a fair or swift-boat free election in his life.   2000? He diebolded that one.   2004?  Swift boat parade.   2006?  Swiftboat parade but lost anyway.  
He has a lot riding on the 2008 election.  Expect his worst.  


 
 

A spokesman for the McCain campaign said that Obama doesn't have the "strength, judgment and determination to keep America safe."  
Without judgment, strength and determination can lead a country in the wrong direction.  
The Bush administration is a case in point.  
McCain does have experience.  But it's the wrong kind of experience.  

 According to Benazir Bhutto, who was interviewed by David Frost before she was assassinated, clearly stated Osama Bin Laden was murdered in 2002.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg

According to Sky News, Bin Laden just released a new audio tape, in which he states that Israel is at the heart of his holy war.  And that Al Qaeda will continue to fight against Israelis.  
http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/world/international-affairs/osama-bin-laden-releases-new-tape-$1223008.htm

So who are you going to believe?  Consider this:  every time these alleged "new Bin Laden" tapes surface, they carry a message that reinforces the administration's narrative at the time.  
For example, when they wanted us to believe that Al Qaeda was the "center stage enemy" in Iraq, and that we weren't just caught in the middle of a civil war, a new Bin Laden tape surfaced to confirm that.   
And as recently as yesterday, Bush and McCain and other neocons trumpeted their commitment to protect Israel against Iran or any other threat.  It's no coincidence that a Bin Laden tape was just released claiming that Israel is at the heart of his holy war.  
It does seem that Bin Laden changes its central cause as often as the administration changes its main reason for invading Iraq.  

He flips.  He flops.  He changes positions on issues so rapidly it's hard to capture him on camera without a motion blur.  
This morning, he cut 87 years off his proposed 100 year occupation of Iraq.  His new date certain is 2013.  
But if there's one thing you can count on from Papa John, it's that nothing he says or does is for certain. 
-He's for the Bush tax cuts, against the Bush tax cuts, and for the Bush tax cuts.   
-He's made an unwavering commitment to lead the fight against global warming and and he has an unwavering record that demonstrates the opposite. 
-He accepts public financing, he doesn't, he does, and never did all at the same time.  
-He asks for John Hagee's endorsement and honored to receive it, now he never asked for it but accepts it wholeheartedly and he's not that honored to accept it.  
-He drinks ethanol for breakfast, eats clean coal for lunch, and after says, "fossil fuels on me". 
At 72, it seems he just doesn't know where he is on the issues anymore.
But Karl Rove is standing in Papa John's left middle ear calling the plays. 
Or is it his far right middle ear?   Or his closer to center middle ear?

A quick summary of it's most salient points, and how it's being spun on both sides of the aisle.  Thanks

I had hoped the party would stick with the rules.  I thought that the best way to answer Hillary's negative attacks was to simply win.  
And I applaud your efforts for doing just that.  But your party is enabling the Clintons and all her supporters to throw away the rules, and block your nomination.  
On May 31st, a rules committee is going to consider their proposal of awarding all the voters and delegates of Michigan's illegitimate primary to Hillary.  Including "uncommitted".   In addition to certifying the illegitimate FL primary as is.  
Why can't we hear you saying how outlandish that is and that you will absolutely unequivocally not stand for that?
The big problem with all of this, aside from the obvious unfairness of it all is that your voice remains comparatively silent on these issues.  
The louder their narrative gets, the quieter your campaign becomes.   Maybe you can continue to do that and reap success.  Maybe that is the smarter way to fight this.
But have you entertained this:
The longer you just count on the math to hand you this nomination, the greater the chances are that the Clintons will steamroll right over you until the convention, at which time, they'll try to overturn the decision.  
You'll point to the math and say "But we won.."
Is that enough?
You want to change the way things are done in Washington?  Change the way things are being done right now in your own party.  

Josh just posted about this. Essentially, John Boehner took Obama way out of context regarding a statement he made about Israel.  
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/house-republica.html
Guys like Boehner get away with this because no one ever calls them on it.   They count on that.  So let's show him things are changing.  Please take a moment to email him.  
http://republicanleader.house.gov/Contact/

In her years as a Senator, I've never seen Hillary really fight for a piece of legislation as defiantly as she fights for her own ambitions.  I've never seen her spearhead a strong coalition on a much contested bill.  The Sen. Clinton in the Senate tries not to make any waves.  She's never first to speak out against what is popular opinion.  

We have to reconcile how candidates behave when they're running for office and how they are when they're in office.  

I was just listening to Sen. Murkowski, from Alaska, speak on the Senate floor in support of drilling for oil in ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. 
"ANWR is a bridge to our energy future" she says.  
I always get nervous when someone from Alaska starts talking about bridges.  
ANWR is not in any way a solution, not even in a small way, to our oil addiction.  
The U.S. uses about 7.5 billion barrel of oils a year.  It is estimated that ANWR contains 10.5 billion barrels.  
That will sustain the U.S. for 18 months.  
If, that is, the oil in ANWR is even meant for consumption in the U.S.   Many have posited that we would export the oil.  
The only beneficiaries of ANWR are the oil companies and the military.  The Department of Defense is the biggest buyer of oil in the world.  
Billions of barrels have already been used to support our occupation in Iraq.
If we want lower gas prices, the most efficient way to do it is to give up Cheney's war habit.  
If and when we do, it would add billions of barrels of oil to the world supply, and prices will drop dramatically. 
Please contact your Senators and insist that they vote against drilling in ANWR.