Don Henley:

Bookmark It

Jane Siberry:

Bookmark It

Dr. Dog:

Bookmark It

Earl Greyhound:

Bookmark It

Israel radio clip was doctored.

And their “explanation” is pretty lame, too.

Bookmark It

The Ruse:

Bookmark It

Matthew Yglesias:

Matthew Yglesias » What The Gaza Blockade Means: As I’ve noted before, in the eyes of its defenders the blockade of the Gaza Strip is a security measure aimed at denying rockets to Hamas, while in fact it’s a comprehensive effort to collectively punish Gaza residents—a majority of whom are children—in hopes that this will somehow lead to Hamas being replaced by a more moderate regime. Yousef Munayyer’s rundown of the consequences of the blockade makes the point clearly. For example, “In 2006, Israel carried out an attack on Gaza’s only power plant and never permitted the rebuilding to its pre-attack capacity (down to producing 80 megawatts maximum from 140 megawatts).” I suppose one could try to construct a defense of what the policy actually is, but instead most people seem to prefer to defend something else. Of course Israelis don’t want to be hit by rockets, but why shouldn’t Gaza’s civilians have electricity?

Because they bombed them back to the Stone Age, silly!

Bookmark It

Did you see last night’s game? Amazing.

Bookmark It

Harper Blynn:

Bookmark It

Because his little ego turn gave the right wing the opening they wanted.

Then the media piled on. Now we have idjits like Matthew Dowd complaining that Obama is “politicizing” politics (because, you know, normally politics is politics-free!) by backing primary candidates, in a perfect regurgitation of right-wing talking points.

Steve Benen:

It no longer seems farfetched to me to think the president will endorse a candidate later this year, and Republicans will say, “Obama doesn’t trust voters to make up their own minds, so he’s abusing his power by telling them how to vote. Since when is America a dictatorship when Dear Leader thinks he knows better than the rest of us? Why is the executive branch interfering with legislative matters anyway? This Chicago-style endorsement may violate the separation of powers.”

May I restate my previous position? There was nothing wrong with offering Sestak a job. Nothing. Nada. Progressives bought the “depriving us of choice in the primary” line hook, line and sinker, but let’s get real: The money is what deprives us of choice in the primaries. (And the general. And in the election of our local committeeman….) We’d best concentrate our efforts on campaign financing than to fight for Tweedledum over Tweedledee.

Now, because of Sestak’s coy remarks, the media will pile onto the president and this “crime” will become an even bigger public distraction — especially now that the Media Good Dogs© have found the bone of Andrew Romanoff, who decided to take a page from Sestak’s book and see if that couldn’t get him some money and media coverage, too!

As I pointed out before, the DCCC (and Rahm Emanuel) cleared the field for Sestak when he ran for Congress. Sestak didn’t have a problem with party politics then.

And how fucking ironic will it be if this netroots darling ends up being the one who cripples the administration?

We have plenty of real problems right now. I’d prefer that our president was concentrating on those, and not on the political shitstorm that Joe Sestak’s Giant Ego has sown.

Bookmark It