U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, a leading Democrat, was rushed to the hospital Saturday, according to multiple media reports.

CNN said Kennedy had the symptoms of a stroke, according to Reuters, but local affiliate WHDH said his illness was not disclosed.

Kennedy, 76, was taken to the hospital by medical air transport. Kennedy is the senate’s second senior member.

Although I have a strong dislike of Kennedy, I certainly don’t wish anything bad upon him, so hopefully his ailment won’t be life-threatening.

I’m sure we’ll learn more about this story as the day progresses.

Stay tuned …

Update: Here’s more, via the Cape Cod Times:

HYANNIS — U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy was rushed by ambulance to Cape Cod Hospital this morning after falling ill at the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport.

Hyannis fire responded to the compound after a call was made around 8:30 a.m. It’s unclear what Kennedy’s medical condition is, but after he spent almost two hours in the emergency room a decision was made to transfer him to Mass General Hospital in Boston.

Kennedy, 76, was placed on a stretcher and wheeled out to the MedFlight helicopter around 10:15 a.m. where it took off from Barnstable Municipal Airport.

Here’s a photo of Kennedy being transported (also courtesy of the Cape Cod Times):

Caption: Sen. Edward M. Kennedy is transported on a stretcher to a waiting Med Flight
helicopter at Barnstable Municipal Airport this morning for transport to a Boston hospital.
Steve Heaslip/Cape Cod Times

Update 2 - 2:05 PM: Fox News is reporting that one of their sources are saying Kennedy suffered two strokes this morning, and a Kennedy spokesman says he’s resting comfortably at the hospital while a “battery of tests” are being run.

BESSEMER CITY –A man has been charged with animal cruelty for allegedly stomping a tiny puppy to death because it wasn’t house trained.

Police say a Bessemer City man confessed to killing the chihuahua mix because he was sick of the dog. He allegedly confessed while on his way to jail.

Sherry Thomas said her daughter ran to her house describing what her boyfriend had done to their new puppy.

“My daughter says she heard quite a few bangs, she didn’t know what it was til she went out and she saw blood coming out of its mouth,” Thomas said.

She says Timothy Loftis hated Tequila, the tiny chihauhua mix puppy that belonged to his girlfriend and 19-month old daughter.

Thomas said Loftis first hurt the puppy.

“(I) actually seen him toss it off the front porch, so it limped for a good three or four days,” Thomas said.

But she says she never thought he’d kill the dog.

Shirley Williams is Thomas’ other daughter and tried to save the puppy.

“Its mouth was cracked. It was thrown a couple of times and then smushed with something he stomped on it,” Williams said.

Police say Loftis confessed to “Killing the son of a …” because he was annoyed the puppy wasn’t house-trained, according to police reports. Loftis said he “just got tired of it, and stomped the damn thing.”

Williams said, “He was like well it shouldn’t have been crappin’ and peeing all over the place.”

Hopefully while he’s in prison he’ll be “crapped and peed on” enough times that he’ll regret ever touching that puppy.

And Sherry Thomas and her daughter should be charged with being an accessary to cruelty to an animal for not reporting the abuse when she first saw it.

Here’s the video report from Charlotte TV station WCNC.

RIP in doggie heaven, little Tequila.

(Photo via WCNC)

I asked: “Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?”

McCain answered: “They’re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.”

For some Europeans in Davos, Switzerland, where the interview took place, that’s a perfectly reasonable answer. But it is an unusual if not unique response for an American politician from either party. And it is most certainly not how the newly conservative presumptive Republican nominee would reply today.

Given that exchange, the new John McCain might say that Hamas should be rooting for the old John McCain to win the presidential election. The old John McCain, it appears, was ready to do business with a Hamas-led government, while both Clinton and Obama have said that Hamas must change its policies toward Israel and terrorism before it can have diplomatic relations with the United States.

Even if McCain had not favored doing business with Hamas two years

Numerous prominent lefty blogs posted about this story as definitive proof that McCain was a hypocrite of the highest order for taking Obama to task on the issue of unconditional negotiations, and Obama himself repeated Rubin’s claims in his speech earlier today. The news mediots, as expected, went wild with it as part of their overall “in the tank for Obama” strategy. It didn’t take long for intrepid bloggers like Ed Morrissey to figure out that McCain’s remarks were severely distorted by Rubin.

Tonight, we learn via video just how distorted Rubin’s portrayal of the interview with McCain actually was:

Here’s the transcript:

Jamie Rubin: “Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have been in the past, in working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is in now charge?”

Sen. John McCain: “They’re the government and sooner or later we‘re going to have to deal with them in one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas is because of their dedication to violence and the things they not only espouse but practice, so, but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. And I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and a decent future then they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.”

Rubin: “So should the United States be dealing with that new reality through normal diplomatic contacts to get the job done for the United States?”

Sen. McCain: “I think the United States should take a step back, see what they do when they form their government, see what their policies are, and see the ways that we can engage with them, and if there aren’t any, there may be a hiatus. But I think part of the relationship is going to be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts.”

McCain also said similarly in an interview with CNN done on the same day:

CNN’S BETTY NGUYEN: ” All right, let’s shift over to the global front. The Bush administration is reviewing all aspects of U.S. aid to the Palestinians now that Hamas has won the elections. And I do have to quote you here. A State Department spokesman did say this: ‘To be very clear’ – and I’m quoting now – ‘we do not provide money to terrorist organizations.’ What does this do to the U.S. relationship with the Palestinians?”

MCCAIN: “Well, hopefully, that Hamas now that they are going to govern, will be motivated to renounce this commitment to the extinction of the state of Israel. Then we can do business again, we can resume aid, we can resume the peace process.”

The dishonesty is breathtaking, and the WaPo should issue a retraction immediately. Email them at hiattf@washpost.com to let them know your thoughts.

Barack Obama as well should publicly admit his error in repeating Rubin’s bogus claims - that is, if he’s truly interested in an honest debate, rather than changing the parameters of it like he’s so fond of doing when the going gets a little too tough for Mr. Arrogant Lightweight.

But Edwards flatly said Friday, as he had before he endorsed a candidate, that he’s not interested in making a second run for vice president.

“No,” Edwards said in no uncertain terms on NBC’s the Today show when asked about the possibility. “Won’t happen.…It’s just not something I am interested in.”

As far as a position in an Obama administration goes:

“I don’t really want to get involved in that speculation,” he said. “Right now we have to focus on getting Barack Obama elected to President of the United States, then we’ll worry about those things.”

Well, we can at least be thankful we won’t be seeing two egomaniacs on the campaign stump all over the country competing for the Who’s The Most-Messiah-like award.

Barack Obama and John Edwards: Separated at birth?

Since the start of this blog, I have tried to keep both my posts and the comments section relatively clean, without coming across as the dirty word patrol. But in the coming weeks and months, as the battle lines are drawn, expect yours truly to be a lot more fired up, and don’t be surprised at the occasional use of language I wouldn’t normally use (the edited versions, of course). I’m not saying it will happen often, but it will more so now than it used to, because this whole Obama vs. Bush and McCain on the appeasement issue has lit a fire in me (and a lot of others, I’d bet) over this election even more so than any other issue in recent memory, and I am driven now more than ever. (1)

I truly believe like many other of my fellow conservatives that the global war on terror is the most important issue of our time, and if Barack Obama and many of his automaton-like supporters want to make the debate over direct, unconditional meetings - head of state with head of state - with the world’s most notorious despots as a way of resolving serious conflicts the focal point for the next six months, I more than welcome it. In fact, I encourage and welcome the debate, because it’s one today’s left - the McGovern left, if you will - is so far off the map on, so totally wrong on, that it begs exhaustive debate and discussion, and just the facts, please.

Even if McCain goes down in the fall losing on this issue, the principles he’s standing by on it are worth fighting for. McCain has said in the past he’d rather lose the election than lose the Iraq war. Barack Obama’s priority, on the other hand, is not winning in Iraq, but winning the election. The contrasts could not be more stark.

1. No worries - in spite of that I assure you the blog won’t become a foul-mouthed free-for-all. My standards of decorum will still be maintained

Just talked to a 55-year-old Columbus, Ohio resident named Cynthia Ruccia, a spokesperson and organizer for a group calling itself “Clinton Supporters Count Too.” She said the group — numbering in the hundreds, and organized in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan — stands ready to boycott the Democratic Party if Clinton doesn’t win the nomination, and will work against superdelegates who support Obama over Clinton as a means of registering their displeasure with the party.

“We have a plan to campaign against the Democratic nominee,” the group said in a press release Thursday. “We have the (wo)manpower and the money to make our threat real. And there are millions of supporters who will back us up in the swing states. If you don’t listen to our voice now, you will hear from us later.”

Ruccia tells ABC News that she believes “millions” of women share her group’s views, though they have only begun to make contact with like-minded women. They’re disgusted, she said, that Democratic Party leaders haven’t more aggressively denounced sexist media comments and coverage in the campaign, and are angry at the drumbeat for Clinton to get out of the race.

“We’re just at the boiling point,” Ruccia said. “Women will sit back and be quiet about things for a while, but we’ve had enough. Unless Hillary Clinton is our nominee, we are not going to support the nominee.”

Part of their plan, she said, is a primary-night boycott of NBC and MSNBC during next Tuesday’s primaries in Kentucky and Oregon, particularly to protest comments made by Chris Matthews and David Shuster that her group feels were sexist.

[…]

As documented by the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein, NARAL blogs are being overwhelmed, and many state affiliates are angry at the national group’s decision.

Emily’s List is furious. And Martha Burke, former chair of the National Council of Women’s Organizations, tells Stein she is “disappointed”: “It feels like they are abandoning a known ally for a less committed candidate because they want to jump on a bandwagon. I think the pro-choice community should stick by a woman who has stuck by them.”

Hillaryous!

What’s the bigger issue here? Not that Obama isn’t a staunch defender of “abortion rights.” Heck, some have even suggested that he is more pro-abortion than NARAL. His record on abortion issues in the Ill. State Senate speaks for itself. The elephant in the room no one wants to talk about is that these women are really upset that NARAL didn’t choose to support the female candidate over the male candidate. If given the choice, women should choose the female candidate over the male candidate because the female candidate, well, she knows.

Once again, the politics of identity have backfired on the Democrats. By how much remains to be seen - in November.

Update: Don Surber asks “Does Democratic Sen. Barack Obama have female troubles?”

Sen. Barack Obama, the leading Democratic candidate for his party’s nomination, is very fond of telling receptive audiences the story about how last May he walked right into the automotive lion’s den of Detroit and told those industrialists they were going to have to shape up, change the way they do things and start making more fuel-efficient vehicles to protect our environment.

“And I have to say,” the straight-talking Obama tells his chuckling followers, “that when I delivered that speech, the room got really quiet. [Laughter] Nobody clapped.”

Well, in honor of Obama’s return campaign visit back to Michigan this week, someone — perhaps Republicans, perhaps someone closer to home politically — assembled videotape of Obama’s oft-told tale and spliced it side by side with videotape of that actual Detroit speech.

You’ll never guess what. The room wasn’t quiet at all. Obama, in fact, got a loud round of applause. And at the end of his address the camera’s view of him at the podium is partially blocked because the audience of local businesspeople and automotive executives was rising to give him a standing ovation.

You can view the video at that same link (I’m having trouble pulling it up here). Obama made similar remarks at the campaign stop he made here in Charlotte a couple of weeks ago.

Ed nails it:

This seems rather modest in comparison to the Tuzla Dash, however. In that instance, Hillary tried to fake physical courage of the kind shown by our troops in battle, a theft of honor that is particularly despicable. Afterwards, she compounded the error by dragging out witnesses to testify to her version of events and call everyone else liars. When clear evidence showed that she did not run to shelter but strolled across the tarmac to a welcoming ceremony — with her teenage daughter! — Hillary never apologized for her double-down, attributing the lie to “sleep deprivation” even though she had told the story for months.

Obama’s ovation hardly rises to that level of egregiousness. He could argue that it took a little courage to talk about mileage mandates in Detroit, but he was talking to an audience of supporters, not car-manufacturer executives. Obama also was couching the mandates as an exchange for some hefty corporate welfare, actually closer to a de facto tradeoff for government-run health care. That’s not exactly a Profile in Courage, and it’s not surprising that he got a standing ovation rather than chirping crickets.

This isn’t any different than Obama’s BS claim that it “took courage” to give an anti-Iraq war speech in October of 2002 … especially when you consider the fact that not only did he give it in front of an anti-war group, but contrary to his claim that he was in a contentious Senate race at the time of speech, in reality he didn’t even enter the race until January 2003. And his latest lie isn’t much different from the one he told about his family’s alleged Kennedy connections, also.

I could go on and on. This so-called “agent of change” is a proven serial exaggerator and liar, and yet he’s still being given a pass by his many fawning admirers in the MSM.

Oh, and get this: Later this afternoon or evening, we’ll all get the chance to read about Obama’s “official” response to Bush’s remarks in a campaign speech he’ll be giving in South Dakota. Isn’t this a trip? Every time the heat gets a little too hot for the The Man Who Loves To Hear Himself Talk, he has to give a big speech as though what he says should be the final word on the subject. He did it with his phoney Philadelphia speech on race, which he directly contradicted a month later, and he’ll be making this speech in an effort to get us all to “move on” from this latest “distraction.”

Will he be contradicting himself over this one in a couple of months, too? I’m breathless with anticipation.

PM Update 1 - 12:16: Fox News is carrying video of Obama’s upcoming response to Bush’s slam. There’s no direct link, but the javascript link is at the top of the page. If you you can stomach watching it, let us know in the comments what he said. Luckily where I’m at now I can’t view it. Probably for the best.

PM Update 2 - 1:06: From Obama’s speech:

WATERTOWN, S.D. (AP) — Barack Obama has called President Bush’s comments on appeasement “exactly the kind of appalling attack that’s divided our country and alienates us from the rest of the world.”

Obama criticized Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for “dishonest and divisive” attacks in hinting that the Democratic presidential candidate would appease terrorists.

Obama strongly responded Friday to the comments Bush made in Israel on Thursday and McCain’s subsequent words. Obama told a town hall meeting, “That’s the kind of hypocrisy that we’ve been seeing in our foreign policy, the kind of fear-peddling, fear mongering that has prevented us from actually making us safer.”

Obama said McCain had a “naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up it’s nuclear program and support for terrorism.”

LOL! This from the guy who claims he’d be willing to talk directly, without conditions, with the leaders of Iran and North Korea? So I guess he’s into talk, just not “tough” talk.

Thanks for clearing that up, O’ Chosen One.

Update 3 - 1:48 PM: Here’s video of Obama’s speech.

The McCain camp fires back:

“It was remarkable to see Barack Obama’s hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn’t even mentioned. These are serious issues that deserve a serious debate, not the same tired partisan rants we heard today from Senator Obama. Senator Obama has pledged to unconditionally meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — who pledges to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust, sponsors terrorists, arms America’s enemies in Iraq and pursues nuclear weapons. What would Senator Obama talk about with such a man? It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don’t have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Senator Obama understands that, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe.” —Tucker Bounds, spokesman John McCain 2008

And also via The Page, was this refutation of Obama’s mischaracterization of Sec. of Defense Gates’ position on discussions with Iran:

Additionally, see the points below which refute Barack Obama’s mischaracterization of Secretary Gates’ position as support for his unconditional meetings between the President of the United States and rogue regimes:

Sec. Of Defense Robert Gates Said That The U.S. Should Look For Ways To Engage Iran, But Did Not Say The President Should Meet With Iran Without Preconditions During His Or Her First Year In Office. “The United States should construct a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran, and may have missed earlier opportunities to begin a useful dialogue with Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday.” (Karen DeYoung, “Gates: U.S. Should Engage Iran With Incentives, Pressure,” The Washington Post, 5/15/08 )

Gates Advocated Engaging Iran Outside Of Government Channels. “In the meantime, Gates told a meeting of the Academy of American Diplomacy, a group of retired diplomats, ‘my personal view would be we ought to look for ways outside of government to open up the channels and get more of a flow of people back and forth.’ Noting that ‘a fair number’ of Iranians regularly visit the United States, he said, ‘We ought to increase the flow the other way . . . of Americans’ visiting Iran.” (Karen DeYoung, “Gates: U.S. Should Engage Iran With Incentives, Pressure,” The Washington Post, 5/15/08 )

I’m glad to see that the McCain campaign is not backing down from this.

Update 4 - 3:06 PM: Heh. Perfect.

Ed Gillespie said today that Bush was talking about Jimmy Carter, not Barry O.:

“We did not anticipate that it would be taken that way, because its kind of hard to take it that way when you look at the actual words. … There was some anticipation that someone might say you know its an expression of rebuke to former President Carter for having met with Hamas. that was something that was anticipated but no one wrote about it or raised it.”

It makes sense, considering the crowd Bush was addressing, but I think he was talking about more than Carter. Obviously, The Guy Who Thinks The World Revolves Around Him took it to mean that Bush was talking about him personally, and as a result we got today’s grand This Should Be The End of It speech.

Forget the pillow. Anyone got any Kleenex they can spare for the whiny Mr. Obama? Perhaps a baby rattle or two?

Update 5 - 4:40 PM: Fox News has a java link up on their main page to McCain’s response to Obama’s SD speech. It’s definitely on between these two. If this is a sign of things to come, I say BRING IT ON.

For those who are relatively new to the blog and haven’t had the chance to read it, my opinion on gay marriage is here. A lot of it has to do with the slippery slope factor, a factor that, according to Volokh’s post above, was essentially dismissed as irrelevant by the California Supreme Court.

Read more via The Anchoress, Captain Ed, Stop The ACLU, and Justin Levine at Patterico’s blog.

Related/Flashback:

• NJ Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage issued
• Same sex marriage will pave the way for polygamy

LOS ANGELES - A federal grand jury on Thursday indicted a Missouri woman for her alleged role in perpetrating a hoax on the online social network MySpace against a 13-year-old neighbor who committed suicide.

Lori Drew of suburban St. Louis allegedly helped create a false-identity MySpace account to contact Megan Meier, who thought she was chatting with a 16-year-old boy named Josh Evans. Josh didn’t exist.

Megan hanged herself at home in October 2006 after receiving cruel messages, including one stating the world would be better off without her.

Salvador Hernandez, assistant agent in charge of the Los Angeles FBI office, called the case heart-rending.

“The Internet is a world unto itself. People must know how far they can go before they must stop. They exploited a young girl’s weaknesses,” Hernandez said. “Whether the defendant could have foreseen the results, she’s responsible for her actions.”

She’s denied sending messages

Drew was charged with one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to get information used to inflict emotional distress on the girl.

Drew has denied creating the account or sending messages to Megan.

U.S. Attorney Thomas P. O’Brien said this was the first time the federal statute on accessing protected computers has been used in a social-networking case. It has been used in the past to address hacking.

I wrote about this heartbreaking case in detail last November, but didn’t focus on the issue of whether or not any legal charges should be brought against the mom, primarily because I wasn’t sure if there was any legal recourse for the family of the teen who committed suicide.

It’ll be interesting to see how this case plays out. On one hand, people need to know and understand that their deliberately hurtful words and/or actions can have serious, sometimes deadly consequences, especially if we’re talking about an adult’s playing around with a child or young teen’s mind. On the other hand, just how responsible can the justice system hold one person criminally culpable (to a certain extent) for the suicide of another? Consider the fact that many teens commit suicide because they can’t handle the intense pressure of trying to “fit in” in school - they may get teased and verbally tormented on a daily basis, and decide one day they’ve had enough. Should the teasers be held responsible in a court of law?

Morally, in the eyes of most people Lori Drew is guilty of being a Grade A witch. But is she legally guilty of anything? I don’t have the answers from a legal standpoint. Legal eagle Orin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy takes a look at the case, finds it weak, and believes it should be dismissed:

This case involves a terrible tragedy; I think what Lori Drew did is truly despicable. But the government’s legal theory, based entirely on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030, is very weak. Legally speaking, the prosecution is a real stretch. In my view, the courts should dismiss the indictment. In this post, I’ll explain why.

To understand this case, you need to understand the government’s theory. The indictment is not charging Drew with harassment. Nor are they charging her with homicide. Rather, the government’s theory in this case is that Drew criminally trespassed onto MySpace’s server by using MySpace in a way that violated MySpace’s Terms of Service (TOS).

Here’s the idea. The TOS required Drew to provide accurate registration information, not to harass or harm other people, and not to promote conduct that was abusive. She didn’t comply with these terms, the theory goes, so she was criminally trespassing onto MySpace’s computer when she was logging into her account. The indictment turns this into a federal felony conspiracy charge by arguing that she did this in concert with others to obtain information and to further tortious conduct — intentional infliction of emotional distress — violating the felony provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2).

But these arguments are a real stretch for three reasons.

Make sure to read his post in full.

Daniel J. Solove at the Concurring Opinions legal blog weighs in as well.

Earlier today, I touched on the emerging controversy surrounding comments Bush made in a speech to members of the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s statehood. As the story has gotten more play in the mainstream media, the leftosphere has erupted in a full blown outrage reminiscent of what one would see at a super-sized KinderCare center. As usual, many of them - along with Barry O. himself - are either being willfully ignorant or painfully stupid, all the while denying Obama said what he did about “unconditional talks” with the likes of Iran and North Korea, and hypocritically going off on the fact that Bush made the remarks while on foreign soil. I’ll get to that more in a minute, but first, let’s take a look at the remarks in question from the speech:

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain their words away. This is natural. But it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Video here:

In the CNN story I linked to this morning, WH aides supposedly “confirmed” that Bush was referring to Obama and other Democrats, but it’s also being reported that the WH is “denying” any specific Democrat was targeted in the speech.

First things first: I think the fact that Obama and other Democrats jumped on Bush’s comments when he didn’t single anyone or any group by name speaks volumes about how defensive they are about their positions - positions which are exactly as Bush described them. Hey, if I supported unconditional talks with sworn enemies of the United States, I’d be defensive too if someone suggested I wanted to appease those enemies. The truth hurts sometimes, and today the far left are once again displaying just how allergic to truth they really are.

The prime example of the allergic reactions we’ve seen today comes from Barack Obama himself:

“It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”

Why does Obama call it a “false political attack”? Well, because it’s true, of course. Next thing you know, he’ll be calling it a “distraction.” Just a few days ago, Obama’s spinmeisters, including his coddlers at the NYT, tried to rewrite history by suggesting he never stated he’d never hold meetings with the world’s most notorious despots unconditionally. This in spite of the fact that his own website says otherwise:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

From a CNN debate last July:

In Monday’s debate from Charleston, S.C., Obama was asked by a questioner via YouTube if he would be willing to meet—without precondition—in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

“I would,” he responded.

Here’s the video:

But the President’s suggestion that it’s appeasement for “some” (meaning Obama and other Democrats who agree with him) to believe that direct negotiations with the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will resolve threats to the homeland was a “false political attack.” Just like McCain’s truthful statement about Hamas endorsing Obama was an indication that McCain was “losing his bearings.”

Uh huh.

Another line of attack being waged against the President over what he said is that he made the comments while on foreign soil. Senator Joe Biden called Bush’s remarks “bullsh*t.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had this to say when asked about Bush’s remarks:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that Bush’s remarks were “beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation” at the celebration of Israel’s 60th anniversary.

Referring to Sen. John McCain, Pelosi said: “I would hope that any serious person that aspires to lead the country, would disassociate themselves from those comments.”

Thankfully, he didn’t. Nor did Senator Joe Lieberman, about the only thinking Democrat left in the Senate.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel weighed in, too:

“The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water’s edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water’s edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?”

Rick Moran has, I think, the definitive response to all the “baseless attack on foreign soil” whiners:

And I wonder if Willy Boy’s outrage extends to calling to account ex-presidents or ex-vice presidents who regularly go on foreign soil and all but call the president of the United States a traitor. Where the f**k are you people when those two characters pop up in Switzerland, or Saudi Arabia, or Great Britain and make the most personal, hurtful, politically motivated attacks on Bush?

Spare me your fake outrage. When you come around to criticizing Carter and Gore for the swipes in foreign countries they’ve taken at Bush then you may have earned yourself a measure of standing to hurl your infantile charges at Bush.

And it isn’t just Gore and Carter who have routinely dissed Bush either by name or strong implication and worked against US interests while standing on foreign soil. How about Baghdad Jim McDermott, who criticized Bush on Iraqi soil - on Saddam’s dime? Or Senator Jay Rockefeller, who openly admitted in late 2005 that he met with Iraq’s ally Syria, among other Middle Eastern countries, in January of 2002 to notify them that he believed the President had made up his mind to go to war with Iraq? Or Democrat party chair Howard Dean, who stated last March:

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean has been meeting with world leaders to repair “the extraordinary damage” that the Bush administration has done to America’s image and to prepare the way for a new Democratic president.

“I am trying to build relationships with other governments in preparation for a Democratic takeover,” Dean told me. “I want to make clear that there is an opposition in America and that we are ready to take power and that when we do, we are going to have much better relationships with them.”

That was a stunt that Democrat nominee for president John Kerry pulled, too, in 2004.

There are countless other examples of this type of routine stabbing in the back on foreign soil being done by prominent Democrats, all done “officially” in the name of “restoring America’s good name in the world” but unofficially it’s being done to directly undermine the President’s foreign policy agenda.

Where the hell was the outrage over all that from the same people who are b*tching now about the President speaking the truth in front of a crowd of people who know all too well the brutal consequences of western leaders trying to “talk” maniacal despots out of going through with their plans to use weapons of mass destruction and/or military force to bend people to their will?

Oh, and as far as Obama’s repeated arguments that “other presidents” like JFK and FDR have met with our enemies before in order to avoid conflict, dude, please - learn some history.

I don’t know what’s worse: The mediots being completely in the tank for this guy, the fact that nearly half the electorate has been hoodwinked by his charm and engaging style, or that the man himself is either a) willfully ignorant of the truth and along with that routinely and intentionally tries to mislead the American people about 75% of the time he is speaking, or b) really doesn’t know any better when he opens his mouth.

Once upon a time I’d have selected “b” - but knowing what we know now about Barack Obama, and how he’ll say anything in order to win over the hearts and minds of the American electorate, I have no hesitation in selecting “a.” He can’t possibly be that dense to not know that so much of what he says on the campaign trail is either a gross misrepresentation of the truth or a flat out lie. Rather, he just counts on many of his supporters being stuck on stupid. And so far on that front, unfortunately, he’s been right on the money.

[…] As the son of a Baptist minister, I can attest that Wright is and was an extreme aberration from how the overwhelming majority of black Christians worship. In church, black people hear about Peter, Paul, Mary, and how to get into heaven. How to forgive. How to love. Not how to vote.

But here was Barack suggesting that Wright’s behavior was commonplace in black churches: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.” He generalized Wright’s ridiculousness to distract from his individual choice to worship under a buffoon for two decades. I have a cousin who attended Wright’s church for three weeks and then left, never to return. She had no interest in hearing his nonsense from the pulpit.

Barack obscured the true nature of black religious life because, to do otherwise, he would have had to answer the question, “Why are you a member of a church that is this racially divisive and such a sharp aberration to how the rest of black people worship?” When Barack beautifully suggested that the beliefs pronounced from the pulpit of Trinity in Chicago are not uncommon, he was feeding us garbage. But Barack needed to protect his reputation as a race-healer and unifier, so he told a lie about black religious life to help keep the glow of his own reputation alive. And now the evidence suggests that Barack didn’t, in the end, break with Wright over his outrageous racial claims, but over his suggestion that Barack is just a politician.

That so many people have a stake in ignoring these real concerns is troubling. At least the Hillary supporters I know seem to be aware of her more unsavory traits: that she carries a knife with her that she could pull out at any minute. Not so with Obama’s fans. It’s nearly impossible to get them to admit any wrong in him. Given the choice, I prefer to side with the group that knows their candidate can be a jerk, rather than the group that believes their candidate is Jesus.

Read the whole thing.

In related news, Barry O. has, unsurprisingly, taken issue with President Bush’s implication while in Israel that the O-man and other Democrats favor the appeasement route over all others when it comes to fighting terror. For the record, Bush never actually said Obama’s name, but according to CNN, WH aides “privately acknowledged” it was a dig at Obama and other Democrats.

Well, when you admit you’d meet unconditionally with some of the world’s most notorious despots, you kinda sorta set yourself up for those kinds of accusations …

Update: Isn’t it mildly amusing to see the Obama campaign so defensive about this? Considering Bush didn’t name anyone specifically in his speech, it’s interesting that Obama apparently just assumed it was about him. Methinks the gent doth protest too much, eh?

Edwards still has 16 pledged delegates who have already been named — eight from South Carolina, four from New Hampshire, and four from Iowa. (He is projected to get an extra two or three more at the June 14 Iowa state convention.)

Pledged delegates aren’t bound to their vote, so they can now switch to Obama — as they will likely do, at Edwards’ urging.

But there’s also nothing keeping them from choosing Clinton. As of now, their situation is analogous to that of superdelegates.

[…]

Edwards Delegates, by state:

New Hampshire:

District Level Delegate: Joshua Denton, (Portsmouth)
District Level Delegate: Deborah Bacon-Nelson (Hanover)
Pledged Leader Elected Official: Senator Peter Hoe Burling (Cornish)
At-large Delegate: Representative Sharon Nordgren (Hanover)

South Carolina:

Robert Groce
Marilyn Hemingway
E Tim Moore
John Moylan
Lauren Bilton
Daniel Boan
Michael Evatt
Susan Smith

DemConWatch notes that Edwards won delegates in Florida, too:

Edwards also won 13 delegates in Florida, all at the CD level. (He won only 14.4% of the state-wide vote, so just fell short of getting any state-wide delegates - he would have picked up 9 or 10 delegates if he had hit 15%). Whether he keeps them depends on 1) whether the Florida delegates get seated at all, and 2) under what rules they get seated. That will have to wait for the RBC meeting at the end of the month.

The superfabulous FiveThirtyEight blog posts some possible delegate scenarios that include John Edwards’ delegates as well as the delegates from the remaining Dem primaries, and concludes: “Only a DEFCON 1 type of meltdown will prevent Obama from getting the nomination at this point.”

I heard Clinton’s campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe on the radio this morning saying, “We’re taking it all the way to the convention.”

Let’s hope so

I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton - who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade - to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process. It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them.

La Clinton stated today that she was “disappointed” with the announcement, but insisted that her campaign would continue to move forward.

This evening at 6:15, in an apparent attempt to counter NARAL’s Obama endorsement, several female House reps held a presser to talk about Clinton’s “strong” pro-choice record.

Oh, the drama of the identity politics-obsessed/pro-irresponsiblity crowd …