I'll never understand why this took so damn long.

Just in time for the closing rush of the presidential election, MSNBC is shaking up its prime-time programming lineup, removing the long-time host –- and one-time general manager of the network — Dan Abrams from his 9 p.m. program and replacing him with Rachel Maddow, who has emerged as a favored political commentator for the all-news cable channel.

The moves, which were confirmed by MSNBC executives Tuesday, are expected to be finalized by Wednesday, with Mr. Abrams’s last program on Thursday. After MSNBC’s extensive coverage of the two political conventions during the next two weeks, Ms. Maddow will begin her program on Sept. 8.

Her show will follow Olbermann's, and a HUGE congratulations to one of the smartest voices on cable land. The Olbermann-Maddow 1-2 punch will be potent. Now, if we could get a decent lead-in for Olbermann, we'd have a serious block of programming on our hands.

[ The following is a thought stream that I wanted to get off my mind.  If you're looking for an informative read that's well researched on more productive subjects, I recommend this diary, or this one.  ]

I appreciate Andrea Mitchell having the courage to try to be a somewhat truthful reporter even under the circumstances she finds herself in*.  In what seemed to be her effort to try to maintain (at least to some degree) the respect of the American people and her viewers, she mentioned a reasonable question that some Obama supporters were expressing about the events of the faith forum, or whatever that thing was that Reverend Warren conducted.  It is a shame she is getting in trouble for it.  But really, are we surprised?

Represented by Adam B, myself, Matt Stoller and Duncan Black (aka "Baby Blue Cherub"), the group of us fought (alongside some allies on the Right) to preserve our independence as a medium from federal regulators and campaign finance "reformers" who tried to stifle our free speech.

One of our arguments was that political opponents would file frivolous complaints against websites in order to try and shut them down. While there's nothing that can be done about frivolous complaints, the fact that they're getting shot down so quickly gives less incentive for similar complaints.

The agency said last week it dismissed a complaint by a Hillary Clinton supporter alleging that a pro-Barack Obama blog was actually "a direct arm" of the Obama campaign, and therefore subject to campaign finance restrictions.

In its ruling, the FEC reiterated that whatever costs are incurred by running a political blog need not be disclosed as a campaign contribution. "Political blogging is exactly the type of Internet activity that the Commission exempted from the definition of 'contribution' and 'expenditure,'" the FEC stated.

The complaint was brought last October by Clinton supporter Kirk Tofte, who alleged that the blog Iowa True Blue, operated by former Iowa Democratic Party chairman Gordon Fischer, had coordinated with Obama's campaign. Tofte alleged that Fischer endorsed Obama in September, after which he began posting critical items about Clinton.

"Gordon Fischer's Web site has ceased being just another political blog," Tofte wrote in the complaint. "Since 9/24/07 it has been one hundred percent negative against Hillary Clinton."

The FEC rejected the contention that Fischer had coordinated efforts with Obama. But the agency also held that even had he done so, it would not have triggered campaign finance restrictions.

"Any coordination would have been permissible ... because the activity was specifically exempted from the definition of 'public communication,'" the FEC stated.

The author of this piece at Online Media Daily adds this line:

Still, the new rules have left room for argument.

Actually, the new rules are so crystal clear, there is zero room for argument. They are so clear, in fact, that the FEC shot down a similar complaint filed against Daily Kos last year in a shockingly fast one week from the date they received our filing (see our filing here (PDF), and the decision here (PDF)).

Anyone who knows how adjudication agencies work in the federal government can tell you that a one-week decision can only take place because there was absolutely no gray area in the new rules. They are about as crystal clear as is ever possible in the law. The fact that wankers file bullshit complaints doesn't point to uncertainty in the regulations, it just proves that wankers roam the earth.

Kool kids.  
Hate 'em!

In crowd.
Hate 'em!

Jocks and Singers and Stars!  Oh My!

The "C" listed humans we know as conservatives and especially Fox News 20 %'ers are really having a total meltdown over the fact that the Entertainment Industry not only produces RICH PEOPLE, but RICH PEOPLE that don't typically agree with their konservative RICH PEOPLE agenda.

Bottom line?  The Kool People don't like Konservatives.  
Konservatives are Jealous.  Take away the J-E-A and you end up with "LOUS".  Add an "E" and you get an apt description of the Konservative Kids that we are currently having to endure.

They Love Him!

As veep speculations reach a fever pitch, this nugget of stupidity is flaring up all over the place:

But that experience — he was first elected to the Senate at age 29 and has served for nearly four decades — would undercut Mr. Obama’s image as an agent of change.

So, picking someone with a resume a mile long "undercuts" Obama's image, because apparently, "change" is such a delicate, porcelain concept that it shatters at the slightest hint that, gasp!, a career politician is in the midst.

The Obama camp has long argued--correctly--that "change" and "experience" are not mutually exclusive. Let's play with unicorns for a second and presume that Obama chose Al Gore as his running mate. The former vice-president's "experience" is unparalleled, and yet there would be little serious debate that Gore would shake things up policy-wise.

The idea that a hefty resume is somehow a roadblock to change is ridiculous.  Politicians do not neatly fall into Column A "experience" types and Column B "change" types. But this political taxonomy is catchy, so certain members of the press gleefully run with it.

Obama's image as a "change" candidate will not be "undercut" if he happens to pick a familiar face in politics. On one level, that image is culled from the historic nature of his candidacy. On a deeper level, it exists because the entire Obama candidacy, from the grassroots up, has been build on a foundation of change, on a need for change, and on a belief that the old politics of George Bush and John McCain are hurting the American people. That foundation is so strong (2 million supporters strong, to be exact, and millions more who volunteer or support Obama's candidacy) that it won't be cracked if and when Obama chooses an old white guy with decades of D.C. experience.

McCain keeps bellowing he knows how to catch Bin Laden. He is a high ranking, Republican senator who meets with Bush regularly.

There are three obvious questions we, in this community, must force the country  to confront by pressingt for answers.

A week from today the Democrats will begin their nominating convention in Denver. This seems like a good time to recall the incitations to violence that were voiced last April by Rush Limbaugh:

Screw The World! Riot in Denver

Obama has so far been unwilling to touch McCain's POW time or military service, except to praise it.

OK, we all understand why.  Getting into a spitting context on that issue makes him come up the loser every time.

But why not PRAISE McCain's experience... but do so CLEVERLY.

  I've been a lurker on the Daily Kos for about six years . I’ve never posted dairies on this site and I probably won't post one again. I know this blog is to promote democratic issues, but I need to vent. My house can ill afford another hole in the wall or the door so I apologize in advance,for any mistakes I made making this diary.

RUSSIA's Power Play:  Pentagon No Evidence of Withdrawal From Georgia

 CNN "Breaking News".  

BTW, I broke my pledge to never watch CNN again.  I was playing poker online when suddenly a loud "Breaking News" cut off the broadcast and a very serious sounding Wolf Blizter came on the screen.  He went to a reporter who announced the breaking news that Russia was not withdrawing from Georgia. Breaking news!!!

I saw this link at the JedReport today: McCain's Ambien Use: A Security Threat?

Dan Childs of ABC Medical News wrote this on May 23, 2008. I assume because of the primary that this didn't get more coverage. But given the issues in this race and the fact that the McCain camp keeps saying he's the guy to go to at 3am, you'd think there would be more reporting on this issue. The press seems to avoid seriously considering what it means that decisions would be made by Sen. McCain if he wins the White House and if he's impaired or unable to make decisions we really don't want the chief of staff running the country. After having a VP with veto power the last eight years, you can see what the lack of accountability and mismanagement can lead to here.

This dairy began as a push against what I have seen in the media this week as our forth estate "covers" the Georgian conflict.  However, as I began writing, I began feeling, and what follows is a very brief exploration of what surfaced.

I give a timeline for the beginning of this war.  I challenge readers to contrast it with what they have heard reported by our leaders and on American television.

The results of the new Pew Survey on News Consumption (taken every two years and released this afternoon) suggest that viewers of the "fake news" programs The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are more knowledgeable about current events (as judged by three test questions) than watchers of  "real" cable news shows hosted by  Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly and Larry King, among others -- as well as average consumers of NBC, ABC,  Fox News, CNN, C-SPAN and daily newspapers.

The national average for answering the three questions was only 18%.  But 34% of The Colbert Report fans got them right, with 30% of The Daily Show viewers doing so -- even though the two Comedy Central shows draw younger audiences which generally scored less well on the "test" than older viewers/readers.  

MSNBC vs CNBC

Dr Rick Warren, Pastor of Saddleback Church in CA will be featured on Larry King on CNN, Monday August 18 at 6 PST and 9EST.

The purpose of this diary is to get people organized to call and write in for this event and push back on Saddleback-gate, Cone of Silence-gate etc.

I wrote a letter to the Cleveland Plain Dealer to tell why Pro-Life people should be for Obama, but they changed it.

In the five years I lived in Kansas City, I never thought much of Steve Kraske, the chief political columnist for the Kansas City Star.  He definitely appears to me to have Republican/conservative leanings, and he rarely writes anything that is terribly insightful or original.  But Kraske has his moments, and one such moment occurred today.  In his Sunday column, entitled  "McCain meanders on Social Security," Kraske describes his recent first-hand experience with McCain's double-talk, confusion, evasion of tough questions and, yes, his temper.  Let's just say that Kraske was left less than impressed with McSame.