Yes, that's right - this just in, Mel Watts, the former head of the Congressional Black Caucus, is backing a candidate who hates black people! And what's worse - a billion, trillion, kazillion times worse - he's doing so by making the exact same obviously, blatantly, self-evidently (that's why no other evidence is needed!) racist electability-based argument! The shock! The horror! The humanity!

I mean, how could anyone conceivably doubt the truth of this depiction of Edwards' electability argument as racist when it comes from the fine folks at ABC News, who have never once engaged in blatant water-carrying for the Radical Right in attacking Democrats in their entire illustrious careers as defenders of Truth, Justice, and the American Way? And it's not as if there's anything else that might detract from their credibility on this, like a previously-stated desire by members of the media and ABC News in particular to "bury" John Edwards. I mean, that's what makes all those people trying to argue that the claims that Edwards is more electable are objectively true so obviously wrong! How can you people be so blind as to continue to pay attention to mere facts when our benevolent corporate overlords, who have never once led us astray, have spoken? It's madness, people! Sheer madness!

And that, my friends, is why I've decided to cast my forlorn days as an Edwards supporter behind, and come to the light and glory that is Hillary - a candidate who really knows how to represent real Americans. Please... won't you join me?

Just opened an E-mail from John Edwards' Deputy Campaign Manager, Jonathan Prince. A lot of Edwards backers and observers in the blogosphere - most definitely including myself - have been hoping that the Edwards campaign would hit back against the slanderous smears our corporate media have been pumping out, and I'm more than happy to say that Mr. Prince delivers with gusto. Let's take a look at a few excerpts, shall we? (I've reordered them somewhat for clarity and ease-of-reading in a diary format)

Lately there's been a lot of attacks leveled at John Edwards over the NIE summarizing the intelligence on the Iraq War - this diary containing some of the most recent examples. As someone who is both strongly opposed to the Iraq War and a supporter of Senator Edwards, I found myself more than a little disturbed by this. So, I decided to take the next logical step in investigating this, and read the source that was being cited as proving that Edwards didn't even bother to read the intelligence on Iraq - that source being this article from the NY Times.

The quote that's been provoking all the hand-wringing from elements in the blogosphere is this:

"He simply misunderstood the question," Mr. Kornblau [the Edwards campaign spokesman] said. "As Senator Edwards has said many times before, he read the declassified version of the N.I.E.," not the full report.

So the question then becomes why Edwards didn't read the full report.

I'm a Californian. Recently, I had a discussion with a friend who was ardently pro-Westly. I told him I was leaning towards Angelides. We argued about it for a little while, then he had to go, but he asked me to write up my top ten reasons for preferring Angelides. I did my research, got to know the candidates better (and found my preference for Angelides solidifying rapidly), and sent him my reasons. He read them over, and now he's gone from being absolutely committed to voting for Westly to leaning strongly towards Angelides. Seeing as this race came up on the frontpage just recently, I thought people might be interested in the reasons I came up with, whether it's because they're undecided themselves, or if they're looking for ideas on how to convince others. Full reasons listed below the break:

This just in: Republican Congressman Michael Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania has introduced a bill requiring all American citizens and residents under the age of 18 to remain within their parents or guardians homes at all times. Most relevant parts of the news story reposted below:

...Fitzpatrick describes his new bill as "the logical next step" from his proposed bill to ban minors from accessing so-called "social networking" sites while outside the home.