I am writing with regard to your network's coverage of Rev. Wright's comments. As a long time viewer of your news broadcasts, I am downright appalled that the videos continue to be shown over and over again, and that the commentators on your network continue to link Rev. Wright's comments to Senator Obama's candidacy, even though Obama has denounced those comments in no uncertain terms, and even though Obama himself has never said or written anything remotely close to those statements. Shouldn't the coverage of presidential candidates be about what the candidates themselves believe? What I am seeing reeks of tabloid journalism and is not the place of a serious news organization, particularly when it comes to something as important as the selection of the president of the United States.

Just a quick in response to the spin that the devastation of Katrina caught everyone by surprise (as stated by George W himself). Below the fold is the official release from the National Weather Service that was released before landfall. If anything, the devestation was less than predicted by the NWS.

Below is the message I'd like to hear repeated over and over again in the media and in conversations across the country. This is the message that, in my opinion, will have traction with the average American who doesn't read the blogs and doesn't follow politics as closely as you and I. The message is very simple, yet strikes right at the heart of everything that is wrong with Bush and his band of criminals.

An article written by David Johnston was just posted on the NY Times website (10:15 ET) that points to a possible conspiracy between Libby and Rove (at least) concerning the Plame case. The author reports previously undisclosed information that Libby and Rove were working very closely together on the adminstration's response to the Niger controversy at exactly the same time that Plame was outed.

Looks like Fitz could have Ari Fleisher by the balls, too. This same NYT article reports that Fleisher testified before the grand jury that he never saw the INR memo. Others have stated, of course, that Ari had the memo in hand on Air Force one en route to Africa....

Some snippets below the fold.

We've all seen the polls showing that Bush's approval ratings are tanking. What I haven't seen reported in the media, though, are the results of poll questions pertaining to impeachment. In the latest Zogby poll, conducted late last week, the pollsters found this:

More on the flipside.

Glenn Frankel of the Washington Post Foreign Service has written a pretty solid article on the DSM that will appear on Page A01 of tommorrow's Post. Just yesterday, the ombudsman stated that it was a mistake to have Milbank (who's primarily a columnist) report on Conyer's hearing, a news event. Nice to see that the WaPo is following up on that admission with some real reporting. And even if a piece like this is late in coming, you gotta like that it's hitting the streets the day of Bush's address.

A few snippets are given below the fold.

In an interview this week, Rove made the following statement:

He followed that up with:

The dems are going after him on this, demanding a retraction. We need to join them in twisting the screws on Rove and his cronies.

Nah, there's no abuse taking place at Gitmo. Of course not. It's only part of the actual training:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gitmo18jun18,0,5373171.story?coll=la-home-natio n

Yeah, but I'm sure he got a good meal, complete with two kinds of fruit.

I'll keep this short and sweet. In my opinion, we need to stop referring to the situation in Iraq as the Iraq war. I think most Americans think of "war" as a response to an attack. But here, we were not attacked by Iraq. Going into Iraq was completely unjustified, and most international legal scholars would say, illegal. Let's start calling it by a term that better captures what it was: an invasion. That one simple word change--from war to invasion--would drive home the point again and again that there was no real justification for going into Iraq and that we were the aggressor's here, having being misled by a corrupt administration.

So my suggestion to Kossacks is that we all make a concerted effort to avoid the phrase "Iraq war" but instead call it what it was and is, the Iraq invasion and occupation.

Howard Dean isn't backing off one bit after the recent criticisms. Look at what Dean was up to today at a Rainbow PUSH Coalition conference held in Chicago:

Ohio's Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell, has finally spoken out about the election in Ohio.

As many of you are no doubt aware, Blackwell has come under tremendous scrutiny over the last few months due to issues concerning the election in Ohio. Below the fold, I review some of the things he's been criticized for, summarize some questions that were asked of him by the dems on the Judiciary Committee, then turn to some statements he came forward with in the last week about the election in Ohio.

The dems on the House Judiciary Committee have entered the fray in a major way. The first item of note is that they sent a letter to Blackwell, challenging him on a number of issues in Ohio. The second one is not official yet, but there are reports that the Committee will hold public hearings in Washington beginning next Wednesday. I give links and summarize both items below the fold.

I'm not a legal expert, so I'm seeking the opinion of the daily KOS community.

If you recall, several weeks ago there was a story about an authorized person getting access to a computer used for the election in Ohio. The full report is given below, but a few things to note: (a) the person was on the computer that was used to tabulate the votes, (b) the person was working on the computer over the weekend shortly before election day, (c) the person was not authorized to access the computer, (d) the person was not supervised while on the computer, and (e) the person was not even a current employee of ES&S (the software manufacturer), but a former employee.

My question is this. Couldn't one reasonably argue that this is prima facie evidence of machine tampering, which actually shifts the burden of proof over to election officials to prove that there was not fraud? Can't this be used as the basis to supeona the individual who was on the computer? Can't this be used as the basis to take the computer, software, etc. into evidence, and have computer experts look at them?

--Full article below the fold--

In an article published yesterday, reporters from the Miami Herald provided data from hand counts that they conducted in several northern "dixiecrat" counties in Florida. They concluded that nothing was awry, and in fact, went so far as to title the article "No flaw in Bush's state win."

Here's a link to a reprint of the story that doesn't require registration:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002102809_florida28.html

Below I take a closer look at the results of their recount and come to a very different conclusion.

The following analysis was originally posted on Demographic Underground, written by a software engineer calling himself WhiteKnight:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x48519

I thought it'd be good to bring the Daily Kos expertise into the fray. It is a very intriguing analysis, but be forewarned, you may want to get your tinfoil hat out. The author is considering the widely reported "glitch" in Gahanna, Ohio that gave Bush 3893 extra votes:

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/election/election-president.php?story=dispatch/2004/11/05/20041105-A 6-01.html

As the author discusses, it is odd that a failure of some sort would give Bush 3893 extra votes and not affect Kerry's total, but I'll leave those arguments to the author. It is worth noting, though, that the data cartridge that supposedly failed was subsequently tested and no problems were found.