The word most often used to describe the attack on South Ossetia by Russian news media and by the Russian president himself is Genocide.  Why then, in the four days since war broke out, has the US Media not even mentioned the accusation?  Ask yourself; have I heard this word uttered by anyone on TV describing the situation?  Read it in a headline?

Here's Medvedev himself, explaining their point of view:

"Georgia has exposed South Ossetia to a very crude and cynical aggression. People have died. Russian citizens have died, including local residents and peacekeepers. The actions of the Georgian side cannot be described as anything else but genocide.

"The information we have received suggests that horrible crimes were committed there. People were killed, burnt, run down by tanks, had their throats were cut," Medvedev said.

I have no doubt that if US News outlets would use this term, even just once in a while, even only in context of Medvedev's statement, that the prevailing US attitude would be very different.

Does this finally make the point?

Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr will call on his fighters to maintain a cease-fire against American troops but may lift the order if a planned Iraq-U.S. security agreement lacks a timetable for the withdrawal of American forces, a spokesman said Thursday.

The point being that The Surge was not primarily responsible for the cessation of violence; rather it was the al-Sadr cease-fire which initially took effect last August, the month before Patreaus's presentation to congress in which he took sole credit and mentioned Muqtada al Sadr not even once.  (Full text at Real Clear Politics)

It would appear that Bush has little say in what happens in Iraq.  Muqtada al-Sadr is calling the shots.  And Muqtada wants a timetable.

Call this a "getting the complete story" diary.

Someone captured this off the air and posted it, after the Tinker Campaign scrubbed their site:

<div>
Nikki Tinker race baits Steve Cohen. @ Yahoo! Video</div>

I don't know who said it first, or best, but I know its true that if the public perceives there to be a problem, then there IS a problem.

I'd like to discuss the Obama Campaign's response to the recent blitzkrieg of immature, inflamatory and downright racist attacks that our candidate has been subjected to and the media coverage thereof.  I'd like to do this without the now predictable response from DKosers that basically amounts to, "Stop worrying, be quiet, give money and everything will be fine in the end."  I'll pre-empt that by saying that I am not hyperventilating, nor am I unaware of all the polls and how Obama is ahead by wide margins in most areas, nosing out McCain on most others, and that the national trend polls reporting a "tie" have been looking awfully suspicious lately.  

But it cannot be missed that the Obama camp does not have control of the national media narratives, in fact is doing piss-poor at getting his messages out.  

Call this a "generally frustrated" diary.

(Their website: Uhurunews.com)

Without taking any side in their argument (that Barack Obama has not been outspoken enough about racial injustice issues in his campaign), I'd like to point out that the protest, performed with taste and decorum (as far as such interruptions go), gave Obama the opportunity to show the world how he responds to direct challenges; by not missing a beat, keeping his cool, allowing their voice to be heard, directly answering them, and maintaining civility and calm at the event.  

Links and blockquotes below the fold.

This diary is admittedly to further the cause of a previous diary by Margeauxtex about blatant push-polling by the Houston Chronicle Online on the completely non-partisan topic of whether or not Obama offended by adhering to military policy and a direct order by the Pentagon.  Note the opening text.  Sound even the slightest bit reaching?:

During his triumphant tour of Europe, Barack Obama canceled planned visits with U.S. soldiers at Ramstein and Landstuhl, Germany. John McCain already has aired a TV commercial bashing Obama's decision. Check out McCain's ad and tell us what do you think.

I daresay you should.  It currently stands at 53% in Obamas favor, way up from its early returns, up 1% since the previous diary fell off the page, even.

I got this email, cause I'm on some strange lists:
-----------

This is a Message Alert for all Republican pundits and emplaced "reporters",  Note the recent news itemfrom (of course!) California:

LOS ANGELES — California, a national trendsetter in all matters edible, became the first state to ban trans fats in restaurants when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill Friday to phase out their use.

Under the new law, trans fats, long linked to health problems, must be excised from restaurant products beginning in 2010, and from all retail baked goods by 2011. Packaged foods will be exempt.

We believe this is the golden opportunity those fools in California have given us to steal this election for its rightful owners!

Reuters polled Wall Street top level insiders for their "Opinion" about who would be a best for the economy and determined that that would be John McCain, apparently due to the enormous tax cuts that McCain wants to give them, in addition to making permanent Bush's temporary ones.  This bizarre conclusion comes about, apparently, because the highest paid Wall Street executives confuse themselves with the whole economy:

"My personal opinion is I would argue that McCain is probably the better candidate for the economy and that is more or less because of his tax policies," James Caron, head of global rates research at investment bank Morgan Stanley in New York, said at the Reuters Summit this week.

"In this environment that we're in right now, the last thing you want to have is higher taxes and taking money out of the consumers' pockets," he added.  [My emphasis]

This despite the fact that most consumers live below the $250K annual level, and will be receiving tax cuts, not increases.  Maybe the writer should have shared this info with the respondents; you know, where they provide some information and ask the question again?

This is just a wakeup call to any of you few who, like me, let this one creep up on you.  Yes, we voted for the presidential nominee some months ago, but today is the regular primary!  Two very important ballot initiatives are at stake; one must go up and one must go down:

Vote NO on Prop 98
Vote YES on Prop 99

San Franciscans:

Vote YES on Measure A!  Please make teaching children a decently paid profession again, if just a little!  

You know the facts; even this late, every little bit counts!  there's still two hours left to vote!   Call a friend!  Go vote and then have a beer!  Or some chamomile tea.  More below the fold.

So I was reading an article in TheHill.com, ostensibly about Rahm Emmanuel crashing Republican meetings, and continued on page two, reading about power struggles in the NRCC occasioned by their recent disaster in Mississippi.  I began to wonder if some Republicans aren't catching on.  From the once and future chairman of the NRCC, Tom Davis (R., VA):

Davis called for shifts on healthcare ("the weakest issue for Republicans") and immigration: "John McCain, being from a border state, may be out of sync with many Republicans but he has standing among Hispanics. Barack Obama has not made the sale to Hispanic voters. Thus this issue is a tar baby for anyone who touches it, with land mines everywhere. But the Democrats control Congress and are doing nothing. This needs to be highlighted. Put the onus on them to produce a bill. Put them on defense."

Hmmm, this guy Tom Davis is practically conceding Health Care and Immigration, which is smart because they will sink with those cement overshoes.  This guy sounds reasonable.  Perhaps he's too smart?  And he's identified a weakness in the Democratic...

... wait a minute... hold on...

Okay, this may be a throw-away thread, but I've read bunches of comments about some guy named "Lanny Davis."  

I don't have Cable, and I was watching NCIS, and now an instructional dance tape for children is being previewed on my TV, so I have no chance of seeing this guy tonight.  Has anyone recorded this person, and if so, would you please be so kind as to put up a clip on YouTube?

Then maybe post it in a comment here?  I'm sure many would love to savor these moments.  Or any desperate Clinton surrogate trying to make lemonade from lemon rinds and old coffee grounds.  Please post, and I'll post the most rec'd in the body of this diary in an update.  (With credit, of course!)

I found this story posted as comments in blogs, but find no mention of it in the recent MSM.  Here's Carpetbagger Report.   and this is from the first comment posted by "cobsjo" (scroll down):

A status conference hearing is scheduled for Friday, April 25, 2008, in Los Angeles California, to finally set a trial date in Paul vs. Clinton.

California Superior Judge Aurelio N. Munoz delayed setting a trial date back in February, but is scheduled to set a trial date this Friday.

Judge Munoz ruled back in February that Paul’s legal team can begin seeking depositions from a host of big names – including Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, along with an A-list of Hollywood celebrities that allegedly were witnesses to an effort by the Clintons and top Democratic leaders to extract millions of dollars from Paul in illegal donations and then cover it up. Discovery in the trial is expected to start in May.

The hearing is TODAY!  Trial starts SOON!  Please, please take this story and do your own blog, diary, comment, yard sign...

I don't have much background about the Diageo/The Hotline outfit, but they've been a favorite over at MYDD because it consistently reports HRC as leading, until now, that is:

         Table 1: Primary Vote Among Democratic Primary Voters:
                            Dec.      Jan.     Feb.     March  
Barack Obama      30%      35%      43%     50%
Hillary Clinton       35%      38%      45%     38%

Her lowest showing ever.  More details under the glyph ~~~

The latest poll by the New York Times and CBS is now posted on Real Clear Politics.  This is a national poll covering voter preferences and thoughts and feelings about the candidates.  ("Bread and Butter" issues.)  Obama maintains his lead over Clinton in all the crucial spots:

Choice for the Democratic Nomination
(among Democratic primary voters)
                Now        March 8th
Clinton        43%        43%
Obama        46%        46%
DK                8%         8%

This poll contains lots of good news for Obama. In other areas, Obama's ratings are back to where they were pre-Wright Controversy, still maintains highest favorables, lowest unfavorables.  More details below the fold.

I was going to title this, "The Quinnipiac poll and How It Is Being Reported."   Here's CNNwith the most pertinent facts:

Clinton lead narrows in Pennsylvania

(CNN) — Hillary Clinton holds a 9 point lead over Barack Obama in the crucial state of Pennsylvania, a margin that is slightly narrower than that found in a similar poll released earlier this month.

In the just released Quinnipiac University Poll, Clinton draws 50 percent of support from likely Democratic voters in the state while Obama gets 41 percent. In a similar poll taken two weeks ago, Clinton was at 53 percent and Obama was at 41 percent.

Or, you can lead with everything BUT the fact that Clinton's lead in the actual poll that will be counted April 22 has slipped 3 percent, like Bloomberg:

Clinton Leads Obama in Pennsylvania as Electorate Split by Race

Not that CNN is famous for unbiased coverage, but come on Bloomberg!  

This just crawled across my newsfeed, from the LA Times:  [emphasis mine]

Speaking on ABC's "Good Morning America," Pelosi said that the Democratic superdelegates have a right to vote their consciences rather than just be bound by the results of the contests in their home districts or states.

Previously, Pelosi (D-San Francisco) had said she thought the votes of the superdelegates should follow the results of the contests during the primary and caucus season. That view seemed to support the position of the Obama campaign and was immediately criticized in a letter by 20 key fund-raisers for the Clinton campaign.

The issue focuses attention on the power that the almost 800 superdelegates will wield in the Democratic nomination process....

Wow,... for a moment there it looked like she might be catching on.  Time to remind everyone that Nancy Pelosi faces a primary challenger.  

I haven't seen this explicitly stated yet, but come ON everybody!  

Obama has declared that HRC can stay in as long as she wants, because he knows he'll win and it doesn't look good to be demanding that your closest competitor drop out.  It's unsportsmanlike, it even betrays a slight fear.  Since this statement and the dawning on us all that Clinton has no chance so long as Obama stays focused,  I have noticed a significant (not total) drop off of anti-Hillarism in the diaries and comments, and I hope everyone else gets it and refrains from demanding that she drop out of the race.  Provided, of course, that she refrains from scorched-earth campaigning while this plays out.  It hasn't helped so far, so perhaps this will be the case.

But I think the real reason that Senator Clinton is still in it should give us all some comfort:  She needs the campaign donations.

I find this intriguing:

In the very first words she uttered reacting to John McCain's speech on the housing market crisis Tuesday, Hillary Clinton evinced part of her appeal to older voters: her frame of reference is theirs.

"It sounds remarkably like Herbert Hoover," Clinton said of McCain's assertion that he is not inclined -- and probably never will be -- to embrace aggressive, sweeping government efforts to confront the problem of rising home foreclosures.

My god, have we been neglecting a vital demographic?