Nuance.

Although the only nuance I can discern is that Obama plays the race card on opponents and gives a free pass to allies.

In fairness, Geraldine Ferraro failed to praise Obama for being light-skinned and having no Negro dialect. She just called him "black," which is, as DNC Chair Tim Kaine informs us, a bad thing, generally.

Via Hot Air.

Posted by: Ace at 08:06 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

He was young, he needed the money.

I don't know that this is going to hurt his cause any.

So, for the women who always complain that there's no beefcake on this site, there's your one dose for the year.

Posted by: Ace at 07:35 AM | Comments (178)
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

Isn't that wonderful.

Of the 22 names on the host committee–meaning they raised $10,000 or more for Coakley–17 are federally registered lobbyists, 15 of whom have health-care clients. Of the other five hosts, one is married to a lobbyist, one was a lobbyist in Pennsylvania, another is a lawyer at a lobbying firm, and another is a corporate CEO. Oh, and of course, there’s also the political action commitee for Boston Scientific Corporation.

All the leading drug companies have lobbyists on CoakleyÂ’s host committee: Pfizer, Merck, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, and more. On the insurance side of things, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, HealthSouth, and United Health all are represented on the host committee.

There are updates to the last post, too.

Thanks to EdwardR.

Posted by: Ace at 07:28 AM | Comments (24)
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

From the Republican State Leadership Committee website:

Tennessee House District 83

Virginia Senate District 8

Virginia Senate District 37

New Hampshire House Sullivan District 2

New Hampshire House Rockingham District 8

California Assembly District 72

If you have one of these going on in your neighborhood, get your sweet little caboose out there and vote.

Posted by: LauraW at 06:53 AM | Comments (18)
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

Good exchange here (video).

Brown also hammered Coakley on terrorism (print only).

On the subject of Afghanistan, Brown attacked Coakley for being in favor of trying terror suspects in civilian criminal courts. "And I've got to be honest with you folks," said Brown, "I'm scared at what I've hard with your policies of giving terrorists constitutional rights and clamming them up." He also said he supports President Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan, which Coakley does not.

Gergen asked Coakley how it's possible to succeed in Afghanistan without the surge -- and Coakley gave a very risky answer for a politician. "I'm not sure there is a way to succeed," said Coakley. She explained that her concern was with the definition of the very mission there: "If we went in because we decided the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists, we supported that, I supported that. They're gone."

Brown called her thinking "naïve."

They're gone? Really? That comes as a surprise to our troops, fighting them every day.

In related news, there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.

More on the debate:

Brown scored a few points and managed to come off as likable, in contrast to Coakley's, at times, prosecutorial manner. Her aggressive style was most clearly on display when each candidate was given a chance to ask the other a question. Coakley spent her one shot asking Brown if he accepted the endorsement of a Massachusetts pro-life group and then attacked Brown for sponsoring what she said was an amendment "that would allow hospital rooms to deny emergency room care to rape victims." (Brown had supported a conscience clause that would allow medical workers the right to choose not provide abortions or birth control.)

In his response, Brown said that he was proud of all of his endorsements and drew distinctions between himself and Coakley on federal funding of abortion, partial-birth abortion, and parental consent laws. "I want to be a jobs crusader. I don't want to be a social crusader," he said.

Interrupting Brown the fourth or fifth time, Coakley's voice grew more stern and she demanded that Brown tell her "What does that bill do?"

"I'm not in your court room, and I'm not a defendant," Brown replied with a smile as he pushed back against her question.

Coakley ad attacking Brown says that Brown isn't right for Massachusettes (sic). I guess she's running for Senator, not Speller.

Desperate Democrats try to draw Sarah Palin into the Brown/Coakley race, relying on Palin's putative unpopularity to throw the race to Coakley:

Early Monday afternoon, [top DNC spinner] Sevugan sent out an email to reporters featuring a link to a story on the lefty website TPM. The headline: "Is Sarah Palin Avoiding Mass Senate Race?" The story quoted a Democratic strategist saying that "it's interesting" that Palin is "nowhere to be found in this race." TPM conceded that GOP sources say there has been "no talk" about Palin visiting Massachusetts. But that didn't stop Sevugan, who is quoted declaring that Palin's supporters "are anxious for her to weigh in." At the top of his email to journalists, Sevugan wrote, "Come on, Sarah, why are you being so shy?"

A couple of hours later, Sevugan was emailing again, with a message entitled, "Has the Pit Bull lost her bark?" What followed was a statement from Sevugan on "the surprising silence from Sarah Palin on Republican Scott Brown's bid for the U.S. Senate." Sevugan demanded to know: "Where on earth is Sarah Palin herself? Clearly her supporters are anxious for her to weigh in."

Not long after that, Sevugan sent out another email to reporters, this one with a link to a post by TPM alumnus Greg Sargent, who now writes a lefty blog for the Washington Post. Sargent's post featured Sevugan's question with the headline, "Dems on Palin: 'Has the Pit Bull Lost Her Bark?'"

I trust Palin will come up with a clever response. Maybe she can even endorse Coakley.

And: Moneybomb tally now at over $1.3 million.

The Democrats have begun quietly spending in Massachusetts. (Or Massachusettes.) Quietly, because they don't want to give the signal that Coakley is threatened.

Thanks to EdwardR and AHFF Geoff for different items.

Bonus: Democratic Strategist Jennifer Donahue Cries on HuffPo. Waah.

Mind you, this race is not about Ted Kennedy, and there is no way he is resting in peace.

This is about how in one year, the day before Obama's first inaugural anniversary, Democrats have gone from Superpower status to beating back anything moderate or Republican in philosophy.

Even when Coakley had a chance to talk about the case to pull troops out of the Middle East, a position she goes abruptly against the President on, she bungled it.

No more troops to Afghanistan is a popular idea in Massachussetts. So how did she fail to deliver that message?

Coakley spent more time commending her opponent's military and judicial experience than explaining what an exit strategy would look like.

Make no mistake about it, this Special Election is about, as Scott Brown put it, whether voters want to give Democrat Martha Coakley the 60th vote in the Senate. He wants to be the 41st vote for "the people. For you."

At a time when jobs are scarce, terror is back at orange, and heating oil is expensive, not to mention the rent, guess what: after one year, Coakley and the Democrats can give up talking about Bush-Cheney-McCain. They need to develop and focus on a clear consistent message that comes from the leadership and transparency voters mandated a year ago. Change can mean anything. But voters did not mean more of the same.

Give up talking about Bush-Cheney-McCain? The Deuce you say!

Oh, by the way, where is Sarah Palin? Her supporters are desperate to hear who she supports in this race, because they're like not sure 'n stuff.

Coakley Finally Cracking Down on Ladies' Gardening Clubs. Also known as "The Green Scourge."

File complex financial records for your hobby or Coakley will lead you off in handcuffs.

Thanks to hhanna.
Brown's Ad Rebutting Coakley's Negative Ads. Not really a rebuttal. Just basically saying "I'm handsome and awesome and you should vote for me if you're 'independent-minded.'" more...

Posted by: Ace at 06:29 AM | Comments (127)
Post contains 1111 words, total size 8 kb.

Oh, man, overslept my alarm. That hasn't happened since highschool. WTF?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:27 AM | Comments (40)
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

Because it undermines "global strategic stability."

Oh sorry, did we say "countries? We meant other countries, countries that are not the People's Republic of China." Those countries.

Meanwhile we think we'll just go ahead and test ours.

The Pentagon said it had not received prior notification of the test and declined to see any link with arms sales to Taiwan. However it confirmed that the test had taken place and was seeking more information.

"We detected two geographically separated missile launch events with an exo-atmospheric collision also being observed by space-based sensors," said Major Maureen Schumann, a Pentagon spokeswoman.

This likely confuses President Awesomeness as he is under the impression missile-defense is like, no big deal or anything.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:09 AM | Comments (68)
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

Bla bla bla just another Monday. I hope the NYC meetup went well and that the rest of the M&Ms aren't too wiped out from the weekend.

British Adopting AR-10 Style Sharpshooter Rifle
The L129A1 is a 7.62 NATO semi-auto rifle designed for designated sharpshooters. It fills a need for a rifle that has good penetration over the long distances in Afghanistan. It's based on the same Stoner design as the M-16 and has about 50% parts interchangeability with the M-16 family. The very similar SR25 sniper rifle was adopted by US forces three years ago.

'Avatar' Director Cameron Met With Double A-bomb Survivor, Plans a Nuclear Weapons Film
Back in December Cameron met with Tsutomu Yamaguchi, a survivor of both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear blasts, and also bought the film rights to Yamaguchi's memoirs, The Last Train to Hiroshima. According to Cameron his idea for a nuclear weapons-themed film has not yet taken concrete form but he swore that it would be "uncompromising" if production went ahead. So we have that to look forward to. more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 05:47 PM | Comments (584)
Post contains 409 words, total size 4 kb.

I emailed Gabe to ask if this was a big deal legally and he said yes, so....

But what had been expected to be a simple trial was altered Friday when Sedgwick County Judge Warren Wilbert decided he would allow Roeder to build a defense case calling for a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter because he sincerely believed the May 31 slaying would save unborn children.

Kansas law defines voluntary manslaughter as "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force." A conviction on that charge could bring a prison sentence closer to five years, instead of a life term for first-degree murder.

Prosecutors on Monday challenged the ruling, arguing that such a defense should not be considered because there is no evidence Tiller posed an imminent threat at the time of the killing.

"The State encourages this Court to not be the first to enable a defendant to justify premeditated murder because of an emotionally charged political belief," the prosecution wrote. "Such a ruling has far reaching consequences and would be contrary to Kansas law."

The judge hasn't made a final ruling and may still not allow the jury to consider the lesser charge but won't decide on that until after the defense puts on its case. By then the jury and the public will have heard Roeder's motivation for the killing.

I'm going to defer to Gabe that this is something of an odd decision based on the law and simply say it strikes me as an absolutely horrible precedent if allowed. The fact that one person really, really believes strongly that what they are doing is right or necessary is irrelevant.

I know there's a sub-set of the pro-life movement that believes in the morality of this kind of action (though it's obviously a very small one) but there's simply no logical way that someone can be justified in killing or harming another individual for doing something that is legal no matter how much they think it shouldn't be allowed.

I don't know if the mere allowing of this defense to be put on is going to result in more violence as some fear but I don't like the idea of politicizing trials like this.

Posted by: DrewM at 04:07 PM | Comments (242)
Post contains 393 words, total size 2 kb.

Ummm...wow.

Thank you! $1,117,747.46 raised!

Over/under on a "Million by Midnight"? fuggetaboutit, slam dunk more...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 02:14 PM | Comments (1114)
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.