Yeah...it could happen.

In another stem-winder (yes, I like that word and one really only gets to use it properly every four years) tonight at the convention, a star was born: Barack Obama, running for the U.S. Senate, so far unopposed, from Illinois.

Here's just some of his mustard:

Expect much in the future from the man who will be our only African-American U.S. Senator in the next congress --- and only the fourth in the 225+ year history of this country!

In an earlier item here, after reading just the transcript, I gave the advantage to Michael Moore in the big Moore/O'Reilly dustup in Boston.

After seeing the actual broadcast, I'll stand by my original assessment. But I will add that Moore could have better made his case about Bush lying before the war had he remembered to mention Bush's false promise to use the military only as "a last option".

The fact is Bush promised time and again to do so. And in the process of that chest-thumping lie, found enough gullible (or cowardly) Senators --- including John Kerry --- to believe him at the time. They believed him enough that they were willing to vote for a foolish (and cowardly) resolution giving Bush a blank check to screw us over for decades and in the bargain send thousands to their deaths for, shall we charitably call them, dubious reasons.

That little historical fact --- the UN Inspectors who were on the ground, had complete run of the country, and had requested just another 30 or 60 days to complete their work --- is frequently overlooked by both the Anti-Warriors and the Bush Apologists. The latter by convenience, no doubt. And the former have so many Adminstration lies and deceptions to keep track of, it no doubt gets to difficult to remember them in the heat of being bloviated at. Especially on air. Especially by O'Reilly.

Moore was, however, smartly able to get the concession from O'Reilly that this war based on a mistake.

But to the larger point was this key exchange...One that is really at the crux of the entire anti-war argument of folks like myself. And one that I would ask any reader to consider well for themselves:

Never mind O'Reilly's false machismo there (I'm sure the U.S. Military could find a place for him if he really meant what he said about sacrificing himself. Apparently, the U.S. Army has just instructed a 67 year-old officer who served for 41 years to report for a physical like 5600 other "retired" non-reservists who have been informed that they may soon be called back to active duty in Iraq!)...But the real question is, would you sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah?

If the answer is yes, I'm sure there's a Recruiting Center nearby. And if the answer is no, but that you'd sacrifice yourself, well, again, I'm sure there's a Recruiting Center nearby and they'd be thrilled to see you!

But if the answer is no on both accounts, and yet you are either in favor of this war, or in favor of Bush this November, then you're either a liar or a hypocrite.

Perhaps if a few more lawmakers asked that question of themselves, or their kids (and that would include those like Bush and Cheney who both opted out of defending their country with their lives when they had the chance, and apparently haven't encouraged their own kids to sign up either!) we'd not be in this fine mess today.

America would be safer for it and a thousand more Americans would be alive to enjoy it.

So O'Reilly gives us his usual "Talking Points" at the top of the show, defending against unnamed "members of the press" who are critical of him for not allowing the speeches to play, choosing instead, as he says "to analyze" what's going on at the convention instead of just giving the party spin.

The crucial analysis he's offering live from the DNC Convention? A LIVE interview with important policy maker Ben Affleck!

Bad enough? You'd think. But after the interview, before throwing to commercial, O'Reilly says, "When we come back...We'll let you listen to a little bit of Ted Kennedy...if he shows up!"

"If he shows up"?! NOTE TO O'REILLY: Ted Kennedy showed up. He would be that guy down on the stage behind you speaking to the convention that you're not covering. Right now. While you are busy interviewing Affleck. Turn around and look out your window.

Asshole.

Republicans are feeding the homeless! Packing up supplies to send to the poor soldiers in Iraq! Visiting the Bronx!

That's right! From this week (the start of the DNC Convention) up until the RNC Convention (if they get that far), the Republicans are acting out their "Compassion Across America" campaign! (Yes, seriously, not making this up!) And the timing couldn't be more obvious better!

BRAD BLOG reader (and close personal friend) Desi sends in this point of light, from the The New York Times.

So how many folks think that Republicans actually know where Harlem is? Much less that they'll be able to overcome their fear of Not-White People in order to actually travel there. (Expect the "Compassion Across America" campaign to be in effect only during day time hours. If at all.)

Drudge leaks the transcript. There are several typos, so it's hard to know how accurate it was. But read up. I'd call it advantage Moore (based on the written, rushed transcript), but then you'd expect that from me. So read it, and you decide. O'Reilly makes quite a few damning admissions. Moore does it again. Should send the Foxies into apoplexy tonight.

(Drudge is also now running the same picture I ran in the previous item, at the link given above. I took the photo from the photographer's website...but Drudge has it mirrored/reversed for some odd reason. No biggie, but I suppose it's a nice visual metaphor for how Drudge happily reverses whatever he likes to show things as he wishes, as opposed to how they actually are. And the Extremists in the Media and Republican Party just eat it up without question.)

Photo by Tom Tomorrow, trailing Moore at the convention.

From his blog item on the meeting:

Should be a good 'Factor' tonight.

I actually didn't plan on watching much of this convention at all! It's the RNC Convention where the fun begins!

But tonight turned out to be a surprise. I was first alerted that Al Gore was being rather funny (claiming he doesn't "lie awake at night counting...and recounting sheep") and pretty sharp ("Wouldn't we be safer with a president who didn't insist on confusing al Qaeda with Iraq?").

So I got sucked in. And as bored as I planned on being, I ended up rather impressed. From Gore to both Clintons (though Hillary was a bit shrill for my taste...if I wanted my ears to bleed I'd listen to Eleanor Clift on the McClaughlin Group each week...oh, wait, I do.)

Anyway, the most endearing --- and ironically, the toughest speaker of the night --- was the 80 year old Jimmy Carter! Who kicked it!

Notable quotes from his speech which is worth the full read! (it's short and sweet):

You go, boy! It was a humdinger! So much for the idea that ex-Presidents are supposed to shut the hell up! Now that's what a great American looks like boys and girls.

Since the big boy bloggers all got invitations to the Convention (yeah, yeah, I might have as well, had I gotten them a copy of my passport in time, but never mind that!) I guess it's left to duffers like me to cover the coverage that they're missing since they're all in the hall itself, and don't get to watch it on TV!

Switching back and forth between Fox and CNN during Clinton's speech was telling for a start.

Fox was continuously breaking away from their shot of Clinton as he was speaking, to folks in the audience with funny hats, dark skin or, in at least one case, a guy who was either reading his program or falling asleep. (It seems unlikely he was falling asleep, but I have no doubt that's why Fox chose to go to that shot). CNN, for the most part, stayed on Clinton while he was speaking, breaking away only during applause breaks.

Anyway, it was after Clinton's speech that "Fair & Balanced" really came into play for Fox as they analyzed it up in the booth.

The panel...
On the Right: Brit Hume, Bill Krystol, Mort Kondracke and Fred Barnes
On the Left (sorta): Maura Liason

We report, you decide.

I've never been a fan and never much enjoyed listening to him speak, but tonight --- looking leaner and sounding sharper than I've ever seen him --- Bill Clinton's speech at the DNC Convention was nothing less than extraordinary. Had he been that sharp when he was running for President, he might have tricked me into voting for him!

Granted, I only caught the last 20 minutes or so (hope to catch more later on the repeats, along with Gore, Carter, etc.), but the most quotable phrase from his stem-winder tonight:

There was more notable, but I'll have to get back to you with some of the quotes.

By the way, since so few of the networks and cable "news" channels are covering the convention itself (versus the convention going on down in the hall while Bill O'Reilly talks about Lacy Peterson up in the Fox Booth at the convention), you can check C-Span.org anytime video of the full uncut speeches. If you can stand it.

C-Span itself should be noted for actually just playing the convention without all the bullshit. And for those of us on the West Coast, the nightly repeats are much appreciated!

"Media Matters for America" (who were are now linking to in our sidebar here) has been doing a terrific job of meticulously documenting the lies, innuendo, and out and out partisan bullshit echoed in near lock-step by the supposedly "Liberal" (CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, WaPo, etc.) and Extremist Conservative (Fox, Rush, Sean, Savage, Coulter, etc.) Media.

Take for example the Sandy Berger folderol in which a nine-month old investigation was leaked by Ashcroft's Justice Department just two days before the 9-11 Commission was to release it's report.

Rush told his listeners about it. He told them that this was "far worse" than Abu Ghraib. Even Chris Matthews invoked Watergate during a discussion on the topic.

On CNN, Tucker Carlson told America that "Berger stripped the files of every single copy of a single memo which detailed the Clinton administration's response to the Y2K terror threat." (Never mind that the documents alleged to be missing were copies of the originals.)

But then comes the pants and stock stuffing....

It's too late tonight, and I couldn't approach the superb job that Media Matters does in covering how this smear was perpetrated in the once great 4th Estate. So, if you are interested in how the "Liberal"/Rightwing Media plies it's dirty trade, or if you believe they do no such thing, take a look at this fascinating point-by-point timeline/dissection of how it all works.

Then ask yourself why you're not doing more to put an end to it.

Caught by Josh Marshall:

I was thinking "cowardly un-American desperate pathetic wussies" ... but "idiots" works as well.

In another fine example of how the mainstream, supposedly "Liberal" Media --- in this case CNN --- passes off White House propoganda as "news", take a look at this exchange from yesterday's Inside Politics with Judy Woodruff on CNN which further underscores a point made here recently (and re-published by the Democratic Underground) about the myth of a "Liberal" Media.

Note Judy's first question in the following exchange and how it would seem to have nothing to do with what she's just been told by the reporter. Also note how, in the end, a report/conversation that certainly sounds like news or analysis is anything but. Instead, it's a virtual echoing of the unsupported White House position that George W. Bush served honorably and was not AWOL from the National Guard in 1972:

The fact of the matter is that nothing in the newly released documents shows that George W. Bush actually performed his required service in the National Guard. Nothing in any document has actually been able to prove that. Nor has a single witness to Bush's "service" in the last quarter of 1972 come forward to attest to his presence during that time. Not one.

If these newly released records do anything they serve to further underscore there is no proof that George W. Bush did what he claims, and instead likely deserted his post but was given an "honorable discharge" anyway for some reason. Not that having a father who had just become the chairman of the Republican National Committee after serving as ambassador to the United Nations in 1972 would make such a deserter more likely to receive said "honorable discharge".

None the less, the supposedly "Liberal" Media of CNN is happy once again to spin P.R. duties for the White House.