Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) took the occasion to chide Columbia for its lack of on-campus ROTC. "I don't think that's right," Mr. McCain said. "Shouldn't the students here be exposed to the attractiveness of serving in the military, particularly as an officer?" Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) readily agreed, calling Columbia's anti-ROTC stance a "mistake." 

From last night's Democratic debate, as reported by The Hill:

Obama and Edwards both said that they supported withholding funding from higher education institutions that do not provide ROTC programs to students. Clinton initially said she would enforce laws to stop funding but later said of prominent schools that do not have ROTC programs that "there are ways they can work out fulfilling that obligation."

What they were talking about is the Solomon Amendment — a law passed in 1996 (and upheld unanimously by the Supreme Court) that allows the Secretary of Defense to strip a college or university of all Federal funding if the school bans/prohibits ROTC or any other military recruitment on campus.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is a misguided policy. For the time being, though, it is the law of the land, and we see no sign that the Ivies' protest is having any impact on it. Meanwhile, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines defend all Americans, gay or straight.

The McCain camp has accused Obama of projecting a "holier than thou" attitude throughout his campaign for quite some time now.  They started shouting even louder yesterday after the Washington Post printed this quote from Obama when addressing the House Democrats:

"This is the moment, as Nancy [Pelosi] noted, that the world is waiting for... I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

Too bad the Post didn't even check to see if they got the whole quote.  This is closer to what Obama actually said:

"It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol..."

It seems hard to refute that Obama has become a symbol of what America can be, not what it has been for the past 8 years.  We have never seen a candidate from either major party resemble anything close to Obama (and no, I'm not talking about his physical appearance).  This is someone who has transformed himself from a no-name, one-term senator into the presumptive Democrat nominee.  People are excited about what Obama could bring into the White House all around the world... and there's no denying that.

However, I can still see how Republicans would think the quote has some sense of arrogance entwined within it.  To say that you have become a symbol of American greatness is a little presumptious (even though a lot of Americans think he is!)  

To be frank, Obama probably is arrogant.. and thank goodness he is! I'm not going to vote for some shlep plagued by self-esteem issues.  I want my president to be confident and secure in the ideals they believe in and the decisions they make.  Obama has shown this by voting against Iraq... he didn't let unmountable pressure take hold of him and vote for something he didn't believe in.  He stuck to his guns and it ended up rewarding him in the end...

Also, there is no way that any individual who has run for president does not have any sense of arrogance within themselves.  You have to be somewhat self-important in order to think that you're the best candidate to run the country.

McCain's camp is just trying ANYTHING to break down the Obama-hype (aka using Paris and Britney... pathetic much?)  In fact, I almost feel sorry for them that they don't have any better material.   

  I've become increasingly dismayed and angry at John McCain's recent attacks on Barack Obama. I wanted to try to ignore them, because getting upset would be exactly what they want. But these attacks have either, a) been flat-out wrong or misleading, b) beyond the traditionally acceptable political criticism, c) surprising from a candidate who said he wants to run a clean campaign.

 Knowing that he can't win a debate on policy, McCain has resorted to a line of attack that tries to appeal to American's fears about Obama. He wants to cast Obama as the "other" who is not patriotic and does not want to see his country succeed. If Obama said this stuff about McCain, he would be assailed by the media.

First, McCain charges that because Obama opposed the troop surge, he was more concerned about winning a political campaign than winning a war. This just reeks of cynicism and right-wing fear-mongering. Nevermind the fact that McCain talks about the vague concept of "victory," as if one day we'll waltz away from Iraq dancing on the S.S. McCain. Nevermind that Obama, like many other patriotic Americans, including Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, believed that the surge would mean more money spent, more American casualties and more distractions from the central-front in the War on Terror, Afghanistan. (I, for one, still believe he was right). The most important fact is that Obama took the extraordinarily unpopular position, risking political ruin, by opposing the war in the first place. McCain went along with it like a cog in a machine. (despite what he'll try and tell us about opposing a "failed" strategy, he was advocating "stay the course" as late as 2005).

Next was the absurd charge that Obama didn't make time to visit wounded troops in Germany. Obama says that the Pentagon was concerned that such a visit would be viewed as too political, since this portion of his overseas trip was paid for with campaign money. McCain accused Obama of taking time to go the gym, while ignoring our troops. Of course, Obama had already spent time with troops in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan. Also, he REALLY supported the troops by supporting Jim Webb's GI Bill, which McCain opposed, and then tried to take credit for. McCain is doing the same thing that these viral emails are trying to do: use Obama's unfamiliarity (augmented by his skin color, name and background) to foment doubt in the minds of American voters about his patriotism. This is politics at its worst. These attacks are personal, not political, have nothing to do with policy, and are aimed at the appealing to the worst prejudices of the American people.

We would never question McCain's patriotism. Nor should we. We don't have to, because we can win the election on policy.

For the past seven (7) years, the Mainstream News Media has favored the Bush administration and has refused to publish facts and report upon issues that are critical to the survival of Democracy in America. Their bias and downright refusal to honestly report the facts rather than spin and propaganda has been well documented - yet because it’s election time, in spite of a track record that indicates the MSM is as much to blame for our downward spiral into fascism as the President himself - Democrats on both sides of the isle are buying into the havoc the MSM is creating within the Democratic party itself, which is evidenced by John McCain’s rise in the polls which indicates he is polling ahead of Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. It’s obvious I don’t understand the politics of Presidential elections as I watch the GOP pull ahead on matters the public has already condemned LINK, however, as long as we give credence to a MSM that has actively hid the truth from the American people for seven long years and are hell bent on distracting the public from the real issues this nation faces while they create havoc within the Democratic Party - I see the ultimate consequence of our infighting resulting in another loss to the warmongers that are intent on destroying America. Have we forgotten the damage the MSM has wrought upon America? The Enablers Of Fascism, The Mainstream News Media

Firedoglake published an Op-Ed that reveals the MSM’s influence on the Presidential campaign as it pertains to the Obama/Clinton debacle - and when we realize that much of the indignation and hyperbole of this controversy has been created and fanned by the MSM, we should also understand that it’s not by accident, but meant to influence the election and help to place another GOP candidate in the White House!

The Media’s Race Problem

By: David Neiwert Thursday March 20, 2008 6:00 pm

Probably the most remarkable aspect of the recent feeding frenzy about Barack Obama’s so-called “pastor problem” — besides the agility and smarts that Obama has displayed in handling it — is not as much what it reveals about the state of race in America as what it reveals about the state of the American media.

The Washington Post’s report on Obama’s speech observed that this was a controversy that “threatens to engulf his presidential candidacy.” Yet as far as anyone can tell, it was having only a marginal effect on the polls in the race before it blew up on the networks, and it was not generated by either of Obama’s political opponents, or by any particular interest groups.

No, this is a controversy cooked up almost entirely within the media realm. Once they sank their fangs into it, the whole zombielike corps of pundits, cable talking heads, and radio talk-show hosts couldn’t let go of it. And equally remarkable was the bias that was on display in discussing it: News anchors and talking heads flatly referred to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s videotaped remarks as “anti-American,” “hate-filled,” “vicious,” “offensive,” and so on and on.

It’s telling that none of them also observed that, for the most part, Wright’s remarks (aside from his conspiracist comments about AIDS, which were indeed inexcusable, but which received little or no play before Obama’s speech) were factually accurate, and deeply reflective of a reality that most African Americans live with — and which most white Americans do their best to ignore, deny, and forget. The remarks that were broadcast all over YouTube and replayed endlessly on the cable talk shows were, no doubt, were impolitic, but they were also largely true.

Hacktackular Howie Kurtz, the Post’s “media critic,” in his column today — while notably failing to critique the media for its performance — essentially admitted that this was a media-driven frenzy:

[I]t wasn’t until last week, when Fox News and ABC News bought DVDs of Wright’s sermons from the church, that the simmering controversy reached full boil. The recordings have long been sold by the church, but journalists did not seek them until now.

Kurtz’s description also encapsulates the blinkered bias that was at play in not just the discussion leading up to Obama’s speech, but in the general response to it:

To their credit, the network newscasts ran four or five sound bites to evoke Obama’s broader argument that while the anger of older blacks like Wright, 66, is understandable, the country needs to move beyond the racial wounds of the past. But Obama, 46, is trying to win the Democratic nomination, so the anchors kept returning to one core question.

“Is it enough to reassure white voters?” ABC’s Charlie Gibson asked.

“Does it make too many white voters uncomfortable?” asked CBS’s Katie Couric.

Their entire preoccupation, indeed, was with how Wright’s remarks might discomfit whites — while never examining the deeper questions of whether white complacence about race might be something worth challenging, as well as their own roles in failing to make that challenge. MUST READ ARTICLE!

It was only a few months ago that Progressives and Liberals across the country reacted in utter disgust as the MSM marginalized Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, and Ron Paul - and whether we like it or not, it was the MSM that decided, not the American people, which candidates were acceptable to participate in the Presidential elections. Have we forgotten so fast that the MSM has been the leading purveyor of propaganda in the United States? When we examine and condemn their past behavior, why then are Americans now giving so much credibility to their obvious meddling in the election process by doing their best to promote and exacerbate the fractures that are rising within with the Democratic Party? Who ultimately benefits from the MSM “stirring the pot” and promoting an air of indecisiveness and confusion within the Democratic Party?

The answers to the above questions are obvious, and while we have to watch the news to collect some details, Liberals, Progressives, Independents, and especially Democrats need to take whatever the MSM has to offer as it pertains to Democratic candidates with a grain of salt and remember it’s been the MSM that has supported this illegal and corrupt Presidency from the beginning - and I believe they are up to their old tricks, and unfortunately, many in the electorate are buying their manipulations of the news hook, line, and sinker - without remembering who they are and what their ultimate goals are - and that’s to install another GOP President in the White House! From what I’ve been witnessing, their campaign to create unrest and disenfranchisement among Democrats is working as planned, and it’s up to the American people to wake-up and realize the MSM isn’t our “friend” - but represents the GOP by and through their corporate masters!

William Cormier

             The beginning of the presidential race was extremely exciting for climate change fanatics, with all the democratic contenders trying to one-up each other and McCain taking back the Republican lead despite his calls for higher fuel efficiency and climate protection.

             But my enthusiasm gave way to frustration as I looked into each candidate's platforms. Edwards was the only candidate calling for moratorium on coal and no nuclear. Barrack Obama and Hillary continue touting the 'clean coal' bandwagon while McCain claims that nuclear, and nuclear alone, will solve the climate crisis. Just in case you have been giving in to the brainwashing by the cutzie 'clean coal' commercials on CNN, or McCain's rhetoric on nuclear, let me explain why, as youth, we should be up in arms about these solutions... that are not.

You have to feel bad for the guy. McCain has had a really bad week. Tuesday, right before he had go to the Senate floor to defend President Bush's Iraq policy, four of his top policy advisors handed in their resignations. Then his campaign was handed a sex scandal.

Today's Guardian reports on a landmark resolution in Washington, D.C., endorsing an atmospheric limit for carbon dioxide a carbon dioxide cap and trade system.

The G8+5 Climate Change dialogue, part of the British group Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment, brought together leading industries and politicians from rapidly developing countries (like China and India) and the advanced G-8 member states to discuss the issue of Global Climate Change.

But what does this resolution actually do?

Not much—it’s non-binding. But it did prove, if you didn’t already know, politicians of all stripes are publicly stating the need to address global climate change.

From the Guardian's report: