<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>alt.society.liberalism :: Liberal political research, news and debate.</title>
<link>http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/</link>
<description>Posts for alt.society.liberalism</description>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 09:14:51 PDT</lastBuildDate>
  
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[FOX News Pundits Pretend Bush's &quot;Appeasement&quot; Comments Not Directed Toward Obama or Democrats]]></title>
	<guid>http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/fox_news_pundits_pretend_bush_s_appeasement_comments_196917464t.html</guid>
	<link>http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/fox_news_pundits_pretend_bush_s_appeasement_comments_196917464t.html</link>
	<description><![CDATA[FOX News Pundits Pretend Bush's "Appeasement" Comments Not Directed Toward 
Obama or Democrats
Reported by Ellen
Hannity & Colmes put on a team of Republican pundits last night (5/15/08) 
who "defended' President Bush's comments implying that Democrats are like 
Nazi-appeasers by pretending that that's not what Bush meant (even though 
his spokesperson said otherwise) and then reiterating the charge by saying 
that if Democrats/Obama think Bush was talking about them, it must be true. 
With video.

Continue reading <br>
    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
      <tr>
        <td width="30">&nbsp;</td>
        <td>Posted In: <a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/">alt.society.liberalism</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/fox_news_pundits_pretend_bush_s_appeasement_comments_196917464t.html">no comments</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/fox_news_pundits_pretend_bush_s_appeasement_comments_196917464m.html">Reply</a></td>
      </tr></table><br>]]></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 09:14:51 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Halliburton's Senator]]></title>
	<guid>http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/halliburton_s_senator_196915672t.html</guid>
	<link>http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/halliburton_s_senator_196915672t.html</link>
	<description><![CDATA[While the rest of the country seems to have forgotten about Iraq, in Maine's 
Senate race the issue is front and center. Bush Enabler Susan Collins is 
being confronted both for her support of the war and her lack of oversight 
when she chaired the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs (2003-07) and is now the republican ranking member, a committee 
chaired by her good, good friend Joe Lieberman with similar disastrous 
consequences.

The news report from WGME in Portland is noteworthy not only for the content 
but the inclusion of some of Robert Greenwald's Iraq For Sale footage.

  Republican Sen. Susan Collins and her Democratic challenger Tom Allen are 
sparring over whether she should have called executives from Halliburton 
before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

  Allen tells News 13 that Collins and her committee failed in its oversight 
role when it came to American contractors like Halliburton and KBR in Iraq.

  Collins responds by saying she focused on legislation calling for greater 
accountability among contractors. That includes a special inspector general 
in Iraq, an office that has led to investigations, audits and criminal 
indictments.

  Collins says results are more important than political theater, but Allen 
says she was "missing in action" when she was most needed.

Congressman Tom Allen is a Blue America endorsed candidate for the United 
States Senate.

<a href="http://iraqforsale.org" rel="nofollow" class="url" target="_blank">http://iraqforsale.org</a>/

It's not the we've forgotten about Iraq , the corporate media just never 
talked about this stuff.
I wish CNN/MSNBC was more like WGME in Portland.
What's not news is that we have ourselves another loyal, incompetent Bushie.

<br>
    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
      <tr>
        <td width="30">&nbsp;</td>
        <td>Posted In: <a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/">alt.society.liberalism</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/halliburton_s_senator_196915672t.html">no comments</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/halliburton_s_senator_196915672m.html">Reply</a></td>
      </tr></table><br>]]></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 09:08:07 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[A McCain Supreme Court?]]></title>
	<guid>http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/a_mccain_supreme_court_196914136t.html</guid>
	<link>http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/a_mccain_supreme_court_196914136t.html</link>
	<description><![CDATA[Dire Consequences with a McCain Supreme Court?

By Robert Parry, Consortium News.Imagine the dire consequences if McCain 
appoints a fifth radical Supreme Court justice who believes in an 
all-powerful Executive Branch.

If John McCain wins the presidency - and gets to appoint one or more U.S. 
Supreme Court justices - America's 220-year experiment as a democratic 
Republic living under the principle that "no man is above the law" may come 
to an end.


To put the matter differently, if a President McCain replaces one of the 
moderate justices with another Samuel Alito - as McCain has vowed to do - 
then Justice Department lawyer John Yoo's extreme vision of an all-powerful 
Executive could well become the new law of the land.

On May 6 in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, during a speech aimed at 
appeasing conservatives, McCain promised to appoint justices in the mold of 
George W. Bush's selections, Justice Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, 
expanding the court's right-wing faction that also includes Justices Antonin 
Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Those four justices already have embraced the Bush administration's radical 
notion that at a time of war - even one as vaguely defined as the "war on 
terror" - the President possesses "plenary" or unlimited powers through his 
commander-in-chief authority.

<a href="http://www.alternet.org/election08/85432/?page=entire" rel="nofollow" class="url" target="_blank">http://www.alternet.org/election08/85432/?page=entire</a>

The real vote in 2000 for the president was 5-4, cast by right-wing members 
of the Supreme Court in direct contradiction of their long-standing support 
of state's rights on such matters as counting votes.

Since then, Bush has appointed a corporate tool and a right wing maniac. So, 
the Supreme Court is now in pretty bad shape. That is definitely a very good 
reason why a Democratic president is a must this time.


That said, John McCain has been doing his best to suck up to his arch rival 
in hopes that he can fool enough of the fragmenting Republicans into 
believing he would represent what George Bush was supposed to be to them, 
not what he clearly is: an unprincipled crook and a failure. This begs the 
question of why they voted for Bush instead of McCain almost eight years 
ago. Oh, right, Bush stole McCain's lines back then thanks to Karl Rove 
turning them into his candidate's talking points for a couple of weeks in 
which they were repeated over and over until the nomination was locked up.

Such is the state of American politics.

If McCain wins, pack your bags.  The concentration camps will be full.

<br>
    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
      <tr>
        <td width="30">&nbsp;</td>
        <td>Posted In: <a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/">alt.society.liberalism</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/a_mccain_supreme_court_196914136t.html">no comments</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/a_mccain_supreme_court_196914136m.html">Reply</a></td>
      </tr></table><br>]]></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 09:04:33 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[GOP Gays]]></title>
	<guid>http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/gop_gays_196912600t.html</guid>
	<link>http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/gop_gays_196912600t.html</link>
	<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://online.logcabin.org" rel="nofollow" class="url" target="_blank">http://online.logcabin.org</a>/ 

<br>
    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
      <tr>
        <td width="30">&nbsp;</td>
        <td>Posted In: <a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/">alt.society.liberalism</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/gop_gays_196912600t.html">no comments</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/gop_gays_196912600m.html">Reply</a></td>
      </tr></table><br>]]></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 08:59:54 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Bush Attacks Students!]]></title>
	<guid>http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/bush_attacks_students_196906968t.html</guid>
	<link>http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/bush_attacks_students_196906968t.html</link>
	<description><![CDATA[Federal Letters Tell Students They're Security Threats
By: John Amato
OK, we keep entering the land of the bizarre.

A German graduate student in oceanography at M.I.T. applied to the
Transportation Security Administration for a new ID card allowing him to
work around ships and docks.

What the student, Wilken-Jon von Appen, received in return was a letter that
not only turned him down but added an ominous warning from John M. Busch, a
security administration official: "I have determined that you pose a
security threat."

Similar letters have gone to 5,000 applicants across the country who have at
least initially been turned down for a Transportation Worker Identification
Credential, an ID card meant to guard against acts of terrorism, agency
officials said Monday.

And the agency is part of the Department of Homeland Security, which
oversees immigration matters, including student visas.

Ms. Guichard-Ashbrook said the security agency should remove the misleading
language from all files and issue new letters formally withdrawing the
"threat" label.

But Ms. Howe, the agency spokeswoman, said that the letters were legal, if
flawed, and that there were no plans to send replacements.

Q: Yes, my name is Wilken and I would like an ID please?

A: Dude, you have a weird name and are from a foreign land therefore a
security threat and will be sent to Gitmo immediately.

What the heck is going on?

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/washington/13tsa.html?ex=1211428800&en=9d3879c7cbefb87c&ei=5070&emc=eta1" rel="nofollow" class="url" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/washington/13tsa.html?ex=1211428800&en=9d3879c7cbefb87c&ei...</a>

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niem<br>
    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
      <tr>
        <td width="30">&nbsp;</td>
        <td>Posted In: <a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/">alt.society.liberalism</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/bush_attacks_students_196906968t.html">no comments</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/bush_attacks_students_196906968m.html">Reply</a></td>
      </tr></table><br>]]></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 08:46:18 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Re: Does Barack Obama Have Secret Radical Leftist Agenda For U.S.?]]></title>
	<guid>http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/does_barack_obama_have_secret_radical_leftist_agenda_196906200t.html</guid>
	<link>http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/does_barack_obama_have_secret_radical_leftist_agenda_196906200t.html</link>
	<description><![CDATA[
"HarryNadds" <hoofhearted07@<a href="http://yahoo.com" rel="nofollow" class="url" target="_blank">yahoo.com</a>> wrote in message 
news:7d6802eb-c428-418b-bd3b-e51eb8331828@<a href="http://25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com" rel="nofollow" class="url" target="_blank">25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com</a>...
On May 16, 8:16 am, Bert Hyman <b...@<a href="http://iphouse.com" rel="nofollow" class="url" target="_blank">iphouse.com</a>> wrote:
> ca...@<a href="http://ultimate.com" rel="nofollow" class="url" target="_blank">ultimate.com</a> (Sisyphus Caine) wrote in news:xIfXj.101793$ea6.27971
> @<a href="http://en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com" rel="nofollow" class="url" target="_blank">en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com</a>:
>
> > Another part of of Obama's alleged secret agenda ...
>
> Who's making these allegations?
>
> If the agenda is secret, how do these unnamed people know so much about
> it?
>
> --
> Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | b...@<a href="http://iphouse.com" rel="nofollow" class="url" target="_blank">iphouse.com</a>

Just out of curiosity. What exactly is Hussein's agenda besides "hope"
and "change"?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Out of curiosity, what is your purpose for being on Usenet but to denigrate 
Americans and defend your votes for Bush and his criminals? 

<br>
    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
      <tr>
        <td width="30">&nbsp;</td>
        <td>Posted In: <a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/">alt.society.liberalism</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/does_barack_obama_have_secret_radical_leftist_agenda_196906200t.html">no comments</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/does_barack_obama_have_secret_radical_leftist_agenda_196906200m.html">Reply</a></td>
      </tr></table><br>]]></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 08:45:15 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Saudis tell Bush they see no reason to raise oil production until their customers demand it]]></title>
	<guid>http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/saudis_tell_bush_they_see_no_reason_to_raise_oil_production_196905688t.html</guid>
	<link>http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/saudis_tell_bush_they_see_no_reason_to_raise_oil_production_196905688t.html</link>
	<description><![CDATA[

Saudis tell Bush they see no reason to raise oil production until their 
customers demand it
By JENNIFER LOVEN
The Associated Press

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabian leaders made clear Friday they see no reason to increase 
oil production until their customers demand it, apparently rebuffing 
President Bush amid soaring U.S. gasoline prices.

During Bush's his second personal appeal this year to King Abdullah, 
Saudi officials stuck to their position that they are already meeting 
demand, the president's national security adviser told reporters.

"What they're saying to us is ... Saudi Arabia does not have customers 
that are making requests for oil that they are not able to satisfy," 
Stephen Hadley said on a day when oil prices topped $127 a barrel, a 
record high.

The Saudi government indicated that it is willing to put on the market 
whatever oil is necessary to meet the demand of its customers, Hadley said.

But even then, he said, Saudi leaders say increased production would not 
dramatically reduce pump prices in the United States.

The Saudis are investing in ways to increase oil production over time. 
Officials told Bush they are doing "everything they can do" for now to 
address a complicated market.

Hadley said the Bush administration will take the explanation back to 
its own experts and "see it if conforms."

When Bush and Abdullah met in the kingdom in mid-January, the president 
also sought more Saudi output but got a chilly response to that plea. 
Saudi Arabia said it would increase production only when the market 
justified it and that production levels appeared normal.

Bush acknowledges that raising output is difficult because the demand 
for oil — particularly from China and India — is stretching supplies. 
Also, economists say prices are being driven up by increased demand, not 
slowed production.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. 
AP's earlier story is below.

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) — The White House says Saudi Arabia's leaders 
are making clear they see no reason to increase oil production until 
customers demand it.

President Bush was in the oil-rich country Friday to appeal to King 
Abdullah for greater production to help halt rising gas prices in the 
United States.

But his national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, says Saudi officials 
stuck to their position that they already are meeting demand.

Hadley told reporters, "What they're saying to us is ... Saudi Arabia 
does not have customers that are making requests for oil that they are 
not able to satisfy."

Oil prices climbed to a new high on Friday, topping $127 a barrel.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material 
may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures<br>
    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
      <tr>
        <td width="30">&nbsp;</td>
        <td>Posted In: <a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/">alt.society.liberalism</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/saudis_tell_bush_they_see_no_reason_to_raise_oil_production_196905688t.html">no comments</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/saudis_tell_bush_they_see_no_reason_to_raise_oil_production_196905688m.html">Reply</a></td>
      </tr></table><br>]]></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 08:45:11 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[$127.82/bbl]]></title>
	<guid>http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/_127_82_bbl_196903640t.html</guid>
	<link>http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/_127_82_bbl_196903640t.html</link>
	<description><![CDATA[
<a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080516/oil_prices.html?.v=13" rel="nofollow" class="url" target="_blank">http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080516/oil_prices.html?.v=13</a>

Oil pushed above $127 a barrel for first time
Friday May 16, 9:35 am ET
By Pablo Gorondi, Associated Press Writer
Oil prices briefly rise to record above $127 a barrel in volatile
trading

Oil prices soared more than $3 a barrel, surpassing $127 for the first
time Friday and putting more pressure on already lofty gasoline and
diesel prices ahead of the summer driving season in the northern
hemisphere.

ADVERTISEMENT
Also pushing oil prices up were speculation that China's demand for
diesel needed to fuel its power plants would rise due to
reconstruction efforts after this week's earthquakes and an upward
revision of an oil price forecast by investment bank Goldman Sachs
from $107 to $141 a barrel for the second half of the year.

Light, sweet crude for June delivery on the New York Mercantile
Exchange rose as high as $127.82 a barrel in electronic trading by
afternoon in Europe, before retreating to $127.55, up from Thursday's
close of $124.12.

The previous high for oil was $126.98 a barrel set on Tuesday.

"Everything the market looks at is bullish," said a report by U.S.
energy risk management firm Cameron Hanover.

Technical trading, which takes into account on prices patterns and
other technical data instead of relying more on fundamentals such as
supply and demand, also was seen as a reason for the high prices.

"Unless there is a confluence of substantive bearish news, when there
is a pullback of something like $5, it's unlikely to stay down because
enough participants will see that as a buying opportunity," said
Victor Shum, an energy analyst with Purvin & Gertz in Singapore.

Thursday's expiration of options contracts and a temporary shutdown of
ICE Futures trading in crude oil and other futures products due to a
power outage also contributed to the previous session's volatility.

"So there was a lot of confusion yesterday, and not surprisingly,
there was this wild, seesaw session," Shum said.

Options let investors bet oil prices will rise or fall in the future,
and prices can fluctuate widely on days when options expire.

Shum said oil is still seen as a better bet than investors' other
options.

"Oil as a class has performed better this year than equities and
bonds, and continues to encourage investors to pile money into oil and
stay in oil," Shum said.

On Thursday, oil initially climbed in the floor session as U.S. diesel
fuel prices jumped 3.6 cents at the pump to a new national average of
$4.455 a gallon. Diesel is used to fuel most truck, trains and ships,
and is a large part of the reason prices of food and consumer goods
are rising so fast.

U.S. retail gas prices, meanwhile, advanced past an average of $3.77 a
gallon. At the pump, the national average price of a gallon of regular
gas was $3.776 on Thursday, according to a survey of stations by AAA
and the Oil Price Information Service. Prices are 67 cents higher than
a year ago, and many analysts think they could rise as high as $4 on a
national basis in coming weeks. Consumers in many areas are already
paying that much, or more.

But as oil reached for new records, the U.S. Energy Department
reported that natural gas inventories rose 93 billion cubic feet last
week, more than analysts had expected, and that pulled the whole
petroleum energy complex lower.

Fluctuations in the dollar have contributed as well to oil's
volatility. The dollar has generally been stronger than earlier in the
year, but it is waffling between 104 and 105 against the yen, while
the euro seems to be range-bound between $1.54 and $1.55.

Investors have been viewing oil and other commodities as a hedge
against inflation and a weaker dollar since the middle of last year,
and that link has meant that oil has been tending to rise and fall
inversely with the dollar.

In other Nymex trading, heating oil futures rose 5.15 cents to $3.6739
a gallon while gasoline prices added 5.64 cents to $3.222 a gallon.
Natural gas futures rose 14.9 cents to $11.548 per 1,000 cubic feet.

AP Business Writer Thomas Hogue in Bangkok, Thailand, contributed to
this report.




"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that 
said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI


"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. 
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.

For the best in liberal/leftist commentary, visit <a href="http://www.zeppscommentaries.com" rel="nofollow" class="url" target="_blank">www.zeppscommentaries.com</a><br>
    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
      <tr>
        <td width="30">&nbsp;</td>
        <td>Posted In: <a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/">alt.society.liberalism</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/_127_82_bbl_196903640t.html">no comments</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/_127_82_bbl_196903640m.html">Reply</a></td>
      </tr></table><br>]]></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 08:39:38 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Froth Ties O'Reilly]]></title>
	<guid>http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/froth_ties_o_reilly_196899288t.html</guid>
	<link>http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/froth_ties_o_reilly_196899288t.html</link>
	<description><![CDATA[The Scoreboard: Wednesday May 14, 2008
25-54 demographic
Total day: FNC: 232 | CNN: 178 | MSNBC: 163 | HLN: 106
Prime: FNC: 387 | CNN: 319 | MSNBC: 307 | HLN: 165
	5p:	6p:	7p:	8p:	9p:	10p:	11p:
FNC	182,000	275,000	333,000	507,000	332,000	321,000	330,000
CNN	194,000	297,000	385,000	279,000	297,000	380,000	206,000
MSNBC	155,000	295,000	365,000	507,000	259,000	155,000	211,000
HLN	68,000	65,000	159,000	193,000	150,000	168,000	143,000

-------------

Not a good week for FOXNews & Bill O'Reilly.

FNC came in third 6pm & 7pm... and Froth tied Bill at 8pm.

Bill should've really gotten into the viral clip.

-C-<br>
    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
      <tr>
        <td width="30">&nbsp;</td>
        <td>Posted In: <a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/">alt.society.liberalism</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/froth_ties_o_reilly_196899288t.html">no comments</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/froth_ties_o_reilly_196899288m.html">Reply</a></td>
      </tr></table><br>]]></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 08:27:00 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Tennessee GOP &amp; Michelle Obama]]></title>
	<guid>http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/tennessee_gop_michelle_obama_196881880t.html</guid>
	<link>http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/tennessee_gop_michelle_obama_196881880t.html</link>
	<description><![CDATA[The Tennessee GOP hasn't yet had their fill of Obama dirty tricks. A few 
months ago, they circulated a photo of Barack Obama in traditional Somali 
garb. Now, they are going after his wife.

Today they have circulated a video of Michelle's now-infamous 'proud' 
comments, which have been combined with shots of Tennessee voters describing 
why they are proud of their country.

The Obama camp fired back defending Michelle Obama:

  This is a shameful attempt to attack a woman who has repeatedly said she 
wouldn't be here without the opportunities and blessings of this nation. The 
Republican Party's pathetic attempts to use the same smear tactics to win 
elections have failed in Mississippi, failed in Louisiana, and will fail in 
November because the American people are looking for a positive vision of 
real change. And if the Tennessee Republican Party has a problem with 
Senator Obama, maybe next time they'll have the courage to address him 
directly instead of attacking his family.

  <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Defending_Michelle.html" rel="nofollow" class="url" target="_blank">http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Defending_Michelle.html</a>

  Conservaloons seem inordinately proud of being preternaturally stupid.
  The GOP is a 'counter' party; a party of no ideas, only to react against 
others.



<br>
    <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
      <tr>
        <td width="30">&nbsp;</td>
        <td>Posted In: <a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/">alt.society.liberalism</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/tennessee_gop_michelle_obama_196881880t.html">no comments</a></td>
        <td width="20">&nbsp;</td>
        <td><a href="http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.society.liberalism/tennessee_gop_michelle_obama_196881880m.html">Reply</a></td>
      </tr></table><br>]]></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 07:51:47 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>