Some liberals, who backed Barack Obama from the beginning, and were responsible for obtaining the Democratic nomination for him, are now upset that Mr. Obama has now taken some positions that are contrary to the beliefs they hold dear.

Obama now supports the FISA bill, the part that offers retroactive immunity to the telecom companies. A bill that Obama said repeatedly that he would filibuster. Now, feeling betrayed, some in the progressive community have openly questioned his liberal credentials. One of them, Atrios, have given him his daily "Wanker of the day award". Matt Stoller, a blogger at Openleft.com has said that Obama has broken faith, and is part of the old politics that has been rejected by his supporters. We must hold his feet to the fire on this issue.

For the past year, I have heard the stories coming out of the press, and liberal bloggers all over the internet that this is the Democrats year. All they have to do is trot out John Mc.Cain, and morph him into George Bush, and the Democrats will take control of the White House back after Bush has soiled it for the past eight years. But the latest Gallup poll may give some Democrats an uneasy feeling.

In the poll, it shows that Barack Obama has only a 3% lead over Mc.Cain, 45-42% That is statistically a dead heat, and what's worse, Obama's lead is down after Hillary Clinton got out of the race and endorsed Obama.

Now I know this is only one poll, and it's only a snapshot in time, but with the way things are running in this country right now, Obama should have a 12-15% lead.

Now I know this isn't going to happen because Hillary Clinton has said she will not run as an independent, but Rasmussen took a poll on how Hillary would do against Barack Obama and John Mc.Cain, and the results are very surprising. First here is a 4-way matchup between Obama, Mc.Cain, Bob Barr and Ralph Nader

Obama 42%
Mc.Cain 38%
Barr 6%
Nader 4%

Now with Hillary running as an independent
Mc.Cain 32%
Obama 31%
Clinton 22%
Barr 3%
Nader 3%

A new Gallup poll came out this morning showing that if Hillary Clinton does not get the nomination for the Democratic party, nearly 30% of them, (28%) say they will vote for John Mc.Cain this November. The poll also suggests that only 60% of Clinton supporters will vote for Obama this fall.

On the other hand, 19% of Obama supporters say that if Clinton is the nominee, they will vote for Mc.Cain in the fall. also 72% of Obama supporters will vote for Clinton this November.

What this tells me that there are a lot more Clinton supporters that will ultimately be pissed off enough to vote Mc.Cain if Obama gets the nomination. Now I know a good portion of these people will come back to the Democrats this November, but enough of them could tip the balance over to Mc.Cain.

Now, I have no wish to see Mc.Cain as president, but I also have no wish to see Obama as president either. But just think, if only half of those Clinton supporters carry through with their threat to vote for Mc.Cain, combined with other factors like Nader, and people so disgusted with politics, just staying home, and not voting Obama, you could very easily see John Mc.Geezer as president.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Clinton-28-Clinton-Backers-Mc.Cain.aspx

With race certainly a factor for Barack Obama, and gender a factor for Hillary Clinton, John Mc.Cain has an issue that will be just as prickly to get around as the two Democrats, and that is his age.

Mc.Cain will be 72 years old come election day, and a new poll out this morning, and reported by MSNBC says a full 25% of voters say they will be less likely to vote for Mc.Cain because of his age.

The only other person you can compare this to is Ronald Reagan. The job of president ages you in a hurry, and Reagan took afternoon naps, was in bed for the night around 9PM, and by the sixth year of his second term, he was tired, run down, his energy sapped and he looked every bit like an 85 year old man. By the end of his second term, Bill Clinton looked like he aged 25 years.

If Mc.Cain wins the presidency, (A thought that horrifies me), I dare say he will only be a one term president. I can't see him making a run for a second term simply because I doubt he would last with a second term. This is a job for younger men or women, with energy to burn.

When the Republicans exploit race and gender,(and you know they will), the Democrats have the age issue. In simple terms, Mc.Cain's age is a liability to him. Democrats would do well to bring it up every chance they get.

I was watching the Mc.Laughlin group this morning on my local PBS station, and the predictions segment at the end of the show came on, and in it, Newsweek columnist Eleanor Clift had something very wise to say, but it will piss off all you Joe Lieberman haters out there.

Clift said, "Other than favoring the war, Joe Lieberman will be a very good Democrat". Her comments suprised me since anyone on the liberal websites, including this one, hates Lieberman with a passion.

My only question for all you idiots out there, if Clift can say good things about Lieberman, why can't you?? You can't say anything good about Lieberman because your utter hatred for the man clouds your judgment.

So come on Boo-Man, PSI fighter, Cabin Girl or anyone else out there. Prove to me that you have opens minds. I know I'm just waisting my time, since none of you disgusting people has anything good to say about people who may disagree with you. For people who are supposedly progressive in your thinking, you certainly act like the Republicans when it comes to Lieberman.

But I had the last laugh when Neddie the "racist" Lamont was beaten in the general election. Lieberman until 2012!!!! Choke on that!!!

Anderson Cooper reports that Sen. Tim Johnson is in surgery, and it has been confirmed by two Democratic Sens. Daily Kos has the story.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/13/231550/92

We wish him a speedy recovery. According to Dick Durbin, Johnson's condition is "touch and Go"

Could a movement be afoot to replace Iraqi leader Nouri Al-Maliki with someone else?? Several sources suggest it could be happening in the near future.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/10/221917/95

So, Boo-Man thinks progressives really won last Tuesday, well here's some food for thought.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/08/opinion/main2162618.shtml

And as for Joe Lieberman and the nutroots;

http://bullmooseblogger.blogspot.com/2006/11/kosenfreude.html

Chew on that for a little while.

Democrats won a great victory last week, but already, infighting with the party, and some in the liberal blogging community are threatening to take down the very fabric of what got Democrats elected in the first place. Here are some examples.

1, John Murtha vs. Steny Hoyer; Incoming speaker Nancy Pelosi has a tough choice here. She is great friends with Murtha, an outspoken critic of the war, but she has said that she wants to govern from the center, and that's where Hoyer is. Hoyer supports the war. How are the liberals going to react if Hoyer gets the nod?? Not too well I believe.

2, Chuck Schumer; A diary on firedoglake.com has a not to flattering piece on Schumer, and 12 reasons not to trust him. You are not going to trust a man who, along with Rahm Emanuel, brought home the bacon when it counted?? I thought the bloggers would get down on their hands and knees and thank Schumer for what he did, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen

Democrats everywhere are estatic about what happened earlier in the week, and it was moderates and independents that brought home the impressive victory.

By an overwhelming majority, moderates voted for the Democrats in this cycle. Almost 60% of so-called centrists abandoned the Republicans because of the corruption and Iraq. Now that the victory is here, it would be ill advised to bank hard left, and not learn from history.

So far, Democrats and Bush have talked a great game, but results matter, and the American people want the president and Democratic leaders to work together to find common ground. Bush and the Republicans forgot that sticking to a very conservative agenda was going to piss off a good majority of voters.

According to the London Times, US forces will hand total control of Iraq to Iraqi forces by the end of 2007.

But I thought Bush was against setting a timetable for withdrawl??

Do you think Iraqi forces will be able to accomplish taking full control of the country by the end of next year?? Me neither!!!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2446744,00.html

OK guys and gals, time to make your predictions for the mid-terms. How many seats do Democrats pick up in the House and Senate. I'll go first

House; Democrats, +33
Senate; Democrats, +5

Your turn.

President shit for brains is quietly stepping up his plans to attack North Korean nuclear sites. Ever since North Korea launched a nuclear missle on Oct. 9th, Bush and the Pentagon have begun working out various options for dealing with the North Korean problem.

A Pentagon spokesman said that the nuclear base at Yongbyon is of particular interest to the Bush administration. The man, who did not want to be identified, said a combination of special ops, commando raids and tomahawk criuse missle strikes would do the job. The Pentagon has put three more facilities on the list as probable targets.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20061103-122702-4895r.htm