This is nothing but a blathering rant, but then hey, so are half the diaries here now.  The place is crawling with Republican trollers and their sock puppets, who I suspect account for half the diaries now and three-quarters of the comments.  
So it's hard to sort out the smoke and horsecrap from the genuine concerns, but even the genuine concerns are off the rails.  

To start, thank God Obama is "drifting towards the center" because, um, that's where the majority of voters are.  I for one want to see the guy elected, even if that means he doesn't meet my standards of ideological purity.  Some might call this behavior "pandering" or "flip-flipping", especially if they are most interested in seeing another four years of Republican rule.  

Yet there are still must be authentic hand wringing on the far Left (I know because CNN told me so) and oh how I wish the Left could wake the hell up.  You don't win elections on an ideologically pure far Left agenda, instead you tend to go down in flames.  Ask George McGovern.

Despite the precipitous plunge in his popularity and growing criticism of his competency, character, and style, George W. Bush is not really that much different from other presidents with respect to his hegemonic ambitions or his proclivity to use force to achieve foreign policy objectives.  Continuing historical patterns, President Bush and all presidents since World War II have committed horrendous crimes against humanity in order to protect and advance American interests under the guise of liberating people from under the jackboot of brutal dictators or communist subversives, bringing democracy to totalitarian states, improving the lives of those who are suffering and eradicating terrorism.

The gaping discrepancy between the stated goals of American foreign policy and its praxis is best exemplified by the apogee of war crimes: genocide.  In its pursuit of these lofty goals, the United States has committed genocide in Iraq.  Intervention resulting in genocide at the very minimum proves that American government's professed motives for foreign policy decisions are altogether specious.

Why do I have this nagging feeling that Senator Obama has already chosen his running mate? I also have the feeling he will surprise us.  Adding those two feelings that I can't back up at all. I will make a prediction Senator Obama will choose Senator Clinton. Senator Obama has always said he likes to surround himself with people who have strong even opposing views. Senator Clinton is definitely strong and of course has so much to offer.
I know some of you will say the Clintons have too much "baggage"
but I don't think that would scare Obama off. I personally like Edwards better but Senator Clinton would guarantee a stronger win. I know it's just speculation but I'm sure he decided his running mate a long time ago. Choosing Senator Clinton would surprise a great many people and the down side? We would have nothing to fight about anymore. Well at least for a few minutes.
Has Obama already chosen his running mate?

This may be overkill, but some folks may have overlooked the historical and legal framework that makes even Senator Obama's latest position worrisome to the pro-choice community and to those, like me, who believe that a woman's health is a matter only for her and her physician.
So here's a final attempt to get the point over by pointing folks to a nice recent post by Frank James at The Swamp. The senator may still have some clarification to do to get everyone on the same page.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/pol itics/blog/2008/07/obamas_lateterm_abort ion_probl.html

Quoting from a colleague with a legal background, James writes:

<>Subsequent cases in the Supreme Court and lower courts have said states cannot ban abortions where the doctor deems them necessary to protect a woman's physical and mental health. Lower courts have taken that to mean a state cannot prohibit an abortion--even one post-viability--if the woman would suffer severe emotional harm without it. Nowhere do those cases impose criteria of "serious clinical mental health diseases."
That's not what the law is today. The Court has said the Constitution prohibits states from banning post-viability abortions unless those laws contain a broad mental health exception---one that includes mental distress and severe emotional harm. Abortion rights groups have fought for decades to preserve these exceptions, and I'm awfully curious what they will think about limiting them to women with mental disease or mental illness./

The 2008 gubernatorial races were never meant to be the cycle's most suspenseful contests, but my March ratings found that the top four races had gotten unexpectedly more competitive, with three making their way to the toss-up rating. Yet, things have quieted down over the past few months. For one, heated Democratic primaries in Indiana and North Carolina were resolved and it will take some time before the general election in these states reaches full speed. Meanwhile, Missouri's Democratic Attorney General Jay Nixon is expanding his lead over his two potential opponents in what is looking like it could be a runaway race.

Originally posted on Campaign Diaries.

No doubt this is a Democratic year, but that doesn't prevent Democrats from trying to find a way to lose. The current methodology is by attacking their candidate. Everyone knows The Right is unhappy with McCain, but the reason they win and Democrats lose is that they will choose party over candidate. Not the Democrats, who have a certain knack for screwing up sure things.

It is very simple really. The media is like a two-year old child. They will repeat what they are told by some outside source. If the Democrats profess happiness with Obama, all stories will reflect this and will shift the focus onto McCain's problems. But when there is dissatisfaction in the ranks...MYDD, Daily Kos, Huffington, TPM, Open Left, etc.,...all the sudden Obama has liabilities which leads the dumb media to exploring all of this other liabilities(Islamic name, black, Rev. Wright, no experience, etc.).

All liberal bloggers who have put this dumb FISA issue and Obama's move to the center up as a rallying cry on their sites, which he must do to win, morons, as not enough people agree with you and your leftist views, should be dragged out back and beaten....to quote Bill McNeal.

He broke faith,

said Matt Stoller, a political consultant and blogger at OpenLeft.com.

Obama pledged to filibuster, and he is part of that old politics, in this case, that he said he wasn't. It will spur us to challenge him

.

It angers the blogosphere to its core

, said Jane Hamsher, founder of the popular blog Firedoglake.com.

We want to be able to know: What did you do? If we can get that information, we can make sure they don't do that again. We can get the public engaged

.

Another Republican term is what angers me.

Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of Daily Kos, said Monday on MSNBC's "Countdown With Keith Olbermann":

Let's be honest, it is either Obama or John McCain. So we really don't have much of a choice

.

At stake for Obama in the FISA vote is the intensity of support for Obama, Moulitsas said.

What is at stake in the 'Netroots'. Mr Moulitsas is your grandstanding attempt to gain further entry into the mainstream. With all it's fame and fortune at the expense of electing a Democratic president.

He goes on:

I don't want to hear him talk about leadership. I don't want to hear him talk about defending the Constitution. I want to see him do it," he said. "If he does, it will increase the intensity and level of support he gets from base Democrats. If he doesn't, we may worry he is just another one of these spineless Democrats who are more afraid of controversy in doing the right thing than they are in actually doing the right thing.

By the by, Keith Olbermann's special comment is on this very subject, how the FISA bill none of you have read but love to criticize Obama for selling you out over, is actually so poorly written that it doesn't prevent any of the Telecommunications companies from being CRIMINALLY prosecuted. It just prevents civil cases...i.e...all of Daily Kos joining up in a class action civil lawsuit because, most assuredly, the government is having the Telecoms monitor every single movement of yours.

Stop shooting yourself, Democrats, and the causes of the left by being petulent whiny bastards. The Right doesn't do this and The Right wins. The left does this and the left loses. It really isn't that hard.....don't shit where you eat.

These Netroots take themselves too seriously. The media is now feeding of their childish tantrums. I'm sick of them making Democrats lose.

Obama as nominee has to appeal to ALL Americans not just Democrats. If Obama loses, then this party is OVER. No party that loses 3 times in a row will be viewed seriously.

Shame on the 'NetRoots' bloggers who want to increase their fame and make 'statement's.

Shame on Mydd, Kos, Openleft, Salon.com, shame on you all. Who want fame and don't want to win.

Will Barack Obama parachute into Mile High Stadium to accept the Democratic nomination?

Unlike fans of movies like The Sting, who laugh along with con-men while they bilk some unsympathetic rube, I never thought Barack Obama was funny.

Obama's waffling about NAFTA was obviously unfunny way back in March, but he waited until Hillary Clinton conceded before he made it obvious enough for the naive "youth vote" that gave him the nomination.

Obama's right-wing support for an individual right to bear arms was obviously unfunny way back in February, but he waited until Hillary Clinton conceded before he made it obvious enough to wake up the New York Times.

Obama still wasn't funny when he did a 180 degree back-flip about FISA and flip-flopped about public campaign financing, and even out-pandered George W. Bush by offering Jerusalem to AIPAC and finally made his unprincipled political gamesmanship obvious enough even for blind-faith Obamabots like Paul Woodward at War in Context.

It wasn't even funny to me when tens of thousands of Obama's most dedicated supporters on my.barackobama.com petitioned Obama to oppose the God-awful FISA bill while Markos Moulitsas was simultaneously telling them to forget about trying to run the circus from their seats in the peanut gallery.

But when Obama topped it all off by deciding that not even the gigantic Pepsi Convention Center in Denver is gigantic enough for a cosmic event like the nomination of Barack Obama, and the Democratic National Convention has to be turned into a political Super Bowl by staging it in the super-gigantic Mile High Stadium...

Now that's funny.

But it would be even funnier if this super-gigantic nomination never happened, and the super-delegates locked up the Convention until it nominated a really principled Democrat like Chris Dodd, who was filibustering against warrantless wire-tapping while Barack Obama was planning a colossal freak-show in Denver.