When looking at Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's policies, there is very little difference between them. Both have highly similar economic policies, health plan policies, and military policies including moving troops out of Iraq.

This leaves one substantive issue to debate - how are the policies going to implemented. Hillary Clinton has said she will "fight" for the policies; and Barack Obama has said he will "change" politics in Washington. Neither have discussed what the differences are between "fight" and "change." I don't know and I wish someone would tell me.

This leaves the candidates arguing about attacks on each other; be the attack on a pastor or honesty. That is why Gibson and Stephanopoulos chose to ask questions about these attack issues as opposed to other more important issues.

I recently listened to Thom Hartmann talking to Chris Hedges

While the show implied that atheism and science were the same, they are not. Also God and religion are not the same. In particular science may lead to a belief in God and a religion does not necessarily have to have a belief in God.

The issues are more complex.

The short film below is making the the rounds, YouTube (obviously) alternet, and TruthOut. Milton Friedman is a Nobel Prize winning economist who showed a cause effect between money supply and the state of the economy. The CIA was into lots of weird shit in the 50s, 60s and 70s; including LSD. They were well known for being interested in disorientating people and in methods of mass disorientation. In my opinion this short film paints a very likely history.

Visit the web site The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Below are a series of videos featuring Naomi Klein.

I love George:

More people need to watch Keith Oberman's editorials.

In late winter and all spring, President Bush was pleading with the nation to just give the surge until September. Due largely to a sympathetic press and an inept congress President Bush got his wish.

September is now. Besides there being more US troops in Iraq little has changed. Fox news doesn't believe Iraq is save enough for Katie Couric to visit. Violence is at least equal, if not more than a year ago. Bush is crowing about progress, though 3 passes and 15 fails from the GAO is hardly a passing grade.

The question before Congress is will Congress wilt again or will the Democrats show some leadership? For Barack Obama, the question may morph into will he lead a filibuster to kill any bill for funding the DoD that does not include a date for complete US troop withdrawal? Can he use his leadership and eloquence to force a change.

There are two issues for Nancy Pelosi. First and foremost is will she work with Conyers to investigate President Bush's presidency for possible impeachment. Second, and of equal importance, will she refuse to allow any legislation funding the DoD to go forward unless the legislation contains a date for complete withdrawal of US troops.

DC is hot. Anybody who counts is on vacation. As Cheney might say, that all changes on Labor Day. Most people know the facts. Some are already claiming limited success for a failed surge. Failed, because nothing has changed. Yeah, success will be claimed on a lessening of violence from July to August, only compared to August of last year the violence is up. Oh its fucking hot in Iraq so everyone knows the bodies just stink, so don't get too excited about there being less violence than in March. There is always less violence than in March.

Then there are the stories about Sunni tribesmen going after Al-Qeida. I remember the body counts from Nam. Any dead Vietnamese was a member of the Vietcong. Any evidence that any dead Iraqi isn't counted as Al-Qeida. From what I can tell the Sunnis are collecting weapons and settling old scores while they wait for US soldiers to leave. Any evidence to the contrary, besides the body counts. Get real!

Hubert Humphrey was selected as LBJ's vice president in 64 and ran for president in 68. Despite the Chicago convention, the anti-war blame on LBJ, and Humphrey's effort's not to criticize LBJ; he almost won in 68. He lost the popular vote by 0.7%.

I remember the 68 election well. I wish I could bottle the essence of HHH and give that essence to one of the Democratic candidates running today. Representative Kucinich comes closest. HHH combined an incurable ebullience with principle. Al Gore discovered this near the end of his 2000 campaign and almost won. The dour John Kerry never did.

These are serious times that demand both a positive outlook and principle. The question is who brings this to the "table?"

Two videos that are at TruthOut are very much worth watching. One, is with George Lakeoff. The other is with Glenn W. Smith. Both are insightful, and give the feeling of a conversation.

The ritual of selecting delegates to the conventions continues to be pushed ever closer to 2007. There are times when I wonder if 2006 was not already over if it would be pushed to 2006. Imagine, an election calendar where the voting for convention delegates started before a president was elected in November. Seems strange, but all it would take is a state like Arkansas passing a law saying Arkansas delegates must be selected 8 days before any other state's delegates are started and the race is off.

Jonathan Zimmerman claims in A truce in the sex ed wars? that

Right now, both sides of the sex education debate still insist that education can change sexual activity. As best as we can tell, they're both wrong.

Despite being a professor at New York University Mr. Zimmerman misses the point of sex education. The point is so that students can be educated about sex so they can make more informed choices.

There are many things students get educated in that we think knowing about is important. Some of those things are science and mathematics. I doubt seriously if many students will ever use the biology or national state and local government courses they are required to take and pass exams on in the ste of Maryland to get degrees. Yet we still demand they become educated in these areas to receive a full diploma. The same is true of algebra.

When Professor Zimmerman presents education's little secret that

But here's what most liberals won't admit: We don't have solid evidence for our own favored forms of sex education, either. So if the law requires science-based sex ed, we might have to change our entire approach.

The whole point of a liberal education is to introduce students to ideas that they would not get other places. No one is saying that sex education should not convey the best (read that scientific) education that we can. Include in that education that most people cannot remain virgins indefinitely. Include the fact that there are ways of having sex that reduce the likelihood of venereal disease and pregnancy. Oh and be certain to include that virgin births just don't happen.

But this is not what the anti-sex ed crowd want.

While Feingold is speaking as a Senator in the Senate, history will judge Democrats in the House even more harshly. Nancy, ya need to grab the brass ring and go for impeachment now.

I do not know who you are, but I presume you include Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Ried, and Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean. I write you out of concern that you are about to lose people like me; liberal voters who believe the Democratic Party is capable of governing the country.

The CNN YouTube debate was a gimmick. The gimmick worked better than anyone could have predicted. Tough questions were asked and answered.

Ya gotta love those Raging Grannies. Joe Knollenberg represent's Michigan's 9TH district in the House of Representatives.

One of the forces behind many of the problems the US faces is the ever growing population in the world. Take for example global warming. Let's say we reduce the impact of each person in the world by 1%, but there are 10% more people by the time this is accomplished, the battle is still lost.

Part of the rise of fundamentalist Islam can be traced to a frustration of a lack of resources due to an ever growing population. The "immigration" problem is in part fueled by population pressures. Many of the world's problems are directly or indirectly related to lack of population management.

Our candidates don't speak about the problem. Our news media does not address the problem. Sixty million more in California by 2050 is the headline, yet no one sees this is inevitable unless we manage the source. Abstinence doesn't only makes the problem worse, because most people who try don't have the will power.

My YouTube question (I won't demean myself to make a video with poor production values) is simple, What do you propose to do in your first term as president to reduce the world's ever growing population?

Past due. Real guts is to keep the Senate in session until a vote is held.

And Harkin gives them Hell too!

This is an important program. I highly recommend that everyone watch Tough Talk on Impeachment.

Please watech

John Nichols in Sheehan Versus Pelosi? says: "If the Speaker has not put impeachment back on the table, Sheehan promises to announce that she will mount an independent campaign against Pelosi in November, 2008."

I hope Sheehan runs and I believe she that if Sheehan runs, either Pelosi will change her mind on impeachment or will lose the election. I also believe that Sheehan stands an excellent chance of winning. The net is a formidable source of campaign funds. I also believe that a win for Sheehan would put all politicians on notice that there is a new sheriff, in town; we the people.

I would endorse Sheehan for representative in almost any district of the USA and in particular for Pelosi's district. Go Sheehan.

The Colbert Report: A Rare Behind-the-Scenes Look

The Real Colbert on Charlie Rose

A Conversation With Stephen Colbert

Colbert Roasts President Bush - 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner