I know that this is crap for a diary, but because there are so many other diary's that are all the same thing for the last few days, that I thought that some might want to discuss something other than the end of the world.

Lost in all of the hubbub of the RBC meeting yesterday, Obama started exploiting a weakness in John Mcsame.

I expect that if you are reading this, you already know how this got started, but I will review it anyway because - well, because I want to.

Back on Thursday in Wisconsin, Mcsame said:

"I can tell you that it is succeeding. I can look you in the eye and tell you it's succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels. Basra, Mosul and now Sadr City are quiet and it's long and it's hard and it's tough and there will be setbacks."

You can see it here:

Perhaps I'm a bit paranoid. But I just got done reading Naomi Klein's shock doctrine book, and Senator Hillary, and Senator MCCain's gas tax proposals contain elements that are clearly laid out in Naomi's book.

According to Naomi, the ruling elite have trouble passing the economic 'reforms' that they want when democratic societies are humming along normally. Common themes include less government spending, elimination of trade barriers, privatization of state owned wealth, eliminating price controls, corporate and financial deregulation, and bath-tub blah blah blah. You know what I'm talking about.

Since these 'reforms' cannot easily be implemented with normal democratic processes, other methods are employed. Naomi documents in her book the evolution of the shock therapy that is employed just before the Reaganomics are shoved down the throat of unsuspecting countries.

Ed Schultz is a liberal radio talk show host. According to wiki

Schultz continued to experience audience growth throughout 2005 and into 2006. According to a survey done by Talkers magazine, he ranked #5 nationally, with a weekly audience of more than 3 million listeners. This is the highest ranking of any liberal talk radio host up to this point.

Of the lefty radio talk shows that I listen to, (I'm a truck driver, and I listen all day) Ed is one of the few that will cover the democratic primary.

Up until just recently Ed has defended Hillary when callers call up and complained about her. I can remember one day I called in to complain about Mark Penn, and his ties to Blackwater. Ed cut the call short, and a while later added context to the connection (consulting firm, yada yada yada). But over time, he has gotten more and more critical about Hillary.

This week, Ed proclaimed "I don't want Hillary to be president."

There has been much discussion here recently about Hillary's contemporary campaign tactics. Many have made the point that Republicans will be doing the exact same thing (personal destruction), and that Obama needs to deal with it one way or the other, so that we know if he can handle it, and more importantly, if voters will be able to deal with it.

On general principle, I agree that a good solid vetting process is a healthy thing, especially after the mess that was John Kerry in 04. But I am flabbergasted at the insensitivity that Hillary is showing toward her black constituency.

It makes me wonder if she has even spent anytime at all around Black folks.

It seems as though the dividing lines between the two dominant parties have become a bit unclear with all the labels being thrown around when describing our presidential candidates. This is true on both sides of the isle.

Rudy G's conservative credentials are being questioned by the religious right, Hillary C has gotten labeled as "bush-lite" and tarred as the "loony-left" at the same time. Mike H "sounds like a liberal" according to M Romney, witch sounds funny because of all of the old clips of him being a "Massachusetts liberal". B Obama has earned the label "centrist incrementalist", and J Edwards is a "populist democrat", whatever that means these days. Grampa Fred is the "ray-gun Conservative", and Ron Paul is the "libertarian Republican". J McCain is the "Judas republican" who betrayed his party because he didn't "out-Tancredo Tom Tancredo".

I could go on, but the question is, what does all this mean?

In this diary, I will attempt to define the types of thinking that causes people to identify with the different Parties, and what I perceive as the shortcomings with both ideologies.