It's not so much a diary (yet), but I read an AP story (via Yahoo!) that included a death toll (so far, that included a death toll:

Some 519 people have been confirmed killed by Lebanon's Health Ministry since the fighting began. On the Israeli side, 33 soldiers have died, and Hezbollah rocket attacks on northern Israel have killed 18 civilians, Israeli authorities said.

So I logged onto the Kos for the first time this morning and I saw an ad for Robert C. Byrd's (Democratic Senator, West Virginia)latest book - and about how little old me can get a signed copy! I don't want one, and I don't want this ad on dailykos.com. Here's why...

From the AP wire: The high cost at the pump has turned into a major political issue, with Democrats and Republicans blaming each other for a problem that is largely out of Congress' control. Republicans are worried that voters paying more than $3 per gallon would punish the party in power. Democrats want to make that happen. (Emphasis mine.)

There has been a steady flow of Democratic attempts to peg high gas prices on the Bush administration and his pals in Congress. While it is true that oil CEOs are getting obscene payouts - and there is no way in hell that Republicans will do anything to stop this - there's also no reason gas prices should go down. Furthermore, if Dems win on lowering  $3/gallon gas prices in 2006, they'll lose on our $4/gallon gas in 2008.

This is a semi-rant that I posted onto a dead thread on another blog (either atrios or myDD).

The abortion ban passed in South Dakota by a quite large margin, and it had relatively high bipartisan support. However, the state has been dominated by the GOP lately, and it wasn't always this way. There is no reason for Republicans to have a monopoly over poor, rural voters (in fact, didn't it used to be the other way around?)

Can we take South Dakota in the next state election cycle? And if so, can this basic strategy be used in similar states?