Anna Granfors in comments says we must shame them into doing the right thing: "Here is what I keep hoping that someone else will organize (hey, at least I'm honest)--a last ditch nationwide protest march on DC and other major cities in the US and worldwide, focussed on the demand that this administration be held responsible (no Mumia, please). I'd think the disgust and shame that Bush has inspired is widespread enough that a well-organized late summer event would be fairly easy to get the millions out to. Obama has started to make predictable noises about comity and healing, but as Hartmann is fond of saying, if you make the parade large enough, politicians will vie to get in front. (There is, of course, the possibility that Obama will call marchers an "opinion group" like Bush did, but we won't know unless we try.)" I think she's right. What's a good date?

So some lawyer on a bicycle sees a black Corvette hit a pedestrian who flies up across the car's windshield. And then the Corvette just starts speeding away. So the lawyer on the bike chases him, gets in front of him, makes him pull over and tells him he hit someone. And the hit-and-run driver says he didn't know, and it turns out he is none other than Robert Novak. And all this time I just assumed Novak's car was a hearse.

Here's some YouTube video of Sam Seder and Governor Don Siegelman talking about the bizarre restrictions that were placed on his travel after he was released because he was innocent. He still needs money to cover his legal costs, but he thanks all us DFHs who listen to Air America for helping to get him out. (More here about holding Karl Rove et al. accountable.)

Speaking of AAR, I'm not entirely sure why Thom Hartmann posted this bit of debate between himself and right-wing nut Seton Hall, but it seems to me both are operating from false premises. Thom thinks the only reason the media keeps concentrating on "rock star" Obama and loads of trivia is to keep audiences, and Hall points out that in fact they are losing audience share, though he says it's because they are "too liberal". I don't know why Thom keeps forgetting that Phil Donahue had the highest ratings at his network when he was fired - for being too liberal - and that The New York Times and The Washington Post can't possibly be printing all that right-wing crap because they think it will appeal to what must be two of the most liberal markets in America. They certainly aren't gaining readers by doing so. The media is following Obama around because they think he's going to be the next president, because he's doing something unprecedented, and because they are more interested in following Obama around. But they're also more interested in privatizing Social Security than preserving it, which is why they would rather make it sound as if privatization is more sensible than eliminating the cap, even though everyone else hates privatization. They are also not interested in universal healthcare, which is why they talk so little about it (and dismiss single-payer), even though everyone else is much more interested in universal healthcare than they are in Chandra Levy, who Atrios reminds us The Washington Post is currently doing a 12-part series about. They're definitely losing audience, as Hall says, but it's mainly because they're not liberal enough.