Stewart & Colbert Mock Sarah Palin VP Choice

SilentPatriot, Crooks and Liars: “The Daily Show” and “Colbert Report” aired special Democratic Convention coverage Friday night and absolutely laced into McCain’s ridiculous choice for VP, Sarah Palin. [Click the pic for the vid.] As a bonus, Jon rips into FOX’s Steve Doocy for seriously arguing that Alaska’s proximity to Russia gives Palin meaningful foreign policy experience.

6 things the Palin pick says about McCain

Jim VandeHei, John F. Harris, Politico: The selection of a running mate is among the most consequential and the most defining decisions a presidential nominee can make. John McCain’s pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says a lot about his decision-making — and some of it is downright breathtaking.

We knew McCain is a politician who relishes improvisation and likes to go with his gut. But it is remarkable that someone who has repeatedly emphasized experience in this campaign named an inexperienced governor he barely knew to be his No. 2. Whatever you think of the pick, here are six things it tells us about McCain:

1. He’s desperate. Let’s stop pretending this race is as close as national polling suggests. The truth is McCain is essentially tied or trailing in every swing state that matters — and too close for comfort in several states, such as Indiana and Montana, that the GOP usually wins pretty easily in presidential races. On top of that, voters seem very inclined to elect Democrats in general this election — and very sick of the Bush years.

McCain could easily lose in an electoral landslide. That is the private view of Democrats and Republicans alike.

McCain’s pick shows he is not pretending. Politicians, even “mavericks” like McCain, play it safe when they think they are winning — or see an easy path to winning. They roll the dice only when they know that the risks of conventionality are greater than the risks of boldness.

The Republican brand is a mess. McCain is reasonably concluding that it won’t work to replicate George W. Bush and Karl Rove’s electoral formula, based around national security and a big advantage among Y chromosomes, from 2004.

“She’s a fresh new face in a party that’s dying for one — the antidote to boring white men,” a campaign official said.

Palin, the logic goes, will prompt voters to give McCain a second look — especially women who have watched Democrats reject Hillary Rodham Clinton for Barack Obama.

The risks of a backlash from choosing someone so unknown and so untested are obvious. In one swift stroke, McCain demolished what had been one of his main arguments against Obama.

“I think we’re going to have to examine our tag line, ‘dangerously inexperienced,’” a top McCain official said wryly.

2. He’s willing to gamble — bigtime. Let’s face it: This is not the pick of a self-confident candidate. It is the political equivalent of a trick play or, as some Democrats called it, a Hail Mary pass in football. McCain talks incessantly about experience, and then goes and selects a woman he hardly knows, who hardly knows foreign policy and who can hardly be seen as instantly ready for the presidency.

He is smart enough to know it could work, at least politically. Many Republicans see this pick as a brilliant stroke, because it will be difficult for Democrats to run hard against a woman in the wake of the Hillary Clinton drama. Will this push those disgruntled Hillary voters McCain’s way?

Perhaps. But this is hardly aimed at them: It is directed at the huge bloc of independent women who could decide this election — especially those who do not see abortion as a make-or-break issue.

McCain has a history of taking dares. Palin represents his biggest one yet.

3. He’s worried about the political implications of his age. Like a driver overcorrecting out of a swerve, he chooses someone who is two years younger than the youthful Obama and 28 years younger than he is. (He turned 72 on Friday.) The father-daughter comparison was inevitable when they appeared next to each other.

4. He’s not worried about the actuarial implications of his age. He thinks he’s in fine fettle and Palin wouldn’t be performing the only constitutional duty of a vice president, which is standing by in case a president dies or becomes incapacitated. If he were really concerned about an inexperienced person sitting in the Oval Office, we would be writing about vice presidential nominee Mitt Romney or Tom Ridge or Condoleezza Rice.

There is no plausible way McCain could say that he picked Palin, who was only elected governor in 2006 and whose most extended public service was as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (population 8,471), because she was ready to be president on Day One.

Nor can McCain argue that he was looking for someone he could trust as a close adviser. Most people know the staff at the local Starbucks better than McCain knows Palin. They met for the first time last February at a National Governors Association meeting in Washington. Then, they spoke again — by phone — on Sunday while she was at the Alaska state fair and he was at home in Arizona.

McCain has made a mockery out of his campaign's longtime contention that Barack Obama is too dangerously inexperienced to be commander in chief. Now, the Democratic ticket boasts 40 years of national experience (four years for Obama and 36 years for Joe Biden of Delaware), while the Republican ticket has 26 (McCain’s four years in the House and 22 in the Senate).

The McCain campaign has made a calculation that most voters don’t really care about the national experience or credentials of a vice president, and that Palin’s ebullient personality and reputation as a reformer who took on cesspool politics in Alaska matters more.

5. He’s worried about his conservative base. If he had room to maneuver, there were lots of people McCain could have selected who would have represented a break from Washington politics as usual. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman comes to mind (and it certainly came to McCain’s throughout the process). He had no such room. GOP stalwarts were furious over trial balloons about the possibility of choosing a supporter of abortion rights, including the possibility that he would reach out to his friend.

Palin is an ardent opponent of abortion who was previously scheduled to keynote the Republican National Coalition for Life's "Life of the Party" event in the Twin Cities this week.

“She’s really a perfect selection,” said Darla St. Martin, the co-director of the National Right to Life Committee. It is no secret McCain wanted to shake things up in this race — and he realized he was limited to a shake-up conservatives could stomach.

6. At the end of the day, McCain is still McCain. People may find him a refreshing maverick or an erratic egotist. In either event, he marches to his own beat.

On the upside, his team did manage to play to the media’s love of drama, fanning speculation about his possible choices and maximizing coverage of the decision.

On the potential downside, the drama was evidently entirely genuine. The fact that McCain only spoke with Palin about the vice presidency for the first time on Sunday, and that he was seriously considering Lieberman until days ago, suggests just how hectic and improvisational his process was.

In the end, this selection gives him a chance to reclaim the mantle of a different kind of politician intent on changing Washington. He once had a legitimate claim to this: After all, he took on his own party over campaign finance reform and immigration. He jeopardized this claim in recent months by embracing ideas he once opposed (Bush tax cuts) and ideas that appeared politically motivated (gas tax holiday).

Spontaneity, with a touch of impulsiveness, is one of the traits that attract some of McCain’s admirers. Whether it’s a good calling card for a potential president will depend on the reaction in coming days to what, for the moment, looks like the most daring vice presidential selection in generations.

LSB: This selection makes the Dan Quayle selection look like sheer genius. My question: can the RNC convention delegates NOT nominate her for V.P. during their roll call? What a stunning repudiation of their candidate, but nominating his selection for V.P. is certain defeat.

Bill Maher and New Rules are back!

Bill Maher returned to HBO last night with a great show and a hilarious “New Rules” segment. Click the pic for the vid.

2 Top Alaska Newspapers Question: The Palin Hits Just Keep Coming

LSB: Anyone care to guess how long she stays in the race? My guess is she hasn't got the balls for a rough national campaign.

Sarah Palin and children conceived out of wedlock – an uncomfortable question for Dobson and the fundies. John Aravosis (DC), AmericaBlog.com: FOX News' Alan Colmes reports on this same issue, and notes that Sarah Palin's son was born on April 20.

Now a word from religious right leader James Dobson:

"[O]ur conviction is that birth and adoption are the purview of married heterosexual couples. Traditional marriage is God's design for the family and is rooted in biblical truth. When that divine plan is implemented, children have the best opportunity to thrive. That's why public policy as it relates to families must be based not solely on the desires of adults but rather on the needs of children and what is best for society at large." – James Dobson of Focus on the Family, TIME, December 2006

Joe and I discussed this post before writing it. We weren't even sure we were comfortable posting this because, as Democrats and progressives, we don't pass judgment on children born out of wedlock, or their parents. Every child is a gift, and we don't believe it's the government's, or anyone else's, business what you do in your own bedroom.

But the conservative base of the Republican party, the very base that McCain's VP choice, Sarah Palin, was chosen to woo, does care about legislating your sex life. Though it was 20 years ago, who can forget the infamous Murphy Brown controversy, when then Republican VP Dan Quayle criticized a fictional TV character, Murphy Brown, for having a child out of wedlock. For conservative Christians, aka "values voters," getting pregnant while not married is still severely frowned upon. Remember, it was only 18 months ago that religious right leader James Dobson famously, and publicly, criticized vice presidential daughter Mary Cheney in a column in TIME magazine for having a child out of wedlock. It is exactly Dobson who McCain is wooing with the choice of Palin.

As Joe notes in his post below, pregnancy and birth control - and overall sexual mores - are key issues for conservative voters, and for the Republican party leadership. It is therefore newsworthy, and a legitimate issue, while admittedly somewhat uncomfortable, to inquire as to the practice of those very same issues in Sarah Palin's own life. Let me walk you through the issue:

1. Sarah Palin's first son, Track Palin, was … born on April 20.

2. Sarah Palin was married on August 29, 1988. She eloped.

3. 38 weeks is the typical human pregnancy.

4. 38 weeks before her son's birthday, April 20, 1989, is July 28, 1988 - i.e., that would be the hypothetical day of conception.

5. If this data is correct, that would mean that Sarah Palin eloped four weeks after
her son's conception.

6. Sarah Palin's son could still be legitimate if he was born four weeks premature, AND if he was conceived on the night his parents eloped.

Again, Joe and I aren't very comfortable discussing these kind of issues because, honestly, we don't care when Sarah Palin's son was conceived. But Sarah Palin and John McCain and James Dobson care very much about the conception of your children. James Dobson, the very man McCain is wooing, himself decided that Mary Cheney's out of wedlock conception was worthy of an entire commentary in TIME magazine only 18 months ago. It is at least fair to ask that Sarah Palin meet the James Dobson/Mary Cheney standard, and clarify for James Dobson and values voters everywhere whether her actions match her words.

We know McCain, Palin and the GOP will reverse Roe v. Wade. They also want Griswold gone. That means birth control. Joe Sudbay (DC), AmericaBlog.com: The traditional media thinks the Palin pick means Roe v. Wade is now part of the presidential debate. It always has been -- McCain wants to reverse Roe (although the punditry often overlooks that extreme view.) The real question isn't Roe. We know how the GOPers feel about that. The bigger issue is birth control. Remember how freaked McCain got when he had to answer a birth control question?

Roe is based on the holding in Griswold v. Connecticut, which held we have constitutional right to privacy. If Roe goes, Griswold is on the chopping block. Griswold overturned a Connecticut law that prevented the use of contraceptives by married couples. That case was decided in 1965. Think about that: 43 years ago, in Connecticut (not Alabama or Utah), married couples were prevented from using contraceptives.

Here's are a couple questions for any reporter who has access to the GOP ticket: Do John McCain and Sarah Palin want to reverse Griswold v. Connecticut? Do John McCain and Sarah Palin want to prohibit any forms of contraception? Do John McCain and Sarah Palin think "the pill" is a abortificant?

These are important questions. In case anyone doesn't think that Republicans want to ban the use of contraceptives like the pill, watch this video of Mike Huckabee, who is from the same theocratic wing of the party as Sarah Palin. Huckabee thinks the pill is abortion:

Then read the draft RNC platform with that in mind:

Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

For the GOP, the pill is abortion and all abortion must be stopped. Ergo, no pill.

Earlier this month, we did an online chat with Congresswoman Diana DeGette about her new book, "Sex, Science and Stem Cells: Inside the Right Wing Assault on Reason." In the chat, I asked her this question:

I’m interested in the issue of birth control. In the book, you describe the debate about expanding insurance coverage for birth control - an issue that has recently come up in the presidential race. It sounded like Rep. Chris Smith and some of his right wing colleagues really would just prefer to ban birth control. Are there people on Capitol hill who would ban access to contraception?

DeGette gave this response:

There are many examples in my book where far-right members have tried to deny
access to birth control. For many years, we gave international HIV/AIDS prevention money to religious organizations which would not provide information about condoms about AIDS prevention. Rep. Smith tried to exclude certain types of birth control methods to be covered in federal employees' insurance plans and exclude birth control pills, IUD's the patch, and others. There are other juicy examples in the book.

As I say in the forward to the book, I have concluded that many powerful politicians want to ban birth control altogether and think we should have some sort of Christian nation (according to their views) where people should be abstinent until marriage, and then only have sex for procreation. I have not arrived at these conclusions lightly.

This is real. And, the American people need to know where McCain and Palin stand. Will any reporter dare to ask them about birth control?

McCain impressed by Palin's courageous work at the Wasilla PTA. Joe Sudbay (DC), AmericaBlog.com: My sister, Karen, directed me to this quote People Magazine. This says a lot more about John McCain than Sarah Palin:

Sen. McCain, of all the candidates you considered, what drew you to her?

JOHN: Obviously, I found her to be very intelligent and very well-versed on the issues. But I think the important thing was that she's a reformer. She's taken on special interests since she ran for the PTA and the city council and mayor. The courage, I guess, is what most impressed me.

That's what most impressed John McCain. Granted, McCain doesn't really know Palin, but that's still frightening. Knowledge and understanding of all the foreign policy crises to which McCain is always referring -- al Qaeda, Islamo-facists, Iran, Russia, Georgia -- that stuff doesn't really matter if one stands up to the special interests at the Wasilla PTA, according to John McCain.

John McCain showed once again that he doesn't have the mindset to be President.

Alaska's GOP State Senate President on Palin: "She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" Joe Sudbay (DC), AmericaBlog.com: Did the McCain campaign do any research on Sarah Palin? Talk to anyone in the state? Even do a google search?Apparently not. Check out this hometown smack down:

State Senate President Lyda Green said she thought it was a joke when someone called her at 6 a.m. to give her the news."She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Green, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"

All politics is local. Palin doesn't like State Senate President Lyda Green. Palin laughed out loud when a radio talk show host called Green a "bitch" and a "cancer." (Green is a cancer survivor):

Now, if Palin had been vetted by the McCain campaign, some of this stuff might have come up. But, McCain is erratic and impulsive. It was more important for McCain to "win" the news cycle than pick a v.p. who was qualified.

Sarah Palin doesn't know much about the Iraq war. Joe Sudbay (DC), AmericaBlog.com: You have to hear Sarah Palin's views on the war in Iraq -- from Sarah Palin. She really doesn't know what "the plan" is or too much about Iraq or foreign policy.

Just listen to excerpts of Sarah Palin from an interview with TIME magazine. It's from August 14, 2008. That's just two weeks ago. This should make you feel safer. She'd be one heart beat (or another bout of cancer) away from the being the leader of our nation. In these dangerous times of which John McCain so often speaks, John McCain made a craven political decision. He's willing to entrust the safety of our country to someone who knows nothing about keeping us safe.

Did McCain Just Throw A Dart At A Boardful Of Republican Pols To Come Up With Palin?

DownWithTyranny.com: Palin endorsed Pat Buchanan in the 2000 GOP primary (and this year preferred both Willard and Ron Paul)-- over of John McCain. And McCain doesn't even know her-- neither do any of his close associates. Lindsey Graham seems to think that she's qualified for a job that puts her a heartbeat away from the presidency because "she hunts moose at 3 in the morning." He's one silly, silly goose, giggling like a little girl.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson, a very conservative and distinguished Texas senator who McCain passed over to pick the little known and extremely inexperienced favorite of religious extremists, said that she doesn't know anything about Palin but implied that since the state of corruption among Alaska Republicans is so intense, it's probably better that she doesn't know anything about her!

She's just a fresh new face for the same old failures. Is it a gimmick? Is this John McCain's best judgment? He may feel invincible but he's old and in bad mental and physical shape. Was he just thinking about how it would enthuse evangelical ground troops or was he thinking about what would be best for the United States of America? Give me a break! He's been running all over the country like a chicken without a head screeching that Obama is too young and not ready to lead? And Sarah Palin? Did he ever even talk to her? Did anyone vet her? This is scary. And it's not about Palin; it's about McCain. He's lost his mind.

The Palin split in the Republican Party is lining up like this: the Neocons think McCain just shot himself -- and their cause -- in the foot. The religionist extremists, bigots and lobbyists love her. David Frum (like lots of Americans) asks, "If it were your decision, and you were putting your country first, would you put an untested small-town mayor a heartbeat away from the presidency?" Ralph Reed, the embodiment of religionist extremist, corrupt lobbying and bigotry, is "beyond ecstatic... This is a home run. She is a reformer governor who is solidly pro-life and a person of deep Christian faith. And she is really one of the bright shining new stars in the Republican firmament.'' Yeah... Spiro Agnew meets Dan Quayle with a dash of Harriet Miers.

Other Republicans -- not the Ralph Reeds, not the grasping lobbyists or the giddy silly ones like Lindsey Graham -- ones for whom "Country First" is more than just a cheap campaign slogan, are uncomfortable with this choice, not just because Sarah Palin may turn out to be the next Tom Eagelton but because it throws into very serious contention the state of McCain's ability to lead. We just came through 8 years of George Bush being persuaded he was always right because he was always sure. Many people now see he was never either. This McCain selection, the most important indication of his ability as a head of state, is looking like it could be indicative of a reckless old man who thinks he can make snap judgments without thinking things through. Many thoughtful Republicans, realizing she wasn't vetted, are coming to the conclusion that bold isn't necessarily smart. McCain has a sordid history -- one he has gone to great lengths to keep from the public view -- as a reckless, high-stakes gambler. That's not what this country needs. He's not right for the presidency.

What's He Going to Call Her in Public?

Jane Smiley, HuffingtonPost.com: My responses to the Palin announcement in chronological order:

• Who's that?
• Is this a joke?
• Who's that again?
• She has a four month old baby and she's hitting the campaign trail?
• Is she breastfeeding?
• Does she know he has a history of abusing his wife in public?
• Has she ever been called a "c***?"
• Do they really think American women are that stupid?
• A beauty queen?
• Is she related to Katharine Harris?
• Did the people who run his campaign know about this ahead of time?
• What scandals is she embroiled in?
• What was the last large animal she killed?
• Does she pay her nanny's social security?
• If the red phone rings in the middle of the night and she's breastfeeding, will she answer it?

The Week in Review via YouTube

Obama Accepts DNC Nomination for President

LSB: Eloquent, yet relateable; gives a clear direction and makes a distinction between his campaign and McCain's. This is the guy - this is the time!

Vice Presidential Nominee Joe Biden at DNC Convention

LSB: Biden was an acceptable choice. Qualified? Without a doubt. Does he represent a ‘change?’ No, but he’s not at the top of the ticket and he has the experience/connections to get the needed changes through the Congress. Let’s just hope he doesn’t go off message too often or at the wrong time. And he’d better not be too deferential to Palin because she’s a ‘hockey mom’ with five kids – the GOP hasn’t shown and deference to Nancy Pelosi, another mom and grandmother.

Michelle Obama Keynote Address at DNC

LSB: A class act! We’ll be lucky to have her as our First Lady!

President Bill Clinton at DNC Convention

LSB: President Clinton went a ways to rehabilitate his image and legacy with this speech, but I will not soon forget his conduct during the Spring primaries. I'll always be a bit wary of him - and Hilary, too - and he no longer automatically gets a pass from me because (despite the Lewitzski mess) he was a pretty good president.

Sen. Hillary Clinton addresses the DNC Convention

LSB: Sen. Clinton had a good evening, but it didn’t go far enough to erase the memory of those final weeks of the primaries. Long after everyone knew – and she had to have known – that she was not to be the nominee, she continued to trash Obama and to deplete his campaign coffers of the funds he would need in the fall. This was vanity run amok, and it certainly told me a lot about her character. Could I have voted for her? Doubt it. However, could I stand to see McCain win just to satisfy my discontent with Sen. Clinton? Probably not. Like in previous years, I would have held my nose and voted against one candidate more than voting for another. For the first time in many years I really feel I am voting FOR someone – and it feels great!

John Kerry's Speech at the DNC

LSB: Where was this guy four years ago?

What Could Have Been: Al Gore at the DNC Convenion

LSB: I believed in Al Gore eight years ago, and I believe in him today. What a burden he must carry, knowing that you won the popular vote but not the electoral vote. How many young men and women in our armed forces would be alive today had Gore been sworn into office and not our Liar-in-Chief?

Chuck Todd suggests Charlie Crist has a sham marriage.

ThinkProgress.org: Via Matt Yglesias, MSNBC pundits this morning discussed potential running mates for John Mccain and whether there is a “glass ceiling” for unmarried individuals in politics. After Andrea Mitchell floated Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL) as an example, Joe Scarborough noted that Crist is engaged. Chuck Todd suggested the engagement may be staged so Crist can be Vice President:

SCARBOROUGH: Did he get married? I thought he was engaged. Is he engaged or did he get married?

TODD: After Friday the engagement might be off if he’s not the running mate, right? … I don’t know!

(Laughter)

As the group laughed, Andrea Mitchell remarked, “That is so mean.”

“Wow,” said Scarborough.

LSB: Of course that was going to be a sham marriage. I predict that Charlie and his un-bride wait until after the election (so as not to draw too much attention) and then quietly announce they have parted company.

LGBT Friends of Barack Obama

What do LGBT people who know Barack Obama have to say about him?

Separated at birth?

LSB: Does McCain's VP pick look more like Tina Fey or Karen Walker? (Another reason not to vote for McCain - who wants to see that goofy top-knot on Palin's head for the next four years?)

Palin and Gay Rights: The Straight Dope

GayCityNews.com: Republican Senator John McCain has selected Sarah Palin, Alaska's governor and a little-known conservative with a slim record on gay and AIDS issues, to be his running mate in the 2008 presidential race. ...

Palin opposes same sex marriage.

A 2006 Anchorage Daily News story, said of Palin: "She's not out to judge anyone and has good friends who are gay, but that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment.'

Some press reports following the McCain campaign announcement have repeated that right-wing rhetorical flourish that has Palin declaring that she has gay friends. That softer image is not what some Alaskans saw.

"That's just completely wrong," said Allison E. Mendel, the attorney who brought the 1999 case. "She spoke on radio programs all throughout the campaign saying, 'I want a constitutional amendment, I think these things are only for a man and a woman.' ... I don't think she's ever said a friendly word about gay people, that they ought to have health benefits like other people do or anything along those lines."

On AIDS issues, Palin simply has no record at all.

"There is not a lot to speak of for AIDS policy because she hasn't done much," said Trevor Storrs, executive director of the Alaskan AIDS Assistance Association. "She's never been given the opportunity to address our situation here because it has never been put before her."

With roughly 1,200 AIDS cases, Alaska is a "low incidence state," Storrs said, and most of its HIV funds come from the federal government.

Then Palin's 20 months in the governor's office have been taken up with the state's oil and gas industry. Health issues generally, such as substance abuse or mental health, have not received much attention, Storrs said. "She has done very little to address the major epidemics," he said.

LSB: "The Straight Dope" - seems like an apt description of what we know so far.

In a Nutshell: Palin's Positions on Social Issues

Michael Paulson, Boston Globe: In October of 2006, the Anchorage Daily News described Palin's positions on social issues in a lengthy profile:

"A significant part of Palin's base of support lies among social and Christian conservatives. Her positions on social issues emerged slowly during the campaign: on abortion (should be banned for anything other than saving the life of the mother), stem cell research (opposed), physician-assisted suicide (opposed), creationism (should be discussed in schools), state health benefits for same-sex partners (opposed, and supports a constitutional amendment to bar them)."

VP Picks: Karl Rove Swings and Misses Big Time

SilentPatriot, Crooks and Liars: On August 10, Karl Rove went on “Face The Nation” to argue that Senator Obama would make an “intensely political choice” for Vice President without regard for the “responsibilities of president.” At the time, Rove believed Obama would choose Tim Kaine, and argued against him by saying this [click Turdblossom's photo for the video]:

With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he’s been a governor for three years, he’s been able but undistinguished. I don’t think people could really name a big, important thing that he’s done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America. And again, with all due respect to Richmond, Virginia, it’s smaller than Chula Vista, California; Aurora, Colorado; Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona; north Las Vegas or Henderson, Nevada. It’s not a big town. So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I’m really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States?

As we now know, Barack Obama chose Joe Biden as his VP, probably the least political choice he could have made, and probably the best governing choice he could have made. John McCain, on the other hand, is the one who made the “intensely political choice” by choosing Sara Palin — a political newcomer and self-described “hockey mom” who has less than two years of governing experience and ZERO foreign policy experience — all because the political winds dictated that “change” was going to trump “experience” this election.

Rove argues that Kaine’s mayorship of Richmond (pop. 200,000+) is insignificant and that his 3 years as Governor of Virginia (pop. 7,712,091, GDP $383 million) has been “indistinguisahable.” If Rove was intellectually consistent, wouldn’t that mean Palin’s mayorship of Wasilla (pop. 8,000+) and 20 months as Alaska governor (pop. 683,478, GDP $44.5 million) makes her even less qualified than Kaine?

Barack Obama chose Joe Biden because he knows his way around Washington and knows how to get stuff done. His selection mollifies virtually no voting block or constituency.

McCain, on the other hand, chose someone eminently unqualified for the job (seriously, can you see Sara Palin sitting down with Maliki or Karzai or any other world leader?) for the sole reason of appeasing the right-wing lunatic fringe and hoping to pick off a few die-hard Hillary holdouts, as well as assuaging voters’ concerns about his septuagenarianism.

So, Karl, who made the “intensely political choice”?

What can we take away from this episode? When Karl Rove suggests something — in this case, Obama would make an “intensely political decision” — always assume the opposite will happen. Remember, Rove predicted, according to “the math,” that the GOP would pick up seats in 2006. They of course were swept out of power in an historic landslide.

Remind me again why the punditocracy heralds this guys as some sort of political genius?

(Read the rest of this story…)

Political Pundits Pontificate on Palin

Van Jones: Palin, You're no Hillary Clinton. None of my pro-Hillary female friends are falling for this obvious GOP pander. To the contrary, McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his VP is drawing hoots of derision. Once they learn that Sarah Palin opposes rape and incest exceptions for women seeking abortion, they completely write her off. John McCain has gone from maverick to "me too" -- trying to out-Democrat the Democrats and pick up some Hillary voters. But it ain't working.

William Bradley: 13 Reasons Why It's, Ah, Palin. John McCain doesn't like that he's lost the change mantle to Barack Obama. We shouldn't expect to see too much more from Team McCain about how inexperienced Senator Obama is.

Ari Emanuel: One Heartbeat Away. God forbid something bad should befall a 72-year-old man who's had skin cancer. But if it does, is this truly the woman we want dealing with Putin on an instant's notice?

David Sirota: At First Glance, Palin Is A Smart Choice Here's four reasons why this is a pretty smart choice -- and for progressives, I think its a good idea that we look at these factors as we head into the final stretch of the campaign.

Sarah Seltzer: A Feminist Appalled by Palin. It's no rare thing for the right wing to use prominent women to keep the rest of us down. But just because Sarah Palin is a woman doesn't mean she's good for women. And female voters know that.

Robert J. Elisberg: The Worst Vice-Presidential Nominee in U.S. History. It's not that Sarah Palin is inexperienced -- it's that this is gross political misconduct. Do you know what the "powers and duties" are for the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska? Check their municipal code.

Bob Cesca: Seriously? Nookular? I'm not sure which was more bizarre today. Palin saying "nuclear" with the same "nookular" pronunciation as President Bush or FOX News' Steve Doocy suggesting that she has foreign policy credentials.

Seth Greenland: What John McCain Is Thinking, Part II. How's this for a kick in the pants, America! Sarah Palin? Like you saw that one coming! The Governor of Alaska, my new favorite state, Bridge to Nowhere, salmon, oil drilling!

Amb. Marc Ginsberg: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. If the McCain campaign was hoping to make the issue of experience a determining factor... it just took that issue completely off the table. Welcome Gov. Palin to the national stage and the collective sounds of shocked gulps from your own party.

Kimberly Brooks: Sarah Palin First Impressions. As a former Hillary supporter, my first thought when I saw Joe Biden up there with Obama was, "Darn... There's no more girls up there." I love seeing a woman in the fray. But this is indeed an unusual pick.

Gov. Palin is McCain's Choice for VP - WTF!?!

Sarah Palin not sure what the vice president does. (Here's one hint, Sarah: You might become President). Joe Sudbay (DC), AmericaBlog.com: Jed posted video of Sarah Palin admitting she really doesn't know what the V.P. does. Okay, here's the thing: The main job of the vice president is to become president if something happens. It's especially relevant when the possible president is 72 years old ("McCain's advanced age" is how a top writer at the right wing National Review Online puts it), has had cancer numerous times and wouldn't really show the media his medical records.

All of this makes Sarah Palin's lack of experience is disturbing -- and lack knowledge about her new possible job even more troubling:

UNDER INVESTIGATION: Palin. Robert Arena, AmericaBlog.com: So what kind of a politician is Sarah Palin? Well, let's just say she fits in quite nicely with the Republican culture of corruption that puts themselves ahead of the needs of the public. From the Anchorage Daily News, we learn why her fellow Alaskans authorized a $100,000 investigation into the firing of the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner for what appears to be exclusively personal reasons. From the Anchorage Daily News:

Alaska legislators on Monday voted to spend up to $100,000 to investigate Gov. Sarah Palin's controversial firing of former state Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. The decision came from the Legislative Council, a bipartisan panel of state senators and representatives.

The committee itself will not conduct the probe. Rather, it will hire an independent investigator to explore whether Palin, her family or members of her administration pressured Monegan to fire an Alaska state trooper involved in a rough divorce from Palin's sister.

Monegan contends he did feel such pressure, and the question for the investigator will be whether Monegan might have lost his job for failing to dismiss trooper Mike Wooten.

Palin has denied applying any pressure or otherwise abusing her power as governor...

Palin abruptly fired Monegan on July 11 and later explained she wanted to take the Department of Public Safety in a different, more energetic direction. She replaced him with Chuck Kopp, the former Kenai police chief. But Kopp resigned Friday over questions about a reprimand he received after a sexual harassment complaint lodged against him in Kenai...

On Monday, the council voted 12-0 to spend up to $100,000 "to investigate the circumstances and events surrounding the termination of former Public Safety Commissioner Monegan, and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch."

A Republican who puts their personal interest ahead of the public? Palin fits in just perfect.

John McCain's gimmick: He doesn't even know Sarah Palin. They've only met once, maybe twice. Joe Sudbay (DC), AmericaBlog.com: So, Sarah Palin doesn't know what the V.P. does. That's bad enough. It gets worse. John McCain doesn't even know Sarah Palin, but he thinks she could lead our nation if something happens to him. (And, by the way, McCain is 72 years old today and has had cancer numerous times so we're not talking about some remote possibility.)

Watch this video Jed compiled. No one knows Palin:

Chuck Todd is right: "It's gimmicky." This is a gimmick -- a pure political gimmick. John McCain put politics before the best interests of his country.

Sarah Palin wants to let the polar bears die, too. On global warming, she's aligned with "most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints." Joe Sudbay (DC), AmericaBlog.com: Earlier this morning, before I left Denver, I wrote a post about oil companies and their cronies fighting the new rules designed to protect polar bears. Little did I know when I was writing the post that one of those cronies would be picked as McCain's v.p. Yes, guess who else wants no protections for the polar bears? Sarah Palin:

The State of Alaska will sue to challenge the recent listing of polar bears as a threatened species, Gov. Sarah Palin said Wednesday.

She and other Alaska elected officials fear a listing will cripple oil and gas evelopment in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts.

Palin argued there is not enough evidence to support a listing. Polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation, she said.

Climate models that predict continued loss of sea ice, the main habitat of polar bears, during summers are unreliable, Palin said.

The announcement drew a strong response from the primary author of the listing petition.

"She's either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and both are unbecoming," said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Alaska deserves better."

Siegel said it was unconscionable for Palin to ignore overwhelming evidence of global warming's threat to sea ice, the polar bear's habitat.

"Even the Bush administration can't deny the reality of global warming," she said. "The governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints by denying this."

Another global warming denier. Great. Sarah Palin is grossly misinformed. Maybe she should spend some time with the biologists who've been monitoring the polar bears lately. A report on this very subject came out this week:

Government scientists reported seeing at least nine polar bears swimming in open water over a six-hour period on August 16, including one more than 50 miles offshore, World Wildlife Fund officials said.

That represents a huge increase over previous sightings, said Margaret Williams of the fund's Alaska office. A total of 12 polar bears were spotted in open water between 1987 and 2003, Williams said in a telephone interview.

In 2004, she said, four drowned bears were observed.

"Unfortunately it's what we might expect to see if bears are forced to swim longer distances," Williams said. "The Arctic is gigantic. When you have nine bears sighted in one transect (route) ... one can assume that there are likely a lot more bears swimming in open water."

Sounds like Sarah Palin thinks the polar bears should just die.

VoteVets.Org's Jon Soltz: McCain "put political PR above sound judgment." When Jon Soltz speaks, listen:

Maybe Palin could one day be someone who has the judgment and experience that would make me feel comfortable with her leading our Armed Forces. But not now. Not after just 60 days thinking about those issues, and even then, just toting the party line. What's this say about McCain's judgment - to put political PR above sound judgment when it comes to naming a potential, if not very possible, Commander in Chief? What's it say about his judgment vs. Barack Obama, who faced with the same question, answered, "Joe Biden."

In times like these, with the stakes so high, and the decent chance that McCain might not live long into his first term, I can think of no scarier thought as a proud war veteran than someone with such an empty resume holding in her hands the lives of my buddies still in the service.

Joe Sudbay (DC), AmericaBlog.com: What's bizarre is how the political pundits and talking heads are oohing and aahing over the raw politics of McCain's choice. McCain wanted to steal the news from Obama so he picked a v.p. who he even doesn't know -- and who has no foreign policy experience. None. So, the punditry is thinking McCain "won the day," as if that's the most serious implication of McCain's gimmick. It's not.

Jon Soltz once again cuts through the crap and explains quite clearly that McCain's political ploy could, god forbid, have dangerous implications for our national security and our troops.

The choice is problematic for McCain on a number of fronts.

• Palin is the least qualified and experienced running mate in the history of the office, having served a total of 20 months in office, and none on the national level.
• Does anyone really want Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the Presidency should McCain become unable to serve?
• Although known as a reformer, Palin is a product of the corrupt Alaskan political machine, and is even under criminal investigation herself for abusing the power of her office.
• Can she possibly face off against Joe Biden on any issue?
• She pronounces “nuclear” like George Bush. I knew that the GOP ticket wanted to continue Bush’s policies….but four more years of Bushisms too!?
• She supports Obama’s energy plan, all but undercutting the one supposed strength she brings to the ticket.

Rahm Emmanuel pretty much sums it up:

“After trying to make experience the issue of this campaign, John McCain celebrated his 72nd birthday by appointing a former small town mayor and brand new Governor as his Vice Presidential nominee. Is this really who the Republican Party wants to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency? Given Sarah Palin’s lack of experience on every front and on nearly every issue, this Vice Presidential pick doesn’t show judgement: it shows political panic.”

Andrew Sullivan says:

(C)ompare McCain’s pick with Obama’s: a man with solid foreign policy experience, six terms in Washington and real relationships with leaders across the globe.

One pick is by a man of judgment; the other is by a man of vanity.

She may be a fine person, but she’s my age, she has zero Washington experience, and no foreign policy expertise whatsoever.

McCain has just told us how seriously he takes the war we are in. Not seriously at all.

MSNBC has a good pro/con rundown.

OBAMA ACCEPTS NOMINATION

The following are the prepared remarks of Democratic Nominee Barack Obama:

"The American Promise"

Democratic Convention - Thursday, August 28th, 2008 - Denver, Colorado

To Chairman Dean and my great friend Dick Durbin; and to all my fellow citizens of this great nation; With profound gratitude and great humility, I accept your nomination for the presidency of the United States.

Let me express my thanks to the historic slate of candidates who accompanied me on this journey, and especially the one who traveled the farthest – a champion for working Americans and an inspiration to my daughters and to yours -- Hillary Rodham Clinton. To President Clinton, who last night made the case for change as only he can make it; to Ted Kennedy, who embodies the spirit of service; and to the next Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, I thank you. I am grateful to finish this journey with one of the finest statesmen of our time, a man at ease with everyone from world leaders to the conductors on the Amtrak train he still takes home every night.

To the love of my life, our next First Lady, Michelle Obama, and to Sasha and Malia – I love you so much, and I'm so proud of all of you.

Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story – of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren't well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.

It is that promise that has always set this country apart – that through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well.

That's why I stand here tonight. Because for two hundred and thirty two years, at each moment when that promise was in jeopardy, ordinary men and women – students and soldiers, farmers and teachers, nurses and janitors -- found the courage to keep it alive.

We meet at one of those defining moments – a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more.

Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can't afford to drive, credit card bills you can't afford to pay, and tuition that's beyond your reach.

These challenges are not all of government's making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush. America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this.

This country is more decent than one where a woman in Ohio, on the brink of retirement, finds herself one illness away from disaster after a lifetime of hard work.

This country is more generous than one where a man in Indiana has to pack up the equipment he's worked on for twenty years and watch it shipped off to China, and then chokes up as he explains how he felt like a failure when he went home to tell his family the news.

We are more compassionate than a government that lets veterans sleep on our streets and families slide into poverty; that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes.

Tonight, I say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land – enough! This moment – this election – is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive. Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third. And we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight. On November 4th, we must stand up and say: "Eight is enough."

Now let there be no doubt. The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and respect. And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need.

But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change.

The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives – on health care and education and the economy – Senator McCain has been anything but independent. He said that our economy has made "great progress" under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one of his chief advisors – the man who wrote his economic plan – was talking about the anxiety Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a "mental recession," and that we've become, and I quote, "a nation of whiners."

A nation of whiners? Tell that to the proud auto workers at a Michigan plant who, after they found out it was closing, kept showing up every day and working as hard as ever, because they knew there were people who counted on the brakes that they made. Tell that to the military families who shoulder their burdens silently as they watch their loved ones leave for their third or fourth or fifth tour of duty. These are not whiners. They work hard and give back and keep going without complaint. These are the Americans that I know.

Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than one hundred million Americans? How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?

It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it.

For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy – give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is – you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps – even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.

Well it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America.

You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.

We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma. We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was President – when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of down $2,000 like it has under George Bush.

We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job – an economy that honors the dignity of work.

The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great – a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight.

Because in the faces of those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton's Army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the GI Bill.

In the face of that young student who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree; who once turned to food stamps but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships.

When I listen to another worker tell me that his factory has shut down, I remember all those men and women on the South Side of Chicago who I stood by and fought for two decades ago after the local steel plant closed.

And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle-management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman. She's the one who taught me about hard work. She's the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me. And although she can no longer travel, I know that she's watching tonight, and that tonight is her night as well.

I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me. And it is on their behalf that I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as President of the United States.

What is that promise? It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.

It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves – protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.

Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.

That's the promise of America – the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.

That's the promise we need to keep. That's the change we need right now. So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am President.

Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.

Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

Washington's been talking about our oil addiction for the last thirty years, and John McCain has been there for twenty-six of them. In that time, he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office.

Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.

As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy – wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.

America, now is not the time for small plans.

Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American – if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child or ailing parent.

Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; and the time to protect Social Security for future generations.

And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.

Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime – by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less – because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy.

And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our "intellectual and moral strength." Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.

Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility – that's the essence of America's promise.

And just as we keep our keep our promise to the next generation here at home, so must we keep America's promise abroad. If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have.

For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell – but he won't even go to the cave where he lives.

And today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush Administration, even after we learned that Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we're wallowing in deficits, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.

That's not the judgment we need. That won't keep America safe. We need a President who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past.

You don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq. You don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice – but it is not the change we need.

We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans -- Democrats and Republicans – have built, and we are here to restore that legacy.

As Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.

I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.

These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain.

But what I will not do is suggest that the Senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism.

The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America – they have served the United States of America.

So I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.

America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices, and Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past. For part of what has been lost these past eight years can't just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose – our sense of higher purpose. And that's what we have to restore.

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America's promise – the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values. And that's to be expected. Because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.

You make a big election about small things.

And you know what – it's worked before. Because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn't work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it's best to stop hoping, and settle for what you already know.

I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don't fit the typical pedigree, and I haven't spent my career in the halls of Washington.

But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the nay-sayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's been about you.

For eighteen long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past. You understand that in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. You have shown what history teaches us – that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it – because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.

America, this is one of those moments.

I believe that as hard as it will be, the change we need is coming. Because I've seen it. Because I've lived it. I've seen it in Illinois, when we provided health care to more children and moved more families from welfare to work. I've seen it in Washington, when we worked across party lines to open up government and hold lobbyists more accountable, to give better care for our veterans and keep nuclear weapons out of terrorist hands.

And I've seen it in this campaign. In the young people who voted for the first time, and in those who got involved again after a very long time. In the Republicans who never thought they'd pick up a Democratic ballot, but did. I've seen it in the workers who would rather cut their hours back a day than see their friends lose their jobs, in the soldiers who re-enlist after losing a limb, in the good neighbors who take a stranger in when a hurricane strikes and the floodwaters rise.

This country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that's not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that's not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that's not what keeps the world coming to our shores.

Instead, it is that American spirit – that American promise – that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.

That promise is our greatest inheritance. It's a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours – a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot.

And it is that promise that forty five years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.

The men and women who gathered there could've heard many things. They could've heard words of anger and discord. They could've been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred.

But what the people heard instead – people of every creed and color, from every walk of life – is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our dreams can be one."

We cannot walk alone," the preacher cried. "And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back."

America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise – that American promise – and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.

Thank you, God Bless you, and God Bless the United States of America.

McCain: Unfit To Lead

Plisko1, YouTube.com: The John McCain campaign and the neocon smear machine are up and running saying all kinds of nasty things. In order to be "fair and balanced," I put together a negative ad against McCain to help with the conversation.

This presentation combines information on his military past from The US Veteran Dispatch and other sources which are hardly Left wing organizations. I also combined it with common knowledge from his own admissions and the public record of his life and career.

How The Democrats Can Blow It ...In Six Easy Steps

Michael Moore, Rolling Stone: For years now, nearly every poll has shown that the American people are right in sync with the platform of the Democratic Party. They are pro-environment, pro-women's rights and pro-choice. They don't like war. They want the minimum wage raised, and they want a single-payer universal health-care system. The American public agrees with the Republican Party on only one major issue: They support the death penalty.

So you would think the Democrats would be cleaning up, election after election. Obviously not. The Democrats appear to be professional losers. They are so pathetic in their ability to win elections, they even lose when they win! So when you hear Democrats and liberals and supporters of Barack Obama say they are worried that John McCain has a good chance of winning, they ain't a-kidding. Who would know better than the very people who have handed the Republicans one election after another on a silver platter? Yes, be afraid, be very afraid.

In an effort to help the party doofuses and pundits — and the candidate himself — spare all of us another suicide-inducing election night, as the results giving the election to the Republican pour in, here is the blueprint from the Democrats' past losing campaigns. Just follow each of these steps and you, the Democratic Party establishment, can help elect John Sidney McCain III to a four-year extension of the Bush Era.

1. Keep saying nice things about McCain. If you want to help elect McCain, keep blessing him as if he were the white knight who accidentally hopped on the wrong horse. Keep reminding a country at war that he, and he alone, is a war hero. That he's been "good on global warming" and campaign finance. Say that enough, and you know what happens? People start to believe it! You've sold them on the idea that McCain isn't a bad egg, and they do not hear the rest of what you have to say: "But John McCain is four more years of George W. Bush."

Don't remind people that McCain wants to help the oil companies even more than Bush did. Don't bring up that he wants to outlaw abortion. Back away from painting him as the guy who thinks it's a good idea to stay in Iraq until pigs fly. That way, if you keep praising him, you can send a mixed message to the less informed, who are simply not going to figure it out. When they walk into a voting booth, they will see two names on the ballot:

☐ BARACK OBAMA

☐ WAR HERO

Trust me, this ain't Sweden you're living in. War Hero wins every time.

2. Pick a running mate who is a conservative white guy or a general or a Republican. Yes, it will seem like smart politics at first. Shore up Obama's lack of military experience with a hawk. Be true to Obama's message that he'll be a president for everybody by having him run with a Republican. Make a pitch to the purple states of Virginia and Indiana by putting one of their own on the ticket. Or make the red state of Ohio happy by handing the vice presidential slot to its governor. Just so long as Obama's running mate screams "same old, same old," making it harder for him to attract the new voters he needs to win.

There is nothing wrong with picking someone who can help him win a swing state or someone who has more experience than he does in certain areas. But when I hear pundits say things like, "He has to pick a Catholic," well, John Kerry was a total Catholic, and the Catholic vote went to Mr. W. I mean, here's one of the largest groups in the country — 66 million Catholics — and they/we have only allowed one Catholic to be president in 219 years. You would think they would have been flocking to Kerry in 2004. THAT IS NOT THE WAY PEOPLE THINK. IT IS THE WAY PUNDITS THINK. Keep listening to them and you can help elect John McCain the next President of the United States.

3. Keep writing speeches for Obama that make him sound like a hawk. Here's what Obama said in front of the American-Israeli lobbying group the day after the final primaries: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat." And: "Let there be no doubt — I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation."

Sounds like a speech McCain would give. Sounds like he's ready to invade Iran. Obama staked out an even worse position for the Palestinians vis-à-vis Jerusalem than the one held by George W. Bush. Keep that up, and more and more supporters will be less and less enthused. He also says he wants to send more troops to Afghanistan. The implied message of all of this is that the Republican plan is a good plan. So why would voters want to elect the candidate imitating the Republican when they can get the real thing?

4. Forget that this was a historic year for women. Obama should be making a speech about gender like the brilliant one he gave on race back in March. Millions of people, especially women, had high hopes for the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Attention must be paid. And you don't pay attention to it by having your advisers run your wife through the makeover machine, trying to soften her up and pipe her down. Michelle Obama has been one of the most refreshing things about this election year. But within weeks of the end of the primary season, the handlers stepped in to deal with the "Michelle problem."

What problem? She speaks her mind? She wears what she wants? Her biggest sin, according to the punditocracy, was to say that, as a black woman, this may be the first time in her adult life she's been really proud of her country. Shock! Surprise! Outrage! But not from any of the black women I know.

You have to be white and stupid to not know what she was really saying. If you don't understand, let me ask you this: Have you been proud of what this country has been doing in the past few years? Are you proud your neighbors had their house taken from them? Are you proud to be sending a good chunk of your paycheck to the oil companies so they can post record profits? Are you proud to know your vice president outed one of our spies and put her life and the lives of others at risk?

That's all she was saying — what we are all feeling.

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both lost the white-male vote but won the White House. They did so by winning the black, Hispanic and female vote. That HAS to be Obama's strategy to win. Otherwise, Cindy McCain will be our new First Lady.

5. Show up to a gunfight with a peashooter. Convince yourself that the Republicans are just going to roll over and play dead because there is simply no life left in their party. Convince yourself this one is in the bag! Convince yourself that if you play by the rules, the Republicans will too.

And when McCain and his people roll out their nuclear arsenal on you, just go all sweet and sensitive and logical. Believe that the truth shall prevail, that good people will see what the Republicans are up to. As they smear you, your family, your religious beliefs — cower, back down, go on the defensive.

If they say you should quit your church, quit your church! If they explode over your speaking the truth about the anger and despair of the white working class, take it all back! If they ask you to stand on your head and do the hokeypokey, snap to it and do it with a smile on your face — and don't forget to apologize for not doing the hokeypokey earlier; you meant no disrespect, and please don't take it as any indication that you do not love your country, your flag and your Christian God.

Do all of that and then listen for that sound — the sound of your supporters shuffling away in silence. They'll stop showing up at campaign headquarters. They'll say they're too busy to go on another door-to-door literature drop. On Election Day, they'll do their duty and vote, but they will not be up at 6 a.m. driving around the city's neighborhoods, picking up strangers who need a ride to the polls.

And on the way to the polls, some of them might just come to a stoplight, turn around and go home. Maybe they'll pick up a six-pack on the way. Maybe there's a new episode of Deal or No Deal on tonight. That would be nice. The girls are pretty, especially the blonde in the third row. Wait, they're all blond. No, not that one — THAT one! Oh yes, I see her. She is pretty. But the Man in the Booth has picked up the phone! He's calling down to you. Deal? Or no deal? No deal! No deal! Don't do it! Hey, I'm outta beer! Why didn't I pick up a case? Now I gotta spend eight bucks on gas to go buy more beer! Aaaaarrrggggghhhhhh!!!! HOWIE MANDEL ISN'T WEARING A FLAG PIN!! U-S-A! U-S-A!

6. Denounce me! Obama, at some point, might be asked this question: "Michael Moore has endorsed you. But he recently said (fill in the blank with some outrageously offensive line taken out of context). Will you still accept his endorsement, or do you denounce him?"

And he better denounce me, or they will tear him to shreds. He had better back away not only from me but from anyone and everyone who veers a bit too far to the left of where his advisers have told him is the sweet spot for all those red-state voters. I won't take it personally. After all, I'm not the guy who married him or baptized his kids. I'm just the idiot who went to the same terrorist, Muslim school of flag-pin desecrators he went to.

I remember poor John Kerry not even being able to admit, when asked by Larry King, if he had seen Fahrenheit 9/11. "No," he said, "I haven't. . . . I don't plan to, right now." But he had indeed seen it. I sat there watching him say this, and I just felt sorry for him and for the election he was about to lose.

We can't take four more years of this madness, Barack. We need you to be a candidate who will fight back every time they attack you. Actually, don't even wait till you have to fight back. Fight first! Show some vision and courage and smoke them out. Keep asking why these lobbyists are McCain's best friends. Let's finally have a Democrat who's got the balls to fire first.

So Barack, by denouncing me, you can help McCain get elected. Because when you denounce me, it's not really me you're distancing yourself from — it's the millions upon millions of people who feel the same way about things as I do. And many of them are the kind of crazy voters who have no problem voting for a Nader just to prove a point.

Elections have been lost by just 537 votes. I don't want that to happen to you.

Baracky II

Why is the corporate media ignoring the McCain gay-sex donor story?

John Aravosis (DC), AmericaBlog.com: No one has covered it that I can find. No one, other than gay and other non corporate-media sites. What's going on? Not only did the owner of the top gay pick up site in the world give McCain $2300, which is kind of a story right there, that the top gay pick up site is being run by a McCain Republican, but McCain accepted the money, and now a few days after the story went public, McCain still hasn't returned the money. How is this not news? And today Andy Towle reports that the chairman of the board of Manhunt, the Republican who gave McCain the maxed out donation, had to step down because of the donation. This is news. And the corporate media is again ignoring a story that hurts McCain because they know that he's really a nice guy inside, regardless of the facts. Donuts, anyone?

Actually, there's another thing going on here, I suspect. The corporate media is afraid that they'll be seen as anti-gay if they report on a gay donor scandal. They do this all the time. See: Jeff Gannon. What they don't understand is that they're not reporting on the story because the donor is gay, as if gay is bad. This is a story not because the donor is gay. It's a story because John McCain is running for president in a party that has a serious problem with gays, that rails against gays, that will very likely put some more gay-bashing in their party platform as they always do. So it's news when a lead gay businessman gives to McCain. And it's even bigger news when the donor just happens to run the largest gay sex site in the world. Because of the Republicans' ongoing problem with gay people, all of this makes this news. It's also news that the guy had to step down as chair as a result. And finally, it's news that McCain hasn't given the money back - he's chosen to keep it.

Don't you think getting the religious right's comment on this might make an interesting story? The fact that Bob Dole had to give gay money back in 1996, tying that to today? That McCain recently held a meeting with gay Republican leaders and got slapped around by the religious right as a result, and then had to promise to be more vocally anti-gay in public to make amends - so McCain's ambivalence also makes this news. There are lots of angles to this story, none of them anti-gay. Do your freaking jobs.

UPDATE: McCain returns gay sex cruising site Manhunt founder's $2300; Crutchley gives it to Obama.

The Matthew 25 ad emphasizes Obama’s family, ‘Christian faith’

Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report: ... I’ve taken an interest in the “Matthew 25 Network,” a new religious political action committee spearheaded by Mara Vanderslice, who served as director of religious outreach for Kerry-Edwards in 2004, and who has been active in encouraging Democratic candidates to discuss matters of spirituality more openly on the campaign trail.

The group’s first ad was a radio spot, and the group unveiled its first TV ad today.

While the first spot emphasized Obama’s religion, this one highlights Obama’s role as a family man (after, that is, a pastor is quoted touting Obama’s “Christian faith”). The viewer is told, “As a pastor, I know you can tell a lot about a man’s character based on how he treats his family…. Throughout his entire career, Sen. Obama has stood by families — including his own — and as president, he’ll stand by yours.”

Now, I have no idea whether the ad was made after the recent unpleasantness surrounding John Edwards. For that matter, it’s hard to say whether there’s a subtle dig here at John McCain over the difficulties in his first marriage.

Either way, the simplicity of the ad works pretty well. It’s a straightforward enough message: Obama is a pro-family Christian. That’s it. That’s the whole ad.

I can think of worse messages for a mainstream audience to hear right now.

The proposed tax increase McCain doesn’t want to talk about

Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report: John McCain’s pandering on taxes has been one of the more embarrassing aspects of his campaign, as evidenced by his appearance at the Aspen Institute, when he admitted that he’d been pushed into a corner on Social Security and taxes, saying, “I have to be against tax increases, as you know.”

But for all the talk about McCain’s recklessness on tax policy, there’s a little secret that goes by largely unmentioned: the presumptive Republican nominee is actually proposing a tax hike on those who get employer-based healthcare coverage.

In their Wall Street Journal piece yesterday, Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee, economic policy advisors for Obama, highlighted the policy detail McCain prefers to downplay.

…Sen. McCain’s plan does include one new proposal that would result in higher taxes on the middle class. As even Sen. McCain’s advisers have acknowledged, his health-care plan would impose a $3.6 trillion tax increase over 10 years on workers.

Sen. McCain’s plan will count the health care you get from your employer as if it were taxable cash income. Even after accounting for Sen. McCain’s proposed health-care tax credits, this plan would eventually leave tens of millions of middle-class families paying higher taxes. In addition, as the Congressional Budget Office has shown, this kind of plan would push people into higher tax brackets and increase the taxes people pay as their compensation rises, raising marginal tax rates by even more than if we let the entire Bush tax-cut plan expire tomorrow.

Got that? McCain’s hollow healthcare plan is bad enough, but the fine print includes a possible tax increase on tens of millions of people in the middle class.

What’s the McCain campaign’s response to this? It’s simple: just redefine “tax increase.”

Bush ally slams McCain over personal life, infidelity

Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report: The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, at first blush, would not appear to be the kind of man to publicly bash the hell out of John McCain. He’s the senior pastor at Windsor Village United Methodist Church in Houston; he’s a close personal friend of the president, and he recently officiated Jenna Bush’s wedding.

But after McCain’s appearance at Sturgis last week, Caldwell was apparently disgusted.

“Well, I don’t know a lot about John McCain’s family history, I do know, however, that as recently as last week I think it was, the Senator made a comment in South Dakota regarding his wife entering some Buffalo Chips contest which is this topless deal and if she were to enter she would probably win it and my personal opinion and based on my understanding of the Christian faith, that’s not, not, N-O-T, not the type of expression that a presidential candidate, or anyone for that matter who is a follower of the Christian faith, ought to make,” said the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell. “I don’t know if that is a perfect case in point, but it surely does help to juxtapose the DNA of Senator Obama, if you would, versus the DNA of Senator McCain.” […]

Caldwell said that McCain’s Buffalo Chips comment stood in stark contrast with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., whom Caldwell sees as a good family man supporting pro-family policies.

He wasn’t done. Caldwell went on to blast McCain’s “marital history,” his discomfort with candidates who commit adultery, and his questions about McCain’s “character.”

Asked if he would hesitate to support a candidate who committed adultery, as McCain has, Caldwell added, “Absolutely I would. Because if you can’t keep your faith to your most sacred vow — ’til death do us part’ — how in the world can I trust you to lead my family? My government? My nation?”

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers responded to the criticism by saying that Americans “know that John McCain’s faith and character were tested and forged in ways few can fathom.”

So, McCain having been a prisoner of war during Vietnam resolves any all questions about his character? Seriously?

If money talks, the troops are saying, ‘Vote Obama’

Steve Benen, Crooks and Liars: Way back in September, we learned that Barack Obama and Ron Paul, who don’t have too much in common, were the top two presidential candidates when it came to financial support from U.S. troops.

It had a certain political salience — opponents of the war in Iraq took note of the fact that the top two recipients of military donations went to critics of the Bush policy — but it was still relatively early in the process. Would the trend continue once the race grew more competitive? Actually, yes.

The Center for Responsive Politics reported today that Obama has received six times as much money from the troops as John McCain.

According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain, and the fiercely anti-war Ron Paul, though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago, has received more than four times McCain’s haul.

Despite McCain’s status as a decorated veteran and a historically Republican bent among the military, members of the armed services overall — whether stationed overseas or at home — are also favoring Obama with their campaign contributions in 2008, by a $55,000 margin. Although 59 percent of federal contributions by military personnel has gone to Republicans this cycle, of money from the military to the presumed presidential nominees, 57 percent has gone to Obama.

Aaron Belkin, a professor of political science at the University of California who studies the military, said, “That’s shocking. The academic debate is between some who say that junior enlisted ranks lean slightly Republican and some who say it’s about equal, but no one would point to six-to-one” in Democrats’ favor. “That represents a tremendous shift from 2000, when the military vote almost certainly was decisive in Florida and elsewhere, and leaned heavily towards the Republicans.”

That last point is especially striking. Eight years ago, Bush outraised Gore among military personnel almost 2 to 1. Four years ago, Kerry did better, but Bush raised $1.50 for every dollar Kerry raised.

And yet, now the numbers have shifted to Obama, in a big way.

McCain sees Georgian conflict as the ‘first serious crisis’ in post-Cold War era

Steve Benen, Crooks and Liars: Once in a while, the depth of John McCain’s foreign policy confusion stops being funny, and starts getting scary.

About a month ago, McCain said the war in Iraq is the “first major conflict since 9/11,” which seemed pretty odd given the war in Afghanistan.

But this is considerably worse.

McCain campaign re-defines ‘lockstep’

Steve Benen, Crooks and Liars: The Obama campaign unveiled a solid new ad recently, which, among other things, goes after McCain for having voted with George W. Bush 95% of the time last year.

Soon after, the McCain campaign responded by — I kid you not — telling reporters, “In the Senate, Barack Obama has voted in lockstep with President George W. Bush nearly half the time.”

I generally find McCain campaign talking points more annoying than amusing, but this is hysterical. Let’s consider some of the reasons this is an unusually dumb thing to say:

1. If the McCain campaign wants to make the presidential race about which candidate voted with Bush more, McCain might as well deliver his concession speech now.

2. “Nearly half” is not “in lockstep.” Many Bush administration pronouncements are not controversial, so every senator is going to vote with the White House line at least some of the time.

3. The McCain gang certainly knew this criticism was coming, and had plenty of time to prepare. This is the best they could come up with.

4. The McCain campaign argues that Obama is the Senate’s biggest liberal. The McCain campaign argues that Obama has “voted in lockstep” with Bush. Oddly enough, they’re making both arguments at the same time.

Go ahead, Tucker Bounds, tell us another one.

OP-ED: Eight Strikes and You’re Out

Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times:

John McCain recently tried to underscore his seriousness about pushing through a new energy policy, with a strong focus on more drilling for oil, by telling a motorcycle convention that Congress needed to come back from vacation immediately and do something about America’s energy crisis. “Tell them to come back and get to work!” McCain bellowed.

Sorry, but I can’t let that one go by. McCain knows why.

It was only five days earlier, on July 30, that the Senate was voting for the eighth time in the past year on a broad, vitally important bill — S. 3335 — that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems.

Both the wind and solar industries depend on these credits — which expire in December — to scale their businesses and become competitive with coal, oil and natural gas. Unlike offshore drilling, these credits could have an immediate impact on America’s energy profile.

Senator McCain did not show up for the crucial vote on July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. In fact, John McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year — which effectively counts as a no vote each time. Once, he was even in the Senate and wouldn’t leave his office to vote. ...

... That is what this election should be focusing on. Everything else is just bogus rhetoric designed by cynical candidates who think Americans are so stupid — so bloody stupid — that if you just show them wind turbines in your Olympics ad they’ll actually think you showed up and voted for such renewable power — when you didn’t.

Jon Stewart: I’ve got as much authority as McCain in the Georgia situation.

SilentPatriot, Crooks and Liars: Jon Stewart mocks President Bush’s lack of short-term memory about when it’s OK to invade other countries, as well as McCain’s presumptuousness for dispatching “Droopy-Dog and Howdy Doody” (Lieberman and Graham) to Georgia, despite his status as candidate for President. [Click pic for the vid.]

STEWART: Do you guys have any short term memory? Do you have anything? You just said, yeah let’s be clear about it, you can’t just overthrow a government, occupy a capital, knock over their statues, stack their prisoners, refer to the, refer to the horrific level of civilian casualties as birth pangs of democracy. Of course obviously this situation isn’t just the dangerous escalation of once mordent cold war hostilities. It’s a chance for our Presidential nominees to get inside the Commander in Chief simulator, and play a little make believe.

Dear Georgia, Despite what your lobbyist might have told you, McCain isn't the President and can't make policy

Joe Sudbay (DC), AmericaBlog.com: Today's Washington Post filled us in on the relationship between the government of Georgia and John McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann (shown at left with McCain). Seems for quite awhile, Mr. Scheunemann served two masters at the same time: Georgia and McCain.

Matt Yglesias, from his new perch at Think Progress notes that Georgia's president wants more than words from McCain. He wants action. Matt wrote:

It looks like Mikhail Saakashvili thought it meant something when John McCain proclaimed America and Georgia to be identical.

Georgia wants action based on McCain's words. Therein lies the problem for Georgia and leads to the question of just exactly who Georgia's leaders think McCain is. McCain is only a Senator -- he doesn't set U.S. foreign policy. The president does -- and McCain is not the president (and won't be).

Seems that the Georgians may have been misled by their lobbyists. According to that Post article, Scheunemann's lobbying company "signed a $200,000 contract to continue providing strategic advice to the Georgian government in Washington." Memo to Georgia: Get your money back. In the meantime, you're stuck with Bush and Condi.

McCain: "In The 21st Century Nations Don't Invade Other Nations"

Sam Stein, HuffingtonPost.com: Speaking to reporters about the situation in Georgia, Sen. John McCain denounced the aggressive posture of Russia by claiming that "in the 21st century nations don't invade other nations."

It was the type of foreign policy rhetorical blunder that has regularly plagued the McCain campaign and could have diplomatic ripples as well. Certainly the comment was meant in innocence. But for those predisposed to the notion that the U.S. is an increasingly arrogant international actor, the suggestion by a presidential candidate that, in this day and age, countries don't invade one another -- when the U.S. is occupying two foreign nations -- does little to alleviate that negative perception. (more)

LSB: Hey, John - your brain needs to be engaged BEFORE you open your mouth.

Daily Show: Invading sovereign countries is fine… unless they’re in Europe

SilentPatriot, Crooks and Liars:

Jon Stewart recaps the current situation in Georgia (and the media’s ridiculous coverage of it), and calls out President Bush for having the chutzpah to condemn Russia for invading and disrespecting Georgia’s sovereignty — because only reckless bully countries with no disregard for international standards do that kind of stuff.

Stewart: “It’ll be very interesting to see what the United States does here. Our invasion of Iraq somewhat hamstrings our options in Georgia, not just militarily, but also diplomatically, and I guess you would say, morally? Let’s watch our UN Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad dance the delicate dance…
Khalilzad: We want to make sure our Russian colleagues understand that the days of
overthrowing leaders by military means…
Stewart: Careful, Khalilza. Steady…steady…
Khalilzad: The days of overthrowing leaders by military means in Europe, those days are gone...
Stewart: Yes! He did it! Those days are gone… in Europe. In the Middle East, it’s morning in America.

After Returning From Four Days At The Olympics, Bush Criticizes Congress’s ‘Vacation’

ThinkProgress.org: Yesterday, after meeting with an oil industry front group, President Bush rebuked the congressional leadership for taking a “vacation” without holding a vote on offshore oil drilling:

Last month I acted and I lifted an executive branch restriction on offshore oil exploration. And then I called on Congress to join me and… end the legislative ban. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership in Congress decided to go on a five-week vacation, a recess, rather than act on behalf of the American consumer.

Bush’s dig at Congress for being on vacation is ironic, as [Bush] rivals Ronald Reagan for the title of “presidential vacation-time record holder.” Some highlights of Bush’s time away from the office:

• Attended 95 sports-related events.
• Made 74 trips to his Crawford ranch, for a total of 466 days.
• Made 142 trips to Camp David, for a total of 450 days.
• Attended 327 fundraising events for Republican candidates and causes.

Over the course of his presidency, national catastrophes have taken shape while Bush has been on vacation. When he was in Crawford before 9/11, Bush ignored an infamous memo about an impending bin Laden attack. Similarly, Bush brushed off warnings of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 while at the ranch.

While congressional conservatives held political stunts on the House floor, Bush was kicking back at the Olympics. And as Russia invaded Georgia, Bush attended baseball, basketball, swimming, and softball games in Beijing, where he also made time for an hour of mountain-biking and playing beach volleyball with the U.S. team.

“I think the highlight was getting my picture taken with the teams,” he reflected. The AP observed: “Bush was in the mood to talk sports, not policy.”

LSB: And Rice refuses to ‘interrupt her holidays’ to deal with Georgian conflict. BTW, Bush is holding the US flag backwards. Why does he hate America?

Cheney to attend fundraiser for congressman caught with prostitute.

ThinkProgress.org: Channel 10 News in San Diego reports that Vice President Dick Cheney will attend a fundraiser for Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) tomorrow and “will also deliver an address at a reception for Rep. Calvert at a private residence in San Clemente.” CREW [Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington] named Calvert one of the “22 most corrupt members of Congress,” as he has a number of ethical improprieties:

• Made huge profits for himself and his personal firm off his own earmark.
• Rewarded K Street firm under federal investigation with pork projects.
• In July 2007, a grand jury said the sale of four acres of public land to Calvert and his investment partners in 2005 violated California state law.
• Traveled to Saudi Arabia with convicted Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham in 2004.

In 1993, Calvert was caught by police with a prostitute in a parked car in California and tried to drive away from the scene. “We’re just talking, that’s all,” he told police as he “continued to cover his unzipped pants with his hand,” according to a police report.

LSB: I'm sure it was just an innocent political discussion with a constituent. (snark) Wonder if he also one of the proponents of the special-rights-for-heterosexuals amendments.

Does This Mean Edwards is Now For Gay Marriage?

Paul Jenkins, HuffingtonPost.com: Asked about his position on same-sex marriage a year ago, John Edwards said that he "personally [does] not"support gay marriage, citing his religious beliefs as basis for his opposition. Even without the hindsight we have recently acquired about Edwards' own marriage, this was the response of a bigot.

We now know that as with most bigots, Edwards is a hypocrite. As he was spewing inane statements about being "on a journey" on the issue of gay marriage, he surely had to remember the journey that lead him just months earlier to break his civil obligations and spiritual vows in his union with his wife Elizabeth.

Of course, Edwards is not alone among Democrats, let alone Republicans (the story of John McCain dumping his first wife for heiress Cindy needs to be told more often.) The Clintons, for instance are in a wide open relationship of convenience. Bill has in the most grotesquely public fashion made a joke of his marriage, fully enabled by his wife. They both compounded the original sin (according to both their religions) by lying about it, and putting the full weight of the presidency behind a public assault on Monica Lewinsky, among others. That Bill then had the indecency to sign the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans the Federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage, was perfectly fitting. And, of course, the Clintons still "oppose" gay marriage ("I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman," she has said, possibly the most stupid thing she has ever uttered.)

Barack Obama has been marginally more subtle, with a wink and a nod in private meetings with gay supporters, and, at least for now, his marriage is not the public sham that the Edwards' and Clintons' are. Obama has also been somewhat less patronizing, saying in at least one private fundraiser that it is not for him to tell gay people what to ask for and when, or to tell them to be patient. He has also said that he feels America is "not there yet," a dispiriting cop out that leads him to do his civil union dance in a bid not to alienate more conservative voters while throwing something to gay Democrats. He knows as well as anyone that a separate and equal treatment of gay and straight relationships is impractical, imperfect and simply is not equal in fact, in law and in spirit. The disastrous result of recent civil union legislation in New Jersey, especially contrasted with the smooth marriage transition in Massachusetts is the plainest evidence so far that anything but marriage does not grant equal rights and obligations.

It is shocking that politicians with personal lives as deeply flawed as Edwards, the Clintons, McCain and hundreds of others (including self-styled progressives), set themselves up as defenders of an institution they have raped of all moral significance. And it is nauseating that in the process they have the power to deny millions of couples the option of whatever social recognition and legal and financial security comes from marriage.

Perhaps most irritatingly, gay people are told to be realistic. That the marriage issue simply isn't important, especially compared to war in Russia, war in Iraq and war in Iran. Compared to the housing crisis. Compared to the recession. Compared to high taxes. Compared to the deficit. This is ironic because, in fact, for most same-sex couples in the United States, the inability to marry has far more impact than any of those other issues. Every day without equal marriage rights means that millions of gay people are unable to receive proper health care because they can't afford to be taxed on the premiums that the more enlightened employers grant to significant others. It means hell for uncounted numbers of immigrants in long-term relationships who are in the US illegally because they can't marry. It means that couples are torn apart at the most fraught moments of their lives, at hospitals, for instance. It means, all in all, a ridiculously high financial, emotional and legal cost, every single day.

It may be that politicians do not realize this, as the gay people they encounter in New York, Los Angeles, Washington and San Francisco are the ones who raise millions for them every year, and are hardly among the most affected. It may also be that many straight voters do not realize this, either, so effective is the establishment media, enabled by homosexual court jesters, at portraying gay people as frivolously wealthy or at least solidly middle-class. The gay media is not really much better: they are desperate to show that their readers can afford $100 vodka, $1,000 shoes, $100,000 cars and $1,000,000 homes, so that advertisers flock to this magically wealthy market, thanks to warped, unreliable polling.

Right-wing conservatives and their Democratic allies on this issue also like these stereotypes as it makes gay people look like a bunch of whining rich spoilt brats, who on top of that are sexually deviant. Interestingly, war, taxes, housing, etc, do not seem the priority of a lot of people devoted to denying rights (ANY rights, not just marriage) to gay people, if the continuing flood of "anti-marriage" (really anti-gay) referendums and initiatives is any indication.

There is little doubt that in the not so distant future, full marriage rights will be available to same-sex couples in the United States, but not if those who support such rights, including straight people, simply sit back and relax. Politicians need to be held accountable on this issue as they are on others, and should know that a wink and a nod, no matter how flirtatious, will not do it in 2009, even if we will close our eyes, hold our breath and vote for an "opponent" of gay marriage one last time in 2008.

TAVIS SMILEY | Guest: Rep. Nancy Pelosi | PBS

Rep. Nancy Pelosi shares her thoughts on the Russia-Georgia conflict and her dismay that President Bush and Russian Prime Minister Putin attended the Beijing Olympics.

Stephen Colbert's Latest Stunt: Hack The Democratic Convention

Jason Linkins, HuffingtonPost.com: Over the past week, there have been rumblings that Democratic Convention-attending supporters of once (and future?) presidential candidate Hillary Clinton are not content with the privilege of honorably discharging their DNC duties and receiving all of the attendant perks of membership to which they are entitled. No, no! In addition, these delegates will require some manner of extra-super-special treatment like a cake or a party or a hug or, as the candidate herself puts it, a "catharsis."

Well, as aggrieved cults of personality go, none are more dedicated -- or more anarchic -- than the green-screen animating, Wikipedia vandalizing, Hungarian bridge-vote hacking Colbert Nation, and on last night's Colbert Report, the eponymous host, after pointing out how his own White House hopes were undone by Democratic Party machinations, sicced his followers on the Denver festivities:

"Like Hillary, I selflessly stepped aside once I had no other option....You need to be acknowledged...You deserve to have you have me have a speech at the Democratic convention."

As you'll see in the video, the threats begin at ominous chanting, but have the potential to go much further. We can only encourage such lovely foolishness!

Limbaugh: "Edwards might be attracted to a woman whose mouth did something other than talk"

Media Matters: On the August 12 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh said of former Sen. John Edwards' recent disclosure of an extramarital affair: "I've got a theory about the motivations. Well, I don't know that I could -- I don't know that I can put this one on the air." Discussing his "theory," Limbaugh said, "We know -- we've been told that Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards. That's part of the puff pieces on them that we've seen. Ergo, if Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards, is it likely that she thinks she knows better than he does what his speeches ought to contain and what kind of things he ought to be doing strategy-wise in the campaign? If she is smarter than he is, could it have been her decision to keep going with the campaign? In other words, could it be that she doesn't shut up? Now, that's as far as I'm going to go." Limbaugh later added, "It just seems to me that Edwards might be attracted to a woman whose mouth did something other than talk." Limbaugh went on to say in a subsequent segment: "my theory that I just explained to you about why -- you know, what could have John Edwards' motivations been to have the affair with Rielle Hunter, given his wife is smarter than he is and probably nagging him a lot about doing this, and he found somebody that did something with her mouth other than talk."

LSB: This is rich! A thrice-divorced, homophobic-yet-suspected-closeted-homosexual, and convicted drug addict who takes full bottles of Viagra on vacations to international cities well-known for their child-prostitution, calling out John Edwards. Look, I'm not sticking up for Edwards, but this particular rant coming this particular asshole is laughable!

China Had "Cute" Girl Mime Opening Ceremony After Singer Banned For Crooked Teeth

Cara Anna, AP: A 7-year-old Chinese girl was not good-looking enough for the Olympics opening ceremony, so another little girl with a pixie smile lip-synched "Ode to the Motherland," a ceremony official said _ the latest example of the lengths Beijing took for a perfect start to the Summer Games.

A member of China's Politburo asked for the last-minute change to match one girl's face with another's voice, the ceremony's chief music director, Chen Qigang, said in an interview with Beijing Radio.

"The audience will understand that it's in the national interest," Chen said in a video of the interview posted online Sunday night.

The news follows reports that some footage of the fireworks exploding across China's capital during the ceremony was digitally inserted into television coverage, apparently over concerns that not all of the 29 blasts could be captured on camera. China has been eager to present a flawless Olympics image to the world, shooing migrant workers and so-called petitioners who come to the central government with grievances from the city and shutting down any sign of protest.

The country's quest for perfection apparently includes its children.

Lin Miaoke's performance Friday night, like the ceremony itself, was an immediate hit. "Nine-year-old Lin Miaoke becomes instant star with patriotic song," the China Daily newspaper headline said Tuesday.

But the real voice behind the tiny, pigtailed girl in the red dress who wowed 91,000 spectators at the National Stadium on opening night really belonged to 7-year-old Yang Peiyi. Her looks apparently failed the cuteness test with officials organizing the ceremony, but Chen said her voice was judged the most beautiful.

"The national interest requires that the girl should have good looks and a good grasp of the song and look good on screen," Chen said. "Lin Miaoke was the best in this. And Yang Peiyi's voice was the most outstanding."

LSB: While maybe not as directly impactful as the political news generally posted here, this is some ways is a little more disturbing. The child is seven and already the message to her is "you're just not pretty enough." That is wrong. And what is the larger lesson to be learned? How about that in the "national interest" deception is de rigor. In so many ways, Bushco has has been the shining example of deception - 'let's just pad the evidence file with a few fake letters, doctored photos, and false testimonies... it's in the national interest afterall.'

Daily Show: Ron Suskind Talks Liars & Impeachment

SilentPatriot, Crooks and Liars:

…albeit in a gentle, politically-correct way.

Investigative journalist Ron Suskind dropped by “The Daily Show” Monday night to talk about the blockbuster revelation in his new book, The Way of the World, in which he was able to confirm through high-ranking CIA sources that the Bush administration ordered US intelligence agencies to fabricate a letter justifying the invasion of Iraq after the original case was revealed to be a fraud.

“The White House is intensely interested because there may be a legality that has Constitutional consequences.”

Exxon John

"And you know how we feel about shallow celebrities."

Lee Judge / The Kansas City Star (August 12, 2008).

"Vladimir, I'm looking into your soul..."

Jim Morin / Miami Herald (August 12, 2008):

"Awaiting inspiration"

LSB: Good luck with the wait, fellas!

Hateful evangelicals under pressure

kos, Daily Kos: The hatemongers aren't happy.

Huckabee, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, and Lou Engle (pictured), the leader of The Call, a young adult movement, plan to hold a news conference Friday calling on Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) to spend more time talking about issues that matter to evangelical voters.

The press conference will be followed by a day of fasting and prayer on the national mall organized by The Call. Engle said thousands of evangelicals from across the country are expected to attend.

The event will take place Aug. 16, the same day McCain and Obama will make their first joint general election campaign appearance. The presidential contenders will share the stage for a few minutes at a forum at Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif., the 20,000-strong mega-church of Rick Warren. Warren is a pastor and the best-selling author of The Purpose-Driven Life.

Warren will interview each candidate for an hour separately, but the two will appear on stage for a few minutes together. The topic will be "compassion and leadership."

Engle admits that the press conference and rally on the mall are designed to counter the Warren candidate interviews, which he predicted would be more politically correct and focus more on "what the church is for rather than what it is against."

Engle, a vehement opponent of abortion rights, said the goal of the rally on the mall is to "drive the issue of abortion like a wedge into the soul of the nation."

Rick Warren founded his church in 1980 from zero, and it now numbers 22,000. His book, The Purpose Driven Life, has sold 30 million copies, in English alone. It is considered the best-selling hardcover book. Ever.

But this is what scares the hate-based evangelical movement:

If "2.3 billion people in the world claim to be followers of Jesus," then why not take the next step and mobilize those people to do important things, like stop poverty, improve literacy, feed the hungry, heal the sick? Conventional relief organizations are fine, but why not tap what Warren calls "the faith sector," the armies of motivated religious volunteers who are sick and tired of polarizing rhetoric and professional crusaders? "The old paradigm was, 'You pay, you pray, you get out of the way'," he explains, but in today's global and wired world, troops of caring volunteers can be deployed to communities in need with the push of a button. Such was the case on Christmas 2004, when Warren, awake and online at 4:30 a.m., received news of a massive underwater earthquake via e-mail from a pastor in Sri Lanka. Warren, who has an e-mail list of 200,000 pastors worldwide, notified churches in Thailand and Indonesia, that immediately mobilized volunteers to tsunami disaster sites. "It's universal distribution," he says, excitedly. "There's a church in every village in the world ... the potential sits there like a sleeping giant."

You don't have to be religious (and I'm clearly not) to get excited about a faith-based movement that is focused on service and charity, and that sees its mission as improving peoples' lives, rather than dividing them. There's a new generation of evangelicals who want to focus on issues like global warming and poverty, who are less interested in partisan politics than they are in pursuing an inclusive agenda to improve the world.

While Warren's church officially declares that homosexuality is a sin, it doesn't make a crusade out of the issue preferring to focus its efforts on AIDS relief. This is probably why religious gays have approached the church for dialogue. It's a more positive approach to religion than what we've seen from the Christian Right the past several decades. As Warren said in a Philly Inquirer piece now hidden behind a pay archive firewall:

"The New Testament says the church is the body of Christ, but for the last 100 years, the hands and feet have been amputated, and the church has just been a mouth. And mostly, it's been known for what it's against," Warren said during a break between services at his sprawling Orange County church campus.

"I'm so tired of Christians being known for what they're against." [...]

"One of my goals is to take evangelicals back a century, to the 19th century," said Warren, 51, shifting painfully in his chair because of a back sprain suffered during an all-terrain-vehicle romp with his 20-year-old son, Matthew. "That was a time of muscular Christianity that cared about every aspect of life."

Not just personal salvation, but social action. Abolishing slavery. Ending child labor. Winning the right for women to vote.

And perhaps most key is this:

"I'm worried that evangelicals be identified too much with one party or the other. When that happens, you lose your prophetic role of speaking truth to power," Warren said. "And you have to defend stupid things that leaders do."

"Politics is always downstream from culture. I place less confidence in it than a lot of folks. I don't think that's the answer... Politics is not the right tool to change the culture."

Needless to say, this is all 100 percent opposed to the current Evangelical right wing, that has (pathetically) put all its faith in George W. Bush, that insists on injecting itself into the political process, that insists on defining itself based on who it hates and rejects, be it gays, or liberals, or people who have sex, or whatever.

Read that first blockquote above again. This isn't some left-wing spin. Engel admits it straight up:

Engle admits that the press conference and rally on the mall are designed to counter the Warren candidate interviews, which he predicted would be more politically correct and focus more on "what the church is for rather than what it is against."

These people thrive on division and wedge. And it burns them up that the presidential candidates -- including their Republican one -- are speaking to the "politically correct" Warren.

Engle, a vehement opponent of abortion rights, said the goal of the rally on the mall is to "drive the issue of abortion like a wedge into the soul of the nation."

The Christian Right has been trying to drive wedges for decades now. And if you're looking for why Rick Warren is on his meteoric rise while Southern Baptists bleed membership, look no further. Christians are rejecting the Engel/Perkins brand of religion for Warren's more uplifting and positive message of action and change.

So Engel and Perkins and Huckabee can have their little hate soiree in DC. The contrast between them and Warren will be all the starker.

The ‘Veterans’ Vote’ is far from locked up

Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report: A couple of months ago, Time magazine posed the question: “Does McCain Have a Vets Problem?” The question hardly fits into the existing media narrative — John McCain is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War. He shouldn’t, the argument goes, have any trouble winning over the support of other veterans.

But the narrative is incomplete, to put it mildly. Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave McCain a grade of D for his record of voting against veterans (Obama got a B+), while the Disabled Veterans of America gave McCain a 20% vote rating. The Vietnam Veterans of America compiled a list of key votes, and found McCain voted against the group’s position 15 times and with the group eight times. (Obama, in contrast, voted with the VVA 12 times, and against it only once.)

With that in mind, when McCain went to Las Vegas over the weekend to speak to the Disabled American Veterans, perhaps it shouldn’t have been too big a surprise that the presumptive Republican nominee received lukewarm support.

Sen. John McCain, speaking to disabled veterans Saturday in Las Vegas, attacked his Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, for his foreign policy record, while also proposing a program that would allow veterans to acquire health care at private hospitals and not just through the Veterans Affairs Department.

The veterans, at Bally’s for their national convention, gave him a tepid reception, especially considering McCain’s life story. The Arizona senator was a Navy pilot shot down over Vietnam, tortured and held as a prisoner of war for 5 1/2 years.

The Las Vegas Sun interviewed 14 veterans after McCain’s speech, only one identified himself as a certain McCain voter. Devoting most of his remarks to attacking Obama apparently didn’t help.

Retired Marine Duke Hendershot, a double amputee who served in Vietnam, supported McCain’s 2000 campaign, but is undecided now. “John just isn’t the same as he used to be. He’s not his own man,” Hendershot said. “A lot of that has to do with how he’s wanted this job so bad for so long that he’s tied himself to President Bush.” Hendershot added, “[McCain] should have been talking about veterans issues, not his opponent.”

Obama, in contrast, appeared via video, did not attack McCain, and focused exclusively on veterans’ issues.

Given McCain’s “tepid” reception, perhaps it makes sense the VA isn’t helping out when it comes to veterans’ voter registration. Susan Bysiewicz, the secretary of state for Connecticut, had this item in the NYT today.

What is the secretary of Veterans Affairs thinking? On May 5, the department led by James B. Peake issued a directive that bans nonpartisan voter registration drives at federally financed nursing homes, rehabilitation centers and shelters for homeless veterans. As a result, too many of our most patriotic American citizens — our injured and ill military veterans — may not be able to vote this November. […]

[F]ederal legislation shouldn’t be needed for the Department of Veterans Affairs to lift the ban on voter registration drives by state and local election officials and nonpartisan groups.

The federal government should be doing everything it can to support our nation’s veterans who have served us so courageously. There can be no justification for any barrier that impedes the ability of veterans to participate in democracy’s most fundamental act, the vote.

So McCain's adultery in the military isn't relevant but the sex lives of gay service members are?

John Aravosis (DC), AmericaBlog.com: When John McCain had his adulterous affair with Cindy, he was an officer in the military. Adultery is against military rules. Just like having gay relationships is against the rules. Why is McCain's illicit sex life as an officer not relevant but McCain thinks the "illicit" sex lives of gay service members are? Both are violations of the rules. (Oh, and if you think the adultery isn't proven, read below.)

Yes, I know, my friends in the corporate media, it makes you woozy having to deal with anything "negative" about your good friend John McCain. But he's running for president, and he deserves a bit more scrutiny than you bringing him his favorite donuts. So, again, why is McCain's sex life in the military off limits but the sex life of gay service members is very much on limits per John McCain? Is McCain going to argue that his adultery didn't affect morale and cohesion, but gay relationships do? McCain was a pretty famous POW. He met Nixon. His campaign is always telling us what a military leader he was. His fall from grace certainly would have been noticed by fellow members of the military, and that has the potential to affect morale and cohesion when a leader falls.

And there's another problem. I'm not sure about this one, but I'm going to guess that in the 1970s, bigamy wasn't allowed under military rules either. From the LA Times:

McCain did not sue his wife for divorce until Feb. 19, 1980, and he wrote in his court petition that he and his wife had "cohabited" until Jan. 7 of that year -- or for the first nine months of his relationship with Hensley.

Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife.

Until McCain filed for divorce, the Reagans and their inner circle assumed he was happily married, and they were stunned to learn otherwise, according to several close aides.

Again, I get it. You folks in the media like John McCain. That doesn't change the fact that lots of Americans, the very Americans on the right who John McCain is courting, have a serious problem with both adultery and bigamy. McCain can't woo the religious right and then pretend that his lack of adherence to their values is not relevant to this campaign. Talk to anyone on the religious right and they'll tell you: Adultery is a big deal to them. And I can only imagine how they feel about bigamy.

And: Why is ABC so fixated on John Edwards' affair but not John McCain's own adultery? John McCain has given just as many conflicting explanations of his adultery that he committed with his now-wife Cindy against his first wife. Yet, ABC isn't exploring those apparent lies. Instead, ABC is focusing on John Edwards' inconsistencies when explaining his extramarital affair.

ABC says they're doing this because the details surrounding Edwards' affair are "hardly in keeping with the high moral tone Edwards set during his run for President." Really? And John McCain hasn't set a high moral tone? His campaign hasn't repeatedly called him an "American hero"? That's not a high moral tone? Of course, it is, but ABC just doesn't want to cover McCain's adultery because, well, their reporters like him and "know" that he's a good guy. So they choose to not report the news about the GOP presidential candidate, but do report the same news about the Democrat who isn't a presidential candidate at all.

Let's review:

1. John Edwards. Not a presidential candidate. Hasn't criticized other people's sex lives. Doesn't believe the government should interfere with your sex life. And not wooing the votes of "Christian conservatives" who care about such things as adultery.

2. John McCain. Is a presidential candidate. Has said that gay people aren't as good of parents as straight people. Believes it is acceptable for the government to treat people as second class citizens based on their sexual orientation. And is wooing the very religious conservatives who frown on the very things that John McCain has done.

Putting aside the unanswered questions about Vicki Iseman - such as whether people at her firm, years ago, suspected that her relationship with McCain was looking a tad too close - and putting aside the question of just where is Vicki Iseman right now - John McCain has been just as not forthcoming as John Edwards, when it comes to affairs.

McCain's explanation of his break up with his first wife doesn't correlate to the actual facts. McCain claimed that his affair with Cindy didn't overlap with his marriage with his previous wife. According to the LA Times, that's untrue. And that would mean that McCain lied about committing adultery. And even weirder, the LA Times basically alleges that McCain committed bigamy, while denying it.

So, ABC thinks it's relevant that John Edwards MAY have lied about committing adultery, but ABC doesn't think it's relevant that John McCain DID LIE about committing adultery and possibly bigamy.

Do you need any more proof as to how conservative, how right-wing, how so wanting-to-please-the-Republicans our media has become?

Georgia On My Mind...

DavidMixner.com: No sane person can watch the images on television of the conflict between Russia and Georgia and not be sick to their stomach. The devastation, the dead and the horror is all too much to watch. Maybe because the cities look so much like Western cities that we can identify so much easier than to the suffering in the Congo or even Iraq. Blocks of building ablaze like the London Blitz with bodies littering the streets. Unfortunately, it appears it is only going to get worse.

There is no question that this is going to have a serious impact on our foreign policy. [Yesterday] morning George Will on ABC's This Week all but proclaimed that this was the beginning of the "Cold War" again, and that if you looked into Putin's eyes you saw the words KGB. He made clear that this was an invasion of a European nation and that our response could determined our security for years. One thing is clear - President Bush doesn't seem too concerned. After exchanging chit chat with Bush at the Olympic Opening Ceremony, Putin quickly flew back to Moscow to direct the war; Bush has hung around the Olympics and has great shots of him with the Women Beach Volley Ball Champions. (Guess Cheney is still in charge.)

Before we rise in mass and point out the evil Russia empire and the return to the Cold War politics, let's me sure we know the facts. After all, what exactly should our response be to this horrendous situation that is being made worse by Russia? We certainly don't plan to send troops and stage a blockade of Russia. We certainly are not going to ban trade or cut off relations with Russia. So let's be sure our response matches our capacity to be taken seriously. There is no question that at this stage that Russia's military operations are to be condemned and every effort should be made by this nation for an immediate cease fire.

The history of this region is complex and one that has been dominated by Russia for the last two centuries. ... In April, 1991 it declared itself independent after two centuries of Russian rule and as part of the dissolution of Soviet Russia it became a reality. The nation has less people then Los Angeles County. Immediately there was a civil war between South Ossetia and Georgia. South Ossetia has about 70,000 people which is about the size of the Obama rally in Portland! The break away slice of Georgia wanted to unite with North Ossetia which is part of Russia. About 75% of the people of South Ossetia are Osstians and only 20% are Georgian. There has been an uneasy peace with Russian Peacekeepers in the region until this week.

So how did we get to the point where entire cities are being devastated and thousands are dying?

We all have acted like fools is the answer. The United States has been sending arms to Georgia right on Russia's back step and clearly within its 'sphere of influence'. We have encouraged the talks of Georgia joining NATO and attempted to put a wedge between Georgia and Russia. Georgia this week decided to 're-take' South Ossetia and launched its troops into the region and, with no surprise, the Russians responded. Not only did the Russians respond, they responded as they always do - with great brutality and overkill. I think there is a real possibility that Russia will attempt to not only unite South Ossetia with North Ossetia within its boundaries, but also maybe force Georgia back into its 'sphere of influence'.

This war does raise extremely important questions that should be debated calmly and with a sense of history, and certainly not hot rhetoric that sounds like [if came] out of the 1950's. First of all, our President should come home. Second, clearly this raises the valid issue of exactly what are Putin's motives, both short term and long term. This clearly leaves no doubt who is charge. Wonder if the current Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is having his picture taken with the Russian gymnasts in Beijing while Putin calls the shots? Third, we have to review our concept of 'nation state' and what really constitutes a nation both historically and in geo-political terms. Do we want to go to war over a place that has only 70,000 people? If we do, why? What is our national interest? Are we ready for a show down with Putin and is this the place? If not, where is the place?

This might be a brilliant opportunity for us to be a force for peace and in the process to gain the insight, knowledge and information to answer the questions above. Our response must be measured, historically accurate and clearly in our national interest. The war in Georgia is simply another awful horror visited upon a people who a week ago were [having a] wonderful time with their families.

Most of all, this situation breaks our hearts.

One of Texas' Idiot Senators: 'Iraq’s Massive $79 Billion Surplus Is A Success Of Bush’s Policies'

ThinkProgress.org: Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers are upset over a new Government Accountability Office report showing that the “soaring price of oil will leave the Iraqi government with a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year’s end.” Since 2003, U.S. taxpayers have spent $42 billion for the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq. In contrast, the Iraqi government has allocated $28 billion for similar improvements, but has spent less than $4 billion.

Today on CNN, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) tried to spin these facts as good news and a vindication of the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq:

BLITZER: Sen. Cornyn, there are a lot of Americans who feel that the Iraqis are playing the U.S. for suckers.

CORNYN: Well, I think, you know, we’ve fought long and hard to get to this position where now there is a hope that Iraq can govern and defend itself, Wolf. If we had simply quit as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Obama wanted us to do early on, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. There wouldn’t even be the hope of a self-governing democracy of an Arab world in the Middle East. This ought to be a subject of negotiations between two sovereign powers.

But as Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) pointed out, Iraq’s surplus actually shows the failure of the Bush administration’s policies in holding the Iraqi government accountable, politically. “If we would have had our way we would have had a reasonable timetable for the redeployment of most of our troops which would have put pressure on the Iraqi government to do what they are not doing,” said Levin, “which is essential to end the conflict in Iraq and that is to work out a political settlement among themselves.” Watch it:

Paul Wolfowitz told the American people in 2003 that Iraq would be able to “finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.” Five years later, the Bush administration continues to spend billions of U.S. taxpayer money instead. As Matt Duss noted at the Wonk Room, the administration has “committed tens of billions of American dollars to various Iraqi construction projects with no real plan for how all of it’s supposed to add up to a stable Iraqi state.”

Levin has also said that he is “seeking a provision in the defense authorization bill that would preclude spending U.S. funds on large-scale infrastructure projects in Iraq, defined as a those that exceed $2 million.” Today on CNN, Cornyn said he supported that measure.

LSB: If Iraq does have a surplus of $79 billion, why aren't they paying their share of rebuilding their country so my tax dollars can be used here at home? I thought the Iraqi oil money was going to pay for this damn war!

McCain To Hold Fundraiser With Abramoff Business Partner

Jim Galloway, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: If you read this space, you knew this was coming. But even now that the odd-couple alliance between Ralph Reed and John McCain is complete, you still can’t believe that it’s true.

On Thursday afternoon, Republicans around Georgia received an invitation from Reed, who will serve as a host of a “special event” for McCain at the downtown Marriot Marquis on Aug. 18.

“John McCain believes in a strong national defense, a smaller, more accountable government, steady economic growth and opportunity, the dignity of life and traditional values,” wrote Reed, whose 2006 campaign for lieutenant governor sank under the weight of evidence detailing his relationship with Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff — much of it uncovered by McCain’s Indian Affairs Committee.

Here's the invitation.

From: Linda Ingram

Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 3:21 PM

Subject: Special Invitation from Ralph Reed: Senator McCain Coming to Atlanta

A Message from Ralph Reed:

Senator John McCain will be coming to Atlanta on August 18 for a very special event at the Marriot Marquis downtown and I have agreed to serve as a member of the McCain Victory 2008 Team.

Never in my career can I recall a starker contrast between two major-party nominees for President. Barack Obama is advocating higher taxes, more spending, a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, and an energy plan that opposes drilling on the outer continental shelf. The nonpartisan publication National Journal concluded that he had the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate.

John McCain believes in a strong national defense, a smaller, more accountable government, steady economic growth and opportunity, the dignity of life and traditional values. He will make it a top priority to balance the budget and get federal spending under control so that our children aren’t burdened with a mountain of debt that will rob them of their future.

John McCain also believes that tax cuts work best when tied to spending restraint. He has a 26-year pro-life voting record and has pledged to appoint conservative judges who will interpret the law, not legislate from the bench.

Attached is a contribution form and a fact sheet that details the event. Please complete the contribution form and return it to me at XXXXX Duluth, GA 30097. If you select to use your credit card, you may fax the form to me at 770-XXX-XXXX.

I hope you will join me and Jo Anne at the August 18 event in support of Senator McCain in Atlanta. The outcome of this presidential election is going to determine the future direction of this country. Please join us as we work together to elect John McCain. Your participation is critical to success.

Thank you for all you have done for our country and our shared conservative values.

Look forward to hearing from you, best, Ralph

Ike's Granddaughter Calls Obama 'Future of America'

Sridhar Pappu, Washington Independent: "You'll have to forgive me for being an Eisenhower Republican," joked Susan Eisenhower, granddaughter of the former five-star general and two-term Republican president. The man who had helped lead America to victory over the forces of Axis darkness during World War II, then oversaw a period of unprecedented prosperity and suburban satisfaction during the 1950s.

Speaking on the telephone on Aug. 7 from her Washington office at The Eisenhower Institute, a think tank where she serves as president emeritus, the journalist-turned-foreign policy wonk explained her decision to publicly support Barack Obama after a lifetime in the Republican Party.

"I don't know how much you know about my grandfather's administration," Eisenhower said. "But that administration stood for multilateral engagement, balancing the budget. They were the party of civil rights, they were the party of environmental progress. That was the Republican Party of the 1950s. I think you can make the case that doesn't sound like the Republican Party we know today. If you look at the way Obama's run his campaign, to how Hillary Clinton ran her campaign, or even how John McCain's campaign is shaping up -- you can definitely say that Obama's running his campaign in a way an Eisenhower Republican would have run his campaign."

He raises a lot of money," Eisenhower, 56, said, by way of explaining the similarities she sees between her grandfather and the likely Democratic nominee. "He has very little debt. I just love it. Anybody who wants to make him out as this wide-eyed liberal -- I just don't see any evidence for that, not in the way he runs his campaign. And this tells you a lot about how he can administer things, how he manages things, how he deals with situations. (more)

Obama's Celeb Ad Adopts McCain Line Of Attack

Seth Colter Walls, HuffingtonPost.com: For good or for ill, the "celebrity" meme is here to stay in the presidential race.

After John McCain's campaign attacked Barack Obama on the grounds that he's too popular for his own good -- and compared his celebrity to that of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears -- Barack Obama's ad-makers have responded in kind. They had plenty of material to work with. As the Internet Movie Database shows, John McCain has guest-starred or lent cameos to four dozen different television programs, and not just those of the news variety: Saturday Night Live, WWF Raw and Entertainment Tonight have featured the Arizona Republican, as have all the major late-night comedians.

Thus, there existed a plentiful amount of celebrity b-roll for an Obama counter-attack, titled "Embrace":

With Barack Obama on vacation this week, perhaps it was the perfect time for Obama's campaign to release an attack ad that makes no mention of their candidate (a rarity, thus far). After all, he won't have to answer any process questions about the "tone" of the race. Or perhaps, just as former Sen. Tom Daschle said last week, Obama's advisers believe McCain's Paris Hilton ad did real damage.

Either way, the celebrity line of attack has become rather popular.

LSB: Popular maybe, but it just dumbs down the race to the lowest common denominator. Come on, Barack, you're better than stooping to the McCain tactics. Contrary to the GOP track record, it isn't the worst thing to be the smartest man in the room.

Georgia's President Appeals For Help Against Russia In The Wall Street Journal

HuffingtonPost.com: Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili takes his plea to stop Russia "war on my country" in The Wall Street Journal today. Read an excerpt below and the full piece here.

As I write, Russia is waging war on my country.

On Friday, hundreds of Russian tanks crossed into Georgian territory, and Russian air force jets bombed Georgian airports, bases, ports and public markets. Many are dead, many more wounded. This invasion, which echoes Afghanistan in 1979 and the Prague Spring of 1968, threatens to undermine the stability of the international security system.

LSB: Instead of huddling with our Olympians, why wasn't "W" huddling with Putin about this? They were both at the opening ceremonies. Didn't it come up?

Late Edition: Do Cornyn’s Standards Mean We Should Kick Ourselves Out of the G8?

Nicole Belle, Crooks and Liars: As Jerome a Paris, who wrote this great article, put it in an email to me:

Neocons are people that see danger everywhere and seem to crave military solutions in all cases. They endlessly blather about how we need to stand firm against bullies or other threats (Russia being near the top of the list), and protect our brave allies on the front lines, and along with them, democracy, freedom and our honor. They mock cowardly Europeans who think appeasement (read - any diplomacy) might have a chance. They fuel conflicts and perpetually tout military options.

And yet, whenever given the opportunity to stand up to their words (and sent other people to fight, of course, they don’t do that themselves), the results are surprisingly poor.

Case in point, Sen John Cornyn, who had to wrestle with some serious pretzel logic on McCain’s position to kick Russia out of the G8. (Click the pic for the vid.)

BLITZER: Do you agree with Sen. McCain, Sen. Cornyn, that Russia should be kicked out of the G8?

CORNYN: Well, I think, you know, we’re not at that point, uh, yet. I think certainly - not over this incident, but I do think we need to recognize Russia for what it is and of course it was the Soviet Union that invaded Afghanistan back in the late 70s that has created so much hardship for the Afghan people, so much lack of stability in that area, so I think, you know, Russia is a superpower. They have the responsibilities of a superpower and they cannot claim that they are on any kind of equal basis or really legitimately threatened by Georgia from a military standpoint. But we do need to…we do need a resolution here, and lest this thing spin out of control.

Um, Sen. Cornyn? Have you heard of Iraq? I hate to be pedantic about this, but by your standards, the US should be kicked out of the G8. You really want to go down this road?

For more about the Georgian/Russian conflict, see this article: The warmongers have lost yet another war.

LSB: My dumbass Senator just can't help himself - once again he steps in "it," but Blitzer fails to call him out.

He who casts the first stone...

prydwen, Wulfweard the White:"The US believes the people of China deserve the fundamental liberty that is the natural right of all human beings. America stands in firm opposition to China's detention of political dissidents, human rights advocates and religious activists." George W Bush 07/08/08

It's Good to be President

Miss Cellania: When you have your pick of which Olympic events to witness, it's no wonder Dubya headed straight for Beach Volleyball practice. Here he is discussing world issues with Misty May Treanor and Kerri Walsh of Team USA.

LSB: Miss Cellania has some Olympic links you may have missed:

• 8 Sports That Never Made It Into The Summer Olympics.
• The Weirdest Olympic Events Throughout History.
• Ways to make women's gymnastics even more awesome.
• The eight biggest Olympics marketing screw-ups in modern history.
• How to Train Like an Olympian. It's not just a sport, it's a life choice.
• Baseball will have new rules for the Olympics. Fans are up in arms.
• You can no longer make a "Perfect Ten" in women's gymnastics.
• Changes Geeks Would Make to the Summer Olympics.
• How to watch the Olympics online. A list of sites that are offering various video channels.
• Track the medal count. (via Simply Left Behind)
• Six Memorable Olympic Opening Ceremonies from the past.
• Beautiful big photographs of the 2008 Opening Ceremonies.
• Olympic athletes you can root for. Their road to Beijing was longer than most.
• 18 Smaller Olympic Countries to Root For. Some nations only have one athlete at the Games. Wouldn't it be awesome for them to bring home a medal?
• The story of Lopez Lomong, one of the "Lost Boys of Sudan" and now an Olympic runner who carried the US flag at the opening ceremonies. Here's his website.
• The World's Worst Olympians. Some countries don't bring home many medals, but they have their reasons. Some should get kudos for just making the attempt.

‘Definitely there has to be a very clear timeline’

Steve Benen, Crooks and Liars: It’s likely that the White House and the McCain campaign will call this a transcription error, or insist that Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari didn’t really mean what he said, or perhaps even parse the meaning of the word “timeline,” but for the rest of us, we now have yet another top Iraqi official demanding a “very clear” timeline for U.S. withdrawal.

The United States must provide a “very clear timeline” to withdraw its troops from Iraq as part of an agreement allowing them to stay beyond this year, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said on Sunday.

It was the strongest public assertion yet that Iraq is demanding a timeline. U.S. President George W. Bush has long resisted setting a firm schedule for pulling troops out of Iraq, although last month the White House began speaking of a general “time horizon” and “aspirational goals” to withdraw. […]

In an interview with Reuters, Zebari said the agreement, including the timeline, was “very close” and would probably be presented to the Iraqi parliament in early September.

Asked if Iraq would accept a document that did not include dates for a withdrawal, Zebari said: “No, no. Definitely there has to be a very clear timeline.”

And what might that timeline be? Iraqi officials have talked recently of an October 2010 deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops — which would, of course, be fairly close to the timeline articulated by Barack Obama — but Zebari said to wait and see.

For those keeping score at home, we now have Nuri al-Maliki, the prime minister of Iraq, Ali al-Dabbagh, the spokesperson for the Iraqi government, and Hoshiyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, all publicly endorsing a withdrawal timeline.

That sound you hear is John McCain losing his favorite campaign issue.

(Read the rest of this story…)

Our bored president playing with an American flag

John Aravosis (DC), AmericaBlog.com: Hitting it against his knee, to be precise. Imagine had Obama done this.

LSB: Disrespect for the flag? Remember this?

NYT, how about reporting all the facts about McCain?

John Aravosis (DC), AmericaBlog.com: Fair enough, the NYT mentions John McCain's gaffes, but then wraps them in this "fatigue" argument, unquestioned:

Mr. McCain has made a number of verbal gaffes in recent months, including referring three times to Czechoslovakia, a country that has not existed since 1993. In his comments on the plane, Mr. McCain did not address whether his gaffes had anything to do with fatigue, but he seemed to suggest that they might have. “If I put in three or four 18-hour, 20-hour days in a row, then I’m not sharp,” Mr. McCain said. “It’s just a fact.”

The issue is sensitive for Mr. McCain, 71, who would be the oldest person elected president if he wins. Although Mr. McCain sometimes looks tired on the campaign trail, his aides say he has more energy than they do as they run the grueling marathon of this long presidential campaign. On Friday, Mr. McCain started at 8:30 a.m. in Cincinnati, made campaign stops in Iowa and Arkansas, and ended more than 16 hours later in Las Vegas.

Here's the problem - there have already been reports from the media itself that McCain doesn't regularly do 18 and 20 hour days. On the contrary. He has the lightest schedule of anyone running for president that these reporters have ever seen. And as for the fatigue argument, the other argument is that John McCain is turning 72 this month and may be showing cognitive problems relating to his age, not to fatigue. That's an obvious point to anyone who's ever met someone over the age of 70, but one that Newsweek seems afraid to mention. We get it. You like him. Now get over it and do your freaking job. Let me reprint a recent excerpt from Rolling Stone:

LSB: Did I read that right? NYT: “If I put in three or four 18-hour, 20-hour days in a row, then I’m not sharp,” Mr. McCain said. Doesn't McCain disqualify himself from being our "wartime" President?

How Obama Should Respond to the “Celebrity” Charge

Anonymous Liberal, Crooks and Liars: Over at the The New Republic, Michael Crowley writes:

More handwringing about Obama’s optics: I see that tickets for his acceptance speech at Denver’s Invesco Field stadium sold out instantly. In light of the apparent traction Republicans got with their ‘Celebrity’ meme you have to wonder if the Obama team is reconsidering the wisdom of this move. I would recommend any possible stagecraft to minimize the event’s scale.

No. No. No. Crowley’s instinctive response here demonstrates much of what’s been wrong with the Democratic approach to politics over the last decade or so. Obama’s ability to draw large enthusiastic crowds is one of his chief political strengths. It is ludicrous not to showcase that strength just because your opponent has–in classic Rovian style–tried to turn it into a liability. That’s how you lose elections.

The way to deal with the “celebrity” charge is not to lower your profile; it’s to turn that charge back around on McCain. If I were advising Obama, I’d tell him to get up there in front of that sold out stadium and say the following:

My opponent has taken to calling me a “celebrity” in all of his commercials. The suggestion, I can only assume, is that all of you (gesturing to the crowd) show up at events like this and donate your time and your money to this campaign because you’re all adoring groupies who are obsessed with me. Now, that would certainly be flattering if it were true, but I’m not going to delude myself. The reality is I can’t act, I can’t sing, and my personal life is incredibly boring.

The truth is that no one would be paying any attention to me at all if I wasn’t talking about things that really matter to a lot of people. You’re not here tonight–and you’re not watching at home–because you want to be entertained. Lord knows there are plenty of things that you could be doing with your time right now that would be far more entertaining than listening to me. No, you’re here tonight because you love your country and you’re concerned about the direction it’s been heading over the last eight years.

You’re not here tonight to see what kind of outfit I’m wearing or to hear my latest hit single–and if you are, I think you’re probably going to be disappointed. No, you’re here because you want change, you want a government that fights for people like you and not on behalf of powerful special interests; you want a government that keeps you safe by pursuing a rationale foreign policy abroad and keeps your family secure by creating jobs, ensuring access to affordable health care, and fighting for energy independence.

That’s why you’re here. That’s why you’re volunteering your time at record levels. That’s why you’re contributing your hard-earned money in record amounts.

So remember, when John McCain and his surrogates call me a “celebrity,” they’re not insulting me; they’re insulting you. They’re insinuating that you are a mindless groupie rather than a concerned citizen, a fan rather than a voter.

But it’s not going to work. You know why you’re here, you know why you’re watching, and you’re much smarter than they give you credit for.

LSB: I agree with this commentator. If Democrats are ever going to be serious around leading this country, they've got to stop taking their directions from the Republicans. I was pleased to see the Democrats let the Republicans talk "in the dark" last week and not be intimidated by those bullies again. You're in the majority for a while, so act like and stop taking your marching orders from Boehner and those other assholes on the Right. If you actually do lead, we'll follow; it's only when you say you want to lead and then you do the bidding of those on the Right that we bolt from you.

New evidence suggests Ron Suskind is right

Joe Conason, Salon.com: If Ron Suskind's sensational charge that the White House and CIA colluded in forging evidence to justify the Iraq invasion isn't proved conclusively in his new book, "The Way of the World," then the sorry record of the Bush administration offers no basis to dismiss his allegation. Setting aside the relative credibility of the author and the government, the relevant question is whether the available facts demand a full investigation by a congressional committee, with testimony under oath.

When we look back at the events surrounding the emergence of the faked letter that is at the center of this controversy, a strong circumstantial case certainly can be made in support of Suskind's story.

That story begins during the final weeks of 2003, when everyone in the White House was suffering severe embarrassment over both the origins and the consequences of the invasion of Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. No evidence of significant connections between Saddam Hussein's regime and the al-Qaida terrorist organization had been discovered there either. Nothing in this costly misadventure was turning out as advertised by the Bush administration.

According to Suskind, the administration's highest officials -- presumably meaning President Bush and Vice President Cheney -- solved this problem by ordering the CIA to manufacture a document "proving" that Saddam had indeed been trying to build nuclear weapons and that he was also working with al-Qaida. The reported product of that order was a fake memorandum from Tahir Jalil Habbush, then chief of Saddam's intelligence service, to the dictator himself, dated July 1, 2001. The memo not only explicitly confirmed that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had received training in Baghdad for "attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy" but also carefully noted the arrival of a "shipment" from Niger via Libya, presumably of uranium yellowcake, the sole export of that impoverished African country.

Very incriminating, very convenient and not very believable. Indeed, it may be hard to imagine that even the CIA at its bumbling worst would concoct such a blatant counterfeit. But there are a few reasons to believe that, too.

On Dec. 14, 2003, the Sunday Telegraph hyped the phony Habbush memo as a front-page exclusive over the byline of Con Coughlin, the paper's foreign editor and chief Mideast correspondent, who has earned a reputation for promoting neoconservative claptrap. As I explained in a Salon blog post on Dec. 18, the story's sudden appearance in London was the harbinger of a disinformation campaign that quickly blew back to the United States -- where it was cited by William Safire on the New York Times Op-Ed page. Ignoring the bizarre Niger yellowcake reference, which practically screamed bullshit, Safire seized on Coughlin's story as proof of his own cherished theory about Saddam's sponsorship of 9/11.

Soon enough, however, the Habbush memo was discredited in Newsweek and elsewhere as a forgery for many reasons, notably including its contradiction of established facts concerning Atta's travels during 2001.

But the credulous Telegraph coverage is still significant now, because Coughlin identified the source of his amazing scoop as Ayad Allawi. For those who have forgotten the ambitious Allawi, he is a former Baathist who rebelled against Saddam, formed the Iraqi National Accord movement to fight the dictator, and was appointed to Iraq's interim Governing Council by the U.S. occupation authorities after the invasion.

Although Coughlin quoted Allawi at some length, neither he nor his source revealed how the Habbush memo had fallen into the hands of the Iraqi politician. But the Safire column made an allusion that now seems crucial, describing Allawi as "an Iraqi leader long considered reliable by intelligence agencies."

Specifically, Allawi was a longtime asset of the Central Intelligence Agency, which had funded his struggle against Saddam for years prior to the invasion. His CIA sponsorship is noted in nearly every news article about Allawi, usually contrasted with the Pentagon sponsorship of his political rival, Ahmed Chalabi, the infamous fabricator of WMD intelligence (and suspected double agent for Iran).

Obviously, Allawi's relationship with the CIA is worth reconsidering today in light of the charges in Suskind's book, even though by itself that relationship proves nothing. There is more, however.

On Dec. 11, 2003 -- three days before the Telegraph launched its "exclusive" on the Habbush memo -- the Washington Post published an article by Dana Priest and Robin Wright headlined "Iraq Spy Service Planned by U.S. to Stem Attacks." Buried inside on Page A41, their story outlined the CIA's efforts to create a new Iraqi intelligence agency:

"The new service will be trained, financed and equipped largely by the CIA with help from Jordan. Initially the agency will be headed by Iraqi Interior Minister Nouri Badran, a secular Shiite and activist in the Jordan-based Iraqi National Accord, a former exile group that includes former Baath Party military and intelligence officials.

"Badran and Ayad Allawi, leader of the INA, are spending much of this week at CIA headquarters in Langley to work out the details of the new program. Both men have worked closely with the CIA over the past decade in unsuccessful efforts to incite coups against Saddam Hussein." (The Web link to the full story is broken but it can be found on Nexis.)

So Allawi was at the CIA during the week before Coughlin got that wonderful scoop. That may not be proof of anything, either, but a picture is beginning to form.

That picture becomes sharper in the months that followed Allawi's release of the Habbush forgery, when he suddenly returned to favor in Baghdad and eclipsed Chalabi, at least for a while. Five months later, in May 2004, the Iraqi Governing Council elected Allawi as his country's interim prime minister, reportedly under pressure from the American authorities. Combining subservience to the occupiers with iron-fisted tactics, he quickly squandered any popularity he might have enjoyed, and his INA party placed a humiliating third in the 2005 national elections.

That was the end of Allawi as a politician, yet perhaps he had already served his purpose. And it might be very interesting to hear what he would say today about the Habbush forgery -- and his broader relationship to the CIA and the Bush White House -- especially if he were to tell his story in a congressional hearing.

Until then there is much more to learn from Suskind's reporting, including new evidence that Bush and other officials knew there were no WMD in Iraq. Read an excerpt from "The Way of the World" here.

Everything you need to know about offshore drilling in one minute 12 seconds

Bill Clinton's Democratic Convention Speech To Take Place On Wednesday Night

Tom Raum and Nedra Pickler, HuffingtonPost.com: Former President Clinton will have a role at the Democratic convention in Denver later this month.

Democratic officials said Thursday that Clinton will give a speech on the third night of the convention, before an address by the as-yet-to-be-named running mate for Barack Obama, the party's likely presidential nominee. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity before the details were formally announced.

Exactly what role the former president would play at the gathering Aug. 25-28 has been the subject of speculation since his wife, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, ended her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in early June and endorsed Obama. ...

LSB: Obama has given prime-time coverage at the convention to both Bill and Hillary. I get it - he's a former President and still a rock star in some circles, she captured a lot of primary voters and needs her to continue campaigning for him, and the Obama folks don't want to piss them off any more than necessary. But Hillary is still out big bucks (will we hear a plea for funding - "hillaryclinton dot com"), and Bill is still angry about losing "his" second run at the White House and about losing his mantle as the First Black President after some of his primary comments. Obama had better be careful, because the Clintons are not political neophytes and they will easily steal his thunder at the convention. And there damn well better be a plan in place to kill Bill's mic if he gets long-winded. We don't need a repeat of the 1988 convention where Bill's nominating speech (which was really all about him) for Dukakis bumped the next speaker out of prime time. Why weren't they on the same night - call it the Clinton Lovefest - and let them duke it out among themselves if sombody gets bumped from prime time?

Schumer Schools Obama: Hit McCain Harder

From the Left: Inside the Beltway, many Democrats are privately expressing worry that Barack Obama’s predilection for taking the high road in his battle against Republican rival, John McCain, is costing him support.

In recent weeks, McCain ramped up the personal attacks against Obama in a blistering ad comparing Obama to pop tart, Britney Spears, and socialite, Paris Hilton. In the ad, McCain called Obama the “biggest celebrity in the world.”

Obama’s campaign responded to McCain’s barrage by accusing him in television ads and press releases of taking the “low road,” while casting Obama as above such attacks on his opponent’s character.

New York Sen. Charles Schumer isn’t buying it.

“I would not be afraid to attack back. When they say, ‘He’s not one of us,’ you don’t say, ‘Here’s our plan on health care,”‘ Schumer said.

“I would answer back hard. What do you mean he’s not one of us? It’s John McCain who wears $500 shoes, has six houses, and comes from one of the richest families in his state,” Schumer said. “It’s Barack Obama who climbed up the hard way, and that’s why he wants middle-class tax cuts and better schools for our kids.”

I agree with Schumer. One of my biggest gripes about Barack Obama is he’s too nice. Whenever Obama mentions McCain by name he says, “Sen. McCain is an American hero and I respect his military service to his country.” Barack, everyone knows McCain is a former POW held by the Viet Cong for years. But this was nearly 40 years ago and he’s attacking your character now.

It’s OK to hit back hard and clip the Old Coot in the knees. No one is going to think any less of you. In fact, my guess is, most people will respect you.

McCain: "A Poster Boy for Corruption"

Down With Tyranny: How corrupt is McCain really? Amy Silverman knows. As an Arizona reporter, she's covered him longer and in more depth than all the Inside the Beltway shills combined. Her New Times piece yesterday should be read by every American who cares about an honest, clean government. It is the definitive John McCain biography and it goes way beyond taking money from Jordanian bundlers and giving it back when he gets caught.

I've been a writer and editor at New Times for 15 years. For much of that time, I wrote about Arizona politics, which is to say that I wrote about John McCain. It's still odd to see the guy in the spotlight, because for quite a while, I was pretty much the only one covering him.

I never did fall for him in the way reporters fall for politicians, probably because he wasn't much to fall for back in the early 1990s. In those days, McCain was still rehabilitating the image he'd later sell to the national media. He was known then for cavorting in the Bahamas with Charlie Keating, rather than for fighting for campaign finance reform and limited government spending.

No one seems to remember Keating much, anymore. Amazing. McCain and his fellow
Arizonan, Democrat Dennis DeConcini, were hauled before the Senate Ethics Committee along with three other senators to explain their actions on behalf of Keating's Lincoln Savings and Loan.

Keating gave the senators hefty campaign contributions, then called on them to meet with bank regulators to pressure them to go soft on an investigation of Lincoln. There were two infamous meetings. McCain attended both.

It's true that McCain was the first to back off when the appearance of impropriety became obvious, and the ethics committee was easier on him than most of the others, partly because some of McCain's actions on behalf of Keating took place while he was in the House, and therefore not under the purview of the Senate Ethics Committee.

More important, what often gets lost in the retelling is McCain's close personal
relationship with Keating. McCain took trips with Keating, including to his retreat in the Bahamas, and reimbursed him only after the fact was made public.

It was also revealed that Keating had a business relationship with Cindy and her father, Jim Hensley, who ran a very lucrative Anheuser-Busch distributorship in Phoenix.Most shocking, perhaps, given McCain's image today, is that McCain took more than $100,000 in campaign contributions from Keating and his employees, between 1982 and 1988.

You may be surprised to know that in 1987 and 1988, McCain voted against federal legislation reforming the campaign finance system. It was only in 1990, in the aftermath of Keating and the shadow of an upcoming re-election campaign, that he started supporting reform. Ditto for his efforts to cut government spending.

Please read Silverman's whole story. If McCain manages to become president, you should know what kind of a person we have sitting in the White House.

Big, Bland John: How a dull exterior masks one of the most conservative records in the U.S. Senate

Dave Mann, Texas Observer: Democratic strategists in Texas have been telling anyone who will listen for the past year that they can defeat John Cornyn, the state’s junior U.S. senator, in November. This is big talk for a party that hasn’t won a statewide race since 1994 and hasn’t held Cornyn’s senate seat in 47 years. But they have some fancy polling data to back it up. More than a third of Texans wouldn’t know their junior senator if he fell on them. They call this “name ID” (or lack thereof) in the political consulting business. Cornyn’s is abysmal for a politician who’s served as a Texas Supreme Court justice, state attorney general, and, for the past six years, U.S. senator. Of those who do know Cornyn, fewer than 50 percent view him favorably—dangerous territory for an incumbent seeking re-election. Some of those same polls show him running closely with Democratic opponent Rick Noriega.

But you don’t need polling data to know that Cornyn can be beaten. Just watch him give a speech. “Dull” is an understatement. ...

LSB: This asshole needs to go! He's nothing but a rubber stamp for Bush, and some of his conservative platitudes are laughable - to everyone, that is, except for those directly affected by them.

Revisiting Reverend Hagee, McCain's creepy reverend friend

John Aravosis (DC), AmericaBlog.com: A reader just sent me this video about McCain's reverend friend - the one he embraced until he was forced to denounce him. Creepy as all get out.

John Edwards Admits Affair

Richard Blair, All Spin Zone: Well, there goes this news cycle. The Republic of Georgia and Russia are at each other’s throats, and both have nukes. al-Sadr says he’ll disarm his militias if an Iraq withdrawal timeline is in place for the U.S. Serial adulterer John McCain said something today. Fannie Mae’s losses on bad mortgages are triple original estimates.

Yet this evening, the lead news story will be that former Dem presidential candidate John Edwards, after months and weeks of hounding by a celebrity obsessed media, has admitted to an extra-marital affair. He flatly denied the rumors that he fathered a child during the affair, but still.

A couple of emotions come to mind.

I’m sad about this, because I was and am a very firm believer in the issues on which John and Elizabeth Edwards have led, especially since his first run for the presidency in 2004. I’m further saddened because no doubt their voices will now become silent. They have more important things to attend to.

I’m disappointed - no, hopping damn mad - about this, because I’ve been a supporter since 2004. He’s received my very vocal support, as well as financial contributions. I don’t know how, in this day and age of Enquirization of every high profile person’s private life, that Edwards could expect his affair would remain private and secret. Let’s think for a moment. What if he had actually succeeded in his presidential run this year? Was this high octane trial lawyer so naive that he didn’t think that the bottom dwellers in the GOP would not have dug this up at some point, either before or after the Democratic convention? Jeebus. The collateral damage to Democratic Party candidates up and down the ticket would have been horrendous.

Most of all, I mourn for the causes that he so passionately supports, because those causes have now lost a significant voice (at least in the short term).

John Edwards and his family will survive this personal crisis, but we’re all poorer for the very public airing that his indiscretion will receive.

On the positive side, the other John (McCain, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee) should probably be concerned about the increased scrutiny which his own personal past might now receive.

Update: A comment on Eschaton:

Am I to understand that Russia invaded a small neighbor today and yet the big story is that a democratic politician not currently holding office had an affair? Do I have it right that a book was released this week in which a Pulitzer prize winning author made the claim that the White House forged a document to help push us into war in Iraq and the big story is John Edwards? I’ll be over here banging my head against the wall. Don’t mind me.

Indeed.

Reagan-esque: Dazed and Confused

"Fiscal Conservative"

David Gregory: Broader implications for the party

John Amato, Crooks and Liars: Yes, John Edwards had an affair that was handled privately and the Edwards story is big news. It will get the Anna Nicole Smith/Brett Favre treatment for a while now. Elizabeth Edwards responds here.

From the email inbox:

David Gregory just said young people were inspired by him and are let down… and questioned whether it will have “broader implications for the party” during the election. This week, Ron Suskind’s book revealed the Bush team knew Iraq didn’t have WMD, forged letters, paid hush money, and lied us into war. (Chirp, chirp…) Any broader implications for the Republican party there?—the absurdity of a media culture where THIS is what passes for holding politicians accountable.

Broader implication for the party. OK, let’s talk party:

• McClellan said that FOX News got talking points from the White House.
• Bush authorized rendition.
• Bush authorized torture. Yes, that means waterboarding.
• Bush authorized a war based on lies resulting in millions of innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilian deaths as well as an ethnic cleansing.
• Thousands of our troops have been killed or seriously injured.
• The US dollar is in the tank.
• The housing/mortgage crisis has almost caused a depression.
• How about the trampling of our Constitution with warrantless wiretapping?
• Laptops are being confiscated at airports and the border.
• Under Bush, oil companies are raking in record profits while Americans suffer.
• The US attorney scandal.
• A health care epidemic.
• Monica Goodling
• A standing ovation in Congress for David Vitter’s return.
• Military TV Analysts/Generals scandal.
• Larry Craig’s bathroom adventure.
• And many, many more.

Would any of this have “broader implications” to the Republican party during the election if the media did its job?

Newt Gingrich STILL gets on TV every other day and everyone KNOWS he had affairs, even dumping his wife right after cancer surgery. And yet all these MSM types are wringing their hands about what this means to the Democratic Party. Ridiculous. Throw a stone in DC and try not to hit some one with a little something on the side, and that includes those in the press corps.

And they have the nerve to talk about betrayal of Edwards to the media and his wife — in that order. Why aren’t they more outraged about the betrayal of the White House to get us into a war?

What screwed up priorities.

LSB: Disappointed? Yes, because this will consume the news cycle for the next two weeks and the shallowness of the MSM ('How will this affect the Obama campaign?') will unfortunately dominate. (BTW, Sen. McCain, where is Vicki Iseman?) Sen. Edward's weakness will forever more lump him in with the many Republican philanderers of late - what a shame all of his efforts on behalf of the working people of this country will be tainted with this scandal. The only bright spot is that at least Sen. Edwards had the good sense to take responsibility for it instead of lying about it (Sen. Craig), and at least he didn't make Elizabeth take that walk of shame with him (Sen. Vitter, Gov. Spitzer, Gov. McGreevy).

Osama's driver gets 5 months. Wow, glad we caught that guy.

John Aravosis (DC), AmericaBlog.com: He's the only guy we've tried so far, Osama's big bad driver. And the military tribunal trying him found that he was such an important catch they gave him.... five more months. Absolutely freaking pathetic. This was Bush's big catch. The driver. What's next, Osama's hairdresser? Or maybe his personal shopper? Mind you, this was a military court, that shows just how pathetic the case was - this was no wimpy civilian jury, it was big bad military folk, and even they said "whatever." The Bush administration says they can still hold the guy forever, which only goes to show how screwed up the entire situation is at Gitmo. If even a military jury says that it's time to release the guy, then clearly whoever is making the decisions at the top, as to whether or not to keep people in perpetual custody at Gitmo, has no idea what they're doing. This really is just the icing on the cake of the laughing stock the Republicans have made of both our justice system and the "war on terror." We caught Osama's chauffeur. Well bully for us.

So, how is that hunt for Osama going?

Cindy McCain knows John McCain would never have an affair. Really. (Not counting the affair Cindy had when John was married.)

Joe Sudbay (DC), AmericaBlog.com: Wolf Blitzer, in vintage buffoon mode, just asked what impact, if any, will John Edwards' affair will have on Barack Obama. Huh? Let's review, Wolf: It's the GOP nominee, John McCain, who has the history of having extra-marital affairs.

Remember last February, after the NY Times reported on rumors of an affair between John McCain and lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, how Cindy McCain ardently defended her husband?:

"More importantly, my children and I not only trust my husband, but know that he would never do anything to not only disappoint our family, but disappoint the people of America. He's a man of great character."

That quote just stuck in my head because it was so patently absurd. As the Los Angeles Times reported, Cindy McCain met and began dating John McCain when he was married. So, Cindy met John when he was cheating on his wife, but she knows he'd never cheat on his wife. Right.

Has anyone seen Vicki Iseman (pictured) lately? Seriously.

UPDATE: At a town hall in Virginia today, Mike Stark asked McCain point blank if he's always been faithful to Cindy. Brilliant move by Stark...but, McCain never answered the question.

Totally

Paris Hilton Responds to that Wrinkly White-Haired Guy

LSB: The YouTube version of this video has been taken down, so I've linked to the funnyordie.com page with this video. (Click on the pic for the vid.) Something's screwy with trying to embed the vid here. It sucks that you have leave this site to see the vid, but the vid is worth it. Enjoy!

Eight Years Ago Today: Bush’s Broken Promise

Jon Perr, Crooks and Liars: Eight years ago today, George W. Bush uttered the now broken promise that has come to define his failed presidency. Accepting his party’s nomination, Governor Bush promised to restore “honor and dignity” to the White House. But as events continue to show, a more accurate - and ironic - mantra for the lawless Bush White House would be “no controlling legal authority.”

At the time it was delivered, Bush’s acceptance speech at the 2000 Republican National Convention in Philadelphia was an arrogant, deceitful broadside against the Clinton/Gore years. But the very words Bush used to tar Al Gore with the blight of the Lewinsky scandal may now constitute the epitaph for the Bush presidency:

“So when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of our land, I will swear to uphold the honor and dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God.”

That hateful address, of course, was filled with exactly the kind of lies and taunts - the smallness - that came to define George W. Bush.

His false charges about American military readiness (”Not ready for duty, sir!”), his long since abandoned philosophy when it comes to using American force (”the cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the victory must be overwhelming”), his smearing of Al Gore that foreshadowed his own legacy (”he now leads the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but the only thing he has to offer is fear itself”) and his obscene claim to be a “uniter” (”I will not attack a part of this country because I want to lead the whole of it”), all were in keeping with the dark Bush character.

Bush broke all of these promises. But his original sin, from which all other of his crimes and errors flow, is his pledge to usher in new period of higher ethical standards as part of a “responsibility era.” Bush, who previously sneered at Gore’s “no controlling legal authority” defense of his 1990’s Buddhist temple fundraising efforts, raised the ethical bar further that October:

“In my administration, we will ask not only what is legal but what is right. Not just what the lawyers allow, but what the public deserves. In my administration, we’ll make it clear there is a controlling legal authority of conscience.”

Eights years later and Bush’s 2000 standard of “not only what is legal but what is right” is in tatters. Just this week, Bush’s own Justice Department issued a report which concluded that Monica Goodling, the former White House liaison for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, violated federal law and DOJ policy by discriminating against job applicants who weren’t faithful Republicans or conservative activists.

And that’s just the beginning. Plamegate, the Libby pardon, the Abramoff affair, doctoring scientific reports, the end of habeas corpus, detainee torture, the politically-motivated firings of U.S. attorneys, illegal domestic surveillance, the theory of the unitary executive and the unprecedented assertion of executive privilege all show a President committed to doing neither what is legal nor right. And then, of course, there’s Iraq.

How fitting then that Bush’s would-be Republican successor John McCain, the man who promised to run a “respectful” campaign, chose this week to launch a wave of attack ads and character assassination against his Democratic rival.

Americans can’t erase the Bush presidency, but they aren’t condemned to repeat it. So with the imminent arrival of the GOP and Democratic national conventions, remember that it was eight years ago that Republican George W. Bush promised us he would “uphold the honor and dignity” of his office.

Happy anniversary, America.

John McCain's Campaign on the D-List

Joe Sudbay (DC), AmericaBlog.com: Admittedly, I'm not too clued in to popular culture. However, I do love that Kathy Griffin and her reality show, "My Life on the D-List."

Kathy Griffin wants to win a grammy. She did a CD of one of her shows and has been pimping it for months. She wants to win at any cost. And, as a self-professed D-lister, she's willing to make herself look desperate in the process. She is, after all, also a comedian and there's no stunt that's too cheap for her. On last week's episode, Griffin hit a new low. In an effort to earn free publicity, she trolled around Hollywood with Britney Spear's boyfriend, Adnan Ghalib. It was a an over-the-top cry for attention. And, it was pretty funny.

John McCain wants to win the presidency. He has been running for practically ten years. He wants to win at any cost. And, the one-time self-proclaimed "maverick" is willing to make himself look desperate in the process. He is, after all, just a right wing Republican and theres' no stunt that's too cheap for him. On last week's insane episode of the McCain campaign, McCain hit a new low. In an effort to earn free publicity, he trolled around a television ad featuring Adnan Ghalib's girlfriend, Britney Spears. It was an over-the-top cry for attention. And, it was very pathetic.

It worked for Kathy Griffin. It made John McCain look ridiculous.

John McCain's campaign really shouldn't be mirroring Kathy Griffin's show. But, that's what it has come to.

Where Have You Gone, John? His zesty attacks on corporate greed and inspiring plans for national service are no more.

Jonathan Alter, Newsweek:

In the middle of John McCain's dopey Britney & Paris attack ad, the announcer gravely asks of Barack Obama: "Is He Ready to Lead?" An equally good question is whether McCain is ready to lead. For a man who will turn 72 this month, he's a surprisingly immature politician—erratic, impulsive and subject to peer pressure from the last knucklehead who offers him advice. The youthful insouciance that for many years has helped McCain charm reporters like me is now channeled into an ad that one GOP strategist labeled "juvenile," another termed "childish" and McCain's own mother called "stupid." The Obama campaign's new mantra is that McCain is "an honorable man running a dishonorable campaign." Lame is more like it. And out of sync with the real guy. ...

... The real question is what all of this might mean for a McCain presidency. The list of troubling portents is growing long: repeated campaign staff upheavals reflecting poor management skills; abrupt reversals on big issues like tax cuts and relations with Russia (where he was superhawk one day and superdove the next); shameless pandering on a gas-tax holiday that even his own economic advisers think is a joke; confused handling of Social Security that annoys all sides of the debate; bogus charges (e.g., Obama is causing high gas prices, Obama didn't visit wounded soldiers because he couldn't take the press) that undermine his integrity; and an angry, bunker mentality among aides that one GOP operative, fearing excommunication from Team McCain if identified, describes as "lacking only a Luger and a cyanide pill."

Only black reporter kicked out of McCain event for no reason

John Aravosis (DC), AmericaBlog.com: But race had nothing to do with it, McCain's staff assures us. Really. Some of McCain's best reporters are black. Well, no they're not. The only black one just got asked to leave. And lots of other white reporters were in the same "restricted" zone but they weren't asked to leave. Only the black one. Well that's not really true. When a white reporter asked why the black reporter was being asked to leave, they kicked her out too. Nice.

LSB: Hmmm... McCain wasn't there, so let's give him the benefit of some doubt. Still, the tone of the campaign is set from the top... that's all I'm saying.