1,369 lightbulbs

Barack spits hot fire.



(So does Andrea Mitchell, apparently.)

Matthew Yglesias and The Nation's Chris Hayes wonder if anyone's going to notice the fact the John McCain's the very elitist he claims that Obama is.

Hayes seems to wonder if he put McCain on blast, whether one of his media colleagues might see the flames:

John McCain is an insanely rich individual. He is insanely rich because he married a woman who was insanely rich, who in turn inherited that insane wealth from her parents. They own more houses than I have pairs of shoes. Seriously. They have a super fancy credit cards that they carry a $225,000 balance on. He wears expensive shoes. I'm sure his suits and ties cost a lot, too. Whatever. That is what it is.

But, importantly, John McCain simply has no connection to working people on a personal level, and most likely hasn't for most of his political life. The only working class people he encounters are those who come to his campaign events, those who serve him at restaurants, and the small army no doubt employed to clean his ten houses. And, more importantly, he's the head of a political coalition that while managing to win millions of working class votes, does not have any real representatives of working America calling the shots in the party's upper echelons. His top economic adviser spent his entire career trying to stick it to the middle class and enrich the banking industry, which he later lucratively joined. Now that the very policies he pushed for helped create a massive ponzi scheme that is collapsing on the heads of the middle class he sniffs at the rubble and calls those people whiners. Whiners.

Matt sees McCain singing to the (sickly rich, obliviious) choir:

It's easy, for example, for someone on the "I married an heiress" plan to talk about the need to privatize Social Security or cut benefits. And someone who, like John McCain, has never actually experienced private sector health insurance might well not understand what it is about it that has so many people agitated. And McCain, it's worth recalling, isn't even someone who got rich by earning a fortune in business and thus might have learned something about upward mobility. He just married into it. But he doesn't appear to have any of that FDR-like sense of noblesse oblige -- he just has a lot of policies that are well-suited to the interests of people like himself.

The campaign of the GOP senator has new shorthand for Obama.

"The One", a la Neo in The Matrix. Pure Rove.

Fellow Penn alum and former major-leaguer Doug Glanville writes a NYT op-ed about how long is too long when you take leave from your team for your child's birth:

I recall a Philadelphia Phillies teammate, Ron Gant, who had a battle with one of his previous managers on another team over spending too many days at his wife’s bedside after the birth of their child.

Disgust over his taking too long made it into the papers, and the local disapproval became national, as comments flew back and forth about the inappropriateness of Gant’s return timeline. He had failed to remember that the moment it was clear that his wife was O.K. and the baby was O.K., he was supposed to be back in uniform.

It's not the Army, fellas. Easy.

McCain planned to attack Obama even if he did visit the wounded troops in Germany:

What the McCain campaign doesn’t want people to know, according to one GOP strategist I spoke with over the weekend, is that they had an ad script ready to go if Obama had visited the wounded troops saying that Obama was...wait for it...using wounded troops as campaign props. So, no matter which way Obama turned, McCain had an Obama bashing ad ready to launch. I guess that’s political hardball.

But another word for it is the one word that most politicians are loathe to use about their opponents—a lie.

It's well past time folks in the Obama camp started calling this for what it is.

A DE-RETRACTION.

McCain's people withdrew the "Obama-needed-cameras" bit yesterday - but took it up again when no one was looking:

"We can't really know what Sen. Obama's thinking was at the moment he canceled the visit, but we know that the campaign was at least considering sending a reporter with him, and when the Pentagon said that wouldn't be allowed, he decided against making the visit," he writes. "It seems fair to ask whether Obama canceled because he'd been denied another spectacular photo-op on a trip that was about nothing but photo-ops."

Americans, regardless of political persuasion, need to see through crap like this.

Marc Ambinder:

Really, the press corps should pay attention to Barack Obama's sustained defense of his energy policies, which includes new language on John McCain's ties to the oil industry. But we're not: we're writing about the flashpoint of the day, which is the McCain campaign's contention that Obama is illegally playing the "race card," of bluffing about bias.

So why does he spend the rest of the post saying the exact same thing I've read in other posts today - that Obama's not race-baiting and that McCain's not racist?

How about talking about the energy policies, Marc?

That said, he does have a point:

Now, I didn't go to a four year college NOT to assimilate some lessons about the semiotics of about gender and language. CBS News National Correspondent Dean Reynolds noted yesterday that the McCain campaign accused Obama of reacting to McCain's aggressiveness "with a mix of fussiness and hysteria." Strike me down for noticing, and I usually hate to even think in these terms, but those words have gendered meanings.

Look, it's simple. McCain, his campaign and the GOP at-large is trying to turn Barack Obama into a woman, an uppity nigger, a weakling, a pussy, a foreigner, a socialist, a flip-flopper, a dandy, a gay man, a pseudo-messiah, a trickster - whatever the hell will cause Americans who lack the self-respect to vote in their own best interests to vote for the "safe" choice.

Getting tasered - at your own wedding.

A blatant case of police overreaction if there ever was one.

New York Newsday has hit on something important, I think, out of what we might have thought to be a trivial matter:

Anyone with even a vague sense of pop culture knows that Britney and Paris are yesterday's news. Here's a link to Forbes' Celebrity 100. Paris and Britney don't even make the list any more.

Instead, the top 10, in order: Oprah Winfrey, Tiger Woods, Angelina Jolie, Beyonce Knowles, David Beckham, Johnny Depp, Jay-Z, The Police, JK Rowling, Brad Pitt.

So, they didn't pick other big celebrities, who were either men, or black, or married.

What they picked was two sexually available white women.

But it must have been a coincidence, because we know John McCain wants to run an elevated campaign focusing on the serious issues that America faces.

This is one that could either be as deep as an ocean or shallow as a sink.

One could reasonably posit that McCain's camp knew exactly what they were doing, positioning Barack with two white women, a la "Harold - call me!", intimating that this big, virile John Shaft of a Presidential candidate was going to handle some business. I think that's going too far. I'm honestly of the opinion that these dolts on the McCain campaign don't know popular culture from a hole in the wall and simply screwed up, picking two readily known, but steadily less popular, stars.

Their biggest error was that those two women are largely famous for nothing. Obama's running for President of the United States - a bit different. Obama's record and his plan for this country deserve to be taken seriously by each voter, but it's plain that McCain would rather win than have a serious election, on serious issues.

This is just depressing, on so many levels.



Wonder if they'd ever have a Black quarterback again. Doubtful.

That, apparently, is where our money is. I mean, all of it:

Exxon Mobil Corp. reported second-quarter earnings of $11.68 billion Thursday, the biggest quarterly profit ever by any U.S. corporation, but the results were well short of Wall Street expectations and its shares fell.

The world's largest publicly traded oil company said net income for the April-June period came to $2.22 a share, up from $10.26 billion, or $1.83 a share, a year ago.

Expectations were higher?

ABC's Jake Tapper, often a confused young man, wonders whether - gasp! - Barack Obama might think John McCain and the Republican horde...well, here's Jake:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does it not seem as if Obama just said McCain and his campaign -- presumably the "they" in this construct -- are saying that Obama shouldn't be elected because he's a risk because he's black and has a foreign-sounding name?

I've seen racism in campaigns before -- I've seen it against Obama in this campaign (more from Democrats than Republicans, at this point, I might add) and I've seen it against McCain in South Carolina in 2000, when his adopted Bangladeshi daughter Bridget was alleged, by the charming friends and allies of then-Gov. George W. Bush, to have been a McCain love-child with an African-American woman.

What I have not seen is it come from McCain or his campaign in such a way to merit the language Obama used today. Pretty inflammatory.

The horror! I guess all those "Osama-Obama" bits you find on Right-wing blogs and Fox News are an accident, huh? The "baby mama" bit - coincidence, perhaps. Those Muslim, madrassa and other rumors about Obama being foreign-born - and John McCain's hands are supposed to be clean? That's rich.

There has been a consistent effort to make Barack Obama's uniqueness factor against him by making him as "foreign" as possible in the consciousness of the (White, likely rural) American voter. There have been too many examples of this to describe, and if Tapper doesn't see that - and seeks instead to insinuate that Obama's playing the race card - he's in a coma.

Hey, Jake - ever heard of the "Southern" strategy? Hell, I didn't even mention what slurs McCain himself still uses.

You really thought that a party that has essentially forgotten African-Americans for more than a generation wouldn't cater to the lowest racial denominator?

But here's the thing - if it wasn't as obvious as an anvil upside the head yet, just wait. Maybe even then Jake will notice.

Hillary Clinton gets her night:

Sen. Hillary Clinton has agreed to speak on the second night of next month's Democratic convention, headlining on the 88th anniversary of the day women earned the right to vote, sources say.

Two sources close to Clinton said the former presidential candidate will speak August 26 with all female U.S. senators on stage with her.

"Tuesday night is Hillary night," said one supporter.

My first instinct was to take issue with this very coveted speaking slot, and worry about the Clinton coup that so many seem fearful of.

But then I saw this:

That night of the convention will be the anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which guarantees the right of women to vote. In honor of both that history and her own historic candidacy, Hillary will be joined on stage by all the other female Democratic Senators.

With Obama's speech coming on another historic day, the convention will be fraught with symbolism. It will be nice to see a Dem convention that, Obama's '04 speech aside, may actually inspire us - for once. The Republicans will attack either way. But will they be more reticent, considering the racial and gender milestones the Dems will inevitably mark?

Nah, I didn't think so, either.

In case folks were too distracted by this nonsense, Obama held a town hall today on the economy in Missouri, and was spitting hot fire:



Karl Rove's in contempt, Tim Kaine's VP star may be dimming and Israel's prime minister is stepping down due to allegations of corruption.

OK, one mildly silly thing - folks seem not to like one of my favorite TV actresses. Haters.

Not helping.

Damn, that was fast:

I know I said that I wouldn't comment. But I'm willing to let the ad above and
Obama's comment about McCain's "respectful campaign" when asked about it today in Missouri:

"You know, I don't pay attention to John McCain's ads, although I do notice he doesn't seem to have anything to say very positive about himself. He seems to only be talking about me... You need to ask John McCain what he's for and not just what he's against."

Even better (or more colorful), McCain confidant John Weaver:

With the release today of a McCain television ad blasting Obama for celebrity preening while gas prices rise, and a memo that accuses Obama of putting his own aggrandizement before the country, Weaver said he's had "enough."

The ad's premise, he said, is "childish."

"John's been a celebrity ever since he was shot down," Weaver said. "Whatever that means. And I recall Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush going overseas and all those waving American flags."

Weaver remains in contact with senior McCain strategists and, for a while early this year, regularly talked to McCain.

The strategy of driving up Obama's negatives "reduces McCain on the stage," Weaver said.

"For McCain to win in such troubled times, he needs to begin telling the American people how he intends to lead us. That McCain exists. He can inspire the country to greatness."

He added: "There is legitimate mockery of a political campaign now, and it isn't at Obama's. For McCain's sake, this tomfoolery needs to stop."

But the response to the Britney ad comes from "fleaba", a HuffPost commenter:

I don't really care about this ad. I care that the voting machines work.

Puts it in perspective, doesn't it?

Liberal magazine The Nation pens an open letter to Obama:

Since your historic victory in the primary, there have been troubling signs that you are moving away from the core commitments shared by many who have supported your campaign, toward a more cautious and centrist stance--including, most notably, your vote for the FISA legislation granting telecom companies immunity from prosecution for illegal wiretapping, which angered and dismayed so many of your supporters.

Here are key positions you have embraced that we believe are essential to sustaining this movement:

§ Withdrawal from Iraq on a fixed timetable.

§ A response to the current economic crisis that reduces the gap between the rich and the rest of us through a more progressive financial and welfare system; public investment to create jobs and repair the country's collapsing infrastructure; fair trade policies; restoration of the freedom to organize unions; and meaningful government enforcement of labor laws and regulation of industry.

§ Universal healthcare.

§ An environmental policy that transforms the economy by shifting billions of dollars from the consumption of fossil fuels to alternative energy sources, creating millions of green jobs.

§ An end to the regime of torture, abuse of civil liberties and unchecked executive power that has flourished in the Bush era.

§ A commitment to the rights of women, including the right to choose abortion and improved access to abortion and reproductive health services.

§ A commitment to improving conditions in urban communities and ending racial inequality, including disparities in education through reform of the No Child Left Behind Act and other measures.

§ An immigration system that treats humanely those attempting to enter the country and provides a path to citizenship for those already here.

§ Reform of the drug laws that incarcerate hundreds of thousands who need help, not jail.

§ Reform of the political process that reduces the influence of money and corporate lobbyists and amplifies the voices of ordinary people.

These are the changes we can believe in. In other areas--such as the use of residual forces and mercenary troops in Iraq, the escalation of the US military presence in Afghanistan, the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the death penalty--your stated positions have consistently varied from the positions held by many of us, the "friends on the left" you addressed in recent remarks. If you win in November, we will work to support your stands when we agree with you and to challenge them when we don't. We look forward to an ongoing and constructive dialogue with you when you are elected President.

Stand firm on the principles you have so compellingly articulated, and you may succeed in bringing this country the change you've encouraged us to believe is possible.

I'm all for an open letter, but I disagree with their approach (if not the policies they suggest). Those aren't the changes "we can believe in".

They're the changes The Nation already believes in, and is seeking to have a Presidential candidate discover the wisdom of those positions. Many of them Obama already espouses, and there's absolutely no reason to raise the ghost of the FISA spectacle again. I'm not interested in squelching dissent, but when are folks going to get it? November 4 is all that matters. Elect Obama first, then address your beefs.

Apparently, Media Matters finally recognized the obvious - people of color are virtually invisible on night-time cable news:

• In total, 67 percent of the guests on these cable programs were men, while 84 percent were white.

• MSNBC showed the greatest gender imbalance, with 70 percent of its guests being male. CNN and Fox News were not far behind; each of those networks featured 65 percent male guests.

• Fox News was the whitest network, with 88 percent white guests. CNN and MSNBC were close behind, with both featuring 83 percent white guests.

• Latinos were particularly underrepresented. Though they now comprise 15 percent of the American population, they made up only 2.7 percent of cable news guests. The worst of the three networks on this score was MSNBC, which featured only six Latino guests out of 460 prime-time appearances during the entire month.

• A number of ethnic groups were shut out entirely, or nearly so, on some networks. During the month of May, Fox News and MSNBC each featured a single Asian-American guest. Across the three cable networks, there were only four appearances by guests of Middle Eastern descent, two on Fox and two on CNN. There was not a single appearance by a Native American during the entire month.

A year after the Minneapolis collapse, American bridges are still in disrepair. Does McCain know what the gas tax actually pays for?

Another thing - if he had been planning on announcing Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty as his vice-presidential nominee, he was wise to wait a day.

Bush does something right, for once. I'm smiling for you, Sullivan.

But as your Army points out, noted homophobe and my former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum ain't, since he took the trouble to write the Washington Times to protest their inaccuracies in their anti-PEPFAR screed - but didn't protest the ban on those with HIV traveling to the United States. Thankfully, the President wasn't listening. (No shocker there.)

Spin, Jesse, spin.

No need for me to dignify two events today with any response: the Barack-as-Britney attack from McCain and the silly Milbank misquote that had Scarborough foaming at the mouth this morning. Google it if you're interested.

Read this and the links it contains if you're at all concerned about the Black vote being stolen this fall.

Again.

I'll be writing more about this topic tomorrow.

PUMA, the primary Hillary-Holdout cult, gets some feedback from DNC members - and actually posts it on their site, not understanding that they're completely clowning themselves.

Some of the responses:

Donna Brazile: "Stop the hate. Not sure if you know, but we are keeping copies of all these emails in the archives. Yes, you are not going to get away with pretending to be for Hillary. She is a leader of the Dem party.”

Former DNC chair Don Fowler: "I must confess a bit of fatigue and irritation with people who continue to carp, complain, and criticize the results of the primary and lay down conditions for their support. The Los Angeles Lakers didn’t establish conditions to recognize the Boston Celtics as NBA Champions; Roger Federer did not demand concessions before recognizing that Rafael Nadal defeated him at Wimbledon.

California DNCer Garry Shay: “The racist bullsh**I have gotten from my fellow Clinton supporters has been enough to make me puke. You have a choice. No one would be forcing you. It is a choice. A choice you will have to live with. 100 years in Iraq if McCain gets elected. Thousands more dead American Soldiers."

WA Democratic Chairman Dwight Pelz: "Man, you have to chill. Try tennis."

The response to McCain's "blame Obama for high gas prices" ad is nice and neat:

Greg Sargent of TPM says it echoes Obama's earlier parrying of Hillary's attacks:

The rub here is that Obama is reprising precisely the same response he used multiple times against Hillary in the primary, casting McCain's attacks as "old politics," thus responding to McCain while amplifying his own message. Hey, if it ain't broke...

It should also be noted that McCain's ad is ludicrously easy to deride.

That may be true, but one TPM reader doesn't think Obama did enough:

The ad may be effective to a point, but it peters out into nice wonkishness. Obama needs to say something specific he is proposing to help downscale families who are struggling NOW with higher costs. McCain's drilling proposal works that way -- not really as a solution, but as a metaphor for immediate action. People will appreciate the stance, even if they sort of know the ideas are bull.

If the American public wants to be bullshitted as it picks its President, then we will get the President we deserve.

Jack and Jill Politics covers the seemingly undercover Obama economic summit, held yesterday. Wait until you see who he had at this thing. No small feat at all, but the press would rather discuss much more important things, like McCain's mole.

Be sure to watch Obama's opening statement, contained in both links above.

For John McCain: if we've already won in Iraq, why does it matter that you "know how to win wars"...despite never having actually won one?

And if the Iraq war is won, why won't you go into Pakistan after bin Laden?



"That's not change you can believe in." (Awkward McCain smile)

I can find no better metaphor for the current state of the conservative movement than this: the longest-serving Republican Senator in U.S. history was just indicted in federal court on seven counts of falsely reporting income:

Prosecutors said Stevens received more than $250,000 in gifts and services from VECO Corp., a powerful oil services contractor, and its executives. From May 1999 to August 2007, prosecutors said, the 84-year-old senator concealed "his continuing receipt of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of things of value from a private corporation."

The indictment unsealed Tuesday says the items included home improvements to his vacation home in Alaska, including a new first floor, garage, wraparound deck, plumbing and electrical wiring, as well as a Viking gas grill, furniture and tools. He also was accused of failing to report swapping an old Ford for a new Land Rover to be driven by one of his children.

I know we're all shocked to see a Republican be corrupt.

Strangely though, Jonathan Martin thinks that Stevens' bad news is good for John McCain - because the Alaskan senator is a notorious earmark junkie:

No word yet from McCain or the campaign, but I'd be shocked if they didn't at least subtly remind voters about the clashes between the two senators over the years.

McCain often likes to brag that Stevens had once deemed him, "The Sheriff," for his crusading ways.

Monetary scandal as a boon to McCain? Guess Martin's never heard of the Keating 5. That aside, it would only feed into the continuing, atrophying McCain strategy of living in the past. Once it's revealed how little earmarks actually influence the price of food, gas and goods, people will once again focus on the future - putting Alaska officially in play for Obama at the very least.

Stevens is a political vampire, and this news made my day. But we better damn well hope the trial ends after January 20, 2009. Or else this won't mean a thing.

UPDATE.

Read the full indictment here. Oh, and apparently, the GOP's dropping ol' Ted like a hot rock.

Disgraced NBA referee Tim Donaghy gets off easy.

Author and journalist Christopher Hitchens (right) and I disagree on a great many things, religion principal among them. But we seem to agree on a topic that is quickly becoming one of the main themes of my writings here.

In his most recent piece for Slate, Hitchens discusses how Obama, despite the MSM's seeming rush to declare the surge a success, has emerged largely unscathed despite having opposed the surge and been incorrect in many of his predictions (admittedly). The fact that Obama dodged a bullet isn't what's remarkable. What is?

The fact that Obama already had.

Witness this excerpt from Obama's February 21 debate with Hillary Clinton, which Hitchens cites:

Well, I think it is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. And that's a credit to our brave men and women in uniform. In fact, you know, the First Cavalry, out of Fort Hood, played an enormous role in pushing back al-Qaida out of Baghdad. [APPLAUSE] And, you know, we honor their service. But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder. [LAUGHTER] And I think that when we're having a debate with John McCain, it is going to be much easier for the candidate who was opposed to the concept of invading Iraq in the first place to have a debate about the wisdom of that decision [APPLAUSE] than having to argue about the tactics subsequent to the decision. [LAUGHTER]

Here the Senator clearly gives credit to the surge's successes, but is in the vein of Winston Wolf - let's not start su...well, those of you who saw Pulp Fiction know the line.

A few weeks ago, I posted the greatest quote I've seen yet on the surge. It aptly sums up Obama's approach. But I don't remember seeing Obama's kind words for the surge published, discussed or analyzed. Instead...

...there was no mention of it to speak of, and most people with whom I later talked seemed not to have noticed the moment at all. In some way, the notion that Obama was beating Sen. Clinton mainly because he was more anti-war than she was the story, the whole story, and nothing but the story; and no statement that was in any way incompatible with it could be considered newsworthy. I took this up with the late Tim Russert, who shrugged a bit and added that the line of the evening—"Change you can Xerox," a vulgar taunt about Obama's alleged plagiarism from Sen. Clinton via Sidney Blumenthal—had swiftly become the agreed headline among those who decide these things. Really, there are times one is ashamed to be in the profession.

The manner in which the media is covering this race is absolutely shameful. It is the very definition of yellow journalism. The fact that the media plays up flag pins, Rev. Wright, the Muslim photo and whether or not Obama puts his hand over his heart when he says the Pledge of Allegiance results in unions that support Obama to have to send out mailers like this:


Nice of them to do and all, but damn.

Though I enjoy blaming the Republicans for things, they certainly aren't at fault for this. They're certainly complicit, but the media bears the lion's share of responsibility for this.

Why was McCain's ad declaring Obama skipped the troop visit in Germany because he couldn't bring cameras allowed to remain unquestioned for so long? (By that, I mean a day - Factcheck.org and NBC's Andrea Mitchell finally spoke up, but by then, the damage was done.)

And who holds them to account? Media Matters can't do it alone. Hopefully, the public will decide collectively to turn away from the crossfire-style punditry which was supposed to have died with, well, Crossfire.

Actor Jon Voight submits his writing sample for Fox News:

Sen. Barack Obama has grown up with the teaching of very angry, militant white and black people: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger. We cannot say we are not affected by teachers who are militant and angry. We know too well that we become like them, and Mr. Obama will run this country in their mindset...

This is a perilous time, and more than ever, the world needs a united and strong America. If, God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way.

Not if you manage to stop the Decepticons in Transformers 2, they won't!

CORRECTION.

Mr. Voight will not be starring in Transformers 2. Though he will be starring in one movie that I had been looking forward to seeing. No longer.

Obama at the UNITY conference yesterday in Chicago. Watch for his answer regarding the "surge" around 10:17; he's finally getting a little pissed about this:



Also notice the applause after the "audacious" question: folks know coded language ("uppity nigger") when they hear it.

(BTW - who knew that Suzanne Malveaux was Black?)

“He came out talking about how good of a race Barack Obama was running, and how proud he was of Barack,” Mr. Ballentine said. “You know he went back home and said, ‘I can’t believe I spoke in front of all those Negroes today!’ ”

“He was pandering to the crowd, talking about how he felt when Martin Luther King Jr. died,” Mr. Ballentine went on. “However, he didn’t vote for the holiday of Martin Luther King Jr.”, Warren Ballentine, Black radio host.

The New York Times profiles Black radio, inferring that it's the Left's answer to Limbaugh (sorry, Air America). This is largely true, but is it an antidote, or are quotes like the one above just as virulent?

I think it helps. I'm focused on getting Obama elected, by any means necessary.

Black radio can help swing this election:

Mr. Obama is getting support from white liberal talk radio hosts as well, but the backing he is getting from black radio hosts could be especially helpful to his campaign’s efforts to increase black turnout and raise historically low voter registration enough to change the math of presidential elections in battlegrounds and traditionally Republican states like this one.

Listen to my local station, 900 WURD, here.

One of Condoleeza Rice's advisers assesses the Iraq invasion in two words.

Adam Nagourney, freshly nipped by the Obama folks recently, wonders (out of the goodness of his heart, surely) why Obama's not doing better:

...the question is why, given how sour Americans feel about President George W. Bush and the Republican Party, about the Iraq war and the ailing economy that Bush will leave to his successor and about the perception that Obama is running such a better campaign than Senator John McCain, the senator from Illinois is not doing even better in national opinion polls

Most polls show Obama with a lead of 6 or 7 points over McCain nationally, and he rarely breaks the 50 percent mark. Those are statistics that have given Republicans, who are not exactly feeling joyful these days, a line to grab onto and has fed some underlying anxiety among some Democrats.

"They've known John McCain for years," said Bill McInturff, a pollster for McCain. "But people say in focus groups, 'Who the heck is Barack Obama? Had you heard of him before six months ago?'

Whatever. This article could've been written six months ago.

Over 60 years after Song of the South, Disney still can't get Black people right:

When Disney announced it was casting its first black princess for its latest animation film, the African-American heroine was hailed as a positive role model for little girls and an ambitious marketing ploy, not to mention an attempt to ward off the allegations of racism that have lurked since the heyday of Walt Disney Productions in the 1940s and 1950s.

But now the film studio finds itself fending off a chorus of accusations of racial stereotyping in its forthcoming big-budget cartoon, The Princess and The Frog: An American Fairy Tale, which marks a return to hand-drawn animation.

A musical set in 1920s New Orleans, the film was supposed to feature Maddy, a black chambermaid working for a spoilt, white Southern debutante. Maddy was to be helped by a voodoo priestess fairy godmother to win the heart of a white prince, after he rescued her from the clutches of a voodoo magician.

I can't make this stuff up.

Cleveland homeboy Jimi Izrael of The Root had my favorite take on this:

Holy Crap.

I can see why people are upset, but I think some are setting their expectations too high. Already there have been criticism that the feature panders to stereotypes and doesn’t the magical qualities of Disney tales of yore. Before we get all mushy, let’s keep in mind that many of those Disney Tales of yore were a more than a little racially insensitive, and I don’t know why would we expect Princess to be any different.

Izrael also has the solution, which echoes my earlier, broader laments about the lack of Black decision-making in the media:

Seems the way to circumvent that would be for a black animation company to simply produce their own Disney-like cartoons, so that there could be a more culturally balanced approach. Unfortunately, while there are a few ethno-centric ‘toons, no black animation companies with Disney power come to mind, so we’re stuck. The truth to tell, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.

Brett Favre has a contretemps with the Packers that doesn't seem to be going away. I haven't swayed from my opinion that Favre is being selfish, but I certainly also believe that he has every right to be. To be able to play in the NFL, that's a gift I wouldn't toss away on a whim, and surely Favre isn't. His quote to Peter King of Sports Illustrated:

His words to me Saturday: "I never didn't want to play. My problem was, was I committed to do the offseason program, was I going to be up to the task of doing everything that comes with it -- studying, working out, preparing? Playing was never going to be the problem. What I live for is playing the games.

"I know the perception is that I've waffled," he added. "But any veteran who's played in the league this long is going to have some doubts about playing in a 16th or 17th year. And [the Packers] wanted an answer from me early in the offseason. Ted and I talked about it. We talked about a lot of things. I reiterated to him, 'Ted, I was honest with you guys and gave you an answer March 3.' I could have faked it and came back, and no one would have ever known. I knew I could not have been committed at that time.

"Could I have forced them to wait 'til July before I gave a commitment? Sure. Like I said to Ted, 'You're right, you didn't hold a gun to my head wanting an answer.' But they wanted an answer. I felt like, from a team standpoint, the best thing was to give them an honest answer at that time. If I retired three days before camp, that would have been pretty low-class. This scenario, going back after I retired, might be low-class too, but I was honest and forthright with them.''

There should be no doubt now that the scenario, as Favre has orchestrated it, has been disastrous. It has been a terrible distraction, surely, for young Aaron Rodgers, Favre's backup for the last three seasons. As Rodgers is officially named the starter, he has to hear questions about a guy that isn't even there anymore, and who callously made an appeal to step in and take the job that was now rightfully his, as if he were a guy that kept a young couple waiting for years as he oscillated between keeping and selling property, finally sold it - then demanded the new tenants leave because he wanted to move back in. Brett - you sold the house, brother!

Now he's in a situation in which the only teams really bidding for his services - the Jets and Buccaneers - don't seem appealing to him. King thinks he knows why:

The best thing either team could do is send a GM or owner, or both, to Mississippi today or tomorrow to fact-find with Favre. He doesn't know either team well. I know the teams don't want to be seen as groveling around Favre and begging him to come because of the impression it would leave about their incumbent quarterbacks, but Favre's in a sensitive spot right now. He's human. He'd like to be loved a little bit right now, or at least gather some information so if he had to make a decision about whether to accept a trade he'd know more than he knows now.

I understand how the business works, but a visit? There's something about that idea that just makes me nauseous.

Personally, I'm beginning to think Don Banks is right:

As the days have continued to click by in the never-ending Brett Favre un-retirement saga, I've been getting the increasingly stronger hunch that the eventual outcome is going to be that Favre plays for no one in 2008. As in, stays retired. As in, never mind. As in, the mother of all much ado about nothings when everything is said and done. Thanks for coming, and keep in touch.

There may even be something poetic to come out of this mess:

He got here because he seems incapable of thinking anything out longer than 15 minutes into the future. As one NFL defensive coordinator told me this week: "He's not a guy who's ever been very reflective. He just reacts to what's in front of him. That's exactly the way he played quarterback, and that's how he's handling this. He makes it all up as he goes. Watching this story unfold is like watching him play. It's that same free-wheeling nature that he played with. He just thinks he'll figure it out on the fly, like always.''

Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff is found to have broken the law:

Sampson routinely violated DOJ policy and federal law by using overt political and ideological considerations when filling key DOJ jobs such as immigration judges, according to the report today from the DOJ's Inspector General. Federal law and Justice Department policy require career officials to be hired on merit and prohibit discrimination based on political affiliations.

Never in this country's history have we had an administration in the executive branch that flaunts the law as carelessly and wantonly as this one. And yes, I'm including Nixon.

George W. Bush will be leaving a record debt behind for the next guy to clean up:

A $482 billion deficit...would easily surpass the record deficit of $413 billion set in 2004.

Dayum...whoever set that record in '04 didn't have anything on Bush.

Oh, wait.

Liberal media, my ass:

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

"This information should blow away this silly assumption that more coverage is always better coverage," [Center director Robert Lichter] said.

I have been a frequent critic of both men, but I wish both John McCain and (especially) Robert Novak well. That said, I may put either one of them on full blast at a moment's notice. Fair warning.

Seemingly out of arguments in favor of his candidate of choice, Bill Kristol chose instead to mope about Obama in this morning's NYT op-ed.

And to boot, it's titled, "Be Afraid. Please."

(At least the Right finally came out and said it!)

Prize snippets:

It was just another journalist fawning over Obama. That was a disappointment. But disappointment was quickly replaced by the healthier emotion of annoyance.

“Nicht so schnell, Herr Spörl,” I thought, drawing on what Obama would consider my embarrassingly limited German. Not so fast.

Don’t the American people get a chance to weigh in on this in November? Maybe they’ll decide it’s more important to have John McCain as commander in chief than Barack Obama as orator in chief. Maybe they’ll further suspect that 200,000 Germans can’t be right.

I was cheered up by this notion.

Kristol oscillates between self-satisfaction and this election's version of the Red Panic throughout the piece. He seems to think that depicting himself as a political manic depressive is somehow endearing. So much so, that he wonders how he can sway us into joining him in his private hell.

Got hope? Are my own neighbors’ lives so bleak that they place their hopes in Barack Obama? Are they impressed by the cleverness of a political slogan that plays off a rather cheesy (sorry!) campaign to get people to drink milk?

Just because your portfolio's doing well doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of people out here who are strug-gle-ling. But I guess I can't expect a guy like Kristol to understand that. Heaven forbid the Republicans understand anything remotely related to American fiscal plight, whether urban or rural.

And what is it the bumper-sticker affixers are trying to say? Do they really believe their fellow citizens who happen to prefer McCain are hopeless? After all, just because you haven’t swooned like Herr Spörl doesn’t mean you don’t hope for a better world. Don’t McCain backers also have hope — for an America that wins its wars, protects its unborn children and allows its citizens to keep more of their hard-earned income?

Think of the last seven-plus years. Then re-read that last sentence. Try not to chuckle.

As for the "got hope?" sticker, it could just be a clever play on words, Bill. Chill thyself.

Later that day, I read a report of a fund-raising letter from Obama on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, arguing that “We must have a deadlock-proof Democratic majority.”

Yikes.

But then it occurred to me that one man’s “deadlock-proof” Democratic majority is another’s unchecked Democratic majority. Given the unpopularity of the current Democratic Congress, given Americans’ tendency to prefer divided government, given the voters’ repudiations of the Republicans in 2006 and of the Democrats in 1994 — isn’t the prospect of across-the-board, one-party Democratic governance more likely to move votes to McCain than to Obama?

So I cheered up once again. For it will become increasingly obvious, as we approach November, that the Democrats will continue to control Congress for the next couple of years. But if the voters elect Obama as president, they’ll be putting Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in untrammeled control of our future.

Which is a hell of a lot better than what we have now. I'm a strong liberal, but unlike Kristol, at least I recognize the potential for others to have different opinions.

And so I drifted off into a pleasant daydream. It’s election night, and a victorious John McCain is waving around the Spiegel article, “No. 44 Has Spoken” — just as Harry Truman, 60 years ago, triumphantly held aloft the early edition of the Nov. 3, 1948, Chicago Tribune, with its banner headline, “Dewey Defeats Truman.”

Right. Because they're precisely the same thing.

The New York Times is embarrassing itself by continuing to publish Kristol's columns.

A LETTER TO THE EDITOR.

M.J. Rosenberg at TPM has a hell of a response:

No, Neocon Man, our lives are not bleak at all. We have nice houses and nice cars. But, you see, the essence of patriotism is caring about people other than one's self. Not everybody lives in our suburbs, with our fine schools, libraries, and sheer wealth. Millions and millions of Americans are hurting -- not to mention the millions hurting here and in Iraq from the war you and your pals inflicted on this country. Democrats care about those people. In fact, caring about them is what makes us Democrats.

What makes you a neocon is that you only care about you and yours. And that is why you can't understand why Obama gives us hope. It's not only for ourselves. It's for our country, a concept utterly alien to the likes of you.

It's not your neighbors' lives that are bleak. It's yours. What can it be like to live a life of such utter selfishness?

Until the presidential election, that is.

I say to myself and others all the time that November 4 can't come soon enough. But we may need the time for messages like this to hit home with the American public:



100 more days to prevent 100 more years. It's not just about electing Obama - it's also about not electing McCain. It's sad that that is the way it is.

Barack Obama has stood before America and the world, and now awaits our verdict.

Whether in his conversations with our soldiers, world leaders, or the throng that greeted him in Berlin, the presumptive Democratic nominee spent 10 days attempting to convince those American voters who walk among us doubting his ability to represent us on the world stage. Some believe he's succeeded in that mission, others not - all for one reason or another. That will be debated ad absurdum, particularly since Obama handed the MSM the spectacle it's always craved, filled with ample opportunities for them to burnish their resumes for gossip mags everywhere.

Obama's improved poll numbers aside, there was no greater boon to his candidacy than the al-Maliki endorsement of his 16-month timetable for phased withdrawal from Iraq. I mean, that was like your new significant other inviting you home to meet the parents and they hand you the keys to a Mercedes. But the key was maintaining that momentum and aside from a naked attempt by the Pentagon to set Obama up in Germany (and the similarly transparent attempt to exploit it), Obama did that. Leaders tripped all over themselves to meet with the guy, his Berlin speech was inspiring and effective and his Israel jaunt was flawless.

The man looked like the President of the United States. And for a Black man to accomplish that in foreign countries is unprecedented.

However, as I reflect on his trip, I'm not inclined to write about how his juxtaposition in certain photos will lead American voters to consider him worthy of the worldly stage. Instead, the thought I constantly returned to as I watched the once and future president abroad was: be careful what you wish for.

This common cliche is true in this case, but on more levels than you may expect.

The obvious is that John McCain, in true street tough fashion, dared Obama to take the trip he may not have otherwise taken, and it came back to bite him square in the patootie. (McCain didn't do himself any favors in the duration, crying all week about the nerve of reporters to cover the trip.)

But what does Obama do with what he's now sown? He wanted international cred; the pictures alone take care of that, let alone any substantive conversation with foreign leaders that may or may not bear fruit come 2009. He wanted Americans to see him as, well, an American abroad.

It seems that the backlash against the Bush doctrine would indicate that Americans are sick of being regarded by the world as sycophantic bullies, a bunch of Biff Tannens with tanks, planes, guns and worst of all, blinders. But we'd be wrong.

See, I think that a lot of Americans have fallen in love with being the bad guy. It's just so much easier. Hating is easier. It's just so much more colorful to pick a fight with France, for instance, instead of actually understanding their perspective. It's so much easier to curse any brown person in the Middle East and back Israel 100%, rather than getting to the bottom of an enormously complicated conflict. It's so much easier to be a part of Planet Xeno, cursing everything that is different.

Being a bully is a cinch.

What Obama did with his trip was the latest chapter in his epic effort to get Americans to believe not just in him, but in themselves. While John McCain seems intent to appeal to Americans' worst instincts, Obama is the only candidate to have had a real shot at the Presidency that is not depending on voters being stupid. Quite the contrary.

Obama has staked his electoral viability partially on the notion that Americans would reject the Swiftboating strategy of the Right, considering what hell it has wrought in Bush's seven-plus years in office. Obama had to know this was a more difficult undertaking than might be expected - there are a lot of people who don't seem to value their own intelligence as much as they should. "Change You Can Believe In" is not easy, and catering to the lowest denominator is. But one of Obama's most endearing qualities is that he treats us like adults. His trip abroad was one big question wrapped up in meetings, handshakes, speeches and interviews: can America behave as intelligently as we all know it can, or would it simply take the easy, "bully" route that Bush and Planet Xeno have made so popular?

I'm not implying at all that simply preferring Obama is a sign of someone's inherent intelligence. (Why, that's be so...presumptuous!) But here's the thing - why on earth would you want to vote for a candidate that didn't respect your intelligence? Yes, he wanted to burnish his own bonafides, but it was much deeper than that. Obama is counting on America to take a good look not just at the world, but at themselves in the process. His trip asked us to look beneath the photo-op and and think very deeply about the case for his expansive, global American vision.

The verdict rendered on November 4 may depend greatly on whether or not Obama made that case well enough in these past few days.

When Barack Obama visited Jerusalem's Western Wall, the holiest site in the Jewish religion, he followed custom by leaving a private written prayer in the crevices of the wall.

Apparently, the sanctity of prayer no longer outweighs the human thirst for celebrity gossip.

Someone stole Obama's prayer out of the wall and an Israeli paper printed it.

Time magazine:

But after Obama and his entourage left the sacred site, an orthodox seminary student went to the Wall, fished out Obama's personal note and delivered it to Maariv newspaper, which duly printed the senator's prayer.

The newspaper's decision to publish Obama's private words was "an outrage", said Rabbbi Shmuel Rabinowitz, supervisor of the Western Wall. "It damages the personal, deep part of every one of us that we keep to ourselves," the rabbi told Army Radio. "The note placed between the stones of the Western Wall are between a person and his maker. It is forbidden to read them or make use of them."

No story that has come out of this campaign - not the Muslim smears, not Hillary's RFK remark, not the efforts to dis Michelle Obama or the The New Yorker cover, nothing - has disheartened me in the manner in which this story has. Because as I grow more and more comfortable with prayer at a later age than most, I increasingly understand the importance of private communication with the Creator.

And someone violated Barack Obama's trust, his privacy and the very prayer itself. For gossip.

And journalists, who every day inch closer and closer to their contemporaries at Access Hollywood, think that it's their responsibility to share every possible detail about everyone with everyone. The truth is that journalists are responsible for both what they print and what they don't, and to paraphrase another famous prayer, have the serenity to know the difference.

I don't blame the Israeli student as much as the journalists that printed it.

They need to visit the Western Wall, and hopefully, no one as craven as they steals their prayers, and shares them with everyone but the One who needed to see it. (Oh, that's right - they're not famous. What's be the use of that?)

This humorous Nike ad (and others like it) were just pulled because someone, somewhere, thought they were homophobic.



That was homophobic? (A bit phallic, perhaps...but there's nothing in that I found offensive. And I'm pretty sensitive to this stuff.)

Here's one that's even funnier. ("Stepladder"...wow.)

Brothers get punked on the court every day. It's not a tragedy; it's a way of life.

And if a guy takes a crotch to the face and gets dunked on, then no: that ain't right.

Folks need to stop crying wolf.

San Francisco, California.

Damn - it really is Hate-on-J(ohn) Day.

Talking Points Memo has used those doggone "Internets" to compile the definitive timeline of John McCain's statements on Iraq, and finds his Straight Talk to be shaped more like Beyonce:

For instance, In December of 2007, he deplored the fact that America had gone to war without "a realistic and comprehensive plan for success." But in June of 2003, he said that the "major conflict is over" and suggested that the mission had been accomplished. That same year he predicted that we'd be "greeted as liberators."

There are other inconsistencies. In December of 2006, he himself said that we needed 20,000 more troops to have success. And when Bush subsequently announced that he would send 21,500 -- more than McCain's suggestion -- the Arizona Senator firmly supported it.

But then, in what may have been an effort to lay the groundwork for evading blame if Bush's surge failed, McCain changed his position, saying that he'd actually prefer that Bush send still more troops.

McCain has also been somewhat inconsistent on whether he supported Bush's policies and has exaggerated his opposition to them in a general sense. In April of 2008, for instance, he said that the war had been "mishandled terribly" by the administration and said he'd "fought against" Bush's overall approach.

In fact, while he did criticize the administration for not sending more troops, the timeline shows that he was repeatedly supportive of Bush's general approach over the years. Indeed, in April of 2008, he said: "No one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have."

Indeed not.

That's the question many an acting student has heard.

Considering that Tavis Smiley's basically five more sips of Obama-Haterade from Jamie Foxx whispering "I am your conscience", this tidbit was very interesting:

When I met him in 1995, I was convinced he was a man on the make in national politics. For sure, I thought, he would one day follow his mentor the late Tom Bradley into the Los Angeles mayor's office or, perhaps, become a California congressman. But I didn't put the White House out of his ambitious reach either.

Hmmm...is Tavis mad he got sidetracked?

I don't want to make this Hate-On-J(ohn) Day, but...

...wow.



I know people may accuse me of being P.C., but hell - put yourself in Irwin Tang's shoes. How would you feel?

McCain apparently wrote about his experiences in 1973 for U.S. News & World Report, and used the word twelve times:

The great advantage to living in a big room is that way only a couple or three guys out of the group have to deal with the "gooks." When you're living by yourself, then you've got to deal with them all the time. You always have some fight with them. Maybe you're allowed 15 minutes to bathe, and the "gook" will say in five minutes you've got to go back.

Tang references a San Franciscco Chronicle article from 2000 - in which McCain used the term while running for President the first time:

"I hate the gooks," McCain said yesterday in response to a question from reporters aboard his campaign bus. "I will hate them as long as I live."

Can you imagine such a quote in 2008, with the increased market in 24/7 news?

Tang was echoing this guy towards the end of the video:

The horrors of the past cannot be an excuse for hurting people in the present, said Guy Aoki, president of the Media Action Network for Asian Americans, an anti-defamation group.

"If Sen. McCain had been captured by Nigerians, could he call those people `niggers' and think he wasn't going to offend everyone who is black?" Akoi asked. "We can all feel for what he went through, but if that's his level of sensitivity, I'm very disappointed."

If McCain said such a thing today, his campaign would be over. But having said "gook" - you're offending fewer Americans - he hopes to get a pass. Maybe qualifying the remark will help:

"I was referring to my prison guards," McCain said, "and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend some people because of the beating and torture of my friends."

It's simply a poor excuse.

My great-grandfather couldn't go around calling everyone "whitey" all his life because he'd been chased north at 15 because he was going to be lynched. (Maybe "gook", though - I mean, it only seems to matter most when White people at-large are being insulted.)

I have every appreciation for what Senator McCain endured as a prisoner of war, and he can carry that hatred if he so pleases. But that makes me very wary about him becoming President of the United States. He must not forget that he's hoping to represent a country that is populated by a lot of the people - a lot of voters, if that's what matters to him - that he's insulting with that term.

Not just my roommates' nickname for me freshman year, "incognito" is also an apt way to describe what some GOP U.S. senators are hoping to be at the forthcoming Republican convention:

Nine of 12 targeted Republicans running in the most competitive Senate races this fall are either skipping the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn., or have not decided whether to attend.

Among those who will not attend are Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, who is not close to presumptive presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona, and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who is a McCain loyalist. Stevens and Collins will use the convention week to focus on their campaigns...

The Republican convention will be bookended by speeches from President Bush, whose low approval ratings have caused many candidates to keep him at arm's length, and McCain, who is still trying to mend fences with conservatives. But none of the absentees or potential no-shows is publicly citing Bush or McCain as the reason for their decisions.

Instead, they and their campaign aides point to the difficult campaign landscape and limited opportunities to campaign.

I'm sure.

(Props to Greg Sargent.)

McCain blew off a Wall Street Journal writer that wrote a piece two days ago that was considered critical of his campaign.

I can't believe that I'm saying this to a 71-year-old man: Senator McCain, grow up.

McCain has no right to complain about the media coverage. Especially with them covering up his gaffes by the dozen. Not surprising, I guess, since he's literally had these guys eating out of his hands:

The reality is that positive coverage of any Democrat is limited and temporary for fear of networks and newspapers either being accused of liberal bias or being tossed out of the very serious barbeque loop. Regardless of whether the Democrat, in this case Senator Obama, is having a good day, it's somehow unethical to report on such good news for too long without deliberately concocting an antidote to appease the far-right. So rather than standing up as the only industry explicitly named in the Constitution and defending the very basic idea of journalistic integrity, the corporate media is all too quick to capitulate to these specious Republican attacks -- that is, when they're not tossing their ethics aside and taking bribes in the form of barbeque and McBusch beer from a candidate whom they're supposed to be covering objectively.

Considering that McCain literally has the people he accuses of being in love with Obama over to his crib for a cookout - to paraphrase the Joker, why so snappish?

Could Brett Favre be taking a bite of the Big Apple?

That's funny, because apparently, he should have been a Jet in the first place:

The Jets had a deal with the Cardinals to move up two slots ahead of the Falcons in the 1991 draft so general manager Dick Steinberg could grab their quarterback of the future.

"We were going to pick Brett Favre," Ron Wolf said by phone Tuesday night from his Jupiter, Fla., home. Wolf, who retired in 2001, is well known as the Packers general manager who acquired Favre and built a Super Bowl champion, but before he worked in Green Bay he was an assistant in the Jets' front office. He pushed hard to draft Favre in 1991.

"But when it came time for the Cardinals' pick, they told us the guy they wanted [defensive end Mike Jones] was on the board, so they didn't do the deal," Wolf said. "They picked their guy, the Falcons picked Brett Favre, and that was it."

Good luck, Brett - it'd be a good fit, and a hell of a story. But beware...

...because when you're a Jet...

"A respectful campaign."

That's what John McCain said that he wanted.

That's hardly what he's delivering:

Q: It almost sounds like you're saying he'd sell out his country to win an election.

A: I don't know. I do know — no, wait a minute, so I do know, I do know that he used the war for political reasons because no one, no one would refuse to acknowledge, no rational observer could refuse to acknowledge the success of the surge. And he still advocates a course that because of the left of his party, Moveon.org, etc., he still advocates a surge — excuse me, a date for withdrawal — that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and General Petraeus say is very dangerous. Very dangerous — not wrong, but dangerous.

Wait, I thought he was wrong, too. I guess all those slurs can get mixed up in one's head. But there's no way McCain's leaving without using his new favorite line (emphasis mine):

Q: Does that mean it's the same as putting politics ahead of country?

A: It means ... I said, I will repeat my statement again, that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign. Because anyone who fails to acknowledge that the surge has worked, who has consistently opposed it, consistently never sat down and had a briefing with General Petraeus, our commander there, would rather lose a war than a political campaign.

Anyone, senator? Like, perhaps, these veterans?

As a veteran of a fifteen-month combat tour in Iraq at the height of the surge, it is incredibly offensive to see John McCain make off color remarks about Senator Obama's view on Iraq, claiming he "wants to lose" there. By bolstering his political rhetoric, he forgets that many veterans of the war in Iraq would like to see a reallocation of forces to Afghanistan to combat genuine threats to our national security. Would John McCain be so cavalier to say that I want to lose in Iraq, a place where many of my friends left their lives and limbs?

Alex Horton
Austin, TX
Iraq veteran
Army
2006-07

The message of "losing" being offered by Senator McCain is a lie. There is no compelling United States interest in Iraq that is worth the treasure and time that our nation has been asked to pay. The police action in Iraq has done nothing other than to show the world that America is weak and afraid--of admitting mistakes. In this case, over 4,000 men and women have died because of the cowardice and lack of integrity of our political leadership.

Senator McCain has to stop following this folly. He has to show strength and admit that the strength of America is in its willingness to champion reason over fear. There is no possible cost-benefit analysis that can justify the abandonment of the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan in order to police a sovereign state that no longer desires our presence.

George Zubaty
Louisville, KY
Iraq and Afghanistan veteran
Army
2001-02 and 2003-04

I don't know what Senator McCain is talking about. How is staying in Iraq for 100 years winning, while responsibly removing our military from a sovereign country--at their request--losing? Wasn't leaving the whole point?

Ernesto Estrada
San Francisco, CA
Iraq veteran
Marine Corps
2003

No, Marine. It wasn't the point for everyone, apparently.

The Republicans don't really want to "win" in any common sense, because that would mean that we'd have to leave Iraq.

And when we're sitting on the top of so much oil in what might as well be our 51st state (with all the trillions we taxpayers are pouring into it), what's the hurry?

It's evidenced in their "withdrawal plans", which are as substantial as a sheet of toilet paper. In order to get to "victory" as far as McCain sees it, we'll have to be there for much, much, much longer:

Q: How will we know when we've won in Iraq? What's victory look like?

A: It looks like a success of any counterinsurgency, which is a stable government, a military that is functioning effectively to provide security for the people, the political and economic progress. What you have seen has succeeded. The major cities in Iraq are now calm. Al-Qaida is on their heels but they're not defeated. You've got the economic, political and legal system moving forward and functioning effectively.

Again, the emphasis is mine. That's because, as McCain would say, no rational observer could refuse to acknowledge the overall failure of our imperial occupation (the war was easy - the occupation's been a bitch). No rational observer could possibly think that Iraq or its major cities are now "calm".

Meanwhile, the MSM, learning nothing from their complicity during the run-up to Iraq, allows McCain to call Obama half a traitor all day while his obstinate support of the war (and misstating of the facts on the ground) goes largely unchecked outside of Olbermann, Maddow and a few columnists. "Fair and balanced", my ass.

My mother and grandfather were both born on this day, 23 years apart.

Love you both.

I'm not normally in the habit of posting readers' e-mails directed at blogs other than mine, but this is something everyone needs to read immediately:

"I’ve noticed that McCain, and the right in general, are latching on to Obama’s statement that he was speaking as a 'proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world.'

I see an attempt at cultural warfare in the making, and it should be squelched fast.

The argument from the right appears to be that only some squishy leftist would call himself a 'citizen of the world,' or that using the term suggests less than a full attachment to one’s own country (even if accompanied by a statement like Obama’s that he’s a 'proud citizen of the United States').

A reader over at Politico has already noted that John F. Kennedy used the same phrase in his famous inaugural address in referring to his global audience. I also did a one minute Google search – and I’m sure I could find more if I did a 15-minute Google search – and discovered that President George H.W. Bush used the exact phrase 'citizen of the world' in presenting the national medal of the arts to Vladimir Horowitz, the legendary Russian-born pianist who became a US citizen in 1940. Was he insulting Horowitz as a lefty? I don’t think so. Also, Ronald Reagan introduced himself in a speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations as 'both a citizen of the United States and of the world.' Do McCain and the right really want to start this meme?"

The land that John McCain forgot:

In his interview with NBC's Kelly O'Donnell, which will air on NBC's Nightly News tonight, McCain questions whether Obama should have given a speech in Berlin before becoming president.

"I would rather speak at a rally or a political gathering any place outside of the country after I am president of the United States," McCain told O'Donnell. "But that's a judgment that Sen. Obama and the American people will make."

However, on June 20, McCain himself gave a speech in Canada -- to the Economic Club of Canada -- in which he applauded NAFTA's successes. An implicit message behind that speech was that Obama had been critical of the trade accord. Also, McCain's trip to Canada was paid for by the campaign.

Is anyone keeping a count of these gaffes? And doesn't it seem as though the great preponderance of them are related to foreign policy, which is "supposed" to be his strong point?

The Republicans have to seriously consider replacing McCain. He keeps doing things like this, and he will cease to be a viable candidate.

THINK THAT'S FUNNY, EH?

Great comment by a First Read reader:

*Rubs eyes*

Is First Read calling John McCain out for hypocrisy? Does the headline include the critical word FORGET? Are you guys okay? Where is the normal First Read staff?

What if Joe Scarborough hears about this?