1. Obama was for the holocaust before he was against it. Or some other such idiotic trash that is unbecoming a candidate such as John McCain .

2. Obama would gladly lose a war to win an election. Because he was against the surge. McCain was in favor of the surge. Of course, all of this ignores the simple fact that Obama was against the war from the get-go.

3. McCain says the surge helped bring about the Sunni Anbar Awakening, which has had as much to do - if not exponentially more - with calming the violence in Iraq as the surge itself. The problem is that the surge wasn’t even a glimmer in young Dubya’s eye when the Anbar Awakening began.

4. Obama is like Hitler. Of course, some locals have already said that.

5. Obama will say anything to gain the vote of members of the Israeli press. He mistakenly said the Senate Banking Committee was “his committee” when, in fact, it was that committee (of which he is not a member) that had passed a bill sponsored by Obama. IOW, it was his bill, not his committee.

Of course, because in the past 24 - 48 hours, McCain and his campaign have said several really stupid, offensive things, he did the only thing he could do.

He canceled his single press availability today so he wouldn’t have to answer any questions.

Via Vanity Fair, obviously.

Be part of the Obama campaign by participating in meetings in the area to help contribute to this year’s platform. All you have to do is show up and discuss the issues that matter to you, and this information is then passed along to the Obama campaign. It’s called “Listening to America“.

There is a Listening to America meeting tonight at Batavia’s City Centre tonight at 7:30 pm.

There is one in Buffalo tomorrow (the 24th) at 6pm at 927 Grant St. in Buffalo (the Polish Cadets Hall off the Scajaquada).

John McCain has an video he’s released online that mocks the adoring coverage Obama gets in the press.

Ha ha.

It’s funny because the media have covered Obama just like…

…well, just like how they covered John McCain in 2000.

Haley Barbour on PBS in 2000:

Is the media soft on McCain?

HALEY BARBOUR: Oh, I think it’s probably more than that, Terry. I said last week that the news … the national news media were slobbering all over John McCain and that well known conservative correspondent Mary McGrory of the Washington Post said that absolutely it was true, that I was quite right, that the press has swooned for McCain. I’ve never seen anything like it. And I think what’s interesting for most viewers or people who are interested is that the press that is most pro-McCain are the most liberal press. The ones who are the biggest Clinton supporters like the New York Times and the Boston Globe have come out and said McCain is the anti-Clinton. The Washington Post actually ran an editorial that proclaimed that McCain was the conservative candidate in the race. It’s been a long time since Republicans looked to the Washington Post to tell them who was a conservative.

McCain is just jealous that the Straight Talk Express magic of 8 years ago is gone, and that his friends in the media have moved on to fresher meat.

Here’s the new cover, courtesy of the Albany Project:

There is much back and forth over whether this image is funny, not funny, helpful, or harmful. The cartoonist basically threw every dimwitted right-wing smear against the Obamas into one image. My own opinion is that it’s pretty darn funny.

With that said, the debate over this cover is missing the real, important issue. That is, the New Yorker is still publishing magazines and has found a way to become talked-about among people who don’t drink at the Algonquin or summer in the Hamptons.

It was revealed yesterday that US trade with Iran had grown under the Bush administration despite all the angry talk and axis of evil stuff. This trade includes appliances, cigarettes, and other consumer goods.

When asked about it, John McCain said:

Why would we want to kill average Iranian civilians? Even if we went to war with Iran, wouldn’t the objective be regime change? What’s so funny about that joke?

How can you argue with logic like this?

Yes, we can vote for George W. Bush in 2008. We have the right to write in the name of our chosen candidate, regardless of whether or not he is officially on the ballot.

We know that George Bush was God’s Candidate in 2000. We know that George Bush was God’s candidate again in 2004. And George Bush has been God’s president for the last 8 years.

Trust in God and vote your faith. Keep America safe. Write-in George W. Bush for President in 2008.

Friedman in the Times yesterday:

My fellow Americans: We are a country in debt and in decline — not terminal, not irreversible, but in decline. Our political system seems incapable of producing long-range answers to big problems or big opportunities. We are the ones who need a better-functioning democracy — more than the Iraqis and Afghans. We are the ones in need of nation-building. It is our political system that is not working.

I continue to be appalled at the gap between what is clearly going to be the next great global industry — renewable energy and clean power — and the inability of Congress and the administration to put in place the bold policies we need to ensure that America leads that industry.

“America and its political leaders, after two decades of failing to come together to solve big problems, seem to have lost faith in their ability to do so,” Wall Street Journal columnist Gerald Seib noted last week. “A political system that expects failure doesn’t try very hard to produce anything else.”

We used to try harder and do better. After Sputnik, we came together as a nation and responded with a technology, infrastructure and education surge, notes Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International. After the 1973 oil crisis, we came together and made dramatic improvements in energy efficiency. After Social Security became imperiled in the early 1980s, we came together and fixed it for that moment. “But today,” added Hormats, “the political system seems incapable of producing a critical mass to support any kind of serious long-term reform.”

If the old saying — that “as General Motors goes, so goes America” — is true, then folks, we’re in a lot of trouble. General Motors’s stock-market value now stands at just $6.47 billion, compared with Toyota’s $162.6 billion. On top of it, G.M. shares sank to a 34-year low last week.

That’s us. We’re at a 34-year low. And digging out of this hole is what the next election has to be about and is going to be about — even if it is interrupted by a terrorist attack or an outbreak of war or peace in Iraq. We need nation-building at home, and we cannot wait another year to get started. Vote for the candidate who you think will do that best. Nothing else matters.

There are so many reasons and causes for this inevitable chicken roost homecoming that I can’t even begin to hurl epithets at them. But I’m willing to overlook them for now just to have some people in congress take some bold steps that will help us in the future. Fewer international misadventures and more time and money being spent on transitioning our economy would be a swell idea.

It’s fun to watch the right try to figure out how best to define and pigeonhole Obama. They were so amped for Clinton, that they’ve been caught unawares.

They can’t decide whether Obama is the foreign outsider who rejects American values, or whether he’s the too-cool elitist at the country club.

They can’t decide if he’s too inner-city activist or too Park Avenue radical chic.

Thankfully, Karl Rove weighs in:

Even if you never met him, you know this guy. He’s the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by.

Note, of course, that with that very statement Rove outs himself as being that guy at the country club holding a martini and cigarette making snide comments. “Beautiful date” is unconfirmed.

Country club?

As most everyone knows by now, Barack Obama has decided to opt out of the public financing system, eschewing federal matching funds so that his overall fundraising is not capped, and he can effectively battle against what is likely to be a brutal Republican onslaught from McCain, the RNC, and various swiftboat-flavored 527 groups.

Some people are upset about this because they demand doctrinal rigidity in a candidate, rather than pragmatism. I think Bush has shown us that doctrinal rigidity in the face of changing factual reality can be quite counterproductive. Others are upset because Obama had pledged to work out something with the McCain campaign whereby both would opt into the public financing system. McCain is, notably, upset, and going on the attack on the issue. It won’t be very persuasive, however.

Why? Josh Marshall explains:

McCain himself is at this moment breaking the law in continuing to spend over the spending limits he promised to abide by through the primary season in exchange for public financing. (By the FEC’s rules, we’re still in the primary phase of the election and will be until the conventions.)

I want to return to this subject though because this is not hyperbole or some throw away line. He’s really doing it. McCain opting into public financing, accepted the spending limits and then profited from that opt-in by securing a campaign saving loan. And then he used some clever, but not clever enough lawyering, to opt back out. And the person charged with saying what flies and what doesn’t — the Republican head of the FEC — said he’s not allowed to do that. He can’t opt out unilaterally unless the FEC says he can.

The most generous interpretation of what happened is that McCain’s lawyer came up with an ingenious legal two step that allowed him to double dip in the campaign finance system, eat his cake and spend it too. But even if you buy that line, successful gaming of the system doesn’t really count as strict adherence. And the point is irrelevant since the head of the FEC — a Republican — says McCain cannot do this on his own.

Why I detest cable news and Rush Limbaugh clones:

The McCain campaign today let loose former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani as its attack dog on the issue of terrorism and Obama’s alleged softness on it. Not only with Jimmy Carter’s name be bandied about, but expect the dead of 9/11 to be used as a hammer against Obama at every turn.

But aside from the accident of Giuliani being the mayor of the city hardest hit by 9/11, what foreign policy/counterterrorism credentials does Giuliani boast?

Senator Joe Biden says it beautifully:

“It’s no surprise that it takes a man with zero national security and foreign policy experience to defend the policies of John McCain and President Bush. The facts are that the policies President Bush has pursued and Senator McCain would continue have not made us safer. We’re bogged down in Iraq with no end in sight and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan — the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 — have regrouped and are plotting new attacks. In fact, terrorist attacks around the world have increased since 9-11.

“When it comes to Guantanamo detainees, Senator McCain has been all over the map. A year ago, he recognized that Guantanamo was a stain on this country and joined me in advocating that it be closed down and recommending that the detainees be sent to Fort Leavenworth — where there has never been a question that they would have Habeas Corpus rights. Now, Sen. McCain insists that Americans must choose between our values and our security. That’s exactly wrong. Our values reinforce our security. Our failure to live up to them has been Al Qaeda’s biggest recruiting tool.”

Barack Obama has hailed the recent Supreme Court decision, which held that detainees in Guantanamo Bay’s detention camp are entitled to habeas corpus. The McCain campaign said,

Senator Obama is a perfect manifestation of a September 10th mind-set . . . He does not understand the nature of the enemies we face,” McCain’s national security director Randy Scheunemann told reporters on a conference call.

Former CIA director James Woolsey, who is advising the McCain campaign, concurred, saying Obama has “an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism . . . and toward dealing with prisoners captured overseas who have been engaged in terrorist attacks against the United States.”

Remember the blind Sheikh, Omar-Abdel Rahman? Connected to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, we arrested him and his co-conspirators and convicted them under the rule of law. He rots in jail for life. Why can’t we do the same to Qaeda suspects? How do we reconcile our rule of law, our constitution, our moral and legal obligation not to torture, with what we’ve done since 9/11? How does 9/11 justify violation of principles that date to 1215?

Obama said the government can crack down on terrorists “within the constraints of our Constitution.” He mentioned the indefinite detention of Guantanamo Bay detainees, contrasting their treatment with the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

“And, you know, let’s take the example of Guantanamo,” Obama said. “What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center — we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U. S. prisons, incapacitated.

“And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, ‘Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.’

Obama is merely arguing that the United States needs to follow its own laws and treaty obligations when it comes to people imprisoned by the United States on American soil, (which the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base most certainly is). If we don’t do that, then what, precisely, are we fundamentally fighting for?

The McCain camp can accuse Obama of having a 9/10 mentality all it wants. They?

They have a pre-1215 mentality. A September 16, 1787 mentality. A July 3, 1776 mentality.

Posted By Christopher Smith

A year ago, Hillary Clinton was 30 points ahead of every other candidate in the Democratic Primary. She was outraising her opponents at a minimum of a 2-1 margin, she was the owner of a political pedigree and the biggest brand name in American politics. She had the support of the democratic establishment in just about every state and had nearly 20 years of political chits to cash in while on the campaign. So, how did she lose?

Obama built a grassroots network and fundamentally changed the way campaigning happened. Rather than focusing on large donors, top down organization and tightly controlled messaging, he hosted rallies where people gave between $10-25, but more importantly, turned over their email addresses and social network membership information. He eschewed the standard methodology of canvassing and voter organization and built a new model; one that is based on the power of social networks, viral marketing, and the voices of individuals. It’s a powerful change in American politics and one that I think we underestimate as we head into the general election. The new currency of a national campaign is contributory, social, and grassroots organization with millions of rapid responders working on behalf of the candidate.

It’s a new politics, a new mode of political discourse, and the fulfillment of the promise of direct democracy.

Yes, we can.

Posted by Christopher Smith

There have already been hundreds of columns written and thousands of words spoken about Hillary’s concession speech. However, I just wanted to say that I thought it was her finest moment. She struck a magnanimous tone and delivered the message she needed to in order to help unify the party behind the presumptive Democratic nominee. It was an unequivocal endorsement and a play towards being added to the ticket.

As with most candidates, I am always impressed by the authenticity and honesty given in concession speeches as it reveals the candidate he/she should have and could have been.

In the end, Hillary was simply a candidate with limited appeal. Her base of voters never really changed, she failed to bring new supporters to her fight, and her polarizing history kept people from giving her a second look. Her reliance on identity politics and partisan dogma failed to inspire a new generation of voters and Obama pounced on the opening. She also relied to heavy on traditional models of outreach…

For a pictorial view of what happened, here is a graphic from The Wall Street Journal that represents the reults of the “poll of polls” from Real Clear Politics. She tread water with a dedicated base while Obama chewed away at the fringes, brough new voters in, and stole many of her core constituencies.

John McCain. The guy I backed in 2000 is a wounded shadow of his former self. His speech was dull, plodding, uninspired, intellectually dishonest, and defensive. And whoever picked the green background should be fired. He talks of our progress in Iraq, where Sunnis are working with us to fight insurgency - Sunnis to whom we reached out in a diplomatic manner, realizing that there is something each side needs from the other. In the next breath he criticizes Obama for wanting to negotiate with mean dictators. McCain paints Obama with the big-spending, big-government program brush - a brush that’s 25 years out-of-date. The Republican Party is now the big-spending, big-government party. The Republican Party is now the party of government intrusion into public life, into mismanagement of the economy and energy policy, of turning the US into a torturing, aggressive, clumsy fool who spies on its own citizens. That’s not change we can believe in. McCain as a change agent? Co-opting Obama’s tag line as “A Leader We Can Believe In”? Nothing new, nothing original, and the whole notion of “change” isn’t exactly going to fire up the conservatives, who aren’t all that thrilled about McCain to begin with.

Hillary Clinton. The Senator from New York was feisty, defiant, conciliatory to the race Obama “has run” versus the race he has won. She gave out her web address and asked her supporters to tell her what to do next because she’s not making any decisions “tonight”. (The crowd at times chanted, “Denver, Denver!” and at one point I heard one voice cry, “don’t vote for Obama!”) It was Clinton’s opportunity to concede gracefully and acknowledge that Obama was over the top. She didn’t . It was Clinton’s opportunity to throw her support his way wholeheartedly to unify the party - an opportunity to do so to a live, nationwide audience. She didn’t. That’s a shame. Go to her site and tell her what you think? It begins, by default, “I’m with you, Hillary, and I’m proud of everything we are fighting for.” When you hit submit, it goes to her contributions page. What does she want? Not “respect” for the 18 million who voted for her. What she wants is help paying off her campaign debt. I thought her speech was an opportunity blown; it might have been the right speech for Hillary Clinton, but it wasn’t the right speech for the Democratic Party going into the general election. Ultimately, Clinton’s speech was all about her. She didn’t coalesce her supporters against McCain. She helped perpetuate the Hillary-as-victim myth. CNN pundits were getting angry emails about how this night was supposed to be “all about Hillary”. Jeffrey Toobin expressed disbelief at that sentiment, and chalked it up to “deranged narcissism”:

Barack Obama’s speech. Compared to McCain’s rhetorical bunt, Obama hit it out of the park. He extended a hand to Clinton and her supporters. But what I really loved - especially after the lackluster, wonky campaign Al Gore waged in 2000 and the milquetoast, defensive campaign John Kerry waged in 2004 - was that Obama got right in McCain’s face. He held the speech at the arena in St Paul where the Republicans will hold their nominating convention later this year. Right in his face. He praised McCain for his service to the country and his accomplishments, “even as he chooses to ignore [Obama’s]”. He went right at McCain as “embracing” Bush’s policies in Iraq and with domestic issues. While McCain criticized Obama for not visiting Iraq, Obama suggested McCain go and visit places in America that are facing tough times. It was patriotic. It outlined that, as far as Obama is concerned, the race won’t use religion as a “wedge”, and won’t demonize and turn opponents into the enemy. What a great speech. What a great night.

Bring it.

I think the word for this Harriet Christian individual is “dreck”:

When Hillary Clinton began her quest for the Presidency, she was despised by a good half of the electorate-at-large.

Now? In late May 2008? She’s despised by a good half of the Democratic Party, too. Not because she’s a woman. Not because she’s a Clinton. Not because she’s from New York. Not because she’s opinionated and strong.

She’s despised because she’s a sore loser, and she’s playing the feminist victim card in a way that cheapens both words.

Any suggestion that her loss in the primaries has to do with sexism or unfair media treatment is patently false, and truly pathetic. If that’s the message she wants to send to her supporters, so be it. She lost fair and square partly because of the mismanagement of her own campaign. I hope all of this nonsense is somehow worth it for her.

Say what you want about Olbermann, but he’s one of the very, very few cable commentators who doesn’t scream at you, doesn’t rely on flash and graphics, and otherwise isn’t a caricature of himself. Good for him for what he’s doing - being intelligent and speaking to you like a grownup. Regardless of whether you agree with him or not.

And the best part of this commentary comes at around the 8 minute mark, when he lists of the myriad things we have “forgiven” Clinton over the course of the primary, in spite of her easy morphs into victim mode.

Posted by Christopher Smith

Sometimes, it takes Al-Jazeera to help us see our country as it really is. This is a phenomenal piece about race in America and the forces that Barack Obama will face in the general election. It really doesn’t have anything to do with Hillary or some ginned up story of her or her husband as race-baiters. It’s about the deep scars this nation bears from centuries of slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow.

What do you make of it?

Why does James Baker hate America?

UPDATE: Apparently, General Petraeus is also an America-hating, naive, inexperienced appeaser! CHAMBERLAIN!!@@##