McCAIN AND GRAHAM FALSELY TRUMPET PALIN'S RECORD

First off, here's a video compilation of John McCain's appearance on Fox News Sunday and Lindsay Graham's appearance on This Week:

Notice how John McCain has no real response to the interesting chain of events that put Governor Sarah Palin on his ticket. He met her once in February, had a phone conversation last week, and offered her the job as Obama gave his speech in Denver. I found this article from the New York Times an interesting read considering McCain's claims of "watching her" seem a bit vague.

I also find it interesting that both Graham and McCain trumpet Palin's actions on the now infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" as her greatest accomplishment towards "reform" in government. In fact, Palin herself said during her introduction with McCain that she told Congress "Thanks but no thanks," regarding the $400 million dollar project. However the facts tell a different story. Thanks to George Stephanopoulos for touching on the truth - but here's an actual "timeline" of Palin's comments regarding the project.

To begin with, the Gravina Island Bridge (aka "The Bridge to Nowhere") was first brought before Congress in 2005. More than a year later - when Palin was running for office in the fall of 2006 - she was asked this question about the bridge:

5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?

Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

The "Congessional Delegation" she speaks of are longtime Alaska Senators Ted Stevens and Don Young, who are known (and now infamous) for making Alaska the most earmarked state in the nation. And one could logically assume that Palin's "assist" remark, as well as her support of the bridge could been seen as supporting the projects, and not the "Thanks but no thanks," sentiment she expressed a few days ago.

In fact, even when the bridge became a national outrage in 2007, Palin still never made anything close to her supposed "Thanks but no thanks" remarks. When the project was scrapped in September of last year, she said this:

"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," said Governor Palin. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Governor Palin added. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

Praising "the work" of her congressional delegation? Admitting that it's actually Congress' actions that stopped the funding? That actually sounds like she still supports the bridge, but thanks to "inaccurate portrayals" she was forced to scrap the project.

So let's have some actual "straight talk" about McCain's V.P. pick:
1. Palin's main attribute touted by McCain's campaign is "reform". Check out their new site.
2. The main example of this "reform" (according to herself, McCain, and campaign subordinates) is Palin's supposed opposition to "The Bridge to Nowhere".
3. The facts don't support this claim.

Is it possible that we could get some "straight talk" from the media about this? Can Palin provide a record of her "Thanks but no thanks," comments prior to LAST WEEK?

By the way, Palin's also being sold on her "ethics" - However she's currently under investigation for - you guessed it - ETHICS VIOLATIONS for allegedly using her office for a personal vendetta.

On the upside? Cindy McCain thinks she's got National Security experience because "Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia." No joke - here's the video:

THANKS TO RYAN ON THE "BRIDGE" STORY

ROVE DOES HIS BEST TO SPIN PALIN - AND LIES DOING SO

As noted yesterday, Karl Rove marginalized the Obama's possible V.P. pick Tim Kaine based on his "3 years as Governor" and "being Mayor of the 105th largest city in the nation".

However, here he is spinning McCain's pick with whatever he can muster:

By the way, Kaine was mayor of Richmond, Virginia (population 200,000).

While Wasilla, Alaska (where Palin was Mayor) wasn't even in the Top 10 of ALASKA's cities by population during her tenure (population 5,469).

Believe me, McCain wanted a WOMAN period. So this selection says WAY MORE about the RNC's poor record of electing women across the board than anything else!

SARAH PALIN: SELECTING INEXPERIENCE

I've read and watched a wealth of reactions today from the right-wing "media machine" concerning the selection of Sarah Palin for Vice President. The thing that bothered me over and over is how they try to compare Obama and Palin's experience level to justify the pick. There's just one problem - they simply don't compare.

Since February 10, 2007, when Barack Obama announced his candidacy for President of the United States, he has fought the idea that he is somehow "too inexperienced" to assume the highest office in our country. In the months that followed, he spoke to audiences day after day, telling his story, and laying out his plan to improve the lives of the American people.

And when his campaign began to gain some steam and criticisms came from his fellow Democrats, he fought back by convincing his supporters - and a growing group of delegates - that he was right, and they were wrong. He openly debated the best minds the Democrats had to offer, and garnered 18 million votes along his way to securing the nomination for the Democratic Party. The voters chose Barack Obama KNOWING his background, his experience, his judgment, and his plan for the United States.

In short, he was ELECTED by the American People. Meanwhile Sarah Palin was SELECTED by John McCain.

Mind you, this does not reflect badly on Palin. She is the 19-month Governor of 47th most populated State, and would be crazy to turn down an opportunity like this. And I'm sure she's a lovely person, and a capable Governor. However, she's also a person who said this less than a month ago:

"As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration."

By selecting a Vice President, the candidates give us a peek into the judgment they'd show as President. It's a way to say to the American People, "Here is the person I trust most, should something happen to me along the way."

With this in mind and considering the unstable situation we're in overseas, Obama selected Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Meanwhile, John McCain selected a woman he'd met just once (in February) before the vetting for Vice President took place, and then gave her the job on their second "secret" meeting in Arizona?! As an added bonus, here's her views on Iraq as of last year:

"I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq," she said. "I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe."

With this in mind, could it be any clearer who is truly "Not ready to lead"?

McCAIN'S V.P. CHOICE IS CONFUSING - BUT WHAT DOES KARL ROVE THINK OF IT?

So McCain picked the 19-month Governor of Alaska, Sara Palin, as his running mate. As the media scrambles for some background on this relative unknown, I thought I'd share something that Karl Rove said recently. Rove, for all of his flaws, has proven he knows how to win elections. So here's what Rove said last week when speculation of Obama's V.P. choice was centering around Virginia Governor Tim Kaine:

"With all 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. 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. What I'm concerned about is can he bring me the electoral votes of the state of Virginia, the 13 electoral votes in Virginia."

So let's compare Rove's criticisms of Kaine's record, to those of Palin, shall we?

Kaine has been Governor of Virginia for three years - Palin has been Alaska's Governor for 16 months.

Can people really name one accomplishment of Palin's?

Kaine was Mayor of the 105th largest city (population 200,000) Richmond, Virginia - Palin was Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska... population 6,700. It should be noted that the STATE of Alaska (population 700,000) is less populous that SEVENTEEN American CITIES, ranking just behind Austin, Texas!

So will Rove keep his claim that this was not a decision based on a person "capable of being president of the United States"? Will he agree that McCain's decision was based on getting votes, and not putting "Country First"?

WHY DON'T WE HEAR FROM RON PAUL MORE?

Ron Paul ran for President of the Republican Party this year. He was applauded over and over during the debates, raised millions of dollars from grass roots donors, and even topped the RNC candidates in military donations - yet he was treated like a joke by the media. I must admit that every time I heard Paul speak, I came away pleasantly surprised by his thoughtful approach to most subjects. He was one of the few in his party who examined (and criticized) our foreign policy decisions in the wake of 9/11.

So I guess it shouldn't be too much of a surprise that Ron Paul also "smelled a rat" in the lead up to our invasion of Iraq. Here he is in 2002, discussing the likely preemptive war we would later launch against Iraq, as well as it consequences for the future. He even correctly prognosticates a future Russian aggression against Georgia!?

Can the mindless "talking heads" of the cable news outlets apologize to Paul now?

FURTHER PROOF THAT McCAIN ISN'T A MAN OF HIS WORD

Tonight I was actually surprised to see McCain's commercial running during the final day of the Democratic National Convention. The cynic in me wanted to believe it was a calculated move... but I actually thought the gesture was a pleasant one. To those who missed it, here's the ad:

Wow! What an idea?! Actually taking the night off to allow Obama to enjoy the surreal experience of accepting the nomination for President on the 45th Anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream speech"? That's sounds terrific. If it truly were such a gesture - which it wasn't. I'll never disrespect my inner cynic again!

You see, just minutes after the fireworks faded in Denver, McCain's minions issued a document that attempted to refute several points in Barack Obama's speech. McCain's sentiments of "Tomorrow we'll be back at it" couldn't even last until 12:01 AM in order to hold to his promise. The idiots in McCain's camp actually DATED the document as Thursday!

The eight-pages of text was a pain to upload, but I post the full document for one reason only. The sheer length of this attempted rebuttal - mixed with the speed in which it was issued - proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that McCain NEVER intended to "take a day off" out of respect for his counterpart OR his accomplishment. This document is the product of an army of staffers typing feverishly DURING Obama's speech in order to issue a counterargument before the dust settled at Invesco Field.

The document may wish to smear Obama and his message, but it says more about McCain and his inability to stand by anything he does or says. No wonder McCain refuses to define "honor". From where I stand, he's lost it.







THANKS TO HUFFINGTONPOST.COM FOR THE LETTER

THIS JUST HAS TO BE READ TO BE BELIEVED

In 2007 (the latest data available), 45.7 million Americans were without health insurance. That's up some 8 million from Bill Clinton's last year in office, and just over 15% of the population. As the number three issue on voters' minds, you'd think that both parties would have extreme sensitivity in dealing with the issue, right? Enter John Goodman, John McCain's adviser who crafted his current Health Care policy.

Does Goodman see a Health Care crisis in America? Hell no! In fact, he'd like to see the next President, "sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American - even illegal aliens - as uninsured." That's because, as Goodman sees it, no Emergency Room in the country can turn away people who need emergency care. So everyone's covered! We're just like the UK and Canada everybody! Yay!

So why have yearly physicals, get your blood pressure and cholesterol checked? Just rush down to the hospital moments before your heart explodes! Thanks John Goodman. And thanks John McCain, for picking someone with such amazing insights to lead your in the fight for better health care.

As McCain's own website says about the issue:

"John McCain Believes The Key To Health Care Reform Is To Restore Control To The Patients Themselves. We want a system of health care in which everyone can afford and acquire the treatment and preventative care they need. Health care should be available to all and not limited by where you work or how much you make. Families should be in charge of their health care dollars and have more control over care."

Wow John, these words sound good, but anyone with half a brain can see that you've picked a man with little sympathy for the American people to be your "expert" on the issue.

HERE'S WHAT JOHN McCAIN THINKS OF AMERICAN WORKERS

From a speech in 2006, John McCain belittles the work ethic of Americans at an AFL-CIO gathering. Is this guy for real?

Does he really think ordinary, hard-working Americans wouldn't work in the lettuce fields for fifty bucks an hour? That's roughly $100,000 a year John. I know that doesn't mean much to people who married into astronomical wealth, but that's a LOT of money to millions of Americans. Heck, the median HOUSEHOLD income in 2006 was just $48,201.00. Does McCain really think it's the hard work in the agriculture business that's keeping American citizens away? Give me a break. An easier explanation is the roughly $6/$8 dollars an hour these physically demanding jobs pay.

There's no doubt this clown almost got booed off the stage for this kind of condescending crap. I'd love to know if anyone actually took McCain up on the $50/an hour promise. My guess is that tons of displaced workers in 2008 would take him up on it.

RONALD REAGAN: AN INEXPERIENCED "CELEBRITY" WHO HAD NO MILITARY BACKGROUND

By listening to the right-wing pundits and McCain advisers, it seems clear that McCain plans to attack Barack Obama as a candidate who's "Not Ready to Lead". With this strategy, Republicans hope to ride McCain's 26 years of political experience into the White House. However this idea of seasoning a Presidential Candidate over the better part of three decades hasn't always been the RNC way.

In fact, in 1980, it was Ronald Reagan's own political inexperience that Jimmy Carter tried to exploit. Reagan only political experience was an eight-year term as Governor of California prior to being elected President. But he brought forth a message of change to a country that had suffered some great economic challenges during Carter's Administration. His most devastating blow to the Carter Campaign may well have been his closing statement in the 1980 debate when he said:

"Next Tuesday all of you will go to the polls, will stand there in the polling place and make a decision. I think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. If you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have. This country doesn't have to be in the shape that it is in."

This statement could be echoed twice as loud today in the fact that we've endured EIGHT YEARS of Republican failed policies. John McCain, who once argued against Bush's tax cuts, has now fallen in line with the disastrous policy. McCain, who talks about cutting government spending, has a plan that will amass a FIVE TRILLION dollar deficit, while REDUCING services?! And while America's two wars are bleeding us of money, troops, and military equipment, McCain continues to saber rattle against Iran and Russia. Oh did I mention that McCain has voted with Bush's policies 95% of the time? Even John's often played "P.O.W. Card" will have a hard time deflecting that one.

Barack Obama is a highly educated individual who has eight years of experience as a State Senator in Illinois, and four more as a United States Senator. Furthermore, history has shown that political experience does not automatically transfer into a successful Presidency.

Watch this video and notice the similarities between Obama's 2008 campaign, and Reagan's 1980 campaign for "change". Is there any doubt that McCain's camp would label Reagan a "celebrity" if the faced him in an election?

McCAIN TRYING TO HAVE HIS FETUS BOTH WAYS

At a press conference today in Denver, former Clinton supporter Debra Bartoshevich spoke of her newfound support of John McCain. In fact, she even made a commercial for McCain:

Now some might ask, "How the hell does a Clinton Democrat suddenly support a right-wing Presidential Candidate?" Here's how.

Today, when Mrs. Bartoshevich was asked about McCain's stance on abortion rights, she replied:

"Going back to 1999, John McCain did an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle saying that overturning Roe v. Wade would not make any sense, because then women would have to have illegal abortions."

Which is technically true, but McCain quickly ran away from those comments soon after. In fact, his own website currently mentions overturning Rowe vs. Wade, and he made a definitive comment on the subject at the Saddleback Forum a few weeks ago. So why wouldn't any McCain surrogate correct Mrs. Bartoshevich today? McCain advisor Carly Fiorina was just a few feet away and could have corrected the misinformed woman as to McCain's true intentions, but instead she did nothing. Why? As it turns out, there's a simple explanation.

You see, the RNC knows that only 18% of Americans support making abortions illegal in all cases, which is what the RNC platform states. For the uninformed, that means NO exceptions even in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is threatened. That would seem to be a pretty tough sell to most women, huh? Which is why if a few people are "cloudy" on the issue, all the better.

In fact, Fiorina has recently taken this misinformation one step further. In a forum with women in Columbus, Ohio, she told them that McCain, "has never signed on to efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade." This statement runs directly opposite to McCain's own statements in 2007, and even his aforementioned website says that Rowe vs. Wade is a "flawed decision" and "needs overturning".

How's that for "signing on" Carly? Sheesh!

IDIOT REPUBLICANS TRY TO EXPLOIT OBAMA'S HALF-BROTHER

Barack Obama grew up without a his father. At two years-old, his parents separated and Barack Obama Sr. eventually made his way back to Africa to live. In the years after, he fathered numerous children (eight in total), culminating with the birth of George Obama some six months before his death in 1982.

This "youngest" Obama is some 21 years removed from his half-brother Barack. He has seen Barack Obama only twice in his life, and lives half a world away. However this does not preclude him from becoming a pawn in a political game that uses his poverty and despair as a "talking point".

Recently the youngest Obama was featured in Vanity Fair Magazine in a piece which outlined the vast difference between his life and his half-brother's. It's a sad tale that involves living in a hut, making less than a dollar a month, and losing contact with his mother. The only thing sadder is that these RNC hacks would see fit to use his misery for their political gain:

This commercial again attempts to paint McCain and his wife of "being successful and living the American Dream", although it's been discussed that neither McCain nor his wife created the business that affords them their lifestyle. Cindy simply inherited her father's beer distribution business, and has spent most of her adult life dedicated to charitable causes. Hmmm, beer sells itself? Who knew?

Which brings us back to the point of the commercial: Taking care of one's family. Let's just take a minute to compare the two families again:

Barack & Michelle Obama -
- had little contact with his father who lived halfway around the world from him.
- has seven half-siblings on his father's side, who all live in Africa.
- has a self-made worth (as of 2006) of $799,000.

John & Cindy McCain -
- grew up with her father and mother in Arizona.
- has one half-sister from her father's previous marriage, and one step-sister from her mother. Both women still live in the Arizona area.
- has an inherited worth of approximately $100 million dollars.

So, by this ad's logic, the less-wealthy Obama should provide financial help to his long lost half-brother in Africa, but super-rich Cindy doesn't need to help her sisters, when at least one of them lives in the same state as her?

Republican logic at it's finest.

CAN McCAIN JUST ANSWER A FU*KING QUESTION?!

From Jed Lewison comes this AMAZING piece of video, thawed out from the Republican Debates of January 30th, 2008. Time and time again, John McCain simply refuses to answer DIRECT QUESTIONS that are put to him. It seems he'd rather mention his military service than honestly tell the American people what he'd do as our President. As you watch this video remember the question is this, "What makes you more qualified than Mitt Romney, a successful C.E.O. and business man, to manage our economy?" Take it away John:

This variation of "I'm a leader, patriot, former P.O.W., member of the "Reagan Revolution", a never surrendering super-veteran, and I'll chase Osama bin Laden to the Gates of Hell," response seems to work in almost any situation for McCain. How did this guy win the nomination again?

FINALLY A COMMERCIAL THAT SHOWS OFF McCAIN'S STRENGTHS

McCAIN, HOUSES, AND "FAMILY VALUES"

When John McCain was unable to answer the question of how many houses he owns, it set off a political firestorm. After all, this is the same man who applauded struggling workers who "canceled vacations and are taking on a second job" if they were having trouble making ends meet. The same guy who's campaign told us our country was in a "mental recession", and that the "fundamentals of our economy are strong".

However, when recently asked to clarify his comments (or lack thereof) about his many houses, McCain tried a different approach. First, he made sure to bring up his time as a P.O.W.:

"I am grateful for the fact that I have a wonderful life," McCain said. "I spent some years without a kitchen table, without a chair, and I know what it's like to be blessed by the opportunities of this great nation."

Now let's be clear here. McCain's "blessing" and "opportunities" didn't come through any elbow grease or savvy business decisions of his own, but in fact came through divorcing his first wife and marrying a 25 year-old heiress to a beer distributorship fortune. Ah, the "American Dream" indeed, huh?

Hey, isn't this the same crap John Kerry dealt with a few years back? Oh how the hypocritical right-wing world turns.

But even better, McCain continues his defense of he and his wife's massive fortune by bringing up Cindy McCain's father:

"I'll continue to say I am blessed and very proud that [his late father-in-law] Jim Hensley, a war hero, a man who barely graduated from high school, was able to pass on to his daughter what he struggled for and saved for. That's the ambition that all of us have for our children and grandchildren. If someone wants to disparage that, they are free to do that."

This is a fine sentiment, but it also brings up an interesting point. Cindy McCain has referred to herself many times over the years as an "only child". A point that is only reinforced by McCain's own statement about his war hero/semi-smart father-in-law. However the facts tell a different story.

It seems Jim Hensley (like John McCain) had a previous marriage to one Mary Jean Parks that produced a daughter named Kathleen. We know this because Kathleen contacted National Public Radio after hearing a story about Cindy McCain in which it described Jim Hensley's "only child" and her charity work.

It should also be noted that when Jim Hensley met Cindy's mother, she already had a daughter from a previous relationship named Dixie - which would make three women in Mr. Hensley's life. Which beg the question, "Why did Cindy become the sole beneficiary of Jim Hensley's considerable estate?" Why should one fertilized egg from Mr. Hensley's be treated any differently from another? And if he indeed raised Dixie from 1945 on, why would this daughter not receive the same "blessings" that Cindy received?

I mean if John McCain is going to use his father-in-law's life story as a defense for his comments in "Housegate 2008", don't we have the right to know why his other children didn't deserve the same treatment as Cindy? Are these the "family values" that Republican's pride themselves on?

DICK MORRIS IS A FRIGGIN' IDIOT!

Maybe Dick Morris should stick to hookers , toe sucking, and S&M. Just watch this moron try to bemoan Barack Obama's comparison of the Russia/Georgia situation and our invasion of Iraq:

Is this clown serious? We went into Iraq at the invitation of their government? I'm sure dead Saddam would disagree. He then alters course and says that the "new government" invited us. Oh, I get it.

So if Russia simply knocks off Saakashvili and installs a new government that "invites them", then everythings okay, right Dick? Are these guys kidding? Were does an idiot like this get off criticizing ANYONE?! Hot Dog Vendors could talk foreign policy better than this tool.

McCAIN'S NEWEST COMMERCIAL? THE SAME OLD CRAP

A day after John McCain's "I don't know how many houses I own" gaffe hit the airwaves, the McCain campaign feels like it can still attack Obama on taxes. Nevermind that it's already been established that Obama is better on taxes for 95% of Americans, the "Maverick" just can't help himself:

I love how the announcer says that "celebrities don't have to worry about budgets, but we do". According to disclosure forms, John McCain budgets some $273,000 a year for "house staff", which is approximately $55,000 MORE than the average American's home is worth.

Way to connect with the common man John.

UPDATE:
The Sunlight Foundation did a recent breakdown of Congressional Wealth, and what they found makes McCain's implication of Barack Obama's "elitism" even funnier:
As you can see, in 2006 McCain was worth $36 million dollars, meanwhile Obama was worth $799 thousand. So how can a guy worth 45 TIMES what the other is worth accuse his opponent of being an "elitist"?! I seriously hope someone gets to ask McCain that.

CNN'S "REVEALED: JOHN MCCAIN"

It's surprising that CNN decided to show this much detail into McCain's marital infidelity upon returning from Vietnam. I wonder if Sean Hannity would take as much interest in this, as he has the John Edwards scandal?

I NEED THIS PLAYING ON A LOOP FOR THE NEXT 100 DAYS OR SO

JOHN McCAIN MAKES "DEBT ARGUMENT" AGAINST OBAMA... BUT HE'S WORSE!

John McCain's newest radio ad tries to scare the American people by claiming that Obama would expand our government and "pile debt on the backs of your children and grandchildren". Oh, you mean like George W. Bush has done (with your support) for EIGHT YEARS John? After all, Dubya's deficits are completely off the charts thanks to massive tax breaks for the rich while we're at war. And without a real plan to fix spending, yours will too. First, here's the ad:


Again, according to the Tax Policy Center, Obama's plan would increase the National Debt 3.5 trillion dollars. However, McCain's plan would increase the debt 5 TRILLION over the same time period, while succeeding in only making the rich... well, richer. And that's only if McCain can refrain from biting off another war along the way.

Once again, without the truth on his side - McCain's happy to lie time and time again.

AM I REALLY ABOUT TO SAY THIS?

I completely agree with Pat Buchanan? Well, at least in THIS ARTICLE.

McCAIN'S "CONE OF SILENCE"? NOT SO MUCH

If you watched last night's CNN Presidential Forum with Pastor Rick Warren, you know that the two Presidential Candidates were interviewed separately. Barack Obama went first, followed by John McCain. Now to ensure a level playing field, Pastor Warren said this:

NOW WHAT I'VE DECIDED IS TO ALLOW FOR PROPER COMPARISON I'M GOING TO ASK IDENTICAL QUESTIONS TO EACH OF THESE CANDIDATES SO YOU CAN COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES. NOW SENATOR OBAMA IS GOING TO GO FIRST. WE FLIPPED A COIN. AND WE HAVE SAFELY PLACED SENATOR MCCAIN IN A CONE OF SILENCE.

This fact was even backed up when McCain took the stage and was asked by Warren, "Was the cone of silence comfortable that you were in just now?" To which McCain answed, "I was trying to hear through the wall." The audience laughed, but everyone (including myself) believed that McCain was indeed sequestered for Obama's 60-minute interview.

Turns out, not even close. In fact, McCain was not in the building during the first half of the Obama interview, and arrived via motorcade well into the proceedings. This of course means that McCain could have had access to a program carried on all three over-the-air networks, cable news networks and various radio stations.

But that might not even matter. You see, near the halfway point of the interview with McCain, he's asked about defining marriage between a man & woman. Then there's this exchange:

McCain: Are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court Justices?
Warren: We'll get to that.
McCain: All right. Okay
Warren: You got all my questions? Good.

So now he's implying McCain got all the questions in advance? So why deal with the whole "Cone of Silence" bullshit? This also draws attention to John McCain's ability to answer a three-part question on education (asked earlier to Obama) without even hearing the complete query. First, the question to Obama:

Warren: 80 percent of Americans recent poll said they believe in merit pay for teachers. Do you? I'm not asking do you think all teachers should get a raise. Do you think better teachers should be paid better? They should be paid more than poor teachers?

Now let's take a look at the transcript from McCain's interview. Notice how he "magically" answers the three parts without hearing them:

Warren: About 80 percent of America says they support merit pay for the best teachers. Now I don't want to hear your stump speech on education - -
McCain: Yes. Yes. And find bad teachers another line of work.

Does anyone else find this highly odd?

Here's Pastor Warren being asked about McCain and his sequestering. Pay close attention to the 2:50 mark:

First off, he'd only have to ask McCain if he'd heard any of the discussion - as it's kinda hard for Obama to start the program and spy. But a bigger question is if Pastor Rick did indeed ask McCain upon arriving if he'd heard anything, then why start his interview by repeating the "Cone of Silence" line? Wouldn't that be a moment for full disclosure to the American People about McCain's late arrival to the venue?

QUESTION: WOULD THESE PEOPLE BE RUSHED OFF THE AIR IF THEY'D WITNESSED JOHN EDWARDS CHEATING?

A few days ago, I knew very little about the Russia/Georgia conflict other than what I saw on the television. In short: Georgia = Good, Russia = Bad. It seemed that Russia had launched an unprovoked attack on the tiny country of Georgia. This was further cemented by John McCain's words admonishing Russia, and proclaiming to the world, "We are all Georgians". I would guess it seemed that way to Fox News as well, which is why they were more than happy to book two eyewitnesses to the war there. However, when their first-hand account doesn't seem to match the McCain/Fox News angle - "Operation Cut to Commercial" commences:

Wait a minute? So Georgia was attacking South Ossetia first? Yep, In fact, one Op/Ed piece makes the argument that "the vast majority of the 2,000 civilians allegedly killed so far in this conflict were South Ossetians killed by Georgian shells, rockets and bombs." So why is this fact going unreported in the U.S.? And why did this happen during a press conference with Condoleeza Rice?

Is there a concerted effort to remove any sort of perspective from this situation? For anyone who's interested, here's a timeline of the current conflict via Wikipedia.

No matter what the exact truth is, it's not quite the black & white scenario that McCain is selling.

IS JOHN McCAIN CLAIRVOYANT?

John McCain doesn't want this election to be about age. I mean, after all, if McCain were to be elected President he would be three years older than Ronald Reagan (the oldest President ever) was when he took office in 1980. McCain will celebrate his 72nd birthday just a few days before the Republican National Convention - and seems to feel he's robust enough to take on a job like President for four years. So why is he so ageist about the Supreme Court Justices?

A few days ago, when McCain wanted to underline the importance of bringing conservative justices to the Supreme Court, he said this:

"There's going to be two, maybe three vacancies on the Supreme Court, according to people that decide these things. People that pay close attention."

He gave a similar response tonight in his discussions with Pastor Rick Warren. But the real question here is, "Can John McCain predict the future?"

You see, Supreme Court Justices get lifetime appointments. That means that they serve until they choose to retire, or die. And without any indications from the current justices about retirement, are John McCain (or these unknown "people" he speaks of) predicting death for two (or more) Justices?

Of the nine current Justices, only one (John Paul Stevens) is in his 80's. The rest are 75, 72, 72, 70, 68, 60, 58 and 53. With this in mind, is it really acceptable for McCain to question the health or vitality of people in their 70's to do their job?

And if it is acceptable, shouldn't we be able to do the same thing to someone seeking the toughest job in the country?

THE "McCAIN-BOT 4000" MIGHT NEED A BIT OF A TUNE UP?

McCAIN CONTINUES LYING: OBAMA FIGHTS BACK VIA YOUTUBE

The McCain campaign has another "scare" commercial regarding taxes:

However, while McCain admits to being "computer illiterate" - the Obama campaign has taken to the internet airwaves to fight these lies and distortions within hours:

YOU MUST WATCH "BARACKY II"!

One of the finest pieces of political satire EVER! John McCain as Clubber Lang? Are you kidding me?!

SEAN HANNITY MAKES THE CASE THAT MCCAIN SHOULDN'T BE PRESIDENT?

Ah Sean Hannity, my favorite construction worker turned political commentator. Seems Sean wanted to dedicate a whole show to the recent infidelity of former Presidential hopeful John Edwards. Now this is perfectly fine on it's face. I mean John Edwards painted himself as a loving husband and family man during his campaign, all the while knowing that he'd carried on an affair a year earlier with another woman. He's gotta take his lumps, right? Sure.

But Hannity couldn't stop there. He kept fishing for some "higher meaning" to it all. Asking questions as to why this wasn't such a big deal, while anti-gay Republican politicians were big news when they were outed as being gay. Asking about "hush money" being paid to the adulterous woman in question. However, without getting any traction to his whining - he just kept digging deeper and deeper until he fell in a hole.

The real fireworks being when a guest brings up the fact that Edwards' wife is (and has been) suffering with cancer during this ordeal, and Hannity makes this statement (at the 2:03 mark):

"I want to go back to this fundamental issue. I want to know - you gotta explain this to me. I'm just not getting this. Explain to me - I'm just a regular guy, and I'm wondering if you can't keep the promise to your family, can't keep your promise to your wife, you're having an affair, you're lying about the affair repeatedly. Why should the American people trust you when you say you're not going to lie to them? Why should we trust you?

On the surface these seem like a legitimate questions, right? However, the problem here is that John Edwards is not seeking office at all. But as Alan Colmes points out, only one of the two Presidential candidates has infidelity in his past - and it ain't Barack Obama.

John McCain married Carol Shepp, an attractive swimwear model, in 1965. At the time of their marriage, she had two small boys from a previous marriage (whom McCain adopted) and they then had a daughter in 1966. When John McCain was shot down in Vietnam, it was Carol who stood by him year after year and became very active in the POW/MIA movement.

However, when McCain returned from Vietnam, he seemingly wasn't interested in the reality that faced him. In the words of his former wife:

'My marriage ended because John McCain didn't want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens...it just does.'

McCain apparently had several "indiscretions" with women prior to meeting his new wife Cindy in 1979. When he asked for a divorce, "It came as a shock," said a friend of Carol's. Court records show his cohabitation with Carol ended on January 7th, 1980 - he filed for divorce on Feb. 19th, 1980 - and he married Cindy in early May of that same year. In fact, McCain was filing for a marriage license while still married to his first wife. Now would this be front page news if Barack Obama had this past?

So why does any of this matter when electing a President? Maybe because it does speak to John McCain's ability to cast aside his "family values" when greater opportunities arise. It sure seemed that way to McCain family friend Ross Perot:

"McCain is the classic opportunist. He's always reaching for attention and glory. After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history."

Now how's THAT for straight talk.

But no sooner does Hannity cry about the "double-standard" at the beginning of the piece, he attempts to apply his own some three minutes later. His reply to Alan Colmes talking about McCain's cheating past:

"Thirty years ago after five-and-a-half years in a Prisoner of War camp."

So which is it Sean? The thirty years? Is that the statute of limitations for Presidential candidates pasts?

Then I find it funny that Fox News (and "Hannity and Colmes") made such a big deal out of the phony "Obama/Madrasa" story a little while ago. After all, that story was almost FORTY years old and took place when Obama was only eight years old. This one is more recent, and McCain was 42 when cast his wife and three children aside for his 25 year-old bride.

And as for the "Vietnam" excuse, why don't we let McCain's own words speak for themselves:

"My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine."

Personally, this story doesn't matter that much to me. I have much bigger issues with McCain that the idea that he was an immature 40 year-old some 32 years ago. But it does matter to Sean Hannity and millions of "family values" Republicans out there... but apparently only when it involves a Democrat and some hussy with a video camera.

Don't you just love hypocrisy?

JOHN McCAIN & HIS MYTHICAL "SUPPORT" FROM THE TROOPS

In November 2007, the Republican Presidential contenders gathered in Florida and debated a variety of topics. But one exchange of note happened between Senator John McCain and Congressman Ron Paul when discussing the Iraq War.

After Congressman Paul talked about bringing the troops home from Iraq, McCain responded by bringing up isolationism, World War II, Hitler, and then ended with this doozy:

"And I want to tell you something sir, I just finished having Thanksgiving with the troops and their message to you is, the message of these brave men and women serving over there is, 'Let us win. Let us win.'

Now let's get one thing straight, John McCain spent exactly TWO DAYS in Iraq during Thanksgiving 2007, and I'm sure met his fair share of troops. But I absolutely think it's disgusting that he would dare attempt to speak for all service men & women when delivering a political message that supports his candidacy. To his credit, Ron Paul had a ready response:

"The real question you have to ask is why do I get the most money from active duty officers, military personnel?"

It was a swift & brutal blow to the Arizona Senator's comments, and most of all because it was TRUE. If the majority of military personnel overseas truly supported the idea of "Let us win," then why would they donate more money to a Presidential Candidate who favored bringing them home?

Then today, came more information regarding the Obama/McCain race for the White House. It turns out that Barack Obama has received nearly SIX TIMES the amount of money from deployed military personnel than John McCain, and even leads McCain in overall military donations. This is a drastic change from 2000 when Bush outraised Gore 2:1, and 2004 when Bush got $1.50 for every dollar raised by Kerry.

John McCain can keep claiming he's speaking for the troops - but the troops are letting their financial support do the talking for them.

AGAIN WITH THE TAX SMEARS?!

Well, right-wingers are at it again. Snopes has identified another anti-Obama email as complete and total nonsense. This goes along with a laundry list of lies about the Democratic Candidate. Man, are these guys desperate or what?

However, the crux of this Taxes email is that Obama wants to "more than double" the tax rates of people making as little as $30,000 per year. The phony email breaks it down this way:

INCOME TAX

MCCAIN (no changes)

Single making 30K - tax $4,500 Single making 50K - tax $12,500 Single making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 60K - tax $9,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250

OBAMA: (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)

Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 75K - tax $23,250

Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 125K - tax $38,750

Under Obama your taxes will more than double!

How does this affect you?

No explanation needed. This is pretty straight forward.

Okay, first off... it's totally false. But if you're gonna just make up some numbers, how about having Obama's actually even double McCain's? These fictional figures don't even come close to the "more than double" claim. The even funnier thing is that the facts bear out that it's quite the opposite for the majority of Americans. Take a look at the actual breakdown (thanks to Snopes):

	MCCAIN	OBAMA
Income	Avg. tax bill	Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M	-$269,364	+$701,885
$603K and up	-$45,361	+$115,974
$227K-$603K	-$7,871	+$12
$112K-$161K	-$2,614	-$2,204
$66K-$112K	-$1,009	-$1,290
$38K-$66K	-$319	-$1,042
$19K-$38K	-$113	-$892
Under $19K	-$19	-$567

Notice how our "random emailer" didn't even bother with people making $125,000 or more? That's because almost everyone would like the super rich (like McCain himself) to pay their fair share of taxes, especially while some struggle to make ends meet.

In the end, the difference for people making less than $66,000 is quite striking. That's roughly SEVENTY PERCENT of American Households right there. This is where elections are won and lost and the Republicans can only rely on bald-faced lies in an attempt to win.

Not only would Obama's plan not "more than double" taxes on the Middle Class. The $38-$66K group would TRIPLE their tax relief under Obama. The $19-$38K group would pay SEVEN TIMES less taxes. And the under $19K crowd would be almost THIRTY TIMES better off.

How wants to bet these emails are being generated by the 2.9 million-plus crowd?

JOHN McCAIN: "BROKEN"

Take a look at Senator McCain's new ad:

Now let's take these point-by-point shall we?

"Washington is broken": Hey John, you're the guy touting your TWENTY SIX years of experience in that place you're identifying as "broken". Wouldn't this make you part of the problem? At least Obama can claim he's running after one term because he knew right away the place was screwed up.

"We're worse of than we were four years ago": First off, you weren't saying this just a few weeks ago. Remember when your campaign was telling the American people they were "whiners"? And also, if we really are worse off than we were four (or eight) years ago. What does it say about you that you voted with Bush 95% percent of the time in 2007? The country has known we were going in the wrong direction for years - and yet it seems like you just got on board with the idea.

"Only McCain has taken on Big Tobacco": McCain supported a 1998 bill that called for a $1.10 (per pack) tax hike for cigarettes that would have funded underage smoking education. It failed at the time. When asked recently if he still supported the tax hike? "McCain today does not support raising taxes on cigarettes," his adviser said.

"Taken on drug companies": And yet he employs numerous lobbyists on his campaign staff (who advise him daily) who've made millions arguing on behalf of these same drug companies.

"Fought corruption in both parties": Are you kidding me? McCain was corruption enough for both parties in the late 80's. His "Keating Five" shenanigans cost the American taxpayer some 125 billion dollars, while he consistently took favors and made thousands from a con artist.

via Wikipedia:
Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in lawful political contributions from Keating and his associates. In addition, McCain's wife Cindy McCain and her father Jim Hensley had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. McCain, his family, and their baby-sitter had made nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard Keating's jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. McCain did not pay Keating (in the amount of $13,433) for some of the trips until years after they were taken, when he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln.

"He'll battle Big Oil": This one's a laugh because his flip-flop is still hot off the presses. McCain opposed off shore drilling for years, and then - when opportunity knocked - he flipped, and immediately raised $750,000 dollars from that nasty "Big Oil" for his campaign. Coincidence? Me thinks that'll soften McCain's "battling" just a bit.

"He's the Original Maverick": Sadly, the "Maverick" who once resided inside McCain is long gone. He's sold out any of that individual spirit, and now backs things that he never would have touched almost weekly.

In fact, a recent article in the New York Times shed some light into McCain's campaign since Karl Rove's hacks (like Steve Schmidt) came aboard. It seems "The Maverick" enjoys using his cell phone to solicit advice from a wide range of close personal contacts, but those varying opinions have led to some new rules on the campaign:

Mr. Schmidt has sought to cut down on Mr. McCain's use of his cellphone and limit the people who have regular access to Mr. McCain in an effort to keep him more focused, advisers said.

So John McCain wants to be in control of the country - and yet he can't even be trusted with his cell phone?! If I'm not mistaken, the whole charm of "Straight Talk" was that it wasn't committee-based bullshit - but rather opinions STRAIGHT from McCain. Now he can't be trusted to "stay focused" on the message of the day?! I guess that's one more attribute down the drain.

Ready to lead? Yeah right.

THE "GAS TAX HOLIDAY" AND TIMING

Last spring when gas prices started rising week after week, John McCain backed a "gas tax holiday" that would lasted from Memorial Day to Labor Day. The 18.4 cent per gallon tax would have saved individual drivers an estimated $25-30 dollars during this time, but also would have added to an already growing problem.

You see, this tax is specifically used to support the Highway Trust Fund, which funds road projects nationwide and (oh yeah) is already facing a 3.4 billion dollar shortfall. So, in essence, we'd be trading our safety on the nations roads for a few cents at the pump. If this had actually taken place, I wonder how the people of Minneapolis, Minnesota would have reacted to this?

You see, thanks to neglect, the city experienced a tragedy just one year ago. The Interstate 35W bridge killed 13 and injured more than 100 when it collapsed into the Mississippi River. In its wake, critics like Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said, "If we don't put money into our roads and bridges and infrastructure, our economy will get even worse. We won't be able to transport anything across this country."

Those are some strong words. But less than a year later, when citizens were feeling the pinch at the pump, McCain was willing to "roll the dice" for some short-term support at the polls. That's not the kind of leader I'm looking to elect, and I'm sure more than a few commuters in Minneapolis would agree.

And, as irony would have it, these citizens will be able to voice their concerns first-hand with McCain during the Republican National Convention which is taking place in less than a month at the Convention Center in (you guessed it) Minneapolis, Minnesota.

INCOME, TAXES, AND THE REPUBLICAN HOAX

Democrats raise taxes while Republicans lower taxes. This is what has been hammered into our heads year after year, political cycle after political cycle - and it still continues today with John McCain's newest ad against Barack Obama:

Now when McCain asks "Obama: Is he ready to help your family?", would you think he's referring to most families, or simply 1% of them? You see, the "higher taxes" claim is a scary one. In this economic climate, the thought of a struggling family trying to pay more taxes is enough for most people to see red. But sadly it - like most things coming out of McCain's campaign - is a lie.

The fact is that Obama's tax plan actually lowers taxes for all people except the top 1% of households in America. So if those kids' parents in John McCain's ad make more than $250,000 per year, then yes, he is going to raise taxes on them... otherwise, not so much.

In fact, the Tax Policy Center issued a nice comparison of McCain and Obama's proposed tax plans. And they break down like this:
Okay, Obama's plan is in blue, while McCain's is in red. Everything under the line would be considered a tax raise against the current system - - everything above the line is a tax cut. As you can see, Obama actually lowers the tax burden on the lowest four "quintiles" more than both McCain & Bush. His only raises are on the top 1% of earners (roughly $250,000 per year) and the top .1% (or the super-rich). Notice how McCain's tax cuts get better the more you earn? Any wonder why Obama gets most of his contributions in $200 (and less) increments, while McCain's tend to come from the Kathy Hilton's of the world in $2,300 chunks?

These targeted tax increases were used under the Clinton Administration in the 1990's and - minus the blow job - that seemed to work out okay, right? I mean economic prosperity for 8 years while actually paying down the debt? Damn these "tax and spend" Democrats!

The most ironic situation about this whole thing? It's the people in the states with the lowest median household income that would benefit the most from an Obama Presidency, and yet the majority of those states are (you guessed it) RED states. That's right, out the of fifteen lowest earning states, ALL FIFTEEN went to George W. Bush in 2004 - and 14 of 15 (thanks New Mexico) went to Bush in 2000. And again, all but New Mexico are currently leaning towards McCain in the polls.

I wonder if these people will still be against gay marriage when they're living in a van down by the river.

CAN A CARTOON SPEAK VOLUMES?

Via crooksandliars.com... and drawn by Steve Greenberg.

Between McCain's "promises" and his tax cuts... you KNOW we'd be dealing with more of the same.

THE COST OF THE IRAQ WAR

For quite a while now, the economy has been the #1 issue among voters, followed closely by the Iraq War. However it's hard to see how these two aren't directly related to each other, unless you're a Republican. After all, we've spent nearly 600 billion dollars so far on our little "democracy experiment", and some speculate that the entire bill could eventually add up to 3 trillion (yes, trillion) dollars.

This makes all the bullshit rhetoric about "threats" and "minimal costs" from the Bush Administration in the lead-up to this catastrophe all the more maddening. I mean how do you screw up the rationale for the war AND the estimated costs at the same time?! As it turns out, these guys didn't want to hear ANYTHING about reality when it came to hatching this national joke of a military exercise. In fact, Bush's own chief economic adviser was fired in December 2002 after he dared to estimate the potential cost at $100-$200 billion dollars. Donald Rumsfeld called that number "baloney", and he and his cronies floated amounts like $50-$60 billion to make people feel all "warm and fuzzy" about an invasion of Iraq.

Amazingly, one of the few people to get a guess even close to the ballpark was Yale Economics professor William Nordhaus. Here's a fascinating interview with Nordhaus done just days before the Iraq War began in 2003, in which he warns of the possibility of three-dollar a gallon gas (we wish) and $75 dollar-a-barrel oil. FYI... oil reached a high of 147.27 a barrel just three weeks ago.

If you watched the video, you might have also noticed one Donald Kagan (he of the cross-eyed persuasion) giving his unbridled support for military action. In fact, he even goes so far to accuse Nordhaus of "partisan economics" in warning of a costly war. A quick Wikipedia search reveals Mr. Kagan as one of the godfathers of the Neoconservative movement and a proud member of the now infamous Project for the New American Century. By the way Don, how's that "project" coming along anyway?

In closing, here's an interesting video that details the monetary cost of the Iraq War. It's interesting to note that in this day and age when Oil Companies are profiting to the tune of $1,500 per second - - the Iraq War is also costing the American Taxpayer some $8,333 per second.

Just think of that the next time McCain promises to stay in Iraq "until the job is done"... or whatever that means. Oh yeah, and just how does he plan on paying for his never ending war? Ah yes, permanent tax cuts. Mmmm... this Kool Aid tastes delicious!

ANTHRAX, JOHN MCCAIN, AND IRAQ = BAD JUDGEMENT

Continuing with this "All McCain - All the Time" coverage, I have to mention this week's other major news story, the suicide of Bruce Ivins. Ivins was an Army Scientist who had worked on Anthrax Studies for more than two decades. He also was the prime suspect in the 9/11 "Anthrax Letters" investigation, and was set to be arrested when he decided to overdose on Tylenol and codeine. It seems that the FBI is considering the case closed and, in their mind, Ivins is the man responsible for killing five people just days after the attacks of 9/11.

When remembering the tragedies of 9/11, I find it interesting that the Anthrax letters were almost more terrifying to me. It might have been because they simply followed the original terror or it might have been the idea that, with postal delivery, the threat of death could reach virtually anywhere in the world. This makes it all the more surreal to know that there was an immediate and coordinated attempt to link these letter attacks to Iraq.

Now to begin with, if you believe people like Wesley Clark you'd know that Iraq was being mentioned within the White House as a target of military action just 10 days after 9/11. This coupled with the fact that the first anthrax letter was mailed on the 18th of September, 2001 would mean that this additional "terror phenomenon" was taking place at the same time these discussions were occurring. However anyone involved would know that an additional war would need some sort of justification to the American people, and what better than blaming Iraq for the murder of five innocent anthrax victims?

But who could be used to deliver this sensitive information to the American people? Enter John McCain himself. So on October 18th, 2001, "The Maverick" made an appearance on Late Night with David Letterman:

Now the Osama bin Laden joke is pretty ironic knowing that he's lived to see many Halloweens beyond just 2001's, and even more so given that the Iraq War is the major distraction that's allowed him to avoid capture.

But the real bombshell is McCain dropping this "some indication" that the anthrax "may" have come from Iraq stuff. Apart from the fact that he sounds like some gossip columnist trying to avoid a costly lawsuit, just what in the hell is a U.S. Senator going on national television and exposing something that should (at the very least) be classified information until its proven?

In the wake of this revelation, ABC News picked up this story that was backed by "four well-placed and separate sources" and makes it clear that there was a concerted effort to turn the American public against Iraq in the wake of 9/11.

What makes this whole situation even worse is that these "indications" weren't based on anything. They were simply made up to introduce Iraq in the public discussion of who we should, or shouldn't, bomb in our newly launched "War on Terror". And who knows what these accusations did to the actual investigation into who actually sent the letters. After all, you can't have Bruce Ivins being arrested while you're still trying to sell the public on an Iraq War, can you?

Glenn Greenwald has a wonderful article in which he breaks down the entire, awful situation. If you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go puke now.

WHAT DOESN'T McCAIN GET ABOUT THE WORD "SPECIFICALLY"?

So by no we all know that John McCain believes that Barack Obama "played the race card", but what gets me is that he can't quite seem to pinpoint when that card was played. I've heard reporters ask several times now, "Why specifically did he say that played the race card?", and McCain's response is always a very vague, "Well, because of his comments." Isn't it weird that Mr. McCain can't quite define the words by which the "race card" was played? After all, patriotism has nothing to do with race... and funny names aren't exclusive to one race... and McCain's campaign did in fact make light of Obama "photoshopping" himself on the $100 bill.

I mean if he was really as disappointed as he claims, he should be able to say, "It was right here, when he said this line, and that's why it's a racial statement." But like many other things in this campaign, McCain would rather deal in broad strokes with vague explanations, rather than having some of that "straight talk" he claims he's a fan of.

Also, wait for the end of the video when McCain mentions his "fight for the recognition of Martin Luther King's birthday in his home state of Arizona" statement. It's interesting to note that in 1983, McCain voted against a Federal Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, and four years later backed a controversial decision by the then Arizona Governor to rescind the holiday, saying he thought the Governor was "correct" in his decision.

McCain has another bit of great flip-flopping on the Confederate Flag (scroll down on page).

THE NEWEST SILLY COMMERCIAL?

There seems to be no end to the "hilarious" satire that is the John McCain campaign. Now they're feebly attempting to paint Barack Obama as someone with a "God complex"? The piece even ends with a shot of Charlton Heston (as Moses) in The Ten Commandents parting the Red Sea to reveal Obama's logo. When asked about it today in Florida, he said, "We were having some fun with our supporters," McCain quipped. "We're going to display a sense of humor in this campaign."

Maybe he didn't see the news today that unemployment was at a four-year high with the loss of 51,000 more jobs in July? By the way, that's the seventh month in a row of job losses. Seems McCain thinks the American people are in a laughing mood? Man, I can only hope that they're as sick of this juvenile crap as I am. I can just see four more years (or God forbid, eight) of another incompetent President laughing behind the podium as our Nation goes down the crapper.

Besides, if McCain really wanted to be funny, he'd waddle out "greenscreen style" in front of Heston, point a crooked finger at the camera, and proclaim:

"Senator Obama, I served with Moses: I knew Moses; Moses was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Moses."