100

Today marks 100 days until John McCain turns 72 years old.

McCain Had Cancer Surgery in February

From McCain's recently "disclosed" medical records:

McCain's most recent exams show a range of health issues common in aging: He frequently has precancerous skin lesions removed, and in February had an early stage squamous cell carcinoma, an easily cured skin cancer, removed. He had benign colon growths called polyps taken out during a routine colonoscopy in March.

Americablog has questions:

Anybody else troubled that candidate McCain was running for the GOP nomination, went for cancer surgery, and didn't bother telling anyone? What else isn't he bothering to tell us, and won't he tell us in the future? If this is McCain's standard for disclosure about his medical condition, we'd need weekly document dumps of his medical files because McCain clearly has a policy of hiding his true medical condition while running for president.

Considering that John McCain has had bouts of skin cancer for the past 15 years, it will take a lot more than a three-hour peek at his medical records to assure Americans that he is healthy enough for the job. This so-called disclosure of his medical records is absurd. Either McCain is hiding something, or he is acting like somebody who is hiding something. Why not give the press unlimited access to these records, if there is nothing to hide?

And why is McCain refusing to release his psychiatric reports? If anything, his mental deterioration is even more worrisome than his physical ailments.

McCain Finally "Rejects" Rev. Hagee

So today, after the spread of the viral video in which Rev. Hagee says that Hitler was God's "hunter", sent to push the Jews to Israel through the Holocaust, John McCain finally distanced himself from his pastor:

Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well.

Funny how Rev. Wright's rants were played 24/7 on TV for weeks, but Hagee's craziness was never really mentioned. So it is unlikely that McCain will take much of a hit over this. It has, however, kneecapped his ability to exploit the "crazy pastor" issue with Obama.

Hagee, probably in collusion with the McCain campaign, has withdrawn his endorsement:

I am tired of these baseless attacks and fear that they have become a distraction in what should be a national debate about important issues. I have therefore decided to withdraw my endorsement of Senator McCain for President effective today, and to remove myself from any active role in the 2008 campaign," he said in a statement.

"I hope that the Senator McCain will accept this withdrawal so that he may focus on the issues that are most important to America and the world.

Too little, too late. Yes, McCain will have less of a Hagee problem, but this fiasco also means that Obama will have less of a Wright problem. A win for Obama, in my book.

And let's not forget some of Hagee's greatest hits. Here's where he denies that Jesus was the messiah:



Or how about when he calls the Catholic church the "great whore"?



Rev. Hagee has the ability to insult almost everybody. It was only a matter of time before this would blow up in McCain's face.

More Horrible Polls For McCain

Check out some recent numbers:

General Election (Gallup):
Obama 47%
McCain: 44%

General Election (Zogby):
Obama 47%
McCain: 37%

California (Rasmussen):
Obama 52%
McCain: 38%

California (PPIC):
Obama 54%
McCain: 42%

Virginia (SUSA):
Obama 49%
McCain: 42%

Florida (Quinnipiac):
Obama 41%
McCain: 45%

Pennsylvania (Quinnipiac):
Obama 46%
McCain: 40%

Colorado (Rasmussen):
Obama 48%
McCain: 42%

And these numbers will only improve once Hillary Clinton concedes the race. Right now, Obama is still underperforming with Hillary supporters (especially older women), which is driving his numbers down in many head-to-head matchups.

Once Hillary concedes and endorses Obama, you will see his numbers jump by about 10 points. No wonder McCain is pissed.

McCain Vs. Obama On G.I. Bill

Today, the Senate passed the new Jim Webb-authored G.I. bill. The vote was 75-22 in favor.

All Democrats voted in favor. 22 Republicans voted against. The three non-votes? Tom Coburn (R), Ted Kennedy (D), who is absent for medical reasons, and presidential candidate John McCain (R), who is too busy with his campaigning to come back to Washington for the vote.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took time from their campaigns to vote yes. The bill basically allows veterans to receive full college scholarships after 3 years of service, rather than the current standard of 10 years of service.

George W. Bush and John McCain are opposed to the bill. They are worried that it will hurt retention, which is no good if you are planning on more wars.

Here is what Obama said today:

I respect sen. John McCain's service to our country. He is one of those heroes of which I speak. But I can't understand why he would line up behind the President in his opposition to this GI bill.

I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the President more on this issue. There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them.

McCain flipped out, issued this whiny press release:

It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of. Let me say first in response to Senator Obama, running for President is different than serving as President. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim.

"When I was five years old, a car pulled up in front of our house in New London, Connecticut, and a Navy officer rolled down the window, and shouted at my father that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. My father immediately left for the submarine base where he was stationed. I rarely saw him again for four years. My grandfather, who commanded the fast carrier task force under Admiral Halsey, came home from the war exhausted from the burdens he had borne, and died the next day. I grew up in the Navy; served for twenty-two years as a naval officer; and, like Senator Webb, personally experienced the terrible costs war imposes on the veteran. The friendships I formed in war remain among the closest relationships in my life. The Navy is still the world I know best and love most. In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home to the country they loved so well .

"But I am running for the office of Commander-in-Chief. That is the highest privilege in this country, and it imposes the greatest responsibilities. It would be easier politically for me to have joined Senator Webb in offering his legislation. More importantly, I feel just as he does, that we owe veterans the respect and generosity of a great nation because no matter how generously we show our gratitude it will never compensate them fully for all the sacrifices they have borne on our behalf.

"Senators Graham, Burr and I have offered legislation that would provide veterans with a substantial increase in educational benefits. The bill we have sponsored would increase monthly education benefits to $1500; eliminate the $1200 enrollment fee; and offer a $1000 annually for books and supplies. Importantly, we would allow veterans to transfer those benefits to their spouses or dependent children or use a part of them to pay down existing student loans. We also increase benefits to the Guard and Reserve, and even more generously to those who serve in the Selected Reserve.

"I know that my friend and fellow veteran, Senator Jim Webb, an honorable man who takes his responsibility to veterans very seriously, has offered legislation with very generous benefits. I respect and admire his position, and I would never suggest that he has anything other than the best of intentions to honor the service of deserving veterans. Both Senator Webb and I are united in our deep appreciation for the men and women who risk their lives so that the rest of us may be secure in our freedom. And I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did.

"The most important difference between our two approaches is that Senator Webb offers veterans who served one enlistment the same benefits as those offered veterans who have re-enlisted several times. Our bill has a sliding scale that offers generous benefits to all veterans, but increases those benefits according to the veteran's length of service. I think it is important to do that because, otherwise, we will encourage more people to leave the military after they have completed one enlistment. At a time when the United States military is fighting in two wars, and as we finally are beginning the long overdue and very urgent necessity of increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, one study estimates that Senator Webb's bill will reduce retention rates by 16%.

"Most worrying to me, is that by hurting retention we will reduce the numbers of men and women who we train to become the backbone of all the services, the noncommissioned officer. In my life, I have learned more from noncommissioned officers I have known and served with than anyone else outside my family. And in combat, no one is more important to their soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, and to the officers who command them, than the sergeant and petty officer. They are very hard to replace. Encouraging people not to choose to become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly. As I said, the office of President, which I am seeking, is a great honor, indeed, but it imposes serious responsibilities. How faithfully the President discharges those responsibilities will determine whether he or she deserves the honor. I can only tell you I intend to deserve the honor if I am fo rtunate to receive it, even if it means I must take politically unpopular positions at times and disagree with people for whom I have the highest respect and affection.

"Perhaps, if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as President, the country would regret his election.

Wow, what a long and angry rant. Does it make any sense to you? Sounds like McCain blew his lid, and trust me, it won't be for the last time.

And Obama came back with this:

I am proud to stand with Senator Webb and a bipartisan coalition to give our veterans the support and opportunity they deserve. It's disappointing that Senator McCain and his campaign used this issue to launch yet another lengthy personal, political attack instead of debating an honest policy difference. He should know that this is not about John McCain or Barack Obama – it’s about giving our veterans a real chance to afford four years of college without harming retention. Senator Webb’s bipartisan bill will do this, and the bill that John McCain supports would not. These endless diatribes and schoolyard taunts from the McCain campaign do nothing to advance the debate about what matters to the American people.

I love it. "Endless diatribes" and "schoolyard taunts". That pretty sums up what to expect from Angry Man McCain this campaign season.

McCain Double Talk On Gay Marriage

Today, McCain went on Ellen Degeneres and told her to her face that he doesn't think she should be given a civil union or a marriage license.

As with every other issue, McCain has flip-flopped around in order to fool moderates about his hard right position.



Think Progress has more:

– In 2005, he supported an Arizona amendment that would change the state’s constitution “to ban gay marriages and deny government benefits to unmarried couples.”

– On Nov. 19, 2006, ABC’s George Stephanopoulous asked McCain, “So you’re for civil unions?” McCain replied, “No.” He instead said they should be able to only “enter into contracts” and “exchange powers of attorney.”

– In 2007, McCain said he was opposed to New Hampshire’s bill legalizing civil unions for same-sex couples. “If I were a citizen of New Hampshire, I would oppose it,” he said. “Anything that impinges or impacts the sanctity of the marriage between men and women, I’m opposed to it.”

- In 2006, he also told the late Rev. Jerry Falwell that would support a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, even though he opposed such a measure in 2004.

McCain To Disclose Partial Medical Records -- But Only For Three Hours!

This doesn't sound like full disclosure to me:

Senator John McCain is set to release 400 pages of medical records, including documents related to his melanoma surgery in August 2000, to a tightly controlled group of reporters on the Friday before Memorial Day weekend....

On Friday, the campaign will allow a small pool of reporters access to the records from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. Pacific time in a conference room at the Copper Wind Resort in Phoenix, near the Mayo Clinic Scottsdale. The reporters will be allowed to take notes but not remove or photocopy the records. Campaign officials said they were imposing the restrictions to prevent the actual records from wide dissemination.

Around the same time, campaign officials said, they will post medical summaries of each year from 2000 to 2008 on the campaign Web site. The summaries will not include doctors’ notes in the actual records.

Why limit it to only three hours? Why do it on a Friday before Memorial Day weekend? Why limit it to only 11 news organizations?

And most importantly, why is he only showing them 400 cherry-picked documents? What about the other 1100?

In his first campaign for president in 1999, Mr. McCain made public, also to a tightly controlled group of reporters, 1,500 pages of in-depth medical and psychiatric records amassed in a Navy project to gauge the health of former prisoners of war.

Why is McCain hiding two-thirds of his medical and psychiatric records from the press? If he allowed reporters to peek at them in 1999, what has changed? I'm guessing they showed ailments and symptoms that might not have been a problem in 1999, but are a much bigger deal eight years down the road.

And you have to wonder if ANY of the psychiatric records are going to be disclosed this time. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if the old man kept a lid on the really disturbing stuff about his mental imbalance.

Is Israel An Appeaser Now?

Somebody should ask George W. Bush and John McCain about this:

Israel and Syria Say They Are Holding Peace Talks in Turkey

JERUSALEM — Israel and Syria announced Wednesday that they were engaged in negotiations for a comprehensive peace treaty through Turkish mediators, the first time in eight years that such talks have taken place.

Once upon a time (meaning before Bush took office), it would have been the United States acting as the mediator. Just another example of how our standing in the world has diminished, even in the eyes of the Israelis, thanks to Bush's terrible policies.

In 2003, John McCain would have supported such peace efforts:

When Bush‘s Secretary of State Colin Powell met with Syrian President Bashar Assad in 2003, McCain said Assad was sponsoring and harboring terrorists and sending Syrians to fight Americans in Iraq. And McCain said, quote, “It‘s very appropriate that Colin Powell is going to Syria.” And when Newt Gingrich criticized the U.S. engaging in diplomacy with a terrorist supporting dictator, McCain implied that Newt Gingrich need therapy.

Now it is McCain who needs therapy. Let's see what the two candidates said about Syria, and decide for yourself which path Israel appears to be taking:

"To achieve lasting peace, sooner or later, one way or another, Hizbullah must be disarmed and its patron in Damascus confronted," according to US Presidential hopeful John McCain, who wrote to The Jerusalem Post as part of the latest installment to the 'Road to the White House' blog on JPost.com, which addressed the issue of how the US should deal with Syria.

Another presidential hopeful - Barack Obama - on the other hand, was of the opinion that a path of confrontation would not be constructive. Despite the fact that "so far, the Syrian regime has given all the wrong answers," the Illinois Senator said he "would engage Syria in direct bilateral talks while insisting on our core demands."

According to Obama, "The Democrat hopeful accused the Bush administration of issuing "empty threats" against Assad. "[The Administration] has eschewed bilateral talks on the full range of issues and failed to present a convincing roadmap to a different kind of relationship."

Looks to me like Israel agrees with Obama's approach.

The Failures of Non-Diplomacy

The Washington Post Fact-Checker:

John McCain is stepping up his attacks on Barack Obama for being willing to meet with various petty tyrants and thugs, including the leaders of Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela. At a town hall meeting in Miami on Tuesday, he contrasted Obama's position with the stand taken by previous presidents, such as FDR and Ronald Reagan. But a review of the historical record shows that there is a long-standing tradition of U.S. presidents, both Republican and Democrat, meeting with brutal dictators and mass murderers over a period of many decades.

The article goes on to note that Roosevelt met with Stalin (20 million dead), that Nixon met with Mao Tse Tung (40 million dead), and that Reagan met with Gorbachev "well before" the Soviet leader introduced any reforms.

Yglesias:

The United States really only has two experiences with a sustained effort at the Bush/McCain approach to diplomacy. One would be our effort to deny recognition to Communist China during the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations. This, it's generally acknowledged, was a strategic fiasco that denied us the opportunity to gain leverage vis-à-vis the Soviet Union. Indeed, it was a fiasco of such enormous proportions that Richard Nixon's role in undoing it actually manages to stack up in a non-trivial way against his otherwise terrible record in office.

The other is our fifty year effort to starve the people of Cuba into rebelling against Fidel Castro. McCain actually defends continuing this policy, but everyone with a functioning brain understands that it's been a ludicrous failure. So that's the path Bush has been taking with Syria and Iran and used to take with North Korea. McCain wants to keep on taking it, put North Korea back under the interdict, and perhaps add Russia to the disfavored list. Like McCain's apparent belief that it would be better if we'd spent another decade or two fighting in Vietnam, it really calls into question whether he has any understanding of what he's talking about.

McCain Advisor Resigns Out of Admiration For Obama

This guy has some integrity:

Mark McKinnon, the lead media consultant for Sen. John McCain's (Ariz.) presidential bid, is stepping down from that role -- making good on a pledge he made last year not to work against Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the fall campaign....

McKinnon, a former Democrat, played a central role in Gov. George W. Bush's 2000 campaign and the Bush-Cheney reelection four years later. He was part of a large contingent of Bush operatives to make the transition to McCain in late 2006 and early 2007, but was one of only a handful who stuck with the Arizona senator after his campaign's implosion last summer.

That same summer, McKinnon told Cox Newspapers that if Obama was the Democratic nominee, he would not play an active role in McCain's effort to defeat the Illinois senator.

"I just don't want to work against an Obama candidacy," McKinnon told Cox Washington bureau chief Ken Herman; electing Obama, he added, "would send a great message to the country and the world." McKinnon said at the time he would vote for McCain.

Whether McKinnon would abide by that promise has been the subject of considerable speculation since that time. McKinnon is widely regarded as a trusted member of McCain's inner circle, and many within the campaign acknowledged that losing him would be a heavy blow to the effort.

Of course, if McKinnon was the one behind all of McCain's horrible ads, this could be a plus for the campaign. But I'd be pretty embarrassed if one of Obama's top advisors stepped down because of their admiration for McCain.

McCain Doesn't Support the Vets

VoteVets calls McCain out on his lack of support for the new GI Bill:



John McCain has a very poor record on supporting our veterans. Here are just a few examples from ThinkProgress:

– Voted AGAINST an amendment providing $20 billion to the VA’s medical facilities. [5/4/06]

– Voted AGAINST providing $430 million to the VA for outpatient care “and treatment for veterans,” one of only 13 senators to do so. [4/26/06]

– Voted AGAINST increasing VA funding by $1.5 billion by closing corporate loopholes. [3/14/06]

– Voted AGAINST increasing VA funding by $1.8 billion by ending “abusive tax loopholes.” [3/10/04]

McCain has been in the Senate for a long time. The Obama team will have fun digging through his votes and using them to knock him over the head.

Also, look at the candidate's ratings from various Veterans Groups:

Disabled American Veterans:
Obama: 80%
McCain: 20%

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America:
Obama: B+
McCain: D

If McCain won't even support his fellow veterans, who will he support? Oh yeah, George W. Bush and 100 years of war.

McCain Flips Flops On Cuba

McCain today:

At a speech in Miami marking the anniversary of Cuba's independence from the United States in 1902, McCain criticized Obama for first advocating normalization of U.S. ties with Cuba and then shifting to say he favors easing the U.S. embargo against Cuba, not lifting it entirely. And McCain won "boos" from the sympathetic audience when he said that Obama would reach out diplomatically to the Castro regime.

If Obama met with Cuban leader Raul Castro, McCain said, it would "send the worst possible signal to Cuba's dictators -- there is no need to undertake fundamental reforms; they can simply wait for a unilateral change in U.S. policy."

Asked if he would prosecute dictator Fidel Castro and his brother Raul Castro for shooting down American airplanes, McCain pledged if elected to ask the U.S. attorney general to investigate the crime and prosecute the Castro brothers if they are implicated.

Yet back in 2000, McCain was open to a roadmap for negotiations with Cuba.



Democrats have quickly called McCain out on his double-talk:

The Arizona senator campaigned with several Cuban American congressmen at his side, including Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), whose Democratic opponent Joe Garcia told reporters that McCain has in the past also advocated renegotiating the embargo against Cuba.

"This is no maverick," Garcia said in remarks distributed by the Florida Democratic Party. "This is someone who has changed his opinion to whatever is most politically expedient."

Dumb Won't Do It, Part II

Wow, a perfect video example of McCain's idiocy on foreign policy.



Here's a bit of background from the reporter who asked the question, Joe Klein at Time:

At a press conference here, I just asked John McCain about why he keeps talking about Obama's alleged willingness to talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has no power over Iranian foreign policy, rather than Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who does. He said that Ahmadinejad is the guy who represents Iran in international forums like the United Nations, which is a fair point. When I followed with the observation that the Supreme Leader is, uh, the Supreme Leader, McCain responded that the "average American" thinks Ahmadinejad is the boss. Didn't get a chance to follow up to that, but I would have asked, "But isn't it your job to correct those sorts of mistaken impressions on the part of the American public?" Oh well.

You can always tell McCain is either lying, or pissed off, or both when he starts doing his creepy laugh.

Dumb Won't Do It

John McCain has learned the wrong lessons from George W. Bush. He thinks Americans are as dumb as he is, he doesn't bother himself with nuance or facts, and he is planning to get elected based on the avalanche of double-talk and stupidity coming from his mouth.

If my memory were better, I could write a book on all of McCain's lies and fabrications. He says the economy is doing great, inflation is low, unemployment is low, we are better off than we were eight years ago, he thinks Iran is training Al Qaeda, Baghdad is safe, he says Obama is the Hamas candidate, that a guy raised on food-stamps is an "elitist", he says we are winning the war in Iraq, he falsely asserts that he called for Rumsfeld's resignation, he tells us that Reagan never negotiated with Iran for hostages, then he gives speeches about how in 2013, the world will suddenly be a magical place where unicorns run free.

And just yesterday, McCain told us that Iran is as dangerous as the Soviet Union in its heyday:

Senator Obama claimed that the threat Iran poses to our security is "tiny" compared to the threat once posed by the former Soviet Union. Obviously, Iran isn't a superpower and doesn't possess the military power the Soviet Union had. But that does not mean that the threat posed by Iran is insignificant. On the contrary, right now Iran provides some of the deadliest explosive devices used in Iraq to kill our soldiers. They are the chief sponsor of Shia extremists in Iraq, and terrorist organizations in the Middle East. And their President, who has called Israel a "stinking corpse," has repeatedly made clear his government's commitment to Israel's destruction. Most worrying, Iran is intent on acquiring nuclear weapons. The biggest national security challenge the United States currently faces is keeping nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists. Should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, that danger would become very dire, indeed. They might not be a superpower, but the threat the Government of Iran poses is anything but "tiny."

This is the same kind of bullshit argument that got us into Iraq. Remember when Saddam Hussein was the next Hitler? Now it's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Remember when the ferocious Iraqi army was shooting at our planes, violating UN resolutions, and threatening to build more weapons? Now Iran is the big bad boogeyman. Believe it folks, a vote for McCain is a vote for war with Iran. He is spewing the same arguments that Bush was spewing in Fall of 2002, only the names are different. Forget that Iran hasn't attacked another country since the 18th century (Iraq started the Iran-Iraq war). Forget that Iran spends only $4.8 billion per year on their military. To John McCain, they are just as frightening as the Soviet Union!

We don't give awards here, but John McCain delivers the Understatement of the Year right here:

Obviously, Iran isn't a superpower and doesn't possess the military power the Soviet Union had.

You think? Iran's military power is probably one percent of what the Soviet Union had. Iran has zero nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union had over 20,000. Iran has not conquered another country in centuries. The Soviet Union controlled all of Eastern Europe. Iran has 545,000 people in their armed forces. The Soviet Union had 5,000,000. Barack Obama was spot-on when he said that Iran poses a tiny threat compared to the Soviet Union. But John McCain, unable to win an argument on the merits, first brushes past how ferocious the Soviets were and then builds Iran up into a big bad bully that should have us trembling in our sleep.

He really is the third term of George W. Bush. Same arguments, same lies, same disconnect with reality. If Americans are once again swayed by the dumbest arguments out there, McCain has a chance. But given how the gas tax holiday crashed and burned, given how Republicans are 0-3 in special elections this year, given how 81% of the population thinks we're on the wrong track, it's hard to fathom how McCain's con game can really hold up until November.

The Real McCain

Brave New Films have done a great job of creating anti-McCain YouTube videos.

Here is "The Real McCain":



And here is "The Real McCain, Part II":


As you can see, John McCain talks out of both sides of his mouth constantly. Lately I've noticed that he seems to contradict himself within every speech, almost every statement. I'm not sure if this is mere confusion on his part, or a lack of principles. But clearly the guy is lying to the American people and being obtuse about his true beliefs. For example, he'll say he's cool with 100 years in Iraq, then talk about ending the war by 2013. He'll say Obama is wrong for wanting to bomb Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, and then McCain will say that Obama is too soft on terrorists. Anyone who attacks him from the right or the left is told that they are misrepresenting what he is saying.

Basically, McCain wants to fool conservatives into thinking he is one of them, while also fooling liberals and independents into thinking he is the anti-Bush. It's a very risky ploy. Either he succeeds and fools everybody in believing him and voting for him, or the house of cards comes crumbling down and everyone realizes he's been lying to them. One of George W. Bush's great assets, even when he was a blundering fool, was that everyone knew where he stood. Nobody knows where John McCain stands.

Forget the Straight Talk Express. This is the Double Talk Express.

Smart Voter

In Oregon:

As if to prove the point, Mr. Rivers, himself a Republican, noted that his wife just changed her party affiliation to Democratic so she could vote for Mr. Obama and that he, while remaining a Republican, planned to vote for Mr. Obama if he was the general election nominee.

“I’ll never vote for McCain, never,” Mr. Rivers said. “To me, it’s four more years of Bushism.”